4 ms·

We have not a single working endlager for the waste the nuclear plants are producing. Historically, there have been several large accidents, Tschernobyl, Fukush

by onli 14y ago

We have not a single working endlager for the waste the nuclear plants are producing. Historically, there have been several large accidents, Tschernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile, and several more smaller ones which would almost been fatal. I know that people on HN obviously like technology, and noticed that many people who like technology like nuclear plants. Maybe because they see them as great technology and are able to believe in that. But given the facts, no, the german public is not wrong. They are undisputably right. The Super-GAUs prove that.

gwern 14y ago
> several more smaller ones which would almost been fatal. As opposed to the air pollution from coal burning, and accidents installing solar and air; which are fatal every year.
LockeWatts 14y ago
>Historically, there have been several large accidents, Tschernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile, and several more smaller ones which would almost been fatal. So what? Those accidents are miniscule in comparison to the everyday operation of a coal plant. The damage caused by the worst nuclear accidents in human history is still less than the every day operation of a coal plant. Hell, we've lost more people to coal mine cave ins than we have to nuclear accidents. >But given the facts, no, the german public is not wrong. They are undisputably right. No, they're not. You're insane. The German public thinks nuclear power is more dangerous than coal power, and they're just wrong. It's not even an argument.
- onli 14y ago
  1. No modern coal-plant leads to waste areas of uninhabitable land. Nuclear Plants do. 2. We do coal mines way longer. Even if the number is right, that "we've lost more people to coal mine cave ins than we have to nuclear accidents", (which is hard to agree with, cause it is statistically a hard problem to count the ones still dying from cancer years later because of Tschernobyl for example), that number would be meaningless. 3. Coal power is highly disputed in Germany. It is only accepted as a transition-help while heading to green energy. And yes, i think that's a good thing - and no, i'm not insane.
  - Symmetry 14y ago
    About 6,000 people die from coal mining every year in China alone. By contrast, 6,000 is the median estimate of the total number of people who would die from cancer from Chernobyl. Now, Greenpeace managed to come to an estimate of almost 100,000 by making certain unusual assumptions, but if you make those same assumptions when looking at the pollution that comes out of the stacks of coal power plants you would find at least vaguely comparable numbers of deaths from coal plants every year.
    - cygx 14y ago
      While claims of up to 2 Million deaths related to Chernobyl[1] are probably not credible, the 6,000 figure is bullshit as well: The estimates on radioation related deaths of infants is of the same order, and there are Russian claims that 90% of liquidators (at least 747,000 people according to the German Gesellschaft für Strahlenschutz) are invalid. [1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/50890761/Nuclear-s-Endless-Nightmare-The-Real-Chernobyl-Death-Toll http://www.scribd.com/doc/50890761/Nuclear-s-Endless-Nightma...
  - sjwright 14y ago
    Chernobyl: a monumental cock-up by incompetent morons in charge of a badly designed and badly built scrapheap. With so much cocked up, a disaster was surely inevitable. Fukushima: a series of cock-ups magnified by one of the world's most destructive tsunamis. This nuclear plant should never have been built where it was, and its old technology should have been decommissioned years ago. Yet the death toll due to the accident is still, what, five? Three Mile Island: injured fewer people than a single typical high speed road accident.
    - excuse-me 14y ago
      There was also a call to ban the ICE between Munich and Frankfurt following the 2500 people that died when a Japanese train was hit by the Tsunami. Just because there hasn't been a Tsunami in Bavaria YET doesn't mean we should take the chance.
  - rurounijones 14y ago
- vecinu 14y ago
  onli's response is spot-on. He is definitely not insane. I agree with his views.
- cygx 14y ago
  > The damage caused by the worst nuclear accidents in human history is still less than the every day operation of a coal plant. Citation needed.
- skurry 14y ago
  Coal and nuclear power are both dangerous, just in different ways. And there are incidents that don't get much international coverage, but still have a lasting impact. For example there has been a small fire at a German nuclear plant in 1986. Officials say no radioactivity was released. But still, 20 years after the event, cases of childhood leukemia are three times more prevalent in the surrounding area than normal. How many children died because of this small accident? How many other adverse effects exist that we can't see or link to nuclear power? http://www.oh-strahlen.org/docs/ableukkome.pdf http://www.oh-strahlen.org/docs/ableukkome.pdf [PDF]
krschultz 14y ago
You are really lumping things together here. What do the USSR nuclear accidents say about German or US or Japanese reactors? Look at how many nuclear accidents USSR Navy ships had compared to US Navy ships. I can see an argument to 'close the old ways, we do it better now'. But 'close all of them, because I don't know the difference between them and I'm afraid of anything with the world nuclear in it' is just fear mongering and it's a shame that Germany fell for it.
- onli 14y ago
  Neither the three mile plant nor Fukushima nor the accidents in german plants were located in the USSR. And Tschernobyl was in the neighbourhood (even if it weren't a technical comparable plant, it would still be an in my eyes understandable factor).
  - krschultz 14y ago
    And how many people were killed by those two accidents ..........
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

by onli 14y ago

gwern 14y ago

> several more smaller ones which would almost been fatal. As opposed to the air pollution from coal burning, and accidents installing solar and air; which are fatal every year.

LockeWatts 14y ago

>Historically, there have been several large accidents, Tschernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile, and several more smaller ones which would almost been fatal. So what? Those accidents are miniscule in comparison to the everyday operation of a coal plant. The damage caused by the worst nuclear accidents in human history is still less than the every day operation of a coal plant. Hell, we've lost more people to coal mine cave ins than we have to nuclear accidents. >But given the facts, no, the german public is not wrong. They are undisputably right. No, they're not. You're insane. The German public thinks nuclear power is more dangerous than coal power, and they're just wrong. It's not even an argument.

onli 14y ago
1. No modern coal-plant leads to waste areas of uninhabitable land. Nuclear Plants do. 2. We do coal mines way longer. Even if the number is right, that "we've lost more people to coal mine cave ins than we have to nuclear accidents", (which is hard to agree with, cause it is statistically a hard problem to count the ones still dying from cancer years later because of Tschernobyl for example), that number would be meaningless. 3. Coal power is highly disputed in Germany. It is only accepted as a transition-help while heading to green energy. And yes, i think that's a good thing - and no, i'm not insane.
- Symmetry 14y ago
  About 6,000 people die from coal mining every year in China alone. By contrast, 6,000 is the median estimate of the total number of people who would die from cancer from Chernobyl. Now, Greenpeace managed to come to an estimate of almost 100,000 by making certain unusual assumptions, but if you make those same assumptions when looking at the pollution that comes out of the stacks of coal power plants you would find at least vaguely comparable numbers of deaths from coal plants every year.
  - cygx 14y ago
    While claims of up to 2 Million deaths related to Chernobyl[1] are probably not credible, the 6,000 figure is bullshit as well: The estimates on radioation related deaths of infants is of the same order, and there are Russian claims that 90% of liquidators (at least 747,000 people according to the German Gesellschaft für Strahlenschutz) are invalid. [1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/50890761/Nuclear-s-Endless-Nightmare-The-Real-Chernobyl-Death-Toll http://www.scribd.com/doc/50890761/Nuclear-s-Endless-Nightma...
- sjwright 14y ago
  Chernobyl: a monumental cock-up by incompetent morons in charge of a badly designed and badly built scrapheap. With so much cocked up, a disaster was surely inevitable. Fukushima: a series of cock-ups magnified by one of the world's most destructive tsunamis. This nuclear plant should never have been built where it was, and its old technology should have been decommissioned years ago. Yet the death toll due to the accident is still, what, five? Three Mile Island: injured fewer people than a single typical high speed road accident.
  - excuse-me 14y ago
    There was also a call to ban the ICE between Munich and Frankfurt following the 2500 people that died when a Japanese train was hit by the Tsunami. Just because there hasn't been a Tsunami in Bavaria YET doesn't mean we should take the chance.
- rurounijones 14y ago
vecinu 14y ago
onli's response is spot-on. He is definitely not insane. I agree with his views.
cygx 14y ago
> The damage caused by the worst nuclear accidents in human history is still less than the every day operation of a coal plant. Citation needed.
skurry 14y ago
Coal and nuclear power are both dangerous, just in different ways. And there are incidents that don't get much international coverage, but still have a lasting impact. For example there has been a small fire at a German nuclear plant in 1986. Officials say no radioactivity was released. But still, 20 years after the event, cases of childhood leukemia are three times more prevalent in the surrounding area than normal. How many children died because of this small accident? How many other adverse effects exist that we can't see or link to nuclear power? http://www.oh-strahlen.org/docs/ableukkome.pdf http://www.oh-strahlen.org/docs/ableukkome.pdf [PDF]

krschultz 14y ago

You are really lumping things together here. What do the USSR nuclear accidents say about German or US or Japanese reactors? Look at how many nuclear accidents USSR Navy ships had compared to US Navy ships. I can see an argument to 'close the old ways, we do it better now'. But 'close all of them, because I don't know the difference between them and I'm afraid of anything with the world nuclear in it' is just fear mongering and it's a shame that Germany fell for it.

onli 14y ago
Neither the three mile plant nor Fukushima nor the accidents in german plants were located in the USSR. And Tschernobyl was in the neighbourhood (even if it weren't a technical comparable plant, it would still be an in my eyes understandable factor).
- krschultz 14y ago
  And how many people were killed by those two accidents ..........
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]