4 ms·

Obtaining the amount of victims of an evacuation is difficult, and official figures are conservative for many reasons, the main one being that each victim's fam

Obtaining the amount of victims of an evacuation is difficult, and official figures are conservative for many reasons, the main one being that each victim's family obtained financial reparation (see also the "Limitations" section of a pertinent study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666765722000837 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266676572... ). During the Fukushima nuclear accident information was scarce and volatile, specialists said that evacuating up to Tokyo may prove necessary (this was revealed by Kan Naoto, then Japan's Prime Minister: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-odyssey-of-naoto-kan-former-japan-prime-minister-during-fukushima/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-ody... ). This is biz as usual: after a war many armchair experts, especially those acting upon one of the parties, are quite sure that "tackling this was easy". During the event, they are nowhere to be found.

defrost 2y ago
It's clear that a small number of mostly older people suffered unduly from the stress of an imposed evacuation. It's not clear that this is a specifically nuclear issue. Had an area been evacuated due to earthquakes making the ground unstable, due to extreme bushfires destroying every building, would the stress on the elderly be any less?
- natmaka 2y ago
  > It's not clear that this is a specifically nuclear issue An evacuation triggered by a nuclear major accident seems specific to nuclear to me, in the sense: if, instead of this nuclear plant, some field occupied by wind turbines or solar panels were build, there would be no need to evacuate. > Had an area been evacuated due to earthquakes making the ground unstable No human being can control nor counter this sort of event. We can decide to build wind/solar instead of nuclear reactors.
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    > We can decide to build wind/solar instead of nuclear reactors. Or add passive safety measures to nuclear power plants. Fukushima failed because it was still generating too much heat, but that excessive heat couldn’t power a turbine to cool itself down.
    - chpatrick 2y ago
      Until the next failure comes along that we didn't predict.
      - rbanffy 2y ago
        Fukushima could have been easily predicted. That’s what passive safety is about.
        natmaka 2y ago
        > Fukushima could have been easily predicted After such an accident some armchair experts are quite sure that it "could have been easily predicted". Before the accident (to "easily" prevent it) or during it they are nowhere to be found. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41774144 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41774144
        rbanffy 2y ago
        “What happens if we lose the generators?” is not a hard question to come up with. I have a great imagination and a long career built on, among other things, asking pointed questions. I would have asked that very same question, as well as “how unlikely?” as the next one.
        natmaka 2y ago
        > “What happens if we lose the generators?” They knew. Especially after Forsmark, 2006 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsmark_Nuclear_Power_Plant#July_2006_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsmark_Nuclear_Power_Plant#J... ), which was a major subject for the industry. The first stages of a similar incident happened in France decades before. ... and it didn't change anything. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41774144 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41774144
  - renaudg 2y ago
    > We can decide to build wind/solar instead of nuclear reactors. That's what Germany did, but such intermittent renewables can't power an industry-heavy country by themselves for obvious reasons (e.g. the sun tends to set at night) No matter how much renewables capacity you want to install, you always need a controllable and reliable source for the baseload : that will be either coal, gas, hydro or nuclear. Only two of those are low carbon btw. So let's see : - Germany doesn't have the geography for hydro (unlike say, Norway). - They don't want nuclear because politics. - They became partly reliant on Russian gas, an extraordinary geopolitical own goal (and hilariously, sold by a Greenpeace-affiliated energy company as "green gas") - The only other solution left is coal, lots of coal. That's what Germany has been doing despite political promises to phase it out. The two main end results of this policy are : - Germany has some of the worst CO2 emissions per kWh produced of large European countries. As I write this, it's emitting 23 times more than France (the poster child for nuclear) per kWh. Source : https://app.electricitymaps.com/map https://app.electricitymaps.com/map - An estimated 22.900 premature deaths every year across the EU from coal-fired power plants. Germany's plants cause an estimated 2490 premature deaths per year in neighbouring countries alone. Source : https://caneurope.org/report-europe-s-dark-cloud-coal-burning-eu-countries-make-their-neighbours-sick/ https://caneurope.org/report-europe-s-dark-cloud-coal-burnin... Imagine if France had a nuclear incident causing 2490 deaths in neighbouring countries, every year ? Nuclear is like air travel : spectacular when it fails, but much safer than all other modes of transportation.
    - natmaka 2y ago
      > - They don't want nuclear because politics. No. Because Fukushima. At the end of 2010 Germany enacted a law extending the operating life of nuclear reactors. Then Fukushima happened and all political parties in Germany closed nuclear reactors: https://x.com/HannoKlausmeier/status/1784158942823690561 https://x.com/HannoKlausmeier/status/1784158942823690561 > sold by a Greenpeace-affiliated Facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Planet_Energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Planet_Energy > The only other solution left is coal, Facts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41768679 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41768679 Yes, coal is a disaster. Nuclear risks (major accident, waste, proliferation...) is a potential disaster. > deaths in neighbouring countries, every year True, and quite sad. No nation yells because each is a culprit: emissions caused by France's fossil fuels (transportation, industry...) is far superior to those of the German gridpower system. We can agree that all this is a catastrophic state of affairs. Germany's nuclear phaseout is a drop in the sea and wasn't conducted due to some whim. > Nuclear is like air travel : spectacular when it fails, but much safer The amount of victims of past accident is controversial, therefore this is controversial.

defrost 2y ago

It's clear that a small number of mostly older people suffered unduly from the stress of an imposed evacuation. It's not clear that this is a specifically nuclear issue. Had an area been evacuated due to earthquakes making the ground unstable, due to extreme bushfires destroying every building, would the stress on the elderly be any less?

natmaka 2y ago
> It's not clear that this is a specifically nuclear issue An evacuation triggered by a nuclear major accident seems specific to nuclear to me, in the sense: if, instead of this nuclear plant, some field occupied by wind turbines or solar panels were build, there would be no need to evacuate. > Had an area been evacuated due to earthquakes making the ground unstable No human being can control nor counter this sort of event. We can decide to build wind/solar instead of nuclear reactors.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  > We can decide to build wind/solar instead of nuclear reactors. Or add passive safety measures to nuclear power plants. Fukushima failed because it was still generating too much heat, but that excessive heat couldn’t power a turbine to cool itself down.
  - chpatrick 2y ago
    Until the next failure comes along that we didn't predict.
    - rbanffy 2y ago
      Fukushima could have been easily predicted. That’s what passive safety is about.
      - natmaka 2y ago
        > Fukushima could have been easily predicted After such an accident some armchair experts are quite sure that it "could have been easily predicted". Before the accident (to "easily" prevent it) or during it they are nowhere to be found. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41774144 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41774144
        rbanffy 2y ago
        “What happens if we lose the generators?” is not a hard question to come up with. I have a great imagination and a long career built on, among other things, asking pointed questions. I would have asked that very same question, as well as “how unlikely?” as the next one.
        natmaka 2y ago
        > “What happens if we lose the generators?” They knew. Especially after Forsmark, 2006 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsmark_Nuclear_Power_Plant#July_2006_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsmark_Nuclear_Power_Plant#J... ), which was a major subject for the industry. The first stages of a similar incident happened in France decades before. ... and it didn't change anything. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41774144 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41774144
- renaudg 2y ago
  > We can decide to build wind/solar instead of nuclear reactors. That's what Germany did, but such intermittent renewables can't power an industry-heavy country by themselves for obvious reasons (e.g. the sun tends to set at night) No matter how much renewables capacity you want to install, you always need a controllable and reliable source for the baseload : that will be either coal, gas, hydro or nuclear. Only two of those are low carbon btw. So let's see : - Germany doesn't have the geography for hydro (unlike say, Norway). - They don't want nuclear because politics. - They became partly reliant on Russian gas, an extraordinary geopolitical own goal (and hilariously, sold by a Greenpeace-affiliated energy company as "green gas") - The only other solution left is coal, lots of coal. That's what Germany has been doing despite political promises to phase it out. The two main end results of this policy are : - Germany has some of the worst CO2 emissions per kWh produced of large European countries. As I write this, it's emitting 23 times more than France (the poster child for nuclear) per kWh. Source : https://app.electricitymaps.com/map https://app.electricitymaps.com/map - An estimated 22.900 premature deaths every year across the EU from coal-fired power plants. Germany's plants cause an estimated 2490 premature deaths per year in neighbouring countries alone. Source : https://caneurope.org/report-europe-s-dark-cloud-coal-burning-eu-countries-make-their-neighbours-sick/ https://caneurope.org/report-europe-s-dark-cloud-coal-burnin... Imagine if France had a nuclear incident causing 2490 deaths in neighbouring countries, every year ? Nuclear is like air travel : spectacular when it fails, but much safer than all other modes of transportation.
  - natmaka 2y ago
    > - They don't want nuclear because politics. No. Because Fukushima. At the end of 2010 Germany enacted a law extending the operating life of nuclear reactors. Then Fukushima happened and all political parties in Germany closed nuclear reactors: https://x.com/HannoKlausmeier/status/1784158942823690561 https://x.com/HannoKlausmeier/status/1784158942823690561 > sold by a Greenpeace-affiliated Facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Planet_Energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Planet_Energy > The only other solution left is coal, Facts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41768679 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41768679 Yes, coal is a disaster. Nuclear risks (major accident, waste, proliferation...) is a potential disaster. > deaths in neighbouring countries, every year True, and quite sad. No nation yells because each is a culprit: emissions caused by France's fossil fuels (transportation, industry...) is far superior to those of the German gridpower system. We can agree that all this is a catastrophic state of affairs. Germany's nuclear phaseout is a drop in the sea and wasn't conducted due to some whim. > Nuclear is like air travel : spectacular when it fails, but much safer The amount of victims of past accident is controversial, therefore this is controversial.