4 ms·

A key difference is that an evacuation triggered by a major nuclear accident could have been avoided (typically: by building renewables instead of a nuclear pla

A key difference is that an evacuation triggered by a major nuclear accident could have been avoided (typically: by building renewables instead of a nuclear plant). > Was the evacuation poorly executed in Japan? This is a matter of debate. 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... ). The extent of the implemented evacuation was considerably inferior. Nowadays, after the battle, according to some pro-nuclear no evacuation was necessary.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
belorn 2y ago
The Oroville Dam crisis could have been avoided if the power plant did proper maintenance on the dam, and the power plant management was found as being the primary cause of the accident. Dams are in general man made and maintain multiple nuclear bombs in terms of energy in potential, which need to be handled with care. The crisis had as much to do with the weather as Fukushima had to do with earthquakes. Much of the damage caused by natural events can be avoided with proper planning and prevention, but they cost money. Most natural defenses against extreme weather are also removed in order for developing land or extracting natural resources.
- natmaka 2y ago
  The Oroville Dam didn't collapse and the crisis didn't make a single victim Is there a debate about those raw facts? https://damfailures.org/case-study/oroville-dam-california-2017/ https://damfailures.org/case-study/oroville-dam-california-2... > handled with care > proper planning and prevention I agree. Everyone can fail. Letting very dangerous tiny material undetectable without a complex equipment and active for years getting out then be dispersed on huge areas by wind/rain/... is a nuclear exclusive. Moreover the most risky type of renewables (dams) has more inertia (it cannot trigger an accident in mere minutes, it is more robust). As we now have industrial renewables there is no reason to deploy nuclear anymore.
  - belorn 2y ago
    How can you claim that there wasn't a single victim when they evacuated 180,000 people (including hospital inpatients and elderly people)? If we use the same evacuation-to-death ratio as Fukushima, the Oroville Dam crisis caused 2416 deaths. In addition it should have costed the government hundreds of millions in evacuation costs, repairs of infrastructure, and lost revenue because of damages cause by the spillway.
    - natmaka 2y ago
      Oroville: no radiation, no panic. The evacuation started on February, 12 and people were back home 2 days later. Moreover such event in the USA in 2017 caused deaths and nobody took note? Come on.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

belorn 2y ago

The Oroville Dam crisis could have been avoided if the power plant did proper maintenance on the dam, and the power plant management was found as being the primary cause of the accident. Dams are in general man made and maintain multiple nuclear bombs in terms of energy in potential, which need to be handled with care. The crisis had as much to do with the weather as Fukushima had to do with earthquakes. Much of the damage caused by natural events can be avoided with proper planning and prevention, but they cost money. Most natural defenses against extreme weather are also removed in order for developing land or extracting natural resources.

natmaka 2y ago
The Oroville Dam didn't collapse and the crisis didn't make a single victim Is there a debate about those raw facts? https://damfailures.org/case-study/oroville-dam-california-2017/ https://damfailures.org/case-study/oroville-dam-california-2... > handled with care > proper planning and prevention I agree. Everyone can fail. Letting very dangerous tiny material undetectable without a complex equipment and active for years getting out then be dispersed on huge areas by wind/rain/... is a nuclear exclusive. Moreover the most risky type of renewables (dams) has more inertia (it cannot trigger an accident in mere minutes, it is more robust). As we now have industrial renewables there is no reason to deploy nuclear anymore.
- belorn 2y ago
  How can you claim that there wasn't a single victim when they evacuated 180,000 people (including hospital inpatients and elderly people)? If we use the same evacuation-to-death ratio as Fukushima, the Oroville Dam crisis caused 2416 deaths. In addition it should have costed the government hundreds of millions in evacuation costs, repairs of infrastructure, and lost revenue because of damages cause by the spillway.
  - natmaka 2y ago
    Oroville: no radiation, no panic. The evacuation started on February, 12 and people were back home 2 days later. Moreover such event in the USA in 2017 caused deaths and nobody took note? Come on.