4 ms·

"... Per watthour, nuclear power is the safest form of energy production, by a very large margin ..." The kids in Fukushima disagree, segment from "Children of

"... Per watthour, nuclear power is the safest form of energy production, by a very large margin ..." The kids in Fukushima disagree, segment from "Children of the Tsunami," BBC, March 1, 2012 ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JS0Rf_gWFA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JS0Rf_gWFA

dnewcome 14y ago
Citing a single data point doesn't refute the quoted assertion. It is basically the same as me trying to refute that air travel is safer than automobile travel per passenger mile by mentioning a single notable crash. I'm not trying to downplay the plight of those affected, but it's worth separating these concerns when evaluating the true risks involved with any technology that can potentially have great benefits for the bulk of humanity, the rare catastrophe notwithstanding.
- yread 14y ago
  You can always look at different statistics. If you count deaths per journey, air doesn't look that good anymore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_safety#Statistics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_safety#Statistics
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    Deaths per journey is a silly statistic. People don't fly to the neighborhood supermarket to buy their groceries. All the inconsequential car trips at mostly sub-lethal speeds would significantly deflate an automotive death-per-journey statistic.
jeltz 14y ago
Could you tell which is safer then? It sure is not hydroelectric power which worst disaster killed over 150 000 people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
- seanmcdirmid 14y ago
  Your point? The dam wasn't engineered well enough, definitely not up to western standards. Chernobyl is a similar situation. Anyone can build a dangerous power plant using whatever resource they want. Safety is something you invest in. The question then becomes how expensive is safe nuclear power vs. safe hydroelectric? The biggest problem with nuclear is that "safe" nuclear power is very expensive compared to the alternatives, but if they can get costs down without sacrificing safety (or the alternatives increase in price), its a good option for us.
  - Game_Ender 14y ago
    Where are you getting your information that we have to chose between safe but expensive plants, or cheap but dangerous ones? On some level you can cut costs just by using thinner pressure vessels or containment structures, but the key issue with facilities like Fukishma is that when things fail the reactor starts to go critical unless you actively stop it. Many new designs are specifically design to go sub-critical when failure happen.
  - hrktb 14y ago
    One of the question that arised after Fukushima was if we were good enough from a technical POV to handle nuclear power in a safe way. Not speaking only about the cost it takes to do things The Right Way, but also the education of your staff, handling of operational errors, covering of the unavoidable design and material deffects, and so on... For e.g. launching rockets to space can still fail from times to times, despite the effort and care it takes to do it. Crashing planes also occur from times to times, despite our extensive knowledge of the field and all the effort we can put in preventing disasters. Wouldn't it be sane to assume that nuclear power will also fail from times to times, and you can't do much about it?
  - hrktb 14y ago
    One of the question that arised after Fukushima was if we were good enough from a technical POV to handle nuclear power in a safe way. Not speaking only about the cost it takes to do things The Right Way, but also the education of your staff, handling of operational errors, covering of the unavoidable design and material deffects, and so on... For e.g. launching rockets to space can still fail from times to times, despite the effort and care it takes to do it. Crashing planes also occur from times to times, despite our extensive knowledge of the field and all the effort we can put in preventing disasters. Wouldn't it be sane to assume that nuclear power will also fail from times to times, and you can't do much about it?

dnewcome 14y ago

Citing a single data point doesn't refute the quoted assertion. It is basically the same as me trying to refute that air travel is safer than automobile travel per passenger mile by mentioning a single notable crash. I'm not trying to downplay the plight of those affected, but it's worth separating these concerns when evaluating the true risks involved with any technology that can potentially have great benefits for the bulk of humanity, the rare catastrophe notwithstanding.

yread 14y ago
You can always look at different statistics. If you count deaths per journey, air doesn't look that good anymore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_safety#Statistics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_safety#Statistics
- nitrogen 14y ago
  Deaths per journey is a silly statistic. People don't fly to the neighborhood supermarket to buy their groceries. All the inconsequential car trips at mostly sub-lethal speeds would significantly deflate an automotive death-per-journey statistic.

jeltz 14y ago

Could you tell which is safer then? It sure is not hydroelectric power which worst disaster killed over 150 000 people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

seanmcdirmid 14y ago
Your point? The dam wasn't engineered well enough, definitely not up to western standards. Chernobyl is a similar situation. Anyone can build a dangerous power plant using whatever resource they want. Safety is something you invest in. The question then becomes how expensive is safe nuclear power vs. safe hydroelectric? The biggest problem with nuclear is that "safe" nuclear power is very expensive compared to the alternatives, but if they can get costs down without sacrificing safety (or the alternatives increase in price), its a good option for us.
- Game_Ender 14y ago
  Where are you getting your information that we have to chose between safe but expensive plants, or cheap but dangerous ones? On some level you can cut costs just by using thinner pressure vessels or containment structures, but the key issue with facilities like Fukishma is that when things fail the reactor starts to go critical unless you actively stop it. Many new designs are specifically design to go sub-critical when failure happen.
- hrktb 14y ago
  One of the question that arised after Fukushima was if we were good enough from a technical POV to handle nuclear power in a safe way. Not speaking only about the cost it takes to do things The Right Way, but also the education of your staff, handling of operational errors, covering of the unavoidable design and material deffects, and so on... For e.g. launching rockets to space can still fail from times to times, despite the effort and care it takes to do it. Crashing planes also occur from times to times, despite our extensive knowledge of the field and all the effort we can put in preventing disasters. Wouldn't it be sane to assume that nuclear power will also fail from times to times, and you can't do much about it?
- hrktb 14y ago
  One of the question that arised after Fukushima was if we were good enough from a technical POV to handle nuclear power in a safe way. Not speaking only about the cost it takes to do things The Right Way, but also the education of your staff, handling of operational errors, covering of the unavoidable design and material deffects, and so on... For e.g. launching rockets to space can still fail from times to times, despite the effort and care it takes to do it. Crashing planes also occur from times to times, despite our extensive knowledge of the field and all the effort we can put in preventing disasters. Wouldn't it be sane to assume that nuclear power will also fail from times to times, and you can't do much about it?