4 ms·

> a horrific disaster in Japan Deaths due to radiation from Fukushima: 0 Deaths due to the 2011 earthquake and tsunami (the one that hit Fukushima): 19,759

by GJim 2y ago

renewiltord 2y ago
That looks bad. Why would the environmentalists take the position that they did then?
- NortySpock 2y ago
  (A) not all environmentalists take a non-nuclear position. Be careful painting with a broad brush (B) some people's opinion is based on emotional reaction to a technology rather than a cold calculus of how much a technology could do to reduce global warming effects and reduce humans environmental impact.
  - renewiltord 2y ago
    I was curious about the "not all" since it depends whether "not all" is 0.1% or 99%. So I did this: 1. Google for "largest environmental organizations" 2. Select the top 5 3. Search for their position on the subject Here's what I found are the top five largest according to a rudimentary Google: 1. Laudato Si' Movement "In addition to being unsustainable and failing to contribute to climate objectives, nuclear power is also proven to be a dangerous, dirty and expensive source of energy" 2. WWF: "Nuclear energy cannot, and must not, be considered part of the urgently required energy transition." 3. 350.org "Nuclear: a deadly and costly distraction" 4. Climate Foundation (couldn't find anything) 5. Greenpeace "Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive. Say no to new nukes." I think the environmentalists don't like it, man. I think I've seen enough. Nuclear power must be pretty bad if it is so broadly hated. Or the environmentalists are fools. Sources: https://donorbox.org/nonprofit-blog/20-global-nonprofits-environment https://donorbox.org/nonprofit-blog/20-global-nonprofits-env... https://laudatosimovement.org/news/laudato-si-movement-eu-taxonomy-statement-the-time-to-cut-ties-with-dirty-fossil-fuel-energy-market-players-is-now/ https://laudatosimovement.org/news/laudato-si-movement-eu-ta... https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?10992441/nuclear-net-zero-WWF https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?10992441/nuclear-net-zero-WW... https://350.org/nuclear-a-deadly-and-costly-distraction/ https://350.org/nuclear-a-deadly-and-costly-distraction/ https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/climate/issues/nuclear/#:~:text=Nuclear%20energy%20has%20no%20place,risk%20of%20a%20nuclear%20meltdown https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/climate/issues/nuclear/#:~:te....
- GJim 2y ago
  Crazy isn't it. A natural disaster (largest earthquake in Japans modern history) kills a sports-stadiums worth of people and causes massive infrastructure damage with over 2000 bodies never found...... .....yet the only thing the west remembers is a single nuclear plant being knocked offline with no resulting deaths due to radiation.
- myrmidon 2y ago
  Because advocating for more nuclear power would not really help their goals now. 1) Every GW of installed renewable power makes nuclear plants less useful (and renewables will continue to be built because they're too cheap to stop). People like to crow about "nuclear provides the baseload we need", but this is ill-informed nonsense; "providing baseload" is a privilege you get to enjoy if you are the source with the lowest marginal cost (which is absolutely not a given for nuclear power), and sure, you can operate a reactor in load-following mode by turning it off half the time but then the already bad economics become even worse. What you actually need is dispatchable power (thats cheap to install per GW, like gas) and/or more storage or better grid connectivity. 2) There is a lot of pushback from the population at large (especially in countries were regulators and operators are more corrupt/less trusted), building out nuclear plants is much more time consuming and expensive and the resistance against new sites is immense. Alienating half your support base by suddenly championing nuclear power for basically no reason is also a no-go.
  - renewiltord 2y ago
    Yeah, this makes sense. Hopefully they're able to arrest this unfortunate outcome in Ukraine.
    - myrmidon 2y ago
      I don't see how it could. "Build expensive nuclear plants because aggressors are less likely to target them while they try to annex you" is not a very convincing value proposition.
threeseed 2y ago
Cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures: potentially 100s. https://www2.ans.org/misc/FukushimaSpecialSession-Caracappa.pdf https://www2.ans.org/misc/FukushimaSpecialSession-Caracappa....
- account42 2y ago
  Ok, now do cancer deaths and other health issues from coal plants run in countries that have shut down their nuclear plants.
- sam_lowry_ 2y ago
  For Chernobyl, the projection is ~4000 such "statistical deaths". The deaths directly attributed to the Chernobyl accident are... surprise-surprise... 30 [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...
  - threeseed 2y ago
    And the number of people whose death is directly attributed to smoking is 0. But of course just like with Chernobyl and Fukushima you need to factor in the increased cases of cancer.
    - sam_lowry_ 2y ago
      That's the 4000, essentially.
- GJim 2y ago
  A study that made very questionable assumptions. Links here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fuk... Regardless, even if deaths were in the 100's, the deaths per GWh remain safer than that of coal and even, gasp! hydroelectric. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...

> a horrific disaster in Japan Deaths due to radiation from Fukushima: 0 Deaths due to the 2011 earthquake and tsunami (the one that hit Fukushima): 19,759

by GJim 2y ago

> a horrific disaster in Japan Deaths due to radiation from Fukushima: 0 Deaths due to the 2011 earthquake and tsunami (the one that hit Fukushima): 19,759

renewiltord 2y ago

That looks bad. Why would the environmentalists take the position that they did then?

NortySpock 2y ago
(A) not all environmentalists take a non-nuclear position. Be careful painting with a broad brush (B) some people's opinion is based on emotional reaction to a technology rather than a cold calculus of how much a technology could do to reduce global warming effects and reduce humans environmental impact.
- renewiltord 2y ago
  I was curious about the "not all" since it depends whether "not all" is 0.1% or 99%. So I did this: 1. Google for "largest environmental organizations" 2. Select the top 5 3. Search for their position on the subject Here's what I found are the top five largest according to a rudimentary Google: 1. Laudato Si' Movement "In addition to being unsustainable and failing to contribute to climate objectives, nuclear power is also proven to be a dangerous, dirty and expensive source of energy" 2. WWF: "Nuclear energy cannot, and must not, be considered part of the urgently required energy transition." 3. 350.org "Nuclear: a deadly and costly distraction" 4. Climate Foundation (couldn't find anything) 5. Greenpeace "Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive. Say no to new nukes." I think the environmentalists don't like it, man. I think I've seen enough. Nuclear power must be pretty bad if it is so broadly hated. Or the environmentalists are fools. Sources: https://donorbox.org/nonprofit-blog/20-global-nonprofits-environment https://donorbox.org/nonprofit-blog/20-global-nonprofits-env... https://laudatosimovement.org/news/laudato-si-movement-eu-taxonomy-statement-the-time-to-cut-ties-with-dirty-fossil-fuel-energy-market-players-is-now/ https://laudatosimovement.org/news/laudato-si-movement-eu-ta... https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?10992441/nuclear-net-zero-WWF https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?10992441/nuclear-net-zero-WW... https://350.org/nuclear-a-deadly-and-costly-distraction/ https://350.org/nuclear-a-deadly-and-costly-distraction/ https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/climate/issues/nuclear/#:~:text=Nuclear%20energy%20has%20no%20place,risk%20of%20a%20nuclear%20meltdown https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/climate/issues/nuclear/#:~:te....
GJim 2y ago
Crazy isn't it. A natural disaster (largest earthquake in Japans modern history) kills a sports-stadiums worth of people and causes massive infrastructure damage with over 2000 bodies never found...... .....yet the only thing the west remembers is a single nuclear plant being knocked offline with no resulting deaths due to radiation.
myrmidon 2y ago
Because advocating for more nuclear power would not really help their goals now. 1) Every GW of installed renewable power makes nuclear plants less useful (and renewables will continue to be built because they're too cheap to stop). People like to crow about "nuclear provides the baseload we need", but this is ill-informed nonsense; "providing baseload" is a privilege you get to enjoy if you are the source with the lowest marginal cost (which is absolutely not a given for nuclear power), and sure, you can operate a reactor in load-following mode by turning it off half the time but then the already bad economics become even worse. What you actually need is dispatchable power (thats cheap to install per GW, like gas) and/or more storage or better grid connectivity. 2) There is a lot of pushback from the population at large (especially in countries were regulators and operators are more corrupt/less trusted), building out nuclear plants is much more time consuming and expensive and the resistance against new sites is immense. Alienating half your support base by suddenly championing nuclear power for basically no reason is also a no-go.
- renewiltord 2y ago
  Yeah, this makes sense. Hopefully they're able to arrest this unfortunate outcome in Ukraine.
  - myrmidon 2y ago
    I don't see how it could. "Build expensive nuclear plants because aggressors are less likely to target them while they try to annex you" is not a very convincing value proposition.

threeseed 2y ago

Cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures: potentially 100s. https://www2.ans.org/misc/FukushimaSpecialSession-Caracappa.pdf https://www2.ans.org/misc/FukushimaSpecialSession-Caracappa....

account42 2y ago
Ok, now do cancer deaths and other health issues from coal plants run in countries that have shut down their nuclear plants.
sam_lowry_ 2y ago
For Chernobyl, the projection is ~4000 such "statistical deaths". The deaths directly attributed to the Chernobyl accident are... surprise-surprise... 30 [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...
- threeseed 2y ago
  And the number of people whose death is directly attributed to smoking is 0. But of course just like with Chernobyl and Fukushima you need to factor in the increased cases of cancer.
  - sam_lowry_ 2y ago
    That's the 4000, essentially.
GJim 2y ago
A study that made very questionable assumptions. Links here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fuk... Regardless, even if deaths were in the 100's, the deaths per GWh remain safer than that of coal and even, gasp! hydroelectric. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...