7 ms·

It's worth noting that the Fukoshima disaster 1. Lead to basically zero direct deaths 2. Was caused by the forth most powerful earthquake to have ever been re

It's worth noting that the Fukoshima disaster 1. Lead to basically zero direct deaths 2. Was caused by the forth most powerful earthquake to have ever been recorded in the world (since ~1900), and the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan 3. ~20,000 people died due to the Earthquake Requiring a nuclear plant in Belgium to be safe enough to survive what caused the Fukoshima disaster is probably not a good use of money

wholinator2 5mo ago
I don't know but i feel like Nuclear reactors are something worth taking to the 99.99% percentile of safety. How much money does it really cost? And how does that money compare to the economic prosperity of the land that is currently radiation free. As well, i think us (assuming) not knowledgeable Nuclear engineers discussing the cost benefit of reactor safety should be basically locked out of the conversation. Plausible sounding soundbites are just too easily generated these days for anyone without credentials to have stake in these decisions.
- swiftcoder 5mo ago
  > How much money does it really cost? The problem is as much time as it is money. We have reactors producing energy now, it will take a decade plus to replace them, and due to both climate policy and supply issues around the wars in Russia and the Middle East, we can't afford to do without the energy for that decade...
  - simondotau 5mo ago
    And if that nuclear would be displacing coal power, you have to consider the health and environmental costs of that coal generation which you haven't displaced.
  - thrownthatway 5mo ago
    > climate policy Fuck climate policy. There could be an earthquake any moment now that ruptures a massive natural CO formation that would eclipse any anthropogenic generated emissions in matter of hours. What have we done to mitigate that risk? Nothing. There is a non-zero chance Earth will be relieved of the responsibility of harbouring complex life any moment now by a loose pile of gravel travelling at 60 kilometres a second. Zero mitigation. Let’s work out this food-housing-energy deal for everyone before we mandate unaffordable unreliable energy that results in unaffordable everything. Maybe your shielded from that because your own a mid six figure income at $UNICORN, but I guarantee you the rest of us have had enough of this climate change fucking bullshit luxury belief.
    - swiftcoder 5mo ago
      Hey man, I live on a small farm ~50km from the city, where we get to battle more and more wildfires every year, and it no longer rains enough to keep the water supplies flowing all summer. Climate change is a bigger issue for a lot of of the world than your personal experience might suggest
      - thrownthatway 5mo ago
        > and it no longer rains enough to keep the water supplies flowing all summer. It no longer rains enough? Are you a time traveller? Otherwise you can’t possibly know that. When it comes to climate and weather, no amount of recent past data can reliably predict what’s going to happen next.
        swiftcoder 5mo ago
        I know that in the last 5 years, we've had 3 major droughts, and in the preceding 50 years, no droughts. This is more than sufficient evidence for me. I'm not going to argue long-term weather cycles versus man-made climate change with you.
    - pyrale 5mo ago
      > What have we done to mitigate that risk Climate change isn't a risk that needs mitigation, it is not a contingency of hypothetical events. It is happening right now, and lives are already being claimed. Maybe you are shielded from that and want to keep your lifestyle rather than adapting.
      - thrownthatway 5mo ago
        > It is happening right now We don’t actually know that. We don’t have a second, identical Earth, where an industrial revolution powered by coal and oil and gas didn’t happen.
        pyrale 5mo ago
- harrouet 5mo ago
  Nuclear is already at a much higher safety standard than 99.99%! About costs: it is actually cheap. 95% of the average total cost of a MWh is in building the plant. Comparisons sometimes show the cost of a MWh from wind or solar, but is a fallacy because they assume an infrastructure on the side to ensure 24x7 power generation (i.e. they point out a marginal cost instead of average total cost).
  - thrownthatway 5mo ago
    Yep! Wind / solar + (largely non-existent) batteries are cheap! Until you factor in the gas peaker plants that need to be built watt-for-watt unless you’re okay with poor people freezing in the dark, or melting in the heat. Because rich people can afford their own back up generators or on-site batteries.
cogman10 5mo ago
> Lead to basically zero direct deaths Coal has lead to basically zero direct death, and a lot of indirect deaths. That's a bad way to measure the damage done by a power generation mechanism. > Was caused by the forth most powerful earthquake to have ever been recorded in the world (since ~1900), and the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan Yeah, crazy stuff happens and radioactive spills have longterm effects on the environment that are hard to address. > ~20,000 people died due to the Earthquake That's a non-sequitur. > Requiring a nuclear plant in Belgium to be safe enough to survive what caused the Fukoshima disaster is probably not a good use of money Japan has spent the equivalent of $180B cleaning up the mess Fukoshima left behind. [1] Decomissioning the old reactors and replacing them with the safer to avoid unexpected disasters which cost hundreds of billions does seem like a good use of money. Far better than just hoping something unexpected doesn't happen. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38131248 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38131248
- StreamBright 5mo ago
  > Coal has lead to basically zero direct death This is not true at all. Direct Occupational Deaths (Mining & Accidents) Even in a highly regulated environment like the United States, coal mining is not a zero-fatality industry. United States: According to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), there were 8 coal mining deaths in 2025 and 10 in 2024. This is a massive improvement from 1907 (the deadliest year), which saw 3,242 deaths. In countries with less stringent safety oversight, the numbers are much higher. For example, China's coal industry—though improving—has historically recorded hundreds to thousands of deaths annually. In 2022 alone, hundreds of people died in global coal mine accidents. Chronic Disease: "Black Lung" (pneumoconiosis) is still a leading cause of death for miners. In the U.S. alone, thousands of former miners die every decade from lung diseases directly caused by inhaling coal dust.
- leonidasrup 5mo ago
  It's always hard count indirect deaths. We could for example argue that Japan, by stopping it's nuclear power plants for long time and replacing it's cheap nuclear electricity with expensive imported gas electricity caused more deaths than by direct radiological impact of Fukoshima accident. "Be Cautious with the Precautionary Principle: Evidence from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident" https://docs.iza.org/dp12687.pdf https://docs.iza.org/dp12687.pdf "In an effort to meet the energy demands, nuclear power was replaced by imported fossil fuels, which led to increases in electricity prices. The price increases led to a reduction in electricity consumption but only during the coldest times of the year. Given its protective effects from extreme weather, the reduced electricity consumption led to an increase in mortality during very cold temperatures. We estimate that the increased mortality resulting from the higher energy prices outnumbered the mortality from the accident itself, suggesting that applying the precautionary principle caused more harm than good." In term of money, you have look at the sums that Japan has been pouring into importing gas, which was needed to replace the missing nuclear power generation. "With the Japanese government’s blessing, these companies are encouraging other countries to use more gas and LNG by investing US$93 billion from March 2013 to March 2024 in midstream and downstream oil and gas infrastructure globally." https://energyexplained.substack.com/p/japan-1-how-fukushima-transformed https://energyexplained.substack.com/p/japan-1-how-fukushima...
crote 5mo ago
> 1. Lead to basically zero direct deaths "Basically zero" is a funny way to spell "a few dozen". It also led to a $187 billion cleanup bill - which is expected to grow by a few more tens of billions over the next decades. > 2. Was caused by the forth most powerful earthquake to have ever been recorded in the world (since ~1900), and the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan Sure, but Belgium has to be prepared for something like the North Sea flood of 1953 - which climate change is only going to make worse. > 3. ~20,000 people died due to the Earthquake Irrelevant. > Requiring a nuclear plant in Belgium to be safe enough to survive what caused the Fukoshima disaster is probably not a good use of money Correct, but a nuclear power plant in Belgium should be safe enough to survive the kind of disaster which is likely to happen in Belgium - which is very much a topic of debate. If nuclear is so safe, how come nobody is willing to insure it?
- parineum 5mo ago
  > If nuclear is so safe, how come nobody is willing to insure it? Almost every plant is bespoke, leading each plant to have unknown failure modes and rates. Additionally, insurance works by pooling risk amongst a large group of individuals but the statistical uncertainties of failure rates (too few events) and low total rate of plants leads to an incredibly uncertain risk profile.
  - mannykannot 5mo ago
    The claim made in your first sentence is actually a reason to be concerned.
    - thrownthatway 5mo ago
      And also largely irrelevant to a possible future standardised fleet. Also, obviously, that could lead to an issue with one being an issue with many.
    - pqtyw 5mo ago
      The fact that it's impossible to estimate the risk because the failure rates are unknown is concerning? Yes, more frequent failures would make it easier for insurance companies to estimate the risk and calculate premiums but I don't exactly see how that would be good thing...
testing22321 5mo ago
> It's worth noting that the Fukoshima disaster Lead to basically zero direct deaths Which was really just pure luck. It was melting down. Humans could not go in to stop it, robots could not go in to stop it. Pure luck it didn’t go a lot bigger. Also it resulted in severe contamination of ocean water, which will have impacts for a very long time
- simondotau 5mo ago
  > Which was really just pure luck. It's the opposite of luck. They were very unlucky. The objectively extremely unlucky outcome occurred. Yes it could have been worse, and I suppose it could have been struck by a meteor too. > it resulted in severe contamination of ocean water Citation please. I suggest reading the relevant Wikipedia article in full. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_of_radioactive_water_of_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_of_radioactive_water...
  - testing22321 5mo ago
    > It's the opposite of luck. They were very unlucky. The objectively extremely unlucky outcome occurred. The tsunami and tidal wave that took out the generators were unlucky. The fantastically lucky part was that it didn’t create an explosion and spew much more radiation into the air. We couldn’t do anything to stop it, just stand back and hope for the best. that was immensely lucky.
    - simondotau 5mo ago
      [dead]
- thrownthatway 5mo ago
  > severe contamination of ocean water No it didn’t Like I said at the time, you could melt all of the cores down at the Fukushima Daiitchi site and dissolve them all in to the oceans and it would be undetectable in sea water. The oceans weigh around 10^21 kilograms, and the six reactor cores at Fukushima Daiichi would weigh, what, several hundred tons and contain, what, several tens of tonnes of radioactive products. We’re talking beyond parts per trillion.
shevy-java 5mo ago
You write as if Fukushima was the only example. Take chernobyl: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster You are correct that there were only few deaths but there was radiation damage, and if you sum that up then Fukushima was definitely noticable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident
- thrownthatway 5mo ago
  Chernobyl happened, but it’s irrelevant to calculating risk for any other operational nuclear power reactor. That RMBK was built by those crazy Russians who thought it was reasonable to not even bother with a containment vessel / building.
WalterBright 5mo ago
The Fukushima disaster could have been averted simply by putting the backup electric generators on a platform, and venting the hydrogen gases outside.
- mpweiher 5mo ago
  Yes. Or not having your plant destroyed by the biggest Tsunami in recorded Japanese history, much larger than the size they planned for when they built the plant. Or upgrading the seawall to the size mandated after scientists found out that Tsunamis of that size could actually happen, despite having no historical record of them. One of the reasons TEPCO was culpable. A sister plant of the Fukushima plant actually survived a slightly higher crest and was even used as a shelter for Tsunami victims, because one engineer had insisted on the sea wall being higher. German plants for example, despite facing no immediate Tsunami risks, have bunkered and distributed backup generators as well as mandatory hydrogen recombinators. Any German plant at the same location would have survived largely unscathed.
  - WalterBright 5mo ago
    A larger seawall can still fail. Better to put the generators on a platform. Simple and cheap. Another backup would have been a pipe leading away from the reactor, where one can, from a short distance, pump water into it and it would cool the reactor.
- ViewTrick1002 5mo ago
  Everything is "simple" with hindsight in mind. After SL-1 we realized that that we needed to allow a reactor to fully shut down even with the most important control rod stuck in a fully withdrawn position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1#Accident_and_response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1#Accident_and_response
  - WalterBright 5mo ago
    > Everything is "simple" with hindsight in mind. The fixes are still simple and cost little. I used to work at Boeing on airliner design. The guiding principle is "what happens when X fails" and design for that. It is not "design so X cannot fail", as we do not know how to design things that cannot fail. For Fukushima, it is "what happens if the seawall fails", not "the seawall cannot fail". Airliners are safe not because critical parts cannot fail, but because there is a backup plan for every critical part. Venting explosive gas into the building seems like a complete failure to do a proper failure analysis.
pvaldes 5mo ago
Lets try to speak as adults about this. 1) There are at least 403 cases registered of Fukushima residents developing Thyroid cancers after 2011 and the study is still ongoing. This is five times the expected cancer ratio. Of those at least 155 cases of malignant cancers happened in children (Sokawa 2024). We know that thyroid cancers are rare among young people... except in one special place were a sudden increase in similar cases was registered since the 80's. This place is called Chernobyl. Children that lived in towns around Fukushima daichi where the accident happened have three times more probability of suffering thyroid cancer than children that lived in towns farther from the plant. 2) Not the strong excuse that it seems, after the company was warned by scientists about the possibility of such earthquake and the urgency to improve their safety measures. They had a lot of time to fix it, and did absolutely nothing
natmaka 5mo ago
> 1. Lead to basically zero direct deaths "Fukushima Daiichi Accident: Official figures show that there have been 2313 disaster-related deaths among evacuees from Fukushima prefecture. Disaster-related deaths are in addition to the about 19,500 that were killed by the earthquake or tsunami." According to the "World Nuclear Association" (mission: to facilitate the growth of the nuclear sector by connecting players across the value chain, representing the industry’s position in key world forums, and providing authoritative information and influencing key audiences) Source: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-sec...
- tremon 5mo ago
  It would be a good idea to actually read the source you're quoting to see if it supports your case. > 2313 disaster-related deaths among evacuees from Fukushima prefecture*, that were not due to radiation-induced damage or to the earthquake or to the tsunami, had been identified by the Japanese authorities. About 90% of deaths were for persons above 66 years of age. Of these, about 30% occurred within the first three months of the evacuations, and about 80% within two years. > The premature disaster-related deaths were mainly related to (i) physical and mental illness brought about by having to reside in shelters and the trauma of being forced to move from care settings and homes; and (ii) delays in obtaining needed medical support because of the enormous destruction caused by the earthquake and tsunami.
  - natmaka 5mo ago
    If, instead of the nuclear power plant, Japan had deployed photovoltaic panels or wind turbines, the evacuation would not have been necessary and some of these people would have survived. According to the then Prime Minister nuclear experts announced to him, while the accident was unfolding, that "The reactors' accident could, in the worst case, have caused the evacuation of the entire population living within a radius of 250km, including Tokyo, a total of 50 million people" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naoto_Kan#In_media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naoto_Kan#In_media Only the three least powerful of the six reactors were in operation at the time of the accident. Reactor #4 was off and unloaded. Approximately 80% of the released cesium-137 (half-life: 30 years) was dispersed eastward by winds and deposited in the Pacific Ocean (far from human settlement), where the enormous volume of water and strong currents reduced its concentration. Other studies, such as those by Yasunari et al., confirm these undisputed facts, which are also accepted by nuclear agencies. The sole cleanup may cost up to 660bn USD ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident_cleanup#Costs_of_the_cleanup_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident_cle... ). To begin with.

wholinator2 5mo ago

I don't know but i feel like Nuclear reactors are something worth taking to the 99.99% percentile of safety. How much money does it really cost? And how does that money compare to the economic prosperity of the land that is currently radiation free. As well, i think us (assuming) not knowledgeable Nuclear engineers discussing the cost benefit of reactor safety should be basically locked out of the conversation. Plausible sounding soundbites are just too easily generated these days for anyone without credentials to have stake in these decisions.

swiftcoder 5mo ago
> How much money does it really cost? The problem is as much time as it is money. We have reactors producing energy now, it will take a decade plus to replace them, and due to both climate policy and supply issues around the wars in Russia and the Middle East, we can't afford to do without the energy for that decade...
- simondotau 5mo ago
  And if that nuclear would be displacing coal power, you have to consider the health and environmental costs of that coal generation which you haven't displaced.
- thrownthatway 5mo ago
  > climate policy Fuck climate policy. There could be an earthquake any moment now that ruptures a massive natural CO formation that would eclipse any anthropogenic generated emissions in matter of hours. What have we done to mitigate that risk? Nothing. There is a non-zero chance Earth will be relieved of the responsibility of harbouring complex life any moment now by a loose pile of gravel travelling at 60 kilometres a second. Zero mitigation. Let’s work out this food-housing-energy deal for everyone before we mandate unaffordable unreliable energy that results in unaffordable everything. Maybe your shielded from that because your own a mid six figure income at $UNICORN, but I guarantee you the rest of us have had enough of this climate change fucking bullshit luxury belief.
  - swiftcoder 5mo ago
    Hey man, I live on a small farm ~50km from the city, where we get to battle more and more wildfires every year, and it no longer rains enough to keep the water supplies flowing all summer. Climate change is a bigger issue for a lot of of the world than your personal experience might suggest
    - thrownthatway 5mo ago
      > and it no longer rains enough to keep the water supplies flowing all summer. It no longer rains enough? Are you a time traveller? Otherwise you can’t possibly know that. When it comes to climate and weather, no amount of recent past data can reliably predict what’s going to happen next.
      - swiftcoder 5mo ago
        I know that in the last 5 years, we've had 3 major droughts, and in the preceding 50 years, no droughts. This is more than sufficient evidence for me. I'm not going to argue long-term weather cycles versus man-made climate change with you.
  - pyrale 5mo ago
    > What have we done to mitigate that risk Climate change isn't a risk that needs mitigation, it is not a contingency of hypothetical events. It is happening right now, and lives are already being claimed. Maybe you are shielded from that and want to keep your lifestyle rather than adapting.
    - thrownthatway 5mo ago
      > It is happening right now We don’t actually know that. We don’t have a second, identical Earth, where an industrial revolution powered by coal and oil and gas didn’t happen.
      - pyrale 5mo ago
harrouet 5mo ago
Nuclear is already at a much higher safety standard than 99.99%! About costs: it is actually cheap. 95% of the average total cost of a MWh is in building the plant. Comparisons sometimes show the cost of a MWh from wind or solar, but is a fallacy because they assume an infrastructure on the side to ensure 24x7 power generation (i.e. they point out a marginal cost instead of average total cost).
- thrownthatway 5mo ago
  Yep! Wind / solar + (largely non-existent) batteries are cheap! Until you factor in the gas peaker plants that need to be built watt-for-watt unless you’re okay with poor people freezing in the dark, or melting in the heat. Because rich people can afford their own back up generators or on-site batteries.

cogman10 5mo ago

> Lead to basically zero direct deaths Coal has lead to basically zero direct death, and a lot of indirect deaths. That's a bad way to measure the damage done by a power generation mechanism. > Was caused by the forth most powerful earthquake to have ever been recorded in the world (since ~1900), and the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan Yeah, crazy stuff happens and radioactive spills have longterm effects on the environment that are hard to address. > ~20,000 people died due to the Earthquake That's a non-sequitur. > Requiring a nuclear plant in Belgium to be safe enough to survive what caused the Fukoshima disaster is probably not a good use of money Japan has spent the equivalent of $180B cleaning up the mess Fukoshima left behind. [1] Decomissioning the old reactors and replacing them with the safer to avoid unexpected disasters which cost hundreds of billions does seem like a good use of money. Far better than just hoping something unexpected doesn't happen. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38131248 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38131248

StreamBright 5mo ago
> Coal has lead to basically zero direct death This is not true at all. Direct Occupational Deaths (Mining & Accidents) Even in a highly regulated environment like the United States, coal mining is not a zero-fatality industry. United States: According to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), there were 8 coal mining deaths in 2025 and 10 in 2024. This is a massive improvement from 1907 (the deadliest year), which saw 3,242 deaths. In countries with less stringent safety oversight, the numbers are much higher. For example, China's coal industry—though improving—has historically recorded hundreds to thousands of deaths annually. In 2022 alone, hundreds of people died in global coal mine accidents. Chronic Disease: "Black Lung" (pneumoconiosis) is still a leading cause of death for miners. In the U.S. alone, thousands of former miners die every decade from lung diseases directly caused by inhaling coal dust.
leonidasrup 5mo ago
It's always hard count indirect deaths. We could for example argue that Japan, by stopping it's nuclear power plants for long time and replacing it's cheap nuclear electricity with expensive imported gas electricity caused more deaths than by direct radiological impact of Fukoshima accident. "Be Cautious with the Precautionary Principle: Evidence from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident" https://docs.iza.org/dp12687.pdf https://docs.iza.org/dp12687.pdf "In an effort to meet the energy demands, nuclear power was replaced by imported fossil fuels, which led to increases in electricity prices. The price increases led to a reduction in electricity consumption but only during the coldest times of the year. Given its protective effects from extreme weather, the reduced electricity consumption led to an increase in mortality during very cold temperatures. We estimate that the increased mortality resulting from the higher energy prices outnumbered the mortality from the accident itself, suggesting that applying the precautionary principle caused more harm than good." In term of money, you have look at the sums that Japan has been pouring into importing gas, which was needed to replace the missing nuclear power generation. "With the Japanese government’s blessing, these companies are encouraging other countries to use more gas and LNG by investing US$93 billion from March 2013 to March 2024 in midstream and downstream oil and gas infrastructure globally." https://energyexplained.substack.com/p/japan-1-how-fukushima-transformed https://energyexplained.substack.com/p/japan-1-how-fukushima...

crote 5mo ago

> 1. Lead to basically zero direct deaths "Basically zero" is a funny way to spell "a few dozen". It also led to a $187 billion cleanup bill - which is expected to grow by a few more tens of billions over the next decades. > 2. Was caused by the forth most powerful earthquake to have ever been recorded in the world (since ~1900), and the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan Sure, but Belgium has to be prepared for something like the North Sea flood of 1953 - which climate change is only going to make worse. > 3. ~20,000 people died due to the Earthquake Irrelevant. > Requiring a nuclear plant in Belgium to be safe enough to survive what caused the Fukoshima disaster is probably not a good use of money Correct, but a nuclear power plant in Belgium should be safe enough to survive the kind of disaster which is likely to happen in Belgium - which is very much a topic of debate. If nuclear is so safe, how come nobody is willing to insure it?

parineum 5mo ago
> If nuclear is so safe, how come nobody is willing to insure it? Almost every plant is bespoke, leading each plant to have unknown failure modes and rates. Additionally, insurance works by pooling risk amongst a large group of individuals but the statistical uncertainties of failure rates (too few events) and low total rate of plants leads to an incredibly uncertain risk profile.
- mannykannot 5mo ago
  The claim made in your first sentence is actually a reason to be concerned.
  - thrownthatway 5mo ago
    And also largely irrelevant to a possible future standardised fleet. Also, obviously, that could lead to an issue with one being an issue with many.
  - pqtyw 5mo ago
    The fact that it's impossible to estimate the risk because the failure rates are unknown is concerning? Yes, more frequent failures would make it easier for insurance companies to estimate the risk and calculate premiums but I don't exactly see how that would be good thing...

testing22321 5mo ago

> It's worth noting that the Fukoshima disaster Lead to basically zero direct deaths Which was really just pure luck. It was melting down. Humans could not go in to stop it, robots could not go in to stop it. Pure luck it didn’t go a lot bigger. Also it resulted in severe contamination of ocean water, which will have impacts for a very long time

simondotau 5mo ago
> Which was really just pure luck. It's the opposite of luck. They were very unlucky. The objectively extremely unlucky outcome occurred. Yes it could have been worse, and I suppose it could have been struck by a meteor too. > it resulted in severe contamination of ocean water Citation please. I suggest reading the relevant Wikipedia article in full. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_of_radioactive_water_of_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_of_radioactive_water...
- testing22321 5mo ago
  > It's the opposite of luck. They were very unlucky. The objectively extremely unlucky outcome occurred. The tsunami and tidal wave that took out the generators were unlucky. The fantastically lucky part was that it didn’t create an explosion and spew much more radiation into the air. We couldn’t do anything to stop it, just stand back and hope for the best. that was immensely lucky.
  - simondotau 5mo ago
    [dead]
thrownthatway 5mo ago
> severe contamination of ocean water No it didn’t Like I said at the time, you could melt all of the cores down at the Fukushima Daiitchi site and dissolve them all in to the oceans and it would be undetectable in sea water. The oceans weigh around 10^21 kilograms, and the six reactor cores at Fukushima Daiichi would weigh, what, several hundred tons and contain, what, several tens of tonnes of radioactive products. We’re talking beyond parts per trillion.

shevy-java 5mo ago

You write as if Fukushima was the only example. Take chernobyl: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster You are correct that there were only few deaths but there was radiation damage, and if you sum that up then Fukushima was definitely noticable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident

thrownthatway 5mo ago
Chernobyl happened, but it’s irrelevant to calculating risk for any other operational nuclear power reactor. That RMBK was built by those crazy Russians who thought it was reasonable to not even bother with a containment vessel / building.

WalterBright 5mo ago

The Fukushima disaster could have been averted simply by putting the backup electric generators on a platform, and venting the hydrogen gases outside.

mpweiher 5mo ago
Yes. Or not having your plant destroyed by the biggest Tsunami in recorded Japanese history, much larger than the size they planned for when they built the plant. Or upgrading the seawall to the size mandated after scientists found out that Tsunamis of that size could actually happen, despite having no historical record of them. One of the reasons TEPCO was culpable. A sister plant of the Fukushima plant actually survived a slightly higher crest and was even used as a shelter for Tsunami victims, because one engineer had insisted on the sea wall being higher. German plants for example, despite facing no immediate Tsunami risks, have bunkered and distributed backup generators as well as mandatory hydrogen recombinators. Any German plant at the same location would have survived largely unscathed.
- WalterBright 5mo ago
  A larger seawall can still fail. Better to put the generators on a platform. Simple and cheap. Another backup would have been a pipe leading away from the reactor, where one can, from a short distance, pump water into it and it would cool the reactor.
ViewTrick1002 5mo ago
Everything is "simple" with hindsight in mind. After SL-1 we realized that that we needed to allow a reactor to fully shut down even with the most important control rod stuck in a fully withdrawn position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1#Accident_and_response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1#Accident_and_response
- WalterBright 5mo ago
  > Everything is "simple" with hindsight in mind. The fixes are still simple and cost little. I used to work at Boeing on airliner design. The guiding principle is "what happens when X fails" and design for that. It is not "design so X cannot fail", as we do not know how to design things that cannot fail. For Fukushima, it is "what happens if the seawall fails", not "the seawall cannot fail". Airliners are safe not because critical parts cannot fail, but because there is a backup plan for every critical part. Venting explosive gas into the building seems like a complete failure to do a proper failure analysis.

pvaldes 5mo ago

Lets try to speak as adults about this. 1) There are at least 403 cases registered of Fukushima residents developing Thyroid cancers after 2011 and the study is still ongoing. This is five times the expected cancer ratio. Of those at least 155 cases of malignant cancers happened in children (Sokawa 2024). We know that thyroid cancers are rare among young people... except in one special place were a sudden increase in similar cases was registered since the 80's. This place is called Chernobyl. Children that lived in towns around Fukushima daichi where the accident happened have three times more probability of suffering thyroid cancer than children that lived in towns farther from the plant. 2) Not the strong excuse that it seems, after the company was warned by scientists about the possibility of such earthquake and the urgency to improve their safety measures. They had a lot of time to fix it, and did absolutely nothing

natmaka 5mo ago

> 1. Lead to basically zero direct deaths "Fukushima Daiichi Accident: Official figures show that there have been 2313 disaster-related deaths among evacuees from Fukushima prefecture. Disaster-related deaths are in addition to the about 19,500 that were killed by the earthquake or tsunami." According to the "World Nuclear Association" (mission: to facilitate the growth of the nuclear sector by connecting players across the value chain, representing the industry’s position in key world forums, and providing authoritative information and influencing key audiences) Source: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-sec...

tremon 5mo ago
It would be a good idea to actually read the source you're quoting to see if it supports your case. > 2313 disaster-related deaths among evacuees from Fukushima prefecture*, that were not due to radiation-induced damage or to the earthquake or to the tsunami, had been identified by the Japanese authorities. About 90% of deaths were for persons above 66 years of age. Of these, about 30% occurred within the first three months of the evacuations, and about 80% within two years. > The premature disaster-related deaths were mainly related to (i) physical and mental illness brought about by having to reside in shelters and the trauma of being forced to move from care settings and homes; and (ii) delays in obtaining needed medical support because of the enormous destruction caused by the earthquake and tsunami.
- natmaka 5mo ago
  If, instead of the nuclear power plant, Japan had deployed photovoltaic panels or wind turbines, the evacuation would not have been necessary and some of these people would have survived. According to the then Prime Minister nuclear experts announced to him, while the accident was unfolding, that "The reactors' accident could, in the worst case, have caused the evacuation of the entire population living within a radius of 250km, including Tokyo, a total of 50 million people" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naoto_Kan#In_media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naoto_Kan#In_media Only the three least powerful of the six reactors were in operation at the time of the accident. Reactor #4 was off and unloaded. Approximately 80% of the released cesium-137 (half-life: 30 years) was dispersed eastward by winds and deposited in the Pacific Ocean (far from human settlement), where the enormous volume of water and strong currents reduced its concentration. Other studies, such as those by Yasunari et al., confirm these undisputed facts, which are also accepted by nuclear agencies. The sole cleanup may cost up to 660bn USD ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident_cleanup#Costs_of_the_cleanup_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident_cle... ). To begin with.