4 ms·

> 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

> 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 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo ago
    [dead]
thrownthatway 6mo 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.
- peterfirefly 6mo ago
  Greenpeace lied a lot about it at the time, though. Maybe that's where it comes from. I wonder how much money it made Greenpeace. A million? Two million?

simondotau 6mo 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 6mo 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 6mo ago
  [dead]

thrownthatway 6mo 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.

peterfirefly 6mo ago
Greenpeace lied a lot about it at the time, though. Maybe that's where it comes from. I wonder how much money it made Greenpeace. A million? Two million?