3 ms·

That appears to be an accident handling the output of an isotope manufacturing reactor, not anything involving a power reactor. > I would argue that there need

by bcoates 13y ago

That appears to be an accident handling the output of an isotope manufacturing reactor, not anything involving a power reactor. > I would argue that there needs to be a significant improvement before fission is publicly acceptable. I would argue that fission is already held to a standard well above that of almost any human endeavor, even those with roughly similar risk profiles (compare almost any form of mining, or the shipping of hazardous cargo by rail)

nikatwork 13y ago
> That appears to be an accident handling the output of an isotope manufacturing reactor, not anything involving a power reactor. That is irrelevant to my point, which is that the biggest risk to reactor safety with current fission tech is human error and negligence. > compare almost any form of mining The only form of mining comparable in terms of potential environmental damage is ocean oil drilling[1], which I also oppose. The point is - human nature (re: greedy and negligent idiots) makes current reactor tech unsafe. The potential fallout (pun intended) is not worth the significant risk. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill
- dekhn 13y ago
  If your technology has reached the point where human error and negligence is the primary source of risk, you've succeeded. That is the goal of producing all reliable technologies. Of course, at that point, your system design primarily exists to prevent human errors from causing harm (for example, yesterday there was a news report that a Fukushima cleanup worker managed to engage a pump that would dump a bunch of radioactive water in the wrong place. He was saved by a backup system.")
  - nikatwork 13y ago
    > If your technology has reached the point where human error and negligence is the primary source of risk, you've succeeded. If all it takes is one earthquake or distracted technician to potentially vaporize a suburb, then your tech has not yet succeeded. Safety regimes to minimize human error are great, but time and time again they are bypassed due to greed, negligence and idiocy. The Fukushima backup system you mention is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about - but they need to be comprehensive, redundant, and responsibly audited (the part that scares me the most).
pjc50 13y ago
The problem with fission is that its disasters are very hard to clean up. Mine collapses or fossil fuel fires are brief events. Most chemical spills either break down, are neutralised, or diluted to harmlessness (although far from all, see the various Superfund sites). Fission disasters tend to emit nasty metals that are bioaccumulative, don't break down in a short timeframe and may be airborne or waterborne. (Having said that, it looks like Bhopal was worse than Chernobyl for harm, and the chemical industry is still in business)

by bcoates 13y ago

nikatwork 13y ago

> That appears to be an accident handling the output of an isotope manufacturing reactor, not anything involving a power reactor. That is irrelevant to my point, which is that the biggest risk to reactor safety with current fission tech is human error and negligence. > compare almost any form of mining The only form of mining comparable in terms of potential environmental damage is ocean oil drilling[1], which I also oppose. The point is - human nature (re: greedy and negligent idiots) makes current reactor tech unsafe. The potential fallout (pun intended) is not worth the significant risk. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill

dekhn 13y ago
If your technology has reached the point where human error and negligence is the primary source of risk, you've succeeded. That is the goal of producing all reliable technologies. Of course, at that point, your system design primarily exists to prevent human errors from causing harm (for example, yesterday there was a news report that a Fukushima cleanup worker managed to engage a pump that would dump a bunch of radioactive water in the wrong place. He was saved by a backup system.")
- nikatwork 13y ago
  > If your technology has reached the point where human error and negligence is the primary source of risk, you've succeeded. If all it takes is one earthquake or distracted technician to potentially vaporize a suburb, then your tech has not yet succeeded. Safety regimes to minimize human error are great, but time and time again they are bypassed due to greed, negligence and idiocy. The Fukushima backup system you mention is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about - but they need to be comprehensive, redundant, and responsibly audited (the part that scares me the most).

pjc50 13y ago

The problem with fission is that its disasters are very hard to clean up. Mine collapses or fossil fuel fires are brief events. Most chemical spills either break down, are neutralised, or diluted to harmlessness (although far from all, see the various Superfund sites). Fission disasters tend to emit nasty metals that are bioaccumulative, don't break down in a short timeframe and may be airborne or waterborne. (Having said that, it looks like Bhopal was worse than Chernobyl for harm, and the chemical industry is still in business)