5 ms·

Except you just have to look at Fukushima to see that things can still go badly wrong, resulting in a meltdown of 3 reactors. And this happened in arguably one

by damian2000 12y ago

Except you just have to look at Fukushima to see that things can still go badly wrong, resulting in a meltdown of 3 reactors. And this happened in arguably one of the most tightly regulated and technologically advanced countries in the world.

Turing_Machine 12y ago
1) Massive earthquake, followed by 2) Tsunami, followed by, 3) Complete loss of power to all control systems, followed by, 4) Gas explosions and core meltdown. Pretty much the worst possible scenario, and yet no member of the general public was killed from radiation exposure. Just how safe do you want something to be?
- ekianjo 12y ago
  If it still survives 5) terrorist plane crash on the core, 6) Meteor impact, maybe people will feel a little less paranoid about nuclear energy :) I agree with your comment, I'm constantly baffled by people who claim Nuclear Power is not safe.
ekianjo 12y ago
I live in Japan and I don't consider that the outcome was as catastrophic as the media said it was (they are always ready to jump on the apocalyptic trigger). Everything went wrong (even the backup generators as they were blown away by the tsunami) and it was still reasonably contained and the levels of ambient contamination are nowhere as high as they initially predicted. EDIT: > most tightly regulated and technologically advanced countries in the world. Let's drop this kind of argument here, there are many things which are not technologically advanced at all in Japan. Like the fact you can't even use a credit card to pay in most places. This is really old.
- XorNot 12y ago
  Also if there's any lesson here, it's that government intransigence is the real threat here. They don't want to build new reactors, they don't want to shut down old ones, but they still need electricity too. And of course consider the scale - something like 8,000 people died from that tsunami. Oil refineries burned for hours (how much heavy metal got dumped into the ocean and soil?)...how many people did Fukushima actually kill?
  - ekianjo 12y ago
    > how many people did Fukushima actually kill? Hey, we already know the answer. No-one. Not even the guys who went and exposed themselves to high doses of radiation to keep the reactor under control. And people who may have been contaminated are being strictly followed for potential leukemia and other cancers. Following the events, I'd say the risks regarding the nuclear power were relatively well managed.
  - justincormack 12y ago
    No, there are other lessons too. Read the official report.[1] "For all the extensive detail it provides, what this report cannot fully convey – especially to a global audience – is the mindset that supported the negligence behind this disaster. What must be admitted – very painfully – is that this was a disaster “Made in Japan.” Its fundamental causes are to be found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture: our reflexive obedience; our reluctance to question authority; our devotion to ‘sticking with the program’; our groupism; and our insularity. [1] https://www.nirs.org/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf https://www.nirs.org/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf
- Natsu 12y ago
  > Let's drop this kind of argument here, there are many things which are not technologically advanced at all in Japan. Like the fact you can't even use a credit card to pay in most places. This is really old. More salient is the fact that the country has two different electric standards in different parts of the country, as this contributed directly to the problem.
prestadige 12y ago
Wrong, perhaps, but 'badly' wrong? Despite the accident, building Fukushima saved lives and reduced atmospheric pollution relative to other power sources. Part of the reason we haven't improved reactor designs as rapidly as we should is due to irrational fears surrounding nuclear power. In other words, such fears have to some extent been a self-fulfilling prophecy.
- idlewords 12y ago
  The fears aren't so irrational. They reflect the fact that we don't know how to assess and manage risk over the kinds of timescales required to safely handle nuclear waste.
  - Turing_Machine 12y ago
    After a couple of hundred years the waste is no more radioactive than the ore from which it came. Although the fear-mongers never mention this,"long half-life" means "less radioactive". By definition.
rurounijones 12y ago
Except you just have to look at Onagawa to see that things can still go exactly right. http://thebulletin.org/onagawa-japanese-nuclear-power-plant-didn%E2%80%99t-melt-down-311 http://thebulletin.org/onagawa-japanese-nuclear-power-plant-... The cause of Fukushima was complete and utter corporate (at TEPCO) and regulatory failure. I would argue against "tightly regulated"; on paper it may be, but in practice it obviously was not or we wouldn't have been in this situation in the first place.

Turing_Machine 12y ago

1) Massive earthquake, followed by 2) Tsunami, followed by, 3) Complete loss of power to all control systems, followed by, 4) Gas explosions and core meltdown. Pretty much the worst possible scenario, and yet no member of the general public was killed from radiation exposure. Just how safe do you want something to be?

ekianjo 12y ago
If it still survives 5) terrorist plane crash on the core, 6) Meteor impact, maybe people will feel a little less paranoid about nuclear energy :) I agree with your comment, I'm constantly baffled by people who claim Nuclear Power is not safe.

ekianjo 12y ago

I live in Japan and I don't consider that the outcome was as catastrophic as the media said it was (they are always ready to jump on the apocalyptic trigger). Everything went wrong (even the backup generators as they were blown away by the tsunami) and it was still reasonably contained and the levels of ambient contamination are nowhere as high as they initially predicted. EDIT: > most tightly regulated and technologically advanced countries in the world. Let's drop this kind of argument here, there are many things which are not technologically advanced at all in Japan. Like the fact you can't even use a credit card to pay in most places. This is really old.

XorNot 12y ago
Also if there's any lesson here, it's that government intransigence is the real threat here. They don't want to build new reactors, they don't want to shut down old ones, but they still need electricity too. And of course consider the scale - something like 8,000 people died from that tsunami. Oil refineries burned for hours (how much heavy metal got dumped into the ocean and soil?)...how many people did Fukushima actually kill?
- ekianjo 12y ago
  > how many people did Fukushima actually kill? Hey, we already know the answer. No-one. Not even the guys who went and exposed themselves to high doses of radiation to keep the reactor under control. And people who may have been contaminated are being strictly followed for potential leukemia and other cancers. Following the events, I'd say the risks regarding the nuclear power were relatively well managed.
- justincormack 12y ago
  No, there are other lessons too. Read the official report.[1] "For all the extensive detail it provides, what this report cannot fully convey – especially to a global audience – is the mindset that supported the negligence behind this disaster. What must be admitted – very painfully – is that this was a disaster “Made in Japan.” Its fundamental causes are to be found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture: our reflexive obedience; our reluctance to question authority; our devotion to ‘sticking with the program’; our groupism; and our insularity. [1] https://www.nirs.org/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf https://www.nirs.org/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf
Natsu 12y ago
> Let's drop this kind of argument here, there are many things which are not technologically advanced at all in Japan. Like the fact you can't even use a credit card to pay in most places. This is really old. More salient is the fact that the country has two different electric standards in different parts of the country, as this contributed directly to the problem.

prestadige 12y ago

Wrong, perhaps, but 'badly' wrong? Despite the accident, building Fukushima saved lives and reduced atmospheric pollution relative to other power sources. Part of the reason we haven't improved reactor designs as rapidly as we should is due to irrational fears surrounding nuclear power. In other words, such fears have to some extent been a self-fulfilling prophecy.

idlewords 12y ago
The fears aren't so irrational. They reflect the fact that we don't know how to assess and manage risk over the kinds of timescales required to safely handle nuclear waste.
- Turing_Machine 12y ago
  After a couple of hundred years the waste is no more radioactive than the ore from which it came. Although the fear-mongers never mention this,"long half-life" means "less radioactive". By definition.

rurounijones 12y ago

Except you just have to look at Onagawa to see that things can still go exactly right. http://thebulletin.org/onagawa-japanese-nuclear-power-plant-didn%E2%80%99t-melt-down-311 http://thebulletin.org/onagawa-japanese-nuclear-power-plant-... The cause of Fukushima was complete and utter corporate (at TEPCO) and regulatory failure. I would argue against "tightly regulated"; on paper it may be, but in practice it obviously was not or we wouldn't have been in this situation in the first place.