Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kaijyuu]

Still causes less damage and loss of human life than burning coal does.

[Sheb]

Yeah, in exchange for all its nuclear power, Japan saw its death toll from the 2011 Tsunami rise from 15,883 to 15,884 (Some old worker in Fukushima died of an heat stroke because of working too hard in a radiation suit).

[10ebbor10]

To be fair, you can probably add another 20-100 people to that. (Not sure how many worked in the nuclear power plant, but those guys did get pretty high dosages).

Besides, it's pretty interesting for marine biology. Nuclear traces make it quite easy to trace migrations.

[Sheb]

Well, they haven't died yet. Maybe some will, but then even Chernobyl, which was terribly managed, you only had a fraction of the death toll coal kills every single year.

[10ebbor10]

Fukushima was badly designed too. I mean, who decided it was a good idea to put the back up generators for a coastal reactor in an area known for it's earthquakes (and tsunami's) in the basement. Without that flaw, nothing would've happened.

[Max White]

I think this is less of 'nuclear power is inherently bad' and more of 'under funding your infrastructure to the point where it becomes susceptible to disasters is inherently bad'
Plan and pay carefully for your worst case situation, and these things become a lot less of an issue.


Also, just to add to the pond song, still better than coal.

[10ebbor10]

And better than oil. Maybe gas too, but I'm not sure of that. Haven't been that many major gas explosions, IIRC.

[alexandertnt]

I think this is less of 'nuclear power is inherently bad' and more of 'under funding your infrastructure to the point where it becomes susceptible to disasters is inherently bad'
Plan and pay carefully for your worst case situation, and these things become a lot less of an issue.


Also, just to add to the pond song, still better than coal.

Those buildings/reactors were built to be (and were) extremely durable and heavily resistant to damage.
I think it was less an issue with underfunding infrastructure, and more an issue with derpy management ("Lets build a reactor in an earthquake, tsunami prone area and put the backup equiptment in an area vunerable to flooding", "Great Idea! *approved*")

Still better than coal .

[10ebbor10]

They survived a shock 45000 times stronger than what they were designed for (Richter is a logarithmic scale) without core nor coolant damage. I mean, if the automated shutdown hadn't interfered they probably could've continued running without extensive problems.

Edit: Added additional zeroes.

[Skyrunner]

Anti-nuclear people always focus on the fact that it failed. Never mind the fact that even despite the stupid problem of backup generators being forced offline, nor that the plant withstood 45 times the safety standards it was supposed to withstand...

Also, rumors spread about the core burning through the earth to the other side of the world (so-called 'Chinese Syndrome) is so stupid it makes me rage-y. Kinda tangential but yeah. Some other reactor meltdown started up a couple mm towards the center of the earth before it froze.

[Max White]

Wait... So you mean to imply that people think the core will bore a molten hole through the earth and come out the other side?
You know, I don't think that paper was peer reviewed!

While nuclear power is something that can be done wrong, with horrific repercussions, that doesn't mean we should just dismiss as an invisible evil that will mutate your children.

[10ebbor10]

Besides, a core melting to the earth isn't bad. I mean, it's one problem less you have to worry about. A melting core hitting an aquifer, now that gets interesting.

Besides, the Fukushima plant has been involved in some degrees of corruption. Changes to the design which caused one of the other emergency cooling systems to fail (Steam condenser), Falsifying inspections of critical equipment, not inspecting emergencies generators, ignoring studies even after the emergency generator room flooded and completely submerged.

[alexandertnt]

I think the word "Nuclear" has become the technological equivelant of the political word "Communist" when used in argument against something.

[10ebbor10]

Yes it has. It's best seen when you read green arguments against nuclear fusion.

Same reason the ITER was renamed. Used to be an abbreviation for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. Turned out that name didn't help in ensuring public trust.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Technically not renamed, they just started using the acronym literally. Still a good name, though.

My only problem with fusion is that it probably won't be much good in the actual energy crisis, as the roadmap puts DEMO coming online in the 2050s even if both it and ITER go well. Beyond that you'll have to add on another 10-20 years for the 1st generation commercial reactors. By that point we're probably either dead or running off of renewables and refined fission already.