Print

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

[Heron TSG]

Also people pointing out that the odds of chernobyl happening again are kinda forgetting what happened last year, yes different circumstances, but the result was still 50% as much radiation released.
I had some useful point here but i can't remember it.

No, not different circumstances. Both of them were plants that were not properly built. There's a reason why the head nuclear-guy of Japan stepped down. The people in charge of inspecting the sea wall for this eventually decided to cut costs by postponing the inspection repeatedly for years. The safety system of the plant was not secure, just as it was not secure at Chernobyl. That's the only plant that went belly-up in the whole tsunami, even though there are dozens along the Pacific coastline. Why? The other ones, even those closer to the epicenter, had their safety systems in top condition. Had the errors been found and the plant turned off until the repairs could be made, there would have been no disaster. As it stands, laziness cost hundreds of people their lives.

I'm just pissed off that everyone is running screaming from nuclear power because of this even though it's the lack of funding they're giving it that's causing all the problems they're afraid of.

[Aqizzar]

I'm just pissed off that everyone is running screaming from nuclear power because of this even though it's the lack of funding they're giving it that's causing all the problems they're afraid of.

While certainly true, some of it is just plain error and problems.  California is America's leader in nuclear power, and has had more than one incident of top engineers making critical mistakes, like installing a cooling system backwards.  Likewise is California's problem especially that they keep finding new fault lines in areas they thought were safe, after building a reactor.

Certainly most of the problems facing American nuclear power can be blamed on the effect of fear on their government management, such as refusing to build more plants so the power grid has to keep relying on existing plants working years past their design date.  The nuclear power industry shares a lot of blame in that of course; make no mistake, there's a lot of money being made on skimping nuclear safety.

[palsch]

I think the perception of nuclear accidents is off as well.

The total death count at Fukushima and all other nuclear plants in Japan during or since the earthquake is six. One of those was a worker (at another site) trapped in a crane when the tsunami hit and another two were swept away. One died of a heart attack during the cleanup. One died of leukaemia in August after working at the site for one week; no way that could have been caused by the radiation. One has died since of an undisclosed medical condition, but his radiation exposure was disclosed and was tiny compared to safe limits (2.02 millisieverts; roughly the same as a mammogram spread over 46 days).

I'd guess a few of the workers, particularly the 50 who were sent into a high radiation zone early on, might develop cancers later. The increased risk for most is very small though. I've seen one estimate suggesting there might be as many as two early deaths among workers due to the experienced radiation exposure. And that's over their lifetimes.

220,000 people were screened with no adverse health effects detected. While there are increased radiation levels in the local area, they are not high enough to predict an increase in cancers. The peak background is a bit over 20 millisieverts per year. There are a few places on earth with background rates dwarfing this without any signs of increased cancers.

All in all I'd be surprised if the total death toll for the nuclear industry from this disaster breaks double figures.

That is, in human terms it was less lethal than this disaster in Texas. Unless you start counting stress induced illness due to media hype and lack of understanding of radiation. Oh, and the costs of spending millions in excess anti-radiation efforts while other areas of reconstruction and relief are underfunded, leaving people without the resources they need in areas where their infrastructure was wiped out.

[RedKing]

This is nothing compared to the Great Cheese Spill of '47.

[Pnx]

This is nothing compared to the Great Cheese Spill of '47.

Not to be confused with the Goat Cheese Spill of '78.

We still experienced heightened rates of heart disease from the cholesterol contamination in the water supply..

[MarcAFK]

Allthough that plant was producing 7 times the energy of fukishima and has done so for about 80 years, i wonder how many other accidents it's had in it's lifetime.

[Zrk2]

Don't you just fucking hate the human fear of the unknown?

And also the human laziness that leads to them never developing an understanding of those things?

[scriver]

YYou mean people's adversity to nuclearity? That's fear of the known, Zrk. They've seen what can happen and that is what scares them. Even if the chances are small.

[ein]

No, it's still fear of the unknown~
They don't understand it and, as stated, are assessing the risks poorly~

[nenjin]

I'd say the people around Fukushima understand it pretty damn well.

[scriver]

People around Chernobyl as well. Oh, wait, nobody lives there any more.

Like I said, they aren't afraid "because they don't understand" it, they are afraid because they've seen what happen when things do go wrong, and will understandably continue to be afraid of that happening where they live despite how small the chances might be of it happening. This, once again, is fear of the known. That that fear makes them act "un-rationally" and assess the situation poorly does not make it less so.