What's wrong with nuclear energy?

[Tuor]

zero deaths have been attributed to Fukushima.

Except the guys that went there to prevent it from blowing up, they already knew they would die because of radiation. .

[Chrysia]

Except the guys that went there to prevent it from blowing up, they already knew they would die because of radiation. .

Except zero of them died from radiation poisoning.

Also, nuclear reactors can't "blow up" unless the water containment fails, resulting in a steam explosion.

[caervek]

No, that is definitely a fluke. It was the perfect storm of poor design and human idiocy.

Yeah, so basically the exact opposite of a fluke lol. There was nothing surprising or unlucky about it, it was the exact predictable outcome form the mistakes made.

- - - Updated - - -

Except the guys that went there to prevent it from blowing up, they already knew they would die because of radiation. .

You're thinking of Chernobyl.

[Yvaelle]

Chernobyl was a fluke, zero deaths have been attributed to Fukushima.

Not a fluke, Chernobyl is exactly what a meltdown looks like when it overheats and containment is breached - it's not pretty at all.

Fukushima got the exact same rating as Chernobyl (7 on the INES scale), but the critical difference was it was predominantly contained within the facility due to the rapid and overwhelming response by Japan (they knew immediately it was a 7). They evacuated the area, provided medication to help prevent radiation poisoning to everyone near the facility, etc.

Deaths will be atttributed to Fukushima, but they aren't the rapid kind that Chernobyl had, because rather than trying to play it off like nothing as wrong at the reactor and failing to immediately evacuate and take every precaution (USSR in response to Chernobyl), Japan had better technology and the right response (immediate evacuation and take every precaution to prevent spread). There will still be deadly levels of radiation that will hit some people - but it will result in increased risks of cancer that reveal itself years later and etc, not sudden lethal radiation exposure.

Chernobyl was no fluke, and neither was Fukushima. Chernobyl was incorrectly constructed, human error, and the worst response (ignore the problem). Fukushima was an outdated reactor design, that was past its intended lifespan, which was then hit by a 9.0 earthquake and a 15 metre tsunami at the same time. Both were detectable and preventable accidents in advance of what happened.

[IntellectuallyChallenged]

There's nothing at all wrong with nuclear power. Until you put it in the hands of human beings. We are a dangerous and irresponsible species. Maybe it would be better if dolphins were in charge of these kinds of things.

[caervek]

Fukushima got the exact same rating as Chernobyl (7 on the INES scale)

Although the Fukushima incident gets a Chernobyl grade level 7 rating the score is inflated because the plant had simultaneous incidents at multiple reactors (three level 5 incidents and one level 3) so they chose just to tally up one score for the whole plant which isn't representative of reality. The three level 5 incidents are comparable to Three Mile Island not Chernobyl and the fourth incident is of minor concern.

[Shadowferal]

Fukushima got the exact same rating as Chernobyl (7 on the INES scale), but the critical difference was it was predominantly contained within the facility due to the rapid and overwhelming response by Japan (they knew immediately it was a 7). They evacuated the area, provided medication to help prevent radiation poisoning to everyone near the facility, etc.

"Overwhelming response?"
I believe that there was plenty of criticism in the lack of quick response:

The Investigation Committee issued an interim report in December 2011, and is expected to issue its final report summer, 2012. The interim report was "a scathing assessment of the response to the Fukushima disaster", in which the investigative panel "blamed the central government and the Tokyo Electric Power Co., saying both seemed incapable of making decisions to stem radiation leaks as the situation at the coastal plant worsened in the days and weeks after the disaster".[42]

In February 2012, an independent investigation into the accident by the Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation said that "In the darkest moments of last year's nuclear accident, Japanese leaders did not know the actual extent of damage at the plant and secretly considered the possibility of evacuating Tokyo, even as they tried to play down the risks in public". The government was preparing for the possibility of having to evacuate Tokyo while assuring its millions of residents that everything was under control.

[Nathanyel]

There's nothing at all wrong with nuclear power. Until you put it in the hands of human beings. We are a dangerous and irresponsible species. Maybe it would be better if dolphins were in charge of these kinds of things.

True, but we've already done way more harm with each of the following: Overhunting/fishing, Deforestation, CFCs, general industrial waste...

As a power source, fission is indeed relatively 'clean', it's mostly the thought of the absolute worst-case scenario (against which there are countless countermeasures) and, well, maybe The Simpsons...

[IntellectuallyChallenged]

True, but we've already done way more harm with each of the following: Overhunting/fishing, Deforestation, CFCs, general industrial waste...

All true, so no need to pile on. But we will.

[Shadowferal]

True, but we've already done way more harm with each of the following: Overhunting/fishing, Deforestation, CFCs, general industrial waste...

So...lets add to the problem?

[Nathanyel]

I'm not saying we shouldn't invest in wind, solar etc., quite the contrary. But in the long run, nuclear is far cleaner than gas&oil, which for many seem to be preferable stepping stones towards actual clean power.

[Noradin]

2 things.

A. they can explode. > Chernobyl, or like in japan where the reactor got broken by earthquake.
B. The waste. The waste is more dangerous then you think. And i think it has a half-life of 10.000 years or something like that.

Ragarding A: That is due to politics and picking the design the French came up with after WWII.
Ragarding B: That, too, is due to politics and a combination of no funding for the technology that gets rid of the waste and due to logistic issues (demonstrations, not wanting to put all 10 fission reactors one of those that get rid of the waste would need to work effectively next to each other).

[Nathanyel]

The demonstrations against waste transports are what baffles me the most. The waste already exists, it has to go somewhere. You may protest where it goes, how it's handled, argue for more funding of research to reduce/recycle the waste, but you can't do anything against the already existing waste by lying on rail tracks, keeping that radioactive waste away from storage sites specifically designed to contain the radioactivity better than the wagons you're delaying.

[alexw]

There's nothing at all wrong with nuclear power. Until you put it in the hands of human beings. We are a dangerous and irresponsible species. Maybe it would be better if dolphins were in charge of these kinds of things.

And this is the issue. Humans take risks and cut corners. It's ingrained in our species and is not something that we can change. Now that's OK for many things, because if as a species we never took risks then we would never have developed beyond cavemen. But when it comes to something as earth-shatteringly dangerous when mishandled as nuclear power, then us humans using it is like leaving a box of matches where your 5 year old can get at them. 99 times out of 100 nothing serious will happen but that 1 other time he/she will burn your house down. We've had two house burnings up to yet and there will inevitably be more as we continue to use this power source.

[Shadowferal]

The demonstrations against waste transports are what baffles me the most. The waste already exists, it has to go somewhere. You may protest where it goes, how it's handled, argue for more funding of research to reduce/recycle the waste, but you can't do anything against the already existing waste by lying on rail tracks, keeping that radioactive waste away from storage sites specifically designed to contain the radioactivity better than the wagons you're delaying.

Sounds like waste is part of the problem.

Another is the "safety myth."
It's inevitable. And that's when the shit hits the fan.

[Wythel]

Ragarding A: That is due to politics and picking the design the French came up with after WWII.
Ragarding B: That, too, is due to politics and a combination of no funding for the technology that gets rid of the waste and due to logistic issues (demonstrations, not wanting to put all 10 fission reactors one of those that get rid of the waste would need to work effectively next to each other).

You mean "not" picking french design ?

Tchernobyl was a soviet RBMK type plant.
Fukushima's are from General Electric design, BWR types.

[Sinyc]

Moreso I wanted to see responses and reactions to her words before I posted the author of the original quote (those aren't my views on nuclear). Internet is too fast for me it seems.

Yeah don't do that. And if you are going to do it anyway, use a good source... not Jill Stein.

[Slant]

God, the Green Crusaders got even Slant.

We bury nuclear waste in underground repositories that are built in such a way that the waste threatens absolutely nothing, and in worst case, threatens a bunch of rock that harbors no life. By the way, we wont sit on it for hundreds of years. Or thousands. Or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands. Millions of years. Wanna know how long uranium's been on Earth? Billions of years. You have uranium in your garden, Slant. If you have a garden, that is.

I know all that. I don't care about the shit we bury these days. I care about people going around saying "It's no problem, no really, we'll just bury it somewhere deep!" until they figure out that whole regions are undermined. We've had cases in the Ruhr area (lots of coal mining used to happen there), where entire streets just sunk into the earth because some forgotten mine decided to finally collapse.

Mining is a necessity, but hey, let's limit it a little bit, okay? Especially when we can sustain ourselves without going nuclear just fine. I don't mind nuclear supplementing the renewable sector as it does indeed have the highest reliability vs. cost vs. value ratio. But I think it's smart to bet on renewable as the main energy producer than nuclear shit.

Another feature would be that nuclear production facilities can be limited and you don't have ever idiot building an enrichment facility (that can be abused for military purposes... yeah I know, the regular nuclear enrichment process isn't good enough for actual nuclear weapons, but it's good enough to produce dirty bombs. And they're very ugly beasts, too...)

[Bathory]

use a good source... not Jill Stein.

Well that was the point, the focus being on Jill Stein herself. I'm not quoting her as a source, I'm quoting her as a terrible presidential candidate. I see her posted as the "real" third party candidate, and this is her? Nothanks.

[kail]

I'm curious of those who are against nuclear energy because of the "risks", what they think of air travel.