Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   Nuclear accidents show that nuclear power is safe   (forbes.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Chernobyl disaster, Nuclear power, Three Mile Island accident, Nuclear safety, nuclear plant, Radioactive contamination, Fukushima Daiichi, Japanese government  
•       •       •

622 clicks; posted to Geek » on 13 Mar 2019 at 3:50 PM (10 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



29 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2019-03-13 03:56:09 PM  
I pointed out yesterday that just building hydroelectric dams is dangerous.

Really, nuke needs to be a part of a broad energy plan. Wind isn't the answer. Solar isn't the answer. Wind and solar together aren't the answer. A plan with a mix of these three, plus a few more like geothermal and tidal generation, OTOH is the answer. And we might as well add hydro power in there as well, although I'd love to remove all of the dams that are farking up the rivers. But we get drinking water from those reservoirs, too, so we might as well use the hydro power as well...
 
2019-03-13 03:57:25 PM  

Mikey1969: I pointed out yesterday that just building hydroelectric dams is dangerous.


Climbing down out of the tree in the morning is dangerous.
 
2019-03-13 04:04:22 PM  
In some sense this is true.

Before you go off, here me out.

Some problems are to be expected of course, but as long as they aren't the "Big
One", then they show precisely how safety programs can help protect us, even if someone
complains that there are too many accidents.  Most of which you and I will never hear
about because it's unnecessary.  After all, most don't involve any danger to the public.
Forbes is doing a real service here, I think, and I want to thank subby for providing the
link.
 
2019-03-13 04:10:27 PM  
Whoever turned the People magazine of the 1% into a serious science divulgation website deserves a Pulitzer. Ol' Steve is doing good work here.
 
2019-03-13 04:12:56 PM  

Mikey1969: Really, nuke needs to be a part of a broad dame energy plan.


Dames hate it when you call them broads.
 
2019-03-13 04:13:17 PM  

dittybopper: In some sense this is true.

Before you go off, here me out.

Some problems are to be expected of course, but as long as they aren't the "Big
One", then they show precisely how safety programs can help protect us, even if someone
complains that there are too many accidents.  Most of which you and I will never hear
about because it's unnecessary.  After all, most don't involve any danger to the public.
Forbes is doing a real service here, I think, and I want to thank subby for providing the
link.


I was going to post something almost exactly like this.

.....and this

Mikey1969: I pointed out yesterday that just building hydroelectric dams is dangerous.

Really, nuke needs to be a part of a broad energy plan. Wind isn't the answer. Solar isn't the answer. Wind and solar together aren't the answer. A plan with a mix of these three, plus a few more like geothermal and tidal generation, OTOH is the answer. And we might as well add hydro power in there as well, although I'd love to remove all of the dams that are farking up the rivers. But we get drinking water from those reservoirs, too, so we might as well use the hydro power as well...


With some of the other articles linked in the last few months, I'm definately starting to view Forbes as a pretty decent source of actual interesting pieces to read.
 
2019-03-13 04:14:34 PM  
It would be great if we had less complicated alternatives, but for baseline power you need huge turbines.  Now that means fossil fuels or nuclear, and pumping carbon into the atmosphere is more dangerous than nuclear.

We're a lot closer to getting off fossil fuel electricity than I think most realize. California was already at 56 percent carbon neutral in 2017 (44% natural gas / 56% solar/wind/hydro/nuclear)
 
2019-03-13 04:15:27 PM  

Aviron: I was going to post something almost exactly like this.


No, I don't think you were.

In some sense this is true.
Before you go off, here me out.
Some problems are to be expected of course, but as long as they aren't the "Big
One", then they show precisely how safety programs can help protect us, even if someone
complains that there are too many accidents.  Most of which you and I will never hear
about because it's unnecessary.  After all, most don't involve any danger to the public.
Forbes is doing a real service here, I think, and I want to thank subby for providing the
link.
 
2019-03-13 04:19:07 PM  
Accidents aren't safe, but we wouldn't need many, and we could build them in low-income areas.
66.media.tumblr.comView Full Size
 
2019-03-13 04:21:17 PM  
LMAO! If only there where more funnies to give.

dittybopper: Mikey1969: Really, nuke needs to be a part of a broad dame energy plan.

Dames hate it when you call them broads.


Also: Broads hate it when you call them chicks. AIDIR?
 
2019-03-13 04:34:34 PM  
Fukushima was a legitimate disaster where everything failed and shiat got dangerously contaminated in a wide radius.  It was a disaster that was only kept below the union carbide level of failure by emergency response being on the ball.  Like... it was an actual modern plant built to real human standards and it still failed.

Chernobyl happened because Russians under Stalinism were shiat at science, shiat at engineering, and actively averse to both worker safety and basic common sense.  The plant's design specs did not remotely resemble anything that anyone from any other nuclear-capable nation in history would have called a power-plant; even their level of enrichment and lack of redundancies to deal with overheat alone made it more technologically in kind with a bomb.  So honestly... hard to count that one as a "nuclear power" disaster in a discussion of power generation as it's done in developed nations with a scientific and engineering community that, like... exists.

Three-mile island... wasn't a failure at all, meltdown was stopped by the standard redundancies, the only leak was a vent into a large body of water at a concentration that wasn't particularly dangerous even near the plant (the thing being on an island was part of the safety protocol), and the only part of it that might potentially have actually harmed anyone is if the interruption of power messed up other equipment-- that is to say, they might have been harmed by the electricity outage, but couldn't possibly have been harmed by the direct effects of the incident itself.  Presenting a completely successful shutdown to deal with an issue as evidence that something is unsafe is a troll argument on the level of those memes where trollface drives a car by pulling it with a magnet on a fishing rod or whatever, and it only got traction as a "disaster" because Insane Troll Logic is pretty much the only mode that certain corrupt politicians with ulterior motives (*coughTedKennedycough*) had when it came to nuclear power.

So picking those three examples kind of... runs the entire spectrum of relevancy and legitimacy, there.  All the way from "yeah, that genuinely demonstrates your claimed point" to "wait, whichposition were you supposed to be arguing?  Because I think you're doing the wrong one, man".

... oh, well, par for the course for Forbes on anything science-ish, I guess.
 
2019-03-13 04:36:35 PM  
Americans are a people who fear contamination from nuclear waste that's stored in casks in a on-site vault and who don't think twice about sitting in traffic with the windows down on the way to and from work every day.
 
2019-03-13 04:58:13 PM  
In before Solar and Wind are better.
 
2019-03-13 04:59:10 PM  

Jubeebee: Americans are a people who fear contamination from nuclear waste that's stored in casks in a on-site vault and who don't think twice about sitting in traffic with the windows down on the way to and from work every day.


To be fair, we have Hollywood and our government to blame.

Hollywood loves disaster movies for good reason, they're fun to watch. So we started with "nuclear '_______' causes '________' to grow big and become dangerous" movies. Think Them!, Attack of the 50-Foot Woman, Tarantula, etc. When that got old, they switched to movies like Silkwood, The Day After, even Terminator. Next, they decided to make a bunch of "What do we really know about those damned reds?" movies filled with paranoia, like Dr Strangelove, Crimson Tide, The Hunt for Red October, and so on. Then we had movies like War Games that asked the question "How can we fark our own selves up?". These all had nuclear radiation as the real bad guy.

And before you think that I'm only bagging on Hollywood, the American government is complicit too. We had 40 years or so of Cold War paranoia where we were told repeatedly that the Soviet Union was one mouse fart away from raining nuclear hell down upon us, pretty much on a daily basis.

Add to that the environmental claims. Normally, those would be in the background like the usually are, but with all of the other stuff I mentioned, America was terrified, so those got amplified as well.

Put it all together, and people are freaked out about nuclear power, but they live every day in that traffic, and see nothing happening. Besides, I don't know what you think rolling up your windows is going to do. Is your car hermetically sealed?
 
2019-03-13 05:08:30 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Fukushima was a legitimate disaster where everything failed and shiat got dangerously contaminated in a wide radius.  It was a disaster that was only kept below the union carbide level of failure by emergency response being on the ball.  Like... it was an actual modern plant built to real human standards and it still failed.


Fukushima was a disaster that was unplanned for. They were protected from an earthquake. They were protected from a tsunami. They weren't, on the other hand, protected from a major earthquake, immediately followed by a tsunami. I bet that planning is built in moving forward.
 
2019-03-13 05:17:37 PM  
The point here is that nuclear power is, statistically, quite safe, even factoring in the accidents that have happened in other Western power plants run by sane people (Chernobyl was basically a Soviet version of "Hold my beer and watch this!").

Now, considering the massive cost over runs and delays on the two nuclear power plants currently under construction in the US (seriously, they are holes in the ground where you throw money into), one could argue that they don't make sense from a fiscal standpoint, at least not using American laws and labor rates and safety rules and the like.

/actually, only one is still under construction, they gave up building the other one in 2017 after spending billions of dollars on it
 
2019-03-13 05:20:13 PM  

Mikey1969: Jim_Callahan: Fukushima was a legitimate disaster where everything failed and shiat got dangerously contaminated in a wide radius.  It was a disaster that was only kept below the union carbide level of failure by emergency response being on the ball.  Like... it was an actual modern plant built to real human standards and it still failed.

Fukushima was a disaster that was unplanned for. They were protected from an earthquake. They were protected from a tsunami. They weren't, on the other hand, protected from a major earthquake, immediately followed by a tsunami. I bet that planning is built in moving forward.


Of course, the fact that earthquakes cause tsunamis never occurred to anybody?

IIRC, the real problem with Fukushima was that the back up diesel generators were placed in an area where they would get flooded (the basement), as opposed to on the roof, so they failed, so the containment systems they ran failed as well.
 
2019-03-13 05:29:17 PM  
I notice for chernobyl he's using the official Russian government number for casualties which are total BS. Go so some research about all the Russian soldiers who were called in so clean up the debris who had severe health problems and barely functioning immune systems 10 years later. The average life expectancy in the Ukraine measurably dropped a decade after later as compared to the rest of Eastern Europe.
 
2019-03-13 05:31:29 PM  
We should be researching and then building thorium reactors. They are much, much safer than current reactor types. They are cheaper, and they can be used to recycle other nuclear waste.
 
2019-03-13 05:46:03 PM  
Radiation saved my life...and many many many others.
 
2019-03-13 05:51:01 PM  

Mikey1969: I pointed out yesterday that just building hydroelectric dams is dangerous.

Really, nuke needs to be a part of a broad energy plan. Wind isn't the answer. Solar isn't the answer. Wind and solar together aren't the answer. A plan with a mix of these three, plus a few more like geothermal and tidal generation, OTOH is the answer. And we might as well add hydro power in there as well, although I'd love to remove all of the dams that are farking up the rivers. But we get drinking water from those reservoirs, too, so we might as well use the hydro power as well...


Solar is the answer. The sun gives us enough energy as we need. The way we get it on the other hand...

I say we deploy some big ass solar panels in space and beam the energy to earth
 
2019-03-13 05:52:21 PM  

Geotpf: Mikey1969: Jim_Callahan: Fukushima was a legitimate disaster where everything failed and shiat got dangerously contaminated in a wide radius.  It was a disaster that was only kept below the union carbide level of failure by emergency response being on the ball.  Like... it was an actual modern plant built to real human standards and it still failed.

Fukushima was a disaster that was unplanned for. They were protected from an earthquake. They were protected from a tsunami. They weren't, on the other hand, protected from a major earthquake, immediately followed by a tsunami. I bet that planning is built in moving forward.

Of course, the fact that earthquakes cause tsunamis never occurred to anybody?

IIRC, the real problem with Fukushima was that the back up diesel generators were placed in an area where they would get flooded (the basement), as opposed to on the roof, so they failed, so the containment systems they ran failed as well.


No, that was part of the problem. But they had a 19 foot seawall and got hit by a 45 foot tsunami. According to Wiki, the other issue is that the earthquake took the 3 currently functioning towers offline(The other 3 were down for scheduled maintenance), so the plant didn't have it's own electricity, AND the power lines from the offsite sources were down as well. Then the tsunami that was twice as high as the protective seawall damaged the generators. Also, it looks like the buildings that housed the switching station were flooded, although they were up the hill.

It was a cascading failure.

But this pic from the Wiki shows just how much higher the wave was than anything they normally experienced:

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2019-03-13 06:10:23 PM  

lolmao500: Mikey1969: I pointed out yesterday that just building hydroelectric dams is dangerous.

Really, nuke needs to be a part of a broad energy plan. Wind isn't the answer. Solar isn't the answer. Wind and solar together aren't the answer. A plan with a mix of these three, plus a few more like geothermal and tidal generation, OTOH is the answer. And we might as well add hydro power in there as well, although I'd love to remove all of the dams that are farking up the rivers. But we get drinking water from those reservoirs, too, so we might as well use the hydro power as well...

Solar is the answer. The sun gives us enough energy as we need. The way we get it on the other hand...

I say we deploy some big ass solar panels in space and beam the energy to earth


And what happens when that beam goes off course, or a plane or person wanders into it?

Solar is an answer. Not the answer. Anything that is not providing power consistently is not good. Batteries should be a backup plan, not the only plan.
 
2019-03-13 08:08:49 PM  

jaytkay: It would be great if we had less complicated alternatives, but for baseline power you need huge turbines.  Now that means fossil fuels or nuclear, and pumping carbon into the atmosphere is more dangerous than nuclear.

We're a lot closer to getting off fossil fuel electricity than I think most realize. California was already at 56 percent carbon neutral in 2017 (44% natural gas / 56% solar/wind/hydro/nuclear)


Holy crap, we agree on something 100%
 
2019-03-13 08:57:49 PM  

iaazathot: We should be researching and then building thorium reactors. They are much, much safer than current reactor types. They are cheaper, and they can be used to recycle other nuclear waste.


This. Significantly less hazardous waste. Can eat existing waste and be built to be completely meltdown-proof.

As usual with us though we won't do the smart thing until we've done all the dumb things first.

Any kind of nuclear solves a number of other problems too:

Climate change: Nuclear with wind and decentralized solar would drastically reduce emissions. It also has a effect multiplier in that we could switch to electric vehicles charged by nuclear.

The water crisis: Easily solved if you can use nucelar to run desalination plants. I say just straight up change most of the public water sources to a desalination-sourced system and let most of the Earth's water systems return to their natural patterns. That's mainly for economic reasons as one problem we've seen lately in drought response is that when we need desalination plants we've closed them becsuse other water sources are cheaper when we aren't in a drought.

Food crisis: Assisted by plentiful water from desalination, we could power industrial growing operations in controlled environments. This greatly reduces our vulnerability to weather events, blights, and harmful insects; giving us predictable output - and has the potential to increase yields thanks to year-round growing. Not to mention we can grow more on less land AND on grow food on land of any quality. Farms could become skyscrapers instead of open fields.
 
2019-03-13 09:00:45 PM  
Oh and we could actually build the desalination infrastructure in such a way that the water generated could also be used for electricity generation.
 
2019-03-13 09:22:25 PM  

Geotpf: The point here is that nuclear power is, statistically, quite safe, even factoring in the accidents that have happened in other Western power plants run by sane people (Chernobyl was basically a Soviet version of "Hold my beer and watch this!").

Now, considering the massive cost over runs and delays on the two nuclear power plants currently under construction in the US (seriously, they are holes in the ground where you throw money into), one could argue that they don't make sense from a fiscal standpoint, at least not using American laws and labor rates and safety rules and the like.

/actually, only one is still under construction, they gave up building the other one in 2017 after spending billions of dollars on it


A good half of those "billions of dollars" were wasted by trying to appease the Tree Huggers and Greenpeace types filing ridiculous lawsuits and regulatory delays. Back in the 70's VEPCO was trying to build a Reactor Plant about 75 miles from Norfolk. People were protesting in the streets, making wild claims and calmly ignoring that on any given day there were multiple Nuclear Powered submarines and ships docked at Norfolk Naval Base.
 
2019-03-13 09:41:42 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size

The experts told us nuclear energy will kill us all! Doesn't anyone remember Three Mile Island? Think of all the people that died!
Oh, wait.....nobody died.
 
2019-03-13 11:40:18 PM  
You know, if you move everyone out that lives anywhere near a disaster zone, you have a lot fewer fatalities. Unfortunately, there is not infinite land.

The Bhopal disaster wouldn't be as big either if India had evacuated the entire area around the plant and left it as a no-go zone - in fact it would probably be as "safe" as a nuclear accident.

If you're first argument is that nuclear kills fewer people but you ignore the exclusion zones, you're making a bad argument.
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report