I Was A Modest Supporter of Nuclear Power So Long As It Could Show That It Was Safe

[Yavin4]

I am one that believes that if you can prove to me that something works, benefits everyone, and is safe, then I will support it. I am not doctrinarie. I don't support nor oppose something simply because it counters my long held beliefs. For example, if GWB's massive tax cuts created millions of new jobs, I would support them. But they didn't. In fact, there was a net loss of jobs under Bush.

With this nuclear disaster in Japan, we now have inimpeachable proof that nuclear power is NOT safe and CANNOT be made safe. The Chernoybl disaster was attributed to the failed, dictatorial government of the former USSR, and its failure to adequatelty regulate the industry and respond to the crisis.

However, this disaster is happening in Japan, a democratic nation of highly informed, highly skilled people. A first class world economic power. If this kind of disaster can happen there, it can happen any where.

Nuclear power is simply not safe enough.

[buddysmellgood]

1. Here is some context from a nuclear engineer

http://plainenglishnuclear.blogspot.com/2011/03/yet-another-japan-reactor-post.html#more

[wtmusic]

9. Except "these fuel pins are sealed inside a giant steel pressure vessel"

might need to be updated.

[kristopher]

60. It is a PR Scam by a nuclear industry doing damage control

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/03/the-strange-case-of-josef-oehmen/

The Strange Case of Josef Oehmen

In the wake of the nuclear incidents in Japan, a great deal of information and misinformation has been spread – some of it deliberately. It’s understandable that people misunderstand, or mishear. Misrepresenting yourself to claim you’re an expert is something else. We expect that from industry and politicians – we don’t expect it from a PhD employed by a school as well-respected as MIT. But that’s just what’s happened, and is still happening now.

On Sunday, March 13th, I saw an interesting link on Facebook. Since the previous Friday, I’d been posting update information on the Japan disasters, and had been one of the first people to post that there might – and I stressed might – be nuclear problems. So when I saw a link saying “MIT scientist says no problems”, it’s only natural to read it.

The post originally came from morgsatlarge.wordpress.com. Let’s first note that the name “Jason Morgan” does not appear on the morgsatlarge site. The site has one post (now redirecting to another site, which we’ll get to). Apparently, it was created yesterday. The “about” info is “About morgsatlarge English teacher, F1/ UFC enthusiast. Japan resident, quake survivor, and most importantly a husband to an amazing woman, and father to a beautiful baby girl.”

Jason is on Twitter, though, and thinks his “scientist friend” stuck his neck out for him, and is telling the truth. He’s had a Twitter account longer than last week, and he says Oehmen’s married to his cousin and is an “awesome guy”. Sounds pretty benign, what with his claims the article will be published on mit.edu, and has been vetted by nuke folks at MIT....


Much more at link: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/03/the-strange-case-of-josef-oehmen/

[bananas]

77. Wow - That deserves a seperate thread. nt

[inademv]

2. unrec'd there is ALWAYS the chance that something will break

our technology is just that kind of flawed. To go and stick your head in the sand because of an unfortunate chain of failures is nothing short of stupid.

Hell, there's nothing yet to support the idea that this will be even half as bad as the recent Gulf spill in terms of environmental impact and that wasn't caused by a fucking tsunami.

[tahrir]

24. precisely why the risk inherent with nuclear energy are not worth the benifits

it is waaaaay past time to invest in alternatives to DIRTY and DEADLY energy sources.

:hi:

[LynneSin]

73. I agree 100%

I realize the future is with Solar/Wind but outside of that any type of plant has an inherent risk to it. It's like saying I'll never drive again because I saw a car accident.

[JohnnyRingo]

3. I only take exception with the phrase: "CANNOT be made safe"

I'm not so sure we know that, and still maintain that if we'd spent as much in the last 50 years on powerplant research as we have on harnessing the atom for war, it's very possible we'd have a very different outlook on atomic energy now. Tell the US navy that nuclear propulsion isn't safe or practical.

When oil is no longer profitable the lobbyists for the industry will suddenly stop blocking research funding for nuclear, solar, and wind technology, and shift resources to corner the looming market. Nuclear power isn't popular this week, but it's a big part of our future of energy when fossil fuel becomes scarce. Even if people don't like it.

As an aside, I don't unrec anything. you're entitled.

[elleng]

4. It never could show that it was safe,

and never found/developed safe ways/places to store the old/spent stuff.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. The problem with nuclear power is not that it isn't safe *most of the time.*

Most of the time, it is. But unlike many other systems, when a nuclear power system fails, it can fail in a horrendously catastrophic way that kills people and poisons the area around it, maybe for decades or even centuries. There have been only three huge nuclear accidents: TMI, Chernobyl (which occurred 25-30 years ago), and now Fukushima. This relative lack of accidents has led us to conclude nuclear power is safe. However, when you look at risk analysis, you have to consider whether you are willing to assume the risk -- even if it is a relatively small one -- of a huge catastrophe.

Since no system can ever be made 100% safe or foolproof, you have to assume that sooner or later there will be accidents, bad ones. So then you have to decide whether the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risk of a major disaster. Are we willing to assume the risk of even one really terrible catastrophe somewhere in the world every 30 years, for example?

And anyone who thinks it's possible to engineer a perfectly safe nuclear power system might want to read Charles Perrow's book, "Normal Accidents." http://www.amazon.com/Normal-Accidents-Living-High-Risk-Technologies/dp/0691004129

[aquart]

8. One every thirty years would mean what?

After say, 100 years? Chernobyl fine and dandy now? The Laplanders have recovered from the contamination of their reindeer? Gosh, those reindeer were pretty far away. How about the economics of cheese production in Europe? All good now, right?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. My point exactly.

Is it worth the risk? My own opinion is that it isn't, because EVEN IF a disaster occurs "only" every thirty years the effects last much longer. And the damn things CAN'T be made completely safe.

[Ignis]

12. +1. This is the core problem: risk vs. reward.

The reward might be OK, good, great, or amazing.

But the risk remains too high for the benefit.

[Statistical]

16. Nobody is claiming nuclear is prefect

But it is effective compared to the alternatives.

Coal kills 400,000 people a year. Since TMI that is we have had two other major accidents. So say one major event every 15 years.

So 400,000 deaths per year * 15 years = 6 million deaths. Coal kills 6 million people for each nuclear accident.

Average the lives lost in Chernobyl, Fukushima, and TMI. Not even in the same magnitude as 6 million deaths.

Motor vehicles kill roughly 1.1 million people per year. Thats ~17 million per average nuclear accident. Why not abolish personally owned motor vehicles. You could saves millions of lives.

"So then you have to decide whether the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risk of a major disaster. "
Exactly. They do. In the absence of nuclear power power companies, people, countries burn fossil fuels and that kills far more people.

[kristopher]

62. The alternative is to use renewables but you use coal because you want to hide that

Standard nuclear industry myth # 1 is what you've shared. It is completely false. Nuclear power is rated as a third rate solution to our energy problems - exactly the SAME as coal with CCS.




Here is a reading list to help you catch up with the smart people.

Selected readings from Lovins

Amory Lovins wrote a great article in 1977 on nuclear (including the social consequences) and the options

NYT review from 1977

‘Soft’ Energy, Hard Choices
By ANTHONY J. PARISI
What passes for a national energy debate is bogged down in the Senate in what seems to be a classic confrontation between consumer and business interests. But another debate—potential- ly far more significant—is raging below the surface. It speaks to fundamental sociopolitical questions, and it centers more and more on a controversial scientist named Amory B. Lovins.

His thesis, in brief, is that the "hard" energy technologies— giant centralized electric power stations, for example—now turning the wheels of the economy must give way to "soft" technologies based on renewable sources of energy, such as solar power. But to put his position that simply makes Mr. Levin’s argument sound like just another environmentalist's plaint. In fact, he is far more than a dreamer.

Soft energy, he says, is economical as well as environmentally sensible. His thesis includes attacks on present energy inefficiencies and proposals for the optimum allocation of energy resources. And he even suggests that the nation can use the free market to gain the soft-energy path.

But the choice must be made now, he insists, before the hard- est of hard technologies—nuclear power—becomes uncontrol- lable. "The soft-energy path is the only way to come up with an intellectually consistent nonproliferation policy," he says....

The article:

http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E77-01_EnergyStrategyRoadNotTaken

Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken?
By Amory B. Lovins

WHERE are America's formal or de facto energy policies leading us? Where might we choose to go instead? How can we find out?
Addressing these questions can reveal deeper questions—and a few answers—that are easy to grasp, yet rich in insight and in international relevance. This paper will seek to explore such basic concepts in energy strategy by outlining and contrasting two energy paths that the United States might follow over the next 50 years—long enough for the full implications of change to start to emerge. The first path resembles present federal policy and is essentially an extrapolation of the recent past. It relies on rapid expansion of centralized high technologies to increase supplies of energy, especially in the form of electricity. The second path combines a prompt and serious commitment to efficient use of energy, rapid development of renewable energy sources matched in scale and in energy quality to end-use needs, and special transitional fossil-fuel technologies. This path, a whole greater than the sum of its parts, diverges radically from incremental past practices to pursue long-term goals.

Both paths, as will be argued, present difficult—but very different— problems. The first path is convincingly familiar, but the economic and sociopolitical problems lying ahead loom large, and eventually, perhaps, insuperable. The second path, though it represents a shift in direction, offers many social, economic and geopolitical advantages, including virtual elimination of nuclear proliferation from the world. It is important to recognize that the two paths are mutually exclusive. Because commitments to the first may foreclose the second, we must soon choose one or the other—before failure to stop nuclear proliferation has foreclosed both.1

II
Most official proposals for future U.S. energy policy embody the twin goals of sustaining growth in energy consumption (assumed to be closely and causally linked to GNP and to social welfare) and of minimizing oil imports. The usual proposed solution is rapid expansion of three sectors: coal (mainly strip-mined, then made into electricity and synthetic fluid fuels); oil and gas (increasingly from Arctic and offshore wells); and nuclear fission (eventually in fast breeder reactors). All domestic resources, even naval oil reserves, are squeezed hard—in a policy which David Brower calls "Strength Through Exhaustion." Conservation, usually induced by price rather than by policy, is conceded to be necessary but it is given a priority more rhetorical than real. "Unconventional" energy supply is relegated to a minor role, its significant contribution postponed until past 2000. Emphasis is overwhelmingly on the short term. Long-term sustainability is vaguely assumed to be ensured by some eventual combination of fission breeders, fusion breeders, and solar electricity. Meanwhile, aggressive subsidies and regulations are used to hold down energy prices well below economic and prevailing international levels so that growth will not be seriously constrained....

Can be downloaded here: http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E77-01_EnergyStrategyRoadNotTaken

Also:
Nuclear Spread: The Cure Begins at Home
Journal or Magazine Article, 1976 http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/1976-01_NuclearSpreadCureBeginsHome
In this “New York Times” op-ed, Amory Lovins commends the paper for calling attention to the link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons, and provides further commentary about the social, political, and economic logic of pursuing a non-nuclear energy future.


Other articles that are more recent.

Four Nuclear Myths: A Commentary on Stewart Brand’s Whole Earth Discipline and on Similar Writings
Journal or Magazine Article, 2009
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2009-09_FourNuclearMyths


Nuclear Power’s Competitive Landscape
Presentation, 2009
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2009-15_NuclearPowersCompetitiveLandscape

A hotly debated topic, the present and future state of nuclear power and it’s competitors is the subject of this presentation by Amory Lovins at RMI2009. This presentation was part of a plenary debate with Robert Rosner entitled, “Nuclear: Fix or Folly?” The accompanying video of the entire debate is available at http://www.rmi.org /rmi/Videos.


Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Letter, 2007
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/C07-09_NuclearPowerClimateChange

This 2007 e-mail exchange between Steve Berry (University of Chicago), Peter Bradford (former U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner and senior utility regulator), and Amory Lovins illustrates the cases for and against nuclear power in relation to climate and the environment.


Nuclear Energy Debate
Journal or Magazine Article, 2001
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E01-15_NuclearEnergyDebate

In 2001, Amory and Hunter Lovins participated in a published debate about nuclear power with the editors of “USA Today.” The Lovins’ argued against nuclear power.



Nuclear Power: Economic Fundamentals and Potential Role in Climate Change Mitigation
Report or White Paper, 2005
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E05-09_NuclearPowerEconomicFundamentals

In this presentation, Amory Lovins provides evidence that low and no-carbon decentralized sources of energy have eclipsed nuclear power as a climate friendly energy option. He argues that new nuclear power plants are unfinanceable in the private capital market and that resource efficiency provides a cheaper, more environmentally viable option.



Nuclear Power: Competitive Economics and Climate Protection Potential
Presentation, 2006
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E06-04_NuclearPowerCompetitiveEconomics

In this presentation to the Royal Academy of Engineering, Amory Lovins explains the economic and environmental impacts of nuclear power. By showing that companies and governments have cut energy intensity without the use of nuclear power, Lovins shows that nuclear power is not a necessary step in the fight against climate change.




Nuclear Power: Economics and Climate-Protection Potential
Journal or Magazine Article, 2006
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E06-14_NuclearPowerEconomicsClimateProtection

This paper makes an economic argument against the use of nuclear power. The authors argue that, despite strong governmental support, nuclear power is unfinancible in the private capital market.




And last but not least:
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly

[Union Scribe]

68. That alternative has NOT been reality

Yeah, it'd be nice, but instead all we've gotten is more and more coal and more and more death from it. For some reason, though, I never see people protesting new coal plants. Why is that?

[wtmusic]

19. Insisting on perfection is the recipe for disaster.

I've said it time and again, but many don't want to hear it: 25,000 Americans are killed every year by coal smoke. If 1/2 of that were killed, ONE year, by a nuclear accident - there would be blood-curdling screams to close every plant now.

You use phrases like "horrendously catastrophic", but what exactly was horrendously catastrophic about TMI - without one documented casualty?

Most plants today IMO need more rigid specifications. But in retrospect, it's easy to say that - fifty years ago we had only an inkling of the long-term health effects of radiation.

It's time to retrofit, it's time to invest in Gen IV technology, and it's time to move on.

[kristopher]

63. He says as 4 reactors in Fukushima race to meltdown...

...The Chernobyl accident is one of the worst nuclear accidents to date, surpassed only by the explosion at the Chelyabinsk-65 plutonium-processing facility in the Ural Mountains in 1957, which was kept secret for decades by the Soviet Union. Over 20 million curies of radioactive material were lofted into the atmosphere by the Chernobyl explosion and ensuing fire. Some of this material sifted down over nearby towns and countryside, while the rest was spread over Europe by winds, exposing 10 to 20 million people to significant fallout. The number of deaths caused immediately by the accident was in the dozens, but the number of deaths caused in the long term by radiationinduced cancer and other health damage will never be precisely known. Although initially dismissed by experts in the West as exaggerations, reports of 30-to-100-fold increases in thyroid-cancer rates among children in Belarus, northern Ukraine, and parts of the Russian Federation have recently been confirmed.

Nevertheless, the accident could have been worse. Total "meltdown," in which the molten uranium of the ruined core would have coalesced into a single superheated mass and melted its way down to the groundwater below the plant, causing a violent steam explosion and dispersing even larger quantities of radioactive material, did not occur.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/chernobyl-nuclear-power-plant-accident-detection-and-monitoring#ixzz1GqJLUZTv

[flamin lib]

6. As I understand things the reactors survived the quake even though

it was one scale higher than design specs. They didn't survive the tsunami which drowned the back-up generators or the failure of battery backup designed for sort term support.

We've got some plants in S CA at risk for 7+ quakes but they shouldn't be at risk from tsunami. The Washington/Oregon coasts look to be in danger from tsunami.

I believe the plants can be made safe if they aren't placed in geographically dangerous places. Still have to deal with waste tho . . .

[wtmusic]

7. That's equivalent to running out and buying a Lotto ticket

because your next door neighbor won.

Japan had a once in a millenium event. The reactors were designed to handle a 7.5 earthquake; the Sendai earthquake released about 50 times that much energy. If you want to fault the designers for not building enough of a safety margin in I'll buy that. But there's no indication all of the reactors didn't perform to spec.

I'm not sure faulting the designers is warranted, although even designing around a 1,000-year time frame is asking for trouble with the number of units in operation.

[Yavin4]

11. I'm Not Faulting Anyone

In fact, I believe that Japan did a very good job of keeping nuclear power as safe as possible. Yet, in the end, even they could not prevent catastrophe.

[EOTE]

13. This tsunami has shown me that houses cannot be shown to be safe.

I thought houses were safe, but this tragedy has shown that they simply are not. We must switch to some other form of domicile. One that can't be swept away by tremendous amounts of water. If the high intelligent and skilled Japanese can't build a house that won't be swept away by a tsunami, I think that shows that houses will never be safe.

[Yavin4]

15. Here's The Difference

If you lose your house in a Tsunami, your entire city is not rendered uninhabitable by life. There are no cancer clusters, etc.

You can rebuild after a Tsunami. You cannot rebuild after a nuclear catastrophe.

[EOTE]

21. Nowhere has been rendered inhabitable due to radiation alone.

And tens of thousands of people have died due to this natural disaster. Most likely a tiny fraction of that number will die due to radiation poisoning.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

22. If any of those people are you or your family members it makes a difference.

But if it's just a bunch of strangers in Japan....

[EOTE]

26. Ummm, people die due to natural disasters.

It's tragic, but it can't be avoided. But for you to act as if those people have all died due to radiation suggests to me you're not being entirely honest with your argument.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

29. They haven't, yet. This isn't over.

And then there's Chernobyl, where they did.

[EOTE]

34. Derrrrp.

Funny, I could have sworn this OP was about Japan and not about Chernobyl. I must not have my reading glasses on.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

37. *sigh* I give up. It's not about Japan; it's about the safety of nuclear power.

Which does make TMI and Chernobyl relevant.

[EOTE]

42. Yeah, TMI too.

And all those numerous deaths associated with it. Oh right, the 0 deaths associated with it. And if you were trying to make a point about Chernobyl and TMI, you probably shouldn't have done it in a thread that's suggesting that what's happening in Japan is reason enough to abandon nuclear power.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

25. Chernobyl?

How come nobody lives near Chernobyl any more?

[EOTE]

28. I was referring to Japan.

If you'd like to use a 25 year old example as to why nuclear power shouldn't be used, I'd suggest you do that. But for you to suggest that what's happening in Japan right now is like Chernobyl is downright ignorant.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

33. It's not ignorant. I'm making a larger point than just Japan.

The point is whether nuclear power is safe enough to risk disasters, the worst of which -- so far -- was Chernobyl. The Japan situation is still developing, and it does not seem to be improving. It might not get as bad as Chernobyl, but some experts think it could. And how bad does it have to get?

[EOTE]

36. If you're going to try and suggest that what's happening in Japan

is reason enough to abandon nuclear energy, then it's damned well ignorant to try and switch the topic to a 25 year old disaster which was used as an education to make nuclear energy a hell of a lot safer than it was back then. The track record of nuclear power is pretty damned good.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

38. I am suggesting that we need to take a very hard look at nuclear power,

is what I'm suggesting, and decide whether it's safe enough. But if you want to mosey over to Fukushima and help out because it's so safe and there's really hardly any radiation and nobody is gonna get hurt, be my guest.

[EOTE]

43. You've already made your mind up about nuclear power.

That's why you suggest that what's occurred is a "nuclear catastrophe". That was, after all, what my comparison of houses to nuclear facilities was about. Considering that the nuclear plants have operated pretty much entirely as expected (as have the houses), it's damned foolish to suggest that what's happening now should be a call to get off nuclear power.

[DonCoquixote]

56. pardon me

but how much of your opinion is based on the fact that you are french, and that France is the big proponent of nuclear power?

[EOTE]

71. I'm French?

Well, I better start calling all my past lovers, they might have caught something. How much of your opinion is based upon the fact that you are from La Mancha, and that La Mancha is a stalwart opponent of nuclear power?

[Selatius]

31. The risk analysis is still rather stark.

There is now an exclusion zone of 20km surrounding the Fukushima plant, and if the worst comes to pass, that exclusion zone could become permanent. When building nuke plants, one simply must take into account human and mechanical error and realize the chances of a major catastrophe are not zero, and one must then weigh the risks of a major catastrophe to the benefits of having that power being produced. In a free society, the people should be allowed to determine what is best, and if the Japanese determine afterward that nuclear power is too dangerous, especially in earthquake prone areas, then so be it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

41. Bingo. That's the point I've been trying to make.

But the nuke fans don't seem to get it.

[EOTE]

45. Not very well. NT

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. Bullshit argument.

And you know it.

It is a matter of risk analysis. In deciding to do something you consider both the likelihood of harm and the severity of the harm if it occurs. If you build a house in Japan you know there's a certain (relatively definable) possibility of an earthquake, and the severity of the harm is the loss of the house. So you design and build the house to withstand the most likely intensity of earthquake, understanding that the worst possibility is that the house falls down.

When you build a nuclear power plant you know that the worst case scenario is a meltdown with the release of radiation for miles, possibly affecting the area for decades. You also know that the probability that this will happen is pretty small, and you design the plant taking into consideration known probabilities of earthquakes. But in a complex, tightly-coupled system like a nuke plant, the possible causes of failure can never be predicted (and it's always more than a single-point failure). In this case they designed the reactors to be earthquake-proof but didn't consider the possibility that a tsunami would disrupt the power supply to the cooling mechanism.

Houses aren't 100% safe but the consequences of a failure of house construction are both predictable and relatively minor as to the entire community.

Your argument is a straw man argument, but I think you know that.

[EOTE]

23. So far, tens of thousands have died due to the tsunami.

I don't believe anyone has died as of yet directly from radiation. I'm quite aware that the effects of radiation can sometimes take many years to occur, but there's very little evidence to suggest that many people have been exposed to dangerous levels.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. Yet. This isn't over.

And what about Chernobyl, where people did die, and a whole city became uninhabitable?

[EOTE]

30. So I see you've given up on using Japan as an example of why nuclear power shouldn't be used.

You're going to go back to Chernobyl? If that's the case, I'd strongly suggest starting a new OP to inform everyone of this obscure event that clearly nobody remembers.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

35. Not at all, you just don't seem to understand the concept of risk analysis.

And if you've forgotten Chernobyl, you might want to google it and refresh your memory. Most people, especially Europeans, have not forgotten it at all.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[marions ghost]

40. "obscure event"?!?

Chernobyl?...where u been? :argh:

[EOTE]

44. Not very good at detecting sarcasm, are you?

Of course everyone has heard about Chernobyl. That's why it's damned stupid to join in a thread suggesting that the tsunami in Japan is reason enough to abandon nuclear power by raising the spectre of Chernobyl.

[marions ghost]

46. GE Mark 1 reactor = as dangerous as Chernobyl

Only now we've gotta worry about 6 of em at Fukushima and their spent fuel. What's ur point?

------------------------------

Going back to 1972...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16contain.html?_r=1&hp

The warnings were stark and issued repeatedly as far back as 1972: If the cooling systems ever failed at a “Mark 1” nuclear reactor, the primary containment vessel surrounding the reactor would probably burst as the fuel rods inside overheated. Dangerous radiation would spew into the environment. (snip)

But the type of containment vessel and pressure suppression system used in the failing reactors at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant is physically less robust, and it has long been thought to be more susceptible to failure in an emergency than competing designs. In the United States, 23 reactors at 16 locations use the Mark 1 design, including the Oyster Creek plant in central New Jersey, the Dresden plant near Chicago and the Monticello plant near Minneapolis.

[EOTE]

49. This is nothing like Chernobyl.

And if does turn out to be anywhere approaching the same magnitude, I'll give you a personal apology. But so far no one with any knowledge of this is seriously comparing it to Chernobyl.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Japan-Plant-wont-be-next-Chernobyl--Nuclear-plant-expert-117917664.html

[marions ghost]

51. OK

I'll be waiting for that apology.

[EOTE]

53. You'll be waiting a very long time. Nt.

[marions ghost]

55. yeah

you don't seem like the apologizin type.

But when you see it happen, maybe you'll acknowledge it to yourself. :shrug:

[EOTE]

78. That's alright.

You don't seem like the thinkin' type.

[kristopher]

67. A question for you.

How could Chernobyl have been worse?

Can that happen to #3?

[EOTE]

72. How could Chernobyl have been worse?

I suppose if they built a whole bunch of children's hospitals and schools nearby, that would have been a lot worse.

As far as the possibility of it happening to site 3? No.

[tinrobot]

48. It's very sad that those people died.

But the survivors of a tsunami can start rebuilding their communities almost as soon as the water recedes.

Survivors of a nuclear accident may have to wait generations for their land to become inhabitable.

[EOTE]

50. A nuclear accident that hasn't occured in this case.

But let's not let that stop everyone from screaming that the sky is faling.

[tinrobot]

58. That's right, nothing happened at all.

The Fukushima 50 are bathing in sunshine and daffodils.

[EOTE]

74. Nice strawman, but that's not what I said.

You were suggesting that this land would be uninhabitable for generations. There's nothing right now to suggest that this land won't be inhabitable for much beyond the immediate future.

[kristopher]

64. I'm afraid you don't grasp a fundamental weakness in statistical prediction

There are areas where risk analysis fails, and nuclear power is one of those areas.

Low probability low consequence


Low probability high consequence
Nuclear power

High probability low consequence


High probability high consequence

‘The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable’
By NASSIM NICHOLAS TALEB

...What we call here a Black Swan (and capitalize it) is an event with the following three attributes.

First, it is an outlier, as it lies outside the realm of regular expectations, because nothing in the past can convincingly point to its possibility. Second, it carries an extreme impact. Third, in spite of its outlier status, human nature makes us concoct explanations for its occurrence after the fact, making it explainable and predictable.

I stop and summarize the triplet: rarity, extreme impact, and retrospective (though not prospective) predictability. A small number of Black Swans explain almost everything in our world, from the success of ideas and religions, to the dynamics of historical events, to elements of our own personal lives. Ever since we left the Pleistocene, some ten millennia ago, the effect of these Black Swans has been increasing. It started accelerating during the industrial revolution, as the world started getting more complicated, while ordinary events, the ones we study and discuss and try to predict from reading the newspapers, have become increasingly inconsequential.

Just imagine how little your understanding of the world on the eve of the events of 1914 would have helped you guess what was to happen next. (Don't cheat by using the explanations drilled into your cranium by your dull high school teacher). How about the rise of Hitler and the subsequent war? How about the precipitous demise of the Soviet bloc? How about the rise of Islamic fundamentalism? How about the spread of the Internet? How about the market crash of 1987 (and the more unexpected recovery)? Fads, epidemics, fashion, ideas, the emergence of art genres and schools. All follow these Black Swan dynamics. Literally, just about everything of significance around you might qualify. ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/books/chapters/0422-1st-tale.html

[Johnny_dollar]

61. That is a non-sequiter...

If a house collaspes, only a few people will be killed or injured. Whereas, nuclear contamination has the potential to devastate life on Earth. Google birth defects and Iraq. Iraq is polluted with a fraction of radioactivity (from depleted uranium) that a power plant meltdown would spew into the atmosphere.

And, too, there are not a lot of viable alternatives to houses.

[EOTE]

76. You've provided a non-sequiter as well.

It's the tsunami that has provided the devastation. Considering the massive disaster that has occurred, the nuke plants have held up rather well. Are there going to be fatalities directly linked to the nuke sites? Most likely, but far, far less than the toll the tsunami provided. And there are not a lot of viable alternatives to nuclear power as well. There's petroleum, of course, and natural gas, but both have a far greater toll on human life than nuclear power. Green sources are great, and there needs to be a lot of investment in them. But to think we can just up and replace nuclear power in an instant is a joke.

[old mark]

14. K&R- Things break, and people fuck up. No matter how well designed and maintained, things do happen

We were sold nuclear power by political bribery and manipulation in the media, and we all paid tax dollars to get it. We should all have a say in how it is used.

mark

[kristopher]

65. You are a wise person. Have you read this.

It isn't as pithy as what you wrote, but it is worth reading anyway.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/books/chapters/0422-1st-tale.html
First Chapter
‘The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable’
By NASSIM NICHOLAS TALEB

[old mark]

70. "Wise person'? Actually I am just old but I remember stuff...nt

[kristopher]

66. You are a wise person. Have you read this.

It isn't as pithy as what you wrote, but it is worth reading anyway.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/books/chapters/0422-1st-tale.html
First Chapter
‘The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable’
By NASSIM NICHOLAS TALEB

[readmoreoften]

17. How come what's being released from the US military disagrees with this?

I'd like for this guy's blog to be true, but there is a nuclear industry trying to protect itself right now. Of course, there is also a coal industry that may be shilling disinformation for their benefit. Personally, I'd rather go with the US military's assessment in Stars and Stripes.

[Jmaxfie1]

20. Not that I love nuclear power, but at present I think we are stuck with it.

I'm all for trying to create non-nuclear renewable energy sources, but even if we start now it would be along time before we could generate the amount of power as nuclear plants do. I agree we should start funding such an infrastructure, but at present I do not see a way around using nuclear power.

[marions ghost]

32. Glad you've come around

:) but why did it take "showing you" THIS way?

Nuclear power has never been safe. People have been duped into believing it just like they believed that buying a big house and car was the wave of the future. It's easy to believe when you want to believe.

You should feel betrayed. But you're not alone and I admire you for putting your change of heart out for others to respond to.

Now people who still think we should expand nuclear AFTER what is taking place in Japan--these are the true nutjobs. People who think what is happening is WORTH it are insane.

[Yavin4]

47. I Don't Feel Betrayed

I believe in giving technology and science an opportunity to prove itself. If they could have made nuclear power safe, then I would be a proponent for it. Japan proves that it's not safe.

[marions ghost]

54. I think that

if this horrific event was happening in your back yard, you would say the "experiment" was not worth it--not on moral nor economic grounds. We don't use humans for guinea pigs unless there are no better prospects. We have had plenty of opportunities to weigh up the pros and cons. We have all been betrayed. We have always had better choices.

[EOTE]

52. Self delete

Replied in the wrong place

[defendandprotect]

57. It's not healthy, it's not safe and it's not cost effective and creates Radioactive Waste -- !!

What could possibly be the argument for it?

[Mimosa]

59. Yavin4, you're speaking for many of us. n/t

[Union Scribe]

69. Then it must be renewables. No more friggin coal either.

If we're going to wake up, let it be all the way up. My fear is that we'll doom several more generations to pollution-caused death because "hey at least it won't meltdown."

[LynneSin]

75. wow, did you stop driving cars after you saw your first car accident

There are so many risks around this world not just with energy but other manufacturing plants.

It's not like these things are happening every other day, but they can happen.

I have no issue with nuclear power, I still believe that it is safe. Still not sure why Japan built them on major fault lines but that's another issue.

BTW, I lived all of my life at with 30 miles of a Nuclear Power Plant including the most famous in the USA - TMI (I was 15 miles from that one when the accident happened).

[retread]

79. I don't understand the rush to build or defend these dinosaurs. There are newer

technologies close to being ready. A few examples Gen IV plants, EBR II and Thorium. China is developing thorium plant technology as we speak. So, in best case, we rush these dangerous dinosaurs into production and 20 years from now we purchase cleaner, safer ones from China.

Just because someone is against high-pressure, uranium-fueled generators it doesn't follow they are against nuclear power plants.

[LynneSin]

80. I respect the fact that there are better technologies there but..

that doesn't mean we should go shutting down any of our existing Nuclear Power Plants. THey are working fine and probably should all be inspected, in light of what has just happened.

But if I had to choose to live next to a Nuclear Power Plant or anything Coal or Oil - give me Nuclear any day of the week. I've survived 40+ years living near Nuclear power and I'm sure I'll be fine the last 40+ years of my life.

[retread]

81. "doesn't mean we should go shutting down any of our existing Nuclear Power Plants"

Was shutting down existing plants implied?

I do think we should look at a combination of decommissioning/replacing and when possible upgrading and halting building new plants with old technology.

Why are we so worried about Iran's nuclear power plants?

I believe we made a decision 30 or 40 years ago, in spite of known risks, to use uranium plants precisely because of the weapons grade byproduct.