

We should stop running away from radiation - brndnhy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842

======
callmevlad
Having grown up in Russia and personally being in contact with a few people
affected by the Chernobyl fallout, it's a bit hard to take someone who tries
to diminish the impact of that accident to this degree.

Yes, maybe the UN report showed such a small number of confirmed fatalities,
but I have a sneaky suspicion that they based it mostly on data collected by
the Soviet Union. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't trust any data that
came from an authoritarian government, especially one run by a bunch of
Russians, especially one that collapsed 20 years ago (likely destroying
countless incriminating documents in the process), especially concerning a
deeply embarrassing incident such as Chernobyl.

The public may be overreacting to the nuclear threat posed by the Fukushima
reactors, but this seems like a subtle attempt at rewriting history.

(I wouldn't be surprised if there is a UN report 20 years from now proving
that Saddam Hussein did indeed win re-election with 99% of the vote.)

~~~
daeken
Have you seen the actual numbers of this, and seen them put into perspective?
I'd strongly recommend looking at <http://xkcd.org/radiation/> \-- he puts the
data into an easy to relate to format.

~~~
waterlesscloud
The biggest problem with that chart is that it mixes different time scales,
which it only indicates in the text, not in the visual comparisons.

Take one of the ones that measures an hour's exposure and multiply it by 24.
Or a day and multiply it by 365. Suddenly the visual comparisons look much,
much different.

~~~
stuhood
As mentioned in the BBC article though, doing that kind of math does not lead
to an accurate result, due to the fact that your body is constantly healing.
It's the bursts of radiation that are most damaging.

------
veidr
The idea that we have a sufficient quantity of accurate data about Chernobyl
to make sweeping claims about its impact on people living there, including how
many died as a result, is frankly idiotic. We do not and never will have such
data.

This is a pernicious meme that frequently recurs on this board. Reject it.

(The Fukushima disaster, on the other hand, has occurred in the open within
the context of a reasonably free society, so it may provide us with data that
proves useful for future nuclear accidents.)

~~~
Dove
_The idea that we have a sufficient quantity of accurate data about Chernobyl
to make sweeping claims about its impact on people living there, including how
many died as a result, is frankly idiotic. We do not and never will have such
data._

Okay, I'm just going to set your claim against the introduction to the report
([http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/Advance_copy_Annex_...](http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/Advance_copy_Annex_D_Chernobyl_Report.pdf))
referenced in the BBC article.

    
    
       There has been an unprecedented effort by the international
       community to assess the magnitude and characteristics
       of the health effects due to the radiation exposure
       resulting from the accident. As early as August 1986, a
       widely attended international gathering, the “Post-Accident
       Review Meeting”, was convened in Vienna. The resulting
       report of the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group
       (INSAG) contained a limited but essentially correct early
       account of the accident and its expected radiological consequences
       [I31]. In May 1988, the International Scientific
       Conference on the Medical Aspects of the Accident at the
       Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant [I32] held in Kiev summarized
       the available information at the time and confirmed
       that some children had received high doses to the thyroid. In
       May 1989, scientists obtained a more comprehensive insight
       into the scale of the consequences of the accident at an ad
       hoc meeting convened at the time of the 38th session of
       UNSCEAR [G15, K25]. In October 1989, the former Soviet
       Union formally requested “an international experts’ assessment”
       and, as a result, the International Chernobyl Project
       (ICP) [I5] was launched in early 1990; its conclusions and
       recommendations were presented at an International Conference
       held in Vienna, 21–24 May 1991 [I5]. Many national
       and international initiatives7 followed aimed at developing a
       better understanding of the accident consequences and in
       assisting in their mitigation. The results of these initiatives
       were presented at the 1996 International Conference on One
       Decade After Chernobyl8 [I29]. There was a broad agreement
       on the extent and character of the consequences.
    
       ...
    
       The objective of the present annex is to provide an
       authoritative and definitive review of the health effects
       observed to date that are attributable to radiation exposure
       due to the accident and to clarify the potential risk projections,
       taking into account the levels, trends and patterns of
       radiation dose to the exposed populations. The Committee
       has evaluated the relevant new information that has become
       available since the 2000 Report, in order to determine
       whether the assumptions used previously to assess the radiological
       consequences are still valid. In addition, it recognized
       that some issues merited further scrutiny and that its
       work to provide the scientific basis for a better understanding
       of the radiation‑related health and environmental effects
       of the Chernobyl accident needed to continue. The information
       considered included the behaviour and trends of the
       long‑lived radionuclides in foodstuff and the environment in
       order to improve the estimates of exposure of relevant population
       groups, and the results of the latest follow‑up studies
       of the health of the exposed groups. The effects of radiation
       on plants and animals following the Chernobyl accident are
       discussed separately in annex E, “Effects of ionizing radiation
       on non‑human biota”. Other effects of the accident, in
       particular, distress and anxiety, and socio‑economic effects,
       were considered by the Chernobyl Forum [W5] but are
       outside the Committee’s remit.
    
       The Committee, in general, bases its assessments on
       reports appearing in peer‑reviewed scientific literature and
       on information submitted officially by Governments in
       response to its requests. However, the results of many of
       the studies related to the Chernobyl accident have been
       presented at scientific meetings without formal scientific
       peer review. The Committee decided that it would only
       make use of such information when it could judge that the
       results and the underlying work were scientifically and
       technically sound.

~~~
veidr
Yes, that's right: Working from outside of the USSR, they convened a group and
produced an admittedly limited account of the incident. Three years later,
when the Soviet regime finally requested (limited) help, and they did their
best. A decade later, they revisited the issue, and made the decision not to
use the results from many other studies that had been attempted, because they
weren't necessarily scientifically rigorous.

That was probably right decision, and I find it entirely plausible that they
did great work given the enormous limitations that they faced, but there is
only so much you can do when the authoritarian regime standing in your way
happens to finally disintegrate, years later.

------
Joakal
People are worried about cancer from electricity, phones, microwaves,
terrorists, etc. Silent/Unseen killers are the scariest kind, almost as if
it's a good bogeyman.

Japanese can resolve this hysteria after seeing economic costs. However, the
governments in lawsuit prone countries will go out of their way to make it
very safe in almost everything. eg low speed limits, many speed bumps,
background checks, etc. Otherwise the government would get sued for not doing
enough, affecting the budget.

Educational Video of Japanese Nuclear Boy for kids
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sakN2hSVxA>

~~~
sigstoat
governments control the courts; they exempt themselves from liability for
things all the time. for instance: try suing the cops in the US because they
didn't do enough to protect you.

~~~
tumult
Wrong, this happens all the time. For example, municipalities pay out all the
time to the Westboro Baptist Church when local police are unable to defend
them from the people they are intentionally enraging. (This is how WBC makes
their money.)

~~~
younata
That means that the WBC is the greatest troll of our time. They literally have
nothing on 4chan.

------
nikster
The author points out the solution for storing nuclear end products, its quite
brilliant! 100m under a pro-nuclear persons house! Problem solved!

Maybe those who think nuclear energy is very green might join the author? I am
sure we can find a few 10,000, and then we have room for all that nuclear
waste.

The media overhyping things is nothing new and doesn't mean anything. It
doesn't mean nuclear power is safe, for example. Unfortunately, real
journalism has all but disappeared from the world, to be replaced by what we'd
refer to as trolling or link-whoring online.

~~~
roel_v
I am sure there are many people who would not mind at all. Hold an auction for
an amount per month would be paid to live there, so that people are
compensated for the perceived risk.

------
Herring
Good luck. The media (and people in general) are horrible when it comes to
technical things and scary invisible things. Nuclear is both.

~~~
evanrmurphy
What do you mean by horrible? I think it makes sense to be concerned about
anything you're subjected to that you're not sure is safe.

~~~
thematt
Concerned? Yes. Panicked? Probably not. I think the media's presentation of
the situation is more the latter.

~~~
evanrmurphy
Ah, I see. I was thinking more about the general concept of safety than this
specific situation. I see what you mean.

------
switch
I'd recommend The Oil Drum -
<http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7706#comments_top>

There seem to be a small group of people who want to play the contrarian game
and claim that people are overreacting to the potentially huge damage the
contamination (as opposed to radiation) that Fukushima is going to result in.

It's easy to be holed up safe in Oxford and claim radiation is not an issue.
Why doesn't this gentleman volunteer to assist at the plants if he thinks
radiation is no danger at all.

------
stewbrew
Who is "we"? If the the author speaks for himself, I have no objection against
him moving to Fukushima or buying a house close to another nuclear power
plant. I'm sure there are people willing to sell and the price for real estate
in those areas has most likely dropped considerably in the last few decades.

~~~
sorbus
I wouldn't be so sure about your implication that nuclear power plants reduce
property prices: "In each of the seven regions, housing and real estate values
have benefited from the operations of the nuclear facilities: total property
values, assessed valuations and median housing prices have often increased at
rates above the national and state averages. In each local area, housing
prices were several times higher than prior to the opening of the nuclear
facilities, and there is evidence that in Barnwell, proximity to the nuclear
facility may actually increase housing values.[1]"

[1] <http://www.misi-net.com/publications/IJNGEE-V1N1-06.pdf>

~~~
stewbrew
For apparently no clear reason, nuclear power plants are often built near the
border. Usually people on the other side of the border usually don't profit in
whatever way from the power plant. The situation may be different if you live
on an island.

------
hrktb
What makes me uneasy about this kind of call is that the situation at
Fukushima is ungoing, but we hear a lot of "the levels are ridiculous _right
now_ , what you're scarred of?".

The people running away or worrying about the situation don't care so much
about the levels now. They care about the levels if/when shit happens, and
only use the radiation seen now to check how good things are handled. And for
now it's not as if tepco's engineers, as goog as they are, are yet mastering
the situation.

------
mohawk
Lets talk money.

I think it is only reasonable to ask that avoidable civilian technology be
insured against harm done by it. So: how much would this insurance cost?
Cleanup, health care costs, disability payments, loss of property?

Given just a slight increase in illness rate for the sheer number of people
involved can give a hard to detect but significant cost. An insurer will have
to set aside enough money for the expected amount of payout. What would Warren
Buffett's premiums be? Some claims will be excluded by the insurer, and the
rest of the population will probably be called to for economic assistance: how
much will that be? What is the opportunity cost of having half a million
people cleaning up the place instead of being productive?

Feel free to peruse the [IAEA report about
Chernobyl]([http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernoby...](http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf)).
What is the total economic cost? Maybe "hundreds of billions of dollars"? See
the report for estimates.

So yes, we shouldn't run away from radiation. We should clean it up safely,
then come to our senses and stop dispersing any more of it. This technology is
a dead-end for normal energy production.

------
Ratfish
A 'spokesman' has just announced in the last few hours that there are high
cesium levels in leaking water that is measuring 1Sv per hour. That going to
be somewhere in the depths of the plant, but living about as far away from
this ad is possible is a comfort to me.

------
adlep
I've seen a similar titled article about the Fukoshima plant on HN called:
"Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors."

------
Derbasti
How about all those people dying from cancer years later all over Russia and
Central Europe? Radiation does not kill instantly, it causes cancer, which
kills years later.

Stop spreading such nonsense articles, please! Just because the immediate
impact is comparatively low, that doesn't mean it's harmless.

~~~
cperciva
_Radiation does not kill instantly, it causes cancer, which kills years
later._

Radiation is a carcinogen, yes. But it turns out that radiation is a really
puny carcinogen. A radiation dosage which will probably kill you if delivered
rapidly -- 4 Sieverts -- has only a small chance of causing cancer -- about
10% (and an even lower chance of causing _lethal_ cancer).

~~~
callmevlad
Would you happen to have a source for this? I'm finding it hard to imagine how
a study like this can even take place given that there have (probably) not
been many survivors among those who have received a dose of 4 Sieverts.

~~~
DennisP
There's a recent book called Physics for Future Presidents, written by a
physics professor at Berkeley, which has a lot of material on radiation risks.
He says you can calculate your risk of cancer from radiation by dividing your
exposure by 2500 rem. The level that gives you acute radiation sickness is 200
rem.

This is called the "linear hypothesis" and is widely used. They use it in
medicine to decide if diagnostic scans are worth the risk. The risk could
actually be lower; some scientists think there's a threshold below which
there's no risk. There's too much statistical uncertainty at low exposure
levels to know for sure.

~~~
Lost_BiomedE
The class is available as open courseware, too. It is a no math physics course
that focuses on concepts.

This is the course site, click webcast lectures on the side:
<http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/pffp.html>

------
richardw
Radiation has the ability to make entire areas uninhabitable for the
foreseeable future. Any mistakes in small countries like the UK could result
in devastating effects on available land. Anything that dangerous should be
handled exceptionally carefully.

------
bjelkeman-again
Often the argument about whether nuclear power represents an acceptable risk
or not is then used to argue that nuclear power is a key solution to get rid
of fossil fuel (a straw man argument?), as if there are no other parts of
nuclear power which should be questioned.

This particular article doesn't say so explicitly, but has links in the margin
to: "Nuclear power: Energy solution or evil curse?"
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12730473>

Key aspects of the discussion really is whether nuclear power is safe (for
people and environment) and economical. A good discussion about the economic
aspects can be found at: "Cost, not Japan crisis, should scrub nuclear power"
[http://www.grist.org/article/2011-03-17-cost-not-japan-
crisi...](http://www.grist.org/article/2011-03-17-cost-not-japan-crisis-
should-scrub-nuclear-power)

------
tectonic
I highly recommend the Battle of Chernobyl documentary. It's available in
parts on YouTube.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv3a4LXi_qc>

------
BasDirks
Uninformed idiots downplaying the issue just to stand out from the crowd, it's
sickening.

------
Tichy
Stopped reading at "more people have died from the Tsunami", which
unfortunately was line one. if you want to make an argument about radiation,
make it - Tsunamis have nothing to do with it, I don't think they are
radioactive.

~~~
gommm
The blurb at the top is not always written by the same writer as the
article...

But even with that said, why doesn't it make sense to compare the number of
casualties and damages between different accidents? It's a way to put things
into perspective. People have in general a rather faulty sense of proportion
and understanding of statistics.

~~~
Tichy
A billion people die of old age all the time. That doesn't imply that we
shouldn't care about other causes of death.

The Tsunami deaths have nothing to do with radiation. hence they don't belong
into an article about radiation.

~~~
Natsu
This isn't an article about radiation, it's an article about fear. Our sense
of fear is _not_ rational. If it were, people in the US would be more afraid
of bananas (which count as "highly radioactive" if I apply the scales used by
some newspapers evenhandedly) than Fukushima. Which shouldn't count as scary
at all. I just ate one, in fact, in spite of knowing that it's choc-full of
delicious, radioactive potassium.

We fear things that are easy to imagine over common but hard to see risks. The
death of one person is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic. So
the death of tens of thousands due to the tsunami will never register the same
emotional impact as the picture of one deformed child from Chernobyl.

It's the same in startup marketing, incidentally. That's why they give people
testimonials (stories), help them imagine the benefits, etc. This is sort of
the opposite: the media is making it easy to imagine all sorts of horrible
things happening due to invisible killer radiation. A few bad things probably
will happen. Oh yeah, tens of thousands of people were also buried under a 12m
wall of water that crushed entire towns, but there's nothing new to say about
that.

~~~
Tichy
Where I live it is a lot more rational to be worried about radiation than
about Tsunamis.

I can't bring the Tsunami victims back alive. What could I possibly learn from
the Tsunami story? That it could be dangerous to live too close to the sea,
that's about it.

It's not my fault if the media tries to milk Fukushima for all it's worth
(they live on fear). Still, the kind of answer you give doesn't help much. If
the radiation is just banana level, why do the workers there wear protection
suits? I didn't follow the stories too closely, so I suppose you refer to some
measurement somewhere that made it into the news. That's a complete strawman.

What I heard is that radiation levels were rising in Tokyo's water supply, but
not enough to be dangerous. Still I would consider it newsworthy that an
accident 200km away that does not seem to be 100% under control affects the
Tokyo water supply. The Tsunami probably also started just with a 1mm rise in
water levels. And to be honest, I admit if I was living in Tokyo, I would
probably still think twice about giving the water to my baby. Who knows how
timely the official measurements arrive - maybe in the meantime the radiation
levels rise some more (the real news is the movement in radiation levels, not
any static data point).

And by the way, so far I have not heard a figure > 20000 for the number of the
Tsunami victims, so I think you exaggerate with "tens of thousands" (it's
horrible, nevertheless - but don't play the same tricks you accuse the anti
nuclear media of).

~~~
Natsu
> I can't bring the Tsunami victims back alive. What could I possibly learn
> from the Tsunami story? That it could be dangerous to live too close to the
> sea, that's about it.

They can improve seawalls and such, actually. And we can improve search &
rescue operations.

> If the radiation is just banana level, why do the workers there wear
> protection suits?

Those don't protect from radiation very well, they're to prevent
contamination. It takes several inches of lead to block gamma rays (you'd have
to be Superman to move in a suit that heavy) and neutrons can activate
otherwise non-radioactive elements. Alpha & beta radiation are relatively easy
to block, though, but normal clothing is almost enough.

Also, it's just good engineering to take precautions. Also, near the plant,
there actually are hazardous levels of radiation, it's just once you get
further away that they're mostly harmless.

> And by the way, so far I have not heard a figure > 20000 for the number of
> the Tsunami victims, so I think you exaggerate with "tens of thousands"
> (it's horrible, nevertheless - but don't play the same tricks you accuse the
> anti nuclear media of).

I have, but who knows with the news? I've heard radiation figures from "100x
normal" to "1,000,000x normal" (the LA Times had a _much_ larger multiplier
than the other papers I compared it to).

Also, remember the tsunami in the Indian ocean? Last I heard, the deaths there
were on the order of 100k, if memory serves. Japan did what? 1/10th or so of
that (again, depending on which numbers you believe).

I do not and cannot blame you for the media's hysteria, I'm just trying to
help you not get caught up in it and to understand the real dangers that
people are underestimating. Granted, you may not live in a coastal area, so
you may not even have heard of seawalls before, but non-newsworthy things like
improving them can save a lot of people.

But those kinds of projects will get starved for funding. So we'll end up with
a lot of panicked people in California who shoot down new nuke plants in favor
of coal/natural gas (the coal miners who die are in China, so there are no
political consequences) and underestimate things like seawalls. California is
said to be overdue for a big quake, but I hope they're wrong about that.

~~~
Tichy
Nonsense, Japan already has invested a lot in Tsunami protection, they will
not starve funding for that. Who says it is an "either invest in anti-Tsunami
or anti-nuclear-power measures" kind of thing? And no, I don't live in a
coastal area, so enhancing seawalls is not my interest or priority.

As for protection suit: contamination, why should it matter if it is only as
bad as eating a banana? Your banana argument really makes no sense.

I have little hopes for nuclear power to go away, nor fossile fuel plants. I
think it would be possible, but lifestyles would have to change too much (for
the better in my opinion, but many people would disagree). We certainly could
save a lot of power, so it would not have to be necessary to replace nuclear
power plants with fossile fuel plants.

~~~
Natsu
> As for protection suit: contamination, why should it matter if it is only as
> bad as eating a banana? Your banana argument really makes no sense.

How radiation affects one's body is a complex issue. The inverse square law
also comes into effect. So something can be dangerous close up, but no threat
to anyone who doesn't get close.

Ars Technica has a nice article about radiation that goes into these issues in
more detail than I can:

[http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/03/know-your-
nukes-...](http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/03/know-your-nukes-
understanding-radiation-risks-in-japan.ars)

My main point about bananas, though, is that radiation is normal. You
experience it every single day, even if you don't realize it. All sorts of
background radiation is constantly going through your body. Not to mention
intentional exposures like chest X-rays.

It's sort of like fire, then. You can burn yourself and you should treat it
carefully. You should fear it enough to avoid burning yourself, but not much
more than that. It's also going to become just about as necessary to
civilization as fire, soon, from the look of things.

Maybe fusion will pan out and I hope so, but people are then going to have to
learn all about neutrons and why they can make normal materials become
radioactive.... But maybe clever moderator designs will make it so that most
neutrons are absorbed by easily replaceable things that don't become anything
nasty.

~~~
Tichy
Radiation is normal, and so is water. I drink water every day with no ill side
effects, yet it killed thousands of people in a Tsunami.

How long does supply of nuclear fuels last anyway? Isn't it a limited
resource? Will it be as necessary to civilization as SUVs?

From the article it seems clear that inhaling or digesting contaminated stuff
is dangerous.

~~~
Natsu
A lot longer than any of our other energy sources, except maybe the sun, so
fusion is a good thing to be able to manage, because hydrogen is so abundant.

However, entropy will ultimately kill the universe. Once the entire universe
runs out of available energy (which it can manage without any human help),
then we're screwed barring radical new physics that can give us answers like
"this is how you create another universe and then travel there."

The good news is that it will take a looooooong time before anybody seriously
has to worry about that.

------
VladRussian
the moron who wrote the article doesn't know what he's talking about:

>Nuclear technology cures countless cancer patients every day - and a
radiation dose given for radiotherapy in hospital is no different in principle
to a similar dose received in the environment.

From [http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/coping/radiation-
therapy-...](http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/coping/radiation-therapy-and-
you/page6) :

"Late side effects may first occur 6 or more months after radiation therapy is
over. They vary by the part of your body that was treated and the dose of
radiation you received. Late side effects may include infertility, joint
problems, lymphedema, mouth problems, and secondary cancer."

~~~
shadowsun7
That moron who wrote the article is a nuclear and medical physicist at the
University of Oxford.

From the HN comment guidelines:

    
    
      When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of
      calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 
      1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
    

Judging from your comment history, you seem to enjoy calling names more than
you do providing arguments.

~~~
VladRussian
your post didn't provide any contra argument, instead you went for personal
attack and "karma-bombing".

~~~
shadowsun7
A counter-argument to what, exactly? You took a statement that he made,
concluded that he was a 'moron who does not know what he's talk about', and
then backed that summary statement up with a lifted quote from cancer.gov that
had nothing to do to the original statement?

Allison's statement is accurate: a _single_ radiation dose is similar in
principle to one received from the environment. His over-arching point is that
we don't regard radiation doses in the hospital as scary, taboo and dangerous,
and yet we regard _any_ environmental dose as toxic and worth panicking over.
The rest of the article lays down his arguments for this view.

~~~
VladRussian
>Allison's statement is accurate: a single radiation dose is similar in
principle to one received from the environment.

why do you repeat this utter and obviously incorrect crap? do you really think
that localized deep tissue dose has the same health effect as if it was
received whole-body? Do you just happen to possess the winning combination of
being uneducated and too lazy to Google things up? If you ever make you brain
moving, try to think how it can be "similar in principle" when 20S deposited
to healthy tissue around cancer (out of total 60-80S dose the patient
receives) rarely kills the patient while 4-5S received "environmentally"
during comparable period of time would almost always be lethal.

The article looks like it was written by somebody who is uneducated and has
problems with logic, i.e. moron. Too bad it was written by a professional with
an agenda. Intellectual dishonesty is much worse than plain stupidity and
ignorance.

~~~
shadowsun7
All this name calling makes me sad. There was a time when trolls like you were
banned from HN. Sigh. How times have changed.

~~~
VladRussian
You post an illogical, intelligence insulting crap and become "sad" when
somebody calls the crap out.

You're right - the HN debate culture has gone down. The strongest and most
logical argument you've managed in the discussion on radiation doses
[non]equivalency is to call me a troll.

------
nikster
I am going to make a completely unscientific argument now that I know the HN
readership will look down upon, but I think it captures why we can't build
nuclear plants.

First, nuclear power started out as a cold war thing; they built nuclear
plants because of one very interesting side-product required to build nuclear
bombs. These days in those countries that already have nuclear weapons, that's
a secondary concern - but this is where it came from. And for countries that
don't yet have nuclear weapons, that's the reason they want to build them.

Second, the accident in Chernobyl. Hold your statistics and studies. Just
pause for a moment. Think about this accident. All children all over Europe
were told to stay inside for a few days. And take Iodine. Any technology that
is able to cause that is not fit to generate power. In fact the only man made
processes that can cause such an event are nuclear weapons and nuclear power
plants.

Fail safe plants unfortunately don't exist - they're not fail safe, as evident
in Fukushima. Does the chain reaction stop when everything fails? No? Then
it's not fail-safe. Obviously.

I am not a worrier - but when you're playing with forces that cannot be
controlled with the technology we have, you have to do the smart thing and
skip them for now. There's plenty of alternatives - I think the nuclear thing
is a distraction from them, and kept alive by a very active lobby.

I am happy to change my opinion if you come up with a new process that's
actually fail-safe, that's actually guaranteed to not leak radiation, and that
doesn't produce nuclear waste.

~~~
jbri
What alternatives can you offer?

Solar and wind energy are not reliable enough to provide base-load coverage,
hydro power is restricted to very specific terrain and has a devastating
effect on local ecology, and really the only other option is fossil fuels.

At this point, the options literally are nuclear, or fossil fuels. And burning
more and more coal for power (which puts out more radiation and kills more
people than a nuclear plant, FYI) because anything less than perfection is not
suitable just seems like a really, _really_ shortsighted idea.

An alternative energy source does not need to be perfect to be worth switching
to. It just needs to be better than the status quo. And nuclear power,
currently, is _very much_ better than coal.

~~~
cperciva
_hydro power is restricted to very specific terrain and has a devastating
effect on local ecology..._

... and isn't any safer than nuclear power. Four people died when the Japan
earthquake caused a dam to fail -- that's more deaths than the Fukushima NPP
has caused, but oddly enough nobody is calling for a worldwide halt to dam
construction.

