76
Water Containing Radioactive Materials Spills Over at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant Due to Earthquakes
(japannews.yomiuri.co.jp)
this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2024
76 points (73.2% liked)
World News
32365 readers
333 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
After Fukushima, there was a reddit comment to the effect of, "You mean it took an earthquake AND a tsunami to make a nuclear plant dangerous? Nuclear sounds pretty safe to me!"
There is a specific kind of nuclear simp who will go to any length to ignore its dangers. I hope we can leave that on reddit and keep Lemmy a place of honest appraisal. I'm not even knocking nuclear's benefits. They are many. But it's crazy that every 10 years we have one of these disasters and every 10 years the simps come out to reassure us that it's nothing, really
The act of nuclear fission is not safe. What is safe is how we design the systems that contain the reaction and protect the workers, the public, and the environment. We should never ignore the potential dangers of nuclear power, lest we become complacent and really screw up. Instead, we should continue constructing, operating, and maintaining nuclear power plants with the highest appropriate levels of safety.
The reason people have to come out of the woodwork to "go to any length to ignore it's dangers" is that the "dangers" reported in the media almost always pose absolutely zero risk to the public, and only serve to inflame anti-nuclear rhetoric.
Take this case: 14L of liquid spilled inside a closed and sealed containment building. There is zero chance of any of that radioactivity encountering the public or the environment. The operators noticed the problem, and are (as far as we know) taking appropriate recovery actions. Really, it shouldn't even be news. But it is, because nUcLeAr bOgEyMaN sCaRy.
I don't know that I can say anything to really convince anyone otherwise, especially not without sounding like the nuclear simp you mention (even more than I'm sure I already do), but truly, (given the facts at hand) there is zero danger to the workers, public, or environment from this isolated incident.
Even better, the water in a cooling pool like that is less radioactive than the normal background radiation level outside the pool. (That's one reason they use water to begin with, it absorbs radiation and doesn't easily become radioactive itself)
While technically accurate, the water could still transport entrained fission daughter products, so there still might be a significant spread of contamination outside the pool, even if the water itself isn't activated.
But here is the scenario I think you're referencing!
Indeed I was thinking of that one. Love the final paragraph.
I thought of mentioning the possibility of corrosion/leaks, but I'm pretty sure they monitor for that, and (though I hadn't remembered this) even in the What If, it says that the levels likely wouldn't be serious.
Agreed. The biggest drawback of nuclear power isn’t radiation, it’s cost.
There's your problem right there.
Nuclear power generation can probably be safe, in theory.
Nuclear power generation in our current late-stage capitalism where corporations, and even governments, will cut corners for the sake of profit and politics, is not.
It's a cool technology, but I personally don't trust the world with it right now.
Calling them "simps" detracts from your argument. If you can't argue your point without resorting to name-calling, perhaps your position isn't as strong as you think it is.
Yeah. I stopped reading their post at that word and read yours instead.
It's not nothing but compare the amount of radioactivity released in all nuclear accidents against the amount of pollution, including radioactive particles, released by burning fossil fuels. The scale is so heavily skewed that the amount of harm caused by nuclear might as well be zero compared to the alternative.
Not only did it take a tsunami to make a nuclear power plant unsafe but also more people died from the evacuation than from radiation.
No, we don't have a nuclear disaster every 10 years because there's only been 2 and one of them was from the Soviet Russia era.
Spilling 10 litres of irradiated water is not a disaster.
I'm sure everybody is aware but to add to point 2, the Chernobyl accident was mostly caused by bypassing safety procedures and lockouts
If you're looking for anti-neuclear skeptics and fear mongering, I don't think this is any more the place than reddit was. I hope rather than seeking out those echo chambers you look into this a bit more. I don't have any good stuff to link you too off the top of my head, but maybe someone else in the comments will
I'll post some while we wait:
Fukushima is not over.