Hacker News Reader

Comment by ThePhysicist | Hacker News Reader

Of course it could happen here in Germany as well, still I don't understand how an accident caused by two extreme environmental catastrophes (really strong earthquake + record-setting tsunami) changes the accident risk for nuclear power plants in Europe. Also, turning off our nuclear power plants didn't make us much safer, as our neighbors have plenty of them just near our border, some of which (Tihange, Cattenom), are much older and unsafer than the plants we turn off here.

Not saying that it's a bad decision to turn off nuclear power plants, just saying the decision should be based on science not emotion.

View on HN

Don't blame the quake and tsunami. Its water did take out the generators needed for the coolants, the plant was wide open for such an accident. NAIIC found the accident to be forseeable and that TEPCO failed to meet basic safety requirements. TEPCO even had two internal studies on the risk of Tsunamis and how to defend against them but management ignored those warnings. If those warnings aren't enough. Japan's coast is full of physical markers from past Tsunamis, indicating the top of those waves and where the safe ground begins. https://99percentinvisible.org/article/tsunami-stones-ancien...

That, however, needs to be part of the risk calculation as well, in my opinion. Even when there's enough technological solutions to make something like nuclear power sufficiently safe, you can still count on human greed or ineptitude to screw things up.

Tihange is the perfect demonstration that humanity can not handle the responsabilities that come with nuclear power generation. The chief of staff of the ministry responsible for extending the operations on this disaster plant just went through the revolving door for a plush 'job' at the plant's owner. The minister was not amused as he broke the unwritten rule to wait to cash out till after the General election.

The problem with telling people they need to be "more scientific and less emotional" when dealing with fear or threats, is that it doesn't work.

If they knew how to be more logical, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. They don't. And just saying you "should" is not enough. It doesn't enable them to be more logical.

Communication that produces better outcomes requires to put the focus on why the threat isn't a threat and STOP. There is no need to tell people, beyond that they are illogical in the way they are handling fear. Good communicators, with the skill to reduce threat perception of everyone in the room do it all the time. And they produce better outcomes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com