Hacker News Reader

Comment by OpieCunningham | Hacker News Reader

And the inverse, if the Japanese don't escape unscathed from radiation, will the global pro-nuclear contingent become anti-nuclear?

I suspect the answer to both questions is no. Firstly because unscathed is vague: 0% radiological impact? 3% impact? How much damage is allowed in the definition of unscathed? Secondly because the true impact will be debated, challenged and studied for decades. And thirdly because the pro contingent will insist that with knowledge gained from this failure, we now have enough knowledge to safely implement nuclear power.

View on HN

Well I was thinking in terms of 'completely unscathed' as in the failsafes etc. ultimately did their job and the radiactivity was contained (or kept within normal operating limits).

If there is 'some' fallout, then of course the debate will rage on indefinitely. Which is why I did not suggest the converse position that you put forward.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that if there is no fallout, the anti-nuclear contingent should accept they are basically wrong, but if there is fallout, the pro-nuclear contingent should continue to fight (i.e. the debate will rage on)?

Why should one outcome produce a change in behavior from one crowd, but the opposite outcome should not produce a change in behavior from the opposite crowd?

If there is 'some' fallout, then it will be on a spectrum which will be interpreted very subjectively by different groups. However if there is 'no' fallout, then there is no spectrum, and no room for subjectivity. Those against nuclear power would have to admit this whole episode is not ammunition for their argument. Until 'the results are in' there will continue to be a lot of nuclear apocalypse sensationalism, I'd just like to see it retracted afterwards when/if it turns out to be unfounded. Put another way, we already know that it's possible to have nuclear accidents, what we don't know is whether it's possible for nuclear facilities to withstand major disasters with no such accident occurring. If that's the outcome, then to ignore it would be sort of like a type 1 error.

I'll put aside the fact that before you had even posted your original comment, the situation was already at the stage of debatable fallout.

Until the results are in there will also continue to be a lot of nuclear-is-perfectly-safe sensationalism (in the past hour I saw a couple of them on CNN). Do you expect and/or hope for retractions on those wildly optimistic statements by "experts" if there is "some" fallout, as you'd like to see in the reverse scenario? If so, I suspect you won't get them, though it does not really appear you'd be looking for them anyway.

Additionally, it's not clear to me why one case where there are no adverse affects (again, ignoring the fact that there are already adverse affects) is of monumental importance (a type 1 error), but the numerous cases of historic failures are not valid considerations in the same degree. Put another way, why should the hypothetical of a positive outcome of this situation have any more weight than the negative outcomes of numerous previous situations?

Anecdotes of how things happened long ago are less relevant than this incident. With the methodology you're proposing, we'd have to conclude that modern medicine doesn't work because medicine had such a horrible track record in the Middle Ages.

Also, "safe" is relative. Walking down the sidewalk in a good neighborhood is generally considered safe, but it is dangerous relative to sitting in a fortified bunker. If the impact is several orders of magnitude less than we'd expect from, say, coal, then we can say this was very safe indeed.

How convenient! If the situation hadn't turned out bad, we could have rejoiced the safety of nuclear power. Since things did turn out bad, we'll just brush it aside as ancient technology, nothing to see here, move on.

Except there are numerous "ancient" plants in full operation today. Except Japan is one of the most organized, efficient and technically advanced societies on the planet.

Most importantly, you fail to address my actual question: why should nuclear doom sayers have to recant their concerns in the event they are mistaken but nuclear cheerleaders do not in the event they are? You and the OP wouldn't answer that question because you have no logical answer.

We aren't dodging your question, we just think you should be able to grasp the point without further explanations. Firstly, it's not a true binary choice, it's not containment vs non-containment - it's containment vs. vastly varying degrees of non-containment. Secondly, non-containment scenarios will likely settle nothing (unless we have multiple 'mega-Chernobyls' or something, in which case then the proponents of nuclear power should admit they were misled) - the damage caused will be disputed, the value of the damage caused will be disputed, the appropriateness of the safety plans will be disputed, the correctness of the emergency operations will be disputed, the analogy to other plants not at risk from tsunamis/quakes will be disputed, the effectiveness of newer designs will be disputed, it will just go on forever because there will be no significant result.

But if the situation blows over without a large number of people being affected by harmful radiation, if the failsafes work despite multiple catastrophes (which almost certainly wouldn't threaten most plants), then the doom sayers really should admit nuclear safety is feasible, if they want to maintain any integrity.

the doom sayers really should admit nuclear safety is feasible

No, they really should not.

Firstly, you've moved the goal posts - now safety should be accepted up until a "large number of people become affected by harmful radiation". Originally, your goal posts were set to "Japanese people escape unscathed from radiation". And I suspect the definition of "large" will shift accordingly so that you can maintain your view that nuclear plants are safe enough. You had to shift your goal posts because the glowingly optimistic view from your OP hasn't survived reality.

Secondly, if that glowingly optimistic view from your OP had actually come to pass (and now we're operating in a fantasy world), why would anyone consider it more than anecdotal or luck or a combination of factors that are not easily quantifiable and therefore hardly reproducible?

And lastly, once again you failed to address the point I have been making. Your position applies equally to both sides. You can't cherry pick and maintain any integrity. It's not that I believe failure in this situation is ultimate proof of the failure of nuclear energy - but it is your OP that success in this situation is ultimate proof of the success of nuclear energy. Your premise is wrong, independent of whether your conclusion is wrong (which I believe it is, but not ultimately because of this situation).

I said 'if the Japanese escape unscathed.' If you're wondering where the 'goalposts' are, it's approximate to disasters that could happen at any other power plant: ie. workers injured/killed, maybe a few civilians hurt. That seems objective enough to me when you're comparing the safety of different power sources.

Obviously there can be no 'ultimate, ultimate proof' unless we get a direct line to God, but if you're going to be the person standing on top of the hill saying

'I don't care if you can show nuclear plants can withstand unheard of earthquakes and tsunamis, I don't care if there's 50 years of further research and improvement on those standards, I still wont believe nuclear power is safe. In fact there's pretty much nothing that would sway my assessment of nuclear safety...'

then I don't see why anyone should take you seriously.

edit: oh, and let's just wait for the clear light of day before we decide what exactly 'the situation' really is/was. I've seen many conflicting and retracted reports so far

I think the suggestion is that this represents a pretty 'worst case' scenario-- an old reactor of obsolete design that is dramatically less safe than many modern designs (at least as I understand it)and one of the worst earthquakes on record. If the "no fallout" situation does occur, it seems like a pretty powerful argument on the "pro-nuclear power" side of the debate.

And no, I don't suspect the anti nuclear crowd will buy it at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com