Why Fukushima Daiichi won't be another Chernobyl | Hacker News Reader

Why Fukushima Daiichi won't be another Chernobyl

newscientist.com

I'm getting pretty tired of this meme.

Chernobyl was horrific! It happened at a time and in place that did not care much about safety or human lives. The technology was primitive. Safety mechanisms had been turned off. The response to the accident was to send people on a suicide mission while telling everyone else everything was hunky dory. It was a a horrific disaster.

How the hell could Fukushima be as bad?

And what is the point of all of this anyway?

Look, I think we should use a lot more nuclear power, yes despite the fact that I grew up down wind of Chernobyl and with Fukushima still happening, I STILL think we should all drive electric cars that get their electricity from nuclear power.

But I want those nuclear plants to as safe as technology can make them. And I welcome higher per kilowatt prices to make this happen. What I don't want is nukes on the cheap, as this particular GE model of reactor appears to have been marketed.

And I am really getting sick of the chorus of the last couple of days which I can summarize as:

1. Fukushima is totally under control you guys! 2. Fukushima is not going to melt down you guys! 3. Fukushima is not going to have a total melt down, OK! 4. Chernobyl didn't kill THAT many people. 5. Chernobyl wasn't that bad. 6. The area around Chernobyl is going to be peachy in like another 50 years! 7. Well at least Fukushima can't be as bad Chernobyl!

For the love of God, if you want to promote nuclear power do it in a smart way! Explain just how bad and radioactive coal is. Explain all the ways in which modern nuclear can be made safer. And call for more oversight and investment in safety.

But please stop trying to downplay Fukushima! Not only does this not help anything, but it actively discredits advocacy for nuclear power!

As long as people are comparing it to Chernobyl, we can't have a sane, realistic conversation about nuclear power.

Which is the whole point of the meme... destroy nuclear's credibility with FUD comparisons.

Both anti-nuke environmentalist groups and fossil fuel mega-corps can get cozy with this campaign.

The way to combat that campaign is not by defending an ancient reactor built on the cheap. It's not by defending the overly secrete save face first, save lives second approach by the authorities. Fukushima should not be played down. That is not the way to counter-act the FUD.

Like I said before, we cannot have a sane, rational conversation about how terrible of a design the Mark I BWR is, or how necessary it is to decommission outdated reactors, until people know enough to stop making comparisons to Chernobyl.

Every time I see a "everything will be fine" article, things get worse a few hours later. Please, just sit on your hands, wait, and see.

Maybe Chernobyl wasn't actually as bad as it could have been. Maybe Fukushima is going to be a lot worse than expected. Maybe Chernobyl is in the middle of f*ing nowhere. Maybe Fukushima is in one of the most densely populated regions in the world.

Who knows?

All we know is that there are a few dozen people right now, fighting to prevent what could become one of the biggest man-made disasters in history. Many of them are likely going to die within a few years because of it.

> Many of them are likely going to die within a few years because of it.

I don't think we even know that for certain, do we? Seems quite likely but a lot of things about this story end up surprising us.

Seems quite likely but a lot of things about this story end up surprising us.

Yes, things surprisingly just keep getting worse, despite optimistic predictions.

Every time I see a "everything will be fine" article

I hardly consider this an "everything will be fine" article.

> All we know is that there are a few dozen people right now, fighting to prevent what could become one of the biggest man-made disasters in history.

But how are they going to save the 26,000 people killed by the failure of the Banqiao Dam without time travel?

I'm kidding, but don't let anyone fool you: Fukushima Dai-ichi is still dangerous, but only to the people nearby. There's a substantial risk of further hydrogen explosions and radiation spikes that are dangerous to the people nearby. They're very unlikely to affect anyone not in Japan. Cleanup will be a pain.

But hearing "OH GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!" constantly in the media is pretty grating for anyone who understands the real, immediate concerns in Japan right now. Yes, the reactor needs cool and the workers are very brave. They probably do risk significant radiation exposure. But meanwhile, there are many people who got swept out to sea, people who are trapped behind blocked roads and who need supplies and people injured from the quake in remote areas who need care.

These logistical problems are the real disaster and they're being virtually ignored by anyone outside Japan while all eyes are on the continuing problems at Fukushima Dai-ichi.

One good thing, badly under-reported, is how helpful the US Military's logistical support is. And I don't mean just the stuff at Fukushima. Removing rubble from roads and clearing collapsed buildings is not at all glamorous, but a lot of such things need to be done right now.

'still dangerous, but only to the people nearby'

Depending on what happens in the next week or two and depending on which way the wind blows, that could be 35m people nearby in the Tokyo metro area.

"However, the company operating Fukushima Daiichi has now said that, for the fuel pond at reactor 4, 'the risk of recriticality is not zero', meaning a nuclear chain reaction could restart in the rods. Quite how this has come about is unclear."

Whoops, looks like you invalidated half of your article.

Nuclear power isn't pretty, but it's going to be pretty much a necessity in the coming years. This relatively minor accident has come at a very unfortunate time.

It's amazing that you can know the accident was minor when it's not even over yet. Seems like you are not really using reality to form your opinions.

So you didn't read the article, then?

I quote from The Article(tm):

"What is the worst-case scenario for Fukushima Daiichi? It's difficult to be definitive, because information is limited and often confused, and the outcome will depend on the decisions the plant's operators take."

They don't discard anything, and just because something is less serious than Chernobyl it does not make it "minor". Also, so-called experts have been consistently wrong in estimating things in the past days.

Seriously guys, just wait and see for a few days before shouting from the rooftops how amazingly reinforced nuclear power has come out of this. You are not helping anyone.

It honestly just seems that you already know that nuclear energy is a must-have, so you are reasoning backwards from there. If the accident was very serious it would call into question your ideas, so it must be minor, even if it's not over yet and some serious shit still could happen in the future. I just can't support this way of reasoning.

just because something is less serious than Chernobyl it does not make it "minor"

But that's creating a seriously false dichotomy: Nobody is saying that this situation is "minor", and I most definitely don't think it is, and did not post this to downplay the situation.

I posted it because Chernobyl comparisons are like the Godwins Law of nuclear power. Things can be very bad without being comparable to Chernobyl.

"Nobody is saying that this situation is "minor""

Yes they are.

Earlier in this very thread, alextingle wrote:

"This relatively minor accident has come at a very unfortunate time."

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2337966

And that's far from the only time this sentiment has been expressed on HN.

Lots of pro-nuclear advocates on HN have repeatedly said that the Fukushima accident is minor. This was especially true a few days ago, but even now some are continuing to maintain it's no big deal.

The 2011 Japanese tsunami has killed at least 7000 people. The Chernobyl accident killed up to 4000 people. Problems at the Fukushima power plant are far less severe than Chernobyl (see the article) so they are relatively minor.

Or do you feel that a life taken by cancer is worth more than a life taken by drowning??

The earthquake + tsunami killed something like 5,000 people and counting. How many have died from radiation poisoning or even the hydrogen explosions so far? I'm counting two people missing and some radiation poisoning.

We're looking at a substantial risk of further hydrogen explosions until the cooling is stable and a risk of radiation leakage to those nearby. There is a slight risk of radiation further out, but it's unlikely to cause significant harm. So the primary danger is to plant employees and those trying to cool it down or fight fires. It's unlikely to be able to kill large numbers of people, though it's likely that someone will calculate x% increase of cancer * 128M people (all of Japan) and publish that number.

But let's count the casualties and weigh them against the 5,000 or so who have died from the earthquake already:

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031710-e....

Casualty

- 2 workers of cooperative firm were injured at the occurrence of the earthquake, and were transported to the hospital.

- 1 TEPCO employee who was not able to stand by his own with his hand holding left chest was transported to the hospital by an ambulance.

- 1 subcontract worker at important earthquake-proof building was unconscious and transported to the hospital by an ambulance.

- The radiation exposure of 1 TEPCO employee, who was working inside the reactor building, exceeded 100mSv and was transported to the hospital.

- 2 TEPCO employees felt bad during their operation in the central control rooms of Unit 1 and 2 while wearing full masks, and were transferred to Fukushima Daini Power Station for consultation with a medical advisor.

- 4 workers were injured and transported to the hospital after explosive sound and white smoke were confirmed around the Unit 1.

- 11 workers were injured and transported to Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station after explosive sound and white smoke were confirmed around the Unit 3.One of the injured workers got medical treatment on March 16th, but the worker reported a flank pain. We required to the offsite center that the worker should be transported to the hospital. After that, the helicopter of JSDF arrived and transported the worker to the FUKUSHIMA Medical University Hospital at 10:56AM

- Presence of 2 TEPCO employees at the site is not confirmed.

The earthquake + tsunami killed something like 5,000 people and counting.

The absolutely horrific results of the earthquake and tsunami in no way make Fukushima a minor deal. Yes, it has killed MANY fewer people then the tsunami, but that does not make it a minor deal!

(Edited for clarification.)

I never said it was a minor deal. My heart goes out to the families of the two workers missing at Fukushima Dai-ichi as well as to those injured.

But I don't get the panic. I mean a run on Potassium Iodide tablets on the US west coast? Seriously?? I don't know if I should be grateful that they at least found something that could be effective or sad that they expect significant amounts of radiation to get that far.

I need to figure out how to use actuarial tables to I can convert these exposure levels to something like "cigarette equivalent risk" by comparing cancer rates.

A run on potassium iodide tablets on the US west coast is just plain silly, but the way to combat that is to discuss exactly how radiation spreads, not to try and argue that Fukushima isn't that bad.

> A run on potassium iodide tablets on the US west coast is just plain silly, but the way to combat that is to discuss exactly how radiation spreads, not to try and argue that Fukushima isn't that bad.

How can I do one without doing the other, given the nice "radiation plume" graphics, in "arbitrary units" no less, going through the news?

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2335273

I'm not trying to minimize the problems, I'm trying to be realistic about them. After the first hydrogen explosion, if you look through my HN comments, I warned that there were likely to be more. Those are very dangerous, but to the plant employees fixing this, but not to anyone who isn't nearby. Those people are heroes, putting themselves in danger to protect everyone else from further radiation leaks.

But I sincerely believe that nobody who isn't in Japan or in the sea nearby is at any serious risk.

The conversation about nuclear power is emotional, its not rational. I know very intelligent people who simply cannot reason about it, it frightens them at an emotional level and they can't get past it.

If your approach is rational, you look at this reactor, and you look at how the accident got started, and you think man that really sucks, a 9.0 earthquake and a 30' tsunami? Just like when two 747 jumbo jets collide as one is trying to land on the same runway that another is taking off. You look at what lead up to and ultimately caused the accident, you assure yourself that its not a systemic problem (jumbo jets don't have massive attraction to other jumbo jets for example) you grieve the tragedy, you adjust your planning and your procedure, and you move on.

No matter what happens at Fukushima Daiichi, even if all four of the reactors and their spent fuel rods turn into slag candles fused into the foundation of the plant, a rational person would say "Gee it really is great that we don't have magnitude 9.0 earthquakes with accompanying tsunamis every year, if we did, and they can do this to a nuclear plant, it would be foolish to take those risks."

But an emotional person isn't reasoning, they are afraid. And scared people see black and white, they look at a scary situation like this and say "If we have no nuclear plants I can't be scared like this again!"

No amount of reasoning about the risks makes them less fearful, dealing with fear is a personal issue that goes on inside a person's head. You can try to guide their internal debate but at the end the day, they have to agree not to let their fear override their ability reason, they need to work through it.

We can talk about physics, we can talk about statistics, doesn't help the fearful. We need to embrace them, and say "Yes, I can see that you are very afraid of nuclear power stations. It is completely reasonable to be afraid of nuclear power stations failing and causing grave harm to those around it. But rather than let that fear run us around, let us try to understand when we should be afraid and when we should not be afraid."

People living near that reactor have every reason to be afraid right now. What is going on is not "in control" and what will happen tonight and tomorrow could be worse than what happened yesterday and the day before. People who live near nuclear power reactors might be afraid, but if they choose to they could learn what to fear and what not to fear. They could learn that if a major disaster stuck their town (like say an asteroid strike, or a magnitude 9.0 earthquake) they might want to move 50 or so miles away from the nuclear power plant just in case. They might create plans for just such an option, perhaps renting a storage unit in a nearby town and stocking it with some supplies, etc so that they could relocate there and stay for several days or weeks without having to do anything else. Since even this nuclear disaster (and Chernobyl before it) take time to develop fully, you know there will be time for you to respond (we assume you're not touring the grounds). When you make a plan and take action like that, then you've taken steps to conquer your fear, you are no longer the victim you are now prepared. This is just one of a number of ways we can help people deal with their fear of these things.

To summarize, the ongoing disaster at the plant is a major disaster, certainly for everyone who works at the plant and for people that live near it. Their lives are going to be disrupted forever. For the rest of us, it will become one of those "where were you when ..." kinds of stories like when the Challenger blew up. Our lives will be the same but we will have a painful memory of a tragic event we "witnessed".

On the way into work I heard on the radio a quote from either a senator or congressman which was "Do you still think meltdowns are rare? we just had three at once." I realize that plays well to the scared crowd, it would be helpful if we could help change it to "It is difficult to operate a nuclear plant safely in the presence of magnitude 9 earthquakes, fortunately that level earthquake is very rare."

Indeed, there are many reasons why this accident will almost certainly not reach the level of devastation which occurred at Chernobyl, many of which relate to the Japanese plant's far superior safety mechanisms and dedication of its operators.

However, don't we sell ourselves short with the implication that any nuclear accident of a scale less than Chernobyl is a tolerable accident? Although the radiation released by this latest accident is still well constrained, and the number of persons directly affected is presumed to be rather small, this power plant and very possibly a large section of the shoreline it sits on are expected to become a complete write-off to civilization at large.

A massive earthquake+tsunami at a coal-fired, gas-fired, hydroelectric, and even solar/wind/wave-motion power plant would have wrought similar damage, likely even similar casualties. However, those plants could be rebuilt at the same location, and with sturdier construction.

The answer is to push for greater regulations, decommissioning of outdated plants (as this reactor was), and a push for better and safer designs.

Ultimately, we need to move to solar and wind power, but for the time being, even with this worst case scenario, I think Nuclear is a much safer option than coal or oil. Definitely better than coal, which results in 30,000 deaths a year.

Solar and wind are based on our solar energy budget, which puts caps on what we can extract. Granted, you can do space-based solar, but that's still mostly sci-fi right now (though I sincerely hope we work it out).

I'm not trying to minimize the problems, just to point out that nothing is all that simple, and I absolutely support continued research into all the alternatives, because each energy source has its trade-offs and using the right source in the right place is better than having all of our eggs in one basket.

Words are cheap. Go and help the cleanup crews on-site.

I posted this before, but I feel it's worth re-iterating: There will never be another Chernobyl. It was a perfect intersection of criminally inadequate design, early-adopter naivete, incompetence, and Murphy's Law.

Not least of which was the fact that Chernobyl had no containment (!!), and was running at peak (3200MW) as opposed to Fukushima Daiichi's 5% capacity (25MW).

A comparison to Three Mile Island is totally valid, but Chernobyl is literally off the table.

I think we're way past TMI by now right?

The statement that "the risk of recriticality is not zero" in the fuel pond of reactor 4 means that a Chernobyl-like event is still on the table with very small but nonzero probability.

Yup, it won't be Chernobyl. It will always be Fukushima Daiichi.

How the nuclear accident will turn out to be is anyones guess right now though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com