Hacker News Reader

But the article mentions the facts and scientific judgements:

> the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation has drawn on 80 scientists from 18 countries to produce a draft report that concludes: "Radiation exposure following the nuclear accident at Fukushima-Daiichi did not cause any immediate health effects. It is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future among the general public and the vast majority of workers.

What you've done is read (or not) an article discussing the findings of a bunch of independent commissions, decided that there must be something missing, and bemoaned the fact that people are applauding nuclear energy.

> What you've done is read (or not)

How about we assume that I've read the article before commenting on it, and while we're at it, how about doing away with the vitriol even when you don't like someone or their opinion?

> decided that there must be something missing, and bemoaned the fact that people are applauding nuclear energy.

I have indeed, for myself, decided there is something missing and I put my doubts out there for people to judge, and I believe I explained where I see the problems. I did express some reservations about the completeness of the picture as it is being rendered in the article and I do believe some measure of caution is advisable, yes.

> and while we're at it, how about doing away with the vitriol even when you don't like someone or their opinion

Fair enough. Sorry for the way I wrote what I wrote.

What I was trying to convey is that calling the article out for being misleading, because we can't yet know, goes against what the stated research determined. Admonishing commenters for cheering on nuclear power just because you don't think the research is complete seems suspect.

I don't think anyone is saying "but there was no damage done, yay for a perfect energy source". What they're saying is "it's the best we've got and scare campaigns against nuclear power are ridiculous - thankfully someone has exposed them".

What happened was terrible. But tearing down the nuclear power plants across the globe is not the correct reaction.

Contrary to what the article tries to evoke, the Fukushima meltdowns were a huge catastrophe that severely impacted a whole region. Ask the people who live(d) there if they think the impact of this thing was overstated in the media - they're likely to tell you if anything consequences were buried not exposed. Even if these very first statistics are true, there is likely to be more impact further down the road. There will be shortened lifespans as a result of exposure. There is massive economic damage as well. People's lives were severely affected. And let's not forget the destroyed reactors still aren't safe. There are very likely huge unpleasant surprises yet to be revealed.

Vice Japan did a fascinating story about a man who's been living inside the exclusion zone[1] and has yet to feel any ill effects of being exposed to radiation (though in the article, he was described as being a freak of nature in that regard).

[1] http://www.vice.com/jp/read/alone-in-the-zone-jp (Japanese)

[2] http://macaronics.com/article/2f7763d5d38a49c5aea761ce2fb2f9... (partially translated into English)

The argument that nuclear reactors are safer than coal is correct ... there is a middle ground supported by facts and scientific judgement

There's really no such thing as a 'correct' argument on these issues.

Maybe coal has fewer expected deaths per MW generated on average, but a nuclear plant's worst-case scenario is clearly substantially worse. Facts and scientific judgment can't really tell us in that case which is better: that's really only something that informed democratic deliberation can do (informed by science, economics, ethics, etc.).

> Maybe coal has fewer expected deaths per MW generated on average, but a nuclear plant's worst-case scenario is clearly substantially worse.

No, coal has dramatically more expected deaths. But, yes, nuclear disasters are potentially much worse if things go wrong. [http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/03/the-triumph-...]

> Facts and scientific judgment can't really tell us in that case which is better: that's really only something that informed democratic deliberation can do (informed by science, economics, ethics, etc.).

Again, I'm really not sure what the point is besides being contrarian ;) I'm certain that you are not telling me facts and scientific judgement don't matter? Or that popular opinion, informed by a host of factors, is somehow preferable to doing the right thing? Keep in mind I'm not even "taking sides" pro or con nuclear here, just advocating an informed discussion.

Um, Fukoshima went very, very wrong, and there were Zero deaths/sickness. That was the point of the article. And these were the worst reactors currently in service.

That leaves us with safer, more productive reactors. The future holds even safer reactors. This seems like a good trajectory for everybody.

My reservations about the intent and reporting of the article aside, I do agree with you that the future holds safer reactors and that's a good thing.

I disagree with 'zero' deaths. the UNSCEAR report does not say zero deaths. it says that the increased cancer deaths due to the reactor disaster over the coming decadrs will not be statistically discernable. That's not zero deaths.

> No, coal has dramatically more expected deaths

Ooops, yes, that's what I meant to say.

> I'm really not sure what the point is besides being contrarian

All I'm saying is that you can't settle this question (or many others) with facts and science alone. Sure, you've got to weigh the facts, but often, including in this case, those have got to feed in to an ethical judgment which is everybody's (not just scientists') to make.

I'm still unclear on what that actually means. Surely we can agree that every death or injury is one too many? So is it more ethical to run a well-designed nuclear reactor than a well-designed coal power plant? I think so, and I believe so do you. But that doesn't mean we can shrug off the inherent dangers and drawbacks. Acknowledging these issues does not make a person anti-nuclear per se.

Exclaiming, as the article does, "see, not a single person got hurt, everything is just awesome!" while people in Japan are burying contaminated top-soil from school yards under their front lawn, while everyone carries a dosimeter to gauge how long they can stay outside today, and while thousands of people have lost their homes strikes me as very bad judgement - even if the health statistics have not been manipulated.

By saying that facts and scientific understanding are essential to decision-making, I'm not insinuating these decisions can only be made by scientists. Instead I'm advocating a better scientific/factual understanding by and for everybody. Clearly that is not how things are working right now, but I think it's an important goal to have.

> nuclear plant's worst-case scenario is clearly substantially worse

If 14-meter tsunami hitting a 70's build nuclear power plant isn't a worst case scenario, what is?

Also coal's worst case scenario is global climate change.

to me, a worst case scenario is that one or more of the nutcases who leapfrog a weapons program off the back of the materials, technologies, facilities and expertise developed thru their power program, decides to test a bomb. or shake it angrily. or drop it.

Can anyone here remember going to war because we though the other crazy guy -might- have a coal bomb?

there's more nuclear actors than ever before, and it only takes one of them to have a bad day for all of us to have a bad day.

Thankfully, the designs that can be used to produce weapons grade material are also the ones that are the least safe. If people opt for the old designs, it will be obvious what their intentions are.

the concern is not just about a single power reactor being misused to produce bomb fuel, but about the picewise contribution a nuclear power program makes to the nation's capacity to achieve their weapons ambitions

Contrary to what the article tries to evoke, the Fukushima meltdowns were a huge catastrophe that severely impacted a whole region. Ask the people who live(d) there if they think the impact of this thing was overstated in the media - they're likely to tell you if anything consequences were buried not exposed.

I don't think anyone is trying to argue that there wasn't a huge catastrophe that affected the region least of all this article. It was very clear on the thousand deaths that the evacuation caused beyond those caused by the Tsunami. What it argues is that the radiation from the disaster wasn't a huge catastrophe that people worried it was.