Hacker News Reader

Comment by rimantas | Hacker News Reader

> In short: FUD by nuclear energy lobbyists.

So mechanical engineer cannot possibly say anything truthful about nuclear energy?

The fact still remains: nuclear energy is the safest and cleanest we have for now.

So far we had what, three serious incidents with total number of causalities of 35, all in Chernobyl. Sure it affected much more people but still: the single incident at Sayano-Sushenskoye hydroelectric power plant claimed 75 lives. How about Banqiao Dam?

  According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province,[5] in the
  province, approximately 26,000 people died from flooding and another
  145,000 died during subsequent epidemics and famine. In addition, about
  5,960,000 buildings collapsed, and 11 million residents were affected.

And thats not counting all the incidents in coal and oil industry (and the fact that burning coal releases more radiation for the same amount of energy produced than nuclear power plants).

View on HN

total number of causalities of 35, all in Chernobyl

Wrong, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

- 31 dead from acute radiation poisoning within months - 216 non-cancer deaths until 1998 - Between 9,000 (official government report) and 60,000 (TORCH report) cancer deaths overall

60,000 (TORCH report) cancer deaths overall

Thanks for pointing that out one more time. I'm not an anti-nuclear zealot but I'm getting extremely tired of supposedly intelligent people citing the "35 deaths" bullshit-figure on HN in each japan-thread.

If there had been only 35 or 4000 deaths then Chernobyl would not be considered a catastrophic event up to this day. Instead it would be considered a testament to the safety of the technology.

I wonder if the part that these people have trouble wrapping their head around is the latency?

This is what happens during a nuclear accident: Nothing. At the very worst we may see a few hundred immediate deaths. Other than that, life goes on.

The real aftermath kicks in 10-20 years later, when people start developing cancer and birth defects. Different sources report different figures for Chernobyl, partly due to political bias, and partly because it's just really hard to track >600k people over such a long timeframe.

However, the estimates from most sources other than the IAEA and the russian government range in the tens of thousands - quite a long shot from "35".

>If there had been only 35 or 4000 deaths then Chernobyl would not be considered a catastrophic event up to this day. Instead it would be considered a testament to the safety of the technology.

Doubt it. Nobody says Three Mile Island was a testament to the safety of nuclear power, and the harm was pretty small, unambiguously less harm than 35 dead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#Heal....

> If there had been only 35 or 4000 deaths then Chernobyl > would not be considered a catastrophic event up to this > day.

It wouldn't. Oil and coal industry killed waaay more people. Heck, take Banqiao Dam alone. Nobody cares. Water is safe, nuclear is scaaaaaary.

I was watching a documentary about Chernobyl a while ago and some of the birth defects are extremely severe.

> The fact still remains: nuclear energy is the safest and cleanest we have for now.

Burning natural gas is both cleaner is safer, and it is a power source for much of Europe. I wonder why all nuclear advocates always bring in coal into the comparison.

I imagine this is why: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/83/2008_US_electr...

And in China they indeed burn even more coal. However, why build nuclear stations to displace coal, when it's possible to burn gas instead?

I imagine it has something to do with the quantity of power a nuclear power plant can generate compared to a gas based power station (given equivelent time/amounts of fuel)?? But I don't really know.

Having said that, though I don't remember the name/type ofdhand and am too lazy to look it up, there are new types of power plant in development/trials that 1) physically cannot meltdown, 2) produce much less (and less hazardous) waste and 3) use a plentiful form of nuclear fuel. If/when those nuclear power plants become production ready, then the choice between nuclear and fossil fuels is an easy one. For now, though, I agree with you and don't know the answer.

Sure it affected much more people but still

indeed. who cares about them...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com