Hacker News Reader

Comment by lightgreen | Hacker News Reader

Even if we intentionally blow a nuclear power plant, it will not be an extinction event, not even close.

But so far nuclear power statistically is safer than any other source (wind, solar, hydro, coal), deaths per Wh, including the worst events like Chernobyl.

There’s no dark black magic inside nuclear power plant. It just burns uranium and heats water to spin turbines. Uranium burning happens all the time on Earth, in fact, if Uranium did not burn, the Earth would be much colder place.

(Technically, it is not burning of course, it’s fission.)

View on HN

Well, Chernobyl did narrowly miss a much worse outcome: poisoning the water table in a thousand mile radius with corium. There is a real threat of catastrophic outcomes with fission reactors that don’t exist with other reactors. These are issues that can be prevented, but the inherent danger cannot be denied.

> Chernobyl did narrowly miss a much worse outcome: poisoning the water table in a thousand mile radius with corium

Poisoning water does not make extinction event.

It would render some area unsuitable for living, big economic loss, so don’t operate knowingly flawed reactors, and don’t let Soviets operate nuclear reactors, and it will be fine.

> the inherent danger cannot be denied

As well as dangers of flying, taking a shower, operating a hydro power plant and everything else.

Even accounting for these dangers, nuclear is the safest option.

> Even if we intentionally blow a nuclear power plant, it will not be an extinction event, not even close

The parent commenter did not call for 1 more nuclear power plant.

Increasing the scale of reactors to "replace fossil fuels", increases the chances, that some of them even a dozen would cause environmental destruction for which no known method of cleanup exists.

May I call you lightgreen and other fission-proponents to move to Chernobyl or Fukushima and live there as an example to others?

> Increasing the scale of reactors to "replace fossil fuels", increases the chances

Sure, from very small to ten times that, still very small.

> some of them even a dozen would cause environmental destruction for which no known method of cleanup exists

OK, we can accept that eventually one or two small regions will be not suitable for living. We already do a lot of that when we build hydro power plants for example. Hydro power plants consume a lot of land.

> May I call you lightgreen and other fission-proponents to move to Chernobyl or Fukushima and live there as an example to others?

Chernobyl, no, it is radioactive and dangerous. Fukushima surrounding is very safe, it was evacuated only because there were ignorant people in Japanese government.

Anyway, what's the point of the question? Nobody is supposed to live where it is not safe, like nobody lives in Chernobyl exclusion zone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com