[deckard1]

I'm pretty sure people understood earthquakes and tsunamis from the 1960s to 2011.

> not exactly a scathing indictment of nuclear power itself.

No, but it's certainly a statement about our ability to operate nuclear power. You really can't separate the two.

Fukushima may have been spared the worst, but the amount of deaths is only part of the story. Pripyat is still a ghost town. That's nearly 50,000 people that were permanently displaced from their homes. I imagine quite a few people are not returning to the Fukushima area as well.

[effie]

> No, but it's certainly a statement about our ability to operate nuclear power. You really can't separate the two.

... in tsunami endangered areas. Yes, Japanese made a bad mistake to let Americans build such a badly designed nuclear plant in that region and this was known before the disaster. They did not care - the price was good and the risk was acceptable to the people in charge.

Most of nuclear plants in the world are not in tsunami endangered areas though and are operated safely.

[deckard1]

> Most of nuclear plants in the world are not in tsunami endangered areas though and are operated safely.

How can one begin to even make this claim knowing: a) Chernobyl, b) Three Mile Island, and c) Fukushima? They clearly aren't operated safely. Just to be clear, I'm not anti-nuclear and I'm not making a case against nuclear power. I'm making a simple observation that really shouldn't be a debate. Three entirely different areas with three entirely different political/power/environmental structures in place.

What about regime collapse? We've been worried about nuclear weapons and the political situation in Pakistan. But a similar threat lurks behind nuclear power. What if the government of the future cannot properly maintain their nuclear plants? Based on the past 100 years of history I do not believe this is merely a hypothetical concern.

There will be disasters in the future. You understand this concept, right? Things that we know today which we will later claim could only be known in retrospect, like a tsunami hitting a nuclear power plant in Japan. I'm rolling my eyes right fucking now.

[effie]

Notice "most" and "not in tsunami endangered areas". By safely I meant following standard practices, not in areas in risk of being crashed by tsunamis. I did not mean no disaster can happen. Nobody can guarantee that for any industrial operation.

Yes sometimes people or nature do bad things that result in disasters. Disasters will happen with or without nuclear reactors.

I'm saying the serious disasters involving nuclear reactors are rare. Serious disasters because of nuclear reactors are rarer. Chernobyl was incompetence of personnel due to dysfunctional society + cheapest design without containment. It is not indictment of nuclear energy, but indictment of the soviet system. Fukushima wasn't as bad as Chernobyl, but it too shows problems with how government approached nuclear risk. I do not condone building plants like they did in Chernobyl and Fukushima.

> What if the government of the future cannot properly maintain their nuclear plants? Based on the past 100 years of history I do not believe this is merely a hypothetical concern.

We help them. West did help Russia with decommissioning of old nuclear equipment. I think that is a good strategy.

> There will be disasters in the future. You understand this concept, right?

Indeed I do. But it would be very stupid of us to stop advancing nuclear energy because we made mistakes in the past. We learn from mistakes and double down. I believe we can do it and we should do it.

[Ma8ee]

Like the US seems to be the most stable regime in the world?

[Ma8ee]

The problem with nuclear isn’t that it in theory can’t be made safe. The problem is that is is run by humans, in combination with the failure modes being so sudden and large scale.