| HN Mirror

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure

leonidasrup 6 days ago

The most deadly industrial accident was the 1975 Banqiao Dam failure, with estimates of the death toll ranging from 26,000 to 240,000.

oneshtein 6 days ago

The dam is built to protect from floods.

Yeah but the risk management of a dam is ridiculously small compared to waste which will be dangerous so far into future that we might not know if people will even know what it is.

A dam damming water at a hill is obvious.

Some warm stuff set up like something really special, is not.

palata 6 days ago

Yet dams have killed more people than nuclear plants.

Krasnol 4 days ago

They have been around a bit longer don't you think?

How many nuclear actually killed is unknown because it's not as easy as: something happens, people drown.

It's more like: something happens, a few die fast, the rest dies earlier, their children live shorter or have disabilities, their children also, and so on. Meanwhile collecting waste which will do the same for later generations who might not remember what nuclear energy even is.

palata 2 days ago

> How many nuclear actually killed is unknown because it's not as easy as: something happens, people drown.

Did you even bother to read about how we estimate the casualties of nuclear incidents? It really sounds like you didn't, and just shared your first thought about it not being trivial.

> They have been around a bit longer don't you think?

How in the world does that make them less risky? If a dam collapses, it's generally very bad, even if it is an old dam.

Krasnol 22 hours ago

I actually did bother.

The numbers are highly speculative and are either those you get pushed in your face by the nuclear astroturf (killed on site) or are scientific and the range is very wide since it's so hard to calculate. It's cancer and it happened in the Soviet Era.

Your whole comment didn't add anything to the discussion. What's your point?

DANmode 6 days ago

Is this a Katrina reference?

throwthrowuknow 6 days ago

Like they said, if it’s properly stored and monitored it’s not going to harm anyone.

If you’re worried about some kind of societal collapse leading to it being abandoned, well in that case there are much bigger problems that are more immediately dangerous.

Do you know it will still be properly monitored in 100 years?

What about 1000?

How would you know if there are even people left who know what it is??

May be societal collapse isn't a problem. Maybe we're having a nice new beginning but someone finds some nice, warm stuff?

In 100 years: sure.

Unless we have civilizational collapse in which case a bit of nuclear waste will be the least of our problems.

It won't have to be monitored for a 1000 years. First, by that time the level of radioactivity is very low, and when it's in a deep-geological repository (like the ones we already use for vastly greater amounts of highly toxic chemicals that never decay) it is gone. We know enough about how geology works.

It won't be "the least of our problems", it would be an additional problem.

The fuel and related will have to be monitored for 1000 years and more.

Yes, we know how geology works, which is why we have found a single place where it might be safe. ONE.

Being an additional problem is not a contradiction of it being the least of those problems.

No it won't.

That isn't true. There are lots of suitable places. The problems are purely political, not geological.

For example: "The Government Accountability Office stated that the closure was for political, not technical or safety reasons" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel

> Being an additional problem is not a contradiction of it being the least of those problems.

How does this even help your argument?

Yeah, we have a nuclear winter. 80% of the civilisation is dead. "Hey look, we've found warm stuff". A few years later: 10% of the population died of cancer.

Are you kidding?

> No it won't.

Spent nuclear fuel stays a radiation hazard for extended periods of time with half-lifes as high as 24,000 years.

> That isn't true. There are lots of suitable places. The problems are purely political, not geological.

The fact that your single example is Yucca mountain and even the US wasn't able to come up with another place and is still discussing this one, shows that there is not an abundance of places you can put it. Even in such a huge country like the USA.

Other countries have the same issues and they are geological.

Germany had a spot a few decades ago. Everybody thought it would be safe. It has to be evacuated now. An evacuation which will cost the taxpayer millions of Euros.

frm88 6 days ago

We know enough about how geology works.

We also know how a BLU-122 works. Can you be sure the US wouldn't use one on its allies in yet another moment of irrational tantrum? What about Russia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository

How does the BLU-122 relate to a deep geological repository, in your esteemed opinion?

throwthrowuknow 6 days ago

Nice new beginning my foot. Go live in the woods without power, petrochemical fuel or modern technology for a year and then tell me what you think.

Why should I when there are cheap solar panels and batteries out there?

throwthrowuknow 6 days ago

Good luck making a solar panel without an industrial base.

Krasnol 4 days ago

Man, we're not in the 90s anymore...

bethekidyouwant 6 days ago

Correct as long as we still have Geiger counters.. I’m not sure what kind of apocalypse you’re planning for. Maybe get a radon detection kit for your basement.

I'm not planning for anything because you can't plan for the next decade atm. How would you plan for 100s and 1000s of years?

We should REDUCE the danger to those generations and not make it larger for no sane reason.

Nuclear is REDUCING the overall danger.

Because the alternatives are much more dangerous.

How are renewables more dangerous?

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/pubs/abs/kh05000e.html

"How" is not really a relevant question in this context. They are, empirically.

Though it has to be said that solar/wind and nuclear are all extremely safe, meaning it doesn't really matter that much which of these you use, the overall risk is always going to be very low, and the relative numbers are going to be very sensitive to small changes or variations in analyses.

Hydro is significantly more dangerous, and all the fossil fuels are tremendously more dangerous.

Due to the fact that intermittent renewables usually require fossil backup for that majority of countries that don't have abundant hydro, you have to take that into account.

A 2013 paper by NASA showed that nuclear power had saved around 1.84 million lives by 2011.

A 2019 study shows that reduced use of nuclear energy post-Fukushima cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

https://columbia.edu/~mhs119/Kharecha.Sato_Jpn.Ger_post.Fuku...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151...

Whereas the WHO predicts that there will be no measurable health effects on the general Japanese public from Fukushima, and the majority of negative health consequences were from the unnecessary evacuations.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095758201...

Radiophobia kills!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia

https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix

> Though it has to be said that solar/wind and nuclear are all extremely safe

Who said that?

What are you talking about? How is a solar panel even on the same safety-shelf with nuclear material??

What are you talking about??

> A 2013 paper by NASA showed that nuclear power had saved around 1.84 million lives by 2011.

Which is again related to the Astroturf tactic of playing nuclear vs. coal and is not related to today's calculations where it is renewables vs. nuclear.

Would you please stop derailing the discussion with this?

Nuclear peaked in the 90 and is being overtaken by renewables in certain countries as well as probably worldwide this year: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-production-by...

It is actually renewables which lead to coal being removed from the mix. Not nuclear:

Mawr 6 days ago

You realize we're literally dispersing coal, gas & gasoline fumes into the atmosphere that we all breathe, right? 24/7?

Yeah, small amounts of solid waste sitting somewhere is as much of a non issue as can be.

Yeah I know this Shillenberger tactic of playing "you love coal because you hate nuclear".

It is no argument or discussion happening in real life now.

It is nuclear vs. renewables and nuclear is losing.

...also those are not small amounts. The fuel may be a small amount but there is much much more that needs to disappear in holes we don't have.