Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > I suppose you could say that Fukushima was really only one very big mistake,
> > i.e. how big a tsunami was ever likely to be. However, they show every sign of
> > being able to fix it eventually.
>
> That's kind of my point. You only need to be slightly wrong about one
> tiny thing, and it's game over.

But they weren't slightly wrong about one tiny thing. They were completely wrong
about a very important thing. And yet, serious as the problems have been, they
will never be as bad as chernobyl, and it seems that it may ultimately be very
difficult to measure any health effects.

> Fires can be put out, even oil spills can be mopped up [eventually]. But
> radiation is forever. [Or rather, "for such a huge time period that it
> might as well be forever".]

The I-131 release, which is the most serious short-term health hazard as I
understand it, will be all but undetectable in a few months. Some of the fission
products retained in the spent fuel in the cores are pretty nasty, but this is
dealt with safely. Release of this type of high-level waste is unlikely in the
extreme.

The BP drilling accident last year was far, far more serious than any nuclear
accident.

> Take, for example, the London airport "disaster". I forget the exact
> details, but a plane had to crash land due to some kind of mechanical
> failure. "So, how could such a serious safety failure have happened?"
> they ask. Um, excuse me? The plane CRASH LANDED, and not only did every
> single man, women and child on board walk off completely unharmed, THEY
> DIDN'T EVEN REALISE IT WAS A CRASH LANDING! That's not a safety failure.
> That's an epic SUCCESS! WTF, people?!

Quite :)

Post a reply to this message