lol
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (41)
sorted by:
Fukushima was a "everything that could go wrong, did go wrong " event. An aging power plant that was denied modernisation because anti-nuclear activists wanted no more funds no matter the reason to go to nuclear. An earthquake then a tsunami hitting it and the back up generators being in a basement level that got flooded.
The lesson here isn't nuclear is too dangerous to use, just like Chernobyl was an example of poor design and corrupt, inexperienced staff and then a culture of misinformation to save face, Fukushima is an example of what happens when you let political activists dictate where funds are allocated based on ideology rather than a reasoned argument.
I'd like to emphesize the earthquake a bit. It was one of the strongest to hit Japan. Japan gets hit constantly by earthquakes, it's a common occurance there so everything is build to withstand until a certain magnitude(I think it should be 8), Fukushima earthquake was a 9.1. I don't know how feasible it is to even build against that. They probably have to build one of those ones that just can't melt down.
It is just not safe to build NPPs in those areas, Turkey is planning to build one...
Structures are not build to withstand a single big shake, Crete had a 6R one 4 years ago and 300 of over 4R till then. In some areas the ground has risen by 3 or more meters and it still rises.
So in a good and just world nuclear is mostly fine barring freak accidents. Except we don't live in that world and freak accidents also need to be accounted for. Not accounting for people being retarded is a design flaw.
Nuclear power should be reserved for geologically stable and desolate areas, and space.
That's true for pretty much ANYTHING, the amount of fuel storage that have blown up easily surpasses nuclear incidents, the fact that there's only been 3 notable ones is quite the achievement.
And as many have said the plant itself was very out dated but anti-nuclear activists kept blocking funds for modernisation, it's the equivalent of being against all conflict but blocking modernisation to smart accurate guided bombs so we keep having to use napalm and carpet bombing.
If bill gates decided to build a nuclear plant in texas would you be ok with that? Even though he is hostile to human life and deliberately engineering a reactor failure would align with his stated goals.
As for your shitty analogy, it's more like being against the use of nukes in warfare. Or opposing insane governments getting nukes.
The people who built Fukushima reactor didn't predict funding and upgrades being prevented by acts of government stupidity. You're saying " if people just don't act retarded it will be fine". You have to account for people being retarded to the point of self destruction, because people will never stop being retarded.
A nuclear reactor is dangerous on a scale vastly eclipsing conventional fuel explosions. Don't be a retard.
Well no, that first analogy doesn't work, you have proven malice in his intent, it's like letting a fox who's been stealing your chickens then guard said chickens.
And instead of kneecapping ourselves because we listen to the retarded, why not do what we used to do, don't listen to them and put them in arrow fodder positions
Are you German
Nein, just slightly more informed on logistics and safety than the "just nuclear everything" technophiles.
I'm gonna guess prob'ly not.