5 ms·

How does that refute what the parent comment was saying? Sounds like you are agreeing that the problem is not the technology but the people and processes in pla

How does that refute what the parent comment was saying? Sounds like you are agreeing that the problem is not the technology but the people and processes in place.

Dalewyn 2y ago
The problem is (or at least was) with the people in political chairs playing power games. No amount of better regulations or technology can prevent fucking morons going on power trips screwing everything up and then get away with it. The nuclear (TEPCO) people in the field were and are amazing, and it is a cardinal sin they got scapegoated for political purposes.
- kelnos 2y ago
  But that's kinda the point: name one government in the world where politicians don't play political games, sometimes in ways that put their citizens in danger. I'm sure you can't, because no such government exists. "Everything would have been fine if it weren't for the politicians" is not a path forward. These sorts of disasters will continue to happen.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    I agree, but then that should not be falsely characterized as a failure of the nuclear industry and technology. The failure was humans, and a very specific subset at that.
    - natmaka 2y ago
      > The failure was humans Isn't it always true, for such matters? As we cannot avoid committing errors it seems better to prefer a way without any risk of major accident (very dangerous radioactive things, difficult to cleanup, travelling long-distance thanks to wind, rain...). No wonder renewable sources quickly gain traction.
      - Dalewyn 2y ago
        Characterizing the failure of politicians as a failure of nuclear power is the error in logic I am talking about.
        natmaka 2y ago
        Refusing to understand that everyone (politician or not) can fail and that if we now can replace something dangerous in case of failure (nuclear) by something new which isn't (renewables), we should do so... is the error in logic I am talking about.
        Dalewyn 2y ago
        You're essentially arguing that kitchen knives should be banned because a small handful of psychos will murder someone with them. That isn't how this works.
        natmaka 2y ago
        No, because we have ne replacement for kitchen knives. We have a replacement for nuclear: renewables.
        Dalewyn 2y ago
        Sincerely, please stop talking nonsense. Renewables can be a complement to other power sources, but to even suggest they can be a "replacement" for nuclear power indicates either naivety or ignorance.
        natmaka 2y ago
        Quantitatively this replacement is already done (renewables produce way more than nuclear) and is running (nuclear produces less and less), right now, nearly everywhere (explore using 'Change country or region'): https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewables-nuclear-line?time=2001..latest https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...
    - pvaldes 2y ago
      > should not be falsely characterized as a failure of the nuclear industry and technology. The failure was humans Humans working in the nuclear industry are "the" nuclear industry. By definition all economical sectors are arranged around human workers. Remove each human and the industry will lose its reason to exist.
- krisoft 2y ago
  > No amount of better regulations or technology can prevent fucking morons going on power trips screwing everything up and then get away with it. I mean. If the story is true (which I have my doubts about). Then the simple change required would have been to make it clear that TEPCO has the sole authority to decide to scuttle the reactors. The politicians could have been morons going on a power trip all they wanted, and the reactors would have been safely scuttled. If you are a firefighter you wouldn't ask the government if you should pump gasoline or water on a fire. Why did the people managing the nuclear reactors gave the government an opportunity to choose wrong? (Or rather, why was the system set up such that it was not already clearly defined under which technical circumstances the reactor must be be scuttled.)
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    >why was the system set up such that it was not already clearly defined For the simple reason that the 3/11 Tohoku Earthquake defied and rewrote essentially all the geological/maritime scientific and political expectations up to that point. I doubt the same errors will happen today, but hindsight is 20/20.

How does that refute what the parent comment was saying? Sounds like you are agreeing that the problem is not the technology but the people and processes in place.

Dalewyn 2y ago

The problem is (or at least was) with the people in political chairs playing power games. No amount of better regulations or technology can prevent fucking morons going on power trips screwing everything up and then get away with it. The nuclear (TEPCO) people in the field were and are amazing, and it is a cardinal sin they got scapegoated for political purposes.

kelnos 2y ago
But that's kinda the point: name one government in the world where politicians don't play political games, sometimes in ways that put their citizens in danger. I'm sure you can't, because no such government exists. "Everything would have been fine if it weren't for the politicians" is not a path forward. These sorts of disasters will continue to happen.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  I agree, but then that should not be falsely characterized as a failure of the nuclear industry and technology. The failure was humans, and a very specific subset at that.
  - natmaka 2y ago
    > The failure was humans Isn't it always true, for such matters? As we cannot avoid committing errors it seems better to prefer a way without any risk of major accident (very dangerous radioactive things, difficult to cleanup, travelling long-distance thanks to wind, rain...). No wonder renewable sources quickly gain traction.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      Characterizing the failure of politicians as a failure of nuclear power is the error in logic I am talking about.
      - natmaka 2y ago
        Refusing to understand that everyone (politician or not) can fail and that if we now can replace something dangerous in case of failure (nuclear) by something new which isn't (renewables), we should do so... is the error in logic I am talking about.
        Dalewyn 2y ago
        You're essentially arguing that kitchen knives should be banned because a small handful of psychos will murder someone with them. That isn't how this works.
        natmaka 2y ago
        No, because we have ne replacement for kitchen knives. We have a replacement for nuclear: renewables.
        Dalewyn 2y ago
        Sincerely, please stop talking nonsense. Renewables can be a complement to other power sources, but to even suggest they can be a "replacement" for nuclear power indicates either naivety or ignorance.
        natmaka 2y ago
        Quantitatively this replacement is already done (renewables produce way more than nuclear) and is running (nuclear produces less and less), right now, nearly everywhere (explore using 'Change country or region'): https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewables-nuclear-line?time=2001..latest https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...
  - pvaldes 2y ago
    > should not be falsely characterized as a failure of the nuclear industry and technology. The failure was humans Humans working in the nuclear industry are "the" nuclear industry. By definition all economical sectors are arranged around human workers. Remove each human and the industry will lose its reason to exist.
krisoft 2y ago
> No amount of better regulations or technology can prevent fucking morons going on power trips screwing everything up and then get away with it. I mean. If the story is true (which I have my doubts about). Then the simple change required would have been to make it clear that TEPCO has the sole authority to decide to scuttle the reactors. The politicians could have been morons going on a power trip all they wanted, and the reactors would have been safely scuttled. If you are a firefighter you wouldn't ask the government if you should pump gasoline or water on a fire. Why did the people managing the nuclear reactors gave the government an opportunity to choose wrong? (Or rather, why was the system set up such that it was not already clearly defined under which technical circumstances the reactor must be be scuttled.)
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  >why was the system set up such that it was not already clearly defined For the simple reason that the 3/11 Tohoku Earthquake defied and rewrote essentially all the geological/maritime scientific and political expectations up to that point. I doubt the same errors will happen today, but hindsight is 20/20.