Yes we actually are talking about deaths from natural disasters.

The Fukushima nuclear power plant was destroyed by the Tsunami. It didn't spontaneously combust.

A lot of other infrastructure that was impacted/destroyed by the Tsunami claimed lives. For example, a dam broke due to the Tsunami and that dam breach killed 4 people. Which coincidentally happens to be 4 more than were killed by the nuclear power plant when it was destroyed by the Tsunami.

▲

cogman10 3 hours ago | parent [-]

IDK why you'd think a thread about how we treat and handle nuclear reactors in an article about decommissioning nuclear reactors should suddenly be about people that die from natural disasters.

More people die from car accidents and heart attacks. More people get radiation poisoning from sun exposure. Also non-sequiturs because we are not talking about that here.

It is very tangentially related because the nuclear accident in the current thread was caused by an earthquake that also killed people. Not something that affects the discussion about how we should handle nuclear plants in the future because "This number is bigger" is a meaninglessly point to make.

▲

mpweiher 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> a thread about how we treat and handle nuclear reactors

This is actually an article about Belgium taking over nuclear plants for restart.

> should suddenly be about people that die from natural disasters

How did we get to natural disasters?

Well:

You brought up Fukushima, where a natural disaster destroyed a nuclear power station. You also incorrectly claimed that Japan had "decided" to "decomission" "these" reactors, rather than "rebuild" them.

Right, and ultimately Japan has decided the safest and I assume cheapest route with these reactors wasn't to rebuild but rather to decommission. These reactors can be made safer, but they all still have a foundational design flaw which means the ultimate goal should be replacing rather than continually spending money reinforcing.

I think most people who read this interpreted this as "these" meaning "Japan's reactor fleet". Because that's the only interpretation that makes at least a little sense (though it is wrong).

It certainly can't mean the reactors at Fukushima, because those have been destroyed, there never was any question of "rebuilding" them and so no "decision" not to do that. And not due to some unfixable "design flaw", but due to a Tsunami that another plant of the same design withstood without damage.

So: we got to natural disasters because you brought up natural disasters.

And yes, technical equipment and infrastructure gets destroyed in natural disasters. Like that dam in Japan that killed 4 people when it was destroyed by the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and Tsunami. Like that nuclear power plant that killed 0 people when it was destroyed by the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and Tsunami.

▲

thrownthatway an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> More people get radiation poisoning from sun exposure.

What. The. Fuck. Are. You. On. About.

That has never happened.

Radiation poisoning. From sun exposure.

Are you ok? Would like some water? Do you want to sit down?

If you think that’s a thing, I don’t know what to say. I hope you don’t vote.

You should stop now before you embarrass yourself. Go away and do some reading. Come back when you’re read to play with the big kids.

We’re doomed!

	▲	cogman10 33 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		UV light is radiation from the sun. Sun burns are, in fact, a form of radiation poisoning. I'm sorry this isn't something you knew. Also, be aware you are violating HN posting guidelines. I'm not going to interact with you further because you are just flaming.