I’d have to agree with this one, and the most painful example of this that I can think of is Hisashi Ouchi, otherwise known as the most irradiated man in history.
I don’t see the Tokaimura nuclear accidents (which led to the aforementioned death of Hisashi Ouchi) as a reason to dismiss nuclear energy. Even if this is bait as @[email protected] mentioned, I want to make it clear that wasn’t my intention behind bringing up Ouchi’s death, and shouldn’t be twisted into a case against nuclear energy as a whole.
The Tokaimura accident of 1999 was the result of improper safety, due to the facility failing to install the necessary alarms should criticality occur, and cost-cutting by having workers mix uranium in steel drums instead of proper vats that would control the rate at which it’s mixed (which would have prevented criticality). In essence, had the proper safety measures been followed, the incident would not have occurred. The same can be said for most nuclear disasters, especially the famous Chernobyl disaster.
A compiled list of nuclear incidents (which also includes events aside from nuclear reactors) can be found here:
It’s evident that nuclear incidents, especially those pertaining to reactors, are incredibly uncommon, and this is the result of strict safety protocols that cannot be shirked, as well as an extreme number of fail-safes in the event of a malfunction. The most recent major nuclear event- The Fukushima Disaster, required an earthquake, tsunami, compounded with human error- extraordinary circumstances that not only are extremely rare, but have been learned from too.
If the reason to ban nuclear energy is due to a small handful of disasters like these, then logic dictates that this should be expanded to a myriad of products. How about pesticides, due to the Bhopal Disaster? How about getting rid of dams, due to the1975 Banqiao Dam Failure, that led to thousands of deaths?
The truth of the matter is that much of the large scale infrastructure that we rely on, especially in industry and energy production, can fail on extremely rare occasions, and lead to tremendous loss of life. But through strict safety measures, training, and human ingenuity, the threat of disaster is minuscule.
TL;DR: Singling out nuclear energy as a problem when the same concerns can be raised for any industry is hypocritical, and just the result of fear-mongering. It is safe.
How about acute radiation sickness?
I’d have to agree with this one, and the most painful example of this that I can think of is Hisashi Ouchi, otherwise known as the most irradiated man in history.
deleted by creator
Low-quality bait is Low-quality.
I don’t see the Tokaimura nuclear accidents (which led to the aforementioned death of Hisashi Ouchi) as a reason to dismiss nuclear energy. Even if this is bait as @[email protected] mentioned, I want to make it clear that wasn’t my intention behind bringing up Ouchi’s death, and shouldn’t be twisted into a case against nuclear energy as a whole.
The Tokaimura accident of 1999 was the result of improper safety, due to the facility failing to install the necessary alarms should criticality occur, and cost-cutting by having workers mix uranium in steel drums instead of proper vats that would control the rate at which it’s mixed (which would have prevented criticality). In essence, had the proper safety measures been followed, the incident would not have occurred. The same can be said for most nuclear disasters, especially the famous Chernobyl disaster.
A compiled list of nuclear incidents (which also includes events aside from nuclear reactors) can be found here:
It’s evident that nuclear incidents, especially those pertaining to reactors, are incredibly uncommon, and this is the result of strict safety protocols that cannot be shirked, as well as an extreme number of fail-safes in the event of a malfunction. The most recent major nuclear event- The Fukushima Disaster, required an earthquake, tsunami, compounded with human error- extraordinary circumstances that not only are extremely rare, but have been learned from too.
If the reason to ban nuclear energy is due to a small handful of disasters like these, then logic dictates that this should be expanded to a myriad of products. How about pesticides, due to the Bhopal Disaster? How about getting rid of dams, due to the1975 Banqiao Dam Failure, that led to thousands of deaths?
The truth of the matter is that much of the large scale infrastructure that we rely on, especially in industry and energy production, can fail on extremely rare occasions, and lead to tremendous loss of life. But through strict safety measures, training, and human ingenuity, the threat of disaster is minuscule.
TL;DR: Singling out nuclear energy as a problem when the same concerns can be raised for any industry is hypocritical, and just the result of fear-mongering. It is safe.