The_RealKeyserSoze t1_irsp21x wrote on October 10, 2022 at 7:11 PM

The reactor itself had design flaws but was still safe if run as designed. The problem is the staff ignored nearly every safety protocol developed which then exposed the flaws in its design. The changes made were adding new materials to the control rods that absorbed neutrons as well as using more enriched fuel with a higher amount of U235. These changes make it easier to control the reactor. They also automated some of the controls so that the mistakes made by the staff could not be repeated. (source)

The reactors still lack containment vessels found in western and modern reactors. These reinforced concrete vessels are the ultimate failsafe to contain the majority of the waste in the event of a meltdown. They are part of the reason why Fukushima and 3 mile island had virtually no direct casualties (Fukushima had 1, three mile island had 0).

[deleted] t1_is44bch wrote on October 13, 2022 at 3:54 AM

[removed]

The_RealKeyserSoze t1_is457ae wrote on October 13, 2022 at 4:02 AM

This theory about an all powerful nuclear industry falls apart when you consider Japan shut down its nuclear plants in 2011 and hasn’t turned many them back on. There were a lot of problems with Japans communication about Fukushima and risks, however there is also a lot of misinformation, particularly when it comes to radiation levels outside of japan.

>”I haven't forgotten the iodine-131 readings in the rain here in Portland, in March 2011.“

Here is the EPA report on iodine-131 levels: >”Boise, Idaho and Richland, Washington, showed trace amounts of Iodine-131 – about 0.2 picocuries per liter in each case. An infant would have to drink almost 7,000 liters of this water to receive a radiation dose equivalent to a day’s worth of the natural background radiation exposure we experience continuously from natural sources of radioactivity in our environment.”

>”My guess would be that an honest assessment of excess deaths would run in the tens of thousands from Fukushima and Chernobyl.”

The UN did an assessment of Chernobyl and estimated 4000 current and future deaths. I belive the estimates for Fukushima range between 500 and 2000, many of which come from the evacuation (exacerbated by the largest tsunami in Japanese history).

teratogenic17 t1_isd52oy wrote on October 15, 2022 at 1:24 AM

If reactors are so safe, why can't they get commercial insurance?

The_RealKeyserSoze t1_isd6359 wrote on October 15, 2022 at 1:33 AM

Not sure which country you are referring to but they can and do have private insurance in the US.

Do you have any sources on them being unsafe? Specifically less safe than fossil fuels?

teratogenic17 t1_isi4tx8 wrote on October 16, 2022 at 4:00 AM

If you had read your own link, you would realize the Price-Anderson Act subsidizes insurance with tax money. There is no purely commercial insurance available without that subsidy. The risks are too great.