> "If the Japanese, with their image of professionalism, smartness, ultra advanced technology, and total dedication to their job"

You're just cherrypicking positive stereotypes while ignoring negative stereotypes relevant to the matter, such as the trait of not making waves with your superiors and papering over problems to avoid embarrassment. These themes are explored in Shin Godzilla, which was a huge commercial success in Japan, undoubtedly because the Japanese public recognized some truth in how the movie depicted government incompetence in Japan.

I see your point, but I think the original point still stands - even if we take into account the shortcomings of Japanese business culture, what developed country is without its fatal flaws? In other countries, especially less developed ones, they might lack the negative stereotypes of not questioning superiority because they're too busy fighting worse stereotypes like greed, incompetence, or ignorance. What threshold of perfection does a country have to attain before it can be trusted to utilize nuclear power? And I would say Japan does set a pretty high bar when compared with most of the rest of the world.

In Japan they shut down each plant yearly for inspection. Everywhere else it's done on the refueling cycle. The plant I worked at was on a two year cycle so each year one of the two plants shut down for about an 8 week refuel/overhaul outage.

That's well and good, but an inspection is only as good as the inspectors and workers are honest and feel empowered to shut the whole deal down.

It's one thing to implement and andon cord, but it's quite another to get workers to actually use it.

'the Japanese, with their image of professionalism, smartness, ultra advanced technology, and total dedication to their job'

1 The plants were antiquated 1970's US GE equipment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Powe...

2 Japanese business culture is very deferential and top down. The amount of lying and covers ups around the Fukushima disaster was and is horrifying. Having worked for Sony I can say that there is an awful lot of dead wood in Japanese class system culture just as there is in the English class system, and that is not a healthy way to run something potential deadly on a global scale. I'm on the fence about nuclear power largely because of the above. It's not the technology, it's human and bureaucratic fallibility and greed that is the weak link

That's fair enough but shouldn't you have the same hesitancy about say, solar panel production or coal mining or oil production or wind farm installation and maintenance? All of these can be just as deadly and potentially more polluting.

But nobody dies from the Fukuushima disaster. And plants are getting safer. and many places are safe from earthquake, tsunami combos.

True, no one died, but it was immensely expensive. And that is important because one of the main selling points for nuclear is that it is supposed to produce electricity cheaper than any other source.

I think while cost savings is a potential benefit, nuclear’s primary appeal might be shifting more towards environmental impact.

“The Environmental Impact of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Disaster“

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph241/dong1/

Total nonsense, Fukushima was designed in the 50s only around 15 years after we first invented nuclear power and then started construction around a decade after that using that old technology. It is like using a Model-T as an example of why cars are too dangerous to use. Or judging flight safety based on wood and canvas planes.

Yes it was designed in the 50s but there was plenty of time for the design faults making it vulnerable to a tsunami to be fixed..

If it was soo dangerous, why didn't all those safety experts shut it down?

You don't see wood and canvas planes flying today.

One year before Fukushima:

> Computed risks for new reactors are lower than for current designs "when only internal events are considered," according to a 2009 report that the Nuclear Energy Institute wrote for the NRC. (That includes fires or pipe breaks, for example.) But when risks of damage caused by external events — earthquakes, for example — are factored in, the new reactors are no safer than older reactors. In addition, because utilities have no operating experience with the new reactors, the probable risk assessments are purely theoretical and not as reliable as years of actual operating data from existing plants.

> The new designs are engineered only to withstand a predictable sequence of events, something engineers theorize may happen. In nuclear parlance that is called a "design basis accident." The new reactors, like their older counterparts, are not designed to survive an unexpected sequence of events. That is the critical flaw, says Lyman: "Three Mile Island was a beyond-design-basis accident."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/21/how-safe...

>Now add the Chernobyl TV series on top, it will be replayed and memefied everywhere a plant is proposed.

btw are there other people who thought the show was really awful? I know this is a contrarian take but the constant <dialog about soviet doublethink> every three minutes was about as subtle as a sledgehammer.

About half an hour into the first episodes I was like, yeah I get it these people lie a lot to save their own skin. And while I'm not exactly crazy about physics correctness, the way it radiation was dramatized was just unnecessary, a pregnant woman isn't suddenly going to die or get birth defects from standing next to someone was exposed to radiation. The show gave the whole incident the flair of a zombie apocalypse.

> a pregnant woman isn't suddenly going to die or get birth defects from standing next to someone was exposed to radiation

In real life the baby died four hours after birth from radiation-induced heart and liver defects: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Ignatenko

The man’s body absorbed radioactive materials that were slowly unleashed as he disintegrated.

the wikipedia article claims that the child's illness was radiation induced but the provided source does not.

Just to give you an actual statistic rather than anecdote, among Hiroshima bomb survivors the incidence of birth defects was about 0.9%, or about 500 children in total. I'm not entirely sure how trustworthy this story is.

> among Hiroshima bomb survivors the incidence of birth defects was about 0.9%, or about 500 children in total

From what I understand, this is because the blast spread the radioactive material very far and thin, reducing its concentration in any given area.

Why would you get banned for that?

The whole point of HN is to control the overton window.

I didn't downvote you, but I'm quite surprised by that remark. Say what you will about HN, but it seems to me it's damn near the only medium in the world that mostly doesn't use censorship to control the Overton window, that is genuinely quite open to contrarian views. (As seen in this discussion, where there is vigorous debate going on.)

> Fukushima destroyed nuclear energy.

For the paranoid developed world. It's doing fine for others (and surprisingly for France).

No, it is not. After Flamanville, France will NEVER build another nuclear plant again.

(Hit it bankrupted EDF more than tripled in costs and in more than 15 years late)

Solar / Wind Capital costs circa USD 1 /watt and Nuclear circa USD 11.

If there's one thing you probably shouldn't lecture France about, it's nuclear electricity production and its environmental impact : https://www.electricitymap.org

Those definitely didn't help, but the Chernobyl disaster and fear have been handicapping nuclear energy for decades. It was a big mistake (wrt climate change) that we didn't invest a lot more in nuclear technology.

It's been stuck in the past, instead of e.g., Gen IV: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor