Do you consider Fukushima also not a modern design? Do you then also follow that old reactors should be shut down? (8 reactors of the same type as Chernobyl are still running for instance)

Are you trying to sound uninformed and unworthy of respect? Those 8 reactors were retrofitted to prevent another Chernobyl. Yes not at first due to the corrupt nature of the Soviet Union, but it did occur.

Also right now there is exactly 1 confirmed death from exposure to radiation from Fukushima, and a few dozen cases of cancer, radiation burns and injury. Pretty sure coal kills more directly and indirectly in any given month.

2,202 deaths from evacuation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...

And how many of those people would have been evacuated anyway for well the tsunami damage?

Please read the article and its sources: those deaths are attributed to the sole part of the evacuation related to the nuclear accident. The tsunami caused ~20000 deaths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_an...

>As of 27 February 2017, the Fukushima prefecture government counted 2,129 "disaster-related deaths" in the prefecture.[21][19][22][23] This value exceeds the number that have died in Fukushima prefecture directly from the earthquake and tsunami.[24] "Disaster-related deaths" are deaths attributed to disasters and are not caused by direct physical trauma, but does not distinguish between people displaced by the nuclear disaster compared to the earthquake / tsunami. As of year 2016, among those deaths, 1,368 have been listed as "related to the nuclear power plant" according to media analysis

Looks like that 2xxx number is disaster-related deaths? And the related to the nuclear power plant is 1368.

It is a bit confusing what that exactly entails. It seems to include people who committed suicide due to the evacuation, but surely their can't have been 1300 suicides. Is it people who are assumed to have died only because they weren't at home? How do you die due to an evacuation anyways?

None of this really seems explained, unless it really is 1300 suicides.

> the related to the nuclear power plant

"As of year 2016" (obsolete), and "according to media analysis" (vague source).

The official number of "Disaster-related deaths" is directly tied to a "disaster condolence fund system" (families have to apply). This is discussed in: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266676572...

Fukushima power plant started construction in 1967, no one would consider that a modern design.

If it was actually possible to build a new nuclear power plant I'm sure the old ones would be replaced. If it wasn't for chernobyl plus three mile island (which released a comically low amount of radiation) maybe the west would have completed its conversion to nuclear instead of essentially pausing all construction for 30 years. But right now the options are essentially shut it down and replace with fossil fuels (wind and solar are not great providers of base loads for obvious reasons) or extend the license.

Why should the safety of old reactors depend on new reactors being built?

Base load plus peak load is just one way to run electricity production. There is also load following for instance.

Germany replaced nuclear with renewables while also reducing both coal and fossil fuel use in general: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Energiemix_Deutsch...

>Why should the safety of old reactors depend on new reactors being built?

From the OP: >I'm sure the old ones would be replaced.

I think their point is that the old ones are still in use (sometimes extending their life rather than replacing them with better designs) because new ones aren't allowed to be built.

It's like banning new ICE designs and then complaining about how ICE aren't more efficient.

Well you're clearly pretty anti nuclear, would you allow the construction of a new reactor to replace the old?

The answer unfortunately is no, the fear mongering largely won out.

And you also seem to have forgotten the thread your in with your last statement.

The state of the art has improved since Fukushima was built. But it's not even in the same universe as Chernobyl, and reactors of that age shouldn't all be shut down, no.

Only one person died from radiation from the Fukushima accident, a tiny fraction of the total deaths from the tsunami. It's an insignificant risk compared to other forms of energy.

You are really unfair here. The management wasn't terrible at all! That's an insult to actual terrible managements!

It was the most bizarre, horrifyingly dump, idiotic, horrible management I can imagine.

The safety systems were rising warnings, the person that decided to ignore them and ordered continuation of the test wasn't even on site!