Sendai is a much smaller city and it had over 100k destroyed buildings, 15k dead or missing, and well over 100k without shelter. Estimates of the damage to infrastructure is estimated in the $Trillion range (over $300B spent in direct govt rebuilding incentives).
Maybe we shouldn't build large cities next to water since we're not technologically advanced enough to deal with natural disasters?
People can understand this kind of risk.
There was a disaster, it got cleaned up. Now, people live there and are happy.
The same is true of many other floods.
So… I’d say we technologically advanced enough to deal with flood waters.
Unlike, literally every nuclear disaster.
Believe what you want to believe dude. No amount of snark, prancing or shaking your fist at the sky about nuclear safety is going to convince people it’s safe.
…until we have technological solutions that more effectively deal with nuclear radiation, radioactive substances and radiation related illness.
Based on the snarky prancing I don't think you have, dude.
Watch footage of that event again and repeat the words, "People can understand this kind of risk".
Isn't global warming a problem we're trying to ignore and offload to the next generations too? Despite all you said is true, I still think we're better equipped to deal with nuclear power plants than hurricanes, floodings and all the other disasters that climate change has in store for us in the future. This is something we have to consider too when discussing the cost/danger-benefits of nuclear energy.
Certainly, there is a cost/benefit to compare, but really, bluntly, we’re shit at cleaning up nuclear disasters.
In every situation where they’ve occurred, it’s taken longer and cost more than anticipated, and the point here is that this enormously expensive disaster could have been 10x worse if not for a lucky coincidence.
> Even if there is a risk of a $10 trillion disaster…
/sigh…
The problem is not that it’s too expensive; it’s that we’re not technologically advanced enough to deal with nuclear disasters other than brute force “pack everything into bricks and bury it in a hole”.
People will do it, because they close their eyes and hope nothing goes wrong (hey, won’t be in office when it does, this is your problem next generation, haha~), but things will go wrong, and it will. Again. Be crushingly expensive.
…and until we solve ”deal with it when it goes wrong”, bluntly, nuclear energy is always going to be controversial based on different levels of risk acceptance by different groups.
It’s not cognitive bias. You just have a different opinion. Neither you nor they are “right” about acceptable levels of risk.
The solution isn’t singing and dancing about nuclear power being safe.
It is not safe.
The solution is find ways to make it safe by being able to contain, control and deal with nuclear materials without needing “10000 years in a hole in the ground” for waste material, or “evacuate the entire metropolitan Tokyo” when things go wrong. Those are not things that happen with “safe” technology.