Merged: nuclear power safe?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

New designs such as we will be building in the next couple decades would be safe even in a tsunami zone.

You're quite the optimist Ben. Unless by "we" you mean "everyone but the US".

[BenBurch]

We're going to do it if we want to keep the lights on.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

We're going to do it if we want to keep the lights on.

I think the lights have to go off before our current crop of legislators (and POTUS) decide to finally do something about it. I'm cynical.

[BenBurch]

They are the ones proposing we build new plants. The previous administration approved like three total plants.

[bikerdruid]

nuclear power safe?

apparently not.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by Java Man

I think you've nailed it. Nuclear power isn't safe or unsafe by itself. It's when you bring the CEOs and businessmen on the table that it becomes inherently unsafe.

False.

The worst nuclear accidents in history occurred in countries that did not have capitalist economies.

Three Mile Island, the site of the worst nuclear accident in the west, has had its liscense extended to 2034.

We'll keep the CEOs and businessmen since they have the best and safest track record.

Even if this were not the case, it would have nothing to do with nuclear energy. CEOs and businessmen build everything from reactors to stoves, shower heads and food processors.

Originally Posted by Java Man

If we can build reactor cores who's cycle doesn't produce positive feedback and cause a core meltdown in case of cooling failure. Why haven't we replaced the old designs with the new? Because it costs money.

No.

We don't do that because the powerplant is rated for 40+ years. You don't knock over a perfectly safe and functional nuclear reactor five years after construction because someone has just designed a better one.

You don't throw out a brand new car when you find that next years model has a better safety rating, do you?

Originally Posted by Java Man

So we are basically gambling here. Betting that the old design will hold true until the end of life of the plant. Guess what, seems like the Japanese are losing the gamble this time.

No, they didn't. A 9.0 earthquake came along and destroyed everything. The Fukushima reactors have performed spectacularly in the midst of this disaster. Of all the buildings and industrial facilities that have been severely damaged in this disaster, the Fukushima plant is one of the few tht hasn't killed anybody. The Japanese people haven't lost any gambles with reactors designs that they didn't lose a thousand times worse on almost any other major structure. Fixating on a nuclear plant in the midst of everything else that's happened is absurd.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

They are the ones proposing we build new plants. The previous administration approved like three total plants.

Call us when shovels hit dirt.

For BOTH political parties. They both have been dragging their asses too much on this.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

nuclear power safe?

apparently not.

I expect you to feel this way about a technology invented by jews.

Do you know how many people have died at Fukushima, BD?

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

nuclear power safe?

apparently not.

STUPID thing to say.

Nothing is safe.

A coal burning power plant murders several people every year on average from mining accidents, transportation accidents, toxic mine tailings, broken sludge dams, pollution in the form of Mercury and RADIOACTIVE emissions of Uranium, Radium and Thorium that people downwind breathe.

The worst we COULD have happen here will never rise to that level.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

I expect you to feel this way about a technology invented by jews.

Do you know how many people have died at Fukushima, BD?

let's leave that question for a few days.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

let's leave that question for a few days.

We're already at tens of thousands of deaths, BD.

How many have died at Fukushima so far?

[BenBurch]

Wow, hearing the idiotic stuff people are saying about this, human beings are simply not smart enough for the species to survive.

The raccoons will do better when we are gone.

[Travis]

Total number of civilians killed by this nuclear incident: 0

And I'm reading that the elevated radiation levels went down after the explosion indicating they may have just been picking up elevated levels from other industries put into the air by the earthquake/tsunami.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Travis

Total number of civilians killed by this nuclear incident: 0

And I'm reading that the elevated radiation levels went down after the explosion indicating they may have just been picking up elevated levels from other industries put into the air by the earthquake/tsunami.

Yes, somebody told me there was a plant not too far away that processed Thorium for catalysts. I'll try to find that information.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Wow, hearing the idiotic stuff people are saying about this, human beings are simply not smart enough for the species to survive.

The raccoons will do better when we are gone.

not just the racoons....
the whole earth will be better off without us.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

not just the racoons....
the whole earth will be better off without us.

Some of us, anyway.

[Chris L]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

not just the racoons....
the whole earth will be better off without us.

A self hating human, how counter-evolutionary.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by Chris L

A self hating human, how counter-evolutionary.

wrong...i do like myself.
i'm just a misanthrope.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Thunder

nuclear power is very safe....until there is a massive earthquake and/or massive power failure that even kills its fail-safe systems.

then...nuclear power is the most dangerous kind.

Hum.

No.

Firstly:
The spillage and leakage of all those hydrocarbure in the enviornment, will be more damaging than what happens at those 2 reactors. *EVEN* if they have a meltdown. (and nobody is calling for gasoline to be banned).

Secondly :
In the case of the 2 japanese plant we are not even going as far as catastrophic meltdown. To give you an idea, Chernobyl (which is by the way NOT even a likely scenario here, and was a recipe book for egregerious error) had an estimated 4000 death all calculated (adn that is estimated , there was if I recll correctly less than 100 due to direct exposure, and mostly firefighter) , with increase of cancer etc... And they had a bloody stupid design with graphite and water moderator. The two japanese plant are not that bad in engineering, and now 30 years later the engineering is even better.

Compare that to the number of coal death (in the US, or even world wide), and comapre that to the number of people killed in the Tsunami.

Nuclear power is not the most dangerous in day to day. It can with a bad design be unhealthy, but it stil beat down all freaking fuel-based energy generation method in number of death per year in average.

The problem is that nuclear power is a boo-man, people quake in their hose when they hear "nuclear" fears take over and rationality out of the window.

rationaly nuclear power is safer than the rest.

Your attitude is best reflect by a psot I saw on slashdot. Paraphrased :
Some roman guy in antiquity make up a wood bridge by falling a tree over a river. Not very good as a bridge, round, people fall down. Then he makes improvement, cut the top half to make it flat, had a cord left and right as a railguard. But people seeing the GEN 1 bridge , call for banning of that "newflangled and devilish" bridge technolgy as it is dangerous. Worst the gen 1 round bridge start rotting and become dangerous so people point finger at them and say they are inherently unsafe. By the time the engineer come up with the stone arched bridge, despite being very very safe in comparison to a simple tree felled opver a river, it is too late, when people hear the word "bridge" they are running in circle like chicken little and screaming on top of their lung "the end is neigh". And at the same time since people STILL need to cross river, they swimm across and drown in mass. But hey, at least they are not dying falling off a bridge.

Nuclear is much safer than many other industry. Especially modern plants.

I live not far away from the Biblis plants in germany, and I am sick and tired of chicken-little and their fear of bridge nuclear. Make new plant, replace the old one, and stop calling for a betetr energy "politic" when there is no repalcement WHATSOEVER for baseload for nuclear except Gas, Oil and coal.

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

nuclear power safe? 50 year old nuclear power stations that don't have the most recent safety features in a seismically active country that was also hit by an enormous tsunami safe?

apparently not.Apparently, it kind of is.

I made your quote significantly more accurate BD.

[maxley]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

not just the racoons....
the whole earth will be better off without us.

I'm never sure what statements like this mean.

We are a 100% natural species. We're not a problem, or a disease the Earth has somehow picked up. We're as much part of the planet as oceans or rocks or deserts.

OK, we use the Earth's resources. Yes we alter the face of the planet. But so do locust swarms. So do elephant herds. So does the weather. And seismic activity.

The argument seems to be that by having an impact on the planet, we're irreparably destroying it. Well apart from scale, it's no different than me 'irreparably destroying' my garden by getting out there with a spade.

On the whole I like what we've done to the planet. I suspect we've made a better job of it than, say, cats would have, if they'd developed opposable thumbs instead.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

nuclear power safe?

apparently not.

Nothing is safe in life. Nothing. The question is what are the risk, and are they acceptable, and what are the consequence when the risk becomes reality. The problem is, people don't seem to be able to rationaly assess the nuclear risks, and the media is not helping. 10000 people die in the tsunami, and all most of coverage we get is of the nuclear reactors.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by maxley

I suspect we've made a better job of it than, say, cats would have, if they'd developed opposable thumbs instead.

You had such a wonderfully insightful post , and here you go ruining it . I say cat would have done a better job than dogs with opposite thumbs .

[Aepervius]

Good grief I am hearing the news, and I hear an error nearly every paragraph, and FUD at the same time. It is siomething to bang's one head against a wall. A hard wall.

[Cleon]

Regardless of actual damage done by the reactors, the psychological damage is done.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Regardless of actual damage done by the reactors, the psychological damage is done.

The psychological damage would not be that bad if the media did their job, instead of going for Sensationalist yellow journalism. Selling is more important than informing. That , or they are totally incompetent.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

nuclear power safe?

apparently not.

I knew one of our resident Luddites would show up.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Call us when shovels hit dirt.

For BOTH political parties. They both have been dragging their asses too much on this.

It called the NIMBY factor. And both parties are sacared of it.
A lot of people who say they support nuclear power get cold feet when there is talk of a plant in a 20 Mile radius of where they live.

[Travis]

I'd welcome a nuclear plant within twenty miles of me.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by dudalb

It called the NIMBY factor. And both parties are sacared of it.
A lot of people who say they support nuclear power get cold feet when there is talk of a plant in a 20 Mile radius of where they live.

s of t is one of those.
he strongly supports a proposed nuclear plant that bruce power wants to build in my back yard.
at least i'm not a nimby type.
i don't support nuclear power in anyone's backyard.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by dudalb

It called the NIMBY factor. And both parties are sacared of it.
A lot of people who say they support nuclear power get cold feet when there is talk of a plant in a 20 Mile radius of where they live.

Well, there's also a "second-degree" NIMBYism, as well. Someone might be totally pro-nuclear, wouldn't have a problem having one nearby...Except for what that might do to their property values. Their home value may drop, it may become that much harder to sell or rent, etc.

It's not just people scared of nuclear plants, it's people who are scared of people who are scared of nuclear plants.

[Cainkane1]

Originally Posted by Nosi

Many people on this forum believe nuclear power to be safe, clean, efficient energy. If it is done right and built well, a nuclear power plant should stand well against what is thrown at it.

Others believe there is no such thing as safe nuclear. Nuclear power plants are simply accidents looking for a date to happen.

The Japanese were very much "the for want of a nail" school when it came to building nuclear reactors. They made them tough and resistant to earthquakes, storms, cold to hot weather. Tough didn't cut it March 11. A 9.0 quake followed by a tsunami slapped their islands around like half chilled Jello, overwhelming the performing specs of the nuclear reactors. We are now looking down the jaws of serious consequences of having such dangerous sources of energy on a jumpy, jittery Earth.

Georgia USA has very litle tectonic activity. I wish we had more than just one nuclear facility.

[Ambrosia]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

sed nuclear plant that bruce power wants to build in my back yard.
at least i'm not a nimby type.
i don't support nuclear power in anyone's backyard.

Which makes you a person of NOTE.

(Not Over There Either)

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by maxley

On the whole I like what we've done to the planet. I suspect we've made a better job of it than, say, cats would have, if they'd developed opposable thumbs instead.

Don't.Joke.About.This.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by Ambrosia

Which makes you a person of NOTE.

(Not Over There Either)

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Thunder

nuclear power is very safe....until there is a massive earthquake and/or massive power failure that even kills its fail-safe systems.

then...nuclear power is the most dangerous kind.

Really? More dangerous than natural gas? Your assertion is rather unproven. Are you aware of how nasty natural gas explosions can be? Are you aware of how fragile natural gas lines are to earthquakes?

Safety is relative. And relative to everything else that went down with this earthquake and tsunami, well, I don't think the nuclear plants are actually at the top of the danger list.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

not just the racoons....
the whole earth will be better off without us.

You first.

[Soapy Sam]

I can understand someone not wanting to live near a nuclear plant, but would they prefer a coal or oil burner? Or would they prefer it if the electrickery was produced somewhere else and just came out the hole in their wall on demand?
That's natural enough, too.

I get the impression BD is out in the boonies and may feel he'd like to stay that way, with or without power- and I can understand that , too.

But most people- even those who choose to live low consumption lives- are dependent to some extent on the existence of the larger society. If BD is injured, he probably would expect to go to a hospital with electric power. He needs someone to make the steel he uses for many things every day. He is just like many people who use power at second hand , who would prefer it to come from a windmill or a wave generator.
Me, too.
But numbers are against us.

Me- I work for Halliburton. I'm happy to drill those deepwater wells nobody wants. I'll cheerfully frac. the shale below your local aquifer. The fewer nuke plants in the world, the longer I'm guaranteed employment.

And I'd retire tomorrow if we had enough of them.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You first.

i'm almost 60, so i might not be first, but i will be sooner than most.
i have no misconception that, as a species, we are any more valuable than the passenger pigeon or the dodo bird.
to think otherwise is prideful.

[lionking]

There are over 400 nuclear power plants today. How many do you hear of?