Fukushima Reactor Collapse?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**AustonT**

Lynata wrote:
Sorry, but these people have kept lying for decades. Fukushima failed not (only) because it was "old tech" (like a lot of other nuclear plants still in operation, for example this one in the US) but because the company wanted to save money. Just like any other corporation.
And if you think that Chernobyl and Fukushima have been the only times something went wrong, then you've missed out on a lot of reports of smaller incidents that happened in nuclear power plants around the globe - as well as how their operators continuously attempt to cover them up

Fukushima didn't fail because it was old, it did not "fail" at all. It happened because of a cyclopian natural disaster. The age of the plant, and the actions of the staff exacerbated the issue. The only thing Fukushima and Chernobyl have in common is that they are both incidents rated a level 7, and Fukushima's inclusion in that category is rather dubious. Beyond that the two incidents share no similarity.

**Orlanth**

Pacific wrote:My sis works in the Nuclear Industry. As far as she knows, and bearing in mind the events in Japan were examined through a microscope by Nuclear companies the world over, the 'type' of reactor that was used in the Fukushima plant makes any kind of 'meltdown' in the style of Chernobyl impossible. Like, physically impossible (because of the laws of physics and all that).

So, there we go!

Perhaps your sis thought you too panicky or slow to speak rationally too you. Perhaps not.

Nuclear accidents does not equal meltdown, thats only the worst stage and even at Chernobyl this was at least partly averted. Nuclear accidents include gas leaks, coolant leaks etc etc. Fukushima might not be able to go bang (?not a fast breeder reactor?) but that isn't to say it cannot get to be unhealthy.

The whole idea that Fukushima cannot go bang so therefore its safe " So, there we go!

" can best be described as blind optimism based on ignorance. Sorry to break it to you but half-lives don't play to our timescales. In political society, a decade is very long term political planning and most officials cannot see beyond a month. A wrecked reactor needs containment for millenia. That sucks more than most care to realise.

Daedricbob wrote:We (UK) have people from our nuclear industry assisting the Japanese with the mess that is Fukushima, one of whom is a good friend of mine.
There is no danger of a catastrophic event of the type mentioned in the original post. Things are, however, apparently 'significantly different to the official line'. He can't tell me any more or any specifics as he is bound by the official secrets act.
I'd love to know what is actualy going on though.

Ominous and interesting. Nuclear leakage has slow invisible but not imperceptible long term effects. It makes sense to keep those under wraps from the masses. After all as expressed often enough here on this thread most people cannot discern any median between safe and disaster, so if the existant threat of Fukushima was revealed people will likely panic and assume the worst. There is likely to be leakage of some sort. It may not even be much, but any amount will have social and political ramifications and thus will need to be held with confidentiality.

**Joey**

dæl wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:
It does cause Quakes...

Not according to the gas companies that want to start using it extensively in Britain. Could they be lying to make money while endangering thousands of people?

Unless you have a sexual fetish for freezing to death I don't see the problem.

**PhantomViper**

AustonT wrote:
Lynata wrote:
Sorry, but these people have kept lying for decades. Fukushima failed not (only) because it was "old tech" (like a lot of other nuclear plants still in operation, for example this one in the US) but because the company wanted to save money. Just like any other corporation.
And if you think that Chernobyl and Fukushima have been the only times something went wrong, then you've missed out on a lot of reports of smaller incidents that happened in nuclear power plants around the globe - as well as how their operators continuously attempt to cover them up

Fukushima didn't fail because it was old, it did not "fail" at all. It happened because of a cyclopian natural disaster. The age of the plant, and the actions of the staff exacerbated the issue. The only thing Fukushima and Chernobyl have in common is that they are both incidents rated a level 7, and Fukushima's inclusion in that category is rather dubious. Beyond that the two incidents share no similarity.

I'm forced to agree with our conservative friend over here.

Fukushima and Chernobyl have nothing in common and Fukushima resisted a 7.1 earthquake followed by a tsunami! I'd say that that is a pretty resistant power plant...

**dæl**

Joey wrote:
dæl wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:
It does cause Quakes...

Not according to the gas companies that want to start using it extensively in Britain. Could they be lying to make money while endangering thousands of people?

Unless you have a sexual fetish for freezing to death I don't see the problem.

So the options are freeze to death or get earthquakes, thanks for clarifying. There was me thinking there were other options.

**AustonT**

dæl wrote:
Joey wrote:
dæl wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:
It does cause Quakes...

Not according to the gas companies that want to start using it extensively in Britain. Could they be lying to make money while endangering thousands of people?

Unless you have a sexual fetish for freezing to death I don't see the problem.

So the options are freeze to death or get earthquakes, thanks for clarifying. There was me thinking there were other options.

Move to Bali.

**purplefood**

dæl wrote:
Joey wrote:
dæl wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:
It does cause Quakes...

Not according to the gas companies that want to start using it extensively in Britain. Could they be lying to make money while endangering thousands of people?

Unless you have a sexual fetish for freezing to death I don't see the problem.

So the options are freeze to death or get earthquakes, thanks for clarifying. There was me thinking there were other options.

At least earthquakes are cool...
Freezing to death would suck...

**Joey**

dæl wrote:
Joey wrote:
dæl wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:
It does cause Quakes...

Not according to the gas companies that want to start using it extensively in Britain. Could they be lying to make money while endangering thousands of people?

Unless you have a sexual fetish for freezing to death I don't see the problem.

So the options are freeze to death or get earthquakes, thanks for clarifying. There was me thinking there were other options.

Pay through your nose to subsidise the Russian state?
If we exploited shale gas, you'd shave hundreds of pounds off the average houshold's bills - that's a huge boost to aggregate demand right there.

**dæl**

purplefood wrote:
At least earthquakes are cool...

Not if your entire country wasn't built to withstand them.

**Joey**

dæl wrote:
purplefood wrote:
At least earthquakes are cool...

Not if your entire country wasn't built to withstand them.

We get thousands of them a year (tens of thousands?) so yeah we are.

**Lynata**

dæl wrote:I absolutely agree, all power stations should be nationalised as private companies will always place private concerns ahead of public ones. But this isn't just a nuclear problem, look at fracking and the fact it might cause earthquakes.

True. Granted, "saving money" may happen under government authority as well (tight budgets? internal issues?) but it is notably less likely to happen. Personally, I am of the opinion that any such basic necessities should be run/provided by the state, but people would probably regard that as "communist".

AustonT wrote:Fukushima didn't fail because it was old, it did not "fail" at all. It happened because of a cyclopian natural disaster. The age of the plant, and the actions of the staff exacerbated the issue. The only thing Fukushima and Chernobyl have in common is that they are both incidents rated a level 7, and Fukushima's inclusion in that category is rather dubious. Beyond that the two incidents share no similarity.

It wasn't really different from Chernobyl; I imagine that plant would've continued to run just fine as well if its staff did not push the wrong buttons at the wrong time.

When dealing with a force as dangerous as this, I daresay that inability to withstand natural phenomena or human error is "fail", as both of these WILL occur, at some time, on some day.

tl;dr: it's always about "exacerbating the issue" - nuclear power plants don't blow up all of a sudden, they require something to set the catastrophe in motion. They should be designed to neutralize this something so as to ensure continued safe operation, but apparently this doesn't seem possible. In this, Chernobyl and Fukushima are very much alike.

Also, like the vast majority of nuclear power plants, Fukushima too did have minor incidents even before the big accident of 2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi#Incidents_and_accidents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daini#1989_incident

Now, this is nothing serious, but it goes to show that things have never been running smoothly. There are German power plants with an even more impressive/scary track record, though. Globally, there's a looong list of incidents available for a long list of nuclear plants. Most of it just doesn't become breaking news because the operators managed to get it back under control and/or because of a cover-up. For Fukushima, we now know that warnings from safety inspectors were ignored and their reports locked away simply because they were "inconvenient". The old energy control commission in Japan was directly subservient to the Ministry of Trade, Economics and Industry, which was naturally more interested in a booming economy than regulating the power companies.

In the end, I guess you could say that the technology itself is not to blame. Humanity is simply unable to use it properly.

**dæl**

Joey wrote:
dæl wrote:
purplefood wrote:
At least earthquakes are cool...

Not if your entire country wasn't built to withstand them.

We get thousands of them a year (tens of thousands?) so yeah we are.

0.0000001 on the richter scale doesn't count. That's kind of like saying we have millions of black holes in our bodies, so could survive a black hole in our solar system.
If you want to engage in a discussion on how we get our energy I've started a thread about that, I don't really want to derail two threads to the point of closure in one day with the same discussion.

**Joey**

Lynata wrote:
dæl wrote:I absolutely agree, all power stations should be nationalised as private companies will always place private concerns ahead of public ones. But this isn't just a nuclear problem, look at fracking and the fact it might cause earthquakes.
True. Granted, "saving money" may happen under government authority as well (tight budgets? internal issues?) but it is notably less likely to happen. Personally, I am of the opinion that any such basic necessities should be run/provided by the state, but people would probably regard that as "communist".

AustonT wrote:Fukushima didn't fail because it was old, it did not "fail" at all. It happened because of a cyclopian natural disaster. The age of the plant, and the actions of the staff exacerbated the issue. The only thing Fukushima and Chernobyl have in common is that they are both incidents rated a level 7, and Fukushima's inclusion in that category is rather dubious. Beyond that the two incidents share no similarity.
It wasn't really different from Chernobyl; I imagine that plant would've continued to run just fine as well if its staff did not push the wrong buttons at the wrong time.

When dealing with a force as dangerous as this, I daresay that inability to withstand natural phenomena or human error is "fail", as both of these WILL occur, at some time, on some day.

tl;dr: it's always about "exacerbating the issue" - nuclear power plants don't blow up all of a sudden, they require something to set the catastrophe in motion. They should be designed to neutralize this something so as to ensure continued safe operation, but apparently this doesn't seem possible. In this, Chernobyl and Fukushima are very much alike.

Also, like the vast majority of nuclear power plants, Fukushima too did have minor incidents even before the big accident of 2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi#Incidents_and_accidents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daini#1989_incident

Now, this is nothing serious, but it goes to show that things have never been running smoothly. There are German power plants with an even more impressive/scary track record, though. Globally, there's a looong list of incidents available for a long list of nuclear plants. Most of it just doesn't become breaking news because the operators managed to get it back under control and/or because of a cover-up. For Fukushima, we now know that warnings from safety inspectors were ignored and their reports locked away simply because they were "inconvenient". The old energy control commission in Japan was directly subservient to the Ministry of Trade, Economics and Industry, which was naturally more interested in a booming economy than regulating the power companies.

In the end, I guess you could say that the technology itself is not to blame. Humanity is simply unable to use it properly.

Considering my computer and lights are both working, I beg to differ.
Nuclear power is waaaaaaaaaay safer than coal power. Even Chernobyl caused very few casualties, tiny compared to how many die in the production of coal power.

**ShumaGorath**

This article is a little too fearmongery for me. You can assess and describe the dangers of further damage to the site without using bad science and scare tactics.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Considering my computer and lights are both working, I beg to differ.
Nuclear power is waaaaaaaaaay safer than coal power. Even Chernobyl caused very few casualties, tiny compared to how many die in the production of coal power.

The Chernobyl disaster (Ukrainian: Чорнобильська катастрофа, Chornobylʹsʹka katastrofa), was a nuclear accident that occurred on 26 April 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant In the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (then part of the Soviet Union), now in Ukraine. The number of victims is disputed; some have claimed that tens or hundreds of thousands have died as a result of the accident, but these claims are believed by some UN agencies to be wildly exaggerated.[1] Confusion has arisen from the deaths of thousands of emergency and recovery operation workers as well as people living in ‘contaminated’ territories caused by diverse natural causes.
During mid-1986 the official Soviet death toll rose from 2 to 31, a figure that has often been repeated. While some claim that deaths as a result of the immediate aftermath and the cleanup operation may number at least 6000,[2] that exceeds the number of workers known to have died from all causes by the National Committee for Radiation Protection of the Ukrainian Population. For further information on the indirect health implications, see Chernobyl disaster's effects on human health.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster

Reports on the impact of the disaster on populations vary widely, but the total deaths aren't small. They generally range between ~10k to ~20k with some reports going much much higher. A similar diaster in Fukishima would have much more widespread effects due to the population density of Japan.

**PhantomViper**

Nuclear power is responsible for only a fraction of the deaths that exposure to the Sun has caused!

Quickly, lets all just cover ourselves in sun screen and never leave our houses!

**AustonT**

Lynata wrote:
It wasn't really different from Chernobyl; I imagine that plant would've continued to run just fine as well if its staff did not push the wrong buttons at the wrong time.

tl;dr: it's always about "exacerbating the issue" - nuclear power plants don't blow up all of a sudden, they require something to set the catastrophe in motion. They should be designed to neutralize this something so as to ensure continued safe operation, but apparently this doesn't seem possible. In this, Chernobyl and Fukushima are very much alike.

Really? Which natural disaster preceded the Chernobyl incident? What fail safes were deactivated at the Fukashima plant?

**Lynata**

Joey wrote:Considering my computer and lights are both working, I beg to differ.

Because you know exactly where your power is coming from? Yeah, right.

Joey wrote:Nuclear power is waaaaaaaaaay safer than coal power. Even Chernobyl caused very few casualties, tiny compared to how many die in the production of coal power.

And you don't think this has to do with the coal industry employing way more people, or with the fact that it is next to impossible to accurately assess whether a nuclear worker's death by cancer was caused from him being a smoker or working in a nuclear power plant / mine? Okay.

Nothing that is capable of making entire regions inhabitable is "safe". I'd like to see the coal mine that requires a 30km no-go zone to be erected for centuries to come. Or the coal power plant which needs a sarcophagus for the price of ~810 million dollars and which has to be re-newed every few decades because the material degrades so quickly thanks to coal dust.

AustonT wrote:Really? Which natural disaster preceded the Chernobyl incident? What fail safes were deactivated at the Fukashima plant?

It appears you misunderstood me.

Nuclear power plants should be safe from the effects of natural disaster or human error, as these things are guaranteed to happen. Evidently they are not safe, with both Chernobyl and Fukushima both being perfect examples - ergo it's a risk to keep them.

**dæl**

AustonT wrote:Which natural disaster preceded the Chernobyl incident?

Communist Russia?

**AustonT**

Lynata wrote:

AustonT wrote:Really? Which natural disaster preceded the Chernobyl incident? What fail safes were deactivated at the Fukashima plant?
It appears you misunderstood me.

Nuclear power plants should be safe from the effects of natural disaster or human error, as these things are guaranteed to happen. Evidently they are not safe, with both Chernobyl and Fukushima both being perfect examples - ergo it's a risk to keep them.

That is a ridiculous contention. Nuclear power plants are safe from the effects of reasonably expected natural disasters not cataclysmic events. Is your flat protected against the impact of a meteor? No? I thought not, your flat is not safe I'm afraid it has been condemned and you have to leave.

I didn't misunderstand a thing you said:

Lynata wrote: It wasn't really different from Chernobyl

Which is demonstrably false.

**Lone Cat**

Lynata wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:The level of fear-mongering and hysteria surrounding the Fukushima reactor is just horrific. Tens of thousands of people died in the Tsunami. That's the real trajedy. Instead we get "Oh the noes! Nuk-u-lar power is the evils!!!1".
To be fair, tens of thousands of people are born anew every year. It's horrible, but population numbers will grow again. However, if these people are born with a lower lifespan, deformities and/or sterility, they will be punished for generations, for mistakes made by their forefathers.

It's less the amount of people currently affected by the incident, but that Japan will have to deal with the results for centuries or millennia to come, depending on which of the leaked material's half-life you'd be looking at.

And Japan is punished twice here due to the small area it has available for settlement and agriculture.

dæl wrote:Fukashima was old tech
Heh, that's what they said about Chernobyl before Fukushima happened. "Nooo, it totally cannot happen again. Today's power plants are totally safe, we took care to implement a million safety systems. Trust the lobby, they know what they're talking about!"

Sorry, but these people have kept lying for decades. Fukushima failed not (only) because it was "old tech" (like a lot of other nuclear plants still in operation, for example this one in the US) but because the company wanted to save money. Just like any other corporation.
And if you think that Chernobyl and Fukushima have been the only times something went wrong, then you've missed out on a lot of reports of smaller incidents that happened in nuclear power plants around the globe - as well as how their operators continuously attempt to cover them up. I'm assuming the near-meltdown in Sweden is already forgotten these days, too.

Wake up. Nuclear power is a business, and saving money left and right is what makes a company successful, safety and human lives be damned. Why do you think most of the deaths in the coal mining industry happen? This is no different.
Nuclear power plants cannot even be insured because of the cost, so the operators know that it's an "all or nothing" deal for them. Might as well save a few bucks and pray it all works out. Only problem is, if something goes wrong it's an entire country that has to suffer the consequences - both in taxpayer money as well as a decline in health.

Also, seriously, when you count the coal miner deaths as casualties in the debate, you must do the same for the people who die due to the mining of uranium (etc). Coal miner deaths are a common argument brought forward by the lobby to point fingers, but don't you find it strange that they rarely talk about uranium mining? Do people think this stuff grows in the plants?

"South of the Pandora mine, in Monticello, Utah, a uranium-processing mill operated through World War II until 1960. Children at the time would play in the tailings piles and drink water from the millponds. People living in the shadow of the mill knew not to hang laundry on windy days because their linens would turn yellow from the mill's dust. Now, 600 cases of cancer -- a number that is growing each year -- have been confirmed among current and former Monticello residents. The town has a population of just under 2,000. The Utah Department of Health has finally labeled what is occurring in Monticello as a cancer cluster that does not appear to be a random occurrence."

But hey, as long as the cash keeps flowing, right?

1. So you say that TEPCO is a robber barony. right?
2. Thanks alot. as long as Fusion reaction is not yet being harnessed. Thailand should steer clear from nuclear power plants. I'm not sure how can Vietnamese take care of this 'timebomb' ?

**dæl**

Lone Cat wrote:Thanks alot. as long as Fusion reaction is not yet being harnessed.

There are a few reactors in the world, one in South Korea, one in Oxford, UK. I think there are others. At the moment they take up more power than they give (need massive magnets to contain the reaction) but they have made reactions. Now we just need to make it into a rifle and we have Plasma guns.

**Lynata**

AustonT wrote:That is a ridiculous contention. Nuclear power plants are safe from the effects of reasonably expected natural disasters not cataclysmic events. Is your flat protected against the impact of a meteor? No? I thought not, your flat is not safe I'm afraid it has been condemned and you have to leave.

Last I checked, my flat didn't have the capacity to cause cancer or mutations.

If it would do so, then yes, I'd fully approve of it being condemned and shut down. See: asbestos.

Also, the tsunami for Fukushima was reasonably expected. Inspectors warned about it. Alas, since the nuclear lobby has quite a lot of influence in Japan, and because corporations are interested in making as much money as possible, these warnings were dismissed.

AustonT wrote:Which is demonstrably false.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Lone Cat wrote:So you say that TEPCO is a robber barony. right?

Tbh, I don't see much difference between tepco and the other nuclear power companies. I can only speak for the ones that operate in Germany like Vattenfall, but I do not really believe it's different elsewhere in the world.
It's understandable that a corporation wants to maximize its profits - after all, this is expected by their investors - but clearly, in the nuclear industry, this practice should be considered far too dangerous. Should.

That the nuclear lobby also invests a lot of money into blatantly biased PR spins (if one were to actually analyze their contents and not just swallow this "info" without fact-checking) and bribery, and that both the companies as well as the governments have a large track record of downplaying any incidents does not render them more trustworthy, at least to me.

Germany currently also faces controversy over the nuclear repository "Asse II" which now needs to be completely evacuated due to water intake and loss of structural integrity. Unfortunately, many of the 126.000 barrels of nuclear waste were basically "thrown down a hole", forming a chaotic pile of dangerous materials that will be hard or even impossible to recover. Some of these barrels have begun to rust, so time is somewhat of the essence. Projected cost for the operation is at ~4.6 billion dollars, to be shouldered by the taxpayer. \o/

**AustonT**

Lynata wrote:
AustonT wrote:That is a ridiculous contention. Nuclear power plants are safe from the effects of reasonably expected natural disasters not cataclysmic events. Is your flat protected against the impact of a meteor? No? I thought not, your flat is not safe I'm afraid it has been condemned and you have to leave.
Last I checked, my flat didn't have the capacity to cause cancer or mutations.

If it would do so, then yes, I'd fully approve of it being condemned and shut down. See: asbestos.

Also, the tsunami for Fukushima was reasonably expected. Inspectors warned about it. Alas, since the nuclear lobby has quite a lot of influence in Japan, and because corporations are interested in making as much money as possible, these warnings were dismissed.

Yep 9.0 earthquakes are common as the rain.

**Hulksmash**

@Lynata

Do you think the anti-nuclear technology people don't use even more rhetoric to demonize nuclear power. As for the Tsunami warnings from the documents I read the wall was built higher than previously experienced Tsunami wave by somewhere between 10-20%. I'd say that's a pretty solid margin.

@Thread

The ridiculous fear of Nuclear technology has impacted the advancements in technology that could have occurred over the last almost 30 years. Thanks 3-Mile Island and Chernobel....

I have friends that nuclear technology is what they do. They have no reason to blow smoke up my tailpipe regarding it's safety level or where our technology is at. I'll take their, and other nuclear scientists, educated and experienced word over ranter on the internet any day.

**Lynata**

AustonT wrote:Yep 9.0 earthquakes are common as the rain.

Happened once already. And building a nuclear power plant by gambling that "what has happened once wouldn't happen again" is a mixture of greed and irresponsibility. It's a simple as that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/10/opinion/fukushima-could-have-been-prevented.html

Fortunately, individual people have learned from the disaster:
http://www.mining.com/2012/04/02/sense-of-duty-prevented-another-fukushima-nuclear-disaster/

Hulksmash wrote:Do you think the anti-nuclear technology people don't use even more rhetoric to demonize nuclear power. As for the Tsunami warnings from the documents I read the wall was built higher than previously experienced Tsunami wave by somewhere between 10-20%. I'd say that's a pretty solid margin.

Not high enough than what Tepco's own simulations would have required, so no.

And yes, of course a lot of twisted rhetorics will be used by either side when an issue is hotly debated. However, it shouldn't be hard to assess which side has more money to throw around for manipulation of public opinion or bribery of government officials. Also, it comes down to a simple question of motif. Opponents of nuclear energy aren't "in it" for personal gain but because they fear the effects of this technology on the environment - and rightly so, one should assume. Proponents of nuclear energy, however? The bosses of the energy conglomerates and lobby bigwigs? They're in it only for the money. They don't care about responsibility for the environment or for human lives anymore than what is enforced by a nation's government.

It's both funny and sad that even after Fukushima large parts of the populace still do not realize the danger and downsides this technology comes with. Chernobyl should have been enough of a warning sign, but evidently humanity is a slow learner. How many more accidents of catastrophic scale will it take?

Hulksmash wrote:I have friends that nuclear technology is what they do. They have no reason to blow smoke up my tailpipe regarding it's safety level or where our technology is at. I'll take their, and other nuclear scientists, educated and experienced word over ranter on the internet any day.

Of course not, they wouldn't want to lose their jobs. Just like those inspectors in Japan who remained silent until it was too late. Sadly, them coming forward now is a little too late.
Also, there is quite a number of nuclear scientists who are somewhat more sceptical of the business. Of course, this often means they have it harder finding employment, but still.

Here's a good example:
http://fukushimanewsresearch.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/indie-professor-tatsuhiko-kodama-of-tokyo-university-tells-the-politicians-what-are-you-doing-part-1/

**Hulksmash**

How would my friends being straight with me about the current level of safety and technology regarding nuclear power get them fired? Do you really believe there is conspiracy so strong that about nuclear technology that people would lie to family and friends who are like family?

Regarding "accidents of catastrophic scale" how much safer (and it's pretty damn safe at this point) would nuclear techology be if scare mongering hadn't seriously impacted for 3 decades? If king coal (who has a much stronger lobby in Washington than nuclear power) hadn't shoved coal power down america's throat for to long?

Sorry, I'm just tired of the bs that get's thrown around regarding nuclear technology. But I grew up in a state with nuclear power plants bracketing one of the largest population centers in the US and built pretty close to the San Andres fault line. Nuclear scare is just that, a scare.

**Lynata**

Hulksmash wrote:How would my friends being straight with me about the current level of safety and technology regarding nuclear power get them fired? Do you really believe there is conspiracy so strong that about nuclear technology that people would lie to family and friends who are like family?

I suppose rather it is likely that people voluntarily working in this industry are prone to be biased, for it does take some personal conviction to do this in spite of the controversy. Naturally, once being employed in such capacity, they would likely gravitate more towards information put forward by their own company rather than "some outsider". It comes with being proud of one's job.

And I have experienced this myself in another industry.

Hulksmash wrote:Regarding "accidents of catastrophic scale" how much safer (and it's pretty damn safe at this point) would nuclear techology be if scare mongering hadn't seriously impacted for 3 decades?

How much cleaner would our world be if ignorance and corruption wouldn't have kept this industry running for so long even after so many events have proven that accidents simply will happen? How many more people could live their lifes without cancer or leukemia or hereditary mutation of their DNA?

The thought that nuclear power plants would have been safer if the energy companies would not have been forced to implement new safety measures just to appease public worries after Chernobyl is mind-boggling. I'm sorry, but after having read about so many incidents caused by neglect and a general unwillingness to invest money into safety, my trust in corporate benevolence is somewhat shaken. If you still believe that the ideal of capitalism is to serve the public, good for you.

**ShumaGorath**

How much cleaner would our world be if ignorance and corruption wouldn't have kept this industry running for so long even after so many events have proven that accidents simply will happen? How many more people could live their lifes without cancer or leukemia or hereditary mutation of their DNA?

As a sum total? Less than from oil exploration in Africa or Coal mining in south america and china, but appeals to emotion are still fun. As for "cleaner", that doesn't even make sense. We don't have viable clean energy alternatives right now, and none of the up and comers were viable during the last half century since most required dramatic improvements in materials sciences and chemical science that even now we're not fully masters of.

The thought that nuclear power plants would have been safer if the energy companies would not have been forced to implement new safety measures just to appease public worries after Chernobyl is mind-boggling.

Why? It's true. The lock on new nuclear facilities (in the U.S. at least) directly led to a dip in standards since plants couldn't be "renewed" or "remade" forcing the owners to simply patch existing and often times suboptimal designs, rather than invest in newer and safer ones. Every major nuclear plant failure has occurred in the same type of plant, those plants aren't being made anymore, but we have to keep the old ones because of bs.

I'm sorry, but after having read about so many incidents caused by neglect and a general unwillingness to invest money into safety, my trust in corporate benevolence is somewhat shaken. If you still believe that the ideal of capitalism is to serve the public, good for you.

There are a couple of logical fallacies in this, but I'm not gonna bother.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Find them yourself.

**AustonT**

Lynata wrote:
AustonT wrote:Yep 9.0 earthquakes are common as the rain.
Happened once already. And building a nuclear power plant by gambling that "what has happened once wouldn't happen again" is a mixture of greed and irresponsibility. It's a simple as that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/10/opinion/fukushima-could-have-been-prevented.html

Wait. Anti-Nuclear writers say things that make nuclear power plant seem unsafe and 4th largest recorded earthquake was predictable? Say it ain't so.

Tepco was also negligent. It knew of geological evidence that the region surrounding the plant had been periodically flooded about once every thousand years. In 2008, it performed computer simulations suggesting that a repeat of the devastating earthquake of 869 would lead to a tsunami that would inundate the plant. Yet it did not adequately follow up on either of these leads.

That's real negligence, greed, and irresponsibility right there, not preparing for a once in a millennium occurrence.
Negligent, Greedy, Irresponsible Dinosaurs: K-T extinction event was preventable.

Tepco was negligent. It knew of geological evidence that an extinction event meteor had hit the Earth in the at the end of the Maastrichtian age of the Cretaceous period. Yet it did not adequately follow up on this lead.

So can you plan for a tsunami event like the one that effected Fukashima? Let's ask:

Professor Hermann Fritz, a tsunami expert from Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech), US, said: "Nowhere in the world is as prepared as Japan - but in general you can plan for a magnitude 7 or 7.5 that happens every generation, but not for anything in the 9 range.

and finally:
Negligently constructed bridge collapses in preventable disaster.
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/flooding-on-british-scale-only-happens-every-thousand-years-1950191.html
where's the outrage?

**Lynata**

AustonT wrote:Wait. Anti-Nuclear writers say things that make nuclear power plant seem unsafe and 4th largest recorded earthquake was predictable? Say it ain't so.

"It knew of geological evidence that the region surrounding the plant had been periodically flooded about once every thousand years. In 2008, it performed computer simulations suggesting that a repeat of the devastating earthquake of 869 would lead to a tsunami that would inundate the plant."

There you have it. 869 + 1000 = 1.869
In other words, this flooding was already overdue. Not preparing for it by investing more money to build a higher wall? Yeah, I call that neglect.

AustonT wrote:Negligent, Greedy, Irresponsible Dinosaurs: K-T extinction event was preventable.

You make a brilliant argument there.

AustonT wrote:So can you plan for a tsunami event like the one that effected Fukashima? Let's ask:
Professor Hermann Fritz, a tsunami expert from Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech), US, said: "Nowhere in the world is as prepared as Japan - but in general you can plan for a magnitude 7 or 7.5 that happens every generation, but not for anything in the 9 range.

You are aware that the whole disaster could have been prevented if the wall would've been a bit higher?

This isn't about an earthquake of any magnitude happening right underneath the city, this is about the flooding that comes from the oceans. Don't get the two mixed up.