• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged nuclear power safe?

PhantomWolf said:
The second thing I noticed was the insistance to blow it out of proportions and to over emote everything to make it sound as bad as possible, and the third thing I noted was their continual use of so called experts who were just as lacking in their knowledge but adamently passionate about ridding the world of the nuclear menace.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

In Québec they interviewed a young non-Japanese lad living in Tokyo about the nuclear problem. Of course, he didn't know much about it and could only tell about the consequences of the Earthquake, but the anchor kept asking him if people around him were now doubting nuclear power. Of course he couldn't answer that question.
 
JihadJane said:
I'm so relieved. I'll stop worrying, because, if it's not an entire generation getting wiped out, what's the point? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Ok, how about "Since they've now issued the warning, it's likely that no on will be hurt, and even beforehand it wasn't certain that anyone would anyway"? Make it better for you?

JihadJane said:
That's not my point. My point is that it is a We're-better-than-the-Taliban argument. So what if we're better than the Taliban or if nuclear electricity is safer than burning fossil fuels?
Click to expand...
Well, given how early stage the renewable energy sources are at the moment, beyond being exceptionally lucky about where you live, you aren't going to find anywhere that doesn't absolutely require either fossil or nuclear. Given that nuclear is considerably safer, more reliable and more efficient than coal, oil or gas, I'd say it's the best bet. I accept that some people say "Just use less energy" but I think I'm confident in saying that even if households power down to the point at which they could use solely renewable sources, industry will still need something much higher yield.

JihadJane said:
Your "virtually unforeseen circumstances" comment is equally ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Why? Yeah, it was an Earthquake on the ring of fire, so they should have seen it coming!

Except wait, it was a stupefyingly powerful one. In fact, the earthquake didn't even damage the plant in any significant way. It was in fact the single safest location in the affected area.

Then again, tsunami is a Japanese word and they should have known one was coming.

Wait again! It was an enormous tsunami, one of a size that is so rare, that even with the positioning of the plants, would not have been seriously considered in 2010, let alone 1966 when the plants began construction.

Of course, they should have known that the diesel engines would have been compromised.

Wait again! Why? No one had predicted and no one could possibly have ever expected a natural disaster of that magnitude in the area. Even if they had and it was poor oversight not to include a different backup source, what would you have used that would NOT have been compromised by the tsunami?

Remember, even though modern designs don't rely on such a source, you have to use something that was available and reasonable back in 1966. Further to this, you cant' suggest they should have been upgraded without specifying exactly what upgrade you would give them and how you would apply it to the design of the plant, and you can't talk about scrapping them because they were due to be scrapped at the end of the month anyway.

Hindsight is 20-20 and all that.

JihadJane said:
I'm not saying that the nuclear lobby is lying by claiming that coal is safer than nuclear.
Click to expand...
That's certainly what you imply when you make a comment like you did. The obviously dismissive tone along with the comment about nuclear power being safe certainly implies that you think it's either a lie or a hollow, untrue statement.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...-nuclear-plant/2011/03/22/ABhMk3EB_story.html

<SNIP>
In a new setback, black smoke billowed from Unit 3, prompting another evacuation of workers from the plant during the afternoon, Tokyo Electric officials said. They added that there had been no corresponding spike in radiation at the plant.

“We don’t know the reason” for the smoke, said Hidehiko Nishiyama of the Nuclear Safety Agency.

As a precaution, officials have evacuated residents living within 12 miles (20 kilometers) of the plant and advised those up to 19 miles (30 kilometers) away to stay indoors to minimize exposure.

And for the first time, Edano suggested that those downwind of the plant, even if just outside the zone, should stay indoors with the windows shut tight.

<SNIP>
Click to expand...
 
a_unique_person said:
It seems pretty obvious to me. This is not, and cannot be, a Chernobyl, but that seems to me to make the pro-nuclear pundits think there is no real problem. There was a real problem the moment they lost control of the plants and just started trying things, hoping for the best.
Click to expand...

Actually if you read what the "pro" nuclear said, is that it was a catastrophe, but way not as bad as Chernobyl. And that even Chernobyl, was not as bad as many non nuclear catastrophe, even in OECD countries (and if you count non OECD that is even worst , we have had industrial catastrophe with 1000 up to 10000 of dead).

The bottom line is environmentally and in human death toll, Nuclear is still lower than any of the fossile fuel baselaod energy generation.
 
Aepervius said:
Actually if you read what the "pro" nuclear said, is that it was a catastrophe, but way not as bad as Chernobyl. And that even Chernobyl, was not as bad as many non nuclear catastrophe, even in OECD countries (and if you count non OECD that is even worst , we have had industrial catastrophe with 1000 up to 10000 of dead).
The bottom line is environmentally and in human death toll, Nuclear is still lower than any of the fossile fuel baselaod energy generation.
Click to expand...

Bophal?

What industrial accidents are you talking about here?
 
bikerdruid said:
mark corrigan was of the opinion that chernobyl was the world's first nuclear reactor.
i was clearing up his misconception.....
do try and keep up, eh?
Click to expand...

Do you think you could possibly stop with the aggressive tone all the time ?

As Mark said it was not a nuclear power plant so your information isn't even correct.

According to wikipedia, "On June 27, 1954, the USSR's Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant became the world's first nuclear power plant to generate electricity for a power grid, and produced around 5 megawatts of electric power."

So that answers Mark's question I believe.
 
Christian Klippel said:
So what? That simply does not change the fact that, despite all these flaws, nuclear power plants are still the safest way currently. They have the least impact on the environment and health of people. They have the lowest number of human fatalities compared to other methods of power generation. No amount of babbling will change that.
Click to expand...

So what? Well for starters I like nuclear power and I believe it would be better to have it than coal, gas or oil. I'd love it if all coal and gas energy generation was transformed to nuclear power. But then you'd have no argument. There wouldn't be a "riskier coal industry" to compare to. Nuclear would have to stand on its own two feet. And then what? Then with no one else to compare to. With no unsafer coal to argument against. With only nuclear power to observe would you then ask for the safety measures to be set in? Would you then recognized the misplaced location of the generators? The lack to encase the pools just like the core? The missing external redundant energy plugins?

Only then, with no one else to compare to would you search for improvement? Why not do it now then?
 
Belz... said:
Obvious trolling is obvious, as they say.

You knew exactly what I meant by "news".
Click to expand...

Yes I did. And that's just prejudice on your side. You though you'd argue against me by using the misinformed mass media. That's your fault not mine. Please don't call me a troll for that.

Now back to the point of the fuel rods. You were saying?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom