MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
Not really.
Fukushima yes, it's absolutely relevant. TMI is somewhat relevant (and in case you didn't know, was completely contained and killed no one, So little radiation escaped the plant that it couldn't possibly cause any health problems) but Chernobyl is not. It was an outdated reactor, of a type that, I believe, is no longer in use, without the basic safety features all current and all future reactors have or will have in place. It's like complaining that no new cars should be built because the Ford Model-T wasn't safe.
What can they do? They decommission them in places where more will be built (like Japan, amusingly, since Fukushima was destined for the scrap heap about two weeks after the tsunami hit, had it not) but what do you propose when we aren't allowed to build more? The power must come from somewhere.
Yes, but operational plants have safety features. Safety features that seem to work effectively. Fukushima didn't have a problem because the safety features themselves were bad, but because the backup power supply couldn't cope with the largest tsunami that Japan had seen in a very very long time.
On the other hand, while the Fukushima plants stood strong, many fossil fuel refineries and thousands of homes were totally obliterated. I think that should score 1 to the nuke plants, don't you?
Well that's pretty stupid of him.
It would have to get a lot worse before it's dangerous. A fuel fire is pretty much the only thing left that could make it so, I believe.
Yes, but when your worst case scenarios are Chernobyl, TMI and Fukushima,
1. Isn't really relevant anymore. If you can show me an old, non contained reactor with a graphite moderator that's still operational then I'll concede it's relevant. If however, you find old reactors but with containment, then no it isn't.
2. Didn't hurt anyone and wasn't a disaster except economically.
3. Was hit by the largest earthquake on record, followed by a huge tsunami which wiped out large amounts of buildings in the area including hugely dangerous chemical plants and was still standing. Given that it seems to be clearing up now, this was handled better than it could have been, and hasn't caused any deaths, and isn't leaking enough radiation to be a danger to anyone as it stands.
That's a shame.
No, they aren't and it's much more than the circumstances differing.
I will make a money wager with you that you will not find another reactor with graphite moderator and no containment operational in the world today. Those two factors, along with spectacular mismanagement are the reasons Chernobyl was as bad as it was. The lack of containment allowed the reactor to vent radioactivity outside the plant, and the graphite moderator burning was how it got spread so far.
TMI is a major, MAJOR plus to the nuclear industry as an example of safety, because it showed that in a properly equipped plant when the worst does happen, it can be readily contained and not prove harmful.
Fukushima was hit by things you won't find in most parts of the world, I'd say, and even if you did, so what? If you have a better back-up power system (which is nothing to do with the reactor technology) then Fukushima, which stood up to an earthquake of a far greater magnitude than it was supposed to, let us not forget, would have just shut down. With modern plant designs, they don't even need an external power supply.
We have. No one builds a plant without a containment anymore and I'm fairly certain no one is still operating one. Plants that need no external power supply were designed way before the Fukushima incident and I'm guessing would have replaced the Fukushima plants after the decommissioning, scheduled to take place around today, I think, and what we learned from TMI was that containment works.
What do you think I'm being complacent about, exactly?
Except that all the deaths, current and future (unless something goes spectacularly, hideously wrong) from the incident in Japan have nothing to do with nuclear power.
I don't mean to be rude at all, but the very fact you bring up TMI shows you aren't in possession of all the facts and/or don't fully understand the ones you do have. It's not a bad thing, because I know I'm in the same boat really. The only thing is, I decided to look into it and found it really isn't all that scary. I also found that reporters, even otherwise legitimate and honest ones, are willing to scare up a panic about things they don't understand, so I put my faith in nuclear scientists because they do have the facts I don't, and they understand them.
Yeah, radiation is potentially dangerous, but there are safety features upon safety features to protect us from these reactors. Quite frankly, I can think of 4 nuclear power plant accidents in the 57 years it's been operational. 4.
Let that sink in a little. In the entire time it's been running, during the stages when the technology can still be classed as new, there have been 4 accidents. Of these, one was completely contained and not harmful to anyone. One was contained (eventually) and had a design that no longer exists (Windscale) one is being contained and stood up to forces of nature hundreds of times more powerful than it was supposed to (Fukushima) and one, just one, was a disaster.
