Japan earthquake + tsunami + nuclear problems

[macdoc]

And they hypocritically will by nuclear power from France. .....silly monkeys.

 

[Puppycow]

I don't agree with Germany's reaction. The thing to do is make sure nuclear power is safer, not get rid of it.

I hope that this is not all because of Fukushima.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Again, the reactors survived both the quake and the tsunami. What hurt them was the loss of the back up generators.

"Data taken at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on the night of March 11 showing a high level of radiation at a reactor building suggest the possibility that key facilities there may have been damaged by the quake itself that day rather than tsunami-caused power loss that failed the reactor’s cooling function, a utility source said Sunday."
http://www.japantoday.com/category/...cilities-may-have-been-damaged-before-tsunami

Maybe some early assessments -like the one- you made above -and to which I may have conceded prematurely- need to be re-evaluated if this news report -quoted from Japan Today above for easy linkage- is accurate.

In such a case, I would say "So what?"

It still took an earthquake powerful enough to knock the entire planet off its axis to crack the containment vessels of these reactors.

These reactors are proven safe by any reasonable definition of the term.

 

[DC]

obviously not save enough

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

These reactors are proven safe by any reasonable definition of the term.

obviously not save enough

Any reasonable definition, DC. When it takes a disaster that kills more than 20,000 people across an entire country to kill just three people at one out of more than 20 nuclear power plants with more than 55 reactors that definitely is "safe enough".

And they never will be for you. You cheer the Germans chicken little antics while blithely ignoring the 150,000+ annual death toll from coal use (which will form the bulk of Germanys power production after the nuclear shutdown).

The Deepwater Horizon accident in the Gulf of Mexico last year killed more than 5 times as many workers than have died at Fukushima, yet how many ours have you spent marching up and down the street with a sign reading "End All Oil Use Now"?

You don't care about safety, you just don't want nuclear used at all.

 

[DC]

Any reasonable definition, DC. When it takes a disaster that kills more than 20,000 people across an entire country to kill just three people at one out of more than 20 nuclear power plants with more than 55 reactors that definitely is "safe enough".

And they never will be for you. You cheer the Germans chicken little antics while blithely ignoring the 150,000+ annual death toll from coal use (which will form the bulk of Germanys power production after the nuclear shutdown).

The Deepwater Horizon accident in the Gulf of Mexico last year killed more than 5 times as many workers than have died at Fukushima, yet how many ours have you spent marching up and down the street with a sign reading "End All Oil Use Now"?

You don't care about safety, you just don't want nuclear used at all.

more lies from you, i would still vote to build new nuclear plants in my country, even now that the government plans to phase out of nuclear power. But on a long time scale, yes i support phasing out.

but i think there are lessons to be learned from Fukushima, and security still can be increased. Its not like such quakes never happened before or never will happen anymore, and especially when one plans to build more nuclear plants, they need to be saver.

and its not only about deathtolls, there are other factors that play a role, and you know that.
just because Nuclear is our best technology doesn't mean it is perfect, it is not.

and living very close to several nuclear plants, yes i do care about their savety.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

just because Nuclear is our best technology doesn't mean it is perfect, it is not.

Perfection is an unreasonable standard. I've said that you are an entrenched anti-nuclear zealot and you have just admitted to this.

 

[DC]

Perfection is an unreasonable standard. I've said that you are an entrenched anti-nuclear zealot and you have just admitted to this.

i never said they have to be perfect, perfection is impossible.
But there is room to make them better, especially in earthquake prone regions.
and what kind of Anti nuke zealot would support building new Nuclear plants?
so pls, stop the lies, can you do it without your usual lies?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

i would still vote to build new nuclear plants in my country, even now that the government plans to phase out of nuclear power. But on a long time scale, yes i support phasing out...

Nuclear is our best technology doesn't mean it is perfect

You support nuclear, you admit its our best technology, but you want it phased out, Got it.

In other words, you're an anti-nuker who admits he's wrong, but is anti-nuke anyway.

but i think there are lessons to be learned from Fukushima,

Yes, life on a tectonically active planet is dangerous. We should move to Mars or Venus.

FYI, Fukushima ONE is done. The plant will never be re-opened. Fukushima TWO, which was built ten years after Fukushima I, Is in a cold shutdown state. Cooling systems at Fukushima II were damaged and are due for repairs but the plant is intact and planned to be re-opened.

The lessons you speak of needing to be learned were learned and applied thirty years ago.

and security still can be increased. Its not like such quakes never happened before or never will happen anymore, and especially when one plans to build more nuclear plants, they need to be saver.

Three people have died at Fukushima since the quake. More than 20,000 have died in houses, apartment buildings, offices and factories. Focusing on trying to save three lives instead of twenty thousand will just get another twenty thousand needlessly killed the next time a quake like this happens.

and its not only about deathtolls, there are other factors that play a role, and you know that.

Yes, actually, it is about death tolls. Injuries and fatalities is what safety refers to.

and living very close to several nuclear plants, yes i do care about their savety.

You should be more concerned about living in Switzerland. You should consider moving to La Hague France, near that nuclear reprocessing facility that you were bitching about a few months back. You would reduce your exposure to radiation that way. People living at sea level are exposed to much less radiation than those living at high altitudes.

 

[DC]

You support nuclear, you admit its our best technology, but you want it phased out, Got it.

In other words, you're an anti-nuker who admits he's wrong, but is anti-nuke anyway.



Yes, life on a tectonically active planet is dangerous. We should move to Mars or Venus.

FYI, Fukushima ONE is done. The plant will never be re-opened. Fukushima TWO, which was built ten years after Fukushima I, Is in a cold shutdown state. Cooling systems at Fukushima II were damaged and are due for repairs but the plant is intact and planned to be re-opened.

The lessons you speak of needing to be learned were learned and applied thirty years ago.



Three people have died at Fukushima since the quake. More than 20,000 have died in houses, apartment buildings, offices and factories. Focusing on trying to save three lives instead of twenty thousand will just get another twenty thousand needlessly killed the next time a quake like this happens.



Yes, actually, it is about death tolls. Injuries and fatalities is what safety refers to.



You should be more concerned about living in Switzerland. You should consider moving to La Hague France, near that nuclear reprocessing facility that you were bitching about a few months back. You would reduce your exposure to radiation that way. People living at sea level are exposed to much less radiation than those living at high altitudes.

so we can ignore evacuation zones that are not useable for years?

i am willing to take that risk for a longer time than my government it seems. I would not do it in this short time, but on a long term, sure i want to go away from nuclear plants and use other technologies that dont have that risk. (yes i know they have other risks) so only people wanting to use Nuclear power forever are pro nuclear?

so you believe no lessons can be learned from fukushima? lucky the operators of our nuclear plants disagree with you.

and the region of switzerland i am living is comparable to le hague in respect of radiation levels. i am in one of the least active parts.

But doesnt mean one should not care about it. actually its important to care, especially when building hosues.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

so we can ignore evacuation zones that are not useable for years?

What evacuation zones?

There's the Chernobyl exclusion zone, but no one I know considers anything from Chernobyl to be applicable to the western nuclear industry.

i am willing to take that risk for a longer time than my government it seems. I would not do it in this short time, but on a long term, sure i want to go away from nuclear plants and use other technologies that dont have that risk.

So you want to go from technologies that are more safe to ones that are less safe.

(yes i know they have other risks) so only people wanting to use Nuclear power forever are pro nuclear?

There's nothing under the physical laws of this universe that can beat nuclear for energy density.

so you believe no lessons can be learned from fukushima?

Not even close to what I said. Try again.

lucky the operators of our nuclear plants disagree with you.

You have no grounds to claim this. You never read or talk to anyone involved in the nuclear industry.

But doesnt mean one should not care about it. actually its important to care, especially when building hosues.

It means you'll save more lives building earthquake resistant houses than by building reactors better than the ones at Fukushima II.

For all the time you've spent bitching about Fukushima I, you and the others have failed to realize or acknowledge that your demands for safety in the face of a 9.0 earthquake have already been met by Fukushima II and Japans 47 other reactors.

 

[DC]

What evacuation zones?

There's the Chernobyl exclusion zone, but no one I know considers anything from Chernobyl to be applicable to the western nuclear industry.



So you want to go from technologies that are more safe to ones that are less safe.



There's nothing under the physical laws of this universe that can beat nuclear for energy density.



Not even close to what I said. Try again.



You have no grounds to claim this. You never read or talk to anyone involved in the nuclear industry.


It means you'll save more lives building earthquake resistant houses than by building reactors better than the ones at Fukushima II.

For all the time you've spent bitching about Fukushima I, you and the others have failed to realize or acknowledge that your demands for safety in the face of a 9.0 earthquake have already been met by Fukushima II and Japans 47 other reactors.

a claim you are not able to prove and is so simple to disprove.... laughable.

 

[shadron]

and the region of switzerland i am living is comparable to le hague in respect of radiation levels. i am in one of the least active parts.

Really? You can select your location for activity from cosmic rays at high altitude? Or are you talking about earthquake activity?

 

[DC]

Really? You can select your location for activity from cosmic rays at high altitude? Or are you talking about earthquake activity?

Radioactivity, cosmic radiation is only 1/5th of the total annual radiation , mainly its geological, like radon for example.

http://www.bag.admin.ch/themen/stra...O2Yuq2Z6gpJCJd316e2ym162epYbg2c_JjKbNoKSn6A--

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You have no grounds to claim this. You never read or talk to anyone involved in the nuclear industry.

a claim you are not able to prove and is so simple to disprove.... laughable.

Disprove it then.

 

[Kuko 4000]

For all the time you've spent bitching about Fukushima I, you and the others have failed to realize or acknowledge that your demands for safety in the face of a 9.0 earthquake have already been met by Fukushima II and Japans 47 other reactors.

Were the other plants hit as badly though? Was the whole of Japan hit as badly as the Fukushima area? There's no use comparing the other plants to Fukushima I if they weren't hit nearly as bad by the quake or the tsunami. Fukushima II looks like a good comparison on surface.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Meanwhile in France:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13595455

In the aftermath of Japan's nuclear crisis at Fukushima, some European nations are rethinking their atomic plans. But France, home to 58 of 143 reactors in the EU, remains nuclear energy's champion, and plans not to retire its power stations but to expand them. Emma Jane Kirby examines why.

 

[DC]

Disprove it then.

first you have to prove it.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Were the other plants hit as badly though?

Yes.

Fukushima II is only a couple miles north of Fukushima I, it was hit by the same Tsunami and quake that hit Fukushima I.

Depleted Cranium has the story on "The Other Fukushima" including incredible before and during photos of the tsunami as it hit.

As I said to DC, Japanese nuclear engineers did learn the lessons of the Sendai Quake/Tsunami more than thirty years ago and started incorporating them into subsequent designs.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

first you have to prove it.

We've done this dance before, DC.

Your behavior remains consistent.