• 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?

Cuddles said:
But the thing is, did anyone ever actually claim that the WTC buildings couldn't possibly fall down as the result of someone crashing a plane into them? They weren't designed to withstand that and I doubt that anyone who actually knew much about them would ever have made such a claim.
Click to expand...


I seem to remember hearing one of the architects making such a claim but no matter, it's off-topic.


On the other hand, modern nuclear reactors are built specifically to be able to withstand things like plane crashes. They are tested by actually flying jets into them at high speed, hitting them with rocket powered trains, and various other similarly extreme tests. They're certainly not invulnerable, but we can be pretty confident that things that might destroy an office building are mostly not a big risk to nuclear reactors. Just because WTC7 contained concrete and collapsed does not in any way imply that all nuclear reactors are unsafe just because they also contain concrete, which is what the original assertion seemed to be implying.
Click to expand...

This assumes that there haven't been any cost-cutting fudges during the reactor/skyscraper building processes.
 
Cuddles said:
But the thing is, did anyone ever actually claim that the WTC buildings couldn't possibly fall down as the result of someone crashing a plane into them?
Click to expand...

Nobody thought to ask "What if another building falls onto it and it catches fire and the fire is left burning for 6 hours?"

Same thing goes for Fukishima, nobody thought to ask "What if a tsunami hits and it knocks out the pumps"

The anti nuke crowd has it right to point out that no matter how well planned or designed something may be, human error or even nature has a demonstrated ability of finding the flaw and exposing it.

It get even worse when humans with their ingenuity set their minds to finding the flaws and exploiting them.

What the pro nuke crowd has got right is that even when these flaws are exposed we have a demonstrated ability to contain and manage them. 3 mile, Chernobyl, Fukishima, have done relatively little damage.

Long story short it's an acceptable risk. Accidents are going to happen, people are going to die, the land and air will be poisoned, absolutely. That's the price of doing business and that's nothing new.
 
I think it's worth the risk. I've often suggested my own town here in California would be a good place for a new nuclear power plant. We have year round water nearby, we are on a pretty big block of granite and I trust the new designs.
 
3bodyproblem said:
It get even worse when humans with their ingenuity set their minds to finding the flaws and exploiting them.
Click to expand...

Particularly when those same people propose no viable alternatives and don't even seem clear on what their endgame is (provided they have one at all).
 
Ziggurat said:
Apparently we can add architecture to the list of subjects of which you are ignorant.

The WTC towers were NOT steel-reinforced concrete. They were steel with a thin coating of concrete. The concrete did not provide structural support, but only light fire protection, and it was blown off the steel when the planes hit.

And the WTC fell not simply because there was a fire. It fell because it experienced a disaster significantly larger than it was designed to withstand. That hardly argues against the ability of nuclear containment structures to withstand disasters that they are designed to withstand.
Click to expand...

It always amazes me that the WTC towers are viewed as some great engineering disaster.

They weren't. They are an example of amazing engineering due to the fact they stood as long as they did after receiving the catastrophic and unanticipated damage.
 
JihadJane said:
Sword_Of_Truth said:
I trust the thirty year old designs at Fukushima II.
Click to expand...
I don't believe you.
Click to expand...

As I've said over and over again, and given the scale of the media disaster at Fukushima, I don't think this can be said too much or too often, Fukushima Two survived the same quake and tsunami that hit Fukushima One. And did so without any of the problems that Fukushima One had.

Fukushima Two, currently safely sitting in a cold shutdown state and could probably be brought back on line with minimal repairs, is proof that the "lessons of Fukushima" were already learned and applied more than thirty years ago.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
As I've said over and over again, and given the scale of the media disaster at Fukushima, I don't think this can be said too much or too often, Fukushima Two survived the same quake and tsunami that hit Fukushima One. And did so without any of the problems that Fukushima One had.

Fukushima Two, currently safely sitting in a cold shutdown state and could probably be brought back on line with minimal repairs, is proof that the "lessons of Fukushima" were already learned and applied more than thirty years ago.
Click to expand...

Edited by jhunter1163: 
Edited for Rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JihadJane said:
Is this another one of your silly little lies?
Click to expand...

You couldn't look this up for yourself? Instead you had to take a shot across my bow?

Look at the top result you get when you punch "Fukushima II" into google:

The Fukushima II Nuclear Power Plant (福島第二原子力発電所 Fukushima Dai-Ni (About this sound pronunciation) Genshiryoku Hatsudensho?, Fukushima II NPP, 2F), or Fukushima Dai-ni (dai-ni means "number two"), is a nuclear power plant located on a 1,500,000-square-metre (370-acre) site[1] in the town of Naraha and Tomioka in the Futaba District of Fukushima Prefecture, Japan. The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) runs the plant.

After the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, the four reactors at Fukushima II automatically shut down.[2]

Japan's worst nuclear accident occurred at TEPCO's Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, or Fukushima Dai-ichi, a 11.5 kilometres (7.1 mi) boundary to boundary road journey to the north,[3] after the same March 11 earthquake.​

In your eagerness to take a shot at me, you failed to remove your own foot from the path of the bullet. Nice shootin' there, "Calamity Jane".:D
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
You couldn't look this up for yourself? Instead you had to take a shot across my bow?

Look at the top result you get when you punch "Fukushima II" into google:

The Fukushima II Nuclear Power Plant (福島第二原子力発電所 Fukushima Dai-Ni (About this sound pronunciation) Genshiryoku Hatsudensho?, Fukushima II NPP, 2F), or Fukushima Dai-ni (dai-ni means "number two"), is a nuclear power plant located on a 1,500,000-square-metre (370-acre) site[1] in the town of Naraha and Tomioka in the Futaba District of Fukushima Prefecture, Japan. The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) runs the plant.

After the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, the four reactors at Fukushima II automatically shut down.[2]

Japan's worst nuclear accident occurred at TEPCO's Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, or Fukushima Dai-ichi, a 11.5 kilometres (7.1 mi) boundary to boundary road journey to the north,[3] after the same March 11 earthquake.​

In your eagerness to take a shot at me, you failed to remove your own foot from the path of the bullet. Nice shootin' there, "Calamity Jane".:D
Click to expand...

Thanks for the citation. We can now safely celebrate the piles of rubble and radioactive wreckage at Fukushima as representing the reliability and safety of nuclear power industry!

Edited by jhunter1163: 
Edited for civility.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom