• 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?

a_unique_person said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_6024d808f93d2117.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

This is the outer shell of the buildings, not the reactor cores. It's like looking at the thermal protection on the Apollo LM and complaining that it's not airtight.

This is a disaster, the French nuclear agency is rating it a 6. It's not a Chernobyl, but a six is only one below a seven.
Click to expand...

Which is disputed by pretty much everyone else, including those on the ground who rate it as a 4.

It's not as bad a disaster as the tsunami and quake, but what happened here should have been preventable, and after the tsunami, there must have been better ways to manage it.
Click to expand...

They seem to be managing it very well so far.

They should have done this on day one. They learned from Kobe that they need outside help sometimes, but the nuclear industry didn't seem to hear.
Click to expand...

Actually they were only evacuated for an hour, and then they were back after the spike subsided.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Which is disputed by pretty much everyone else, including those on the ground who rate it as a 4.
Click to expand...

Yup. And while radiation-related deaths aren't the only measuring stick in the INES classification, an accident is automatically a 5 if it results in "several deaths from radiation". So far, snowfalls from roofs in Finland have resulted in more casualties in March than radiation from Fukushima in Japan.

The situation is obviously serious, but people rating the accident by remote-viewing from several time zones away aren't doing anyone a service. Radiation can kill, but so can panic.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
In terms of lives lost, it's currently only one 10,000th as bad.



Why do you keep saying this? Are you trying to be ignorant?
Click to expand...

No, I'm telling you it should have been preventable.

The Indonesian tsunami should have been a wake up call. Tsunamis can be devastating for countries that are in a high risk zone, an audit would have indicated that the backup generators were a risk, as were the batteries. Battery technology has advanced considerably since 1970, the time they lasted for was only eight hours, a new bank could have lasted much longer.

They brought in external generators but 'the plug did not fit', whatever that means. A ready means of hooking up to a specified, standard generator could have been provided. I am sure that, in such an emergency, generators from somewhere off site could have been found. Japan must have something suitable somewhere.

They are only just now asking for US assistance. Since the plants are US technology, and the US is a major centre of nuclear knowledge, why didn't they ask for help from day one.

The work has been disrupted due to radiation concerns. Why aren't robots being used?

I don't doubt the courage of the workers at the site, they are risking their lives right now to manage the situation. But the management of that site has lost control.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Try going and looking at the website of nearly any environmental group or political party on the planet.
Click to expand...

ah ok, i take that as a, no i have no evidence.

Japan has virtually no oppositino to nuclear power, how come they dont have the techonolgy you talk about? Why does the USA not have that?
 
a_unique_person said:
No, I'm telling you it should have been preventable.

The Indonesian tsunami should have been a wake up call. Tsunamis can be devastating for countries that are in a high risk zone, an audit would have indicated that the backup generators were a risk, as were the batteries. Battery technology has advanced considerably since 1970, the time they lasted for was only eight hours, a new bank could have lasted much longer.

They brought in external generators but 'the plug did not fit', whatever that means. A ready means of hooking up to a specified, standard generator could have been provided. I am sure that, in such an emergency, generators from somewhere off site could have been found. Japan must have something suitable somewhere.

They are only just now asking for US assistance. Since the plants are US technology, and the US is a major centre of nuclear knowledge, why didn't they ask for help from day one.

The work has been disrupted due to radiation concerns. Why aren't robots being used?

I don't doubt the courage of the workers at the site, they are risking their lives right now to manage the situation. But the management of that site has lost control.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure such a thing exists but even if it did you would still have an issue in that anything stored locally would be underwater and anything stored further away would have to be found and transported among all the chaos.

I'm sure there will be things learned from this event that makes the next time round even safer. It's easy to say things were preventable in hindsight but you can't prevent every conceivable issue and even if you could there's always something you won't have thought of.

That's why there are layers and layers and layers and layers of failsafes and prevention measures in use. Just because you need to rely on the 4th or 5th level of protection doesn't mean your system failed. However, it does mean that people can look at levels 1,2 and 3 and see how they can be improved.
 
DC said:
ah ok, i take that as a, no i have no evidence.

Japan has virtually no oppositino to nuclear power, how come they dont have the techonolgy you talk about? Why does the USA not have that?
Click to expand...

A cursory wiki (is that a verb yet?) suggests that not to be the case
 
Corsair 115 said:
I suggest you read part of it again. Not 4,000 deaths from thyroid cancer, but 4,000 cases. The number of deaths: nine.

You also neglected this part:
Click to expand...

:confused:

I suggest you read my post again, too.

I didn't say anything about 4,000 deaths.

~~~~~~~~

"France has urged its nationals in Tokyo to leave the country, or at least head towards southern Japan.

This is a significant development: the first time a nation has explicitly said it does not believe Japanese reassurances about the safety of the Fukushima plant, about 150 miles from the capital. The comments by French ministers are very strong.

The industry minister, Eric Besson, told BFM television:

'Let's not beat about the bush. They have visibly lost the essential of control (of the situation). That is our analysis, in any case, it's not what they are saying.'"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/16/japan-nuclear-crisis-live
 
JihadJane said:
:confused:

I suggest you read my post again, too.

I didn't say anything about 4,000 deaths.

~~~~~~~~

"France has urged its nationals in Tokyo to leave the country, or at least head towards southern Japan.

This is a significant development: the first time a nation has explicitly said it does not believe Japanese reassurances about the safety of the Fukushima plant, about 150 miles from the capital. The comments by French ministers are very strong.

The industry minister, Eric Besson, told BFM television:

'Let's not beat about the bush. They have visibly lost the essential of control (of the situation). That is our analysis, in any case, it's not what they are saying.'"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/16/japan-nuclear-crisis-live
Click to expand...

I'd like to know what Monsieur Besson's qualifications are to make that pronouncement. Or even the data he is working on based as he is on the other side of the world.
 
DC said:
ah ok, i take that as a, no i have no evidence.
Click to expand...

Take it as having to ask for proof that the sky is blue.

Japan has virtually no oppositino to nuclear power, how come they dont have the techonolgy you talk about? Why does the USA not have that?
Click to expand...

The US has a very strong opposition to nuclear power. I already gave a link to greens.org showing the opposition to reprocessing on the basis of it being used to create new stations. If you can't be bothered studying the topic and learning, then don't expect me to dig up more links for you to not read.

Japan doesn't use them because it hasn't been into research and development, but after several minor incidents in the later 1990's they cancelled a number of planets and started investigation into the new generation stations signing an agreement with the US to start developing fast reactor technology, fuel cycle technology among other things on 2007.
 
DC said:
which political party is oposing nuclear power? or any other significatn group?
Click to expand...

I suspect that Japan's political parties have trouble selling an anti-nuke program.
Japan has very little energy and shutting down the nukes would very soon result in eating raw food in the dark.

In Europe we have the luxury of dreaming sweet dreams of windmills and solar panels whilst getting our power from French nukes and Russian gas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom