• 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?

I want somebody to talk about how great it is that the reactors and plant stood up to a 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami, and nothing that bad happened.

I love them bedtime stories about how safe and wonderful nuclear power is.
 
r-j said:
I want somebody to talk about how great it is that the reactors and plant stood up to a 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami, and nothing that bad happened.

I love them bedtime stories about how safe and wonderful nuclear power is.
Click to expand...

Hey, so when do I get an apology for calling me a liar ?

After that you can spare yourself the insinuation, seeing how often you were wrong in this thread.

Nuclear power is dangerous, but much safer than many other industrial stuff we do.
 
Well, ignoring that you will never admit you were wrong, of course, and how you never produced any evidence that radioactive Cesium is found in all milk, and that while you lied you are now calling me a liar, well, maybe I should ignore you instead.
 
Edited by LashL: 
Removed breach.


People keep saying that coal is more dangerous, but never show evidence to either explain that or to show how we know this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Java Man said:
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?
Click to expand...

Even if coal and gas would be gone, it would still be safer than most of other industries. Get around it. Everyone learns from mistakes of the past, the nuclear industry is no different. From what happened, they will have learned and improve the plants. No one can ever know what will happen at some point in the future. It's as simple as that.

They are already at a higher standard than any other industry. For a good reason. There are a lot of safeties built into each plant. If that would not be the case, the situation in Fukushima would be extremely worse than it is already.

Alright then, lets move the generators elsewhere. Tell me, where do you want them to be? Can you say with certainty that at the new place, nothing bad could happen anymore? Yes, let's encase the pools. So that in a situation like this no one can spray cold water into them anymore. Great idea. Yes, let's put in a redundant set of energy plugs. This won't help against having the wrong type of generator anyways. If any generator could be brought to the site at all, given the massive destruction after the quake and tsunami.

Why not put a second set of wings on every airplane, in case one set breaks loose? Why not put 8 tires on a normal car, because any of the four could go flat on the highway? Why not build all buildings with 2 meter thick walls, because some crazy folks could fly a plane into them? Why not encase chemical plants into an impenetrable pool and dome, in case some chemicals get spilled?

Really, what you want is a "all bases covered" scenario that simply is not going to happen in the real world. No matter how hard you think, there is always something that can go wrong. No matter how many safeties you build into the system, there is always a chance that it can fail. Even worse, the more safeties you have, the higher the risk that one safety mechanism has adverse effects to another safety system, in case of some unforeseen failure.

But keep arguing the impossible. And stay at home all the times. Don't use a ladder, the oven, a knife, whatever. Just sit there and do not move at all. Because you no matter what you do, it could be lethal.

I'm done with you. Stay in your wonderland while i stay in the real world.

Greetings,

Chris
 
r-j said:
Edited by LashL: 
Removed quote of moderated content.


People keep saying that coal is more dangerous, but never show evidence to either explain that or to show how we know this.
Click to expand...

Try learning to use Google. Once you got around that, search for stuff like mining accidents, pollution, the EPA's info about coal, etc.

Instead of demanding to be spoon fed here, spouting out one- or two-liners with each post, get up and seek some information on your own. It's not that hard, really.

Greetings,

Chris
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Java Man said:
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.
Click to expand...

You knew exactly what I meant and rather than simply correct me you jested. How is that not trolling ?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Uh huh. See, that would be something I would really be worried about.
Click to expand...

Agreed. A fuel fire would be bad, very bad. I certainly hope this isn't the case.

Btw, here's an update from the World Nuclear News on the question of radiation levels in Japan:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Trends-in_radiation_in_Japan_.html
... Radiation detectors in central Japan have shown elevated readings since the Fukushima accident worsened on 15 and 16 March, with venting from reactor containment, the apparent damage to unit 2's torus suppression chamber and fires and explosions at units 1, 3 and 4.

Detectors in several regions, but especially to the south in neighbouring Ibaraki prefecture, have shown clear spikes in radiation. At around 7.30am on 15 March one meauring point showed 5 microsieverts per hour in Tokai village as a short-term peak, but this decreased (with some oscillation) to less than 1.0 microsieverts per hour on 20 March. This rose again to just under 3 microsieverts per hour as of 6:00pm on 21 March, most likely due to the widespread rainfall in the area. Measurement of background radiation for Ibaraki provided by MEXT show a range of 0.036 microsieverts per hour to 0.056 microsieverts per hour.

These readings are caused by the passage overhead of a mixture of gases and possibly fine particles from the nuclear power plant, which disperse with distance. In addition the radionuclides involved are also decaying, and thus reducing in potency. The readings represent a value for a single location at a single time and so give only a rough idea of what any member of the public in that area may have actually been exposed to. At the rates described above the passage of the materials will have had no measurable effect on the general public's health. ...
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine.
 
r-j said:
you never produced any evidence that radioactive Cesium is found in all milk
Click to expand...

I think it's very clear at this point that you cannot be educated because you simply don't read what people post. This could account for your constant question-asking.

If it were just for you, it'd be the JRF, not the JREF.
 
r-j said:
Edited by LashL: 
Removed quote of moderated content.


People keep saying that coal is more dangerous, but never show evidence to either explain that or to show how we know this.
Click to expand...

Wow, with this statement, r-j has shown that he has ignored about 50-60% of the entire thread. Color me surprised :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Christian Klippel said:
Alright then, lets move the generators elsewhere. Tell me, where do you want them to be?
Click to expand...

On the high ground right behind the plant.

Look at th picture:

http://earthandindustry.com/files/2011/03/fukushima-2.jpg

See the green stuff? Those are trees still standing. That ground is so high no tsunami got there. Like I mentioned before. It seems like they went through the motions of doing the security checklist, but didn't check how things fit together. They placed the emergency backup system between the reactors and the emergency (aka the tsunami wave). Why not place them further from the incoming threat than dead center?
 
Christian Klippel said:
Try learning to use Google. Once you got around that, search for stuff like mining accidents, pollution, the EPA's info about coal, etc.

Instead of demanding to be spoon fed here, spouting out one- or two-liners with each post, get up and seek some information on your own. It's not that hard, really.

Greetings,

Chris
Click to expand...

is that your usual behavior? claim stuff and not providing evidence for it?
and when people ask you for evidence you direct them to google?

still waiting for the source of your story about the venting......
remember? that story you made up?
 
The comment about one liners is really funny, considering how often they appear here.

It's educational.

"Why is coal harmful?"

Learn to use Google!

"So you can't just type out the answer? But you can post over and over about Cesium in milk?"

You trolling!


;)
I need to know how to put the laughing dog in a post.
 
r-j said:
The comment about one liners is really funny, considering how often they appear here.

It's educational.

"Why is coal harmful?"

Learn to use Google!

"So you can't just type out the answer? But you can post over and over about Cesium in milk?"

You trolling!

;)
I need to know how to put the laughing dog in a post.
Click to expand...

 
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...

I was? That's news to me.

If we in fact look at what I said (which was still wrong, thank you Belz for clearing it up):

MarkCorrigan said:
Chernobyl was, I believe, one of the first nuclear power plants built anywhere in the world, and as such had a very low margin of safety compared to modern plants.
Click to expand...
(emphasis not in original)

See, the bold bit makes your claim that I was stating it was "the first" wrong, because I was instead saying "one of the first", and even if I had been claiming it was "the first nuclear power plant" you pointed to something which wasn't and isn't a power plant.

You state I said it was the first nuclear reactor. I never said it was the first anything, and I certainly never claimed it was the first "reactor".
 
DC said:
is that your usual behavior? claim stuff and not providing evidence for it?
and when people ask you for evidence you direct them to google?

still waiting for the source of your story about the venting......
remember? that story you made up?
Click to expand...

Ok, you know what? He made up the venting thing. I will stand by you and agree he did. Now please explain why that discredits all the other things he's said.
 
DC said:
is that your usual behavior? claim stuff and not providing evidence for it?
and when people ask you for evidence you direct them to google?

still waiting for the source of your story about the venting......
remember? that story you made up?
Click to expand...

You mean the story that you missed because you failed to read the thread and the links therein, plus the follow-up links? That one?

Well, here's something you can try with Google:

This is why the Japanese operators have chosen purposely to release the steam from these reactors, not into the atmosphere, but into the interiors of their reactor buildings. These too can be made gas-tight in order to contain leaks from the containment vessel, though they aren't terrifically strong and able to hold massive pressures.

The idea was to hold the steam in the buildings for the necessary short periods until it was no longer radioactive at all before letting it out of the building – and then venting off some more steam into the building, so cooling the cores. Holding the steam in the buildings wasn't really necessary – more of a gesture than anything else – but it was done nonetheless.

Unfortunately this decision has proved to be a PR blunder rather than a bonus.
Click to expand...

And that's only one of at least three articles that i remember talking about that. I'll leave it up to you to find the other were it is even more explicitly stated.

Feel free to apologize whenever you feel like it for claiming i made something up. Let's see if you can do that, or if you continue to weasel around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom