Merged nuclear power safe?

[Corsair 115]

I'm not defending the quality of the communications from the site. I am, however, knocking your decision to base your opinion on the opinions of people not on site, preferring instead those off-site whose information is based, in large part, I suspect, on the same low quality communications you claim is evidence the Japanese level is incorrect.

There is, perhaps, another element that could be added to that: translation. It seems to me translating Japanese to English or Japanese to French relies a great deal on the quality of the translator.

 

[volcano]

Wouldn't it be at least as easy to shove her into a cat carrier, and then you wouldn't have to consider the dangerous expedient of letting her loose in a moving car?

Rolfe.

Oh sure, that's obviously our first choice This scenario (cat in the pillow case) is only for extreme situations, like "OMG THE HOUSE IS FALLING DOWN!"

In which case the roads probably wouldn't be passable, so we probably wouldn't be driving-- we'd release her into the car as a safe haven, so she doesn't have to spend hours in a pillow case. Mainly the pillow case is a way to get her out of the house expeditiously, and so that she can't run off. The car will be a substitute for the carrier that's now buried in our collapsed house.

 

[DGM]

No. You weren't. I freaking looked this up twenty times all ready.

You really need to work on your people skills (I know your young).

Yes, Aluminum is highly reactive. Most if not all aluminum is alloyed. Aluminum will form an oxide "skin" almost instantly. What's your point? Why can't you be more clear in what you want to say?

 

[pipelineaudio]

This is due to the fact that I have been in the nuclear industry for 27 years and the nuclear mistakes of the past have been compulsory reading.

Man we need you at our forum, musicians are MASSIVELY conspiracy prone as it is, this situation is really pulling nuts out of the woodwork

 

[Belz...]

Why are we talking about aluminum, already ?

 

[BenBurch]

You really need to work on your people skills (I know your young).

Yes, Aluminum is highly reactive. Most if not all aluminum is alloyed. Aluminum will form an oxide "skin" almost instantly. What's your point? Why can't you be more clear in what you want to say?

I know what I was using was Aluminum. If not, the metals supplier lied to me.

 

[BenBurch]

Why are we talking about aluminum, already ?

Sorry, I'll stop the derail.

 

[GlennB]

Living in earthquake country, we've discussed plans for our cat if we need to get out quickly. Best option so far seems to be shoving her into a pillow case and tying it shut so she's can't freak out and run off (then releasing her into our car, assuming that's an option). Could you bag the bird without causing permanent injury to either party?

Yeah. Serious bird vets take no prisoners with little pointy-beak green psychopaths It's a towel over the top, wrap it up with care, get job done. There really is little room for finesse. Might seem harsh, but it's kinder in the long run. When we had her microchipped the vet kindly suggested that we not accompany her to the 'operation' and from long experience of parrots we knew what he meant.

 

[Nightowl2548]

The problem I have with this is that the problem with spent fuel in reactor 4 looks to be the biggest problem even though it may only technical be a 3.

Watching the way the water seems to dissipate while falling to the target in their attempts to refill the pool by dropping or spraying water. I think they'd have better luck dropping or catapulting pieces of ice at the pool. Solid ice follows a much more predictable ballistic trajectory and would be more accurate at hitting the target.

 

[Skwinty]

Solid ice follows a much more predictable ballistic trajectory and would be more accurate at hitting the target.

Solid ice could exacerbate the problem with a direct hit though.

 

[JihadJane]

What about ice cream?

 

[Nightowl2548]

Southern Wyoming is absolutely desolate and worthless, especially the stretch along I-80 between Rawlins and Rock Springs. There is nothing there, I was driving I-80 and the Rand MacNally map listed a town called "Red Desert" as the next exit. I was hungry and hoping there would be a restaurant. Well, much to my dismay the town consisted of a single building...a dirty book store...the only structure from horizon to horizon. Seems like a perfectly out of the way place to put a dangerous power plant.

 

[Skwinty]

 

[gumboot]

wow nice spinn there.

i was told a story that they did not vent the buildings to prevent fearmongering and so risked an explosion. i didnt buy that story and have nowhere seen anything confirming that story.

i never doubted radiation levels. nor do i doubt any of the IAEA newsreleases.........

so again, where is the link that confirms that they did not vent the buildings to prefent panic / fearmongering......

Wrong. Here's the complete history of the discussion, if you don't believe me:

It began with #503, jbjr's post quoting the IAEA update which cited the 400mSv radiation spike.

You're next post, #507, made reference to Chernobyl, something you'd been repeating at the time.

In post #508 MarkCorrigan called you on this:

DC, this isn't Chernobyl. Not even close.

By the sounds of it, the radiation levels spiked at a somewhat dangerous level within the immediate vicinity of the plant and have dropped back to above-average-but-not-dangerous levels.

This isn't a major "oh noes nuclear power will kill us all!" situation, this is a "Considering the crap thrown at them, the engineers are doing a perfectly adequate job keeping the rest of Japan safe, let alone us".


Nuclear power is safe, clean and efficient.

To which you replied in post #509

i know it is not a Chernobyl. so?

and how save it currently is will be reevaluated.

Then MarkCorrigan again in post #510:

So why are you constantly bringing it [Chernobyl] up?

Not unless we get new data. As it stands, the levels have been far lower than what would be needed for a really dangerous spike, and for far shorter periods of time than would be needed to make a lower dose dangerous.

To which you countered in #511

Not what i currently am hearing from the plant.

MarkCorrigan then pointed out in post #512:

Miss this did you?

He then reposted jbjr's original post with the IAEA update.

In response to this you said (post #513):

current news....... theyr source are sources in Japan......

In post #517 MarkCorrigan responded:

Like the sources that point out that the radiation levels had, at one point, spiked at 400 milliseiverts per hour which isn't dangerous unless it persists for a considerable period of time?

Those sources?

In doing so, again referencing the IAEA update.

To which came your reply (post #520)

yeah i know the only ones knowing what is going on are the bigmouthed JREF phonies........ this is so laughable, the whole world is wrong, only the JREFers know what really is going on, impressive lol.

Thus it's plainly evident that your claim above:

i was told a story that they did not vent the buildings to prevent fearmongering and so risked an explosion. i didnt buy that story and have nowhere seen anything confirming that story.

i never doubted radiation levels. nor do i doubt any of the IAEA newsreleases.........

Is an outright lie.

 

[GlennB]

Why are we talking about aluminum, already ?

It was my fault for squabbling about alumin(i)um fires. BenBurch has taken the fall but was just an innocent bystander.

 

[JihadJane]

'Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment'

Written by Alexey V. Yablokov (Center for Russian Environmental Policy, Moscow, Russia), Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko (Institute of Radiation Safety, Minsk, Belarus). Consulting Editor Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger (Environmental Institute, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan).
Volume 1181, December 2009

...concludes that, based on records now available, some 985,000 people died, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl accident. That is between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004. More deaths, it projects, will follow.

...

In his foreword, Dr. Dimitro Grodzinsky, chairman of the Ukranian National Commission on Radiation Protection, writes about how "apologists of nuclear power" sought to hide the real impacts of the Chernobyl disaster from the time when the accident occurred. The book "provides the largest and most complete collection of data concerning the negative consequences of Chernobyl on the health of people and the environment...The main conclusion of the book is that it is impossible and wrong "to forget Chernobyl.”

In the record of Big Lies, the claim of the IAEA-WHO that "only" 4,000 people will die as a result of the Chernobyl catastrophe is among the biggest. The Chernobyl accident is, as the new book documents, an ongoing global catastrophe.

 

[gumboot]

Actually, based on the IAEA update, it seems like they're dealing with 3 separate level 5's (reactors 1, 2, and 3 in Daiichi) and at least two level 3s (Daiichi reactor 4, Daiini reactors 1, 2, and 4; Daiini is now again in cold shutdown, so that part is hopefully over).

I don't really understand the scale. According to Wikipedia, to even qualify for Level 4 (the first "accident" level) the following criteria is used:

Level 4: Accident with local consequences

Impact on people and environment
Minor release of radioactive material unlikely to result in implementation of planned countermeasures other than local food controls.
At least one death from radiation.

Impact on radiological barriers and control
Fuel melt or damage to fuel *resulting in more than 0.1% release of core inventory.
Release of significant quantities of radioactive material within an installation with a high *probability of significant public exposure.

As far as I'm aware no one has actually died from radiation, have they? Or is this a "or" criteria rather than an "and" criteria?

 

[JihadJane]

There were flash reaction of more than 300 Sievert (not a typo) at chernobyl with people xposed (and subsequently dead), and that does not even discuss the rest.

I am jsut wodnering what sort of scala they use. "chernobyl is long ago Fukushima today, so Fukushima is worst than chernobyl"-scale must be the scale. Or maybe the other scale is "chernobyl is old media dog food, Fukushima is more sellable to have really bloody and scary headline"-scale ?

Doesn't the pro-nuclear lobby also have a rich history of manipulative, dishonest image management, aimed at selling something?

 

[Christian Klippel]

I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile to start a thread about the claims of the green's with regards to the costs of nuclear energy, to see if there is a global pattern in the arguments that could hint at a global anti-nuke-lobby that just parrots each other.

For example, i noticed that some of the arguments that i hear in Germany against nukes are the _exact_ same ones that i read about on US media and blogs. The funny part is that these arguments have no bearing on reality over here.

For example, one of these claims is that nukes are highly subsidized in regards to building them, operating them, and later decomissioning them. From my limited knowledge of the situation in the US it just so seems that there might be a little meat on that bone, albeit i really have not much information. However, here in Germany, if all subsidizes would be added to the price of electricity, it would raise a meager 1.something Euro-Cent per kWh according to official sources, and even GreenPeace here had done a study that came to the conclusion it would be 2.something Cents, so the real amount is probably somewhere inbetween. And quite a bunch of that is actually for stuff like research, operating the agencies, etc.

Another such argument is that nukes have basically no insurance and would have to pay only a very limited amount of money, while the rest would have to be paid by the taxpayers, in case of a disaster. Now, i have read that there is an act in the US, from 1954 or so (IIRC), that in fact does that: impose a cap on the amount they would have to pay. However, here in Germany we have a law that makes them fully accountable for any disaster (in theory, in practice it's "only" up to the total amount of money/worth of the company operating the plants: after all, they can't pay more than they have or are worth). There is some kind of "fund" in which every nuclear plant company pays into, that is kept at 2.5 billion Euros (yes, english/american billions, over here it would be "Milliarden") and which is mainly meant for a kind of immediately accessible fund, but not the general liability.

This, at least to me, indicates that the people here are simply parroting the arguments from the US people, while the realities are completely different between the two countries. That also indicates that there must be a somewhat concerted effort in all this, but somehow they fail to adapt such stories to the local realities.

I'm wondering what the situation in other countries is. Are the same arguments used, and are they at least somewhat valid?

Greetings,

Chris

 

[gumboot]

In the record of Big Lies, the claim of the IAEA-WHO that "only" 4,000 people will die as a result of the Chernobyl catastrophe is among the biggest. The Chernobyl accident is, as the new book documents, an ongoing global catastrophe.

The UNSCEAR actually thinks, based on their current data, that the 4,000 deaths figure is probably over-stated. Research at Hiroshima and Nagasaki has found similar indicators that the long-term effects of nuclear radiation are actually well below what we might have thought.