Merged nuclear power safe?

[JihadJane]

Well, obviously if safety is really your reason to oppose nuclear power, then you'll also want to avoid other energy sources that have led to far more casualties than nuclear ever will.

Nuclear has had only two serious accidents in 50 years -- Chernobyl and Fukushima. One was caused by poor design, poor maintenance and horrific neglect, the other by a 1000-years earthquake. Neither caused much in the way of casualties.

Isn't such a claim ridiculously premature? Cancer can take decades to manifest and many cases will be impossible to connect specifically to a known cause.

Not that it matters anyhow. Tank trucks carrying gasoline cause fatalities and fires constantly, yet no one seem to be the least bit afraid of them.

I am and so are plenty of others. Burning fossil fuels has triggered a global environmental disaster.

Dams break and kill hundreds of thousands of people, but I don't hear anyone saying we should phase out hydroelectic power.

You should read the news more often. People are objecting to hydroelectric dams all over the world.

It's xenophobia. Wouldn't matter if nuclear really was 100% safe and clean, people would still get out on the streets and protest. Look at how many people get their panties in a twist over "deadly radiation" from cell phone towers which practically emit no radiation whatsoever.

Japanese parents getting their panties in a twist about radiation:

'Japan's radiation dilemma: Leave or live in fear'

The town of Los Alamos getting its panties in a twist:

'Firefighters scramble to protect nuclear facility'

"as many as 30,000 55-gallon drums of plutonium-contaminated waste were stored in fabric tents above ground"

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Isn't such a claim ridiculously premature?

No. Most of the casualties of Chernobyl died in the first 30 days. It has been well over two months sice the earthquake and there hasn't been a single case of radiation poisoning yet from Fukushima.

Cancer can take decades to manifest and many cases will be impossible to connect specifically to a known cause.

And if you can't connect them to a cause, you won't be able to blame Fukushima.

I am and so are plenty of others. Burning fossil fuels has triggered a global environmental disaster.

Correct. Failure to switch to a nuclear economy when the technology was invented has been disastrous.

You should read the news more often. People are objecting to hydroelectric dams all over the world.

True.

Another point in favor of nuclear as it doesn't disrupt freshwater ecosystems.

Japanese parents getting their panties in a twist about radiation:

'Japan's radiation dilemma: Leave or live in fear'

The climate of fear and hysteria created by the superstitious and scientifically ignorant has been very harmful to the mental health of thousands of innocent Japanese already traumatized by one of the largest earthquakes and tsunamis in history.

Based on the radiation levels around Fukushima, it is wrong to speak
about a health risk from the radiation. There is, however, a very
real health risk is from the fear that the media and many others have
been whipping up. This is post-traumatic stress syndrome. It
happened at Chernobyl and it is happening again, now, to the many tens
of thousands of evacuated people around Fukushima. We ought to do
something to stop this suffering.​

- Dr. Jerry Cutler, lead designer of the the reactor control, safety system and radiation monitoring instrumentation for
the CANDU 6 series reactors​

The town of Los Alamos getting its panties in a twist:

'Firefighters scramble to protect nuclear facility'

"as many as 30,000 55-gallon drums of plutonium-contaminated waste were stored in fabric tents above ground"

[/QUOTE]

A serious situation worth keeping an eye on. Local authorities appear to have it well under control, however.

 

[JihadJane]

Is nuclear power safe for investors?

"On 20 June Moody's Investors Service obligingly cut its credit rating on TEPCO to junk status and kept the operator of Japan's crippled nuclear power plant on review for possible further downgrade, citing uncertainty over the fate of its bailout plan. TEPCO is Japan's largest corporate bond issuer and its shares are widely held by financial institutions. TEPCO shares have plummeted 80 percent since March, dragging its market capitalization below $9 billion. Following the Fukushima crisis, including a round of emergency loans from lenders and $64 billion in outstanding bonds, TEPCO now has around $115 billion in debt versus equity of about $35 billion."

'Worldwide Nuclear Industry Woes Deepen'

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Is nuclear power safe for investors?

"On 20 June Moody's Investors Service obligingly cut its credit rating on TEPCO to junk status and kept the operator of Japan's crippled nuclear power plant on review for possible further downgrade, citing uncertainty over the fate of its bailout plan."

TEPCO pretty well deserves it. My industry contacts have been far less impressed with TEPCOs performance in the wake of the quake and tsunami than they have with the reactors they built 30 and 40 years ago.

 

[bikerdruid]

Of course it is, no one lives there.

excuse me?
s of t lives a safe distance from our upcoming nuclear reactor in northern alberta.

many of us do not.
the proposed reactor is on the banks of one of the longest and most extensive river systems in the world.
the warming of the water and the tritium pollution will have terrible consequences in a rivewr system already hopelessly endangered by pollution from alberta's tar sands.

it's very easy to talk about safety and to promote that which is not in your own back yard.

 

[Ziggurat]

the warming of the water and the tritium pollution will have terrible consequences in a rivewr system already hopelessly endangered by pollution from alberta's tar sands.

I've got no idea what the warming of the water will do (though I don't trust your assessment either). But tritium? Really? You think tritium pollution is going to have "terrible consequences"? Yeah, no. The amount of tritium that reactors release is rather too small for that.

it's very easy to talk about safety and to promote that which is not in your own back yard.

Canada IS our back yard.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

excuse me?
s of t lives a safe distance from our upcoming nuclear reactor in northern alberta.

many of us do not.

Absolutely false. There are precisely zero Albertans who do not live a safe distance from any proposed or existing reactor site (I lived within a mile or two of the nuclear reactor here in Edmonton for eight years with no ill effects, no other Edmontonian has suffered from it either) You should scroll up and re-read the CNSC report I posted above.

• No members of the public received a radiation dose in excess of the regulatory
limits.
• No workers were confirmed to receive a radiation dose in excess of the regulatory
limits.​

If no workers inside the plants have suffered any ill effects, then you won't either.

the proposed reactor is on the banks of one of the longest and most extensive river systems in the world.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

the warming of the water and the tritium pollution will have terrible consequences

lol, no.

CNSC regulations prohibit temperature variations larger than 3 degrees Celsius between a reactors intake and output vents.

And you and I have already spoken about tritium. Not only is there no record of anyone anywhere ever suffering injury or death from tritium poisoning, but at a price of 18 million to 22 million USD per kilogram, there are cheaper ways of getting you worked up than blowing tritium bubbles in your river.

in a rivewr system already hopelessly endangered by pollution from alberta's tar sands.

Haven't I been saying that fossil fuels are messy all along? That's part of why I'm so enthusiastic about the safest, cleanest and greenest energy technology ever invented. I doubt the oil sands situation is as bad as you make it out to be though, you tend to drama queen things up a few notches when making your claims.

it's very easy to talk about safety and to promote that which is not in your own back yard.

I would LOVE a nuclear reactor in my back yard, it'd be a license to print money (just ask France!). But after an unfortunate sexual harassment incident at the 2009 Canadian Nuclear Society conference in Calgary, I don't think the CNSC will approve my license application anytime soon.

 

[Furcifer]

But after an unfortunate sexual harassment incident at the 2009 Canadian Nuclear Society conference in Calgary, I don't think the CNSC will approve my license application anytime soon.

That poor scale model of a hyperbolic cooling tower won't ever be the same...

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

That poor scale model of a hyperbolic cooling tower won't ever be the same...

More like "do a google image search for Pickering Nuclear Generating Station while trying not to think of a chorus line".

 

[theprestige]

it's very easy to talk about safety and to promote that which is not in your own back yard.

I live just down the road from the San Onofre nuclear power plant. If I lived this close to Fukushima, I'd be deep inside the evacuation zone.

As someone who does, in fact, have nuclear power right in my own "back yard", I'm here to tell you that I fully endorse the safety talk and nuclear power promotion that is going on in this thread.

 

[bikerdruid]

But after an unfortunate sexual harassment incident at the 2009 Canadian Nuclear Society conference in Calgary, I don't think the CNSC will approve my license application anytime soon.

this speaks volumes.......

 

[Belz...]

excuse me?
s of t lives a safe distance from our upcoming nuclear reactor in northern alberta.

many of us do not.
the proposed reactor is on the banks of one of the longest and most extensive river systems in the world.
the warming of the water and the tritium pollution will have terrible consequences in a rivewr system already hopelessly endangered by pollution from alberta's tar sands.

it's very easy to talk about safety and to promote that which is not in your own back yard.

You know, it would help if you had a reasonable position on this issue.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

this speaks volumes.......

What speaks volumes is that you seem to think that I actually did sexually harass the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission instead of think that just maybe I am telling another joke (I was at the conference with someone who asked the ladies at the CNSC booth for one of the trade show trinkets they were handing out not realizing that "booty" means different things to sixty year old men and 30 year old women).

What speaks louder is your failure (or refusal?) to respond to anything else I said.

You have no apparent comment about the tens of thousands of people living in close proximity to the nuclear reactor here in Edmonton.

You have nothing to say about the 2010 CNSC safety review showing no harm or injury suffered by people working inside Canadas nuclear power plants.

You have no response to CNSCs regulatory controls on reactor water output temperatures.

You have no counter to the price of tritium or the complete lack of injury or fatality it has caused.

All you have is rhetoric, vitriol and appeal to emotion.

 

[theprestige]

this speaks volumes.......

Only if you think SoT was serious.

Anyway, while you were getting hung up on SoT's tasteless jokes, I was directly addressing your dismissal of people who didn't have nuclear power in their back yard.

I do have nuclear power in my back yard, and I agree with the people you're trying to dismiss.

What now, BD?

 

[JihadJane]

I live just down the road from the San Onofre nuclear power plant. If I lived this close to Fukushima, I'd be deep inside the evacuation zone.

As someone who does, in fact, have nuclear power right in my own "back yard", I'm here to tell you that I fully endorse the safety talk and nuclear power promotion that is going on in this thread.

Japan needs all the help it can get. Perhaps you should offer your services. There's plenty of clean-up work available if you're not bothered by radiation.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Japan needs all the help it can get. Perhaps you should offer your services. There's plenty of clean-up work available if you're not bothered by radiation.

I'd go. As I pointed out to you above, I've spoken with an expert in reactor radiation monitoring systems and he is not bothered by the environment around Fukushima.

Just to jog your memory in case you missed the relevant post:

Based on the radiation levels around Fukushima, it is wrong to speak
about a health risk from the radiation. There is, however, a very
real health risk is from the fear that the media and many others have
been whipping up. This is post-traumatic stress syndrome. It
happened at Chernobyl and it is happening again, now, to the many tens
of thousands of evacuated people around Fukushima. We ought to do
something to stop this suffering.

- Dr. Jerry Cutler, lead designer of the the reactor control, safety system and radiation monitoring instrumentation for the CANDU 6 series reactors​

Any comments on Dr. Cuttlers remarks, JihadJane?

 

[Furcifer]

As someone who does, in fact, have nuclear power right in my own "back yard", I'm here to tell you that I fully endorse the safety talk and nuclear power promotion that is going on in this thread.

As someone who has spent about 2/12th of his life in the shadow of Bruce I do to.

I would admit however, I think most people that live in this area don't. They see it as a necessary evil and would prefer it somewhere else. I don't think they obsess over it, but if you asked their opinion I think that's what a lot of people would tell you.

But people like to complain. The same people that complain about the nuclear plant complain about the turbines and the snow and the rain and the sun. So take it for what it's worth.

 

[r-j]

I trust the word of somebody who was there, who has lived and knows just what she speaks of, over anyone here.

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/22/chernobyl-cleanup-survivors-message-for-japan-run-away-as-qui/

 

[Ziggurat]

More like "do a google image search for Pickering Nuclear Generating Station while trying not to think of a chorus line".

Those hussies. Showing off their voluptuously curved reinforced concrete domes like strumpets.

 

[Ziggurat]

I trust the word of somebody who was there, who has lived and knows just what she speaks of, over anyone here.

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/22/chernobyl-cleanup-survivors-message-for-japan-run-away-as-qui/

She was there at Chernobyl. She was not there at Fukushima. She knows no more about Fukushima than the rest of us, and possibly a lot less. And her story doesn't even make that much sense. "One colleague stepped into a rainwater pool and the soles of his feet burned off inside his boots." I call bull dung. That just doesn't make sense. Maybe she honestly believes that happened, but it sounds a lot like the tales of babies being rape from post-Katrina.