Huge Explosion at Japanese Nuclear Plant

2»

Comments

  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,592
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,038
    I'm not 100% against nuclear power. Only 99.999999999999999999% against it.

    Pray to the gods for no more major earthquakes on the ring of fire for a while. Japan is freaking insane for building those plants in that geographic region.
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Posts: 49,954
    edited February 2016
    I am actually 95% FOR nuclear power. I withhold that 5% because of what this thread is about. However, I've read that technology has had big advances as far as safety and disaster prevention goes since the Fukushima plant was built. I am really hoping that such safety measures lead to more widespread use of nuclear power very very soon.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    PJ_Soul said:

    I am actually 95% FOR nuclear power. I withhold that 5% because of what this thread is about. However, I've read that technology has had big advances as far as safety and disaster prevention goes since the Fukushima plant was built. I am really hoping that such safety measures lead to more widespread use of nuclear power very very soon.

    I'm not much on conspiracy theories, but I read a while back about how much radiation was spewed out and is still present. The article claimed that high levels were being measured in Pacific fish and milk coming from the west coast. I'll try and find the article and post it here. Makes you wonder...there is plenty motive to cover up such things.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Posts: 49,954
    PJPOWER said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    I am actually 95% FOR nuclear power. I withhold that 5% because of what this thread is about. However, I've read that technology has had big advances as far as safety and disaster prevention goes since the Fukushima plant was built. I am really hoping that such safety measures lead to more widespread use of nuclear power very very soon.

    I'm not much on conspiracy theories, but I read a while back about how much radiation was spewed out and is still present. The article claimed that high levels were being measured in Pacific fish and milk coming from the west coast. I'll try and find the article and post it here. Makes you wonder...there is plenty motive to cover up such things.
    Yes, of course there is motive to cover these things up (although I have seen news talking about serious damage, so there isn't a total cover up - just wouldn't surprise me at all if it's worse than they are saying). Same with Chernobyl I'm sure. That doesn't impact my potential support of nuclear power if technology makes it safer. I don't see why anyone would oppose nuclear power if technological advancement made it safe, which is obviously the intent.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,592
    edited February 2016
    Until we have the ability to make any and all spent fuel inert at will and end of life cycle it IS NOT safe in any way shape or form.

    All you are talking about is minimizing risk to a small degree.
    Post edited by mickeyrat on
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Posts: 49,954
    mickeyrat said:

    Until we have the ability to make any and all spent fuel inert at and of life cycle it IS NOT safe in any way shape or form.

    All you are talking about is minimizing risk to a small degree.

    Yes, that's right. I think the benefits outweigh very minimal risk.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,592
    Many of dont regard this risk as minimal.
    That said it is a functional means of power.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Posts: 49,954
    mickeyrat said:

    Many of dont regard this risk as minimal.
    That said it is a functional means of power.

    I don't regard the the risk as minimal either right now. If you were paying attention, you would know that I'm talking about IF they can make it much safer than it is now (sorry, I'm in a pissy mood. But come on - I think I am pretty clear here).
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,592
    PJ_Soul said:

    mickeyrat said:

    Many of dont regard this risk as minimal.
    That said it is a functional means of power.

    I don't regard the the risk as minimal either right now. If you were paying attention, you would know that I'm talking about IF they can make it much safer than it is now (sorry, I'm in a pissy mood. But come on - I think I am pretty clear here).
    The "if ..." slipped past me.

    Imo the fact that human beings are involved, leads me to believe that the risk is too great. Quite simply human beings cannot be trusted with such a thing.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Posts: 49,954
    edited February 2016
    mickeyrat said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    mickeyrat said:

    Many of dont regard this risk as minimal.
    That said it is a functional means of power.

    I don't regard the the risk as minimal either right now. If you were paying attention, you would know that I'm talking about IF they can make it much safer than it is now (sorry, I'm in a pissy mood. But come on - I think I am pretty clear here).
    The "if ..." slipped past me.

    Imo the fact that human beings are involved, leads me to believe that the risk is too great. Quite simply human beings cannot be trusted with such a thing.
    Hmm. Well I see you point, but if we trust them to build skyscrapers, drive cars on roads, build bridges, drill and transport oil, use fire and electricity and heavy machinery, and travel in space, I think scientists could manage to come up with safeguards/technology that can basically guarantee containment in a nuclear plant. They are indeed working on it. I recently read that force field technology is experiencing a breakthrough right now. Perhaps that kind of thing could be used, among other technologies. Who knows. Humans are actually pretty damn good at finding ways to make improvements.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,038
    PJ_Soul said:

    mickeyrat said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    mickeyrat said:

    Many of dont regard this risk as minimal.
    That said it is a functional means of power.

    I don't regard the the risk as minimal either right now. If you were paying attention, you would know that I'm talking about IF they can make it much safer than it is now (sorry, I'm in a pissy mood. But come on - I think I am pretty clear here).
    The "if ..." slipped past me.

    Imo the fact that human beings are involved, leads me to believe that the risk is too great. Quite simply human beings cannot be trusted with such a thing.
    Hmm. Well I see you point, but if we trust them to build skyscrapers, drive cars on roads, build bridges, drill and transport oil, use fire and electricity and heavy machinery, and travel in space, I think scientists could manage to come up with safeguards/technology that can basically guarantee containment in a nuclear plant. They are indeed working on it. I recently read that force field technology is experiencing a breakthrough right now. Perhaps that kind of thing could be used, among other technologies. Who knows. Humans are actually pretty damn good at finding ways to make improvements.
    The only technology regarding nuclear power that would convince me it is safe would be finding a way to neutralize the radioactive spent fuel rods, not safely store them, and I have heard nothing to lead me to believe we are even close to that kind of technology. And I don't see how storing anything that toxic can ever truly be considered safe. Where is it OK to do that? Who's backyard (and by that, as a biocentric, I mean all living thing's backyards) is that OK to use for storage? Where will it ever truly be safe? And remember, that stuff has an insanely long half life.
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576
    brianlux said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    mickeyrat said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    mickeyrat said:

    Many of dont regard this risk as minimal.
    That said it is a functional means of power.

    I don't regard the the risk as minimal either right now. If you were paying attention, you would know that I'm talking about IF they can make it much safer than it is now (sorry, I'm in a pissy mood. But come on - I think I am pretty clear here).
    The "if ..." slipped past me.

    Imo the fact that human beings are involved, leads me to believe that the risk is too great. Quite simply human beings cannot be trusted with such a thing.
    Hmm. Well I see you point, but if we trust them to build skyscrapers, drive cars on roads, build bridges, drill and transport oil, use fire and electricity and heavy machinery, and travel in space, I think scientists could manage to come up with safeguards/technology that can basically guarantee containment in a nuclear plant. They are indeed working on it. I recently read that force field technology is experiencing a breakthrough right now. Perhaps that kind of thing could be used, among other technologies. Who knows. Humans are actually pretty damn good at finding ways to make improvements.
    The only technology regarding nuclear power that would convince me it is safe would be finding a way to neutralize the radioactive spent fuel rods, not safely store them, and I have heard nothing to lead me to believe we are even close to that kind of technology. And I don't see how storing anything that toxic can ever truly be considered safe. Where is it OK to do that? Who's backyard (and by that, as a biocentric, I mean all living thing's backyards) is that OK to use for storage? Where will it ever truly be safe? And remember, that stuff has an insanely long half life.
    It will be safe when we build a canon that fires the rods into space cleanly lol
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Posts: 49,954
    brianlux said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    mickeyrat said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    mickeyrat said:

    Many of dont regard this risk as minimal.
    That said it is a functional means of power.

    I don't regard the the risk as minimal either right now. If you were paying attention, you would know that I'm talking about IF they can make it much safer than it is now (sorry, I'm in a pissy mood. But come on - I think I am pretty clear here).
    The "if ..." slipped past me.

    Imo the fact that human beings are involved, leads me to believe that the risk is too great. Quite simply human beings cannot be trusted with such a thing.
    Hmm. Well I see you point, but if we trust them to build skyscrapers, drive cars on roads, build bridges, drill and transport oil, use fire and electricity and heavy machinery, and travel in space, I think scientists could manage to come up with safeguards/technology that can basically guarantee containment in a nuclear plant. They are indeed working on it. I recently read that force field technology is experiencing a breakthrough right now. Perhaps that kind of thing could be used, among other technologies. Who knows. Humans are actually pretty damn good at finding ways to make improvements.
    The only technology regarding nuclear power that would convince me it is safe would be finding a way to neutralize the radioactive spent fuel rods, not safely store them, and I have heard nothing to lead me to believe we are even close to that kind of technology. And I don't see how storing anything that toxic can ever truly be considered safe. Where is it OK to do that? Who's backyard (and by that, as a biocentric, I mean all living thing's backyards) is that OK to use for storage? Where will it ever truly be safe? And remember, that stuff has an insanely long half life.
    But you have to think of it comparatively. Imagine how much GOOD nuclear power could do for the world long term, vs. the issue of safely storing spent fuel rods (until they figure out an alternative). Assuming they can reasonably guarantee they are safely stored (and this is definitely not the biggest danger posed currently), I think it's a reasonable risk/trade-off.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,038
    PJ_Soul said:

    brianlux said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    mickeyrat said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    mickeyrat said:

    Many of dont regard this risk as minimal.
    That said it is a functional means of power.

    I don't regard the the risk as minimal either right now. If you were paying attention, you would know that I'm talking about IF they can make it much safer than it is now (sorry, I'm in a pissy mood. But come on - I think I am pretty clear here).
    The "if ..." slipped past me.

    Imo the fact that human beings are involved, leads me to believe that the risk is too great. Quite simply human beings cannot be trusted with such a thing.
    Hmm. Well I see you point, but if we trust them to build skyscrapers, drive cars on roads, build bridges, drill and transport oil, use fire and electricity and heavy machinery, and travel in space, I think scientists could manage to come up with safeguards/technology that can basically guarantee containment in a nuclear plant. They are indeed working on it. I recently read that force field technology is experiencing a breakthrough right now. Perhaps that kind of thing could be used, among other technologies. Who knows. Humans are actually pretty damn good at finding ways to make improvements.
    The only technology regarding nuclear power that would convince me it is safe would be finding a way to neutralize the radioactive spent fuel rods, not safely store them, and I have heard nothing to lead me to believe we are even close to that kind of technology. And I don't see how storing anything that toxic can ever truly be considered safe. Where is it OK to do that? Who's backyard (and by that, as a biocentric, I mean all living thing's backyards) is that OK to use for storage? Where will it ever truly be safe? And remember, that stuff has an insanely long half life.
    But you have to think of it comparatively. Imagine how much GOOD nuclear power could do for the world long term, vs. the issue of safely storing spent fuel rods (until they figure out an alternative). Assuming they can reasonably guarantee they are safely stored (and this is definitely not the biggest danger posed currently), I think it's a reasonable risk/trade-off.
    I still don't agree but your hearts in the right place, PJ_Soul. That kind of optimism makes me glow like a spent fuel rod.

    But don't read anything into that and please, no joke about my age. :rofl:
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,592
    brianlux said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    brianlux said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    mickeyrat said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    mickeyrat said:

    Many of dont regard this risk as minimal.
    That said it is a functional means of power.

    I don't regard the the risk as minimal either right now. If you were paying attention, you would know that I'm talking about IF they can make it much safer than it is now (sorry, I'm in a pissy mood. But come on - I think I am pretty clear here).
    The "if ..." slipped past me.

    Imo the fact that human beings are involved, leads me to believe that the risk is too great. Quite simply human beings cannot be trusted with such a thing.
    Hmm. Well I see you point, but if we trust them to build skyscrapers, drive cars on roads, build bridges, drill and transport oil, use fire and electricity and heavy machinery, and travel in space, I think scientists could manage to come up with safeguards/technology that can basically guarantee containment in a nuclear plant. They are indeed working on it. I recently read that force field technology is experiencing a breakthrough right now. Perhaps that kind of thing could be used, among other technologies. Who knows. Humans are actually pretty damn good at finding ways to make improvements.
    The only technology regarding nuclear power that would convince me it is safe would be finding a way to neutralize the radioactive spent fuel rods, not safely store them, and I have heard nothing to lead me to believe we are even close to that kind of technology. And I don't see how storing anything that toxic can ever truly be considered safe. Where is it OK to do that? Who's backyard (and by that, as a biocentric, I mean all living thing's backyards) is that OK to use for storage? Where will it ever truly be safe? And remember, that stuff has an insanely long half life.
    But you have to think of it comparatively. Imagine how much GOOD nuclear power could do for the world long term, vs. the issue of safely storing spent fuel rods (until they figure out an alternative). Assuming they can reasonably guarantee they are safely stored (and this is definitely not the biggest danger posed currently), I think it's a reasonable risk/trade-off.
    I still don't agree but your hearts in the right place, PJ_Soul. That kind of optimism makes me glow like a spent fuel rod.

    But don't read anything into that and please, no joke about my age. :rofl:
    Which is to say you are still a dangerous man?

    Or that your rod is just spent?
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,038
    mickeyrat said:

    brianlux said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    brianlux said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    mickeyrat said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    mickeyrat said:

    Many of dont regard this risk as minimal.
    That said it is a functional means of power.

    I don't regard the the risk as minimal either right now. If you were paying attention, you would know that I'm talking about IF they can make it much safer than it is now (sorry, I'm in a pissy mood. But come on - I think I am pretty clear here).
    The "if ..." slipped past me.

    Imo the fact that human beings are involved, leads me to believe that the risk is too great. Quite simply human beings cannot be trusted with such a thing.
    Hmm. Well I see you point, but if we trust them to build skyscrapers, drive cars on roads, build bridges, drill and transport oil, use fire and electricity and heavy machinery, and travel in space, I think scientists could manage to come up with safeguards/technology that can basically guarantee containment in a nuclear plant. They are indeed working on it. I recently read that force field technology is experiencing a breakthrough right now. Perhaps that kind of thing could be used, among other technologies. Who knows. Humans are actually pretty damn good at finding ways to make improvements.
    The only technology regarding nuclear power that would convince me it is safe would be finding a way to neutralize the radioactive spent fuel rods, not safely store them, and I have heard nothing to lead me to believe we are even close to that kind of technology. And I don't see how storing anything that toxic can ever truly be considered safe. Where is it OK to do that? Who's backyard (and by that, as a biocentric, I mean all living thing's backyards) is that OK to use for storage? Where will it ever truly be safe? And remember, that stuff has an insanely long half life.
    But you have to think of it comparatively. Imagine how much GOOD nuclear power could do for the world long term, vs. the issue of safely storing spent fuel rods (until they figure out an alternative). Assuming they can reasonably guarantee they are safely stored (and this is definitely not the biggest danger posed currently), I think it's a reasonable risk/trade-off.
    I still don't agree but your hearts in the right place, PJ_Soul. That kind of optimism makes me glow like a spent fuel rod.

    But don't read anything into that and please, no joke about my age. :rofl:
    Which is to say you are still a dangerous man?

    Or that your rod is just spent?
    Haha! Hey, I only take after the best. Me 'n Rush:

    image
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













Sign In or Register to comment.