Huge Explosion at Japanese Nuclear Plant

Idris · March 2011

catefrances wrote:

BinauralJam wrote:

Fuckin UnReal

oh its very real.

to allow a country in such a sensitive seismic location to build nuclear power stations is irresponsible.. not only to the locals but to the entire planet.

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/03/us- ... japan.html

Very irresponsible and stupid. Chernobyl comes to mind. How sad this all is,

Idris · March 2011

The Japanese government is getting ready to hand out iodine tablets,

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/0 ... cnn_latest

Spags · March 2011

http://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/ ... -reactors/

Its been an absolutely devestating weekend with the tsunami, my thoughts are with the Japanese people. Going to be a lot of homes without power as they try to get the country's electricity back on track. Tokyo buildings are amazing to have managed to ride out the quake. Still, sad weekend for the planet.

BLACK35 · March 2011

UncleSpaggles wrote:

http://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/

Its been an absolutely devestating weekend with the tsunami, my thoughts are with the Japanese people. Going to be a lot of homes without power as they try to get the country's electricity back on track. Tokyo buildings are amazing to have managed to ride out the quake. Still, sad weekend for the planet.

Yes a very sad time at the moment. I'm just waiting for 2 weeks to pass to see what has really unfolded over there in Japan and how its going to affect the rest of the world

satansbed · March 2011

ed243421 wrote:

LikeAnOcean wrote:

catefrances wrote:

i see it more as mankinds arrogance.

From what I understand, the whole country is a hot spot for earthquakes. The big one they think will happen some day is located in the complete opposite side of where this one occurred.

They could substitute much dirtier energy production methods. Either way, they are damned if the do and damned if they don't. Disasters can happen anywhere, such as life. Earthquakes are very unpredictable.

With this thought, there's a supervolcano located in Yosemite national park in the US. It goes off every 600,000 to 800,000 years. Last time it went of was 640,000 years ago. It killed virtually all life in north America and sent the world into an ice age.. In the last five years, the land in Yosemite has risen a foot, which is unusual in the time of recorded history. Does this mean we should stop building in North America and evacuate? It could blow today, it could blow 160,000 years from now.

Point being, as much as I'd love to, you can't tell people to stop living. No one can predict a 8.9 earthquake, or an asteroid, or a supervolcano. It's in the top ten in recorded history. No one saw this coming.

"Does this mean we should stop building in North America and evacuate?"

stop building nuclear power plants?
yes
we are supposed to learn from our mistakes

if that blows it doesn't matter what you build ye will all be dead

satansbed · March 2011

MrAbraham wrote:

catefrances wrote:

BinauralJam wrote:

Fuckin UnReal

oh its very real.

to allow a country in such a sensitive seismic location to build nuclear power stations is irresponsible.. not only to the locals but to the entire planet.

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/03/us- ... japan.html

Very irresponsible and stupid. Chernobyl comes to mind. How sad this all is,

this will be nothing like chernobyl, chernobyl was the fault of mismanagement and they did not admit anything had happend and evacuation did not happen for a whole day afterwards

"The nearby city of Pripyat was not immediately evacuated after the incident, but after radiation levels set off alarms at the Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant in Sweden, over one thousand kilometers from the Chernobyl Plant, did the Soviet Union admit that an accident had occurred"
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9604/26/ch ... ndex2.html

at least in japan, the reactors are up to date, and the personal competent

Kel Varnsen · March 2011

MrAbraham wrote:

catefrances wrote:

BinauralJam wrote:

Fuckin UnReal

oh its very real.

to allow a country in such a sensitive seismic location to build nuclear power stations is irresponsible.. not only to the locals but to the entire planet.

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/03/us- ... japan.html

Very irresponsible and stupid. Chernobyl comes to mind. How sad this all is,

I don't know if I would call it stupid. I mean Japan is a bunch of very small islands that are very heavily populated. If they need electricity there aren't a lot of options. Shipping in coal or natural gas doesn't sound that great either. Sure there are risks with nuclear power, but there are risks with just about all kinds of large scale power generation. Plus this was one of the largest earthquakes ever, that pretty much happened right under these plants, which were then hit with a Tsunami. I would say the fact that they are still able to work on things means they are doing pretty good. Plus from what I heard on CNN and CBC yesterday at this point with the steam venting and such, the amount of radiation people are possibly being exposed to is the equivalent to if they had gone for a catscan.

I think the crazy thing is that since they are pumping in sea water to cool the reactors and hot sea water is very corrosive, they are pretty much writing off ever using those plants ever again. I am curious to see what happens in the near future now that Japan has 3 less power plants than they did last week. How are they going to deal with the decrease in electrical service, once things are rebuilt and demand for power goes back up.

MG79478 · March 2011

I'm a nuclear professional. I have multiple degrees in the subject, and over a decade in the industry.

satansbed wrote:

this will be nothing like chernobyl, chernobyl was the fault of mismanagement and they did not admit anything had happend and evacuation did not happen for a whole day afterwards

"The nearby city of Pripyat was not immediately evacuated after the incident, but after radiation levels set off alarms at the Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant in Sweden, over one thousand kilometers from the Chernobyl Plant, did the Soviet Union admit that an accident had occurred"
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9604/26/ch ... ndex2.html

at least in japan, the reactors are up to date, and the personal competent

This is part of the story. The RBMK type of reactor used at Chernobyl is completely different from the LWRs used in the US. The physics of the RBMK are different and the plant is inherently unsafe. On top of that, the incident occurred during a low power test, where multiple safety systems were purposefully defeated. They were only concerned with finishing the test at all costs. Many other Russian plants had refused to do the test for safety reasons.

ed243421 wrote:

stop building nuclear power plants?
yes
we are supposed to learn from our mistakes

This is a very ignorant view.

arthurdent · March 2011

"Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
--Richard P. Feynman

MG79478 · March 2011

Two very well written and entirely factual articles, as a Subject Matter Expert, I recommend everyone read.

Japan Does Not Face Another Chernobyl
The containment structures appear to be working, and the latest reactor designs aren't vulnerable to the coolant problem at issue here.

Nuclear Overreactions
Modern life requires learning from disasters, not fleeing all risk.

mickeyrat · February 2016

Update 5 years on....

Will take decades to fully decommission this reactor.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/five-years-after-nuclear-meltdown-no-one-knows-what-to-do-with-fukushima/2016/02/10/a9682194-c9dc-11e5-b9ab-26591104bb19_story.html

brianlux · February 2016

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.

PJ_Soul · 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.

PJPOWER · February 2016

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_Soul · February 2016

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.

mickeyrat · 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.

PJ_Soul · February 2016

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.

mickeyrat · February 2016

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

PJ_Soul · February 2016

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).

mickeyrat · February 2016

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.

Huge Explosion at Japanese Nuclear Plant

Comments

Categories