… surely, they’ll tell us “it can’t happen here” or “our reactors are a different design” or “those are old, the technology has improved”. The thing is, no matter how unlikely the confluence of events, it still happened. Unlikely plus time equals more likely. There is no way we can remove the risk of unlikely dangerous events. The question on Nuclear Power is, are we willing to accept any risk?
I’m just wondering if all the “FEAR NUKE” stuff is really based on real threats (there actually not, and exaggerated), or the natural gas folks pointing out how “clean” they are, well, if you ignore that silly damage from fracking, pipeline explosions and fires, or real “safety records”. Nuke is mostly dangerous in securing the fuels, and disposing of waste, not actual plant operations- yes especially with newer reactors, and we’re STILL not talking building the safest designs (“cost” factor).
Of course the real poison is our refusal to CONSERVE energy.
you can’t compare this with chernobyl, mostly because it’s not over yet, by a long shot.
and if it turns out to be worse, you can count on the revisionists to always put the word “safe” before nuclear, in the future.
how the hell can you watch one building after the next blow up, meltdowns in process, and call the belief that something dangerous is going on there is irresponsible?
a steam engine explodes and injures some people within a few feet of it at the moment in time.
a reactor explodes and wipes out towns for miles around for generations. The people nearby die a slow horrible death, OR, get cancer in the future, or birth defects for generations.
yup i’m sure a better nuclear design can withstand human idiocy of builiding near or over fault lines.
then there’s the false option, nuclear or oil, nuclear or coal.
The problem with reactor designs is not just how safe they are, but the fact that (1) they are expensive, and (2) the safer they are the more expensive they are.
It’s beginning to resemble what happened with the Oil Sands of Canada - when energy gets expensive enough, we go to other methods that would otherwise be considered too costly.
There is no silver bullet here; we need a combination of greater energy efficiency, supplemental power (e.g., solar, wind, geothermal), and new resources. Nuclear is clearly one of them, but we cannot ignore the subtle and long-range dangers of radiation. I do know about the killer fogs of London, and we can expect to see them in China soon (if not already), A coal plant pollutes massively as it works, but if it breaks, it stops. A nuclear plant…well…it’s getting scarier and scarier in Japan. And apparently even outside the relatively minor TMI incident there is a higher rate of birth defects and cancer deaths in the Harrisburg area.
Wow. You guys don’t know anything about current nuke operations if you say this is going to be humongously hazardous.
1) Chernobyl happened because of 2 things: No containment structure and they used carbon rods. The carbon rods caught fire, spewing radioactive smoke into the atmosphere because there was no containment structure. We use water now because it can’t catch fire, and there are containment structures (steel surrounded by concrete).
2) The steam fired off by the failing reactors is about as much radiation OUTSIDE the containment field (the structure) as a dentist’s xray, and it dissipates very quickly (unlike smoke which hangs around for a long while).
3) The operating temperature of modern-day nuke plants is about 550 degrees. That’s not even remotely hot enough to melt through the containment structure. Right now what you’re seeing is the reactor has been taken offline (not producing a reaction any more), but the rods themselves are still freakin’ hot. That’s why there’s steam buildup. The explosions are from the hydrogen building up in the area and the heat cooking it off.
4) The “meltdown” of which they are speaking is the fuel rods melting to (not to be confused with through) the bottom of the containment structure. The rods don’t get hot enough to melt through the structure.
So all these items added up has led me to believe one thing: Yes, the plants are in bad shape, and they are running the risk of causing damage to the plants due to a meltdown. But our focus shouldn’t be on how (un)safe nuke power is. Our focus should be on seeing how we can help the people of Japan recover from this tragedy.
^Wraithkin - if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullcrap, eh?
Current Nuke operations - japans reactors are 40 years old.
and i guess we can believe you completely. I guess the 12-20 miles evacuation around the plant and the images we see of geiger counters and checking the locals for contamination, is merely hysteria. Not at all dangerous. Cancers that form in the next decades in this population (like around TMI or chernobyl) are merely an abberation.
No matter what, do NOT focus on the safety of nukes, because this diasaster is really a fake, and since there was just an earthquake and a Tsunami over there (couldn’t happen here), isn’t likely to ever happen again in our lifetimes.
No, everything is just fine. Move along people, nothing to see here.
this confluence of events could NEVER happen again. And it’s as good as over.
^^wraithkin,
this morning they report there are cracks in the steel containment vessels in two of the reactors. They are pretty much abandoning ship.
the heroics of the people in the reactors is incredible.
what strength of character these people have to do what they are doing, with families waiting. They are truely the ‘blessed wind’. my heart goes out to them. the world owes them more than can ever be paid back.
wraithkin, actually, I’ve been doing my reading. They are hoping that this will be a “partial meltdown,” meaning it will not escape the containment vessels. But they’re not sure that will be the case, nor are any of the experts (nuclear engineers, NRC experts) I’ve seen quoted, why should you be?
I agree we should focus on the people of Japan - we’ve just made our third donation to the Red Cross last night - but that doesn’t mean we should ignore the risks of nuclear power, any more than we should of any other form of power.
I didn’t know about the cracks in the containment structures. I’ll admit it, I’m wrong. But, my point of focusing on the people over the plants still stands.
beware of propaganda, i saw a piece on abc this morning where an american reporter was in an american nuclear reactor reporting that such a thing couldn’t happen here because there is a switch that shuts the reactor down, and pointed to the switch.
what ignorance.
the bottom line is it’s time to be just a little scared.
rockngolfer about 13 years ago
Just don’t build the plants where 8.9 earthquakes happen.
jqmcd about 13 years ago
… surely, they’ll tell us “it can’t happen here” or “our reactors are a different design” or “those are old, the technology has improved”. The thing is, no matter how unlikely the confluence of events, it still happened. Unlikely plus time equals more likely. There is no way we can remove the risk of unlikely dangerous events. The question on Nuclear Power is, are we willing to accept any risk?
Dtroutma about 13 years ago
I’m just wondering if all the “FEAR NUKE” stuff is really based on real threats (there actually not, and exaggerated), or the natural gas folks pointing out how “clean” they are, well, if you ignore that silly damage from fracking, pipeline explosions and fires, or real “safety records”. Nuke is mostly dangerous in securing the fuels, and disposing of waste, not actual plant operations- yes especially with newer reactors, and we’re STILL not talking building the safest designs (“cost” factor). Of course the real poison is our refusal to CONSERVE energy.
rockngolfer about 13 years ago
Trout, I agree with you. Some of the reporting, I think has been irresponsible. You cannot compare this with Chernobyl.
Jaedabee Premium Member about 13 years ago
Because we haven’t had any problems with … oh … I dunno … coal mines or oil pipelines recently.
dannysixpack about 13 years ago
wow, what hubris on the pro-nuke side.
^
you can’t compare this with chernobyl, mostly because it’s not over yet, by a long shot.
and if it turns out to be worse, you can count on the revisionists to always put the word “safe” before nuclear, in the future.
how the hell can you watch one building after the next blow up, meltdowns in process, and call the belief that something dangerous is going on there is irresponsible?
magical thinking.
dannysixpack about 13 years ago
hmmm, let’s see now.
a steam engine explodes and injures some people within a few feet of it at the moment in time.
a reactor explodes and wipes out towns for miles around for generations. The people nearby die a slow horrible death, OR, get cancer in the future, or birth defects for generations.
yup i’m sure a better nuclear design can withstand human idiocy of builiding near or over fault lines.
then there’s the false option, nuclear or oil, nuclear or coal.
Motivemagus about 13 years ago
The problem with reactor designs is not just how safe they are, but the fact that (1) they are expensive, and (2) the safer they are the more expensive they are. It’s beginning to resemble what happened with the Oil Sands of Canada - when energy gets expensive enough, we go to other methods that would otherwise be considered too costly. There is no silver bullet here; we need a combination of greater energy efficiency, supplemental power (e.g., solar, wind, geothermal), and new resources. Nuclear is clearly one of them, but we cannot ignore the subtle and long-range dangers of radiation. I do know about the killer fogs of London, and we can expect to see them in China soon (if not already), A coal plant pollutes massively as it works, but if it breaks, it stops. A nuclear plant…well…it’s getting scarier and scarier in Japan. And apparently even outside the relatively minor TMI incident there is a higher rate of birth defects and cancer deaths in the Harrisburg area.
dannysixpack about 13 years ago
motive, the answer is simple.
just put the word “safe” in front of nuclear. put the word “clean” in front of coal and blame obama for the bp oil spill (and the likes) in the gulf.
time will cause everyone to forget after a little while.
oh, and i almost forgot, all of the “issues” are caused by regulation, so stop regulating and let the robber barons take care of us.
dan
Wraithkin about 13 years ago
Wow. You guys don’t know anything about current nuke operations if you say this is going to be humongously hazardous.
1) Chernobyl happened because of 2 things: No containment structure and they used carbon rods. The carbon rods caught fire, spewing radioactive smoke into the atmosphere because there was no containment structure. We use water now because it can’t catch fire, and there are containment structures (steel surrounded by concrete).
2) The steam fired off by the failing reactors is about as much radiation OUTSIDE the containment field (the structure) as a dentist’s xray, and it dissipates very quickly (unlike smoke which hangs around for a long while).
3) The operating temperature of modern-day nuke plants is about 550 degrees. That’s not even remotely hot enough to melt through the containment structure. Right now what you’re seeing is the reactor has been taken offline (not producing a reaction any more), but the rods themselves are still freakin’ hot. That’s why there’s steam buildup. The explosions are from the hydrogen building up in the area and the heat cooking it off.
4) The “meltdown” of which they are speaking is the fuel rods melting to (not to be confused with through) the bottom of the containment structure. The rods don’t get hot enough to melt through the structure.
So all these items added up has led me to believe one thing: Yes, the plants are in bad shape, and they are running the risk of causing damage to the plants due to a meltdown. But our focus shouldn’t be on how (un)safe nuke power is. Our focus should be on seeing how we can help the people of Japan recover from this tragedy.
pirate227 about 13 years ago
I’m all for nuclear, as long as it’s NIMBY.
dannysixpack about 13 years ago
^Wraithkin - if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullcrap, eh?
Current Nuke operations - japans reactors are 40 years old.
and i guess we can believe you completely. I guess the 12-20 miles evacuation around the plant and the images we see of geiger counters and checking the locals for contamination, is merely hysteria. Not at all dangerous. Cancers that form in the next decades in this population (like around TMI or chernobyl) are merely an abberation.
No matter what, do NOT focus on the safety of nukes, because this diasaster is really a fake, and since there was just an earthquake and a Tsunami over there (couldn’t happen here), isn’t likely to ever happen again in our lifetimes.
No, everything is just fine. Move along people, nothing to see here.
this confluence of events could NEVER happen again. And it’s as good as over.
dannysixpack about 13 years ago
^^wraithkin, this morning they report there are cracks in the steel containment vessels in two of the reactors. They are pretty much abandoning ship.
the heroics of the people in the reactors is incredible. what strength of character these people have to do what they are doing, with families waiting. They are truely the ‘blessed wind’. my heart goes out to them. the world owes them more than can ever be paid back.
dan
Motivemagus about 13 years ago
wraithkin, actually, I’ve been doing my reading. They are hoping that this will be a “partial meltdown,” meaning it will not escape the containment vessels. But they’re not sure that will be the case, nor are any of the experts (nuclear engineers, NRC experts) I’ve seen quoted, why should you be? I agree we should focus on the people of Japan - we’ve just made our third donation to the Red Cross last night - but that doesn’t mean we should ignore the risks of nuclear power, any more than we should of any other form of power.
Wraithkin about 13 years ago
I didn’t know about the cracks in the containment structures. I’ll admit it, I’m wrong. But, my point of focusing on the people over the plants still stands.
dannysixpack about 13 years ago
i am watching far more than the american news.
beware of propaganda, i saw a piece on abc this morning where an american reporter was in an american nuclear reactor reporting that such a thing couldn’t happen here because there is a switch that shuts the reactor down, and pointed to the switch.
what ignorance.
the bottom line is it’s time to be just a little scared.
thank you wraithkin for your ^ comment.