-


Hmmm, not sure Zev, Although I think a meltdown is well on the cards, that news website doesnt seem overly reputable
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's seriously nothing to get uppity about, breaking news, levels of iodine might harm week old babies, if drunk for 20 times longer than it'll stay in the water supply, at about 10 litres a day...people seriously need to compare the problems caused from radiation to the problems caused by a single coal power station operating for a year
 
Uhm... didn't they state that the first reactor already had a meltdown during the first few days? A meltdown isn't as dramatic as people want to believe, it just means that the reactor core got so warm it melted and the reactor can't be salvaged and re-used. What happened in Chernobyl was a greater accident and the result of a faulty reactor. This one is more like the meltdown in Harrisburg.
 
Meltdown: It melts. Down.


Chernobyl: It exploded. Upwards. Into the atmosphere.


We've already set back nuclear power for years, right when it's needed most, can we just... you know... stop with the bullshit fear mongering nonsense?


Yeah, all the wind and solar power hippies will claim that they are better solutions, but then the environmental and not-in-my-back-yard crowds will complain that wind power is noisy and kills bats, and that solar is expensive and uses a metric ass-ton of land.


The Japanese built nuclear reactors a stone's throw from a fault line. You know what makes nuclear power safe? Not being fucking stupid.
 
There better be some S.T.A.L.K.E.R. shit going on when I wake up tomorrow, or I can't be arsed to think about this.


I want to see the sky glow red and zombies conquer the planet, then maybe I will worry a little bit.
 
Hmmm, not sure Zev, Although I think a meltdown is well on the cards, that news website doesnt seem overly reputable

There are lots of very reputable news sites around, but this is one that I always check for US (and international) news that is always on-point: http://www.drudgereport.com/

The Japanese built nuclear reactors a stone's throw from a fault line. You know what makes nuclear power safe? Not being fucking stupid.

You take your logic and get the hell out of here!
 

I'd say that was a pretty scare mongering site.


If you want real news on Fukushima then goto http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/


industry website :D


3 deaths, none from radiation. 1 was a crane accident and the other 2 were in a tunnel which was flooded by the tsunami.


To get things under control it was authorised for 2.5 times the legal radiation dose for the emergency workers at the site. So far no one has been exposed to this level.


AS for the water and food, in only 3 locations have warning needed to be issued regarding iodine levels, and that is for young children.


2 things to remember


The plant was at the end of it's service life and was going to be decommisioned at the end of the month.


It was never designed for more than a 2 (I think) earthquake, latest reports say between 8.8 and 9.0.


Add in the tsunami and the fact that it didn't explode/toxify the entire area is a testiment to how SAFE nuclear power is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem is, modern society is built to generate money, not well being, freedom or smart people.
Fixed that for you
wink.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The plant was at the end of it's service life and was going to be decommisioned at the end of the month.


Add in the tsunami and the fact that it didn't explode/toxify the entire area is a testiment to how SAFE nuclear power is.

Just like the cop who always gets shot as he's about to retire! :eek:
 
You know what makes nuclear power safe? Not being fucking stupid.

Would probably work.


Problem is: They /are/ fucking stupid. Not only in Japan.

The problem is, Nuclear power stations are built to generate money, not power.

I still call it fucking stupid to build unsecure power plants to generate money. So they are greedy /and/ fucking stupid.


And I've got no hope this will ever change, so the only way not to take stupid risks is to build only power plants which can't explode even if you bomb it. Like solar or wind power plants.
 
so the only way not to take stupid risks is to build only power plants which can't explode even if you bomb it. Like solar or wind power plants.

or fusion, but that's a few years away from useful yet


point is try providing enough power for the world with wind or solar, when no on ewants it as it's ugly as sin all over the place, nuclear is much safer than any coal or oil power station, and if you bombed it you'd end up with a hot load of radioactive goo, that solidifies and is just a bitch to clean up later, can't 'go nuclear' like a bomb ever because of the design.


oh and someone quoted fukushima as releasing 700 million times the safe radiation limit...based on the limit of a newborn baby, if exposed to that for a whole year, and not taking the half life of the isotopes into consideration, and then not mentioning the fact it would give the same risk of cancer increase as eating a bannanna
 
point is try providing enough power for the world with wind or solar, when no on ewants it as it's ugly as sin all over the place, nuclear is much safer than any coal or oil power station, and if you bombed it you'd end up with a hot load of radioactive goo, that solidifies and is just a bitch to clean up later, can't 'go nuclear' like a bomb ever because of the design.
I don't think solar panels placed on roofs look bad.


And placing enough solar panels on roofs (in Switzerland) to provide as much power as one nuclear power plant would cost the same as building a new nuclear power plant (something like 15kkk SFR). I think this calculations are probably right, they weren't made by me. ;)


The following is now only guessing. As solar panels don't significantly need further investments once placed (no employees, uranium, cooling, keeping nuclear waste safe for 1kk years, etc needed) I think the profit shouldn't be much smaller, although they don't quite work as long as a nuclear power plant.


If you bomb a nuclear power plant it won't go up like a nuclear bomb of course, but it can, did and does spill radioactive stuff all over the surroundings of the nuclear power plant (is there an abbreviation for this shitty word?) far enough for a huge place to have higher cancer rates and so on and if something like in Chernobyl happens, meaning some big fire (don't tell me this couldn't be accomplished artificially) the radioactive shit can also be brought all around the world (for example in some lakes in Switzerland, which is after all 2k kilometers away from Chernobyl, you couldn't fish for quite a long time after the accident happened, because it was contaminated).


And please explain the "safer than coal or oil" further, how can an accident like in Fukushima or Chernobyl happen there?
 
so the only way not to take stupid risks is to build only power plants which can't explode even if you bomb it. Like solar or wind power plants.

or fusion, but that's a few years away from useful yet


point is try providing enough power for the world with wind or solar, when no on ewants it as it's ugly as sin all over the place, nuclear is much safer than any coal or oil power station, and if you bombed it you'd end up with a hot load of radioactive goo, that solidifies and is just a bitch to clean up later, can't 'go nuclear' like a bomb ever because of the design.


oh and someone quoted fukushima as releasing 700 million times the safe radiation limit...based on the limit of a newborn baby, if exposed to that for a whole year, and not taking the half life of the isotopes into consideration, and then not mentioning the fact it would give the same risk of cancer increase as eating a bannanna

Providing enough power via alt energies?


Indeed.


Dangerous risks of radiation?


I throw my shoe at you, sir!


It contains a dirty bomb plot!


Where similarly people became hilarious in their concerns over such a threat, that equally would require standing still for a year in the detonation zone to acquire any meaningful dose.


OOOhhhhh........sand! I could make a glass carpark with enough heat. :)
 
And please explain the "safer than coal or oil" further, how can an accident like in Fukushima or Chernobyl happen there?

this is in the long term, a traditional power station will pump noxious fumes into the atmosphere 24/7, and do some pretty serious (relatively) damage to peoples health and the environment etc.


a fission plant however, has no emissions at all (that can't be safely contained, spent fuel for some kinds of reactors, in cases where abreeder is used and the spent fuel is safe, it's just a neutron infused reactor hull), and in the very rare case of any accident happening, the effects are still minimal in comparison, yes there's potential for a full meltdown, fire and subsequent radiation leak, which if the reactor doesn't protect against (fukushima has cooling pools beneath the cores so if any meltdown occurs it drops and solidifies), it can cause some nasty effects.


The main problem with nuclear power is the hysteria from people comparing the effects to something like a nuclear bomb, the effects from chernobyl have been greatly exaggerated, and that was possibly the worst leak there was. The three mile island meltdown was a full meltdown and leak, and that had miniscule detectable effects.


Now for fukushima, this is an old reactor design, much less 'safe' than any modern one, and it withstood both an earthquake and tsunami twice the size it's been designed to take, with the only problems being caused by the power going out, the latest leak of coolant into the sea would probably be the most significant, but even that isn't enough to cause anything serious. The increased risk of cancer from the highest dose there is sustained for a year would be somewhere about 0.00001% but as soon as anyone that doesn't know anything about it hears risk of cancer, they think instant mutants popping up and ghouls etc.


so yeah, to summarise, traditional stations give you a much higher risk (of explosions, and cancer/other health effects due to the pollution) than any fission reactor ever will.


Somewhere there's a picture of the first reactor, metal box the size of a safe, thin walls, only guage to monitor it being a thermometer, and an intern holding a rope attached to the control rods, be glad it's advanced beyond that :D
 
so the only way not to take stupid risks is to build only power plants which can't explode even if you bomb it. Like solar or wind power plants.

or fusion, but that's a few years away from useful yet
Don't forget thorium reactors. If the scientists talking in some news channels are to be believed (and I've actually understood them, do your own research, too), it's a fission reaction that is perfectly safe. Actually safe, they say, not in the same way that uranium is safe except when it isn't.


Incidentally, everything explodes when you bomb it. If it doesn't, the bomb wasn't very good :p
 
so the only way not to take stupid risks is to build only power plants which can't explode even if you bomb it. Like solar or wind power plants.

or fusion, but that's a few years away from useful yet
Don't forget thorium reactors. If the scientists talking in some news channels are to be believed (and I've actually understood them, do your own research, too), it's a fission reaction that is perfectly safe. Actually safe, they say, not in the same way that uranium is safe except when it isn't.


Incidentally, everything explodes when you bomb it. If it doesn't, the bomb wasn't very good :p

I meant: Doesn't spill a lot of radioactive waste around with the explosion.


It wasn't meant literally, I rather meant, someone could make the radioactive waste come out and spill all over the world if done right.


Of course the are bad long term effects of coal/oil power plants, I don't say "Remove nuclear power plants and build coal/oil power plants", we should rather build a lot of new alternative power plants and not build any new oil/coal/nuclear power plants, then in maybe 30 years neither nuclear nor oil/coal/... power plants will be there anymore, but all solar/wind/water. Of course only if until then no new, better, was to get the energy is found.


It /is/ possible to shut down both nuclear and oil/coal/etc power plants within some decades, even now you can make money with water/solar/wind energy, and as these techniques are improving fast these possible profits will even increase further, until they are bigger than these of nuclear/oil/etc energy.


For example there are some smart people who place solar panels on your roof for free and for 20 years they get all the profits. After that all energy belongs to the house owner. This way both profit, the house owner will get a solar power plant for free in 20 years (which then will probably work for about another 10 years), the people who pay it don't have to search and pay for a place to set them up.
 
Back
Top