Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 93

Thread: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

  1. #21
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Once again, just sweeping the problem under the rug. The oceans are vast, but there is a tipping point no matter how vast a system is. We don't know enough about subduction zones to nail what's going to happen to that waste. We have a general idea of the subduction system, but we're nowhere near predicting behavior long term or short term.
    If we assembled all of the high emitting nuclear waste we have ever produced and delivered it to a deep sea trench it would not be enough to make an impact. Especially with the system of cask containment.

  2. #22
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:00 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,290

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    If you are under the impression that we will be bathed in radiation from stored fuel rods if a utility company goes bankrupt then you can rest assured because that isn't what happens.

    I'm under the impression that we will be bathed in decommissioning costs, while those that profited handsomely will doing Mai Tais and hi fives in Tahiti. It's our grandchildren that will be bathed in radiation.

  3. #23
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,728

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Interesting, so you discount premature deaths from cancers and the like directly attributable to exposure from nuclear accidents? And yes, the safety precautions worked soooo well that there was no noticable increase in radiation for thousands of miles because of the fukashima event, right?
    I discount deaths that haven't happened, yes.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  4. #24
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,728

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    I know that you are not troubled by the seven nuclear reactors littering the ocean floors from lost/sunken/super safe nuclear submarines, eh? Not to worry, you can't see that radiation anyway. Hanford. Fernald. Bikini. Chernobyl. Three Mile Island. Kursk. Thrasher. ad infinitum.
    I'm not troubled by a nuclear reactor on the bottom of the ocean, no.
    You could have had a picnic on Three Mild Island on the day of the event and had no problems as a result. Your greater cancer risk would have been from the sunlight.
    Are you really comparing deliberate nuclear weapons tests and Chernobyl to modern reactor design? Why not just bring up the black plague while you're at it?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  5. #25
    Professor

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    06-21-17 @ 12:55 PM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,577

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Dave, is there a personal reason you hate nuclear energy? Your reaction to this topic and the information provided does not seem rational.

  6. #26
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,728

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    I'm under the impression that we will be bathed in decommissioning costs, while those that profited handsomely will doing Mai Tais and hi fives in Tahiti. It's our grandchildren that will be bathed in radiation.
    How about we reduce nuclear waste by 99% by recycling it?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  7. #27
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,722

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Actually, there is one problem that ought to scare the bejesus out of us all. If there is an earthquake on the New Madrid fault line the size of the one that occurred in 1811-12, several nuclear power stations could end up with a Fukushima type event at the same time. If that happened, then a fairly large part of the central US could be rendered uninhabitible.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  8. #28
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:00 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,290

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    How about we reduce nuclear waste by 99% by recycling it?
    How about we don't generate any Nuclear waste.

  9. #29
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:00 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,290

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by CycloneWanderer View Post
    Dave, is there a personal reason you hate nuclear energy? Your reaction to this topic and the information provided does not seem rational.
    In a manner of speaking. The Nuclear Industry is not bankable. IJt is completely subsidized by the taxpayers. The liability potential of disasters is and has been recognized as too great to make it a good investment. Ergo, all Nuclear Energy is gov't subsidized. The same monies should have gone into genuine renewable energy projects that would simultaneously mitigate Global Warming. The monies were derailed by Big Money lobbying, politicking, and MIC scheming to maintain the Centralized Distribution Network of electricity . This keeps the fat cats fat. Renewable Energy is fought at every turn because it hurts the fat cats of Centralized Distribution. Distributed Energies is old money networks maintaining the status quo at the expense of the citizens. Nukes are the worst manifestation of this greed at any cost. If that is personal, so be it, but I would view it as a financial analysis of why a problem persists. A really BIG problem, getting bigger.

  10. #30
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Actually, there is one problem that ought to scare the bejesus out of us all. If there is an earthquake on the New Madrid fault line the size of the one that occurred in 1811-12, several nuclear power stations could end up with a Fukushima type event at the same time. If that happened, then a fairly large part of the central US could be rendered uninhabitible.
    A few things I'd raise:

    1. The 1811-1812 earthquake is estimated at a 6.4-6.6 magnitude with later quakes coming in at 5.0-5.5 or being too low to adequately measure. In short it is not believed to be a very active or dangerous fault zone. Even if we did get another quake on that magnitude I'm not sure there is any reason to believe it would destroy any of our nuclear plants, it doesn't sound anywhere near strong enough. The biggest issue with Fukashima was the tsunami, not the quake itself.

    2. Any quake widespread enough and violent enough to wreck our plants would already have wrought damage unprecedented in modern history with or without the plants.

    3. Even if it did happen it almost certainly wouldn't render the region uninhabitable.

    I've found a few research briefs and excerpts of plausible future earthquake events and while severe none seem to consider the destruction of nuclear facilities as likely events.

    https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/14810

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •