Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42

Thread: Japan nuclear crisis on same level as Chernobyl:

  1. #21
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,067

    Re: Japan nuclear crisis on same level as Chernobyl:

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    How many people died in this once-in-a-generation meltdown, which was caused by a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami?
    How many people die EVERY WEEK in coal mines and oil fires, not to mention the indirect deaths from air pollution and conflict in the Middle East?
    what that guy said. nuclear energy remains the safest form ever utilized as measured by actual damage caused.

    the reactors at fukishima were past their shut down date. they weathered an earthquake a full order of magnitude larger than anyone thought possible. then they weathered a direct hit from a tsunami. then they weathered a loss of power. it was only the secondary loss of power brought on by human inability to get power back up and running that caused this disaster. a second set of deisals (which are at all US sites and are now being installed at all Japanese ones), and the only stories we'd be hearing from Japan today is the 'painfully-a-nation-rebuilds' variety.

    and the radiation from this Level 7 event is so far - in total - a little less than 10% of that which was put out at Chernobyl.

  2. #22
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:28 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,289

    Re: Japan nuclear crisis on same level as Chernobyl:

    Quote Originally Posted by Opteron View Post
    Don't forget the sun runs on nuclear power too.. Nuclear energy is pretty much the power source of the universe. If we can get fusion running, that should be much safer than fission. Overall, nuclear energy is still safer than coal and oil. It's just like flying, just because there are some rare accidents, people freak out. But flying is still safer than driving, should we not fly anymore too because some planes do crash?
    When planes crash people are dead. You don't have to wait for 30 year (cesium) radioactive half lifes to cause cancers with no liability. That is the optimistic scenario. Likely millions dead indirectly. If nukes were necessary for anything but big profits it would be a different story. Nuclear power is simply unsafe in Corporate hands. Corporate is not human. It is an invention to insulate from liability. Corporate does not live and breathe. Connect the dots.

  3. #23
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    01-17-15 @ 02:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    629

    Re: Japan nuclear crisis on same level as Chernobyl:

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    When planes crash people are dead. You don't have to wait for 30 year (cesium) radioactive half lifes to cause cancers with no liability. That is the optimistic scenario. Likely millions dead indirectly. If nukes were necessary for anything but big profits it would be a different story. Nuclear power is simply unsafe in Corporate hands. Corporate is not human. It is an invention to insulate from liability. Corporate does not live and breathe. Connect the dots.
    The analogy with planes is correct, one is spectacular death but less frequent, the other is less spectacular death but more common.
    And you are wrong, nuclear power is much more safer per terawatt-hour than other forms of energy. I don't see you complaining about oil and gas power and their harmful pollution effects, they are corporations too.

    Deaths per TWH by energy source
    Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

    Coal – world average--------161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
    Coal – China----------------278
    Coal – USA------------------15
    Oil-------------------------36 (36% of world energy)
    Natural Gas-----------------4 (21% of world energy)
    Biofuel/Biomass-------------12
    Peat------------------------12
    Solar (rooftop)-------------0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
    Wind------------------------0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
    Hydro-----------------------0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
    Hydro - world including Banqiao)-1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
    Nuclear---------------------0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

  4. #24
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:28 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,289

    Re: Japan nuclear crisis on same level as Chernobyl:

    Quote"The analogy with planes is correct, one is spectacular death but less frequent, the other is less spectacular death but more common.
    And you are wrong, nuclear power is much more safer per terawatt-hour than other forms of energy. I don't see you complaining about oil and gas power and their harmful pollution effects, they are corporations too."End Quote

    This thread is about nukes and I complain about all other energies. The same Corporate realities. The Centralized Distribution Network for energies is a case of multiplying innefficiecies. It is the problem although in the past it did seem to be a wonderful development. Current realities, including the survival of the species, would suggest we make corrections. De-Centralize energy to be produced in-home with the ensuing local jobs growth and local energy and dollar savings. End user efficiency would be 8 times as efficient, ergo pollution would be reduced linearly in the same proportion.

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Everywhere and Nowhere
    Last Seen
    03-07-12 @ 03:28 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,692

    Re: Japan nuclear crisis on same level as Chernobyl:

    I'm thinking twice about nuclear too now.

    One could say: why build reactors in earthquake zones? But is there anywhere on earth that is free from earth quakes or any kind of natural disaster?

    Nuclear is very compact and efficient but the risk to the environment is extremely high if that 1 in 1000 chance event happens, as we are seeing in Japan right now.

    I've been told by physicists that nuclear fusion is a pipe dream but I hope one day it can become a reality in order to solve this major problem.

  6. #26
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,709

    Re: Japan nuclear crisis on same level as Chernobyl:

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    We had a Gulf spill. Hmmmm, that seems to have cleaned up pretty nicely so far, eh? There was Exxon Valdez, as well as other oil spills in the world far worse than both. There was Chernobyl, 3-mile Island (minor), and this. This was a bad deal in Japan, thanks to one of the worst earthquakes in human history. Are you really going to base your decisions off catastrophes such as this, which may not happen again for 500 more years?

    Consider this: A LOT more people died 200 years ago simply because they were cold, or from heat exhaustion, because they didn't have nuclear or coal-based energy.

    And guess what? Riding in an airplane was pretty dangerous 50 years ago, as was a train a few years before that. Ever hear of the Titanic? The Hindenburg? You live and learn, analyze and improve, and push forward with COURAGE.

    Liberals are such pussies, pardon the French. Chicken Little about every little thing that might go wrong. Scared of the boogey man under their bed. Global warming (lol), AIDS, Bird Flu, Y2K, Swine Flu.....then add the internet to the equation and we're 20 minutes from the apocolypse.

    Last I checked, there aren't any of us getting out of here alive. We're all headed for a grave sooner or later. Thank you, but I choose not to spend my time shaking like a schoolgirl over unlikely things that "might" happen.
    I'm about the biggest proponent of nuclear energy you've ever talked to but thanks for the ****in generalization there buddy.
    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
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Everywhere and Nowhere
    Last Seen
    03-07-12 @ 03:28 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,692

    Re: Japan nuclear crisis on same level as Chernobyl:

    It amazes me that people don't realise that globally this is so minor. The Russians have been dumping radioactive waste into the sea since 1959. We know this and the only countries who've cared have been Japan and Norway.

    By 1992, 192 700 cubic metres of liquid radioactive waste as well as thousands of kilograms of solid radioactive waste including damaged reactors from nuclear powered ships, (at least one of which was dumped fully fuelled), had been dumped into the Barents and Kara seas off the coast of Novaya Zemlya.

    123 497 cubic metres of liquid radioactive waste and thousands of kilograms of solid waste were also dumped into the Sea of Japan from Russian naval bases in Vladivostok and Petropavlovsk.

    The largest Russian on shore storage facilities for spent nuclear fuel from naval vessels are Andreyeva Bay and Gremikha. These facilites were beyond capacity in 1990 when the Soviet Union collapsed and only now has the Russian government even started to clean up these sites.

    Rosatom, the Russian civilian agency responsible for the Andreyeva Bay site released a report stating that sea water infiltrating into the fuel rod storage tanks had corroded the fuel rods causing them to break up and sink to the bottom of the storage tanks. "The conclusion of Rosatom is that when the amount of particles on the bottom reaches 5 to 10 percent in relation to the amount of water, potentially explosive critical mass will occur," leading to an "uncontrolled chain reaction".

    Why do you people not care about any of this but you care about Fukushima?

    Russian atomic stockpile at risk of 'uncontrolled chain reaction'
    http://www.nks.org/download/seminar/...Threat_1-8.pdf
    Radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel - Bellona
    http://www.nti.org/db/nisp

  8. #28
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:28 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,289

    Re: Japan nuclear crisis on same level as Chernobyl:

    Quote Originally Posted by Temporal View Post
    It amazes me that people don't realise that globally this is so minor. The Russians have been dumping radioactive waste into the sea since 1959. We know this and the only countries who've cared have been Japan and Norway.

    By 1992, 192 700 cubic metres of liquid radioactive waste as well as thousands of kilograms of solid radioactive waste including damaged reactors from nuclear powered ships, (at least one of which was dumped fully fuelled), had been dumped into the Barents and Kara seas off the coast of Novaya Zemlya.

    123 497 cubic metres of liquid radioactive waste and thousands of kilograms of solid waste were also dumped into the Sea of Japan from Russian naval bases in Vladivostok and Petropavlovsk.

    The largest Russian on shore storage facilities for spent nuclear fuel from naval vessels are Andreyeva Bay and Gremikha. These facilites were beyond capacity in 1990 when the Soviet Union collapsed and only now has the Russian government even started to clean up these sites.

    Rosatom, the Russian civilian agency responsible for the Andreyeva Bay site released a report stating that sea water infiltrating into the fuel rod storage tanks had corroded the fuel rods causing them to break up and sink to the bottom of the storage tanks. "The conclusion of Rosatom is that when the amount of particles on the bottom reaches 5 to 10 percent in relation to the amount of water, potentially explosive critical mass will occur," leading to an "uncontrolled chain reaction".

    Why do you people not care about any of this but you care about Fukushima?

    Russian atomic stockpile at risk of 'uncontrolled chain reaction'
    http://www.nks.org/download/seminar/...Threat_1-8.pdf
    Radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel - Bellona
    http://www.nti.org/db/nisp
    And even your well-written post only scratches the surface. The USA dumped radioactive wastes in the ocean for years. There are at least 7 sunken nuclear reactors in the world's oceans from sunken nuclear submarines. They are disasters waiting for their fuel rod jackets to corrode. Just because there is so much dangerous junk in our oceans does not make it OK to add one iota more. The line should have been drawn years ago. Politics and bedfellows. That would be sock puppets and their Corporate hands, don't you think?

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Japan nuclear crisis on same level as Chernobyl:

    http://www.meti.go.jp/press/2011/04/...10413009-3.pdf
    (I didn't understand much, but I did see the 6-26 SV/hr that's being reported)

    TEPCO confirms damage to part of No. 4 unit's spent nuke fuel | Kyodo News
    The cooling period for 548 of the 1,331 rods was shorter than that for others and the volume of decay heat emitted from the fuel in the No. 4 unit pool is larger compared with pools at other reactor buildings.

    According to TEPCO, radioactive iodine-131 amounting to 220 becquerels per cubic centimeter, cesium-134 of 88 becquerels and cesium-137 of 93 becquerels were detected in the pool water. Those substances are generated by nuclear fission.

    The government's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said the confirmed radioactive materials were up to 100,000 times higher than normal but that the higher readings may have also been caused by the pouring of rainwater containing much radioactivity or particles of radiation-emitting rubble in the pool.
    Quote Originally Posted by Opteron View Post
    The analogy with planes is correct, one is spectacular death but less frequent, the other is less spectacular death but more common.
    And you are wrong, nuclear power is much more safer per terawatt-hour than other forms of energy. I don't see you complaining about oil and gas power and their harmful pollution effects, they are corporations too.

    Deaths per TWH by energy source
    Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

    Coal – world average--------161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
    Coal – China----------------278
    Coal – USA------------------15
    Oil-------------------------36 (36% of world energy)
    Natural Gas-----------------4 (21% of world energy)
    Biofuel/Biomass-------------12
    Peat------------------------12
    Solar (rooftop)-------------0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
    Wind------------------------0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
    Hydro-----------------------0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
    Hydro - world including Banqiao)-1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
    Nuclear---------------------0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
    You're right, more people die in the mining / oil drilling, etc... for energy then with nuclear power.
    But, that 4% was that like nuclear workers involved in nuclear accidents?? Or was that 0.04 based on ALL the people that have been killed in the radioactive fallout also included?

    The main problem with nuclear energy is that, sure it's safe... BUT when things go wrong, they tend to go horribly wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Temporal View Post
    It amazes me that people don't realise that globally this is so minor. The Russians have been dumping radioactive waste into the sea since 1959. We know this and the only countries who've cared have been Japan and Norway.

    By 1992, 192 700 cubic metres of liquid radioactive waste as well as thousands of kilograms of solid radioactive waste including damaged reactors from nuclear powered ships, (at least one of which was dumped fully fuelled), had been dumped into the Barents and Kara seas off the coast of Novaya Zemlya.

    123 497 cubic metres of liquid radioactive waste and thousands of kilograms of solid waste were also dumped into the Sea of Japan from Russian naval bases in Vladivostok and Petropavlovsk.

    The largest Russian on shore storage facilities for spent nuclear fuel from naval vessels are Andreyeva Bay and Gremikha. These facilites were beyond capacity in 1990 when the Soviet Union collapsed and only now has the Russian government even started to clean up these sites.

    Rosatom, the Russian civilian agency responsible for the Andreyeva Bay site released a report stating that sea water infiltrating into the fuel rod storage tanks had corroded the fuel rods causing them to break up and sink to the bottom of the storage tanks. "The conclusion of Rosatom is that when the amount of particles on the bottom reaches 5 to 10 percent in relation to the amount of water, potentially explosive critical mass will occur," leading to an "uncontrolled chain reaction".

    Why do you people not care about any of this but you care about Fukushima?

    Russian atomic stockpile at risk of 'uncontrolled chain reaction'
    http://www.nks.org/download/seminar/...Threat_1-8.pdf
    Radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel - Bellona
    http://www.nti.org/db/nisp
    I was not aware of that, but that's also quite disgusting...

  10. #30
    Professor
    Baralis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MO
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,394
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Japan nuclear crisis on same level as Chernobyl:

    I am more and more against current nuclear reactors. Take Chernobyl for example, while it is considered the worst nuclear disaster ever it has had devastating affects. At minimum, a million people have been directly contaminated by the disaster and many more people will be affected in the long term. While cases such as this are rare, they come at an extraordinary human and environmental cost.

    I am for speeding up research in safer alternatives. A good example of this is the ITER project that is working with fusion. No radioactive waste or fuel, fuel is SUPER abundant and not rare or radioactive such as uranium. The likelihood of a disaster is near null in the way the technology works. It needs a forced reaction and is not a chain reaction so the moment you stop forcing the reaction it stops.

    They estimate about 2.5 kilos of stone and 10 liters of water will provide enough fuel to power a household for a year. They also estimate a full scale reactor supplying power to the public by 2030.

    Also magnetic engines have come a long way. Zero fuel needed, no emissions, and take very very little energy to start them. While I admit I haven't looked much into magnetic engines, the little I have seen looks to be very promising for future applications.

    I think we need to scrap current nuclear technology and focus more on these safer alternative. I am sure there are many more then the 2 I listed.

Page 3 of 5 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
  •