• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Japan nuclear crisis on same level as Chernobyl:

liblady said:
i am thinking twice about nuclear energy.

Japan nuclear crisis on same level as Chernobyl - World news - Asia-Pacific - msnbc.com
Click to expand...

I thought twice about it from this too...

Then I remembered this was a nuclear power plant built on almost 30+ year designs sitting on the coast of a country that knows it gets semi-regular earthquakes with the chance for significantly powerful ones and that it'd been almost a quarter century since Chernobyl that we get another bad one like it, and thus is hardly a representation of the normal experience for modern nuclear power. As such, despite this, my views on going nuclear remain the same.
 
While it is upsetting that the Japanese are having to deal with Chernobyl levels, I do not think that we would have to worry about it here. Unfortunately, for Japan they do not have a lot of land where an earthquake could not affect the nuclear plants. That isn't the case here where not all of the U.S. lie by a fault line, so I do not think, that if properly placed, the U.S. would ever face a similar issue because of an earthquake.
 
soccerboy22 said:
While it is upsetting that the Japanese are having to deal with Chernobyl levels, I do not think that we would have to worry about it here. Unfortunately, for Japan they do not have a lot of land where an earthquake could not affect the nuclear plants. That isn't the case here where not all of the U.S. lie by a fault line, so I do not think, that if properly placed, the U.S. would ever face a similar issue because of an earthquake.
Click to expand...

here is a map of current reactors, OLD reactors. NRC: Map of Power Reactor Sites
 
Zyphlin said:
I thought twice about it from this too...

Then I remembered this was a nuclear power plant built on almost 30+ year designs sitting on the coast of a country that knows it gets semi-regular earthquakes with the chance for significantly powerful ones and that it'd been almost a quarter century since Chernobyl that we get another bad one like it, and thus is hardly a representation of the normal experience for modern nuclear power. As such, despite this, my views on going nuclear remain the same.
Click to expand...

please note the link i posted with a map of our OLD reactors.
 
liblady said:
thank you for your informed opinion.
Click to expand...

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 ******s, 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.
 
Erod said:
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 ******s, 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.
Click to expand...

well, i was reading your post with interest until you reverted to your usual childish hyperbole.
 
Zyphlin said:
and thus is hardly a representation of the normal experience for modern nuclear power. As such, despite this, my views on going nuclear remain the same.
Click to expand...
/agree

It took one of the most powerful earthquakes in a century and a tsunami to cause the current disaster - a very rare set of circumstances that we will nonetheless learn from to improve the safety of future powerplants.
 
liblady said:
i am thinking twice about nuclear energy.

Japan nuclear crisis on same level as Chernobyl - World news - Asia-Pacific - msnbc.com
Click to expand...

I was almost about to say biased American media, when I remembered this morning on Sky News that they too tried to push this view until an invited British nuclear expert totally shot down their attempt to dramatise the situation. Funny enough the rest of the day the story died out to royal weddings and what not.

Yes the Japanese raised their level to the highest on IAEA level, but what is that level exactly?

The nuclear accident at Fukushima Daiichi is now rated as a level 7 "Major Accident" on INES. Level 7 is the most serious level on INES and is used to describe an event comprised of "A major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures"
Click to expand...

We have known that for weeks now. Hell most of the release of radioactive material was deliberate by the engineers.

This accident is still in no freaking ****ing and random swear word anywhere NEAR Chernobyl, both in amount of radiation and area covered by the fall out. It is especially the fall-out that is the problem. To this day, the radiation levels in places like Copenhagen, Stockholm and other places are above normal, and that is over 1000 kms from Chernobyl. Hell the radiation levels in Stockholm are higher than they are in Tokyo, which is what.. 80 miles away or something like that. And most important, the Chernobyl disaster was a full explosion of the reactor and it spread high dosis radiation from Chernobyl across Europe and all the way to the East Coast of the US. The Japanese reactor building did explode but it was no where similar to Chernobyl as all the reactor cores were and still are pretty much intact physically.

When people and animals start having symptoms over 500+ kms away, then I will start to call it half a Chernobyl.. maybe.
 
liblady said:
well, i was reading your post with interest until you reverted to your usual childish hyperbole.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's not hyperbole. It's truly sad. This nation hasn't a spine anymore.
 
Erod said:
Unfortunately, it's not hyperbole. It's truly sad. This nation hasn't a spine anymore.
Click to expand...
Your mention of Y2K was indeed hyperbole. Y2K was a real issue and in spite of the apparent success, entire cities were shutdown because of non-compliance. For trivia, in 300,000 years we're going to have another Y2K problem because long integers can't hold milisecond precision beyond that.
 
liblady said:
please note the link i posted with a map of our OLD reactors.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree on the notion of potentially improving our currently set of older reactors, and I'd be happy to see them go off line as new models go online. However, the discussion regarding nuclear energy and the use of it to me is far more based on the notion of actually significantly attempting to increase the building of NEW facilities. You'll note the number of 10 to 19 year old ones on your map is small and the number of 0 - 9 appear to be non-existant. The fact that our old buildings may be problematic shouldn't deter us from making new ones. Indeed, that just means that making new ones (and improvements to the old ones, something I don't know how much our various regulations hamper from happening) is all the more important to potentially phase out the older models.

I think it'd be silly not to at least pause for a moment after a catastrophe like this. If ones position can't withstand moments of reflection and rechecking then I quesiton how strong of a position you honestly have. However, to me, even after that pause and second thought, the notion to continue forward with Nuclear energy is still a significant option in my mind.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Your mention of Y2K was indeed hyperbole. Y2K was a real issue and in spite of the apparent success, entire cities were shutdown because of non-compliance. For trivia, in 300,000 years we're going to have another Y2K problem because long integers can't hold milisecond precision beyond that.
Click to expand...

Oh crap. When's the fix scheduled to be released?
 
Zyphlin said:
I thought twice about it from this too...

Then I remembered this was a nuclear power plant built on almost 30+ year designs sitting on the coast of a country that knows it gets semi-regular earthquakes with the chance for significantly powerful ones and that it'd been almost a quarter century since Chernobyl that we get another bad one like it, and thus is hardly a representation of the normal experience for modern nuclear power. As such, despite this, my views on going nuclear remain the same.
Click to expand...

From what I've read, this was a poorly designed installation. Their emergency generators were at ground level. When they lost power, they were screwed. The plant was scheduled to be shut down this year as obsolete but given a reprieve. A tsunami certainly wasn't outside the realm of possibility. Hindsight = 20/20.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
Murphy's Law. "If something can go wrong, it will, and at the worst possible moment!" Should I add that all nuclear reactors are located on major waterways because of their huge need for cooling water. No one speaks of the potential for downstream contamination, and that could be the Gulf Stream as easily as the Ganges. Even if only 2% of the nuke plants have major catastrophes, we'll have 5 or 6 Fukushimas, and these events are uninsurable because the Insurance company demographics say the risk is too great. "The risk is too great." Isn't that clear? This from the data analysts who make a living analyzing risk. Nuke power simply guarantees profits to Corporations that are written to eliminate liability for those that pocket the profits and you and I are not in that picture. Not exactly true as it is you and I that will ultimately bear the monetary liabilities and health and planetary burdens. Those nuclear corporate executives will be far away from any contamination and you can make book on that. Also the politicians whose shortsightedness leads to this inevitably result. Nukes are about profits, not needs. Take a good look at the sun and try not to burn your eyes while you are seeking alternative energy to solve the problem.
 
DaveFagan said:
Murphy's Law. "If something can go wrong, it will, and at the worst possible moment!" Should I add that all nuclear reactors are located on major waterways because of their huge need for cooling water. No one speaks of the potential for downstream contamination, and that could be the Gulf Stream as easily as the Ganges. Even if only 2% of the nuke plants have major catastrophes, we'll have 5 or 6 Fukushimas, and these events are uninsurable because the Insurance company demographics say the risk is too great. "The risk is too great." Isn't that clear? This from the data analysts who make a living analyzing risk. Nuke power simply guarantees profits to Corporations that are written to eliminate liability for those that pocket the profits and you and I are not in that picture. Not exactly true as it is you and I that will ultimately bear the monetary liabilities and health and planetary burdens. Those nuclear corporate executives will be far away from any contamination and you can make book on that. Also the politicians whose shortsightedness leads to this inevitably result. Nukes are about profits, not needs. Take a good look at the sun and try not to burn your eyes while you are seeking alternative energy to solve the problem.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Kandahar said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Opteron said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
DaveFagan said:
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.
Click to expand...
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)
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom