Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 46

Thread: Fukushima plant crisis could erupt

  1. #31
    Professor
    atrasicarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    12-23-12 @ 05:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    2,227

    Re: Fukushima plant crisis could erupt

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Its **** like this why I am against nuclear power plants. Its almost like a nuclear environmental bomb waiting to happen.I could be wrong but I never heard of any coal powered plants,solar power plants, hydroelectric damn or wind powered plant explosions making a area uninhabitable for humans for hundreds of year and dousing the local food and water supply with radiation.
    Do you really want to compare the total negative health effects of coal or oil vs nuclear? I can tell you what the results will be right now.
    For: legalizing drugs, gay marriage, abortion, guns, universal health care, public sector jobs, nuclear power, free education, progressive taxation
    Against: corporations, make-work, the 40 hour work week, intellectual property, imperialism, "homeland security," censorship

  2. #32
    Sage
    EagleAye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Last Seen
    03-28-13 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,697

    Re: Fukushima plant crisis could erupt

    Quote Originally Posted by atrasicarius View Post
    Do you really want to compare the total negative health effects of coal or oil vs nuclear? I can tell you what the results will be right now.
    ooh! ooh! Let me guess on this one. Hmmm...I think that coal power has sickened or killed...1,000 times more people than nuclear power. Am I right? Is the number too low? Should it be 10,000 times?


  3. #33
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Fukushima plant crisis could erupt

    Quote Originally Posted by atrasicarius View Post
    Do you really want to compare the total negative health effects of coal or oil vs nuclear? I can tell you what the results will be right now.
    If a coal plant explodes does it make the whole city unlivable like Chernobyl for hundreds or possibly thousands of years? Will people have to wait hundreds or thousands of years before they can use the area again? A coal plant explosion might killed more people but what are the long term effects on that area and surrounding areas if a worst case scenario happens?
    Last edited by jamesrage; 10-06-11 at 07:30 PM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  4. #34
    Professor
    atrasicarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    12-23-12 @ 05:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    2,227

    Re: Fukushima plant crisis could erupt

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    If a coal plant explodes does it make the whole city unlivable like Chernobyl for hundreds or possibly thousands of years? Will people have to wait hundreds or thousands of years before they can use the area again? A coal plant explosion might killed more people but what are the long term effects on that area and surrounding areas if a worst case scenario happens?



    Notice how one picture has trees and one picture doesn't? There's a reason for that.
    For: legalizing drugs, gay marriage, abortion, guns, universal health care, public sector jobs, nuclear power, free education, progressive taxation
    Against: corporations, make-work, the 40 hour work week, intellectual property, imperialism, "homeland security," censorship

  5. #35
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Fukushima plant crisis could erupt

    Quote Originally Posted by atrasicarius View Post



    Notice how one picture has trees and one picture doesn't? There's a reason for that.
    Trees can grow back and those pits can be filled right back up.So it is not even close to worst case scenario of a nuclear power plant.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  6. #36
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Fukushima plant crisis could erupt

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Trees can grow back and those pits can be filled right back up.So it is not even close to worst case scenario of a nuclear power plant.
    Well, you guys are missing a pretty big detail here.

    You are basically treating all nuclear plants the same. A pebble bed reactor is exceptionally different from Chernobyl. In theory, a PBR can't actually meltdown, much less explode. So your discussion is a bit screwy because you aren't accounting for drastically different nuclear designs out there. Furthermore, when we add in small molten salt regulated uranium reactors and thorium, there is no way coal can win this argument James.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Everywhere and Nowhere
    Last Seen
    03-07-12 @ 03:28 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,692

    Re: Fukushima plant crisis could erupt

    Quote Originally Posted by atrasicarius View Post
    Do you really want to compare the total negative health effects of coal or oil vs nuclear? I can tell you what the results will be right now.
    You have to put it in proportion.

    Fossil fuel disasters happen more often, but the long term consequences pale in comparison to a nuclear meltdown, which happens much more rarely.

    Fukishima has put proper perspective into this. It only takes one nuclear fallout to contaminate an area for centuries - even thousands of years. Nuclear power hasn't been around that long, and we've had several major incidents so far. Nuclear contamination of our environment has already happened, in this short time span.

    So yes... in short term ways, fossil fuels are hurting our health more. They are changing climate, harming human health, and contaminating the environment in major ways. But not ways that would be impossible to recover from in a couple of hundred years.

    Nuclear? Even a once in a blue moon disaster has consequences lasting for epochs.

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Everywhere and Nowhere
    Last Seen
    03-07-12 @ 03:28 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,692

    Re: Fukushima plant crisis could erupt

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Well, you guys are missing a pretty big detail here.

    You are basically treating all nuclear plants the same. A pebble bed reactor is exceptionally different from Chernobyl. In theory, a PBR can't actually meltdown, much less explode. So your discussion is a bit screwy because you aren't accounting for drastically different nuclear designs out there. Furthermore, when we add in small molten salt regulated uranium reactors and thorium, there is no way coal can win this argument James.
    You admit that something is in theory and then say that worry is unwarranted?

    I can't count the number of times that people have said modern reactors are safe, that they are far more reliable than something from the stone-age Chernobyl era. Yet here we are, with a nuclear crisis in Japan, in one of the world's most modern and maintained reactor sites.

    The very earth that reactors are built on is not guaranteed to be stable. Fukishima proved that. To say that all variables are taken care of is, frankly, very arrogant. The Fukishima region is screwed, for all intents and purposes, forever. Even a slimy, disgusting tailing pond from oil extraction could still recover, and have new life there, while another area remains nuclear for ages more.

    We don't even have fool proof ways of storing spend fuel. Our solution has been to just put it deep underground. Well, the ground moves, geology changes. The continents themselves are in perpetual motion. What if in 10,000 years (when we could be theoretically be gone), mother nature decides to split the earth right where we've stored all this crap? It would destroy everything - again.

  9. #39
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Fukushima plant crisis could erupt

    Quote Originally Posted by Temporal View Post
    You have to put it in proportion.

    Fossil fuel disasters happen more often, but the long term consequences pale in comparison to a nuclear meltdown, which happens much more rarely.

    Fukishima has put proper perspective into this. It only takes one nuclear fallout to contaminate an area for centuries - even thousands of years. Nuclear power hasn't been around that long, and we've had several major incidents so far. Nuclear contamination of our environment has already happened, in this short time span.

    So yes... in short term ways, fossil fuels are hurting our health more. They are changing climate, harming human health, and contaminating the environment in major ways. But not ways that would be impossible to recover from in a couple of hundred years.

    Nuclear? Even a once in a blue moon disaster has consequences lasting for epochs.
    Not saying I don't have concerns over the safety and cost related concerns with nuclear power, but if these can be addressed adequately, I think we must employ them as one of our non fossil fuel alternatives to add to the mix of solar, wind, and hydroelectric.

    After all, many scientists say that unless we can reverse climate change before we reach the tipping point, it may take the environment a couple centuries to recover.
    Last edited by Catawba; 10-07-11 at 04:09 AM.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  10. #40
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Fukushima plant crisis could erupt

    Quote Originally Posted by Temporal View Post
    You admit that something is in theory and then say that worry is unwarranted?
    Well, PBRs haven't moved out of prototype testing. But considering their yields, it does make sense. PBRs as singular reactors don't come close to the kind of power generation that we typically think of. To get the same kind of production, PBRs are designed to be built in clusters. Essentially it takes 4 standard PBRs to produce the same amount as the typical reactor we have in the US. That means faster reactor construction, greater safety, but requires more land.

    When it comes to thorium, self regulators actually shut down the reactions if it gets to hot. It can't actually meltdown because the necessary conditions to produce fission stop at a certain point. That's actually quite a beautiful design. Furthermore, molten salt regulating reactions have been put in the ground for years without maintenance and no problems occur.

    I can't count the number of times that people have said modern reactors are safe, that they are far more reliable than something from the stone-age Chernobyl era. Yet here we are, with a nuclear crisis in Japan, in one of the world's most modern and maintained reactor sites.
    Fukushima was not a modern reactor. That thing is 50 years old. Furthermore, it had design flaws that have been corrected a long time ago. It was really a bad idea to have the spent fuel reactor pool on top of the reactor requiring active pumps to maintain water levels. That was bonehead. Modern designs rely on passive water cooling. You need to consider the significant growth in design over the past 50 years.

    The very earth that reactors are built on is not guaranteed to be stable.
    Hence why we probably shouldn't build reactors in geologically unstable regions. That does not invalidate nuclear power though as a whole.

    Fukishima proved that. To say that all variables are taken care of is, frankly, very arrogant. The Fukishima region is screwed, for all intents and purposes, forever. Even a slimy, disgusting tailing pond from oil extraction could still recover, and have new life there, while another area remains nuclear for ages more.
    I never said that all the variables were. Only that you guys are treating nuclear power plants as a monolith when they are anything but.

    We don't even have fool proof ways of storing spend fuel. Our solution has been to just put it deep underground. Well, the ground moves, geology changes. The continents themselves are in perpetual motion. What if in 10,000 years (when we could be theoretically be gone), mother nature decides to split the earth right where we've stored all this crap? It would destroy everything - again.
    That's largely because the US refuses to reprocess. France can fit all of its nuclear waste into a small area because it reprocesses its waste into new fuel rods. There are problems with that, but generally far less than just storing waste in its current form as the US does. Furthermore, prototype thorium eater reactors have been small scale proven to actually consume waste while generating electricity.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 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
  •