View Poll Results: Does this article reassure your faith in Nuclear Energy?

Voters
29. You may not vote on this poll
  • Nuclear power is safe.

    16 55.17%
  • Nuclear power is not safe at any price.

    10 34.48%
  • It reassures my faith in human arrogance.

    4 13.79%
  • Corporations, like TEPCO, can handle it.

    0 0%
  • TEPCO will be bankrupted without gov't bailout.

    2 6.90%
  • Corporations get profits, publc gets liabilities, status quo.

    5 17.24%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 47

Thread: Fukushima: Revisited

  1. #21
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,158

    Re: Fukushima: Revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    News From AP | TBO.com=

    "About 200,000 tons of radioactive water - enough to fill more than 50 Olympic-sized swimming pools - are being stored in hundreds of gigantic tanks built around the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant. Operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. has already chopped down trees to make room for more tanks and predicts the volume of water will more than triple within three years."

    "Nuclear engineer and college lecturer Masashi Goto said the contaminated water buildup poses a long-term health and environmental threat. He worries that the radioactive water in the basements may already be getting into the underground water system, where it could reach far beyond the plant, possibly the ocean or public water supplies."

    "Some of the water ran into the ocean, raising concerns about contamination of marine life and seafood. Waters within a 20-kilometer (12-mile) zone are still off-limits, and high levels of contamination have been found in seabed sediment and fish tested in the area."

    If another earthquake is still a possibility, and a disastrous one, do you feel reassured?

    Is enough being done?

    Did this information surprise anyone?

    What does this imply about nuke power long term?

    An important question is HOW radioactive is this water?

    Barely enough to be TECHNICALLY considered a hazard, or is it REALLY radioactive?

    If you immersed yourself in it, how many millirads per hour would you get? Got to get up to a pretty decent stack of millirads to really be dangerous.

    Details matter. Lots of things are radioactive, like the ash in your fireplace.... just not radioactive enough to be an actual hazard.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  2. #22
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,783

    Re: Fukushima: Revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    If I were you, I'd check my breathing tube. Must be under a lot of sand or deeply impacted. The banks have never financed Nukes. It's not about red tape. It is about the potential for catastrophic liability costs relating to malfunction, human error and eventual bankruptcy. If I'm a Nuke Corporation and my Nuke starts costing me more than it's making, I'm filing bankruptcy and that is the real world. Now the cleanup, decontamination, etc., is the public's problem and I can start another investment. That's why we have Corporations, to reduce liabilities. See how that works? After the profits are gone, bail, bankrupt, sayonara. Real world.
    The cost of a nuclear plant went up by a factor of 30 in a 15 year period, from the 1970s to the late 1980s. Why?
    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.

  3. #23
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-12 @ 04:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    498

    Re: Fukushima: Revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    An important question is HOW radioactive is this water?

    Barely enough to be TECHNICALLY considered a hazard, or is it REALLY radioactive?

    If you immersed yourself in it, how many millirads per hour would you get? Got to get up to a pretty decent stack of millirads to really be dangerous.

    Details matter. Lots of things are radioactive, like the ash in your fireplace.... just not radioactive enough to be an actual hazard.
    Actually, everything is radioactive.

  4. #24
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-12 @ 04:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    498

    Re: Fukushima: Revisited

    I wouldn't choose to live anywhere near a nuclear power plant but I think they're relatively safe overall.

    Nuclear power has been around for almost a century with few real incidents.

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    01-16-14 @ 05:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,431

    Re: Fukushima: Revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by Donahue View Post
    I wouldn't choose to live anywhere near a nuclear power plant but I think they're relatively safe overall.

    Nuclear power has been around for almost a century with few real incidents.

    Except you know, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

    The present Chernobyl exclusion (no entry) zone to this day after 26 years continues to be approx 20-40 miles around the plant, that's a a total area of around 20-30k square miles. Chernobyl got lucky because it was in the middle of no where, Fukushima got lucky in that the prevailing winds blew much of the radiation out to sea (or they just dumped it in the ocean) but many, most reactors won't have that luxury.

    Can you imagine if San Onofre has an earthquake? Buh bye LA, orange county and San Diego.
    Last edited by spanky; 10-26-12 at 08:50 PM.

  6. #26
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-12 @ 04:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    498

    Re: Fukushima: Revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by spanky View Post
    Except you know, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

    The present Chernobyl exclusion (no entry) zone to this day after 26 years continues to be approx 20-40 miles around the plant, that's a a total area of around 20-30k square miles. Chernobyl got lucky because it was in the middle of no where, Fukushima got lucky in that the prevailing winds blew much of the radiation out to sea (or they just dumped it in the ocean) but many, most reactors won't have that luxury.

    Can you imagine if San Onofre has an earthquake? Buh bye LA, orange county and San Diego.
    Those are basically the only two real incidents in about 100 years of nuclear history though.

  7. #27
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:40 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,292

    Re: Fukushima: Revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by Donahue View Post
    Those are basically the only two real incidents in about 100 years of nuclear history though.

    We are at the point of decommissioning many of our reactors and let's watch and see who winds up with the liability. The NUKE operators want more new nukes before the public finds out it's the public who is stuck with the mess. Chernobyl and Fukushima are ongoing disasters with no cure. Then Hanford is not looking too good. Do your homework and find out the quantity of highly radioactive fuel rods stored on site at the reactors due for decommissioning and ask where they go. There are at least nine nuclear reactors in the oceans as a result of submarine accidents. Right, no problem. Just don't talk about it. Pretend it isn't happening. Nothing to see here. Move along.

  8. #28
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-12 @ 04:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    498

    Re: Fukushima: Revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    We are at the point of decommissioning many of our reactors and let's watch and see who winds up with the liability. The NUKE operators want more new nukes before the public finds out it's the public who is stuck with the mess. Chernobyl and Fukushima are ongoing disasters with no cure. Then Hanford is not looking too good. Do your homework and find out the quantity of highly radioactive fuel rods stored on site at the reactors due for decommissioning and ask where they go. There are at least nine nuclear reactors in the oceans as a result of submarine accidents. Right, no problem. Just don't talk about it. Pretend it isn't happening. Nothing to see here. Move along.
    There is no need to pretend something isn't happening because there isn't anything happening.

    You're talking about a technology that has seen two real incidents in about 100 years of use.

  9. #29
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: Fukushima: Revisited

    1. solar competes with computer chips for raw materials

    and

    2. nuclear power plants next to an area that already has 30 foot high walls to stop a Tsunami is poor site selection unrelated to the manageable risks of nuclear energy.

  10. #30
    Dungeon Master
    Veni, vidi, dormivi!

    spud_meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Didjabringabeeralong
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    33,871
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Fukushima: Revisited

    The latest reactors use molten salts as a coolant, and have the fuel encased in graphite so it can't escape into the environment. Nuclear is a hell of a lot safer now than the 30 year old Fukushima plant.
    Last edited by spud_meister; 10-27-12 at 02:01 AM.
    So follow me into the desert
    As desperate as you are
    Where the moon is glued to a picture of heaven
    And all the little pigs have God

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
  •