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 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 47 of 47

Thread: Fukushima: Revisited

  1. #41
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Fukushima: Revisited

    My bad, thought you were talking about US subs.

    My argument still holds. I know how those are designed and some safeguards designed to keep them from having major problems with leakage if they are sunk. You don't because it is classified.

    Now, it is possible that the other countries' subs aren't designed as safely as ours. But they still are not an issue. Water is a huge shield to radiation. It is also a moderator, which means it slows down and diverts the worst radiation given off by nuclear reactions.

    They do not rust and deteriorate that fast. It would take a long time for the ocean to actually eat into the reactor itself. There is a lot of containment there.

    You are fearing something that really has no reason to be feared.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  2. #42
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:41 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,302

    Re: Fukushima: Revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    My bad, thought you were talking about US subs.

    My argument still holds. I know how those are designed and some safeguards designed to keep them from having major problems with leakage if they are sunk. You don't because it is classified.

    Now, it is possible that the other countries' subs aren't designed as safely as ours. But they still are not an issue. Water is a huge shield to radiation. It is also a moderator, which means it slows down and diverts the worst radiation given off by nuclear reactions.

    They do not rust and deteriorate that fast. It would take a long time for the ocean to actually eat into the reactor itself. There is a lot of containment there.

    You are fearing something that really has no reason to be feared.
    Sounds like you might work out of Point Loma. I was stationed on N.I. for 6 months in the 60s as an ASW aircrewman. I'm not naive about nukes. Put your ear to the underground pipeline and see if you hear about nuke waste in concrete casks dumped 600 miles due west of San Francisco. Just one of many instances. You sound very patriotic and naive, like you believe what the gov't tells you. Radiation and saltwater plus the residual high temperatures will cause accelerated deterioration of the reactors. The irradiated fish and organisms will be consumed by larger predators with more wide ranging feeding ares until all fish and marine life incurs a measurable increase in radiation. No fences, no boundaries, and no one is held responsible and you will minimize the dangers. I have every reason to fear for my children and grandchildren. Arrogance and hubris are really a result of ignorance. That ignorance is the fact that nukes of all types are for making money, not the public good. As General Electric's TV commercials from the 1950s said, "Our scientists think they will have a solution for the nuclear waste problem in 6 months." That is what your work is built upon. The big lie.

  3. #43
    Educator AreteCourage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Seen
    08-30-13 @ 12:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    790

    Re: Fukushima: Revisited

    I had to step back and think about this for a bit. Meltdowns and tragedy at those plants are extremely rare. For the most part, it is about the safest place one could work. The safety guidelines are very rigorous for obvious reasons. Nuclear energy provides a lot to many people around the globe.

    I do think that they need to think about location a bit more. Along the ocean or a fault line is probably not a good idea. Japan has little options when it comes to that though. We have many options here in the U.S. but a lot of nuclear power plants are along the coastlines. I am not very comfortable with that considering the risk of major storms, or possible tsunamis caused from oceanic earthquakes.

    So I guess my only issue is location....location...location
    Libertarian and Atheist...wow I'm a hated man.

  4. #44
    Educator Klown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-14-12 @ 04:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    982

    Re: Fukushima: Revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    nuclear is a lot better than fossil fuels. i'm hoping that we put some research money into thorium, which from what i've read seems to be a better technology.
    Thorium technology was developed by a Physicist in the USA in the 1950s.

    The main reason that Thorium wasnt pursued as an energy option was that there was NO Plutonium by product. Uranium fission reactors were built NOT for power generation but for producing Plutonium for nuclear weapons - the power was a by product and a bonus

    Currenlty Plutonium costs about $4,000 per gram (or 4 million dollars per kg)

    And you need quite a few kilograms just to make the smallest of nukes.

    Although Thorium reactors have one safety advantage in that the reaction process can be stopped easily, which makes a meltdown impossible, they still produce extremely toxic and long lived radionuclides.

    It is not possible to insure a nuclear power plant anywhere in the world today. Also, there has not been one nuclear power plant built by the private sector or the stock market anywhere in the world.

    Nuclear, by far the most expensive, most dangerous/risky and if you do the sums properly, nuclear power has the highest carbon footprint over the entire fuel cycle

    the most insane activity pursued by humanity is nuclear energy and weaponry - an exhibit of human madness on display

  5. #45
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:41 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,302

    Re: Fukushima: Revisited

    Location, location, location and that is correct. Nukes always require huge amounts of cooling water, ergo, if not on the coast, then a large water source is required, and that would be a large freshwater source such as a river or very large lake. It doesn't require a rocket scientist to realize that we are putting at risk our freshwater sources, especially realizing that all of these "Nukes" have become the long term storage sites for all fuel rods. Dry casks could solve that problem, but it's a Corporate business and these cost a million dollars per each so it's better to risk contamination of all of our freshwater sources and increase Corporate salaries and stock dividends. It's jus' bidness, just like war. I thnk dry casks would cost about a billion dollars per each reactor site. Always be aware of the background business decisions. I read that US reactor sites have more stored fuel rods than Fukushima. That should be reassuring.

  6. #46
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Fukushima: Revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Sounds like you might work out of Point Loma. I was stationed on N.I. for 6 months in the 60s as an ASW aircrewman. I'm not naive about nukes. Put your ear to the underground pipeline and see if you hear about nuke waste in concrete casks dumped 600 miles due west of San Francisco. Just one of many instances. You sound very patriotic and naive, like you believe what the gov't tells you. Radiation and saltwater plus the residual high temperatures will cause accelerated deterioration of the reactors. The irradiated fish and organisms will be consumed by larger predators with more wide ranging feeding ares until all fish and marine life incurs a measurable increase in radiation. No fences, no boundaries, and no one is held responsible and you will minimize the dangers. I have every reason to fear for my children and grandchildren. Arrogance and hubris are really a result of ignorance. That ignorance is the fact that nukes of all types are for making money, not the public good. As General Electric's TV commercials from the 1950s said, "Our scientists think they will have a solution for the nuclear waste problem in 6 months." That is what your work is built upon. The big lie.
    No. I've worked on aircraft carriers and in Hawaii and in Puget Sound. I got the training and I've done extra research. There is no "big lie". Nuclear power is not nearly as bad as you are trying to make it out to be. One of our biggest problems is cost, not radiation. Radiation doesn't work like mercury. It doesn't "build up" in the fish. It constantly decays. It doesn't stick around. And there are safeguards in place, as I said. I know them, you don't. It isn't nearly as easy as "well the salt water will eat away the reactors". The engineers have planned for that. We are not talking about barrels here. We are talking about ships that were designed to go under water and be able to go under water, just the hull for decades. The inside is even more secure. And the radiation doesn't do anything to the structure or the deterioration of the metal.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  7. #47
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Fukushima: Revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Location, location, location and that is correct. Nukes always require huge amounts of cooling water, ergo, if not on the coast, then a large water source is required, and that would be a large freshwater source such as a river or very large lake. It doesn't require a rocket scientist to realize that we are putting at risk our freshwater sources, especially realizing that all of these "Nukes" have become the long term storage sites for all fuel rods. Dry casks could solve that problem, but it's a Corporate business and these cost a million dollars per each so it's better to risk contamination of all of our freshwater sources and increase Corporate salaries and stock dividends. It's jus' bidness, just like war. I thnk dry casks would cost about a billion dollars per each reactor site. Always be aware of the background business decisions. I read that US reactor sites have more stored fuel rods than Fukushima. That should be reassuring.
    It's not money that is the problem. It is laws and that we should change. The feds need to stop restricting our ability to recycle spent fuel rods, which can be done and that would do wonders for those storage issues.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

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