• 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!

Fukushima Continues to be Worse than They Thought

jmotivator said:
Molten Thorium salt reactors "blow up"? Not really. The molten Salts can expand as teh reaction increases, cooling it in the process, and the self-sealing nature of the reactor is used in case of the liquid getting too hot. At the bottom of the container is a hole that, during normal function, is filled with hardened salt, but if the molten salt gets too hot the plug melts and the salts drain into a special shielded contain that stops the reaction. In other words, it is meltdown proof.
Click to expand...

Ive been speaking to a NASA scientist about this via email and he says its something that should be considered for a Mars colony because its safe.
 
joG said:
Yes. Building nuclear plants in densely populated areas, when there is so much empty space makes one wonder.
Click to expand...

Might it have been that the population became dense around the site from the time it was built to the time of the tidal wave?

Putting a nuclear reactor seaside in an earthquake zone, in a known Tsunami zone, that doesn't make sense to me. Why not miles in land where the Tsunami couldn't reach?

We are going to have to become more skilled in running nuclear plants, if we like electricity and don't want to continue elevating greenhouse gas levels. I put it to the eco-mentalists: name your poison. Which one? No electricity (or very, very expensive), or nuclear plants?
 
longview said:
We plan as best we can, for critical system, it is good to have several backups.
Click to expand...

Even better, don't use things that will cause the planet to be uninhabitable either in a local sense as with these almost impossible disasters or with the deliberate use of dirty bombs when a real war runs over nations with nuclear plants. It would not take too much for that to happen with Russia/Ukraine or a Russian civil war or a Chineese civil war or....
 
longview said:
We plan as best we can, for critical system, it is good to have several backups.
Click to expand...

And I think people need to realize that more than 15,000 people died that day in Japan... and zero of them were from radiation.

It was a record-breaking, massive earthquake, followed by a tsunami. And the reactor didn't kill anyone. The plant did fail, but in a manner we can plan for in the future.

Fukushima isn't an example of why nuclear power is so dangerous. It's an example of just how safe we've managed to make it.
 
eohrnberger said:
I put it to the eco-mentalists: name your poison. Which one? No electricity (or very, very expensive), or nuclear plants?
Click to expand...

Nuclear plants aren't poison. They're the safest form of power generation on the planet.
 
Deuce said:
Nuclear power has a lower fatality rate per kwh than solar.
Click to expand...

Is that counting all the Chernobyl deaths? There aren't a lot of deaths attributed to Fukushima. I'll ask a question - "What causes cancer?". I'll bet nobody here can give a definitive answer. Around the US, cancer rates are high near radioactive waste and radioactive leakage. This one is close to home for me, as I grew up on the North side of Saint Louis. I cite this just to show the long-term effects of radioactive waste. This is WWII atomic bomb processing waste.

High number of cancer cases near St. Louis prompts concern - CBS News

The group put together a map showing more than 2,700 instances of cancers, auto-immune disorders and brain and thyroid tumors.

"Within a six-house radius, I knew four people with brain cancer, one a child, one a young professor," Wright told CBS News. "And I just thought, 'This is really odd.'"

The area where they lived is called North County, which includes Hazelwood and Florrisant. Coldwater Creek runs thru the towns.

For decades, two sites near the creek were used to store radioactive waste from America's nuclear weapons program.

The waste came from St. Louis's Mallinckrodt Chemical Company, which the government hired to process uranium.
 
Deuce said:
Nuclear plants aren't poison. They're the safest form of power generation on the planet.
Click to expand...

Tell the folks in Chernobyl that. I would urge you to read the Pulitzer Prize winning book - "Voices of Chernobyl", and you'll hear directly from many of those involved. Nuclear plants are safe until there's an accident, then they're not safe. Also, can you guarantee containment of high level wastes for hundreds of thousands of years? Most containment is rated for 200 years, and that's barring accidents or unforeseen incidents.
 
Deuce said:
And I think people need to realize that more than 15,000 people died that day in Japan... and zero of them were from radiation.

It was a record-breaking, massive earthquake, followed by a tsunami. And the reactor didn't kill anyone. The plant did fail, but in a manner we can plan for in the future.

Fukushima isn't an example of why nuclear power is so dangerous. It's an example of just how safe we've managed to make it.
Click to expand...

As the original article discusses, Fukushima is far from over. Estimates I've seen show 5 decades before dismantling of the cores is complete. There have been numerous releases of radioactive water into the Pacific. Freshwater fish in inland waterways are inedible, because of high Cesium levels.

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep01742

The death toll at Chernobyl is now considered to be over 4000 and counting (link below). This doesn't even take into account the large number of birth defects, etc. The psychological effect on the area is devastating, and the quality of life has suffered tremendously. Try reading the Pulitzer Prize winning "Voices of Chernobyl".

30 years later: Chernobyl disaster could trigger more cancer, deaths
 
Media_Truth said:
The death toll at Chernobyl is now considered to be over 4000 and counting (link below).
Click to expand...

As I posted earlier, the death toll from coal power plants in the United States - when everything is going 'right' - was estimated at over 13,000 for the year 2010. A separate report in 2013 estimated a figure of over 18,000 per year for the European Union.

Here's one estimate of deaths per TWh for a range of different energy sources. 4000 deaths from Chernobyl are included under nuclear, just as 171,000 deaths from the 1975 Banqiao dam collapse in China are noted for hydro (though I suspect that casualties from wars and political maneuvering over access to oil are not counted):
Code: 
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)

Edit: The air pollution figures used (ie for coal) are about twice as high as I've seen elsewhere; for example half a million per year in China attributed to coal, whereas a study commissioned by Greenpeace in 2013 suggested about a quarter of a million. So assuming the main toll from oil and natural gas are via air pollution also (which may not hold true for natural gas), those three figures may be up to twice as high as they should be.
 
Last edited:
joG said:
Yes. Building nuclear plants in densely populated areas, when there is so much empty space makes one wonder.
Click to expand...

Japan has the misfortune of not having many suitably empty spaces on which to build such plants
 
Deuce said:
And I think people need to realize that more than 15,000 people died that day in Japan... and zero of them were from radiation.

It was a record-breaking, massive earthquake, followed by a tsunami. And the reactor didn't kill anyone. The plant did fail, but in a manner we can plan for in the future.

Fukushima isn't an example of why nuclear power is so dangerous. It's an example of just how safe we've managed to make it.
Click to expand...

Well said. Fukushima was a confluence of two unexpected disasters striking at the same time. The Japanese were prepared for either an earthquake or a tsunami, the problem was these two things happened one after the other.
 
Deuce said:
Nuclear plants aren't poison. They're the safest form of power generation on the planet.
Click to expand...

However one day there will be a conflict in an area where one of these plants is sited and the consequences of the destruction of even one of these doesn't bear thinking about.

It hasn't happened yet but that doesn't mean it won't in the future
 
eohrnberger said:
Might it have been that the population became dense around the site from the time it was built to the time of the tidal wave?

Putting a nuclear reactor seaside in an earthquake zone, in a known Tsunami zone, that doesn't make sense to me. Why not miles in land where the Tsunami couldn't reach?

We are going to have to become more skilled in running nuclear plants, if we like electricity and don't want to continue elevating greenhouse gas levels. I put it to the eco-mentalists: name your poison. Which one? No electricity (or very, very expensive), or nuclear plants?
Click to expand...

And the run of the mill ecomentalist will say "less electricity", "less meats" and "less travel".
 
joG said:
And the run of the mill ecomentalist will say "less electricity", "less meats" and "less travel".
Click to expand...

If they keep going on that path, what they really ARE saying is 'less life' (more human deaths) and 'less quality of life'.
 
flogger said:
Japan has the misfortune of not having many suitably empty spaces on which to build such plants
Click to expand...

Which means that their choice of sites was especially important.
 
joG said:
And the run of the mill ecomentalist will say "less electricity", "less meats" and "less travel".
Click to expand...

What's an ecomentalist, and where did you gain such insight into their thinking?
 
Mithrae said:
As I posted earlier, the death toll from coal power plants in the United States - when everything is going 'right' - was estimated at over 13,000 for the year 2010. A separate report in 2013 estimated a figure of over 18,000 per year for the European Union.

Here's one estimate of deaths per TWh for a range of different energy sources. 4000 deaths from Chernobyl are included under nuclear, just as 171,000 deaths from the 1975 Banqiao dam collapse in China are noted for hydro (though I suspect that casualties from wars and political maneuvering over access to oil are not counted):
Code: 
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)

Edit: The air pollution figures used (ie for coal) are about twice as high as I've seen elsewhere; for example half a million per year in China attributed to coal, whereas a study commissioned by Greenpeace in 2013 suggested about a quarter of a million. So assuming the main toll from oil and natural gas are via air pollution also (which may not hold true for natural gas), those three figures may be up to twice as high as they should be.
Click to expand...

My intent is not to argue for coal. When it comes to accidents though, nuclear accidents are the worst, in that they cannot be cleaned up. The New Containment at Chernobyl, which is taking the place of the aging Sarcophagus, cost over $3 Billion, and it's only rated for 200 years. And still 1000 square miles are still unlivable. Refugees, etc have moved into the area. I've already cited an article about the deaths.

Chernobyl Confinement reaches final stage, but funds need boost

Three-Mile Island cost over $1 Billion to clean up. The following radionuclides are associated with the fission process. Only one of these occurs naturally on earth (U-238), without nuclear fission, and even it is problematic, because of the tonnage created:

technetium-99, carbon-14, iodine-129, tritium, cesium-137, strontium-90, nickel-59,
plutonium-241, nickel-63, niobium-94, cobalt-60, curium-242, americium-241,
uranium-238, and neptunium-237.

Cesium is especially problematic, in that it has an extreme affinity for water. This is the main element that contaminated the widespread areas at Chernobyl and Fukushima. Strontium is very problematic in that it is in the same chemical family as Calcium. As such, when ingested or inhaled, it takes the place of calcium in the body. It also contaminates soil and rock. Each of these isotopes have their own inherent problems. An energy source is not safe, when these waste products, some with half-lives of hundreds of thousands of year, are the end game.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
All Along the WAY "Worse than They Thought".

I am astounded that the Japanese society has gotten this rotten.

This is the sort of thing that drives the argument for a global government.
Click to expand...

Wow. Do they have a corrupt judiciary, crooked intelligence agencies, fraudulent electoral process and unscrupulous news media?
 
PoS said:
Well said. Fukushima was a confluence of two unexpected disasters striking at the same time. The Japanese were prepared for either an earthquake or a tsunami, the problem was these two things happened one after the other.
Click to expand...
Given that one causes the other, perhaps it should not have been such a surprise. Hello, Captain Obvious.

Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk
 
Media_Truth said:
My intent is not to argue for coal. When it comes to accidents though, nuclear accidents are the worst, in that they cannot be cleaned up. The New Containment at Chernobyl, which is taking the place of the aging Sarcophagus, cost over $3 Billion, and it's only rated for 200 years. And still 1000 square miles are still unlivable. Refugees, etc have moved into the area. I've already cited an article about the deaths.

Chernobyl Confinement reaches final stage, but funds need boost

Three-Mile Island cost over $1 Billion to clean up. The following radionuclides are associated with the fission process. Only one of these occurs naturally on earth (U-238), without nuclear fission, and even it is problematic, because of the tonnage created:

technetium-99, carbon-14, iodine-129, tritium, cesium-137, strontium-90, nickel-59,
plutonium-241, nickel-63, niobium-94, cobalt-60, curium-242, americium-241,
uranium-238, and neptunium-237.

Cesium is especially problematic, in that it has an extreme affinity for water. This is the main element that contaminated the widespread areas at Chernobyl and Fukushima. Strontium is very problematic in that it is in the same chemical family as Calcium. As such, when ingested or inhaled, it takes the place of calcium in the body. It also contaminates soil and rock. Each of these isotopes have their own inherent problems. An energy source is not safe, when these waste products, some with half-lives of hundreds of thousands of year, are the end game.
Click to expand...

The potential need of a $40 billion dollar cleanup operation for every hundredth nuclear plant would add about 4 or 5% to the overall costs. (Assuming cost of plant at $10 billion, 450 plants in the world, and the fact that since 1960 there have been five events of INES level 5 (Three Mile Island) to 7 (Chernobyl, Fukushima).) As long as there was a process in place to ensure that's not borne by the public - some form of mandatory insurance on plants, for example - it doesn't seem to be an overwhelming figure. I gather that such a process is already in place in some countries.

Total world electicricty consumption (2012) is around 21 thousand TWh. Based on the estimates above - with coal adjusted to the lower estimates I cited earlier, and as mentioned the nuclear figure including deaths from disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima - if all the world's electricity were supplied by a single source, the estimated consequences would be something along the lines of the following:
Code: 
Coal (US standards)	1,470,000 deaths per decade
Natural gas		  840,000 deaths per decade
Rooftop solar		   92,400 deaths per decade
Wind			   31,500 deaths per decade
Hydro			   21,000 deaths per decade
Nuclear			    1,050 deaths per decade

If plans for the Chernobyl site are in place for the next 200 years, realistically how many deaths are you expecting there in 300 years? Enough to raise the nuclear death toll higher than these alternatives?

The biggest danger of nuclear, as others have mentioned, is the risk of deliberate sabotage in war (or less likely, terrorism). How much of a threat that is, I don't know. But considering all the next-safest alternatives have limited application to begin with - hydro needs suitable geographical conditions, solar doesn't work in the evening when demand peaks etc. - and are sometimes even more expensive than nuclear, what else are we going to use? Hydro and geothermal are probably the best options, where available, being both cheap, reliable and relatively safe. Solar and wind are more expensive (though in some cases cheaper than nuclear), but still require some form of generation to cover for their down periods: For that need, nuclear beats the combustion technologies hands down.
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
The potential need of a $40 billion dollar cleanup operation for every hundredth nuclear plant would add about 4 or 5% to the overall costs. (Assuming cost of plant at $10 billion, 450 plants in the world, and the fact that since 1960 there have been five events of INES level 5 (Three Mile Island) to 7 (Chernobyl, Fukushima).) As long as there was a process in place to ensure that's not borne by the public - some form of mandatory insurance on plants, for example - it doesn't seem to be an overwhelming figure. I gather that such a process is already in place in some countries.

Total world electicricty consumption (2012) is around 21 thousand TWh. Based on the estimates above - with coal adjusted to the lower estimates I cited earlier, and as mentioned the nuclear figure including deaths from disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima - if all the world's electricity were supplied by a single source, the estimated consequences would be something along the lines of the following:
Code: 
Coal (US standards)	1,470,000 deaths per decade
Natural gas		  840,000 deaths per decade
Rooftop solar		   92,400 deaths per decade
Wind			   31,500 deaths per decade
Hydro			   21,000 deaths per decade
Nuclear			    1,050 deaths per decade

If plans for the Chernobyl site are in place for the next 200 years, realistically how many deaths are you expecting there in 300 years? Enough to raise the nuclear death toll higher than these alternatives?

The biggest danger of nuclear, as others have mentioned, is the risk of deliberate sabotage in war (or less likely, terrorism). How much of a threat that is, I don't know. But considering all the next-safest alternatives have limited application to begin with - hydro needs suitable geographical conditions, solar doesn't work in the evening when demand peaks etc. - and are sometimes even more expensive than nuclear, what else are we going to use? Hydro and geothermal are probably the best options, where available, being both cheap, reliable and relatively safe. Solar and wind are more expensive (though in some cases cheaper than nuclear), but still require some form of generation to cover for their down periods: For that need, nuclear beats the combustion technologies hands down.
Click to expand...

You've said nothing about the wastes, and my point that they cannot be cleaned up, and many are around for hundreds of thousands of years. Renewables, coupled with pumped water storage (hydroelectric) is a perfectly viable option. Someday, all electric power will have to come from renewables. Might as well get used to it. Instead of leaving tons and tons of radioactive waste for our future generations, leave them with a lasting legacy - the know-how to power the planet with renewables.
 
Media_Truth said:
You've said nothing about the wastes, and my point that they cannot be cleaned up, and many are around for hundreds of thousands of years. Renewables, coupled with pumped water storage (hydroelectric) is a perfectly viable option. Someday, all electric power will have to come from renewables. Might as well get used to it. Instead of leaving tons and tons of radioactive waste for our future generations, leave them with a lasting legacy - the know-how to power the planet with renewables.
Click to expand...

The problem is renewables are not a viable option (as our German friends have recently discovered) and hydroelectric is only a if your terrain supports it. If you want to pay three times more per KwH for than you currently do in the US for your power then good luck with that.

The renewables promise doesn't materialise in reality and basically represents long term economic suicide . Which of the following countries do you think has the largest committment to renewables?

elelctricity-prices-relative-to-purchasing-power.jpg
 
Media_Truth said:
Is that counting all the Chernobyl deaths?
Click to expand...
Yes.

There aren't a lot of deaths attributed to Fukushima.
Click to expand...
There aren't any, actually.

I'll ask a question - "What causes cancer?". I'll bet nobody here can give a definitive answer.
Click to expand...
Because there isn't one. There are more than a hundred different types of cancer, each with numerous possible causes. And sometimes, there really isn't a cause. Sometimes cell division just goes wrong.

Around the US, cancer rates are high near radioactive waste and radioactive leakage.
Click to expand...
It's not the 1960s anymore. This is a rare thing. Air pollution from other sources causes a far, far larger number of cancer deaths.

I wasn't lying when I said nuclear energy's fatality rate is lower than solar. In the US, .01 deaths per trillion kwh compared to solar's 440. Coal? 10,000.

Global nuclear stats, which will include Chernobyl, get you 90 deaths per trillion kwh.

Yeah, nuclear energy can go bad. But so can anything. On the whole, it's the safest power source, largely because we're so paranoid with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom