• 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 Spew its Darkness

IS FUKUSHIMA BUSINESS AS USUAL


  • Total voters
    4
  • Poll closed .
Especially when you put a nuclear reactor on an island prone to devastating natural disasters. It's not like they needed the damned thing in the first place.


An Island Nation without oil and natural gas deposits, so it has to plan outside the Nation for its' energy supplies. I understand the logic that led the Japanese into the NUKE Energy trap, but I don't understand how they can continue. Must be nearly as much Corporate control of Japanese gov't as in this country.
 
An Island Nation without oil and natural gas deposits, so it has to plan outside the Nation for its' energy supplies. I understand the logic that led the Japanese into the NUKE Energy trap, but I don't understand how they can continue. Must be nearly as much Corporate control of Japanese gov't as in this country.

They're surrounded by natural energy.
 
The Chernobyl disaster was a sizable contributing factor in the economic collapse of the U.S.S.R. Fukushima has the same economic devastation potential for Japan. Many people support nuclear energy over fossil fuels but I believe they overlook a very important aspect. When nuclear goes real bad it is far more devastating environmentally and economically then fossil fuels will ever likely to be. A massive scale nuclear disaster has the potential to render the entire earth unsafe. Some experts believe that a "worse case" scenario with Fukushima's remaining stored spent fuel rods could make the entire northern hemisphere unsafe for human habitation. While such accidents may be very unlikely why risk everything even on the slimiest chance?

As you can tell I am against fusion reactors and believe all should be shut down. To me the potential harm outweighs the benefits. Humans are simply to irresponsible to harness such devastating potential.
 
The Chernobyl disaster was a sizable contributing factor in the economic collapse of the U.S.S.R. Fukushima has the same economic devastation potential for Japan. Many people support nuclear energy over fossil fuels but I believe they overlook a very important aspect. When nuclear goes real bad it is far more devastating environmentally and economically then fossil fuels will ever likely to be. A massive scale nuclear disaster has the potential to render the entire earth unsafe. Some experts believe that a "worse case" scenario with Fukushima's remaining stored spent fuel rods could make the entire northern hemisphere unsafe for human habitation. While such accidents may be very unlikely why risk everything even on the slimiest chance?

As you can tell I am against fusion reactors and believe all should be shut down. To me the potential harm outweighs the benefits. Humans are simply to irresponsible to harness such devastating potential.

What do you say for places that do not have earthquakes?
 
What do you say for places that do not have earthquakes?


There was no earthquake at Chernobyl and there was no earthquake at Three Mile Island and there were no earthquakes in the 9 nuclear reactor cores in the world's oceans as a result of those "super safe" nuclear submarines.
 
There was no earthquake at Chernobyl and there was no earthquake at Three Mile Island and there were no earthquakes in the 9 nuclear reactor cores in the world's oceans as a result of those "super safe" nuclear submarines.

They were all human stupidity especially Chernobyl, the point is they are safe as long as you let people who know what they are doing control it and don't build the things on fault lines.
 
What do you say for places that do not have earthquakes?

Many of our nuclear accidents have been caused not by natural disasters but by human error or design flaws. So I am against them regardless of where they are built.
 
Many of our nuclear accidents have been caused not by natural disasters but by human error or design flaws. So I am against them regardless of where they are built.

You shouldn't be against nuclear but for stronger regulations and regulatory bodies.
 
You shouldn't be against nuclear but for stronger regulations and regulatory bodies.

I absolutely disagree. Regulations and regulatory bodies are bought and sold in our CORPORATOCRACY.
 
Many of our nuclear accidents have been caused not by natural disasters but by human error or design flaws. So I am against them regardless of where they are built.

Do you realize how few nuclear accidents there have actually been? Very few.
 
The Chernobyl disaster was a sizable contributing factor in the economic collapse of the U.S.S.R. Fukushima has the same economic devastation potential for Japan. Many people support nuclear energy over fossil fuels but I believe they overlook a very important aspect. When nuclear goes real bad it is far more devastating environmentally and economically then fossil fuels will ever likely to be. A massive scale nuclear disaster has the potential to render the entire earth unsafe. Some experts believe that a "worse case" scenario with Fukushima's remaining stored spent fuel rods could make the entire northern hemisphere unsafe for human habitation. While such accidents may be very unlikely why risk everything even on the slimiest chance?

As you can tell I am against fusion reactors and believe all should be shut down. To me the potential harm outweighs the benefits. Humans are simply to irresponsible to harness such devastating potential.

What a funny belief. No, a major nuclear reactor disaster absolutely could not render the entire Earth unsafe.

And why would you be against "fusion reactors"? First of all, we don't operate fusion reactors because fusion requires a lot of energy to make happen. Cold fusion is constantly being worked on, but so far has been unsuccessful. We operate "fission reactors", most of which have built in safety protocols that work pretty darn well.
 
Do you realize how few nuclear accidents there have actually been? Very few.


Nuke Plants can't be financed through banks due to excessive liability risks. That means the banks don't think they are safe.
 
Nuke Plants can't be financed through banks due to excessive liability risks. That means the banks don't think they are safe.

Because banks don't know much more than the general public. That doesn't change the actual risks of nuclear power, especially compared to the risks of other sources of energy that we currently have.

Better regulation, inspections, training, and holding plants accountable is what is needed.
 
What a funny belief. No, a major nuclear reactor disaster absolutely could not render the entire Earth unsafe.

They could depending on the scale of the incident. A single reactor accident if nothing else was involved would not, however when other aspects are involved it has the potential. Many facilities now have multiple (5+) reactors as well as large stockpiles of spend fuel on premises. The real risk now at the Fukushima complex is the spent fuel losing cooling containment and catching fire. Some estimates show that if this were to occur and catch all the stored fuel on premises on fire that it would put enough radiation into the air that it would contaminate the entire northern hemisphere to the point it would no longer be safe for human habitation (without serious health risks).

The Chernobyl facility had 4 reactors with 2 more under construction. Only one of the reactors melting down contaminated thousands of square miles with radioactive particles. Even today parts as far away as the UK, farmland and crops continue to be monitored to insure radiation levels pose no serious risk to those consuming crops planted in the region.

Imagine a multi reactor complex with large amounts of stored fuel on premise being struck by a 1km asteroid or some other major event. It could have devastating affects even on a global scale. Sure the odds are almost nil but the threat is still there.

And why would you be against "fusion reactors"? First of all, we don't operate fusion reactors because fusion requires a lot of energy to make happen. Cold fusion is constantly being worked on, but so far has been unsuccessful. We operate "fission reactors", most of which have built in safety protocols that work pretty darn well.

You are correct and it was a mistype on my behalf. I meant to say fission reactor plants.
 
They could depending on the scale of the incident. A single reactor accident if nothing else was involved would not, however when other aspects are involved it has the potential. Many facilities now have multiple (5+) reactors as well as large stockpiles of spend fuel on premises. The real risk now at the Fukushima complex is the spent fuel losing cooling containment and catching fire. Some estimates show that if this were to occur and catch all the stored fuel on premises on fire that it would put enough radiation into the air that it would contaminate the entire northern hemisphere to the point it would no longer be safe for human habitation (without serious health risks).

The Chernobyl facility had 4 reactors with 2 more under construction. Only one of the reactors melting down contaminated thousands of square miles with radioactive particles. Even today parts as far away as the UK, farmland and crops continue to be monitored to insure radiation levels pose no serious risk to those consuming crops planted in the region.

Imagine a multi reactor complex with large amounts of stored fuel on premise being struck by a 1km asteroid or some other major event. It could have devastating affects even on a global scale. Sure the odds are almost nil but the threat is still there.

It just doesn't work that way. There is a bigger chance of having multiple large volcanoes erupting at the same time (which would be much more devastating) than the scenario you describe. I don't have to imagine how that would look because I know how nuclear power actually works, in depth and how statistics work.

Plus, there is life within the Chernobyl zones, a lot of it. Just because humans may not survive a large nuclear accident, doesn't mean other things won't. And much of the radiation actually decays very quickly, much more quickly than a thousand years or more. It's called "adaptation".
 
Last edited:
It just doesn't work that way. There is a bigger chance of having multiple large volcanoes erupting at the same time (which would be much more devastating) than the scenario you describe. I don't have to imagine how that would look because I know how nuclear power actually works, in depth and how statistics work.

Plus, there is life within the Chernobyl zones, a lot of it. Just because humans may not survive a large nuclear accident, doesn't mean other things won't. And much of the radiation actually decays very quickly, much more quickly than a thousand years or more. It's called "adaptation".

Rogue, how dare you interfere with their propaganda with facts and reality!

Shame on you!
 
It just doesn't work that way. There is a bigger chance of having multiple large volcanoes erupting at the same time (which would be much more devastating) than the scenario you describe. I don't have to imagine how that would look because I know how nuclear power actually works, in depth and how statistics work.

Plus, there is life within the Chernobyl zones, a lot of it. Just because humans may not survive a large nuclear accident, doesn't mean other things won't. And much of the radiation actually decays very quickly, much more quickly than a thousand years or more. It's called "adaptation".


As a human being, I would prefer to choose to adapt not be forced to adapt. I don't question survival, only the arrogance that threatens my survival to make a crass commercial profit. There's lots of sunshine out there. Don't need nukes.
 
Nice little update on Fukushima. There is no question that daily contamination of the Ocean is at least 300 tons and may be as high as 1000 tons. Don't eat fish from the Pacific. That would be an over reaction today, but perhaps not tomorrow. Every Nuclear Reactor is located on a major water source because of the massive cooling needs. The Mainstream Media is not doing their job informing the citizens of the truth of the seriousness of this incident and the same potential for disaster throughout this gov't subsidized industry. We don't need nukes as long as the sun shines.

Experts Fear Fukushima Leaks Sending Radioactive Water Into the Pacific - Truthdig

"About 1,000 tons of underground water from the mountains flows into the plant compound each day, of which 400 tons seep into the reactor and turbine basements and get contaminated. The remaining 600 avoids that area, but at least half of it is believed to eventually come in contact with contamination elsewhere before entering the sea, according to an estimate by Japan’s Agency for Natural Resources and Energy."
 
Back
Top Bottom