Explosion at Japanese nuclear plant, fuel may be melting

Re: Explosion at Japanese nuclear plant, fuel may be melting - Officials

#51

Post by Dn_Ab » Sat, Mar 12, 2011, 2:53 PM UTC

potatolicious wrote: post #43

maigret wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can have a look at another (rough) estimate I did on my answer to geuis. I agree with you, and as I stated in my other answer, things like barrage breakings (due to an equivalent earthquake) can be also devastating for civilization. What I think would be useful is to have a public look at the track record of nuclear and compare it's impact with other energies. Nuclear power is going to stay for now, and that's pr…

> "and compare it's impact with other energies" This is where your argument falls apart. What other energy sources are there? Let's see... burning fossil fuels is not only environmentally unsustainable but also, as part of its regular operation, releases more radioactive material into the atmosphere than nuclear power plants . Solar? Workable on small scale, physically impossible to provide the majority of humanity's…

First, I am not against nuclear and hope the fallout from this incident isn't used as fuel for damaging propaganda.

But this >Solar? Workable on small scale, physically impossible to provide the majority of humanity's energy needs. is wrong. Efficient use of all sustainable earth's solar input is a hard engineering problem (how best to stick satellites in space and then efficiently radiate back to base stations) but not impossible and would compete with anything Fusion (yes fusion) could produce. The world's current usage is estimated at 1.6 x 10^13/yr watts while 5.2 x 10^16 watts (30% of the sun's constant input to us) is completely reflected and never used by Earth.

And the end game in some far flung future would be solar taken straight from the sun. The Kardashev scale is a probably not useful but nonetheless interesting take on this.

Re: Explosion at Japanese nuclear plant, fuel may be melting - Officials

#52

Post by DennisP » Sat, Mar 12, 2011, 5:10 PM UTC

waterlesscloud wrote: post #4

I was a pretty solid supporter of nuclear power, but if Japan can't make it safe, I don't believe anyone can.

Pollution from coal is estimated to kill 24,000 people every year in the U.S. alone. Nuclear is way safer than that, and probably the only power source that can replace coal anytime soon.

Re: Explosion at Japanese nuclear plant, fuel may be melting - Officials

#53

Post by DennisP » Sat, Mar 12, 2011, 5:17 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #3

'Concrete wall of Reactor #1 blown away in explosion' 'Radiation level outside plant now 1015 micro Sieverts.' 'Huge probability of major event.' - govt. press conference, next update in 20-30 minutes. Local time in Japan is 5:37pm / 1735. Most recent reports from power company - several hours out of date right now but still informative: http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031219-e.... http://www.tepco…

A micro Sievert is equivalent to .1 millirem, according to wikipedia. So we're looking at about 100 millirem.

According to the book Physics for Future Presidents, you can calculate the odds of getting cancer from radiation by dividing the exposure by 2500 rems. 100 millirem gives you a 1 in 25,000 chance of developing cancer. Or to put it another way, your chance of getting cancer has gone from 20 percent to 20.004 percent.

The average American is exposed to 200 millirems of radiation each year from natural sources.

Of course it's not over yet and could get worse.

Re: Explosion at Japanese nuclear plant, fuel may be melting - Officials

#54

Post by gnosis » Sat, Mar 12, 2011, 8:56 PM UTC

geuis wrote: post #13

waterlesscloud wrote: post #4

I was a pretty solid supporter of nuclear power, but if Japan can't make it safe, I don't believe anyone can.

This is kind of like saying, "I really believe that commercial airlines are the safest way to travel, but if they can't keep them from crashing sometimes I won't ever fly again." I know, its not an exact paraphrasing but the intent it still there. For one thing, the Japanese are not the super awesome technology supergiants that the common wisdom from the 1980's in the US makes them out to be. Europe, Japan, South Kor…

This is kind of like saying, "I really believe that commercial airlines are the safest way to travel..."

Except nuclear power is not the safest form of energy. Not by a long shot.

What's the worst that could happen if an earthquake or a terrorist strike devastated a solar array or a wind farm?

Apart from cutting off the power supply, nothing much.

Compare that to a meltdown at a nuclear power plant. Or the nuclear proliferation risk caused by the theft of fissile material. Not to mention the hazards posed by nuclear waste.

Re: Explosion at Japanese nuclear plant, fuel may be melting - Officials

#55

Post by geuis » Sun, Mar 13, 2011, 1:43 AM UTC

catshirt wrote: post #28

geuis wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Merde, HN needs a redesign. I didn't mean to upvote this comment, sorry. Nuclear energy is like commercial airlines. Its a very safe kind of power, but sometimes there are accidents. Its unavoidable. More to your point, saying that a 747 hitting a cooling tower is a reason to abandon nuclear power is asinine. I the entire 100+ years of human flight, there have been exactly TWO instances of commercial planes hitting l…

the sum of my knowledge on nuclear energy and human flight is nearly nothing, so forgive me if i'm wrong... but comparatively, isn't the potential aftermath of a nuclear meltdown a bit more concerning than a plane crashing?

Apologies catshirt. I just re-read my comment and I realize in retrospect my comment was WAY too aggressive and snarky. You might consider adding some contact info to your profile, as I was unable to email you with my apology directly.

Re: Explosion at Japanese nuclear plant, fuel may be melting - Officials

#56

Post by anigbrowl » Sun, Mar 13, 2011, 2:07 AM UTC

DennisP wrote: post #53

anigbrowl wrote: post #3

'Concrete wall of Reactor #1 blown away in explosion' 'Radiation level outside plant now 1015 micro Sieverts.' 'Huge probability of major event.' - govt. press conference, next update in 20-30 minutes. Local time in Japan is 5:37pm / 1735. Most recent reports from power company - several hours out of date right now but still informative: http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031219-e.... http://www.tepco…

A micro Sievert is equivalent to .1 millirem, according to wikipedia. So we're looking at about 100 millirem. According to the book Physics for Future Presidents, you can calculate the odds of getting cancer from radiation by dividing the exposure by 2500 rems. 100 millirem gives you a 1 in 25,000 chance of developing cancer. Or to put it another way, your chance of getting cancer has gone from 20 percent to 20.004 p…

I was trying to post up material as soon as I heard it, which is why I didn't take time to add context. I was finding the US media coverage largely useless and many hours out of date, while the Japanese media/agencies were also slow at getting English versions up on the net (for obvious reasons).

Re: Explosion at Japanese nuclear plant, fuel may be melting - Officials

#57

Post by catshirt » Sun, Mar 13, 2011, 2:48 AM UTC

geuis wrote: post #55

catshirt wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the sum of my knowledge on nuclear energy and human flight is nearly nothing, so forgive me if i'm wrong... but comparatively, isn't the potential aftermath of a nuclear meltdown a bit more concerning than a plane crashing?

Apologies catshirt. I just re-read my comment and I realize in retrospect my comment was WAY too aggressive and snarky. You might consider adding some contact info to your profile, as I was unable to email you with my apology directly.

hey, not an issue, i didn't take it that way at all. i'm pretty tactless so i'm sure all my comments could be taken the same way. :)

Re: Explosion at Japanese nuclear plant, fuel may be melting - Officials

#58

Post by DennisP » Sun, Mar 13, 2011, 4:04 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #56

DennisP wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A micro Sievert is equivalent to .1 millirem, according to wikipedia. So we're looking at about 100 millirem. According to the book Physics for Future Presidents, you can calculate the odds of getting cancer from radiation by dividing the exposure by 2500 rems. 100 millirem gives you a 1 in 25,000 chance of developing cancer. Or to put it another way, your chance of getting cancer has gone from 20 percent to 20.004 p…

I was trying to post up material as soon as I heard it, which is why I didn't take time to add context. I was finding the US media coverage largely useless and many hours out of date, while the Japanese media/agencies were also slow at getting English versions up on the net (for obvious reasons).

Happy to help :)