The worst case scenario of a nuclear reactor going wrong is much worse than any other alternative, however slim the chances of that happening may be. This fact is enough to be concerned about the safety of nuclear reactors.
Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now
61–70 of 157 posts
Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Crowds are dumb. The only time you want to follow the "wisdom of the crowd" is when the crowd is your marketable commodity. We're settled, then, because this is where we disagree :) I believe in the power of the people of taking decisions for themselves (even if the decisions are dumb), while you suggest than an informed elite should have the upper hand (if I read you correctly). I could go on and on about why I be…
If you're saying that mob rule has the power to irrationally stop nuclear power production, I agree with you. If you're saying this is the way things ought to be, I'm not sure if I agree but I think you have a valid point about the democratic form of government. If you're saying a dumb herd of people's panicky reactions to a scary situation actually mean nuclear power is more dangerous than other forms, you're dead w…
Yeap, you're right on the first 2 points I was trying to make.
Reguarding this
> If you're saying a dumb herd of people's panicky reactions to a scary situation actually mean nuclear power is more dangerous than other forms, you're dead wrong.
I didn't say that people's reaction to nuclear power changes it into something "dangerous", I was only saying that if people decide not to fund nuclear development anymore (say, by not allowing their Governments to subsidize said industry) then its voice should be listened to, even if to some it may sound "dumb" or "panicky". This is why I said that if the voice of the majority isn't listened to we're back to Technocracy, i.e. a small group of informed elite taking vital decisions for the rest of us.
Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
I watched a documentary about Chernobyl yesterday ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiCXb1Nhd1o ) an although it's obviously a little sensationalist/emotional I have a really hard time having any respect for people claiming it didn't have that much impact. Fukushima is very different but I agree with others that we should wait at least a couple of weeks till we make any conclusions Speaking of jumping to conclusions:…
> Speaking of jumping to conclusions: Germany just started to shut down 7 nuclear power plants because of Fukushima... 100% pure green hysteria. ~10.000 died because of the tsunami. Who died because of Fukushima? None so far.
Although I also think it is kind of frightening that some of the old reactors are not safe with regard to a plane crash (or terrorist attack).
Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now
#64Before we jump up and down shouting the slogan of the mass un-informed... can we please qualify that standard nuclear reactors are our best option?
http://gigaom.com/cleantech/terrapower-how-the-travelling-wa...
Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now
#65Looking in awe at the fact that the plants are still standing after an earthquake "five times stronger than the older Fukushima plants had been designed to cope with" isn't the right way to look at this situation. Why were these plants built in a massively earthquake prone zone and not designed to avoid what is happening right now? If an earthquake this powerful was possible, the most sensitive pieces of infrastructu…
How can you say they "clearly were not"? I think the opposite is quite clear - the main components survived the earthquake just fine. The problem right now is the lack of power. The pumps are run on electric power, and as soon as the earthquake came the power plant itself shut down. So now you need external power to run the pumps. The power infrastructure failed and no other power plants could power these pumps. So t…
The batteries do not power the pumps, and were not designed to. The pumps draw far too much power for that - the batteries are to power the control systems and valves only.
Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
I watched a documentary about Chernobyl yesterday ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiCXb1Nhd1o ) an although it's obviously a little sensationalist/emotional I have a really hard time having any respect for people claiming it didn't have that much impact. Fukushima is very different but I agree with others that we should wait at least a couple of weeks till we make any conclusions Speaking of jumping to conclusions:…
Chernobyl wasn't as bad as has been made out to be. In total around 50 deaths are directly attributable to radiation exposure(firemen and resue workers). 4'000 children contracted thyroid cancer as a result but with nearly a 99% recovery rate. In terms of cancers or birth defects there have been no increases over the average in effected areas. Seriously, study after study by various international organisations have c…
Thanks for the links.
One could obviously argue about the term "much impact". Having cancer ia a pretty bad experience even if you survive. Same with abandoning your hometown etc.
Nevertheless the outcome of Chernobyl seems to be far less dramatic than most people believe. At least if this study by Greenpeace is wrong (estimating almost 100,000 deaths): http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/che...
Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now
#67I got as far as the second paragraph before I knew that this was article was of dubious accuracy:
"As the hot cores ceased to be cooled by the water which is used to extract power from them, control rods would have remained withdrawn and a runaway chain reaction could have ensued"
This is rubbish. The control rods in every nuclear reactor, going right back to the Chicago Pile, are fail-safe: if the power fails, they drop into the core, stopping fission. (In the case of a BWR like the Fukushima reactors, stored hydraulic pressure forces the control rods upward into the core).
Even without fission occuring though, the fuel rods continue to produce a great deal of heat through beta decay of the fission products (immediately after shutdown, heat is produced at around 7% of the operating power). This is why a meltdown can still occur, if this prodigious quantity of heat cannot be removed quickly enough.
Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
I watched a documentary about Chernobyl yesterday ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiCXb1Nhd1o ) an although it's obviously a little sensationalist/emotional I have a really hard time having any respect for people claiming it didn't have that much impact. Fukushima is very different but I agree with others that we should wait at least a couple of weeks till we make any conclusions Speaking of jumping to conclusions:…
Chernobyl wasn't as bad as has been made out to be. In total around 50 deaths are directly attributable to radiation exposure(firemen and resue workers). 4'000 children contracted thyroid cancer as a result but with nearly a 99% recovery rate. In terms of cancers or birth defects there have been no increases over the average in effected areas. Seriously, study after study by various international organisations have c…
In total around 50 deaths are directly attributable to radiation
I wonder how you can claim that when, depending on who you ask, the figure varies between 50, 50000 and "hundreds of thousands".
The figures you cite are from IAEA, which arguably is quite a biased source. Let's also not forget that it's very difficult to track and correlate the health of >600k people over 20+ years - even if you try to do it in best honesty.
As a counter-point, here's a study[1] that claims ~1 million deaths and according to wikipedia: "draws on previously classified post-Soviet records and reports by Eastern European scientists and medical experts that have largely been ignored by the IAEA and UNSCEAR".
I haven't read it, it may be fear mongering material. But then again, if really only 4050 people were affected, why is everyone making such a big deal about it?
[1] http://www.nyas.org/Publications/Annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3...
Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now
#69The worst case scenario of a nuclear reactor going wrong is much worse than any other alternative, however slim the chances of that happening may be. This fact is enough to be concerned about the safety of nuclear reactors.
Cars are the probabilistically one of the most risky form of transport. I doubt that you are concerned about that fact when you get in to one.
Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty much every other energy source is more dangerous than nuclear. http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-ener...
Then I guess people are stupid, aren't they, because of all the friends I know none of them would prefer having his/her house close to a nuclear plant, compared to having it close to a coal plant. And what do you know? These stupid people (including me) do have the power to vote, and I sure as hell would vote for nuclear power plants to be closed down were I given the chance to do so.
In the 20 years I've lived by a nuclear power plant, nothing has gone wrong. The coal plant two counties over has had two major explosions, resulting in dozens of deaths, hundreds of injuries, and an exorbitant amount of property damage. So if we're going off of anecdotal evidence here, I'll take nuclear power. The closer the better.