Chernobyl/Nuclear/Japan?

Major update:

 

Latest info is that on Monday black steam/smoke started to rise from reactor 3 and workers were evacuated from the plant.



Steam/smoke started to rise from reactor 2 too later on and this time it was from mountain side wall.

Tepco said they don't know what caused this but cooling work is going to continue on Tuesday morning.

Heatcam pics(not sure from what date)

 

No, I live near three.

 

Then you probably receive more radiation and negative health effects then someone living near a nuclear power plant.

Also consider how 1 nuclear power plant could replace 2-3 normal sized coal power plants, improve air quality, reduce switch gear and reduce mortality in the area. There is an off chance that after a 9.0 earthquake and 10m tsunami and that the area might be effected.

 

but there IS a chance John, what you dont seem to get is some people just dont like nuclear power end of, no amount of reasoning will change ones mind, radiation is an invisible killer and quite a few tend to want to be more than arms length from one, sounds like you want to get cosy with old sparky lol, this is a MAJOR disaster and the area is NOT safe so how is nuclear power safe? would a coal plant meltdown and shower people in rads, nah I didnt think so either. Sellefield, TMI, chernoble and now this one doesnt sing to me nuclear power is safe no matter how much you or anyone says. In the last 100 years nuclear power has made far too many places uninhabitable IMO.

 

:stewpid:

Like?

Name some other places than Chernobyl and nuclear weapon testing grounds.

:bang:

 

On another note, I can find many places that Coal has made uninhabitable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_seam_fire

 

You post alot of lies and mangled facts.

Civilian nuclear power has been around since the 50s, NOT a 100 years. Coal the worlds most popular and cheap fossil fuel kills BOATLOADS of people, the effects can be seen but we still accept those deaths because at the end of the day we need coal. Coal gives us electrical power and has a large industrial usage. Coal when burnt releases radiation and many different types of carcinogenic micro particulates no on can see.

Now lets talk nuclear, Chernobyl cant be included in the assessment here because a Chernobyl style accident is not physically possible in western reactors, strike off accidents due to arms production and you are left with with few accidents which killed very few people.

So what have we learn in our short brief nuclear history? Well that well designed civilian reactors reactors (excluding soviet reactors) cant possibly spill high doses of radiation like Chernobyl, even when the said reactors have been controlled badly (3 mile island) or have faced an apocalypse load of crap (japan), Nuclear kills less people then other comparable sources (you cant deny this) and when operating correctly has zero effect on the environment.

So what are the facts?
Nuclear can end global warming in 20 years
Nuclear kills less people then comparable power sources
Nuclear fuel prices have zero effect on energy prices
Nuclear fuel doesn't supply what should be failed states with petrobucks

Embracing nuclear will open new and exiting prospects:
Can sustain a future hydrogen based economy by direct thermal conversion designs (gen IV reactors we would have them today if it wasn't for people like you)
Could be integrated into industrial systems, this one is REALLY useful. Smelting and heavy industry activities could be totally transformed since they would not be consuming electricity for heating but would be using heat directly and more efficiently from the reactors.
Development of new atomic batteries, Atomic batteries till today remain the most durable (in terms of usage life).
Less waste, new plant design produce decade long radioactive waste as opposed to today, also proposed designs run on the 'waste' of current gen II reactors.
Fusion, the Ideal way to generate energy.

So at the end the facts talk, there is no logical reason NOT to embrace such technologies. The only reasons are people are stupid, do not understand it, wont even try to understand it and cant seem to understand just how irrational their fear is.

 

I don't think most people know TMI is still operational.

Three mile island had two reactors and only one failed. The other resumed ops in 1985 and has been going since.

 

I'm in agreement with John mostly on this disscussion.

Nuclear is a far better and safer (in terms of long term planetary and health effects) than burning fossil fuels.
However like everything its not 'perfect', but life is all about striking balances.

Many are afraid of 'nuclear' just by its very nature of being an invisible and for many incomprehensible nature.

Shame hydro/wind/solar/tidal sources aren't used more, but of course they are expensive and take up vast swathes of land for relativley small outputs.

 

John I didnt lie, maybe someone did but not me, Im against nuclear mate, I cant deny it, you say some solid stuff but I stand by my thoughts, please dont be dissapoint.

 

So then back up your statement:

 

Be against nuclear for no reason, I have nothing against that, I think its absolutely crazy. The fact that gets to me is that you try and rationalize this fear and try to promote it. You promote it with half truths and bull**** claims and that is not right.

Couple of examples from your last post

"but there IS a chance John,"

The above... Guess what its a lie! Its NOT possible the physical construction of the reactor does NOT allow for a Chernobyl style disaster yet you try to sell us this every step of the way.

"radiation is an invisible killer and quite a few tend to want to be more than arms length from one"

This is a half truth, radiation CAN be a killer but when you go for an X-ray, a CT-scan or a number of other radiation based diagnostic machines you actually invite these rays into your own body. So maybe you should be consistent and forget modern medicine because there is an off chance it can KILL you.

"this is a MAJOR disaster and the area is NOT safe so how is nuclear power safe? would a coal plant meltdown and shower people in rads, nah I didnt think so either"

This is an outright lie, what kind of major disaster kills zero people? must be quite a **** one. Meltdown and shower people with rads? if the reactors melted down the only place made uninhabitable would be the containment building or at best the site just like TMI (were the reactor next door was just FINE). Your coal comment is even more funny, industrial fires with fuels happen all the time and people die every day in them so no people don't get covered in rads they die in agonizing flames, suffocate while at the same time damaging the environment.

"Sellefield, TMI, chernoble and now this one doesnt sing to me nuclear power is safe no matter how much you or anyone says. In the last 100 years nuclear power has made far too many places uninhabitable IMO"

Sellafield was a weapons installation. TMI didn't make anywhere uninhabitable and Chernobyl as I stated before was a soviet piece of crap designed to bleed plutonium. So you have 2 useless examples and one which isn't uninhabitable. Then you end the post with a nice lie about the age of the nuclear industry. By your post there were working commercial nuclear reactors in 1911 and not in the 50s.


Then there is the overall tone of your posts, geared to incite fear and bring the worst feelings in people. I think the news already does a awesome job at reporting half truths and unofficial sources people didn't need one more panicky dude saying incorrect stuff. This is a tech forum, people were rightly concerned on this accident and luckily there are people here which have taken the time to report the facts and give answers. I am no expert just a strong follower of nuclear tech since I remember, have studied it as a power source since I am studying to become en electrical engineer and wished my university had an atomic engineering course.

So next time try not to make your point by trying to convince people of your factually baseless opinion.

 

umm john I didnt say we would have another chernoble and Im not gearing to incite fear so seriously piss off with your bogus claims, I said I have an opinion and I stand by the fact I dont think its safe, you can say what you like pal, so what if I exaggerate a bit and say 100 years, Im not talking like a scientist like you so do one and take your expertise with you, Im out .

EDIT: Brute force you know nuclear has made places uninhabitable/dangerous, Im not just on about nuclear power, I belive playing with that crap be it bombs whatever is dangerous and makes people sick so therefor not safe and makes places bad for people. Im ending it at that.

 

Back to facts:

 

Humans are dangerous and not nuclear

will try to point my point of view about nuclear in short.
But firstly will give you something to think about... the air you breath dialy is mostly poluted from use of fossil fuels... not enought... how many martime disasters happened with tankers and platforms... last years disaster in gulf of mexico... did anybody satart to play trumpets that gasoil is dangerous... NO... we are still useing it... I am loving it... but BP CEO should be exectuted in public!

And now on NUCLEAR which for me is strongly needed till we do not develope other ways to produce energy which is the base for our development.
Problem are HUMANS... why if a beautifull mind show us the way how to use and control nuclear energy we do not follow his manual.
If a engineer gives us a manual how to use such an incredible energy we do not follow his manual but there is always someone that wants to be more clever than this beautifull mind and wants to spend few cents less than he thinks that is needed... why???... if an engineer says that a rubber part has 5000hours of life why somebody trys to be more clever and changes this part only after 10 000hours of use... with this I want to tell that nuclear is not so catastroficaly dangerous if persons that are useing it are RESPONSIBLE!

The world has to start doing things in a RESPONSAIBLE way and we will not have such stresses.

 

Turkey signed nuclear plant projects..some people think its something bad. i believe it will be good..no pain no gain. we consume like there is no tomorrow.

anyway, Nuclear Power in Turkey will be good.

 

I dont think you read much of the answers posted to you because you're off on one again.

If I dumped 10 tons of milk on a house and destroyed it, should we stop drinking milk?
Almost anything can be used as a weapon.
Fair enough if you dont like nuclear weapons, but that has NOTHING to do with nuclear power.

If you cant be rational, you're going to get nuked in this thread

 

I feel nuked belive thats why Im just shutting up and listening lol I say nuclear is bad and my head gets bitten off, fair enuff I will shut up and let the experts take controll, dont bother me a bit if someone gets hot headed

 

Where do you think DUF6 comes from?? Depleted uranium that has been used in missiles, bullets, and armor and has only recently been admittedly linked to Gulf War Syndrome?? Where casings and stray bullets were literally littered in the streets of Kosovo and Bosnia where children are exposed to the radioactive "halfsies" of its natural state??

Sure, anything can be used as a weapon. I could stab your eye out with a pencil and it won't give you lead poisoning! Yet the byproduct of nuclear power has and is being used as an intentional weapon, causing illness for those they are used on, and those who are instructed to use it.

So, why favor nuclear power over numerous other resources available at falling prices? Because it's still the cheapest and easiest to contain as an energy? What happens in the event of another natural disaster or power surge or a God-forbidden human error that causes another nuclear reactor to melt down? How many more radiation accidents have to occur before an alternate is more popularly used?