Chernobyl/Nuclear/Japan?

Discussion in 'The Guru's Pub' started by Jeremy, Mar 13, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. chris

    chris Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,573
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX460
    we can speculate all we want,just will have to hope for the best for all the people that are affected by this
     
  2. Detection

    Detection Banned

    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2 x 6850 - CrossFireX
    I think the only way to judge which is safest is to ask yourself, which would you prefer to live in the same town as if it blew up
     
  3. Nbz

    Nbz Master Guru

    Messages:
    942
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Sapphire HD6850 1000/1150
    Allright,

    I understand your point however, the ratios will be completely destroyed using that methodology purely because the ratios will be higher for lower production systems such as Solar Panels and Wind Turbines.

    Also, my point was more directed to direct risks and consequences. Coal and Oil are undoubtedly the dirtier way of obtaining energy, deadly gases are sent to the atmosphere all the time, poluting the enviroment. This alone is enough to cause insane climate changes and whatnot. This is a world wide problem.

    Using this same line of thought, I cannot believe people are comparing Nuclear Power to Wind Turbines and Solar Panels, doesn't make any sense.
    Its true that, Nuclear accidents don't happen often but, if they do happen, they will be severe most of the time, life threatning. Worst is, we're not talking about a dozen of people, we're talking about huge ammounts, millions of people.

    Obviously that if things don't go wrong, theres no immediate risk whatsoever, or any bad outcome other than having to store an insane ammount of radioactive mater for half a century etc. In this sense, it is clean and safe, unlike Coil and Oil where theres always a negative income.

    Seeing things like this, theres no negative outcome for Wind Turbines and Solar Panels because they do not pose an immediate threat and if something bad happens, theres too few casualities at best.

    This is how I see it unless I'm missing something big.
     
  4. Skiddywinks

    Skiddywinks Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Asus Matrix 285
    Wait, nothing left to respond to. Oh well.

    Bah, I want to raise my post count, so here goes... *AHEM*

    1) Evacuation

    Always a good idea, regardless of how minscule the risk might be. Never heard of "Better safe than sorry?"

    2) Evacuation

    See above

    3) Putin the humanitarian

    Er, PR? How is that evidence that something is going any more wrong than we know with the reactors?

    4) Austrian Embassy moves to Osaka

    See point 1)

    5) Stay indoors

    See point 1)

    6) 23 times normal levels

    Normal background radiation = 2.4 millisievert per year
    23 x background radiation = 55.2 millisievert per year (0.052 sievert)

    Effects to humans of acute radiation (within one day):

    * 0–0.25 Sv: None

    Here's an idea, why don't you try countering any of the points made against your comments, rather than carpet bombing the thread with mass media misinformation that has been proven incorrect or misleading many times already.
     

  5. Seref

    Seref Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,621
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Sapphire 7970 GHz Vapor-X
    I think most of the nuclear panic from people in the US comes from a terrible lack of understanding of the metric system.
     
  6. Taint3dBulge

    Taint3dBulge Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,129
    Likes Received:
    3
    GPU:
    1080Ti 2063/6180



    Pictures get peoples attention, thats marketing 101...


    If i see one more person say, "there is nothing happening and everything is ok there" without any factual evidence of there statement im going to bash my head into my screen. :bang::bang::bang:

    This has nothing to do with fear mongering, or conspiracy's.. It just seems "most" that have written on this topic either, dont care, or havnt read anything iv posted on the subject.. Now I know most of you dont care since its not coming from a source like a news agency, but a friend of myn that has a relative in Japan. about 80Km away from Fuk. Says it is in grave danger, that the rods are exposed. They are evacuating.. Things are way worse then what the news predicates... But thats just hearsay.. So anyways.. Im not here to knock anyone or to imply its the end of the world.. Im here to say this is bad, worse then what we are being told. If you consider that conspiracy, so be it! Im just trying to bring what info i can find to this topic thats what it was made for, no? Anyone dissagring on what im saying, show me factual proof not just. "It'll never happen cause i say so." Thats the part the makes me wana puke.
     
  7. The Laughing Ma

    The Laughing Ma Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,347
    Likes Received:
    797
    GPU:
    Gigabyte 2070 Super
    Stupid question you wouldn't want to live next to any of them if they blew up.

    How did you come up with that number? The biggest nuclear accident so far was Chernobyl, the evacuation of the facility and the surrounding areas came to a total of less than a 100,000 people. The nuclear bombs resulted in an affect of less than half a million people, so where did this 'millions' number come from?

    Here's the risk of wind and solar power. When you have these 'turbines' running you have to have the conventional 'unsafe' options on stand by and ready to produce at a moments notice for when the sun or wind dis-appears. What is the logical argument behind having a form of energy generation that is so unreliable that you have to have a constant back up on stand by and ready to go for when it fails. Would it not be better to take the time, effort and money being wasted on the 'alternative' energy sources and plough it back in to making energy producing systems that we know are reliable and effective even more so?

    I am glad the UK is considering building 8 new nuclear power stations, it is just a shame that we are now tied in to an expensive and totally unachievable goal of funding these massive time wasting 'alternative energy' producing blights on the landscape.
     
  8. Leafblower

    Leafblower Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 760 SLI
    I don't understand why they would use nuclear power in an earthquake area like that.
     
  9. Taint3dBulge

    Taint3dBulge Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,129
    Likes Received:
    3
    GPU:
    1080Ti 2063/6180



    Funny how when all of a sudden they start evacuating after the explosions.

    Yes it could be a Pr stunt, but thats just your thoughts isnt it?

    Austria embassy, sure it could be just recolonizing but i found it interesting. so ill go with you on 1.

    I dont know about you but i wouldnt want to be in the Plum of radiation, btw how far is Tokyo away from the plant? Hmmm

    Im not going to get into a fistphucking competition.. If you think all the news is misleading then fine, I think thats the problem most the time anyways... So on that note I hope nothing does happen..
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2011
  10. Seref

    Seref Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,621
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Sapphire 7970 GHz Vapor-X
    They didn't have too many other options. Japan lacks in natural resources, and it's likely that windmills/hydroelectric/geothermal/anything else wouldn't have the productivity necessary to power even just their larger cities.

    Although I agree it could never be a good idea to build so many so close to an obvious danger zone.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2011

  11. Nbz

    Nbz Master Guru

    Messages:
    942
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Sapphire HD6850 1000/1150
    It's not a stupid question in the first place because it is true, you can in no way compare a Nuclear Power Plant related explosion to an explosion on a Wind Turbine or a Solar Panel. I'm glad Portugal is against Nuclear Power and I'm glad to pay for the importation of energy, however this is hipocrit in a way because this way I'm supporting unclean energy production.

    Regarding the ammount of people affected by Radioactive problems, it is simple, if the leak is big enough and theres an explosion releasing radioactive gases into the atmosphere and whatnot, it can travel, affecting other populations other than the locals. Eventhough this might not present a lethal risk due to the deintegration of the radioactive mater into non radioactive mater, it is still there.

    About Wind Turbines and Solar Panels, they don't work that way. Infact, most countries use it as a backup for producing power during peak times where the Hidroelectric, Diesel and other types of plants cannot handle the needed load.
    Also, while there might be sun shortage due to Night/Day and Seasonal effects, Wind shortage is almost non existant because Wind Turbines are strategically placed in places wind shouldn't be a problem. I can provide you with data from my own country proving that Wind Turbines are a reliable source of power but require too many to be able to produce the same ammount as other sources. Also, my country has the largest Photovoltaic Power plant in the world which makes me damn proud.
     
  12. Dustpuppy

    Dustpuppy Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,146
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    integrated - fffffffuuuuu
    ? If you listened to the folks who are actual experts you'd hear the same thing. Of course if you haven't done the homework yet, you probably can't tell who is and isn't an expert; maybe that's where your difficulty is coming from. You're always going to find somebody, even amongst people who've worked in the field, who are willing to talk about something they don't understand or be motivated by something other than truth. You have to inform yourself sufficiently to discern between the ideologues, drama queens, crazies* and the actual science.

    The laws of physics guarantee that the power cannot spike as in Chernobyl, a slow increase is the way this thing will and is occuring. Nobody is telling you not to be skeptical of anything, but if you want to tell people that a reactor can explode like Chernobyl it helps to know wtf you're talking about.
    If you don't like what I'm saying find somebody who can show how this reactor can accelerate its reaction. Explosions can occur, severe damage can occur, but they will not occur from the reaction accelerating.



    *some people start off very well in a field then go nuts, it's easiest to spot in doctors, maybe it's the stress?

    /I'd live next to a nuke plant before a coal plant any day of the week.
     
  13. Skiddywinks

    Skiddywinks Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Asus Matrix 285
    I don't see how that makes the ratios irrelevant. The fact is, solar and wind are very inefficient. They take a lot of space for the energy output, and take a lot of energy to maintain etc. If you take a nuclear plant and a wind farm, the nuclear plant is more dangerous in terms of what can go wrong, even taking in to account modern saftey features. There is no arguing that. The fact is though that the sheer amount of energy that it produces by far outweighs the cost.

    I think the issue you are having is you are comparing specific risk with overall risk. You can't look at direct risks and use that as a basis for safety evaluation. A plane has a much higher direct and specific risk than driving, just because an accident ends up with a lot of damage. But on average you are much safer flying than you are driving a car. Does that make the car safer, because less can go wrong? No, because there is more chance of anyone dying at all when driving than there is if they fly. If people were to only fly anywhere (obviously this is a hypothetical and wouldn't actually be practical), and not use cars at all, less people would die. Flying is safer.

    What I am trying to say is that you aren't wrong. We are both correct, you are just looking at it the wrong way. We could carpet a country in wind farms, and another country in nuclear plants. Take any single wind farm, and any single reactor, and the reactor is more dangerous. Do not disagree.

    However, the number of wind farms you would need would be ridiculous, and over any stretch of time, the wind farms are going to kill more people, simply because you need more of them to match the same output of nuclear power. If everyone were to only use nuclear, less people would die. How does that not make something safer?

    Just to clarify, I do not wish to see nuclear replace wind or solar farms. I think we need as much renewable energy as possible. Unfortunately, they are very inefficient which is why the numbers are skewed in nuclear's favour. In the future, I can see things changing, but right now the issue is coal, oil and gas burning, which kill far more people per year than I think nuclear ever has.

    Also, as one last point, I take issue with you stating that any accident with nuclear is going to be severe most of the time. Most of the time we probably won't even be told about something going wrong, because nothing will happen. At the first sign of trouble, control rods are dropped and nuclear reactions cease. The remaining heat is definitely an issue, but a meltdown does not equal a Chernobyl. A melt down equals the reactor becoming a blob of lava like substance and usually melts through containment, where for almost all reactors nowadays there is a core catcher that will kill the heat problem. Even if there isn't, there would be no explosion or mass ejection of radioactive material.

    Chernobyl went so bad because the reaction continued, due to a positive void co-efficient. Positive void co-efficient reactors are illegal in America, which just goes to show how bad Chernobyl was. It was literally an accident waiting to happen. And that is ignoring the fact they ignored safety regulations and skimped on design as well.

    Considering the Fukushima plant was hit by an earthquake way beyond what it was designed for, a tsunami, and lost emergency power, look at how bad it is. Sure, it's not an ideal situation, but it's a 40 year old plant way outside of expected operating conditions. And all we have are partial meltdowns.

    Modern reactor designs don't even need power to continue cooling, and use much safer methods of generating power. Just look up generation III and IV reactors. Add 40 years worth of construction and materials know how, and any nuclear reactor built nowadays would be literally bomb proof.

    EDIT:
    Agreed, but no one is comparing explosion for explosion, they are comparing the entirety of the running each source.

    Nuclear power is the cleanest source of non-renewable power available, only second to the obvious renewables like wind and solar. It is in no way unclean.

    There will never be an explosion. Well, being a scientist I take issue with saying something so definitively. There could be an explosion in some old reactor somewhere, but there won't. People know Chernobyl blew and make assumptions from there, when even at the time Chernobyl was a disastor of a reactor. Just to note, I am obviously talking a reactor explosion, not anything outside of containment (like the hydrogen ones at Fukushima).

    However, the dispersal of radioactive material would happen if there was an explosion, just like Chernobyl, correct. The only way to get an explosion in a nuclear plant nowadays is if the whole team of workers decides to make one, or somone manages to sabotage systems/fuel rods/the reactor etc. The chances of these are very slim, but I would still imagine it is more likely than an acidental explosion.

    I agree that is something to be proud of, but I would be interested to know what it's peak output would be. Wind, and solar particularly, are definitely the future. But due to the efficiency, I kinda think building such an impressive energy source is more for show than for genuine power generation. More power could be produced in the same area with a nuclear reactor, or the same amount of power with less area.

    Obviously I realise you can't just throw up a nuclear reactor/coal plant etc any old place, so maybe the solar option was actually the best one, due to demands of the area etc in which case all the more awesome.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2011
  14. GandraZz

    GandraZz Master Guru

    Messages:
    373
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    555m 2GB 665/1330 FHD
    well Fukushima nuclear plant is quite old, finished in March 26, 1971 and they built to withstand earthquake. almost none on the building were damaged by earthquake.
     
  15. Skiddywinks

    Skiddywinks Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Asus Matrix 285
    I don't think the evacuating is a PR stunt, if that is what you are implying. Like I said, that is doing the safe thing and getting everyone away. AT THE MOMENT I don't think anything is drastically wrong. Even exposed rods isnt all that bad, since there is no major way of distributing the material. There is no reaction, there will be no explosion, and the worst case scenario is the core melts itself.

    Having said that, if some absolutely unthinkable thing happens, it is much better to have people evacuated already. Besides, the people would probably run 20km themselves at the first sign of words "nuclear reactor troubles", so better to do it officially than have people scrambling around and raiding the **** out of everything.

    How far away is Chernobyl from Sweden? The wind is a bastard, and I wouldn't blame anyone for erring on the safe side. It's no different to my point about the evacuations.

    At least we can agree on the news being generally misleading. At the end of the day they exist to make money. Informing us of world events is only a way to do that. And if scaring people by misrepresenting facts (which they can not technically get in trouble for) gets more views and makes them more money, do you honestly not think they would jump at the chance?
     

  16. Reddoguk

    Reddoguk Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    247
    GPU:
    Guru3d GTX 980 G1
    I still don't understand why they build the plants on the east coast.
    Surely living so close to the ring of fire you'd of thought they would of built them on the other side of the island.
     
  17. DSparil

    DSparil Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,261
    Likes Received:
    19
    GPU:
    ASUS ROG StriX RX480, 8GB
    Some experts are saying that the nuclear fallout from the disaster is worse then Japanese officials are leading us to believe. Many of these same experts think that radiation could reach as far as the western coast of the United States, and put the states in harms way. These are well educated people in the field commenting on this possibility!

    Its still speculation at this point, but it could very well be true! :eek3:
     
  18. Anarion

    Anarion Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,602
    Likes Received:
    376
    GPU:
    GeForce RTX 3060 Ti
    Apparently there are some flames now.
     
  19. Detection

    Detection Banned

    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2 x 6850 - CrossFireX
    15 March 2011 Last updated at 22:21


    There has been a fresh fire at the quake-stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in northern Japan.

    The new blaze began at reactor four. The plant has already been hit by four explosions, triggering radiation leaks and sparking health concerns.

    Friday's 9.0-magnitude quake and tsunami in north-east Japan damaged the plant's cooling functions, forcing the operator to use sea water.

    More than 3,000 have been confirmed dead and thousands are missing.

    Officials have warned people within 20-30km of the nuclear plant to either leave the area or stay indoors.

    The Tokyo Electric Power Co, which owns the Fukushima facility, said on Wednesday that efforts were under way to put out the latest fire.
     
  20. Skiddywinks

    Skiddywinks Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Asus Matrix 285
    Not good news at all. Is there any indication of the source? Did a hydrogen explosion start a fire in the building or something? I don't think a fire alone is enough to break containment, but it definitely will not help with keeping the cooling efforts in check.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page