why do people suddenly fear nuclear power plants?

[Wintermoot]

I recently saw in the news that people in Russia demonstrated against nuclear power plants after they heard that three Japanese power plants where going critical. I personally think its stupid to protest against them because stuff like this only happens in extreme situations (a earthquake like this doesn't happen often and buildings are designed to resist quakes)
discuss

 

[LandoCristo]

Because they are hippies who fear an alternative energy that might actually work, and they listen to horror stories about things like Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island, ignoring that fact that neither of those are possible with a well-designed, safely implemented reactor. Things like a nuclear plant going critical is only possible if the plant was designed by a drunken idiot, and staffed by retarded turtles; neither of those is the case with the reactors in Japan, which are fine.

And they get scared by radiation, because they can't understand it, even though you get hit by more radiation watching TV than you do walking around a nuclear power plant.

EDIT: A friend posted this article on Facebook, makes sense to me.
http://theenergycollective.com/barrybrook/53461/fukushima-nuclear-accident-simple-and-accurate-explanation

 

[MrGalactus]

Yeah, but if something DOES go wrong, stuff goes, very, horribly wrong.
See: Chernobyl outskirts.

EDIT: stop quoting me. I'm not gonna respond to 18 messages about this.

 

[Zoe Castillo]

---

 

[XzarTheMad]

That's the problem, media outlets trying to use this situation to fuel an anti-nuclear agenda. It kinda pisses me off. People always compare current power plants with Chernobyl, disregarding how old, worn down and in disrepair that plant was. I'm certain that modern plants are built to withstand almost anything thrown at it, and sure enough, it took one of the largest earthquakes to date to bring the current situation about.

 

[wulfy42]

They are more then "slightly" dangerous especially in areas where there are many plants close together. Nowhere in the world has more nuclear plant density then Japan...and if things go bad it could end up being a world wide problem.

Thing is the rods need to stay cooled for something like 40 years after they are used. IF they do not they can meltdown which not only releases alot of heat but also a ton of radiation. Chernobyl (sp) was a good example of what could happen....but there are a ton of nuclear plants in japan (around 60 right now I think)and it just takes one plant melting down to put all the others in danger through a chain reaction that could not only leave all of japan uninhabitable, but put a ton of radiation into our atmosphere and potentially kill off a large portion of the earths population (possibly leading to plants in other countries not being monitored well enough and melting down as well).

Honestly if you have at least 5 miles between plants it shouldn't be that big of a deal and in most of the world that is the case. Japan has a plant in Kata, Kaminoseki that is within 5 miles along with plants in Monju, Takahama, and mihama that are close enough to create a chain reaction. Such high density of plants is where the real danger starts as it takes one accident, or environmental hazard to cause massive damage.

Isolated plants are dangerous but mainly to the surrounding area and with any advanced warning people could be evacuated in plenty of time to avoid massive loss of life. There are plenty of backups at most plants for loss of power or structural damage etc so it's not a huge danger to be honest. The only place in the world I would say that has a high risk of a massive disaster from nuke plants is japan (Although Russia supposedly has many that are not very safe....it would only damage fairly small areas and have little impact on the world as a whole.

If the nuke plants that are damaged in Japan do melt down....it could lead to some world changes in the long run and have a huge impact on all of our lives.

 

[spacewalker]

it may be reasonable to be worried about nuclear powerplants bulit on faultlines.

 

[Wintermoot]

Yeah, but if something DOES go wrong, stuff goes, very, horribly wrong.
See: Chernobyl outskirts.

Chernobyl was a time bomb, it was manned by unexperienced scientist and had problems with safety systems

 

[Aurgelmir]

I recently saw in the news that people in Russia demonstrated against nuclear power plants after they heard that three Japanese power plants where going critical. I personally think its stupid to protest against them because stuff like this only happens in extreme situations (a earthquake like this doesn't happen often and buildings are designed to resist quakes)
discuss

One word: Tsjernobyl

This disaster is still a very fresh memory for a lot of people. And a lot of people fear this will happen again.

Now it needs to be said that the Tsjernobyl power plant was designed COMPLETELY different from most other power plants, which is part of the reason the accident became such a big one.

Where Tsjernobyl caught fire and burned for quite a long time, spewing out radioactive particles, a modern power plants core is designed differently and will not burn.

As far as I know from the Japan plants it is not the core that is burning its other areas of the plant that is burning.

 

[Wintermoot]

it may be reasonable to be worried about nuclear powerplants bulit on faultlines.

any building built near faultlines is designed to withstand quakes (although this quake was a exception, the biggest one in a long time)
also people are protesting against EVERY nuclear powerplant

 

[wulfy42]

That's the problem, media outlets trying to use this situation to fuel an anti-nuclear agenda. It kinda pisses me off. People always compare current power plants with Chernobyl, disregarding how old, worn down and in disrepair that plant was. I'm certain that modern plants are built to withstand almost anything thrown at it, and sure enough, it took one of the largest earthquakes to date to bring the current situation about.

It wasn't just the earthquake but the Tsunami as well that caused the current problem (knocking out the backup power etc). That being said the earthquake was powerfull but far away and very deep in the earth. It could have been a much weaker earthquake but closer to land and the surface...and caused significantly more damage (from the earthquake of course not the Tsunami).

The fact that the plants were damaged so much by an earthquake so far away is fairly scary...imagine what would happen if we had an 8.0 earthquake along the San Andreas fault in Cali if so much damage was done the the Japanese plants from such a far distance (supposedly their plants are very state of the art and were made to resist earth quakes).

All the safeguards in the world don't stop the possible danger from existing if anything does go wrong. Personally think we should use Antartica to store the rodes (shipping them there by boat) so if they do ever melt down the resulting radiation will be fairly far away (not tomention the natural cold temperatures making it far less likely for them to meltdown anyway).

 

[iseko]

The same reason why people fear nuclear bombs. Alot more people have died from the flu, car-accidents, falls,... etc. But when da bomb eventually goes off. Its alot of dead people in an instance .

 

[BlackSaint09]

Because technology is scary! *hides in a bush*
Actually yeah people are panicking in a situation like this and this reaction was expected to a degree.

 

[blekx]

But why not use solar and wind power? It will never explode and produces absolutely no yellowcake. Why invest in a type of power which produces waste instead of clean ones which can potentially continue until the sun explodes in 5 million or so years.

 

[MrGalactus]

Yeah, but if something DOES go wrong, stuff goes, very, horribly wrong.
See: Chernobyl outskirts.

Chernobyl. Was. An. Anomaly. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.241623-Probing-The-Inaccuracies-Nuclear-Power]

Stop using it as an example.

That. Makes. No. Difference.

It was still a nuclear plant that exploded. It showed us all the effects of what can happen, and why we can't take chances with nuclear power.

 

[beniki]

Because they share a name with the biggest bomb we've got. And they are essentially the biggest bomb we've got.

I'm all for nuclear power. It's cleaner than fossil fuels and a lot more efficient than any of the renewable stuff. The only problem is the fact that radioactive material is concentrated in a small area once it's used. Spread it out and it's less of a problem.

It's also prettier than other methods of making electricity. You get a nifty blue glow over some reactors.

 

[Meestor Pickle]

It's nothing new, people have ALWAYS feared ANYTHING nuclear

 

[LandoCristo]

They are more then "slightly" dangerous especially in areas where there are many plants close together. Nowhere in the world has more nuclear plant density then Japan...and if things go bad it could end up being a world wide problem.

Thing is the rods need to stay cooled for something like 40 years after they are used. IF they do not they can meltdown which not only releases alot of heat but also a ton of radiation. Chernobyl (sp) was a good example of what could happen....but there are a ton of nuclear plants in japan (around 60 right now I think)and it just takes one plant melting down to put all the others in danger through a chain reaction that could not only leave all of japan uninhabitable, but put a ton of radiation into our atmosphere and potentially kill off a large portion of the earths population (possibly leading to plants in other countries not being monitored well enough and melting down as well).

Honestly if you have at least 5 miles between plants it shouldn't be that big of a deal and in most of the world that is the case. Japan has a plant in Kata, Kaminoseki that is within 5 miles along with plants in Monju, Takahama, and mihama that are close enough to create a chain reaction. Such high density of plants is where the real danger starts as it takes one accident, or environmental hazard to cause massive damage.

Isolated plants are dangerous but mainly to the surrounding area and with any advanced warning people could be evacuated in plenty of time to avoid massive loss of life. There are plenty of backups at most plants for loss of power or structural damage etc so it's not a huge danger to be honest. The only place in the world I would say that has a high risk of a massive disaster from nuke plants is japan (Although Russia supposedly has many that are not very safe....it would only damage fairly small areas and have little impact on the world as a whole.

If the nuke plants that are damaged in Japan do melt down....it could lead to some world changes in the long run and have a huge impact on all of our lives.

Read the page I linked to, it explains how the plants in Japan are not only contained, but also how any radiation that MAY have leaked out would disappate in seconds, and be less lethal than 2nd-hand smoke. It also explains how Chernobyl's explosion was caused by a buildup of radioactive steam pressure, brought about by idiotic workers. A melt-down, which is still entirely possible for any of the Japanese plants, would be contained in the 3-foot thick concrete chambers (which are still intact) that the reactor is in, letting it melt while still letting it cool, and preventing radiation from doing any damage at all.

And as I've said before, there's evidence that nuclear plants emit less harmful radiation than a similar power-leveled coal-fired or oil plant, and MUCH less harmful in an emergency. Nuclear plants have so many redundant safety features that it would take deliberate action to do any real harm to region.