why do people suddenly fear nuclear power plants?
- Thread starter Wintermoot
- Start date
Recommended Videos
.
I agree, the fact that they're ONLY having containment issues after an earthquake of that magnitude and the following tsunami is a testament to how they were built.Evil Tim said:
You underestimate the number of retarded turtles in the world.Wilson Driesens said:
Isn't Japan supposed to be, y'know, sophisticated? Especially compared to the Russians (technologically)?
OP: people do not "suddenly" fear nuclear power. These fears are nothing new. I'm not sure of Russia's tectonic layout but there's no such thing as an earthquake-proof building, just as there is no such thing as a foolproof nuclear power plant.
Before any of the posters calls me one of the aforementioned hippies, I don't bathe in patchoulie (or even know how to spell it!) and I support nuclear energy as one option to help cure the U.S. of our oil addiction
Wasn't Chernobyl a part of the Soviet Union? How much progress has the region seen in the intervening years?gl1koz3 said:
Nuclear energy is safer than most people think.
What happened in the one in Japan is that the Fuel Rods are fully exposed because they put the secondary power off-site, which meant that the secondary power got wiped-out, if it was placed somewhere else that was much safer and say actually designed to withstand Earthquakes then this wouldn't have happened.
It was a design fault by the people who build that plant, not necessarily a fault on nuclear energy.
Coal mining is has a least more deaths yet I don't see it being a massive issue with the media, even when the Chilean miners got stuck.
What happened in the one in Japan is that the Fuel Rods are fully exposed because they put the secondary power off-site, which meant that the secondary power got wiped-out, if it was placed somewhere else that was much safer and say actually designed to withstand Earthquakes then this wouldn't have happened.
It was a design fault by the people who build that plant, not necessarily a fault on nuclear energy.
Coal mining is has a least more deaths yet I don't see it being a massive issue with the media, even when the Chilean miners got stuck.
To those who are worried about the nuclear reactors, read this [http://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/]. Its written by someone who actually knows what they're talking about.
Chernobyl was never happened again, and will never happen again unless someone specifically builds a plant to be exactly like Chernobyl, which will not happen.
Japan's plants are built to withstand these quakes. And even though the recent quakes were stronger than anticipated, the plants still held up, and will be upgraded to withstand future quakes even better.
Something like Chernobyl will NEVER happen with current plants. Never ever ever ever. An example is 3 mile island. Nobody died from that, very, very little radiation was actually leaked, and everything was fine. Because the plant was well designed.THEJORRRG said:
Chernobyl was never happened again, and will never happen again unless someone specifically builds a plant to be exactly like Chernobyl, which will not happen.
Japan's plants are built to withstand these quakes. And even though the recent quakes were stronger than anticipated, the plants still held up, and will be upgraded to withstand future quakes even better.
You do know that the plants released no more radiation than what you'd get in a long-distance flight? All those plants and the people in them did exactly what they should, and as a result none of them "exploded", or will explode and release oodles of deadly radiation, like Chernobyl.Naheal said:
Because people have the faintest inkling of how they work.
If they had no idea, they'd be hard-pressed to be scared and if they actually knew what they were talking about, they'd know enough not to be scared.
Instead, they know just enough to act like smug little assholes marching forth with luddite fanaticism to save the world.
All this when, in reality, nuclear power is the safest, cleanest sort humanity has access to right now. Yes, the extremely rare disaster is dangerous to the local area and yes, the waste is hard to dispose of safely (though far, far from impossible as many would lead you to believe). However, it's a damn sight better than the majority of other power sources that are actively destroying the entire world. When someone has a solution that doesn't have any of these problems, I'll be right on board. In the mean time, nuclear is the best option we have. Note: this is not an invitation to argue that better alternatives already exist; please don't derail the thread.
As an aside, the number one question to ask someone to see if they have any idea what they're talking about is to ask whether they think a reactor meltdown results in a nuclear explosion. Better yet, ask them if they think a reactor can explode at all (spoiler alert: it can't).
If they had no idea, they'd be hard-pressed to be scared and if they actually knew what they were talking about, they'd know enough not to be scared.
Instead, they know just enough to act like smug little assholes marching forth with luddite fanaticism to save the world.
All this when, in reality, nuclear power is the safest, cleanest sort humanity has access to right now. Yes, the extremely rare disaster is dangerous to the local area and yes, the waste is hard to dispose of safely (though far, far from impossible as many would lead you to believe). However, it's a damn sight better than the majority of other power sources that are actively destroying the entire world. When someone has a solution that doesn't have any of these problems, I'll be right on board. In the mean time, nuclear is the best option we have. Note: this is not an invitation to argue that better alternatives already exist; please don't derail the thread.
As an aside, the number one question to ask someone to see if they have any idea what they're talking about is to ask whether they think a reactor meltdown results in a nuclear explosion. Better yet, ask them if they think a reactor can explode at all (spoiler alert: it can't).
While there is an underground sync in case of overload wherein the radiation gets trapped inside, the earthquake could've very well damaged it. If that's the case, this will be the third time radiation has fucked Japan, except this one is actually a massive problem. fun fact: Chernobyl could destroy europe. The only thing stopping it is a rapidly decaying metal coffin around it that only allows tiny amounts out. Japans one is a lot stronger. We're talking the radiation will reach and pwn america. the waste they produce is dangerous, the power output isn't that exceptional when compared to the fusion reactors they have [yes, those do exist, they charge hydrogen atoms in a gold casting and the hydrogen atoms fuse for a few seconds, while it's not permanent the power output from it is stunning.] and if you don't see Chernobyl as a big deal then you haven't honestly looked at it. You haven't spent hours seeing the videos and pictures of the disgusting, lief ruining mutations it caused and the agony that is still going to this day.
They do. Physics lesson for some of you: A meltdown is exactly what it sounds like. The reactor melts into a nasty pile of red hot radioactive goo. It doesn't explode, it doesn't jump up into the air. It sits there wibbling.InterAirplay said:
So, RE Japan reactors and meltdown:
1) The opperators believe they have control over the reactors and they will not melt.
2) The reactors are contained in a massive concrete shell which will stop any radiation escaping.
3) The because of 3 the only reason to stop a meltdown is so the reactors can be used again (Japan needs electricity too).
The little radiation that has "escaped" so far was deliberately vented and was short lived, relatively harmless gas. About the same dose as a Chest X-ray.
If all 6 reactors that were said to be in trouble were to melt down right now, all that would happen is they would have to lock off the concrete shells and walk away while it cooled down. End of.
Windscale, 3 mile island and chernobyll are 3 accidents out of many hundreds of power plants running successfully for years.
A couple people mentioned living near heysham plant, did I not hear that heysham 1 and 2 were being decomissioned soon? so any potential heysham 3 would be a replacement rather than an addition?
Most nuclear reactor designs don't wait until after the reactor explodes before putting up a containment building. The containment building itself is thus usually not designed in thirty seconds and built by people who are dying of radiation poisoning.Ocoton said:
Thanks for the info, though I doubt that will convince some people...summerof2010 said:
Makes me feel a bit better, though.
People have always feared Nuclear Power Plants, it just hasn't been the thing to obsess about for the last whenever. Apparently tho, the US has a ton of such plants right near California's fault line. Who made that decision??
Chernobyl is an outlier as far as nuclear power safety statistics go.THEJORRRG said:
Yes it was a tragedy that still effects the area around it but take this into consideration: There are over four hundred reactors in use today. Around 10 reactors in history have had melt downs and eight Russian/solviet submarines have had reactor accidents, six of which were due to loss of coolant.
Chernobyl was one of three to have a large scale melt down. The others were Three mile island and Lucens reactor. Three mile island was only a partial meltdown and was contained so well that the other reactors are still in use today while Lucens was built in an underground cavern and was contained, like three mile island it was only a partial core meltdown.