why do people suddenly fear nuclear power plants?

[Zero=Interrupt]

Short answer to the OP: because the news tells them so, and they're easily led by their emotions. The same people fear global warming, trans-fats, electric power plants that burn coal, and cars that use gasoline. There will alway be people like this who don't think things through (or at all) and who will make it their business to run around screaming that the sky is falling when things are, in fact, fine.

Keep calm, and carry on, kids. The Japanese will be back on their feet before you know it. In fact, they'll do a better job of getting back to work reconstructing their towns and cities than we have with New Orleans and Ground Zero (not to run down my own country, but ten years on and STILL no WTC? Gimme a break)

 

[Deepzound]

Both of those are flawed. Nuclear (and its successors) are the only way for any real progress. Solar, and wind on a scale of anything bigger than a calculator is a pipe dream like clean coal.

People scare easily over nothing.

Nuclear power is the safest, cleanest, and most efficient energy source. (wind is not viable in most areas)

I think you people need to stop listening to coal industry propaganda and in stead check up on the facts for yourselves [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States].

On February 11, 2010, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory released the first comprehensive update of the wind energy potential by state since 1993, showing that the contiguous United States had potential to install 10,459 GW of onshore wind power.
source [http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/filter_detail.asp?itemid=2542]

Oh yes because we all know coal is put into nuclear reactors. Solar and wind are temporary fixes, it would require nuclear energy to to get anywhere. Wind is dependent on the locale, and is known to cause problems for the people living around them.

If you haven't noticed, no where did i suggest coal. I suggested nuclear power. Nuclear power, and its future replacements, are much better than the wind and solar alternatives.

I said the coal industry because the coal and oil industries are the ones spreading false information about the effectiveness of renewable energy [http://newenergynews.blogspot.com/2010/04/money-behind-anti-new-energy-propaganda.html], which many people believe in.

A combination of all renewable resources, especially Geothermal power, is what will get us places, not finite resource driven energy. (at least until the need for power calls for anti-mater or dark energy based power)

 

[Evil Tim]

I know that you can't design things to be foolproof, you obviously missed my previous post. Which goes back to the Op's point of why are people afraid of nuclear power. Because as "safe" as everyone claims it is. Its no where near as safe as many other alternatives. And they were the ones making the claims of its invincibility not me ...

It's extremely safe. As here, it takes an utter catastrophe to cause a small radiation release in a 40-year-old reactor. How you can look at that as a sign of something which is not safe defies belief.

If a natural gas plant with the same output was there, you'd be talking a ~1 kiloton explosion. If it was a refinery with the same footprint, you'd have lethal gas spreading for dozens of miles downwind. Here, you have a radiation release roughly equal to a chest X-ray.

While you pimp currently unworkably expensive technology, we need something that's going to let people afford to turn on the kitchen light, today. If you disagree, turn your computer off right now because clearly you don't need that affordable electricity you're using.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

There are some areas where geothermal is practically impossible with today's technology, for instance near natural gas or similar deposits. (It's hard to find commercial-sized deposits, but there are a lot of smaller deposits that could mess up a geothermal borehole.) Coastal cities will also have trouble keeping ground- and seawater out of the bores. Both of those are solveable with further development, but we're not there yet... and I'm sure there are other issues I don't know about.

Provided we don't try to build geothermal plants in mountain ranges, its well within our capabilities.

Yeah, Deepwater Horizon [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill] proved that beyond doubt. /sarcasm

Every technology has its faults. It's not a matter of finding the perfect solution, but rather of finding the best balance of solutions.

-- Steve

 

[Antari]

I know that you can't design things to be foolproof, you obviously missed my previous post. Which goes back to the Op's point of why are people afraid of nuclear power. Because as "safe" as everyone claims it is. Its no where near as safe as many other alternatives. And they were the ones making the claims of its invincibility not me ...

It's extremely safe. As here, it takes an utter catastrophe to cause a small radiation release in a 40-year-old reactor. How you can look at that as a sign of something which is not safe defies belief.

If a natural gas plant with the same output was there, you'd be talking a ~1 kiloton explosion. If it was a refinery with the same footprint, you'd have lethal gas spreading for dozens of miles downwind. Here, you have a radiation release roughly equal to a chest X-ray.

While you pimp currently unworkably expensive technology, we need something that's going to let people afford to turn on the kitchen light, today. If you disagree, turn your computer off right now because clearly you don't need that affordable electricity you're using.

Industry CAN pay for this technology now, and it DOES work. Its more expensive than nuclear, but its not so expensive we can't do it.

And I'm not about to turn my computer off because you think I should. Get your head checked.

 

[Ham_authority95]

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

What do you mean "suddenly"? People have protested against nuclear power plants since the Three Mile island accident and Chernobyl. They don't realize, however, that we've learned from these instances and can respond more quickly.

It's just that the recent happenings in Japan(along with media fear-pandering) has made these fears more justified.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

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

In 20 years, another set of freak coincidences will add up to result in another nuclear incident and there will be more complaining, and some guy will post a thread on the Escapist.

Cyclical shit is Cyclical....

 

[Evil Tim]

What do you mean "suddenly"? People have protested against nuclear power plants since the Three Mile island accident and Chernobyl. They don't realize, however, that we've learned from these instances and can respond more quickly.

Actually, I think it's been going on since Windscale caught fire.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

I really feel like the media is fear-mongering over the nuclear power plant situation. 10,000 people are already dead. It is beyond human comprehension at this point. Also, even in the worst possible case scenario with this plant, look at the map. It's on the eastern edge of an island nation in an area that's already been evacuated. The weather will carry most of the fallout over the largest and least populated ocean on the planet. Meltdowns aren't like nuclear explosions. They don't level city blocks (which has already happened), they just expose a lot of people to radiation, and again, most everybody has already left and/or died in the quake.

I know this probably sounds callous and insensitive, but I can't help but look at this as a glass as half full situation (more like glass has a tiny speck of irradiated water). The rest of the country is in WAYYYYY worse shape from the tsunami and quake than the plant can possibly cause.

 

[wammnebu]

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.

solar would be great if we could get it a bit more efficient. right now you would have to cover the state of Massachusetts to power a city, and currently the most efficient panels collect 30% of the suns energy.

 

[Unesh52]

Thanks for the info, though I doubt that will convince some people...

Makes me feel a bit better, though.

I actually wrote a research paper on this subject (short thing for an English class, but still). I think I can find some more substantial information:

According to the World Nuclear Association [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html], 4300 square kilometers (about 36km in every direction) are areas of exclusion, though

...radiation in most of the affected area (apart from half a square kilometre) fell rapidly so that average doses were less than 50% above normal background of 2.5 mSv/yr.

The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation [http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/gareport.pdf] compiled a report on Chernobyl, and one of its findings was that

There have been about 1,800 cases of thyroid cancer in children who were exposed at the time of the accident, and if the current trend continues, there may be more cases during the next decades. Apart from this increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 14 years after the accident. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality or in non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure.

It's important to realize that though these areas are sparsely populated (and were before the accident as well), that's still not a lot of people, considering the scope of the damage. There's also no reason to think that radiation exposure was the sole cause. Certainly, such cancer existed before the accident as well. Thyroid cancer is not usually deadly if caught early. This is far from the tens of thousands of slow, painful deaths reported in popular media.

Furthermore, people still live there. It's not a browning, putrid wasteland. In fact, according to the Chernobyl Forum [http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf]

Following the natural reduction of exposure levels due to
radionuclide decay and migration, biological populations have been recovering from acute
radiation effects. As soon as by the next growing season following the accident, population
viability of plants and animals had substantially recovered as a result of the combined
effects of reproduction and immigration from less affected areas. A few years were needed
for recovery from major radiation-induced adverse effects in plants and animals.

...

The recovery of affected biota in the exclusion zone has been facilitated by the removal
of human activities [i.e. the evacuations of the local people] ...the Exclusion Zone has paradoxically become a unique sanctuary for biodiversity.

The psycho-social paranoia and resultant alcoholism caused by the evacuations did more physical harm to the locals than any dose of radiation they received. There's more to this point, like the damage to the local economies, the bloating of surrounding areas due to the influx of hundreds of thousands of people fleeing their homes, and the relative unlikelihood of another accident like this, but I think I've given anyone enough to chew on for now.

 

[Rotting Corpse]

Because people don't know that at least two to three dozen people die in the US every year from mining coal. Which, by the way, is where most of out power comes from. Yet people some how fear nuclear power plants, because they watched a bomb that is only vaguely related blow up two cities.

Also, about Three Mile Island, NOTHING FUCKING HAPPENED. NO ONE GOT HURT, NO ONE DIED, NO ONE GOT CANCER, AND NO ONE GOT SICK!

The disaster going on in Japan with the nuclear power plants is literally the second time there has ever been anything to go wrong with one. As opposed to the thousands (yes, thousands) of people who die every year in China mining coal. It's like being afraid of flying because you think it's dangerous, when in reality it statistically the safest possible way that you could travel.

 

[Deepzound]

Morisanto's legal practices have nothing to do with the safety of GM crops.

Yes they do, any profit driven business, and especially Monsanto (one of the LARGEST companies dealing with GMO products in the world), skips on expensive testing if possible.

Secondly, yes we fucking do know, do you have any idea how much testing goes in to these things before they are allowed to be consumed by humans?
If there were even the slightest actual risk they wouldn't dare use them, simply because of the backlash if they did.

Yes I do actually, far from enough [http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_16236.cfm]. They are more than willing to take the risk.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but, you're probably one of those people that believes organic food is better for you right?
Absolutely false, there are no health benefits to organic foods, no taste difference in the slightest and if we were to change all farms to organic farms three quarters of the world would simply starve to death.

While organic food has proven to be richer in minerals, and organic meat higher in Omega 3 fatty acids, I'm a proponent mostly because I try to avoid foods that are sprayed with pesticides (any non organic product), or which sues the pants off of farmers for using "their genes" (Monsanto GMO). Research also proves that people think that the organic product overall tastes better (what the causality link is here, is up for debate).

Regarding your last point, I will point out that I am an proponent of organic hydroponic- and sea agriculture, as these options can feed the world easily, without fear of adverse effects.

It's a moot point anyway, even if we assume that GM food could cause problems down the line, we KNOW that not using them is leading to many ACTUAL very fucking provable deaths right fucking now.

Every day that people hold back GM crops in underdeveloped countries is another day where dozens of people die of starvation.

As I stated before, hydroponic gardens and sea gardens are the future when it comes to food production. Besides this, let me point out that your point about feeding the world is pretty funny considering most developed countries throws out about 1/3 of the food produced. The US throws out about half [http://uanews.org/node/10448].

In any case, until enough testing is conducted and until the industry stops gene patenting, GMO is not the way to go.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Because people remember Chernobyl and immediately think about that when they hear nuclear power plant. That, and think that it will give off radiation that will destroy the land and people, which is disproven at Three Mile Island, PA.

To be honest, I dont mind them. The odds of meltdown are very low when you're an industrial "first world" nation that takes care of it. There's one on Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania thats right in the middle of a residential area type place and no one minds it.

 

[Ham_authority95]

What do you mean "suddenly"? People have protested against nuclear power plants since the Three Mile island accident and Chernobyl. They don't realize, however, that we've learned from these instances and can respond more quickly.

Actually, I think it's been going on since Windscale caught fire.

Fear of nuclear power goes even farther back, then...wasn't nearly as bad as even the Three Mile incident(and the three mile incident didn't do shit).

That accident happened less than 17 years after the first nuclear-anything was invented, so no wonder they didn't know how to fail-safe the plant and how to respond.

 

[Frogman54]

from what ive read a good alternative to the current nuclear plants would be one that uses thorium.

http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_reactor/thorium_reactor_1.php

these reactors are much smaller and costs a heck of a lot less to make. The thorium used has no chance of a meltdown and only requires a small amount of shielding for the radiation. They can be made many different sizes as well. Who knows if they start using these you might be able to buy a mini-thorium reactor for your house in the future lol

 

[WJeff]

because people just naturally have an "if one, then all" mentality. all muslims hate america and are out to kill us. everyone in the soviet union supported communism. one guy puts a bomb in his shoe, everyone is going to board an airplane with a bomb in their shoe. all guys play CoD. all americans are stupid. all nuclear plants are now dangerous.

now are any of the above true? no, not at all, but people generalize for convenience's sake. why bother making a situation more complex for yourself when you can just generalize? it's much easier to assume that all muslims are terrorists and to simply shun them than to understand that they are not tied to the small group of extremists that are deemed a threat to homeland security, and furthermore that extremists exist in nearly every religion or society. (spanish inquisition, anyone?)

so first, when we think of a reactor meltdown, we think of chernobyl. we don't really think of the actual circumstances under which the situation occurred (no core containment and numerous regulations being broken), we just know that reactor meltdown = massive area uninhabitable and lots of deaths to radiation sickness. we don't think of Three Mile Island, which would be a more comparable situation due to that reactor being contained and very similar to the design of the reactors used in Japan. obviously no reactor meltdown is by any means safe, but it's not the nuclear armogeddon that we treat it to be.

second, let's look at what people are really concerned about, which is the large number of nuclear facilities in eastern america. now, let's think of what could damage them. no weather could hurt it. if you think that a nuclear facility isn't built to handle a tornado or a category 5 hurricane, you must also think that the employees play hot potato with the fuel rods in their spare time. the only thing that could potentially damage them weather-wise would be an earthquake. the east is far far away from even a fault line, let alone any tectonic rifts. japan was seated right on two tectonic plates. the chances of an earthquake in east america is infinitely smaller than it is in Japan. The most powerful earthquake here in the east has been little over a 1 on the richter scale. almost all buildings are designed to handle much higher numbers on the richter scale, and nuclear reactors are sure to be able to handle up to at least an 8 (as japan's were). considering that there are no large quakes in the east ever on record, there is no reason to believe that one could come (i could even prove that to you mathematically). also, let's stop to think that even though the power of this quake was so great that not even the plant was capable of standing up to it, they STILL managed to bring it under control.

the only thing non-weather related we have to worry about is an attack. but from who? you can't just drop a bomb on one, you don't honestly think that they weren't preparing for bombings when these facilities were built back during the Cold War. You'd have to do it from the inside. and good luck with that, whoever tries it.

basically, i'm not worried. there is no reason to be. i can't start panicking about improbable things. because then i'd have to start worrying about alien invasions and zombie outbreaks. not that i haven't thought about what i'd do in the latter.

 

[Internet Kraken]

I think the better question is why people suddenly think nuclear power is a good idea again. It's a horrible energy source that fell out of favor for a reason. And no, I'm not saying Chernobyl is the only reason why it's terrible. Chernobyl was a result of poor construction and matienance, something that would probably not happen in a modern country. However, no matter how "safe" you make nuclear power plants, they still produce dangerous radiocative waste that is going to be a problem for thousands of years. And when some unforseen disaster does occur, even "safe" nuclear power plants are suddenly a massive danger to the enviornment. Nuclear isn't a renewable energy source, and if we suddenly started using a lot more uranium it probably wouldn't even last 100 years. Why take all these safety risks when nuclear isn't even renewable?

Nuclear is just a bad source of energy. Hopefully more people will realize this without another major disastser having to take place.

from what ive read a good alternative to the current nuclear plants would be one that uses thorium.

http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_reactor/thorium_reactor_1.php

these reactors are much smaller and costs a heck of a lot less to make. The thorium used has no chance of a meltdown and only requires a small amount of shielding for the radiation. They can be made many different sizes as well. Who knows if they start using these you might be able to buy a mini-thorium reactor for your house in the future lol

Thorium reactors are currently not viable and their use depends on the development of future technology. It's hardly a viable energy source.

Because people remember Chernobyl and immediately think about that when they hear nuclear power plant. That, and think that it will give off radiation that will destroy the land and people, which is disproven at Three Mile Island, PA.

Radiation does cause massive damage to the enviornment and fearing it is completley logical. I don't know why you'd cite Three Mile Island as an example of this not being true, since that would have been a major disaster if it weren't for quick and efficent preventive measures.

 

[The Random One]

Suddenly? There are two kinds of people: Those that already know nuclear power is safe, and those who never figured it out. (Okay, there's a third kind, composed of people who don't know about it/don't care/are toddlers/starving/etc. You catch my drift.) The earthquake made the second group's concerns look more forthcoming, so they're coming out of the woodwork. There's nothing sudden about it.

 

[Skoosh]

I hate it when people compare modern nuclear power plants to Chernobyl. It would be like having an F-22 and someone comparing it to how the old WWII planes were. Things have changed since then. Not to mention this was in the USSR, they weren't exactly known for worrying about human safety.