why do people suddenly fear nuclear power plants?
- Thread starter Wintermoot
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes, lets use Chernobyl, the story of a colossally stupid electrician (NOT a Nuclear Engineer) disabling *ALL* of the safety limiters/alarms/cutoffs and then running the reactor past super-critical in a stress test with a predictable result.
Because that totally happens in every other Nuclear-power country in the world.
...EXCEPT IT HASN'T SINCE.
I still cannot believe how Chernobyl actually came to be, but to use it as a blanket argument against all modern nuclear power is fucking stupid (especially given that the Chernobyl Reactor was fundamentally different in not only how it was constructed, but the methods for controlling the reaction).
A bit of nitpicking for others in the thread who keep misusing the term "critical".
"Critical" levels in a nuclear reactor are what we aim for. In Nuclear Power terminology, critical does *not* mean "about to explode", it means that the reactor process is in this narrow, ideal range for thermal energy output vs fuel decay.
If the reactor is using fuel too quickly (too much energy output), it's super-critical. If the reaction is dying out, it's sub-critical; neither of which are desirable states during normal operation.
Because that totally happens in every other Nuclear-power country in the world.
...EXCEPT IT HASN'T SINCE.
I still cannot believe how Chernobyl actually came to be, but to use it as a blanket argument against all modern nuclear power is fucking stupid (especially given that the Chernobyl Reactor was fundamentally different in not only how it was constructed, but the methods for controlling the reaction).
A bit of nitpicking for others in the thread who keep misusing the term "critical".
"Critical" levels in a nuclear reactor are what we aim for. In Nuclear Power terminology, critical does *not* mean "about to explode", it means that the reactor process is in this narrow, ideal range for thermal energy output vs fuel decay.
If the reactor is using fuel too quickly (too much energy output), it's super-critical. If the reaction is dying out, it's sub-critical; neither of which are desirable states during normal operation.
I thought everyone always had a slight problem with nuclear energy and plants especially. People think that something like Chernobyl or Three Mile Island could happen at the drop of a hat. With Chernobyl, though, the problems were largely due to the fact that the site was very outdated and largely due to lack of maintenance, lack of safety measures and other human errors, much like the incident at 3MI.
These same issues are the same problems we see in more "acceptable" means of acquiring energy such as coal mining (don't even need to show examples of how dangerous that is) and drilling for oil both on land and offshore. We look at the environmental damage of these industries and practice, not to mention the numbers of deaths attributed to them- then compare them to deaths and environmental problems from nuclear energy. Nuclear energy seems far more safe in contrast. Fallout from reactor meltdowns, yes- very bad and very damaging.
Take Three Mile Island, though. As scary as it sounds and how its played up in the memories of th media- there was no significant contamination of drinking water for the populace, and very little actual deaths attributed to the incident, compared to even Chernobyl or drilling accidents- largely due to a prompt and excellent response to the situation. Not perfect, of course- what is in an accident.
But now, we have a nuclear plant in Japan thats just over 4 DECADES old, that gets hit by a 8.9 MAGNITUDE EARTHQUAKE, slammed by a 20 FOOT TALL TSUNAMI SWELLS, and 2, possibly 3 EXPLOSIONS due to hydrogen buildup that has since blown the roof off- and STILL its reactor is not only intact, it is contained... but apparently nuclear power is still unsafe.
These same issues are the same problems we see in more "acceptable" means of acquiring energy such as coal mining (don't even need to show examples of how dangerous that is) and drilling for oil both on land and offshore. We look at the environmental damage of these industries and practice, not to mention the numbers of deaths attributed to them- then compare them to deaths and environmental problems from nuclear energy. Nuclear energy seems far more safe in contrast. Fallout from reactor meltdowns, yes- very bad and very damaging.
Take Three Mile Island, though. As scary as it sounds and how its played up in the memories of th media- there was no significant contamination of drinking water for the populace, and very little actual deaths attributed to the incident, compared to even Chernobyl or drilling accidents- largely due to a prompt and excellent response to the situation. Not perfect, of course- what is in an accident.
But now, we have a nuclear plant in Japan thats just over 4 DECADES old, that gets hit by a 8.9 MAGNITUDE EARTHQUAKE, slammed by a 20 FOOT TALL TSUNAMI SWELLS, and 2, possibly 3 EXPLOSIONS due to hydrogen buildup that has since blown the roof off- and STILL its reactor is not only intact, it is contained... but apparently nuclear power is still unsafe.
lol Everything in japan is near the sea.Cowabungaa said:
I think that Nuclear Research is just fine, but we have to accept that it poses risks to the environment. This means even more powerful safety regulations in plants as well as exhausting better options like solar, wind, and geothermal. (Thanks Iceland!)
I agree that people's fear of nuclear energy is largely misplaced and irrational. However I must question the title of this post; people are not "suddenly" afraid, I don't think that Americans have ever been particularly comfortable with nuclear power. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and sharing an adjective with a weapon have cemented its boogeymen status in the popular consciousness. Me on the other hand, I live relatively close to a nuclear power plant and I sleep soundly every night.
jeez I am actually in favor of nuclear power but this is just idiotic. If you have ever lived anywhere near these things (I'm looking at you Vermont Yankee!) you would know that it is nowhere near a rainforest.LittleChone said:
The town of springfield VT is a dump because of the plant (yeah I know springfield has a nuclear plant right?). Rivers are infected with tritium and and other nuclear waste products and they get away with it by lobbying congress to call it "green".
Oh and by the way Springfield is just miles away from the connecticut river and tritium levels have been found ever further distances from there so if Connecticut is exterminated in the next decade you know who to call.
"Rainstorm risks meltdown in Nuclear plant in Libya. Scientists are saying they will now prepare for the next one, because as it has happened now, there is a strong likelihood it will happen again."Naheal said:
first off, what has been close to a meltdown at those two plants is not that severe. As in the Japanese Government admits pretty much everything that is happening and says that it is not a health risk (I'm inclined to think they would know.) Meanwhile, American news programs completely ignore this and instead decide to talk about "massive explosions" and "complete meltdowns" because people listen to that news.
As far as an answer to the forum... the average person has a tough time distinguishing between "nuclear power plant" and "nuclear bomb waiting to go off and annihilate 1,000 square miles around it and permanently irradiating half the continent. Why, oh dear God why, are people actually living within 1 mile of this ground zero waiting to happen?!?!" Anytime they hear "problems at a nuclear plant" they think "I knew it, it's gonna blow! It's going Hiroshima!"
Let's see a little perspective. Death toll due to Earthquake (only the quake): 15-100. Death toll due to Tsunami: 2,000-10,000 (real toll-wikinews estimate.) Death toll due to nuclear plants, directly or indirectly: 0. That's right. Even the earthquake has what the news is calling the next nuclear holocaust beat. The Anerican news. The news here is calling it a "concern."
Somehow I think you won't be so calm if this "extremly unlikely" situation happend near you.henritje said:
You now, just like in Japan.
you're missing the point he is trying to make...Atmos Duality said:
When is the last time you remember a Coal Plant creating an uninhabitable no-man-land in a 100 mile radius? The last city that was made a ghost town for hundreds of years because of a few mistakes in a Solor plant?
Nuclear power has such dire circimstances for such minor faults.
which is why it is so feared.
You're wrong about the people suffering from Chernobyl... mostly.Internet Kraken said:
And that was about a decade ago. The psychological and economic damage from the evacuations (most of which happened after the bulk of the risk of exposure had passed) is far more severe and widespread.summerof2010 said:
Also, Chernobyl was a massive, uncontained meltdown. The biggest in history. Only 30 people can be conclusively stated to have died as a result (the remaining speculated deaths are minuscule -- maybe a quarter of a percent of the population at worst), only around 100 people were injured (the remaining speculated injuries are similarly larger, but still negligible) and the local ecology was back on it's feet in a matter of months. Meanwhile, coal burning plants that having been operating for ages do many orders of magnitude more damage to the environment and the health of people every year when functioning properly. What more do you want? Meltdowns don't do shit.
I'm pretty sure that the government spends at least as much on renewable energy as they do on nuclear. I say that because if they spent any less on nuclear, they would be taking their entire sum of their funds from the piggy bank on my little brother's dresser. But I admit, I have no sources on that, so maybe I'm wrong. I heard that much from Bill Gates in a TED talk, though for some reason I generally understand that we don't spend very much on energy R&D of any kind over here.
Lastly, new technology and waste -- yes, waste is a problem that needs to be dealt with, and yes, we don't yet have the technology available to deal with that problem. But you seem to ignore the fact that 1) we already have plans for a solution to that problem and essentially all that's needed is money to back it (
Light 086 said:
You know, /b/ has a certain eloquence to it's method of getting a message across by way of internet colloquialisms and practical bluntness. With that in mind, let me just say:Drunkenclam said:
lurk more newfags
EDIT: I messed up. U-238 is the abundant element; U-235 is the rare one used in fission generators.
I'm going to tell you a big secret the fed don't want nobody to hear.therightanswer said:jeez I am actually in favor of nuclear power but this is just idiotic. If you have ever lived anywhere near these things (I'm looking at you Vermont Yankee!) you would know that it is nowhere near a rainforest.LittleChone said:
The town of springfield VT is a dump because of the plant (yeah I know springfield has a nuclear plant right?). Rivers are infected with tritium and and other nuclear waste products and they get away with it by lobbying congress to call it "green".
Oh and by the way Springfield is just miles away from the connecticut river and tritium levels have been found ever further distances from there so if Connecticut is exterminated in the next decade you know who to call.
(looks left, looks right) C14 is way more dangerous than Tritium. And the most dangerous part? You're already infected. We all are, man. And it keeps happening! We keep getting infected! And the fed don't do nothing about it, man! Let's take down The Man, man!
I'm glad you can joke about the animal extinctions and elevated cancer rates around my area. I take it seriously.OldGus said:I'm going to tell you a big secret the fed don't want nobody to hear.therightanswer said:jeez I am actually in favor of nuclear power but this is just idiotic. If you have ever lived anywhere near these things (I'm looking at you Vermont Yankee!) you would know that it is nowhere near a rainforest.LittleChone said:
The town of springfield VT is a dump because of the plant (yeah I know springfield has a nuclear plant right?). Rivers are infected with tritium and and other nuclear waste products and they get away with it by lobbying congress to call it "green".
Oh and by the way Springfield is just miles away from the connecticut river and tritium levels have been found ever further distances from there so if Connecticut is exterminated in the next decade you know who to call.
(looks left, looks right) C14 is way more dangerous than Tritium. And the most dangerous part? You're already infected. We all are, man. And it keeps happening! We keep getting infected! And the fed don't do nothing about it, man! Let's take down The Man, man!
Nuclear Power is safe,clean,and efficient. People are against it because they thought every nuclear power plants are the same as the one built in Chernobyl, which is wrong.
Because people are against it,there are no new nuclear power plants being built,thus there are no way to replace the old ones that are getting older,and you know what happens to really old power plants,nuclear or no.
Those people who're against nuclear power plants do so because they fear that an incident like Chernobyl would happens again,but they don't realize that they're actually contributing to it.....this is kinda like....an irony?
Because people are against it,there are no new nuclear power plants being built,thus there are no way to replace the old ones that are getting older,and you know what happens to really old power plants,nuclear or no.
Those people who're against nuclear power plants do so because they fear that an incident like Chernobyl would happens again,but they don't realize that they're actually contributing to it.....this is kinda like....an irony?
More people die to or are injured from wind power than you think, the rotor blades are know to come flying off sending shrapnel flying.blekx said:
But lets look at the two most famous cases of nuclear power gone wrong and Japan today. Chernobyl, as everyone else has stated, is not a proper example as everything that could be done wrong had been done wrong. Three Mile Island never killed anyone, nobody died from it, though it may have contributed to some cancers down the line, but only as much as a couple of medical scans.
And now for Japan: it took an earthquake and a tsunami to trigger a few hydrogen explosions in the plant, and it STILL hasn't melted down. /sarcasm on/ Yeah that is not safe and secure at all. /sarcasm off/
According to Wikipedia, about 500 people currently live in Chernobyl. News to me, but not really surprising considering what else I know about the incident. The only "ghost town" related to the disaster is Prypiat, which was built to house the workers that worked at the plant, which is immediately beside it. It's the town you run through in CoD:MW (the first one, I think -- it's the sniper mission with Price). More importantly:Pyro Paul said:
The area of exclusion around the plant was only about 35 miles in radius, the radiation in that area was down to a completely harmless level in a matter of weeks basically except for Prypiat, the local ecology was completely fine within months, and in fact it's flourishing thanks to the relative absence of humans who only fled out of a fear of radiation related diseases that have almost completely failed to materialize and was driven by sensationalism and ignorance and that has caused sociological, economic, and medical damage to which the effects of the actual disaster pale in comparison.
Furthermore, while coal burning plants haven't cleared any towns out as far as I know, they are responsible for thousands of deaths and enormous ecological damage every year when functioning properly. And solar power isn't really produced in "plants;" it's more of an array, but at this point I'm just being pedantic to pick on you.
Er, sorry.
This. If I hear one more person mention a "Japanese Chernobyl," I'm going to punch them right in the teeth.RAKtheUndead said:
I'm studying to be a nuclear engineer. The Chernobyl nuclear plant was essentially an example of how to do absolutely EVERYTHING wrong. The design of the reactor was obviously influenced by too much vodka, the technicians were inexperienced and were trying to run an inadvisable experiment.
Without going into too much boring detail, the design of the Chernobyl reactor was such that in the event of a loss of coolant, as the temperature increased, so would the reaction rate - leading to a further temperature increase, which meant an even higher reaction rate, and so on. It was essentially doomed from the day it was built, and with absolutely no containment vessel, the results were horrifying.
Reactors in the U.S. and any other country are encased in several feet of steel-reinforced, boronated concrete. F5 tornado? Not a problem. Targeted by a bomb? Also not a problem. Hit by an airliner? Wouldn't even dent it. They're engineered to be immune to explosion, from the inside and the outside. Modern reactor design also incorporates negative failure coefficients and elements of passive safety such that in the even of a coolant loss, the reaction rate decreases and thus the reactor will produce less decay heat.
The reactors in Japan are 40 years old - designs that are greatly outdated by today's standards, and it would still be physically impossible to produce a Chernobyl scenario. Things look very dire, but the contamination will still be very localized, and thus much easier (though still hideously expensive) to clean up. The greatest danger is the fuel rods melting down through the containment vessel and into the ground, creating large amounts of radioactive steam when the molten fuel hits the water table. Steam can be captured and condensed before it escapes and disperses.
Today's reactors, particularly the pebble-bed designs, are ridiculously safe and the U.S. in particular was on the brink of a revival of nuclear power in the face of political pressure to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Unfortunately, the sensationalist media will prey on the fears of the ignorant populace and teach them just enough to be afraid, just enough to destroy the momentum of nuclear power. Never mind the fact that coal plants release amazingly high amounts of radioactive fly ash into the atmosphere. Never mind the fact that mining coal in the first place is dangerous and filthy (How about that underground mine fire in Centralia, PA that's been burning for FIFTY YEARS and rendered a town uninhabitable? Safe, eh?). Never mind the hydroelectric dam in Japan that busted as a result of the earthquake and washed away a whole village. Solar power is too inefficient with current technology, wind power is only cost-effective because of massive government subsidies and has negative environmental impacts.
One day, maybe we can get rid of all the idiots that oppose nuclear power and finally bring the power generation industry into the 21st century.
Dog. Nuclear shit is scary.
It's like little atoms that you can't see that will fuck your shit up.
It's like little atoms that you can't see that will fuck your shit up.