Japanese Nuclear Reactors

[piasabird]

So after seeing all the problems with the Japanese Nuclear Reactors, do you still think nuclear reactors are safe?

I was getting this vision of hordes of Japanese Zombies all glowing in the dark . . .

 

[Brainonska511]

Yes. Poor engineering design in backup systems - eg: putting back-up diesel generators at low points on the plant property and relying on the tsunami wall to protect against flooding. But poor design and unsafe reactors? I don't think so.

Plus, not all areas have the same hazards. If you're worried about nuclear plants, earthquakes, and tsunamis, don't build them on the coast near fault lines in the US. Problem solved.

 

[Cogman]

Yep, still pretty dang safe. You have to remember, this thing was hit by both a tsunami and an earthquake before it failed... that alone should speak to how safe a reactor is in a non-earthquake/tsunami area.

 

[Siddhartha]

Yep, still pretty dang safe. You have to remember, this thing was hit by both a tsunami and an earthquake before it failed... that alone should speak to how safe a reactor is in a non-earthquake/tsunami area.

The question should be "would you want a nuclear reactor in your backyard?".

 

[wuliheron]

If anyone could take a cheap piece of crap and make it as safe as possible against almost any contingency then its the Japanese. It's everyone else I'm worried about.

 

[Brainonska511]

The question should be "would you want a nuclear reactor in your backyard?".

Would you want a coal plant in your backyard? I can tell you, I'd rather not live adjacent to either. But living a few miles away from either one wouldn't scare me.

 

[Schadenfroh]

The 35+ year old Japanese reactors did very well considering they were hit by a record (for Japan) earthquake and a tidal wave. The modern designs are much safer. Learn from the mistakes of the Japanese when we revamp the American energy landscape. I really doubt that those reactors go Chernobyl.

I still want more nuclear plants in my backyard to help us move forward towards clean(er) energy (take it the feds manufacture nuclear weapons less than 10 miles from here already).

 

[The-Noid]

The question should be "would you want a nuclear reactor in your backyard?".

I live 7 miles from a reactor and waterski downstream from it on a yearly basis. So with a the resounding answer is yes and put more in.

 

[glenn1]

So after seeing all the problems with the Japanese Nuclear Reactors, do you still think nuclear reactors are safe?

I was getting this vision of hordes of Japanese Zombies all glowing in the dark . . .

No. Why should we use nuclear energy when instead we could devote trillions to a Manhattan Project style alternative energy program. After all, there's no problem of physics, thermodynamics, or mechanical engineering that throwing money at can't solve, especially when it's the federal government leading the efforts. In a few weeks the new technologies unleashed will solve all our energy needs. And in the meantime, we'll use amazing 21st century technology like windmills to make up the difference.

 

[Doppel]

Safe is a relative term. Nothing is safe.

There are over 400 functioning nuclear plants across the globe and a hundred in the US.

Will there be future catastrophes from these? Yes. As there will be damage from all forms of power.

 

[Lemon law]

Why cite just Japan, all over the world, nuclear engineering spokesmen jump up and down and say that no way no how could their nuclear reactors ever ever fail because they are safe safe safe.

Yet all over the world, we can only conclude that those same nuclear PR men are lying sacks of shit.

But we maybe miss something here, of the known spectacular nuclear existing failures, its either bad reactor designs such as graphite based designs, or building the reactor in geologically challenged areas of the world.

In the case of geologically challenged Japan, the fact is and remains, there is not a single spot in Japan that is safe for a nuclear reactor. Not one, nuclear reactors may be safe, but only in the best cherry picked locations.

They say trust us, but tend to be not worthy of trusting.

WE will have to have a nuclear future, there is no alternative, but we need scientists and not PR men to pick only the best places to build nuclear reactors.

But we listen to only nuclear lobbyist when a single valid geological doubt should rule out using that location. ALWAYS ALWAYS and ALWAYS. We can ALWAYS find a unreliable nuclear advocate, but not a single one of those ad men knows what they are talking about.

 

[novasatori]

some reading for those who doubt the safety
http://reindeerflotilla.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/all-right-its-time-to-stop-the-fukushima-hysteria/

already linked in the other fukushima thread, but it applies here too

 

[Cogman]

Why cite just Japan, all over the world, nuclear engineering spokesmen jump up and down and say that no way no how could their nuclear reactors ever ever fail because they are safe safe safe.

Yet all over the world, we can only conclude that those same nuclear PR men are lying sacks of shit.

But we maybe miss something here, of the known spectacular nuclear existing failures, its either bad reactor designs such as graphite based designs, or building the reactor in geologically challenged areas of the world.

In the case of geologically challenged Japan, the fact is and remains, there is not a single spot in Japan that is safe for a nuclear reactor. Not one, nuclear reactors may be safe, but only in the best cherry picked location.

But we listen to only nuclear lobbyist when a single valid geological doubt should rule out using that location. ALWAYS ALWAYS and ALWAYS. We can ALWAYS find a unreliable nuclear advocate, but not a single one of those ad men knows what they are talking about.

Lets see, how long has nuclear power been in play? 50/60 years? And how many big accidents have we had? 2? 3?

And how many big accidents have Coal/Gas plants had? How many mining accidents have we had? How many people have died, directly or indirectly from other forms of power generation?

Deaths from other forms of power generation are so common that they hardly make the news now-a-days.

Nuclear is the cleanest and best thing we got. You're retarded if you think otherwise.

 

[Cogman]

The question should be "would you want a nuclear reactor in your backyard?".

Absolutely I would. Great job security and I would love to be able to sell my land.

Hell, I would be happy letting them bury their nuclear waste right next to my home, just so long as they keep the noise down.

 

[DaveSimmons]

It was the worst earthquake in 210 years, with a massive tsunami. So far there has just been a minor release of radiation.

Contrast that with a coal-based plant spewing poison 365 days a year, every year.

Perhaps eventually we can move more towards solar, wind, tidal and geothermal energy but for now nuclear is a good choice.

Yes, I would be happy to have a nuke plant nearby if I wasn't living in an area with cheap hydropower.

 

[chucky2]

You forgot with the coal based plant that you also have to mine the coal for it, which is another 'rape the earth' activity.

Chuck

 

[alphatarget1]

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/

 

[1prophet]

Lets see, how long has nuclear power been in play? 50/60 years? And how many big accidents have we had? 2? 3?

And how many big accidents have Coal/Gas plants had? How many mining accidents have we had? How many people have died, directly or indirectly from other forms of power generation?

Deaths from other forms of power generation are so common that they hardly make the news now-a-days.

Nuclear is the cleanest and best thing we got. You're retarded if you think otherwise.

Add to that the human and monetary cost of the last couple of oil wars and terrorism because of them.

 

[Dekasa]

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/

Thanks, good to get an honest, informed look at what actually happened.

 

[piasabird]

A while back there was a report of a release of gas from a reactor in France and the government chose not to tell everyone. After hearing about that, it made me wonder how many other things the government may choose not to tell us.

Sooner or later, whatever can go wrong, will.

 

[crownjules]

You forgot with the coal based plant that you also have to mine the coal for it, which is another 'rape the earth' activity.

Chuck

To be fair, it's not like fissionable materials grow on trees. Though I don't know if it requires blowing up entire mountains and strip-mining activities to get at.

 

[chucky2]

To be fair, it's not like fissionable materials grow on trees. Though I don't know if it requires blowing up entire mountains and strip-mining activities to get at.

True, True...

 

[Throckmorton]

You forgot with the coal based plant that you also have to mine the coal for it, which is another 'rape the earth' activity.

Chuck

Where does uranium come from? Unicorns shit it out as a byproduct of rainbow production?

 

[CitizenKain]

WE will have to have a nuclear future, there is no alternative, but we need scientists and not PR men to pick only the best places to build nuclear reactors.

But we listen to only nuclear lobbyist when a single valid geological doubt should rule out using that location. ALWAYS ALWAYS and ALWAYS. We can ALWAYS find a unreliable nuclear advocate, but not a single one of those ad men knows what they are talking about.

What makes you think that scientists didn't pick the location? Here is an issue, you have to place the power generators somewhere near where you need the power. Serious, where the fuck do you think they should put the reactor.

 

[RedChief]

To be fair, it's not like fissionable materials grow on trees. Though I don't know if it requires blowing up entire mountains and strip-mining activities to get at.

They don't require strip mining but they do require quite a bit of effort to get though.

Now if/when nuclear reactors move from a uranium based fuel to a thorium based fuel, then it becomes a lot easier to fuel them.