Japan's lack of a contingency plan in case of emergency in a Tsunami zone is the only problem I see with ***ushima's disaster as a whole. Their inability to get the water pumps going again is staggering.

Modern reactors are so safe it's silly. So, so many more people die mining coal and refining oil.

In fact, my father worked at ARCO after he graduated. He has stories that are so grotesque and beyond imagination I can't believe he can sleep at night.

He understandably thinks that right now, nuclear power is the only sustainable, reasonable, and clean option available. I can't help but agree.

 

in b4 omg omg omg, nuclear power= worship

you shall not say bad things about it

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by _GTech

Source
I believe nuclear power was a mistake, but that's just me, and this is only ONE case that proves the real dangers in this technology, but don't color me skeptical or cynical, I'm just being realistic here...

Quote:

Originally Posted by SectorNine50

Japan's lack of a contingency plan in case of emergency in a Tsunami zone is the only problem I see with ***ushima's disaster as a whole. Their inability to get the water pumps going again is staggering.
Modern reactors are so safe it's silly. So, so many more people die mining coal and refining oil.
In fact, my father worked at ARCO after he graduated. He has stories that are so grotesque and beyond imagination I can't believe he can sleep at night.
He understandably thinks that right now, nuclear power is the only sustainable, reasonable, and clean option available. I can't help but agree.

There was an earthquake and immediately after, a tsunami hit. they had contingency plans for both, but not both at the same time.

 

I have another shocker article title, "Probe finds chocolate in Hershey's factory!"

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussianGrimmReaper

There was an earthquake and immediately after, a tsunami hit. they had contingency plans for both, but not both at the same time.

That's how tsunami's work. You get an earthquake, and then a giant wave.

If they had a proper contingency plan for a tsunami, it probably should have incorporated an earthquake. Plus, the plant survived the earthquake quite well, the wave was what caused the issues.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussianGrimmReaper

There was an earthquake and immediately after, a tsunami hit. they had contingency plans for both, but not both at the same time.

This.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shrak

This.

Read above. That is a completely bunk argument.

Tsunamis occur as a result of an earthquake.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SectorNine50

Read above.

Yes they normally come paired together, but not as massive as they were. And the contingency wasn't enough for both at that magnitude.

 

Well that was a surprise that there be radiation issues of this magnitude considering it melted down.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SectorNine50

That's how tsunami's work. You get an earthquake, and then a giant wave.
If they had a proper contingency plan for a tsunami, it probably should have incorporated an earthquake. Plus, the plant survived the earthquake quite well, the wave was what caused the issues.

:facepalm: There's just no pleasing you is there.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shrak

Yes they normally come paired together, but not as massive as they were. And the contingency wasn't enough for both at that magnitude.

So now you are completely shifting your point.

The reactor's structures were mostly in-tact until they started melting down. They literally failed to get power to the water pumps, something that should have been extremely easy to do if they had planned for any type of power loss to the plant. Had they gotten the pumps running, all would have been fine.

Seriously. That's it. You don't build a nuclear power-plant in a tsunami zone and only plan for a magnitude 5 earthquake.

They screwed up, that's all ***ushima drills down to. They've even admitted to it.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by _GTech

Source
I believe nuclear power was a mistake, but that's just me, and this is only ONE case that proves the real dangers in this technology, but don't color me skeptical or cynical, I'm just being realistic here...

More people have died at fossil fuel plants then nuclear plants

 

I think we all know where Stalker 2's setting will be.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by _GTech

Source
I believe nuclear power was a mistake, but that's just me, and this is only ONE case that proves the real dangers in this technology, but don't color me skeptical or cynical, I'm just being realistic here...

Other alternatives either don't produce enough power, or consume too many natural resources and/or damage the environment through other ways like pollution. Uranium-based nuclear reactors may not be a good decision given today's technology, we should probably be moving toward thorium-based reactors, which cannot meltdown (neither can certain uranium-based solutions), and produce very little waste comparatively.

If Japan's reactor had been using a newer and safer solution there would have been 0% chance of meltdown, and very little radiation leakage.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussianGrimmReaper

:facepalm: There's just no pleasing you is there.

I'm surprised you are pleased with that excuse.

"Lets plan for a tsunami, but only the tsunami. What's that? They are caused by earthquakes? Nah, lets just plan for the tsunami."

 

it is the, yes, THE safest source of electricity. though when it goes wrong, it goes wrong. this was just a freak of nature, people didnt expect it at all, though this is the downside.

 

Tsunamis can also be caused by landslides and underwater debris flow, but that isn't too important.
The plants were excellantly built except for the generators.
You don't put a critical piece of equipment in one of the lowest points of your plant.
Even if the tsunami screwed up all the auxilary equipment, if power and water had been maintened to cooling the reactors, they would have been fine.
The company would have been able rebuild or just shut down the reactors permanently.
Now that they toasted most of their reactors they can't do much.
Such a simple oversight.
I still don't find it anywhere close to how bad Chernobyl was.
I still will never understand why people are so afraid of radiation.
The government always sets such low limits that anything above that is a tragedy.
My sister had to undergo several CT scans as a kid and the dosages she would have gotten would exceed that of many of the people who were living close to the contaminated area..

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by _GTech

Source
I believe nuclear power was a mistake, but that's just me, and this is only ONE case that proves the real dangers in this technology, but don't color me skeptical or cynical, I'm just being realistic here...

This is incredibly ignorant.

If anything, it shows the dangers of an aging LW reactor... just as Chernobyl showed the dangers of a poor (and poorly operated) reactor design - RBMK. It does not encompass all designs or the technology as a whole. Stop generalizing.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steelbarrage

I still don't find it anywhere close to how bad Chernobyl was.
I still will never understand why people are so afraid of radiation.

People are often afraid of things they do not understand, especially things that the media likes to scare everyone with to boost their ratings.
Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterFred

snip... You simply can't eliminate risk from a big-ass power plant.... snip

You can eliminate most of it by using a method that has no possibility of a meltdown.

 

I like how the water level is always much lower than expected... how do they keep screwing up their expectations time and time again? Where is the water going that they don't know about?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordikon

You can eliminate most of it by using a method that has no possibility of a meltdown.

Yes... nuclear engineers are very good at eliminating virtually all risk of a meltdown. This is not in dispute. But the simple math is that if you add up enough almost no risk of meltdown reactors, the key word is almost.

There are always unforseen circumstances. If it's a big earthquake in ***ushima now, it's a minor Appalachian earthquake with an unforseen record-breaking drought causing the disappearance of river or lake-based fresh water supplies in the U.S. Southeast sometime in the next 100 years. Will that happen? Almost certainly not.

Anyone who believes that the chance of meltdown is absolutely nil is simply deluding themselves and not paying attention to obvious evidence right in front of their faces. Just as anyone who believes that the chance of any particular plant melting down is anything more than almost zero is wrong.

Sadly, people have a tendency to treat something with a .000001% probability as impossible.

 

Nuclear may have few accidents, but even one can cause enough damage that the world feels it. If there is an accident, you can cover a continent in radioactive fallout and leave a scar on the earth that will outlast humans.

I'm not against nuclear power, but I wish people would stop claiming it's the alternate energy source that is going to save us. Nuclear has (very) heavy risks and costs associated with it. Just because major issues are rare, doesn't mean that don't happen.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mootsfox

Nuclear may have few accidents, but even one can cause enough damage that the world feels it. If there is an accident, you can cover a continent in radioactive fallout and leave a scar on the earth that will outlast humans.
I'm not against nuclear power, but I wish people would stop claiming it's the alternate energy source that is going to save us. Nuclear has (very) heavy risks and costs associated with it.

Nuclear has caused much fewer deaths than other types of plants, especially coal, which is the most popular here in the U.S. The difference is that with nuclear energy it's very easy to measure the deaths from radiation, whereas other plants cause greater overall pollution which kills very slowly and is more spread out.

There is a risk/cost and benefit to all sources of energy. Nuclear has greater risk than some alternatives, but a much higher benefit as well. Anyway, as I've said, NEW nuclear plants have very few risks associated with them, as they cannot possibly have a meltdown.

 

There is no nuclear plant that has no possibility of causing a meltdown. None. There is always a possibility, or it's not a nuclear plant.

P.S. The primary concern with the safety of nuclear plants generally isn't deaths.

 

nuclear asnt cause too much damage?how about twice within 60 year both time in japan?