Nuclear Disaster
LaserWolf
Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
I wanted to get the nuclear talk out of the Japan Tsunami thread.
Let's let that thread be about people and recovery.
Let's let that thread be about people and recovery.
Comments
In the same way that the more than a thousand nuclear bomb tests the US did in places like; Pacific Islands, Nevada and Mississippi, posed no sever threat. The similar number Russia did or the hundreds more other countries did.
Just as Chernobal, TMI and Hanford Nuclear Reservation just upstream from me pose no threat.
Sure some people will die, and over the years there will be untold numbers of cancers and thyroid disease and birth defects, but no severe radioactive contamination.
In other words, only people working at these plants are likely to get radiation poisoning.
I have been quite about nukes in recent years, because many environmentalist concerned about global climate change see nukes as a necessary part of the worlds energy future. (Also, I don't know enough about the new "safe" pebble reactors, to talk about them.)
To hear the pro-nuke lobby in the US say it; government is preventing the construction of new nukes.
What they mean is the want the US government to insure new reactors, like they insure all the old ones. In the real world no insurance company is stupid enough to insure a nuclear reactor. They also want the US government to invest in the building of the reactors, because without government investment the reactors do not make commercial sense.
And finally, Japan only gets 20% of their energy from nukes. (We could get that from conservation in this country.) Is it really worth it?
The car is a pretty stupid (in 2011) form of transportation.
Nuclear power has always been dumb.
That is the kind of risk assessment that I am talking about in the second post.
The dangers from this accident add a small increase over existing man made radioactive dangers and doesn't begin to compare to other immediate dangers like earthquakes, or tsunamis or cars.
What if insurance companies quit insuring cars?
Should the US Government insure them?
What if the government quit all oil subsidies? Including military protection of oil commerce?
Would we still drive?
No insurance, true cost gas?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367684/Nuclear-plant-chief-weeps-Japanese-finally-admit-radiation-leak-kill-people.html
The worse does not seem to be over. Though it is not specifically said, it seems to me that as quick as they can get water onto the exposed fuel rod it explodes into steam and into the atmosphere.
Each time the site gets hotter, and harder for workers to approach.
Not that it is as bad as cars.
A "slippery slope" argument here is lazy. Make the case for nuclear power or not but comparing it to the automobile makes no sense. A single auto accident doesn't risk killing tens of thousands of people (unless it's dragging nuclear material, ha!)
Best I can tell the argument against Nuclear power is that it can be dangerous and in the case of an accident or natural disaster can kill or injure many people.
And that there are safer, less dangerous alternatives.
Also, the waste is toxic for centuries.
There is no safe stable long term storage for high level waste in this country.
Also, not only are they dangerous, but they are so dangerous that unlike other dangers no insurance company will ensure a nuclear power plant.
Also, they are uneconomical.
Also, the mining of uranium and building of plants are highly energy intensive.
Also, they are notoriously unreliable, causing interruptions in power output.
So that is kind of the argument in a nutshell.
Rich, it makes me somehow sad to see someone for whom I feel some deep respect come up with such a cheap argument. At the same time you confirm my generally firm, nihilistic views.
Sometime back I read some sort of statement about how necessary it would be to take action against climatic change. Might even have been a Gore speech. The end said something about how "action has to be taken now to insure that humans will forever be able to populate this planet" and while reading this, I felt this deep chill. What a nightmarish vision. We'll always be here to fuck things up. Hell no, this has to be avoided at all cost. That's why I decided to support climatic change and do my bestmost to leave behind the largest possible carbon footprint.
The biggest hope there could be for the nature on this planet is humans to off themselves in a way that is irreversible but still leaves some basic other lifeforms intact so after a certain time, living things can again flourish and find re-create the ballance which was lost to our greed and shortsightedness.
Nuclear techology offers the best possibilities to achieve this. So go ahead and build some more plants. Prefferably in close proximity to geological fault lines you've done pretty well with this so far. But you don't even have to. The Chinese are building enough of them to eventually take care of all of us.
One of the most delicious luxuries that come with childless age is that I honestly and wholeheartedly can indulge in the freedom of absolutely not giving a shit.
Personally I don't see much difference between 10,000 people losing their lives over the course of 3 months or all in one shot....both are terrible tragedies.
Bumper sticker on the first car I ever owned...
Related in a way:
face it - after more than a week of CRISIS CRISIS CRISIS CRISIS buzz with no mushroom splosions or radioactive zombies controlled by the illuminati roaming the streets of tokyo, shit got old with the quickness.
- THE HUNT FOR GADAFFI - that's the hot new trending topic
I hope the libyans get to hold an election and vote in Berlusconi as their new president.
Im betting hed really hit his stride as an african despot. -
b/w
libyan nm raer price czech
-
In all seriousness - I hope Japan bounces back from all this horrid shit real soon - the ever plunging levels of 'journalism' and 'analysis' we witnessed recently only serve to stir up hysteria and contribute next to nothing to improve real understanding of anything, anywhere.
Best to steer clear of the sensationalist emotional rollercoaster most news outlets seem to be pandering nowadays.
Especially as jumping from one OMG headline to the next only ends up demeaning the subject matter it is out to exploit.
(And, yes, I obviously realize that this isn't authoritative or whatever.)
There's still a lot of conflicting information going on, but things are far from over.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/21/us-japan-quake-snapshot-idUSTRE72J4BM20110321?feedType=RSS&feedName=japan&virtualBrandChannel=10464&WT;.tsrc=Social Media&WT;.z_smid=twtr-japan_reuters&WT;.z_smid_dest=Twitter
One thing for sure, you're a dick.
Today the Fukushima plant had to be evacuated due to radiation levels being too high. Meanwhile there's still been smoke coming from reactor 3 all day long:
This is what the control room looked like two days ago.
Note the OG 1971high tech panels and workers handling flashlights because they didn't get enough lights to work.
Japanese authorities are warning that Tokyo's tab water is no longer safe for children under the age of one.
Why doesn't everybody just calm down and listen to someone who is an expert on something:
He's from MIT and has a doctorate in something, he must know what he's talking about. I thought to look up Josef Oehmen when I saw those ridiculous quotes, but was like hey, perhaps someone vetted this article before spreading it around the interwebs. INTERWEBS, you suck & let me down!
And to those who compare this to flying, guess what: unless you're a pilot, you don't fly everyday. FUCK YOU. Speak not on what you know not. Read a book. The amount of unknowns involved in nuclear energy are crazy. The world trusts scientists without acknowledging science involves uncertainty. It's hard to test the proper methods to contain a nuclear accident, because you don't want to cause or start a nuclear accident. Example: the Japanese linked a truck to put seawater onto the fuel rods to cool them down, but hadn't started doing it last I heard (a few days ago). Why? Because in 2003, Hungary poured water on fuel rods, and the difference in temperatures between rod and water made the rods CRACK, releasing large amounts of radiation. What's a good temp? Who the fuck knows. You'd have to get close enough to get accurate temperature readings near the fuel rods, then work up an equation to examine differences in temperature, strength of the fuel rods involved, etc. The bottom line is if TEPCO has to bury this plant in sand and cement, they will lose billions of dollars. So, they persist to save it, which is "good," heroic, possibly worthwhile, but putting the surrounding residents, and the food and water supplies of Japan at risk for contamination for years to come.
BTW, this is coming from someone who SUPPORTS nuclear power.
BUT.
I wanted to talk about risk assessment. Which was brought up at the beginning with the false, but insightful, car statistic.
If we compare sources of electricity, which we all need to play our records, there are few good choices. Especially, when scaled up.
The major source of electricity is fossil fuels.
All fossil fuels release green house gasses when burned.
All release toxic, cancer causing chemicals. (They talk about clean natural gas. I don't know for sure, but I assume they mean, cleaner, or not sooty.)
Nuclear power on the other hand, burns clean.
Does not emit any green house gases. (accept when the uranium is mined, which is energy intensive.)
Only emits toxins on rare occasions or when fuel is loaded or removed.
Given just these facts, I might give more support to nuclear power.
But, there are more problems.
The waste can not be properly disposed of.
I live down river from Hanford Nuclear Reservation. (Our friend John Book lives in the shadows of HNR.)
This year the federal government said, that with billions of dollars they should be able to stabilize the waste in 50 years. That means in 50 years the waste will be stable and contained enough that they can start cleaning up the site. Until then it will continue to leach into the water table and the Columbia River, it will continue to periodically explode or burn, or otherwise escape into the atmosphere.
So I say, once all the nuclear contaminated sites are cleaned, if someone can find private investment dollars and insurance for a nuclear power plant, by all means go ahead and build it.
Until then, quit begging the US government for the money and insurance.
Thanks.
There are a lot of points on both sides I didn't make.
The heating of water which is then generally dumped into rivers at temperatures above what is healthy for the rivers is one con.
What about green energy ?
Windmills suck cause there isn't always wind, but water turbines can be constantly powered by the tide.
What about solar energy too ?
Aren't these safer and more sustainable than both fossil fuels and nuclear energy ?