Nuclear events taking place in Japan. / General Chatting / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Chatting

« Previous topic | Next topic »

Nuclear events taking place in Japan.

first previous 25 26 27 28 next last

Move Thread

LAN_403

GeordieBoy

Thu Apr 07 2011, 05:51PM

Registered Member #1232 Joined: Wed Jan 16 2008, 10:53PM
Location: Doon tha Toon!
Posts: 881

The 7.4 earthquakes today in Japan apparently caused some damage to another nuclear facility...

"Japan's nuclear agency says the quake on Thursday night disabled 2 out of the 3 outside power lines used at the Onagawa nuclear power plant in Miyagi Prefecture."

For those interested the following link shows live earthquake data worldwide...

It's amazing (and quite scary) to see how the whole pacific rim is jiggling about daily

-Richie,

Conundrum

Thu Apr 07 2011, 06:55PM

Registered Member #96 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:37PM
Location: CI, Earth
Posts: 4061

According to some reports this has been upgraded to an INES Level 7.

This however means that the radiation release *so far* has potential to cause wider effects, not "will cause wider effects".

In terms of radiation lifetime (Cs137, Co60 and other long lived isotopes) this is still a relatively small disaster compared to Chernobyl.

Doubtless they will be cleaning this up for years, but my earlier predictions of doom were mistaken.

-A

Sulaiman

Thu Apr 07 2011, 07:05PM

Registered Member #162 Joined: Mon Feb 13 2006, 10:25AM
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3140

The link to the earthquake map was fantastic - thanks.
It is linked to other world views - everyone should check it out...who needs tv news?

What about Thorium reactors?
Are they worse than coal/oil ?

Pinky's Brain

Thu Apr 07 2011, 08:51PM

Registered Member #2901 Joined: Thu Jun 03 2010, 01:25PM
Location:
Posts: 837

You have a couple of kinds ... you have the liquid sodium cooled fast reactors ... promised to be safe, but I personally think Chernobyl showed us quite well how fundamentally stupid it is to combine easily combustible materials with nuclear power. So yeah ...

Then there are the molten salt reactors, no real chance of going up in flames ... so that's nice, but a large enough leak is still going to contaminate groundwater of course. Still probably the best of the bunch, this is the one China is betting on.

Zum Beispiel

Thu Apr 07 2011, 09:27PM

Registered Member #514 Joined: Sun Feb 11 2007, 12:27AM
Location: Somewhere in Pirkanmaa, Finland
Posts: 295

I've been following this thread closely but I've been hesitant to reply for the fear of starting a flamewar. But I just have to say I'm surprised to see so many people here opposed to nuclear power. And please don't get me wrong now, I mean this observation as just a curiosity.

What I've seen in the past month is a lot of fearmongering from the media and environmental organizations. And it's all too easy to get emotional, when it's rational thought that is needed the most.

It is so easy to say things like "Think of all the children who are going to get cancer!" True, some people, some of which will be children, will get cancer or related illness in the following years from exposure to radiation. Hell, it might even show up as a spike in the cancer statistics in the region. And some of them will die of it, there is no denying it. But remember how many people were killed in the earthquake that caused these events? How about the tsunami that followed? The cancer and related deaths will be dwarfed by them both.

It is also very easy to forget other forms of energy aren't exactly safe either. More people are killed in coal mine accidents in a single year than the nuclear industry has killed in fifty. And how many people are pointlessly killed every day in conflicts fought over oil? And how many cancers a year does pollution from fossil fuels cause? One cannot put a price on a human life, atleast I hope one can't. And I'd much rather see a hundred people die from radiation poisoning and cancer than have a hundred thousand suffocate in a coal mine. It's not how they died, but that they died.

And renewable energy isn't always safe either: What about hydroelectric power? Dams do break from time to time. I'd much rather live next to a modern western reactor than under any dam. Hell, even windmills aren't 100% safe: the rotors can fly off.

Please understand that I'm not trying to downplay the severity of these events. This without a doubt the worst nuclear accident in 25 years and the INES rating of 4 is a joke. But I'm trying to be realistic. The only way to achieve a green tomorrow is through nuclear power (and I don't mean that as glowing in the dark). Modern society just doesn't run on happy thoughts and unicorn farts. It runs on energy, and at the time being renewable sources of power are insufficient to satisfy our demands. And that's not even taking into account the rising economies of China and India. In a few years 2 billion people will be demanding the same standards of living we've had in the west for half a century now. What are they going to use for power? Them satisfying their energy demand with coal will be the final nail in mother Gaia's coffin.

Everyone has the right to their opinnion, and I, for one, want to see more nuclear plants rise up on the shores of my country.

Ash Small

Thu Apr 07 2011, 09:33PM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

Zum Beispiel wrote ...

.Everyone has the right to their opinnion, and I, for one, want to see more nuclear plants rise up on the shores of my country.

Personally, I'd prefer to see more money put into ITER, but otherwise I agree with you, Zum.

Chris Russell

Thu Apr 07 2011, 10:42PM

... not Russel!
Registered Member #1 Joined: Thu Jan 26 2006, 12:18AM
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 1052

I mostly agree with you, Zum. I'm not opposed to nuclear power at all. It is beyond question that halting the development of nuclear power at this point will cause more deaths and more environmental harm. We'll have no choice but to turn to various fossil fuels to meet our energy needs. That means more CO2, more mercury, and more radioactive isotopes released into the atmosphere.

What I'm opposed to is the nuclear industry, in its current incarnation, along with governments that enable unsafe behavior in the nuclear industry. To keep operating and building reactors when the problem of spent fuel hasn't been solved is a recipe for further disasters. It doesn't matter how safe your reactors are if all the spent fuel is piled up outside, just a cooling failure away from releasing millions of curies of long-lived radioisotopes.

Zum Beispiel wrote ...

Everyone has the right to their opinnion, and I, for one, want to see more nuclear plants rise up on the shores of my country.

Me too, but not if my government offers to relax safety regulations, cap liability, or ignore the reality that spent nuclear fuel needs to be dealt with for thousands of years to come.

Ash Small wrote ...

Personally, I'd prefer to see more money put into ITER, but otherwise I agree with you, Zum.

Here here, let's get fusion up and running and give us a better option than the lesser of two evils.

Proud Mary

Thu Apr 07 2011, 11:16PM

Registered Member #543 Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992

We have to have energy from somewhere! A civilisation can stand or fall on its ability to fry hot fish and chips!

Nah

Thu Apr 07 2011, 11:41PM

Registered Member #3567 Joined: Mon Jan 03 2011, 10:49PM
Location: USA, 1960s
Posts: 260

I'm with Mr. Zum here, nuclear energy is the best solution right now. I only hope those unmentionable people in the House of White figure out that you have to create a place to store all this shit.

hboy007

Fri Apr 08 2011, 09:43AM

Registered Member #1667 Joined: Sat Aug 30 2008, 09:57PM
Location:
Posts: 374

Sulaiman wrote ...

What about Thorium reactors?
Are they worse than coal/oil ?

As for high temperature Thorium reactors moderated by graphite, we've had our little dance with the devil,

wrote ...

The reactor also suffered from the unplanned high destruction rate of pebbles during normal operation and the resulting higher contamination of the containment and problems with compact pebble allocations which caused deformations to the control rods and of the side reflector arrangement.

wrote ...
One cause of the closing was an accident on 4 May 1986 with a limited release of the radioactive inventory into the environment. Although the radiological impact of this accident remained small it is of major relevance for PBR history: The release of radioactive dust was caused by a human error during a blockage of pebbles in a pipe.

This was one of the first research prototype reactors. There are plans to build large reactors with static fuel filling that work with propagating zones of high fission activity, I remember china having practical interest in this technology.

first previous 25 26 27 28 next last

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob