The End of Nuclear Power? Japanese Consequences unfolding

[Steffan]

I have understood the rational arguments in favour of Nuclear power until now.

I have always had doubts about the long term costs given the dangerous shelf life of Nuclear waste which seems to be virtually unending. In the past the advantages seemed to outweigh this consideration.

Sadly, the latest Japanese difficulties suggests to me that widespread Nuclear power generation could be unsustainable.

The downside risk of utter overwhelming and unmanageable catastrophe is simply too great.

I am personally now unconvinced that Nuclear Power can be safely contained particularly in the Pacific Rim where geophysical difficulties are not infrequent.

I am desperately sad for the Japanese but this does seem to me to be one inevitable outcome of this awful tragedy.

What do other PH'ers think That is my question??

[Rollin]

Old Reactor
Massive Earthquake
Massive Tsunami

[Godzuki]

I think you don't really know what you are talking about, to be honest.

Even if the plant has a meltdown, then the effects won't be as great as the media are portraying. It's a 40 year old design, and was subject to 500+ earthquakes and a tsunami... Still we have no disaster.

[davepoth]

These reactors went 40 years without a serious incident and appeared to be in the process of decommissioning when the earthquake hit. Each successive generation of reactor has been progressively safer - the latest design is entirely self cooling providing it has a water supply (the heat of the reactor moves the water).

[cal72]

How safe do you feel living with a roof over your head?

Maybe you should sleep outdoors just incase.

[elster]

Rollin said:

Old Reactor
Massive Earthquake
Massive Tsunami

Pretty much.

I think it is a great advert for nuclear energy.

The radiation levels are unbelievably low.

[davepoth]

elster said:

Pretty much.

I think it is a great advert for nuclear energy.

The radiation levels are unbelievably low.

About the same as a 30 a day smoking habit.

[Tsippy]

elster said:

Rollin said:

Old Reactor
Massive Earthquake
Massive Tsunami

Pretty much.

I think it is a great advert for nuclear energy.

The radiation levels are unbelievably low.

People are worried and scared purely because the media is having a cluster wk over a potential 'Chernobyl' and are referring to it ten times per second in an attempt to boost their viewings. It wouldn't surprise me if the media are praying for a massive disaster.

[elster]

davepoth said:

About the same as a 30 a day smoking habit.

Last time I check I didn't think smoking made you radioactive

I must be a nightmare after a night on the beer.

[Stu R]

I think this thread is little more than hysteria from PH's resident sensationalist, frankly.

This wasn't just an ordinary earthquake. It was colossal. I know an 8 magnitude and a 9 magnitude quake sound like they're not that different, but trust me they are. Had it been anywhere but Japan the resulting destruction and death toll would be significantly higher - the preparation and response has been remarkable by them, though shameful by some other countries.

Yes, it's very serious. No, it won't split the planet in two and turn Japan into a nation of 9 eyed mutants. The reactor held up very well, and newer ones are safer still.

[Godzuki]

elster said:

Last time I check I didn't think smoking made you radioactive

I must be a nightmare after a night on the beer.

Slowly starting to look like Montgomery Burns!

[davepoth]

elster said:

Last time I check I didn't think smoking made you radioactive

I must be a nightmare after a night on the beer.

http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/elements/po.htm

another reason why you really should quit...

Edited by davepoth on Saturday 19th March 16:13

[elster]

Godzuki said:

Slowly starting to look like Montgomery Burns!

I will take back my and return with a :s

[grumbledoak]

I think nuclear power comes out of this looking brilliant. That Tsunami will have killed 10k+ people. Death toll from the 'vewy scawy' nuclear plant appears to be one.

[anonymous-user]

Stu R said:

I think this thread is little more than hysteria from PH's resident sensationalist , frankly .

Is that a paying placement?? can other people have a go and get some of his cut??? ;-)


(and how do you know he's called Frank lee ??)

[Silent1]

What is amazing is the fact that the reactor was never designed to sustain an earthquake that large, IIRC (with regards to the magnitude, it's either 10x or 100x) it's in a magnitude of 10 times higher than it was designed for with a tsunami that followed.

The control rods slammed home, stopped all the fission reactions leaving it with residual reactions and heat, the matter of fact is there is no risk of a Japanese Chernobyl and there never was, as soon as the control rods hit home, everyone was pretty much safe, the chances of that exploding and spreading radioactive material across the country are so slim that there's more risk of a terrorist organisation detonating a dirty bomb in the area than there is of any of those reactors going bang.

Given the option, i'd have a nuclear reactor in my house.

[thinfourth2]

last year in the UK

Work related deaths = 240ish
Road deaths = 3000ish

Last ten years world wide

Wind power Deaths = 44
Nuclear power deaths = 0


step away from the daily mail its only dong you harm

[FunkyNige]

If you ignore the UK media and various governments having to be seen to be doing something, you'll soon see what's happened at Fukushima isn't really that big a deal.
Nice little read from The Register about it
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/18/fukushima_...

[davepoth]

FunkyNige said:

If you ignore the UK media and various governments having to be seen to be doing something, you'll soon see what's happened at Fukushima isn't really that big a deal.
Nice little read from The Register about it
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/18/fukushima_...

As I said in the other thread, people still equate Nuclear Power with Nuclear Weapons. It's a big problem.

[carmonk]

Steffan said:

The downside risk of utter overwhelming and unmanageable catastrophe is simply non-existent.

There, corrected it for you. You could, if you were of a mind, stuff a fuel rod up your arse and dance a jig before you experienced negative effects from radiation, and even then you'd probably get away with a sore arse. It is vanishingly unlikely that any member of the public will be affected in any way by the Japanese reactor failures, which is pretty good when you consider they've been subject to the world's sixth largest earthquake in combination with several billion tons of sea water cascading over the landscape. I think I'm correct when I say there is no major industry on the planet that's as safe as nuclear, with most being more dangerous by orders of magnitude. How many people have died through mining alone in the past 100 years? No, I don't know either but I'd be surprised if it couldn't be measured in the hundreds of thousands.