Fukushima is just what I feared it would become...

[Kim]

Randy -- Be careful out there. People in larger vehicles have blind spots for motorcycles. I used to know several people who used to ride motorcycles...

Andrew, yes I have adult children and all of us get in the ocean regularly, my kids probably 2 or more times a week. They have been stung by stingrays and jellyfish, spotted sharks in the water, and gotten pounded in big surf. Nothing can keep us out of the ocean. I just received a gift of abalone from friends who went to Mendocino for a dive weekend, and we often consume fish my daughter's boyfriend has speared. We are all fit and healthy, thank you for your concern.

There is more pollution going into our coastal waters from rainfall than from Japan, that's a known fact. Untreated waste from our closest neighbor to the south is a contributing factor, as well as pollutants Californians dump into the gutters and sewers. We stay out of the ocean after it rains for that reason, to avoid getting sick.

You are correct, it isn't right to poison the ocean. Japan has a huge problem and solutions are difficult. They are an insular people and don't necessarily broadcast every tiny detail to the world. However, I do not believe the west coast of the U.S. is in danger from radiation in Japan. That's all I'm saying.

[Stevetoad]

Andrew, I do have a son and want nothing more than a clean safe world for him to live in. But panicking over everything isn't going to help. All I hear is how bad everything is and how we are all going to die. Yet people are living longer and longer every year. If the earth was so bad and people were dying off at 40 and 50 in record numbers then I would panic. Until then I fear you're playing in the the chicken little story that is the media. There job is to create news and get you to tune in. The stress your going to put on yourself is more dangerous than what your stressing over. Humans need electricity and nuclear is the safest cleanest and most effeicint way to make it. So unless you can figure out a way to make a fusion reactor efficient or are planning on going to Japan and stoping the leak I'm affraid "raising awareness" is kind of a lost cause. To raise awareness without a solution isn't really doing anything. It's feeling like your helping by doing nothing basically. I fully respect your fears on this matter but just because I'm a father doesn't mean ill run every time I hear that the sky is falling...again...and again...and again.

[Hammer]

Andrew, I do have a son and want nothing more than a clean safe world for him to live in. But panicking over everything isn't going to help. All I hear is how bad everything is and how we are all going to die. Yet people are living longer and longer every year. If the earth was so bad and people were dying off at 40 and 50 in record numbers then I would panic. Until then I fear you're playing in the the chicken little story that is the media. There job is to create news and get you to tune in. The stress your going to put on yourself is more dangerous than what your stressing over. Humans need electricity and nuclear is the safest cleanest and most effeicint way to make it. So unless you can figure out a way to make a fusion reactor efficient or are planning on going to Japan and stoping the leak I'm affraid "raising awareness" is kind of a lost cause. To raise awareness without a solution isn't really doing anything. It's feeling like your helping by doing nothing basically. I fully respect your fears on this matter but just because I'm a father doesn't mean ill run every time I hear that the sky is falling...again...and again...and again.

Well said.

A key point you made is the stress we put on ourselves over things we can't control. The stress is the real killer...for those species with the self awareness to be egocentric. Great line from a great movie..."Yes I am worried about my own skin. It covers my body." With that in mind, it is a good thing to be a little egocentric now and then.

[Dypsisdean]

Mandrew - to be clear - my position(s)

1) Fukushima is a disaster for Japan (for the 10th time)

2) The rest of the world is not in danger

3) There is no cover up

4) There are much more serious ways in which the oceans are being polluted.

5) I clearly stated future scientific advancements as a possible solution for safe nuclear energy - I made no mention of present day technology, so saw no purpose discussing it. But I admit, I playfully give old friend Dave a hard time now and again. (Sorry Dave)

Which would you rather live through - one Fukushima, or dozens of tests such as this? Talk about polluting the ocean. The world survived this lunacy and puts Fukushima in perspective. Can you imagine today's sensationalistic media reporting on this today?

[Jastin]

Crazy video. Us humans always screw up nature.

[Stevetoad]

We are nature if you want to admit it or not.

[Jastin]

We ARE nature, top of the food chain and also the only ones that have a choice and are able to change things as much as we do.

[Hammer]

We ARE nature, top of the food chain and also the only ones that have a choice and are able to change things as much as we do.

So you're the tree hugger!! Talkin' smack about my Cocos...trying to devert everyone's attention.

[Mandrew968]

Andrew,

You are correct. There are more ways than one to look at this, and number of dead is only one way. But it's probably the number one issue for those who are affected. And let's not forget, the United States, as well as France and Great Britain, were guilty of deliberately destroying the lives and livelihoods of people in the Pacific for about 50 years without actually directly killing them. They just poisoned their environment with hundreds of nuclear tests.

Bo-Göran

Good point, Bo--I am aware of all the tests they did. I even remember seeing some very cool footage of some of the blasts/tests America did... But I have not heard of any of the ill effects. It would be stupid to think there were no effects. Maybe that was part of the reason for testing in this remote location; with little resources, people have less of a chance of being heard from? I wonder what the cumulative damage was for all the testing in the south pacific--anyone ever see that shark species that had an extra fin(thought to be a by-product of excess radiation)? Some of those coconuts can never be eaten, on those Islands as well.

[Mandrew968]

Andrew, I do have a son and want nothing more than a clean safe world for him to live in. But panicking over everything isn't going to help. All I hear is how bad everything is and how we are all going to die. Yet people are living longer and longer every year. If the earth was so bad and people were dying off at 40 and 50 in record numbers then I would panic. Until then I fear you're playing in the the chicken little story that is the media. There job is to create news and get you to tune in. The stress your going to put on yourself is more dangerous than what your stressing over. Humans need electricity and nuclear is the safest cleanest and most effeicint way to make it. So unless you can figure out a way to make a fusion reactor efficient or are planning on going to Japan and stoping the leak I'm affraid "raising awareness" is kind of a lost cause. To raise awareness without a solution isn't really doing anything. It's feeling like your helping by doing nothing basically. I fully respect your fears on this matter but just because I'm a father doesn't mean ill run every time I hear that the sky is falling...again...and again...and again.

STEVE. I am not in a state of panic. If I were panicking, I am sure my typing skills would be effected. I completely disagree with you that raising awareness doesn't do anything. I think if you looked at past instances in history, it's not always the person who brings awareness that is responsible for the change. Steve, do you want to live in a world where people can only speak of a problem, if they have a solution? You don't think that brainstorming is productive? Some of the biggest conglomerations in the world sit together and talk about problems in the hopes that a solution can be thought of as well--it doesn't start out with a solution, before addressing a problem; I have never heard of that one! If a little old lady sees a person being assaulted on the streets, should she keep her mouth shut since she herself cannot help the victim??? Or does her yelling for help, maybe alert a police officer, who DOES have a solution? Presidents often call on the people to come up with solutions for problems addressed; a while back, Clinton addressed car makers that by a certain time, he wanted cars to have something like 70 miles to the gallon(I forget the exact wording). STEVE, that was not a solution he was speaking of--he felt inefficient cars were a problem, but did he go into the factories and tinker with the internal combustion engine? Steve, I think you need to rethink your stance on this--I am not in panic nor is raising awareness( to something I feel is a problem) a useless thing to do. BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD.

[redant]

Andrew,

You are correct. There are more ways than one to look at this, and number of dead is only one way. But it's probably the number one issue for those who are affected. And let's not forget, the United States, as well as France and Great Britain, were guilty of deliberately destroying the lives and livelihoods of people in the Pacific for about 50 years without actually directly killing them. They just poisoned their environment with hundreds of nuclear tests.

Bo-Göran

Good point, Bo--I am aware of all the tests they did. I even remember seeing some very cool footage of some of the blasts/tests America did... But I have not heard of any of the ill effects. It would be stupid to think there were no effects. Maybe that was part of the reason for testing in this remote location; with little resources, people have less of a chance of being heard from? I wonder what the cumulative damage was for all the testing in the south pacific--anyone ever see that shark species that had an extra fin(thought to be a by-product of excess radiation)? Some of those coconuts can never be eaten, on those Islands as well.

There is information available if you desire it..

http://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testing/the-effects-of-nuclear-testing/

And just to be fair, we are not the only ones who have done nuclear testing

Edited September 26, 2013 by redant

[Mandrew968]

Mandrew - to be clear - my position(s)

1) Fukushima is a disaster for Japan (for the 10th time)

2) The rest of the world is not in danger

3) There is no cover up

4) There are much more serious ways in which the oceans are being polluted.

5) I clearly stated future scientific advancements as a possible solution for safe nuclear energy - I made no mention of present day technology, so saw no purpose discussing it. But I admit, I playfully give old friend Dave a hard time now and again. (Sorry Dave)

Which would you rather live through - one Fukushima, or dozens of tests such as this? Talk about polluting the ocean. The world survived this lunacy and puts Fukushima in perspective. Can you imagine today's sensationalistic media reporting on this today?

Look at Dean asking which I would rather! Good thing you are the Mod, cause that's off topic

My point is this is bad, not that it's the worst of all things. I expected more from Japan; there is a cover-up--It is the explanation for the government coming out late with bad news, not asking for global help, constantly raising safety levels for radiation, telling citizens that it's safe to move back into their homes. The Japanese citizens DO NOT TRUST THEIR GOVERNMENT. They were not even truthful about the extent of the damage--partial meltdown I kept hearing. Dean, if you didn't remove my last thread, I could quote you with your whole "cold shutdown" talk you placated me with. Cold shutdown?! You remember that? How about this major leak that has been 2 and a half years, leaking? If you say there is no cover-up again, I can't respect your opinion as anything but ignorant.

[Stevetoad]

Andrew, I do have a son and want nothing more than a clean safe world for him to live in. But panicking over everything isn't going to help. All I hear is how bad everything is and how we are all going to die. Yet people are living longer and longer every year. If the earth was so bad and people were dying off at 40 and 50 in record numbers then I would panic. Until then I fear you're playing in the the chicken little story that is the media. There job is to create news and get you to tune in. The stress your going to put on yourself is more dangerous than what your stressing over. Humans need electricity and nuclear is the safest cleanest and most effeicint way to make it. So unless you can figure out a way to make a fusion reactor efficient or are planning on going to Japan and stoping the leak I'm affraid "raising awareness" is kind of a lost cause. To raise awareness without a solution isn't really doing anything. It's feeling like your helping by doing nothing basically. I fully respect your fears on this matter but just because I'm a father doesn't mean ill run every time I hear that the sky is falling...again...and again...and again.

STEVE. I am not in a state of panic. If I were panicking, I am sure my typing skills would be effected. I completely disagree with you that raising awareness doesn't do anything. I think if you looked at past instances in history, it's not always the person who brings awareness that is responsible for the change. Steve, do you want to live in a world where people can only speak of a problem, if they have a solution? You don't think that brainstorming is productive? Some of the biggest conglomerations in the world sit together and talk about problems in the hopes that a solution can be thought of as well--it doesn't start out with a solution, before addressing a problem; I have never heard of that one! If a little old lady sees a person being assaulted on the streets, should she keep her mouth shut since she herself cannot help the victim??? Or does her yelling for help, maybe alert a police officer, who DOES have a solution? Presidents often call on the people to come up with solutions for problems addressed; a while back, Clinton addressed car makers that by a certain time, he wanted cars to have something like 70 miles to the gallon(I forget the exact wording). STEVE, that was not a solution he was speaking of--he felt inefficient cars were a problem, but did he go into the factories and tinker with the internal combustion engine? Steve, I think you need to rethink your stance on this--I am not in panic nor is raising awareness( to something I feel is a problem) a useless thing to do. BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD.

let me put this into perspective for you and maybe youll better understand why im not up in arms. every day of your life you drive a car. now cars have killed and hurt millions of people world wide. not only have they killed but the roads that they must drive on have scared the planted with there roads, freeways ect. every city is paved in with roads. these roads kill animals, destroy habitat, block off natural migration routes. to build these roads weve blew up mountains and destroyed forests and wet lands. all of this so we could drive a car that is the most dangerous thing youll most likley do in a day. not only that but you put your whole familly in thisdeath trap knowing of the danger. now that i have raised your "awareness" on this matter will you do anything about it? No you wont because you need to travel and its the safest most efficient way to do so.

[Mandrew968]

Andrew, I do have a son and want nothing more than a clean safe world for him to live in. But panicking over everything isn't going to help. All I hear is how bad everything is and how we are all going to die. Yet people are living longer and longer every year. If the earth was so bad and people were dying off at 40 and 50 in record numbers then I would panic. Until then I fear you're playing in the the chicken little story that is the media. There job is to create news and get you to tune in. The stress your going to put on yourself is more dangerous than what your stressing over. Humans need electricity and nuclear is the safest cleanest and most effeicint way to make it. So unless you can figure out a way to make a fusion reactor efficient or are planning on going to Japan and stoping the leak I'm affraid "raising awareness" is kind of a lost cause. To raise awareness without a solution isn't really doing anything. It's feeling like your helping by doing nothing basically. I fully respect your fears on this matter but just because I'm a father doesn't mean ill run every time I hear that the sky is falling...again...and again...and again.

STEVE. I am not in a state of panic. If I were panicking, I am sure my typing skills would be effected. I completely disagree with you that raising awareness doesn't do anything. I think if you looked at past instances in history, it's not always the person who brings awareness that is responsible for the change. Steve, do you want to live in a world where people can only speak of a problem, if they have a solution? You don't think that brainstorming is productive? Some of the biggest conglomerations in the world sit together and talk about problems in the hopes that a solution can be thought of as well--it doesn't start out with a solution, before addressing a problem; I have never heard of that one! If a little old lady sees a person being assaulted on the streets, should she keep her mouth shut since she herself cannot help the victim??? Or does her yelling for help, maybe alert a police officer, who DOES have a solution? Presidents often call on the people to come up with solutions for problems addressed; a while back, Clinton addressed car makers that by a certain time, he wanted cars to have something like 70 miles to the gallon(I forget the exact wording). STEVE, that was not a solution he was speaking of--he felt inefficient cars were a problem, but did he go into the factories and tinker with the internal combustion engine? Steve, I think you need to rethink your stance on this--I am not in panic nor is raising awareness( to something I feel is a problem) a useless thing to do. BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD.

let me put this into perspective for you and maybe youll better understand why im not up in arms. every day of your life you drive a car. now cars have killed and hurt millions of people world wide. not only have they killed but the roads that they must drive on have scared the planted with there roads, freeways ect. every city is paved in with roads. these roads kill animals, destroy habitat, block off natural migration routes. to build these roads weve blew up mountains and destroyed forests and wet lands. all of this so we could drive a car that is the most dangerous thing youll most likley do in a day. not only that but you put your whole familly in thisdeath trap knowing of the danger. now that i have raised your "awareness" on this matter will you do anything about it? No you wont because you need to travel and its the safest most efficient way to do so.

WOW. I now have perspective!

[EllisB]

I'm waiting for Godzilla to appear.

[LJG]

You are correct, it isn't right to poison the ocean. Japan has a huge problem and solutions are difficult. They are an insular people and don't necessarily broadcast every tiny detail to the world. However, I do not believe the west coast of the U.S. is in danger from radiation in Japan. That's all I'm saying.

By your very explanation of the Japanese being insular only would prove they would also be amongst themselves hence supporting Andrews theory there is a cover up - which I fully believe. Google "Shikata ga nai". It sums up the Japanese in general and having lived there I can agree. The thread is really common throughout Eastern Asia. Chinese have Wu Wei, Buddhists’ lack social awareness as a whole, etc. The point being in these cultures why make a big deal out of something that nothing can be done? This is the thinking so I would hazard a guess more is going on there then we will ever know. Am I going to go lock myself in a bunker and only eat MREs for the next ten years? No. But I wouldn't be surprised if the world finds out the consequences are more severe then what we believe now.

[Mandrew968]

I read somewhere that TEPCO is planning on attempting to remove the rods inside the damaged reactor/reactors--I think by November... This sounds like a very dangerous process that may or may not be feasable... I think this shows us all that this issue is getting worse and that it could get a LOT worse. Again, no bunker hunkering, or any panic--just a discussion on an alarming issue that is not under control.

[redant]

I read somewhere that TEPCO is planning on attempting to remove the rods inside the damaged reactor/reactors--I think by November... This sounds like a very dangerous process that may or may not be feasable... I think this shows us all that this issue is getting worse and that it could get a LOT worse. Again, no bunker hunkering, or any panic--just a discussion on an alarming issue that is not under control.

I sincerely hope thy are not looking to this board for solutions...

[DoomsDave]

Well, I'm glad to say I don't live in Japan. Particularly near those damaged reactors.

I'm not worried about radiation over the ocean. We have our own nuke here to worry about, but it's been de-commed. And, I'm prepared to bet no new nukes are going to be built any time soon, particularly near the Yuppie Coast. I'm glad about that.

And, on a really bright note, it's really nice to see the cost of solar going down. I'm going to look into some panels, at least as a supplement. I'd love to be able to Cal Ed to stuff giant saguaros where the sun no shinee . . . .

[_Keith]

War, politics, environment. We seem to be breaking new ground in this thread.

[DoomsDave]

War, politics, environment. We seem to be breaking new ground in this thread.

As in: "War hasn't broken out over politics (and the environment)."

[bgl]

We're walking a fine line here, but the main reason why those rules were instituted when we added the Ohana Nui was because the IPS Board wanted to avoid controversy. We will never get to the point of openly discussing politics or religion (for instance) on PalmTalk, but "peripheral" topics like this one should be OK as long as there are no personal attacks or offensive comments in general. So far, so good. More or less...

[Jerry@TreeZoo]

One of the reasons this thread has not been locked is that I have not had a lot to say.

[Kim]

Dave, since you mention the San Onofre plant, yes, it has been decommissioned, but that is just the beginning. In the morning news I heard Sempra Energy estimates full decommissioning will take about 60 years and will cost about $4.1 billion. I thought those were interesting figures. The money to fund decommissioning is already in a trust fund.

[DoomsDave]

Dave, since you mention the San Onofre plant, yes, it has been decommissioned, but that is just the beginning. In the morning news I heard Sempra Energy estimates full decommissioning will take about 60 years and will cost about $4.1 billion. I thought those were interesting figures. The money to fund decommissioning is already in a trust fund.

Yeah, how about that!

With nukes, everything is expensive. Perhaps another reason not to build them in the first instance?

Of course, nothing is truly green, except the garden of Eden. Including, alas, solar panels.

[PALM MOD]

We're walking a fine line here, but the main reason why those rules were instituted when we added the Ohana Nui was because the IPS Board wanted to avoid controversy. We will never get to the point of openly discussing politics or religion (for instance) on PalmTalk, but "peripheral" topics like this one should be OK as long as there are no personal attacks or offensive comments in general. So far, so good. More or less...

Bo is correct - it is a fine line. And I have tried to relax those restrictions a bit provided we can remain civil. But it remains an experiment. The last Fukushima topic eventually crossed the line and was deleted. So if you prefer to be treated as adults and discuss potentially "hot-button" topics, then please remain cordial, on topic, and apolitical.

[Dypsisdean]

With nukes, everything is expensive. Perhaps another reason not to build them in the first instance?

Of course, nothing is truly green, except the garden of Eden. Including, alas, solar panels.

Dave,

This is why I brought up the topic of scientific advances. The stigma that has been attached to nuclear power (unfortunately, promoted mostly along political lines, like global warming) has discouraged and prevented research into safe nuclear power. No one wants to expend the formidable research and development costs when a large portion of a scientifically ignorant public is predisposed to opposition triggered with just the mention of the words "nuclear power."

I have heard it is conceivable that smaller nuke plants that don't require water for cooling, and that process nuclear fuels that yield safer and faster degradable waste could be developed. Such smaller plants could be situated far from population centers, the inevitable accident would be many scales smaller, in a remote area, and waste would not be such an issue. But with panic and demonstrations the first reaction when ever anything nuclear is mentioned, it will never happen.

And it is unfortunate, because it is presently the only viable alternative to fossil fuels.

[Dypsisdean]

WOW. I now have perspective!

Andrew,

Don't underestimate that concept - that Stevetoad expounded on. Everything we do is weighed against the costs and the benefits. And my position, which I don't think you have yet totally grasped, is that even with a Fukushima and Chernobyl, the benefits of nuclear power have the potential to outweigh the costs/dangers. But there is a mind set, exploited by some, that exaggerate news such as this for their own agenda.

Radiation is inherently a frightening concept. But I saw an interesting program about the dawn of the electric age, and the freaking out of people about something that could kill you if you touched it - or if you stepped in water that a wire fell in, and using something that was used to kill criminals in the home. And people thought the world was mad to have this stuff running in wires along every street, in the walls of buildings, etc. But the benefits outweighed the perceived dangers, and good thing the alarmists didn't prevail.

So I am only "arguing" against the alarmists and putting too much faith on the news stories that may have an anti-nuclear agenda (for whatever reason) - that's all. And I think a good portion of the news that gets everyone's attention (including yours) is from that camp - or from those that need to attract readers/viewers. At the very least I would recommend paying close attention to the source your "scientific" data comes from.

[DoomsDave]

With nukes, everything is expensive. Perhaps another reason not to build them in the first instance?

Of course, nothing is truly green, except the garden of Eden. Including, alas, solar panels.

Dave,

This is why I brought up the topic of scientific advances. The stigma that has been attached to nuclear power (unfortunately, promoted mostly along political lines, like global warming) has discouraged and prevented research into safe nuclear power. No one wants to expend the formidable research and development costs when a large portion of a scientifically ignorant public is predisposed to opposition triggered with just the mention of the words "nuclear power."

I have heard it is conceivable that smaller nuke plants that don't require water for cooling, and that process nuclear fuels that yield safer and faster degradable waste could be developed. Such smaller plants could be situated far from population centers, the inevitable accident would be many scales smaller, in a remote area, and waste would not be such an issue. But with panic and demonstrations the first reaction when ever anything nuclear is mentioned, it will never happen.

And it is unfortunate, because it is presently the only viable alternative to fossil fuels.

Oh yeah?

Says who?

Would you want a nuke near your house?

"Could be developed"? Says who? And when?

I'll go solar myself, as un-green as that may be. I've never heard of a meltdown of solar panels.

Politics? If you say so. Radiation knows no politics. Ask the good people of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island. Among others.

[Darold Petty]

I heard a conversation on public radio several years ago, as follows...

'Existing nuclear plants operate in a manner that, if not tended, will heat up and meltown, releasing radiation into the environment. Also, each plant so far has been a unique design, and subject to endless challenges to its design through litigation. This has resulted in enormous cost overruns."

The speaker claimed that there was an alternate design that, if not tended would instead cool down and die out. He suggested that this more safe 'cool-off' design would be immune to litigation, by federal legislation in support of this standardized design. This reactor would be fairly small, perhaps 1000MW. If the local power demand was more, several of these small reactors could be at the location, similar to boxcars of a train.

This still would not address the issue of waste storage or disposal.

Can anyone corroborate this idea? I'm fairly lame about internet searches!

[Zeeth]

Here's some of my thoughts about this. Paralleling what Dean said, the nuclear bombs that were dropped on Japan definitely could be considered the worst nuclear disaster as far as humans are concerned. I don't know the specifics about Fukushima, but I know it's often compared to Chernobyl. The thing about Chernobyl though is that the area is now basically a wildlife refuge. There are animals in the area that haven't lived there in years because there's no more human interference. Some animals that are endangered elsewhere thrive in the area. You might wonder how that happens with all the radioactivity, but I've heard it put this way: For humans a 10% rate of dying of radiation induced cancer is completely unacceptable but for most animals it's not anything different from what nature throws at them from other death causes. This is for mammals though, I suspect amphibians might fare worse in such environments because of their sensitivity to environmental "cleanness", and sea animals might also be problematic because of bio-accumulation of radiation through the food chain, like what happens with mercury. Overall though, in the long run humans are the ones who stand to lose the most from disasters such as this, and it seems like it won't affect us much. Not that I don't have internal conflict about whether nuclear power is good or not, but I think it helps to put things in perspective.

[DoomsDave]

Well.

Okay.

You want your home to be a wildlife refuge, because people won't live there? Because of radiation.

Momma. I wanna scream.

Help me!

[Hammer]

With nukes, everything is expensive. Perhaps another reason not to build them in the first instance?

Of course, nothing is truly green, except the garden of Eden. Including, alas, solar panels.

Dave,

This is why I brought up the topic of scientific advances. The stigma that has been attached to nuclear power (unfortunately, promoted mostly along political lines, like global warming) has discouraged and prevented research into safe nuclear power. No one wants to expend the formidable research and development costs when a large portion of a scientifically ignorant public is predisposed to opposition triggered with just the mention of the words "nuclear power."

I have heard it is conceivable that smaller nuke plants that don't require water for cooling, and that process nuclear fuels that yield safer and faster degradable waste could be developed. Such smaller plants could be situated far from population centers, the inevitable accident would be many scales smaller, in a remote area, and waste would not be such an issue. But with panic and demonstrations the first reaction when ever anything nuclear is mentioned, it will never happen.

And it is unfortunate, because it is presently the only viable alternative to fossil fuels.

Oh yeah?

Says who?

Would you want a nuke near your house?

"Could be developed"? Says who? And when?

I'll go solar myself, as un-green as that may be. I've never heard of a meltdown of solar panels.

Politics? If you say so. Radiation knows no politics. Ask the good people of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island. Among others.

Fwiw, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were 100% the result of politics.

[DoomsDave]

With nukes, everything is expensive. Perhaps another reason not to build them in the first instance?

Of course, nothing is truly green, except the garden of Eden. Including, alas, solar panels.

Dave,

This is why I brought up the topic of scientific advances. The stigma that has been attached to nuclear power (unfortunately, promoted mostly along political lines, like global warming) has discouraged and prevented research into safe nuclear power. No one wants to expend the formidable research and development costs when a large portion of a scientifically ignorant public is predisposed to opposition triggered with just the mention of the words "nuclear power."

I have heard it is conceivable that smaller nuke plants that don't require water for cooling, and that process nuclear fuels that yield safer and faster degradable waste could be developed. Such smaller plants could be situated far from population centers, the inevitable accident would be many scales smaller, in a remote area, and waste would not be such an issue. But with panic and demonstrations the first reaction when ever anything nuclear is mentioned, it will never happen.

And it is unfortunate, because it is presently the only viable alternative to fossil fuels.

Oh yeah?

Says who?

Would you want a nuke near your house?

"Could be developed"? Says who? And when?

I'll go solar myself, as un-green as that may be. I've never heard of a meltdown of solar panels.

Politics? If you say so. Radiation knows no politics. Ask the good people of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island. Among others.

Fwiw, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were 100% the result of politics.

Well, and radiation.

Da?

Vodka!

Do you want a nuke next to your house?

I have to say that because I know what the answer will be.

If one is rational.

In my opinion.

Dean!

Nuke? Next to house? Better than Mexican eatery?

Thoughts?

Thoughts.

[Hammer]

With nukes, everything is expensive. Perhaps another reason not to build them in the first instance?

Of course, nothing is truly green, except the garden of Eden. Including, alas, solar panels.

Dave,

This is why I brought up the topic of scientific advances. The stigma that has been attached to nuclear power (unfortunately, promoted mostly along political lines, like global warming) has discouraged and prevented research into safe nuclear power. No one wants to expend the formidable research and development costs when a large portion of a scientifically ignorant public is predisposed to opposition triggered with just the mention of the words "nuclear power."

I have heard it is conceivable that smaller nuke plants that don't require water for cooling, and that process nuclear fuels that yield safer and faster degradable waste could be developed. Such smaller plants could be situated far from population centers, the inevitable accident would be many scales smaller, in a remote area, and waste would not be such an issue. But with panic and demonstrations the first reaction when ever anything nuclear is mentioned, it will never happen.

And it is unfortunate, because it is presently the only viable alternative to fossil fuels.

Oh yeah?

Says who?

Would you want a nuke near your house?

"Could be developed"? Says who? And when?

I'll go solar myself, as un-green as that may be. I've never heard of a meltdown of solar panels.

Politics? If you say so. Radiation knows no politics. Ask the good people of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island. Among others.

Fwiw, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were 100% the result of politics.

Well, and radiation.

Da?

Vodka!

Do you want a nuke next to your house?

I have to say that because I know what the answer will be.

If one is rational.

In my opinion.

Dean!

Nuke? Next to house? Better than Mexican eatery?

Thoughts?

Thoughts.

Your point is well taken. Personally, I don't want any power plant next to me. One, they are Fugly. Two, there are risks to humans and the environment from all sources of power.

But I sure don't want to live without electricity for any length of time. How many people died prematurely through the ages before the technology made possible by electricity came to be?

Radiation scares humans in an instinctual way, imo. Like tales of dragons or monsters in the dark ages made us fear what we couldn't see at night, so radiation strikes deep fear in our hearts. Just as in the dark ages the night was actually deadly, likewise is radiation today. Eyesight is our most important sense as humans. What/where we can't see terrifies us. Sometimes, we have to balance that fear with the needs we have as a species to advance. Rationality and reason have to balance against both real and imagined dangers.

[Stevetoad]

Dave, of course nobody wants a nuclear power plant next to there house. Just as I don't want a quarry, sewage plant, oil rig, coal mine, cheese cake factory or any other eye sore. The thing with nuclear power is that it doesn't have to be next to any of our houses. I always hear "not in my backyard" well nobody has a nuclear power plant in there backyard so I don't really get the quote. There are negatives to every form of generated electricity.we need electricity so we must pick the best. Solar hasn't one me over yet but I really hope it can take over as a main form of power and with human ingenuity it has a good chance. The whole thing is that some people just flat out hate nuclear and no matter what. they will always be against it. If they made a nuclear plant the produced skittles and puppy dogs for waste the would say that we are getting diabetes and ring worm from it.

[_Keith]

Dave, of course nobody wants a nuclear power plant next to there house. Just as I don't want a quarry, sewage plant, oil rig, coal mine, cheese cake factory or any other eye sore. The thing with nuclear power is that it doesn't have to be next to any of our houses. I always hear "not in my backyard" well nobody has a nuclear power plant in there backyard so I don't really get the quote. There are negatives to every form of generated electricity.we need electricity so we must pick the best. Solar hasn't one me over yet but I really hope it can take over as a main form of power and with human ingenuity it has a good chance. The whole thing is that some people just flat out hate nuclear and no matter what. they will always be against it. If they made a nuclear plant the produced skittles and puppy dogs for waste the would say that we are getting diabetes and ring worm from it.

As well I don't want windmills in my yard or solar panels on my roof. But I would put on of these in my garage.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/19/toshibas-building-a-micro-nuclear-reactor-for-your-garage/

[Stevetoad]

Keith, imagine if they could make one for our cars!!! I want a nuclear powered truck. If they can put one on a boat and sub then they could put one on my tacoma. Come on Toyota get with it!

[Dypsisdean]

Da?

Vodka!

Do you want a nuke next to your house?

I have to say that because I know what the answer will be.

If one is rational.

In my opinion.

Dean!

Nuke? Next to house? Better than Mexican eatery?

Thoughts?

Thoughts.

Dave,

Let me ask you an equally specious question - do you want to live next to a plant that builds solar cells?

Correct me if I'm wrong. Where did I say nuke plants should be next to houses? Did you not read the part about small nuclear plants in remote locations. I thought remote meant not next to anyone's house - or anyone - period.

But having said that - they have had small nuclear plants on ships for decades. These plants can power small cities. Hundreds of thousands of people have lived, eaten, and slept next to them for most of my life. So small safe plants are not a pipe dream.

Solar has its place, but I happen to like my electricity the most at night, or when it's cold and cloudy.

I will admit that huge plants in populated areas on the coast does not seem to be prudent. But that is ancient technology.

[Dypsisdean]

I heard a conversation on public radio several years ago, as follows...

'Existing nuclear plants operate in a manner that, if not tended, will heat up and meltown, releasing radiation into the environment. Also, each plant so far has been a unique design, and subject to endless challenges to its design through litigation. This has resulted in enormous cost overruns."

The speaker claimed that there was an alternate design that, if not tended would instead cool down and die out. He suggested that this more safe 'cool-off' design would be immune to litigation, by federal legislation in support of this standardized design. This reactor would be fairly small, perhaps 1000MW. If the local power demand was more, several of these small reactors could be at the location, similar to boxcars of a train.

This still would not address the issue of waste storage or disposal.

Can anyone corroborate this idea? I'm fairly lame about internet searches!

Darold,

This is the type of technology I am speaking of. As I said, look at what the Navy has achieved with standardized designs, and not stifled by fear of law suits and regulation. And it may be possible to develop and utilize other isotopes for fuel, thus rendering waste that is not as dangerous, and less of it - or "waste" that could be used for medical or industrial applications.

And as you mentioned, they might even be small and mobile enough to be pulled by a truck, or train. They have made these small enough now to go into space. So in the event of an accident, they could even be designed to be driven by remote control to a previously determined quarantined location. But no one is seriously pursuing nuke fuel as a commercial venture purely because of public perception.

I find it ironic that the same crowd that rails against nuke power, is the same crowd that condemns the burning of fossil fuels. So they are fervently against the only practical solution to what they warn is going to destroy the planet.