Jump to content
Mandrew968

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

Which disaster is the worst nuclear disaster?  

29 members have voted

  1. 1. Is Fukushima worse than Chernobyl?

    • Yes, it is worse
      11
    • No, it's not as bad.
      4
    • It remains to be seen...
      14
    • I don't care if I glow in the dark.
      0


Recommended Posts

palmmermaid

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mandrew968

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.

Most of France's energy is Nuclear power and they are in a lot of debt because of it--Nuclear power is costly in more ways than one! I doubt that 60 years worth of work is in that decommission budget. Where does the spent fuel get stored too? It's a tricky subject but it can be handled like Yucca Mountain... wait, is that site operational? :hmm:

In my mind, Fission is a stopgap energy technology. Renewables are getting cheaper as well as more innovative--tidal power is soon to be big. blah blah blah--the point of this thread is not Nuclear power, good or bad--it's that Japan needs to get their ducks in a row, or hire someone who knows more about ducks than they do!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stevetoad

Japan is one of if not the most technologically advanced nation in the world but we are going to go over there and show em how to fix there problem? thats like asking the guy that works the garden section at home depot for exotic palm tree advice. Maybe Japan doesnt want us corupting there country. they probably see how the EPA has there hand into every aspect of our lives. they know that if they let us in to "help" then they will never get rid of us. our track record for "helping" and leaving isnt very good. i dont want to drag this off topic with my views of the EPA so ill stop here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mandrew968

Steve, when something goes wrong, the world has always called on America--Que the Team America World Police theme song!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stevetoad

your right, we always get called on to help with the wolds problems and then get blamed for them anyways. BUT Japans is NOT asking for our help. so lets stay out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LJG

your right, we always get called on to help with the wolds problems and then get blamed for them anyways. BUT Japans is NOT asking for our help. so lets stay out of it.

Steve, we are there. One thing Asians countries are not is inventive. Experts at reverse engineering and perfecting, but terrible at the power of invention. If they need outside the box thinking, Americans/Europeans will be there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammer

Actually studies have shown that we were actually healthier prior to agriculture. We lived longer, had better teeth, and were overall healthier. Many of the diseases only became problems when we started living in large groups that required agriculture to provide food for the masses. Close quarters make good breeding grounds for all sorts of nasties.

Unforunately, I must respectfully disagree with the broad premise you make here. I don't doubt that humans who lived to maturity in ancient/prehistoric times were incredibly strong, resourceful and healthy. They had to be to make it to adulthood. Even then, strong adult humans could be hurt hunting, were preyed upon themselves by other animals and etc. with no hope of receiving any medical care. Infant mortality and maternal mortality in child birth (then) can't compare to the rates we have today.

That said, we can't go back to ancient times when the human population was sparse enough to survive as hunter/gatherers. The arrow of time doesn't point that way. We have to play the hand we're dealt. We have to live in the present...learn from the past, hope and work for a better tomorrow, but live today.

While the agriculural and industrial and atomic ages have opened up new problems they have, in turn, solved old ones. Upcoming advances will solve the problems we have today. I am as nostaglic as anyone but it is not wise to overly romantisize the past or look at an anlaysis of it too narrowly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redant

Japan is one of if not the most technologically advanced nation in the world but we are going to go over there and show em how to fix there problem? thats like asking the guy that works the garden section at home depot for exotic palm tree advice. Maybe Japan doesnt want us corupting there country. they probably see how the EPA has there hand into every aspect of our lives. they know that if they let us in to "help" then they will never get rid of us. our track record for "helping" and leaving isnt very good. i dont want to drag this off topic with my views of the EPA so ill stop here.

I think GE built those reactors, could be wrong but thats what I remember hearing

I guess I'm correct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Edited by redant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mandrew968

your right, we always get called on to help with the wolds problems and then get blamed for them anyways. BUT Japans is NOT asking for our help. so lets stay out of it.

Steve, they have asked for our help--not our government's, but the brilliance personified that is our Capitalist Market. There is nothing that Americans as a whole can't tackle! Now getting other countries to stop blaming us for everything, that's another issue...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mandrew968

your right, we always get called on to help with the wolds problems and then get blamed for them anyways. BUT Japans is NOT asking for our help. so lets stay out of it.

Steve, we are there. One thing Asians countries are not is inventive. Experts at reverse engineering and perfecting, but terrible at the power of invention. If they need outside the box thinking, Americans/Europeans will be there.

Once again, Len is right on the money. Wonder where he gets the scoop on things...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stevetoad

Ah, so we are over there helping.

we built these reactors

this thread is NOT about if nuclear power is good or bad.

so whats the thread about?

if this is worse than Chernobyl...

ill stick with it remains to be seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

Actually studies have shown that we were actually healthier prior to agriculture. We lived longer, had better teeth, and were overall healthier. Many of the diseases only became problems when we started living in large groups that required agriculture to provide food for the masses. Close quarters make good breeding grounds for all sorts of nasties.

While the agriculural and industrial and atomic ages have opened up new problems they have, in turn, solved old ones. Upcoming advances will solve the problems we have today. I am as nostaglic as anyone but it is not wise to overly romantisize the past or look at an anlaysis of it too narrowly.

Agreed - Ask anyone if they would rather be living back "prior to agriculture."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulgila

"lived longer prior to agriculture?" not likely. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

this thread is NOT about if nuclear power is good or bad.

so whats the thread about?

When most of the info about this disaster is coming from web sites, news sources, and reporters that have a biased opinion (or strong agenda) concerning nuke power, then I maintain that this discussion is about nuclear power. For many of these "news" outlets, it is not about facts. It is about portraying nuclear power in a fearful negative light.

Someone please provide me with an unbiased purely scientific report about what is going on over there - and what the long term implications are. All the other stuff is "news" for entertainment, ratings, and promoting a point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=computer-model-predicts-fewer-than-200-deaths-fukushima-radiation

Scientific American has been around a long time & has a fairly un-biased reputation,doesn't it?

Thanks Paul - ask and I received.

For anyone who really wants the facts about radiation and Fukushima, please read this. But more importantly, please read the comments - from the readers of Scientific America. Their responses are even more enlightening than the article itself. I'll let you arrive at your own conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmsnbananas

Queue Scientific American conspiracy theories .... now! Go Go GO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulgila

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=computer-model-predicts-fewer-than-200-deaths-fukushima-radiation

Scientific American has been around a long time & has a fairly un-biased reputation,doesn't it?

"Unbiased reputation" will depend on the opinion of the reader. :)

partly,but anyone with any sense would consider its reputation with the scientific community. or something :mrlooney:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joe_OC

Please do some RESEARCH from reliable sources before posting...

First off, any nuclear accident is a bad thing. Your poll to say which nuclear accident is worst is rather SAD. If you are REALLY concerned about the radiation fallout, I suggest you go to sites like this:

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=83397&tid=3622&cid=94989

Even National Geographic a couple of weeks ago ran a story about how the radiation levels off California, and even NEAR Japan is safe for boating and swimming. 300 tons of radiation waste water is a lot, but you need to put it into context to the amount of ocean water it is going into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DoomsDave

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.

I'd take a solar cell plant over a nuke any day.

Da! Wodka . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jastin

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.

I'd take a solar cell plant over a nuke any day.

Da! Wodka . . .

Ive done some irrigation for a couple of long time power plant employes up in San Clemente. All they talked about was how there were so many weird problems going on with workers bodies. I really dont care about the effects of Japan because all the levels here are normal. I surf all the time and I dont glow yet. I hate watching the news because I have enough to worry about already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmmermaid

Actually studies have shown that we were actually healthier prior to agriculture. We lived longer, had better teeth, and were overall healthier. Many of the diseases only became problems when we started living in large groups that required agriculture to provide food for the masses. Close quarters make good breeding grounds for all sorts of nasties.

Unforunately, I must respectfully disagree with the broad premise you make here. I don't doubt that humans who lived to maturity in ancient/prehistoric times were incredibly strong, resourceful and healthy. They had to be to make it to adulthood. Even then, strong adult humans could be hurt hunting, were preyed upon themselves by other animals and etc. with no hope of receiving any medical care. Infant mortality and maternal mortality in child birth (then) can't compare to the rates we have today.

That said, we can't go back to ancient times when the human population was sparse enough to survive as hunter/gatherers. The arrow of time doesn't point that way. We have to play the hand we're dealt. We have to live in the present...learn from the past, hope and work for a better tomorrow, but live today.

While the agriculural and industrial and atomic ages have opened up new problems they have, in turn, solved old ones. Upcoming advances will solve the problems we have today. I am as nostaglic as anyone but it is not wise to overly romantisize the past or look at an anlaysis of it too narrowly.

I think if you read Jared Diamond's books, you will find the science to back this up. If a child survived to adulthood, they lived longer than we do today. Birth and childhood have always been the most dangerous period - not just for us but for any animal or plant. There were fewer diseases and less chance of spreading in a sparser population.

That being said, I am not advocating we go back to life before agriculture. Neither am I romantisicing the past. I certainly don't want to live in a cave with no running water or air conditioning - might not need the AC in a cave but you get what I mean. I am just saying that modernity has not always led to a better life. Living longer doesn't mean a better quality of life, only more years on the calendar.

I think we need to evaluate all the options when it comes to energy. I am convinced that if we can put men in space, we should be able to come up with energy sources that are clean, renewable, and safe that don't wreck havoc with the environment. And any new technology has to cost less in the beginning than the old technology it is trying to replace. That just makes good marketing sense. But we have to get our heads out of the sand - or clouds depending on your viewpoint - in order to make any sweeping changes.

I do whatever small things I feel morally obligated and able to do. I vote with my wallet. I speak out when I feel it is necessary. And I try very hard to hear/read all sides and make informed decisions. And I am extremely skeptical of the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmmermaid

I saw that in the paper today. Interesting concept. I remember one of the physical laws - energy can't be destroyed only changed. So why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulgila

Actually studies have shown that we were actually healthier prior to agriculture. We lived longer, had better teeth, and were overall healthier. Many of the diseases only became problems when we started living in large groups that required agriculture to provide food for the masses. Close quarters make good breeding grounds for all sorts of nasties.

Unforunately, I must respectfully disagree with the broad premise you make here. I don't doubt that humans who lived to maturity in ancient/prehistoric times were incredibly strong, resourceful and healthy. They had to be to make it to adulthood. Even then, strong adult humans could be hurt hunting, were preyed upon themselves by other animals and etc. with no hope of receiving any medical care. Infant mortality and maternal mortality in child birth (then) can't compare to the rates we have today.

That said, we can't go back to ancient times when the human population was sparse enough to survive as hunter/gatherers. The arrow of time doesn't point that way. We have to play the hand we're dealt. We have to live in the present...learn from the past, hope and work for a better tomorrow, but live today.

While the agriculural and industrial and atomic ages have opened up new problems they have, in turn, solved old ones. Upcoming advances will solve the problems we have today. I am as nostaglic as anyone but it is not wise to overly romantisize the past or look at an anlaysis of it too narrowly.

I think if you read Jared Diamond's books, you will find the science to back this up. If a child survived to adulthood, they lived longer than we do today. Birth and childhood have always been the most dangerous period - not just for us but for any animal or plant. There were fewer diseases and less chance of spreading in a sparser population.

That being said, I am not advocating we go back to life before agriculture. Neither am I romantisicing the past. I certainly don't want to live in a cave with no running water or air conditioning - might not need the AC in a cave but you get what I mean. I am just saying that modernity has not always led to a better life. Living longer doesn't mean a better quality of life, only more years on the calendar.

I think we need to evaluate all the options when it comes to energy. I am convinced that if we can put men in space, we should be able to come up with energy sources that are clean, renewable, and safe that don't wreck havoc with the environment. And any new technology has to cost less in the beginning than the old technology it is trying to replace. That just makes good marketing sense. But we have to get our heads out of the sand - or clouds depending on your viewpoint - in order to make any sweeping changes.

I do whatever small things I feel morally obligated and able to do. I vote with my wallet. I speak out when I feel it is necessary. And I try very hard to hear/read all sides and make informed decisions. And I am extremely skeptical of the internet.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/longing-for-a-past-that-never-existed/

this article states that "for most of human existence life expectancy was 35 years according to fossil data."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redant

Actually studies have shown that we were actually healthier prior to agriculture. We lived longer, had better teeth, and were overall healthier. Many of the diseases only became problems when we started living in large groups that required agriculture to provide food for the masses. Close quarters make good breeding grounds for all sorts of nasties.

Unforunately, I must respectfully disagree with the broad premise you make here. I don't doubt that humans who lived to maturity in ancient/prehistoric times were incredibly strong, resourceful and healthy. They had to be to make it to adulthood. Even then, strong adult humans could be hurt hunting, were preyed upon themselves by other animals and etc. with no hope of receiving any medical care. Infant mortality and maternal mortality in child birth (then) can't compare to the rates we have today.

That said, we can't go back to ancient times when the human population was sparse enough to survive as hunter/gatherers. The arrow of time doesn't point that way. We have to play the hand we're dealt. We have to live in the present...learn from the past, hope and work for a better tomorrow, but live today.

While the agriculural and industrial and atomic ages have opened up new problems they have, in turn, solved old ones. Upcoming advances will solve the problems we have today. I am as nostaglic as anyone but it is not wise to overly romantisize the past or look at an anlaysis of it too narrowly.

I think if you read Jared Diamond's books, you will find the science to back this up. If a child survived to adulthood, they lived longer than we do today. Birth and childhood have always been the most dangerous period - not just for us but for any animal or plant. There were fewer diseases and less chance of spreading in a sparser population.

That being said, I am not advocating we go back to life before agriculture. Neither am I romantisicing the past. I certainly don't want to live in a cave with no running water or air conditioning - might not need the AC in a cave but you get what I mean. I am just saying that modernity has not always led to a better life. Living longer doesn't mean a better quality of life, only more years on the calendar.

I think we need to evaluate all the options when it comes to energy. I am convinced that if we can put men in space, we should be able to come up with energy sources that are clean, renewable, and safe that don't wreck havoc with the environment. And any new technology has to cost less in the beginning than the old technology it is trying to replace. That just makes good marketing sense. But we have to get our heads out of the sand - or clouds depending on your viewpoint - in order to make any sweeping changes.

I do whatever small things I feel morally obligated and able to do. I vote with my wallet. I speak out when I feel it is necessary. And I try very hard to hear/read all sides and make informed decisions. And I am extremely skeptical of the internet.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/longing-for-a-past-that-never-existed/

this article states that "for most of human existence life expectancy was 35 years according to fossil data."

But a darn good 35, all that foraging and gathering and hunting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/A-Mistake-Now-Could-Release-14000-Times-More-Radiation-than-Hiroshima.html

I have no idea how 'credible' this website is but it has some serious wording that is along the lines of a global disaster, potentially...

When they have other articles like the following - I wonder.

Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?

"The extent of US foreknowledge of this provocation needs further investigation because available data puts the “horror” of the Barack Obama White House in a different and disturbing light."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulgila

that does seem a bit questionable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mandrew968

Another leak has just been reported by Tepco...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mandrew968

Here is an interesting read:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/09/fukushima_disaster_new_information_about_worst_case_scenarios.html

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists prevented the US from over-reacting to the Fukushima accident.

On the same site, we have an article that asks if cow tipping is real or not...

Another article title: I Wrote That It's OK to Drink While Pregnant. Everyone Freaked Out. Here's Why I'm Right.

Not saying that these websites can't contain accurate information, but others did. The two articles I mentioned above are fluff at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mandrew968

Good point...feel free to go to the SOURCE...

https://str.llnl.gov/JanFeb12/sugiyama.html

Joe, this article is nowhere near current. Therefore it cannot address any of the contemporary issues--a main one being the containment process, or lack thereof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brahea Axel

Steve has a point and solar power actually takes up a lot of natural habitat unless you restrict it to just rooftops. But things are changing, efficiencies are going up, and to add to the technological advances, the latest frontier of solar includes high efficiency solar cell coating which can coat cars, buildings and the works.

But let's set aside the solar argument for a moment. I agree with Steve that nuclear power is actually good, but I will disagree with Steve in being in support of the ultra-primitive, weapons grade uranium byproduct powered nuclear plants in use today. These plants are dangerous and primitive.

Nuclear power, however could in fact solve our energy problems: the answer is thorium. Here's a good Ted talk about thorium worth watching:

http://www.ted.com/talks/kirk_sorensen_thorium_an_alternative_nuclear_fuel.html

If you think thorium is a pipe dream, think again. Norway has built the first one.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/160131-thorium-nuclear-reactor-trial-begins-could-provide-cleaner-safer-almost-waste-free-energy

What's even more amazing is that a thorium power plant that could feed an entire town could sit in someone's basement.

Surprised that this isn't done in the US? Don't be, thorium has not found support in the US because it would be a threat to the uranium/plutonium nuclear defense industrial complex. They need the regular primitive nuclear power plants because of the uranium production lifecycle. In fact, a successful thorium plant was once running, but our govt shut it down and on top of it made using thorium illegal. Now a bill to allow thorium reactors to be built is still in the senate and will never pass because it's opposed by the military industrial complex and by the oil industry. The reason being is that once thorium plants become available, public pressure would be so great to shut down the regular plants and they would need to figure out a new source for nuclear weapons fuel. Not to mention that with the advent of electric cars, oil could take a complete back seat and no longer be necessary.

So yes, Fukushima is a disaster and we should also be shutting down all our nuclear plants and replace them with thorium plants. But it will never happen in the US because of the reasons mentioned above. That is, until the European union blows the US out of the water from an economical and technological perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mandrew968

Axel--very fascinating! I will have to look into this subject as I have never before heard of it. Steve--this is why raising awareness is so fundimental to the problem at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joe_OC

There are several articles on that website about Fukushima... I was linking that particular one to support the site you were questioning...Besides, the current events are no where near the worst case scenarios they calculated...

al

Good point...feel free to go to the SOURCE...https://str.llnl.gov/JanFeb12/sugiyama.html

Joe, this article is nowhere near current. Therefore it cannot address any of the contemporary issues--a main one being the containment process, or lack thereof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

Surprised that this isn't done in the US? Don't be, thorium has not found support in the US because it would be a threat to the uranium/plutonium nuclear defense industrial complex. They need the regular primitive nuclear power plants because of the uranium production lifecycle. In fact, a successful thorium plant was once running, but our govt shut it down and on top of it made using thorium illegal. Now a bill to allow thorium reactors to be built is still in the senate and will never pass because it's opposed by the military industrial complex and by the oil industry. The reason being is that once thorium plants become available, public pressure would be so great to shut down the regular plants and they would need to figure out a new source for nuclear weapons fuel. Not to mention that with the advent of electric cars, oil could take a complete back seat and no longer be necessary.

Axel,

This is purely your opinion, and I don't know where you got it from other than the anti-defense and anti-corporation attitude you have expressed before. I do not agree, and have already stated my reasons for why I believe advanced break-through nuclear power technology has not yet appeared in the U.S.

I suggest it is because of the main stream alarmist media that coats all the news of anything nuclear with fear. The corporations that could make and improve these revolutionary plants, will not do so because of the overhanging fear and opposition that anything radioactive generates in the media. Along with the protests, regulatory nightmares, and fear of litigation, this climate has effectively pushed those with the means to offer safe nuclear power toward other endeavors. If there was money to be made with these new reactors, they would do it. It's as simple as that.

But this is just my opinion, since I was never one to use conspiracy theories to explain things when much simpler explanations are available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...