16 replies to this topic

[duke_Qa]

As we are seeing one of the bigger nuclear accidents in recent history happening in Japan, with 3/4 reactor buildings exploded by hydrogen gas and the 4th reactor boiling stuff, I think it is the perfect time to see what peoples opinions on Nuclear power are.

here we have one article about the topic: Nuclear crisis recalls painful memories in Hiroshima

But it is the less visual aspect of this disaster the threat of nuclear fallout that has activists in Hiroshima sounding the call for a change in Japan's approach to its supply of electricity. "It's like the third atomic bomb attack on Japan," said Keijiro Matsushima, an 82-year-old survivor of the atomic bombing at Hiroshima. "But this time, we made it ourselves."

Japan has 54 nuclear power plants nationwide, and about one-third of its electricity comes from nuclear energy. When many of these plants were built, they were designed to be in operation for thirty years, but as Japanese power companies face increasing public resistance to the construction of new plants, these plants will be operating for forty to fifty years, says Akira Tashiro.

The bold part is what fascinates me. This nuclear power plant that has now gone haywire was built in 71, and would have been replaced if not for stupid environmentalists that complained about nuclear power. It just shows that there are people with no insight into how the world works, that are able to pave the road to hell with good intentions.

If anything, this accident should be used as an argument that we are incapable of sustaining ourselves without nuclear energy. We should then allow those that create these nuclear power plants to create new ones instead of prolonging the age of old and probably inefficient ones.

Japan has 50ish nuclear power plants and got hit by the worst earthquake ever registered there, but it was the Tsunami that killed the cooling systems of Fukushima. The other are more or less working just fine or are at least under control, which says something about the quality of the japanese nuclear power-plants even if they are over-aged.

Edited by duke_Qa, 16 March 2011 - 09:04 AM.

[Vortigern]

Maybe Japan should have taken a few extra precautions, what with their history of nuclear-based catastrophes and the knowledge that their country is prone to earthquakes and resulting tsunamis. Sure, you couldn't have predicted one this big, but I'm sure you all know the old adage "Plan for the worst, hope for the best".

Back to the stone age! Fuck all this technology, let's just live in caves and hunt deer/each other, and let nature take its course. As a strong, healthy young man, I think that would be fun.

[duke_Qa]

They had two extra cooling systems on top of the normal cooling system, but it was 40 years old and placed somewhat stupidly if you thought tsunamis never go over 2-4 meters. But if this was a earthquake-of-the-century and power plants built to last 30-50 years are not able to handle it, the engineers are not doing their contingency planning well enough.

What fascinates/aggravates me is that you apparently cannot make a fission core like that stop completely from generating large amounts of energy. How the hell do they get those rods into place if they are like frying pans all the time?


Fucking no way in hell I'm going back to the stone age! I've grown up on a farm and I've got the tales of the elder generations back-breaking labor as horror stories. Human civilization has to grow or die. Might make us look like a virus, but at least its better than withering away into nothingness again. One of my major worries are that we in the west are too busy contemplating our navels and only be willing to sacrifice for comfort and not progress.

[Nertea]

I'm a supporter. I actually have to give a talk to a bunch of environmentalists/conservationists on monday about future prospects for nukes - this incident is going to make the question period very interesting.

As usual, media hype is blowing things way out of proportion (pun intended). I've heard the words apocalyptic and catastrophic thrown around. It's just really stupid and completely misrepresenting the actual danger here. As I recall, current public exposure levels are equivalent to taking another high altitude flight or two. Nuclear power is bloody safe - several hundred people died on a train that was destroyed by the tsunami, and nobody is calling for trains to be discontinued.

There's this really stupid disconnect between environmentalists and sanity. Nuclear power is carbon free, which should give them a field day. It's reasonably renewable, lots of uranium/spent fuel/nuclear weapons lying about that can be used in 4th gen reactors. Not to mention said modern reactors burn long-lived waste! Yet, they are awful and should be stopped from producing large amounts of clean baseload power. Got to cover the deserts in solar panels instead.

Duke: once rods attain criticality (which isn't the case before they're moved into close reactor proximity), they're reasonably cool. They're often kept in lead sheaths to prevent any neutron flux from starting a reaction. Once they're removed from said sheaths and inserted into the core, the various geometric effects and slowing effects of the water start the chain reaction. You can theoretically remove the rods and the reaction will degrade properly, but evidently that isn't the case at the moment.

[Soul]

I'm somewhat for it only cause I don't fully understand it. But I don't think it's as terrible as some people claim it to be.

[Námo]

As usual, media hype is blowing things way out of proportion ...

Fear the Media Meltdown, Not the Nuclear One

[duke_Qa]

Usually I don't like it when you just link a link and don't say anything about it, but that was quite a useful article which went through the basics of whats going on in them nuclear reactors. And I have to agree that more deaths are probably caused by the massive psychological trauma caused by the media than by the radiation itself from such nuclear accidents.

[Ash]

Nuclear power is not the evil Greenpeas say it is. Chernobyl was the result of undertrained personnel manning an inadequate facility.

Nuclear power is safe. If it wasn't, why is it powering all modern submarines, and most modern aircraft carriers? Who would choose to live in such close proximity to it if it wasn't safe?

Notice how unconcerned about it Japan is? And this is a country that knows first-hand what being irradiated the fuck out of is all about. So if they're not concerned that it's all going to go to hell, I'm not concerned.

[duke_Qa]

It's ridiculous how panicked people are over all of this radiation they think is leaking out of Fukushima. Although I'm somewhat glad there are comments on newspaper websites these days because most of them get punched in the face with factual replies. As some scientist just said in an article "I think it is a shame that the nuclear situation is getting all the attention because it is not as big a catastrophe as the earthquake and tsunami by a long shot".

[Vortigern]

I'm curious as to what people would suggest in nuclear power's stead. Solar? Yeah right. Wind? Hugely ineffective and a massive blot on a good landscape. Geothermal? Only any good if you live in Iceland. Coal? Oil? Gas? I'm sure there's a reason we're trying to phase them out (supposedly, at least)...

People are dumb.

Notice how unconcerned about it Japan is? And this is a country that knows first-hand what being irradiated the fuck out of is all about. So if they're not concerned that it's all going to go to hell, I'm not concerned.

QFT.

[duke_Qa]

Yeah, people against nuclear power are like "There is technology that can replace nuclear power". Yeah right, Fusion isn't here yet, and it won't be for another 40 years. Solar power creates much pollution during production and is not exactly 24/7, even less up here. Wind power needs fancy tech to create stronger magnets, which also is expensive and polluting to extract.

Also, these enviro-idiots don't really think of industry as something important, all they worry about is electricity to run their espresso machine and put some heat into their houses. They have no clue in how society works and should keep their mouths shut.

[Ash]

There's already a perfectly workable solution to the energy crisis. Biodiesel. Totally carbon-neutral, and easy enough to produce (it's old vegetable oil). Or you can always burn waste...that has the added advantage of removing the need for landfills.

Solar power's great in sunny countries in summer. Not so great in the northern wastelands where the majority of the Western World live. It certainly can't be used as any sort of replacement for anything...same as wind turbines. Hydrogen power is OK but the energy required to crack a water molecule makes it impractical at this time. Fusion is really the only hope, unless the eco-tards get off their horse and embrace the power of the Atom in all its fissiony goodness.

[Námo]

The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) is releasing detailed information on situation at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant - regularly updated - at their website:

IAEA Update on Japan Earthquake - Staff Report

[Nertea]

There's already a perfectly workable solution to the energy crisis. Biodiesel. Totally carbon-neutral, and easy enough to produce (it's old vegetable oil).

You do need a lot of crop area for that, so I wouldn't say perfectly workable. Lots of concern over food production vs cash crop production if biodiesel really takes off.

They raised the alert level from 4 to 5 today, which means the same as Three Mile Island (with no confirmed deaths or cancers). There was also a hilarious map on BBC (which has since been removed from the article) showing 'current radiation levels', which mapped all the maximum values recorded ever in every location. I guess even the majority of panicked people found that too ridiculous.

[duke_Qa]

Yes, they are blowing this out of proportion. We should have some sort of Sievert-graph with the different levels of radioactivity and examples of what it equals... wonder if someone has made it.

400miliSieverts/h was the highest measured when the workers got pulled out, and then it fell to 0.6mS/h. Yearly we get 3-5mS of radiation into us, an Xray gives you 4mS. 10Sievert was quite bad with 10/30 statistic (%chance of death/within X days).

some article on it

Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano had, at one point, said radiation levels near the stricken plant on the northeast coast reached as high as 400 millisieverts (mSv) an hour. That figure would be would be 20 times the annual exposure for some nuclear-industry employees and uranium miners.

* People are exposed to natural radiation of 2-3 mSv a year.

* In a CT scan, the organ being studied typically receives a radiation dose of 15 mSv in an adult to 30 mSv in a newborn infant.

A typical chest X-ray involves exposure of about 0.02 mSv, while a dental one can be 0.01 mSv.

* Exposure to 100 mSv a year is the lowest level at which any increase in cancer risk is clearly evident. A cumulative 1,000 mSv (1 sievert) would probably cause a fatal cancer many years later in five out of every 100 persons exposed to it.

* There is documented evidence associating an accumulated dose of 90 mSv from two or three CT scans with an increased risk of cancer. The evidence is reasonably convincing for adults and very convincing for children.

* Large doses of radiation or acute radiation exposure destroys the central nervous system, red and white blood cells, which compromises the immune system, leaving the victim unable to fight off infections.

For example, a single one sievert (1,000 mSv) dose causes radiation sickness such as nausea, vomiting, hemorrhaging, but not death. A single dose of 5 sieverts would kill about half of those exposed to it within a month.

* Exposure to 350 mSv was the criterion for relocating people after the Chernobyl accident, according to the World Nuclear Association.

Edited by duke_Qa, 18 March 2011 - 08:58 PM.

[duke_Qa]

Finally someone made a infograph for us. And its by someone over at xkcd...

EATING BANANA GIEVS RADIATION! ZOOOMG!

Edited by duke_Qa, 20 March 2011 - 10:04 PM.

[Nertea]

Aww, it's so pretty.