Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
0426: Japanese government spokesman Yukio Edano says radioactive meltdowns may have occurred in two reactors at the plant - AFP.
0406: More on the specific dangers of Fukushima 1 plant's reactor 3: The BBC's Chris Hogg in Toky says the reactor is fuelled with uranium and plutonium, meaning the consequences of a meltdown are much more severe than at the other reactors.
I love how conservatives always tout "clean nuclear power"........
.....no thanks. It's clean, it's cheap, until something goes horribly wrong. Then your ass is basically dead. I'd rather see solar panels covering every roof. This would generate more than enough power.
I love how conservatives always tout "clean nuclear power"........
.....no thanks. It's clean, it's cheap, until something goes horribly wrong. Then your ass is basically dead. I'd rather see solar panels covering every roof. This would generate more than enough power.
I bet you don't have an all-solar and wind powered house and car, unless you're a multi-millionaire.
Solar panels aren't grid-reliable. Neither is wind or any other "green" power. They're fine for tiny, point-of-source supplement, but you can't run a nation on them, even if we could afford the cost of 15X - 24X more. Go ahead and pay $1,500 a month for your electric bill for the rest of your life (and subsidize all those who can't afford it); I'll stick with the $100.
And I'm sick of paying for foreign oil wars that protect our Mideast Oil Supplies; if we had an actual multi-pronged energy policy, we'd have an economic future instead of endless wars and Recession after Recession.
How many people have EVER died or were injured, ever, in the US due to nuclear accidents? None--including Three Mile Island.
How many people will die in Japan due to nuclear accidents? None. They have technophobic public officials with a progressive agenda there, too, but the explosion was a boiler, like all power plants have.
For comparison, how many people die in coal mining, oil refinery explosions, natural gas explosions, other power plant problems, etc? Try thousands a year worldwide.
Maybe we shouldn't have uneducated Chicken Littles making national energy policy and condemning us to constant Mideast oil wars, endlessly burning fossil fuels and costs that will leave us a Third-World nation.
My point was he said this was not Chernobyl when that is exactly what was going to occur. I don't know about anyone else but flooding a nuclear power plant with salt water and rendering it forever useless is not my idea of being reassured. It is a last ditch and desperate attempt to save lives. Safety protocols my ass. It's another termfor shut the f'er down now we're out of options and out of time!
That's what a protocol is, a plan for a scenario. Obviously this is their last plan. If you think this wasn't in their plans from the get go you need to think again. That's why nuke plants are almost always sited by a large water source.
Disaster planning, which I don't think you've done judging by your reaction, is basically throwing out every wild ass scenario you can think of and planning a response. I'm helping to design one now for MD towns that includes flooding followed by a tornado strike. Should be fun to watch.
That's what a protocol is, a plan for a scenario. Obviously this is their last plan. If you think this wasn't in their plans from the get go you need to think again. That's why nuke plants are almost always sited by a large water source.
Disaster planning, which I don't think you've done judging by your reaction, is basically throwing out every wild ass scenario you can think of and planning a response. I'm helping to design one now for MD towns that includes flooding followed by a tornado strike. Should be fun to watch.
I don't know which to be more impressed by: your lack of clear thinking or your lack of sound reasoning. You may want to look at the pictures coming out of the area of the nuclear catastrophe since you are just fine with the plan to flood the reactor. Comments from the area are not so reasonable as you are, nor lacking in alarm; like I said, one man's protocol is another man's ass I guess. And by the way it is estimated that 1000 people were exposed to lethal radiation at this point in time.
I bet you don't have an all-solar and wind powered house and car, unless you're a multi-millionaire.
Solar panels aren't grid-reliable. Neither is wind or any other "green" power. They're fine for tiny, point-of-source supplement, but you can't run a nation on them, even if we could afford the cost of 15X - 24X more. Go ahead and pay $1,500 a month for your electric bill for the rest of your life (and subsidize all those who can't afford it); I'll stick with the $100.
And I'm sick of paying for foreign oil wars that protect our Mideast Oil Supplies; if we had an actual multi-pronged energy policy, we'd have an economic future instead of endless wars and Recession after Recession.
How many people have EVER died or were injured, ever, in the US due to nuclear accidents? None--including Three Mile Island.
How many people will die in Japan due to nuclear accidents? None. They have technophobic public officials with a progressive agenda there, too, but the explosion was a boiler, like all power plants have.
For comparison, how many people die in coal mining, oil refinery explosions, natural gas explosions, other power plant problems, etc? Try thousands a year worldwide.
Maybe we shouldn't have uneducated Chicken Littles making national energy policy and condemning us to constant Mideast oil wars, endlessly burning fossil fuels and costs that will leave us a Third-World nation.
Three people are confirmed dead and hundreds are suspected of having been exposed to lethal radiation levels. Thousands are taking iodine.
I don't know which to be more impressed by: your lack of clear thinking or your lack of sound reasoning. You may want to look at the pictures coming out of the area of the nuclear catastrophe since you are just fine with the plan to flood the reactor. Comments from the area are not so reasonable as you are, nor lacking in alarm; like I said, one man's protocol is another man's ass I guess. And by the way it is estimated that 1000 people were exposed to lethal radiation at this point in time.
Once again I'm not minimizing anything. And yes, I've seen the pictures/video, read and heard the reports (probably before you did for a number of reasons). What you don't seem to understand is that what they did was planned. Like it or not the flooding was planned for. Or your suggestion would be? Send guys in to shut it down? Or do what every modern nuke plant would do for coolant loss and possible meltdown, which is flood it? You seem worried that the seawater will ruin ruin the plant. No ****, Sherlock. That's a "known" also.
I admittedly don't know all the details for emergencies at the local plant here, just the overall plans. Which is way more than you seem to know.
Once again I'm not minimizing anything. And yes, I've seen the pictures/video, read and heard the reports (probably before you did for a number of reasons). What you don't seem to understand is that what they did was planned. Like it or not the flooding was planned for. Or your suggestion would be? Send guys in to shut it down? Or do what every modern nuke plant would do for coolant loss and possible meltdown, which is flood it? You seem worried that the seawater will ruin ruin the plant. No ****, Sherlock. That's a "known" also.
I admittedly don't know all the details for emergencies at the local plant here, just the overall plans. Which is way more than you seem to know.
I need to go now to check my email for an update.
Well it's a disaster from any perspective I am more impressed that in spite of Japanese tech these catastrophic failures could not be prevented. In my mind it just goes to show us that we are limited in our abilities to protect from disasters natural earth changes.
I love how conservatives always tout "clean nuclear power"........
.....no thanks. It's clean, it's cheap, until something goes horribly wrong. Then your ass is basically dead. I'd rather see solar panels covering every roof. This would generate more than enough power.
actually it isn't cheap. Here's what the y don't tell you when they want to sell this white elephant...
I lived in the kansas City power and light district when they brought the Wolf Creek plant on line... they sent out a notice our electric bills would go up by a factor of 4... yes a $100 bill would be $400 for the same amount of power.
every plant has 100% cost over runs. they take 10 years to complete, they cost $10B or more today... they are not affordable, cheap or clean.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
