"Nuclear Emergency"

[Wij]

Haven't really thought about this but given that it's been 'switched off' for a couple of days how can it meltdown ?

 

[Scouse]

You need to get a grip Scouse. Nuclear power stations are perfectly safe.

Just thought I'd repost that so Tom could re-read it.

It would seem that the situation in Japan would be a fair rebuff to Tom's comment. Add to that the histories of 3 mile island, Chernobyl etc. etc.

Even Wilfa's been known to vent ffs...


Must be me and my weak grasp of english and what "perfectly safe" must mean

 

[MYstIC G]

It's not perfectly safe but it's a risk reward thing. Nuclear will work and power this country. No electricity supply is a bigger risk than meltdown.

 

[Scouse]

Haven't really thought about this but given that it's been 'switched off' for a couple of days how can it meltdown ?

'cause a meltdown is caused by a runaway nuclear reaction. It's normally a reaction that we can control but when something bad happens - like an earthquake wiping out all of the amazing raft of "safety features" in one quick and easy swoop - we can't stop it 'cause it comes from the natural properties of the radioactive material we use.

They're pumping seawater laced with boron in now in an attempt to slow the reaction and keep things cooler. Which'll probably work.

Anyone who thinks this isn't a monumental fuck up of the highest order is a fool IMO tho - 'cause siting of nuclear facilities in one of the most geologically active parts of the planet whilst being arrogant enough to think we can design out the consequences of unforseen natural disasters is a mistake any 12 year old could point out.

It was an accident waiting to happen. Only we're not waiting any more.

Again.

 

[Tom]

Just thought I'd repost that so Tom could re-read it.

It would seem that the situation in Japan would be a fair rebuff to Tom's comment. Add to that the histories of 3 mile island, Chernobyl etc. etc.

Even Wilfa's been known to vent ffs...


Must be me and my weak grasp of english and what "perfectly safe" must mean

Ah right, so you're quoting the 3 Mile Island scare, which resulted in no increase in cancer, and no deaths. Then you mention Chernobyl, as though that station was typical of western nuclear power stations. Nearly all the people killed following that disaster were emergency workers who had no understanding of the dangers involved. There's no increase in cancer there, either.

Right, good one Scouse.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Guess we should scrap the spaceprogram cause rocket fuels have exploded in the past. Not to mention shuttles. Or gas plants, boomboom, not safe! Cars kill people too, ban! Hell, peanuts kill more people a year then nuclear plants so there's a crusade for ya!

There's 3 mile island and chernobyl, what's the "etc etc"? Plethora of nuclear deaths by your account, so shouldn't be a problem showing us how dangerous nuclear is.

FYI; there was no meltdown in japan(though you seemed to edit that bit).

You're a fearmongerer, pure and simple, and like the numerous morons in europe hoarding iodine(stupid in it's own level), you're not helping and causing more harm then the f*cking plant.

Nuclear power plants are the safest buildings on earth, bar some military installations, but EVERYTHING can cause massive damage.

Here's a thought for you; if one of those wind generator towers fell(due to a massive earthquake) and killed some people, would you be against them too?

Also, what's the count? The actual damage? Not speculation of lives lost or radiations, any concrete losses from the plant?

 

[Scouse]

I'm getting behind you Tom. I think you were right and it's "perfectly safe" because we haven't yet had an accident that's killed millions.

More ridiculous scaremongering twaddle from Auntie

There is a risk of a second explosion at the quake-hit Fukushima power station... ....Technicians are frantically battling to cool reactor 3.... as long as authorities can keep fuel rods in the core covered with water, they should be able to avoid a major disaster but Mr Edano admitted that the tops of the rods had briefly been exposed .... a meltdown at reactor 3 would be potentially more serious than at the other reactors, because it is fuelled by plutonium and uranium, unlike the other units which carry only uranium.

I'm sure it'll be fine and there's no increased inherent risk over other forms of power generation. I do regularly shit myself living so close to a coal-fired power plant.

Until nuclear power has categorically killed millions and rendered a large swathe of the earth uninhabitable for generations I think we should definately turn a blind eye to possible and obvious risks in return for much cheaper 'leccy.

 

[Scouse]

FYI; there was no meltdown in japan(though you seemed to edit that bit)

There was. Widely reported. Look it up.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well i'm in a zone where, if our plant went boom, i'd probably get a superhero dose of radiation, or keel over and die, but you know what? I'm not bothered myself since i'm A: not a nervous nanny who craps his pants everytime someone says the word "possible" and B: Because there's f*ck all anyone could do about it.

There was. Widely reported. Look it up.

I did, there is none, show one if there is. There's a possibility of a meltdown. What happened, wasn't a nuclear power plant meltdown.

Unless i'm mistaken and the core went big time in the last hour?

But, i know your pick&choosy posting style, so no need to bother. Have fun sleeping and don't think about the fact that a coal plant explosion is an accident away. Not to mention you getting burgled and raped is a higher chance then a meltdown in a western powerplant.

 

[Scouse]

To start:

Well i'm in a zone where, if our plant went boom, i'd probably get a superhero dose of radiation, or keel over and die, but you know what? I'm not bothered myself since i'm A: not a nervous nanny who craps his pants everytime someone says the word "possible" and B: Because there's f*ck all anyone could do about it.

So, we should continue to build nuclear plants because you're brave?

(Or dumb?)

This is an argument over the mitigation of risk and nuclear rebuild. I didn't think you'd try and trump it with a redneck "I'm not scared of nuclear power and if it did all go tits up I wouldn't be around to give a fuck" argument.


But then, it is you


Edit: Btw:

Not to mention you getting burgled and raped is a higher chance then a meltdown in a western powerplant.

This has nothing to do with the argument.

However, to bite, I agree on that risk - but then even Wij would have a hard time raping the worst-case scenario numbers we're talking about in a full-on nuclear FUBAR.

 

[Embattle]

Ah right, so you're quoting the 3 Mile Island scare, which resulted in no increase in cancer, and no deaths. Then you mention Chernobyl, as though that station was typical of western nuclear power stations. Nearly all the people killed following that disaster were emergency workers who had no understanding of the dangers involved. There's no increase in cancer there, either.

Right, good one Scouse.

You do realise Scouse is our personal version of a reporter on the daily fail.

PS Any one who even mentions something like Chernobyl really is being some what clueless.

PS2 - Also in typical DM style I suspect you don't know the range of what a meltdown can mean.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Unless you're going to say partial meltdown doesn't actually mean meltdown I think that'll do for me. (In fact, even if you say it that'll still do).

Then call it a partial meltdown. It's a possibility, stop scaremongering it into a nuclear meltdown(which is a BIT bigger issue then 160 possibly radiated people).

And you can't name outside two situations, 3mile and chernobyl, of ALL the time nuclears been running. Says more about the asafety then not.

So, we should continue to build nuclear plants because you're brave?

(Or dumb?)

This is an argument over the mitigation of risk and nuclear rebuild. I didn't think you'd try and trump it with a redneck "I'm not scared of nuclear power and if it did all go tits up I wouldn't be around to give a fuck" argument.

But then, it is you

Well i never said that. I said you're a scaredycat who poops on command of big media.

I also said that if the plant DID go, i would be around and it would be really unpleasant.

Unless you think that dying isn't an issue.

I did say i'm not scared of nuclear, because i'm not. Much like i'm not scared of cars, eating home alone(might choke you know), or stopping breathing in the middle of the night because every human has the possibility of dying in their sleep even with full health.

Go figure, i don't sit in a lit corner sucking my thumb.

This has nothing to do with the argument.

Actually it does, you're trying to scaremonger people in a single issue that you have, and ignoring every other equal possibility.

If you really had these fears, you wouldn't be able to live thinking about every situation that COULD happen. That's what you're claiming as the big issue here, that it could happen.

 

[Tom]

I'm getting behind you Tom. I think you were right and it's "perfectly safe" because we haven't yet had an accident that's killed millions.

If you believe that any accident at a nuclear power station could ever cause the death of millions, or even thousands, then it's clear you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You do realise Scouse is our personal version of a reporter on the daily fail.

 

[DaGaffer]

Anyone who thinks this isn't a monumental fuck up of the highest order is a fool IMO tho - 'cause siting of nuclear facilities in one of the most geologically active parts of the planet whilst being arrogant enough to think we can design out the consequences of unforseen natural disasters is a mistake any 12 year old could point out.

On the flip side, Japan has no natural energy resources and a population of 100M. Nuclear was not only necessary but inevitable. Do you not think the only country that's actually had nuclear weapons used against it and knows full well how geologically active it is, didn't think long and hard about nuclear? Like everything in life, the decision was a balance between risk and reward, and even now, "partial meltdowns" notwithstanding, the benefits of nuclear to Japan are firmly in the positive side of the ledger.

 

[Ormorof]

what bugged me most about the BBC reportings was their "Expert" was the head of an Anti Nuclear Power group, so err he is hardly going to be telling us all will be well when he has a chance to go on about how dangerous these reactors can be...

they shortly after put an actual scientist on and he pointed out the longer this goes without anything happening the better, the actual nuclear reaction went out as soon as the earthquake hit, all the heat/steam/pressure is coming from heat decay not from a nuclear boom, so even if it does meltdown, it will affect a much much smaller area than say, Chernobyl, he compared it more to a Three Mile island situation, where there was a lot of panic, but not much really happened

 

[Ctuchik]

I'm going to comment when the facts are known. Until then everything is speculation.

You need to get a grip Scouse. Nuclear power stations are perfectly safe. Go work on an oil rig if you don't agree.

Ok saying they are perfectly safe is taking it a bit to far. Even i can't agree on that...

Yes it takes some heavy duty shit for them to actually break and be dangerous if maintained properly, but saying they are perfectly safe is evidently not true

The biggest problem ppl have with this is that when (not if) things go bad it does it with a vengeance.

 

[Ormorof]

but so does oil and gas, look at gulf of mexico, deep water horizon, exxon valdez, the big fuel depo in north london (hemel hempsted?) the list goes on, theres only been one major disaster at a nuclear plant, and that was a poorly maintained poorly designed plant in the Soviet Union (who were hardly known for their efficiency or safety concerns), the other "major" high profile incident, Three Mile Island in the US was due to workers following badly thought out protocols and processes rather than thinking for themselves a bit, and didnt actually do much damage.

you could fly a 747 into one of those reactors and they would barely have a scratch

 

[old.Tohtori]

but so does oil and gas, look at gulf of mexico, deep water horizon, exxon valdez, the big fuel depo in north london (hemel hempsted?) the list goes on, theres only been one major disaster at a nuclear plant, and that was a poorly maintained poorly designed plant in the Soviet Union (who were hardly known for their efficiency or safety concerns), the other "major" high profile incident, Three Mile Island in the US was due to workers following badly thought out protocols and processes rather than thinking for themselves a bit, and didnt actually do much damage.

you could fly a 747 into one of those reactors and they would barely have a scratch

But hey, think of waterpower. Pretty eco friendly, no worries there.

No wait...this size earthquake could very well break the dam and cause an inland flood the size of a tsunami

 

[Ormorof]

hehe exactly, i dont think the risk of a nuclear meltdown is the main problem with Nuclear power, its what the hell do we do with the waste

lock it at the bottom of a mountain and let people who find it in a few thousand years time deal with it?

 

[old.Tohtori]

hehe exactly, i dont think the risk of a nuclear meltdown is the main problem with Nuclear power, its what the hell do we do with the waste

lock it at the bottom of a mountain and let people who find it in a few thousand years time deal with it?

Spacelaunch, let ET get pissed off about it

Or store it in the moon, get a ncie green moon going.

 

[Zenith.UK]

More boom today.
Blast strikes Japan plant, core safe | Reuters
NHK WORLD English
Cooling system fails in another reactor at Japanese nuclear plant - CNN.com
Second blast occurs at Japan's nuclear plant as death toll rises
Fresh blast at Japan nuclear plant - Asia-Pacific - Al Jazeera English

Thought I'd link the site feeds I have so you can compare the slant each agency puts on it.

 

[Raven]

The BBC just really piss me off these days, they are becoming the gutter press of the on-line news reporters. Nice big scary headlines with badly written stories underneath.

 

[Wij]

Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now! ? The Register

 

[Fweddy]

I just read and was about to post that article Wij. Very interesting read.

 

[caLLous]

Pretty much every single big media outlet seems to be feverishly praying for something atrocious to happen just so they can write some more big shouty headlines and sell some more papers, it's sickening.

How much radioactive material has escaped?

This is not clear. The Japanese authorities say only very low levels of radiation have been detected outside the plant. The IAEA has described it as a level four event on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES), which is used for an accident "with local consequences". No abnormal levels of radiation have yet been detected in Russia.

Why are they looking in Russia?

 

[DaGaffer]

Pretty much every single big media outlet seems to be feverishly praying for something atrocious to happen just so they can write some more big shouty headlines and sell some more papers, it's sickening.

Why are they looking in Russia?

because the prevailing winds are towards Siberia

 

[Helme]

Spacelaunch, let ET get pissed off about it

Or store it in the moon, get a ncie green moon going.

The reason we aren't doing this is because if we start launching finite resources into space, we'll never get them back ever. There's quite a large chance we'll find a way to use the waste in the future(hell, the new type of Reactors uses fallout from the older type and goes through the fuel again).

 

[Dark Orb Choir]

i was going to post earlier but noticed that the boob thread had updates......

 

[old.user4556]

We have a fuck load of experts on this forum like, it baffles me sometimes.

Sadly, that's how it works here; and don't even think about positing a casual personal opinion without justifying it with chapter and verse, otherwise you risk accusations of being ill-read, misinformed, a fanboy or just plain stupid (delete as appropriate).