Tsunami hits north-eastern Japan after massive quake, damage to nuclear power plants [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Tsunami hits north-eastern Japan after massive quake, damage to nuclear power plants

Betty
03-11-2011, 06:38 AM
another one:sad:

A massive earthquake has hit the northeast of Japan triggering a tsunami that has caused extensive damage.

Japanese television showed cars, ships and even buildings being swept away by a vast wall of water after the 8.9 magnitude earthquake.

Officials said there could be a 10m (33ft) wave, with numerous casualties feared.

The quake struck about 250 miles (400km) from Tokyo at a depth of 20 miles, shaking the capital.

The tremor at 1446 local time (0546 GMT) was followed by a series of powerful aftershocks.

Seismologists say it is one of the largest earthquakes to hit Japan for many years.

The tsunami warning was extended to the Philippines, Indonesia and the Pacific coast of Russia.

Tsunami waves hit Japan's Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures, officials said.

Japan's NHK television showed a massive surge of water sweeping away buildings, cars and ships.

The earthquake also triggered a number of fires.

There were also reports of injuries in Tokyo.

jonathancrane
03-11-2011, 06:49 AM
Horrible.

GlennMirnyi
03-11-2011, 06:54 AM
Incredible scenes.

Just watching live on CNN over here.

Betty
03-11-2011, 06:57 AM
but the second one is already arrived Gu?:scared:
im at work ,cant watch it

Fee
03-11-2011, 07:35 AM
Horrible. At least nobody died

Sadly, it is becoming apparent that many people have probably died even if the official reports are very low at this time. When you see that massive wall of water taking entire houses and buildings all the way out into the farmland, its hard to imagine surviving that. It's devastating. :sad:

scoobs
03-11-2011, 08:18 AM
My lord, that is horrific - some of that footage is mind-blowing. All those poor people who will be lucky to only lose their livelihoods.

My thoughts are with the Japanese people and the other places affected by this quake and tsunami...it makes me feel very fortunate to live in a seismically stable area.

Lopez
03-11-2011, 08:54 AM
Sadly, it is becoming apparent that many people have probably died even if the official reports are very low at this time. When you see that massive wall of water taking entire houses and buildings all the way out into the farmland, its hard to imagine surviving that. It's devastating. :sad:

There was a tsunami warning issued, so I hope that most people were smart enough to leave their houses and go away from the coast.

Ouragan
03-11-2011, 09:20 AM
I live in Tokyo, on an 8th floor, the building was swaying like jelly and groaning in a sepulchral manner. This was no joke, scared the sh!t out of me. Hope people up north are fine, but I doubt it, with the tsunami and all.

scoobs
03-11-2011, 09:22 AM
There was a tsunami warning issued, so I hope that most people were smart enough to leave their houses and go away from the coast.

The question is whether they even had time to evacuate - some of the video footage on our news has been a wall of water filled with debris moving on towards a road with cars still moving on it. I'm guessing too many people were still caught out.

jonathancrane
03-11-2011, 09:23 AM
They're reporting 19 deaths for the moment :sad:

Sadly I was wrong about the casualties

scoobs
03-11-2011, 09:26 AM
They've announced 28 here so far

Hokit
03-11-2011, 09:28 AM
There was a tsunami warning issued, so I hope that most people were smart enough to leave their houses and go away from the coast.

Apparently the warning was issued only 20 minutes prior to the tsunami hitting.

Just watched the waves crashing into Sendai. Horrible, just absolutely horrible :sad: And at 8.9 on the richter scale, it's one of the worst in history.

I hope that given Japan's experiences with earthquakes in the past, at least its infrastructures and buildings won't contribute to the death toll...

Ouragan
03-11-2011, 09:45 AM
Apparently the warning was issued only 20 minutes prior to the tsunami hitting.

Just watched the waves crashing into Sendai. Horrible, just absolutely horrible :sad: And at 8.9 on the richter scale, it's one of the worst in history.

I hope that given Japan's experiences with earthquakes in the past, at least its infrastructures and buildings won't contribute to the death toll...

Terrible that we don't have the technology to predict earthquakes. One really feels so powerless, I was stamping my feet on the ground: 'come on ground, stop shaking now, this isn't funny'...to no avail :rolleyes:

habibko
03-11-2011, 10:07 AM
my sister lives in Tokyo and I can't reach her by phone at all (keep getting busy), I've contacted her via Facebook and she said they have felt the shake real hard but they are away from the coast areas so there's no real danger on their area.

really terrible, I hope it passes with no further casualties.

Hokit
03-11-2011, 10:23 AM
Terrible that we don't have the technology to predict earthquakes. One really feels so powerless, I was stamping my feet on the ground: 'come on ground, stop shaking now, this isn't funny'...to no avail :rolleyes:

Terribly unfortunate about the lack of technology, yes, but mankind has to make do with whatever it has. For example, buildings in Japan are constructed according to very strict guidelines that specifically aim to minimise the damages from earthquakes. However, a tsunami is a different ball game and there's nothing mankind can do except try to give as much warning as it can when it does happen.

As well as minimal casualties and damages, I really hope Japan can pull itself together after this...

Hokit
03-11-2011, 10:24 AM
my sister lives in Tokyo and I can't reach her by phone at all (keep getting busy), I've contacted her via Facebook and she said they have felt the shake real hard but they are away from the coast areas so there's no real danger on their area.

really terrible, I hope it passes with no further casualties.

Geezuz :eek: I hope she's alright!

*bunny*
03-11-2011, 11:09 AM
That was really scary! :scared:

I live in Tokyo and that was the strongest quake I've felt in my life and Tokyo's like 400 kilometers away from the epicentre...!
Tsunami is causing huge damages on coastal areas in northeastern Japan, and likely to hit coasts in other areas too.
In Tokyo, public transport is stopped for the day, so a lot of people can't go home---there are taxis and buses but roads are jammed with huge traffic. I happened to take a day off work so I'm at home but there are still aftershocks every few minutes and they say on TV aftershocks could last for a month and some of them could be big... I don't know I can go to sleep tonight! :sad:

Bilbo
03-11-2011, 11:10 AM
So that 7.2 earthquake 2 days ago was just the foreshock. Strange it was that big. 5th biggest ever recorded earthquake and 2nd biggest of the last 50 years. Horrible.

The aftershocks are moving south which likely means that the next big earthquake is going to hit near Tokyo.

Iván
03-11-2011, 11:18 AM
So that 7.2 earthquake 2 days ago was just the foreshock. Strange it was that big. 5th biggest ever recorded earthquake and 2nd biggest of the last 50 years. Horrible.

The aftershocks are moving south which likely means that the next big earthquake is going to hit near Tokyo.

no, its officially the 7TH biggest earthquake of modern times, can you imagine the earthquakes before humans were even on this planet, sick.

Betty
03-11-2011, 11:39 AM
Terribly unfortunate about the lack of technology, yes, but mankind has to make do with whatever it has. For example, buildings in Japan are constructed according to very strict guidelines that specifically aim to minimise the damages from earthquakes. However, a tsunami is a different ball game and there's nothing mankind can do except try to give as much warning as it can when it does happen.

As well as minimal casualties and damages, I really hope Japan can pull itself together after this...

in tv they are saying it too
the imagines im watching now are terribles:

Bilbo
03-11-2011, 11:55 AM
no, its officially the 7TH biggest earthquake of modern times, can you imagine the earthquakes before humans were even on this planet, sick.

8.9 according to USGS and that's the most accurate source

Imagine the 7.2 foreshock didn't happen. We might have seen 9.2 or higher.

Shirogane
03-11-2011, 11:59 AM
My deepest sympathies to the Japanese people, both to the living and the dead.

Betty
03-11-2011, 12:14 PM
allert pacific area


Countries around the Pacific were braced for a destructive tsunami today caused by the massive Japanese earthquake.

Thousands of people are fleeing their homes in north-eastern Indonesia after officials warned that a tsunami up to six feet high could hit coastal areas.

Some jumped in cars and motorcycles and headed to high ground as sirens blared. Others huddled in mosques or were brought to police stations or army barracks.

Alerts were issued along a 1,100-mile stretch of coastline, from North Sulawesi province to Papua.

Indonesia was hardest hit by the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that claimed more than 230,000 lives.

Tsunami sirens have been sounded and coastal areas evacuated in Hawaii, where the first waves were expected to hit about 3 a.m. (1300 GMT) today.

A relatively minor 4.5-magnitude earthquake hit Hawaii as it prepared for the tsunami but there were no reports of injuries and experts said it was unlikely to be related to the Japanese quake.

Meanwhile the Hawaii-based Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre widened its alert beyond East Asia to include Hawaii, Australia, New Zealand, the entire US western coast, Mexico and Central and South America and the rest of the Pacific Ocean.

Chip McCreary, the centre's director, said tsunami waves have the potential to swamp coastal areas of all Hawaii's islands.

"What these waves look like is an elevation of sea level, where the sea level will rise above its normal level and stay high for 10 or 15 minutes before it starts to recede," he said.

"As a result of this, in a tsunami wave, that water can flood the coast line and be a hazard to people and buildings on the coast."

The warnings cover an area stretching the entire western coast of the United States and Canada from the Mexican border to Chignik Bay in Alaska. In Alaska, a dozen small communities along the Aleutian Island chain were on alert.

"Everyone in that area knows, when you feel it, move - don't wait for a siren," said John Madden, director of the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. The largest affected town is Unalaska, population about 4,000.

Residents in coastal areas across the Pacific from Hawaii to Guam were ordered to evacuate to shelters and higher ground.


In Hawaii's tourist district of Waikiki, visitors were being moved to higher floors of their hotels. Meanwhile, residents were waiting in long queues stocking up on petrol, bottled water, canned food and generators.

"We're preparing for the worst and we're praying for the best," said a spokesman for the Honolulu Department of Emergency Management.

"Tsunami waves, because of their long length, they wrap around our islands very efficiently," he said.

Readings have come in from deep ocean gauges deployed since the 2004 tsunami in Banda Acha in Japan and around Wake Island.

The warning was issued at 9.31 pm local time (0731 GMT). Sirens were sounded about 30 minutes later in Honolulu alerting people in coastal areas to evacuate. About 70% of Hawaii's 1.4 million population resides in Honolulu, and as many as 100,000 tourists are in the city on any given day.

In the Philippines, officials ordered an evacuation of coastal communities along the country's eastern seaboard in expectation of a tsunami..

Disaster management officials in Albay province south-east of Manila said they ordered residents to move to designated evacuation sites that are at least 15 feet above sea level.

In Guam, authorities advised people to evacuate low areas of the US territory and seek ground higher than 50 feet above sea level and 100 feet inland.

The Northern Mariana Islands, another US territory, was also under the warning, and the Hyatt Regency in Saipan has moved guests to three highest floors of the seven-story hotel.

Australia was not in danger because it was protected by island nations to the north, including Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, that would largely absorb any wave activity, the country's National Meteorological and Oceanographic Centre said.

In Chile, the president called on the country to remain calm and go about business as usual despite the tsunami alert.

In Peru, authorities have issued a tsunami alert but no evacuations were imminent.

Chile's National Emergency Office will issue reports throughout the day to keep the public informed of the danger, and there will be enough time to evacuate if necessary, President Sebastian Pinera said.

Just over a year ago, Chile was struck by a tsunami which devastated coastal communities after an 8.8 earthquake just off the central coast.

Björki
03-11-2011, 12:32 PM
just horrible :bigcry: :sad:

Nole fan
03-11-2011, 12:49 PM
My God, I hope the damages are not like in 2004. That was terrible. :awww:

scoobs
03-11-2011, 12:50 PM
Tsunami is now approaching Hawaii - they're talking about a lot of land exposed as the water rolls out before the wave hits.

Johnny Groove
03-11-2011, 01:01 PM
Jesus.

out_here_grindin
03-11-2011, 02:46 PM
Not good. Very sad news. Hopefully it does not get worse

EnriqueIG8
03-11-2011, 03:32 PM
My sincere condolences to all Japanese posters at MTF and all Japanese people in general.

What a tragedy. May we all stand together and look for solutions.

Bilbo
03-11-2011, 03:39 PM
core melt accident might happen

GlennMirnyi
03-11-2011, 03:47 PM
A dire situation indeed.

Regenbogen
03-11-2011, 04:09 PM
So far Hawaii seems to be okay at least, no major damage reported. I've been following that the most since I recently lived there and know a lot of people.

The photos and videos from Japan are insane, hope everyone on here from Japan and friends & family are alright.

Vida
03-11-2011, 04:09 PM
terrible news. lets hope all will be done to help the situation.

lalaland
03-11-2011, 05:13 PM
My heart goes to the Japanese.

ChinoRios4Ever
03-11-2011, 05:36 PM
8,9 to 9,0 now!!!! simply scary, 2 mega earthquakes in one year. Chile's big quake last year was 8,9 in febraury 27. :eek:

My heart with the japanese people :hug:

Sapeod
03-11-2011, 05:41 PM
Only the 7th biggest earthquake in human history, yet it's still so devastating??
The 9.5 one in Chile in 1960 must've been quite something....

Sonja1989
03-11-2011, 07:47 PM
This is terrible. :sad: :sad: :sad:
I can crying if I hear from so big catastrophe.

scoobs
03-11-2011, 08:47 PM
Oh God.

2139: Radiation levels at the damaged Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant are continuing to rise. The Jiji Press news agency says the levels are eight times above normal. Its report also cites a ministry official as saying there is a "possibility of a radioactive leak".

2132: The Tokyo Electric Power Company has said radiation may already have been released at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant.

Lee
03-11-2011, 09:04 PM
From a news site in Hong Kong, confirmed death from 200-300 and estimated death of 1000. about 300 houses were swept away by tsunami.

And the radiation leak :sad:

fast_clay
03-11-2011, 10:53 PM
some deep, deep action in this quake... a school picked up activity on their seismograph in ireland...

pacific rim plates angry atm...

BigJohn
03-12-2011, 02:12 AM
This link of the tsunami running across the Pacific is fascinating. It takes a while to download it, but what a show.

http://nctr.pmel.noaa.gov/honshu20110311/20110311Houshu.mov

@Sweet Cleopatra
03-12-2011, 02:15 AM
so sad and heart breaking

Filo V.
03-12-2011, 03:04 AM
The aftershocks which are 4-7 magnitude themselves and the radiation and potential nuclear explosion means this is an ordeal that is still going on strong even after the initial horrific earthquake and tsunami. My heart breaks for the Japanese, what an awful, awful tragedy this is. Over 800 people are missing and that's just preliminary, the death toll appears to be headed well into the thousands. Devastating. Well wishes go to all Japanese MTF members.

Allez
03-12-2011, 05:37 AM
People are so resilient. They will pull through this. Nothing one can do about quakes and tsunamis. The planet has to do this to get itself into balance and in the much larger scheme of things that is as it should be. Just wish it didn't have to affect so many people in the process :sad:

All the best to Japanese MTFers :hug:

scoobs
03-12-2011, 09:24 AM
What's happening with the nuclear power plants is deeply worrying.

There has been an explosion at the Fukushima power plant and there has been an escape of radioactive caesium but what the short and long term consequences of this are, nobody knows yet.

Bilbo
03-12-2011, 09:34 AM
What's happening with the nuclear power plants is deeply worrying.

There has been an explosion at the Fukushima power plant and there has been an escape of radioactive caesium but what the short and long term consequences of this are, nobody knows yet.

unlikely they can fix it. they all need to run now.

Ivanatis
03-12-2011, 09:49 AM
unreal stuff, so sorry for them

DrJules
03-12-2011, 09:49 AM
What's happening with the nuclear power plants is deeply worrying.

There has been an explosion at the Fukushima power plant and there has been an escape of radioactive caesium but what the short and long term consequences of this are, nobody knows yet.

Much of the evacuation actions have been precautionary in nature; better to be over cautious and take as many sensible actions as possible.

The construction of the power plant is very different from Chernobyl so we will not see anything like that disaster. The plant here automatically has already closed down here while in Chernobyl did not close down.

Yes there are risks, but sense the actual will be much less than feared in this case.

scoobs
03-12-2011, 10:00 AM
Much of the evacuation actions have been precautionary in nature; better to be over cautious and take as many sensible actions as possible.

The construction of the power plant is very different from Chernobyl so we will not see anything like that disaster. The plant here automatically has already closed down here while in Chernobyl did not close down.

Yes there are risks, but sense the actual will be much less than feared in this case.

I agree in terms of scale we're far more likely to be talking about Three Mile Island scale than Chernobyl, but at this stage it's too early and there's too little info out there to be totally sure what the situation is. TepCo and the Govt are continuing to be quite reticent about revealing details of radiation counts, etc.

Mjau!
03-13-2011, 01:28 AM
The nuke thing doesn't sound so bad unless the situation escalates. People are too scared of radiation. It seems to me like the nuclear accident is almost viewed as worse than the tsunami even though it has probably killed more people than Chernobyl...

Oh, and you should have a look at the estimated deaths from fossile fuel pollution... now that's really awful! :sad:

electronicmusic
03-13-2011, 06:34 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-zfCBCq-8I&feature=player_embedded

Bilbo
03-14-2011, 11:13 PM
Explosion now also at Fukushima reactor No. 2. That's 3 reactors damaged at the same time and tomorrow the wind is blowing towards Tokyo.

holy shit

GlennMirnyi
03-15-2011, 02:45 AM
Chernobyl must have been the scariest thing a human being can witness. Every time I read about that, the more I wonder how it was to have been there.

Bilbo
03-15-2011, 09:11 AM
Chernobyl must have been the scariest thing a human being can witness. Every time I read about that, the more I wonder how it was to have been there.

What we've seen in Japan has topped everything since WWII and it's not even over yet.

JolánGagó
03-15-2011, 09:17 AM
three explosions now, radioactivity reached Tokyo, this is looking scarier by the minute.

Bolar Bolabi
03-15-2011, 11:13 AM
This is getting worrying. To all our Japanese friends out there, our thoughts are with you during this tough time!

Hewitt =Legend
03-15-2011, 11:37 AM
Shit, this is starting to get very scary. My prayers go out to everyone involved..

Lopez
03-15-2011, 01:29 PM
The amount of radiation released isn't that much really.

We get a shitloads of background radiation during our lifetimes. This is nowhere near Tchernobyl where the reactors were totally different as well.

Not nice either though.

Bilbo
03-15-2011, 02:17 PM
6.1 aftershock strikes 100 km west of Tokyo. Depth only 1 km. Just happened about half an hour ago.

Chiseller
03-15-2011, 04:00 PM
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/7021/fukuanim.gif

JolánGagó
03-15-2011, 04:42 PM
Seems Japanese goverment heavily downplaying dangers and realities.

tangerine_dream
03-15-2011, 04:58 PM
This link of the tsunami running across the Pacific is fascinating. It takes a while to download it, but what a show.

http://nctr.pmel.noaa.gov/honshu20110311/20110311Houshu.mov

The link doesn't work. Is there another one somewhere? I'd like to see this.

GlennMirnyi
03-15-2011, 06:06 PM
What we've seen in Japan has topped everything since WWII and it's not even over yet.

The earthquake? Not at all. In 2006 or 2008 68000 people died because of an earthquake in China.

Nothing tops Chernobyl when it comes to nuclear accidents.

GlennMirnyi
03-15-2011, 06:07 PM
Seems Japanese goverment heavily downplaying dangers and realities.

Not only the government but also the IAEA, in the interest of the nuclear energy industry.

Bilbo
03-15-2011, 06:32 PM
The earthquake? Not at all. In 2006 or 2008 68000 people died because of an earthquake in China.

Nothing tops Chernobyl when it comes to nuclear accidents.

I'm not talking about the death toll. I'm talking about destruction and consequences for the whole world. Just look what happened in Germany. They plan to close several nuclear plants even though the risk is none-existent in this region.

This natural disaster is the most expensive in the history of mankind after WW II.

If you talk about the death toll come back to me when Tokyo, Istanbul or San Francisco get destroyed completely by an earthquake because I can guarantee you it will happen one day.

JolánGagó
03-15-2011, 08:18 PM
Günther Oettinger, European Commissioner for Energy, just said to an European Parliament committee that the situation at Fukushima is out of control and "apocalipsis".

Bilbo
03-15-2011, 08:30 PM
reactor no.5 and no.6 might also explode

Tommy_Vercetti
03-15-2011, 09:25 PM
Can't wait to see the low-budget horror movies made from this.

BigJohn
03-15-2011, 09:52 PM
The link doesn't work. Is there another one somewhere? I'd like to see this.

wr8ISvC_Krw

GlennMirnyi
03-15-2011, 10:20 PM
I'm not talking about the death toll. I'm talking about destruction and consequences for the whole world. Just look what happened in Germany. They plan to close several nuclear plants even though the risk is none-existent in this region.

This natural disaster is the most expensive in the history of mankind after WW II.

If you talk about the death toll come back to me when Tokyo, Istanbul or San Francisco get destroyed completely by an earthquake because I can guarantee you it will happen one day.

Human lives are the most important things on the planet. The death toll is always the most important things. Broken things can be rebuilt. Lives are lost forever.

Unless you think Chinese lives are less important than Western lives or Japanese lives. But that's a whole other discussion.

JolánGagó
03-15-2011, 10:32 PM
New fire in reactor 4.

Commander Data
03-15-2011, 10:44 PM
I wonder what all the sea water being used to cool the reactors does when going back to the ocean. can't be good.....

Allez
03-15-2011, 10:48 PM
Human lives are the most important things on the planet. The death toll is always the most important things. Broken things can be rebuilt. Lives are lost forever.

Unless you think Chinese lives are less important than Western lives or Japanese lives. But that's a whole other discussion.

Says who ? I doubt the polar bears whose habitat is being destroyed or the disappearing amazonian denizens would agree with you :p

You are speaking in relative terms here. You should have qualified that statement by saying "xy is the most important thing to me...":wavey:

Allez
03-15-2011, 10:52 PM
I wonder what all the sea water being used to cool the reactors does when going back to the ocean. can't be good.....

It's only good for swimming in. Under NO circumstances should you drink this water. Trust me on this :eek:

viruzzz
03-15-2011, 11:09 PM
Human lives are the most important things on the planet. The death toll is always the most important things. Broken things can be rebuilt. Lives are lost forever.

Unless you think Chinese lives are less important than Western lives or Japanese lives. But that's a whole other discussion.

:hatoff:

Bilbo
03-15-2011, 11:24 PM
Human lives are the most important things on the planet. The death toll is always the most important things. Broken things can be rebuilt. Lives are lost forever.

Unless you think Chinese lives are less important than Western lives or Japanese lives. But that's a whole other discussion.

You start to talk like Steve Jobs. All about numbers but no clue about science.

If humans would stop building mega cities along dangerous coast lines and stop using nuclear power the consequences would be much lower. We depend on the earth not the other way around.

BTW lives are coming and going on this planet since over 4 billion years. Just in case you haven't known.

Allez
03-15-2011, 11:25 PM
You start to talk like Steve Jobs. All about numbers but no clue about science.

If humans would stop building mega cities along dangerous coast lines and stop using nuclear power the consequences would be much lower. We depend on the earth not the other way around.

BTW lives are coming and going on this planet since over 4 billion years. Just in case you haven't known.

+1

GlennMirnyi
03-15-2011, 11:33 PM
You start to talk like Steve Jobs. All about numbers but no clue about science.

If humans would stop building mega cities along dangerous coast lines and stop using nuclear power the consequences would be much lower. We depend on the earth not the other way around.

BTW lives are coming and going on this planet since over 4 billion years. Just in case you haven't known.

:rolleyes:

Yeah let's go back to being cavemen. Great way to see the world. :worship:

Basically you don't care about people dying because they'd die anyway. Brilliant logic.

Bilbo
03-15-2011, 11:48 PM
Basically you don't care about people dying because they'd die anyway. Brilliant logic.

i said you can't prevent it. it has happened all the time. with the help of sience you can lower the consequences though.

i mean show me one major earthquake where no one died. no humans, animals or whatever. never was and never will.

fast_clay
03-16-2011, 12:11 AM
Chernobyl must have been the scariest thing a human being can witness. Every time I read about that, the more I wonder how it was to have been there.

i remember watching 60 minutes back int the early 90's ... cameraman in helicopter circling the site soon after the event... not long... 15 minutes...

a year later, no legs...

he'd been filming with his legs out the edge of the helicopter... poisoned... and riddled with cancer...

Lopez
03-16-2011, 12:34 AM
You start to talk like Steve Jobs. All about numbers but no clue about science.

If humans would stop building mega cities along dangerous coast lines and stop using nuclear power the consequences would be much lower. We depend on the earth not the other way around.

BTW lives are coming and going on this planet since over 4 billion years. Just in case you haven't known.

There is a reason why cities are built on the coast.

Stop using nuclear power? How would you power the world then?

abraxas21
03-16-2011, 01:27 AM
There is a reason why cities are built on the coast.

Stop using nuclear power? How would you power the world then?

we need a radical change in our lifestyles and mindsets. instead of asking ourselves what can we do to get more energy, we should ask what can we do to demand less energy from the planet.

fast_clay
03-16-2011, 02:15 AM
we need a radical change in our lifestyles and mindsets. instead of asking ourselves what can we do to get more energy, we should ask what can we do to demand less energy from the planet.

i agree that there is a harmony we are unable to strike due to the arrogance that is our birthright...

seen clearly in people arguing that we are killing the planet... but no... that's all bullsh!t... humans so self centred, righteous and proud that they think that we actually could harm the planet...? does anyone truly believe that...? it will grind us to dust, bury us and our realm, to be recycled again down the track...

and what will we leave of any lasting note...? unless we store it in space, we leave nuclear accident zones and nuclear waste... this is all we leave behind...

if we are lucky we mutate the next amphibian that decides to leaves the water, long after we are gone...

a 5 legged amphibian as our scar on the planet...

a monument...

our giza...

GlennMirnyi
03-16-2011, 02:57 AM
i said you can't prevent it. it has happened all the time. with the help of sience you can lower the consequences though.

i mean show me one major earthquake where no one died. no humans, animals or whatever. never was and never will.

My point is exactly that the death toll is the main problem.

There is a reason why cities are built on the coast.

Stop using nuclear power? How would you power the world then?

And there's a reason people live in Tokyo, LA, etc.

we need a radical change in our lifestyles and mindsets. instead of asking ourselves what can we do to get more energy, we should ask what can we do to demand less energy from the planet.

I didn't know you were an environmentalist.

We shouldn't avoid progress. The human being is here to overcome every difficulty, including harsh environment.

A cleaner approach to energy is necessary, alright, but going back to the caves isn't going to help.

JolánGagó
03-16-2011, 07:13 AM
The 50 liquidators evacuated due to high radioactivity level, no one left on site. TEPCO doesn't even know the origin of the white smoke columns that started this night from reactor 3, the say they guess it's water from the refrigeration pools.

Apocalypse, I agree.

Topspindoctor
03-16-2011, 07:17 AM
You start to talk like Steve Jobs. All about numbers but no clue about science.

If humans would stop building mega cities along dangerous coast lines and stop using nuclear power the consequences would be much lower. We depend on the earth not the other way around.

BTW lives are coming and going on this planet since over 4 billion years. Just in case you haven't known.

Great suggestion. Since you're so eager, let's see you stop using electricity and move out of the big city to live in a cave.


we need a radical change in our lifestyles and mindsets. instead of asking ourselves what can we do to get more energy, we should ask what can we do to demand less energy from the planet.

Clean energy is expensive or/and insufficient. Would you be willing to pay triple the amount for everything you currently enjoy?

How exactly would you change your lifestyle/mindset? That statement is too vague. Raise the prices for electricity (which will lead to price increase on almost everything)? Black out after 10pm? It's very easy to type something on internet forum, but with current technology "changing your lifestyle" will lead to changes most people will not like - yourself included.

Lopez
03-16-2011, 09:46 AM
A cleaner approach to energy is necessary, alright, but going back to the caves isn't going to help.

So true.

However I've always wondered why environmentalists are against nuclear energy, I mean it's a step between fossil fuels and the energy of the future IMO and they are adamant about reducing greenhouse gases...

JolánGagó
03-16-2011, 10:16 AM
So true.

However I've always wondered why environmentalists are against nuclear energy, I mean it's a step between fossil fuels and the energy of the future IMO and they are adamant about reducing greenhouse gases...

You wonder why :tape: Im not against nuclear energy but it takes an endless capacity to be oblivious to reality to wonder why someone would be against it.

Commander Data
03-16-2011, 01:02 PM
However I've always wondered why environmentalists are against nuclear energy, I mean it's a step between fossil fuels and the energy of the future IMO and they are adamant about reducing greenhouse gases...

In case you have not noticed radioactive material is extremely poisonous. very little amounts cause cancer, it can take 10-20 years but it ain't funny. 100 thousands have already died many more will. certain areas are inhabitable for 100's of years more to follow. radionuclides accumulate in the food chain...

1) mining the Uranium is a natural disaster by itself, contaminating vast areas.

2) Reactors are not save (Tschernobyl, Three Mile, Fukushima..)

3) Reprocessing plants are contaminating the environment. increasing cancer rates (e.g. La Hague, Sellafield etc..)

4) The waste stays dangerous for 1000 000 years. not one single final respiratory exists. We have no clue how to contain the wastes for longer time. We pass on enormous costs and dangers to future generations, that is highly questionable. Current attempts to contain the waste are a disaster, at most sites the groundwater is already strongly contaminated (e.g. Hanford).

5) Nuclear energy is too expensive. Prices for reactors are constantly increasing, cleaning up costs billions, Meltdowns of reactors are estimated to cost up to 4000 billions. waste management is not yet payed. many costs of nuclear power are no included in the energy price but have to be payed by society eventually. If the costs would be transparent, nuclear energy could not compete with other energy sources.

6) Nuclear energy is said to cause almost as much CO2 as coal if all steps of the life-circle are included.

7) Nuclear energy was promoted by the military in order to produce plutonium. only after the state said companies don't need to take full liability, companies started running nuclear plants, free market forces would not allow this technology, because it is too risky and costly.

8) Uranium stocks are limited and will run out sooner or later anyway.


No sane environmentalists will ever support this technology. not a technology that generates wastes that are highly deadly for 1 million years and were a reactor meltdown could (or does, lets see what happens in Japan) destroy an entire economy in the blink of an eye. these risks are too high. we have to invest in green technologies like solar and wind etc. even if this means increased prices and limited energy supply in the short term, it will be the only smart way in the long term.

JolánGagó
03-16-2011, 01:49 PM
Slow motion Chernobyl, that's what we're witnessing...

Commander Data
03-16-2011, 02:01 PM
Slow motion Chernobyl, that's what we're witnessing...

2nd time in 25 years we see a once in a 100 000-year event :spit:

great idea that the same people that profit from these plants did/do the risk assessment.... :rolleyes:

JolánGagó
03-16-2011, 02:28 PM
Yep, so much for the indestructibility theory. I'd like to see how the industry and lobbies will promote nuclear energy now that the old mantra "designed to resist earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricans, direct impact of a jet fighter and even sun's supernova explosion" has exploded on their faces.

star
03-16-2011, 02:34 PM
In case you have not noticed radioactive material is extremely poisonous. very little amounts cause cancer, it can take 10-20 years but it ain't funny. 100 thousands have already died many more will. certain areas are inhabitable for 100's of years more to follow. radionuclides accumulate in the food chain...

1) mining the Uranium is a natural disaster by itself, contaminating vast areas.

2) Reactors are not save (Tschernobyl, Three Mile, Fukushima..)

3) Reprocessing plants are contaminating the environment. increasing cancer rates (e.g. La Hague, Sellafield etc..)

4) The waste stays dangerous for 1000 000 years. not one single final respiratory exists. We have no clue how to contain the wastes for longer time. We pass on enormous costs and dangers to future generations, that is highly questionable. Current attempts to contain the waste are a disaster, at most sites the groundwater is already strongly contaminated (e.g. Hanford).

5) Nuclear energy is too expensive. Prices for reactors are constantly increasing, cleaning up costs billions, Meltdowns of reactors are estimated to cost up to 4000 billions. waste management is not yet payed. many costs of nuclear power are no included in the energy price but have to be payed by society eventually. If the costs would be transparent, nuclear energy could not compete with other energy sources.

6) Nuclear energy is said to cause almost as much CO2 as coal if all steps of the life-circle are included.

7) Nuclear energy was promoted by the military in order to produce plutonium. only after the state said companies don't need to take full liability, companies started running nuclear plants, free market forces would not allow this technology, because it is too risky and costly.

8) Uranium stocks are limited and will run out sooner or later anyway.


No sane environmentalists will ever support this technology. not a technology that generates wastes that are highly deadly for 1 million years and were a reactor meltdown could (or does, lets see what happens in Japan) destroy an entire economy in the blink of an eye. these risks are too high. we have to invest in green technologies like solar and wind etc. even if this means increased prices and limited energy supply in the short term, it will be the only smart way in the long term.

AND there is a huge need for water. In the U.S. the water supply is stressed already in many areas.

Yep, so much for the indestructibility theory. I'd like to see how the industry and lobbies will promote nuclear energy now that the old mantra "designed to resist earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricans, direct impact of a jet fighter and even sun's supernova explosion" has exploded on their faces.

I notice that a plant in So. Cal is built to withstand an earthquake of 7 on the Richter Scale. 7! And this is one of the most earthquake prone areas and one of the ones with the potential for an enormous earthquake.

JolánGagó
03-16-2011, 02:39 PM
I notice that a plant in So. Cal is built to withstand an earthquake of 7 on the Richter Scale. 7! And this is one of the most earthquake prone areas and one of the ones with the potential for an enormous earthquake.

Some replicas of this one already reached 7, let alone main one.

jonathancrane
03-16-2011, 02:49 PM
Japan's northwestern coastline is thought to have shifted by as much as 4m. to the east

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMY4M0U5LG_index_0.html

GlennMirnyi
03-16-2011, 03:50 PM
So true.

However I've always wondered why environmentalists are against nuclear energy, I mean it's a step between fossil fuels and the energy of the future IMO and they are adamant about reducing greenhouse gases...

Most people against nuclear energy have as much knowledge of it as a dog.

In case you have not noticed radioactive material is extremely poisonous. very little amounts cause cancer, it can take 10-20 years but it ain't funny. 100 thousands have already died many more will. certain areas are inhabitable for 100's of years more to follow. radionuclides accumulate in the food chain...

1) mining the Uranium is a natural disaster by itself, contaminating vast areas.

2) Reactors are not save (Tschernobyl, Three Mile, Fukushima..)

3) Reprocessing plants are contaminating the environment. increasing cancer rates (e.g. La Hague, Sellafield etc..)

4) The waste stays dangerous for 1000 000 years. not one single final respiratory exists. We have no clue how to contain the wastes for longer time. We pass on enormous costs and dangers to future generations, that is highly questionable. Current attempts to contain the waste are a disaster, at most sites the groundwater is already strongly contaminated (e.g. Hanford).

5) Nuclear energy is too expensive. Prices for reactors are constantly increasing, cleaning up costs billions, Meltdowns of reactors are estimated to cost up to 4000 billions. waste management is not yet payed. many costs of nuclear power are no included in the energy price but have to be payed by society eventually. If the costs would be transparent, nuclear energy could not compete with other energy sources.

6) Nuclear energy is said to cause almost as much CO2 as coal if all steps of the life-circle are included.

7) Nuclear energy was promoted by the military in order to produce plutonium. only after the state said companies don't need to take full liability, companies started running nuclear plants, free market forces would not allow this technology, because it is too risky and costly.

8) Uranium stocks are limited and will run out sooner or later anyway.


No sane environmentalists will ever support this technology. not a technology that generates wastes that are highly deadly for 1 million years and were a reactor meltdown could (or does, lets see what happens in Japan) destroy an entire economy in the blink of an eye. these risks are too high. we have to invest in green technologies like solar and wind etc. even if this means increased prices and limited energy supply in the short term, it will be the only smart way in the long term.

So because of 3 reactors you judge the other 500. Awesome.

There's risk involved in any kind of energy extraction. The Mexican Gulf disaster slipped from your head, it seems.

Nuclear energy is more expensive than hydroelectric plants but it's not more expensive than using oil or coal. Especially if you consider the whole cost of filtering gases, etc. Coal plant's thermal efficiency is abysmal.

Free market wouldn't use nuclear energy? In which world are you living? There are more than a hundred nuclear power plants being built RIGHT NOW.

Nuclear research is necessary and the only way to give humanity the next big technological jump. I'd say, in fact, that the slowing down of nuclear research is actually impeding the final breakthrough in nuclear fusion, the energy we'll be using in the future.

Lopez
03-16-2011, 04:23 PM
Most people against nuclear energy have as much knowledge of it as a dog.

QED in this thread...

People throw shitfits about radiation when they don't realize that we are exposed to a shitloads of background radiation as well as radiation from what we eat and basically from every other creature on the planet as well as buildings.

Same people are concerned about radiation in cell phones but not about the radiation that other humans emit.

There are actually studies that suggest that small amounts of extra radiation is beneficial, however once radiation levels increase it becomes dangerous. "Dose makes the poison".

Commander Data
03-16-2011, 04:41 PM
Most people against nuclear energy have as much knowledge of it as a dog.


your knowledge appears rather limited...


So because of 3 reactors you judge the other 500. Awesome.

what is your point? that from the fact that 3 out of 500 blow up you conclude they are save. that makes sense...

let me ask you what number out of 500 would need to blow up to make the statement "nuclear reactors are not save" warranted? 500 out of 500?


There's risk involved in any kind of energy extraction. The Mexican Gulf disaster slipped from your head, it seems.

everything has a risk that is a banality without any practical value.. the question is not whether risks are involved but how big these risks are! And what kind of risks we are willing to take. the risk of economy being ruined by one single event and vast areas rendered inhabitable for 100 years is a too high risk in my opinion, you are free to have another opinion.

The gulf stream is a disaster but clearly far less terrible the a reactor meltdown. as far as I know, children are again swing in the gulf of Mexico. I don't see any kids playing in Chernobyl.....



Nuclear energy is more expensive than hydroelectric plants but it's not more expensive than using oil or coal.

That statement is not correct since many costs are externalized in nuclear power. cleaning up for example already has cost billions and billions which are payed by the tax payer and not included in the price. wastes will need to be manged for the next 100 000 years, nobody has yet put a price tag on that.. that is going to cost a shit load of cash. now watch how much Fukushima is going to cost... certainly many billions.

Especially if you consider the whole cost of filtering gases, etc. Coal plant's thermal efficiency is abysmal.

we need to further evolve and develop, we tried coal and we tried nuclear both are not good enough, time to further improve technology. maybe extract the co2 right at the factory or the like. I believe in advance of science. I'm sure we can solve the energy problem and find a better energy source if we really try.

Free market wouldn't use nuclear energy? In which world are you living? There are more than a hundred nuclear power plants being built RIGHT NOW.

obviously you are not well informed. normal companies are liable for damage they do, hence they need a insurance. in the case of nuclear reactors costs of meltdowns have been estimated do be as much as 4000 billion. consequently no insurance company wanted to cover that and no private company would build reactors. now, what the government did was put a cap on the liability. they said, ok, you guy only need to make insurance for 1 billion we (the society) cover the rest.
That is not free market.

Nuclear research is necessary and the only way to give humanity the next big technological jump. I'd say, in fact, that the slowing down of nuclear research is actually impeding the final breakthrough in nuclear fusion, the energy we'll be using in the future.

unfortunately that is more dream then reality. nuclear fusion is always said to be practicable 50 years in the future :D we once looked at that in university already in the 1960's experts said in about 50 years it will work, 1980 they said in about 50 years, now they still say, in about 50 years...

Commander Data
03-16-2011, 04:45 PM
QED in this thread...

People throw shitfits about radiation when they don't realize that we are exposed to a shitloads of background radiation as well as radiation from what we eat and basically from every other creature on the planet as well as buildings.

Same people are concerned about radiation in cell phones but not about the radiation that other humans emit.

There are actually studies that suggest that small amounts of extra radiation is beneficial, however once radiation levels increase it becomes dangerous. "Dose makes the poison".

:spit:

I suggest you hit the plane, they need some clean up worker at Fukushima. I'm sure they pay well at the moment

Commander Data
03-16-2011, 04:47 PM
Yep, so much for the indestructibility theory. I'd like to see how the industry and lobbies will promote nuclear energy now that the old mantra "designed to resist earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricans, direct impact of a jet fighter and even sun's supernova explosion" has exploded on their faces.

I think they will change it to something like:

"designed to resist earthquakes up to 8.8, tsunamis up to 6 m, hurricans, direct impact of a jet fighter and even sun's supernova explosion"

Lopez
03-16-2011, 05:07 PM
:spit:

I suggest you hit the plane, they need some clean up worker at Fukushima. I'm sure they pay well at the moment

Are you suggesting that we don't get radiation all the time :scratch: ?

Chernobyl death toll estimate by the UN and WHO ;) : http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/sep/06/energy.ukraine

GlennMirnyi
03-16-2011, 05:12 PM
Of course nuclear fusion is far from a breakthrough. Less and less money and time is devoted to nuclear research progress thanks to alarmist and retrograde people like you. The way things go, that stage of development will never come. What the planet definitely doesn't need right now is more anti-progress people. We need to put our fears aside and make the big leap - not chicken away from the situation like little children.

Just because the Japanese underestimated the situation and made a mess out of it, it doesn't mean all nuclear reactors are unsafe.

Also, you talk as if every nuclear power plant blows up and contaminates the world like Chernobyl. That's :bs: Then my knowledge is limited... :rolleyes:

Commander Data
03-16-2011, 06:39 PM
Are you suggesting that we don't get radiation all the time :scratch: ?

Chernobyl death toll estimate by the UN and WHO ;) : http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/sep/06/energy.ukraine

under 50 deaths?!

:spit:

although the guardian cites the International Atomic Energy Agency as sources he is obviously unable to read...

"The total number of deaths already attributable to Chernobyl or expected in the future over the lifetime of emergency workers and local residents in the most contaminated areas is estimated to be about 4,000." (https://iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/faqs.shtml)

now, the atomic energy agency is clearly the ones who would go with the lowest possible estimate, since they are the atom-lobby!!! lets see what the other side says:

"A new Greenpeace report has revealed that the full consequences of the Chernobyl disaster could top a quarter of a million cancer cases and nearly 100,000 fatal cancers."

(http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/chernobyl-deaths-180406/)

okay so between 4000 - 100000 deaths depending on which side you ask. I would go with the middle then, about 10 000 - 50 000 deaths seems a reasonable assumption.

see, you have no clue what you are talking about AT ALL.

I again suggest you go help at reactor 3....


Of course nuclear fusion is far from a breakthrough. Less and less money and time is devoted to nuclear research progress thanks to alarmist and retrograde people like you.

maybe because the money went into cleaning the atomic messes so far? estimates by the atom-lobby them-selves:

"A variety of estimates from the 1990s placed the costs (for Chernobyl) over two decades at hundreds of billions of dollars."

https://iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/faqs.shtml


The way things go, that stage of development will never come. What the planet definitely doesn't need right now is more anti-progress people. We need to put our fears aside and make the big leap - not chicken away from the situation like little children.

what we need is educated people that know something and make fact based decisions and not guys like you and lopez that talk out of their ass with biased statements and no real facts or knowldege to back them up.

Just because the Japanese underestimated the situation and made a mess out of it, it doesn't mean all nuclear reactors are unsafe.

No, it means that they clearly pose a security risk.

like I cited the Chernobyl accident had costs of hundreds of billions of dollars to clean up and 10 000's of deaths. Fukushima will probably be even more expensive. the costs and risk are too high. How you cannot see that?!


Also, you talk as if every nuclear power plant blows up and contaminates the world like Chernobyl. That's :bs: Then my knowledge is limited... :rolleyes:

I not saying this (although Fukushima could actually turn out worse then Chernobyl ).. two accidents in that category are enough for my taste.

This technology is from the 1950's, maybe you are the retrograde guy not me, lets move on. I'm also for fusion but it seems hard to make it work. I say lets go with: solar, wind, tidal plants, fusion and other innovative lower risk technologies. I'm sure if we put the hundreds of billion needed to clean up the atomic mess into these technologies, scientist come up with a solution.

Chiseller
03-16-2011, 07:06 PM
Some highly ridiculous viewpoints here.
Nice to see that you even bother Commander Data.

Bilbo
03-16-2011, 07:30 PM
about 48 hours left to fix all the problems

Lopez
03-16-2011, 08:53 PM
what we need is educated people that know something and make fact based decisions and not guys like you and lopez that talk out of their ass with biased statements and no real facts or knowldege to back them up.

Pot, kettle, black :lol:. Your nuclear and educational background must be way above me and Glenn's apparently. The governments and business must not know anything then :sad:. You should be the president of the world :p. You'd also make a fortune on the stock market! You still haven't answered my question about background radiation and radiation in general ;).

Of course I read the whole article and wasn't suggesting that the total toll would be around 50. However, 4000 doesn't sound all that bad considering how bad it's made out to be :shrug:. WHO and the UN are hardly nuclear lobbyists are they?

That's total BS however to say that you can "guesstimate" the real number by choosing between two "extremes" :lol:. Greenpeace uses notoriously horrible mathematics in its calculations, e.g. calculating the total radiation amount and then dividing it by the lethal dose and thereby getting the great "result" :lol:.

For example, even if someone never died of arsen poisoning in the whole year but everyone would get a microscopic amount, using the awesome Greenpeace logic you would actually get a death toll...

Lopez
03-16-2011, 08:56 PM
Some highly ridiculous viewpoints here.
Nice to see that you even bother Commander Data.

It's ridiculous to be pro nuclear :scratch: ?

Betty
03-16-2011, 09:01 PM
about 48 hours left to fix all the problems

:scared:

GlennMirnyi
03-17-2011, 12:29 AM
maybe because the money went into cleaning the atomic messes so far? estimates by the atom-lobby them-selves:

"A variety of estimates from the 1990s placed the costs (for Chernobyl) over two decades at hundreds of billions of dollars."

https://iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/faqs.shtml


what we need is educated people that know something and make fact based decisions and not guys like you and lopez that talk out of their ass with biased statements and no real facts or knowldege to back them up.

No, it means that they clearly pose a security risk.

like I cited the Chernobyl accident had costs of hundreds of billions of dollars to clean up and 10 000's of deaths. Fukushima will probably be even more expensive. the costs and risk are too high. How you cannot see that?!

I not saying this (although Fukushima could actually turn out worse then Chernobyl ).. two accidents in that category are enough for my taste.

This technology is from the 1950's, maybe you are the retrograde guy not me, lets move on. I'm also for fusion but it seems hard to make it work. I say lets go with: solar, wind, tidal plants, fusion and other innovative lower risk technologies. I'm sure if we put the hundreds of billion needed to clean up the atomic mess into these technologies, scientist come up with a solution.

Pffff the money that went into Chernobyl was Soviet money. This has nothing to do with the west. It was 18 billion rubles, as Gorbachev said.

Tells me the nuclear physicist of this forum. If you know that much about this subject you wouldn't be guessing numbers lottery-style.

Yeah scientists will learn a lot about nuclear energy with all the money going for energy sources as efficient as using matches to read.

How much money and how many lives have been spent in the whole search for more and more oil?

fast_clay
03-17-2011, 04:27 AM
that was a pretty big error that one... it wasn't a Cabbage Error, not totally unforced... how can you predict the world decides to get warm and slip around a bit... lol... no, it was a fairly forced error, no one can predict that... i'm in the rain catching boat business... if anyone's wants in pm me... we're going to visit the lava pit this weekend, should be good..

JolánGagó
03-17-2011, 11:09 AM
Comparing cellphones and Earth background radiation with that from a melted down reactor :haha: That's a top pro-nuclear argument, highly intelligent :yeah:

:tape:

Oh dear, I hope people like Lopez are never ever put in charge of anyone's safety.

Lopez
03-17-2011, 11:48 AM
Comparing cellphones and Earth background radiation with that from a melted down reactor :haha: That's a top pro-nuclear argument, highly intelligent :yeah:

:tape:

Oh dear, I hope people like Lopez are never ever put in charge of anyone's safety.

:rolleyes:

That was to illustrate a point. Not saying that the levels are comparable.

Not that you'd understand :yeah:. Keep looking at the world through your massively twisted glasses, it provides for much entertainment, though not for proper arguments.

JolánGagó
03-17-2011, 12:17 PM
"Proper" arguments! :spit:

Is that how you call your nonsensical babbling on cellphones and background radiation in a discussion about an impending nuclear catastrophe? :speakles:

:yeah: please continue illuminating us :bowdown: :bowdown:

Commander Data
03-17-2011, 01:02 PM
Lets go back to the facts here:

Are you suggesting that we don't get radiation all the time :scratch: ?

Chernobyl death toll estimate by the UN and WHO ;) : http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/sep/06/energy.ukraine

Your link says:

"The nuclear disaster at Chernobyl almost 20 years ago has so far claimed fewer than 50 lives, according to a study by the International Atomic Energy Agency"

I proved that your link was completely wrong and greatly downplaying the real danger and number of lives lost ( which is estimated between 4000 - 100000 deaths).

https://iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/faqs.shtml

http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...deaths-180406/



Of course I read the whole article and wasn't suggesting that the total toll would be around 50.


that was exactly what your link was suggesting, seems you have not even read your own link :rolleyes: - fewer then 50 lives lost. If you knew this info to be false, it is absolutely disgusting from you to post the link with this false information. what do you think people that lost family members or child due to cancer feel like when they read smart ass comments from people like you claiming that is all hype and that only 50 workers died..


Your nuclear and educational background must be way above me and Glenn's apparently.

that much is obvious by now.


It's ridiculous to be pro nuclear :scratch: ?

Stop twisting his words. he said your viewpoints are ridiculous (which go far beyond pro nuclear). I have already proven that your statements are non-sense. Nothing to discuss here.


You still haven't answered my question about background radiation and radiation in general .

It is again complete rubbish what you wrote:

QED in this thread...

People throw shitfits about radiation when they don't realize that we are exposed to a shitloads of background radiation as well as radiation from what we eat and basically from every other creature on the planet as well as buildings.

Same people are concerned about radiation in cell phones but not about the radiation that other humans emit.

There are actually studies that suggest that small amounts of extra radiation is beneficial, however once radiation levels increase it becomes dangerous. "Dose makes the poison".

:rolleyes: we are not talking about the effects of background radiation but about the effects of the high doses due to reactor meltdown and contamination due to intake of radionuclides emitted to begin with. Do you even know the differences?

for example plutonium (which is inside reactor 3 where the containment seems to be leaking) is a very hazardous carcinogen. to compare that with the cell phone radiation is just :o

then this:

"most scientists and regulatory agencies agree that even small doses of ionizing radiation increase cancer risk, although by a very small amount. In general, the risk of cancer from radiation exposure increases as the dose of radiation increases. Likewise, the lower the exposure is, the smaller the increase in risk. But there is no threshold below which ionizing radiation is thought to be totally safe."

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/medicaltreatments/radiation-exposure-and-cancer

Commander Data
03-17-2011, 01:16 PM
Pffff the money that went into Chernobyl was Soviet money. This has nothing to do with the west. It was 18 billion rubles, as Gorbachev said.

Tells me the nuclear physicist of this forum. If you know that much about this subject you wouldn't be guessing numbers lottery-style.



What an extreme clown comment by you for everybody to read :o


...obviously you are unable to read, let me repeat the facts. I'm not guessing anything the

International Atomic Energy Agency writes:

"A variety of estimates from the 1990s placed the costs (for Chernobyl) over two decades at hundreds of billions of dollars."

https://iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/faqs.shtml

I don't care how you twist facts, change currencies, or what some alleged nuclear experts on this forum says. The International Atomic Energy Agency is a slightly bigger authority in this matters then you or MTF...

alarming how you people twist things and make wrong statements (especially after saying that anti-nuclear people here are uneducated and know nothing....:o)

Shirogane
03-17-2011, 02:34 PM
The Star in Japan: Hideaki Akaiwa must ‘keep looking’ (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/955222--the-star-in-japan-hideaki-akaiwa-must-keep-looking?bn=1) :worship:

Lopez
03-17-2011, 03:42 PM
"The nuclear disaster at Chernobyl almost 20 years ago has so far claimed fewer than 50 lives, according to a study by the International Atomic Energy Agency"

I proved that your link was completely wrong and greatly downplaying the real danger and number of lives lost ( which is estimated between 4000 - 100000 deaths).

that was exactly what your link was suggesting, seems you have not even read your own link :rolleyes: - fewer then 50 lives lost. If you knew this info to be false, it is absolutely disgusting from you to post the link with this false information. what do you think people that lost family members or child due to cancer feel like when they read smart ass comments from people like you claiming that is all hype and that only 50 workers died..

You should work on your English and reading comprehension skills...

The second sentence in the article: "But about 4,000 people could eventually die from exposure to radiation released when a reactor caught fire in the Ukrainian forest and showered Europe with a plume of radioactive particles." which is exactly the same as the one you cited, in fact the article uses the exact same source as you do :lol:. Please don't get your panties in a bunch about things when you really don't bother to look them up. I will bold the following statement so you can stop the BS about the article once and for all: Both the article and you use the same source and the same source is in Wikipedia as well:

"UNSCEAR has conducted 20 years of detailed scientific and epidemiological research on the effects of the Chernobyl accident. Apart from the 57 direct deaths in the accident itself, UNSCEAR originally predicted up to 4,000 additional cancer cases due to the accident.[4] However, the latest UNSCEAR reports suggest that these estimates were overstated.[75] In addition, the IAEA states that there has been no increase in the rate of birth defects or abnormalities, or solid cancers (such as lung cancer) corroborating UNSCEAR's assessments.[76]"

While the article mentions less than 50 direct deaths and the report mentions 57, both arrive at the conclusion of 4000 TO BE EXPECTED. Why is this so difficult :lol:?

that much is obvious by now.

Please do share your nuclear and educational background :worship:

Stop twisting his words. he said your viewpoints are ridiculous (which go far beyond pro nuclear). I have already proven that your statements are non-sense. Nothing to discuss here.

:lol:. Which ones? You're just blabbering on about something that you've completely misunderstood.

:rolleyes: we are not talking about the effects of background radiation but about the effects of the high doses due to reactor meltdown and contamination due to intake of radionuclides emitted to begin with. Do you even know the differences?


You seem to not understand quite like JolanGago. My original comment was just to illustrate that people rarely think rationally of radiation because they don't know about it. I used background radiation as an example of this. NEVER did I suggest that background radiation is in any way comparable to high radiation exposure, I never even mentioned it. But sure enough, the MTF disease strikes and, like with the article, you misunderstand a million things and start arguing a case which I never even presented.

Please let's stop this totally fruitless conversation. Let me sum up a few things in clear bullet points that I actually HAVE said to maybe get through to you:
- There are risks in nuclear energy.
- These risks are, in general, grossly overstated on a regular basis to fit a certain agenda (i.e. Chernobyl health effects by Greenpeace).
- The overstating is successful because the general public doesn't really know enough about radiation.
- The current accident is hardly a case strong enough to condemn the entire nuclear energy -concept.

buddyholly
03-17-2011, 09:03 PM
Lets go back to the facts here:



Your link says:

"The nuclear disaster at Chernobyl almost 20 years ago has so far claimed fewer than 50 lives, according to a study by the International Atomic Energy Agency"

I proved that your link was completely wrong and greatly downplaying the real danger and number of lives lost ( which is estimated between 4000 - 100000 deaths).

https://iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/faqs.shtml

http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...deaths-180406/



that was exactly what your link was suggesting, seems you have not even read your own link :rolleyes: - fewer then 50 lives lost. If you knew this info to be false, it is absolutely disgusting from you to post the link with this false information. what do you think people that lost family members or child due to cancer feel like when they read smart ass comments from people like you claiming that is all hype and that only 50 workers died..





But the IAEA report does say that fewer than 50 people have died. What evidence have you presented to say this is not true? Of the two links you give, my computer will not open the first (unsafe site) and the second link (Greenpeace) says the page is not available.

OK, If you take the capital letters out of the first link address, it works. And the report in 2006 says that fewer than 50 people have died. Why are you disputing this? Why are you calling Lopez disgusting for quoting the numbers of the IAEA?

And if these numbers are true then nuclear energy accounts for an infinitely less human toll than coal mining - and probably the oil industry. So are you screaming for a shutdown of coal and oil production on the grounds that they are too dangerous a means of obtaining energy?

buddyholly
03-17-2011, 09:26 PM
alarming how you people twist things and make wrong statements (especially after saying that anti-nuclear people here are uneducated and know nothing....:o)

I don't know if you are uneducated and know nothing. But it does seem clear that you have based a whole argument on your inability to read and understand a simple sentence in an IAEA report.

Bilbo
03-17-2011, 09:48 PM
USGS now also changed the magnitude to 9.0 making it the 4th strongest ever recorded earthquake

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/10_largest_world.php

Commander Data
03-17-2011, 10:01 PM
I don't know if you are uneducated and know nothing. But it does seem clear that you have based a whole argument on your inability to read and understand a simple sentence in an IAEA report.

not at all. are you people serious? the guardian misrepresents the IAEA report as the guardian clearly gives the impression that so far fewer then 50 people died due to Chernobyl.

okay lets spell this out...

The IAEA says in total 4000 will die, it does not specifically say what fraction of these 4000 have already died and how many are still up for death in the coming years. But nowhere does the IAEA say that so far only 50 of these 4000 have died as the guardian suggests. this would of course also not make any sense at all because 47 workers died of acute radiation syndrome shortly after the accident. so if we assume that these 50 are the only dead so far, it would follow that in the last 25 years after the 47 who died quickly after the accident, only 3 more died, but somehow it is assumed that in the future 3997 more will die. of course that would not make any sense and nobody is suggesting this in any report....

anyway, the IAEA gives the lowest possible estimate and is strongly disputed.

For example Russian biologist Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to the Russian president and Dr.Vassili Nesterenko, a physicist and at the time of the accident director of the Institute of Nuclear Energy of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus concluded that based on records now available, some 985,000 people died.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20908

The TORCH 2006 report predicted about 30,000 to 60,000 excess cancer deaths.

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

“The most recently published figures indicate that in Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine alone the disaster could have resulted in an estimated 200,000 additional deaths in the period between 1990 and 2004.”

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

according to an April 2006 report by the German affiliate of the International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear Warfare (IPPNW), entitled "Health Effects of Chernobyl", more than 10,000 people are today affected by thyroid cancer and 50,000 cases are expected. The report projected tens of thousands dead among the liquidators. In Europe, it alleges that 10,000 deformities have been observed in newborns because of Chernobyl's radioactive discharge, with 5000 deaths among newborn children. They also claimed that several hundreds of thousands of the people who worked on the site after the accident are now sick because of radiation, and tens of thousands are dead.

http://www.ippnw-students.org/chernobyl/research.html

Whatever position you assume, the message of the guardian that fewer then 50 people died due to Chernobyl, can not be taken serious by any educated person. clearly the guardian journalist did misread the IAEA report in that he understood that so far any only the 47 workers died. that was not what the Report meant.

JolánGagó
03-17-2011, 10:29 PM
50 died in the first minutes after the explosion perhaps they meant.

what a load of BS.

Commander Data
03-17-2011, 10:32 PM
50 died in the first minutes after the explosion perhaps they meant.

what a load of BS.

I don't know why I'm even replying to this BS :o :help:

BigJohn
03-17-2011, 10:40 PM
The tsunami videos are just terrifying.

tangerine_dream
03-17-2011, 11:12 PM
BigJohn, thanks for posting that link for me. :wavey:

Not to take away from the human tragedy but the pets are suffering too. This one has a happy ending. :)

Dog in Japan stays by the side of its ailing friend in the rubble (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/dog-in-japan-stays-by-the-side-of-its-ailing-friend-in-the-rubble)

J3TM9GL2iLI

Here is an English translation of the voiceover exchange between the two reporters in the clip (translation courtesy of Toshiyuki Kitamura):
We are in Arahama area. Looks like there is a dog. There is a dog. He looks tired and dirty. He must have been caught in the tsunami. He looks very dirty.

He has a collar. He must be someone's pet. He has a silver collar. He is shaking. He seems very afraid.

Oh, there is another dog. I wonder if he is dead.

Where?

Right there. There is another dog right next to the one sitting down. He is not moving. I wonder. I wonder if he is alright.

The dog is protecting him.

Yes. He is protecting the dog. That is why he did not want us to approach them. He was trying to keep us at bay.

I can't watch this. This is a very difficult to watch.

Oh. Look. He is moving. He is alive. I am so happy to see that he is alive.

Yes! Yes! He is alive.

He looks to be weakened. We need to them to be rescued soon. We really want them rescued soon.
Oh good. He's getting up.

It is amazing how they survived the tremendous earthquake and tsunami. It's just amazing that they survived through this all.

BigJohn
03-18-2011, 12:47 AM
BigJohn, thanks for posting that link for me. :wavey:



No problem. I did not watch it, it cuts too soon. This one shows the wave until it hits Chile, Antarctica, plus some more infos following the animation.

cnUqq4NlgFw

buddyholly
03-18-2011, 01:56 AM
not at all. are you people serious? the guardian misrepresents the IAEA report as the guardian clearly gives the impression that so far fewer then 50 people died due to Chernobyl.

okay lets spell this out...

The IAEA says in total 4000 will die, it does not specifically say what fraction of these 4000 have already died and how many are still up for death in the coming years. But nowhere does the IAEA say that so far only 50 of these 4000 have died as the guardian suggests. this would of course also not make any sense at all because 47 workers died of acute radiation syndrome shortly after the accident. so if we assume that these 50 are the only dead so far, it would follow that in the last 25 years after the 47 who died quickly after the accident, only 3 more died, but somehow it is assumed that in the future 3997 more will die. of course that would not make any sense and nobody is suggesting this in any report....



It does not matter what other reports say. This discussion was about an IAEA report in 2006, given as a link by you.

The report says that about 50 people died of ARS, directly due to Chernobyl. The report also estimates a further 4000 may die of cancer as a result of Chernobyl. Apart from the ARS fatalities there is no way to directly tell if a person dies of cancer due to Chernobyl or to other causes. But statistical analyses suggests about 4000 more people might die from cancer as a result of Chernobyl ( this number includes those already dead and future deaths).

Thus the Guardian article correctly interprets the IAEA report. When it says about 4000 more could eventually die from Chernobyl radiation it is not difficult to figure out that, since we are now talking about statistics, this means that due to Chernobyl the eventual death toll could be 4000. Your number crunching above is completely irrelevant, maybe an attempt to wiggle out of your misinterpretation of the article.

BigJohn
03-18-2011, 04:59 AM
Quake, tsunami, nuclear crisis and now, a volcano.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366109/Japan-volcano-Earthquake-tsunami-potential-nuclear-meltdown-enough.html?ITO=1490

GlennMirnyi
03-18-2011, 06:37 AM
Typical from hard-core environmentalists. They can't even read correctly.

Arkulari
03-18-2011, 07:21 AM
If anyone can find a non carbon-based non nuclear source of big scale energy, let me know so I can contact the Nobel Committee.

Alternative sources of energy are fine for some things but we cannot believe we would be able to live without coal/oil/nuclear energy: no industry, no jobs, nothing.

(Ask Bilbo about what happened with the so called "fabulous" geothermal energy near Basel :retard: )

The issue here was that the nuclear plant got completely screwed by the earthquake, knowing how the Japanese roll (their perfectionism and work capacity), that one would have been just fine if it wasn't for that massive natural disaster.

Of course, this serves as a perfect excuse for those Greenpeace/environmentalist nutsos to scream for banning nuclear energy without coming up with suitable replacements.

It is a great tragedy for those who were unfortunate enough to be living near there, but still, this can be related to Pompeii for example: people were in the wrong place at the wrong time and died because of that.

Now Chernobyl? The Soviet Government didn't screw the plant but they did screw up the help, so they could see what were the effects of radiation on people.

That has no comparison to this.

In the personal side of things, I feel really sorry for all those that lost their families, their jobs, their homes but Mother Nature can be a bitch sometimes and I'm sure that the stoic Japanese people will get back on their feet, stronger than ever.

Thoughts and prayers for them.

Commander Data
03-18-2011, 09:04 AM
It does not matter what other reports say. This discussion was about an IAEA report in 2006, given as a link by you.

The report says that about 50 people died of ARS, directly due to Chernobyl. The report also estimates a further 4000 may die of cancer as a result of Chernobyl. Apart from the ARS fatalities there is no way to directly tell if a person dies of cancer due to Chernobyl or to other causes. But statistical analyses suggests about 4000 more people might die from cancer as a result of Chernobyl ( this number includes those already dead and future deaths).

Thus the Guardian article correctly interprets the IAEA report. When it says about 4000 more could eventually die from Chernobyl radiation it is not difficult to figure out that, since we are now talking about statistics, this means that due to Chernobyl the eventual death toll could be 4000. Your number crunching above is completely irrelevant, maybe an attempt to wiggle out of your misinterpretation of the article.

The guardian article writes the following in 2005:

"The nuclear disaster at Chernobyl almost 20 years ago has so far claimed fewer than 50 lives, according to a study by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN Development Programme and the World Health Organisation."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/sep/06/energy.ukraine

I have already explained it above, 47 workers died immediatly. ergo the article suggests that between 1986 and 2005 2 people died from cancer at the most.

That is utter BS. The fact that you people defend this crap and don't see the mistake is bewildering.

Bilbo
03-18-2011, 11:51 AM
Nuclear energy is fine and the best way to produce energy imo. The problem is that in Japan they have build nuclear plants along the east coast. If they would build all of them on the west coast they would be pretty much safe. There won't be earthquakes with a magnitude of 8 or 9 close to them and the west coast is protected by tsunamis.

GSMnadal
03-18-2011, 12:09 PM
Nuclear energy is fine and the best way to produce energy imo. The problem is that in Japan they have build nuclear plants along the east coast. If they would build all of them on the west coast they would be pretty much safe. There won't be earthquakes with a magnitude of 8 or 9 close to them and the west coast is protected by tsunamis.

One problem with that, all the big cities are on the east coast, so it would have been illogical to have built the plants far away from where they were needed most. The money that it saved to build the plants on the east coast outweighed the (very small) possibility of such a disaster.

Bilbo
03-18-2011, 12:21 PM
One problem with that, all the big cities are on the east coast, so it would have been illogical to have built the plants far away from where they were needed most. The money that it saved to build the plants on the east coast outweighed the (very small) possibility of such a disaster.

Have you ever heard of pathways? It doesn't matter where they build the nuclear plants. They don't have to be near big cities. Japan could even get their power from China if necessary.

buddyholly
03-18-2011, 12:39 PM
The guardian article writes the following in 2005:

"The nuclear disaster at Chernobyl almost 20 years ago has so far claimed fewer than 50 lives, according to a study by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN Development Programme and the World Health Organisation."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/sep/06/energy.ukraine

I have already explained it above, 47 workers died immediatly. ergo the article suggests that between 1986 and 2005 2 people died from cancer at the most.

That is utter BS. The fact that you people defend this crap and don't see the mistake is bewildering.

You still don't understand. Forty seven lives can be directly attributable to Chernobyl radiation. It is estimated that 4000 other people may die from Chernobyl radiation. But individual Chernobyl fatalities can not be separated from the non-Chernobyl cancer fatalities. Therefore they can not be counted with any kind of certainty.

The article does not suggest that a maximum of 2 others died of cancer from Chernobyl between 1986 and 2005. It states that the authors of the report estimate that up to 4000 will die from Chernobyl radiation (including those that may have already died).

Yes, I agree that you are indeed bewildered - by a mistake that you imagined to have been made. When the Guardian article says "but about 4000 people may eventually die....'' it does not mean that nobody other than the 47 have died at the time of writing. It means that the eventual total of deaths due to Chernobyl (other than the 47 that definitely died from Chernobyl radiation) may be 4000.
Only someone who is determined to prove a point at any cost would try to introduce the concept that the article suggests a maximum of two extra people have died up to the time of writing.

In summary, Chernobyl is known to have claimed fewer than 50 lives. What other deaths it has caused, or may cause, will never be known with certainty, but the authors of the report estimate about 4000 total. If you want to argue about the estimated number of 4000 more deaths, fine, but don't call the Guardian article bullshit, just because you misread it.

fast_clay
03-18-2011, 02:58 PM
right then...you gotta think it was dire when people start randomly chucking water on things...thats a hail mary play

JolánGagó
03-18-2011, 03:37 PM
first trying dropping water from choppers, that was odd enough but the anti-riot water cannon thing is beyond any conceivable measure of desperation and pathetism.

BigJohn
03-18-2011, 04:15 PM
***

A spot on VIDEO editorial about what is going on in Japan.

http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/indepthanalysis/rexmurphy/story/2011/03/17/thenational-rexmurphy-110317.html

By Rex Murphy. Honestly, watch it.

star
03-18-2011, 04:19 PM
I think of the bravery of the workers who are working to save the plant. They are truly heros.

GlennMirnyi
03-18-2011, 05:25 PM
Have you ever heard of pathways? It doesn't matter where they build the nuclear plants. They don't have to be near big cities. Japan could even get their power from China if necessary.

:rolleyes:

The longer the wire, the bigger the resistivity. Have you ever had physics in school? Bringing power from far away means losing most of the electricity as heat on the way.

The main advantage of nuclear power plants is that plants can be built closer to where there's demand for energy. Hydroelectric power, for instance, doesn't have this kind of flexibility.

Bilbo
03-18-2011, 07:47 PM
:rolleyes:

The longer the wire, the bigger the resistivity. Have you ever had physics in school? Bringing power from far away means losing most of the electricity as heat on the way.

The main advantage of nuclear power plants is that plants can be built closer to where there's demand for energy. Hydroelectric power, for instance, doesn't have this kind of flexibility.

We are talking about a maximum distance of 200 km here.

You should probably leave these topics to the experts.

GlennMirnyi
03-18-2011, 08:31 PM
We are talking about a maximum distance of 200 km here.

You should probably leave these topics to the experts.

:rolleyes:

You don't even know one of the most basic relationships in the study of electricity but still keep the smug attitude...

Here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/1/4/0/140b5b8782cd1e72fa3785af25e1b394.png

Where R is the resistivity, rho the static resistivity, A the area of the cross-section and l the length of the material.

Obviously, the longer the wire, the larger the resistivity. Therefore, also obviously, more energy will be lost, making power generation less efficient and, also very obviously, more aggressive on the environment.

Commander Data
03-18-2011, 08:57 PM
When the Guardian article says "but about 4000 people may eventually die....'' it does not mean that nobody other than the 47 have died at the time of writing. It means that the eventual total of deaths due to Chernobyl (other than the 47 that definitely died from Chernobyl radiation) may be 4000.
Only someone who is determined to prove a point at any cost would try to introduce the concept that the article suggests a maximum of two extra people have died up to the time of writing.




so in the english language the sentence:

"The nuclear disaster so far claimed 50 lives."

Does not mean, that up to this point in time 50 people died?
Good to know.

Commander Data
03-18-2011, 08:59 PM
:rolleyes:

You don't even know one of the most basic relationships in the study of electricity but still keep the smug attitude...

Here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/1/4/0/140b5b8782cd1e72fa3785af25e1b394.png

Where R is the resistivity, rho the static resistivity, A the area of the cross-section and l the length of the material.

Obviously, the longer the wire, the larger the resistivity. Therefore, also obviously, more energy will be lost, making power generation less efficient and, also very obviously, more aggressive on the environment.

Genius-alert! :worship::worship::worship:

Commander Data
03-18-2011, 09:09 PM
next step: calculate how large rho can be until the energy loss exceeds 100 billion $ so we can see if it is cheaper to blow the reactor up in the city or to have a long wire.

BigJohn
03-18-2011, 09:27 PM
:rolleyes:

The longer the wire, the bigger the resistivity. Have you ever had physics in school? Bringing power from far away means losing most of the electricity as heat on the way.

The main advantage of nuclear power plants is that plants can be built closer to where there's demand for energy. Hydroelectric power, for instance, doesn't have this kind of flexibility.

Hydro power does not seem to need that flexibility here in Quebec. Most of our electricity is generated more than 1000 km away from Montreal and other big centers of the province. We have plenty to export too... I seriously doubt we lose most of the electricity as heat.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Quebec_Map_with_Hydro-Qu%C3%A9bec_infrastructures-fr.svg/484px-Quebec_Map_with_Hydro-Qu%C3%A9bec_infrastructures-fr.svg.png

Radisson, near some of our biggest plants, is 1400 km away from Montreal.

Arkulari
03-18-2011, 09:29 PM
You're all forgetting that nuclear plants need to be built near lakes or rivers, because there has to be a massive water availability for the cooling system, so it's not as if you can build them in a desertic area or something like that.

(Estuaries or artificial lakes at worst)

The main problem Japan is having is that for cooling off reactors the best solution is heavy water (to avoid the nuclear chain reaction), if it is recycled it can be unbelievably radioactive due to the contact with enriched uranium/plutonium and the technicians are the ones suffering with it.

Normal water can be used in the rest of the heat exchange system but not in the reactors themselves (so standard firefighting resources are not helpful either)

fast_clay
03-18-2011, 09:55 PM
i was an electrician once upon a time and that's some classic sparky knowledge... good man that glenn... three phase, high voltage AC can travel ok tho...

GlennMirnyi
03-19-2011, 02:14 AM
Hydro power does not seem to need that flexibility here in Quebec. Most of our electricity is generated more than 1000 km away from Montreal and other big centers of the province. We have plenty to export too... I seriously doubt we lose most of the electricity as heat.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Quebec_Map_with_Hydro-Qu%C3%A9bec_infrastructures-fr.svg/484px-Quebec_Map_with_Hydro-Qu%C3%A9bec_infrastructures-fr.svg.png

Radisson, near some of our biggest plants, is 1400 km away from Montreal.

Well things are like that in Brazil as well. Itaipu, once the biggest hydroelectric power plant in the world, is about 1000 km away from the main cities, like Săo Paulo and Rio de Janeiro.

The loss is huge. The cost-benefit ratio makes them worthy in Brazil, Canada, for instance. You can't say the same in every situation.

GlennMirnyi
03-19-2011, 02:17 AM
You're all forgetting that nuclear plants need to be built near lakes or rivers, because there has to be a massive water availability for the cooling system, so it's not as if you can build them in a desertic area or something like that.

(Estuaries or artificial lakes at worst)

The main problem Japan is having is that for cooling off reactors the best solution is heavy water (to avoid the nuclear chain reaction), if it is recycled it can be unbelievably radioactive due to the contact with enriched uranium/plutonium and the technicians are the ones suffering with it.

Normal water can be used in the rest of the heat exchange system but not in the reactors themselves (so standard firefighting resources are not helpful either)

Well not only the cooling system. The basis of nuclear nuclear power plants is heating water and using the steam pressure to move a turbine.

BigJohn
03-19-2011, 02:42 AM
Well things are like that in Brazil as well. Itaipu, once the biggest hydroelectric power plant in the world, is about 1000 km away from the main cities, like Săo Paulo and Rio de Janeiro.

The loss is huge. The cost-benefit ratio makes them worthy in Brazil, Canada, for instance. You can't say the same in every situation.

7% in transmission and distribution losses is not that huge. That is a number for all Canada, I know Quebec's grid is top notch and must be performing better.

Arkulari
03-19-2011, 02:49 AM
Well not only the cooling system. The basis of nuclear nuclear power plants is heating water and using the steam pressure to move a turbine.

yes you're right, my point being you cannot build a nuclear plant far away from a water source ;)

buddyholly
03-19-2011, 02:51 AM
so in the english language the sentence:

"The nuclear disaster so far claimed 50 lives."

Does not mean, that up to this point in time 50 people died?
Good to know.

No, it means that up to this point in time 50 is the known number of people who died from ARS as a result of Chernobyl. It does not include those who may have died from Chernobyl because other possible deaths can not be distinguished from deaths due to circumstances unrelated to Chernobyl. Therefore it would be wrong to say the nuclear disaster claimed more lives than it is known to have claimed. One can only speculate on that. And the authors actually do that - and make a best guess of 4000 more, but do not try to guess whether 0 or 4000 may have died up this point in time.,

GlennMirnyi
03-19-2011, 04:17 PM
7% in transmission and distribution losses is not that huge. That is a number for all Canada, I know Quebec's grid is top notch and must be performing better.

Considering the scale, it's a significant loss. Another point is that in a few years even 7% will be too much.

Bilbo
03-19-2011, 04:48 PM
:rolleyes:

You don't even know one of the most basic relationships in the study of electricity but still keep the smug attitude...

Here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/1/4/0/140b5b8782cd1e72fa3785af25e1b394.png

Where R is the resistivity, rho the static resistivity, A the area of the cross-section and l the length of the material.

Obviously, the longer the wire, the larger the resistivity. Therefore, also obviously, more energy will be lost, making power generation less efficient and, also very obviously, more aggressive on the environment.

In Japan most nuclear plants are built along the west coast when you look at the map even though most big cities are on the east coast. Only a few are built on the east coast. Maybe those are older nuclear plants and they already started to built the newer ones along the west coast.

Japan is roughly more than 200 km wide from west to east. That's about the same distance from Fukushima to Tokyo. So even if some electricity is lost due to the heat I don't think it's that much over a distance of 200 km. Otherwise many nuclear plants would be closer to big cities like Tokyo. Japan isn't like Russia or the US where you have to consider very long distances.

BigJohn
03-19-2011, 05:27 PM
7% in transmission and distribution losses is not that huge. That is a number for all Canada, I know Quebec's grid is top notch and must be performing better.

Considering the scale, it's a significant loss. Another point is that in a few years even 7% will be too much.

I am not sure I get what "will be too much" is supposed to mean, but understand I was answering this statement


Bringing power from far away means losing most of the electricity as heat on the way.


I doubt most people would consider that a loss of 7% equals losing most of the electricity. You'd have to be pretty pessimistic to see it that way.

Allez
03-19-2011, 06:17 PM
The age of nuclear power is drawing to a close.

ibreak4coffee
03-19-2011, 06:34 PM
BigJohn, thanks for posting that link for me. :wavey:

Not to take away from the human tragedy but the pets are suffering too. This one has a happy ending. :)

Dog in Japan stays by the side of its ailing friend in the rubble (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/dog-in-japan-stays-by-the-side-of-its-ailing-friend-in-the-rubble)

J3TM9GL2iLI

Here is an English translation of the voiceover exchange between the two reporters in the clip (translation courtesy of Toshiyuki Kitamura):
We are in Arahama area. Looks like there is a dog. There is a dog. He looks tired and dirty. He must have been caught in the tsunami. He looks very dirty.

He has a collar. He must be someone's pet. He has a silver collar. He is shaking. He seems very afraid.

Oh, there is another dog. I wonder if he is dead.

Where?

Right there. There is another dog right next to the one sitting down. He is not moving. I wonder. I wonder if he is alright.

The dog is protecting him.

Yes. He is protecting the dog. That is why he did not want us to approach them. He was trying to keep us at bay.

I can't watch this. This is a very difficult to watch.

Oh. Look. He is moving. He is alive. I am so happy to see that he is alive.

Yes! Yes! He is alive.

He looks to be weakened. We need to them to be rescued soon. We really want them rescued soon.
Oh good. He's getting up.

It is amazing how they survived the tremendous earthquake and tsunami. It's just amazing that they survived through this all.

Fantastic stuff... thanks for posting :yeah:

GlennMirnyi
03-19-2011, 07:58 PM
I am not sure I get what "will be too much" is supposed to mean, but understand I was answering this statement



I doubt most people would consider that a loss of 7% equals losing most of the electricity. You'd have to be pretty pessimistic to see it that way.

Ok, "most" was a bad word choice but it's not negligible.

*bunny*
03-21-2011, 09:26 AM
Djokovic, Nishikori and other tennis stars will join a fundraising event in Miami on March 23. They will play a soccer match and then join dinner with guests:

http://www.gr8miami.com/hotspots_gr8_miami_event.html

Also, Kei is working with the Red Cross in an fundraising efforts for Japan. There is a link to the Red Cross on his facebook. (http://www.facebook.com/keinishikori)

Kei has also set up the Kei Nishikori Charitable Fund. Here's a link to a charity auction, with donatoins from many players.
http://www.tennisaceauctions.com/


The situation is still very unnerving here in Japan. More than 20,000 people are either dead or missing, and tens of thousands of people still live in shelters, many of them without heating (the worst affected areas are all in the northeastern Japan, which is very cold---it snowed last week.) There was one good news yesterday when two people---an 80-year-old woman and his 16-year-old grandson---were rescued from a wrecked house more than nine days after the quake. They survived in a narrow space in the kitchen of their house, which was crashed by the tsunami, and lived on yogurt and water after they managed to open the door of a fridge.

And the nuclear plant debacles---radiation levels in Tokyo is on the whole still low, apart from some bump last Tuesday, but you'll never know what will happen. It's been very scary and stressful. Hope things will turn for the better soon... :sad:

Commander Data
03-21-2011, 03:52 PM
The radiation levels are not at levels that would immediately harm human health.

"Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life."

Mjau!
03-23-2011, 09:54 PM
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-VL7aeYKYqMk/TYpSt5I1TXI/AAAAAAAAK0A/08mchXPjywY/s1600/deathsper10twh.jpg


German energy policy :worship:

:rolleyes:

BigJohn
03-24-2011, 01:42 AM
Tap water in Tokyo contaminated by radiation. This is not good news.

fast_clay
03-24-2011, 02:59 AM
yeah... not good about the water... mothers out on the streets looking for bottled water... not good at all...

here is a great graphic on the bbc website... graphical time line of the quake... amazing to imagine the amount of movement going on under there as soon as the plates popped...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12748215

Start da Game
03-24-2011, 06:47 AM
R is not resistivity, it is overall resistance.......'rho' is specific resistance called resistivity.......'rho' is material specific and its value varies with material.......R is just a measure of overall resistance.......

however, that's right though.....the longer the length of the wire, the more are the transmission losses.......it's not for nothing that power is transmitted at high voltages and low currents.......

Start da Game
03-24-2011, 06:50 AM
one just has to wonder when japan will be totally freed from this disaster.......whole of india's best wishes are with japan.......

DrJules
03-24-2011, 10:10 PM
If anyone can find a non carbon-based non nuclear source of big scale energy, let me know so I can contact the Nobel Committee.

Alternative sources of energy are fine for some things but we cannot believe we would be able to live without coal/oil/nuclear energy: no industry, no jobs, nothing.

(Ask Bilbo about what happened with the so called "fabulous" geothermal energy near Basel :retard: )

The issue here was that the nuclear plant got completely screwed by the earthquake, knowing how the Japanese roll (their perfectionism and work capacity), that one would have been just fine if it wasn't for that massive natural disaster.

Of course, this serves as a perfect excuse for those Greenpeace/environmentalist nutsos to scream for banning nuclear energy without coming up with suitable replacements.

It is a great tragedy for those who were unfortunate enough to be living near there, but still, this can be related to Pompeii for example: people were in the wrong place at the wrong time and died because of that.

Now Chernobyl? The Soviet Government didn't screw the plant but they did screw up the help, so they could see what were the effects of radiation on people.

That has no comparison to this.

In the personal side of things, I feel really sorry for all those that lost their families, their jobs, their homes but Mother Nature can be a bitch sometimes and I'm sure that the stoic Japanese people will get back on their feet, stronger than ever.

Thoughts and prayers for them.

Not all nuclear power sources are necessarily dangerous.

The best option in the future is nuclear fusion, but still probably the best part of 100 years in the future. Much safer, but more complex than fission as it works on sticking together rather than splitting:

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

GlennMirnyi
03-24-2011, 10:23 PM
Not all nuclear power sources are necessarily dangerous.

The best option in the future is nuclear fusion, but still probably the best part of 100 years in the future. Much safer, but more complex than fission as it works on sticking together rather than splitting:

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

Well but to get to fusion we need to keep investing in nuclear research.

GlennMirnyi
03-24-2011, 10:25 PM
R is not resistivity, it is overall resistance.......'rho' is specific resistance called resistivity.......'rho' is material specific and its value varies with material.......R is just a measure of overall resistance.......

however, that's right though.....the longer the length of the wire, the more are the transmission losses.......it's not for nothing that power is transmitted at high voltages and low currents.......

Obvious knowledge.

Commander Data
03-25-2011, 10:55 AM
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-VL7aeYKYqMk/TYpSt5I1TXI/AAAAAAAAK0A/08mchXPjywY/s1600/deathsper10twh.jpg


German energy policy :worship:

:rolleyes:

where is the factor, "section of land uninhabitable for a couple 100 years" in that diagramm?

JolánGagó
03-25-2011, 11:29 AM
The 3 liquidators hospitalized yesterday with severe burns on their legs were working on reactor 3 in water over 10.000 times normal radioactivity levels without special protection boots :rolleyes: there are fears of nucleus partial meltdown in this reactor.

In the meantime already 10.035 dead confirmed, plus 17.443 still missing.

Mjau!
03-25-2011, 04:28 PM
where is the factor, "section of land uninhabitable for a couple 100 years" in that diagramm?

No humans living within 30km of Chernobyl is surely a far greater tragedy than the millions of deaths and unparalleled environmental disasters caused by our use of fossile fuels, right? :rolleyes:

Commander Data
03-25-2011, 06:01 PM
No humans living within 30km of Chernobyl is surely a far greater tragedy than the millions of deaths and unparalleled environmental disasters caused by our use of fossile fuels, right? :rolleyes:

I'm eagerly awaiting you explain to me the following:

Relation/connection form what I wrote to what you replied.

Mjau!
03-25-2011, 06:35 PM
I'm eagerly awaiting you explain to me the following:

Relation/connection form what I wrote to what you replied.

Isn't it obvious? Your response to the New Scientist chart showing deaths/TWH and my sarcastic :worship: of german energy policy implies that you disagree with the notion that fossile fuel is worse than nuclear power from a humanitarian and environmental perspective because of the zone of alienation following a major nuclear catastrophy like the Chernobyl disaster.

Commander Data
03-25-2011, 06:49 PM
Isn't it obvious? Your response to the New Scientist chart showing deaths/TWH and my sarcastic :worship: of german energy policy implies that you disagree with the notion that fossile fuel is worse than nuclear power from a humanitarian and environmental perspective because of the zone of alienation following a major nuclear catastrophy like the Chernobyl disaster.


Not really no, I rather ask then make wrong assumptions ;)

I was merely pointing out that listing the numbers of deaths per kwh does (maybe) not tell the whole story. you can not just take averages make a ranking and voila discussions finished. Example: If the Fukushima plant really melts down, that might destroy Japans economy and put the whole country into a bad state for many years. That is a high risk and one needs to discuss if society wants to take such risks or not.

I might also add that i question the numbers in that diagram. for example the 9000 deaths from Chernobyl are not certain. Like i cited earlier some scientists say there are about 1 million deaths. that would change the chart quite a bit.
Also the deaths caused by cancer due to increased radiation from reprocessing plants, sea dumps, Uranium mines, repositories etc is not in that chart I'm sure. There are calculation of how many cancer deaths just the repositories of the nuclear waste will cause in the future. and these numbers add up into the millions over the next 200 000 years. should that not be considered?

So there are two points I raise:

1) is the average deaths per kwh a sufficent measure to assess the worth of a technology?
2) Is that chart correct?

what you think? you support nuclear energy? I agree that climate change also kills many people for example, so there are many issues involved....

Mjau!
03-25-2011, 08:12 PM
Not really no, I rather ask then make wrong assumptions ;)

I was merely pointing out that listing the numbers of deaths per kwh does (maybe) not tell the whole story. you can not just take averages make a ranking and voila discussions finished. Example: If the Fukushima plant really melts down, that might destroy Japans economy and put the whole country into a bad state for many years. That is a high risk and one needs to discuss if society wants to take such risks or not.

I might also add that i question the numbers in that diagram. for example the 9000 deaths from Chernobyl are not certain. Like i cited earlier some scientists say there are about 1 million deaths. that would change the chart quite a bit.
Also the deaths caused by cancer due to increased radiation from reprocessing plants, sea dumps, Uranium mines, repositories etc is not in that chart I'm sure. There are calculation of how many cancer deaths just the repositories of the nuclear waste will cause in the future. and these numbers add up into the millions over the next 200 000 years. should that not be considered?

So there are two points I raise:

1) is the average deaths per kwh a sufficent measure to assess the worth of a technology?
2) Is that chart correct?

what you think? you support nuclear energy? I agree that climate change also kills many people for example, so there are many issues involved....

I'm sure it's controversial and very difficult to estimate the total death toll of the Chernobyl accident, but I'd rather trust the WHO and International Agency for Research on Cancer than environmentalist NGO's like Greenpeace. These estimates are based on the linear no threashold model, so they shouldn't grossly underestimate the risks of ionizing radiation.

It's deaths/TWH, not Chernobyl versus deaths/TWH for other energy sources. I don't think there's any compelling evidence that people are dropping in the thousands due to reprocessing of nuclear fuel etc. Nevermind that millions will die over the next 200 000 years. Junk "science".

Deaths/TWH should imo be one of the main factors to consider when assesing how "bad" a source of energy is, along with environmental impact and sustainability. The reality is that for most countries, the choice is between nuclear, coal and gas for base load power and nuclear is clearly the better option looking at deaths/TWH, environmental impact and sustainability.

Someone who support a massive expansion of renewables would be well advised to avoid uttering the word "economy", as that wouldn't constitute a risk of a negative impact on the nation's economy. Such an impact would be a certainty.

BTW, I don't understand what anti-nuclear environmentalists suggest we do with the nuclear waste. The current "solution" is of course labeled extraordinarily dangerous and irresponsible, so what is your alternative? The waste we have produced wont just magically vanish into thin air if we stop using nuclear power, so what should be done about it? Do you have any idea how to solve this problem? Of course not, since that would mean it's now less of a problem which would thus make the use of nuclear power less problematic. But it also means that the best way to deal with the waste issue is to pursue the development of fast reactors. How can one oppose a technology that could potentially turn 35 tonnes of nuclear waste active for 100 000 years into 170 kg of nuclear waste active for a few hundred years if disposal of nuclear waste is such a huge cause for concern? That seems a bit irrational to me.

Commander Data
03-26-2011, 08:36 PM
I'm sure it's controversial and very difficult to estimate the total death toll of the Chernobyl accident, but I'd rather trust the WHO and International Agency for Research on Cancer than environmentalist NGO's like Greenpeace. These estimates are based on the linear no threashold model, so they shouldn't grossly underestimate the risks of ionizing radiation.

Fair enough, although in health and risk question I would rather go with the pessimistic estimate.


It's deaths/TWH, not Chernobyl versus deaths/TWH for other energy sources. I don't think there's any compelling evidence that people are dropping in the thousands due to reprocessing of nuclear fuel etc.

I don't know. Fact is that cancer rates are increasing. It is very hard to attribute the causes. For example reprocessing plant in La Hague emits more Krypton 85 into the air then all nuclear above ground nuclear tests combined. There are some studies that demonstrate increased cancer rates around those plants, as far as I remember, but yeah probably not people dropping in the thousands :lol:

Nevermind that millions will die over the next 200 000 years. Junk "science".

Why junk, because you don't like it? I read that just recently, I think it was a estimate from the department of energy or the like, not some junk source. I can dig it up for you if you are seriously interested. You can make scientific models regarding what amount of radionuclides leak out over time span and how they affect cancer rates, based on current knowledge. For example in the US, containment are only designed to hold up for 300 years, hence it is only matter of time until part of the waste gets into the biosphere.

My main point is that nuclear energy brings a lots of costs, deaths and money, in the future (more then other technologies) and this costs are not in your chart but need to be payed. this is no wonder, as the waste stays toxic for more then 100 000 years. so by looking at the deaths up to now, you are very likely underestimating nuclear energy compared to the other technologies.


Deaths/TWH should imo be one of the main factors to consider when assesing how "bad" a source of energy is, along with environmental impact and sustainability.

We agree.

The reality is that for most countries, the choice is between nuclear, coal and gas for base load power and nuclear is clearly the better option looking at deaths/TWH, environmental impact and sustainability.

lol. for you maybe that is clear, for me it isnt. first, I struggle to accept that the choice is between coal/gas and nuclear. I don't believe that at all!. i believe we are smart enough and evolved far enough that we could use other technologies such as solar etc.

Assuming that the choice is between coal and nuclear: Taking into account global warming (please, don't tell me you believe it is a hoax!) I tend to agree with you that nuclear might cost less lives (although as far as I know nuclear has a considerable CO2 emission as well, if you look at the whole life circle) and that it might be better for the environment.

But, I must say that I would still opt against nuclear, although I can maybe not make a very rational argument for it, it is more a gut feeling, that something that stays toxic for 100 000 years should not be generated (on principle).

Someone who support a massive expansion of renewables would be well advised to avoid uttering the word "economy", as that wouldn't constitute a risk of a negative impact on the nation's economy. Such an impact would be a certainty.

I can't follow you here, actually I think quite the opposite. care to elaborate?

BTW, I don't understand what anti-nuclear environmentalists suggest we do with the nuclear waste. The current "solution" is of course labeled extraordinarily dangerous and irresponsible, so what is your alternative?

What you mean, there is no "current solution". there are different options in discussion, one which is deep geological repository and the other main option is guarding the waste for some time and see if we find a better permanent solutions. In reality the second option is currently in action, no final repository is yet in use (although I think Sweden is building one).


The waste we have produced wont just magically vanish into thin air if we stop using nuclear power, so what should be done about it? Do you have any idea how to solve this problem?

though, there is no good solution, mankind is over challenged in taking care of something for 100 000 years. just think what happened in the last 5 000 years, it seems impossible to plan what will happen in the next 100 000 years. But we need to do something anyway so..

I think building a as save as possible deep storage would be best. to keep the stuff away from us but still have the option to retrieve it if we come up with a better solution. maybe in 1000 years it is no problem to render that waste harmless? who knows?



Of course not, since that would mean it's now less of a problem which would thus make the use of nuclear power less problematic.


hey! don't be so mean :( I don't think like that, I'm for the best solution. In principle we have the same goals we just think that different approaches are best to get there.


But it also means that the best way to deal with the waste issue is to pursue the development of fast reactors. How can one oppose a technology that could potentially turn 35 tonnes of nuclear waste active for 100 000 years into 170 kg of nuclear waste active for a few hundred years if disposal of nuclear waste is such a huge cause for concern? That seems a bit irrational to me.

Is that the same as Transmutation? These techniques are not yet technological feasible. to date there is no facility in use that demonstrated it is really possible, as far as I know they also don't solve the problem as exhaustive as you present it. there are lot of technological problems involved for example separating the wastes multiple times etc. so there is also the danger of accidents and contamination. but yeah in principle it sounds like the best solution for the waste to extract the energy contained and render it less harmful.

I also think there is a strong discrepancy between what could theoretically be done in the world and what actually is done. companies try to maximize their profit, cut costs and bribe control agencies. this happens in all sectors but I think it is especially fatal in the nuclear sector (and Fukushima is a good example, but not the only one). we have accept this reality when picking the best solutions.

I wonder, why are you against renewable energy sources? And why does the risk of uninhabitable land and waste dangerous for 100000 years not bother you?

Mjau!
03-28-2011, 01:23 AM
Fair enough, although in health and risk question I would rather go with the pessimistic estimate.

Doesn't sound very rational.

Why junk, because you don't like it? I read that just recently, I think it was a estimate from the department of energy or the like, not some junk source. I can dig it up for you if you are seriously interested. You can make scientific models regarding what amount of radionuclides leak out over time span and how they affect cancer rates, based on current knowledge. For example in the US, containment are only designed to hold up for 300 years, hence it is only matter of time until part of the waste gets into the biosphere.

It's junk because it's so speculative. You cannot say that because the current containment of nuclear fuel is only designed to hold up for 300 years, it will eventually leak and kill this many people. :rolleyes:

It's a bit like claiming that every dam will eventually break and kill X people.

My main point is that nuclear energy brings a lots of costs, deaths and money, in the future (more then other technologies) and this costs are not in your chart but need to be payed. this is no wonder, as the waste stays toxic for more then 100 000 years. so by looking at the deaths up to now, you are very likely underestimating nuclear energy compared to the other technologies.

That's an unscientific claim relying on a slew of assumptions.

lol. for you maybe that is clear, for me it isnt.
first, I struggle to accept that the choice is between coal/gas and nuclear.
I don't believe that at all!. i believe we are smart enough and evolved far enough that we could use other technologies such as solar etc.

Well, I'm afraid reality begs to differ. :p Solar makes up a tiny fraction of the worlds electricity production and that isn't going to change in the near future unless there's a major breakthrough.

Our use of coal is only going to increase, a lot.

Assuming that the choice is between coal and nuclear: Taking into account global warming (please, don't tell me you believe it is a hoax!) I tend to agree with you that nuclear might cost less lives (although as far as I know nuclear has a considerable CO2 emission as well, if you look at the whole life circle) and that it might be better for the environment. But, I must say that I would still opt against nuclear, although I can maybe not make a very rational argument for it, it is more a gut feeling, that something that stays toxic for 100 000 years should not be generated (on principle).

That makes little sense since nuclear is far more resource efficient than solar and wind. Such estimates would have to be quite "creative". :angel:

What you mean, there is no "current solution". there are different options in discussion, one which is deep geological repository and the other main option is guarding the waste for some time and see if we find a better permanent solutions. In reality the second option is currently in action, no final repository is yet in use (although I think Sweden is building one).

though, there is no good solution, mankind is over challenged in taking care of something for 100 000 years. just think what happened in the last 5 000 years, it seems impossible to plan what will happen in the next 100 000 years. But we need to do something anyway so.. I think building a as save as possible deep storage would be best. to keep the stuff away from us but still have the option to retrieve it if we come up with a better solution. maybe in 1000 years it is no problem to render that waste harmless? who knows?

I think you realize that I was referring to deep geological repository... It is the only "final solution" planned for and even constructed.
But critics argue that it's far from safe :scared:, which is why I asked, what should be done instead? If the final repository is so very dangerous (if it's not, then the waste issue really isn't such a big issue), what options are there besides pursuing more advanced forms of nuclear power? :shrug: What else could make the waste far less dangerous? Does Greenpeace have any suggestions? :scratch:

Is that the same as Transmutation? These techniques are not yet technological feasible. to date there is no facility in use that demonstrated it is really possible, as far as I know they also don't solve the problem as exhaustive as you present it. there are lot of technological problems involved for example separating the wastes multiple times etc. so there is also the danger of accidents and contamination. but yeah in principle it sounds like the best solution for the waste to extract the energy contained and render it less harmful.

No, it's deep burn. I don't think there's much doubt that this technology is feasible, although a 99% burn rate might be pretty challenging.
As I understand it, the main reason that fast reactors have not been pursued is simply that conventional reactors have been cheaper, but certain 4th generation designs such as pebble-beds and MSR's could be cheaper than light water reactors. The former design is in the pipeline.
Transmutation is more advanced, but would be the best solution.

I think it's a no-brainer that these technologies should be researched. If new uranium isn't mined, they wouldn't produce any waste, only burn existing waste.

I wonder, why are you against renewable energy sources?

Because they are very expensive (especially solar), intermittent, resource inefficient and the footprint is huge (especially wind). Hydro is the shining exception.

And why does the risk of uninhabitable land and waste dangerous for 100000 years not bother you?

Who said it doesn't? :unsure:

Mjau!
03-28-2011, 03:59 PM
Also, wind power plants are really ugly! :ras:

Commander Data
03-29-2011, 11:07 AM
Doesn't sound very rational.

you would prefer talking to a robot? Anyway, I think you are presenting yourself a bit more cool then you really are. I think it is natural to go with the saver option when your life/health is concerned.



It's junk because it's so speculative. You cannot say that because the current containment of nuclear fuel is only designed to hold up for 300 years, it will eventually leak and kill this many people. :rolleyes:

So every prediction is junk science or what? :confused: Or what does make this prediction fundamentally different from other predictions? If you have a (credible) model that predicts the containment breaks in about 300 years, you can certainly predict with near certainty that the containment leaks with the next 100 000 years. then you can make models what happens once it leaks and so on, I see no principal reason why we should not be able to predict these things (within some margin of error). It is even needed to predict such future developments in order to evaluate the different options and chose a reasonable one.

It's a bit like claiming that every dam will eventually break and kill X people.

Well, if we would say that we leave the dams alone for the next 100 000 years. we could certainly predict that some of them would eventually break. we could model the effects of a damn failure and estimate number of people killed (if we make some assumptions about population density etc) -> and come to the conclusion that we can't just leave them alone...


That's an unscientific claim relying on a slew of assumptions.

like what?


Well, I'm afraid reality begs to differ. :p Solar makes up a tiny fraction of the worlds electricity production and that isn't going to change in the near future unless there's a major breakthrough.

Our use of coal is only going to increase, a lot.

It depends on you and me :rolleyes: solar is just one option among many. But I agree in, that current developments seem to suggest that most energy will come from fossil fuels in the near future. But that is not god given, we could choose other ways. Global warming will cost more then renewable energy, I'm certain.


That makes little sense since nuclear is far more resource efficient than solar and wind. Such estimates would have to be quite "creative". :angel:

That's an unscientific claim relying on a slew of assumptions.


I think you realize that I was referring to deep geological repository...

Yes.

It is the only "final solution" planned for and even constructed.

yes.

But critics argue that it's far from safe :scared:,

yes.


which is why I asked, what should be done instead?

Maybe there is no good solution but final repository is the least bad! In that case selection of this option is no argument that it is good.

If the final repository is so very dangerous (if it's not, then the waste issue really isn't such a big issue), what options are there besides pursuing more advanced forms of nuclear power? :shrug:

Maybe because some people (like me) think that pursuing more advanced nuclear energy sucks even more then the repository? ;)

What else could make the waste far less dangerous?

keeping the waste retrievable and keep looking for a better solution is an option.


Does Greenpeace have any suggestions? :scratch:

I don't think it is Greenpeace's job to solve that problem. what is your problem with them anyway, did they abduct your cat?


No, it's deep burn. I don't think there's much doubt that this technology is feasible, although a 99% burn rate might be pretty challenging.

is that the fast breeder thing? or not really maybe :confused: high liquid metal as coolant and fast neutrons, increased reactor temperatures and so?


As I understand it, the main reason that fast reactors have not been pursued is simply that conventional reactors have been cheaper,

Well that would be a good reason as conventional reactor costs are already sky rocketing. maybe also ask why they are more expansive. maybe because they are even more challenging to master? (and the mastery of conventional reactors is unsatisfying; I might add.)


but certain 4th generation designs such as pebble-beds and MSR's could be cheaper than light water reactors. The former design is in the pipeline.



I'm no expert but it could be, yes, that there are actually better, saver reactors but in order to milk money the inferior ones are used.

But I also found the following critics:

Encasing the fuel in combustible graphite poses a hazard.
Since the fuel is contained in graphite pebbles, the volume of radioactive waste is much greater,
No possibility to place standard measurement equipment in the pebble bed core, i.e. pebble bed = black box
improper temperatures in the core (more than 200 °C above calculated values)
necessity of a pressure retaining containment
unresolved problems with dust formation by pebble friction (dust acts as a mobile fission product carrier)
Contamination of the cooling circuit with metallic fission products (Sr-90, Cs-137) due to the insufficient retention capabilities of fuel pebbles for metallic fission products. Even modern fuel elements do not sufficiently retain strontium and cesium.

-> sounds to me it is not "in the pipeline" also does not convince me that safety is no issue any more.


molten salt...sounds somewhat dangerous (I'm irrational again :rolleyes: ) I found this: "Fluid fuel reactors have significantly different safety issues compared to solid fuel designs; the potential for major reactor accidents is reduced, while the potential for processing accidents is increased.


The weakness of the two-fluid design at the time of development was that its known designs included complex plumbing, and no suitable material was known to make the pipes. Ordinary steels and nickel alloys either absorbed too many neutrons or corroded too easily. Graphite was thought to be too brittle, and swells slightly under intense neutron exposure. Zirconium is sufficiently transparent to neutrons, but corrodes too easily when exposed to hot fluoride salts.

The "single fluid" reactor: "The disadvantage was that the reprocessing chemistry was much more complex. No simple combination of distillation and fluorination (simple, proven methods) could remove the fission products and separate the breeding products.

One important issue was unexpected corrosion of the pipes at grain boundaries.

Fluoride salts naturally produce hydrofluoric acid when in contact with moisture, which may lead to release of fumes under catastrophic circumstances. Although this would be taken into consideration in the reactor's design and shutdown/decommission processes, this hazard would need to be addressed in unforeseen emergency situations that compromise the reactor's integrity.

-> sound like pretty challenging stuff as well...

Anyway, I don't know enough about it. It sounds very interesting but also very challenging to me. Are you an engineer? Are you working in the field of nuclear energy? I wonder what your profession is, that might explain more our discrepancies.



I think it's a no-brainer that these technologies should be researched. If new uranium isn't mined, they wouldn't produce any waste, only burn existing waste.

For the purpose of reducing waste, I agree. If they produce more waste then I'm against it because in my opinion the waste issue is not solved.


Because they are very expensive (especially solar),

price will drop, plus, I'm not convinced that they are more expensive then nuclear if accidents and waste problems are considered as well. cost of Chernobly is estimated a couple hundred billion $ for example. you can build quite a lot of solar panels for a couple 100 billions. :rolleyes:


intermittent,

storage.


resource inefficient

what is inefficient with a damn for example? Or with heating your water on the roof with the sun :confused:



and the footprint is huge (especially wind).

more then 1000 - 2000 billions $ ? longer then 100 000 years? I doubt it....


Hydro is the shining exception.

:)


Who said it doesn't? :unsure:[/QUOTE]

I had that impression as you seem eager to argue for nuclear power while a disaster is unfolding. But that question has kinda answered itself. Your view-point seems rational but I think some of your assumptions are false. :angel:

Commander Data
03-29-2011, 11:14 AM
Also, wind power plants are really ugly! :ras:

Doesn't sound very rational.


:p

..you rather hold your boyfriends hand and marvel at the prettiness of a cooling tower as the sun sets behind it?

Commander Data
03-29-2011, 12:15 PM
Tepco to be nationalized? Way to go again: profits privatized, costs socialized. cheap nuclear power? cost transparency :worship:

Chair Umpire
04-03-2011, 06:07 PM
Just writing in this topic to show my condolences to the japanese people. Terrible tragedy.

BigJohn
04-05-2011, 08:20 PM
Good news, I guess

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/04/05/japan.nuclear.reactors/

Radioactive leak at plant reduced, utility says

Tokyo (CNN) -- An attempt to plug a leak of highly radioactive water from a Japanese nuclear reactor has shown a "significant difference," despite the material not setting as hoped, officials said late Tuesday.

Tokyo Electric Power Company, which runs the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, said the injection of a silica-based polymer dubbed "liquid glass" had reduced the amount of highly radioactive water that was leaking into the ocean.

The utility's assessment comes after the country's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said that the substance had not hardened as expected. The material had been pumped from below into the leaking shaft at the plant's No. 2 reactor.

Though water continued to pour into the ocean, photographs released by TEPCO showed a thinner, less powerful stream. The company says it has no estimate of the rate of the leak, however, so the amount of reduction was unclear.

It was a bit of good news amid a series of setbacks Japanese authorities faced Tuesday, with the detection of radiation in a fish and news that the water gushing into the Pacific had radiation levels more than millions of times above the regulatory limit.

Readings from samples taken Saturday in the concrete pit outside the turbine building of the No. 2 reactor -- one of six at the crisis-plagued plant -- had radiation 7.5 million times the legal limits, a TEPCO official said. Newer findings, from Tuesday afternoon, showed a sizable drop to 5 million times the norm.

Now it's only 5 million times the norm. What a relief.

Lopez
04-06-2011, 05:31 PM
Funny that there is almost no news on the newer power plants that worked perfectly, even though some were much closer to the disaster than Fukushima. Fear sells I guess :p

Commander Data
04-07-2011, 08:11 AM
Funny that there is almost no news on the newer power plants that worked perfectly, even though some were much closer to the disaster than Fukushima. Fear sells I guess :p

Funny that you rarely read in the news paper about the cars that made it save thru the city but mostly about car accidents.

Lopez
04-07-2011, 11:48 AM
Funny that you rarely read in the news paper about the cars that made it save thru the city but mostly about car accidents.

But if these were used as a straw man to demonize driving, one would surely point out the relative scarcity of the crashes?

The 40-year old Fukushima plant has had problems, another, around 30 years old and closer to the quake, is actually the place where people have taken refuge.

Commander Data
04-07-2011, 02:31 PM
But if these were used as a straw man to demonize driving, one would surely point out the relative scarcity of the crashes?


well yes, one would point it out and rightly so, and demonizing is never good, a neutral view should be aimed for. Question is if we really have this relative scarcity that you are talking about here. A couple meltdowns out of 500 reactors, timespan 40 years, couple hundred billion $ costs.. Really irrelevant events that can not be used as argument against nuclear power as a whole?

tangerine_dream
04-07-2011, 06:05 PM
:wavey:

MIT NSE Nuclear Information Hub

http://mitnse.com/

Information about the incident at the Fukushima Nuclear Plants in Japan hosted by NSE MIT.

:: Maintained by the students of the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering at MIT ::

Bilbo
04-07-2011, 06:21 PM
7.1-7.4 aftershock

this is very unusual

BigJohn
04-14-2011, 04:52 AM
Today, signs that the situation is slowly returning to normal in Japan.

Sure, the Sendai airport reopened, but as we speak, there are important earthquakes routinely happening, there is the ongoing second worse nuclear crisis ever still going on, thousands of people are unaccounted for. I am wondering if the newscaster was a seeing the glass a little bit too much half-full...

Lopez
04-14-2011, 12:04 PM
Anti-nuclear lobby has misled the world

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world