Fukushima still leaking radiation

[Kvasir]

Originally Posted by Prof_Sai

-snip-

Okay, I get it your position, don't agree with it and probably never will, but I get it. Prevent any chance of any mistakes by not using them. You don't need to convince me that the odds are in favor of more incidents happening, I'm not really sure why you are trying so hard to do that when I've said I expect more to happen. I've also said the biggest thing we should be doing is looking for better and safer ways of using Nuclear Energy and handling it when it does go wrong because expecting something to never fail is stupid and I'm certain, in that last point at least, we agree on that.

Frankly I think the biggest disagreement we have is HOW dangerous it is. I feel, based on what I've seen, the risk is far less high then you do and I don't think either of us can convince the other otherwise.

Yeah, I think that about sums it up.

[Rei-Lin]

Why is this thing still going on? You're all arguing over Nuclear Plants like we have a meltdown every few months or something. Nuclear Plants are just safer in terms of you getting hurt than any other job that deals with heavy lifting or construction. Somebody that works at a nuclear plant for 30 years will have almost a five times lower chance of getting cancer than somebody who has smoked one pack of cigarettes a day. Of course this is if that person works inside the radiologically controlled area (RCA) everyday, which most plant workers do not. Nuclear plants run cleaner and produce less waste than coal plants or natural gas plants, however, the waste they do produce is of course, more dangerous. They have ways to use the waste to power other reactors, and the CANDU reactors in Canada actually use US Nuclear Plants spent fuel rods as their fuel.

Is Radiation dangerous? Of course, if you want to die, go touch a fuel rod in the spent fuel pool, you'd be dead by the time you got to the surface. But unless you're looking to die, the chances of you absorbing enough radiation dose to actually kill you in your lifetime, is less than getting struck by lightning. The NRC also sets strict guidelines on the amount of radiation a worker is ever allowed to absorb, and there's not one plant in the world that I've seen yet that doesn't restrict it by over half as much if not more.

There won't be another TMI or Chernobyl or something like that because the safety features in plants after those accidents have gotten far more sophisticated. The plant almost runs itself and will shut itself down, without human interference, to make sure nothing bad happens. I mean just look at Fukushima itself. It took literally an act of God to even phase that place, and if it wasn't for an obsolete design, we probably wouldn't even be talking about it right now.

In short, radiation is a pain in the ass to deal with, but short of another giant earthquake or a meteor from space landing right on top of the plant, most modern plants(and especially the ones nearing start up next year) are very well protected and safe. I've done the testing of their safety systems for over 6 years now and I've seen some pretty scary shit when it comes to the competence of the everyday plant worker. Believe me, if these plants didn't have almost SkyNET levels of security and protection, we would have all been melted down, irradiated or blown up a LONG time ago.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

Plant safety is irrelevant when discussing negative effects of the inevitable byproducts of nuclear power: radioactive waste. Increasing the amount of radioactive waste and maintaining long-term safe disposal of it isn't sustainable. Nuclear power is one tool in our kit. It's not a solution though. It poses major hazards coal does not.

[TF-Viewer]

Originally Posted by Rachel Bronwyn

Plant safety is irrelevant when discussing negative effects of the inevitable byproducts of nuclear power: radioactive waste. Increasing the amount of radioactive waste and maintaining long-term safe disposal of it isn't sustainable. Nuclear power is one tool in our kit. It's not a solution though. It poses major hazards coal does not.

Coal is not a safe fuel either. The ash from burning coal is actually radioactive as well, according to some it's even more dangerous than the waste from nuclear power plants http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-nuclear-waste . That's in addition to the greenhouse gases and acid rain it's already known to produce. Neither are terrific ideas.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

Uh, nowhere did I say coal wasn't hazardous.

[Prof_Sai]

Originally Posted by TF-Viewer

Coal is not a safe fuel either.

That's the second time in this thread that someone has used the false dichotomy of Coal-or-Nuclear. No one is arguing for more coal, we are arguing for less coal and nuclear and more windmills and solar.

Constantly misstating your opponent's position is debating in bad faith.

[Prof_Sai]

This is one of the designs I was advocating. Sheesh.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Following the experience with AVR, a full scale power station (the thorium high-temperature reactor or THTR-300 rated at 300 MW) was constructed, dedicated to using thorium as the fuel. THTR-300 suffered a number of technical difficulties, and owing to these and political events in Germany, was closed after only four years of operation. One cause for the closing was an accident on 4 May 1986 with a limited release of the radioactive inventory into the environment. Although the radiological impact of this accident remained small, it is of major relevance for PBR history. The release of radioactive dust was caused by a human error during a blockage of pebbles in a pipe. Trying to restart the pebbles' movement by increasing gas flow led to stirring up of dust, always present in PBRs, which was then released, radioactive and unfiltered, into the environment due to an erroneously open valve.
In spite of the limited amount of radioactivity released (0.1 GBq 60Co, 137Cs, 233Pa), the THTR management tried to hide the accident, possibly because this accident pointed to some specific problems with pebble-bed reactors, mostly pebble flow and radioactive dust. The management might have thought that the emission would not be detectable due to the Chernobyl fallout happening at the same time. They continued to blame the Chernobyl fallout for all of the contamination found in the surroundings, until the presence of Pa-233 in the vicinity was detected. 233Pa is not formed in uranium reactors, such as Chernobyl, but only in thorium reactors (and also by natural spontaneous fissions with thorium nearby).[citation needed] Thus, step by step, the THTR management report lost all credibility.[citation needed] The radioactivity in the vicinity of the THTR-300 was finally found to result 25% from Chernobyl and 75% from THTR-300. The handling of this minor accident severely damaged the credibility of the German pebble-bed community, and pebble-bed reactors lost a lot of support in Germany.[18]

[TF-Viewer]

Originally Posted by Prof_Sai

That's the second time in this thread that someone has used the false dichotomy of Coal-or-Nuclear. No one is arguing for more coal, we are arguing for less coal and nuclear and more windmills and solar.

Constantly misstating your opponent's position is debating in bad faith.

What are you talking about? I'm not debating anything with you or even her. I misunderstood when she said

It poses major hazards coal does not

simple as that.

[edinjapan]

I live in Tokyo, that's nowhere need Fukushima but, my son-in-law's family is from Fukishima. The sperm donor (I have a grandaughter) worked for TEPCO, he doesn't work for them now–for obvious reasons.

His grandfather is still hanging on , living in the Red Zone, claims he's too old (too stubborn IMO) to leave despite being asked to in that rather heavyhanded way of the Japanese authorities.

Anyways, thanks to Shintaro Blinkyhara and our useless PM we'll be having the Olympics in 2020. I invite you all NOT to come.