MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Naive maybe but I think that if the US and British populations were exposed to responsible media reporting without red herrings they they would start making similar choices to the Germans and French. Edit: not that Germany and France are models as they have a lot of highly energy intesive industries. It's just the attitude of domestic consumers.
[img] 
[/img]
They are linked though tonto, often.
And Edukator - those energy savings seem to refer to gas, no? Saving 75% of leccy is harder. Once you've already gone to energy saving lights.
MrSmith - Memberfrom the horses mouth.
Thanks for that. Where did you find that info?
Edit: not that Germany and France are models as they have a lot of highly energy intesive industries. It's just the attitude of domestic consumers.
Interesting edit - surely a person's / country's emissions should include those deferred to other countries like china who do the emitting when manufacturing goods for us 'clean, green' westerners?
Saving leccy:
Solar heated water for your washing machine and dish washer (if you have one). The pumps consume very little, it's the water heaters that consume a lot.
A solar hot water heater to feed your electric immersion heater if you have one.
Ditch the freezer and use a small efficient fridge with a freezer box.
More efficient appliances: Our old oven consumed 3.5kW but the new one only 2.2kW
If you heat with electricity use an air to air air-con unit which is at least three times more efficent unless it's really cold outside.
I don't worry much about the electricity I consume in the day as we're nearly always producing more but three of us only consume 2200kWh per year in a house with no gas.
I agree Zokes, blaming the Chinese is not fair when we consume a significant proportion of what they produce. I think you'll agree that the US figures are particularly disturbing considering that they too buy massively in China.
But as I keep trying to point out, your situation is laudable on a personal scale, but it cannot work for everyone. Not enough biomass for heating to start with, and no possible political means of staying in government, and forcing those who don't want to / see the need to take what to most appear to be quite drastic measures.
Crossed post - yes, the US figures are disturbing but hardly surprising. An interesting question came up at a meeting I was in yesterday along these lines:
"When considering exported carbon emissions, who do they actually belong to when the fossil-derived energy source is what's being exported i.e. Australian coal to China?"
Logic says it's an Australian emission, but in that case, someone's nice made-in-china flat-screen in the UK isn't causing emissions in China, it's causing emissions in Australia instead. I know this may appear semantics, but in a carbon trading economy, it's actually quite an interesting question....
the french who know more then most about nuclear are extracting people from japan
This is a significant development: the first time a nation has explicitly said it does not believe Japanese reassurances about the safety of the Fukushima plant, about 150 miles from the capital. The comments by French ministers are very strong.
The industry minister, Eric Besson, told BFM television:
Let's not beat about the bush. They have visibly lost the essential of control (of the situation). That is our analysis, in any case, it's not what they are saying. (from the guardian)
Where are you putting these tidal generation stations?
http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/wave-tidal
and barrages like the severn certainly aren't the main technology being focussed on, more like great things like this:
http://www.marineturbines.com/
In terms of having a constant supply of tidal energy, even within Orkney waters alone there can be over an hours difference in timing of slack tide between locations, never mind between locations further apart around the UK.
Corryvrekan is very interestig 'cos it has great potential for little impact on the ecosystem. Estimated 2 GW of energy available - how much we can get out is as yet unknown. Thats worth having. How much does a nuke generate ( I can't be bothered looking it up)
I'm sorry, but I'm afraid the child in me can't resist this:
This is a significant development: the first time a nation has explicitly said it does not believe Japanese reassurances about the safety of the Fukushima plant, about 150 miles from the capital. The comments by French ministers are very strong.
So the French are retreating - quelle surprise!
Ditch the freezer and use a small efficient fridge with a freezer box
Interesting one this. Which uses less energy:
a) growing veg locally in season and storing it in the freezer either industrially or at home
b) using heated polytunnels to grow out of season
c) ship from overseas by boat?
Of course the best option is
d) if it's not local, don't eat it - use tinned/dried/pickled/preserved stuff
.. but that's not palatable to many folk who want broccoli year round.
Bottled not tinned, Bisphenol A! 😉
The forzen food industry requires a long series of refigerated buildings and trucks before it ever gets to the home freezer. Eat fresh or bottled.
Oh and bin the bread making machine and buy bread from the bakers where it's made in a communal oven.
Estimated 2 GW of energy available
Just another (badly needed) drop in the ocean then...
Eat fresh or bottled
Like I said. But which is best out of a, b or c?
i get most of my veg out of my garden year round. ok i am getting a little sick of kale and leeks but the purple-sprouting broccoli has just started yum yum
still as talked about earlier its not the norm to think like this. ive had girlfriends turn their noses up at veg from the garden as they thought it was dirty due to it not being shrink wrapped 😯 ! needles to say they were short relationships
(c has the lowest co2 footprint if not flown)
"ive had girlfriends turn their noses up at veg from the garden as they thought it was dirty due to it not being shrink wrapped "
One of the staff at work was almost sick at the idea of eating the apples i brought in from my tree because they had not been bought in a supermarket so "insects could have crawled on them".
Oh and bin the bread making machine and buy bread from the bakers where it's made in a communal oven.[/s]
Oh and bin the PV’s & toy windmills and buy energy from the power company where it's made in a communal power station. 😉
Oh and bin the bread making machine and buy bread from the bakers where it's made in a communal oven.
Thanks for the useful advice - I'll drive to the bakers to pick up my loaf instead of using that wasteful breadmaker in future.
(c has the lowest co2 footprint if not flown)
My understanding was that c beats b even if air transport is used.
I read about a big farm next to a power station that not only used waste heat from the power station for most of its needs but also piped CO2 from the chimneys into the tunnels to help the plants grow.
CO2 makes plants grow like mad, apparently atmospheric levels are only just above starvation for plants.
Thanks for that. Where did you find that info?
on the internet.
if i told you i would have to kill you.
never compromise your source....
If 'c' involves purchasing from a developing country, there's plenty of other reasons why it can be a lot better than 'b', and occasionally 'a'...
It's a boiling water reactor, so it's supposed to have steam in the top part of the core - think of it like a constantly boiling kettle that they collect the steam from to run turbines for power generation. You have to keep adding water or it'll boil dry. If it boils dry you could damage the kettle.
Nope. It's a closed system. The water is converted to steam in the reactor core. This steam drives a turbine. It is then converted back to water in a condenser fed by external cold water, then reintroduced to the reactor core to start over again.
If it ever gets to a serious danger point they can just drain out all the coolant and let it all melt with no danger of gasses building up that could cause blowouts, at the cost of wrecking the reactor totally.
Right, I am aware that it is closed - but you have to keep pumping the water through the heat exchanger or you'll have too much steam and expose the fuel elements, which is precisely the problem they are having - they have no power to drive the pumps, and thus the pressure in the core is rising too much, due to too much steam. My kettle analogy is apt, but if you want to be pedantic, extend it so the kettle boils and the steam rises from the spout and turns a child's toy windmill thing (the turbine), and then condenses on a baking tray above the kettle that has one end submerged in a large amount of water to keep it cool. The kettle is replenished from this supply of water (so it cycles) [assume the kitchen is closed and you only have as much water as is in the big tank that the baking tray empties into].
The problem they have is that they need electricity to move the water from the tank back into the kettle, and they don't have enough. More modern BWRs have been designed with this sort of thing in mind, to operate with passive cycling of water. The 40 year old BWR1 in this plant needs power to be able to maintain that circulation.
I can safely say that we're all glad you're not in charge. You seem to be suggesting that a meltdown situation wouldn't be that bad. Google 'China syndrome'. Whilst melted fuel would hardly reach the opposite side of the globe, the reactor would not be able to contain the fuel as you suggest. It would burn through the base of the reactor and end up in the earth below, contaminating water tables and goodness knows what else.
No, it really wouldn't. The fuel will melt and be contained by the concrete containment structure as it was designed to do in the event of a full LOCA with no one left on site to do anything else (like flood the thing with seawater). The physical properties of melted nuclear fuel are well understood, and the containment structure was designed with them in mind. It would not burn through and contaminate the water table - although that was a possibility during the meltdown of Reactor 4 at Chernobyl after the explosion due to inadequate containment underneath the reactor.
They test this sort of thing - here's some, for example [url= .jpg)
]fuel and reactor lava - "corium"[/url], to see what effect is has on concrete as it cools and flows. They design the containment structure to spread it out more thinly so it can cool more effectively, and make the concrete thick enough that it won't be able to burn all the way through. The concrete containment under the BWR's in Japan are shallow-dish-shaped, for example, for just this reason.
The containment was designed so that in the worst possible case (the core melting completely due to no coolant being present), it would still be contained inside the concrete.
They don't want it to melt like this of course, because it will be harder to clean up than if the core is still intact but partially damaged, hence the attempts to cool it, but if it does totally melt it will stay inside the containment structure.
Edit: and "China Syndrome" is a film, and a *theoretical* postulation by a physicist about what would happen in the event that the core melted through the containment structure. It's hardly "proof" that in the event of a LOCA or a meltdown that groundwater contamination or fuel escape at all would occur.
and make the concrete thick enough that it won't be able to burn all the way through
And crack proof after having been subjected to a massive earthquake and hydrogen explosions ?
China Syndrome. I suppose what worries is that it's not just that the fuel is molten at around 3000C, but it's actually reacting and generating vast amounts of energy as long as it's coalesced. But I can imagine how an upturned dish shape will spread it out and make it go sub-critical. I'm reassured somewhat by the picture of molten lava spreading over the "catcher".
Bump. The first pages make make interestign reading with hindsight, Graham. "Where's the problem" you asked. Well you have your answers now. Care to comment now, Flying OX, Aracer, Olly, Buzz and Co.
Can't we just build some in Scotland? It's so bloody cold and wet up there all the time, there'd be no issue with cooling.
And if one went a bit wrong, then it wouldn't have anywhere near disastrous consequences as one nearer civilisation.
As I said on the wind turbine thread; you could bung em inside mountains, then they'd be protected and safe.
Care to comment now
Well we might do if you care to point out how exactly it's become a catastrophe which bears any comparison to the destruction caused directly by the earthquake/tsunami. Or even just point out exactly what has happened which we were suggesting couldn't (and that none of the news agencies appear to have noticed). Or maybe even just come clean when recommending PV electricity and remember to point out where it is you live when you're busy implying it's useful for people in the UK.
Check my PV posts and you'll note I give energy payback periods for northern and southern Europe.
In answer to Graham's question.
The "steam" realeased into the containment building was hydrogen rich. It exploded destroying much of the building, and preventing rapid restoration of power and cooling. The cores of #2 and #3 overheated and suffered partial (if not complete melt down. The containment vessels failed releasing highly radioactive material out into the local area and atmosphere. Attempts to cool with sea water have resulted in salting up and the overheating continues despite claims by some that it would all cool down within a couple of weeks. Stored fuel also became a problem with overheating resulting in yet more discharges of contaminated water locally and releases into the atmosphere over wide areas.
I have no intention of comparing things you'd like me too aracer. I'm pointing out that the blind faith of the pro-nuclear brigade in the safety of the reactors was misplaced. Attempts to distract me will fail. My point is that you were wrong. It would appear you are too proud to admit it.
Edukator: It's clear you have anti-nuclear bias. It's quite right that there is public anxiety about radiation releases. I suggest that the public (me to) are only pro-nuclear (Uranium fission) in the context of the Energy Question and Climate Change problems; the public are aware that this type of electricity generation has peculiar and potentially far-reaching safety concerns. But we are also aware that there are hundreds of reactors, and that serious problems are few and far between.
If it was felt that short to medium-term viable, inherently safer, but as reliable alternatives existed, I suggest that everyone would be anti-nuclear (Uranium fission). What this event may do, is convince governments to further increase investment developing those alternatives, which is a good thing.
To qualify some of your remarks - much of which I agree with:
The "steam" realeased into the containment building was hydrogen rich. It exploded destroying much of the building
It surprised me that the safety design of the plant doesn't deal with this scenario. I wasn't aware of the chemistry. It's a boiling reactor so fuel rods could be exposed to steam and create Hydrogen in quantities which needs venting safely. This is certainly an area where all reactor designs should review their safety cases IMO.
and preventing rapid restoration of power and cooling
I don't see this as related to the Hydrogen explosions. Cooling and control system power were lost due to the plant not being designed to survive a combined earthquake and tsunami event of this size. Again, safety cases must be reviewed.
The cores of #2 and #3 overheated and suffered partial (if not complete melt down
As far as anyone knows, absolutely true
The containment vessels failed releasing highly radioactive material out into the local area and atmosphere.
"Failed" is being disingenuous. The vessels are structurally intact and continue to contain the integrity of the reactors - contrast with Chernobyl. Sure, they are leaking small quantities of nasties. This is very serious and urgent that this is stopped. But the radiation leakage to the environment is very small compared with the effects of an un-contained reactor fire. As always, plant workers are the people at real risk.
Attempts to cool with sea water have resulted in salting up and the overheating continues despite claims by some that it would all cool down within a couple of weeks.
No. It's well known that it takes ages for the heat of the decay products to cool sufficiently before withdrawing the fuel rods for external cooling. Given partial meltdown, the reactor is un-serviceable and the cores will have to cool in-situ over a long period, just like TMI.
It's unfortunate that seawater had to be used. But the tsunami damage meant that there was no viable alternative.
Stored fuel also became a problem with overheating resulting in yet more discharges of contaminated water locally and releases into the atmosphere over wide areas
Absolutely! The safety of on-site storage like this is definitely something that needs reviewing in the light of the loss of secondary containment from the Hydrogen explosions. It remains to be seen if they were storing too much spent fuel in the pools, so much that reaction could restart without the moderating coolant being present.
i don't have blind faith, i have cautious trust.
what's happening at fukushima is bad, but how bad is it?
(i suggest we wait and see, try and learn something)
radon gas kills thousands of people in the uk every year (1 in 10 cases of lung cancer).
my god! - we must evacuate cornwall! - quickly! - set up a 500mile exclusion zone! - think of the children!
etc.
calm down, get a grip, you'll live longer.
(got kids? - don't have a radon detector? - you reckless bastard)
Check my PV posts and you'll note I give energy payback periods for northern and southern Europe.
You provide claims (which are far, far more optimistic than any real figures I've ever seen for the UK) but no figures to back them up. What's more "northern Europe" conventionally means France, Benelux, Germany - the sun incidence even where I live in the midlands is much lower than it is there.
In any case given all the inaccuracies in your comments about the Fukushima power station I'm not sure how much faith I have in any of your claims about anything else.
I have no intention of comparing things you'd like me too aracer
But nothing is absolute. Presumably your attitude is that one death due to nuclear power makes it horrendously dangerous as you refuse to compare with the deaths due to any other form of electricity generation?
My point is that you were wrong
Well my point is that you are always wrong. Evidence? I'll provide some when you attempt to justify why I was wrong, rather than just making unsubstantiated assertions.
[url= http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_du_Nord ]Northern Europe according to Wiki.[/url]
I don't think anyone would claim Pau is in Northern Europe, except maybe you aracer.
D'un point de vue géographique, l'Europe du Nord peut se définir comme étant l'ensemble des régions s'ouvrant sur la Manche
Which would appear to include France, Benelux, Germany. Thanks for that confirmation, Edu.
Aracer - you still deny the severity of the japanese accident. Well still don't know the full extent but it is far greater than you or anyone else on the pro nuke side said possible.
It is quite possible that thousands will die from this - its now the worst accident ever apart from Chernobyl and that cost at least 10 000 lives.
There are uncooled pools full of fuel rods that should not have been there, there are melted cores, containment is breached, there is serious radioactive contamination and every day the news gets worse
Levels of radioactive iodine in the sea near the tsunami-stricken Fukushima nuclear plant are 1,250 times higher than the safety limit, officials say.
This northern/southern Europe thing in the context of solar panel production is very revealing, aracer. A free thinking person would see the meaning immediately and logically divide Europe up with an imaginary line running somewhere through central France and continuing along the Alps on the basis of sunshine intensity. A psychorigid person will decide that even if most of France is far enough south to be considered southern Europe in the context of solar production it can't be in southern Europe as some of it's regions are on the Channel.
The same lack of mental agility is seen in an inability to interpret the news from Fukushima other than as comforting your view there's nothing to worry about and that we shouldn't be investing in viable alternatives to nuclear.
you still deny the severity of the japanese accident. Well still don't know the full extent but it is far greater than you or anyone else on the pro nuke side said possible
The only thing I'm denying is that the nuclear part of the earthquake incident is in any way comparable in severity on a human scale to the devastation caused by the rest of it. Feel free to check back exactly what severity I suggested was possible - obviously you know better than me, as I can't remember making any comment on that.
It is quite possible that thousands will die from this - its now the worst accident ever apart from Chernobyl and that cost at least 10 000 lives.
Which is such a typical hype filled comment from your side of the argument. I'd love for you to explain to me how it is in any way comparable to Chernobyl - being the worst apart from Chernobyl simply means that it's gone past the previous 2nd worst (3 mile island?) though suggesting a death toll comparable to that wouldn't suit your argument would it?
Levels of radioactive iodine in the sea near the tsunami-stricken Fukushima nuclear plant are 1,250 times higher than the safety limit, officials say.
Which would clearly be a problem if you drank the seawater or went for a swim there - I'd recommend you avoid doing either of those.
A psychorigid person will decide that even if most of France is far enough south to be considered southern Europe in the context of solar production it can't be in southern Europe as some of it's regions are on the Channel.
Somebody with the ability to read might note that nobody has suggested Southern France was in Northern Europe. I got the distinct impression that somebody on here was attempting to deny that France (Northern part - I didn't realise I needed to spell that out for the hard of comprehension), Germany and Benelux are in the conventional definition of Northern Europe despite getting far higher concentrations of sun than even Southern England.
I'd have thought somebody with the ability to read and a half decent memory might also be able to tell whether somebody who's made a fairly significant contribution to such discussions on this thread was in favour of investing in viable alternatives to nuclear (as opposed to non-viable ones).
How many bad nuclear accidents have their been in 50 odd years? How many are still in the news?
How many news stories are there about the dire consequences of climate change?
Just a couple of talking points - those are not rhetorical questions.
Damn - I've just realised I'm completely wrong. I can't possibly agree with [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima ]Monbiot[/url]
the point is aracer that you and the nuclear apologists continuously downplay how serious this is, and you are doing it in your last post.
People will die as a result of this nuclear accident. We don't know how many yet. it is still getting worse. Every day the news is worse, more radioactive contamination, more releases.
We see how cavalier they have been with safety, storing large amounts of spent fuel rods in breach of the operating conditons which has contributed to the severity of the accident. The sequence of events was totally predictable in that a big earthquake which is always possible in the area will trigger a tsunami which will flood the reactors.
They were left with no effective way of cooling the plant which has led to the partial meltdown of the cores and of the stored spent fuel rods. Teh plant is destroyed and will never produce any electricity again. It will just be a massive cost to the country for decades if notr centuries
of course the nuclear apologists tell uus its all perfectly safe - wheras the actual eveidence is that it is not. Accidents happen. people take short cuts and / or break the rules as in tis case by storing spent fuel rods on site in an unlisenced manner.
Teh problem with nukes is when it goes wrong it goes very wrong indeed. it is perfectly feasable that core material / fission products will leak if they are not already. We know as it has been admitted that the cores are breached and containment is breached - something we were told could not happen.
any release of radiactivity leads to increased cancers
As yet we simply do bnot know the extent of this accident. Teh situation is still not under any sort of meaningful control and is still getting worse.
This incedent shows that nuclear powr is simply not safe. how many serious accidents have their been? how many deaths?
And it continues to get worse.
Reports from Japan say radioactivity in water at reactor 2 at the damaged Fukushima nuclear plant is 10 million times the usual level.Workers trying to cool the reactor core to avoid a meltdown have been evacuated, Reuters news agency says.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12872707
so all this water they are pumping in to the reactors to attempt to cool them - what are they ging to do with it?
the point is aracer that you and the nuclear apologists continuously downplay how serious this is, and you are doing it in your last post
Meanwhile the haters continue to upplay it - tell me what evidence you have for your thousands of deaths assertion?
People will die as a result of this [s]nuclear accident[/s] earthquake/tsunami. We don't know how many yet.
FTFY. If you were really worried about people getting killed you'd be busy campaigning against people living near the coast in these areas rather than going off on one about nuclear power. I've seen perfectly rational suggestions that far more people died in the aftermath of the quake due to the power being off than will ever die due to radiation.
which has led to the partial meltdown of the cores
Evidence for that assertion?
Teh problem with nukes is when it goes wrong it goes very wrong indeed.
Because of course every single incident involving a nuclear power station has resulted in thousands of deaths?
any release of radiactivity leads to increased cancers
I'd stay away from Cornwall if I were you, TJ.
This incedent shows that nuclear powr is simply not safe. how many serious accidents have their been? how many deaths?
Here you go, TJ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_accident
Looking at the numbers there, I reckon what we need to do to avoid deaths from radiation is not have nuclear power in the Soviet Union (are you still suggesting anything like Chernobyl is likely to happen anywhere else?) and stop using radiotherapy.
Meanwhile [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/8258836.stm ]this[/url] shows that windfarms aren't safe, [url= http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Russia-Siberia-Hydro-Electric-Power-Station-Accident-Death-Toll-Set-To-Soar/Article/200908315363881 ]this[/url] shows hydroelectric isn't safe, or is it somehow worse being killed due to an accident at a nuclear power station because such incidents are so rare? ISTR we've already done [url= http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html ]this[/url] one showing just how incredibly safe nuclear actually is, yet you continue to deny such figures.
We see how cavalier they have been with safety, storing large amounts of spent fuel rods in breach of the operating conditons which has contributed to the severity of the accident.
A very serious accusation. Has this been confirmed? I thought this was conjecture at the moment? References?
The sequence of events was totally predictable in that a big earthquake which is always possible in the area
A smaller earthquakes were predictable. This one was unpredictably large. Everything carries some risk, and risk is not black and white. It's about percentages.
will trigger a tsunami which will flood the reactors.
We cannot have a reasoned debate if people keep posting factually incorrect statements. The tsunami did NOT flood the reactors. It flooded the area containing the backup generators.
Everything carries some risk, and risk is not black and white. It's about percentages
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Didn't you know nuclear power isn't safe? People die due to it. Totally unlike any other form of electricity generation.
We cannot have a reasoned debate if people keep posting factually incorrect statements.
Don't spoil things for them, buzz. If we don't let them post factually incorrect statements they won't have anything at all to base their arguments on.
This thread has been going for over two weeks now and yet no one has won the argument.
Come on lads.............sort it out.
Should it not be radioactive caesium you should be worrying about? Radioactive Iodine decays pretty quick, so if most of the population are evacuated its not going to have a long term impact (assuming it hasn't spread far). On the other hand the ceasium isotope hangs about for decades. There are still UK sheep farms that cannot sell their stocks due to high levels of Cs from Chernobyl.
TJ quotes the BBC article
radioactivity in water at reactor 2 at the damaged Fukushima nuclear plant is 10 million times the usual level.
...10 million times sounds pretty scary. But what does it actually equate to...?
Well its about 1 seivert/hour.
Current estimates are 0.08 fatal cancers per seivert dose. So if you stood all the Fukushima 50 in the water for an hour then its likely 4 of them will eventually develop terminal cancer.
That 8/100 workers exposed will develop cancer is very bad. Would you go to work with those odds? I re-iterate: the risks at the stage are primarily on the workers who are trying to recover the situation. The risk to the general public is not high. Think of the workers.
"There are still UK sheep farms that cannot sell their stocks due to high levels of Cs from Chernobyl"
Are they not in Cumbria? Isn't that a clue to the real cause?
Are they not in Cumbria? Isn't that a clue to the real cause?
No, Scotland.
That 8/100 workers exposed will develop cancer is very bad
Yes it is, but that's if they are right at the source for an hour. Apply the inverse square law and this figure falls dramatically.
Stand 10 metres away and its 8/10 000
Stand 100 metres away and its 8/1 000 000
Stand 1km away and its 8/100 000 000
So yes, I agree, the risk is primarily to the workers. As I said earlier in the thread, hats off to them (or it might have been a similar thread). It's not a particularly enviable task.
Aracer - read what I wrote
It is quite possible that thousands will die from this - its now the worst accident ever apart from Chernobyl and that cost at least 10 000 lives.
If core material escapes into the wider environment which clearly is a [b]possibility[/b] and indeed may already be happening then it is quite possible that thousands will die from the radioactivity. Its just a [possibility at this stage
I am not overplaying this - its a possibility as the reactors are not under control and containment is breached.
Yes something like Chernobyl could easily happen with these reactors - the key thing is the release of core material / high level waste into the environment.
Yes nuclear is completely different to any other form of electircity generation due to the highly toxic and long lived nature of the pollutants.
10 000 died because of Chernobyl and many more peoples health was affected. find another generator accident that killed that many people
The situation in Japan is not as bad as that but it has the potential to be so. It has already caused more pollution that the nuclear apologists said was possible. Teh situation is still very unstable.
Yes it is completely impossible to have a sane discussion on this with people who are so blind to the unique and deadly dangers of nukes.
A REUTERS SPECIAL REPORT
TOKYO, Japan - When the massive tsunami smacked into Fukushima Daiichi, the nuclear power plant was stacked high with more uranium than it was originally designed to hold and had repeatedly missed mandatory safety checks over the past decade.
The Fukushima plant that has spun into partial meltdown and spewed out plumes of radiation had become a growing depot for spent fuel in a way the American engineers who designed the reactors 50 years earlier had never envisioned, according to company documents and outside experts.
At the time of the March 11 earthquake, the reactor buildings at Fukushima held the equivalent of almost six years of the highly radioactive uranium fuel rods produced by the plant, according to a presentation by Tokyo Electric Power Co to a conference organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Along with questions about whether Tokyo Electric officials waited too long to pump sea water into the plants and abandon hope of saving them, the utility and regulators are certain to face scrutiny on the fateful decision to store most of the plant's spent fuel rods inside the reactor buildings rather than invest in other potentially safer storage options.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/-depth/03/22/11/fuel-storage-safety-issues-vexed-japan-nuclear-plant
find another generator accident that killed that many people
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam ]Banqiao Dam[/url] Inital death toll 26,000. Subsequent deaths from famine and disease 146,000.
FWIW - I am not pro nuclear.
ta j_me
I had never heard of that.
right, from now on, i'm strongly against hydro-power.
it's clearly far too dangerous.
that Dinorwig thing near llanberis will have to go.
When the massive tsunami smacked into Fukushima Daiichi, the nuclear power plant was stacked high with more uranium than it was originally designed to hold and had repeatedly missed mandatory safety checks over the past decade
Gosh if that is actually true and anyone dies, it's the Jap equivalent of corporate manslaughter. Any equipment is only safe if the operational limits are seen to be observed. Regardless of it being a nuclear plant, that is truly shocking.
Well [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12875327 ]this[/url] is a relief.
Reports from Japan say radioactivity in water at reactor 2 at the damaged Fukushima nuclear plant is 10 million times the usual level.
You really should know better than to trust the official figures, TJ 😆
If core material escapes into the wider environment which clearly is a possibility and indeed may already be happening then it is quite possible that thousands will die from the radioactivity.
An extremely slim possibility combined with an extremely slim possibility. You've got more chance of winning the lottery.
Yes something like Chernobyl could easily happen with these reactors
Not according to [b]all[/b] the experts it couldn't. Who should I believe, them or TJ?
10 000 died because of Chernobyl
According to some figures - other more reputable ones put it a lot lower. I'm not really interested in arguing Chernobyl though - this isn't Chernobyl, and there won't ever be anything similar at any plant in a Western country.
Yes it is completely impossible to have a sane discussion on this with people who [s]are so blind to the unique and deadly dangers of nukes[/s] refuse to compare the dangers of nukes to the dangers of any other form of electricity generation (let alone the dangers of not having sufficient electricity supply)
FTFY
So what are you saying aracer, I haven't been following this thread much recently........that nuclear energy is safe ?
No, wait, don't bother answering that question..........I've just seen this report :
[url= http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=670482&publicationSubCategoryId=63 ]Radiation at plant 10 million times above normal[/url]
Quote :
[i]"Leaked water in Unit 2 of the Fukushima Daiichi plant measured 10 million times higher than usual radioactivity levels when the reactor is operating normally, Tokyo Electric Power Co. spokesman Takashi Kurita told reporters in Tokyo."[/i]
10 million times higher than usual radioactivity ? 10 ****ing million times higher ??? Jeeeeezus............that stuff's dangerous 😯
I'm guessing that the Tokyo Electric Power Co. spokesman knows what he's talking about ?
I'm guessing that the Tokyo Electric Power Co. spokesman knows what he's talking about ?
Unfortunately not - see buzz's link!
OK I've just seen buzz's link, quote :
[i]"Tokyo Electric Power Company, which has previously been criticised by officials for its handling of the crisis at the plant, said it got the readings wrong."[/i]
So the Tokyo Electric Power Co. spokesman doesn't know what he's talking about and the workers at the plant are releasing false readings, that doesn't exactly inspire confidence does it ? This is highly radioactive material is dangerous stuff FFS.
But anyway, I tried to find what the true level of radiation is and this is what I found :
[url= http://www.thirdage.com/news/japan-radiation-mistake-spike-inaccurate_3-27-2011 ]Japan Radiation Mistake: Spike Inaccurate[/url]
Quote :
[i]"The number is not credible," said Tokyo Electric Power Co. spokesman Takashi Kurita. "We are very sorry." He said officials were taking another sample to get accurate levels, but did not know when the results would be announced.[/i]
But did not know when the results would be announced ? So basically they don't know what the level is, and they are simply assuming that the first reading is wrong. Again, that doesn't exactly inspire confidence does it ?
And wait there's more, quote :
[i]Officials apologized for the error, which they said occurred due to the fact that workers, scared from the extremely high level, fled Unit 2 before taking a second reading. [/i]
So the workers were so scared of the high levels of radiation that they legged it and didn't bother taking a second reading ? Now the workers at a nuclear power station are actually panicking, but you reckon these places are perfectly safe aracer ?
Well I don't know who to believe anymore, but the suggestion that workers at a nuclear power station are that clueless is really rather worrying.
So the workers were so scared of the high levels of radiation that they legged it and didn't bother taking a second reading ? Now the workers at a nuclear power station are actually panicking, but you reckon these places are perfectly safe aracer ?
Hmm, well apart from never having said that, workers being worried about incorrect readings suggesting it's very dangerous isn't really the same as it actually being very dangerous. Or are you going to base all your risk assessments on presenting falsely alarming data to people and seeing how much they panic?
the suggestion that workers at a nuclear power station are that clueless is really rather worrying
I'm assuming the workers aren't all nuclear physicists with all the data at their fingertips - or are you suggesting it's clueless of them to get worried about a reading which on the face of it suggests high levels of danger? Or are you actually suggesting they should all be nuclear physicists?
well apart from never having said that
Gotcha........you don't think these places are that safe. My mistake - I thought you did.
are you actually suggesting they should all be nuclear physicists?
Is that not possible ? Bearing in mind that the people at the Fukushima reactors are just a select handful who were sent in to specifically deal with the second most serious crises ever in the history of nuclear power.
And also bearing in mind that it would be useful if they didn't panic and leg it because they didn't know what was going on.
Well I guess if there aren't enough nuclear physicists to go around, then people who just have a vague idea will have to do.
Although perhaps further development of nuclear energy should be halted until there are more nuclear physicists available ?
[img] 
?w=350&h=225[/img]
You get instructions to enter a room but your radiation alarm goes "bzzzz" and there's a standing order to immediately evacuate from the room. There is no imperative to stop take "just one more reading to avoid an argument on singletrackworld." The mistake was to permit reporting an unsubstantiated reading.
Look guys, they're working three irreparably damaged nuclear facilities in a natural disaster zone at some personal risk. Give them a break!
Look guys, they're working three irreparably damaged nuclear facilities in a natural disaster zone ....
Sounds serious 😐
And the news just gets worse. Plutonium is found, highly radioactive water is leaking from one of the reactors, contamination is spreading
Plutonium is found, highly radioactive water is leaking from one of the reactors, contamination is spreading
I have to say that I a bit dissappointed with the hyperbole that you seem intent on using, as I'd have thought that someone with medical training such as yourself would have realised that the phrase "the dose makes the poison" might be applicable here. How much Plutonium was found? How much higher above background does this raise radiation levels? What risk does it represent?
As for your statement that "it just gets worse" well if you cherry pick your news then yes it does get worse. Did you post that the recent reading of reading 1,000,000 above normal were erroneous? Not that I can see. As for the possiblily of another Chernobyl, well I'd never say that the risk was zero (there being no such thing as zero risk in anything), but now that electricity has been restored to the plant and cooling water is being pumped through the reactor (another item you chose not to post about) I'd put it down to very very unlikely.
Now I realise that there is a possibility that on reading that that you will consider me to be rabidly pro nuclear and that I think that everything is under control at the plant. I don't. It is clearly, and always has been, a very serious situation however the hyperbole that you post on this subject is frankly unhelpful and not condusive to rational debate.
For those interested in some proper discussion of this subject I found the [url= http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1139141 ]Ars Technica forum[/url] thread to be very good and apparently well informed (at least to my limited degree-level physics level of understanding). If anyone's thinking of contributing there the Chicken Little's get short shrift - you need to back your opinions with thought! Ars Technica also has some [url= http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/03/plutonium-no-worry-yet-at-fukushima-but-beware-the-puddles.ars ]good general articles[/url] on what's going on.
I have to say that I a bit dissappointed with the hyperbole that you seem intent on using
You've been TJed.
This morning I was comparing Deepwater Horizon with Fukushima:
[b]Deepwater[/b]: Man-made accident, 11 dead, 205.8 million gallons of crude oil released into the envionment, 287 miles of coastline heavily contaminated
[b]Fukushima[/b]: Natural cause, 0 dead, small increase in cancer risk to some workers, a few grammes of spent fuel released to the environment, possible 10km2 affected my slight radioactive contamination
Puts the oil and nuclear energy industries in perspective, no?
I am going to go through and read all of this but first I need to go and take a shit to clear out some room.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12892383 ]We're all doomed!![/url]
On the bright side i'm less likely to get breast cancer now.
And the nuclear apologists continue. Gonfishin - plutonium has no real safe level 🙄
Its still not under control and getting worse. Thats one of the cores melted down completely.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/29/japan-lost-race-save-nuclear-reactor
gonefishin - Member
but now that electricity has been restored to the plant and cooling water is being pumped through the reactor (another item you chose not to post about) I'd put it down to very very unlikely.
~apart from that is not what is happening. the pumps are ruined and the cores are molten. They wil do very well to prevent a major release of core material let alone all the radioactive cooling water.
And the news continues to get worse
An exclusion zone with a radius of 20km (12 miles) is currently in place but [b]the UN says[/b] safe radiation limits have been exceeded 40km away
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12916688
Well an American expert reckons part of a core has melted down to the floor and through the bottom of the pressure vessel where it is flowing slowly like lava into the concrete drywell - currently flooded. And that this explains where these releases are coming from.
That makes the outcome worse than TMI.