Japan Faces Prospect of Nuclear Catastrophe as Workers Leave Plant

While the plant is in a bad way, the media is blowing the whole thing out of proportion.

Millions of people of had their lives turned upside down, with the loss of home, water, and food. That is the much bigger problem.

 

not really, there was that...i can't remember if it was a movie i was watching, or a documentary, where scientists downplayed the nuclear melt down bit, but then a manager found out it was really really bad and it was a lot worse than they were saying and blew the whistle on them. not sure if that happened at Chernobyl. but what if there lying about how bad it is, the reactor goes boom and that little natural disaster will be the least of there worries

 

The fact is all these calming measures by the give thats all they are.

They simply dont know what will happen or what the damage is. Today they said truce been pumping water in but the news said they can't get close to core so dnt know damage.

But the 3rd explosion and radiation spike is worrying. People are evacuation in a 30km radius and also to stay in doors. People are worried as the govt aren't helping put fears to rest.

I really hope they can get these reactors under control.

 

Well, there goes the case for nuclear power plants the rest of the world. The media is blowing this completely out of proportion. How many people know the reactor isn't even on anymore?

This earthquake was the strongest in Japanese history. There's NO way they could have built anything to withstand that. But now, left-wingers everywhere are going to rally against nuclear power for no good reason at all, just like after Three Mile Island...

 

fixt

that only dates back about 100 years.

---------- Post added 16th Mar 2011 at 02:37 AM ----------

there are plenty of good reasons to argue against nuclear power (in its current form). Environmentally, assuming you can assure good containment, there is the question of what to do with waste which will be radioactive for tens of thousands of years. Currently, most of it is buried, which lends itself to as much of a

Economically and with regard to public safety, there is the question of what it takes to actually permanently and safely decommission a nuclear power plant. It's only been (thoroughly and safely) done a couple of times, and in each case it cost unbelievable amounts of money and time, absolutely exploding any estimations, which is understandable given the naïvety of the times in which such estimations were made... Due to this, nowadays plants aren't even shut down, they're just left dormant with a permanent skeleton crew to maintain safety and oversee the remaining radioactive potential contaminants, which is expensive, and which over the long term fails to answer both the question of economic feasibility, safety concerns, and environmental friendliness, since given the number of nuclear powerplants in the world (in the thousands), and the potential for disaster not only due to earthquake-like calamities but also catastrophic storms and associated floods, mechanical failure, terrorism, and the ever-present threat of human error means that eventually, there are going to be some major fuckups which are going to cost a LOT of money and a LOT of lives....

Nuclear technology is getting more efficient, safer, and more reliable, but a lot of those questions are unanswerable, first and foremost of which is the longevity of the deadly waste created by its use.

There was a solution to the world wide problem which was suggested by a former australian prime minister called Bob Hawke which i thoroughly supported, which was for australia to become a voluntary recipient of the world's nuclear waste due to its remarkably tectonically stable state, and the enormous wealth of useless land (never thought those words would join together quite like that, eh?), for a nominal fee of course... It caused uproar in the australian public, understandably, but really, it's the best option. But it's not happening currently.

The problems that nuclear power seems, at first, to solve, end up being problems that in the long term it contributes to, on all fronts... safety, economy, and even sustainability. If uranium were used to produce as much electricity as coal and oil produce currently, the world supply would be exhausted in only a slightly longer time frame, and even very new breeder technology, and theoretical thorium reactors wouldn't extend that much further than a couple of hundred years.

It is not a solution to our power problems. It is seductive due to the obvious short term gains, but it really is not doing later generations any favours whatsoever.

---------- Post added 16th Mar 2011 at 02:48 AM ----------

On the other hand, there are still mostly theoretical forms of nuclear power which hold much promise, if we can finally get them going. Certain forms of fusion are relatively extremely clean, very energetic, and basically free, since all that would be required is hydrogen and deuterium, both of which are freely obtainably from the ocean in large amounts (with a shockingly dangerous by-product of pure oxygen). So long as you get the reactions exactly right, the worst by-product you could possibly produce is tritium, which has a trivial half-life of about 18 years (as opposed to the many thousands of years of byproducts of tradition nuclear reactions), and only produces basically innocuous beta radiation when it decays. Furthermore, in so decaying, it creates another very useful nuclear fuel called helium-3, which for most intents and purposes doesn't exist on earth. I am in fact wearing a few milligrams of tritium on my wrist as we speak, as part of the glowing face of my wrist watch (which ironically enough i bought in tokyo, japan 11 years ago).

Having said all that, fusion is still a pipe dream. The most successful fusion reactor built to date only managed a greater than 1:1 ratio of energy out:energy in, and only for very short periods of time. The current project due to be built in france projects a 7:1 ratio, which is an improvement, but also only projected to be feasible for short periods of time. The age in which fusion power will be feeding our electrical addiction is at least decades away and probably more like a century or even a couple of centuries.

 

oh weird, my first paragraph got cut off... i must have deleted it. I'll finish it here...

there are plenty of good reasons to argue against nuclear power (in its current form). Environmentally, assuming you can assure good containment, there is the question of what to do with waste which will be radioactive for tens of thousands of years. Currently, most of it is buried, which lends itself to as much of a disaster (if not more) as any active nuclear reactor plant itself. Burying waste is a tricky business. You have to assure that it remains contained over a time period spanning thousands of years, you have to potentially move thousands of tonnes of it if any potential hazard springs up (be it a natural hazard or a human hazard such as war or terrorism), and all of this costs money. A lot of money.

---------- Post added 16th Mar 2011 at 02:54 AM ----------

The most compelling SHORT TERM argument, in my view, is that of actually SHUTTING DOWN reactors. It's just an economical and logistical nightmare. Nuclear power plants have a relatively short life span, no more than the life span of any human being (and that is optimistic), so you're not exactly just shrugging off the problem to hundreds of years in the future... This is a problem right here and now, and it's only going to become more and more relevant in the minds of the policy setters, as it becomes more and more evident that shutting down plants is a major fucking problem due to more and more 50's, 60's, 70's etc. plants reaching the end of their lives and having to be coddled in their old age by permanent crews of highly-paid professionals who could be doing far more productive things like researching actual REAL renewable and safe energy sources which don't completely fuck later generations with insoluble problems.

---------- Post added 16th Mar 2011 at 03:00 AM ----------

pardon the grammar mistakes, it's late and i'm drunk =P

---------- Post added 16th Mar 2011 at 03:04 AM ----------

by the way, i'm a lefty and i used to be a pro-nuclear lefty, because i wasn't informed enough about it.

if they get fusion running well, or some clever dick works out a way to make fission much more feasible, i'll be pro-nuclear again.

 

I really do stand in awe of the Japanese People and their handling of this. Even in enormous tragedy, they are still extremely disciplined and orderly even.

God in the US all it takes is winning an NBA Championship for chaos and looting to erupt in the streets.

 

Here is a link to a site with before and after pics of Japan. These before and after photos really bring to light the amount of devastation Japan has been through. It's very sad.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/events/japan-quake-2011/beforeafter.htm

 

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15gGuQJzD-U&feature=channel_video_title[/YOUTUBE]