|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
QuickSearch
|
|
| AZPaul3, CoolBeans, CosmicChimp, Dr Adequate, Genomicus, Panda, Percy (Admin), Taz (8 members, 105 visitors)
| ||||||
| Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
| letchimWOD | |||||||
| Percy | |||||||
|
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Japan | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dronester Member  Posts: 931 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
SAFEST, bolded by me. In light of the potential catastrophic problem in Japan regarding their nuclear power-plants, are you still enamored with nuclear power? And besides natural disasters, what about potential terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants? Seems the 9/11 terrorists could have done a lot more damage if . . . Japan evacuates thousands from vicinity of two nuclear power plants Japan earthquake: nuclear disaster feared after power plant 'explosion' Edited by dronester, : clarity Edited by dronester, : typos
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dronester Member Posts: 931 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
If a natural or man-made disaster causes another Chernobyl catastrophe, would you then still be a strong supporter? How many lives lost would it take for you to change your mind? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? (I am not "anti-nuclear power", but I am curious with your response, as I think the latest news in Japan SHOULD at least give reflection)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dronester Member Posts: 931 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
I think I mostly agree with Omnivorous' thinking Message 192 that when it comes to nuclear power safety, we might be able to trust scientists, however we shouldn't trust a de-regulated industry, a corporatist government, "terrorists", and, as shown in Japan, mother-nature to do the right/SAFE thing. Case in point, I received this in my email yesterday from Credo Action . . .
https://act.credoaction.com/campaign/say_no_to_nuclear/?r... (Dem. Schumer is my awful NY sen. He enthusiastically supports the funding of the deaths to women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan, pushes for a flag burning amendment, supports patriot act., etc,. Just a horrible criminal that NYers keep electing.)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dronester Member Posts: 931 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Yes, I understand the positives of nuclear power and of our currently poor options. However, when reading . . .
and
and
and
and
. . . I am amazed that many of our US representatives are fighting to secure funding for nuclear power plants near earthquake zones. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110315/ts_nm/us_japan_quake https://act.credoaction.com/...say_no_to_nuclear/index2.html
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dronester Member Posts: 931 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Safer than good ol' Hydro power? I live nearby the mostly-ecologically-safe Niagara Hydro Plant. I'm not an engineer, but I think a plane crash into the hydro plant wouldn't cause the area to be inundated with radiation for another 30+ years. I've always wondered why there can't be more similar designed hydro plants. There are rivers all over the US, right?
The New Orleans coastal/dam system was designed for a rated 3-4 hurricane because historically that area could expect a 3-4 hurricane. Seemed like that wasn't too SAFE of planning either, was it? Seems to be a pattern here.
No, not quite. It was the loss of electrical power that allowed the cooling systems to be damaged. Not all the reports are clear/known right now, but read my links below for the best technical explanations now.
Not quite. Please read my links below which showed that the Fukushima reactors were knowingly defective. And that planned US power plants will use the same defective design.
That's why I asked how many people need to be killed BEFORE you would partly/fully change your stance. Please read and comprehend my posts in their entirety (praise be god you are not crashfrog).
It is my understanding, that, at this time, the fuel rods are likely exposed (see linked website). Possible that I'm wrong.
Well, actually both, they are potentially scarily dangerous. Cancer, birth defects, etc. Pretty scary to me. Rahvin, as I wrote before, I am not anti-nuclear, but I'd simply want everyone to consider ALL the angles BEFORE any catastrophe can happen and make the necessary extraordinary precautions. I am sure you agree with this stance. 1. Natural disasters: in this case a nuclear power plant was built on the Pacific ring of fire, prone to earthquakes and tsunamis, with forewarnings. A meltdown can cause tens, or thousands, or millions to have radiation poisoning and to render VAST quantities of land to be uninhabitable for DECADES. Excuse me, but because of this reason, I (and you) should want better guarantees of safety than a simple coal burning plant. 2. Deregulated/dishonest industries. Check out my link below regarding corruption to make a profit. PLEASE, read through "Tokyo Electric to Build US Nuclear Plants" below. It will make you want to go back to the steam age. A meltdown can cause tens, or thousands, or millions to have radiation poisoning and to render VAST quantities of land to be uninhabitable for DECADES. Excuse me, but because of this reason, I (and you) should want better guarantees of safety than a simple coal burning plant. 3. Corrupt corporatist government. Check out my link that shows US representatives want to push funding for similar defective powerplants in quake areas of the US. Also, a power plant in Michigan has been in safety violation of law since 1994! A meltdown can cause tens, or thousands, or millions to have radiation poisoning and to render VAST quantities of land to be uninhabitable for DECADES. Excuse me, but because of this reason, I (and you) should want better guarantees of safety than a simple coal burning plant. 4. "Terrorists". Before 9/11, I could understand your marginalization. But after? The difference between flying a 747 into a nuclear powerplant and a "shopping mall" is that a nuclear power plant meltdown can cause tens, hundreds, thousands, or millions to have radiation poisoning and to render VAST quantities of land to be uninhabitable for DECADES. Excuse me, but because of this reason, I (and you) should want better guarantees of safety than a simple "shopping mall". (I know you didn't write the retarded example of "shopping mall".) Lastly, PLEASE read the two links below about the seriousness of radiation spreading from Japan. It is likely that governmentS are going to downplay the actual amount of radiation released. Excuse me while I straighten my tin-cap, but I urge you to be extra skeptical in governmental and corporate media reporting. Japan Facing Biggest Catastrophe Since Dawn of Nuclear Age Tokyo Electric To Build Us Nuclear Plants
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dronester Member Posts: 931 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
However, your point that the failed levee system in New Orleans was woefully inadequate (like nuclear power plant designs and safety regulations in Japan and USA), was my primary point. I simply want systems that could potentially harm a great many people to be rigorously designed and regulated. My previous links, and the real world example in Japan, show they "aint". Edited by dronester, : clarity Edited by dronester, : clarity
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dronester Member Posts: 931 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
At least in this specific case, hydro power IS much SAFER and CLEANER than nuclear power. I do not understand why this system is not used more. I noted Rahvin hasn't conceded this. http://maps.google.com/maps?q=niagara+mohawk+buffalo+ny&h...
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dronester Member Posts: 931 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Small Town Nukes "Small reactors can't address all the problems standing in the way of more nuclear investment, but they can address the biggest barriers—the economic ones," "Besides costing less to build, some small reactors could be inherently SAFER, . . ." (BTW, this was a most interesting thread/topic. Most particpants had valid thoughts and examples that were thought provoking. IMHO, this is what EvC should be about. Thanks all) Edited by dronester, : No reason given.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dronester Member Posts: 931 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
I wouldn't recommend building a dam OR nuclear power plant on an active earthquake zone without extraordinary precautions (extraordinary regulations, extraordinary designs, extraordinary laws, and extraordinary maintenance) which apparently the Japanese Nuclear powerplant didn't have. Again, I am not specifically against nuclear power, I am just against inadequate maintenance, inadequate design, inadequate regulations, inadequate laws, corruption, and corporatism, which, unfortunately, is the greedy world we live in (it seems you do not want to consider): Reports: Lax oversight, 'greed' preceded Japan nuclear crisis
"Can be"? Not only can Hydro be safe, but it IS safe. Do you want to compare deaths by nuclear power plants compared to deaths by hydro power?
Really? from the link site below:
Niagara Power Project (BTW, the hydro power is only 20 minutes away from my home and the tours are free. Guess where I'll be visiting this month?) I would wager it's many large turbines can compete with any nuclear power plant.
Well, duh, but the electricity CAN be transported via POWERLINES many hundreds (thousands?) of miles to the customer. From your previous post Message 38:
apan officials: Stay indoors, nuclear leaks now dangerous
Still not convinced Rahvin? In addition, the US aircraft carrier sensed increased radiation and has taken the precaution of moving even further out to sea. So, if you had a family with children living downstream of this exploding Japanese reactor, would you calmly tell them there is nothing to worry about and advise them to make the area home for the next thirty years? Would you chance your children's health that you were absolutely right? Edited by dronester, : more accurate quotes
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dronester Member Posts: 931 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 8.7
|
Did you rush your last post? It was all over the place. My response will awkwardly follow its path.
"MY"? "MY" red herrings? I'm just reporting the facts, M'am, just reporting the facts. If you have a problem with the facts, take it up with the people who reported them. I'm just the messenger. I can only base my argument on what other people are reporting from Japan. I am not there.
Solid? You mean SPECULATIVE. Because how can anyone give SOLID numbers of the total cancer victims killed by Hiroshima and Negasaki? How about cancers caused by Neveda test sites and the winds that carried over towns to see if populations were affected? Same with Chernabyl, can you give me SOLID numbers who have died from cancer and who WILL die from cancer from that accident?
Niagara is the biggest electricity producer in New York State. How could BIGGEST be construed as SUPPLEMENTAL?
Yes, I heard your bare-assertion before. Do you have studies that show that small hydro plants, constructed every dozen miles on the Mississippi River or any other major river in N America, could only ever be supplemental?
Oh, puhlease . . .
Oh, come on now. Are you joking? You're gonna use people who died in construction as "victims" of hydro power?
Oh, come on now. Are you joking? How many hours did it take you to find this obscure-hardly-related-to-hydro-power-plant statistic? (What's next, a wash room attendant slipped on a wet floor in a Hydro Power plant, absolutely proving that hydro power plant wash rooms are 100% more dangerous than nuclear power washrooms ). From your site. . .
C'mon.
First of all, you got this statistic from a highly biased nuclear-fuel propaganda site. Secondly, it doesn't describe what these numbers mean or how they were derived.
Curiously, for some illogical reason, you think the following is "absolutely no rational reason".
You're still not hearing me Rahvin. For the third time, I am not anti-nuclear. Did you read my post Message 65 regarding Small Town Nukes? I like it. For the many-th time: It appears that the Fukushima and Chernabyl power plants are catastrophes caused by the lack of: extraordinary regulations, extraordinary designs, extraordinary laws, extraordinary laws, extraordinary diligence, and extraordinary maintenance. The same companies that built Fukushima, are hoping to build more nuclear power plants in the US. There's a saying, "you cannot fix a problem by the same mind that continues to cause the problem". There's a god reason I do not want Michael Jackson baby-sitting my kids, and there's a good reason why I fear the companies who will build the nuclear power plants with continuing inattentive regulations, bad designs, and corrupt oversight from the government. Have the Bush Jr. year's taught us nothing? Did you read my last post with the link about Greed/lax oversight?: http://www.csmonitor.com/...ed-preceded-Japan-nuclear-crisis
Yes, I agree. Just like smoking a carton of cigarettes will not necessarily mean you'll get lung cancer. Or eating a gross of twinkles everyday will not necessarily make you obese. However, what's the rule and what's the exception? if you were a good father, would you still allow your children to do either?
Yes, and if I had a BETTER, SAFER, CLEANER option than car transportation, I would urge its use too. (cough, cough, . . . Amtrak)
First of all, what's with the attitude? "goddammed"? "emotionally-spawned irrational fearmongering"? I am reminded of Crashfrog. Rahvin, I enjoy our debate whether I win or lose, so unless this is a childish debating technique, let's try to stay civil. Secondly, your numbers from your last post were a little, let's say, . . . dubious.
OK, then why don't we revisit this thread after the Fukushima disaster ends and then we can tally. I sincerely hope your rose-coloured-glass-prediction is correct and I am wrong.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dronester Member Posts: 931 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
I've done a lot of reading about Fukushima, nuclear power, and other power sources lately. It seems one needs an advanced education about any/each/all of them to talk with a degree of accuracy so I hesitate to offer additional information: As you have alluded in your post, according to the following article, the term "spent" fuel rods are not really spent:
https://alethonews.wordpress.com/...mageddon-and-the-experts I am unsure if there are similarly designed and operated nuclear plants currently operating in the USA. I am simply raising the concern (though some may accuse me of fear-mongering. BTW, perhaps it is the constant fear-mongering and vigilance that causes the nuclear power to be AS safe as it is?).
Good words, but this may not be specifically true with all types of Hydro power.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dronester Member Posts: 931 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
quote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_japan_earthquake Edited by dronester, : clarity
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dronester Member Posts: 931 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
I think a final CANCER toll would be AS revealing. Unfortunately, as I written previously, like Chernobyl and other radiation born catastrophes, good luck in finding SOLID numbers. I submit these dubious examples: quote: In addition, it seems the Japan site is increasing the contaminated zone (+12 miles) for evacuation. A similar 19 mi exclusion zone is around the site of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster. http://en.wikipedia.org/...uclear_Power_Plant_Exclusion_Zone
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dronester Member Posts: 931 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
I added bolding this time to help you absorb the relevant information, which you seemed to completely ignore. Let me know when you come up with SOLID cancer numbers. In addition to ignored information: In addition, it seems the Japan site is increasing the contaminated zone (+12 miles) for evacuation. A similar 19 mi exclusion zone is around the site of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster. http://en.wikipedia.org/...uclear_Power_Plant_Exclusion_Zone
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dronester Member Posts: 931 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Because you weren't paying attention, I suppose you would find it curious. As Taq and I have already stated previously on this thread, all cancer related injuries and cancer related deaths from nuclear power would have to be speculative. How can anyone specifically know which specific cancer was caused by this or that and know how many specific years life expectancy was shortened because of it or will be shortened because of it? To show you equally SPECULATIVE examples I supplied concedingly dubious numbers.
Thanks for finally conceding that solid numbers for cancer deaths and cancer related illness from nuclear power is nearly impossible to ascertain, and thus the dangers/risks from nuclear power can never be fully described with "SOLID" numbers. However, if you would like, we can meet on this forum in 60 years and go over the revised data then. (If I live downwind from a similar Fukushima-designed nuclear plant still in operation in the US, you can recognize me by my head-sized goiter. Hey, at least it's not a death statistic, right?)
(+12 miles) I added bolding this time to help you absorb the relevant information, which you seemed to completely ignore. You wrote:
"Not nearly comparable"? I disagree, +12 miles around Fukushima does compare to 19 miles around Chernobyl.
Maybe the people who lived there all their life care. To a lesser extent, the billions of dollars lost in damages/abandonment matters. Why do you only want to focus on death tolls? Why is that, I wonder? Edited by dronester, : there>their
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Copyright 2001-2013 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2013
(1)