Japan

This interests me because there is a strong push to build a nuclear power plant near me, the first to be built in the US in quite some time. I wonder if this disaster will stall the project, or end it altogether.On a related note, I wonder if the Japan disaster will heighten awareness of tsunami risks on the western coast of the US. From what I have been told, the Cascadia fault will, at some point, produce a tsunami. It's not a matter of if, only when.

We shouldn't ignore the positives of nuclear power, either. Not to push this down the GW path too far . . . one of the positives is that nuclear power does not release CO2 (at least not during power production, uranium mining on the other hand . . .). At some point we need to get off of coal and natural gas, even if GW is not the main reason. While fission reactors are not the best option, they may be the lesser of two evils until the wet dream of fusion power is a reality (if ever).And let's not ignore the political clout of petroleum, natural gas, and coal producers.

It is a real tragedy that something on this scale has to occur before safety features are considered. I have no doubt that some form of containment or back up cooling systems can be put in place that would prevent this same disaster from occuring again in other facilities across the globe. No doubt this will increase the initial cost of a facility. What those fixes are I don't know, but I find it hard to believe that a fix could not be found.I will have to read more into how these reactors failed and what precautions could have been made before making any final conclusions. Obviously, putting reactors on the coast where they can get hit by a one-two punch of earthquake and tsunami is not a good thing. It also saddens me that a country ravaged by two US nuclear bombs 70 years ago has to go through this modern tragedy.

You might want to check on those Canadian tar sand operations. It is one of the dirtiest, most destructive, and least effecient sources of energy there is.

As to Quebec independence, fair enough. I have met quite a few BCer's, they are usually a good bunch of people.There is a lot of hydroelectric power generation in my area of NA as well. It is a mixed bag. The river that runs through my city used to be home to massive salmon runs. Now the salmon are nearly gone. In recent years there have only been less than 10 total salmon returning to some mountain lakes where there used to be 10's of thousands. This is all due to hydroelectric dams. It has really changed the local ecosystem. Now the talk is about breaching some of those dams and replacing the lost hydroelectric power with a massive nuclear power plant along the same river.Just as an aside, the Snake River is misnamed. The story goes that the first Europeans asked the indigenous population for the name of the river. When they didn't understand the native tongue one of the locals made a hand gesture that looked like the movement of a snake and the river was named the Snake. The local was actually trying to portray a salmon moving upstream.

Interesting NYT article that details long standing criticisms of the reactor design:MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos

quote:

---

The warnings were stark and issued repeatedly as far back as 1972: If the cooling systems ever failed at a Mark 1 nuclear reactor, the primary containment vessel surrounding the reactor would probably burst as the fuel rods inside overheated. Dangerous radiation would spew into the environment.

---

I'm not an expert on nuclear reactor designs, but it does sound like there is some truth to the idea that these reactors are substandard.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Any number put out there is going to be speculative. How many people developed cancers that they would not have otherwise developed due to the Chernobyl meltdown? Impossible to say, but I don't think anyone would argue that people probably did develop cancer due to genetic damage caused by contamination from the meltdown. WHO focused on acute cases of radiation poisoning, and those numbers are accurate and are not speculative.Part of the issue is the psychology of radioactivity. People can't see it, taste it, or even see it under a microscope like we can with bacteria. People have irrational fears when it comes to something dangerous that they can't understand through one of the five senses. I have personally handled radioactive materials, and it is a bit spooky to hear the Geiger counter start screaming for the brief period that you are transferring concentrated working stocks. I have had to work with I-125 for a some protocols and I know that I followed every safety precaution, but I still get a little tense waiting for my thyroid scans to come back (every single one has been clean, but still . . . ). I consider myself to be a very rational person, but isotope work still makes me a little queasy.It is very different for other forms of pollution. We can see and smell cigarette smoke and car fumes. We can see the smoke coming out of coal stacks. We can look at pictures of germs and mold to help us understand how disease is caused. We see these things all of the time in our regular day to day life. Radioactivity is just . . . different.

From all appearances, that picture seems to depict a slump in the hillside. I would think that a large nuclear facility would need firm foundations and not be precariously perched on a hill side. Of course, I would also think that back up generators for a seaside nuclear facility would not be placed in the basement in a country where tsunamis are known to occur.

That isn't true. Japan has experienced several earthquakes in the 8.0 range in the last century. At wiki they list an 8.5 in 1896 and an 8.3 in 1923, both on the Richter scale. There are others of the same or greater magnitude in other scales. If they designed for 7-7.3 then they set the bar much lower than very recent earthquakes. There was also a magintude 8.2 quake in 1968 that was also accompanied by a large tsunami.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

That is the same question that hit me after I posted it. Did some additional research. Turns out, I do have a point.The 1933 Sanriku earthquake occurred 100 miles further out but pretty much in the same area. It produced a tsunami that struck the NE coast where Fukushima is currently.1933 Sanriku earthquake - WikipediaThe location of Fukushima can be seen here:
Fukushima (city) - WikipediaThe 1896 earthquake seems to have been from the same subduction zone as the most recent one and it measured around a 7.2 followed by a massive tsunami.Given the numerous 8.0+ quakes around the entire region I think it is a bit short sighted to design for 7.3. Of course, we both agree on the poor placement of the generators. In the end, the reactors handled the quake just fine, so this is more of an aside. However, if anything they should have planned way better for the tsunami given the two massive tsunamis that hit in 1896 and 1933 along the NE coast of Japan.

This is a good measure of the total activity released, but it can also be misleading with regards to risk. Specific isotopes (e.g. Iodine-131) can become part of the body and do more harm than the same amount of radioactivity from a different isotope that passes through our digestive system or is excluded from our bodies. Given the ample warning before major failures I would suspect that the risk is much lower in this case than the straight comparison of Bq's between Fukushima and Chernobyl might indicate.