Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

No comment.

Why not?

We've been told a thousand times by all the experts on this forum of how safe nuclear power is.

There's a fine line between fishing and sitting there looking stupid.

Posted

Why not?

We've been told a thousand times by all the experts on this forum of how safe nuclear power is.

Here we go again... :D :D

Glad they have been able to protect the reactor - though the plant probably is permanently shut down.

Devil's Advocate reports from Wikipedia

"Comparing the historical safety record of civilian nuclear energy with other forms of electrical generation, Ball, Roberts, and Simpson, the IAEA, and the Paul Scherrer Institute found in separate studies that during the period from 1970 to 1992, there were just 39 on-the-job deaths of nuclear power plant workers worldwide, while during the same time period, there were 6,400 on-the-job deaths of coal power plant workers, 1,200 on-the-job deaths of natural gas power plant workers and members of the general public caused by natural gas power plants, and 4,000 deaths of members of the general public caused by hydroelectric power plants.[11][12][13] In particular, coal power plants are estimated to kill 24,000 Americans per year, due to lung disease[14] as well as causing 40,000 heart attacks per year[15] in the United States. According to Scientific American, the average coal power plant emits more than 100 times as much radiation per year than a comparatively sized nuclear power plant in the form of toxic coal waste known as fly ash.[16]"

Course, I'm no expert ;)

Energy is dangerous, it seems. Probably not a lot of data on clean alternative energy yet, though I'd imagine lower numbers, due to the incredibly low amount of energy they supply. Hopefully, they'll supply more in the future.

Link to where we get our energy http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/11/05/the-future-distributed-energy-production-and-storage/

Posted

Evidence for a partial melt-down indicated by limited release of radioactive cesium. Reported 1/2 hour ago.

http://www.ibtimes.c...10312/japan.htm

Reactor temperatures decreasing, but more water needed to continue cooling.

Outcome still uncertain.

Nuclear expert contends melt-down "unlikely" (oops).

http://www.cbsnews.c...n20042445.shtml

Right. The explosion was in the outer building and was from hydrogen gas. The radioactivity around the plat actually decreased.

While the whole episode is a tragedy for the Japanese people, the test of a nuclear plant to withstand a massive, record earthquake will be a plus for future designs.

Today's release is tomorrows gift to another fisherman.

Posted

The radioactivity around the plat actually decreased.

(Edited: wrong tone)

Let's hope things turn out ok...

...and yes, let's hope we're learning some lessons here.

Posted

I agree Tim. I think it should be pointed out that the plant is 40 years old.

The news is having a fear fest with it's headlines, something they should e ashamed of, but they obviously aren't. I think it's obvious at this point that the story isn't told yet. So far there appears to be no danger, hopefully that will be the ending story.

Today's release is tomorrows gift to another fisherman.

Posted

It is newsworthy, but it seems that the media is keen to run with a 'nuclear explosion' story. The bigger story is the loss of life in Japan - I feel for the people over there - can you imagine that happening along our coast? It's hard to prepare for an earthquake/tsunami.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.