dangers of nuclear power

[gerry4]

This is what happens when nuclear goes wrong http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21737910 They still do not know what is happening in the destroyed reactor #3. Two years on to dangerous to enter.

When wind goes wrong a turbine falls down onto nothing

[M Swanson]

Blimey! I'm struggling enough with wind farms, coal and wood chips, Gerry. It'll take a day, or two, to sift through that lot, before I move on to nuclear energy. ;)

[RagnarRocks]

This is what happens when nuclear goes wrong http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21737910 They still do not know what is happening in the destroyed reactor #3. Two years on to dangerous to enter.When wind goes wrong a turbine falls down onto nothingI'm no lover of nuclear reactors but I'm not sure it's a mode of energy we should totally dismiss, I've heard the new type thorium reactors although still in development have the potential to use some of the waste from the older reactors, I think the main lesson to learn from Fukushima is not to build reactors in geologically unstable areas. As for generating by wind or other means its all good as long as they aren't subsidised to such an extent that we are effectively paying over the top for them . These types of energy generating are still relatively new and hopefully costs will come down and effectiveness increase then maybe they will be worthwhile. The wood pellet argument is a bit null and void when the costs and effect of shifting wood pellets around the world is taken into account. No right or wrong answers just a huge murky pond to play in until some genius comes up with a new form of power

[Flynn]

If you want to see the folly of nuclear energy watch a documentary called Into Eternity (http://www.intoeternitythemovie.com) (it's available on iTunes).
It's about the issue of storing nuclear waste for 100,000 years and ensuring it is not disturbed or released into the environment by future generations. How to warn them it is a dangerous place that will kill them. To get an idea of the problem the pyramids or Stonehenge are only 5,000 years old and we still haven't entirely figured them out.


Every day, the world over, large amounts of high-level radioactive waste created by nuclear power plants is placed in interim storage, which is vulnerable to natural disasters, man-made disasters, and to societal changes. In Finland the world’s first permanent repository is being hewn out of solid rock - a huge system of underground tunnels - that must last 100,000 years as this is how long the waste remains hazardous.

[RagnarRocks]

If you want to see the folly of nuclear energy watch a documentary called Into Eternity (it's available on iTunes).It's about the issue of storing nuclear waste for 100,000 years and ensuring it is not disturbed or released into the environment by future generations. How to warn them it is a dangerous place that will kill them. To get an idea of the problem the pyramids or Stonehenge are only 5,000 years old and we still haven't entirely figured them out.Now you wouldn't be suggesting that the pyramids and Stonehenge are nuclear dumping sites of old ? Glowing Druids hmm might explain the hair I guess :0))

[Flynn]

Now you wouldn't be suggesting that the pyramids and Stonehenge are nuclear dumping sites of old ? Glowing Druids hmm might explain the hair I guess :0))
No. I'm saying they are ONLY 5,000 years old and we barely understand them or any signs/languages associated with them.

We have to bury nuclear waste for a minimum of 100,000 years, and make sure the warnings to stay away are understandable for the entirety of those 100,000 years. This is the issue facing the builders of Onkalo.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoyKe-HxmFk

[cptdodger]

I'm no lover of nuclear reactors but I'm not sure it's a mode of energy we should totally dismiss, I've heard the new type thorium reactors although still in development have the potential to use some of the waste from the older reactors, I think the main lesson to learn from Fukushima is not to build reactors in geologically unstable areas. As for generating by wind or other means its all good as long as they aren't subsidised to such an extent that we are effectively paying over the top for them . These types of energy generating are still relatively new and hopefully costs will come down and effectiveness increase then maybe they will be worthwhile. The wood pellet argument is a bit null and void when the costs and effect of shifting wood pellets around the world is taken into account. No right or wrong answers just a huge murky pond to play in until some genius comes up with a new form of power

I brought this up on another thread (one of the windfarm ones) and as I said, I am not keen on nuclear power at all. In Japans case, I think they would be hard pressed to find an area that was'nt geologically unstable, just because of the nature of where Japan lies, and it seems to lie on an awful lot of fault lines, they have at least 1,500 quakes recorded per year, varying in magnitude on the richter scale. Correct me if I am wrong, however I do'nt think Chernobyl was caused by being on a fault line, if memory serves it was a build up of power that caused an explosion and so on. I will be perfectly honest with you, the thought of something catastrophic going wrong with a nuclear plant frightens me, as Gerry4 pointed out, a turbine goes wrong, nothing happens. As reported on the news today, it will affect Fukushima and a massive area around it for generations to come, just as Chernobyl did and does, to this day.

I am no expert, on wind or tide energy, and how much it costs the individual or does'nt (depends who you listen to !!) But I do'nt think money comes into it when you factor in the loss of life and continued loss of life when a nuclear reactor goes wrong.

[Alrock]

No. I'm saying they are ONLY 5,000 years old and we barely understand them or any signs/languages associated with them.

We have to bury nuclear waste for a minimum of 100,000 years, and make sure the warnings to stay away are understandable for the entirety of those 100,000 years. This is the issue facing the builders of Onkalo.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoyKe-HxmFk

Thanks, Looks interesting, downloading it now...

[sids]

When wind goes wrong a turbine falls down onto nothing

Had there been a wind farm at Fukishima, instead of a nuclear power station, the same 20,000 people would have died.

[gerry4]

Had there been a wind farm at Fukishima, instead of a nuclear power station, the same 20,000 people would have died.

Would the whole area be unusable for generations, if ever? Would billions be spent trying to rescue what is left of nuclear reactors so that more harm is not done? Would the 4 reactors and all of the material in the area have to be sealed to thousands of years?

Would the children in the area have higher than recommended level of radiation and they will have to wait 10, 20, 30 years or more to find out if they will die of cancer. Will the babies born from adults over the next few years be well or will they have de formates or illnesses?

What would of happened if a wind turbines had been there?

[sids]

What would of happened if a wind turbines had been there?

I shouldn't have to tell you twice.

Keep up the indignant rhetoric, though. It suits you.

[ywindythesecond]

Had there been a wind farm at Fukishima, instead of a nuclear power station, the same 20,000 people would have died.
From a tidal wave caused by an earthquake.
Has anyone died so far from nuclear reasons at Fukushima? You should be able to tell Reggy being a nuclear chemist and you must know Sis being an alleged scientist?

[gerry4]

I shouldn't have to tell you twice.

But the land would of been usable & future generations would not be affected by radiation.

[sids]

You should be able to tell Reggy being a nuclear chemist and you must know Sis being an alleged scientist?

Would you add some more grammar to that please?

[cptdodger]

From a tidal wave caused by an earthquake.
Has anyone died so far from nuclear reasons at Fukushima? You should be able to tell Reggy being a nuclear chemist and you must know Sis being an alleged scientist?

I am not a scientist, or a chemist, so I got this from wikipedia -

"There were no immediate deaths due to direct radiation exposures, but at least six workers have exceeded lifetime legal limits for radiation and more than 300 have received significant radiation doses. Predicted future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima have ranged from none to 100"

So, thankfully, nobody at this moment in time has died as a direct result of what happened at Fukushima. Scientist, chemist or not, you have to agree that amount of radiation is going to do some, if not major harm to a person.

Trust me it was bad enough waking up to the horrible news of a major earthquake and tsunami, without the added complication of a nuclear meltdown (it was'nt, but that's how it felt) I had the Japanese Embassy in London on speed dial trying to find out if my family was okay, and I would not wish that on anybody.

[ywindythesecond]

I am not a scientist, or a chemist, so I got this from wikipedia -

"There were no immediate deaths due to direct radiation exposures, but at least six workers have exceeded lifetime legal limits for radiation and more than 300 have received significant radiation doses. Predicted future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima have ranged from none to 100"

So, thankfully, nobody at this moment in time has died as a direct result of what happened at Fukushima. Scientist, chemist or not, you have to agree that amount of radiation is going to do some, if not major harm to a person.

Trust me it was bad enough waking up to the horrible news of a major earthquake and tsunami, without the added complication of a nuclear meltdown (it was'nt, but that's how it felt) I had the Japanese Embassy in London on speed dial trying to find out if my family was okay, and I would not wish that on anybody.

Thanks for an informed and balanced response cptd. If your family is involved it must make these things very personal and stressful.
It is probable that the nuclear component of the Fukushami incident will cause some nuclear related deaths and of course that is to be regretted but it was not a major nuclear catastrophe. In spite of being 40 or 50 years old, and built in the infancy of nuclear technology on top of a major earthquake faultline and swamped by a tsunami, the safety regime at the plant did what it was supposed to do. Fifty years on does anyone believe that we have not learned anything? Ask Reggy and ask Sis. They should know.
And where does Flynn get 100,000 years from?

[ywindythesecond]

Would you add some more grammar to that please?
You probably mean punctuation. Thanks for your valuable contribution.

[Flynn]

And where does Flynn get 100,000 years from?

That is how long nuclear waste remains toxic to life. Watch the video clip.

[RagnarRocks]

I was driving near Camster Cairns yesterday,and saw what I initially thought could be one of Flynn's glowing Druids and was worried in case the cairns were an ancient dumping ground, fortunately upon closer inspection it was only a man in a high viz jacket ! Once more I can sleep peacefully :0))

[Flynn]

I was driving near Camster Cairns yesterday,and saw what I initially thought could be one of Flynn's glowing Druids and was worried in case the cairns were an ancient dumping ground, fortunately upon closer inspection it was only a man in a high viz jacket ! Once more I can sleep peacefully :0))

You are the only person talking about Druids. I fail to see what that has to do with the subject at hand, which is the long-term safe storage of nuclear waste.

[RagnarRocks]

You are the only person talking about Druids. I fail to see what that has to do with the subject at hand, which is the long-term safe storage of nuclear waste.Well there is a small reality to the long term safe storage of nuclear waste, there is no such thing. When you factor in plate tectonics degradation of current materials used for storage the complete inability of mankind to be able to manage current environs then you do not have to be a genius to realise it doesn't work now and won't work for the half life of most of the really dangerous waste we have! Far better to use science to find a way to deal with the nuclear waste failing that drop it down into a subduction zone and let the planet chew it up !

[Flynn]

Well there is a small reality to the long term safe storage of nuclear waste, there is no such thing. When you factor in plate tectonics degradation of current materials used for storage the complete inability of mankind to be able to manage current environs then you do not have to be a genius to realise it doesn't work now and won't work for the half life of most of the really dangerous waste we have! Far better to use science to find a way to deal with the nuclear waste failing that drop it down into a subduction zone and let the planet chew it up !


Finland think they have the answer. That's what the film is about. Watch it.

[sids]

You probably mean punctuation. Thanks for your valuable contribution.

Oh, I think "grammar" covers it:


grammar (ˈɡræmə)

— n
The abstract system of rules in terms of which a person's mastery of his native language can be explained


[C14: from Old French gramaire, from Latin grammatica, from Greek grammatikē ( tekhnē ) the grammatical (art), from grammatikos concerning letters, from gramma letter]

Sort out the grammar and I'll have some idea what the previous valuable contribution meant.

[Alrock]

Why not dump it in Lake Vostok (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Vostok)?

"the lake water itself may have been isolated for 15 to 25 million years"... So I'm sure it will remain so for another 100,000 years no problem.

[Rheghead]

Had there been a wind farm at Fukishima, instead of a nuclear power station, the same 20,000 people would have died.

There was a wind farm in the vicinity and it was totally undamaged and it kept operating.

[Flynn]

Because there is no guarantee it will remain that way. Besides, Vostok carries it's own problems (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?199239-This-how-the-zombie-apocalypse-will-begin...).

[macadamia]

Phew! Thank goodness we got THAT sorted!

[John Little]

Because there is no guarantee it will remain that way. Besides, Vostok carries it's own problems (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?199239-This-how-the-zombie-apocalypse-will-begin...).Looking at the last 3 posts, I see what you mean - clearly it has started. The Vostok zombie attack...

[sids]

There was a wind farm in the vicinity and it was totally undamaged and it kept operating.

So I was right. 20,000 people still drowned.

[scoobyc]

There was a wind farm in the vicinity and it was totally undamaged and it kept operating.

Only when it was windy, obviously :)