Slashdot Mirror


Japan Widens Evacuation Zone Around Fukushima

mdsolar writes "Japan has started the first evacuations of homes outside a government exclusion zone after the earthquake and tsunami crippled one of the country's nuclear power plants. 5100 people are being relocated to public housing, hotels and other facilities in nearby cities."

483 comments

  1. As long as ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    As long as they make sure that no one leaves their pet lizard behind. The last thing we need is a irradiated mutated lizard from Japan running around!

    Oh shit! What about all the moths that are flying around!?

    1. Re:As long as ..... by El+Torico · · Score: 3, Funny

      The turtles will take care of that.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    2. Re:As long as ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cowabunga!

  2. Nuke power by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the Japanese can't do this shit safely, then who can?

    1. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nobody can...

    2. Re:Nuke power by Flipstylee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anyone else apparently, that plant was due for replacement/shutdown many years ago.

    3. Re:Nuke power by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      Anyone else apparently, that plant was due for replacement/shutdown many years ago.

      Anyone else? Including those who ran the reactor in Chernobyl?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    4. Re:Nuke power by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Chernobyl reactor was brand new... If you're going to be all panic mode about stuff at least get the easily verifiable facts right.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    5. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As were many plants across the US of a similar design which are still running.

    6. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or three mile island ?

    7. Re:Nuke power by Microlith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obviously it is impossible, which is why we have yearly meltdowns and hundreds of huge exclusion zones around the wo...

      Wait a second. We don't. It seems that, unlke oil or coal, the total number of major disasters is way lower on the nuke side.

      It's too bad we can't actually build the newer, safer designs. People might protest. It reminds me of the protests when the Cassini probe was launched, all because it had a plutonium RTG on it.

    8. Re:Nuke power by plopez · · Score: 5, Informative

      Chernobyl was new but read this:

      http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~pbawa/421/ETHICAL%20ISSUES%20CHERNOBYL.htm

      And before you vilify the Soviet system for fraud, incompetence, corruption etc,; read up on the Diablo canyon reactor. It had serious quality issues as well. Such as the shock absorbers on the foundation which were intended to protect it from, IIRC, 7.3 magnitude earthquakes being installed in reverse. Quality issues abound in all construction even reactors. I don't even trust the Germans to do it right.

      Diablo canyon and Chernobyl also points out that if a good reactor design can be made, building it to spec is still a problem.

      Trivia tidbit: I do believe that the author of the Chernobyl memo is Uri Andropov who chose Gorbachev as his successor to the post of General Secretary of the CP of the Soviet Union. Gorbachev who instituted Glasnost and Perestroika, which eventually led to the peaceful downfall of the Soviet Union.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    9. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      How many oil plant and coal plant explosions did we have in recent years?
      According to you they seem to be far more dangerous than nuclear plants ... just wondering.
      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    10. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How many oil plant and coal plant explosions did we have in recent years?
      According to you they seem to be far more dangerous than nuclear plants ... just wondering.
      angel'o'sphere

      BP in the Gulf? Many dead.

    11. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oil and coal plants don't explode that much, no.

      They just have oil spills. Or has everyone already forgotten about the gulf of Mexico? Exxon's Alaska? or many others that go unreported in poorer nations?

    12. Re:Nuke power by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 4, Informative

      or three mile island ?

      "According to the American Nuclear Society, using the official radiation emission figures, "The average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by US residents in a year.""

      Accidents happen. Nobody died. Can we stop bringing up TMI as one of the poster children for why nuclear power is dangerous and deadly, because TMI is a horrible example for that purpose given how it pretty much proves the opposite.

    13. Re:Nuke power by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      The question was not about the age of the reactors, the question was about who can do it safely. Indeed, if you manage to blow up a brand new reactor, it even sheds more bad light on your ability to run it safely.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    14. Re:Nuke power by Zulkis · · Score: 3, Informative
    15. Re:Nuke power by SquirrelDeth · · Score: 5, Informative

      So is Chalk River in Canada. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk_River_Laboratories But our Prime minister fired the nuclear watch dog when she said to shut the plant down after the last time the reactor had a spill. http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/303953

    16. Re:Nuke power by mellon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We can't build the newer, safer designes for two reasons. The first is that the nuclear industry, by which I mean both the operators and the regulators, have utterly failed to be honest and diligent. By this I mean that they generally do their best to try to paint a happy face on any problem that may come up, rather than saying "here's what's bad about this, and here's what we're doing about it." Consequently, each time something genuinely bad happens, public trust is further undermined. And they do their best to find the cheapest possible solution to any problem, rather than actually trying to solve it, because if they had to actually solve it, it might be cheaper to simply shut down the plant.

      The root of this problem is that nuclear, like solar, is not actually economically competitive with carbon sources. We'd like to stop using carbon sources of energy, but it's difficult because it's cheaper (partially because we never count the cost of the externalities). The difference between nuclear and solar is that in the case of nuclear, there's a temptation to cheap out on safety so as to make it more economically feasible, or to simply not account for externalities, like the cost of exclusion zones when a serious accident like the ones at Chernobyl and Fukushima happens.

      So the point is not that nuclear is inherently unsafe, or inherently a bad idea, but rather that the economics of nuclear power tend to increase risk, not decrease it, and that what is being risked is an outcome like the ones in Fukushima and Chernobyl.

    17. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      This are not power plants.

      How do you dare to compare a nuclear power plants safety with 3rd worlds mining accidents?

      Are you completely nuts?

      angel'o'sphere

      P.S. how many ppl died in oil spills? And again: what has that to do with a power plant and its safety?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    18. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Anyone else apparently, that plant was due for replacement/shutdown many years ago."

      Would the replacement not have been damaged by the earthquake?

      If it had been shut down, how many years until damage due to the earthquake would not have caused leaking of radioactive material?

    19. Re:Nuke power by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      It seems that, unlke oil or coal, the total number of major disasters is way lower on the nuke side.

      Of course, the "way lower" number of nuclear plants may have something to do with that. But on you also have to consider the lack of evacuations around a coal plant in the event of disasters - and I don't know of a single coal plant that has a sarcophagus over it, or a vast area around it where people are forbidden to live.

    20. Re:Nuke power by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Nuclear energy is quite cheap once the plant is up and running they can be run indefinitely with proper maintenance. Cost wouldn't be an issue if we required the coal and oil industries to pay a fee for the pollution they produce as a byproduct of production.

    21. Re:Nuke power by Shienarier · · Score: 1

      Anyone not on three fault ridges?
      Anyone that uses Thorium instead of Plutonium or Uranium?

    22. Re:Nuke power by Velex · · Score: 2

      Intriguing. Coal kills.

      Oh well. Not too different from self-driving cars. The first self-driving car that even injures someone will be a media circus. Yet I guess we're ok with human drivers: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    23. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The French

    24. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is, when I Nuke Plant goes, the area is fucked for thousands of years.

      While the evacuation zone keeps expanding, at what point does Japan become uninhabitable...forever?

    25. Re:Nuke power by gomiam · · Score: 1
      Sorry, an oil well or refinery aren't an oil plant: they dosn't generate electricity, as far as I can remember. Otherwise you will need to take into account the damage mining for uranium may be doing (not that I know whether it is high or low).

      Once you start spreading the net you will need to consider coal mining too... and we aren't talking about mining, be it coal, oil or uranium.

    26. Re:Nuke power by Microlith · · Score: 2

      I don't know of a single coal plant that has a sarcophagus over it

      Good catch. Mostly that's because its toxic materials are either blown into the atmosphere or end up in large reservoirs on site, which have a habit of breaking.

      a vast area around it where people are forbidden to live.

      I suppose that's mostly because we're ignorant of the hazards of coal plant output. I hear the health effects are quite drastic, let alone living downstream in the event of a fly ash spill.

    27. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No true oil power plants have ever killed anyone.

    28. Re:Nuke power by trep5 · · Score: 1

      Living nearby a coal ash spill is as bad or worse in terms of possibility to get a cancer. Why isn't it an evacuation area?

    29. Re:Nuke power by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      I agree, not talking about it is better than educating the public, because its fast, lazy, and wont lead to any misconceptions at all.

    30. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't even trust the Germans to do it right.

      Ha! We have a bunch of old plants that would probably fail more catastrophically than Fuk-D did. We're just lucky we don't get many earthquakes...

    31. Re:Nuke power by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Anyone else apparently, that plant was due for replacement/shutdown many years ago.

      Every time there's a nuke plant disaster, some people argue that the particular situation is a special case that can be safely ignored. Undoubtedly, the same arguments will pop up the next time there's a major accident, sabotage or attack (which will undoubtedly be yet another special case).

    32. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep anyone else.

      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/10/501364/main20061444.shtml

    33. Re:Nuke power by PNutts · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nuclear energy is quite cheap once the plant is up and running they can be run indefinitely with proper maintenance.

      Fukushima Dai-ichi's energy was cheap until 3/11/2011 and it was properly maintained as much as any of them. Also, the Titanic was a great ship that provided excellent transportation until halfway across the Atlantic.

    34. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Can we stop bringing up TMI as one of the poster children for why nuclear power is dangerous and deadly,

      No, we can't.

      because TMI is a horrible example for that purpose given how it pretty much proves the opposite.

      Because your conclusion shows you have no clue at all. Neither about simple logic conclusions nor about what happend at the TMI incident.

      To your logic: the fact that in a majour catastrophe nobody died, does not make the technology causing that catastrophe safe. The opposite is true: if the technology would be save the catastrophe would not have happend.

      To your lack of knowledge: TMI was so close to go boom it is a miracle that it did not. Why don't you care to read up all the nice stories about it? Miracle I mean literally. Miracle as in: probably there was indeed a god saving that place.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    35. Re:Nuke power by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      I agree, not talking about it is better than educating the public, because its fast, lazy, and wont lead to any misconceptions at all.

      I didn't say don't talk about it. I said don't say that Three Mile Island is proof that nuclear power is unsafe, because it's not.

    36. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I don't know.

      But our GP makes wild accusations ... I only ask if he can point out a singel one ;D

      And if there was one: how many residents in the surrounding 20km area where in danger?

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    37. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      Thats easy, there have been three reactor accidents for power reactors that have any significance, so lets leave those three countries out, which means these countries are operating Nuclear Power plants just fine: Argentina Armenia Belgium Brazil Bulgaria Canada China Croatia Czech Republic Finland France Germany Hungary India South Korea Mexico Netherlands Pakistan Romania Slovenia South Africa Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Ukraine United Kingdom And they haven't had accidents. And the Japanese are hardly leaders in Nucleaer Power. Unit 1 was an ancient Mark 1 GE BWR without upgrades that the Japanese refused to do like everyone else, pure arrogance on their part. You can't extrapolate in some racist manner that because the Japanse make nice cars that they are leaders in all technology, this was an ancient unit that actually worked after the Earthquake. It was the Tsunami that took out the diesel generators, and even then it didn't damage the units themselves. The Japanese didn't bother to listen to anyone else when told they should have portable generators and pumps to deal with a large loss of equipment at the site. This happened because of arrogance, not because of engineering.

      --

      Python

    38. Re:Nuke power by darkjedi521 · · Score: 2

      A natural gas plant in CT blew up a year ago due to improper purging of the gas lines during testing. Managed to rattle windows 30 miles away and if I remember correcltly, it registered as a 2 or 3 on the nearest seismograph. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/07/us-energy-explosion-idUSTRE61619Q20100207

    39. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The same is true for wind, water and solar plants, or more even for sea wave power plants.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    40. Re:Nuke power by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      yeah, right.
      "The U.S. has 31 reactors just like Japanâ(TM)s â" but regulators are ignoring the risks and boosting industry profits"
      http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/america-s-nuclear-nightmare-20110427

    41. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Soviets sucked. But lets review the three power reactor accidents that have presented any potential or actual risk to the public and lets see how those accidents shook out:

      1) Chernobyl: A soviet designed reactor with no containment that had a steam explosion because the operators were not trained for the experiment they were running, and they lost control of the reactor by disabling all the safety systems and doing things all the other reactors in the USSR said no to. No shock there that it had a steam explosion. (Operator error, design flaw)
      2) Three Mile Island: A faulty pressure relief valve on the PWRs pressurizer and a bad design for the indicator, plus poor location of the indicators on the back of a panel, no release but core damage. (Operator error, design flaw)
      3) Fukushima: a Tsunami induced beyond design basis accident, where the Units survived the earthquake and apparently the safety systems were working until the Tsunami took out the Diesel generators knocking all but the RCIC safety system out. (Beyond DBA)

      Effects:

      1) Chernobyl: Core Damage and exposure plus release plus fire. Worst case accident. Expected because the soviets just didnt give a fuck, they built a faulty reactor, had no containment and they blew it up with faulty procedures and an arrogant approach to Nuclear engineering. Big shocker to no one that they had a loss of containment accident and killed a lot of people trying to bring it under control. Classic Soviet Engineering Fuckup.

      Actual Measurable Effects: Unit destroyed, lots of deaths of personnel involved in controlling the accident. Area contaminated, but effects have been much less over time than expected, tours are available of the area now. Worst case loss of control accident.

      Cause: Experiment coupled with Operator Error/Arrogance. Soviet reactor design was unstable at low power, Night shift was untrained for the experiment that they were told to run. Plant tried to run experiment during the day, but was told to stop due to Brown Outs and passed this on to the junior night shift. Shift lost control of reactor, steam explosion took the lid off the uncontained reactor. Because Soviet reactors were designed to be refueled while running it had no containment and the rest is history. No one builds reactors like this except the Soviets, so this kind of accident can not occur with non-soviet designed reactors.

      2) TMI: Core damage, no known release. It scared a lot of people at the time because it wasn't clear, at the time, what was wrong or what the effects were. Communication was poor and people understandably were panicked. No known release was measured, and a number of studies have looked into this. Increased rates of cancer were not detected, but its possible it did occur. Unfortunately, at the time the accident occurred the movie China Syndrome came out and this may have also had some impact on public perception of this accident.

      Actual measurable effects: Core Damaged, Unit unusable, No deaths, no known direct health effects although there is some debate from residents on this point. Scientific studies so far have concluded that if there was any release (and there is no evidence of , it did not have any impact on public health and safety. The material than ended up the aux building did not contain solids at room temp, so any release was likely xenon (and maybe some argon or krypton), and possibly some radioactive iodine. Data at the time of the accident indicates that the release was less than 2 mrem, or 1/40th the natural dose for residents of a high altitude city. In short, not above background levels and no evidence of I-131 or C-137 in mammalian milk in the surrounding areas. So, the actual effects were scary sounding, but not anything that would have adverse impacts on health.

      Cause: The Babcock and Wilcox valve indicated it was closed if the solenoid was de-energized, not when it was actually closed. It stuck open, and the indicators said it was closed. There were sensors on th

      --

      Python

    42. Re:Nuke power by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Every time there's a nuke plant disaster, some people argue that the particular situation is a special case that can be safely ignored.

      Welcome to slashdot.

    43. Re:Nuke power by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      To your lack of knowledge: TMI was so close to go boom it is a miracle that it did not. Why don't you care to read up all the nice stories about it? Miracle I mean literally. Miracle as in: probably there was indeed a god saving that place.

      That's nonsense. TMI had the same "boom" as Fukushima, except the hydrogen burn was inside the containment building, which held. After that, there wasn't a lot more with potential to breach containment, given that the plant still had power and cooling systems were still functional.

    44. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      I suppose that's mostly because we're ignorant of the hazards of coal plant output. I hear the health effects are quite drastic, let alone living downstream in the event of a fly ash spill.

      You should not believe everything you hear. There is no fly ash anymore in a modern plant since 15 - 20 years (in EU especially, not sure about USA, the last discussion with a /. er from there revealed that they "should" have even stricter limitations but seem not to be enforced).
      I don't really know what you mean with a spill ... but I remember this accident a few months ago in an aluminium plant I think in eastern europe where lots of people died to spilled high acid materials.
      A flood caused a deposite to over flood and flow into a town.
      Anyway, regarding fly ash: it is separated in a way that most of it can be used as building material, e.g. for roads or as hard plaster in buildings. Only a very small amount gets deposited.
      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    45. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuclear power is scary because the danger is not as obvious and the damage is not as localized. Mines can collapse, wells can catch fire, and refineries can explode, but these incidents don't force hundreds of thousands from their homes and render the area uninhabitable for decades. Perhaps the cost (in terms of both money and lives) of non-nuclear incidents dwarfs that of nuclear, but the lasting effects may tip the scale in the other direction.

    46. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      Yes, even TMI. TMI was a contained accident that had no adverse impact on the health and safety of the public. So yes, even when things get totally cocked up it turns out its hard to have a Nuclear accident, with a western designed reactor, that actually causes harm to the public. So far that has not happened, including Fukushima.

      --

      Python

    47. Re:Nuke power by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      Unfortunatley, nuclear power is only really becomes economical when you run the reactors way beyond their designed lifespan.
      According to a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, "subsidies to the nuclear power industry over the past fifty years have been so large in proportion to the value of the energy produced that in some cases it would have cost taxpayers less to simply buy kilowatts on the open market and give them away"
      http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies-report.html

    48. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      The Earthquake was apparently not the cause of the Fukushima accident, the safety systems and pumps were working after the Earthquake and the control rods were in. The Tsunami apparently is the cause, we know it took out the diesels and you absolutely have to have those with an older design that doesnt use passive cooling. Without that you cant do anything about the decay heat (well, you can with portable units, but the Japanese choose not to have those) and you get the current problem. The Japanese also didn't apply any of the upgrades other GE BWR users had, so they had a very old Mark 1 design. Those upgrades would have survived the Earthquake, but unless the Japanese did something to better prepare the site for the Tsunami (such as portable generators and pumps or a higher Tsunami wall) they would have likely still lost the Diesels.

      Modern reactors, like the AP1000 (and others too), use passive cooling in accidents and dont require power. So, hypothetically, if Fukushima was a modern reactor this accident would not have occurred. The Tsunami would have been irrelevant, the passive cooling would have kept working.

      --

      Python

    49. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      First of all: no it is not nonsense.

      Google and Wikipedia for it or by a book about it. The reports comming out 30 years after the incident draw a very scary picture.

      Second: comparing it with Fukushima shows how uninformed you are. In Fukushima we had 2x core melt downs and again it is only a miracle nothing more serious happened.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    50. Re:Nuke power by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      If the Japanese can't do this shit safely, then who can?

      Canada. The CANDU is the safest and most versatile proven reactor design in the world. There are others which, in theory, could be even more foolproof, but none that have actually been used in a real-world scenario (eg. pebble-bed reactors look great on paper, but, IIRC, the few that have been built turned out to have all sorts of unanticipated problems).

    51. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Fear mongering amount Nuclear power is actually making people less safe because we can't build modern designs. Not to mention that coal burning releases massive amounts of radiation (I'm not trying to be sarcastic, it does). So ironically, you get less radiation exposure near a nuclear power plant than you do near a coal plant. In fact, coal is the major source of radiation release world wide, it releases thorium and uranium - neither of which have been released by either TMI or Fukushima!

      --

      Python

    52. Re:Nuke power by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      I've read plenty about the TMI accident, thank you. The core melted, slumped to the bottom of the vessel, but didn't get much further. Hydrogen burned inside the containment building but didn't cause it to fail. They were worried about additional hydrogen problems at the time, but subsequent analyses showed them to be unfounded.

      And you don't seem to have understood what I wrote. At Fukushima, something more serious *did* happen, thanks mostly to the hydrogen explosions causing damage and lack of power for cooling the containment, leading to a large release of iodine and caesium.

    53. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 2, Informative

      Coal pants also release Thorium and Uranium which is a byproduct of coal composition, and is the largest source of radioactive release worldwide. Coal plants produce radiative waste and dump it into the air all day long, Nuclear Power plants do not.

      --

      Python

    54. Re:Nuke power by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      If by no harm you mean Fukushima and TMI caused no disturbance then you are wrong. Public unrest, cleanup crews and Japan's need to FOREVER evacuate families from their homes and businesses, is in fact extremely harmful. Why does someone have to start dying for this to be news for nerds?

    55. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many oil plant and coal plant explosions did we have in recent years?
      According to you they seem to be far more dangerous than nuclear plants ... just wondering.
      angel'o'sphere

      How many people die from smog caused by fossil fuels? How many miners are buried in coal mines? How much toxic crap is thrown into the air by burning these things?

      Just because these events are not on the front page of newspapers doesn't mean they don't happen more regularly than the more sensational stories.

    56. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wind plants cheap? thank government subsidies for that one. solar? only when the sun is shining, which according to my math is only 1/2 the time. water? CBF to bother refuting this one, but, suffice to say, not cheap either.

        google up yourself some articles about decaying windfarms, problems with re-permitting them, the amount of money that it takes to put one up, then keep it running. Ask T. Boone Pickens about his windfarms.

    57. Re:Nuke power by Rising+Ape · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How many oil plant and coal plant explosions did we have in recent years?

      You don't need explosions for those to harm people. Air pollution, mining incidents, global warming... if all the consequences of coal were piled into a single, per-decade event it would be an appalling accident, far worse than Fukushima.

    58. Re:Nuke power by Zulkis · · Score: 1

      This are not power plants.

      How do you dare to compare a nuclear power plants safety with 3rd worlds mining accidents?

      Are you completely nuts?

      angel'o'sphere

      P.S. how many ppl died in oil spills? And again: what has that to do with a power plant and its safety?

      If you compare nuclear with other types of energy you cant point out to the one link in chain and compare only that. You need factor in supporting industry (coal and uranium mines + oil wells). Please do tell me that no one dies on coal mines and oil wells are safe :) Uranium mines for other hand are pretty rare and you dont need that much uranium than coal.

    59. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      So,
      applying the same logic our GP applied "nuclear is save, or we had super gaus already" we can conclude now: gas plants are save, otherwise we had haved deathes in that gas explosion, or?

      Well, don't get me wrong, I'm not primarily arguing against or pro nuclear or anything else. but I'm arguing about brain dead conclusions by jumping from unrelated shit back and forth. The only relation, all the points brought up here have, is: they are related to energy creation. RELATED ...

      Coal mining e.g. is no difference than iron ore mining (well, due to coal dust explosions it is). But people here are more or less comparing any industrial activity, especially in the 3rd world, with operating a nuclear power plant (and building it, and its safety).

      There is no relation between them, it is at simple as that.

      It is as stupid as comparing school bus accidents with plane crashes (yes in a remote sense it is about transportation, but a school bus is bringing children to a School, and everything is under human control of the bus driver and the other car drivers involved. In an air plane crash are very likely no school kids brought to school and very likely the root cause for the accident is out of control of the pilots)

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    60. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 2

      > Oil and coal plants don't explode that much, no.

      Thats splitting the hair, coal plants and oil plants absolutely have explosions and people die all the time. Coal dust is terrifyingly explosive, just google around a little and you'll see that coal dust explosions are unfortunately very common. Usually only a few people die, but plants themselves have been leveed such as the Kleen Energy Systems gas plant in 2010 that was almost destroyed.

      You should expect any combustible fuel plant to have explosion hazards.

      --

      Python

    61. Re:Nuke power by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      You want a coal accident? Try this. Yes, it's mining, but it still counts. You can't have coal power stations without mining.

    62. Re:Nuke power by edxwelch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Nobody died"
      This is the tired old logic of the nuclear appologist.
      Only count the deaths. Ignore the fact that some of the health effects like cancer and birth defects take years to become evident. And ignore the fact that the huge swaiths of land has become uninhabital and that the groundwater has become poisened.
      Oh yes, then the idiotic chest x-ray comparison.
      Chest x-ray is external radiation, but people living near Fukusima are in danger because of internal radiation (ingesting radioactive isotopes from air, dust, food, etc.)

    63. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuclear energy is quite cheap once the plant is up and running they can be run indefinitely with proper maintenance.

      The radiation breaks down the reactor and containment vessels over time. They can run "indefinitely with proper maintenance" in the same way that a car can run "indefinitely with proper maintenance": if you are prepared to swap out the engine, chassis and every other single part in the end. The difference may be that because it's so hugely expensive to decommission a nuclear power plant, that option may actually make economic sense there though.

      And of course one of the reasons it's so cheap to run is because they haven't actually implemented any long term solution for the waste storage, and because the government foots large parts of the insurance liability.

    64. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      No,
      you are not comparing different types of energy.

      You are comparing different types of industrial activity.

      Mining != power plant.
      Mining: does not (potential) kill 100,000ds of people around the mine.
      Power Plant: can kill lots of people around the plant.
      Mining: people volunteer to work in the mine, unless they are slaves.
      Power Plant: (especially in Japan) people live around it and for reasons they can not move away.

      It is all completely different stuff.

      You are not even mixing apples with oranges, you are mixing apples with iPhones ... Just because the name "apple" rings a bell.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    65. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is, when I Nuke Plant goes, the area is fucked for thousands of years.

      Really? So those tours of Chernobyl are clearly Soviet propaganda.

    66. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      Wind is not cheap, nor is solar. The only cheaper source of power compare to Nuclear is hydro. Wind and Solar are actually very expensive and unreliable, solar only works if theres sunlight (so no power at night, overcast, snow storms, etc.) and wind of course only works if there is wind, and there isnt enough of either to meet the power needs of the world. Sea wave is also not as cheap as either hydro or Nuclear, and it presents impact to the marine environment and only about 1/5th of the possible power could be captured with current technology.

      Both wind and solar are delightful, but there are red herrings, they do not solve the power problem as they can not create enough power (and only at certain times). Wave generation is interesting, but it too suffers from inconsistent power generation yield, its not capable of producing enough power and its inconsistent. At most wave generation is considered to be able to produce maybe 5-10% of the total power needs of the US, so if it works its not a solution.

      --

      Python

    67. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coal ash spills:

      [ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/world/americas/07iht-sludge.4.19164565.html ]

    68. Re:Nuke power by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To your logic: the fact that in a majour catastrophe nobody died, does not make the technology causing that catastrophe safe. The opposite is true: if the technology would be save the catastrophe would not have happend.

      It wasn't a catastrophe. It was an accident. Nuclear power is not safe in the same definition that almost EVERYTHING we do is not safe. Are cars safe? Nearly 40,000 people die every year in car accidents, let alone the tens of thousands more that are severely injured. Are planes safe? Planes are the safest method of efficient long-range travel in existance, but 1,000 people still die every year. And there are thousands of aviation accidents that don't actually cause any harm... I think earlier you called those "catastrophes". There are thousands of aviation catastrophes every year, resulting in about 1,000 deaths per year.

      Let's try some risk-benefit analysis. There are about 140,000,000 automobiles in the United States. Let's just estimate that means 140,000,000 people drive frequently given that most people who own a car drive every day and some households have only one car for several people while some households may have several cars for one person. 40,000 automobile-related deaths per year means that approximately 0.0003% of those served by the automobile industry die because of it each year. Nuclear power accounts for about 20% of all power generation in the United States. Given a population of 307,000,000, I think we can safely approximate that around 61,400,000 people are served by nuclear power in the United States. 3 deaths in the history of nuclear power in the United States (3 people died in an accident at the Nuclear Reactor Testing Station in Idaho Falls on January 3, 1961) means that less than 0.00000005% of people served by the nuclear power industry have ever died because of it. We see 45 deaths per year directly attributed to coal power which produces energy for 150,000,000 people giving us a death rate of 0.0000003% per year, let alone all the wild speculation by the environazis trying to attribute every lung-related death in coal power areas to the coal emissions and we see numbers claimed to be sometimes approaching 10,000 deaths per year. That's all bullshit, of course, but that's what people claim. The fact is that nobody can claim any more deaths in the United States due to nuclear power than those three that died during the technology's infancy, because there is no environmental impact with which to attribute random numbers to.

      The media oversensationalizes every little thing that ever happens, and you have been sucked in. Everything we do is dangerous. I suggest you stay inside wrapped in a warm blanket for the rest of your life because that's the only way you'll ever protect yourself from injury. Be careful not to stub your toe on your bedroom door on the way to the kitchen.

    69. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh I see what you're doing there! Well, let's see, if we take the rate it expanding now, and assume that it will continue at the same rate unchanged forever... Multiply by batshit insanity, carry the stupidity... And consider the ever increasing exclusion zones around TMI and Chernobyl... I calculate we'll all have to live in submarines on the moon Io by 2035!!!!! How do we let this continue!!!

    70. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kingston Valley TVA coal plant, you ass.

      EPA will eventually declare it a Superfund site.

       

    71. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      > The difference is, when I Nuke Plant goes, the area is fucked for thousands of years.

      No, if you have total loss of containment you have certain areas that are unhealthy, not "fucked for thousands of years". That type of accident can not happen with a western style reactor, such as the one at Fukushima. And even when you do have a total loss of containment, such as at Chernobyl, the effects turned out to be less than what was originally projected.

      And you don't have that kind of accident at Fukushima, its not a release accident! The reactor had a cooling accident, not a loss of containment accident. Sheesh.

      --

      Python

    72. Re:Nuke power by thermopile · · Score: 4, Insightful
      A fantastic summary, but I quibble with the "no evidence of any significant release of radiation" quote for Fukushima. Two months ago, I would have said it was impossible for a reactor in Japan to contaminate the drinking water in Tokyo, but that's exactly what happened. To the detriment of the industry (and I'm a nuclear engineer), there was a significant release of radiation.

      That said, in the grand scheme of things, it has not presented a harm to the general public that is greater than other risks: look at the poor folks in the spillways of the Mississippi. Or the coal ash spill from the coal-fired plant in Kingston, TN.

      Three incidents like you describe above, over thirty-two years, is a pretty darned good safety record, with the 440+ commercial power reactors around the world. Why does nuclear have a bad rap? One possibility is it stems from fear since it all started with a few mushroom clouds, but whatever the reason, it seems awfully visceral.

      --

      "Diplomacy is something you do until you find a rock." --Richard Pound

    73. Re:Nuke power by joneil · · Score: 1

      Canada had TWO major nuclear incidents at Chalk River with the NRX reactors, in 1952 and 58. Most the the information has been removed off the web over the past few years, but you can still read about the 1952 partial meltdown here at:
      http://media.cns-snc.ca/history/nrx.html

          My son had to do a high school project a few years about about the 1952 incident, and modern history books have virtually nothing on the accident. An old early 1960's history book from the stacks at the public library and that report on the web were about the only sources of information he could find.

            As a fellow Canadian, I am not so sure we can be that arrogant in our attitudes. Also, if Canada, supposedly one of the more open and free democracies in the world (whatever that is supposed to mean anymore) can downplay and/or suppress information about it's major nuclear accidents, how many other "incidents" do you think might have happened around the world and we've never heard about?

            Sad thing is, compared to fossil fuels, what real choice do we have? Realistically, conservation, wind and solar (green power) sources just aren't cutting it. I'm not talking about home use, trying running a major manufacturing plant or oil refinery on wind or solar power.
         

    74. Re:Nuke power by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Nobody died" This is the tired old logic of the nuclear appologist. Only count the deaths. Ignore the fact that some of the health effects like cancer and birth defects take years to become evident. And ignore the fact that the huge swaiths of land has become uninhabital and that the groundwater has become poisened. Oh yes, then the idiotic chest x-ray comparison. Chest x-ray is external radiation, but people living near Fukusima are in danger because of internal radiation (ingesting radioactive isotopes from air, dust, food, etc.)

      How many years are we supposed to wait? Three Mile Island happened over 30 years ago and there has been no evidence of increased cancer rates as a result of that accident. And the only other accident that caused any injury in the history of nuclear power in the United States was in 1967 when somebody fucked up and improperly removed a control rod from the reactor, causing an explosion and the death of its three operators. That's it. Stop being blindfolded by the sensationalization and the stigmas related to the word "nuclear" and look at the facts.

    75. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are making the same mistak everyone else is doing here in the discussion.

      Car accidents have nothing to do with power plants. My they be nuclear or solar.

      Coal mining has nothing to do with power plants.
      Be they coal plants or nuclear plants.

      You whole posting makes no sense. But it is typical for the way how people in our society believe to make "logical conclusions".

      Your risk-benefit analysis holds only so long until we have a really bad accident (or until the true numbers of death in Chernobyl are released).

      So it is completely pointless ... I dont get why that is so hard to see.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    76. Re:Nuke power by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

      Atoms for the future!

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    77. Re:Nuke power by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 2

      There is no fly ash anymore in a modern plant since 15 - 20 years

      Surprise, surprise, there are no nuclear plants operating commercially that were designed within the last 15 to 20 years. It's all old reactor designs without passive safety. Thanks to the insane selective fear of physics that some people have, it's far too expensive (in the short term) to test and build the new reactors.

    78. Re:Nuke power by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      Every relatively new science will have proponents claim that it was not implemented correctly, and never that it was a design issue. When the stakes are high enough, the problem is that nobody is regulating the science formally because it is still young.

      Worse, there is not as much worldwide research furthering and controlling nuclear power as there is in the similarly teething computer science field. Guess which one of the fields can cause catastrophe-level evacuations when there are problems (Y2K was pretty benign death-wise, and is the worst collective catastrophe from the CS field)

    79. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed. I've actually got a Nuclear Engineer education and studied TMI, its an example of a contained accident. No release. TMI is an example that shows conclusively that the defense in depth used in nuclear reactors worked despite the mistakes made by the operators and despite the flaw in the BW PORV.

      So yes, it is nonsense to use TMI as an example of how nuclear power is unsafe. TMI proved that even when everything failed, it was still possible to stop the accident.

      Chernobyl, however, is a great example of how not to build and operate a reactor. That accident proves what happens when you dont have defense in depth, when you dont have good procedures, when you dont have containment, when you put poorly trained operators on the night shift and let your good operators go home to enjoy May Day. It also says you shouldnt experiment with big power reactors to find out what happens when things go wrong. That was classic communist thinking, screw the peasants its all for the greater good. Chernobyl is a textbook case of what can happen when you bypass all your procedures, disable your safety systems and build an unsafe reactor.

      So if you want to use something as an example of how nuclear power can be done poorly and unsafely, use Chernobyl. If you want to make the argument that when everything goes wrong, nothing bad happens, sure bring up TMI.

      And if you want to look ignorant, bring up TMI as an example of an accident that hurt people around actual Nuclear engineers and scientists.

      --

      Python

    80. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The way for solar is not photovoltaic (which only works if there is sun/daylight) but thermal. It is easy to store enough heat over daytime to continue producing energy over night.

      Wind and Solar are only "expensive" in terms of construction costs.

      If we had started with them like 40 years ago, they would run them on maintenance costs: which means they cost close to zero.

      Regarding reliability: you know, you have a hugh grid. There is always sun or wind somewhere on the grid. Right now you are depending on oil/coal or what ever from foreign countries. With wind you would only rely on your country and/or your neighbours.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    81. Re:Nuke power by anagama · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How is it NOT a failure of engineering for the earthquake and tsunami threat to be minimized? History and tsunami stones pointed to real dangers that would lead one to think it is retarded to put generators that require fire, and for which water is a fatal enemy, at sea level. You cannot dismiss Fukushima because it wasn't designed for the event -- the earthquake and tsunami are an indictment of the engineering, not a reason to excuse the engineering.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    82. Re:Nuke power by Cyberax · · Score: 2

      Uranium mining is fairly benign, it's done mostly in open-air quarries. Underground mining is not economic for Uranium mining alone, so it's usually done only when there are significant reserves of other resources (silver or copper ores, etc.) alongside.

    83. Re:Nuke power by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      Chernobyl doesn't count. That was a horribly-designed reactor staffed by a bunch of incompetents and commissioned by a nation in shambles. It was a horrible example of what can go wrong when human stupidity gets in the way of human innovation and a delightful example of Russia and their retardery. Yes, it was an awful disaster that ruined the lives of thousands of people, but it is NOT, by any means, a reliable example of the state of nuclear power.

    84. Re:Nuke power by anagama · · Score: 1

      Good thing uranium is simply extracted from the air by a filtering process. Nuclear power would be really set back if the material to run the plants had to be mined.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    85. Re:Nuke power by Sir_Kurt · · Score: 1

      This is not really true. Nuclear energy is not cheap once the plants are up and operating. If this were true the rates would go down when they switch them on. The converse is true, electric rates go up. The reason for this is that a utility can include the (very high) cost of the plant in the rate base.

      One of the main reasons that power companies flocked to build nuke plants was fact that they cost so much. As public (monopoly) utilities, they were guaranteed a fixed rate of return on the cost of the plant and all the other infrastructure.

      This was the reason that the $6,000,000,000 Shoreham Nuclear plant was allowed to initiate a chain reaction, even though it had been already been agreed to abandon the plant due to safety concerns - Once it was officially operating the cost of the plant could be included in the rate base. Take that, electrical consumer.

      So no, nuclear power is not cheap.
      The fuel is relatively cheap.

      I agree that coal plants should be required to pay into a fund to reverse environmental damage.

      Kurt

    86. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      No I don't want coal accidents.

      As I pointed out in several other posts: there is no relation to nuclear power in coal accidents.
      It is a so called "straw man" comparison.

      Yes, coal is used to generate energy.

      However: now we could compare coal mining with iron mining or gold mining or for gods sake uranium mining. Now we where in business. Comparing different mining activities and their direct impact on the workers and the people living in the surroundings ... that makes sense.

      Comparing one industrial like energy generation with another one like mining: that makes no sense.

      That is especially true if one activity is happening in a first world country with safety regulations and well educated workers and the other one is happening in a third world country with wage slaves and no safte measures what so ever.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    87. Re:Nuke power by dcollins · · Score: 1

      "It's too bad we can't actually build the newer, safer designs. People might protest."

      Of course, power companies will continue to run old nuclear plants so long as the decommissioning costs are so astronomically high. Which they always will be. Regardless of any new plants being built; regardless of any protests one way or the other.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    88. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Sure, that is true (If we exclude Chernobyl). Nevertheless: again it is no argument for the safety of nuclear power plant. One true disaster, that is not stopped by a miracle, and the equation looks exactly opposite.
      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    89. Re:Nuke power by plover · · Score: 5, Informative

      And I'm glad Chalk River is still on line. My wife needed the isotopes they make to help treat her cancer.

      Their "spill" was 47 liters of heavy water. No damage, nobody harmed. If they stopped making radioisotopes, they'd kill tens of thousands of patients due to lack of treatment options. And it's not like they can stockpile those compounds. The half life of the useful ones are all pretty short.

      There's this fragile thing called perspective. I don't know why so many people lose it when they hear the word "nuclear".

      --
      John
    90. Re:Nuke power by cheeks5965 · · Score: 1

      TMI is a horrible example for that purpose given how it pretty much proves the opposite.

      sorry man, you're wrong on this one. TMI was a really bad accident that very luckily did not become a disaster. IIRC the corium stayed in the containment vessel as an unintended result of the geometric design, not due to any design decisions, safety planning, or emergency actions. So if anything, TMI proves that sometimes serendipity stops a disaster.

      a good corellary would be that NYC plane that got hit by birds on takeoff, and cap sully sullenburger landed it in the hudson. Nobody died thank goodness. but the accident was still serious, and still proved that bird strikes can take out planes.

      --
      -- Flame me and I will happily flame you back. Bring it!
    91. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      TMI proved that even when everything failed, it was still possible to stop the accident.

      If you believe that, you are beyond hope.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    92. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone else apparently, that plant was due for replacement/shutdown many years ago.

      Anyone else? Including those who ran the reactor in Chernobyl?

      They sucked at building cars, but with their new infusion of tax dollars, GM should start building reactors. If nothing else, I trust a man who has his job because thugs won't allow him to be fired for incompetence...

    93. Re:Nuke power by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Fine "no true scotsman". No accident does count, because something completely different from nuclear power as such failed. Great thinking there.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    94. Re:Nuke power by Zulkis · · Score: 1

      Ok. I agree that mining != power plant
      But please tell me how do you want to operate coal mines on a large scale without mining?
      Costs of mining accidents are identical regardless of dying slaves or volunteers.

      Can you point to simulations that show how these 100,000ds of people could die? (hint:
      9.0 richter quake and tsunami are not enough to make fukushima kill even single person - for me is good performance of 40 year old nuclear plant.


      Lots of people live around chemical facilities and cant move away too. Ever heard about Bhopal or Banqiao? Why single out nuclear plants?

    95. Re:Nuke power by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      You can't have nuclear without uranium mining, and given the choice of working down a coal mine and working down a uranium mine, I know which one I would chose.

    96. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 2

      >I quibble with the "no evidence of any significant release of radiation" quote for Fukushima

      I did say significant (not no release, I'm a Nuclear Engineer too!). :-)

      So yes, there certainly should have been noble gas releases, and probably C-131 radioisotopes. Possibly others with cladding damage, but its hard to know all the facts at Fukushima right now (we sent people, and the Japanese have not been really that cooperative), including release so I agree that a release of some radiation occurred. We can messure that, but the amounts so far appear to present no threat to public health and safety, hence the use of the words "significant release of radiation". Thats why I mentioned the WHO quote, they seem like the best non-nuclear source, so it seems reasonable they probably aren't trying to spin it and there conclusion was no threat to health at this point.

      As an aside, going back on GE BWR training I would have expected some release of nobles and C-131. Until we have cold shutdown and we can all study the events its all just inference at this point, so this could all change.

      >Three incidents like you describe above, over thirty-two years, is a pretty darned good safety record, with the
      > 440+ commercial power reactors around the world. Why does nuclear have a bad rap?
      > One possibility is it stems from fear [anengineerindc.com] since it all started with a few mushroom clouds,
      >but whatever the reason, it seems awfully visceral.

      Yeah I agree. I think you have it right, mushroom clouds and nuclear weapons. That and general ignorance of how power reactors work coupled with a general misunderstanding of the health effects of ionizing radiation, and that we are all exposed to it all day long. As Arthur C. Clarke said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

      I wonder if we still called them something else, like "atomic steam generator plants" instead of "Nuclear Power Reactors" if people would be less irrationally afraid of them.

      --

      Python

    97. Re:Nuke power by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Wind is not cheap, nor is solar. The only cheaper source of power compare to Nuclear is hydro. Wind and Solar are actually very expensive and unreliable, solar only works if theres sunlight (so no power at night, overcast, snow storms, etc.) and wind of course only works if there is wind, and there isnt enough of either to meet the power needs of the world. Sea wave is also not as cheap as either hydro or Nuclear, and it presents impact to the marine environment and only about 1/5th of the possible power could be captured with current technology.

      Both wind and solar are delightful, but there are red herrings, they do not solve the power problem as they can not create enough power (and only at certain times). Wave generation is interesting, but it too suffers from inconsistent power generation yield, its not capable of producing enough power and its inconsistent. At most wave generation is considered to be able to produce maybe 5-10% of the total power needs of the US, so if it works its not a solution.

      Wow. I'd go point by point, but it'd be boring and repetitive, so I'll just note that almost every single declarative statement here is false.

      Some of them don't even make sense. Not enough sunlight or wind to meet the power needs of the world? How many plants (panels/turbines) are you basing that estimate on, and what percentage of the need does it meet? 10%? Okay, redo your estimate, but build 10 times as many. Unless you're asserting that if you covered every square mile of usable land with them, it still wouldn't be enough, in which case, I just need to laugh at the depth of your ignorance. A sufficiently large array of solar panels in an unused patch of desert in New Mexico would be sufficient to provide power to the entire US (granted, you'd need to seriously upgrade the power grid if you wanted to centralize the power generation to that extent -- but you don't need to put them all in one place). And yes, it could easily provide the power 24/7, regardless of whether the sun was up or not. "Inconsistent" is the biggest red-herring argument in the world -- there are millions of ways to store and release power to even out spikes, some of which we've known since prehistoric times. Rocket science it ain't...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    98. Re:Nuke power by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Ta bad no-one actually _CAN_ (or do) use a Thorium reactor atm.

      Feel free to link the design/provider.

    99. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Precisely. Three mile island was a total non-event, and if anything proves exactly how safe the design was. It's also how we know that we have nothing to worry about Fukushima. The worst that can happen at Fukushima is what happened at three mile island. The chance of a release is zero. Oh wait, this was the pro nuclear view a couple of months ago... Sorry.

    100. Re:Nuke power by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      So, the Mississippi flood and come coal ash spill caused by a retarded manner of ash handling permanently displaced 70000 people, too? Making the "poor people" of the Mississippi spillways a tool of propaganda is quite low.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    101. Re:Nuke power by moortak · · Score: 1

      Kleen energy plant Middletown, Conn September 2010 for natural gas Progress energy plant in Willmington, NC March 2010 for coal. I'm not familiar with any fatal blasts at any strictly petroleum plants offhand. As for people in danger, not at those plants from a blast, but standard operation of a coal plant puts a decent amount of radioactive material in the air. I doubt anyone will deny that nuclear has a worse catastrophic failure scenario, but it is vastly better in ideal operation. The question is which has better results overall. Given the record of fossil fuels compared to nuclear I'd guss that nuclear wins by a large margin.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    102. Re:Nuke power by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Ah... in every single thread some moron comes up with this shit. You are aware that the activity of coal ash is in the same order of magnitude than the activity of soil, fertilizer and stuff like that, as by EPA numbers?

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    103. Re:Nuke power by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      You are comparing different types of Energy.

      At this point you're either mentally handicapped or trolling.

      The worst accident in history with nuclear didn't kill "100,000ds" of people. It killed a couple hundred. The next two worst "catastrophic events" in the nuclear industry world? They killed zero people.

      Industrial accidents around coal plants kill more workers yearly, even adjusted for coal being used much more, than the nuclear industry(excl. Chernobyl) has in its entire life span. Even including Chernobyl the coal industry, plant accidents alone, kills as many as have died for nuclear power every 5 years.

      Now, as coal mines, and oil factories, of necessity, CANNOT EXIST without their fuel supplies, the dangers of those activities must be included as well. Ignoring the third world death rates, and just using the BEST CASE coal mining death rates(deaths per ton), the coal industry kills 2x the amount of people yearly as have died for nuclear, including the mining activity, ever.

      I'm now not comparing apples to apples, or oranges to oranges. I'm comparing Coal best case against nuclear worst case. Nuclear still wins.

    104. Re:Nuke power by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you disregard reality, you are beyond hope.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    105. Re:Nuke power by cheeks5965 · · Score: 1

      Why does nuclear have a bad rap? One possibility is it stems from fear [anengineerindc.com] since it all started with a few mushroom clouds, but whatever the reason, it seems awfully visceral.

      this is right on the head, but you're too dismissive. nuclear power was preceded by nuclear war (or a nuclear cold war, which is the same thing), one of the most terrifying events in human history. you can talk about "beating swords into ploughshires" till you're blue in the face, but the fact remains that in the minds of many people nuclear power ~ nuclear war and nuclear plant accident ~ nuclear bomb.

      This is a real fear (and valid to a certain extent), so as long as the nuke industry is dismissive of this rather than tackling it head on, nuke power will always be controversial. Nobody cares about "defense in depth"

      --
      -- Flame me and I will happily flame you back. Bring it!
    106. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why does someone have to start dying for this to be news for nerds?"
          Because nuclear power plants employ ALOT of nerds? durr. (this one included)

    107. Re:Nuke power by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      I propose we ban all automobiles because they are clearly death traps. Just look at the Ford Pinto.

      Problem?

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    108. Re:Nuke power by Bjorn_Redtail · · Score: 1

      You know, I have to say that SL-1 was the result of bad reactor design, not operator error. The design of the control rod made an accident like that possible with any human operator, regardless of their training or care. One stuck rod shouldn't cause a criticality accident.

    109. Re:Nuke power by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      It's too bad we can't actually build the newer, safer designs. People might protest. It reminds me of the protests when the Cassini probe was launched, all because it had a plutonium RTG on it.

      And did they stop the launch?

      We can build the newer, safer designs. We don't want to. It ain't protests that are keeping new plants from being built. It's the cost of building them. Much cheaper to keep the existing plants running, and if you must build a new plant, build one that will actually eventually pay for itself and turn a profit without subsidies, aka a coal plant.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    110. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > If you believe that, you are beyond hope.

      I don't believe it, this is what I do for a living. I know what happened, I understand the BW PWR used, I studied the accident and I am a Nuclear Engineer. Please educate yourself and read the DOE and NRC studies, and maybe listen to some actual Nuclear Engineers and stop believing everything you read on the Internet.

      --

      Python

    111. Re:Nuke power by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Problem? Yes. Logic fault. False analogy, in particular. But hey, didn't expect anything else.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    112. Re:Nuke power by infolation · · Score: 1

      Speaking as someone who lives in the United Kingdom, I can assure you that we've had a significant nuclear accident here!

    113. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect about solar. Solar panels have a lifespan of around 25 years and there is no possibility of maintenance or repair to increase this value.

    114. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now I'm confused. So these plants can be run indefinitely? I thought part of the problem with fukushima is that the anti nuke jerks forced the owners of the fukushima plant to run it well past it useful lifespan. Jerks, it's all the anti nuke peoples fault I tell ya!

    115. Re:Nuke power by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Thats splitting the hair, coal plants and oil plants absolutely have explosions and people die all the time. Coal dust is terrifyingly explosive, just google around a little and you'll see that coal dust explosions are unfortunately very common. Usually only a few people die, but plants themselves have been leveed such as the Kleen Energy Systems gas plant in 2010 that was almost destroyed.

      That's absolutely true. The big difference is that when a nuclear plant has a big problem (Chernobyl or Fukashima style), the issues can remain over hundreds or thousands of years. That doesn't happen even if an oil refinery goes totally tits up in a spectacular fashion. That has a tendency to bother people for long periods of time. Even if authorities are capable of keeping the cancer rates down (and it appears that with the knowledge we have that can be done in any functional society, Russia perhaps not so much), the sheer costs of doing so are fantastic (and not typically calculated when figuring kwh costs for nuc plants). Yes, you can clean up even highly contaminated wastes (see the Hanford Reservation) but I'm not sure that the Japanese are prepared to bulldoze a couple of prefectures every 20 - 30 years.

      The biggest problem with nuclear power isn't really the physics, isn't really the politics, isn't the pollution - it's the way the critically important engineering safeguards and concepts have been routinely subverted to lessen economic and political issues. You CAN make nuclear power pretty damned safe. We (as a species) don't seem to be doing exactly that. Nuclear power ISN'T safe if you don't shut down reactors after their design life is exceeded, if you don't religiously upgrade safety and structural systems, if you minimize geologic hazards, if you try to maximize economic returns, if you don't actually build out the improved reactors you design.

      "A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that."

      "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." - Douglas Adams

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    116. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

      I know what happened, I understand the BW PWR used, I studied the accident and I am a Nuclear Engineer.

      Then you did not read the papers released the last 10 years about it? Or did you?
      Sorry, if you claim to be a nuclear engineer and don't care to research what really happend at the TMI incident ... then good luck with your work.
      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    117. Re:Nuke power by osu-neko · · Score: 2

      Thanks to the insane selective fear of physics that some people have, it's far too expensive (in the short term) to test and build the new reactors.

      Yes, it's not the cost of the materials or the labor involved in building something as large and intricate as a nuclear power plant that make it expensive. Or maybe it is. Both concrete and engineering costs sky-rocket if people fear the result. The cement just won't set because it's shivering in fear...

      Honestly? Really? You think building a nuclear power plant would be cheap if people didn't care what kind of plant you built? You think it's fear that multiplying the cost? And it has to be multiplying significantly, or the argument that fear is the reason for the overwhelming expense falls flat. Can you quantify this? How much would the plant cost if people didn't fear it? Is the cost of securing a permit that much more expensive that just building the plant? Is there completely unnecessary safety equipment that could be eliminated, and that equipment alone costs more than the plant? I'd love to see the numbers here...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    118. Re:Nuke power by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      No-one engineers for every eventuality though. Skyscrapers are not jet-airliner-proof, bridges are not bomb-proof, people don't walk around in helmets in case they are hit by a falling meteorite etc. There has to be a cut-off point beyond which you just accept that disaster is inevitable.

      In the case of Fukushima the debate is over how much it was worth spending to guard against a 15m high wave. Turns out that what it would have cost to do was well worth paying, but that is with the benefit of hindsight. Rightly or wrongly a lot of other nuclear plants in Japan have the same vulnerability to flooding (newer ones have waterproof emergency generator rooms) so the situation was not unique to Fukushima Daiichi. If there was negligence it was on a national scale and both TEPCO and the government share the blame.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    119. Re:Nuke power by gdshaw · · Score: 1

      The isotopes of concern here are Iodine-131 (half life 8 days) and Cs-137 (half life 30 years). The caesium is about a thousand times less radioactive than the iodine, and the effective dose rate can be expected to fall rather faster than the half life would suggest due to environmental effects.

      A large area may have been evacuated, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is uninhabitable in any objective sense. Large parts of the zone are there not because of current dose rates, but rather due to the risk of a further release because the reactors have yet to be fully shut down. The threshold being used is quite low (comparable to or lower than natural background radiation in some parts of the world), and some have questioned whether forcible evacuation is really justified given that it has consequences too.

      While the evacuation zone keeps expanding, at what point does Japan become uninhabitable...forever?

      I don't want to sound complacent, but the situation isn't remotely as bad as you appear to be suggesting.

    120. Re:Nuke power by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Well, the term is "nuclear power plant" (unless you only speak of the reactor itself, then it's "nuclear reactor", without "power"). "Atomic" instead of "nuclear" will not make people less afraid of them, but will give you the anger of atomic physicists who don't want to be confused with nuclear physicists (not because nuclear physicists are doing something evil, but because atomic physicists don't like it if they get to feel the negative emotions for something they don't even work on). "steam generator" instead of "power" is nonsense, because the fear isn't about the "power" part (few people fear a solar power plant, for example).

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    121. Re:Nuke power by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      I completely agree. It was during the infancy of nuclear power. A small prototype reactor that was poorly designed before they really knew what differentiated good reactor design from bad reactor design.

    122. Re:Nuke power by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      We have a pretty good idea of how many cancers and other health problems will occur due to TMI thanks to the tests performed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as accidents within the nuclear power industry. IIRC the figure for TMI was one (1) additional cancer.

      Coal and gas cause health problems. Combustion engines do too. Far more people suffer from things like asthma (5.4m in the UK alone) which are partially attributable to pollution from burning fossil fuels, and given enough exposure can cause lung cancer.

      Nuclear, coal and gas all have major risks associated with them, which is for me the most important reason for moving to green energy sources. Forget climate change, pollution and health should be the driving forces.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    123. Re:Nuke power by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Hydro isn't terribly cheap either. In the little town I'm in, we're trying to develop two new hydro sources. One is just raising an existing dam - 20 million for about 10 MW, the other is a new site that is 'supposed' to cost 25 million for about 20 MW. We could probably get a couple of Toshiba 4S units in for that price (if they existed)(yes, I'm being a tad sarcastic).

      But upfront costs for hydro, even under excellent circumstances, are breaking the bank in a lot of places. Part of this is due to regulatory issues, part do the the current financial climate (it's hard to raise cheap money, and no the US Federal government is not very hydro friendly). So the easy way out is to burn something. Coal, nat gas, oil, politicians, lobbyists.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    124. Re:Nuke power by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Coal mining has nothing to do with power plants.

      Are you seriously suggesting that we ignore the source of fuel when evaluating methods of power generation for safety? A bit Machiavellian wouldn't you say?

      Go mine some coal and then get back to us.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    125. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      My point was that fly ash is radioactive and that the amount of radiation produced from coal plants exceeds that from a Nuclear Plant. A coal plant produces fly ash that contains 100 times more ionizing radiation than a nuclear plant producing the same power.

      If you thought I was saying we're all gonna die, you missed my point. Exposure near a coal plant is significantly higher than near a Nuclear Plant. The point is to recognize the cumulative effects of non-nuclear sources of ionizing radiation versus the catastrophic effects of a complete loss of containment at a Nuclear Power plant. The former is happening now globally, and its increasing, the later is very rare and localized. So if people want to reduce their exposure to ionizing radition, nuclear isn't the source, its medical testing, the sun, to much lesser extent coal (maybe 5% in industrialized nations), etc. etc.

      If opposition to nuclear is based on a desire to reduce exposure to ionizing radition, then you should start elsewhere. Ionizing radiation is not coming from Nuclear power, or even accidents, your exposure is coming from lots of other seemingly "safe" sources all around us and when people trot out coal as somehow being safer from a radiation perspective its important to recognize that it too is a source, and that Nuclear is a tiny fraction.

      --

      Python

    126. Re:Nuke power by osu-neko · · Score: 2

      Oh wow. Just wow. You really are as ignorant as the other comment I replied to seemed to indicate you might be.

      We can build modern designs. Sometimes we do. Generally we don't, because it's expensive. It's expensive because materials and labor aren't free, and significant amounts of both and requires to build and operate one. We can build modern designs, we just don't without public subsidy for the same reason we don't build solar and wind power without public subsidy: you can't make a profit doing it.

      Coal plants release more radiation because they release so little radiation that we don't even bother to try to contain it. If a nuclear power plant were operated along the same principles, there's no question it would eclipse the coal plant in terms of released radiation by half a dozen orders of magnitude.

      Yes, those two elements are released more in coal burning than in nuclear power incidents. This is irrelevant, doubly-so since neither are elements your body will try to chemically incorporate, both of which are naturally occurring and found in the environment anyhow, long before the industrial era, and neither of which poses anywhere close to the health risk as things with much lower half-lives (those things don't stay around as long, but they're far, far, FAR more dangerous while they're still present).

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    127. Re:Nuke power by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Interesting question: What would happen to a Fukashima style failure if they could not have dumped all that radioactive waste into the sea, thus making it 'disappear'?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    128. Re:Nuke power by LightLoafers · · Score: 1

      The thing about nuclear accidents is that your senses can't be trusted. Radiation is invisible, and in low doses, not going to have immediate effect. Further information coming out about the NRC not enforcing its own safety guidelines, and the origins of the NRC itself give you a really great idea why people are freaked out. You can't engineer human systems to be human free, both in operation and in institution. Furthermore if you use a possibilistic approach to failure analysis instead of a probabilistic approach, you get a different prognosis. We haven't seen the worst nuclear accident, not even close. That's still in the future. It's a given. And that accident will have been caused by something the engineers didn't foresee and exacerbated by human systems or behavior. Why can't people understand THAT? You know how many times a once in a century accident has to happen to bring tragedy to thousands? Once. I highly recommend the work of Charles Perrow in studying failure. Much better articulation of this subject than I can give.

    129. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strike the UK off that list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

    130. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know of a single coal plant that has a sarcophagus over it, or a vast area around it where people are forbidden to live.

      How about Cheshire, Ohio?

      http://www.forgottenoh.com/Cheshire/cheshire.html

      AEP bought out the entire town because their coal plant was blanketing the town with all kinds of nasty stuff.

    131. Re:Nuke power by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      I understand the BW PWR used, I studied the accident and I am a Nuclear Engineer.

      So, why would I trust you?

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    132. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I'm now not comparing apples to apples, or oranges to oranges. I'm comparing Coal best case against nuclear worst case. Nuclear still wins.

      No you are not comparing coal best case with nuclear worst case. You are comparing coal worst case with nuclear best case.
      Nuclear worst case: a plant goes rogue so fast that you can not evacuate anyone. Nuclear worst case: millions of people are directly contaminated by the plant. This did only happen once os far, luckily.
      Regarding Chernobyl, as I pointed out in other threads over the last months: the death toll is far over 250,000. Many people agree it is over 500,000. And people which I happen to know, who lived there, claim it is far over a million. Yes, I know "the official" numbers are in the hundreds only, that comes from living the USSR.

      Again: your whole argument of counting mining death (workers working in the mine) and comparing them with civilian deaths (people living nearby a plant) makes no sense.

      You compare 3rd world mines with first world power plants. Why don't you google for the last mine accident in germany and how many died there (and how long that was ago)?

      And: would the logic conclusion not be: ban all coal power and all oil power?

      Why don't you dare that conclusion but proclaim nuclear is "save" when we clearly see: it is not?

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    133. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      > Regarding reliability: you know, you have a hugh grid. There is always sun or wind somewhere on the grid.
      > Right now you are depending on oil/coal or what ever from foreign countries.
      > With wind you would only rely on your country and/or your neighbours.

      Intriguing idea, first let me dispel the notion that there is a word grid, there is not. So even though the sun may be shining in Germany, that power grid is not connected to the US grid and vice versa, so no you can't say that the sun is always shining somewhere from an electrical grid perspective, it is not.

      So no, thats not possible right now. It is an interesting idea, could you tie all the grids together and would it be both reliable and economically feasible. My two cents, which isn't worth much, reliability would be an issue possibly an insurmountable one, but its not impossible I suppose (bearing straits maybe). The later though, I just dont see how you could do that without massive costs.

      --

      Python

    134. Re:Nuke power by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

      Except they didn't shut it down or replace it. Just like everyone else. Including the US, where practically any time our 104 plants is due for replacement/shutdown, instead it just magically gets relicensed.

      So no, nobody else can either.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    135. Re:Nuke power by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Shitty obsolete cars are to cars what shitty obsolete reactors are to reactors.

      Deal with it.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    136. Re:Nuke power by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      TMI's meltdown wasn't supposed to happen, either. You're claiming that TMI was safe, yet it melted down. That's not safe. Therefore, by the most basic logic, TMI is unsafe. TMI was not unique, and therefore was and is a good example of how nuclear power is unsafe.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    137. Re:Nuke power by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      "I am a trained doctor, and advise that you discontinue your bacon and cheese curls diet."

      "Trained doctor eh? So, why would I trust you?"

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    138. Re:Nuke power by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

      No, they're talking about the "boom" of a meltdown gone critical, not the H2 "boom" that damages the buildings and ability to work to contain the disaster. The meltdown "boom" is a much vaster explosion, spewing radioactive material over a wide area. In most cases, an area filled with many thousands or millions of people, and upstream/upwind from large areas that get terribly poisoned. Like "Ukraine" or "Europe" or "the East Coast" or "the northeast quarter of Japan", etc.

      If you're going to talk about "boom" in Three Mile Island, you should get your sense of proportion correct first.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    139. Re:Nuke power by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Along with Three Mile Island and now Fukishima as proof that the global nukes industry is incapable of properly running a plant to prevent meltdowns, we also have you as proof that the people in the industry are in denial of its incapability to do so.

      You are self-selected to believe the denial required to work in the nuke power industry. People who are honest about the risks and damage who are interested in a career in nuke power select jobs to change the industry. You are among those who buy into the status quo, and keep it unsafe but growing.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    140. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

      Yes, I'm seriously suggesting this.
      Or you have to take into account shipping (with ships mainly) refining, plant building, plant decommissioning etc. as well.
      Especially you have to take into account safety regulations in the relevant countries (mining countries). Health care, transportation, quality of roads, options of rescue in case of accidents, etc. etc.
      You have to take into account uranium mining (and the 10,000s of aborigines that died in the 50th to it) etc. etc.
      The whole question about power plant safety is: if I live close to a plant and the plant explodes, what is the worst case. No one cares about death toll in mining, refining, transporting etc.. If someone would care we would not buy coal from china. We long had shifted to renewable energies.
      If you don't understand that, I guess the best career path for you is to become a politician.
      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    141. Re:Nuke power by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 2

      Isn't the slashdot groupthink these days that scientists do it all for the funding? So, obviously, you are only arguing pro nuke to save your job... I am a trained biochemist, btw, which makes me competent enough to judge other fields of science. And the pro nuclear faction here is so full of shit and so devoid of any reasonable argument that it hurts.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    142. Re:Nuke power by SquirrelDeth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The spill you are referring to was 47 kilo's not liters. There was also a 800 liter spill and a 7,000 liter a day spill that lasted over a month that was pumped into the Ottawa river. They need a new plant and since they take a while to build sooner is better than latter. If the plant gets shut down for good how many years would it take to start producing isotopes again? As for perspective why shouldn't people drive 50 year old cars that pollute like a bastard and leak oil once in a while?

    143. Re:Nuke power by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 0

      Translation: It should not be, so it can not be. The american way of life - which is defined by burning oil and running nukes - is nonnegotiable. I am so scared of any alternatives that I outright declare them impossible. Researching the facts? That's for socialist pinko faggots, after all.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    144. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fire? What fire exactly? Generators (in this case steam turbines) do not require fire. In fact, I'm fairly certain they don't like it much. You seem to be all kinds of confused at about why a nuclear reactor would be near a large water source. As an exercise, I suggest you find a nuclear reactor that is NOT built on or near large volumes of water.

      Or, alternately, take note of the handful of reactors in California which are built 1) on the ocean, 2) on a fault line, 3) with incorrect engineering. I'll give you a hint, it's every reactor in CA.

    145. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Intriguing idea, first let me dispel the notion that there is a word grid, there is not. So even though the sun may be shining in Germany, that power grid is not connected to the US grid and vice versa, so no you can't say that the sun is always shining somewhere from an electrical grid perspective, it is not.

      Germany is tied into the European grid.
      We always had enough wind to power whole Europe. We only lack the plants.

      The USA grid is connected with the canadian grid.

      Having wind power at the canadian and USA coasts, lets say Oregon, Florida and the new england states would be enough to power all of north america. Having Canada as back up for the USA and vice versa (keeping in mind you still have > 10% hydro) you have no problem to sustain yourselves.

      Sure the investment is not small, but in relation to the amounts already invested into energy plants and grids its just peanuts.

      Well, if it is economically feasible ... that no one can know. If the USA can burn 100 billion dollars in scamming pension funds schemas regarding real estate but can not muster 10 billions for starting to switch to renewables (where the total amount of money likely is in the range of 200 billions) ... then they can not be helped.

      Lets see how it works out in germany, getting rid of 25% nuclear in a few years. Now they try to undercut the estimation how fast it can be done every week. Now we are at 2016 as mark when the last nuclear plant is switched off.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    146. Re:Nuke power by Animats · · Score: 2

      A fantastic summary, but I quibble with the "no evidence of any significant release of radiation" quote for Fukushima. Two months ago, I would have said it was impossible for a reactor in Japan to contaminate the drinking water in Tokyo, but that's exactly what happened. To the detriment of the industry (and I'm a nuclear engineer), there was a significant release of radiation.

      Right. The number of casualties is small, but the area evacuated is large, and may be evacuated for decades.

      For actuarial purposes, insurance for nuclear plants now has to be repriced. Total power reactor years worldwide is now about 14,000, with two major evacuation incidents. So an assumption of one evacuation of a 30km circle around the plant and acquisition of that real estate per 7000 reactor-years is appropriate for insurance purposes.

      The insurance cost will vary with location. That's a big problem. Many US power reactors are sited near major cities. Indian Point in NY is probably the worst case for evacuation cost.

      The discouraging thing about the Fukushima reactor disasters is that the real problem was loss of power. The earthquake and tsunami damage was contained. The cooling systems survived and ran until the batteries ran down. With no power, there was little cooling, resulting in hydrogen explosions and meltdowns in several units.

      Plants are vulnerable to power loss for a variety of reasons - hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, floods, regional blackouts, poor maintenance, fuel shortages, and sabotage. Most of the NRC literature on loss of coolant accidents focuses on pipe breaks. That may have been the wrong emphasis.

    147. Re:Nuke power by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Because you pulled the risk assessment out of your ass?

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    148. Re:Nuke power by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      The manufacture of Fukushima's reactor vessel was screwed up, and the company and government ignored it to cut the costs of making a new one, according to Mitsuhiko Tanaka, the engineer who helped the company cover it up and reports how the government ignored his eventual whistleblowing.

      Technical arguments are meaningless when the real problem is the greed and incompetence of the nuke industry and its respective governments which refuse to limit nuke plants even when they're clearly built wrong. It's the people who aren't capable of safely deploying this technology, not the technology itself.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    149. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      As for people in danger, not at those plants from a blast, but standard operation of a coal plant puts a decent amount of radioactive material in the air.

      That is only true for 3rd world plants and a few england plants that have an exception rule. Modern plants dont exhaust noticeable amounts of ash.
      Bottom line the claim that coal plants exhausted much uranium never was true anyway. It was completely below the back ground radiation levels. However arsene or mercury, that was a problem in older times.
      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    150. Re:Nuke power by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0

      Yes, that is the point at which you admit that nukes are too expensive to adequately protect, and instead spend the money on a better energy system. You don't just write off all the damage as inevitable - because it's not. You can get the energy in other ways that are less expensive to protect against. And which have all kinds of other benefits better than nukes' liabilities.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    151. Re:Nuke power by edxwelch · · Score: 1, Informative

      Congradulations!
      Pratically all your information about Fukushima is wrong:
      > primary containment appears to be intact but we won't know for some time.
      No. Both unit 2 and unit 1 containment and pressure vessel have leaks.

      > WHO has stated that there is no evidence of any significant release of radiation.
      No. Material discharged from the plant from March 11 to early April was estimated between 370,000 and 630,000 terabecquerels and continues at 154 terabecquerels per day.

      >Measured increased amounts of radiocative caesium and iodine in the vicinity of the plant, but not at dangerous levels.
      No. It is at danerous levels - hence the exclusion zone.

      > No evidence that any uranium or plutonium has been released.
      Yes there is. The explosion in Unit 3 blew pieces of fuel rod up to a mile from the site. Uranium and plutonium was vapourised and detected both in the soil in Fukushima and as far away as California.

    152. Re:Nuke power by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The way for solar is not photovoltaic (which only works if there is sun/daylight) but thermal. It is easy to store enough heat over daytime to continue producing energy over night.

      The way forward for solar is a combination of photovoltaic and thermal; both in using each where it is appropriate and in combining the two. Hybrid PV-thermal solar systems use collectors to bring more light to the panel and then use water to carry the heat away; thus they work in cloudier conditions than PV alone and also produce hot water. Obviously they are only a fit in cases where you actually need both, but the heat can be used to do work, generate energy, blah blah blah.

      Don't piss on PV just because you don't understand how it fits into the picture. Today's thin-film PV can repay the energy cost of its production in three years. Crystalline PV could repay the energy cost of its production in seven back in the seventies.

      Wind and Solar are only "expensive" in terms of construction costs.

      Wind isn't even particularly expensive in that way, either. Consider the cost of offshore wind vs. the cost of an oil-burning plant plus offshore drilling. Or worse, a diesel plant, which runs on oil which has had a bunch of energy poured into it, usually with a whole bunch of attendant toxic emissions. And while they are in the minority, there are indeed many diesel peaker plants. And we actually use 'em as a result of our inadequate grid infrastructure... Solar does tend to be expensive though, as a result of people falling off roofs. No, really.

      Regarding reliability: you know, you have a hugh grid.

      That is insulting to people named Hugh. The grid in the USA is inadequate at best. It has little "intelligence" to speak of, although that is being [slowly] remedied, and it has simply inadequate capacity in a number of key locations where the majority of power is consumed.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    153. Re:Nuke power by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      No, uranium mining is toxic, and the poison lasts effectively forever.

      Nuke fetishists will just lie about the most easily researched facts.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    154. Re:Nuke power by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Coal and nuke plants are both bad, and both should be phased out instead of building a single new one of either type.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    155. Re:Nuke power by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 2

      Oh noes, it melted down. Further use of stigmatized words to convey images of something much worse than what actually happened. Yes, the core melted down. But the walls of the facility contained all nuclear fallout as well as the ensuing fires, and the reactor was brought back to stability with no injuries to the staff or the public. How is that anything other than safe?

    156. Re:Nuke power by XSpud · · Score: 2

      So seriously, lets stop the fear mongering, four accidents of significance and only one - due to a terribly stupid design - resulted in actual threats to the public. Nuclear power is safe, and if people would just take the time to actually understand it they would know it.

      It is statements such as this that contribute to the public suspicion of the nuclear industry IMO. Nuclear power is not "safe", it has risks like any other industrial scale power generation. The public knows there are risks, it knows that the nuclear industry has a history of trying to hide the risks, and it knows that human factors are often more significant than reactor design when safety is concerned.

      At some point the industry needs to hold their hands up and say "yes we have been doing it wrong", and if the risks really are less now than they were in the past, try to convince the public that things will be different. But I suspect this wont happen while we are still using reactors with all the same attributes as the ones at Fukushima for example, or storing fuel in ways that were never envisaged by the original designers.

      My view is that there will always be accidents (until proven otherwise) and it's not acceptable to rely on people risking their lives every time there's an accident in order to prevent further risk to the public. Both Chernobyl and Fukushima would have been far worse but for the actions of a few "heroes". Nuclear safety should not have to depend on heroes.

    157. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 2

      So lets look at this mathematically, current US power requirements are over 3,700,000 megawatts.

      According to the Department of Energy, Office of Utility Technologies, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy & Electric Power Research Institute, to produce 1,000 megawatts of electrical capacity from solar requires approximately 11,000 acres of photovoltaic solar cells. So, the amount of land you need to produce all power needed by the US, via solar, is approximately 40,700,000 acres or about five times the size of New Jersey.

      According to the American Wind Energy Association, you need 50,00 acres of wind turbines to produce 1,000 megawatts. So, for wind, you need an area approximately five times the size of west Virginia.

      Right now solar accounts for about 640 megawatts of power, and wind about 35000. The current bulk requirements are over 3,700,000 megawatts, so wind and solar are neither significant sources currently nor are they viable given the amount of land they both require, with current technology. Unless there is a significant change in technology, I just dont see how thats feasible.

      Hydro, Coal, Gas, Oil and Nuclear are sources we have today that produce significant amounts of power, which is why we use them. Hoover Dam produces 2080 megawatts, and a single Westinghouse PWR produces over 1,000 megawatts of power. So even if solar and wind were everything that we want them to be, the numbers just don't add up.

      Now I certainly am not open to new information, so if you have data that refutes this I'm all ears. This is probably why both liberal and conservative governments keep going back to fossil, hydro and nuclear as part of their energy strategies.

      --

      Python

    158. Re:Nuke power by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Sure, that is true (If we exclude Chernobyl).

      Uh what? A single typical coal plant puts out more nuclear waste than Chernobyl every year. Granted, there are less of the unusual particles; most of what is emitted is thorium, and then there is a substantial amount of uranium, a small portion of which is fissile. If you were to somehow capture it all and burn it in a nuclear reactor it would produce more power than the coal. Because it is more widely distributed it does not kill people so quickly; it is impossible to say how many of today's cancer deaths are due to coal power. In the USA, coal for electricity accounts for only about half of our consumption of the stuff... the cleaner half.

      And for more Uh What, who cares about Chernobyl any more in that way, since Fukushima is officially greater than Chernobyl? From now on, nuclear accidents will be described in fractions of Fukushima. Well, not "now", because the situation is still developing. They are finding exposed nuclear material about as fast as they can enter new areas. It's not clear now many meltdowns we're even talking about yet.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    159. Re:Nuke power by Tom · · Score: 1

      I don't even trust the Germans to do it right.

      Rightfully so. One of our plants, Krümmel has been standing still for years now, because, quite frankly, it's old and rotten and the owners tried to bring it online again at the lowest possible costs, shunning a serious investment.

      Several other plants aren't that much better. Due to the indecisiveness of our governments, who want to get out of nuclear, just not just yet - which understandably causes the nuclear companies to hold back on investments, you never know what the status is after the next election - we have some of the oldest plants in the world.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    160. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you include pollution and environmental damage for oil/coal. surely it is only fair to do the same for nuclear? It is not like uranium mining is the cleanest industry in the world, and neither is the cleanup of used fuel and contaminated materials. The balance may still be in favour of nuclear, but it has to be an apples-to-apples comparison.

    161. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      But please tell me how do you want to operate coal mines on a large scale without mining?

      That was not my point. My point was the flawed logic of yours.
      Well, regarding the death toll of the Fukushima plant you are not well informed.
      About the fact, that the 9.0 quake was roughly 400km away and that it was (estimated) at the side only 4.5 you seem not to be informed as well.
      Also you seem not to be informed that this accident was completely unnecessary if they had haved a better place for emergency power.

      Lots of people live around chemical facilities and cant move away too. Ever heard about Bhopal or Banqiao? Why single out nuclear plants?

      Yes, I know that. And again: what is the connection to coal mining here? Ah, you want to make a connection to nuclear plants? Do you see now how brain dead your argumentation is?
      There is no connection, except that big plants are dangerous. And that the people operating them are not reliable, and that the people planning them make mistakes. And that disasters will happen and are only waiting for the right moment.
      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    162. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      > Now I certainly am not open to new information, so if you have data that refutes this I'm all ears.

      I am open to new information, god I need to grammar check. Anyway, these are numbers I could find on pro and con website, dept of energy, etc. So from an engineers perspective, if we want to use solar and wind than the numbers have to add up.

      I certainly could be wrong with my numbers, so if someone has something better I am all ears.

      --

      Python

    163. Re:Nuke power by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Uranium mining is fairly benign, it's done mostly in open-air quarries.

      Uh, that's the opposite of benign. We call that strip mining. OK, there are open pit mines that aren't strip mines. There is, however, plenty of strip mining for Uranium.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    164. Re:Nuke power by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      You truly are 'Mindcontrolled'.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    165. Re:Nuke power by Rising+Ape · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The meltdown "boom" is a much vaster explosion, spewing radioactive material over a wide area.

      Except that won't happen, and I don't know where you got that from. The molten fuel is extremely unlikely to have the correct geometry to go critical, since it needs to have a moderator present as well. The intact core is close to the maximally reactive configuration, and a molten core is unlikely to spontaneously assemble itself into a lattice of fuel + water. Criticality in a meltdown may be a concern for fast reactors, but these aren't fast reactors. Even then, it wouldn't be a massive blast like the hydrogen explosions - but the heat released could cause the containment to fail so it would be a problem, yes.

    166. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      >Of course, power companies will continue to run old nuclear plants so long as the decommissioning costs are so astronomically high.
      > Which they always will be. Regardless of any new plants being built; regardless of any protests one way or the other.

      Actually, its because they generate power that they run them. Fuel is cheap, so why shut it down if its working.

      And lots of plants want to build new modern units, just look at all the applications with the NRC, or all the AP1000s going up in China.

      --

      Python

    167. Re:Nuke power by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You are aware that the activity of coal ash is in the same order of magnitude than the activity of soil, fertilizer and stuff like that, as by EPA numbers?

      Just to be clear, are you talking about the EPA that hasn't been conducting even barely-adequate monitoring of the situation vis-a-vis Fukushima since May 3? The EPA that is in the process of raising the allowable limits and the levels at which they must take action? Surely you can't be talking about that EPA, because only a total toolbag thinks they have anything to say. My lady checks radnet every day, you can see where they are totally failing to monitor. They just showed a 0 for portland, hahaha.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    168. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Because it is more widely distributed it does not kill people so quickly;

      Point is it is not widely distributed but washed out of the gases and deposited. And even at the times where it was distributed/polluting it was never such a hugh amount that it was dangerous ... at least that is what US sources claim about it.

      Yes, I know that Fukushima is not over yet ...

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    169. Re:Nuke power by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      You should not believe everything you hear. There is no fly ash anymore in a modern plant since 15 - 20 years (in EU especially, not sure about USA, the last discussion with a /. er from there revealed that they "should" have even stricter limitations but seem not to be enforced).

      I personally know a guy who was paid to climb stacks here in the states and you can find out-of-spec plants as fast as you can pay people to climb them.

      Anyway, regarding fly ash: it is separated in a way that most of it can be used as building material, e.g. for roads or as hard plaster in buildings. Only a very small amount gets deposited.

      We did actually have a case with some sheet rock from china sweating radioactives and toxics, as you may recall; it was made from fly ash. A great deal of fly ash seems to be made into concrete, which seems like a decent way to entomb radioactives if it's sufficiently uniform, except that the suckers who are working with the stuff are going to breathe a certain amount of it past the sides of their respirators, assuming they're even in the first world where they get to use them. Here in the USA you can track increased radioactives downwind of pretty much any coal plant. I would guess that it's worse in China. The jet stream brings a crapload of Chinese pollution here. There are now days where there's more Chinese pollution in Los Angeles than there is of the local kind.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    170. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Don't piss on PV just because you don't understand how it fits into the picture.

      Do you mix me up with someone?
      I'm likely the number 1 solar advocate here on /. be it photovoltaic or thermal.
      Half of my shares are invested in solar power companies.

      Regarding your grid comment: *I* know that the USA grid is in bad shape. Nevertheless the idea that you have a solar plant at New York to power New York is nonsense (And concluding from there that you have no power at night or under bad weather ... that is nonsense). For that you use the grid, and place the plants where ever they suit you best.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    171. Re:Nuke power by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 0

      Thanks for demonstrating that you have no real argument. I basically gave up discussing the problem at hand one month ago. One only runs into retards like you. I just flame now. Here you go - fuck off.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    172. Re:Nuke power by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      Official estimates of deaths from Chernobyl are around a half million, but some fairly credible sources believe it is actually as high as a million or even more. Since there's no way to track a cancer back to a particle, or if you could, track that particle back to Chernobyl, there's no way to ever prove it. A number has been made up and insisted upon so strongly by insurance companies that it has now become part of the global consciousness.

      Nuclear has a bad rap because it deserves one; when it is bad, it is horrid. What is confusing is why coal does not.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    173. Re:Nuke power by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      The spill you are referring to was 47 kilo's not liters

      1cc = 1ml = 1g

      hth, hand

      As for perspective why shouldn't people drive 50 year old cars that pollute like a bastard and leak oil once in a while?

      Depends, do they get good mileage? Can they be repaired? Are they running on synthetic? Can they be retrofit to be more efficient? I personally love driving but would rather see cars go away. If we can work out a way for that to actually happen then I'm willing to not drive. But that doesn't help with the isotopes needed for radiotherapy. What's with all the retarded car analogies today?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    174. Re:Nuke power by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Or, alternately, take note of the handful of reactors in California which are built 1) on the ocean, 2) on a fault line, 3) with incorrect engineering. I'll give you a hint, it's every reactor in CA.

      That is, of course, only a further indictment against nuclear power, since that describes almost every nuclear reactor on the planet. Well, it is also scary as shit for those of us who live here.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    175. Re:Nuke power by slyborg · · Score: 2

      Exactly. I'm not "scared" of nuclear power, I'm an engineer and I understand the concepts of risk and failure mode effects analysis. The problem is primarily management failures in most of these high-profile accidents, as summarized by the poster above. There is no way to eliminate those on long enough time scales because human beings make mistakes. The problem with nuclear power is that the catastrophe scenario is very, very bad, and the timescale to react is very short. The latest update from Fukushima is that according to simulations based on the data they have, the Unit 1 reactor began melting down within 16 hours after loss of core cooling.

      My feeling from reading some of the responses from people who are in favor of nuclear power is that for some people it reduces to an attachment to the technology. It's pretty cool to have the ability to split the atom to generate power (even though it's ultimately just boiling water). There's a visceral pride we feel in being able to harness something inherently very dangerous. Until it gets away from us.

    176. Re:Nuke power by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      The only argument that you have is "I am educated in an unrelated field, so I'm going to disregard experts" (sounds a lot random non-geologists/climatologists getting themselves interviewed on CNN saying global warming is rubbish, don't you think?), and "you are pro-nuke, so you must be in industry".

      I'm a software developer with absolutely no ties to the nuclear industry. The difference between us is that I know when to defer to educated experts while you do not.

      That, and I don't see conspiracies whenever I close my eyes...

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    177. Re:Nuke power by CyberDragon777 · · Score: 2

      "Atomic" is still kinda iffy, "atomic bomb" and all that.

      I propose "Sub-molecular thermoelectric generator" instead. :)

      --
      We both said a lot of things that you are going to regret.
    178. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow everyone always leaves out the nuclear accident in Britain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

    179. Re:Nuke power by NotAGoodNickname · · Score: 1

      250,000-1,000,000 people died at Chernobyl? When did this happen?

    180. Re:Nuke power by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      So is almost any other mining. Including mining of rare earths used in turbines, or disposal of toxic compounds used in construction of solar panels. Compared to dirty mining of coal, Uranium mining is nothing.

      Besides, a large amount of Uranium is mined in deserts (in Kazakhstan and Australia) with minimal impact on wildlife.

    181. Re:Nuke power by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      "Diablo canyon and Chernobyl also points out that if a good reactor design can be made, building it to spec is still a problem."

      Chernobyl was most certainly not a good design, even by the standards of the day. The fact they made it worse doesn't mean the original design was good.

    182. Re:Nuke power by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      I don't even trust the Germans to do it right.

      Can't trust the Canadians either :-)

      More trivia: I'll give you three guesses who helped to mop up that mess..

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    183. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 4, Informative

      >> primary containment appears to be intact but we won't know for some time.
      >No. Both unit 2 and unit 1 containment and pressure vessel have leaks.

      Right, primary containment is intact, which means that the core is still protected. Leaks from water lines are not loss of primary containment, and water leaks are not as hazardous as you have been led to believe.

      >> WHO has stated that there is no evidence of any significant release of radiation.
      >No. Material discharged from the plant from March 11 to early April was estimated between 370,000 and 630,000 terabecquerels and continues
      > at 154 terabecquerels per day.

      No, the WHO did in fact state that. You should visit their website, its a fact.

      Currently measuring shows that I-131 has been detected in three prefectures, with values ranging from 1.5 Bq/m2 to 4.5 Bq/m2. Cs-137 was detected in eight prefectures, with values ranging from 3 Bq/m2 to 44 Bq/m2. Gamma dose rate for Fukushima prefecture was 1.7 Sv/h, in all other prefectures where sources where detected, reported gamma dose rates were below 0.1 Sv/h with a decreasing trend.

      >>Measured increased amounts of radiocative caesium and iodine in the vicinity of the plant, but not at dangerous levels.
      >No. It is at danerous levels - hence the exclusion zone.

      No, the exclusion zone is not a measure of dangerous release, its to get people away in case there is a dangerous release.

      > > No evidence that any uranium or plutonium has been released.
      > Yes there is. The explosion in Unit 3 blew pieces of fuel rod up to a mile from the site. Uranium and plutonium was vapourised and detected both in the soil in Fukushima and as far away as California.

      Nonsense, neither WHO nor IAEA support your claim here. As the party making the affirmative assertion has the burden of proof, if you have a reliable source for all these claims I would be happy to retract my statement. I can find no evidence to support your assertions.

      --

      Python

    184. Re:Nuke power by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And even at the times where it was distributed/polluting it was never such a hugh amount that it was dangerous ... at least that is what US sources claim about it.

      The problem is that "US sources", by which I think you really mean official sources, are not all that credible. We're currently redefining how much radiation is allowable, in the upwards direction. Why now? The EPA started doing more radiation monitoring, got some pretty scary numbers, then stopped. Now they are just totally failing to release numbers for many cities on many days, and they're reporting zeroes for some when it's clear that's not the case. Japan has been consistently slow to release information. Pretty much everything we learned except about a worker dropping dead has been delayed, and that only because it was obvious. And none of this is in the mainstream news here in the USA except on the few days when Japan actually admits something. Instead we get a bunch of commentary about OBL. The guy is dead; this situation is still getting worse. It's difficult to see it as anything other than complicity in a coverup. The usual arguments about selling what people are buying will be trotted out but if you look at the style of articles published about each it's clear what they want you to want to read.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    185. Re:Nuke power by NotAGoodNickname · · Score: 1

      The grid (any power grid) doesn't work that way. You cannot have plants from California powering homes in New York. If you are going to invest in energy related stocks you need to have a modicum of knowledge of the subject. A degree in EE would help as well.

    186. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fukushima is bad, TMI is bad, there's no doubt about it. But guess what? a couple years ago thousands of people died when a chemical plant exploded in india, are we stopping all chemical plants from being built? Oil rig spilled how much oil into the sea last year? Are we stopping the building of oil rigs? People wanted BP to pay, just as tepco should, but did we really want to stop oil production because of the spill? How many people die a year in airplane accidents? should we stop flying? What about car accidents? People installing solar plants on roofs? How many people die building a large dam? What about mining for coal? How many people die due to a bad reaction to a vaccine? What about drugs with known side effects that can outright kill? What about the number of carbon monoxide deaths due to everyday household appliances or cars?

      Fukushima and TMI were disasters, they were bad. Lets learn what went wrong, and insure future nuclear power plants are better and more robust. Lets NOT abandon technology just because we can't get it right the first time, these aren't doomsday machines, even a super-worst-case-scenario would be unlikely to kill 10,000 people, comparable to other super-worst-case-scenario industrial accidents.

    187. Re:Nuke power by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Agree. Geothermal binary cycle is costly up front, but it has many advantages and according to the DOE it's ten percent cheaper than advanced nuclear in the long run. Japan is rich in geothermal energy resources - the third such richest nation in the world. It's a closed loop, so there's no emissions at all. There is no fuel, so running out of imported fuel is not a problem. It produces no waste, uses far less water than even nuclear. It's hugely scalable. It works all the time and capacity factors of up to 97% have been achieved. The turbines wear out or need upgrading, but the plants themselves don't so once the cost of building the thing is paid it's straight profits from then on. The geothermal plants in the Sendai neighborhood are still operating.

      So what's not to like about geothermal? Cheaper, reliable, available, waste-free, riskless. The new methods weren't available when the Fukushima plants were built, but they are now. Japan is probably going to give geothermal a closer look as they turn from nuclear power.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    188. Re:Nuke power by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      Are all cars bad because of the Ford Pinto?

    189. Re:Nuke power by CrackerJack9 · · Score: 1

      Easy to say, but unless you don't want electricity - what alternative do you propose? Until a viable large-scale renewable energy source evolves, it really comes down to choosing the best of the bad options. And before you jump to solar, for example, don't forget to include the waste produced by mining for minerals and producing the solar panels in your analysis.

    190. Re:Nuke power by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Did the Ford Pinto permanently displace 70000 people? No? Well, you knew that. You chose to use a false analogy to further your agenda, whatever that might be. A rational mind cannot comprehend what you guys are actually aiming for here.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    191. Re:Nuke power by multi+io · · Score: 1

      3) Fukushima. [...] WHO has stated that there is no evidence of any significant release of radiation.

      Errm...what? So why did the Japanese evacuate that area around the reactor? Because they're a bunch of pussies? When did the WHO state the above? 24 hours after the tsunami?

    192. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      About 50k - 250k in 1986, the rest over the next 25 years on various deseases caused by radiation or cancer. Albeit the WHO claims that the connection between the accident and the cancer can not be proven. They made control studies regarding various kinds of cancer, but for some brain dead reason they always focus on a single cancer kind. So the reports read like this: we look at 100k contaminated people who ware at age 35 to 45 at the time of the accident. From those we have 5k getting cancer kind *A*. In the control group we have 2k of the same kind of cancer. Now, 30 years later both groups should be in the age of 65 to 75. However from the contaminated group 50k are dead. From the control group 15k are dead.
      Conclusion: the increase of cancer and the death toll to it can not proven to be related to the contamination. (Keep in mind: the fact that from the watched group 50% is dead and that from the control group only the "natural number" is dead, is clearly written in the reports. They only claim on every topic: a correlation can not be proven.)

      angel'o'sphere
      P.S. I guess you can google for the report and download it ... it was linked in another discussion about Fukushima.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    193. Re:Nuke power by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 0

      In contrast to "computer scientists" I actually studied science. I am competent enough to look through the transparent lies of the apologists here. You on the other hand, are content with gobbling down the cocks of your chosen "experts".

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    194. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you mentally deficient? Or just 10 years old? Just asking. It seems like it.

    195. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 2

      I didn't suggest that you should.

      I will tell you that I do not work for the nuclear power industry, I work for the regulator and my job is to find things wrong with plants and to assume that bad things will happen. So I'm hardly a fan boy for nuclear.

      But hey, the process is public and open and you can file a claim on any plant you want in the US with NRC, and they take those claims very seriously. So I just don't see how we can make the system more transparent, but if you have a beef the process is open, so please speak up.

      --

      Python

    196. Re:Nuke power by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      If you burn coal for power, you have to mine more coal. Pretty simple stuff I thought. You can't simply ignore the dangers of mining the fuel, and your handwaving is not winning you any arguments.

    197. Re:Nuke power by NotAGoodNickname · · Score: 1

      50,000-250,000 people died from Chernobyl in 1986????? I must have been asleep. I've never heard this one before.

    198. Re:Nuke power by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      And the activity of coal ash in a heap before you is just the same like that of a heap of soil or fertilizer. Keep spreading your lies, please. At least that way everyone can see where you come from and what your standards regarding rational arguments are. If you seriously want to run the argument that coal is unsafe from a radiological perspective, you are either imbecile or scum. You seem semi-literate, so I think we can safely put you into the propagandist scum category. If you want to bash coal - get a real argument. There are enough of those.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    199. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry you feel that way. If you were part of all the public debates at the NRC you might feel differently. I know from personal experience the peer review that goes into every safety and security analysis, and the process is completely open to the public. So for what its worth, if you have an issue with nuclear, the NRC is an open agency, please file an allegation with the NRC and/or come to/dial into the public meetings and comment.

      --

      Python

    200. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 2

      Gamera.

      --

      Python

    201. Re:Nuke power by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      Resistance in the relay lines would make a world grid extremely inefficient.

    202. Re:Nuke power by CrackerJack9 · · Score: 1

      Again: your whole argument of counting mining death (workers working in the mine) and comparing them with civilian deaths (people living nearby a plant) makes no sense.

      So, you assign value to some human life, and not to others?

      You compare 3rd world mines with first world power plants. Why don't you google for the last mine accident in germany and how many died there (and how long that was ago)?

      People die in mining accidents in the USA too, a First world country. And you are using Chernobyl, a Second world power plant as your only example.

      Why don't you dare that conclusion but proclaim nuclear is "save" when we clearly see: it is not?

      Where is it clear that nuclear power is dangerous? It has risk, yes. But they can be contained by proper engineering and staff (TMI). If the USSR built a skyscraper, put 250k people in it and dynamited the bottom of the structure - would you conclude that all skyscapers are unsafe and should be banned? (I'm not suggesting that Chernobyl was intentionally sabotaged, but it was the faults of its engineers and staff that led to the catastrophe.)

    203. Re:Nuke power by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      "How many oil plant and coal plant explosions did we have in recent years?"

      Er, did you care to look it before asking? After quick google search the answer would be plenty.

    204. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuclear safety should not have to depend on heroes

      How about oil refinery safety? http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/03/nation/la-na-refinery-fire3-2010apr03
      Or chemical plant safety? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

      Industrial processes have risks, and when things go sideways, some hero always has to step in and risk his health to fix it. The quantitative risks and quantitative morbidity and mortality (both of plant employees and of public in the vicinity) associated with the nuclear power industry is at least as good as any other industry. The trouble is you can easily detect releases of radioactivity that are six to ten orders of magnitude smaller than those likely to have any health effect, and the public has no idea where that threshold lies. Heck, even the experts can't agree within two orders of magnitude.

    205. Re:Nuke power by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      I am not American - but yeah, I am using the options I have with my nation's regulatory agencies. Been using those since 10 years, actually. I realize that you are probably not the right target for my wrath, but the sheer amount of unreflecting apologists on /. these days gets me into a righteous nerdrage regularily...

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    206. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 2

      >Then you did not read the papers released the last 10 years about it? Or did you?

      I did, last year in fact. And Chernobyl.

      And I'm not a fan boy for Nuclear, my job is to inspect plants and to think of ways they fail and how they can be made to fail. I'm hardly someone that believes what a nuclear plant operator says, I'm on the other side of the table questioning everything they say. Just because I'm not freaking out doesn't mean that I'm skeptical of the nuclear industry. And just because I'm measured in what I say does not mean that I think Nuclear power is trivially easy to do safely, I know it is not.

      But just because something is hard does not mean that its impossible. As a whole, there have been very few accidents, and only one so far (Chernobyl) that had a significant release.

      --

      Python

    207. Re:Nuke power by thermopile · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I'm really not trying to get into a debate on semantics, but releasing a few TBq of radiation counts as "significant" in my mind. At the very least, it's way more than background.

      This article by some nuclear engineers at NC State is an excellent, fact-based breakdown of what the effects are of the Fukushima accident, with known numbers to date.

      Bottom line: Three cancers.

      Three cases of cancer that would not otherwise have occurred, and this is using the (very conservative) linear-no-threshold assumption.

      Others in this thread have been bleating about how bad nuclear power accidents have been. The following quote from the UN's final report on the Chernobyl accident (a summary can be found here ) doesn't support their claims:

      "Apart from the increase in thyroid cancer after childhood exposure, no increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality have been observed that could be attributed to ionizing radiation. The risk of leukemia, one of the main concerns (leukemia is the first cancer to appear after radiation exposure, because of its short latency time of 2 to 10 years), does not appear to be elevated, even among the recovery operation workers. Neither is there any proof of other non-malignant disorders that are related to ionizing radiation. However, there were widespread psychological reactions to the accident, which were due to fear of the radiation, not to actual radiation doses."

      People's fear is very real and important. But it's not substantiated by facts.

      --

      "Diplomacy is something you do until you find a rock." --Richard Pound

    208. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 2

      I agree nuclear power can be safer, and the impact with nuclear is in the accidents and that its the cutting of the safety corners that causes them. No question about that, but those accidents are very rare. When you take Chernobyl out of the picture (it was a horrible design, no western country does what they did), you have two accidents:

      1) TMI - and people can quibble, but the data so far shows that there does not appear to be any health impacts. And lots of lessons were learned and applied from TMI, its not like everyone shrugged and said "oh well".
      2) Fukushima - A Tsunami they didnt plan for took them out, and they should have known in my opinion that it could occur. The event was recoverable if the Japanese had planned for it, which they did not (portable pumps and generators for example). Lots of other countries plan for large loses at their sites, the Japanese just didn't. So lets not throw an entire technology out because of the decisions of one company in one country.

      --

      Python

    209. Re:Nuke power by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      If you are trying to offend with those scare quotes, then I'm afraid you have terribly failed. I'll be the first to point out that (Dependant on the quality of the school involved) computer science is either a mathematics discipline, a vocational program, or some combination of the two.

      But no, lacking an education in the particular science involved or demonstratable proof of flaw, you are not qualified to pass judgment on those who actually know the science. No morose than the chemist of modest note who gets on the news saying global warming is bullshit.

      I bet you're an anti-vaxxer too, fucking moron. I love the hints of homophobia too by the way...

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    210. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Then read the relevant wikipedia articles or make your own research.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
      The people cleaning up the plant where recruits. They worked less then 10-15 mins a day and got replaced by the next group. Most of them died the next days. As they "used" about 5000 - 10000 so called "liquidators" every day you can only roughly estimate how many of them died.
      If you dig around you find numbers in the absurd low range of 3k and up to over 1 million.
      I remember when we where at school we added up the death toll every day and we where far over 250k after 6 months (keep in mind: at that time the actual deaths where reported in the news. You could see the soldiers in lead coffins "lying in state" in Moscow on TV, until they stopped doing that)

      angel'o'sphere
      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    211. Re:Nuke power by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1
      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    212. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I did, last year in fact.

      Then you should know that modern reports say: the plant was very close to lose its containment, and leak into the ground water very likely causing a steam explosion. It was utter luck it did not happen, or do you believe otherwise, or don't you know those "recent" reports?
      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    213. Re:Nuke power by edxwelch · · Score: 2

      > Right, primary containment is intact, which means that the core is still protected. Leaks from water lines are not loss of primary containment, and water leaks are not as hazardous as you have been led to believe.

      Dude, try looking at the defination of the verb "contain". It means "not let out". That's not what's happening here. The basement of unit 1 is full of radioactive water that leaked from the containment. Unit 2 is even worse. This water is leaking into the ground water and now several sewage treatment plants have radioactive sludge.

      > No, the WHO did in fact state that. You should visit their website, its a fact.
      They may have stated that, but they are wrong. 630,000 terabecquerels is not an "insignificant release of radiation"

      In some spots the soil contamination exceeds Chernobyl evacuation levels: http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110511p2a00m0na018000c.html

      > Nonsense, neither WHO nor IAEA support your claim here. As the party making the affirmative assertion has the burden of proof, if you have a reliable source for all these claims I would be happy to retract my statement. I can find no evidence to support your assertions.

      New York times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/09/world/asia/09japan.html?_r=1
      Most people consider it a reliable source of information.

      Uranium found in air samples:
      http://enenews.com/uranium-234-detected-hawaii-southern-california-seattle

    214. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You should read the results you find with google and pick one supporting your argument.
      The links you show are neither coal power plants nor oil power plants ;D
      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    215. Re:Nuke power by celle · · Score: 1

      You don't need explosions for those to harm people. Radioactive contamination, air pollution, mining incidents, generations of cancer, dead zones, outright cost, centuries of waste storage, costly disasters, ... if all the consequences of nuclear were piled into a single, per-decade event it would be an appalling accident, far worse than coal. Oops ...

      Fixed that for you.

      How long will these reactors and area around them be sealed away? I've also noticed that whenever these types of arguments come around that nobody talks about the various nuclear sites under the superfund cleanup program. There is quite a lot of them and these areas took years just to get acknowledged there was a problem and then the sheer cost of cleaning them up and time involved for land that will be unusable for decades if not longer. This doesn't take into effect the areas around the sites either. Examples are everywhere of the risks of nuclear and the lack of backbone when owning up to the flaws of the technology. That backbone did exist in the seventies with the clean air and water acts, and with the people in power now it's little more than mush.

    216. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are making the same mistake everyone else is doing here in the discussion.

      No, he's not. He started out by stating "It wasn't a catastrophe. It was an accident. Nuclear power is not safe in the same definition that almost EVERYTHING we do is not safe." and then proceeded to write: "Let's try some risk-benefit analysis."

      Which leads to your mistake:

      Car accidents have nothing to do with power plants.

      Of course they don't. That wasn't the point he was trying to make. I'll explain it to you in small words, because it's apparent you didn't get it the first time: Just because something poses a risk doesn't mean that it isn't worth doing.

      Your risk-benefit analysis holds only so long until we have a really bad accident (or until the true numbers of death in Chernobyl are released).

      That's just stupid. It changes the numbers, certainly, but doesn't make the approach any less valid or useful. If you're trying to say "No amount of risk is worth having nuclear power plants" then why not just come out and say it?

      So it is completely pointless ... I don't get why that is so hard to see.

      It's difficult for the rest of us to see it because most of us aren't extremists. We understand that life is uncertain, and nearly everything poses a degree of risk and that sometimes leads to loss of life.

    217. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I did not use Chernobyl as example. Other people did that. I only clarified on their posts.

      Yes, I care for different people differently. Those who can not run away are the ones we talk about: the inhabitants of the cities around nuclear plants.

      Working in a mine is more or less voluntary. You can as well work as a farmer.

      If you don't understand the difference between "inherent problematic" and "lack of safety regulations" etc. you should perhaps play computer games ... instead of arguing.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    218. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're either a troll, a shill paid by the coal industry, a complete moron or most likely someone who tend to write the conclusion before analysing the facts. Most people on slashdot fall in the later category.

      Connection: if you close nuclear power plants, you'll have to replace them with something. While people talks a lot about wind, solar and hydro energy when the problem of replacing nuclear power plants arise, in practice coal power plants are built (see Germany). So if you close power plants, you'll open coal plants. In this scenario, since nuclear energy is no longer used, uranium is no longer needed, so some uranium mines can be closed down. And to operate the newly build coal plants, one need coal and therefore more coal will be mined. So the most likely scenario in closing nuclear plants is

      1)Operations
      --less death in nuclear accidents due to the reduction of the number of nuclear plants.
      --more death due to accident in coal plants due to the increase of thge number of coal plants

      2)Transport
      --more death due to the transport of coal
      --less death due to the transport of uranium

      3)Mining
      --more death due to coal mining due to the increase of coal mining activities
      --less death due to uranium mining due to the reduction of uranium mining activities

      All of these would need to be numbered precisely before making any conlsion on the advantages of nuclear vs coal.

      The chain of logical event is quite clear and we shouldn't have to point it out. You refusal to consider mining operations is not because it is illogical (it is completely logical) but because it wouldn't fit your conclusion that nuclear is worse than coal.

    219. Re:Nuke power by brainboyz · · Score: 1

      Occasionally the engine in your car will throw a rod and knock a chunk of metal out of the block, possibly spilling oil and giving the mechanic oily hands. Oil can cause cancer. Does this mean all cars are unsafe? No, it's an example of an inconvenient failure.

      However, some cars (NHRA) can fail and throw a piston through a header at high speeds. That's a damn good example of a design that is inherently unsafe (though very entertaining in the proper context).

      TMI is an example of a relatively safe meltdown, where Chernobyl is an example of a catastrophic meltdown. The point is, don't use the example of your sedan's motor croaking as evidence that "all cars are unsafe by design because they can fail." Not all fail catastrophically.

    220. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      Oh hell, you're right, the fire at Sellafield. Yes you did.

      --

      Python

    221. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Of course you c an.

      You can mine with robots. You can set up more safe guards.

      Comparing a nuclear PLANT with a coal MINE is comparing 2 different things, like a car with a steam engine boat.

      As I said before (learn to read perhaps?): yes you can look at the power situation globally: count everything related to nuclear and count everything related to coal power. That would be fair. But comparing a PLANT with a MINE is not fair.
      If you would count in everything you would need to count uranium mines, transportation etc. as well.
      Then you have to count the transports used, like ships, and the production of those and and and the roads used to carry the stuff to the plants, the dirt removed from the plants and and and ... go and make those numbers ...

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    222. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Backup generators were located below the 600 year old 'Do not build below this marker' Tsunami Warning Markers. Since Tsunami is a Japanese word, This seems to be a pretty serious engineering oversight.

    223. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The grid (any power grid) doesn't work that way. You cannot have plants from California powering homes in New York.

      I know that you can not do that in the USA with their 3rd world grid.
      In modern industrial nations the grid however works exactly like that.
      angel'o'sphere
      P.S. I dont have a degree in EE but in computer science and I worked over a decade in the energy industry ... trust me I know how a grid works

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    224. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      Not according the EPA, which states that the range for soil is between 0.2 and 4.2 pCi/g whereas for Fly Ash its between 2 and 9.7, and for bottom ash its between 1.6 and 7.7. The averages are 5.8 and 3.5-4.6 respectively. So it is higher. And radium can be two orders of magnitude more depending on the coal and type.

      I still think you missed my point, so I'll repeat it again even though you feel compelled to just resort to Ad Hominem argument and insult me. I am not against coal, and I am not saying that this release presents a health hazard. I was simply using it to illustrate that lots of things release ionizing radiation, even things that people may advance as "safer" from a radiological point of view. Our bodies can handle a certain amount of radiation, and the vast majority we are exposed to is from natural sources and in the west, from medical procedures.

      Sheesh dude, lighten up.

      --

      Python

    225. Re:Nuke power by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Trivia tidbit: I do believe that the author of the Chernobyl memo is Uri Andropov who chose Gorbachev as his successor to the post of General Secretary of the CP of the Soviet Union.

      General Secretaries did not choose their successors in the USSR - they were appointed by the Central Committee. Andropov expressed a wish that Gorbachev should follow him, which was denied by CC (Chernenko became the next Secretary instead).

      Gorbachev who instituted Glasnost and Perestroika

      In any case, it is doubtful whether Andropov realized what Gorbachev would do once in power. We're talking about the guy who played a significant part in the suppression of Hungarian Revolution and the Prague Spring.

      Which eventually led to the peaceful downfall of the Soviet Union.

      That the downfall was "peaceful" is a purely Western perspective in a sense that it didn't go down fighting NATO. From within the country it looked rather different. Consider the Armenian-Azeri war for Karabakh and the corresponding ethnic cleansings in Sumgait, Baku and Khojaly. In Uzbekistan, ethnic cleansing of Meskhetian Turks in Fergan In Kirghizia, ethnic cleansing of Uzbeks in Osh. In Tajikistan, Dushanbe riots (involving ethnic cleansing) and then civil war which lasted for 5 years. In Georgia, the wars between it and South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and a civil war within Georgia itself. In Moldavia, the civil war which led to the formation of Transnistria.

      So, no, it wasn't exactly peaceful.

    226. Re:Nuke power by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      You don't need explosions for those to harm people. Radioactive contamination, air pollution, mining incidents, generations of cancer, dead zones, outright cost, centuries of waste storage, costly disasters, ... if all the consequences of nuclear were piled into a single, per-decade event it would be an appalling accident, far worse than coal. Oops ...

      Fixed that for you.

      Given that what you said isn't remotely true, "fixed that for you" doesn't seem appropriate. What contamination and air pollution? What cancers? Even if you include Chernobyl the effects are small compared to the effects of coal - which causes tens of thousands of early deaths per year worldwide due to air pollution. If you're just going to make shit up, there's no point even having a discussion.

    227. Re:Nuke power by nutshell42 · · Score: 1
      Nuclear energy is quite cheap once the plant is up and running they can be run indefinitely with proper maintenance

      But they shouldn't. Fukushima is part of the first wave of commercial reactors and they built to different standards then. I read the Fukushima style BWR had a core breach expectation of once every ten thousand years. There's a hundred reactors of that kind in the world so it's not even all that unexpected. A modern reactor has an expectation of up to once every 50 million years and I wouldn't even want those around indefinitely (all those probabilities are based on external factors within certain limits. In Fukushima the quake exceeded those by a factor of three).

      We should be in the process of replacing all those early 70s reactors and should replace the replacements in the second half of the century (there are so many better options on the drawing board). The environmentalists have made new reactors ridiculously expensive (mainly because it takes forever to build. The opportunity costs kill you) but the power is needed and there's no real alternative consumers are willing to pay for.

      Therefore we're left with the worst of both worlds. Instead of expensive but clean and "safe" ("safe" because expensive electricity has a major indirect impact) or "cheap" and safe (nukes are safer than anything in casualties per unit of power but you wouldn't wanna see insurance premiums at market rates) we have old nukes and coal.

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    228. Re:Nuke power by sjames · · Score: 1

      The statement for Fukushima may have been confusing. Since the WHO said it, I presume they meant no release with a significant health effect. While contamination has been measured outside the plant, none of it has been enough to actually harm anyone.

    229. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      > I realize that you are probably not the right target for my wrath, but the sheer amount of unreflecting apologists on /. these days gets me into a righteous nerdrage regularily...

      Its OK, I really do understand. I'm actually on your side, my job is to question all the assumptions and to assume the very worst possible thing, and then challenge people to defend against that. And then to make sure they keep doing it.

      --

      Python

    230. Re:Nuke power by Pf0tzenpfritz · · Score: 1

      Like the germans? Alles ist vollkommen sicher, hier! Except our reactors. Most of them where scheduled for shutdown but had their permissions prolonged just last year. The rest has emergency cooling systems very similar to those which failed in Fukushima - without all the extra safety for reqions with higher seismic activities, of course, which means -among other thinngs- without extended backup power supplies. And after all I have heard our security standards are relatively safe compared to the rest of the world.

      --
      Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
    231. Re:Nuke power by edxwelch · · Score: 1
    232. Re:Nuke power by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Informative

      Heavy water is 11% more dense, so 1ml of it weighs 1.1g (hence the name).

      Not that it matters much - that's what, 4 liters extra?

    233. Re:Nuke power by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      If you are to do any meaningful comparison, then, yes, you have to compare the entire chains, not just power generation. So for nuclear power you have to account for uranium mining, ore processing and transportation; and, similarly, for coal power you have to account for coal mining.

    234. Re:Nuke power by sjames · · Score: 1

      Unlike car accidents where exactly the same things go wrong day after day with people maimed and killed as a result, in nuclear power, even an incident is a rarity. When actual problems are that rare, any problem that comes up IS a special case. That and the way refits are done and procedures are updated to make sure it doesn't happen again.

    235. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      > Then you should know that modern reports say: the plant was very close to lose its containment, and
      > leak into the ground water very likely causing a steam explosion.

      OK, so please don't misunderstand me, TMI wasn't a walk in the park, but it also was not a melt down (in the vernacular sense) and did not cause a release that was threat to health and safety of the public. Known fission product release was krypton, xenon and iodine-131. I think you may be thinking of the hydrogen bubble at the top of the pressure vessel, and a concern that there might be a hydrogen explosion. There was not, because there was no oxygen in the pressure vessel and immediate steps were taken to reduce the bubble.

      The unit was not close to losing containment. If you look at the pictures of the vessel, you can see that the lower pressure head actually was holding up. The vessel did its job, as the second level of containment its integrity was intact and it contained the damaged core as it was designed to, and most of the radioisotopes as well.

      Again, don't misunderstand me, it was an accident and it could have gone another way. A lot of lessons were learned from TMI, and we can all certainly stand to learn more. But if you want to point to accident that actually caused harm to the public, look to Chernobyl not TMI.

      > It was utter luck it did not happen, or do you believe otherwise, or don't you know those "recent" reports?

      The operators discovered the cause of the loss of coolant (stuck PORV) and took appropriate action which brought the situation under control. Now if you will indulge a little humor, if figuring out the cause of something and then causing something to occur is luck, then someone needs to tell me how to "cause" a slot machine to let me win. Thats not luck in my opinion. They didn't get lucky, they figured out the problem and solved. I don't luck would have been much help.

      --

      Python

    236. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      Well if they tell you to build a wall 10 feet high, and you build it 10 feet high, I wouldn't blame the builders, I'd blame whomever came up with the design. For Tsunami protections, thats going to be a design basis they engineers are given, they don't come up with that (different area of expertise).

      I agree the Japanese woefully underestimated the size of the Tsunami.

      --

      Python

    237. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      No, that is not what I meant. If you consider externalities harm, then you are right there has been harm at Fukushima. I was speaking to direct radiological harm, from ionizing radiation.

      --

      Python

    238. Re:Nuke power by sjames · · Score: 1

      How about all the mercury contamination and the acid rain from coal plants? It seems those things spew toxins into the environment almost like it's a design feature (OH! it IS). Nuclear power has never set the earth on fire, but coal has.

      Unless you can figure out a way to run a coal plant without mining any coal, it most certainly does count.

      There's always gas, just be careful you don't open The door to Hell.

    239. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well, seems we tal across each other.
      I did not say that TMI *was* a catastrophe.

      I said it was *close* to one.

      The public was not informed about that until recently, lets say during the last 10 years. I can't remember.

      So, the original reports where like you said. I was talking about the assessment done after it. And the fact that they first claimed: worked as designed, was nasty but not to bad.

      Thirty years later they admitted it was far closer to a majour catastrophe with a true melt down and a possible explosion.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    240. Re:Nuke power by mellon · · Score: 1

      If we required all these industries to fund the costs of their externalities, and we were good enough at modeling these costs for this funding to be reasonably accurate, then a lot of things would change. For instance, suppose as an oil company, you had to pay not only for the risk associated with cheaping out on safety equipment on your drilling platforms, but also for carbon offsets for the fuel you collected. It would now be cheaper to invest in safety equipment than to pay for the insurance required to allow you to drill without appropriate safety equipment. And you would have to pay to sequester the carbon. Oil would continue to be a fuel, but now would only be used in places where it's appropriate.

      Similarly with nuclear: if you could either pay $20m to fix the wiring in your plant so that it doesn't catch fire, or pay $1b to insure against the risk of a meltdown caused by faulty wiring, you'd fix your wiring and raise your rates to pay for it, because it's cheaper.

      Unfortunately, not only do regulations like this not exist, but the oil and nuclear industries have fought very effectively to prevent any such regulations from existing. Why? Because there is a tremendous amount of money to be made building industries with huge external costs that you can lay off on someone else. It's not the case that these costs don't exist, or that they don't matter. Rather, these costs are actually a truly giant piggy bank which unscrupulous businesses can plunder.

      So don't expect these externalities to be regulated anytime soon. For them to be regulated would require the kind of emotional investment in an economic strategy that is present in the anti-nuclear movement. People are this emotionally invested in the anti-nuclear movement because they're afraid for their lives and their homes. It would be very, very difficult to get the same number of people that seriously invested in regulating externalities.

    241. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      How about all the mercury contamination and the acid rain from coal plants? It seems those things spew toxins into the environment almost like it's a design feature (OH! it IS).

      That is 25 years ago. Modern (european) plants don't do that.
      Again: it is no argument pro nuclear. That is my only point, people here bring up brain dead comparisons and conclusions.
      A correct conclusion would be: lets abandone nuclear and lets abandone coal as well.
      Wasting time in pointing out how bad coal is, does not help to get rid of the bad nuclear plants. And does not help to get "better" plants either (keep in mind the unsolved problem of disposal of waste)

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    242. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      Yeah, all good points. I think the main disadvantage is finding the sources (exploration phase), drilling costs and of course access, but if you can get past those then geothermal can work and if those costs are contained then its probably a good source.

      It does sort of beg the question, why aren't there more?

      --

      Python

    243. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 2

      The evacuation was a precaution immediately after the emergency was declared because there might be a release. If you evacuate after a release you're probably screwed and already breathing in byproducts.

      --

      Python

    244. Re:Nuke power by edalytical · · Score: 1

      Reading this thread has been a pleasure. Your belligerent technophobic replies to all these rational verifiable arguments against your asinine fear of nukes is laughable. It's like watching a drooling retard punch himself in the dick because a uncircumcised homosexual South African man might get AIDS when he ass rapes a dormitory of AIDS infected male prostitutes without protection.

      And trust me that analogy is bang on (pun intended). Because, like Chernobyl, there is no containment, there is a predisposition for disaster, and the at-risk party is engaging in exceedingly dangerous behavior. Which, by your logic, proves safe sex is imaginary.

      --
      Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
    245. Re:Nuke power by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      You seem to really believe your diatribe. That or you're a very good troll.

      I did nuclear PROVEN worst case against coal PROVEN best case. You specifically ignore the fact that I specficially excluded any third world mines. The best coal mining death/ton rates exist in the EU and the US, those were the rates referenced. If you use third world rates Nuclear becomes several hundred times safer as a proven technology.

    246. Re:Nuke power by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      "Whereas, in the World Health Organization's 2006 report of the Chernobyl Forum expert group on the 237 emergency workers who were diagnosed with ARS, ARS was identified as the cause of death for 28 of these people within the first few months after the disaster. There were no further deaths identified, in the general population affected by the disaster, as being caused by ARS. Of the 72,000 Russian Emergency Workers being studied, 216 non-cancer deaths are attributed to the disaster, between 1991 and 1998. The latency period for solid cancers caused by excess radiation exposure is 10 or more years; thus at the time of the WHO report being undertaken, the rates of solid cancer deaths were no greater than the general population."

      From the same freaking wikipedia page you just quoted. I rest my case. Troll.

    247. Re:Nuke power by sjames · · Score: 1

      Coal power has caused several exclusion zones in the United States. For example, Centralia, Pa.

      We have a few smaller exclusion zones associated with fossil fuel production and use as well, but they're usually called superfund sites.

    248. Re:Nuke power by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      hmm, I didn't think it was that much denser. Thanks for knowing or looking it up for me :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    249. Re:Nuke power by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      In the UK, we had Windscale, a category 5 accident, the same level as Three Mile Island.

    250. Re:Nuke power by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Except that the Titanic wouldn't have gone down had it not been for one botched order. The person at the helm turned the wheel the wrong way, but even before that if the cruise line hadn't interfered with the captain it's unlikely that the ship would have gone down. And Fukushima wouldn't have been a problem had they actually done all their contingency plans. WTF kind of outfit doesn't have a contingency plan for the only back up generator failing due to being hit by a tsunami in an area that's commonly affected by earthquakes?

    251. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      > Thirty years later they admitted it was far closer to a majour catastrophe with a true melt down and a possible explosion.

      Who is they, and where is this report? I havent seen anything to support your assertion, so if you have some sources I'm all ears.

      --

      Python

    252. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      An excellent set of sources, thank you.

      --

      Python

    253. Re:Nuke power by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      "Stigmatized words"? Meltdowns are bad, whatever you want to call them.

      So is bothering to argue with a religious zealot nuke fetishist who'd try to convince anyone with such nonsense.

      Goodbye.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    254. Re:Nuke power by blind+monkey+3 · · Score: 1

      I studied the accident and I am a Nuclear Engineer.

      On internet forums, when talking nukular, EVERYONE is a nuclear engineer. Trust me I know - I am God.

      --
      BM3
    255. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Who is they, and where is this report? I havent seen anything to support your assertion, so if you have some sources I'm all ears.

      "They" that are the authorities responsible for overseeing such reactors. I read that like 10 years ago, so I have no source in mind. But as this topic is coming up quite often I might invest the time to find references.
      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    256. Re:Nuke power by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0

      Fukushima just did.

      What are you nuke fetishists smoking? Don't bother answering. I'm not interested banging my head against your impenetrable wall of self-deception.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    257. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 2

      Yeah, do keep in mind that I speaking about reactors, not other uses of fissile material. Windscale was a military pile core used for bomb production, not a power reactor. So apples and oranges, but if you want to include all nuclear accidents, that is a much longer list.

      Windscale also had no containment (unlike TMI), the core caught on fire and there was a a plume from the fire (although the filters appear to have contained most of the byproducts, a smart addition). There was no plume or core fire at TMI.

      No one was evacuated from the area of Windscale, and yet apparently there were no long term health effects. Surprising, but thats apparently the case.

      --

      Python

    258. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Troll your self if you are to lazy to continue reading that article a little bit further, rofl.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    259. Re:Nuke power by lennier · · Score: 2

      3) Fukushima: a Tsunami induced beyond design basis accident

      People keep repeating that phrase "beyond design basis" as if it's some kind of positive thing.

      All it means is that the designers got their design basis dead wrong as it didn't reflect the actual real-world conditions.

      Since the designers in this case weren't some fly-by-night Soviet outfit but General Electric, who built a whole load of reactors based on the same flawed design basis, and neither the company nor the nuclear industry as a whole nor any of the international nuclear regulatory agencies called them on this... ... the only valid conclusion to be drawn is that there has been ongoing systemic under-estimation of design basis risk across the entire international commercial nuclear power community for at least the last 40 years. And the same people who systematically under-estimated the risk back then, are still running the industry today.

      This is not a comforting realisation, and it's not one that counts in the nuclear power industry's favour.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    260. Re:Nuke power by sjames · · Score: 1

      25 year old nuclear tech isn't nearly as dangerous as 40 year old nuclear tech either, perhaps we should build some to replace the ancient and more dangerous technology.

      A correct conclusion would be: lets abandone nuclear and lets abandone coal as well.

      Well, oil is out since we nearly started a spill we couldn't stop in 2010. We have enough trouble with deforestation as it is, so wood is out.

      Solar is good, and should be used, but cannot fulfill all of our requirements for energy anytime soon.

      Reprocessing of "spent fuel" leaves us with a much smaller and manageable amount of waste that becomes safe in a much shorter and manageable amount of time.

      How does your waste of time complaining about how bad 40 year old nuclear plants are help us get modern safe energy of any kind?

    261. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are misdirecting the issue. The UN just released a study that renewables can in fact supply the world's energy needs. The price tag is large but cheaper than if we tried to go nuclear to supply our energy needs. Eitherway fission power plants cannot provide an alternative to carbon but renewables can. Fission is the buggy whip of the 21st century.

      The main concern with current nuclear power is you need two things
      1. A cooling source
      2. storage, transportation, and longterm storage of toxic waste.
      Global warming will create significant risk to cooling existing plants. Also humans are not capable at this point in time to provide any longterm assurances on anything beyond a few hundred years at most. We will need to maintain safe containments for thousands of years for some of the most toxic substances known to humans. There are so many better alternatives to fission why are we still even considering it. I think the hope of reproccessing keeps us looking this monster in the eye. Some of the biggest players in the fission business have trillions on the line if power generation turns to renewables. Unfortunately the moneyed elite are driving us to poision the world for the next ten thousand years.

    262. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why is nuclear so much scarier to you than other energy sources in toto?

    263. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did mention that other countries had previously advised them to increase their protection from tsunamis and they had ignored the advice (because it was from gaijin).

    264. Re:Nuke power by ildon · · Score: 1

      Do you refuse to fly in an airplane due to the risks? Do you think that nobody anywhere should fly in airplanes because of the risk of a crash?

    265. Re:Nuke power by Shihar · · Score: 2

      >I quibble with the "no evidence of any significant release of radiation" quote for Fukushima

      I did say significant (not no release, I'm a Nuclear Engineer too!). :-)

      So yes, there certainly should have been noble gas releases, and probably C-131 radioisotopes. Possibly others with cladding damage, but its hard to know all the facts at Fukushima right now (we sent people, and the Japanese have not been really that cooperative), including release so I agree that a release of some radiation occurred. We can messure that, but the amounts so far appear to present no threat to public health and safety, hence the use of the words "significant release of radiation". Thats why I mentioned the WHO quote, they seem like the best non-nuclear source, so it seems reasonable they probably aren't trying to spin it and there conclusion was no threat to health at this point.

      As an aside, going back on GE BWR training I would have expected some release of nobles and C-131. Until we have cold shutdown and we can all study the events its all just inference at this point, so this could all change.

      >Three incidents like you describe above, over thirty-two years, is a pretty darned good safety record, with the
      > 440+ commercial power reactors around the world. Why does nuclear have a bad rap?
      > One possibility is it stems from fear [anengineerindc.com] since it all started with a few mushroom clouds,
      >but whatever the reason, it seems awfully visceral.

      Yeah I agree. I think you have it right, mushroom clouds and nuclear weapons. That and general ignorance of how power reactors work coupled with a general misunderstanding of the health effects of ionizing radiation, and that we are all exposed to it all day long. As Arthur C. Clarke said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

      I wonder if we still called them something else, like "atomic steam generator plants" instead of "Nuclear Power Reactors" if people would be less irrationally afraid of them.

      Eh, and if people were perfectly rational we would hit the snooze button in the face of the absurdly small danger that terrorism represents and spend our money on something useful that will save lives, like choking prevention courses, or trying to teach people how not eat yourself to death. To bad people are stupid.

      Nuclear suffers the double edged blade of stupid fears and rational fears. You are not being stupid if you decide you don't feel like living next to Fukushima right now. The area is irradiated. Sure, the levels are low, but things in the environment can concentrate it in particular points. Nothing is going to cause you to drop dead, but you might bump your risk of cancer in a non-trivial way. The blight that Fukushima has created in Japan is larger and will last longer than the irrational fears. That area is going to be a dead zone for a long time. Everyone who had property there can basically write it off. They have been screwed. A large piece of the long term losses in value might very well be psychological, but that doesn't do you much good if you have a worthless piece of property in the area.

      If we build nukes, we should do it under 3 conditions.

      1) We can accept the losses if the planet blows up. There will always be a way to cause a nuclear plant to cause a radioactive mess. It might be you need to ram an airplane into it, but there will always be away, even if we built perfect mechanical systems. Wherever you drop one of these things, you need to be will to have a large radius around the thing be evacuated. I'm okay if a plant in northern Maine blows up and we need to evacuate a few hundred miles of forest. I can't accept a nuclear power plant blowing up next to New York City. The consequences to the entire national would be economically fatal.

      2) All plants need full insurance to deal with a disaster. Fukushima has economically destroyed the lives of everyone in a 30 mile radius of

    266. Re:Nuke power by ildon · · Score: 2

      I was in highschool at the time and some girl was trying to get people to sign a petition to prevent the Cassini probe from launching in one of my classes. I told her I wouldn't sign it and when she asked why I basically explained how it was statistically impossible for it to hit the earth during the slingshot maneuver and even if it did, and the containment of the plutonium failed in a worst case scenario, the increased nuclear exposure would be so small as the be statistically insignificant, and since we live in Florida, you'd be more likely to be struck by lightning and killed than to get cancer from the incident had it occurred. She nearly cried.

    267. Re:Nuke power by tragedy · · Score: 1

      thermopile wrote:

      Three incidents like you describe above, over thirty-two years, is a pretty darned good safety record

      While there's plenty of other sources of pollution and industrial catastrophes in the world (our oceans are getting more and more toxic with heavy metals and we should never forget Bhopal), I have to ask you, when will it be safe to eat wild mushrooms in Europe again? That good safety record you mention has still managed to produce long lasting effects over a very wide area. We still don't know how bad Fukushima is actually going to be, but there's a real possibility that children being born in Japan right now are going to have to spend their entire lives following some sort of special behavior to avoid health risks from fallout from Fukushima.

      The same thing is true of all kinds of industries, nuclear is not alone. Obviously we need nuclear reactors if only to produce isotopes needed for other industries and nuclear medicine. Claiming that nuclear power is safe as is, however, seems disingenuous given how bad any single incident can get.

      So, what is the bright side for nuclear power as it stands at the moment? Is it more cost effective than other methods of power generation? As far as I can find, it looks like it's still pretty much the most expensive form of power generation out there, even ignoring the externalities. Sure, it may be great for submarines and other military ships and if we ever get a moonbase, etc. I'm not actually rabidly anti-nuclear, I think we just need to get it right. Perhaps modern reactor designs really are there and it's just the old ones that are a problem and they'll be phased out over time and we'll end up with only newer, safer designs. The trouble is, it seems to me that the nuclear industry hasn't proven that it can be trusted to safely retire old plants. Running them into the ground to the point of disaster seems more likely. For general use, until we're not using antiquated designs anymore, what does nuclear actually have to offer besides the fact that if we don't keep funding the reactors we will have thrown our money away on them?

    268. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      No you did not, as you only referenced "normal" nuclear accidents and not the WORST CASE nuclear accident.

      And the word PROVEN makes no sense at all, as the worst case nuclear accident is luckily not *proven* so far. WTF how stupid are you?

      If you would care not only to READ but also to COMPREHEND what I write then listen to this:

      Mining accidents in germany from 1950 till 2000:
      2. Juli 1951 - salt mine - fire damp explosion: 9 fire damp explosion
      11. Juli 1951 - salt mine - fire damp explosion: 12 dead
      15. Juli 1955 - uranium mine - mine fire: 33 dead
      3. Aug. 1956 - coal mine - mine fire and fire damp explosion: 41 dead
      26. Sep. 1956 - fluorite mine - water inrush : 6 death
      2. MÃr. 1958 - coal mine - mine fire: 6 dead
      17. Apr. 1958 - salt mine - CO2 bubble: 6 dead
      16. Dez. 1958 - coal mine - mine collapse: unaccounted number of deads
      22. Feb. 1960 - coal mine - fire damp and coal dust explosion: 123 dead
      19. Juli 1960: iron mine - mine fire: 33 dead
      7. Feb. 1962: coal mine - fire damp explosion: 299 dead
      9. MÃr. 1962: coal mine - fire damp explosiong/rock burst: 37 dead
      24. Okt. 1963: iron mine - water inrush: 29 dead
      27. MÃr. 1965: coal mine - broken rope of an elevator: 10 death ... I can continue and show all accidents. However you can wikipedia it yourself, if it is that important for you.

      But the picture should be clear: MINING IS DANGEROUS does not matter what you mine.

      Did I proclaim somewhere that mining is NOT dangerous? I doubt that!

      I said: comparing MINING with running a power plant makes no sense. And I stand to that.
      Pulling out mining accidents to conclude (insert favourite tech here) power plants are more save than mining is like saying eating strawberries with cream is more save than drinking banan milk shakes. There is no *direct* connection between them, so it makes no sense.

      Do you claim Saturn V rockets are save? Or Space Shuttles? It is *insane* to proclaim them save if you look at the accidents. Did they serve a purpose? Where the people flying in them ready to take the risk? Yes! But what the fuck has that to do with nuclear power? NOTHING, you get it? It has nothing to do with it. The same is for coal mines. They have nothing to do with nuclear power. They are mined because some people buy the coal, thats all.

      The only thing you can do is trying to weight the benefits with the losses. And *that* you ofc are free to do with coal mines. You can weight the benefit of coal mines, and the losses you have with coal mines. To decide if having coal mines is worth it. Then you do the same with nuclear power and decide if nuclear power is worth it. But mixing up the benefit of nuclear power with the drawbacks of coal mines or the opposite around, mixing up the benefits of coal mines with nuclear power makes no sense at all. Except you are a capitalistic investor who wants to make sure to invest into the right thing money wise.

      Just abandone as a minds play all coal plant, abandone all coal mines, abandone all coal accidents, abandone all coal even.
      Scratch everything with coal in it from literature and human records: then there are still highly risky nuclear plants.

      Adding the coal back, adding the coal mines back, adding the coal mining back, does not make the nuclear plants MORE SAVE. It changes nothing.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    269. Re:Nuke power by Pf0tzenpfritz · · Score: 1

      I happen to have attended a class at univeristy where the prof turned out to be a nuclear security expert (prof. chem. and expert in transactinides, not the kind of "expert" you are likely to see on TV) who had examined the first incident in Kruemmel. He told us that the crew of a freighter had alarmed the fire brigade via radio when the saw "the roof on fire". Natrium leaking from the cooling system was reacting with oxygen and moisture in the air. Nobody in the control room or anywhere inside the plant had even noticed there was something unusual going on. He further said some very drastic things about the plant and the guys who ran it...

      --
      Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
    270. Re:Nuke power by lennier · · Score: 1

      none of it has been enough to actually harm anyone.

      And we know that for certain - how?

      There have been no reported initial radiation injuries other than among some of the plant workers, but that surely doesn't mean that there have been no health effects. It's just that they're going to be long-term and difficult to measure.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    271. Re:Nuke power by cycoj · · Score: 1

      You should really do your homework. First, for pretty much any power generation the cost of the plant is the main cost component both in terms of money and energy costs. So what the OP earlier said that the power is cheap once the plant is up and running is true for pretty much anything. Now, if we look at energy return i.e. the ratio of energy produced over the ratio of energy spend (for construction, maintenance, running and decommission) windpower beats all other means of producing energy by a large margin. The EROI of wind is ~18, for comparison hydro has about 12 and Nuclear is lower than PV-solar at about 5 or 6. That means if you build a windturbine after about 12-18 months(!) you are producing net energy. Now I admit energy cost is different than monetary cost, however they should be proportional to each other.

      source:
      http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_return_on_investment_(EROI)_for_wind_energy

    272. Re:Nuke power by feepness · · Score: 1

      "Apart from the increase in thyroid cancer after childhood exposure, no increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality have been observed that could be attributed to ionizing radiation. The risk of leukemia, one of the main concerns (leukemia is the first cancer to appear after radiation exposure, because of its short latency time of 2 to 10 years), does not appear to be elevated, even among the recovery operation workers. Neither is there any proof of other non-malignant disorders that are related to ionizing radiation. However, there were widespread psychological reactions to the accident, which were due to fear of the radiation, not to actual radiation doses."

      People's fear is very real and important. But it's not substantiated by facts.

      I'm a proponent of nuclear energy. There isn't a whole lot of choice in the short term if we're going to move away from fossil fuels.

      I'm also, however, a survivor of thyroid cancer. It's not something I'd set apart in any study of negative effects. It's not the worst as far as cancers go, but it's certainly a significantly negative life altering event.

    273. Re:Nuke power by symbolset · · Score: 1

      In Japan they have a spiritual reverence for their hot springs and the natural areas that surround them. The technologies that use lower temperature water and dry rock resources from much deeper are fairly new, the exploration and drilling phases are more costly. But the work is ramping up in the US, with a 5x expansion of capacity planned in the next 20 years or so. Japan will be looking at it also.

      Eventually we may find that sub-seafloor enhanced geothermal resources are the ideal solution for many of the social issues.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    274. Re:Nuke power by abigor · · Score: 1

      Canadians mopped it up. The Americans "took an interest". Also note that it was back in 1952 - since then, Canadian reactors have probably the strongest safety record in the world.

    275. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You however are missing a fundamental point which is that you cannot consider just the decays per second of a radioisotope when judging how unsafe it is. Nor can you lump external exposure to ionizing radiation (the famed chest x-ray) with internal exposure via ingestion. Yes the fly ash is 2 to 10 times more radioactive than plain dirt. However 2 to 10 times nil is still nil. And the uranium and thorium in fly ash has very low bio-availability. Both are efficiently cleared from the body and thus the biological half life is very short, hours.

      I have no cite but the numbers I remember is the local area around a coal fired plant might suffer an increase in back ground radiation of 5-20%. The natural variation is far more than that.

    276. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Reprocessing of "spent fuel" leaves us with a much smaller and manageable amount of waste that becomes safe in a much shorter and manageable amount of time.

      No it does not. Only the plutonium or uranium is reprocessed. The main amount of waste is water or other contaminated stuff, like the rests of the fuel rods and anything else that came in touch with the "waste" before it got reprocessed.

      How does your waste of time complaining about how bad 40 year old nuclear plants are help us get modern safe energy of any kind?

      Building wind and solar plants is faster. Or water plants if you have the area or wave plants.
      Keep in mind you can connect them to the grid in small portions, you don't need to build a complete plant to do that (like one complete reactor).
      Unlike popular believe, most "modern reactor designs" like thorium reactors and high temperature reactors, are far from being ready. The first Thorium Reactor in germany, a research reactor in Jülich, nearly exploded during test drives (the information was concealed very long) and the commercial "prototype" in Hamm-Uentrop (albeit a different design) was only online from 1983 till 1989.
      The later one made so much trouble that the approval for running it got revoked.
      AFTER it was online hundreds of accident scenarios showed up that where never considered before, showing that this design (similar to the reactor in Fort St. Vrain designed by Brown, Boveri & Cie.) is pretty unsafe.

      Anyway, right now as far as I know we don't have a risk less reactor design, except for the small 10MW underground thingies. So waiting for better designs while we can invest in other technologies is imho a waste of time.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    277. Re:Nuke power by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Official estimates of deaths from Chernobyl are around a half million, but some fairly credible sources believe it is actually as high as a million or even more.

      Define "official" in this context.

      Doing a quick survey, I can't see anyone I'd call "official" estimating 500K+ deaths from Chernobyl.

      Admittedly, Greenpeace came up with a very large number of "expected deaths". Not actual ones, mind you, but the number they expect to see someday.

      Note, by the way, that even Greenpeace's estimate was almost an order of magnitude below your upper limit of "as high as a million or even more". "Expected deaths", in Greenpeace's case, of course, against your actual deaths....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    278. Re:Nuke power by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

      Since I'm feeding the troll, I might as well use a car analogy: Just because the last accident reported to your insurance was a low speed collision with a parked car, doesn't make you a safe driver. In fact, it indicates the opposite, unless you magically start paying full time and attention at highways speeds.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    279. Re:Nuke power by lennier · · Score: 1

      (Y2K was pretty benign death-wise, and is the worst collective catastrophe from the CS field)

      Well, if you don't count the PSN outage...

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    280. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Official estimates of deaths from Chernobyl are around a half million.

      Why do you post lies on the Internet?

    281. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1, Funny

      Sorry, that was a bit to complicated.
      You should tell that the guys who compare mining with running a power plant, would make more sense imho.

      BTW: I'm not thechnophobic. I did not write anything supporting your conclusion. I'm just pissed off that people here (considering they proclaim themselves geeks or nerds) lack basic abilities of logic conclusion.

      But I think I get your point: because having unprotected sex with AIDS infected (male?) prostitutes caused 33Million infections till 2007 and about 3Million deaths, the logical conclusion is: nuclear power is safe.

      Never thought about that, but I guess you are right.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    282. Re:Nuke power by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      that plant was due for replacement/shutdown many years ago.

      Browns Ferry, Oyster Creek, Scriba, Nine Mile Point, etc etc etc.
      http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/nukelist1.htm

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    283. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Within four years at least 5,000 of the more than 600,000 decontamination workers ("liquidators") had died from various causes; the fraction of deaths attributable to Chernobyl is unknown, but this figure represents less than 1% of the total. Most of these workers were military reservists, brought from across the Soviet Union. In 1995 the National Committee for Radiation Protection of the Ukrainian Population determined that 5,722 of these workers had died. On top of this, roughly 100 plant personnel, Pripyat residents, local farmers, coal miners and officials were killed in the immediate aftermath of the disaster. These figures do not include deaths among Pripyat evacuees, about whom accurate information is very difficult to obtain.[2]

      Source

      600,000 exposed, but within 10 years slightly over 10k dead. And you can't exactly attribute 100% of those deaths directly to radiation.

      Guesses about deaths from fallout are just that: guesses. People do the same thing with deaths attributed to smoking. When they want big numbers, they include everyone who dies from any variety of heart disease or cancer of a smoker as a death caused by smoking, even if the person is 80 years old and dies of a heart attack. If they want to be real assholes they includes the deaths of people who just lived with a smoker in that figure, too. They don't attempt to make any correlation when gathering these statistics. Someone could have been an avid sunbather or just worked outside a lot without protection and died from skin cancer that spread to another part of their body, and they'll attribute it as a fallout death.

      If you're including those types of statistics, we also have to start lumping anyone who dies of lung cancer and lives within 100 miles of a coal plant as a "coal plant death" due to radioactivity released from burning coal.

    284. Re:Nuke power by JSBiff · · Score: 2

      "Also, the Titanic was a great ship that provided excellent transportation until halfway across the Atlantic."

      But, we didn't stop sailing because of the Titanic.

    285. Re:Nuke power by Rakishi · · Score: 2

      Your facts are out of date, measurements have been done and data has been released. Not of the reactor, which is irrelevant to those not involved in the cleanup unless bad things happens again, but of the area around the power plant. Decent quantities of radiation (cesium-137) have been detected in some areas. Enough to essentially leave the areas uninhabitable without significant cleanup costs. I think I've read estimates of up to 200 square km being unsafely radioactive but don't quote me on that. Not instant death, of course, but you wouldn't want to live there for years or grow food there.

      Detailed ground measurements are, asfaik, not yet being done (or at least not being released) however very detailed fly-overs were done (and the data released).

      http://www.japanprobe.com/2011/05/10/fukushima-radiation-map/

    286. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1.7 Sv/h? 1.7 Sv/h???!? 1.7 Sv/h!!!!! Lethality in under 4 hours! Get away from there NOW! And even 0.1 Sv/h will kill in 2 days 12 hours. RUN AWAY. RUN FAR AWAY NOW!!!!!! Oh, wait. You're technically incompetent and don't know the difference between Sv, mSv and uSv. So why should we take any notice of a single thing you say on this technical subject. Errors of 1000 or 1000000 only count in merchant banking.

    287. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      GE designed the BWR, not the plant and not the Tsunami wall. The Tsunami wall was insufficient for the Tsunami, the accident did not happen because of a design flaw in the GE BWR it happened because the Tsunami took out the Diesels and when the batteries ran out there was no power to run the cooling pumps.

      The blame belongs with TEPCO and the Japanese government. There were and are completely responsible for the operation of their nuclear power reactors, not any international body.

      --

      Python

    288. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      > "They" that are the authorities responsible for overseeing such reactors. I read that like 10 years ago, so I have no source in mind.

      Do you mean the US NRC?

      > But as this topic is coming up quite often I might invest the time to find references.

      Please do, I'd be happy to read it.

      --

      Python

    289. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      Thank you for correcting that, the EPA report says:

      "Analyses of this batch of filter data identified low levels of uranium consistent with natural levels typically seen in the US."

      So I'm not sure the EPA evidence is as conclusive as you may think. If the source is from exposed rods, we should see more see more contamination. This may be from the steam plumes from the spent pools. As were discussing the reactor, the spent fuel pools are a different issue. Loss of containment of the BWR, and Uranium from the BWR has not occurred. The spent fuel pools are not contained in that design, and the Japanese also dont use dry casks and don't have a national repository, so its no wonder they have issues. Thats not a reactor accident, thats a failure to maintain your spent fuel.

      And I can't find anything in the NY Times article other than this statement "Broken pieces of fuel rods have been found outside of Reactor No. 2, and are now being covered with bulldozers, he said. The pieces may be from rods in the spent-fuel pools that were flung out by hydrogen explosions." I don't see anything that says "Unit 3 blew pieces of fuel rod up to a mile from the site". This sounds like some rods we flung out of unit 2 and are on the site, could you point me to a source that says unit 2 rods were thrown a mile from the site?

      Also, I don't see any official reports of this occurring, not on the IAEA website, NRC, or JNSA. If you have a link, I'd be delighted to read it.

      --

      Python

    290. Re:Nuke power by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      no, the analogy is more like:

      "the idiot driver crashed the car. the airbag deployed, the crumple zones absorbed the majority of the impact, and the functioning brakes and tyres kept the speed of the impact very low. the driver was not injured at all. this car is therefore horribly dangerous and all cars should be banned".

    291. Re:Nuke power by NotAGoodNickname · · Score: 2

      No, no grid in the world can effectively deliver power from a plant 3000 miles away. Wires don't work that way.

    292. Re:Nuke power by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      different datasets entirely.

      Fukushima proves what happens when a relatively safe (safety is always relative when you're trying to generate large amounts of power by any means whatsoever - large amounts of power are dangerous in any form they come in) design gets hit by a monster earthquake and an unprecedented tsunami.

      it's a fucking big disaster, yes, but seriously, look at the death toll of the earthquake and tsunami versus the death toll for Fukushima. even look at projected cancer deaths, etc etc.

      one thing i'd like to hear more about is that fucking big fire at the oil refinery that was on the news seconds before the nuclear story broke. i've not heard a thing about it. things can't have gone too well there, considering the chopper-mounted news cameras had to keep zooming out to fit all the flames into the frame...

    293. Re:Nuke power by moortak · · Score: 1

      Here are the numbers for US plants as of 1998 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t3/reports/eurtc1.pdf the section on radiation begins on page 325. For a much easier read the epa radiation risk calculator counts living within 50 miles of a nuke plant as an exposure of .009 mrem per year and a coal plant within the same distance as .03 mrem per year. There is less radiation released with modern scrubbing than there used to be, but it is still more than general operation of a nuke plant.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    294. Re:Nuke power by DrBoumBoum · · Score: 1

      WHO has stated that there is no evidence of any significant release of radiation

      So why are they evacuating people then?

    295. Re:Nuke power by NotAGoodNickname · · Score: 1

      "Most of then died the next days" Where do you get this information? What school did you go to? The WHO thinks that the final toll will be 4,000. Where are you seeing 250,000 to 1,000,000? Are you reading crackpot Russian webblogs or something?

    296. Re:Nuke power by DrBoumBoum · · Score: 1

      One possibility is it stems from fear

      I understand believing this makes nuclear apologists feel good and "above the peons"; however I think it has more to do with distrust than fear.

    297. Re:Nuke power by DrBoumBoum · · Score: 1

      Cs-137 was detected in eight prefectures, with values ranging from 3 Bq/m2 to 44 Bq/m2

      How do those figure match with the recent aerial survey of the area?

      Gamma dose rate for Fukushima prefecture was 1.7 Sv/h

      I guess you must have your units wrong.

    298. Re:Nuke power by ductonius · · Score: 1

      AECL - Atomic Energy Canada Limited.

      CANDU reactors can run on thorium just fine using a mix of thorium and slightly enriched uranium (1.2%) to get the breeding process started.

      Also, as designs go, CANDU reactors and their derivatives have an unmatched safety record.

    299. Re:Nuke power by countertrolling · · Score: 2

      That's just cold, man.. Ol' boy was pissing radioactive waste for months afterward.. And they did a wee bit more than just 'take an interest'.

      Canadian reactors may be the safest in the world, but they aren't totally free of glitches.. Looks like you didn't read the link.. Bullshit politics is global, if not exactly evenly spread

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    300. Re:Nuke power by DrBoumBoum · · Score: 1

      Yes sleeping does feel good.

    301. Re:Nuke power by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      "(sounds a lot random non-geologists/climatologists getting themselves interviewed on CNN saying global warming is rubbish, don't you think?)"

      Spot on, the climate change denial fruit loops have to accpet that the same argumants they use of corrupted scientists count just as well for Nuke scientists. Watching them flail around when their own foul tactic is used against them is most amusing! (:

    302. Re:Nuke power by anagama · · Score: 1

      Diesel generators were the linchpin of the backup system. Last I checked, diesel generators are internal combustion engines. They run on fire.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    303. Re:Nuke power by multi+io · · Score: 1

      The evacuation was a precaution immediately after the emergency was declared because there might be a release. If you evacuate after a release you're probably screwed and already breathing in byproducts.

      So they've been keeping people out of the area for two months now, and are still extending the evacuation zone, all as a PRECAUTIONARY measure? I think your more and more extraordinary claims require more and more extraordinary evidence -- and yet you've not even provided a source for that supposed WHO statement that there was "no evidence of any significant release of radiation". After about 30 seconds of googling I come up with this:

      The U.S. National Nuclear Safety Administration has produced a map (as part of a presentation) showing the estimated first-year, long-term radiation dose in and around the Fukushima nuclear plant. âoeIn the red swath of land northwest of the plant where weather deposited a lot of fallout, potential exposures exceed 2000 millirems/year. That is the level at which the U.S. Department of Homeland Security would consider relocating the public,â says ScienceInsider. âoeAlthough 2000 millirems over 1 year isnâ(TM)t an immediate health threat, itâ(TM)s enough to cause roughly one extra cancer case in 500 young adults and one case in 100 1-year-olds.â

      Another report (also by the NNSA) talks about up to 20 or so mRem/h a week after the incident.

      Now, we might discuss whether 1 cancer case per 500 young adults and year is or isn't a lot, but this all sounds like a bit more than "no significant release of radiation" to me.

    304. Re:Nuke power by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Canada had TWO major nuclear incidents at Chalk River with the NRX reactors, in 1952 and 58.

      Incident 1:
      A mere 10 years after the commissioning of the first-ever nuclear reactor, an experimental reactor design undergoing testing experiences a minor malfunction which is then exacerbated by mistakes and miscommunication amongst personnel attempting to fix the problem. The incident contaminates a few hundred liters of water, and the exposed personnel as a group experience a marginally smaller rate of cancer-death than the general population.

      Incident 2:
      Six years later, a second experimental reactor overheats, and one of the fuel rods catches fire and then falls from the crane while being transported away from the reactor. The incident is contained by teams of scientists and technicians running around with buckets of sand. No deaths are attributed to the incident, and all affected personnel are exposed to radiation levels well within established safety guidelines. The reactor is brought back online less than a year later.

      So ... major incidents? If by "major" you mean that they caused damage to the reactors and cost a lot of money to clean up and repair, then yeah, they were major. However, considering that these were experimental reactors built in the nineteen-fifties, that the radiation was contained to the immediate area of the reactors themselves, and that not a single death - either at the time, or now, 50+ years later - can be attributed to these incidents .... no, they certainly don't qualify as "major nuclear incidents". Even three-mile-island resulted in more contamination, and that was a fairly minor incident which also resulted in zero deaths.

      Meanwhile the other 8 reactors built and operated by Chalk River Labs have never had an incident, and the NPD - the first CANDU reactor - has been running since 1962 without a hiccup, and improvements on that design have made modern CANDU reactors more reliable, more powerful, and even safer. Likewise, AFAIK, no other CANDU reactor has ever had a major incident.

      As a fellow Canadian, I am not so sure we can be that arrogant in our attitudes.

      It's not arrogance - it's science! :p

      Yes, we need to be careful, but that doesn't mean we can't honestly say that we have an excellent track-record, and that we build the safest reactors in the world.

      Also, if Canada, supposedly one of the more open and free democracies in the world (whatever that is supposed to mean anymore) can downplay and/or suppress information about it's major nuclear accidents, how many other "incidents" do you think might have happened around the world and we've never heard about?

      The information was suppressed at the time because the technology was new and most (if not all) of it was considered classified. The information is freely available today - you can even read about it on wikipedia! That there aren't a huge volume of books talking about the incidents is due mainly to the relatively minor nature of the incidents themselves; to claim that the information is being actively suppressed by the government, without providing some evidence, seems like sheer paranoia. As for the second question ... major nuclear incidents aren't exactly easy to cover up. A totalitarian nation might be able to hide the details and downplay the effects, but they won't be able to hide the fact that something happened.

      Sad thing is, compared to fossil fuels, what real choice do we have? Realistically, conservation, wind and solar (green power) sources just aren't cutting it. I'm not talking about home use, trying running a major manufacturing plant or oil refinery on wind or solar power.

      Agreed. Which is why we should be pushing for the building of new reactors using the best available designs, inst

    305. Re:Nuke power by dryeo · · Score: 1

      It's my understanding that currently nuclear plants aren't insurable now. Seems the insurance companies don't like the odds of a catastrophic accident so government insures them instead.
      One of the hidden costs which make nuclear much more expensive then they say.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    306. Re:Nuke power by YoshiDan · · Score: 1

      That was implied.

    307. Re:Nuke power by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The problem here is not that it wasn't designed for the event, it's that the event in question was bigger than the safeguards in the design. There were tsunami walls in place, higher in Fukushima than anywhere else along the coastline. Unfortunately the tsunami was even bigger.

      It comes down to a fundamental flaw in risk identification, but yet also shows quite well that many true disasters can't be accounted for. What would have happened if we had at 15m high wall? Would we all be patting ourselves on the back, drinking beer, and basking in our own glory of overcoming nature? Sure, and then in 10 years from now there's a 16m tsunami which causes the same problem we see today and all blame goes to the original engineering.

      Fuck it, lets build a glass dome over the reactor to stop everything.

    308. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A better energy system? Oh do tell. Have we created fusion yet?

    309. Re:Nuke power by mug+funky · · Score: 2

      the way i see the whole pro nuke anti nuke situation is this:

      pro nuke: "these designs are as safe as they can be. there's defence in depth, so even if everything goes wrong, not all that much will go wrong"
      anti nuke: " AAAAAAARRGGHHH!! ATOMS!!1!"
      me: "defence in depth depends on how good the designer's imagination is".

      the fact there was a station blackout is the main problem here. the second problem is the potential (and still unknown) damage caused to the vessels and containment structures by the freaking huge quake that hit. i think defence in depth worked beautifully, but the depth wasn't quite deep enough.

      new designs are passively cooled, so this wouldn't happen, but it's still far too easy to imagine a situation that could fuck it big time. even a vanishingly small chance may occur on a long enough timeline, and these things run for a long time.

      i think nuclear is necessary, but the potential human problems mean that much has to be done to make it _really_ safe.

      with that said, it is still safer than the practical way of generating power. research can go into two places here - one is making renewables more practical, the other is making nuclear safer. much good can be done in both those areas.

    310. Re:Nuke power by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      Wind is not cheap, nor is solar.

      Try this and this older one to see how prices progress.

      As to the subsidies - nuclear is still subsidized and was even more when it was entering the energy market, so why shouldn't renewables have the same chance?

      wind of course only works if there is wind, and there isnt enough of either to meet the power needs of the world

      Wrong again. Solar?

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    311. Re:Nuke power by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      I guess because I have a different opinion than you, I must be trolling. And your analogy does not at all make sense... mug funky's is pretty much dead on. Every accident is learned from and the United States has the most stringent nuclear regulatory agency in the world.

    312. Re:Nuke power by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      There is no fly ash anymore in a modern plant since 15 - 20 years Surprise, surprise, there are no nuclear plants operating commercially that were designed within the last 15 to 20 years.

      The crucial difference being there was no need to rebuild the whole coal plants - just upgrade them to scrub the exhaust &c. Some of the coal plants were made to produce carbon-sequestering cement. Can you do the same easily with a nuclear reactor?

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    313. Re:Nuke power by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      people like you will not be satisfied until the "true" 100% death rate of chernobyl is released in 100 years.

      in 2111 AD: OMG 100% of people who lived near Chernobyl in 1986 are now dead!!1!

    314. Re:Nuke power by Trogre · · Score: 0

      I'm not aware of any plans for anything special to happen to Fukushima on 3rd of November this year.

      Look, if you're going to go with month-before-day, at least have the decency to put the year first. 2011/3/11 or 11/3/2011 would do. M/DD/YYYY is just stupid.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    315. Re:Nuke power by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      And you don't have that kind of accident at Fukushima, its not a release accident! The reactor had a cooling accident, not a loss of containment accident. Sheesh.

      Wait, he didn't just say what I think he did, did he?

      Do you actually read/watch the news? Or are you from outer space? Because by the looks of it your data comes straight from Uranus.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    316. Re:Nuke power by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      the uranium in the '50s was mined for weapons...

      and the Australian government was in the habit of killing large numbers of Indigenous people back then (or removing their children). whatever mineral deposit they were living on, rest assured they would be killed en masse for it. sad times.

      however you raise a valid point about the fuel cycle needing to be taken into account.

      there have been accidents at reprocessing facilities etc.

      the coal fuel cycle is pretty shitty too.

      power generation is shitty. those are the breaks.

      now let's try make it less shitty, in whatever form is most appropriate.

    317. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cost of putting up wind mills made mostly of aluminum and ceramics is extremely high. Well in excess of the cost of building, maintaining, and closing any other plant type would be per kWh. The energy need to refine the aluminum for the wind mill is so great that it could take as long as 10-15 years for a single windmill to actually pay back it's energy debit. Given that they all have finite life spans that's a huge cost. You'd also need MASSIVE (i.e. thousands, plus a massive battery back up systems just in case) numbers of wind generators to even begin to power a small city.

      Don't forget that wind power is HIGHLY detrimental to the climate of all down wind areas. Not on;y will you be pulling out the wind it self, but also the moisture it contains. If Europe was to try and go with about 50% wind power much of the eastern block states and Russia would dry out substantially. Seeing how there's very productive farm land there I don't think they will be happy with this.

      As for Germany, they WILL be struggling with purely alternative energy sources, and yes I've even put my money where my mouth is by buying stock in French power companies, who are already supping about 10% of the countries power supplies. Germany can cut off it's own power production and scream to the world that they are running off of clean wind energy all they want. The bottom lines of the sounding countries power providers would argue other wise, as will my bottom line.

      Nuclear is necessary for the future of our civilization, and with out we will lose much of our ability to produce at an industrial level.

    318. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The according to you the only options are fossil fuel based power systems as they are the only ones which can supply the necessary amount of power needed to run society. Alternative power sources are simply not capable with causing the same amount (if not more) of damage. Not to mention the shear costs of such systems.

      There's a very good reason why no one really built alternative power plants until recently, and even now if you look at where many of these countries are getting their power from it's not alternative.

    319. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that in Chernobyl there was a steam explosion, but there was also a fucking humongous power excursion -- by more than an order of magnitude. They were measuring the neutron power, and IIRC when the connections were lost due to explosion the recorder or indicator was at 20x design power.

    320. Re:Nuke power by EatAtJoes · · Score: 1

      Too bad for you that a) nuclear engineers don't know the first thing about oncology and b) the UN's final report is a tidy piece of apologist nonsense fabricated by the WHO selling out to the IEAE.

      Nuke engineers understand how plants run. They are notoriously out to lunch when it comes to the epidemiology.

    321. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know where the heck in Europe you can't eat wild mushrooms. In Poland nobody gives a fuck as far as I know. Everybody picks them, sells them, eats them. Anyway, if the only negative was that you couldn't eat wild mushrooms, I'd call it an acceptable risk.

    322. Re:Nuke power by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

      My opinion is not much different than yours. I have been to two local nuclear power plants several times (for legitimate business.) And, I was more worried about one of the guards at the gate going postal with an AR15 than any meltdown or exposure. I am merely pointing out the fallacy of assuming that because a previous incident ended with relatively minor consequences, does not mean the situation is safe.

      Trolling involves provoking Pavlovian replies in the forum, usually of the antagonistic kind. The antisocial version is easy: manipulate as many people as possible to prove one has power over them. The delusional version is a bit more complex: Drive the real or imaginary "opposition" nuts to the point where they start behaving irrationally, so that oneself can claim that he or she is more rational, and therefore, more correct. Oh, and was the bad car-analogy theme lost on you? Do I have to point out that car safety features are primarily for the occupants?

      What I am saying is, all those safety features do not matter if the drivers are reckless with the machinery. Yes, a well designed, implemented, and maintained machine will buffer the effects of the occasional mistake if they are working correctly and in the hands of capable people. But, put it in the hands of some jackass who's far too busy snorting coke off a hookers' tits to pay attention, and well, pardon me for having some concerns at him being a the helm of a "safe" vehicle. Guess who runs the show? A little corruption can go a long way when it comes to particle annihilation.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    323. Re:Nuke power by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that the people who run the nuclear power plants can be bribed to disregard safety precautions with some hookers and coke? The nuclear power industry is no more susceptible to corruption than any other, and in fact I would submit that it is far less susceptible due to the vast monitoring by both the government and civilian watchgroups. The fact is that nuclear engineers and their overlords know that what they're doing could potentially ruin the lives of thousands if things go awry, so they take their jobs quite seriously. They're not corporate fat-cats that sit in their office snorting coke off hooker tits while all their minions on floors 2 through 148 trade stocks for them and make them tons of money.

      I am merely pointing out the fallacy of assuming that because a couple catastrophes occurred with relation to this thing that you're afraid of, said thing must be inherently dangerous and is doubtlessly going to wreak havoc on the world. We have to look at things from a logical point of view. Why should we pass up this incredibly cheap, incredibly efficient, incredibly powerful, incredibly clean, incredibly robust, and in the vast majority of cases incredibly safe method of power generation just because a few Russians killed thousands of people due to ridiculous levels of incompetence?

    324. Re:Nuke power by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      I also think that it's pertinent to point out the fact that nuclear power plants only account for about 1% of the number of power plants in operation over 1MW capacity in the United States but they generate a whopping 20% of our electricity. Just thought that was a neat fact.

    325. Re:Nuke power by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      Radioisotope-sequestering cement used to plug the bottoms of deep-sea wells in a subduction zone sounds good to me.

    326. Re:Nuke power by sjames · · Score: 1

      No it does not. Only the plutonium or uranium is reprocessed. The main amount of waste is water or other contaminated stuff, like the rests of the fuel rods and anything else that came in touch with the "waste" before it got reprocessed.

      Check your facts! By removing the actinides and plutonium, the "waste" loses 95% of it's volume and goes from 10,000 years to decay to safety to 250-500 years (depending on if you mean safe or indistinguishable from a granite deposit). That sounds a lot like a shorter and more manageable time frame. We go from the lunatic fringe How ever will we even be sure the danger signs can be read so far into the future where even stable geology can shift to well, that's nothing in geological time and high school students will probably be able to read our regular signs.

      As for the rest, distillation can take care of the water, other than the iodine and xenon (but that has a half life of 8 days. The induced radiation in other parts is low level and fades within a few years.

      The AVR plant in Julich certainly didn't work as well as expected when it went critical in 1966, but it never came anywhere near exploding and it certainly is not a less than 40 year old design, now is it?

      THTR did have problems (it was after all a prototype) some in design, some in operation, but especially management trying to hush up problems. It was properly and safely shut down.

      On the other hand, CANDU is able to burn actinides and has a long record of safe operation.

      Decades ago, we had the Experimental Breeder Reactor, EBR-II. It was a sodium pool cooled reactor design that ran for 30 years. In a test run, they ran the reactor up to full power and then shut down primary coolant pumps and ALL active safety controls. As a result of it's design, its passive safety features caused it's power level to drop to near 0 within 300 seconds and with no damage to the fuel at all.

      Quite simply, we don't have a riskless anything.

    327. Re:Nuke power by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      The limited number of nuclear plants that have been built combined with changing regulatory requirements seems to account for a large portion of the cost, especially cost overruns. Wikipedia claims that China is building many plants significantly cheaper than other nations and hopes to build 1.7-GW plants at roughly the cost of coal plants.

    328. Re:Nuke power by sjames · · Score: 1

      If that's going to be your standard, how do we know we're not just a year away from a plague induced by childhood exposure to formica? Perhaps number 2 pencil dust has a long term and difficult to measure carcinogenic effect.

      More to the point, the radiation levels measured have been low enough that many places have a higher natural background level. No credible study has ever linked those levels to an increased cancer rate. A few studies have shown a REDUCTION in cancer at those levels, so how do YOU know it won't make people live longer and healthier?

      There's actually a larger chance that ubiquitous and approved food additives will induce cancers.

    329. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, 10 or so people die in a methane explosion in a coal mine. What happens in uranium mines? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Rock_uranium_mill_spill

    330. Re:Nuke power by IICV · · Score: 1

      And what happens when the dam breaks?

      Why, you get something like what happened at the Banqiao Dam, if you're unlucky. That single hydro failure killed more people than nuclear ever has, something like ten times as many people as died in Chernobyl - and yet nobody ever brings it up when we discuss hydroelectric power, but Chernobyl is on the tip of everyone's tongue as soon as the word "nuclear" comes up.

      What the fuck?

    331. Re:Nuke power by gdshaw · · Score: 1

      It's a valid distinction:

      • When someone says that they are in favour of nuclear power it would be willfully disingenuous to infer that they are in favour of building Chernobyl-type reactors.
      • For most of the world this was true well before 1986. You would not have been allowed to build a reactor of that type in the US or western Europe, even without the benefit of hindsight.
    332. Re:Nuke power by tragedy · · Score: 1

      There was a Slashdot article a while back about required radiation testing of wild boar meat sold in Germany, quite a long way from Chernobyl. Fallout from Chernobyl (radioactive Caesium I think) ends up collected and concentrated in fungi. Then it travels up the food chain. So, the problem isn't just mushrooms, but it's still not really that safe to eat the mushrooms. Of course, it won't kill you to eat the mushrooms. You probably wouldn't get a fatal dose of radiation even if you lived on a diet of nothing but wild mushrooms and boar meat. It's impossible to say how many people it's killed and will kill and how many years it's taken off people's lives. Almost certainly some. Just a handful, or hundreds or thousands? Really difficult in most cases to say definitively where someone's cancer came from.

      Sure though, it's an acceptable risk. Just like all the mercury in our seafood (I suppose it's fortunate then that we're overfishing and destroying marine environments so effectively that the problem of heavy metal in our fish will go away on its own). Just like all of the nasties we've managed to add to our drinking water. They're all acceptable risks. Add them all up though, and the risk isn't as acceptable. And we've only just gotten started. Most of the poisoning we've managed has been in the last half century or so, but it's going to hang around for a lot longer than that. Therefore, it's pretty clear that, if the rate remains steady, the concentrations of all kinds of stuff we can't handle is going to continue increasing. But, rates aren't remaining steady, they're accelerating.

      Now, most of this isn't from nuclear power, it's from regular old industrial processes, and things like burning coal for power. So, why attack nuclear power if it isn't as bad as burning coal? Because the safety record of nuclear power plants that we're talking about in this discussion is only going to get worse. We still don't have any idea how bad Fukushima is really going to be. Sure, you can say that it was a natural disaster, not a an engineering failure but, given what was known about the safety of the site, what this natural disaster was able to do to the plant was an engineering failure, just like the levees during hurricane Katrina and, let's face it, pretty much all flood damage (floods are pretty much man-made disasters not just because we build on flood plains, but also because deforestation, roads, parking lots, and our marvelous sewer and drainage systems deliver rain water to rivers much, much faster than would occur naturally). All kinds of industries, including nuclear power have shown time and time and time again that they just can't be trusted to do it right, even when it is possible to do it right. New nuclear power plants have much safer designs than the old ones, but we have a lot of old ones operating, and they're aging, and it's naive to believe that they'll all be safely and properly decommissioned when they need to be. Instead, operators are going to try everything they can to squeeze every last drop of life out of them before jumping ship on the expense to properly close them down. The end result of that is almost certain to be a lot more nuclear disasters of one kind or another (I should note here what I forgot to mention earlier, that the poster I responded to was acting like there have only been three serious nuclear power accidents but several other nuclear power plants in Japan only just made it by the skin of their teeth from this same earthquake/tsunami, and then there's the Tokai fuel fabrication plant event back in 1999). There very well may be competent engineers at every single plant who take it as their solemn duty to make sure that safety is the number one priority. If they ever actually stand in the way of profits, however, we have to assume that they'll be shoved aside by management and that said management will probably try its hardest to pin any subsequent disaster on those "disgruntled" engineers.

      Anyway, after 60 years of nuclear power, it still hasn't managed to become economi

    333. Re:Nuke power by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      a couple years ago thousands of people died when a chemical plant exploded in india

      that was quite a few years ago, actually.

      we could talk about superfund sites in the USA as well, like Love Canal.

      or Minimata for that matter...

    334. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which is partly due to the anti-nuclear loonies screaming "NOOOOO think of the children/cute furry animals/terrorists" whenever a proposal is made for a new nuke plant, and the reluctance of modern society to cut back on its power use. We can't just shut down every nuke plant in existence without either replacing it with a newer nuke or very heavy polution coal burners, or seriously cut back on power usage.

      The way i see it, all those anti-nuclear people are making the world less safe, not safer.

    335. Re:Nuke power by ag0ny · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, but I have been following this thread and I can't miss the fact that you're ignoring all the proofs and arguments that people more informed than you are providing.

      I'm trying to find the button to mark you as a retard so I don't have to read your nonsense again, but apparently it's not there anymore. Where's the option to ignore your posts?

    336. Re:Nuke power by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately this is the way all dangerous technologies work. Aircraft and trains are good examples. At first they were very dangerous but over time we learned more about them and made improvements. We also learned more about ourselves and the kinds of errors human beings make, so are now able to guard against many of them. Trains automatically apply the breaks if the driver fails too, aircraft warn the pilot that they are too low. It took a couple of hundred years to get there, but at least now when new things come along we have a head start.

      The difference with nuclear is that if a train or aircraft has an accident at most a few hundred people die, usually instantly. If nuclear has an accident it could potentially kill thousands, make large areas of land uninhabitable and cause all kinds of long-term health problems. Fortunately it seems that Fukushima is in no danger of going that way, and it could be argued that when reactors in modern democratic countries have problems the effects are quite limited (unlike Chernobyl) but I don't think many people will accept that now.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    337. Re:Nuke power by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      I didn't suggest that you should.

      I will tell you that I do not work for the nuclear power industry, I work for the regulator and my job is to find things wrong with plants and to assume that bad things will happen. So I'm hardly a fan boy for nuclear.

      But hey, the process is public and open and you can file a claim on any plant you want in the US with NRC, and they take those claims very seriously. So I just don't see how we can make the system more transparent, but if you have a beef the process is open, so please speak up.

      The NRC does? Really? What the hell planet do YOU live on? Explain Shoreham. Mistake after mistake, and they STILL let that thing power up. Failed backup equipment. Improper installation of equipment. Stupid test run at uber-low power levels and they lost control of it, and they STILL approved an operating license for it. It took the combined might of the state and people to force LILCO to sell it and shut it down. And worst is, unless one digs up actual newspapers and news clips from that time, it's near impossible to find the facts on the true fiascos that went on with it.

      I don't care what your specialty or training is. I was oh just a few miles away through all of this. If Shoreham (and the lack of information easily accessible) is any indication - and if the NRC's coddling of LILCO through all of it is any indication, there's no reason to trust ANYTHING you say on this subject.

    338. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the higher weight of heavy water, 47 kg of heavy water are roughly 42.7 liters.

    339. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Check your facts! By removing the actinides and plutonium, the "waste" loses 95% of it's volume

      How is that supposed to work? That would mean 95% of the volume is actinides and plutonium and unburned uranium, which obviously is not the case.
      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    340. Re:Nuke power by shilly · · Score: 1

      Spot on. Spot fucking on. I think this is all the more likely given the bunker mentality of those involved in the nuclear industry

    341. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      people like you will not be satisfied until the "true" 100% death rate of chernobyl is released in 100 years.

      So you don't care or don't want to know how many really died?
      Interesting but also disappointing.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    342. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      "Most of then died the next days" Where do you get this information?

      I was 16 - 17 at that time. It was in the news every day. It is pretty easy to add up the dayly death tolla nd come to about 6k-10k per week. After all if you remove the zeroes it is just a 1 or 2 per day ... sigh ... that is easy to add up and then you append the zeros again. Very old trick for people who are not used to big numbers ...
      It is not my fault that the TV reported the deathes at that time *every day* but forgot that plenty of people would remember those numbers and wonder now about the odd numbers in the web ;D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    343. Re:Nuke power by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

      Great, now you're sticking words in my mouth so you can debunk them, including, in some cases, the opposite of what I have said. Consider this closed.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    344. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Then tell that the guys operating those grids.

      On a typical 380kV high voltage cable you have to calculate a loss of about 1% over 100km (roughly 65miles). On a 1,000kV cable the loss is lower.

      Considering that at such a cable you have a power plant every few hundret killometers the current is actually not moving from the beginning of the cable to the end but only from the next best plant to the consuming point.

      Imagine a high voltage line like a lake close to the top of a mountain. Lower voltage lines are lakes on a lower hight. The lakes are interconnected so that current can flow from the higher ones to the lower ones. All lakes have power plants "filling" them. So a power plant in the far west connected to the high voltage line actually does not "transport" its current over the total distance to the east. However it helps keeping the voltage up, it helps keeping the lake filled.

      Sorry, that was a very simple explanaition. If you are interested in how it actually works, you need find some usefull descriptions yourself. I lack the english terms to proper google for it and present you some. Perhaps the smart grid link on wikipedia is a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid

      Keep in mind high voltage transport is switching from AC to DC meanwhile, which will reduce the transmission loss drasticly.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    345. Re:Nuke power by shilly · · Score: 1

      That is a *fantastic* challenge. I could believe that some material amount of time and money is soaked up by the public inquiries that go alongside decisions to build new nuclear plants, but I just don't believe that they come anywhere *near* the actual cost of building the things, nor do I believe that there are safety features in there that are simply security theatre. If advocates can show the contrary, let 'em!

    346. Re:Nuke power by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      The spill you are referring to was 47 kilo's not liters.

      Water has a density of 1g/cc, heavy water 1.1g/cc. Thus he was actually overstating the amount by around 10%.

    347. Re:Nuke power by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      People's fear is very real and important.

      It may be real, and it is important that we educate those who are fearful with no reason to be so. Why?

      Well, the fear of zombies may be at an all time high, but we're not going to be creating any anti-zombie police departments, burn all corpses to ash within 10 minutes of death or kill anyone who has been bitten by something or gotten blood on them.

    348. Re:Nuke power by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      There have been a total of three major accidents in nuclear power generation (weapons production accidents like Kyshtm are irrelevant now in the civilized world, as only rogue states like NK are actively producing weapons).

      The first (TMI) did not expose a single human outside of the plant boundary to any more radiation than eating a banana a day for a year. The car analogy made a while ago was a good one - is it right to declare all cars unsafe when a vehicle flips, multiple crumple zones get crumpled, and the airbags deploy, and the driver walks away without scratch?

      Chernobyl is irrelevant when talking about non-Soviet nuclear power - only the Soviets built graphite-moderated water-cooled reactors (which are fundamentally dangerous - Google "positive void coefficient" and read up on the Chernobyl timeline please. Chernobyl wasn't an accident, it was an act of criminal negligence. It is clear that you refused to educate yourself even slightly about the history of nuclear power and nuclear safety. While we're on the analogy path - Chernobyl is the nuclear industry's equivalent of taking an old school bus, cutting the brake lines, removing the shocks and swaybars, filling it with kids, drinking a fifth of vodka, and driving down a windy mountain road in a blizzard.

      Fukushima, then, is the first time in non-Soviet nuclear power generation that any member of the public has been at risk of exposure. It is a testament to nuclear safety that one of the oldest reactors on the planet (Unit 1 was originally scheduled for decommissioning prior to the earthquake) performed this well in the face of a disaster that killed 25,000+ people outright. Read up on nuclear safety over the past four decades - engineers haven't been sitting on their asses banging rocks together, they have been constantly asking "can we do better", and improving safety. Car analogy time - judging modern nuclear designs based on the performance of Fukushima is like judging modern highway safety based on the safety performance of technology widely deployed in cars in the 1970s. The failure modes seen at Fukushima have been addressed in modern designs like the AP1000 and ESBWR. (Even the ABWR probably would have not had any issues due to the gas turbine they added within the generator building - as far as I can tell, none of the generator buildings suffered significant direct damage from the tsunami.)

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    349. Re:Nuke power by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      TMI happened more than 30 years ago, in the first decade or two of nuclear power generation. No one outside of the plant boundary was exposed to more radiation than eating a banana a day for a year, and plant design and operating procedure changes were made in response to the accident.

      Fukushima was one of the oldest reactors on the planet and it took a disaster that killed 25,000+ people to cause any problems. In the end Fukushima will likely be a drop in the bucket compared to the direct effects of the disaster. That said, we should still strive to make sure other plants can weather such disasters successfully - which we already have. ESBWRs or AP1000s would have shrugged off that tsunami hit without problems, as both designs eliminate the need for backup generators for decay heat removal.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    350. Re:Nuke power by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      No, they are of coal extraction and oil extraction. Try running a power plant without extraction. Also, try finding something about uranium extraction.

    351. Re:Nuke power by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      Actually car accidents do have something to do with power plants - everything we do - whether its drive to work or splitting atoms we accept a risk (that we will get seriously injured) and I think that was the original posters intent to show.

      We actually accept more risk driving to work than we do with nuclear power.

    352. Re:Nuke power by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      One of the really really neat things about wind turbines, is that they don't require land. They work just as well at sea, if not better, simply because there's no landscape to shelter the wind.

      The Thanet Offshore Wind Project for instance is 300 MW.
      Horns Rev 1 is 160 MW.

      Sure, they take up a lot of space, but in case you hadn't noticed, there's a lot of relatively shallow sea bed available as well.

    353. Re:Nuke power by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      As for perspective why shouldn't people drive 50 year old cars that pollute like a bastard and leak oil once in a while?

      Because they wont pass safety or emissions inspections, and the same should be true of plants.

      Honestly, its like people dont WANT to find a solution.

    354. Re:Nuke power by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      What about hydro dams that have burst? What about geothermal plants that have caused quakes? What about coal / oil plants that pollute daily? What about their supporting mines that have issues-- havent we had 3-4 MAJOR coal mine problems in the last year?

      Let me ask you this, if you add up Nuke deaths over the last 20 years, and then compare to one of the following...
            *Coal mine deaths
            *Hydro dam deaths
            *natural gas related deaths (gathering of, processing of, use of)
      ... which do you think comes out with least number of deaths? Hint, its not any of the alternatives.

      Possibly you could respond that wind and solar are better; and in some ways they are, except for their price and reliability, and their efficiency (arent current solar cells like 10% efficient?). Regardless, if theyre better, then we need to build THOSE, not continue mining coal (with all the deaths and pollution caused by the mining alone), and then burning it in non-zero emission plants while simultaneously complaining about how evil nuclear is. If we were to replace all existing power sources with nuclear tomorrow, we would have fewer deaths yearly, cheaper energy, and basically no pollution-- keep in mind "nuclear waste" is basically "stuff with energy still in it that we could harness right now if we chose".

    355. Re:Nuke power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds like something a zombie would say. Go push your pro-zombie agenda somewhere else stinkbag.

    356. Re:Nuke power by NotAGoodNickname · · Score: 1

      What news program were you watching that said "most of the workers died the next day"? You are saying you were watching a news program where they said "most" of them died the next day. You also said that "5000 - 10000" workers were used PER DAY. Based on that and assuming "most" is around 80% that means that 4,000-8,000 died PER DAY or 28,000-48,000 PER WEEK, which is different than 6k-10k per week you just said above.

      You see, numbers are funny things, and math is even funnier.

    357. Re:Nuke power by NotAGoodNickname · · Score: 1

      Um I have a EE degree so I know how power works. I also know that NY is 3880km from California. You cannot transmit power from NY to California efficiently.

    358. Re:Nuke power by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      you don't do that anyway. you send the power from NY to someplace in the middle and you send their power to CA. since HVDC got [relatively] affordable the problem is the will, not the technology.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    359. Re:Nuke power by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      What I don't get, or what I think is a problem is that we are subsidizing these isotopes for the rest of the world.

      Can someone tell me if these are so important and necessary, why is it there are only like 3 plants operating in the entire world? Why is Chalk River which was build in the 60's still operational with no plan in the future? Why are new ones not being built?

      When Chalk River went down, it was a "pretty big deal" worldwide. Why is this? Are Canadian's losing money and risking our lands and lives for others because of this, as despite being awfully noble, it isn't exactly fair.

      Anyway I think the whole situation is a bit odd.

    360. Re:Nuke power by treeves · · Score: 1

      Yes. Meltdowns are bad. Just like running an engine after it has run out of oil is bad. It destroys the engine. But it doesn't necessarily kill or injure anyone. A common conception of meltdown is that many people will be gravely harmed and that is not necessarily true.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    361. Re:Nuke power by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actually, that is EXACTLY the case. 95% of the "waste" sitting in wet and dry storage right now is perfectly good fission fuel mixed with a wide variety of of cold and radioactive fission products that poison the reaction. If they are separated, the hot waste will decay to about background levels in 500 years. If we can figure out how to further fraction it, some of the hotter stuff is actually useful in industry as sources for medical applications, package sterilization, and various metallurgical and geological scanning.

      The best part is that while the actinides can be a good fuel in a suitable reactor, they act as a very hard to separate out poison for weapons. It would be much harder to use such reprocessed fuel for weapons than it would to start from uranium ore.

    362. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      Good point, and I bet theres more wind right offshore too. (And probably some uppity folks that think this will spoil their view)

      --

      Python

    363. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      You know you can file a public complaint on all of these things and the NRC has to investigate. Just call the NRC and say you want to make an "allegation", thats a special meaning at the NRC and means they have to document it and investigate. If you can't do that, then I'm sorry theres not much anyone can do if you don't file a complaint. The NRC is in fact a public regulatory and I know the people there actually care, they are human, they can make mistakes, and if you believe they did then take action. You say you live near that plant, you have standing, file a claim for gods sake!

      And if that doesnt work, call the IG and your congressman. I'm not sure what else a democracy can do beyond that, but you have lots of options.

      --

      Python

    364. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      Shoreham was decommisioned WAY back in 1989, the plant was shut down and hasn't operated since. Not sure how much more you want done with a site that doesnt have a working reactor or fuel.

      --

      Python

    365. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstand the burden of proof, the party making the affirmative assertion provides proof. I'm not making an affirmative assertion, you are (that levels are presenting a significant health risk). The WHO website has a FAQ here:

      http://www.who.int/hac/crises/jpn/faqs/en/index.html

      EPAs link to radiation monitoring:

      http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/data-updates.html

      But if you have an independent source that shows there is a release that presents a significant threat to health of the public, I'm a big enough man to acknowledge facts.

      --

      Python

    366. Re:Nuke power by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      Shoreham was decommisioned WAY back in 1989, the plant was shut down and hasn't operated since. Not sure how much more you want done with a site that doesnt have a working reactor or fuel.

      Yes, yes it was - but NOT because of the NRC. NUMEROUS complaints were filed, and they were ignored.

      - No safe evacuation plan?
      No worries... we'll let LILCO make something up, that everyone in their right mind knows is impossible

      - State and local officials look at the impossibility of an evacuation plan and decide they will not participate in such a farce?
      Who cares? Let's just assume they'll participate in an emergency, using LILCO's farcical "evacuation" plan.

      - Right next to a military munitions storage base?
      Yup! But let's ignore those complaints

      - Various failed subsystems?
      Who cares? We'll (the NRC) just ignore those - and grant both the test license and full power license. This includes one failed backup generator (and we know how important those are now, dont we?), followed by inspections that showed NONE of them were suitable to the task due to manufacture/design defects. That was summer 1983 through mid-late 1985... now, look at these dates... the 5% power testing was ALSO granted in 1985, at the conclusion of the safety/equipment study (hence no time to swap out the equipment before approval to test was granted - huh?!?!?!). You'd think the smart thing would be to wait until repairs were completed and the backup gennies were fully retested (another two year process). Guess not.

      - Reports from actual workers about horrendous work ethics, untrained employees, control system problems?
      Sure were, but NRC didnt care either.

      - The vast majority of Long Islanders (and the NYS govt) against it EVER being turned on? (and with valid concerns, I might add)
      They didn't care in the least bit

      - Numerous petitions to the NRC to never grant ANY kind of license to LILCO for Shoreham?
      So what? Why would the NRC actually have to do anything based on the complaints and petitions?

      - False and conflicting statements from LILCO about Shoreham?
      Yet the NRC sided with them each time, regardless of both experts and inspectors siding against them (LILCO) who proved they were untrustworthy and incompetent. Here's ONE of numerous reports about problems with the plant: Diesel Generator Stress Evaluating Failures

      I could go on all day...

      I guess I should not make a blanket assumption about the NRC now - and the NRC of back then.

      So, that begs the question, has anything changed?

    367. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      Thats terrible to hear, and I have no doubt it was as you said. In all fairness, we are talking about many decades ago, and everyone is allowed to learn from their mistakes. I think it is unfair to blame the current personnel and leadership of the NRC, now under a different president and different party, new commissioners, managers and probably all new staff for failures of the past. Provided those lessons were learned of course.

      My own personal opinion, based on experience with the NRC, is that the current NRC is very sensitive to any reported failures of licensees and seems more than willing to take action. I've been part of a few actions against licensees, and the NRC didnt quibble when the argument was made that a deficiency was found. They sited the licensee and fined them pretty quickly.

      Nevertheless, as I said before, if you or anyone else know of an action that an NRC licensee has taken, or failed to take, that will present harm to the public, file an allegation. Equally, if the NRC is being deficient file an allegation, and contact the NRC IG. Screwups don't seem to be tolerated at the NRC these days.

      OT: I just saw this from the NRC:

      The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced today it will exit “monitoring mode” and transition its response to the Japanese Nuclear emergency from its 24-hour Operations Center to its Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). The NRC activated its headquarters-based Operations Center on March 11, 2011, in response to the events at Fukushima Daiichi in Japan. Since that time, staff from throughout the agency supported the U.S. government’s response, including staff dispatched to the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo.

      “The conditions at the Japanese reactors are slowly stabilizing. As conditions have continued to improve and the Japanese continue to implement their recovery plan, the NRC has determined that it is time to adjust our response,” said Executive Director for Operations Bill
      Borchardt.

      --

      Python

    368. Re:Nuke power by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      That is awesome to hear. I think much of the problems with selling nuclear power to the general public in those times stemmed from that previous attitude. Glad to hear things have improved.

      Best, Rob

    369. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Actually, that is EXACTLY the case. 95% of the "waste" sitting in wet and dry storage right now is perfectly good fission fuel mixed with a wide variety of of cold and radioactive fission products that poison the reaction.

      Well, that contradicts everything else I ever have heard. 95% of the waste in germany is ordinary contaminated stuff and certainly not "fuel".
      And I really wonder what reactor design should have 95% reusable fuel in its waste ... never heard about that. It makes no sense anyway, if that was the case you still could run it without the need to reprocess it.
      Fuel gets reprocessed as good as possible from used rods anyway.
      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    370. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You "might know" how "power works" but not how power grids work. That is excusable.
      So go and just check your high voltage lines on the maps (perhaps you find them on google maps), and then think why do they span the whole continent "if they dont work"?

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    371. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well, some news say it like that and some news say it like that. Death toll was highest in the beginning and lower in the end.
      Someone was talking about adding skills so I simplified and just said 1k per day and added it up to 7k a week as I was pissed and tired to repeat it again.
      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    372. Re:Nuke power by multi+io · · Score: 1

      I don't misunderstand anything; you claimed that "(the) WHO has stated that there is no evidence of any significant release of radiation", and you continue to fail to provide any source for that, while I did provide sources that do say the opposite (and the NNSA is part of the DOE -- hardly an anti-nuclear organization). The WHO FAQ that you cited says -- among many general advices and guidelines -- that the evacuations ordered by the Japanese government are "in line" with what the US would do under similar circumstances, which, if anything, indicates that there was a significant release of radiation; and I totally fail to see how an EPA-provided list of radiation levels in the United States could tell you that no significant amount of radiation was released in Japan.

    373. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      The fact that a zone exists does not mean the zone is contaminated, and it does not mean a release has occurred. You can confusing what can happen, the reason, with the evacuation, the precaution and assuming that an evacuation means a health significant release has occurred. I don't know how else to explain it. The fact that some radiation release has occured does not mean the region is contaminated or that this is the reason the evacuation was ordered. Evacuations are done before releases occur, if possible, and in this case thats what Japan did. They declared an emergency when it was clear it would not be possible to get a cold shutdown, thats a precaution in case things get out of control to prevent exposure to the public.

      So, the data, the NNSA data as of April 29 is airborne readings:

      http://blog.energy.gov/content/situation-japan/

      This shows some caesium detected using airborne testing (not uranium or plutonium as someone else claimed). In those areas, the vast majority of the area the hr dose is below 0.1 mrem/hr. The annual normal dose a person gets in the US gets every year is about 360 mrem. If you fly or live in higher altitudes your annual dose is considerably higher. If you work at a nuclear powerplant your annual dose is around 1000 mrem a year. If you live in Denver, CO it would be 700 mrem/yr. If you spend a year on the beaches of Brazil your dose would be 5000 mrem/yr. Incidentally, 5000 mrem/yr is the legal occupation dose limit. Its a bit conservative.

      The maximum rate measured is in an area north west of the plant on a diagonal approximately 30km long. The rate measured was between 1.9-19 millrems/hr. If you were is one of the areas, and getting a maximum dose at 19 mrem/hr it would take approximately 19 hours to get Us average, or , 263 hours to get a beach dose from Brazil. This is assuming you were near an emitting source. These dose rates will not make you sick (or kill you). If you stayed there for a few weeks you may increase your chances of cancer. Even then its not a given you will get cancer, everyone is different and it depends on how healthy you are, your genetics, distance from source, shielding, etc.

      http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/rad-health-effects.html

      Based on information from the NRC, if you smoke a pack of cigarettes you will lose 6 years of life expectancy. If you are 15% overweight you will lose 2 years of life expectancy. If you get a 360 millirem dose, you will lose 18 days, so figure at 19 mrem/hr its about a day.

      As most of the area was measured as being below 0.1 millrem an hour, and the other ranges around the northwest region around 1.9 mrem/hr down to 0.19 mrem/hr, you wouldn't be talking about an appreciable effect. At 0.19 mrem/hr thats nor much at all when the US average is 1 mrem a day.

      My definition of significant may be different from yours. Significant to me means it will make you sick now. Is there a likelihood of increased cancers, in that strip of 1.9-19 millirem/hr potentially if you stayed there for a few weeks. Given that the evacuation was done a long time ago, no one should be in that area that does not have adequate protection. So the health effects should be minimal at this point, if people evacuated (which apparently most did).

      Additionally, keep in mind that distance from the source will reduce exposure (the inverse square law). Shielding will also reduce exposure, so just because an area may have sources does not mean you will be equally exposed to them or that its an equal amount (hence the variance in that red region). Increased shielding will decrease exposure. Internal exposure can be prevented with masks and clothing.

      Anyway, theres some data. I'm tired.

      --

      Python

    374. Re:Nuke power by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      "WHO has stated that there is no evidence of any significant release of radiation. "
      By your fantastic logic you would say this same thing for nuclear tests too.

      No, nuclear power is not "safe." Any technology where accident causes emergency personnel to have to get cancer to prevent a fully evacuated plant causing even more cancer in people tens of kilometers away is not "safe"

      Look at the story you are responding to

    375. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      I would say it has. The folks I've worked with at the NRC are very serious about safety and really take their job to heart. If I had to guess, I would say the past problems with Nuclear probably had more to do with the old Atomic Energy Commission that was split up in 1974 it wasn't regulating well. When the AEC was split into the NRC and ERDA, there were probably some cultural left overs from the AEC for some time afterwards. Just a hunch, kind of like how the FAA gets its mission muddled from time to time because it has a dual mission like the AEC used to have (promote and regulate), whereas the Nuclear split now is Regulate (NRC) and Promote (DOE, which is where the ERDA was combined into). And the NRC is independent, unlike DOE which reports to the EOP.

      --

      Python

    376. Re:Nuke power by Python · · Score: 1

      You might want to read down to the big thread with the actual data from the NNSA. And nothing in this world is "safe". You can get hit by a bus just walking to work. Its all relative.

      --

      Python

    377. Re:Nuke power by sjames · · Score: 1

      The reason fuel rods get pulled out with 95% good fuel is a matter of safety. The other 5% are poisons that capture thermal neutrons and kill the reaction. They can be overcome by pulling more control rods and/or designing the core to go critical more easily, but its very dangerous to do so, it's one of the design/operations mistakes that made Chernobyl explode (In that case, the operators were trying to "burn off" Iodine and Xenon to get back to full power. It DID burn off, rather suddenly!). A safe reactor is barely able to go critical (but cannot go prompt critical).

      So, it has to come out. It CAN be reprocessed into good fuel with that 5% being the nuclear waste that has to be stored safely, but currently it isn't done in the U.S. I believe Germany does reprocess it's fuel (It still sits in storage for a while until it cools off enough to reprocess).

      Much of the horror you have heard about storing nuclear waste is from the U.S. where the "waste" includes plutonium, U235, and the actinides that will, indeed, remain radioactive for thousands of years. This started as an executive order to prevent weapons proliferation. The world has changed a lot since then and weapons have proliferated anyway, but the order remains.

      The materials from decommissioning a nuclear plant are, as I said, low level waste and become safe in a fairly short time frame.

    378. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You are mixing up FUEL with WASTE.

      You can reuse 95% of the FUEL (which is economical not worth it as new rods only cost half the prise).

      Waste is far far more then just unspend fuel.In fact I read up about it last night as you seemed so confident in your claims. The waste is increasing by a factor of 3 to 4 if you reprocess burned rods as the reprocessing generats even more waste.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    379. Re:Nuke power by sjames · · Score: 1

      The economic value of reprocessing the waste depends strongly on what process is used (which depends on the type of reactor that will use the reprocessed fuel). If you have to get the actinides out, then it is indeed a loss since the reprocessing costs more and you still get a long term waste product.

      Not all waste is the same. Some (like if you call plutonium waste) will last for thousands of years, some for only a few hours. Most is somewhere in between. The sort of waste created by reprocessing is medium lifetime rather than long, so it can still be a net improvement in the situation.

      Part of the confusion seems to be simply terminology. In the U.S. Waste = used fuel rod = 95% fuel, 5% true waste. So, indeed, 95% of the "waste" is actually fuel that can be re-used if it is processed.

      Interestingly, if I take unenriched uranium, oxidize it and dump it in a mine, if you are an opponent of nuclear energy, you will claim I am polluting, even if I put it in the mine it came from in the first place, unused.

    380. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, if I take unenriched uranium, oxidize it and dump it in a mine, if you are an opponent of nuclear energy, you will claim I am polluting, even if I put it in the mine it came from in the first place, unused.

      Obviously the concentration is much higher than in the original ore.
      The question whether it is "pollution" depends IMHO on the way how you deposite it. If I stand nearby does it poison me? If not it is not pollution, or is it?
      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    381. Re:Nuke power by sjames · · Score: 1

      Even if it's not more concentrated! They'll accuse me of claiming that "the solution to pollution is dilution" and compare me to chemical plants that dump waste into drinking water.

      The difficulty with even researching nuclear energy and waste disposal is that there are so many who become irrational when the subject comes up. Mostly they are against it, but there are a few who irrationally dismiss real problems as well.

    382. Re:Nuke power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well,

      bottom line the problem how to deposite nuclear waste is still open. All "old ideas" how to do it failed so far. This is the main reason why I object nuclear power plants, not only their unreliability or more precisely their invitation for human error and sloth.

      If you find a truly safe way how to deposite nuclear waste you likely get a noble price ;D

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  3. Slashdot on nukes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hey, this is Slashdot, nukes can do no wrong! Clearly this must be propaganda from the bleeding heart eviro-nuts who don't hold the same opinions as me!

    1. Re:Slashdot on nukes? by trep5 · · Score: 1

      No one is saying nukes are perfect. Yet it is the best alternative to the oil that we will run out of shortly. I guess people will have positive opinion about nuclear once they pay an arm and a leg for electricity.

    2. Re:Slashdot on nukes? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Nobody here says that, at least not that I've seen. But a bunch of us do point out that under normal circumstances and ones in which nuclear reactors are supposed to be engineered to handle, things like this don't happen. If you've been paying attention, this wouldn't have been much of an issue had the reactor been properly designed, it's beyond my comprehension as to why they did not have a proper contingency plan for tsunami, given the plant's location and the general likelihood of such a disaster. Had the plant been located in the Gobi Desert, I could understand their not planning for a tsunami, but the plant itself wasn't really that far away from the ocean.

    3. Re:Slashdot on nukes? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      power and money grubbing corporations with lawmakers in their pockets, like Tepco, can do much harm with "nukes". Japan's corporations seem especially gifted with this, for example untrained workers actually unknowingly making a crude nuclear reactor in 1999 by adding one too many buckets of 18% enriched uranyl nitrate to a precipitation tank, with two deaths and a survivor severe radiation poisoning.

    4. Re:Slashdot on nukes? by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      I can only assume you're reading a different Slashdot, because there have been a large number of anti-nuke comments on every Fukushima story.

    5. Re:Slashdot on nukes? by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 1

      under normal circumstances and ones in which nuclear reactors are supposed to be engineered to handle, things like this don't happen

      Well, thank goodness! For a while there, I thought we had a major disaster on our hands.

    6. Re:Slashdot on nukes? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Fact is: they had planned for a Tsunami.

      Only not for such a big one.

      And: they did not even do it properly, instead of putting the emergency power into a truly save spot they had them standing outside on the field. The cheapest solution.

      Imho it can't be so hard to make an air tight building with lets say a 30 yards high chimney and air take ins and put the emergency power diesel generators into it. However, if they do that, they surely mess it up as well and it will break exactly in the moment where it is needed.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re:Slashdot on nukes? by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Might be that you read at -1 and he doesn't, so he can't see those anti-nuke comments that get promptly hammered by the shills of the bury brigade.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    8. Re:Slashdot on nukes? by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      Is everyone who disagrees with you a shill?

      This seems to come up a lot. Are people so utterly certain that they're right that the only reason they can see for someone disagreeing is that they're paid to do so?

    9. Re:Slashdot on nukes? by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, they probably are not paid, I give you that. They are useful idiots. For every poster that is actually engaging into a discussion, I can give you ten who just spam the site with the usual lies like "coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste". What I find most fascinating is the fact that in the nuclear threads, suddenly stuff like global warming and peak oil is real and nuclear power is our salvation. In every other thread, those two things are usually made up by a global conspiracy of socialist scientists and/or Al Gore for the sole purpose of grabbing your hard earned and well deserved money.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    10. Re:Slashdot on nukes? by dcollins · · Score: 1

      "... it's beyond my comprehension as to why they did not have a proper contingency plan for tsunami, given the plant's location and the general likelihood of such a disaster."

      That would be the famed "invisible hand" of the free market, eh?

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    11. Re:Slashdot on nukes? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah...

      On the other hand, it's now coming to light that "properly designed" means designing the thing to withstand the "100 year" storm/earthquake/whatever natural disaster tends to befall your area.

      For a structure expected to last on the order of 60+ years, this seems like a near certain risk of disaster. Furthermore, when the result of failure is a 100+ year 20+km exclusion zone, you can see that the standards need to be a little higher if we don't want an ever-accumulating area of uninhabitable earth to result...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    12. Re:Slashdot on nukes? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Since there is no "-1 Disagree" mod option, yes.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    13. Re:Slashdot on nukes? by bky1701 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "In every other thread, those two things are usually made up by a global conspiracy of socialist scientists and/or Al Gore for the sole purpose of grabbing your hard earned and well deserved money."

      Uhh, no. I think you're confusing slashdot with Fox News. Easy mistake to make.

      Seems to me like you can't deal with the fact there might be people of different opinions on slashdot, and want to use that to demean anyone you disagree with. Like the GP said, basically, but worse.

    14. Re:Slashdot on nukes? by DamonHD · · Score: 2

      Oh, do f*** off. I'm very moderately pro-nuke but your attitude is astounding and you are the idiot if that is how you write off the opinions of other human beings in either direction.

      There are rational and irrational reasons to support and not to support nukes: we're not Mr Spock from Star Trek so both have a legitimate part to play in discussions.

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    15. Re:Slashdot on nukes? by DrBoumBoum · · Score: 1
      • Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste.
      • Nobody died because of Chernobyl (comfortable to believe).
      • Nuclear waste is not a problem, the French reprocess their waste easily (they don't).
      • All issues with nuclear (raising costs, aging designs, no R&D, etc) are basically due to environmentialist whackos/Jimmie Carter.
      • Sun doesn't shine at night so solar energy is unusable.
      • Thank God nuclear energy is our only option.
    16. Re:Slashdot on nukes? by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      I don't think anybody is saying that nukes can do no wrong--just that there is no better option.

  4. TEPCO has ruined nuclear power for decades by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Much of this is TEPCO's fault, and specifically the fault of their CEO, Masataka Shimizu. A few weeks after the hydrogen explosions, it came out that the CEO had ruled that only he could authorize any release of radioactive material, including venting hydrogen to the atmosphere to avoid an explosion.

    When that decision needed to be made, the CEO was not present when wanted. When the earthquake occurred, he happened to be in another part of Japan and had trouble getting to TEPCO HQ. But there was no backup plan if the CEO was unavailable. Nobody took over and made the decision. (In the US, policy is that the on-site plant manager can make that decision.)

    The CEO wasn't seen in public for weeks after the disaster. He was rumored to have fled the country, that he'd committed suicide, or that he was in a hospital. The Prime Minister of Japan personally went over to TEPCO headquarters to demand answers and action. Even that didn't help, and his office had to directly take over management of the disaster.

    Masataka Shimizu is still CEO of TEPCO.

    Japan used to have a tradition of seppuku in such situations.

    1. Re:TEPCO has ruined nuclear power for decades by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      He doesn't need to kill himself. He just needs to be on-location at the plant, 24x7, alongside the workers of the plant who are putting themselves at risk, until the problem is solved.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    2. Re:TEPCO has ruined nuclear power for decades by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      So what makes you think the western companies operating nuclear power plants are any better?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:TEPCO has ruined nuclear power for decades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Japan used to have a tradition of seppuku in such situations.

      "Used to" as in before the Meiji restoration? Hard to see any relevance to operating a nuclear power plant, except in your mind.

    4. Re:TEPCO has ruined nuclear power for decades by SharpFang · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Less of a blind respect to authority.
      A western employee of the power plant would say "Fuck the CEO if he's not available - I'm venting it."
      In Japan, loyalty and obedience is worth more than "doing the right thing".

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    5. Re:TEPCO has ruined nuclear power for decades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's ALWAYS someone's fault, and there is ALWAYS a reason why it won't occur here, or won't occur here, again.

      ALWAYS.

      What does that tell you!?

    6. Re:TEPCO has ruined nuclear power for decades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Much of this is TEPCO's fault, and specifically the fault of their CEO, Masataka Shimizu.

      Pure nonsense.

      Major disasters like this are never any one persons fault. There's an enormous amount of bad decisions that lead up to this kind of thing, and they aren't all made by one person. Why not blame the dummies who decided that the CEO should decide if radioactive material should be released?

      Blaming this whole thing on the CEO, or even just TEPCO would be a major mistake. That only leads to the idea that if we just fire the CEO, or get rid of TEPCO, then we've actually fixed something. I guarantee you the problems are systemic.

    7. Re:TEPCO has ruined nuclear power for decades by lennier · · Score: 1

      Much of this is TEPCO's fault, and specifically the fault of their CEO

      And what of the nuclear regulatory agency which allowed them to operate? Any blame due there?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    8. Re:TEPCO has ruined nuclear power for decades by frieko · · Score: 1

      Every time there's a nuclear accident, it becomes more and more obvious that while a nuclear power plant is perfectly safe, a nuclear power plant with a human at the controls is a disaster waiting to happen.

    9. Re:TEPCO has ruined nuclear power for decades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Decades are not an option. China is using so much coal, that it will burn through its coal reserves (3rd largest in the world) within 3 decades.

      So, prepare for the next few decades of some massive recessions as energy prices skyrocket, or war, or nuclear power.

      China and Russia will go ahead with their nuclear program. Japan doesn't have much choice - they are following the French model "no coal, no oil, no gas, no choice". Germany will become very dependent on neighbors and Russia for energy.

      I'm not quite certain how to play this, investment wise, but currently there is a massive transfer of money from regular bloke to the PV sector - a sector that is older than nuclear power was known, yet still somehow elusively expensive (see, 30c/kWh feedin fees (subsidies) for solar in Germany). Currently PV is a false prophet of energy, at least in areas that are not deserts. Wind is OK, but still too expensive and not a base load, but this sector is basically conglomerates.

      So, slashdot, where to put money and wait 30 years for nice return? :)

    10. Re:TEPCO has ruined nuclear power for decades by khallow · · Score: 0

      When that decision needed to be made, the CEO was not present when wanted.

      This is the thing people don't get about disasters. People aren't always where they need to be or act as they need to act. Execution of infrequent emergency plans (especially for disasters that are at best once in 25 years worldwide) is usually not smooth. Sometimes as in the TEPCO example, important personnel break down and have to be replaced.

      Armchair engineers, such as yourself, don't get it. The point isn't dealing perfectly with a nuclear emergency, but containing it so that little harm is done. I believe that was done in the case of Fukushima.

      Perhaps they could, as you imply, have prevented these hydrogen explosions and perhaps that would have in turn reduced the degree of radiation leakage from these reactors. If so, I'm sure that will come out when we get real data rather than idle speculation.

      Masataka Shimizu is still CEO of TEPCO.

      Japan used to have a tradition of seppuku in such situations.

      Why don't you lead by example? I'd rather have a company man that got promoted past his point of competence than a bag of wind.

    11. Re:TEPCO has ruined nuclear power for decades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erm. They did vent the hydrogen and there is no path to atmosphere. All hydrogen is vented into the building to act as a secondary containment and to try to give some decay time to any radioactive elements before being released to atmosphere. This was the explosion they had to have, in a building made entirely of metal sheeting that falls off if the wind blows too hard.

      This WAS the approved disaster plan and this part of it was executed quite well and had nothing to do with the CEO. Actually it worked so well they repeated it a day later.

    12. Re:TEPCO has ruined nuclear power for decades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you suggesting that the CEO kill himself?

    13. Re:TEPCO has ruined nuclear power for decades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit !

      The nuclear industry in a whole is a ruin since decades ! Most plants worldwide are old, fragile, and have similar big design weaknesses.

      Furthermore, the security is, in most countries enshured by reduced maintenance done by under paid and un trained subcontractors. They are called REM-Man because they are laid off as soon as their maximal dosis is reached, so why train them ?

      It's time to stop for good this dangerous and obsolete way of generating power.

  5. 1986. by Chardansearavitriol · · Score: 0

    I was born during the chernobyl incident. Like all people from the mid 1980s, I of course developed super powers. Fighting off the soviets..that was easy. But now do we have to prepare to fight the JDF Otaku Division? I dont like beating people who are 5' tall and wearing an Ultraman costume, But ill do it if I have to. Anything to keep the Invisible Civil War from spreading...but man...they have tentacle monsters! Thats no fun for anyone.

    1. Re:1986. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, no fun for us guys, but lots of fun for the gals, and i guess fun for us if we get to watch, so what exactly is your point? i for one welcome our new male heterosexual tentacle monster overlords.

    2. Re:1986. by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      well, no fun for us guys, but lots of fun for the gals, and i guess fun for us if we get to watch, so what exactly is your point? i for one welcome our new male heterosexual tentacle monster overlords.

      It depends very much on if we're getting La Blue Girl-grade tentacles, or the Overfiend up your ass with the hydraulic ram.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. chosen ones; passover holycost extendead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you call this 'weather'? part of the delay of the completion of our eternal reward system is that the angel of death has run into political & spiritual challenges, whilst attempting to depopulate southern hillary. the hillarians seem to have advance warning of the upcoming divinically inspired 'visits' this time, & have decided to resolve the matter without consulting any fictional deities. the hymenical council reports that the zeus weapon is being fired helter skelter now, & the war of terror vs.more bigger terror is going as planned. our rulers are even more safe & more than comfortable than ever before, so our future looks fake, like the weather, & our pretense of limitless power.

    disarm. feed the billions of starving children. read the teepeeleaks etchings, please. merciless monday approaches fast. hang on to your healing intentions.

  7. Compounding problems by __aazsst3756 · · Score: 1

    With each accident, building new facilities gets more difficult. We have many existing plants that are of older designs, that are much more susceptible to failure than modern designs. This leads to our current situation of using these old plants way past their design life. This keeps plants from being replaced by modern designs that are multiple times less prone to meltdown. Irrational fear is compounding the problem of old nuke plants, making future problems more likely.

    1. Re:Compounding problems by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Dude, the industry is actively lobbying to extend licenses for each and every plant. And that is not because of the dirty hippies making the construction of new plants impossible (didn't know we had that much power, must have missed that memo), this is because the investments in the old plants are written off by now, so extending the lifetime is PURE PROFIT.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  8. homer simpson by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    homer simpson

  9. Answer: a lot of by Cyberax · · Score: 1

    Why, just last year, 38 people died in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Big_Branch_Mine_disaster . And these are direct immediate deaths.

    If you count deaths caused by 'black lung' disease, cancers and other coal-related deaths, you'll be counting in hundreds of thousands pretty soon.

  10. Contaminated Groundwater by edxwelch · · Score: 2, Informative

    Things are worse than people realise. Units 1 and 2 are both leaking water from the pressure vessel and containment vessel. Also, the quake craked the site foundations. So the contaminated water is seeping into the groundwater.
    http://fairewinds.com/content/fukushima-groundwater-contamination-worst-nuclear-history
    They have found highly radioactive sludge in several sewage treatment plants. http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110513p2a00m0na019000c.html

    1. Re:Contaminated Groundwater by Python · · Score: 3, Informative

      The IAEA has stated regarding possible ground water contamination:

      "As of 10 May, the restriction on the consumption of drinking water relating to I-131 - which had been applied since 1 April as a precautionary measure for one remaining location (the village of Iitate in Fukushima prefecture), and only for infants - was lifted."

      --

      Python

    2. Re:Contaminated Groundwater by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      Dude. They are talking about *drinking* water, not ground water. Give it time though. You'll see it in the drinking water soon.

    3. Re:Contaminated Groundwater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have found highly radioactive sludge in several sewage treatment plants

      It depends on your definition of "highly radioactive".

      From your link:
      On May 1, the Fukushima Prefectural Government announced that 334,000 becquerels per kilogram of radioactive cesium was detected in molten slag after sludge was processed with high heat at a purification center in Koriyama, Fukushima Prefecture.

      334,000Bq/kg? sounds like a lot.. until you realize Bananas have 100Bq/kg.

      Your link also provides no numbers on what "normal" radiation levels are at those treatment plants.

      Unfortunately, there's a lot of money and emotion involved here - given all the FUD flying around.
      Coal/Wind/Solar companies (and their investors) and the enviroweenies are making it very difficult to find good, level-headed information.

    4. Re:Contaminated Groundwater by ildon · · Score: 1

      You mean after it's broken down because it has an 8 day half-life?

    5. Re:Contaminated Groundwater by khallow · · Score: 1

      Things are worse than people realise. Units 1 and 2 are both leaking water from the pressure vessel and containment vessel. Also, the quake craked the site foundations. So the contaminated water is seeping into the groundwater.

      So why is that worse than we realize? The hyperbole surrounding this accident borders on the ridiculous sometimes. For example, from the second story, they're attempting to recycle "highly radioactive" sewage sludge, but finding it "difficult." That says to me that the "highly radioactive" sludge isn't particularly dangerous, but high enough to cause regulatory and publicity problems.

      Consider that pure cesium 137 contains roughly 4*10^14 Becquerels (by calculation). So they're talking about less than a microgram of cesium per kilogram of the incinerated remains of the most radioactive sewage (around 300,000 Becquerels per kg). Maybe we shouldn't eat that.

      As to the ground water thing, maybe we shouldn't drink the ground water from the plant. But need I point out that there is an obvious direction for the flow of anything with a gravity gradient such as a shoreline, namely, down? All this is going to flow into the Pacific Ocean. You could even help it along by pumping some water into the uphill side. I wouldn't touch the ground water from an industrial site anyway due to the likely presence of toxic metals and organic materials.

  11. How many years are we supposed to wait? by hoboroadie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Patience, friend, the catastrophe you seek will occur. The closest man's creations have come to achieving longevity measurable in geologic time is our creation of fissionable material. Those poisons will outlive the pyramids.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  12. tl;dr by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    "Release probable, but not known completely at this time"
    Except for the measurable isotopes blowing ashore in the western U.S.
    Yeah, not completely known. To some of us.
    "Low levels of radiation has been picked up by detectors in Hawaii, Alaska, British Columbia, California, Russia, and Charlottesville, Virginia."
    Of course, last month's newspapers could have had it all wrong.
    "So seriously, lets stop the fear mongering, four accidents of significance and only one - due to a terribly stupid design - resulted in actual threats to the public. Nuclear power is safe, and if people would just take the time to actually understand it they would know it."
    Take your time, Pal.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    1. Re:tl;dr by Python · · Score: 1

      > "Release probable, but not known completely at this time"

      Yes, as in its probable that it occurred and that we do not know completely at this time. I realize you have complete omnipotence, but the rest of us mere mortals can only work with the data we have and right now. And that data shows the only known releases have been non-health threatening. Did a health significant release occur, not known at this time but it is probable. So far the data shows that has not occurred.

      But sure, go ahead and keep beating that drum of ignorance and fear and pretend that you know everything.

      --

      Python

  13. Re:chutzpah by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    I am not an "engineer", so I have fear.
    You know better, I bow to your knowledge.
    Can I subscribe to your newsletter?

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  14. Re:Control of product lifecycles by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    You mention irrational fear, and that reminds me of General Electric's early mastery in the field of scientifically engineering breakage to control costs and sell replacement products. The fact that GE builds so many of our impending nuclear "accidents" is one of my chief worries.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  15. Japaneese Slavutych? by SharpFang · · Score: 2

    I wonder if the next logical step will follow the Chernobyl pattern.

    After the Chernobyl disaster, a common effort by all soviet republic to give relief to victims of the disaster resulted in building a new city from scratch. Slavutych is the city of people from the Chernobyl zone. Employees of the power plant, veterans of liquidation of the disaster, foresters, guards and scientists maintaining the zone of exclusion live in a city 50km from Pripyat, and these currently employed in the zone are going the 60km to work by a train every morning. The town, population 25,000 is divided into 8 districts, each with unique style and character given by a chosen soviet republic that lead building it. The design was specifically intended to give people new hope, a consolation and compensation for what they lost. The plan mostly worked: the standard of living is one of best in Ukraine, and there is outstanding number of children in the town, making its average age the lowest in the country.

    Now I wonder how would the counterpart in Japan look like, if Japan chooses a similar solution. A modern town built in a year or less from scratch, designed with keeping spirits up in mind, done by the Japaneese may be very interesting...

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    1. Re:Japaneese Slavutych? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now I wonder how would the counterpart in Japan look like, if Japan chooses a similar solution.

      The problem is, they're not exactly swimming in land in Japan. (They're swimming in radioactivity.) They'd have to build it on the side of a mountain or something. Seriously though, the best option is to expatriate as rapidly as possible. Spend some of their money while it's worth something to secure some land for their citizens in some other nation and send them packing. Whole towns are now flooded at high tide since the 'quake. Japan is facing a chronic land shortage.

      All this comes off as insensitive I'm sure, and I'm sorry, but it doesn't make sense to build anything in Japan any more. I'd be talking real seriously with Brazil. They already have lots of Japanese and surely they could benefit from lots more. The Japanese are very serious about protecting the environment in their own country, so it might actually improve their environmental conditions to import them all.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Japaneese Slavutych? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is, they're not exactly swimming in land in Japan

      That's it! Build a city under the sea - no more issues with tsunamis!

    3. Re:Japaneese Slavutych? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What?! Expatriate?

      First of all, I assure you, there is LOTS of empty free land in Japan. I own a useless tract of land in Kansai. It's useless because it's in the middle of a weeded field so far out from civilization that it doesn't have electricity, water, or a proper road. Even if I wanted to build a house there, I don't think anyone would buy or rent it, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to live there. (Don't ask why I have this land, it was a gift...)

      While it's true that some land is unusable because it's too mountainous and some land is unsafe because it's too close to water, the truth is, there is plenty of free land. The "problem" (if it is a problem), is that the cities keep growing, and people keep moving there and expanding them. Overall I think this is a good thing, but it leads to some villages being empties to the point that they officially shut down. There was something on the news a couple months ago about one village who had only like 50 remaining residents, so they sold the land to a landfill company and moved somewhere else.

      How you could say "it doesn't make sense to build anything in Japan anymore", I am not sure, but other places, like Hong Kong are *much* more strapped for land, and they're still building stuff. The situation around Fukushima is no joke, to be sure, but it's not really affecting Tokyo or any other far away place - except that we have reduced electricity. TEPCO and the government are working on the problem. They have altered the evacuation zone several times, but that's to be expected as more detailed readings become available. (I mean it's not like the wind blows in a perfect 20KM circle around the plant...)

      As for spending the money "While it's worth something", Japan is facing the opposite problem...the yen is too expensive right now for the exporters to be able to sell as much as they would like...

    4. Re:Japaneese Slavutych? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The biggest problem is Tokyo. Big, very big city, in one of the hottest "danger zones". The next tsunami will probably be positioned correctly to wipe it out. And it will wipe it out; the city is right at sea level.

      There is plenty of "safe" land in Japan where Tokyo should be located, but it's a bit late for that now.

    5. Re:Japaneese Slavutych? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but I don't think the Japanese government wants to loose out on tax payers/voters.

    6. Re:Japaneese Slavutych? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cleaning up of this mess (including removal of thousands of tons of damaged fuel under ruins) will take decades, and a huge "disposable" workforce. Much more people than to run a plant. So there will be the need of a city for them.

      I think they will only decontaminate some evacuated buildings in a "less nasty" part of the evacuation zone, there is no space for a new city nearby.

    7. Re:Japaneese Slavutych? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Japan isn't actually having any more troubles with available land than anyone else. First of all Japan is a very large "island." The combined land mass of Japan is larger than California, Nevada and Oregon combined. It has a lower overall population density than New York state.

      Japan appears so densely populated because the Japanese culture seems to be more tolerant with living closer and with less space. This lets them leave large tracts of the country (relatively) thinly populated so they can cram into their cities.

      I'm not suggesting they have an abundance of land like here in the US. But, their heavily populated urban areas lend to a perception of a nation busting out of its borders that is not correct when looking at the country as a whole. I don't think they need to send colonists out to the rest of the world to reduce their population density.

    8. Re:Japaneese Slavutych? by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      Are you quite sure about those figures?

      Japan's area is 377 944 km^2. California's is 423 970 km^2. That makes Japan smaller than California alone.

      Japan's population density is 337.1 persons/km^2. New York state's is 157.81 persons/km^2. That makes Japan's population twice as dense.

    9. Re:Japaneese Slavutych? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Japan appears so densely populated because the Japanese culture seems to be more tolerant with living closer and with less space. This lets them leave large tracts of the country (relatively) thinly populated so they can cram into their cities.

      Have you ever considered the fact that Japan has already had to import the majority of their food, and that this disaster has drastically reduced not only Japan's ability to produce food which is safe to eat, but also every nation down wind? You're either going to see Japan importing even more food, or you're going to see cancer rates there skyrocket beyond any previous use of the word skyrocket within 20 years.

      I'm not suggesting they have an abundance of land like here in the US.

      Well, let's talk about this supposed "abundance" in the USA. I don't know if you've been watching the news, but big pieces of this country are actually not good places to build a house. In a modern industrialized society they should be inhabited mostly with giant farming robots and the people who tend them and the people who monitor the plants to decide what the robots should do. In a sustainable society it should probably be populated by semi-nomadic hunter-gatherers, but good luck with that. It's a damned flood plain. Then there's the issue of where our population is concentrated. New York City, our most populous city, is a fairly successful example, but a lot of it is built on landfill and much of it is threatened by recent changes in weather. The region surrounding Los Angeles (five counties which share a common bioregion) has an official population estimate over seventeen million, but some estimates as far back as 2000 ranged as high as twenty-five due to undeclared and uncountable illegal residence. All of these people depend on water being piped from the other end of the state or they would otherwise live in a desert. More than enough water falls on the land each year to sustain the region, but without any way to capture it, it runs off (rather quickly) into the ocean through an extensive and expensive series of channels. And speaking of Northern California there's the Sacramento Metro area which is also a big fat floodplain. You can see the same trend again and again, people want to live close to the water and don't care if the water is going to take their house away. Farmers have to be where the arable land is so they have some kind of excuse, but what are the rest of us up to?

      Of course, once you get into the hills you get into forest fire country, so then we start cutting and clearing and destroying our environment for the sake of fire safety... Thankfully they're actually chipping now for free in many places, rather than encouraging piling and burning. In theory, burning of poison oak is prohibited, but in practice if you're scraping your property with a blade and burning the pile you're not going to separate it out. Both approaches have been utilized in my neighborhood (near Highland Springs Reservoir) and the difference is immediately apparent if you are down wind. When a lot of burning is going on, it's a good idea to go do your shopping or something.

      If you want to talk about useful land and land upon which it is feasible to rapidly build a city and then relocate a lot of people there, someplace that's actually a valid place to put those people, you should understand that the list of places is not so very long as you might imagine. The simple possession of a large land area is not enough to guarantee suitable sites.

      Now, Japan may very well have an ideal location that they have somehow passed by, but I find this highly unlikely given the sizable number of Japanese expatriates.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  16. Now, now... by creat3d · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Everybody calm down, if you knew anything about nuclear power you'd know that it's only a worst-case scenario to... oh wait, we've had all the worst cases happen already. But don't worry, it's safer than you think!!1one!

    --
    Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
  17. Exclusion zone shape by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    Nicely said. I thought the discussion would be more about the eventual shape of the exclusion zone and how evacuations might be better handled but your post is very sharp.

    1. Re:Exclusion zone shape by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      From this map from MEXT, the shape will be like a lobe going up to 40 km Northwest from Fukushima Daiichi. The good news are that in a relatively short timeframe, they will reduce the evacuation zone at south and around Fukushima Daini.

      http://www.mext.go.jp/component/english/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/05/10/1305904_042618.pdf

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
  18. Why does nobody mention Sr-90 by fritsd · · Score: 1

    What about the Strontium-90?
    According to the Wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_product_yield, table "medium-lived fission products", the yield of Sr-90 should be a bit less than the amount of Cs-137 and the half-life also comparable (28 years vs 30 years).
    It's chemically similar to Calcium and Magnesium which we need to live and build our bones and teeth from. We are exposed to the calcium in our bones all our life, from within our body, and our bones protect our bone marrow from irradiation.
    Now imagine that a child grows up incorporating a tiny little bit of Sr-90 instead of Ca-40 in her shoulderblade (say it comes from Fukushima prefecture milk). I say imagine because I don't have a clear idea what the risk is and how it depends on diet.
    Now imagine that this child develops leukemia. What are the odds that the bit of Sr-90 in her shoulderblade caused it, that it sickened her marrow? I don't know but I don't think it's negligible.
    Yet, almost all the reports on the IAEA page (http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html) only mention I-131 and Cs-137. So where dd the Sr-90 go to???? it is only mentioned in the 13 april report.

    --
    To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    1. Re:Why does nobody mention Sr-90 by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      it's heavier and not as easily airborne. Some was detected in the sea near Fukushima-Diachi, but at 1.3 times normal level quite frankly it's not a big concern, whereas the levels of radioactive cesium and iodine are.

      http://www.arirang.co.kr/News/News_View.asp?nseq=115777&code=Ne8&category=1

  19. Caving to political pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All but a tiny fraction of the iodine-131 has decayed away. The cores no longer need constant active cooling. The danger of a major event is very very minimal. Radiation levels are low on site. Off site, most of the area is within normal background levels. A few isolated areas are slightly above.

    The evacuation zone should have been reduced weeks ago, but now, for no apparent reason, they are widening it?

    It's a simple case of the politics of fear and ignorance. "Oh the children! Save the children! The horrible invisible radiation!"

    So how many have died as a direct effect of the radiation from Fukushima? Zero? That's right, zero! Geez, horrible, isn't it?

    1. Re:Caving to political pressure by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      "So how many have died as a direct effect of the radiation from Fukushima? Zero? That's right, zero! Geez, horrible, isn't it?"

      Nice strawman. Nobody is worried about people who haven't died *yet* - they are worried that if people return to the evac zone, they may start to experience higher rates of cancers among the population, and someone may die next year, or a few years from now, or 10-20 years from now.

      Can you show that is not a possible outcome?.

      I don't know if that's a real threat or not, but apparently the Japanese government thinks it could be.

  20. Re:Real Genius by hoboroadie · · Score: 0

    Go ahead and bang the drum of arrogance and chutzpah since you know so much more than anyone else on the planet. I don't have complete omniscience to address your overweening omnipotence, all I had to go on was your apparent mis-statement regarding whether there had been any known release, which in retrospect you've chosen to qualify as non-health threatening. That is just a quantitative issue, if your colleagues had killed a tenth of Japan's population, we'd probably still be surviving here. My point is that there is going to be a long future for your crumbling infrastructure to threaten my health and if your education didn't teach you about your ignorance then you should think a little harder. As far as me pretending I know everything, Fuck You. You're the one who appears to know it all. Mere mortals such as myself only know what is alleged by our news media and what other seemingly credible sources we can find. My old Gieger counter is not sensitive enough to detect the emissions that have been blown my way, should I wait until I hear clicking before I start to worry?

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  21. Re:Control of product lifecycles by celle · · Score: 1

    "General Electric's early mastery in the field of scientifically engineering breakage to control costs and sell replacement products"

    Might want to talk to RCA about being first. They made their early consumer products in various flawed ways to sell parts and monetize the repair business thereby making money on both ends of their product lines. Then Sony came in with highly reliable, well built products and wiped them. Unfortunately now they all suck.

  22. Perspective is a funny thing . . . by Idou · · Score: 1

    And, I suppose, the thought has never crossed your mind that your wife's cancer could be the result of fallout from earlier nuclear tests and/or accidents? Our technology level does not allow us to confirm such things, and yet you only associate the technology positively? I used to think the same way until I was forced to flee my home of 6 years for the safety of my family.

    Do yourself and the world a favor. Change your perspective before being forced to by unfortunate events.

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    1. Re:Perspective is a funny thing . . . by plover · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seriously? You're comparing having to move your house to saving my wife's life, and the lives of the other people saved by those radioisotopes? Jeez, I'm so very sorry for the terrible inconvenience. Let me get right on that perspective changing.

      --
      John
    2. Re:Perspective is a funny thing . . . by shilly · · Score: 1

      The ordinary process of moving house is a high-stress event. High-stress events kill people. Being forced to flee your home is a way more traumatic experience than simply moving. Refugee communities the world over can testify to that. If sufficient numbers of people are forced to flee (Fukushima would be a clear example of this), you can guarantee whopping levels of associated morbidity and mortality, way more than the saving of a few lives from cancer through radiotherapy derived from the plant.

  23. Relevant information by nutshell42 · · Score: 1

    Here's the radiation information from the NNSA and Department of Energy which have cooperated with Japanese authorities on overflights and ground measurements. Slide 6 shows the Cesium levels which are probably the most relevant mid-term. Expect them to adjust the exclusion zone to cover anything green and up (and Iitate is right in the middle), although this being Japan they might just exchange the top soil of the outlying islands. I do wonder what they're gonna do in the 300,000-600,000 Bq/m^3 areas.

    --
    Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
  24. Re:Real Genius by Python · · Score: 1

    > That is just a quantitative issue

    Right, quantity matters with ionizing radiation. Too much is bad for you, low amounts are not in the immediate, cumulative amounts can cause cancer, etc. Some studies assert that a certain amount is necessary for life to exist. I'm not going to speak to that, but too much is the issue and so far that has not occured.

    > if your colleagues had killed a tenth of Japan's population

    My colleagues? I don't work in nuclear power, they are not my colleagues. I think you have me confused with someone else.

    > My point is that there is going to be a long future for your crumbling infrastructure to threaten my health and if your
    > education didn't teach you about your ignorance then you should think a little harder.

    My crumbling infrastructure? Again, I think you have me confused with someone else, its not mine.

    > Fuck You.

    And we're done here.

    --

    Python

  25. High radioactivity before the tsunami by rrohbeck · · Score: 2

    It seems that the quake itself damaged the #1 reactor, well before the tsunami took out the power system:
    http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110515p2g00m0dm007000c.html

    1. Re:High radioactivity before the tsunami by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      That is an interesting report. Japan has had problems before with earthquakes damaging nuclear power plants in the past.

  26. Perspective and collateral damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So when nuclear bombs explode during the fight for the last gallons of oil, then that will be what? Business as usual?

    Seriously, get some perspective. There are 10,000 nuclear, ready to go at a moments notice to destroy the world. And you worried about an attack on a nuclear power plant? Sabotage? The thing is built, like a nuclear power plant!

    As I keep saying, nuclear power will be continued to be used by humans. That will be either in form of weapons to fight over fossil fuels, or as a form of energy that replaces fossil fuels. Pick one.

    PS. With non-fossil-fuel economy, no one would care about Middle East. There wouldn't be wars over it, costing TRILLIONS of dollars, if there were no oil there. These are the costs associated with oil. I'd rather have a few Fukushimas as a learning process than millions dead or displaced because of oil.

    You can't conveniently "outsource" collateral damage with nuclear power, like people like to do with fossil fuels. And that is another reason I support it.

  27. Re:Control of product lifecycles by hoboroadie · · Score: 2

    Okay, you caught me, I don't really know about the actual management decisions and the engineering implementation here, just talkin' outa my ass I guess. Back in the sixties, I repaired televisions and RCA was pretty crap stuff, but suddenly (in the early seventies, IIRC) GE came out with some absolute, unrepairable shit. Stuff that was lucky to make it out of the warranty, unbelievable badness. We quickly learned to jack up the estimates for GE repairs to keep people from actually fixing them. If we found out on the phone it was a GE we'd refer them to the shyster shop in town, that we normally would not recommend. When we did have to do a repair, it was always pretty bad to work on, crumbling apart as we opened it up &c., and then we'd usually eat shit when it came back with some unrelated problem that we'd end up fixing because of the coincident timing. They thinned out the gauge of the chassis steel, the circuit boards got thinner, the components got spindly and poor, It was pretty amazing, actually. As you said, Sony came along and ate their lunch with nice, stout chassis, (and beautiful plywood), and good components. We hardly ever saw Mitsubishis, but as I recall, they seemed even nicer. In the olden days we'd recommend Curtis Mathes, then in the seventies we'd say "Sony, no baloney",or if money was no object, Mitsubishi. We had an antique GE reactor down the road, makin' isotopes, and I used to worry a lot about that place. Another thing I noticed was the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Laboratory that i talked to would all parrot the exact same nonsense about how their work was good for world peace. I don't recall the script now, but it was like they went to brainwashing camp and took the propaganda straight out of a manual, not some reasoned conclusion from independent thought or research. I like electricity as much as anyone, it's pretty keen what we can do with it, but I think I'd rather wear fur and hunt my food with a bow and arrow than trust our corporate leaders to build "safe, clean" nuclear generators. As long as the "Wonderful one hoss shay" is our model for manufacturing practice, then I don't think a college-indoctrinated engineer is qualified to design something as critical and dangerous as a nuclear water boiler. YMMV.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  28. The Culled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Japan does not have any "Medicare" or any discernable "Health Care" program on the local or national level.

    Having 30 million residents exposed to heavy transuranic elements which confers debillitating genetic damage which is transfered to offspring, and mostly untreatable will force the Government of Nippon to cull those already in temporary shelters and certainly those new inductees soon to arrive.

    The current "refuge shelters" will by necessity become death camps, like in Germany in the 1940s (at that time to ride Germany of the Roma populations).

    Given the severity of the release of heavy transuranic elements, at least 150 million will be culled over the next 5 years.

    This will be Nippon's Final Solution to the Earthquake, Tsunami and TEPCO debacle.

  29. Regulator capture by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

    They can do this safely, for this reason we are only listening to news about Fukushima Daiichi, Onagawa NPS and despite being far closer to the epicenter didn't had any significant trouble. Tokai 2 NPS wasn't damaged by the tsunami either.In fact, the replica at 07/April/2011 was the one that damaged the external power lines to Onagawa, but still they had one working from 5. The main trouble for Fukushima is that the top brass at TEPCO didn't bothered to invest a few million dollars in tsunami countermeasures even when they know that the power plant was designed to withstand tsunamis bellow the ones recorded in the area. They didn't even put bullet proof doors at entrances of controlled buildings. But, if the regulators have done their job then they would have been forced to do it. Now, for saving a few millions TEPCO lost the second most important power plant for the company and lost billions.

    --
    Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
  30. Pollyannas can suk my fuel rod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The techo-weenie nuclear Pollyanna crowd spent months of comments on Slashdot telling everyone who questioned TEPCO and questioned the scope of the disaster that everything was just peachy good, we need more nukes and how anyone that wrote about a bad outcome was incompetent, scaremongering, ignorant
    or all 3.

    Editors please analyze the comments to find if there are paid mouthpieces pushing the nuclear industry view on Slashdot. The misinformation and lies from the
    Pollyanna crowd is so persistent it is cult like or paid advertising.

  31. Contaminated area shape by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

    JAIF has published in 13/may/2011 a map of the radiation surveys by MEXT and US's DOE, with the radiation lecture in air 1m above ground, cesium 137 deposition in soil and marine contamination readings:
    http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1305269890P.pdf

    --
    Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    1. Re:Contaminated area shape by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      That is useful. It looks like the 20 km radius evacuation zone area is about right but it needs to be reshaped. Could still have more contamination going forward though.

  32. Measurements of contamination on site by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

    http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110514e10.pdf

    They haven't detected anything in the deep well from the power plant since 3 weeks at least. The most worrying contaminant released, cesium 137, has been detected mostly in soil northwest; and will be a cause of concern depending of how is accumulated by living beings. They have detected it in tea leaves, but still is unknown if it comes from rain/air or it was absorbed from soil

    --
    Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
  33. Widening the Zone?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this not mean the emissions will be bigger now?

  34. likely everything was much worse by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Do you think that the same company who downplayed this huge disaster to the point of putting people at risk-- NOW during a big important disaster -- that they even maintained the plant within its designs? Those emergency generators probably didn't even function anyhow and they just lucked out that they could blame it on the water.... There are probably plenty of other things as well that were mismanaged, under reported, and covered up BEFORE THE DISASTER when the dishonesty was less important!

    I wouldn't be shocked if they figure out tomorrow some of the leaked waste was being dumped there before the disaster... but rather than be seen as pure evil, they'll opt for just incompetence.

    Here in the USA there are plenty of plants who only power up the generators for minutes (not days) with no load -- if at all -- and they could easily break down when they are needed. Actually, I read about 2 plants in the USA where a) the generators weren't run for many years and b) generators were not realistically tested.

    The design is quite stupid as well, storing all that waste so close to the plant just to save money... Those flaws have nothing to do with technology and the same factors behind those "mistakes" are the SAME factors that exist today in modern projects. Actually, its likely a modern plant would have more foolish design errors simply because the level of corruption and cost cutting today is worse than it was back when these old plants were designed.

    I would expect the examples of the previous accidents (every few decades) would provide more loophole planning for the legal advisers than design corrections.

  35. Re:Lockout chip business model by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1
    Oh, the tired "logic" of nuclear waste longevity. The root cause of that is the content of actinides, with very long half-lives. However, these are fissionable, therefore can be burned - with significant energy release. It is not "waste" - it is a fuel for 4th-generation reactors.

    Unless the sheeple with their panties in the twist will continue running around scared that nuclear power is baaaaad. It's these people because of whom the old plants are still in operation instead of being replaced with newer, safer ones.

    Illogical.

  36. While you learnt nothing from that example ... by dbIII · · Score: 1

    While you learnt nothing from the example of TMI others did. By sheer luck and early good planning (which was discarded for the portions built later) it was the best sort of accident to have - one that was enough to scare an industry out of dangerous complacency for over a decade but not severe enough to kill anyone. It's lesson is that nasty stuff can happen unless you take care. Just because you've missed that lesson doesn't mean the rest of us have not.
    Chenobyl woke everyone up again. Elements of this recent disaster have shown that portions of the industry were drifting off to sleep at the wheel again.

    1. Re:While you learnt nothing from that example ... by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      Elements of this recent disaster have shown that portions of the industry were drifting off to sleep at the wheel again.

      I very much agree with most of your comment, but do you care to tell me how the nuclear industry could have done more to prevent a 9.0-magnitude earthquake, resulting tsunami, and subsequent massive aftershocks? Something tells me that not even they have the technology to stop something like that.

  37. About as dangerous as sand - here's why by dbIII · · Score: 1
    A great deal of fly ash seems to be made into concrete, which seems like a decent way to entomb radioactives ... sweating radioactives and toxics

    Naturapath Ebonics aside with "toxics" let's consider the radioactivity issue which involves a bit of contact with reality.
    Consider what coal is. It's compressed plant matter. It's pretty well all carbon. Now where the fuck is the radioactive material with a half life of more than 6000 years (carbon14) going to be in that? The answer is in the impurities, which are pretty well all sand. Now if 10% of the coal doesn't burn it's not paticularly good coal but still usable - so you've got 10% that used to be sand. Thus that coal is going to have about 1/10 per tons of any sort of impurity that is in the sand. If it's sand with radioactive elements you end up with coal that is 1/10 as radioactive sand. The end point of this is that is you take around 220,000 tons of the most radioactive coal Oak Ridge Labs could find and concentrate the radioactive material you get the equivalent of one banana dose.
    Coal kills a lot of real people in plenty of real ways without indulging this fantasy from a failed nuclear PR campaign designed to make people take radioactive waste less seriously.
    I am hoping you have merely been conned by a lying weasel on this issue instead of being one yourself.

  38. To all you pro nukes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey guys there is a lot of really great housing that has opened up in Japan. Why don't you all move right in.

  39. Tears of Relief, I'm sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you ever hear the joke of the Geek that found a talking frog?

    Or how about the one where a beautiful woman rides up to a geek on a bicycle?

  40. If you knew even a tiny bit about nuclear power .. by dbIII · · Score: 1

    If you knew even a tiny bit about nuclear power from what you could pick up from the press you would already know the answer for that one before asking it. Since even before the 1970s there has been a push towards reactor designs that would not catastrophicly fail upon the loss of coolant. TMI made that even more important and pushed it into the mainstream. The reactors we are talking about are old and did fail after the loss of some coolant.
    That's assuming you are really asking about how to prevent earthquate and tsunami damage from leading to catastrophic reactor problems. Your actual question is yet another example of somebody pretending to be incredibly stupid (why pretend I know how to stop earthquakes?) to push an argument instead of relying on the argument instead. There is a lot of such bullshit about now - do they teach that moronic argument tactic in school these days or something? The only polite response to such fake stupidity is to assume that those who use it were actually intelligent enough to survive to the age where they can write and try to work out what line they are pushing with such fake stupity.

  41. Re:If you knew even a tiny bit about nuclear power by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, but he's trying to tell me that the Fukushima disaster was caused by the nuclear industry "falling asleep at the wheel again" which makes absolutely no sense because you can't prevent an earthquake.

  42. Re:If you knew even a tiny bit about nuclear power by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Of course they cannot prevent earthquakes and I really so not understand why you are pretending to be so stupid. While you cannot command the rain to stop it is still within your power to carry an umbrella.

    What the earthquake did was make the cooling system fail. What can be done and has been done in some other reactors is to minimise the concequences of a complete cooling system failure so that the accident is far better contained.