Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

26 Nuclear Power Plants In Hurricane Sandy's Path

Posted by samzenpus on from the perfect-storm dept.

pigrabbitbear writes "Hurricane Sandy is about to ruin a bunch of people's Mondays. In New York City alone, the storm has already shut down public transportation, forced tens of thousands to relocate to higher ground and compelled even more office jockeys to work from home. (Okay, that last part might not be so bad, especially for the folks that don't actually have to work at all.) But if it knocks out power to any of the 26 nuclear power plants that lie directly in its path, the frankenstorm of the century will ruin Tuesday, too. Heck, a nuclear meltdown would be a much bigger problem."

13 of 392 comments (clear)

  1. Took you long enough, Slashdot by EmagGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To publish an insanely sensationalistic FUD piece from the Anti-Nuclear crowd scaremongering the most densely populated area of the world over something that is a complete and utter non-issue.

    1. Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot by WilyCoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. While people are dealing with the *real* effects of the storm right now, these people want to talk about nuclear meltdowns? Stupid ass hyperbole if you ask me...

    2. Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot by fm6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh please. I've read both stories, and neither of them is the least bit sensationalistic. They present issues and facts, and neither of them is clearly anti-nuke. But of course anybody who suggests that there are safety issues with nuclear power must be "scaremongering".

      What's weird to me is that people get all religious about nuclear power. At best, fission plants will never provide more than a fraction of the power we need. You may think that the benefit-versus-risk equation argues that we shoud build them (not that I agree) but is that really sufficient reason to treat nuclear power like the Second Coming?

    3. Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot by echusarcana · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm getting tired of all the anti-nuclear stuff on Slashdot as well. Enough of this. If you are some sort of anti-science luddite go comment on Mother Jones or somewhere like that. A nuclear station is built to withstand a hurricane with ease, including, loss of off-site power. There are multiple backups. End of story.

    4. Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot by mooingyak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      New York City isn't even in the top 50 by population density: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population_density

      And.. *gasp*... look at which country makes up 7 of the top 10 densest populations in the world...

      That list needs a much higher minimum population threshold.

      14 of the 50 have fewer than 100k people. Only 12 of them even crack 1M. One on the list (Union City, NJ) would get counted as part of NYC if you start looking at metro areas.

      But all that aside, I wasn't trying to argue that NYC is the most densely populated part of the world, but rather took issue with the anonymous poster's assertion that New Delhi and Beijing were moreso. The instruction to look at a map followed by a pair of examples that didn't support the argument he was making got to me.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    5. Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ha, I was getting tired of all the pro-nuclear stuff on Slashdot as well. Every time there is a story about nuclear power, or even worse about any kind of non-nuclear power, the nuke-u-like brigade come out and accuse everyone of being irrational anti-nuke anti-technology anti-progress tree-hugging hippies.

      Rational debate becomes impossible.

      A nuclear station is built to withstand a hurricane with ease, including, loss of off-site power.

      Fukushima was built to withstand a large earthquake and tsunami with ease, including, loss of off-site power. Turns out the design was flawed and contingency plans inadequate. If you would like to debate the actual, technical issues here I would be glad to.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. My god, this has never happened! by greg_barton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These plants have NEVER been hit by a storm before! Whatever will we do??

  3. And when the storm has passed... by greg_barton · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So when the storm has passed, if nothing happens, will the fear mongering anti-nuke folks admit that nuclear power is safe?

    *crickets*

  4. Re:Nuclear Technology by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The WTC towers did survive an aircraft flying into them.

    What they didn't survive was the jet fuel fire after the crash knocked the insulation off the girders.

    This is stupid fear-mongering, plain and simple.

    Fukushima didn't fail until AFTER a catastrophic earthquake, AFTER a catastrophic tsunami, AFTER the reactor was run past its design lifetime, and AFTER the company in charge of it did not make the manufacturer's recommended safety upgrades. Do you have any evidence we're facing anything remotely similar to those circumstances with the 26 nuclear reactors in the storm's affected area?

    --
    Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
    Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
  5. Re:Around here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If there's a storm surge on the Eastern seaboard big enough to damage a nuclear power station, millions of people are going to be having a REALLY bad day before they start worrying about the nuclear plant.

  6. Critical fact missing from TFA by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And they're all rated for much more severe storms than Sandy. Not sure why the fearmongering article, which goes out of its way to imply that meltdown is imminent...

  7. FUD by confused+one · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sorry... This is a bunch of FUD. These plants have all seen impact of large storms before. Other nuclear plants along the Atlantic coast have been impacted by larger storms than Sandy. Despite this, the U.S. Mid Atlantic coast is not a radioactive wasteland.

  8. Re:I hope it gives me super powers by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Will we get the same sensationalist headlines when nothing happens?

    "The plants performed as designed! No meltdown!!!"

    --
    No sig today...