HurricaneJosh Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 If this just turns out to be just a big scare this is going to have a huge impact on the future of nuclear energy in the US. That really bums me out. It's been since the 70s that a plant has been approved for construction in this country and it's going to be a long long time before it happens again. But can you blame people for being spooked by this? I've never been enthused about nuclear energy, but now? Forget it. Living in a seismically-active region that is hit by violent earthquakes fairly regularly, I sure as hell would not be cool with a plant going up in Southern California-- not after seeing what's happening in Japan, a country that is on the forefront of earthquake preparedness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJW155 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 But this is a region prone to huge quakes and tsunamis-- it's not like these events are out of the blue. If they can't build to handle even 500-year-events, they shouldn't. True, I see what you are saying. As usually it's a decision about $$$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I think I saw somewhere that they had 6-7 back up generators..all damaged in the tsunami if that is indded the case then for now on gen sets should be positioned well above ground....perhaps on top of the buildings? Well, bingo. That's what I'm getting at. Saying, "Well, the tsunamis damaged the generators" is a totally unacceptable excuse. Why would the generators even be vulnerable to rises in the sea level in an area that is prone to tsunamis? No one anticipated this possibility on Japan's NE Honshu coast? I mean, come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott747 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Appears the application of seawater to the #1 unit has been a success. Took about the estimated time that was announced. Japan's Edano saying that fuel rods at TEPCO Fukushima nuclear plant No. 1 reactor now covered with water Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janetjanet998 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 from another forum..didn;t say what unit "old news" at number 1 or why for the new emergency for #3 CNN now reporting-Japanese official: Meltdown may be underway. <BR clear=all> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterymix Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 But this is a region prone to huge quakes and tsunamis-- it's not like these events are out of the blue. If they can't build to handle even 500-year-events, they shouldn't. How would you supply energy to a region with such high population density? Risk management. One does what one has to do. Their gov't is smarter than ours--watch live Japanese TV. The head gov't dude speaks like a scientist as do the TV commentators. Nine people have been exposed. The Japanese are high functioning scientists, they do not need us to second guess them. They also have nuclear reactors on barges. They are about 50 years ahead of the U S A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott747 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 from another forum..didn;t say what unit "old news" at number 1 or why for the new emergency for #3 CNN now reporting-Japanese official: Meltdown may be underway. <BR clear=all> I'll repeat. CNN has been absolutely horrific in relation to the nuclear plants. WND is probably a better source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaggy Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 But can you blame people for being spooked by this? I've never been enthused about nuclear energy, but now? Forget it. Living in a seismically-active region that is hit by violent earthquakes fairly regularly, I sure as hell would not be cool with a plant going up in Southern California-- not after seeing what's happening in Japan, a country that is on the forefront of earthquake preparedness. I made a post similiar to this lastnight. How foolish we are to believe that we are capable of outdoing mother nature. We can build a ship and call it unsinkable and we can build a nuclear plant and say that its fully earthquake ready and could withstand a quake of up to a X strength but we never know what mother nature can throw at us. To put something that is so dangerous such as nuclear technology at the hands of mother nature is a dangerous move and we are seeing the effects of that now in Japan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 How would you supply energy to a region with such high population density? Risk management. One does what one has to do. Their gov't is smarter than ours--watch live Japanese TV. The head gov't dude speaks like a scientist as do the TV commentators. Nine people have been exposed. The Japanese are high functioning scientists, they do not need us to second guess them. They also have nuclear reactors on barges. They are about 50 years ahead of the U S A. As a major BP/oil-spill apologist, you have very little credibility when discussing the environmental impact of energy, so I don't take your comments about this topic too seriously. Sorry. When we get the next violent quake in L.A., I'll rest assured I'm not going to be exposed to radiation. That's worth higher energy prices to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewxmann Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 But can you blame people for being spooked by this? I've never been enthused about nuclear energy, but now? Forget it. Living in a seismically-active region that is hit by violent earthquakes fairly regularly, I sure as hell would not be cool with a plant going up in Southern California-- not after seeing what's happening in Japan, a country that is on the forefront of earthquake preparedness. San Onofre? That is probably closer to LA than Fukushima is to Tokyo, or even Sendai. At the very least that is right across from the OC. Japan knows what its doing - the area around Fukushima is not too densely populated, and it's located on the East Coast, where westerly prevailing winds would carry radioactive crap out to sea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 But can you blame people for being spooked by this? I've never been enthused about nuclear energy, but now? Forget it. Living in a seismically-active region that is hit by violent earthquakes fairly regularly, I sure as hell would not be cool with a plant going up in Southern California-- not after seeing what's happening in Japan, a country that is on the forefront of earthquake preparedness. This is a disaster for sure, but so far, it seems very much contained to a small area and a very small number of people. It's very reactionary (and not a sign of critical thinking) to declare this a reason not to build nuclear... especially when it's one of the cheapest, cleanest forms of power out there. And for Japan, it's one of the only economically viable large-scale sources of power. It's not like people don't get killed or injured with other types of power facilities, either. Radiation is just one of a long list of possible hazards that come with our industrial way of life... and, generally speaking, because of the danger it poses, it's handled in a way to make it as safe as (or safer than) other hazards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 As a major BP/oil-spill apologist, you have very little credibility when discussing the environmental impact of energy, so I don't take your comments about this topic too seriously. Sorry. When we get the next violent quake in L.A., I'll rest assured I'm not going to be exposed to radiation. That's worth higher energy prices to me! i guess it's a shame since everyone was moving back toward the idea of nuclear energy.. it's pretty damn safe on the whole regardless of anything that happens here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJW155 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 San Onofre? That is probably closer to LA than Fukushima is to Tokyo, or even Sendai. At the very least that is right across from the OC. Japan knows what its doing - the area around Fukushima is not too densely populated, and it's located on the East Coast, where westerly prevailing winds would carry radioactive crap out to sea. I think that's Josh's point. Japan knows what they are doing and they are still having these problems. Ergo, it shouldn't be done in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 San Onofre? That is probably closer to LA than Fukushima is to Tokyo, or even Sendai. At the very least that is right across from the OC. Japan knows what its doing - the area around Fukushima is not too densely populated, and it's located on the East Coast, where westerly prevailing winds would carry radioactive crap out to sea. Sorry, I should have clarified "L.A. Metro". San Onofre is in San Diego County. "Japan knows what it's doing"? OK, cool. So then why are all these reactors having serious problems at the same time? I hope you're right, but saying, "Don't worry-- the winds will blow the stuff offshore" is a pretty thin defense for the possible consequences. I'm happy y'all are so into nuclear energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach McGuirk Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 San Onofre? That is probably closer to LA than Fukushima is to Tokyo, or even Sendai. At the very least that is right across from the OC. Japan knows what its doing - the area around Fukushima is not too densely populated, and it's located on the East Coast, where westerly prevailing winds would carry radioactive crap out to sea. Suck it, Portland! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 When we get the next violent quake in L.A., I'll rest assured I'm not going to be exposed to radiation. That's worth higher energy prices to me! California is not Japan. Without nuclear power, Japan's economy would be a mere shadow of what it actually is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 "Japan knows what it's going"? OK, cool. So then why are all these reactors having serious problems at the same time? could be that biggest earthquake in 1,000 yrs that happened there.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterymix Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 As a major BP/oil-spill apologist, you have very little credibility when discussing the environmental impact of energy, so I don't take your comments about this topic too seriously. Sorry. When we get the next violent quake in L.A., I'll rest assured I'm not going to be exposed to radiation. That's worth higher energy prices to me! How would Japan generate the needed electricity? Solar, not enough. Geothermal, not enough. Coal and petroleum yield 60 to 70% and so the remainder must come from nuclear. Nuclear plants must have continuous sources of flowing water. The nuclear plants are the best solution and so far, the only complication is nine people that can be cleaned up and given anti-radiation antidotes. The Japanese nuclear generation program for their domestic energy needs is standing the test of time. They will re-commission the reactors and keep going. China are undergoing a historic increase in their domestic generation of electrical energy via nuclear powered generators. The US is allowing itself to be left in the dust. Most Americans do not hate BP. Connect the dots. Economies go on. Energy delivery is a big part of every day around the World. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k*** Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 i guess it's a shame since everyone was moving back toward the idea of nuclear energy.. it's pretty damn safe on the whole regardless of anything that happens here. occasional nuclear accident>>>>>>a bunch of coal plants spewing out pollution everyday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 This is a disaster for sure, but so far, it seems very much contained to a small area and a very small number of people. It's very reactionary (and not a sign of critical thinking) to declare this a reason not to build nuclear... especially when it's one of the cheapest, cleanest forms of power out there. And for Japan, it's one of the only economically viable large-scale sources of power. It's not like people don't get killed or injured with other types of power facilities, either. Radiation is just one of a long list of possible hazards that come with our industrial way of life... and, generally speaking, because of the danger it poses, it's handled in a way to make it as safe as (or safer than) other hazards. Call it what you want. Go live near a nuclear reactor, then-- since you're a "critical thinker", presumably. i guess it's a shame since everyone was moving back toward the idea of nuclear energy.. it's pretty damn safe on the whole regardless of anything that happens here. Regardless of what happens? If a meltdown does occur, we'll see how that trend toward nuclear power continues. Let's hope we don't have to see that. I think that's Josh's point. Japan knows what they are doing and they are still having these problems. Ergo, it shouldn't be done in the first place. Thank you. It's like no one was understanding. My whole point was that the Japanese are the most capable in this area-- so if they can't even keep it under control, I hardly trust anyone else to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 i guess it's a shame since everyone was moving back toward the idea of nuclear energy.. it's pretty damn safe on the whole regardless of anything that happens here. I'd like to say I'm surprised at Josh for being so reactionary about this, but I have to remember that his generation had the Cold War scare and all that jazz to worry about. I think that's Josh's point. Japan knows what they are doing and they are still having these problems. Ergo, it shouldn't be done in the first place. They're having problems that are all being handled as well as could be expected, it seems. This is not going to be a Chernobyl-scale incident. The impacts so far are minor, especially compared to the rest of the 'quake's impacts (tsunami, etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott747 Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Why not take the lame political bs back to PR where everyone loves to sling **** at each other.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I'm not a "critical thinker" because I find it unacceptable that multiple reactors were not designed to handle earthquakes and tsunamis in a region prone to earthquakes and tsunamis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 But can you blame people for being spooked by this? I've never been enthused about nuclear energy, but now? Forget it. Living in a seismically-active region that is hit by violent earthquakes fairly regularly, I sure as hell would not be cool with a plant going up in Southern California-- not after seeing what's happening in Japan, a country that is on the forefront of earthquake preparedness. I saw a ratings system earlier for nuclear accidents-- Im trying to remember the source-- but basically, Chernobyl was rated a 7, Three Mile Island was rated a 4 and this disaster was rated a 3 on that scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Call it what you want. Go live near a nuclear reactor, then-- since you're a "critical thinker", presumably. I would have zero problem living within a couple miles of a nuclear reactor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 occasional nuclear accident>>>>>>a bunch of coal plants spewing out pollution everyday most likely. i mean, if you end up with 4 chernobyls from an event like this then that's a huge problem. i dont think that's happening though. putting them near population centers in CA might be worrisome should the big one hit, ill agree to that. but engineers usually learn from these things so hopefully future designs will be even more hardened/ready for similar issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtRosen Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 uh oh Sums up quite clearly the past 48 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 One thing I want to point out: no one in this thread lives in a seismically active region. (Yeah, yeah, OR is theoretically, blah blah, but they rarely get anything of real consequence.) When you live somewhere that gets hit by violent quakes with regularity, these risks seems less palatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I'm not a "critical thinker" because I find it unacceptable that multiple reactors were not designed to handle earthquakes and tsunamis in a region prone to earthquakes and tsunamis. I suppose if you think it's already a Chernobyl in the making. It's pretty clear to me that, though there are some serious problems, the backups they had in place as a contingency for natural disasters have been doing a pretty good job preventing a full-scale disaster so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-X Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I'd like to say I'm surprised at Josh for being so reactionary about this, but I have to remember that his generation had the Cold War scare and all that jazz to worry about. They're having problems that are all being handled as well as could be expected, it seems. This is not going to be a Chernobyl-scale incident. The impacts so far are minor, especially compared to the rest of the 'quake's impacts (tsunami, etc). Well Josh also has his roots on Long Island and Im sure he remembers Three Mile Island (1979) and we also had a reactor right in our own backyard (Shoreham) which was shut down a few years ago, but it was found that the ground water had higher than "normal" amounts of tritium. Granted, this generation of nuclear reactors is MUCH safer than the last, but I find some concern to be understandable. Having added protection in earthquake/tsunami prone areas-- well that just makes a lot of common sense-- as does having added protection in regions prone to flash flooding, hurricanes and tornadoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.