Dams aren't fool proof either what is your point? And if you want far reaching effects you don't think all the coal power plants in china for example don't have an effect on everyone else in the world?
See, lets assume that there are two bottles out of breakable material (in other words, not failproof), in one bottle there's water, and in the other there's radioactive 'fluid'. Now by chance two kids find those bottles, and break them out of fun. Now, what non-foolproof bottle (broken bottle) brought more damage? Water and radioactivity =/=!
This is kind of an interesting phenomenon.. I don't think that I've mentioned coal power anywhere. But clearly, you must think that I did. So just for you, I am – against – coal power, too.
This nuclear accident is only a disaster in people heads, meanwhile people are dying due to an actual disaster!
Right..I on the other hand, think that the nuclear incident is part of said disaster.
Lets look at the long term effects, lets take the worse case scenario that actually happened, a nuclear reactor without a containment dome: radioactive material spewed over a continent, whole city evacuated forever. People forbiding the consumption of livestock because those animals are no so radioactive that a consistent diet of them might equal the equivalent radiation dosage of percentage of a dental X-ray! OK, Let see how many people actually died, oh less then a hundred, actual confirmed cancer rates increase and mortality was much lower then expected, the city that was abandoned is less radioactive by several times then other cities in the world (like Ramsar) that are still populated with people having no increase cancer rates. It quiet clear how dangerous nuclear power is: it causes far more damage indirectly through mass hysteria and damage though actions taken by people's hysteria. There are two solutions to that, we can either drop nuclear power appeasing people's hysterical fear as they live harder lives with less energy, or we can simply educate people and continue to build nuclear power.
It’s really strange..how this conversation turned out if we consider that in my initial post there was only this much about nuclear power: “But I really have to say that this just proves that a future without Nuclear power plants is safer.”
Just because you’re downplaying the side effects of Nuclear Power Plants and the waste they produce doesn’t change the fact that our future will be safer without them. By the way, maybe you could compare it to your initially mentioned hydroenergy dams? What’s more fatal? When a Nuclear Power Plant breaks or when a dam breaks?
I presume you’re one of those people who’d enjoy a piece of radioactive steak, eh? Bon Appetit!
WTF are you on about here?
This statement has precisely zero relevance to anything that I've said, and Hydro, at least, is renewable.
Is it?
Is it really?
What do you propose we compare it to, then, if not the death rates from alternative forms of energy generation?
Really?
You think a nuclear meltdown must neccessarily kill more people than a dam failure?
Let's look at some figures, shall we.
Chernobyl. The ONLY Nuclear accident to occur (so far) tht has scored an INES rating of 7. If we take some of the more pessimistic figures, eg Greenpeace or IPPNW, then we get somewhere in the vicinity of 90-110,000 deaths, projected out to 2065.
Compare this to, for example, the Banqiao dam failure in China in 1975. Overtopped by a 1 in 2000 year rainfall event. 26,000 people were killed in the initial dam failure (versus the 28 who died as a result of the initial blast at chernobyl through raidation exposure), and an additional 145,000 people died during the epidemics and famine that followed the dam failure.
I don’t see how YOUR initial response to me was any relevant to my post at all. “But I really have to say that this just proves that a future without Nuclear power plants is safer.” ← remember? That’s all I said. So all your hydro death toll blah blah won’t change the fact that our future will be safer without Nuclear power plants. End.
Yes, I've watched news broadcasts from the US, Canada, and the UK (among others) and they've all done the same thing. They've interviewed one official, and then two or three people from anti nuclear lobbying groups, one of whom explicitly and directly accused the IAEA of covering up the true magnitude of what is going on.
Frankly it's disgusting.
All we actually know is this:
The primary containment was vented to preserve structural integrity.
This venting resulted in the build up of Hydrogen gas in the secondary containment.
This hydrogen gas was subsequently ignited.
Samples taken have indicated the presence of Iodine and Caesium in the air.
That's it.
The presence of I and Cs in the air simply indicates that one of the fuel rods has been damaged. This could have been a partial melt (the contents of that fuel rod melted) or it could simply mean that the rod has split its casing.
According to experts the radioactivity nuage will visit Middle Europe in about a month, or so. Can't wait to welcome it with open arms.
And they may well be right.
M8.9 earthquakes and 10m Tsunamis don't just happen.
And there in lies perspective.
This plant survived an earthquake, and tsunami, and the backups kicked in normally, and the backups for the backups operated normally when those inexplicably failed It's just a shame that they weren't able to get the mobile backups for the backups of the backups up and running properly.
The venting is to maintain the structural integrity of the reactor vessel and the primary containment precisely so they don't have a catastrophic failure. So far this is no worse than the Sellafield incidents between 1955 and 1979.
Well, according to the news and experts it didn't survive it. Remember, it wasn't made for an Earthquake or tsunami environment, which is pure fail if we consider Japan's geographical location.
On second thought, I don’t see why everybody thinks that it’s just the potential meltdowns that speaks against nuclear power plants. Whatever. Dream on, and enjoy your sight onto the nuclear waste dump that's freely and happily releasing its warm aura next to your place's hedge.
NO
Nuclear power plants can't create a nuclear explosion.
Arthur
As Arthur says.
No.
China Syndrome on Wiki
This is what happens during a meltdown,
3 is a steam pipe from the reactor, 1 is what they call
Corium
These are images from within the Chernobyl station basement(s).
Lol, I forgot that this is ‘sciforums’ where everything is taken at face value.
