Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,081 Year: 5,338/9,624 Month: 363/323 Week: 3/204 Day: 3/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Japan
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 13 of 175 (608769)
03-13-2011 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by fearandloathing
03-13-2011 1:39 PM


fearandloathing writes:
All of their nuke plants are on the coast and use seawater as coolant water for their heat-exchangers. This seems unwise to me, but if they had used lakes as source of cooling water and a dam got compromised, then things could ve been worse, at least there is no worry of having enough access to water. Other than that it seems like a foolish place to place one considering Japans history with quakes and tsunamies.
Go to US Google Maps and type in Nuclear power station. Note how many of the red dots are on coasts.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by fearandloathing, posted 03-13-2011 1:39 PM fearandloathing has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by frako, posted 03-13-2011 3:32 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 27 of 175 (608832)
03-14-2011 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by dronestar
03-14-2011 9:55 AM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
I certainly am still a strong supporter of nuclear power.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by dronestar, posted 03-14-2011 9:55 AM dronestar has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 30 of 175 (608840)
03-14-2011 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by dronestar
03-14-2011 12:16 PM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
dronester writes:
Huntard and Jar,
If a natural or man-made disaster causes another Chernobyl catastrophe, would you then still be a strong supporter?
How many lives lost would it take for you to change your mind? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions?
(I am not "anti-nuclear power", but I am curious with your response, as I think the latest news in Japan SHOULD at least give reflection)
I could not answer that since it is far too vague and open. I don't see Chernobyl as a major catastrophe though.
It would take a very large loss of live to change my mind though, far higher than in any nuclear power scenario I can currently imagine.
Chernobyl was not as much a nuclear power failure as a human failure and we will always see those. We simply need to learn from them, and blaming it on nuclear power is only a sign that we did not really learn the lesson there.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by dronestar, posted 03-14-2011 12:16 PM dronestar has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 32 of 175 (608849)
03-14-2011 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Taq
03-14-2011 6:37 PM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
Taq writes:
On a related note, I wonder if the Japan disaster will heighten awareness of tsunami risks on the western coast of the US. From what I have been told, the Cascadia fault will, at some point, produce a tsunami. It's not a matter of if, only when.
The US East Coast also faces an almost certain major Tsunami in the future. Check out Cumbre Vieja .

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Taq, posted 03-14-2011 6:37 PM Taq has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 56 of 175 (609002)
03-15-2011 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Taq
03-15-2011 7:18 PM


planning
Taq writes:
Interesting NYT article that details long standing criticisms of the reactor design:
MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos
quote:
The warnings were stark and issued repeatedly as far back as 1972: If the cooling systems ever failed at a Mark 1 nuclear reactor, the primary containment vessel surrounding the reactor would probably burst as the fuel rods inside overheated. Dangerous radiation would spew into the environment.
I'm not an expert on nuclear reactor designs, but it does sound like there is some truth to the idea that these reactors are substandard.
As is so often the case, the problem is not nuclear power itself but rather the implementation and supervision, as well as information and communication. The issues, risks (general and site specific), benefits, and considerations need to be debated, but also common knowledge; taught in ever school. For example, in the US we have nuclear generating stations built on top of know major active fault zones, ones in areas that can be subject to major tsunamis that have 30 foot tsunami walls, others without, we have nuclear power stations that get their cooling water through deep well systems into major aquifers.
We have nuclear power stations in areas of major population concentrations but there has been little public discussion of issues like evacuation or citizen risks.
We have also underfunded and emasculated the governmental oversight of the industry.
The issue is not nuclear power itself, it's getting folk to invest in getting educated about the current status (aging US Nuclear Power Stations) as well as the risk/benefit possibilities.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Taq, posted 03-15-2011 7:18 PM Taq has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 58 of 175 (609005)
03-15-2011 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Rahvin
03-15-2011 7:43 PM


Re: "Worst case scenario"
Most people seem to think that "meltdown" means "a nuclear bomb goes off, it's Hiroshima and Nagasaki all over again, and then radiation from I-don't-know-where gives hundreds of thousands of people cancer I-don't-know-how."
Hiroshima (population 1.6+ million ) and Nagasaki (population 450,000+ ) are also thriving communities today after events that were far more horrific than any possible nuclear plant accident.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2011 7:43 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 70 of 175 (609080)
03-16-2011 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by dronestar
03-16-2011 12:58 PM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
dronester writes:
So, if you had a family with children living downstream of this exploding Japanese reactor, would you calmly tell them there is nothing to worry about and advise them to make the area home for the next thirty years?
Would you chance your children's health that you were absolutely right?
Of course that is a silly example but so far, sure.
And I really doubt that nuclear power stations have killed anywhere near as many folk as dams have.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by dronestar, posted 03-16-2011 12:58 PM dronestar has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 82 of 175 (609132)
03-16-2011 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Rahvin
03-16-2011 7:26 PM


Re: on a differnt note
The area of power production and distribution is one (of many) that IMHO should be highly regulated as a limited vested monopoly where profit is NOT based on revenue but rather a percentage of infrastructure investment.
It's time to toss capitalism out of the energy field again.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Rahvin, posted 03-16-2011 7:26 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Rahvin, posted 03-16-2011 7:44 PM jar has not replied
 Message 85 by Son, posted 03-17-2011 11:02 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 86 of 175 (609190)
03-17-2011 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by 1.61803
03-17-2011 10:40 AM


How different is it?
1.61803 writes:
Arguments for nuclear power can point out the amount of deaths from a forrest fire started by some dipshit using fire to boil water at a camp site exceeds the amount who died in Chernobyl.
But hell when a fire goes out grasses and trees grow back.
Look at Chernobyl today. That is the difference folks. imo.
Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Did grass and trees grow back? And NO nuclear plant accident would be of the magnitude of those two events.
And let's look at Chernobyl and Pripyat (the city). Grass, trees and animals have returned and almost no signs of mutation in plants or animals have been found. In addition the exclusionary zone has a radius of 19 miles and within that area the amount of contamination varies with only a small percentage of the zone showing major contamination.
Kiev, only 60 miles or so from Chernobyl is still a functioning city last time I checked.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by 1.61803, posted 03-17-2011 10:40 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by 1.61803, posted 03-17-2011 12:15 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 87 of 175 (609192)
03-17-2011 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Son
03-17-2011 11:02 AM


Re: on a differnt note
Son writes:
Yeah, I've never understood why people want to privatize energy production and distribution. The large infrastructures needed for it will always garantee a monopoly/near monopoly for the producer meaning there is no advantages(for consumers) when compared to public ownership and only disadvantages.
The US had a system that served both the needs of the consumers and also provided a large part of the social safety net, but we decided to throw it away.
In the US, Utilities (power, water, communications, sewer, etc) were granted limited monopolies for an area. Their coverage, services and rates were controlled and they were guaranteed a set rate of return on their investments in plant, service and infrastructure.
That, the guaranteed rate of return, also made Utilities a very safe and secure investment, one that could provide a reasonable base for someones' retirement income.
It was a win win situation for all.
So we threw it away.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Son, posted 03-17-2011 11:02 AM Son has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 89 of 175 (609199)
03-17-2011 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by 1.61803
03-17-2011 12:15 PM


Re: How different is it?
But the areas that are actually contaminated are only a very small percentage of the exclusionary zone. The town itself was only existed to house the on site people that worked at Chernobyl and at the abandoned Soviet Area over the horizon radar facility.
There are lots of abandoned towns, many for environmental reasons, many like Pripyat for economic reasons.
Look at Centralia, PA. For long term contamination, look at the list of US Superfund sites.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by 1.61803, posted 03-17-2011 12:15 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 98 of 175 (609221)
03-17-2011 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by 1.61803
03-17-2011 2:41 PM


Re: pretty
You can have a picnic there. There are still thousands that work there every day. There are even guided tours of the area. And as I pointed out to you, it is only some small locations within the exclusionary zone that are still showing contamination.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by 1.61803, posted 03-17-2011 2:41 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 101 of 175 (609226)
03-17-2011 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by 1.61803
03-17-2011 2:59 PM


Re: pretty
1.61803 writes:
go ahead. I'll pass. Why your at it go have a swim at Bikini, and perhaps a bit of sushi in Fukashima.
I can, of course, see avoiding sushi, it is after all just bait, but why avoid either Fukashima or Bikini?
The 1996 study on Bikini included the following:
quote:
"It is safe to walk on all of the islands...The Advisory Group reaffirmed: although the residual radioactivity on islands in Bikini Atoll is still higher than on other atolls in the Marshall islands, it is not hazardous to health at the levels measured. Indeed, there are many places in the world where people have been living for generations with higher levels of radioactivity from natural sources - such as the geological surroundings and the sun - than there is now on Bikini Atoll...By all internationally agreed scientific and medical criteria...the air, the land surface, the lagoon water and the drinking water are all safe. There is no radiological risk in visiting the lagoon or the islands. The nuclear weapon tests have left practically no cesium in marine life. The cesium deposited in the lagoon was dispersed in the ocean long ago.
"The main radiation risk would be from the food: eating locally grown produce, such as fruit, could add significant radioactivity to the body...Eating coconuts or breadfruit from Bikini Island occasionally would be no cause for concern. But eating many over a long period of time without having taken remedial measures might result in radiation doses higher than internationally agreed safety levels."
Guess what, there is even a resort, fishing and dive operation on Bikini.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by 1.61803, posted 03-17-2011 2:59 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by 1.61803, posted 03-17-2011 3:09 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 104 of 175 (609229)
03-17-2011 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by 1.61803
03-17-2011 3:09 PM


Re: pretty
Just don't eat specific local foods over an extended period or in large quantities.
Just as with produce from other areas contaminated by anything such as petroleum, mercury, arsenic ...
See US Superfund sites.
See mercury concentration is sea food.
See shellfish harvesting bans.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by 1.61803, posted 03-17-2011 3:09 PM 1.61803 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Rahvin, posted 03-17-2011 3:13 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34123
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 106 of 175 (609231)
03-17-2011 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Rahvin
03-17-2011 3:13 PM


Re: pretty
One thing that seldom gets mentioned is that radiation contamination is really one of the easiest forms of contamination to detect.
That's simply not true of many of the other poisons out there.
See e Coli.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Rahvin, posted 03-17-2011 3:13 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024