Speed Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 There are so many levels on which these buildings do NOT compare, i mean, are you serious? The main mechanism of pollution at chernobyl right now is that precipitation enters the building and washes dust as well as solving some of the radioactive components out of the matrix deposits and transporting them outside into the biosphere. The main concern for the sarcophagus is to keep out moisture and precipitation, that means it has to hermetically enclose the plant. Also, from a static point of view, an arch is simply less stable and under more stress than a pyramid. Last but not least, the pyramids are built in a desert, not in an area with precipitation and frost, which in combination wear down building fabric very quickly. Nobody said that the arch would collapse in 100 years, even without maintenance, but it sure as hell wouldn't stay watertight. Cripes, I never said build a pyramid. I just said I was surprised that given that 4500 years ago people could build a structure of equal size, and it can last for probably at least 10,000 years, that with modern building techniques we can't come up with a design that would last significantly more than 100 years, even despite the engineering challenges. Intelligent discourse can only begin with the honest admission of your own fallibility. Member of the Virtual Tactical Air Group: http://vtacticalairgroup.com/ Lua scripts and mods: MIssion Scripting Tools (Mist): http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=98616 Slmod version 7.0 for DCS: World: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=80979 Now includes remote server administration tools for kicking, banning, loading missions, etc.
sobek Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 If the design goal was to build something that lasts 4000 years, it would be more than possible, if the design goal is to seal an entire NPP reactor block off from the biosphere, chances are you might need to make some compromises with durability. Just saying. Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two. Come let's eat grandpa! Use punctuation, save lives!
Pyroflash Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) i have no clue what media source your following? outside contamination cant be contained. =where the wind blows , and water flows now. The effect of Fukushima on the rest of the world is negligible. It self contains the issue by dissipation of material over the trillions of cubic meters of water and atmosphere. When the dirt is removed and the reactor is properly decommissioned, the problem will stop for the most part. Granted it won't be a quick process, but it won't take 60,000 years either. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And yes, an arch (that is a LOT more than a simple arch mind you) has the potential to disperse vertical loads to side bearing structures (a very nice thing to have BTW), however, like all structures, it can suffer structural failure if loaded too heavily on the top (in the case of an extremely large one like the planned structure at Chernobyl) if it does not have adequate bracing. Add in severe weathering effects and difficult maintenance coupled with the already high load, and you have the potential for cracks and the like to start appearing. Though if built correctly it is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY that the arch will undergo a complete structural failure resulting in its collapse. More than likely however, it will start to develop cracks and imperfections in the enclosure which will render it ineffective when it comes to dealing with its intended purpose. Edited August 4, 2012 by Pyroflash If you aim for the sky, you will never hit the ground.
Togg Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 (edited) You'd think we could do better than a miserable 100 years. The Great Pyramid of Giza was constructed 4500 years ago, is not about to fall down any time in the next dozen millennia, and is about the same size. Don't forget that materials suffer a lot due to high radioactivity level within the reactor. So the aging is accelerated. And migration of radioactive nuclei through matter is a very complex thing. Moreover, a 4500 years contruction is not a good idea in this case because you can't make predictions about the civilization evolution in 5000 years. The worst case could be to forget what is inside this strange building. And when pepole will rediscovered it in 4500 years, they'll get some problems. Edited August 4, 2012 by Togg [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] https://github.com/Togg-streamdeck/dcs
Pyroflash Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Don't forget that materials suffer a lot due to high radioactivity level within the reactor. So the aging is accelerated. And migration of radioactive nuclei through matter is a very complex thing. Moreover, a 4500 years contruction is not a good idea in this case because you can't make predictions about the civilization evolution in 5000 years. The worst case could be to forget what is inside this strange building. And when pepole will rediscovered it in 4500 years, they'll get some problems. Plus you don't want to simply forget about it and assume everything is fine while it is still leaking away. If you aim for the sky, you will never hit the ground.
EtherealN Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Another thing to remember: Fukushima had actual reactor enclosures. The building blasts were not part of the primary containment. (The enclosures are damaged, but they are there.) In Chernobyl there were no enclosures. Just the reactor vessel itself... [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules | | | Life of a Game Tester
docfu Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Just to be fair and honest, when Chernobyl went kaboom the Russian government waited a long time before releasing any information to the rest of the world. As it sits now, that area of the world will be inhabitable by humans for a long time. With Fukushima, now a year later, there is evidence of massive cover-ups by the power company and a total lack of willingness of the government to do anything about it. Current word is that the reactor melted down through to the seabed and is leaking into the ocean. The national news reports nothing on this. They are completely bought out by the electric company. There are a lot of people who think this problem can be fixed. Let me tell you right now, it can't. The people who have fled there have lost everything. Entire communities and villages lay abandoned. I live three hundred kilometers from that plant. So far they've found radiation in my area. Radiation in the milk. Radiation in the food. The fallout is everywhere. There is no such thing as 'cleaning up a nuclear disaster area.' The radiation stays. It's impossible to clean up that amount of soil, or woods, or mountains. Even if you clean a city one year, it blows back in the next. The simple fact is that when a nuclear disaster happens, you can't plan on having a future anymore. You can't plan on having children anymore because you can't be sure you'll be able to give them a good life. Everything around you begins to die a slow death, even if radiation isn't a factor where you live, the worry about it is constant. The only thing you can do is live in ignorance or in silence.
EtherealN Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 (edited) Regarding the Russian government releasing information; they didn't even know. When Swedish nuclear safety inspection reacted to increased radiation levels at one of our plants, we eventually figured out it didn't come from the plant itself. Then they asked the meteorological institute about past wind patterns, and could establish that this was not a nuclear bomb test (isotope analysis), and it came from the Kiev area. So Swedish embassy asked the soviet government about it and got a "we don't know" answer. It turned out that this was correct; at this point the local authorities had not dared tell their bosses in Moscow how bad it was. I've seen interviews with Gorbachev where he explains how it was "the swedes that told [us] how bad it was". :P So there's a difference between a "coverup" from the start, and one "from buerocracy" after the fact. However, it is extremely important to differentiate between an apparent coverup, and an actual coverup. As the saying goes: Never atribute to malice what can be adequately explained through incompetence. ;) Edited August 5, 2012 by EtherealN [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules | | | Life of a Game Tester
Pyroflash Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 (edited) With Fukushima, now a year later, there is evidence of massive cover-ups by the power company and a total lack of willingness of the government to do anything about it. Current word is that the reactor melted down through to the seabed and is leaking into the ocean. The national news reports nothing on this. They are completely bought out by the electric company. Yes, Radioactive substrates are leaking into the ocean through the soil. Also, there were significant coverups performed to increase the public faith in the reliability of the Fukushima plant, when in fact it was not to par with current standards as much as they made people believe. However, I don't want to accuse the power company of trying to cover anything up after the fact, as there is no substantiated evidence to support this argument either way. it could just as easily be that that people are incompetent, or more likely that the news simply doesn't care enough. There are a lot of people who think this problem can be fixed. Let me tell you right now, it can't. The people who have fled there have lost everything. Entire communities and villages lay abandoned. It can be fixed as much as the nuclear bombs could be fixed. Yes the area might be uninhabitable for the next 60 years, however the reactors can be decommissioned, removed, and contained, wherein the problem will solve itself over a number of years. I live three hundred kilometers from that plant. So far they've found radiation in my area. Radiation in the milk. Radiation in the food. The fallout is everywhere. I live over 5,000 miles away from Fukushima. So far our farms, water table, soil, food, and atmosphere are all irradiated, and many people are dead or dying from the harmful radiation. And you are right in saying that the fallout is everywhere, however it is important to know when factual reporting becomes fear mongering (if you have a link to an article that shows actual radiation levels in Becquerels for food products, soil, and water for your area, I would be interested in reading it). There is no such thing as 'cleaning up a nuclear disaster area.' The radiation stays. It's impossible to clean up that amount of soil, or woods, or mountains. Even if you clean a city one year, it blows back in the next. There is, and it isn't. it might be hard, or extremely difficult even. However if the government didn't want to deal with this eventuality, then it should have made sure the reactors were up to date. The simple fact is that when a nuclear disaster happens, you can't plan on having a future anymore. You can't plan on having children anymore because you can't be sure you'll be able to give them a good life. Everything around you begins to die a slow death, even if radiation isn't a factor where you live, the worry about it is constant. There is always a future, and if you spend your entire life in fear of what might happen, then nothing will happen. And the most harmful thing that can possibly be done is nothing at all. Sure it might not be the future you had in mind before, but it IS a future, and everyone has to make changes in their plans if they want to survive, nuclear fallout or no. The only thing you can do is live in ignorance or in silence.Or you can take the third option and speak out against or do something to rectify the various indiscresions that led to the incident in the first place. "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" Edited August 5, 2012 by Pyroflash If you aim for the sky, you will never hit the ground.
EtherealN Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 (edited) I live over 5,000 miles away from Fukushima. So far our farms, water table, soil, food, and atmosphere are all irradiated, and many people are dead or dying from the harmful radiation. Source? Genuinely interested, since this would violate all science. ;) (Well, not that people are dying, but that they are dying from releases caused by this specific incident.) If, however, by "irradiated", you mean "scientific instruments can measure it", then I'm fine. You just need to realize how rediculously sensitive these instruments are. Back in the 80's we could measure releases from underground tests. Figure what we can do now. Edited August 5, 2012 by EtherealN [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules | | | Life of a Game Tester
Pyroflash Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Source? Genuinely interested, since this would violate all science. ;) (Well, not that people are dying, but that they are dying from releases caused by this specific incident.) If, however, by "irradiated", you mean "scientific instruments can measure it", then I'm fine. You just need to realize how rediculously sensitive these instruments are. Back in the 80's we could measure releases from underground tests. Figure what we can do now. Oh, this was just an abstract statement to show how true facts can be significantly distorted for the purpose of scaring people. My favorite is the old Dihydrogen Monoxide joke. "Beware of the deadly chemical Dihydrogen Monoxide. What is it? it is a chemical compound that can cause suffocation if inhaled, causes burns, and has already resulted in the deaths of countless people. What is it really? Water". ..Or something to that effect anyways :D If you aim for the sky, you will never hit the ground.
EtherealN Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Ah, okey, then I folow. :P [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules | | | Life of a Game Tester
Togg Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 live three hundred kilometers from that plant. So far they've found radiation in my area. Radiation in the milk. Radiation in the food. The fallout is everywhere. According to the french government, the radioactive cloud from Chernobyl stopped at the french boundary. Probably because it didn't have its identity card.... :D [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] https://github.com/Togg-streamdeck/dcs
EtherealN Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Or due to prevailing winds. :) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules | | | Life of a Game Tester
OutOnTheOP Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Totally agreed regarding fear mongering. The US (and, I assume other NATO countries, and potentially Russia) has a standing legacy of terror at the prospect of radioactivity thanks to the Cold War and all the fallout shelter madness. Japan likewise seems to have a legacy of terror at radiation thanks to the atomic bombings (though if anything, I would think they should be the LEAST scared- after all, they were bombed twice, and survived... and now the bombing sites are quite habitable). However, I think the continued use of Uranium-decay-chain reactors is a bit silly, considering the very exciting new advances in Thorium-decay-chain reactor technology. Inherently safer, very plentiful fuel available, and most exciting, it "burns" nearly clean: the byproducts all go down the periodic chain, not up. Very little radioactive byproducts left, and what little there is is very short half-life. ...which ALSO means no byproducts useable in nuclear weaponry (which is why Uranium reactors were the ones originally developed). Personally, I think that if Iran and north Korea keep clamoring about their right to peaceful nuclear power production, the best reaction the rest of the world can give them is to say "y'know, you're RIGHT. You do have a right to PEACEFUL nuclear power. So we'll help you co-develop and build Thorium reactors!" Kind of hard to turn that offer down gracefully!
Wolf Rider Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 ~ considering the very exciting new advances in Thorium-decay-chain reactor technology. Inherently safer, very plentiful fuel available, and most exciting, it "burns" nearly clean: the byproducts all go down the periodic chain, not up. Very little radioactive byproducts left, and what little there is is very short half-life. ...which ALSO means no byproducts useable in nuclear weaponry (which is why Uranium reactors were the ones originally developed). Personally, I think that if Iran and north Korea keep clamoring about their right to peaceful nuclear power production, the best reaction the rest of the world can give them is to say "y'know, you're RIGHT. You do have a right to PEACEFUL nuclear power. So we'll help you co-develop and build Thorium reactors!" Kind of hard to turn that offer down gracefully! You've got a good point there :thumbup: City Hall is easier to fight, than a boys' club - an observation :P "Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us." - Jefferson "Give a group of potheads a bunch of weed and nothing to smoke out of, and they'll quickly turn into engineers... its simply amazing." EVGA X99 FTW, EVGA GTX980Ti FTW, i7 5930K, 16Gb Corsair Dominator 2666Hz, Windows 7 Ultimate 64Bit, Intel 520 SSD x 2, Samsung PX2370 monitor and all the other toys - "I am a leaf on the wind, watch how I soar"
docfu Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 Giving them Thorium reactors won't happen though, simply because it would be a boost to their economies and very few governments in this world work on "good faith." America or anyone else wants leverage over the goverments in Iran and North Korea, they don't want them operating autonomously in any way, shape or form. As for Fukushima and Japan, I really resent your black joke about people dying 5000 miles away. What I was trying to explain was that it's not JUST cleaning up the mess, there is is an incalculable toll on people that takes place when a reactor goes ka-boom. You can say I am "fear mongering" but you don't have to actually live with that fear. For you the problem is thousands of miles away. You don't have that worry. I personally know people who have fled that area. They've lost everything. Their house, their land, everything that their families has worked for all their lives, is now worthless. They'll get some government compensation but it will never replace what they've lost. So please, come to Japan and tell them in 60 years everything will be cleaned up and back to normal. I'm sure you'll make a lot of friends that way. Tell them the explosion really wasn't that bad. Tell them they have no reason to worry. Tell them everything is just fine and nuclear power is completely safe. In the end, what I'm saying is, you shouldn't be voicing your own opinions on something that hasn't truly affected you, except to say that it hasn't affected you. From the tone of your voice on this message board, you have no sympathy for the people there who have lost everything, and now have to worry for the rest of their lives about how the disaster may affect them. As a note, there was a video I was going to post about how the explosion destroyed the lives of three high school students but it now appears that it has been removed from youtube by the local government. So instead I'll post a video of how children near the disaster area live on a daily basis. It's translated properly. Watch it, learn and decide for yourself if the area is "safe." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lnpPo1gQX8&feature=youtu.be
Pilotasso Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 aye, earth quakes, tsunamies, nuclear crysis, then soon after large storms with floods and at least twice oil refineries exploding on them. It has been too much hardship for the japanese. :( .
Pyroflash Posted August 5, 2012 Posted August 5, 2012 As for Fukushima and Japan, I really resent your black joke about people dying 5000 miles away. What I was trying to explain was that it's not JUST cleaning up the mess, there is is an incalculable toll on people that takes place when a reactor goes ka-boom. You can say I am "fear mongering" but you don't have to actually live with that fear. For you the problem is thousands of miles away. You don't have that worry. You are right, I don't, but I do have to live with people in constant worry of having to lose everything, or having lost it already, and I will agree with you that it isn't something that is easily coped with. And to say that I don't worry like that makes it seem like I don't care. I personally know people who have fled that area. They've lost everything. Their house, their land, everything that their families has worked for all their lives, is now worthless. They'll get some government compensation but it will never replace what they've lost. No, it won't, but the compensation received by victims of other natural disasters such as the tsunami or earthquakes, won't replace what they lost either. So please, come to Japan and tell them in 60 years everything will be cleaned up and back to normal. I'm sure you'll make a lot of friends that way. Tell them the explosion really wasn't that bad. Tell them they have no reason to worry. Tell them everything is just fine and nuclear power is completely safe. First off, the explosions weren't that bad. But then again, it wasn't the explosions that caused the issue, rather the explosions were a byproduct of the reactor heat. And I am not trying to say that no one has to worry about anything. And nuclear power is safe if handled properly, however what happened at Fukushima (and what continues to happen in many place around the world) represents a lack of control over the safety of current nuclear reactors and is a complete humanitarian travesty. In the end, what I'm saying is, you shouldn't be voicing your own opinions on something that hasn't truly affected you, except to say that it hasn't affected you. From the tone of your voice on this message board, you have no sympathy for the people there who have lost everything, and now have to worry for the rest of their lives about how the disaster may affect them. No, I stopped having sympathy for people a long time ago.. What I do have however, is respect. Respect for people who can keep on living and who still have the will to build a new life out of the ashes that they used to know despite the hardships they may face right now. And that, at least to me, takes more courage than a lot of people have. So instead I'll post a video of how children near the disaster area live on a daily basis. It's translated properly. Watch it, learn and decide for yourself if the area is "safe." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lnpPo1gQX8&feature=youtu.beGood video, thank you for that. However I will ask kindly that you stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that anything was safe. I said nothing more than that time will heal most of the wounds, and that the fear most people have over what is going on is largely unjustified. In the video, the teacher mentioned that in the building there was a background level of 0.09 mSV, this level is about the same as for an eight hour flight in an airplane. She also mentions that "It should be okay, because the GOVERNMENT SAYS THAT THE LIMIT FOR CHILDREN IS 1mSV". This is important, because it shows that she probably understands what she is reading, and what it means. If this limit has any bearing on U.S. EPA standards, it means that while precautions are necessary, special care needs to be taken to ensure that people do not scare themselves into a state of nuclear paranoia. "Uncontrolled fear is the worst enemy of mankind, because that, inevitably leads to blind hatred; and blind hatred knows no reason." If you aim for the sky, you will never hit the ground.
OutOnTheOP Posted August 6, 2012 Posted August 6, 2012 (edited) Giving them Thorium reactors won't happen though, simply because it would be a boost to their economies and very few governments in this world work on "good faith." America or anyone else wants leverage over the goverments in Iran and North Korea, they don't want them operating autonomously in any way, shape or form. Wow. Really? Do you actually understand how the politics on the Korean peninsula actually work? Yes, at the moment the US and most western powers are seeking sanctions against them, because in the past, providing goods to the DPRK has been counterproductive. The DPRK's main export is threats, and it has a long history of using it's missile and nuclear programs as bargaining chips: it conducts a test/ starts up a reactor/ etc, then demands billions in food and economic aid in return for stopping their actions. Then, a couple years later, when the rest of the world is sick of funding their regime, and the "aid" dries up, they go back to proliferation activities. Second, the DPRK is already a client state, firmly in the pocket of the PRC. Anything that grants them economic independence opens opportunities to get them in bed with the economies of the west, and starting open trade. Last I checked, that's good for everyone. As to giving things for free, ultimately, I suspect providing thorium reactors (note that I never said "for free") would be less expensive than NOT: if it backs them into a sociopolitical corner where they can no longer justify pursuing uranium reactors (and therefore, nuclear weapons), the DPRK geopolitical-hostage-for-ransom racket would be OVER, and the western nations would actually stand to SAVE a lot of money. Lastly, you're making the same ridiculous mistake all the other conspiracy theorists do about the US government: they don't really care about "control" of Iran or the DPRK. They just, like every other government in the world, want what is most beneficial to themselves. If Iran and the DPRK were to play nice, they'd be welcomed as peaceful trade partners, because it's in the US' best interests to do so. Just look at how US-Chinese and US-Vietnamese (or, going back even longer, US-German and US-Japanese) trade has flourished, even though they were once sworn enemies. The US stands to gain less from keeping those nations as threats than they do from opening trade. But both sides have to be willing to do so, first. As for Fukushima and Japan, I really resent your black joke about people dying 5000 miles away. What I was trying to explain was that it's not JUST cleaning up the mess, there is is an incalculable toll on people that takes place when a reactor goes ka-boom. You can say I am "fear mongering" but you don't have to actually live with that fear. For you the problem is thousands of miles away. You don't have that worry. Ok, that's just stupid. So, unless we're personally there, our logic, science, thought, and understanding mean nothing? So, basically, you're demanding that all discourse on the subject be limited to emotionally driven commentary. Ridiculous, and not the way to solve problems (though it's known to make them!). That aside, you're WAY out of line in making those assumptions. I currently live in South Korea, and have visited eastern-seaboard Japan TWICE in the past 3 months. Yeah, it's fear mongering. I don't buy into it, and it hasn't affected my willingness to travel through the area. Also, the reactor didn't go "ka-boom". And even if it HAD, if you had paid attention to what I said earlier, you would realize that I was speaking about ways to mitigate future risk through migrating to inherently safer and less radio-isotope-waste-intensive reactors. That's how we solve problems: we identify the issue, propose alternatives, compare the merits of each alternative, and select the most favorable course of action. I personally know people who have fled that area. They've lost everything. Their house, their land, everything that their families has worked for all their lives, is now worthless. They'll get some government compensation but it will never replace what they've lost. And I personally know people that have lost their homes, land, and everything else to tornados, ice storms, earthquakes, fires, and the like. I also know people that have lost their LIVES to terrorism and crime. This does not stop me from making a dispassionate assessment of how to mitigate the risk of it happening again. So please, come to Japan and tell them in 60 years everything will be cleaned up and back to normal. I'm sure you'll make a lot of friends that way. Tell them the explosion really wasn't that bad. Tell them they have no reason to worry. Tell them everything is just fine and nuclear power is completely safe. I already did, in front of the Kyoto town hall/ municipal building. The protesters there kept harrassing me to sign a petition even after I had politely declined. They kept hounding me, so I explained to them that despite the current furor, nuclear power is STILL statistically safer, more efficient, and less polluting than the alternatives out there- and the move to thorium plants would make it safer still. This was rather difficult to explain, of course, as my Japanese is halting at best, and they didn't speak any English. Eventually I got the point across. I would also point out that people seem to forget that the rules of conservation of energy rules the the OUTPUT of a nuclear reactor is always going to be inherently less radioactive (IE, carries less potential energy in the form of future radioactive emission) than the fuel going in. Now, sometimes the decay products are shorter half-life (and therefore higher emission RATE- but for a much lesser time- granted, this can still be dozens of years) than the parent products, but you can't get energy from NOWHERE. Less radiation comes OUT of the plant than goes IN. Nuclear power plants actually make the planet, as a whole, LESS radioactive. Of course, the materials are concentrated at one site, rather than widely distributed in nature. In the end, what I'm saying is, you shouldn't be voicing your own opinions on something that hasn't truly affected you, except to say that it hasn't affected you. From the tone of your voice on this message board, you have no sympathy for the people there who have lost everything, and now have to worry for the rest of their lives about how the disaster may affect them. BS. I can flip that right around at you: you shouldn't be voicing your opinions on the subject unless you truly have solutions to propose, except to say that you have nothing meaningful to add to the discussion. Sure, I sympathize with the victims, but I'm wise enough to understand condolences alone never solved a damned thing PS: We're supposed to be worried about 0.09 mSv? That documentary, while relatively well-filmed, was clearly meant to mortify people who don't understand the science behind it. What I got out of it was that the one person that seemed to understand- the head teacher- thought things were perfectly manageable. By the way, the quoted radiation rate- 0.09 mSv- is quite low. The US Capitol building- where our Senate and House work- has a radiation rate of 0.85 mSv, due to the PURELY NATURAL stone out of which it is built. This is, of course, assuming that when they refer to Sieverts in the video, they are refering to Sieverts per year... it doesn't make sense unless there's a time/ rate associated with it. But 1 Sv/yr is the regulatory rate in the US, so I assume that it's the same in Japan (or close to the same), and therefore that when she talks about 1 Sv being the regulatory limit, she is therefore speaking of Sv/yr. If you actually want to learn something about the thorium reactor (specifically, the Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor, or LiFTeR), see , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor, and Edited August 6, 2012 by OutOnTheOP
docfu Posted August 6, 2012 Posted August 6, 2012 I apologize. I was simply angry at people who act like this is a problem that can be easily cleaned up. It can. It'll take hundreds of years and a great effort on behalf of many good people. Humanity will survive and become stronger as a result. The difference between disasters like tsunamis, typhoons, and terrorism and nuclear accidents, however, is that humans have a choice in the latter. The question isn't whether or not nuclear power in Japan is safe. It's whether or not we can trust the people running the plants. Can you ever really trust people to do the right thing in these matters? I used to believe that if technology was built and designed properly, human error would be negligible. So I guess my point that I was really trying to make is: Can we actually get the people running these plants to admit they aren't safe, shut them down, deconstruct them, and then build new ones that are safe, in locations that are more safe, and design a system that actually has checks and balances to prevent accidents like this in the future? The answer is no. It's not going to happen. The system will continue status quo until we have another accident, another earthquake, another disaster. Nothing short of a revolution is going to oust the people currently running the reactors in Japan. So when I get angry at you for saying this problem isn't simply going to be cleaned up, please understand why. We can turn over the soil, yes. Give everyone a dosimeter and check the food daily, yes. We can clean up the current reactor and say "it's safe," yes. But in my opinion, this isn't the kind of future any of us should want.
Pyroflash Posted August 6, 2012 Posted August 6, 2012 The question isn't whether or not nuclear power in Japan is safe. It's whether or not we can trust the people running the plants. Can you ever really trust people to do the right thing in these matters? I used to believe that if technology was built and designed properly, human error would be negligible. So I guess my point that I was really trying to make is: Can we actually get the people running these plants to admit they aren't safe, shut them down, deconstruct them, and then build new ones that are safe, in locations that are more safe, and design a system that actually has checks and balances to prevent accidents like this in the future? The answer is no. It's not going to happen. The system will continue status quo until we have another accident, another earthquake, another disaster. Nothing short of a revolution is going to oust the people currently running the reactors in Japan. So when I get angry at you for saying this problem isn't simply going to be cleaned up, please understand why. We can turn over the soil, yes. Give everyone a dosimeter and check the food daily, yes. We can clean up the current reactor and say "it's safe," yes. But in my opinion, this isn't the kind of future any of us should want. No, and you wouldn't want that kind of future. And you wouldn't be forced to accept it either if you understood what happened specifically, at these "disaster sites". Increased technology usually carries with it increased safety margins, but those are just that, better margins for people to screw up. Just because you put a safety on a gun doesn't mean that it will stop people from accidentally shooting people. I know it is a harsh comparison, but look at the Fukushima reactors. The facilities were old, and newer facilities would have increased the safety of the facility and decreased the risk of problems arising. However, these facilities still exist in the U.S. as well, and it's not a solely isolated issue either. Nuclear power is expensive on the back end. It costs close to $2 Billion to commission and run a single modern reactor for about a year. Because of this costs, power companies may not even have the money available to reduce the risks by upgrading their facilities. On the other hand, the EPA can't exactly shut them down either. Millions of people would be without power for who knows how long, and good luck trying to tell these people it is for their better good. While they are waiting three or four years for a new reactor to be commissioned, people are dying from heat stroke anyways, and businesses lose out too if they can't run. Yes, you can build them better and safer, yes, you can mitigate the risks to people living in the area. But do you want to force them to be this way? Probably in due time, yes, over a period of say, 20 or 30 years, but to force them all to shut down and get recommissioned is silly. You can't expect people to come up with the money to do such a thing. The best you can realistically hope for is a start, a plan for dealing with future disasters more decisively, and for better fail-safes to be put in place for the current systems. The thing you should not hold your breath for however, is a complete upheaval of the current system. So, I think the important thing to remember is that all of the media hype has to be taken with a brick of salt, and a bit of common sense. You don't need a revolution for that. Only a fool would look to war as a first solution. Or if you meant a social revolution, but look where that got America. Do you really want another college hippie becoming the next Steve Jobs? Do you? :D If you aim for the sky, you will never hit the ground.
Griffin Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 That's really interesting stuff OutOnTheOP! Thanks for sharing, I've been watching that lecture and reading alot on the Thorium subject despite not having any advanced physics training. It's amazing that such superior no brainer design hasn't been developed for mass scale after all these years! If I get fired, I might apply for a university and try to become a physicist! So much interesting things in nuclear and astrophysics. :)
diveplane Posted August 14, 2012 Posted August 14, 2012 wow http://readingeagle.com/mobile/article.aspx?id=408528 Connecticut's nuclear power plant shut one of two units on Sunday because seawater used to cool down the plant is too warm. https://www.youtube.com/user/diveplane11 DCS Audio Modding.
diveplane Posted August 14, 2012 Posted August 14, 2012 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2188017/Radiation-Fukushima-nuclear-power-plant-meltdown-triggers-genetic-mutations-butterflies.html https://www.youtube.com/user/diveplane11 DCS Audio Modding.
Recommended Posts