Japan Nuclear Crisis Danger to America?

[asparagin]

you have links .

 

I'm not in the nuclear business myself, that was what I heard at a conference from some who are in the energy business. I don't want to quote anything, since this all political, and for every quote, some might find 10 others against it. Plus a certain degree of speculation is required when you make such affirmations.

[GGTharos]

- how can you be sure a 200 000 years life waste will keep secure during such tremendous period

 

You cannot, but you can reprocess them into fuel for other types of reactors, thus reusing this fuel. You can keep reusing the waste fuel and isotopes to a point where you can actually consume a lot of it.

 

- when you have used fuel rods then you need to cold them during two years , i ask is that really reasonable , it's supposed to serve us and that put us into slavery

 

... what?

 

-how can you say a technology is good for humanity when lot of high level experts approve the fact that with nuclear , there are reasonable chances that in case of an incident the situation can go out of control

 

Because there are measures to put it back under control, like what's going on in Japan right now. Do you think problems with other types of energy are not as disastrous? Look at what happens every time there's an oil spill.

 

concerning Germany reaction i personnally think it was a clever decision , decision of coming out from nuclear energy can't be done because of economical considerations , because yes nuclear energy is by far the more powerful and the most profitable energy right now but it's also because of economical decisions that some countries pay their workers 10 cents per hour and make them work 16h per day and get richer than others who respect human being .

 

... what?

 

 

on an economical level nuclear is by far the best solution right now but just answer my questions , and i'll say yes i approve . i don't say we must end nuclear tomorrow , i say we should adopt a clear behaviour to end with that energy .

 

I say you're insane. Nuclear power plants are needed.

 

to be short we should plan the shut down of all plants over the shorter period possible , and put Man before economy .

 

Man IS being put before economy. Economy is put in for the sake of man.

 

i heard some talking of a coming back to rurality , lol , old hebrews which some of them made the bible and 1789 men who made the human rights where farmers/shepherds so i think it wouldn't be the worst thing that can happen to us . if in 1789 they had started considerating the economical consequences of what they were doing they weren't out of the woods

 

Stop posting and go live on your farm without electricity or potentially running water already? Don't you go try and use any electronics or hospital services or anyting of the sort either - it all uses that darned nuclear-fired electricity.

 

@Ethereal : you say one needs university explanations to admit he was wrong , that's maybe the problem with nuclear , things are a bit too complicated , a bit like economy these later times too , but well it's another story

 

There's nothing particularly complicated about nuclear power. Most people whom these things are explained to thoroughly can grasp what's going on in reasonable detail from a non-technical point of view.

[winz]

Just one thing

when you have used fuel rods then you need to cold them during two years , i ask is that really reasonable , it's supposed to serve us and that put us into slavery

Nuclear power plants aren't the only industry that are producing waste we cannot process. Ashes from coal power plants aren't proccesable either, and have to be stored.

 

Remember this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajka_alumina_plant_accident ? Will we now stop production of alluminium? What do you think would happen if a tsunami hit storage facility like that?

[Shaman]

There's been a lot on http://www.infowars.com covered regarding the construction of the plant and how for 40 years used rods were stored above the reactors instead of being disposed somewhere deep inside Earth. When the first explosion occurred most of these rods were blown up. http://www.infowars.com/alert-fukushima-coverup-40-years-of-spent-nuclear-rods-blown-sky-high/

What's interesting that 35 years ago GE engineers quit their jobs protesting its design.

http://www.infowars.com/fukushima-mark-1-nuclear-reactor-design-caused-ge-scientist-to-quit-in-protest/

 

Archived articles here covering this event: http://www.infowars.com/category/featured-stories/

[jpm1]

 

Stop posting and go live on your farm without electricity or potentially running water already? Don't you go try and use any electronics or hospital services or anyting of the sort either - it all uses that darned nuclear-fired electricity...

 

yes but said on an irritated tone , that won't convince me for sure :smilewink: . talking about that lot of answers that i'm getting are given on an irritated tone , and i'm just asking for being convinced

[topol-m]

yes but said on an irritated tone , that won't convince me for sure :smilewink: . talking about that lot of answers that i'm getting are given on an irritated tone , and i'm just asking for being convinced

 

 

Let me explain it to you without irritation and with an example: I love meat, and when a vegetarian comes and starts explaining to me how: meat is dangerous for my health, how it`s unnatural to eat meat or how eating meat is the cause for the slaughter of millions of animals every year and therefore I as a guy that eats meat am partially responsible for that slaughter, how inhumane is this whole thing, etc. cr*p... What should I do? Should I become a vegetarian because I won`t be able to stand myself realizing what kind of a disgusting meat eating nature killing monster I actually am? Or should I start to convince him that I`m right and he`s crazy, or I should tell him to GTFO of my sight and stop waisting my time with BS?

[DEChengst]

Your lolwut? moment for today:

 

O1aH2-MhEko

Edited March 17, 2011 by DEChengst

[Shaman]

There's been a lot on http://www.infowars.com covered regarding the construction of the plant and how for 40 years used rods were stored above the reactors instead of being disposed somewhere deep inside Earth. When the first explosion occurred most of these rods were blown up. http://www.infowars.com/alert-fukushima-coverup-40-years-of-spent-nuclear-rods-blown-sky-high/

What's interesting that 35 years ago GE engineers quit their jobs protesting its design.

http://www.infowars.com/fukushima-mark-1-nuclear-reactor-design-caused-ge-scientist-to-quit-in-protest/

 

Archived articles here covering this event: http://www.infowars.com/category/featured-stories/

 

Here's something extra to watch about how nuclear waste should be stored compared to what has been done with used rods in Fukushima.

 

[sobek]

Here's something extra to watch about how nuclear waste should be stored compared to what has been done with used rods in Fukushima.

 

Fukushima is not a final storage facility. You have to store used rods somewhere until they are transported off to processing or final storage.

 

Underground storage facilities can be a can of worms as well, there are problems to consider (see Asse in Germany).

[Shaman]

Fukushima is not a final storage facility. You have to store used rods somewhere until they are transported off to processing or final storage.

 

Underground storage facilities can be a can of worms as well, there are problems to consider (see Asse in Germany).

 

Asse does not compare. It does not fall into its category of true and safe final storage facility for nuclear waste. German nation took a short-cut by using a shallow salt mine for waste storage. This is why only low-level short-lived waste can be disposed there in such shallow repository. Even though the way it has been stored is outrageous. Germans failed miserably. Nuclear waste is a global problem and such depositories as the one under construction in Finland must be a global effort to construct otherwise we are all in trouble because of smelly poo in our neighbors' backyard.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Shaman

[Kuky]

like I said... people will diss it untill it's in their back yard ;)

[Pilotasso]

Cooler pumps are to be connected to power soon. lets hope. :)

[Kuky]

One side question... how many reactors did Chernobyl plant have? On the net I see it says it had 4 reactors 1000 MW each... now Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant says to have 6 reactors totaling 4696 MW so bit more then Chernobyl. If Pilotasso is right and they get cooling up and running the disaster will be less then of the Chernobyl so that's little good news

Edited March 18, 2011 by Kuky

[winz]

The disaster will be less than Chernobyl. It's not about the electrical output, but about the amount of radioactive isotopes that got it into atmosphere.

In Chernobyl, there was a big, unchecked, 10days long graphite fire of the reactor core itself, the reactor core was shreded by both steam and hydrogen explosion. That fire lifted insane amounts of particles into atmosphere and cannot really by compared to the steam burstout in Fukushima.

The highest dose measured near the Fukushima plant was 400mSv/hour, that was on one occasion, most of the time it is around 30mSv/horu. The estaminate dose near the chernobyl plant after disaster was 300sv/hour (300 000mSv/hour). The fact that chernobyl trigered a radiation alarm in swedish power plant (that's how the west discovered chernobyl) gives you a hint about how big the radiaton was.

[topol-m]

One side question... how many reactors did Chernobyl plant have? On the net I see it says it had 4 reactors 1000 MW each... now Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant says to have 6 reactors totaling 4696 MW so bit more then Chernobyl. If Pilotasso is right and they get cooling up and running the disaster will be less then of the Chernobyl so that's little good news

 

It will be smaller that Chernobyl even if all reactors meltdown. The Chernobyl plant blew up while it was running, an eventual meltdown in Fukushima will cause much less damage.

[Kuky]

The disaster will be less than Chernobyl. It's not about the electrical output, but about the amount of radioactive isotopes that got it into atmosphere.

In Chernobyl, there was a big, unchecked, 10days long graphite fire of the reactor core itself, the reactor core was shreded by both steam and hydrogen explosion. That fire lifted insane amounts of particles into atmosphere and cannot really by compared to the steam burstout in Fukushima.

The highest dose measured near the Fukushima plant was 400mSv/hour, that was on one occasion, most of the time it is around 30mSv/horu. The estaminate dose near the chernobyl plant after disaster was 300sv/hour (300 000mSv/hour). The fact that chernobyl trigered a radiation alarm in swedish power plant (that's how the west discovered chernobyl) gives you a hint about how big the radiaton was.

 

electrical power output/caapcity can be related to nuclear energy released so they do go hand in hand.. well unless power generators of one plant are masively different in efficiency in converting the energy to electricity

Edited March 18, 2011 by Kuky

[sobek]

electrical power output/caapcity can be related to nuclear energy released so they do go hand in hand.. well unless power generators of one plant are masively different in efficiency in converting the energy to electricity

 

Sorry Kuky, but that is not true. What's dangerous is not the release of radiation, but the release of radioactive isotopes into the environment. If it was only radiation, then the Chernobyl exclusion zone would long have been inhabitable again.

 

If mere radiation were the problem, then there wouldn't even be the need to evacuate people from 30km around the plant, because alpha and beta radiation have a range of much less than a kilometer and gamma radiation decreases with 1/d^2 (in vacuum).

Edited March 18, 2011 by sobek

[Kuky]

Sorry Kuky, but that is not true. What's dangerous is not the release of radiation, but the release of radioactive isotopes into the environment. If it was only radiation, then the Chernobyl exclusion zone would long have been inhabitable again.

 

errm... well radioactive isotopes are radiating particles... it's what radiation is all about. And if you think again it is very true... the fission is about hitting nuclei with neutrons which splits the atoms and you get byparticles, the atoms release more nautrons and they hit more nuclei and it's a chain reaction untill all atoms are split under this process. The energy that is released by this is used to heat the water, creates steam and that is used to power the turbines that create electricity... so the amount of plutonium or uranium will always generate same amount of energy... how this is used (to what efficiency) to power the turbines and to what efficiency those turbines create electricity is the difference to how much MW they produce... so no, I don't think I am wrong.

Edited March 18, 2011 by Kuky

[sobek]

errm... well radioactive isotopes are radiating particles... it's what radiation is all about. And if you think again it is very true... the fission is about hitting nuclei with neutrons which splits the atoms and you get byparticles, the atoms release more nautrons and they hit more nuclei and it's a chain reaction untill all atoms are split under this process. The energy that is released by this is used to heat the water, creates steam and that is used to power the turbines that create electricity... so the amount of plutonium or uranium will always generate same amount of energy... how this is used (to what efficiency) to power the turbines and to what efficiency those turbines create electricity is the difference to how much MW they produce... so no, I don't think I am wrong.

 

Yes, the yield correlates with the amount of fuel in the reactor(and what fuel, and what reactor, but that's not the point), so far you are correct, but the amount of fuel does not correlate with the amount of radioactive pollution. That is down to how much of what material is released, and as has been stated earlier, chernobyl was so much of a disaster because the explosion propelled parts of the core into the surroundings and set the activated graphite in the core on fire. Such things are very unprobable to happen in Fukushima, therefore, although Fukushimas electrical output is higher than Chernobyl, the disaster is most likely of a lesser magnitude. Got it?

Edited March 18, 2011 by sobek

[Kuky]

Yes, I know that... fission creates all kinds of different radioactive elements and I am sure they are at some statictial level (say from 1kg of Uranium you get so much of this and so much of that.. that's a natural process and nature is always behaving in same way is it is governed by laws of physics) anway, we don't know how much of and what type of radioactive particles were released... all I was thinking about the potential danger if all of it went out like it did in Chernobyl... and if they do not get hold of this and it was to become a complete desaster, which I think is still possible, it would be worse then Chernobyl because there is more fuel used to begin with.

[Kuky]

and about the alpha particle.. yes it is very limited range (10-15cm and cannot penetrate the skin but will damage it skin is kept bombarded with it) the problem is how far the elements emiting them get carried.. well and where they end up... if some fish gets it and you eat that fish, it will end up in you... and that is not something to ignore.

 

I am very wondering though about how people never raised any alarms when USA, and France and Britain, don't know which other countries did it, I am sure China did also... did all the nuclear tests in the pacific... all that radiation had to get somewhere... the radioactive elements I mean, as nature is not an isolated space... things from one side of the planned can end up on the other side

Edited March 18, 2011 by Kuky

[sobek]

I am very wondering though about how people never raised any alarms when USA, and France and Britain, don't know which other countries did it, I am sure China did also... did all the nuclear tests in the pacific... all that radiation had to get somewhere... the radioactive elements I mean, as nature is not an isolated space... things from one side of the planned can end up on the other side

 

Compared to NPPs, bombs contain *very* little radioactive material. They just release all the energy in a short amount of time.

 

Also, i guess the underground nature of the tests served to contain the radioactive material to a certain degree.

 

The effects of atmospheric tests, on the other hand, were very noticeable. Hence why they were stopped.

[Kuky]

Compared to NPPs, bombs contain *very* little radioactive material. They just release all the energy in a short amount of time.

 

sorry but you couldn't be more wrong here... process of fission is exactly the same be it in nuclear reactor or one from nuclear weapon explosion... the only difference is in nuclear reactor the chain reaction is controled in order to avoid an explosion.

 

The elements and byproducts as a result of the atom splitting is exactly the same... so to say that radioactive material released or produced by nuclear weapon explosion compared to nuclear reactor is completely wrong.

 

EDIT: if by less radiation you mean that there is less quantaty of Uranium in an atomic weapon then what's used un nuclear reactors, then yeah, the less atomic fuel the less the radiation :)

Edited March 18, 2011 by Kuky

[asparagin]

This:

 

What's dangerous is not the release of radiation, but the release of radioactive isotopes into the environment.

 

and this:

 

the problem is how far the elements emiting them get carried.. well and where they end up... if some fish gets it and you eat that fish, it will end up in you... and that is not something to ignore.

 

This:

 

Compared to NPPs, bombs contain *very* little radioactive material. They just release all the energy in a short amount of time.

 

and this:

 

process of fission is exactly the same be it in nuclear reactor or one from nuclear weapon explosion... the only difference is in nuclear reactor the chain reaction is controled in order to avoid an explosion.

 

 

You guys agree, but don't know it yet :D

[winz]

I can assure you that if switching total energy production to nuclear, with todays technology, the depletion of fissionable material is a matter of decades, maybe 100 years. That`s all I'm saying.

Interesting google tech talk on that matter