The problem with nuclear

[animartco]

Surprised no one seems to have said anything about Japan's problem. Practically the worst earthquake ever and never mind all those people drowned, the MAIN problem is the man made danger of a meltdown in a reactor. It rather puts the danger of nuclear power in the right perspective, doesn't it? Worse than a terrible natural disaster?
I hope that coming on top of the uncontrollable oil spill this uncontrollable nuclear incident will teach people not to trust scientists. They always bite off more than they can chew! Why take such ridiculous risks with no thought of HOW TO TURN IT OFF. It wasn't really the fault of the Earthquake. That did little damage, but what it did was what any explosion of any kind at any nuclear site would do-rupture the pipes that carry the coolant and cut off the electricity connections into the plant. Such a little amount of damage leaves all the scientists flapping about in total helplessness, while their precious energy burns down into the ground with ever increasing unchecked ferocity until..it reaches magma?
Hopefully this hasn't happened by the way or we may all be up the creek, but they can't even tell whether they have China syndrome or not!

[The Woodman]

Originally Posted by animartco

Surprised no one seems to have said anything about Japan's problem.

Some of 'em have here..Tsunami spare a thought

[artdemole]

Will there be an alternative that people want? What ever is used people just Don't like it on the door step.Every thing brings it's own problems.....

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by animartco

That did little damage, but what it did was what any explosion of any kind at any nuclear site would do-rupture the pipes that carry the coolant and cut off the electricity connections into the plant.

strictly speaking that isnt true or in fact anywhere close , a) most explosions at a nuclear power plant would do little damage as they are built to resist such, and b) most reactors - certainly all the western ones- have the capacity for an emergency SCRAM using either graphite rods or boron beads - the earthquake did significant damage to all these and to the containment vessel - was it shortsighted to not foressee an earthquke when building in an earthquake zone ? of course it was - but this is hardly an indictment of nuclear power as a whole more of the corruption and shortcutting that attends many japanese infrastructure projects

Originally Posted by animartco

while their precious energy burns down into the ground with ever increasing unchecked ferocity until..it reaches magma?
Hopefully this hasn't happened by the way or we may all be up the creek,

Again this idea is total errant rubbish - there is no way a meltdown will burn down to magma - what happens in a true meltdown is that the pile slags and reaches critical mass before exploding - bad certainly with terrible local effects and wider fall out concerns, but not world ending.

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by animartco

Surprised no one seems to have said anything about Japan's problem. Practically the worst earthquake ever and never mind all those people drowned, the MAIN problem is the man made danger of a meltdown in a reactor. It rather puts the danger of nuclear power in the right perspective, doesn't it? Worse than a terrible natural disaster?......

As of this afternoon, one week after the initial events, the official figure for those who died in the earthquake/tsunami stands at 6,911, with 10,316 still missing. Realistically, it is unlikely that more than a very few of those missing will be found alive. So, expected death toll in the order of some 17,000.

At this same point in time, the death toll from the unfolding nuclear incident stands at zero, albeit two workers from the Fukushima plant are unaccounted for.

Yet you dismiss the earthquake/tsunami with the statement that the “MAIN” problem is that of a reactor meltdown, saying “It rather puts the danger of nuclear power in the right perspective, doesn't it? Worse than a terrible natural disaster?”

You begin your illogical outburst by enquiring, (with implied emphasis to the nuclear incident), as to why it is that “no one seems to have said anything”. The reason is simply that it makes little sense to hypothesize on what occurred, or what may yet occur in the days to come. Any such scribbling would, without access to the specific facts, be nothing more than fanciful conjecture.

Regards,
Mike.

[tom00_uk]

one of the worlds oldest working plants and its reactors seems to have done a very good job of with standing the earthquakes(plus after shocks) and the tsunami. The Engineers that designed and built it did a good job, its a shame that the engineer that built in the backup generators did not foresee them failing.

Had they been higher up away from water ingression then, events could probably have been resolved quicker.

the odd scientist that works in these place seems to be the wrong person to be pinning blame on animartco

and the 180 odd engineers (being called in some media the Fukushima 50) that are now possibly risking their own long term health for the greater good of their region

[nightshade]

Unfortunately the reactors were pretty well fool proof until there was an earthquake AND a Tsunami. The tsunami dragged the cooling sea water away
from the intakes, the error was not foreseeing this eventuality (in a land of earthquakes and tsunami) and have sufficient auxillary cooling available.

[solus]

There is a very balanced article on the BBC News website today - I doubt if it will do much to convince the panic-mongering "we're all doomed!" folks but it does help to put things into perspective:
BBC News - Japan nuclear threat: The tsunami is the bigger tragedy

[tom00_uk]

as things go nuclear does not seem to be killing many people unlike hydrocarbon based fuel in power plants

Interactive Chart: Deaths per TWh by Energy Source - Environment - GOOD

[Doggle Avaddit]

If you haven't already, it might be an idea to watch this:

What the Green Movement Got Wrong - 4oD - Channel 4

It's a TV show so don't rely on the content being fully factual or accurate, but it does go to show how the best of intentions can have the worst of results.
And also that (most likely) irrational fears are still driving global policy to the detriment of all mankind.