Outcry and fear as Pakistan builds new nuclear reactors in dangerous Karachi - Polidicks

Source: [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/outcry-and-fear-as-pakistan-builds-new-nuclear-reactors-in-dangerous-karachi/2015/03/05/425e8e70-bc59-11e4-9dfb-03366e719af8_story.html[/url] [QUOTE=Washington Post]KARACHI, Pakistan — World leaders have fretted for years that terrorists may try to steal one of Pakistan’s nuclear bombs and detonate it in a foreign country. But some Karachi residents say the real nuclear nightmare is unfolding here in Pakistan’s largest and most volatile city. On the edge of Karachi, [B]on an earthquake-prone seafront vulnerable to tsunamis[/B] and not far from [B]where al-Qaeda militants nearly hijacked a Pakistan navy vessel[/B] last fall, China is supplying two large nuclear reactors for energy-starved Pakistan. The new plants, utilizing a [B]cutting-edge design not yet in use anywhere in the world[/B], will each supply 1,100 megawatts to Pakistan’s national energy grid. The reactors are being built next to a much smaller 1970s-era reactor located on a popular beach where fishermen still make wooden boats by hand. But the new ACP-1000 reactors will also stand less than 20 miles from downtown Karachi, a dense and rapidly growing metropolis of about 20 million residents. Now, in a rare public challenge to the Islamabad government’s nuclear ambitions, some Pakistanis are pushing back. Of all places to locate a reactor, they argue, who could possibly make a case for this one? “[B]You are talking about a city one-third the population of the United Kingdom[/B],” said Abdul Sattar Pirzada, a Karachi lawyer who is seeking to get the project halted. “If there would be an accident, this would cripple Karachi, and if you cripple Karachi, you cripple Pakistan.” In recommendations pertaining to nuclear plant construction in the United States, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission says a new reactor should be sited away from very densely populated areas, preferably with fewer than 500 people per square mile within a 20-mile radius. That zone around Karachi’s power plant holds about 6,450 people per square mile, Pervez Hoodbhoy, a Pakistani nuclear physicist, wrote in Newsweek Pakistan last year.[/QUOTE] [t]https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2015/03/05/Foreign/Graphics/pakistanNuclear.jpg?uuid=bWm2kMN-EeShiI5JcdN6jQ[/t] What could possibly go wrong?

Well hopefully they get constructed, but they better keep Al Qaeda out, they will basically have a field day if they make a dirty bomb with the nuclear waste.

[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;47270468]Well hopefully they get constructed, but they better keep Al Qaeda out, they will basically have a field day if they make a dirty bomb with the nuclear waste.[/QUOTE] I dunno, considering this is a joint Pakistani/Chinese project, I could imagine seeing some sort of military or security presence from the Chinese to help defend it.

Because I am contractually obligated to post in this thread: - The design isn't a Soviet botch job. - All nuclear facilities are built to withstand severe earthquakes. - Fukushima failed because the owner completely disregarded warnings that their generator location was stupid and was susceptible to flooding, and refused to build tsunami protection. - Hijacking a boat and breaking into a nuclear facility are two totally different things. Even if they broke in, nuclear plants don't explode. - Chernobyl's exclusion zone is a poor comparison to make because it was disastrous. Fukushima's is much smaller and nobody died from the nuclear disaster; estimates claim 0-100 people will die from cancer related to the radiation, far below any measurable amount. - You need the plant to be located near enough people to staff it, and it needs to be near a source of water for cooling. That said, if you look at a map around Karachi, there is ample space to the north. I'm not sure if the land conditions are suitable, but there is opportunity to relocate it just to be on the safe side regardless. Keep in mind the logistics of transporting electricity over long distances, as well.

[QUOTE=Snowmew;47270589] - Hijacking a boat and breaking into a nuclear facility are two totally different things. Even if they broke in, nuclear plants don't explode. .[/QUOTE] you can make a nuclear power plant melt down by intentionally doing Bad Things to it, i assure you

[QUOTE=hrak;47270660]you can make a nuclear power plant melt down by intentionally doing Bad Things to it, i assure you[/QUOTE] There are quite a few redundant passive safety features in modern nuclear power plants. You have to have extensive knowledge of the specific system to trigger a melt down.

This article is pure fearmongering. The fact that the plants are using new reactor designs should reassure people since it has better safety features but instead the washington post says its a high risk untested plant that endangers a dense population zone. Ever think that they wouldn't build it so close if there wasnt a huge demand for energy there?

[QUOTE=Snowmew;47270589] - Fukushima failed because the owner completely disregarded warnings that their generator location was stupid and was susceptible to flooding, and refused to build tsunami protection.[/QUOTE] You'd entrust the life of 20 million people to the idea that maybe the owners of this power plant do rigorously follow regulations, after they've been broken so many times? [QUOTE] - Hijacking a boat and breaking into a nuclear facility are two totally different things. Even if they broke in, nuclear plants don't explode.[/QUOTE] Nobody's concerned about terrorists blowing up a power plant in Pakistan, it's about Uranium theft. [QUOTE] - Chernobyl's exclusion zone is a poor comparison to make because it was disastrous. Fukushima's is much smaller and nobody died from the nuclear disaster; estimates claim 0-100 people will die from cancer related to the radiation, far below any measurable amount.[/QUOTE] Disaster scenarios have to be considered. An exclusion zone covering 20 million people in case of a level 7 accident is just unacceptable.

[QUOTE=DrTaxi;47270820]You'd entrust the life of 20 million people to the idea that maybe the owners of this power plant do rigorously follow regulations, after they've been broken so many times?[/QUOTE] You'd assume the operators of three nuclear plants which have been operated without injury or major incident since 1972, as members in good standing of the IAEA, would suddenly stop? [QUOTE=DrTaxi;47270820]Nobody's concerned about terrorists blowing up a power plant in Pakistan, it's about Uranium theft.[/QUOTE] Which could have already happened since 1972, and hasn't. China does not have an inherent interest in supplying nuclear material to terrorists, they will only make security tighter than it is now. [QUOTE=DrTaxi;47270820]Disaster scenarios have to be considered. An exclusion zone covering 20 million people in case of a level 7 accident is just unacceptable.[/QUOTE] The worst-case Chernobyl scenario - which is not going to happen, because the RMBK-1000 is nothing like the ACP-1000 - would see an exclusion zone of about half that. I agree that it's poor placement but one lethal accident in 400+ currently operating reactors (not to mention those since decommissioned) is not a reason to assume this one will kill 20 million people.

[QUOTE=Snowmew;47271625]You'd assume the operators of three nuclear plants which have been operated without injury or major incident since 1972, as members in good standing of the IAEA, would suddenly stop? Which could have already happened since 1972, and hasn't. China does not have an inherent interest in supplying nuclear material to terrorists, they will only make security tighter than it is now. The worst-case Chernobyl scenario - which is not going to happen, because the RMBK-1000 is nothing like the ACP-1000 - would see an exclusion zone of about half that. I agree that it's poor placement but one lethal accident in 400+ currently operating reactors (not to mention those since decommissioned) is not a reason to assume this one will kill 20 million people.[/QUOTE] Your boner for nuclear energy doesn't make you right. Also I remember being in a thread when there was first reported problems in the fukushima plant, there was countless users like you who would call anyone retarded and rate them dumb and go on and on about a disaster being impossible due to modern reactor designs and then it happened, they looked so stupid.

[QUOTE=Lf751;47271848]Your boner for nuclear energy doesn't make you right.[/QUOTE] Your ad hominem argument doesn't make me wrong. [QUOTE=Lf751;47271848]Also I remember being in a thread when there was first reported problems in the fukushima plant, there was countless users like you who would call anyone retarded and rate them dumb and go on and on about a disaster being impossible due to modern reactor designs and then it happened, they looked so stupid.[/QUOTE] No radiation deaths and 0-100 potential cancer deaths (statistically negligible). Also, Fukushima was built in 1967 - not a modern reactor design. Please, continue. Today is boring and I need something to do.

I find it funny how 20 miles is considered too close to a city for a plant that produces no emissions, yet is perfectly okay for fossil-fuel fired plants that belch out tonnes of combustion products and make thousands of people ill a year.

[QUOTE=Lf751;47271848]Your boner for nuclear energy doesn't make you right. Also I remember being in a thread when there was first reported problems in the fukushima plant, there was countless users like you who would call anyone retarded and rate them dumb and go on and on about a disaster being impossible due to modern reactor designs and then it happened, they looked so stupid.[/QUOTE] I think that we cant say anything for sure without knowing more about the company building it. If its a company with a record of well-built and well-ran nuclear reactors, there shouldnt be much to worry about. If it is a company that cuts corners, then the reactor should not be built by them at all.

I love how people are freaking out over something as trivial and harmless as a nuclear power plant. [editline]6th March 2015[/editline] I've literally never seen a more sensationalist headline in SH.

[QUOTE=hrak;47270660]you can make a nuclear power plant melt down by intentionally doing Bad Things to it, i assure you[/QUOTE] yes i have done this

Prepare for unforeseen consequences. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Don't post just to put your epic zinger, reference or pun. Still didn't read the sticky." - Orkel))[/highlight]

Modern nuclear plants are very safe, I wouldn't be too worried.

[QUOTE=Pilot1215;47272402]Modern nuclear plants are very safe, I wouldn't be too worried.[/QUOTE] Not in Pakistan it's not. They can't even handle their own Taliban insurgency.

[QUOTE=archangel125;47272058]I love how people are freaking out over something as trivial and harmless as a nuclear power plant. [editline]6th March 2015[/editline] I've literally never seen a more sensationalist headline in SH.[/QUOTE] At least for me, it's more the location then the fact that it's nuclear. Reading this [url=https://www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=15809]OSAC Safety Report[/url] from 2014 (Among others, the sections on enviromental hazards, political / tribal / religious violence etc) doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the place

[QUOTE=isreal?;47272411]Not in Pakistan it's not. They can't even handle their own Taliban insurgency.[/QUOTE] Well, they did manage to handle their own nuclear plants without major incident for the past four decades. Russia can't claim that. Japan can't claim that. The US can't claim that.

[QUOTE=isreal?;47272411]Not in Pakistan it's not. They can't even handle their own Taliban insurgency.[/QUOTE] Pakistan has numerous plants, not to mention nuclear weapons as well. They have prevented attacks, and continue to do so very well. Pakistan has remained safe when a lot of people claimed they would not.

why is it that the people who are against nuclear reactors also tend to be against vaccinations and chemotherapy and dont believe in global warming, etc... The science illiterate population will always be a hindrance The thing, that nuclear energy is by far the best form of energy we have available NOW. Its safe (safer than coal or gas), its far more eco friendly than current power generation, and it can power all of earth until solar energy tech gets developed enough for practical use.

[QUOTE=hrak;47270660]you can make a nuclear power plant melt down by intentionally doing Bad Things to it, i assure you[/QUOTE] Do you know what a melt down actually is? It's not gonna go all fucking China Syndrome on you.

[QUOTE=da space core;47273335]Its safe (safer than coal or gas)[/QUOTE] Actually it's safer than solar and wind too: [QUOTE]- Coal: >1000x more dangerous - Natural gas: 44x more dangerous - Solar: 5x more dangerous - Wind: 2x more dangerous (mostly from maintenance workers falling off turbines)[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=da space core;47273335]why is it that the people who are against nuclear reactors also tend to be against vaccinations and chemotherapy and dont believe in global warming, etc... The science illiterate population will always be a hindrance The thing, that nuclear energy is by far the best form of energy we have available NOW. Its safe (safer than coal or gas), its far more eco friendly than current power generation, and it can power all of earth until solar energy tech gets developed enough for practical use.[/QUOTE] with nuclear energy the issue is that most people believe it will be done without the necessary amount of care, with companies/governments cutting corners, the whole fukushima issue which had the company in charge doing just that doesn't make it better, add the general fear 90% of the planet has of nuclear anything, and welp. i still think everyone should be pushing towards thorium reactors since they are inherently safer, plus the planet is loaded with thorium(i read somewhere it would last 500.000+ years if the planet switched to thorium en masse). [sp]before i'm drowned in a pile of boxes, i'm pro nuclear-energy btw[/sp] :v:

[QUOTE=Snowmew;47270589] - Fukushima failed because the owner completely disregarded warnings that their generator location was stupid and was susceptible to flooding, and refused to build tsunami protection.[/QUOTE] Also to add that IAEA repeatedly warned that it needed modernisation back in 1995 which was ignored by the owner, and the fact that modern plants are radically different with layers upon layers of countermeasures. Fukushima was basically just criminally neglected.

[QUOTE=Snowmew;47273583]Actually it's safer than solar and wind too:[/QUOTE] out of curiosity, how does one die by solar power?

[QUOTE=da space core;47276628]out of curiosity, how does one die by solar power?[/QUOTE] Skin cancer.

[QUOTE=da space core;47276628]out of curiosity, how does one die by solar power?[/QUOTE] That includes deaths along the supply chain to produce the panels - difficult to quantify though. Also a good portion of those are falls from mounting/maintaining them.

Right now in the United States, I feel like nuclear power has been demonized to the point of it never being able to get off the ground. I almost feel like comparing it to if we had abandoned the idea of aircraft because of the Hindenberg disaster.