Nuke Industry: Be "reassured" by Japan - Polidicks

[release] As Japan struggles to contain a growing nuclear crisis -- with more than 200,000 people evacuated, an explosion at one power plant, and possible meltdowns in several reactors -- the American nuclear industry faces a different challenge: how to position itself in the intense public-relations battle that has already started. This morning I interviewed a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry trade [URL="http://www.nei.org/"]group[/URL], to get a sense of the message being pushed by an industry that, with support from President Obama as well as the Republican Party, has been in the early stages of a renaissance. The most striking claim made by NEI spokesman Mitchell Singer: Americans should be "reassured" by the crisis unfolding in Japan. [b]"There hasn't been any significant release of radiation.[/b] So obviously they must be doing something right at this point," said Singer. While acknowledging that the crisis is still in early stages, Singer argued in our interview, and earlier to the [URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704296604576197340900789296.html?mod=e2tw"]Wall Street Journal[/URL], that Americans should be reassured because the industry will learn from the accidents in Japan, where fail-safe systems have themselves failed. "We share what's known as 'lessons learned' from incidents such as this," he said. As of midday Sunday, the New York Times [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/14nuclear.html?%20%20_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all"]reported[/URL] that partial meltdowns had likely occurred at two reactors after backup cooling systems failed. Concern focused in particular on the Fukushima Daiichi plant in northeast Japan, where an outer containment wall was destroyed in an explosion Saturday. Roughly 150 people have reportedly been exposed to radiation near or inside the plant, though the severity of the exposure is unclear. On Sunday, every major newspaper in the United States highlighted the nuclear crisis -- a PR nightmare for the industry. The New York Times' front page [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/images/2011/03/13/nytfrontpage/scan.jpg"]led[/URL] with a banner headline, "Japanese Scramble to Avert Nuclear Meltdowns," while the Washington Post [URL="http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/hr.asp?fpVname=DC_WP&ref_pge=gal&b_pge=1"]featured[/URL] stories variously labeled "Radiation Danger," "Reactor Emergency," and "Nuclear Crisis." Many press reports conclude that the current crisis is the worst since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in what is now Ukraine, where an explosion spread a cloud of nuclear fallout over large sections of the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. In the United States, the political backdrop for the Japanese crisis is a recent bipartisan embrace of nuclear power. President Obama last year [URL="http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-16/politics/obama.jobs_1_nuclear-reactors-nuclear-power-new-%20%20reactors?_s=PM:POLITICS"]announced[/URL] $8 billion in loan guarantees for a pair of new reactors in Georgia. After more than 30 years of no new reactor construction in America, Singer said that four new reactors -- in Georgia, Tennessee, and South Carolina -- are expected to be online by 2020. Part of the reason for the three-decade lull was public fear generated by the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania in 1979. The industry -- along with President Obama -- has in recent years trumpeted the fact that nuclear power does not produce carbon emissions that cause climate change. But safety is clearly still a touchy subject for nuclear operators. A special section on NEI's website [URL="http://www.nei.org/keyissues/safetyandsecurity/"]assures[/URL] that "stringent federal regulation, automated, redundant safety systems and the industry’s commitment to comprehensive safety procedures keep nuclear power plants and their communities safe." The Wall Street Journal today has a [URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704296604576197354007005470.html"]tough story[/URL] concluding that the Japanese experience has cast doubt on the very premise "that engineers can build enough redundancy into plant safety systems to overcome dangers." Singer, the NEI spokesman, argued that Japan's infrastructure had actually performed well so far. "The Japanese plants have been run very safely and reliably for a very long time. They have operated quite safely," he said, adding: "Actually, they withstood the earthquake quite well. It's the tsunami that caused the problems with the backup generators."[/release] [editline]13th March 2011[/editline] [URL]http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/13/nuclear_industry_response[/URL] Good to know

I hate people who oppose nuclear power, it's by far the most efficient minimal polluting energy source.

Well if they don't cause really serious problems after the huge earthquake and tsunami, that's certainly reassuring. The majority of nuclear reactors wouldn't ever encounter something as bad as this.

[QUOTE=The mouse;28585253]I hate people who oppose nuclear power, it's by far the most efficient minimal polluting energy source.[/QUOTE] Thorium Reactor, though it is still slightly radioactive IIRC Edit: It is nuclear power(thorium), but is quite different to what we think of when we hear "nuclear"

[QUOTE=Kab2tract;28585282]Thorium Reactor, though it is still slightly radioactive IIRC[/QUOTE] Yeah, it's slightly radioactive, but you don't need a big fucking concrete container around it.

I don't rather care about Japan, But thinking though, i think all the Anti Whaling have won the battle for a while till Japan gets back together.

Remember that the reactors at Fukushima at risk of meltdown are 40 years old. Safety features in most reactors are even better than what's available for those.

[QUOTE=deaththrea10;28585373]I don't rather care about Japan, But thinking though, i think all the Anti Whaling have won the battle for a while till Japan gets back together.[/QUOTE] You're a nice a person, aren't you?

[QUOTE=deaththrea10;28585373]I don't rather care about Japan, But thinking though, i think all the Anti Whaling have won the battle for a while till Japan gets back together.[/QUOTE] the fuck does this have to do with anything right now

[QUOTE=The mouse;28585253]I hate people who oppose nuclear power, it's by far the most efficient minimal polluting energy source.[/QUOTE] It's just too bad it has that tiny risk of a malfunction that could lead to a devastating meltdown. :smith: Doesn't mean it's likely though, of course. Seeing Fukushima's attempts to fix it goes to show that we've come a long way since Chernobyl.

[QUOTE=The mouse;28585253]I hate people who oppose nuclear power, it's by far the most efficient minimal polluting energy source.[/QUOTE] I hate people who disagree with me too.

[QUOTE=deaththrea10;28585373]I don't rather care about Japan, But thinking though, i think all the Anti Whaling have won the battle for a while till Japan gets back together.[/QUOTE] I hope the whales get irradiated and die just for that stupid comment.

so many people are against nuclear power, and yet, Nuclear fusion reactors will save us from certain doom.

Nuclear power is one of the only real options we have. We could make thorium reactors, or seed reactors, or we could just make standard ones. They designed this to survive an 8.2, this was an 8.9 and a tsunami that was equally overwhelming. And yet look, only a partial meltdown and very little real damage. [url]http://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/[/url]

[QUOTE=Murkat;28585469]It's just too bad it has that tiny risk of a malfunction that could lead to a devastating meltdown. :smith: Doesn't mean it's likely though, of course. Seeing Fukushima's attempts to fix it goes to show that we've come a long way since Chernobyl.[/QUOTE] Thorium reactors won't meltdown ever. They're designed so that they'll cool themselves off passively when you shut them off. Uranium light water reactors have to be actively cooled. I don't know the specifics of how it works, but back in the 60s there was an experimental thorium reactor where the scientists would just shut the power off on Friday, then turn it back on Monday morning. They did this every weekend for like 5 years.

[QUOTE=The mouse;28585253]I hate people who oppose nuclear power, it's by far the most efficient minimal polluting energy source.[/QUOTE] Pavarotti, Kab2tract, and POLOPOZOZO all drive a Prius.

[QUOTE=Second-gear-of-mgear;28585663]Pavarotti, Kab2tract, and POLOPOZOZO all drive a Prius.[/QUOTE] I do not oppose nuclear power.

[QUOTE=Second-gear-of-mgear;28585663]Pavarotti, Kab2tract, and POLOPOZOZO all drive a Prius.[/QUOTE] aside from the quip there's no real reason to hate or fear nuclear power. Even in this, worst case scenario, we still haven't seen the worst thing imaginable. This does kind of prove the safety of it. There's no rational reason(fear is not a rational reason) to say no to more nuclear reactors. This reactor wasn't even built to withstand this kind of thing, and yet, it still is. AND a tsunami that it also wasn't built to withstand. Yeah, problems happened, partial meltdown, etc, but things are not that bad.

I thought the worst thing imaginable was Chernobyl

[QUOTE=larrylumpy;28585781]I thought the worst thing imaginable was Chernobyl[/QUOTE] That was caused mostly by idiocy than bad design.

[QUOTE=Second-gear-of-mgear;28585663]Pavarotti, Kab2tract, and POLOPOZOZO all drive a Prius.[/QUOTE] OHO GOOD ONE BRO YOU GOT ME me and my 25mpg midsize what a hippy I am [editline]13th March 2011[/editline] Also the last I heard the earthquake was upgraded to a 9.0

[QUOTE=The mouse;28585253]I hate people who oppose nuclear power, it's by far the most efficient minimal polluting energy source.[/QUOTE] Hydro power.

Just wait til we have fusion power. [media]http://www.wired.com/images/slideshow/2009/05/gallery_nif/nif_1a.jpg[/media]

[QUOTE=doonbugie2;28586284]Hydro power.[/QUOTE] Hydropower fucks up rivers and ecosystems so bad. You end up flooding the upstream part, and wiping out everything that used to be there. Then downstream basically turns into a trickle of water.

[QUOTE=Nurdock;28586167]That was caused mostly by idiocy than bad design.[/QUOTE] It was caused by both, they used graphite/carbon to shield from radiation, it's flammable, it got set on fire, radioactive fire.

How old are the Japanese Reactors anyway? Weren't they over 3 decades old??

[QUOTE=doonbugie2;28586284]Hydro power.[/QUOTE] we asked for a non environmentally destructive one

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;28586311]Hydropower fucks up rivers and ecosystems so bad. You end up flooding the upstream part, and wiping out everything that used to be there. Then downstream basically turns into a trickle of water.[/QUOTE] Not always, on Vancouver island there seems to be a pretty effective on in Campbell River which doesn't do that to the extent you described. [editline]13th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28586473]we asked for a non environmentally destructive one[/QUOTE] [img_thumb]http://saferenvironment.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/turbines-water.jpg[/img_thumb]

[QUOTE=doonbugie2;28586475]Not always, on Vancouver island there seems to be a pretty effective on in Campbell River which doesn't do that to the extent you described. [editline]13th March 2011[/editline] [img_thumb]http://saferenvironment.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/turbines-water.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] wind turbines aren't very efficient, take up huge swaths of land/ocean and aren't entirely pollutant free to run. And i've heard of the change in wind patterns they cause being quite negative. And I know of the place you speak, and that's not possible to build everywhere. What's wrong with nuclear power?

I'm not opposed to Nuclear power at all when its used properly. I was just giving alternatives :p [editline]13th March 2011[/editline] How about Tidal power?