Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant leaking contaminated water
35 replies, posted
[img]http://s1.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20130406&t=2&i=719666491&w=460&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=CBRE93507ST00[/img]
[quote]As much as 120 tons of radioactive water may have leaked from a storage tank at Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear plant, contaminating the surrounding ground, Tokyo Electric Power Co said on Saturday.
The power company has yet to discover the cause of the leak, detected on one of seven tanks that store water used to cool the plants reactors, a spokesman for the company, Masayuki Ono, said at a press briefing...[/quote]
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/06/us-fukushima-leak-idUSBRE93501I20130406[/url]
Just more fuel for the Doomsday Preppers
I think that's a problem with old generation reactor.
May I ask one question? Will it better if you "upgrade" the reactor rather than keep fixing the old gen?
[QUOTE=SuddenImpact;40181974]Just more fuel for the Doomsday Preppers[/QUOTE]
But it's not 2012 any more
That's my main concern with nuclear energy. It's pretty safe, eco-friendly (except when we just burry the shit in Siberia) but the tiniest chance of it going wrong leads to disasters like this.
You just can't deny that.
[QUOTE=Bliblixe;40182652]That's my main concern with nuclear energy. It's pretty safe, eco-friendly (except when we just burry the shit in Siberia) but the tiniest chance of it going wrong leads to disasters like this.
You just can't deny that.[/QUOTE]
There's also a tiny chance that a coal fired power station could go up in a catastrophic explosion and throw thousands of tonnes of Carbon dust into the air which would completely destroy the wildlife for tens of miles around the plant.
If the plants are correctly managed this risk however is virtually zero. Your avatar says it all, have a look at France. 60+ years of operating Nuclear and not a single disaster. There have been a couple of extremely minor accidents and now your Energy is primarily nuclear.
Statistically Nuclear is actually the safest way to make energy, per KWh produced it has the least deaths and early deaths of any energy form with Coal being the worst. Solar and Wind actually have more deaths per KWh produced because of accidents in shipping, production and what not.
[QUOTE=Scrappa;40182694]There's also a tiny chance that a coal fired power station could go up in a catastrophic explosion and throw thousands of tonnes of Carbon dust into the air which would completely destroy the wildlife for tens of miles around the plant.
If the plants are correctly managed this risk however is virtually zero. Your avatar says it all, have a look at France. 60+ years of operating Nuclear and not a single disaster. There have been a couple of extremely minor accidents and now your Energy is primarily nuclear.
Statistically Nuclear is actually the safest way to make energy, per KWh produced it has the least deaths and early deaths of any energy form with Coal being the worst. Solar and Wind actually have more deaths per KWh produced because of accidents in shipping, production and what not.[/QUOTE]
-Wrong, France has had nuclear failures
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country[/url]
-There isn't such thing as a "virtually zero" risk.
-It is the safest because it had less disasters, once there's one, shit's nasty. Not mentionning the fact it's nasty for 1000 years or so, not the case for a coal power station.
I'd say the main problem with nuclear energy is not the technology itself, it's who's controlling it. Look at all the old nuclear facilities still in activity because that would be too expensive to dismantle them and put better, safer ones.
[QUOTE=Bliblixe;40182755]-Wrong, France has had nuclear failures
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country[/URL]
-There isn't such thing as a "virtually zero" risk.
-It is the safest because it had less disasters, once there's one, shit's nasty. Not mentionning the fact it's nasty for 1000 years or so, not the case for a coal power station.
I'd say the main problem with nuclear energy is not the technology itself, it's who's controlling it. Look at all the old nuclear facilities still in activity because that would be too expensive to dismantle them and put better, safer ones.[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale[/URL]
You're not looking at scale. Incidents have occurred all over the world, but they've mostly been minor. The accident at Three Mile Island was the worst nuclear accident in US history. Worse than anything that has occurred in France. It hasn't been linked to a single death in 34 years. There have been 99 incidents globally in 61 years, and only two (Chernobyl and Fukushima) are considered "major accidents".
This is where the story of Pokemon picks up right? All the radiated animals getting super powers and such.
[QUOTE=Demolitions2;40185199]This is where the story of Pokemon picks up right? All the radiated animals getting super powers and such.[/QUOTE]
And Zapdos moves to Fukushima, right next to Rock Tunnel.
[QUOTE=rilez;40183300][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale[/URL]
You're not looking at scale. Incidents have occurred all over the world, but they've mostly been minor. The accident at Three Mile Island was the worst nuclear accident in US history. Worse than anything that has occurred in France. It hasn't been linked to a single death in 34 years. There have been 99 incidents globally in 61 years, and only two (Chernobyl and Fukushima) are considered "major accidents".[/QUOTE]
99 accidents are a lot for an energy supposed to be perfectly safe.
It's been 30 years since we keep telling us "it's safe, and it's safer with our new plants". If we want to go the nuclear way, let's get rid of all the old plants and put those new ones Facepunch is wanking at (can't remember the name).
[QUOTE=Bliblixe;40186176]99 accidents are a lot for an energy supposed to be perfectly safe.
It's been 30 years since we keep telling us "it's safe, and it's safer with our new plants". If we want to go the nuclear way, let's get rid of all the old plants and put those new ones Facepunch is wanking at (can't remember the name).[/QUOTE]
All these Nuclear disasters happen because of giant natural disasters, old reactors and incompetent communists. All of thee problems can be solved.
except natural disasters
[QUOTE=Keegs;40186545]except natural disasters[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://www.angelicscorn.co.uk/tectonic_map.jpg[/IMG]
NASA map of spots where you shouldn't put nuclear power plants. Lines indicate where you REALLY shouldn't, dots indicate iffy idea, but doable.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;40186189]All these Nuclear disasters happen because of giant natural disasters, old reactors and incompetent communists. All of thee problems can be solved.[/QUOTE]
Natural disasters can't be prevented, at most we can make the risk smaller by placing the plants in safe places as shown by Riller, but as [recent] history has showed us, no one knows for sure when something unplanned will happen.
Old reactors can be replaced yes, sadly, and that's really my main concern, the ones they belong to would rather not spend their cash on doing so and would rather let them run another decade.
Communist aren't really the only one plagued by incompetent workers. Besides, men make mistakes, all the time.
[QUOTE=Bliblixe;40186716]Natural disasters can't be prevented, at most we can make the risk smaller by placing the plants in safe places as shown by Riller, but as [recent] history has showed us, no one knows for sure when something unplanned will happen.
Old reactors can be replaced yes, sadly, and that's really my main concern, the ones they belong to would rather not spend their cash on doing so and would rather let them run another decade.
Communist aren't really the only one plagued by incompetent workers. Besides, men make mistakes, all the time.[/QUOTE]
Chernobyl workers didnt even know how the reactor worked at all from what it seems
And after it happened everyone was lying about values left and right
[QUOTE=Tobba;40186876]Chernobyl workers didnt even know how the reactor worked at all from what it seems
And after it happened everyone was lying about values left and right[/QUOTE]
Point is human mistakes can't be avoided. Wherever you are and whatever you do, shit happens.
[QUOTE=Bliblixe;40182652]That's my main concern with nuclear energy. It's pretty safe, eco-friendly (except when we just burry the shit in Siberia) but the tiniest chance of it going wrong leads to disasters like this.
You just can't deny that.[/QUOTE]
i wouldnt call a gigantic fucking earthquake, a tsunami, general incompetence, corruption and unwillingness by the government to do anything a small thing
[QUOTE]As much as 120 tons of radioactive water may have leaked[/QUOTE]
How did they not notice? Maybe 28,760 gallons is nothing compared to the size of the tank
Edit:
[QUOTE]13000 cubic meters[/QUOTE]
=3,434,236.7 gallons
ok never mind, that's nothing[I][/I]
[QUOTE=Turing;40187022]i wouldnt call a gigantic fucking earthquake, a tsunami, general incompetence, corruption and unwillingness by the government to do anything a small thing[/QUOTE]
Where did I say that.
It's unfortunate how the Japanese government has handled the situation, i.e by covering up and downplaying the size of the actual damage. There have most likely been more leaks that we haven't heard of.
Don't know if this ever got posted here or not.
[url]http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-03/swimming-hot-side?page=all[/url]
[QUOTE=Bliblixe;40186176]99 accidents are a lot for an energy supposed to be perfectly safe.
It's been 30 years since we keep telling us "it's safe, and it's safer with our new plants". If we want to go the nuclear way, let's get rid of all the old plants and put those new ones Facepunch is wanking at (can't remember the name).[/QUOTE]
Do you know how many deaths have been caused by traditional power plants? As was mentioned above, FAR MORE than nuclear disasters have ever caused. Have you ever done a proper risk assessment on anything? Like in a workplace or in a lab? 'Risk' is a combination of two things - the odds of shit actually hitting the fan, and what the potential ramifications of shit hitting the fan are.
Nuclear power comes out at low-to-moderate risk. The odds of things going wrong are low to negligible, but when things do go wrong, as you said, they're pretty disastrous. The actual issues associated with a problem are far outweighed by the fact that it's insanely unlikely to happen in the first place, so you get your low-to-moderate rating.
Traditional coal plants or natural gas plants have a much higher chance of something going wrong, and the amount of damage done can be incredibly variable. A worst case accident at a traditional power plant is orders of magnitude more likely to occur than at a nuclear power plant, and in the worst case the damage done could be equal to that of the direct damage done by a nuclear incident. Your risk comes out somewhat higher than that of a nuclear power plant.
[QUOTE=sltungle;40189819]
Traditional coal plants or natural gas plants have a much higher chance of something going wrong, and the amount of damage done can be incredibly variable. A worst case accident at a traditional power plant is orders of magnitude more likely to occur than at a nuclear power plant, and in the worst case the damage done could be equal to that of the direct damage done by a nuclear incident. Your risk comes out somewhat higher than that of a nuclear power plant.[/QUOTE]
London during the Industrial revolution had a serious Air quality problem. Hell, thousands of people were killed in single. That and just a general decrease in the air quality which hurts everybody more, probably everybody in the modern world has been negatively effected by it.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog[/url]
Beijing is going to have a disaster like this soon enough if they don't get off the coal train.
Nuclear power, is, in all honesty, a really good source of power.
Although I can understand why Japan is apprehensive considering what they've gone through, it would be a mistake for them to outright abandon it.
[QUOTE=Tobba;40186876]Chernobyl workers didnt even know how the reactor worked at all from what it seems
And after it happened everyone was lying about values left and right[/QUOTE]
What happened at Chernobyl is the workers by-passed safeties to get the plant running. Safeties exist for a reason, and to by-pass them is never a good thing.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;40191423]What happened at Chernobyl is the workers by-passed safeties to get the plant running. Safeties exist for a reason, and to by-pass them is never a good thing.[/QUOTE]
Not quite. What happened at Chernobyl is that some retard decided that it'd be a wonderful idea to tip the control rods (which are meant to quell a nuclear reaction by reducing the number of neutrons available for fission) with a neutron moderator (which are meant to INCREASE the number of neutrons available for fission). The result was, unsurprisingly, disastrous.
People are idiots.
[QUOTE=sltungle;40191455]Not quite. What happened at Chernobyl is that some retard decided that it'd be a wonderful idea to tip the control rods (which are meant to quell a nuclear reaction by reducing the number of neutrons available for fission) with a neutron moderator (which are meant to INCREASE the number of neutrons available for fission). The result was, unsurprisingly, disastrous.
People are idiots.[/QUOTE]
And the fact this was done was not disclosed to the operators of the reactor (because "GLORIOUS SOVIET REACTOR IS PERFECT AND DOES NOT HAVE 'FLAWS'"), so they could never fathom that executing an [I]emergency shutdown[/I] could cause a [I]fucking power [B]surge.[/B][/I]
On top of that you had an already unsafe test being executed by a team other than the one that was supposed to do it, and was being executed way outside the parameters set for it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.