• Huge blast at Japan nuclear power plant - a partial nuclear meltdown has occured
    843 replies, posted
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;28581985]"Oh Chernobyl was an isolated case that would NEVER happen again we should use nuclear power as much as possible everywhere forever!" :downs:[/QUOTE] Maybe you should learn a bit about how nuclear power works before you try to speak. What happened at Chernobyl IS impossible because it was a completely different design.
I'm surprised so many facepunchers know so much about nuclear power plants :raise:
[QUOTE=wewt!;28582261]I'm surprised so many facepunchers know so much about nuclear power plants :raise:[/QUOTE]Too much free time and Wikipedia.
[QUOTE=wewt!;28582261]I'm surprised so many facepunchers know so much about nuclear power plants :raise:[/QUOTE] That's because every once in a while something like this happens [QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;28581985]"Oh Chernobyl was an isolated case that would NEVER happen again we should use nuclear power as much as possible everywhere forever!" :downs:[/QUOTE] and we have to defend against the greenpeace vegan menace
Hrrrrng. Guys, seriously a Chernobyl-type explosion is -physically impossible- in modern powerplants.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;28582042]There is nothing to say this will end up like Chernobyl, in fact if they manage to keep these reactors under control it really does prove how reliable and safe they are.[/QUOTE] Really that's funny because it looks like there's a meltdown and radioactive steam is venting, but whatever I guess this is another totally isolated case. [editline]13th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=LarparNar;28582134]Maybe you should learn a bit about how nuclear power works before you try to speak. What happened at Chernobyl IS impossible because it was a completely different design.[/QUOTE] Oh so that different design somehow changes the situation, there isn't a meltdown, and they aren't venting radioactive cesium? Because, I was so certain they were. Oh and the evacuation of everyone in a 12km radius never happened.
[QUOTE=s0beit;28582323]and we have to defend against the greenpeace vegan menace[/QUOTE] I fail to see how diet has anything to do with this.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;28582336]Really that's funny because it looks like there's a meltdown and radioactive steam is venting, but whatever I guess this is another totally isolated case. [editline]13th March 2011[/editline] Oh so that different design somehow changes the situation, there isn't a meltdown, and they aren't venting radioactive cesium? Because, I was so certain they were.[/QUOTE] Which is NOT what happened at Chernobyl. During Chernobyl, the reactor actually exploded due to a steam explosion. In this Japanese plant, they are venting steam to lower the pressure and temperature inside the reactor, to halt the meltdown.
[QUOTE=wewt!;28582261]I'm surprised so many facepunchers know so much about nuclear power plants :raise:[/QUOTE] Facepunch is obsessed with Chernobyl
FYI but, This won't be as bad as Chernobyl if it does happen, Why? Because modern power plants aren't as bad. Chernobyl was caused by a test with the failsafes off, They're prepared for this, Chernobyl was just a total "Ok let's put this h-OH GOD WHA". they are expecting this and prepared for it. [highlight][u]Calm The Fuck Down STALKER fans.[/u][/highlight] [editline]13th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;28582336]Really that's funny because it looks like there's a meltdown and radioactive steam is venting, but whatever I guess this is another totally isolated case. [editline]13th March 2011[/editline] Oh so that different design somehow changes the situation, there isn't a meltdown, and they aren't venting radioactive cesium? Because, I was so certain they were.[/QUOTE] Chernobyl was a catastrophic steam explosion caused by a bunch of fucknuggets thinking it was a good idea to test a new theory with the failsafes off.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;28581985]"Oh Chernobyl was an isolated case that would NEVER happen again we should use nuclear power as much as possible everywhere forever!" :downs:[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;28582336]Really that's funny because it looks like there's a meltdown and radioactive steam is venting, but whatever I guess this is another totally isolated case. [editline]13th March 2011[/editline] Oh so that different design somehow changes the situation, there isn't a meltdown, and they aren't venting radioactive cesium? Because, I was so certain they were. Oh and the evacuation of everyone in a 12km radius never happened.[/QUOTE] Perfect example of why people should not talk about what they do not understand (or at least not talk about it like they know everything and are right).
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;28581985]"Oh Chernobyl was an isolated case that would NEVER happen again we should use nuclear power as much as possible everywhere forever!" :downs:[/QUOTE] Correct.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;28581985]"Oh Chernobyl was an isolated case that would NEVER happen again we should use nuclear power as much as possible everywhere forever!" :downs:[/QUOTE] So you'd prefer: Conjunctivitis, mineshaft collapses, pollution, oil spills, death, disease, fires, explosions, leakages and suffocations, and general lung cancer from Oil, Gas, and Coal outlets? Aside from the waste, Nuclear Power is probably the safest motherfucking method of power at this minute, And in the long term, when we develop proper disposal for nuclear waste, It will be THE Safest method. THis was not nuke power's fault. It was the earthquakes. Dimwad.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;28582336]Really that's funny because it looks like there's a meltdown and radioactive steam is venting, but whatever I guess this is another totally isolated case. [editline]13th March 2011[/editline] Oh so that different design somehow changes the situation, there isn't a meltdown, and they aren't venting radioactive cesium? Because, I was so certain they were. Oh and the evacuation of everyone in a 12km radius never happened.[/QUOTE] Oh my god [url=http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1068630-Huge-blast-at-Japan-nuclear-power-plant-a-partial-nuclear-meltdown-has-occured?p=28578461&viewfull=1#post28578461]read page 14[/url]
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;28582336]Really that's funny because it looks like there's a meltdown and radioactive steam is venting, but whatever I guess this is another totally isolated case. [editline]13th March 2011[/editline] Oh so that different design somehow changes the situation, there isn't a meltdown, and they aren't venting radioactive cesium? Because, I was so certain they were.[/QUOTE] Hey lets look at what's actually happening: [B]Fukushima:[/B] After the earthquake, the plant was successfully shut down by having the control rods inserted, the problem here is that even though it's completely shut down, the fuel is still heating up and might melt. If it melts it will flow downwards, into the ground. There's no water under this plant, so a steam explosion is out of the question. Even if it did melt down, there wouldn't be a massive radiation spread. The radiation being vented is a controlled leak which is so much less than Chernobyl that you might as well compare a grain of salt to a large rock. The explosion in the reactor was an unrelated hydrogen reaction. [B]Chernobyl:[/B] At Chernobyl, the situation was different, they were running a test and didn't follow standard procedures, and the energy levels spiked. The control rods where inserted, but the tips of the rods were made of graphite. This was a design flaw that caused an explosion inside the core (not outside the core like Fukushima), and this spread burning graphite. As of this point Chernobyl hadn't even had a meltdown, but the risk was there and so they had to drain radioactive water from underneath the plant to avoid a steam explosion (water which Fukushima doesn't have under the plant, another design flaw at Chernobyl). Chernobyl did eventually have a meltdown, but the water had been successfully drained.
[QUOTE=Test Card F;28582425]So you'd prefer: Conjunctivitis, mineshaft collapses, pollution, oil spills, death, disease, fires, explosions, leakages and suffocations, and general lung cancer from Oil, Gas, and Coal outlets? Aside from the waste, Nuclear Power is probably the safest motherfucking method of power at this minute, And in the long term, when we develop proper disposal for nuclear waste, It will be THE Safest method. THis was not nuke power's fault. It was the earthquakes. Dimwad.[/QUOTE] Yeah, nuclear power is one of the safest methods of generating power, using power plants. It's also one of the greenest. The reason for this is because we cannot afford to have a nuclear power plant go catastrophically wrong, so we put lots and lots and lots of failsafes on them so they -don't- go catastrophically wrong.
I took this from the Press conference in Japan about the nuclear plants. Sorry it's a bit sketchy. I don't speak Japanese to well and required some assistance [quote] Announcement: they will be releasing steam if the reactors do not reach target temperatures. Decisions for will be made at.... Reactor 1: 3am. Reactor 2: 6am. Reactor 4/3:5am. The steam release will contain radiation how ever it will not contain much. You're exposed to more radiation on long distance flights than what has been released/will be..[/quote]
[QUOTE=wewt!;28582261]I'm surprised so many facepunchers know so much about nuclear power plants :raise:[/QUOTE] I had to do a coursework on them once.
[QUOTE=LarparNar;28582455]Hey lets look at what's actually happening: [B]Fukushima:[/B] After the earthquake, the plant was successfully shut down by having the control rods inserted, the problem here is that even though it's completely shut down, the fuel is still heating up and might melt. If it melts it will flow downwards, into the ground. There's no water under this plant, so a thermonuclear explosion is out of the question. Even if it did melt down, there wouldn't be a massive radiation spread. The radiation being vented is a controlled leak which is so much less than Chernobyl that you might as well compare a grain of salt to a large rock. The explosion in the reactor was an unrelated hydrogen reaction. [B]Chernobyl:[/B] At Chernobyl, the situation was different, they were running a test and didn't follow standard procedures, and the energy levels spiked. The control rods where inserted, but the tips of the rods were made of graphite. This was a design flaw that caused an explosion inside the core (not outside the core like Fukushima), and this spread burning graphite. As of this point Chernobyl hadn't even had a meltdown, but the risk was there and so they had to drain radioactive water from underneath the plant to avoid a thermonuclear explosion (water which Fukushima doesn't have under the plant, another design flaw at Chernobyl).[/QUOTE] You give me faith in mankind. ATTN others: READ A FUCKING SCIENCE TEXTBOOK PEOPLE OR ATLEAST READ THE CHERNOBYL WIKIPEDIA PAGE INSTEAD OF PLAYING STALKER FOR SIX HOURS.
[QUOTE=LarparNar;28582455]There's no water under this plant, so a thermonuclear explosion is out of the question.[/QUOTE] It would be out of the question even if there was water under the plant. You're thinking of a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_explosion]steam explosion.[/url] A thermonuclear explosion is something [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teller-Ulam_design]rather different.[/url] [editline]13th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=wewt!;28582261]I'm surprised so many facepunchers know so much about nuclear power plants :raise:[/QUOTE] It's a standard part of the GCSE Physics course.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;28582336]Really that's funny because it looks like there's a meltdown and radioactive steam is venting, but whatever I guess this is another totally isolated case. [editline]13th March 2011[/editline] Oh so that different design somehow changes the situation, there isn't a meltdown, and they aren't venting radioactive cesium? Because, I was so certain they were. Oh and the evacuation of everyone in a 12km radius never happened.[/QUOTE] Radioactive steam is hardly a problem and just because there is a meltdown doesn't mean it's going to blow up like chernobyl is. Seriously if you don't know fuck all about nuclear power plants then don't post.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;28582527]It would be out of the question even if there was water under the plant. You're thinking of a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_explosion]steam explosion.[/url] A thermonuclear explosion is something [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teller-Ulam_design]rather different.[/url][/QUOTE] I got my words mixed up.
[QUOTE=Test Card F;28582425]So you'd prefer: Conjunctivitis, mineshaft collapses, pollution, oil spills, death, disease, fires, explosions, leakages and suffocations, and general lung cancer from Oil, Gas, and Coal outlets? Aside from the waste, Nuclear Power is probably the safest motherfucking method of power at this minute, And in the long term, when we develop proper disposal for nuclear waste, It will be THE Safest method. THis was not nuke power's fault. It was the earthquakes. Dimwad.[/QUOTE] Yes and it's not like the risks of one form of energy outweigh nuclear or the other way around. My point is every time a reactor is at risk of meltdown, there is a huge panic over it, people have to be evacuated, and the clean up is still bad. It's not this amazing better than everything resource that people make it out to be. Yeah I suppose comparing it to Chernobyl as to the causes and design isn't right but that doesn't change the fact that there is an emergency specifically because the earthquake affected a nuclear reactor and not some other type of power plant.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;28582543]Yes and it's not like the risks of one form of energy outweigh nuclear or the other way around. My point is every time a reactor is at risk of meltdown, there is a huge panic over it, people have to be evacuated, and the clean up is still bad. It's not this amazing better than everything resource that people make it out to be.[/QUOTE] Enjoy your lung cancer you luddite. Go back to digging for coal and hope the shaft explodes ontop of you due to you being rendered blind by the dust.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;28582543]Yes and it's not like the risks of one form of energy outweigh nuclear or the other way around. My point is every time a reactor is at risk of meltdown, there is a huge panic over it, people have to be evacuated, and the clean up is still bad. It's not this amazing better than everything resource that people make it out to be.[/QUOTE] In most cases it actually is, except [B]there has been a motherfucking earthquake.[/B]
Nuclear plants are DESIGNED FOR THINGS LIKE THIS. YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER AND SAFETY PROCEDURES DO YOU? ALL YOU KNOW IS WHAT YOU LEARNED IN BLOODY STALKER. [editline]13th March 2011[/editline] That ws aimed at POLPOZOZOZOZ or whatever his name is,
[QUOTE=Test Card F;28582575]Nuclear plants are DESIGNED FOR THINGS LIKE THIS. YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER AND SAFETY PROCEDURES DO YOU? ALL YOU KNOW IS WHAT YOU LEARNED IN BLOODY STALKER.[/QUOTE] Yelling at him won't convince him that he is wrong, in fact it will do the opposite.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;28582583]Yelling at him won't convince him that he is wrong, in fact it will do the opposite.[/QUOTE] It'll atleast get it through that skull of his. He won't need to worry about brain cancer with that cranium.
Yeah man and I never played STALKER so I know even less give my tiny luddite mind a break.
Sweet god the lack of scientific knowledge in children today makes me want to kill myself. :suicide: [editline]13th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;28582600]Yeah man and I never played STALKER so I know even less give my tiny luddite mind a break.[/QUOTE] So, You had no idea about the subject and you engaged in a brutish, rash conversation anyway? Sweet god you're thick.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.