Robot finds possible melted nuclear fuel at Fukushima - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=daigennki;52501110]Exactly this. They were warned by many researchers, many years in advance that specifically a tsunami can cause huge problems to the entire power plant, but no, TEPCO and its short-sighted executives do not see the damages they will have to pay for when stuff like this accident happens, in the end they have to pay much, much more than if they improved the design.[/QUOTE] They was warned by the people in their own company. The company itself had discovered that the tsunami defences were inadequate in the event of a tsunami waves over 10 meters, which the internal report stated was to become more likely.

[QUOTE=Morgen;52501232]They was warned by the people in their own company. The company itself had discovered that the tsunami defences were inadequate in the event of a tsunami waves over 10 meters, which the internal report stated was to become more likely.[/QUOTE] Well that makes the situation even more ridiculous, they are not even listening to their own employees. At that rate I would not be surprised if TEPCO is another one of those companies that do not give a shit about their employees overworking.

They were going to decommission it soon before the tsunami happened, so I reckon the thought process was that they could skate by without investing more money into the plant before it went offline. They were wrong

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52500504]No, its not. Its got a few high profile accidents that scaremongers bring up constantly. If you used the same tactics with coal or oil you'd NEVER use those resources. Hell, literally any industry would be crippled by the same tactics. Travel by Air? Nah, remember this one plane crash? Travel by car? Nah, remember these car accidents? Use your phone? Nah, remember all those other phones that blew up? Undergo a surgical procedure? Nah, a few people have died after it, better not. Use this medication? Nah, a few people had some nasty side effects. Get vaccinated? Nah, I heard you can be allergic to the ingredients, better not risk it. Nuclear energy is one of the safest forms of energy when done correctly, and the current generation of reactors is ridiculously reliable.[/QUOTE] How can you say it is not riddled with cases of negligence. Of course it is. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents?wprov=sfla1[/url] So many of those are by negligence. You don't need to look at the big incidents for that.

[QUOTE=Killuah;52501393]How can you say it is not riddled with cases of negligence. Of course it is. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents?wprov=sfla1[/url] So many of those are by negligence. You don't need to look at the big incidents for that.[/QUOTE] To be fair most plants go through their entire service life without any issues. Those issues might be negligence related but overall nuclear is still very safe when done right.

[QUOTE=Morgen;52501426]To be fair most plants go through their entire service life without any issues. Those issues might be negligence related but overall nuclear is still very safe when done right.[/QUOTE] Ok but this is a sunject where " most are good" just isN't good enough. And it's also not even the point. The inital post was "The history of nuclear power is riddled with negligent behavior. It's a wonder we haven't had more disasters." Saying that " Its got a few high profile accidents that scaremongers bring up constantly." is just not arguing the point he brought up, it's arguing a different aspect of the problem, it doesn't tackle the point that there IS negligence - a lot - at all. You can not respond to an argument that basically says "well companies can't be trusted to do it right" with "it's safe when done right"

There has only ever been one incident that ever killed a member of the public and lo-behold, it happened in a nation where the government runs everything. Claiming corporation can't be trusted to run nuclear power plants when they have for many decades with the cleanest record of any industry is foolish.

[QUOTE=download;52501554]There has only ever been one incident that ever killed a member of the public and lo-behold, it happened in a nation where the government runs everything. Claiming corporation can't be trusted to run nuclear power plants when they have for many decades with the cleanest record of any industry is foolish.[/QUOTE] This sounds a bit populistic. What is "a member of the public", how do you define a "kill by incident" with a danger that mainly kills not through direct exposure but through cancer? There is literally HUNDREDS of incidents like this one: [url]http://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/ursache-fuer-schaeden-unbekannt-akw-soll-trotzdem-ans-netz[/url] Critical boiling temperature, company doesn't even know where the issue comes from, keeps on running the plant anyway. Here is a list of "incidents" in Swiss nuclear power plants alone: [url]https://www.ensi.ch/de/themen/vorkommnisse/[/url]

[QUOTE=Killuah;52501565]This sounds a bit populistic. What is "a member of the public", how do you define a "kill by incident" with a danger that mainly kills not through direct exposure but through cancer?[/QUOTE] A member of the public is someone not employed by the plant. No member of the public has ever been killed by the civilian nuclear power industry outside of the Soviet Union. Excess cancer rates in people living near nuclear power plants have been extensively studied [I]and found not to exist[/I].

[QUOTE=download;52501569]A member of the public is someone not employed by the plant. No member of the public has ever been killed by the civilian nuclear power industry. Excess cancer rates in people living near nuclear power plants have been extensively studied [I]and found not to exist[/I].[/QUOTE] I am not talking about people near power plants alone. [editline]24th July 2017[/editline] Here is just one little other incident: [url]http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/schweiz/standard/Bericht-Muehleberg-muesste-seit-einem-Jahr-abgeschaltet-sein/story/19727137[/url] Nuclear inspection agency should've been shutting down the plant a year ago, kept it running, the company of yourse knew all along and kept it running. Your argumentation that it's safe and fine and especially that it is so because there haven't been enough dead people to demonstrate that it might not be is ...frankly, despicable to me. There are incidents all around.

[QUOTE=Killuah;52501531]Ok but this is a sunject where " most are good" just isN't good enough. And it's also not even the point. The inital post was "The history of nuclear power is riddled with negligent behavior. It's a wonder we haven't had more disasters." Saying that " Its got a few high profile accidents that scaremongers bring up constantly." is just not arguing the point he brought up, it's arguing a different aspect of the problem, it doesn't tackle the point that there IS negligence - a lot - at all. You can not respond to an argument that basically says "well companies can't be trusted to do it right" with "it's safe when done right"[/QUOTE] "The history of nuclear power is riddled with negligent behavior. It's a wonder we haven't had more disasters." The history of power generation and humanity in general are riddled with negligent behavior. But no one (at least that I can see) is saying that we should completely deregulate nuclear and let companies run the plants however they want. Obviously there need to be mandated safeguards. Do you have any proof that nuclear as an industry is more susceptible to negligent behavior than power generation methods like C/LNG or Coal? The fact is that -- at least from what I can find -- nuclear is one of, if not the safest method of generating large amounts of power for modern society. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents#Fatalities[/url] Obviously there are incidents due to negligence. That's just human nature. However, using that against nuclear when there are probably just as many if not MORE of those incidents in other methods of power generation and nuclear has repeatedly been proven to be incredibly safe when it is running normally seems unfounded. [editline]24th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Killuah;52501571]Your argumentation that it's safe and fine and especially that it is so because there haven't been enough dead people to demonstrate that it might not be is ...frankly, despicable to me. There are incidents all around.[/QUOTE] wouldn't it be more despicable to continue using methods of generating power that are proven to be less safe such as coal?

[QUOTE=Killuah;52501571]I am not talking about people near power plants alone. [editline]24th July 2017[/editline] Here is just one little other incident: [url]http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/schweiz/standard/Bericht-Muehleberg-muesste-seit-einem-Jahr-abgeschaltet-sein/story/19727137[/url] Nuclear inspection agency should've been shutting down the plant a year ago, kept it running, the company of yourse knew all along and kept it running. Your argumentation that it's safe and fine and especially that it is so because there haven't been enough dead people to demonstrate that it might not be is ...frankly, despicable to me. There are incidents all around.[/QUOTE] Now I'm remembering why I stopped replying to you last time we discussed this. What don't you understand about zero?

[QUOTE=Zombii;52501772] The history of power generation and humanity in general are riddled with negligent behavior. But no one (at least that I can see) is saying that we should completely deregulate nuclear and let companies run the plants however they want. [/QUOTE] And I didn't say that anyone is saying that so what is the intention behind this part of your post? [QUOTE=Zombii;52501772] Do you have any proof that nuclear as an industry is more susceptible to negligent behavior than power generation methods like C/LNG or Coal? The fact is that -- at least from what I can find -- nuclear is one of, if not the safest method of generating large amounts of power for modern society. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents#Fatalities[/url] [/quote] This is immediate fatalities and also the statistic needs to be seen very very careful, for example as some of the sources tell, mortality rates depend on regulation and safety. Furthermore the mortality rates of coal include studies of secondary effects like lung diseases and so on, the way we are discussing nuclear right now here in this thread does not. Still the wiki article speaks of "immediate fatalities".

[URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1336387&p=43252922&highlight=#post43252922"]haha oh boy here we go again[/URL] As someone who's personally done a ton of research into nuclear, talked with people who actually work in the industry, and has family actively working on a US nuclear project- nuclear energy is pretty much one of, if not [B][I]THE[/I][/B] safest energy source we have right now that's not fossil fuel-based. Modern reactors are insanely safe as nearly all countries with nuclear power plants (especially the US/France/etc.) have [I]strict[/I] regulations regarding safety and design choices, to the point where it's nigh-impossible for something to go wrong unless there's a natural disaster or deliberate negligence/sabotage. I'm honestly so damn sick and tired of people moaning and groaning about the 'scary, risky, issues of nuclear power' when these days, there are virtually NONE. This isn't the Cold War anymore when we didn't have a solid understanding of power reactor design, it's 2017- modern reactors (Gen3 / 3+) and next-gen reactors (Gen 4, which will likely be built in the near future in various nations as older plants get shut down from reaching end-of-life dates) are nigh-inherently safe, with some Gen 4 designs (molten salt reactors, for one) being quite literally impossible to have a meltdown occur in.

I always like to bring this figure up when nuclear safety is brought in to question. [img]https://i.imgur.com/gl7cLYd_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=high[/img]

It's still leaking, too. Japan has a gag order on media outlets reporting it. [QUOTE=papkee;52502590]I always like to bring this figure up when nuclear safety is brought in to question. [img]https://i.imgur.com/gl7cLYd_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=high[/img][/QUOTE] O yea nuclear power is all jolly and safe disregarding that it raises the background radiation level of the entire goddamn planet and all the people who used to live in lovecanal. Did you know that the us experimented with nuclear powered bombers that would stay in flight for days? Nobody wants to put a nuclear reactor on a bomber though for obvious reasons. There's a risk, and if shit happens in Japan it just so happens to effect the entire coast of goddamn California! Goddamn!

[QUOTE=coreym;52505811]It's still leaking, too. Japan has a gag order on media outlets reporting it. oh yea nuclear power is all jolly and safe disregarding that it raises the background radiation level of the entire goddamn planet and all the people who used to live in lovecanal[/QUOTE] Wasn't the Love Canal disaster brought about by chemical and industrial waste, not atomic? Are you thinking of Three Mile Island?

[QUOTE=Johnny Joe;52505828]Wasn't the Love Canal disaster brought about by chemical and industrial waste, not atomic? Are you thinking of Three Mile Island?[/QUOTE] No, I just don't like reading in detail, but the point still stands of raising the background radiation level of the entire planet. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Terrible arguing + trolling - cite your sources btw" - Kiwi))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=coreym;52505811]It's still leaking, too. Japan has a gag order on media outlets reporting it. oh yea nuclear power is all jolly and safe disregarding that it raises the background radiation level of the entire goddamn planet and all the people who used to live in lovecanal[/QUOTE] I don't know where you're getting your information, but I found an article saying coal puts more radiation into the environment than nuclear does. [url]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/[/url]

[QUOTE=coreym;52505811] O yea nuclear power is all jolly and safe disregarding that [B]it raises the background radiation level of the entire goddamn planet and all the people who used to live in lovecanal.[/B] Did you know that the us experimented with nuclear powered bombers that would stay in flight for days? Nobody wants to put a nuclear reactor on a bomber though for obvious reasons. There's a risk, and if shit happens in Japan it just so happens to effect the entire coast of goddamn California! Goddamn![/QUOTE] source on this? I have never seen any source that says that it raises the background radiation of the whole planet

[QUOTE=coreym;52505811]oh yea nuclear power is all jolly and safe disregarding that it raises the background radiation level of the entire goddamn planet[/QUOTE] In a meaningless and unmeasurable way, sure. We also get more radiation during a full moon. What's it to you? [QUOTE=coreym;52505811]and all the people who used to live in lovecanal[/QUOTE] Love Canal was a chemical waste dump, not a nuclear waste dump. Mostly chlorobenzene derivatives IIRC, leftovers from wartime explosives production. Nothing to do with nuclear power whatsoever.

[QUOTE=coreym;52505836]No, I just don't like reading in detail, but the point still stands of raising the background radiation level of the entire planet.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]"[B]What kind and how much radiation is produced by a nuclear power plant?"[/B] An operating nuclear power plant produces very small amounts of radioactive gases and liquids, as well as small amounts of direct radiation. If you lived within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant, you would receive an average radiation dose of about 0.01 millirem per year. To put this in perspective, the average person in the United States receives an exposure of 300 millirem per year from natural background sources of radiation. [/QUOTE] source: [url]https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/related-info/faq.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Johnny Joe;52505866]source: [url]https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/related-info/faq.html[/url][/QUOTE] im thinking of the radiation released exclusively from meltdowns hey hey cancer clusters aside

[QUOTE=coreym;52506016]im thinking of the radiation released exclusively from meltdowns hey hey cancer clusters aside[/QUOTE] I don't understand your position. First you cite a chemical waste scandal as evidence of atomic energy's dangers. Then you state that atomic power plants, even when harnessed for good and safely managed, increases the Earth's background radiation, which you still haven't provided sources to back that claim up. And then you backtrack saying that you meant only background radiation increases from meltdowns rather than from properly functioning and well regulated plants. I understand you dislike atomic energy and the dangers that it's use entails, but surely you can provide us with more sound arguments than these baseless and frankly uneducated assertions.

He sounds like one of those typical anti-nuclear people who will try to use whatever fallacious horseshit they can find to try to "prove" that [I]"Waaah, nuclear is bad!!1"[/I]. Although it's not [I]that[/I] bad, I've seen a lot worse: bold text, capslock, 10s of exclamation marks, terrible grammar etc.

[QUOTE=Instant Mix;52500222]ngl don't think I've ever seen a single thread here about nuclear stuff talking about deregulation if anything all this shit proves is that we should see tighter regulations and safety checks[b] BUT [/b]reducing the media hysteria and common "nuclear is bad" shite we hear all too often that discredits nuclear as a reasonable, stable power source up until fusion is figured out.[/QUOTE] billymays is all about deregulation of nuclear.

You can add me to this list as well.

[QUOTE=download;52501554]There has only ever been one incident that ever killed a member of the public and lo-behold, it happened in a nation where the government runs everything. Claiming corporation can't be trusted to run nuclear power plants when they have for many decades with the cleanest record of any industry is foolish.[/QUOTE] In what other industry can companies be broadly trusted to do the right thing without being forced to?

[QUOTE=Killuah;52501571]I am not talking about people near power plants alone. [editline]24th July 2017[/editline] Here is just one little other incident: [url]http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/schweiz/standard/Bericht-Muehleberg-muesste-seit-einem-Jahr-abgeschaltet-sein/story/19727137[/url] Nuclear inspection agency should've been shutting down the plant a year ago, kept it running, the company of yourse knew all along and kept it running. Your argumentation that it's safe and fine and especially that it is so because there haven't been enough dead people to demonstrate that it might not be is ...frankly, despicable to me. There are incidents all around.[/QUOTE] What about the many coal miners and well, miners in general, that risk their lives and many times die?

[QUOTE=coreym;52505836]No, I just don't like reading in detail, but the point still stands of raising the background radiation level of the entire planet. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Terrible arguing + trolling - cite your sources btw" - Kiwi))[/highlight][/QUOTE] wrong