Why do Many Environmentalists Hate Nuclear Power?

[Kalyyn]

Might want to double check who designed those reactors.

It doesn't matter who physically put it together. It was build to Japanese safety standards. Which I would hope they reviewed, after that terrible event.

- - - Updated - - -

It wasn't the reactors that caused the Fukushima incident.

It was determined to be insufficient seawall engineering.

Well there you go, Masark.

[Rukentuts]

Luck? I'd attribute it more to the fact that unlike Russia, America actually cares about the lives and well being of its people, and prepares for such events.

And unless you can find any civilian deaths in the States caused by a nuclear meltdown, I don't think you've got a stance to challenge that.

I meant luck as in it was really damn close to being much worse, and it was caused by stupidity.

- - - Updated - - -

It doesn't matter who physically put it together. It was build to Japanese safety standards. Which I would hope they reviewed, after that terrible event.

Putting reactors in a seismically active area (eyes California) is really fucking stupid.

[IIamaKing]

430 power plants world wide, a total of 33 incidents since 1952.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...ents-list-rank

[Rukentuts]

430 power plants world wide, a total of 33 incidents since 1952.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...ents-list-rank

And only 2 in the USA without an enforcement action from the NRC.

[IIamaKing]

And only 2 in the USA without an enforcement action from the NRC.

Only like 7 of them impacted anything outside of the facility.



BTW your cycling impresses me. I was happy with 500 miles over the summer.......

[Laize]

It doesn't matter who physically put it together. It was build to Japanese safety standards. Which I would hope they reviewed, after that terrible event.

- - - Updated - - -



Well there you go, Masark.

All they had to do is look at the Onagawa Plant and say "This. You guys need to do this."

[Yvaelle]

My thoughts? They can come up with all of the ass-backward justification for hating nuclear power that they want, but almost all of their arguments only apply to countries outside of America. Chernobyl? Inferior Russian design. Fukishima? Inferior Japanese design. Comparing any such events to an American nuclear power plant is like saying a battle ship won't float because that raft you make out of pool noodles fell apart.

Actually, both Chernobyl and Fukushima were American designs - the issue is that Chernobyl wasn't built correctly, and Fukushima was way past when it was supposed to be decommisioned. When things are supposed to be decommisioned, Not decommisioning them shouldn't be a choice available to politicians: especcially regarding nuclear power.

Modern reactors are to Tesla's, what Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima are to Model T's. Nuclear reactor design theory has changed so much in the last 50-70 years, thorium was always the better fuel choice for power, cost and waste considerations. We have been doing nuclear power all wrong.

[Rukentuts]

Actually, both Chernobyl and Fukushima were American designs - the issue is that Chernobyl wasn't built correctly, and Fukushima was way past when it was supposed to be decommisioned. When things are supposed to be decommisioned, Not decommisioning them shouldn't be a choice available to politicians: especcially regarding nuclear power.

It's just analogous to crashing a Boeing jet due to bad maintenance and/or pilot error. Either way it's not Boeing's fault.

[Laize]

Actually, both Chernobyl and Fukushima were American designs - the issue is that Chernobyl wasn't built correctly, and Fukushima was way past when it was supposed to be decommisioned. When things are supposed to be decommisioned, Not decommisioning them shouldn't be a choice available to politicians: especcially regarding nuclear power.

Modern reactors are to Tesla's, what Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima are to Model T's. Nuclear reactor design theory has changed so much in the last 50-70 years, thorium was always the better fuel choice for power, cost and waste considerations. We have been doing nuclear power all wrong.

That depends on how you look at it.

The Plutonium from previous generation reactors was considered desirable given the fact that we were in an arms race against Russia.

And while I cannot say for certain... I'm like 99.999% sure the Soviets would never "stoop" to using American engineering.

[Masark]

Actually, both Chernobyl and Fukushima were American designs

No, Chernobyl used RMBK-1000 reactors, which were USSR-designed.

[Doktor Faustus]

America actually cares about the lives and well being of its people

What... WHAT......... W H A T?

[Milchshake]

We have been doing nuclear power all wrong.

O ye of little faith. I'm sure we'll find a way to do Thorium power all wrong too.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

It doesn't matter who physically put it together. It was build to Japanese safety standards. Which I would hope they reviewed, after that terrible event.

- - - Updated - - -



Well there you go, Masark.

Um, are you sure about this? I remember hearing about some scandal where the company responsible for Fukushima hadn't kept the reactor up to code.

- - - Updated - - -

People do not judge based on probability. They judge based on how scary the consequences are.

Both things should be taken into consideration. The more scary the consequences the lower of probability you need to justify the choice. You also need to take into account what is gained on success.

[Laize]

Um, are you sure about this? I remember hearing about some scandal where the company responsible for Fukushima hadn't kept the reactor up to code.

I'm not sure about that, but even if the reactor were up to code, THAT wasn't what ultimately failed. It was the emergency generators that had shut down that halted the flow of coolant to the reactors.

Those would NOT have failed had the seawall been built higher.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

I'm not sure about that, but even if the reactor were up to code, THAT wasn't what ultimately failed. It was the emergency generators that had shut down that halted the flow of coolant to the reactors.

Those would NOT have failed had the seawall been built higher.

I'm talking about the entire facility. I mean, I realize I said 'reactor' but most people think of 'reactor' and 'plant' as being the same thing when talking in such a generalized fashion.

[Nish77]

The waste from nuclear power is water soluble. If you think about it you mine the stuff from the ground why not just put the stuff back in the ground after you use it. It's because it dilutes in water... in the water table... solution in drinking water taken up by plants and animals and people.

If they made nuclear waste or the products bound to something that was not water soluble it would be as safe as it is in the ground. That is if people follow the rules. Still some radiation leaks. Could be as bad as being an x-ray tech could be worse or better. They have the technology to contain that radiation it's a matter of it being worth it to spend the money to make it that way.

-Nish

[FlyingWoodchuck]

Um, are you sure about this? I remember hearing about some scandal where the company responsible for Fukushima hadn't kept the reactor up to code.

Not quite, it was a cover up from the start. The containment vessel was flawed from the get go, they knew it, didn't have the money build a new one so they swept it under the rug.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...t-reactor.html

Tanaka says the reactor pressure vessel inside Fukushima’s unit No. 4 was damaged at a Babcock-Hitachi foundry in Kure City, in Hiroshima prefecture, during the last step of a manufacturing process that took 2 1/2 years and cost tens of millions of dollars. If the mistake had been discovered, the company might have been bankrupted, he said.