ice1972 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovintheWhiteFluff Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Fish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJW155 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Good debate tonight about this. Basically everything comes down to $$$ and risk which is why this happened. I don't think it's fair comparing it to a coal mining accident since people miles and miles away don't get killed when something catastrophic occurs. There was some high ranking official on CNN the other day. He basically thinks nuclear power may become a thing of the past. Not because it's dangerous, but because investors won't want to pump money into something that can cause billions in damages if something goes wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 MJW155: So they didn't prepare for a worst case scenario? And that's OK with you? I'm not completely sure, but don't think every nuclear plant in the US is prepared for a 100 meter asteroid impact....but I could be mistaken....and that's pretty "worse case". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJW155 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 MJW155: So they didn't prepare for a worst case scenario? And that's OK with you? I'm not completely sure, but don't think every nuclear plant in the US is prepared for a 100 meter asteroid impact....but I could be mistaken....and that's pretty "worse case". What does that have to do w/ building a nuclear plant on the ocean in an earthquake prone area? Nice use of context bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice1972 Posted March 20, 2011 Author Share Posted March 20, 2011 Good debate tonight about this. Basically everything comes down to $$ and risk which is why this happened. I don't think it's fair comparing it to a coal mining accident since people miles and miles away don't get killed when something catastrophic occurs. There was some high ranking official on CNN the other day. He basically thinks nuclear power may become a thing of the past. Not because it's dangerous, but because investors won't want to pump money into something that can cause billions in damages if something goes wrong. Yeah....its too bad to.....nuclear got a bad rap with TMI and China Syndrome (which was released days before TMI) and the fact that the technology came out of the Manhattan Project and will always be associated with war and Japan and on and on.....its probably one of the reasons why the risk (real or not) is judged to be so high that governments have to insure and incentivize these things because no private insurer is going to.........and the perception that something so terrible will happen drives regulations that make is so expensive to plan, permit, and build......the up front costs are so high theres just no return.....without jacking up rates which defeats the purpose...... And for the record....I get what your saying......I personally am not worried about it........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 What does that have to do w/ building a nuclear plant on the ocean in an earthquake prone area? Nice use of context bro. Bro, My point was to demonstrate that in order for an "idea" (nuclear power) to exist, there has to be a ceiling in what the definition is to "worst case" or 1 in xxxx years type risk assessment. There were obviously a cascade of events that occurred to create a situation that maxed the limit....but anyone can arm chair quarterback after the fact.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunkman Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Getting back to the issue at hand, this sounds pretty serious, from Kyodo: NEWS ADVISORY: Steps to reduce No. 3 reactor's pressure to be taken swiftly: nuke agency (13:06) NEWS ADVISORY: Pressure at No. 3 reactor's containment vessel rising: nuke agency (12:55) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJW155 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Bro, My point was to demonstrate that in order for an "idea" (nuclear power) to exist, there has to be a ceiling in what the definition is to "worst case" or 1 in xxxx years type risk assessment. There were obviously a cascade of events that occurred to create a situation that maxed the limit....but anyone can arm chair quarterback after the fact.... Well, when the plant was built, there was already a worst case scenario in place. 5/221960- 9.5 Earthquake in Chile. 7/25/1967- Construction on Fukushimi I plant begins. So saying they didn't have a "ceiling" is just complete BS; especially when you consider they built it less than a 100 miles from a subduction zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAG5035 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Been mainly lurking off and on in these nuclear threads since this whole ordeal started. One thing I have not seen in this debate of whether or not this plant was unprepared, should've been where it was, etc, because of the potential impacts of earthquakes and tsunamis is something the Japanese deal with alot more often.... and that would be typhoons. The fact that the east coast of Japan can get whacked by a curving typhoon much like our eastern seaboard seems to have been lost or at least seldomly brought up in here. Obviously (at least imo), this power plant would've had to have been designed to deal with impacts of a formidable typhoon..especially storm surges. Any half decent typhoon coming in at the right angle can send in a storm surge of 6-10 feet or even greater and while even that doesn't compare to the speed and destructive force of a tsunami, it can still inundate widespread areas. My point? The engineers probably didn't just slap the generators on the sandy beaches unaware that they could possibly be inundated by the sea. If you look at the link below, you'll see that the main part of the plant (reactors 1-4) has not one but two seawalls protecting it. Can't tell from the imagery how tall they actually are, but I can almost guarantee that these are/were designed to combat sizeable storm surges and perhaps even a tsunami to a certain extent. http://maps.google.c...1,0.036049&z=15 But it all boils down to the fact that you can only really feasibly engineer to fortify something to a certain extent. This earthquake was the strongest earthquake ever recorded in Japan. For a country that's probably one if not the best prepared for earthquakes/tsunamis, not to mention whose ancient culture invented the word "tsunami".. the unprecedented magnitude and tsunami impact should speak for itself. It's probably very fortunate for a city like Tokyo that the epicenter was not just offshore of or under the city because it's very likely we'd have seen some failures of the buildings/skyscrapers engineered to withstand strong earthquakes. Then the armchair debate here on the other side of the Pacific would've been, was the city of Tokyo unprepared? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovintheWhiteFluff Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Japan's nuclear safety agency says pressure is again rising in one of reactors at the country's tsunami-damaged nuclear complex - a setback that means operators will have to vent more radioactive gas into the environment.Safety agency official Hidehiko Nishiyama said Sunday that efforts to put water in the Unit 3 reactor at the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex might not have been working. He says the plant operator will release some radioactive gas from the reactor into the environment and that this may slow work on restoring power and cooling systems to the unit. Nishiyama says that means radiation levels around the plant will rise again. http://www.forbes.co...ke_8365421.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovintheWhiteFluff Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Recently released Interview with a Fukushima 1 plant worker. It's a couple minutes long http://www.cnn.com/2...dex.html?hpt=T2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Good debate tonight about this. Basically everything comes down to $$$ and risk which is why this happened. I don't think it's fair comparing it to a coal mining accident since people miles and miles away don't get killed when something catastrophic occurs. There was some high ranking official on CNN the other day. He basically thinks nuclear power may become a thing of the past. Not because it's dangerous, but because investors won't want to pump money into something that can cause billions in damages if something goes wrong. There have been plenty of explosions at plenty of different industries that killed people that just happened to be living nearby. And moreover, the pollution from some of the worst-offenders have probably killed plenty through cancer, etc. A whole town in Pennsylvania had to be abandoned due to a mine that caught on fire under the town and almost killed a kid playing in his backyard. "Worst-case-scenarios" can happen with any technology. Should we not build dams because of the risk of another Johnstown flood? The fact that this hasn't killed anybody yet also shouldn't be ignored. So no, it's not fair comparing the two... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mt.Zoniac Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 That high-ranking official is right.....investors nowadays have to do risk assessments and vulnerability analyzes before the thing is even built. The security scenario is very different than it was 30 or 40 years ago. Now there are Corporate Security Officers (CSOs) who have to sign off and take personal responsibility for risks. Personally I think those CSOs should be members of the Boards of Directors - CEO, CFO, COO, etc. because they are the top dogs running whatever corporation. If by signing off, suddenly they are responsible for billions of dollars.....they may think twice before giving the go-ahead. But this Fukushima plant was built way back in the 1970s...way before current regulations became law. Plus Japan is a separate country from the USA; they have different laws and regs to think about. This current disaster will surely slow down nuke plant building again; plus there will be more nuke protests, more regulations, greater scrutiny, and it was cost millions of dollars more. When alternate energy methods are discussed, renewables with less costly and less potentially lethal side-effects will be given much higher priority. Good debate tonight about this. Basically everything comes down to $$$ and risk which is why this happened. I don't think it's fair comparing it to a coal mining accident since people miles and miles away don't get killed when something catastrophic occurs. There was some high ranking official on CNN the other day. He basically thinks nuclear power may become a thing of the past. Not because it's dangerous, but because investors won't want to pump money into something that can cause billions in damages if something goes wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aslkahuna Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 What does that have to do w/ building a nuclear plant on the ocean in an earthquake prone area? Nice use of context bro. You do realize that we have nuclear plants located adjacent to the ocean in California? Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dino Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 You do realize that we have nuclear plants located adjacent to the ocean in California? Steve Lol, what about Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant in southern Maryland-- We had a 10-12 foot storm surge down there and about 6 to 9 feet in Annapolis during Hurricane Isabel. (I know Isabel doesn't compare to a M9 quake/30 foot tsunami) Besides, aren't all Nuclear Plants built right on the water or very close to a river or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clinch Leatherwood Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 I live a few miles from the 2nd most vulnerable nuke plant in the USA per the NRC. If it goes up in smoke oh well i support it. I'd prefer they tear it down and put a new one in place but the do goders would never approve it so we are stuck with delicensing an ancient plant leaking tritiium. Democracy blows sometimes. We should decommission all the type 1s and 2s and put new plants there but that ll never happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovintheWhiteFluff Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Lol, what about Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant in southern Maryland-- We had a 10-12 foot storm surge down there and about 6 to 9 feet in Annapolis during Hurricane Isabel. (I know Isabel doesn't compare to a M9 quake/30 foot tsunami) Besides, aren't all Nuclear Plants built right on the water or very close to a river or something? I have lived next to two of them (within a mile) and they were both on the water. The one in NJ (the oldest in America) had a mile or so of lagoons dug out on both sides. The other one was right on a river. ------------------------- Pressure of No. 3 reactor's containment vessel stabilized: Tokyo Electric (15:37 JST) Kyodo: No immediate work to reduce pressure at No. 3 reactor at Fukushima plant (15:38 JST) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovintheWhiteFluff Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 NEWS ADVISORY: Electricity supplied to Fukushima No. 2 reactor: TEPCO Does this mean they hooked up the line, turned the lights on, or one of countless other things? I'm thinking it means they hooked up a line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catoctin wx Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Lol, what about Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant in southern Maryland-- We had a 10-12 foot storm surge down there and about 6 to 9 feet in Annapolis during Hurricane Isabel. (I know Isabel doesn't compare to a M9 quake/30 foot tsunami) Besides, aren't all Nuclear Plants built right on the water or very close to a river or something? All plants along the coast are designed for massive storm surges, so you are fine. River plants are designed for massive floods. the important buildings are designed to be waterproof to keep the plant running in the worst case flooding/surge scenario. Also, calvert cliffs reactors aren't at ocean level, they are about 45 feet in elevation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jburns Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Well, when the plant was built, there was already a worst case scenario in place. 5/221960- 9.5 Earthquake in Chile. 7/25/1967- Construction on Fukushimi I plant begins. So saying they didn't have a "ceiling" is just complete BS; especially when you consider they built it less than a 100 miles from a subduction zone. You are seriously hung up on the worst case scenario. 3,240,140 Americans have died in automobile accidents as of 2003. In 100+ years of accidents they also have multiple worse case scenarios in place, yet people continue to die every day. Obviously you must feel we should not be selling or driving cars until there is 0.0% possibility of more Americans dying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozart Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 You are seriously hung up on the worst case scenario. 3,240,140 Americans have died in automobile accidents as of 2003. In 100+ years of accidents they also have multiple worse case scenarios in place, yet people continue to die every day. Obviously you must feel we should not be selling or driving cars until there is 0.0% possibility of more Americans dying. Yeah well, I haven't heard of any car accidents forever poisoning 1,000 square miles of American territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clinch Leatherwood Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Let's be realistic...this is a pretty bad event. Lots of low/mid level radiation has spread over a decent chunk of that part of Japan. Best case it's a drawn out affair with some groundwater issues..... Worst case something goes wrong in 3 or 4 and it' s a much bigger disaster. At the same time despite the informational problems I think they've done a pretty good job. This isn't Pilgrim having an issue or TMI....flood both of those locations in 25 feet of water, destroy all the infrastructure, roads and trasmission lines for 100 miles around and then you'd have a comparison. All in all....remarkable prevention of a much larger catastrophe so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eekuasepinniW Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Super handy and helpful radiation dose chart. http://www.xkcd.com/radiation/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxmx Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Yeah well, I haven't heard of any car accidents forever poisoning 1,000 square miles of American territory. No, it's the unaccidented cars that have poisoned a bit more than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aslkahuna Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 No, it's the unaccidented cars that have poisoned a bit more than that. Yes, you could say that since the smoggy poisoned air in the Los Angeles area alone covers well over 1000 sq mi. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunkman Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Radiation in Muramatsu Ibaraki prefecture is climbing fast, from 170 to 2066 nGy/h in a few hours. Source:www.bousai.ne.jp Here's a list of all locations http://www.bousai.ne.jp/eng/ And no, I don't think the people in Ibaraki are going to start to have horns growing out of their head now, just pointing out the monitoring. Up to 2908 now, or 2.9 μSv/h. Obviously not serious, but the cloud is definitely on the move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozart Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 No, it's the unaccidented cars that have poisoned a bit more than that. Yes, you could say that since the smoggy poisoned air in the Los Angeles area alone covers well over 1000 sq mi. Then you guys scuttle your butts over to Japan and trade our smog for their radiation if you think you're making a clever comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jburns Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Yes, you could say that since the smoggy poisoned air in the Los Angeles area alone covers well over 1000 sq mi. Steve It was even worse in the late 60s and 70s but has improved greatly since. Of course its still not 0.0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jburns Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Then you guys scuttle your butts over to Japan and trade our smog for their radiation if you think you're making a clever comparison. 1945-85 Atmospheric testing released radiation equivalent to 1 Hiroshima bomb every 11 hours for forty years and life went on. I think we will be OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.