Ban nuclear?

[Aqua Pro Builder]

As most of the members here who read my previous comments in various threads know how I continuously advocate to beware of any nuclear STUFF-be it energy related, scientific related, military related and whomever hands they are in.

The recent development of the Japanese nuclear possible melt downs serve a very strong warnings. There were two chemical explosions already who knows what will happen next? Even though the explosions are just chemical, not nuclear but never the less, it indicates these explosion events are uncalled for. It blew off the cover of the buildings while the core reactor is still intact. What if the core continue to heat up despite their wish for it to stop just like the explosions which they wish not to happen? What if one of the reactor does melt down? Will the melt down causethe other reactors to further melt down because it destructed all infractures in cooling? These are events beyond the so called experts' control.

MIT security studies program James Walsh said, "Nuclear facilities in Japan ... were built to withstand earthquakes -- but not an 8.9 earthquake." What does this statement mean? Should we not blame anyone in designing these reactors? Should we blame mother nature that it send a 8.9 earthquake to us? Mind you that this is only the 5th most powerful quake-not a record breaking one. That is we already know quakes of this magnitude HAD happened and will VERY LIKELY to happen again. Why GE did not build these reactors to withstand level 10 earthquakes, better yet level 15 quakes? The underlining reasons are:
1)we cut cost and try to live with the risk even though it's known to be a great risk. Nuclear stuff is no simple matter and the magnitude of destruction is extremely quicker and higher than explosives. Nobel created explosive and becomes the no. one killer of mankind besides natural death-nuclear stuff could be the next one if we do not spend extra cautions on them NOW. Not tomorrow-I mean NOW.
2)We are too arrogant that we can control nature and science. We assume we can build a system to with stand disasters. But there are accidents-just like they did not expect the chemical explosions. There are back up generators but just like reactor no. 2, the fuel went low. What if there is a second quake and break the pump line? What if there is a tsunami that flood the whole plant's electronic for a short while and receded, exposing all the "robs"? There are just too many variables in a disaster!

Let me remind you couple other crisis in our own soil years back. I am not talking Three Miles Island.

1)An armed nuclear bomb was missing from the tracking system for 30 min. without being noticed. The B-52 carrying the armed bomb flying over us without even noticing that it's armed. The activation was said to have been done by some low level soldiers "accidentally." Supervisors are not aware of it. Then, the plane took off the base. The nuclear warhead tracking system did not realize that a warhead is armed nor does it noticed it's airborne. It a manual discovery by the supervisor who saw "his plane" is missing 30 minutes later. What this story tells us is that, even the military told us we have the best safety measures on nuclear bombs, there are accidents and that the nuclear bombs are not that secure as the military wants us to believe.

2)Couple nuclear warhead detonators were sent, as helicopter parts, to Taiwan for three years without being noticed by the military. Why on earth would the nuclear warhead parts kept with helicopter parts? Why the military does not have a count of the nuclear parts? Are they so common that we don't need to count the inventory of them. So, is it OK for a terrorist or general civilian to own one without being noted? If so, why the hell we waged a war because someone said Iraq brought metal tubings that possibly can shoot bombs of WMD?

I have derived from James Walsh's statement above and create this, "Our military nuclear warheads are safeguarded from terrorists but not a terrorist with a smart mind."

Therefore, the best prevention is not to engage in such business as nuclear power nor weapon in the first place. In mere ~70 years, we already have so many accidents in nuclear stuff. Should we not consider a ban on it?

 

[DHaut]

Very interesting play-by-play of the situation with the japan nuclear plant:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/

I'm against a ban on nuclear power, fwiw. I've never seen the gov't. do much good in energy regulation.

 

[Chiefmcfuz]

:wow:
:tired:

Nuclear energy is not the issue here. It is clean and efficient. The issue here is that those plants got hit with the most severe natural disaster in history. Nothing would have handled that as well as nuclear energy. Windmills and solar panels would have been washed away. Oil and coal would have been washed away as well. Natural gas would have ignited and created more of a problem. So what's your backup plan.

 

[Josh]

How many people have died from nuclear accidents/incidents in the past 20 years. Hell, I'll make it easier for you, in the past 70 years. Want more? How about you add up all of the deaths from anything nuclear since the beginning of time?

Compare that to the number of deaths from guns in the past 10-20 years.

 

[Imbarrie]

Or from complications from unregulated coal ash, or pollution from fracking or run off from mountain top removal or oil wells that are too deep to operate responsibly.

I like nuclear because it is the single source of energy that is completely regulated. Coal, oil and natural gas are up to the whims of corporations and thanks to BP we all know where their priorities are.

I say go solar. Let's get the panels on government buildings, malls and any large flat roofs like big box stores. It would be win win. Lower demand and lower unemployment.

 

[Imbarrie]

We should remember the death toll from the Chernobly meltdown remains completely unreconciled.
Some say it goes well into the ten thousands. But that was mostly due to the ignorant and incompetent way it was handled.

 

[tosiek]

I think this is a completely ridiculous topic because of exactly what everyone posted so far. Its the best alternative to what we have and its regulated and clean tech.

Even if regulated it will still get in the wrong hands. The government will just find something as devastating to use as weaponry. Not to talk about no nuclear means more fossil fuels. So far solar and wind power to name a few have huge downfalls. We just aren't there yet.

I've been listening to and reading all the anti nuclear stuff going on lately, mostly leftist, and its completely stupid and is completely unrealistic. Sorry Wingo but people should be focusing on something much much more important. What ever happened to stopping world hunger? With all the time wasted in talking and advertising the nuclear ban so far since the japan earthquake im sure we could have stopped hunger in at least a few countries =0)

Last I remember a few years ago everyone was pushing electric cars (which is a good thing mind you) and now the govt is losing $$ on gas taxes and California wants to charge people by mile using GPS tracking. Everything has its repercussions.

The sheer upfront cost of the panels shy's alot of people away from solar panels. Also, there is some BS regulations on the electric you create in alot of areas. Most electric providers force you to sell the electric you make and buy it back at a reduced price with little support for the panel costs when you buy. Its a big investment that you don't see for 5-10 years. And until recently it wasn't a packaged deal and you had to do alot of research before buying and know alot. That turns a big chunk of people off. It should be as easy as buying carpet in home depot IMO for it to be widespread.

 

[Imbarrie]

Forward thinking stores are Leasing their rooftops to companies that install solar panels and sell the power back to the store at a fixed rate for the life of the panels.
There are ways around every detracting argument about solar. The simple fact that you are taking money from energy producers and paying equity into your own production goes against the interests of a strong lobby keeps it out of reach.
Temp isn't a large indicator of solar energy. You can get a sunburn in the winter.

 

[tosiek]

Sorry I changed what I wrote to clarify. The cells and power in work fine its the batteries that usually get installed outdoors that become useless so any stored evergy is lost.

 

[Imbarrie]

You need to sell it to make the difference. But that takes regulation and right now that kind of talk takes balls most politicians don't have.

 

[FocusReefing]

Clean energy?! I'd hardly call nuclear power clean. Maybe by comparison to coal but nuclear waste is anything but clean. There's no real way to dispose of the stuff, only to wait it out. An unfotunately high level nuclear waste can take as long as 100,000 years to lose radioactivity. So the governments plan is just to bury it underground. I doubt America will even be around 100,000 years from now so their way of thinking is simply, "well I guess it'll be their(future generations) problem"... That seems less than responsible. And as more & more uses of nuclear power grows, I see it being alot of peoples problems. I would think twice about considering nuclear power a clean source of energy...

 

[Aqua Pro Builder]

I have foreseen these type of arguments coming and just wanted to raise hell for everyone to think about the topic.

For those who think nuclear energy is clean, please dig further, most of the nuclear plants uses clean water to cool and it need dams to be build to round up water for cooling it plus a by product is heavy water. In fact, DEP is quite weary of this and have reports made to Washington. Of course, cheap energy take priority. Water being one of the most precious resources. 99% of living organism need water. The Nile countries may go to war if water is not handled properly. Our reef tanks needs water. We need water. Nuclear plants actually use a lot of our natural resources! Whenever it comes to water, we have the same tendency towards ocean and think that they can absorb any abuse. Abusing the use of water is actually a major problem.

My concern in this thread is the potential danger. You may not see it now, just like Nobel did not see it too. I agree to your no. about gun power being no. killer of mankind as stated earlier. and that's why the so called "inventor" finally regreted it. Sometimes it's much easier to say than doing it. I wonder how many of you anti-bannist would allow a plant next to you. I can tell you I am totally against it. When China decided to build one close to my hometown, Hong Kong, I went to protest even though I am a kid. So far, the plant has not an issue yet but I still fear for the future, I fear for my neighbours and I fear for my children. I also mentioned that nuclear plants unable to handle a 8.9 quake is just an excuse for the impartial designers and decision makers. We already have more serious quakes before, why we don't prepare for it? The logic of a 8.9 quake is too powerful and thus not taking the precautions is not logical. In fact, there were buildings standing saving quite a bit of people indicates that it is not technical impossible to for a building to with stand a quake of this magitude as clearly seen from the videos. So is a 8.9 quake so powerful that all the nuclear weapons and nuclear plants need not take that into account because it only happen may be once in our life time? That once in our life time could wipe out the whole humanity. US alone have nuclear bombs to bomb the earth 10 times over. Will a natural disaster trigger a nuclear bomb? Usually(may be up to 99.999999 percent) no, but accidents do happen as shown in the B52 flying an armed bomb over us while the control center is not aware of. What if the plane malfunction? There were so many coincidence already happened in this episode, why not the last one I proposed that the plane malfunction too(is it because there is only a 0.000001 percent chance)?

My point about banning(or not) is not about clean energy(or not)-it's about immediate safety - the safety of not being blown away even 100 feet under the ground. The potential danger of quick devastation of this technology is just too great. Bio weapon are banned partly because of a potential danger that the gene may mutate to create a scenario that we, the creator, cannot control. Same here, there is a big potential that we cannot control nuclear reactions when struck by man made or natural disaster.

As a note: we now have up to 4 explosions so far and still no more promising news that the reactors are stable. The officials are now changing their tone to, "it cannot necessarily be called a stable situation." March 14th 11:41pm EST

Also note that if there were no nuclear plants in the first place, we don't even have these debate. We will be most likely talking about saving lives and how badly energy plants(such as an oil base generator) are burning. The potential danger of nuclear radiation is just too great to not be afraid of-that's why we are eager to know what's the development. With, let say oil plant burning, we probably will be arguing, "gas price hitting $4.00 tomorrow"

 

[Aqua Pro Builder]

.... "well I guess it'll be their(future generations) problem"... That seems less than responsible.

I feel the same here.

 

[Aqua Pro Builder]

:wow:
:tired:

The issue here is that those plants got hit with the most severe natural disaster in history. Nothing would have handled that as well as nuclear energy.

It's may be only the fifth powerful quake recorded. In 1960, Chile has a 9.5 quake. it was not in my life time but never the less it is close enough for any scientists to take it into account when they research, design and so forth"

Windmills and solar panels would have been washed away. Oil and coal would have been washed away as well. Natural gas would have ignited and created more of a problem. So what's your backup plan.

Agreed. so we need to to come up with a backup plan-that's the plan. And, it should be on the agenda and not slying away from the responsibility of not building something more capable of handling a quake that's not even a record breaker yet.

 

[Arati]

I live in the shadow of shoreham powerplant we lived here before the plant and still live here now. I am so glad its been shut down and dismantled. id rather have 100 windmills blown down or washed away then 1 melt down.

I would never want to see another one built. big corp and big gov are just not trustworthy enough for me to support this type of project.

Im not sure how it feels from a distance , but standing across the creek from this thing and listening to it... was not a safe feeling.

 

[Imbarrie]

Nimby reactors and jails.

NIMBY Not In My Back Yard.

I would feel the same way.

 

[ming]

I am totally for Nuclear Reactors. Although there are clearly dangers of them, but if you're scared about the dangers of technology, you'd still be in the stone age. What next? A ban on cars due to the number of automobile accidents per year? Or perhaps all technology all together because its causing global warming? Ofcourse not, you just try to make the best decisions about them, design safer cars, and build technology which polllutes the environment less.

 

[ming]

I wouldn't want this windmill in my backyard either
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jADMIeEHadU

 

[Chiefmcfuz]

There is a nuclear power plant in my back yard and I don't care that it's there. I like it actually.

 

[NYPDFrogman]

There is a nuclear power plant in my back yard and I don't care that it's there. I like it actually.

does it make your corals glow with out the lights being on?