At MOHANADHASSAN….
-
I’m French and I think japanes are in a bad situation, if one reactor core explods, that’s not Tchernobyl, not the two atomsbomb of the end of the last world war. It will be 100 time this three events, so…. Ouch!!! It will be a massacre! The chaos is at the door of this country!
By the way French peoples argue the nuclear energy, but it’s not the same thing, we have good geologic position and our security is maximum. So French peoples has no reason to think about a nuclear explosion in France. We can’t made a comparison.
-
The case of Japan is extreme. A 9.0 earthquake is nearly unheard of; they couldn’t have possibly planned for it. On top of that, the quake itself did not in fact damage the plants, it’s the later tsunami that caused the wreckage by destroying the auxiliary generators. This is in fact proof that Japan was very, very well prepared. Remember the Richter scale is logarithmic; a 9.0 earthquake is 100 times stronger than a 7.0 one. You can be absolutely certain they’ll be making bulletproof tsunami protections in the next couple of years so that this does not happen again.
The nuclear power plant is in a critical situation, but it won’t make a new Chernobyl. Chernobyl was a man-made disaster that involved some painfully incompetent management. This involves nuclear engineers from one of the top countries in the world; there’s just no comparison possible.
Honestly, the sole thing I’ll agree upon is that those plants should all be decommissioned and their fuel disposed. They need to be replaced by modern technologies that are vastly more efficient, powerful and safe.
-
Freestalker.fr wrote:
I’m French and I think japanes are in a bad situation, if one reactor core explods, that’s not Tchernobyl, not the two atomsbomb of the end of the last world war. It will be 100 time this three events, so…. Ouch!!! It will be a massacre! The chaos is at the door of this country!By the way French peoples argue the nuclear energy, but it’s not the same thing, we have good geologic position and our security is maximum. So French peoples has no reason to think about a nuclear explosion in France. We can’t made a comparison.
French:
Sur la grande faille active de Nimes, à Marcoule, le réacteur Phénix est remis en route……
…
en remettant en route à grand frais, un vieux réacteur qui na jamais pu fonctionner durablement sans ennuis de toutes sortes, et ce, dans une zone de sismicité importante.Translation:
On the main active fault in Nimes, at Marcoule, the PHOENIX reactor is restarted …
…
by restarting it at great cost, an old reactor that has never been able to operate for long without any kind of trouble, and this, in an area of significant seismicity.link: http://www.dissident-media.org/infonucleaire/phenix.html
So in France, we make some “no sense” experiment with nuclear, and without taking care about population… so we are able to have some kind of “disaster” in France too…
The document is date in the 2003 Year, but the probleme is the same, 2 plants are actually biuld on seismic fault areas…
-
-
It’s correct, 58 nuclear reactors actualy running…
Administration is good, but they make some mistakes sometimes, but reports are not “publicly released” ^^
I think we (humans of course) need to think about stop nuclear and develop new energy, more clean, less dangerous… But it’s an utopie since nuclear make monney, and governements need monney… so, while nuclearcan make lot of profit, nuclear will survive^^ -
Ezekiel wrote:
It’s correct, 58 nuclear reactors actualy running…
Administration is good, but they make some mistakes sometimes, but reports are not “publicly released” ^^
I think we (humans of course) need to think about stop nuclear and develop new energy, more clean, less dangerous… But it’s an utopie since nuclear make monney, and governements need monney… so, while nuclearcan make lot of profit, nuclear will survive^^Pretty much sums it up. For example, Norway pretty much gets all its energy from hydro (water) power. Now, there have been talks with Germany to install a cable that could transport the clean energy from Norway to Germany, however, due to nuclear lobbyists some necessary regulations for this cable are blocked from the German side.
-
any sort of power makes money. its just, that nuclear reactors translate energy faster and more energy and are therefore more efficient economically. neither is a nuclear reactor dependant from e.g. weather. but looking at canada, who are producing electric energy from the kinetic energy of water in an amount enough to even be sold to the united states, there appears nothing to be stopping us from refusing usage of nuclear power. its a question of time, only for now.
-
Energy generation is dirty. You’ll find reasons to object to any source, any. Pick your poison.
I think we can’t rest on just one source. A mix of hydro, solar, wind (all three only where possible) and nuclear would probably be the best. Like it or not, nuclear is by far the most efficient energy source. Cutting funding and support for nuclear means we’d suddenly lose the most advanced and powerful energy source we’ve ever discovered. With proper security measures, nuclear is safe.
By cutting funding to nuclear, all we’ll end up with is that old plants will stick around for longer because those who run them (business folks) would rather extract every drop of money out of decaying, unsafe plants. They won’t fund new plants themselves, not with the extreme costs driven up by bureaucracy and politics.
-
what about that new powerplant working on base of nuclear fusion. it is said to be far more efficient than nuclear fission plants ever could be, but far cleaner - the radioactive materials produced are less in amount and are fading faster. guess that is where we are actually going to one day.
-
Fusion is one of those things that’s always 50 years away. We’re not speaking in terms of unicorns and fairies, right? So we need something proven that works now.
-
FriendlyFire wrote:
Energy generation is dirty. You’ll find reasons to object to any source, any. Pick your poison.I think we can’t rest on just one source. A mix of hydro, solar, wind (all three only where possible) and nuclear would probably be the best. Like it or not, nuclear is by far the most efficient energy source. Cutting funding and support for nuclear means we’d suddenly lose the most advanced and powerful energy source we’ve ever discovered. With proper security measures, nuclear is safe.
Problem is how to ensure security measures is proper. Maybe when a nuclear plant got fault, first people be killed exactly is who keep it working safe, and then, the plant will running by computer automaticly.
Hope those Japanese can run away as far as they can.
-
It is so difficult to get bureaucrats to agree, let alone the ordinary uninformed public who are so easily swayed by scares to support any view the puppeteer wishes.
Windmill generators should have been an “easy” adoption, when we were kids I saw cartoons of wind-power farms and thought “Wow, fantastic”.
Would you believe that there are motions and factions against wind power too? “The blades are killing innocent birds! They are noisy and a disturbance to the environment! They are ugly, an eyesore!”
So nuclear is great, and my general view is that there has to be a reduction in the worldwide human population somehow, and nature looks like it is taking the lead.
Or do you believe in supernatural intelligence(s) plotting deliberately against the human race?
If I were in control today, I would have fired “His Excellency” the Ambassador to Japan and his pathetic British staff - all of them. On the spot. And without repatriating them at public expense too. And I would see to it that they never worked in any public office again.
What an absolute disgrace to have the emergency teams return because the idiots refused to sponsor them in a time of emergency and rare human kindness. What the hell are they employed for? Origami lessons? Or just to sample local food on expenses?
If the team had been able to save one life it would have been a prestige to the UK. Their help would have been invaluable in any case. This return is a bureacratic disgrace.
-
NeXoSE wrote:
FriendlyFire wrote:
Energy generation is dirty. You’ll find reasons to object to any source, any. Pick your poison.I think we can’t rest on just one source. A mix of hydro, solar, wind (all three only where possible) and nuclear would probably be the best. Like it or not, nuclear is by far the most efficient energy source. Cutting funding and support for nuclear means we’d suddenly lose the most advanced and powerful energy source we’ve ever discovered. With proper security measures, nuclear is safe.
Problem is how to ensure security measures is proper. Maybe when a nuclear plant got fault, first people be killed exactly is who keep it working safe, and then, the plant will running by computer automaticly.
Hope those Japanese can run away as far as they can.
Modern designs cannot experience meltdown.
-
That’s wishfull thinking isn’t it FF, how so? Do they catapault the reactor into space if the cooling is compromised or something.
-
The effects of a nuclear meltdown depend on the safety features designed into a reactor. A modern reactor is designed both to make a meltdown unlikely, and to contain one should it occur.
In a modern reactor, a nuclear meltdown, whether partial or total, should be contained inside the reactor’s containment structure. Thus (assuming that no other major disasters occur) while the meltdown will severely damage the reactor itself, possibly contaminating the whole structure with highly radioactive material, a meltdown alone should not lead to significant radiation release or danger to the public.[17] -
Reactor designs like pebble-bed are passively safe, in other words should the reaction heat up due to lack of cooling, it slows down. This is not an active safety, it is a feature of the very reaction used. More heat causes the reaction to slow down to safer levels.
It’s not just good safety, it’s inherent safety.
-
StarTrader wrote:
If I were in control today, I would have fired “His Excellency” the Ambassador to Japan and his pathetic British staff - all of them. On the spot. And without repatriating them at public expense too. And I would see to it that they never worked in any public office again.What an absolute disgrace to have the emergency teams return because the idiots refused to sponsor them in a time of emergency and rare human kindness. What the hell are they employed for? Origami lessons? Or just to sample local food on expenses?
If the team had been able to save one life it would have been a prestige to the UK. Their help would have been invaluable in any case. This return is a bureacratic disgrace.
Good job you’re not in control then isn’t it. IF the media is correct, then yes, it’s utterly ridiculous. However, if the media is not then it’d be a massive mistake. Even if the media are, your idea would be an utter disaster in it’s own right for the obvious reason and far eclipse a 12 man team that would have been returning the next day anyway.
The UK ISAR team, which arrived in Japan on Sunday, agreed not to extend its operations after discussions with the Japanese disaster authorities and their US counterparts.
The team - 59 search and rescue experts, four medics and two sniffer dogs - was made up of members from fire brigades across the UK and was put together by the Department for International Development.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12778022
Apparently they arrived with 11 tonnes of equipment.shakes head
p.s the supposed reason the 12 man team weren’t given a form? Doesn’t say what they arrived with equipment wise shrugs
Foreign secretary William Hague said the charity was not properly equipped and that it was ‘convenient’ to blame British red tape.
‘The Japanese embassy advised them that they would have to be self-sufficient and that Japan would not be able to provide logistical support,’ he said.
‘They arrived there with no transport or logistical or language support in place so I think that gave rise to the difficulty.’
Whether that’s true I don’t know. Have to wait and find out…
-
So they’re a lot safer than these old designs then. I just can’t imagine that they can compensate for every possible outcome though, things like massive freak earthquakes and tidal waves, a paveway bomb or tomohawk from some psycho for instance, possibly even sabotage.
I’m all for nuclear energy, anything other than the fossil fuels that have us all bent over a barrel these days is good in my book, just gotta accept that there’s a risk and build the things in places where the least possible effect to public health could arrise from any insane event that might just happen upon the place.
-
Chips wrote:
… Good job you’re not in control then isn’t it. IF the media is correct, then yes, it’s utterly ridiculous. However, if the media is not then it’d be a massive mistake.
Full marks Chips, glad you’re the one who spotted my allegory here.
This is the basis of my arguments about Arab countries - since I am able to compare, I know that the media has made a lot of bad assumptions, particularly on the few opponents in every one of those countries, which are still a very small minority.
Today Mr Cameron mentioned Bahrain in the same sentence as Libya. Bahrain is a monarchy, as are Saudi, Oman, the Emirates and Kuwait. What right does a commoner have to go against his king? Every right of course, at risk of losing his head - literally. No external country has the right to intervene. The UK is driven by the US who fear no-one. Except China that is. My view? Let the Yanks sacrifice their own only, not our lads. But for a long time, UK leaders have been sheep, not sheepdogs.
Yesterday’s UN decision to enforce a no-fly zone is an act of war.
Let’s see how madman Ghaddafi reacts, never mind his words, let’s see his peoples’ actions from now on.
On “Good job I’m not in control”? On the contrary.
The main cause of the problems of today’s world is wimps and do-gooders in control, lack of knowledge, lack of discipline and lack of respect, from the top down.
Chips wrote:
… Even if the media are, your idea would be an utter disaster in it’s own right for the obvious reason and far eclipse a 12 man team that would have been returning the next day anyway.There is no obvious reason. Now that the team was returning the next day? was not made clear in any news report that I heard. Does that mean they just went for a couple of nights out in Tokyo? Ridiculous. In fact it was glossed over very quickly with no details, the initial news release, which mentioned clearly the letter that was refused and the reason, was altered and did not mention again that the Embassy “would not be responsible” for the team.
I understand this view because of my own experiences of British Embassies. A chap who became a good friend later was Third Secretary for the Embassy in Kuwait. When we registered with the Embassy on our arrival there, he briefed us on respect for local laws, and explained that should we get ourselves into jail, the Embassy would only appoint a local lawyer to assist us (at our own cost) and would do no more, not even to repatriate us in case we got into debt. When several people asked why, he explained that British Embassies exist to promote commerce and facilitate visit and business visas to the UK, not to look after Brits. We could host business evenings for free at the Embassy and they would invite the local heads of business to listen to us, and they would provide alcohol if we wished, (at cost) but no more.
OK so for private citizens I can understand and accept that they would not wish to be responsible for every Tom, Dick and Harry who misbehaves, but for a mercy team? Sacrilege! - even the French, whom the Brits love to criticise, did better than that.
So why do you not wish to give out effective action in these cases, but let sleeping dogs lie, even though this will lead to more such instances, yet you arise against a lawful government? This is a double standard, and this is why I picked out these two subjects to get your reactions.
