Nuclear safety


I recently came across a list of fatal accidents related to energy production. Here's the summary:

Hydroelectric plants: 3776
Coal mine accidents: 2746
Oil accidents: 2355
LPG accidents: 1674
Nuclear power accidents in western reactors: 0
Nuclear power accidents: 56 (Chernobyl* 1986)

Source (in Danish): http://akraft.dk/ulykker.htm

* It must be noted that Chernobyl accident is only possible in that particular kind of reactor (RBMK). RBMK reactors are only found in the former Soviet Union, and they are being decommisioned as new power plants are built. For more information read: http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf31.htm

reply

The liberal goons will never anwser this trust me. GO GREEN EVERYBODY! morons


reply


Actually, despite your well-formed arguement, many liberal goons, "GO GREEN EVERYBODY! morons" out there support nuclear energy because it is a much cleaner form of energy than most any other form of energy used today. I only have a minute, so I am not going to post the pros and cons right now, but if you do some research you will see what I am talking about.

reply

An interesting statistic but it over looks an important fact. A coal mine accident or a generator mishap at a dam only kills a set number of workers and delays production. A nuclear mishap can kill thousands of civilians and last a hundred years. So while maybe the risk of incident is lower, the actual damage is far greater.

reply

Excellent point Lawdog1527. Very well stated.

Reminds of when people poo-pooed AIDS in the late 1980's because it killed far fewer in the US than Heart Disease and Cancer. True, but AIDS was then almost always fatal, it mostly struck younger (not older) adults, and it was communicable with deaths doubling yearly. And that's ignoring what it was doing in Africa.

reply

This is just false, it's a typical type of logic error committed by someone who is not accustomed to thinking. I'm not going to argue with you here, but I will just state facts - the world's climate will soon be destroyed, largely because morons like you killed nuclear power before it could even be brought to life fully. It's too late now. The permafrost is melting. That's all because of coal burning to generate electricity. Cars and gasoline are a minor part of it.

So you, and the people like you who think with your asses, are going to be ultimately responsible for the greatest catastrophe in human history when the average temperature soars to 120 to even 140 in places, and the world's food production goes to zero. People are going to starve to death in the hundreds of millions to billions. This will have happened because you preferred to be afraid and helpless, instead of courageous and informed. Thanks.

-drl

reply

What Kimberly Welles and the other person pointed out, however, was that there really is no safe place to dispose of nuclear waste, and it has devastating affects on the environment, and on people.

reply

>Nuclear power accidents in western reactors: 0

So Three Mile Island was planned? The only reason there hasn't been a meltdown at TMI is because the passengers of the 4th 9/11 plane brought it down before it could hit its final target.

The proponents of nuclear energy always limit their discussion to a few points.
For starters, they never discuss the numerous problems of transporting and storing spent fuel.
They neglect to mention that nuclear energy is the most expensive form of energy production.
They also neglect the fact that people who live near nuclear reactors and nuclear storage facilities have much higher rates of cancer than people who don't. Finally, they ignore the connection between building nuclear reactors and the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

reply

Please tell me about the "numerous problems" of transporting and storing SNF?
Also, please cite some reliable source material for your statement RE; higher rates of cancer. I can not find and reputable source of this information; in fact, the stats I see are much higher health problems due to mercury emissions from coal fired power plants.

reply

You're saying there were fatalities at TMI?

reply

They were able to avert a disaster at TMI, so there weren't any fatalities. Chernobyl--that's a whole different story. TMI could've been a disaster, and tons of people could've died, but that doesn't mean that a disaster with fatalities will be averted in the future.

reply

Take a look at the Wikipedia entry on the SL-1 experimental reactor which killed its three operators. The power companies used to make a great point that *no member of the public* had been injured or killed.

The Navy showed me a fascinating movie about the SL-1 accident and the efforts required to disassemble it and sanitize the site (it was an industrial hygiene class at a shipyard that works with nuclear submarines). They also (at the class) grumbled that the effluent from the shipyard had to be cleaned until it was less radioactive than the river they were pouring it into.

Not that this changes your point in any way.

reply

It's just a matter of time before we see another major nuclear accident in the US. Minor malfunctions arise all the time. Nuclear radiation is the nastiest stuff imaginable. It takes eons to go away. By using nuclear energy we are basically saying that we don't care about life on Earth 200-500 years from now. That's not saying fossil fuels are better. Even renewable energies are not totally renewable. We depleat mineral and organic resourses creating renewable energy. There are simply too many humans on Earth. The carrying capacity of our planet is somewhere around 2 billion people, and that is if they live conservatively. 100 years from now 90% of humans will be living in tents or shacks and own a bicycle if they are lucky.

reply

"Nuclear power accidents in western reactors: 0"

Are you on crack??? When I read your post, I just had to log in and reply because it's complete fantasy. If you're going to lie, you could have at least put down TMI to make it look semi-credible to the uninformed masses.

In fact, the truth is much worse than TMI. There have been numerous accidents at nuclear power plants in the US and the UK over the years. Do your homework and check your "facts" for the love of God! And no, Chernobyl-style accidents are not limited to RBMK reactors. While the RBMK does have a positive void coefficient (as opposed to the negative void coeffcient found in Western reactor designs), a melt-down can occur at ANY -- I repeat ANY -- nuclear reactor... and has. The TMI reactor DID melt down, but they didn't learn about that until years later when they could safely place a camera into the reactor.

This is not to mention the fact that nuclear reactors constantly vent radioactive gas and leak primary cooling water out through the secondary cooling system. It also fails to highlight the issues with spent nuclear fuel. It's not even kept secret that the Hanford site in Washington state leaked nuclear waste into the Columbia river and is still leaking. This is precisely why they're currently undergoing a decades-long cleanup project, which they are quite open about. You can find official videos detailing the cleanup activities (see YouTube).

Either you'll believe any website on the internet as gospel, or you're a troll intending to mislead people. Either way, your post isn't even a good lie.

You want nuclear power? Good, have it! Just keep it in YOUR backyard far away from mine. Only a fool would believe that the answer to global warming is to boil water with uranium. Unfortunately there are a lot of fools and greedy people out there.

reply

String-r-Bell posted his remark on Friday, March 11th. At that moment he had no way of knowing what was about to occur that very same day in Japan.

As we speak, March 16th, we see the horror which unfolds at the Fukushima nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power is Pandora's box. There is no inherent safety. In the end, all that will come of it is the end.

reply

Great point string-r-bell. Eerie coincidence that his post comes right before another such disaster.

reply

Yes scary connenction. Now We can add nuclear disaster in the west to that list as well . The Thing i worry about, to add to my worries for the japaneese people) is what a nightmare it would be if terrorist smashes an airplane into a nuclear plant. That would mean Chernobyl times two. What worries me the most is that terrorists could get New ideas from the ongoing nuclear disaster in Japan........the end is nigh.

"Microchanges in air density, my a$$....."

reply

First of all, the original post was a list of FATAL accidents. TMI had no fatalities, and officially there has been no perceptible impact on the cancer rates in the vicinity since the accident in 1979. Everyone getting on the OP's case needs to read things more carefully.

Second, to put things into some perspective for everyone that is making a huge stink about nuclear energy in the wake of what has happened in Japan:

Yes, the situation at Fukushima Daiichi is bad. No one in their right mind would deny that.

However, the death toll from the partial meltdowns that have occurred there are officially zero (possibly in the very low single digits unofficially). On the other hand, the death toll from the 9.0 earthquake and 30-foot tsunami that caused this whole crisis stands at 6,500 and is rising fast. Hundreds of thousands of people have lost everything. Let's face it, when it comes to efficiently destroying lives, the earthquake/tsunami wins hands down over the crisis at Fukushima Daiichi.

The nuke crisis in Japan is not another Chernobyl, and short of an F-15 Strike Eagle flying in and dropping a bunker-buster on one of the reactors in order to catastrophically destroy the reactor vessel, it won't be another Chernobyl.

Had this been a modern reactor design, there would be no concern whatsoever. Modern reactor designs are quipped with passive cooling systems that will automatically keep the reactor in a safe state if outside power is lost, unlike the ancient designs at the FD plant which require an outside power source at all times to power the cooling systems (hence the need for backup generators in case of an power-loss emergency, which were subsequently swamped by the tsunami). If the passive cooling were to somehow fail, the Gen III reactors even have integrated 'worst case' designs that allow the core to melt down into a holding pit that contains enough volume and neutron poisons to ensure the reactor remains cannot achieve criticality.

Unfortunately, few of these modern designs have been built thanks to the anti-nuke lobby. This has forced many older plants to soldier on longer than intended and has forced us to rely on environmentally damaging sources such as coal and gas.

The reactors at Fukushima Daiichi are 40 years old. They were designed in the 1960's. when the technology was still in its relative infancy. Would you drive a car designed in the mid 1960's and expect it to be even remotely as safe as a modern car? Of course not!

Even with that, the safety record at the plant in question was pretty darn good up until the point when it was clobbered by an almost inconceivable 9.0 earthquake and 30-foot tsunami. Even still, things would be okay had they not made one fatal mistake when they built the plant - they put the backup diesel generators at ground level and built walls around them that they figured were higher than any possible tsunami. They simply guessed wrong.

Nuclear energy is currently the only way to generate large quantities of power without also generating large quantities of greenhouse gases (Oh, and by the way, the waste from coal fired plants not only is rich in greenhouse gases, but is also rich in toxic, radioactive heavy metals which infiltrate the soil and water table around said plants very easily. Clean coal my a$$!).

Wind and solar are clean ways to supplement a power grid, but they just don't kick out enough juice to meet the power needs of heavy industry & large population centers. They are an important part of a clean energy system, but a heavy lifter such as nuclear energy is needed in tandem to make it truly viable and reliable.

What about nuclear waste, you say? Most countries recycle 95% of their nuclear waste into new fuel. Currently the US does not follow this practice, which is idiotic. Japan and most other major users of nuclear power do. Even without that, the actual amount of waste, while highly toxic, is very small compared to the massive amount that coal plants generate.

I personally am all for the building of more plants. I live near two nuke plants that date back to the 1970's, and I'd certainly prefer to see those two plants replaced with modern designs. Before that happens, I would love to see the four coal plants in the vicinity shut down and replaced with modern, safe nuclear reactors.

Nuke, solar, & wind working together can provide a clean & sustainable power grid. We just need to get our heads out of our a$$es & make it happen.

reply

bigunit94,

Everything you posted is inaccurate and deceptive and completely in line with the propaganda distributed by the nuclear industry. Since your IMDB record shows no prior activity (i.e. you registered specifically to make the above post), it's clear you've been paid by a PR firm to post pro-nuclear "public" opinion pieces. The internet has been flooded (or I should say littered) with these since the disaster struck. In case you're unfamiliar with this practice, the following article explains it in detail:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/feb/23/need-to-protect-internet-from-astroturfing

I'm not interested in arguing with a PR firm representative. I'm also not interested in debating anyone who hasn't properly researched nuclear power or someone who wishes to purposely distort the truth.

The reason nuclear power proponents are able to make wildly unsubstantiated claims about the health effects of TMI or Chernobyl is because there haven't been any major well-funded, long-term studies -- on purpose. Sadly that includes the UN and WHO. There's been a quiet effort to cover up the unpleasantness of these accidents from the beginning. And unfortunately the UN's IAEA is more of a cheerleader than a regulatory body. However, the data showing increases in cancer and other health effects in PA and Europe is there if you wish to find it.

Next, nuclear power is not green or safe. In fact, they're so dangerous that no insurance company will properly insure these things. The nuclear industry is insured (subsidized) by the taxpayer -- hence the Price-Anderson Act. Insurance companies aren't stupid; they can calculate odds, and they don't want anything to do with nuclear power plants, new or old.

Nuclear plants continually vent radioactive gas (allowable by law), and very few nuclear proponents want to have a serious discussion on the topics of uranium mining and handling nuclear waste -- two very dirty and hazardous activities. They love to throw out the myth of the perpetual motion machine. They say that any energy needed to mine and process uranium can be obtained using power from a nuclear power plant, and the spent fuel can be recycled and used again -- at a 95% efficiency rate, none the less!

All this is completely contrary to how things work in the reality. But they're counting on the fact that you won't dig any deeper and read up on these complex and dangerous processes. Have you ever noticed they never include any sources to back the claims they make? At best they'll point you towards a biased study by some group connected to the nuclear industry.

Now as far as safety is concerned, this industry is marred with disaster. It would not take an "an F-15 Strike Eagle flying in and dropping a bunker-buster on one of the reactors" to become another Chernobyl. All it would take is a small aircraft or some other means of disrupting the spent fuel pools, usually found outside on the grounds of a nuclear power plant. The following NY Times article explains just how vulnerable and dangerous those pools are:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16fuel.html

Another myth is that accidents wouldn't occur if we'd just upgrade to newer power plant designs. However, these generation III designs are simply upgrades to the generation I and II models, and many experts say they are simply cost-cutting changes that may in fact make these plants less safe. Generation IV designs are unproven and so costly to build that it's unlikely you will ever see one.

Yes, the GE Mark I design at Fukushima is a particularly old and flawed design, and three GE engineers did quit over objections to implementing that model. However, many nuclear power plant accidents -- most you never hear about -- occur because of flat out greed and corruption. The owners of the plant simply cut corners to save money. The Davis-Besse incident in Ohio in 2002 is a classic example. The Japanese have also had numerous accidents that had nothing to do with the design of the Mark I reactor:

http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/world/bungling,-cover-ups-define-japanese-nuclear-power-wcpo1300375108764

"In one case, workers hand-mixed uranium in stainless steel buckets, instead of processing by machine, so the fuel could be reused, exposing hundreds of workers to radiation. Two later died."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents

For those who wish to do further reading, I suggest "The Legacy of Chernobyl" by Zhores A. Medvedev, "Voices from Chernobyl: The Oral History of a Nuclear Disaster" by Svetlana Alexievich and Keith Gessen, and "Nuclear Power is Not the Answer" by Helen Caldicott.

(And although I haven't read it yet, I hear "We Almost Lost Detroit" is a good book on an incident few are familiar with.)

bigunit94 would like you to believe that anyone against nuclear power is either a solar lobbyist or a pot-smoking hippie who doesn't like science. The truth is neither. In fact, the coal industry is more likely to gain from a decline in nuclear power than the solar and wind power industries. I'm not getting one cent for writing this, and it's my very love for science that brought me to my position on nuclear power. I've done my homework, and I don't want to see any more deaths or illnesses caused by unnecessary exposure to harmful radiation.

I'm sick of the lies being spread about nuclear power. In talking with people as this disaster has unfolded, it's become clear that most people don't understand the technology and don't know much about the events that took place at TMI and Chernobyl. I've had family members ask me to explain what a "melt-down" means. This lack of knowledge makes people susceptible to lies and misinformation, and people can't make sound decisions based on lies.

One final parting thought to leave the pro-nuclear people with:

Plutonium is arguably the most dangerous substance on earth; it's also a byproduct of the fission process that occurs in a nuclear reactor. One ounce of plutonium, if it were to be equally distributed, would be enough to kill every person on this planet. Plutonium is a deadly alpha radiation emitter and microscopic amounts -- too small to see with the naked eye -- can will destroy the cells in your body and kill you.

Fukushima Unit 3, like many nuclear reactors in the world, has MOX fuel in it. MOx fuel contains plutonium, which is why it's the biggest concerns at the moment, next to the spent fuel pools.

Meanwhile government and the nuclear industry try to sell new nuclear power plants to the public as a method of creating jobs! Once again we have easy, short-term answers. A more rational plan would be to fix our trade policies, so our manufacturing base can actually compete fairly. No, that would be logical.

reply

Wow...

First of all, I wish I was being paid for my posts. I'd love the money. Alas, as I am not a paid shill for anyone, I unfortunately have to do this for free, just like you.

Number two, you COMPLETELY misread and misrepresented my arguments and made numerous ridiculous assumptions. Let me count the ways.

"The reason nuclear power proponents are able to make wildly unsubstantiated claims about the health effects of TMI or Chernobyl is because there haven't been any major well-funded, long-term studies -- on purpose. Sadly that includes the UN and WHO. There's been a quiet effort to cover up the unpleasantness of these accidents from the beginning. And unfortunately the UN's IAEA is more of a cheerleader than a regulatory body. However, the data showing increases in cancer and other health effects in PA and Europe is there if you wish to find it."

What is the source of *your* claims? Or is this just pure cynicism on your part? I'm not stupid enough to say that Chernobyl was a horrible disaster, nor did I ever claim it wasn't. I've seen the documentaries. I know the thyroid cancer rates and the birth defects skyrocketed in the vicinity. The question isn't whether or not Chernobyl had an impact, it's how big was it truly (which, given the nature of the incident, is hard to quantify exactly one way or the other).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident_health_effects

There have been numerous studies on TMI, and none have been able to prove that there were any significant health effects on the local population at large. Now I won't say that the research is 100 perfect, because no research ever is, but to assume that there is a big conspiracy to cover up some kind of TMI-related health epidemic is not legitimate skepticism, it is simply cynicism rooted on ones own fear/distrust of nuclear power.

"Next, nuclear power is not green or safe. In fact, they're so dangerous that no insurance company will properly insure these things. The nuclear industry is insured (subsidized) by the taxpayer -- hence the Price-Anderson Act. Insurance companies aren't stupid; they can calculate odds, and they don't want anything to do with nuclear power plants, new or old."

Maybe you should try researching the Price-Anderson act before repeating the usual anti-nuke drivel. Each plant in the US is PRIVATELY insured for up to 375 million. The Price-Anderson fund, which is financed by the REACTOR COMPANIES THEMSELVES, is then used to make up the difference. Price-Anderson is NOT paid for by the government, nor is the nuclear waste fund. It's the exact opposite in both cases.

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2006/12/truth-about-government-subsidies-for.html

"Nuclear plants continually vent radioactive gas (allowable by law), and very few nuclear proponents want to have a serious discussion on the topics of uranium mining and handling nuclear waste -- two very dirty and hazardous activities. They love to throw out the myth of the perpetual motion machine. They say that any energy needed to mine and process uranium can be obtained using power from a nuclear power plant, and the spent fuel can be recycled and used again -- at a 95% efficiency rate, none the less!"

Please cite a source for your first claim - and then another that proves that the amount of radiation in these gases would pose a legitimate health problem. Being radioactive doesn't automatically equate to unhealthy. We are exposed to radiation constantly. Hell, potassium is radioactive, and we would die without.

I agree that nuclear fuel storage is an ongoing issue. For you it's an automatic deal-breaker, for me, I am open to finding solutions. It all depends on how happy you are with the proposed solutions. Even if they could wave a magic wand to make the waste vanish, some people still wouldn't be happy with nuclear energy.

Regarding energy usage for mining, every source of energy will require raw materials in some fashion. These materials don't come out of thin air. Can you prove that uranium mining has a worse effect than the mining for the raw materials needed for any other form of energy?

Spent nuclear fuel CAN be recycled and used again. This is not fiction and is a common practice around the world.

"Now as far as safety is concerned, this industry is marred with disaster. It would not take an "an F-15 Strike Eagle flying in and dropping a bunker-buster on one of the reactors" to become another Chernobyl. All it would take is a small aircraft or some other means of disrupting the spent fuel pools, usually found outside on the grounds of a nuclear power plant. The following NY Times article explains just how vulnerable and dangerous those pools are:"

Nice bit of hyperbole in the first line there. Anywho, it would takes a whole lot more than a light aircraft to catastrophically disrupt a spent fuel pool. We are talking about VERY heavy steel & concrete structures here (much stronger than the twin towers). It would take something on the order of a large air dropped armor-piercing bomb to do so. A small leak isn't going to cause Chernobyl. Look at the FD plant, the pools have had to endure a 9.0 earthquake, a 30 foot tsunami, and hydrogen explosions within the facility, and we still don't have Chernobyl Mark II. And these are raised pools, which is a dumb design (they should be at grade to facilitate easy flooding when needed). Furthermore, this fuel should be re-processed and/or deep stored, something that is not happening like it should in the US.

"Another myth is that accidents wouldn't occur if we'd just upgrade to newer power plant designs. However, these generation III designs are simply upgrades to the generation I and II models, and many experts say they are simply cost-cutting changes that may in fact make these plants less safe. Generation IV designs are unproven and so costly to build that it's unlikely you will ever see one."

Wow... first I never claimed that accidents wouldn't occur, but they would be less likely. However, the accidents we have witnessed at TMI & Fukishima Daiichi would not have occurred in a newer, safer design. For the rest, what is your source for your claims?

"Yes, the GE Mark I design at Fukushima is a particularly old and flawed design, and three GE engineers did quit over objections to implementing that model. However, many nuclear power plant accidents -- most you never hear about -- occur because of flat out greed and corruption. The owners of the plant simply cut corners to save money. The Davis-Besse incident in Ohio in 2002 is a classic example. The Japanese have also had numerous accidents that had nothing to do with the design of the Mark I reactor

"In one case, workers hand-mixed uranium in stainless steel buckets, instead of processing by machine, so the fuel could be reused, exposing hundreds of workers to radiation. Two later died.""

I am aware of the Davis-Besse incident. I am also aware of the fatal incident in Japan. All this proves is that people can be stupid and in the case of the Japanese incident, such stupidity can cause fatalities. This happens in every industry. These mistakes can be and must be learned from.

"bigunit94 would like you to believe that anyone against nuclear power is either a solar lobbyist or a pot-smoking hippie who doesn't like science. The truth is neither. In fact, the coal industry is more likely to gain from a decline in nuclear power than the solar and wind power industries. I'm not getting one cent for writing this, and it's my very love for science that brought me to my position on nuclear power. I've done my homework, and I don't want to see any more deaths or illnesses caused by unnecessary exposure to harmful radiation."

I had to laugh at this. In my post, I PROMOTED wind and solar as being vital parts of a clean energy grid. I made it VERY CLEAR that I am AGAINST coal power, and that the reason coal is still in such widespread use is partly due to the push-back against nuclear power in the years following TMI. Your "truth" is the exact fear that I already put forth previously.

Try reading my post instead of skimming and jumping to conclusions.

"I'm sick of the lies being spread about nuclear power. In talking with people as this disaster has unfolded, it's become clear that most people don't understand the technology and don't know much about the events that took place at TMI and Chernobyl. I've had family members ask me to explain what a "melt-down" means. This lack of knowledge makes people susceptible to lies and misinformation, and people can't make sound decisions based on lies."

I'm sick of the lies too. I've studied TMI and Chernobyl as well and am fully aware of what transpired. I'm not sure what your point is here relative to my post. Are you lumping me in with those that don't know what a meltdown is?

"Plutonium is arguably the most dangerous substance on earth; it's also a byproduct of the fission process that occurs in a nuclear reactor. One ounce of plutonium, if it were to be equally distributed, would be enough to kill every person on this planet. Plutonium is a deadly alpha radiation emitter and microscopic amounts -- too small to see with the naked eye -- can will destroy the cells in your body and kill you.

Fukushima Unit 3, like many nuclear reactors in the world, has MOX fuel in it. MOx fuel contains plutonium, which is why it's the biggest concerns at the moment, next to the spent fuel pools."

Yes plutonium is a very toxic substance. I agree that toxic substances are very bad if exposed to humans - duh. So are falls from 35,000 feet. Should we stop flying in planes? After all, the latter is astronomically more likely than the scenario you posit above. Coal byproducts are very toxic too, and it's much harder to prevent those from impacting the public at large.

"Meanwhile government and the nuclear industry try to sell new nuclear power plants to the public as a method of creating jobs! Once again we have easy, short-term answers. A more rational plan would be to fix our trade policies, so our manufacturing base can actually compete fairly. No, that would be logical."

Yes, I would love if it we re-energized our manufacturing base. I am the son of a former steel-worker, and I very much lament the decline of our manufacturing base in this country.

Let me point out that manufacturing and heavy industry requires massive amounts of power, much more-so than can be efficiently generated by wind & solar alone. Hence my statement that we need nuclear energy as the heavy lifter in our grid in addition to those other sources. It's either that, or coal, which I think we both agree is a very poor option. However, if you get rid of both, you can kiss heavy industry & manufacturing as we know it goodbye.




reply

We may not be seeing death reports from the Fukushima plant any time soon, but I sure as hell would hate to be a nuclear worker there right now. Those poor souls will surely have a much shortened life expectancy, as will as anyone else living within 20 or so miles of the plant. For decades there will be cases of rare diseases. Truly sad. The BP oil spill in the Gulf was nothing compared to what will be happening in the seas near Fukushima. I sure won't be eating any seafood from Japan.
http://tinyurl.com/653353p

reply

Amen to that CrenshawPete. Your arguments in this thread and elsewhere on the board are very informed and well written. Even though my field is in a way related to the nuclear industry. I have a deep, inherent, and strong distrust for it. At this rate, the earth is and will be piling up and cluttering with dangerous nuclear wastes with immensely long half lives which have the potential to contaminate the environment (if they have not done so already). The chances of a catastrophic nuclear accident may be slim, but the repercussions are irreversible and devastating. The price to pay for sustaining life may be too great.


"...sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.” ~ Cool Hand Luke

reply

Jane Fonda's movies have made more people sick than nuclear energy.

reply

Oh, come on! She's done more good than lots of people. Jane Fonda was excellent in "The China Syndrome'.

reply

[deleted]

The deaths associated with Chernobyl have yet to be totaled, as those exposed to the radiation will experience health problems further down the road. Health experts estimate an additional 4000 to 27,000 deaths will occur due to the massive release of radiation. One report from Russia estimates almost 1,000,000 premature deaths due to the accident.

And now we have the disaster in Fukushima Japan that will add to the deaths associated with nuclear power.

Let's also factor in enormous economic loss and the environmental impact of those two releases.

Plus, where do you store the waste? That amount will continue to grow year after year, decade after decade.

How many plants are in earthquake zones? Future disasters waiting to happen. Plus, there are still 11 RBMK-type reactors still in use. But not to worry, those are in Russia.

reply

I am always entertained at how brainless the supposedly "intellectual" liberals are, just like the right wingers.

If any of them actually researched nuclear power, they would know the truth. Through their activism, our nation and our world became saddled with four decades of using coal instead of nuclear. Which meant incredible amounts of CO2 and coal dust being pumped into our atmosphere. If these anti-nuclear activists had been, at the very least, willing to go into the coal mines or live next door to coal plants, I would have found their activism worth some degree of merit.

But, of course, their activism was just the blind following the blind.

I. Drink. Your. Milkshake! [slurp!] I DRINK IT UP! - Daniel Plainview - There Will Be Blood

reply