Slog Comments
It Can't Happen Here
3
Yes, let's keep vilifying nuclear power, literally the safest form of energy we know about.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-…
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-…
6
@3 - So solar is more deadly because people fall off roofs installing/maintaining it? Is that your premise?
7
@5 AZ and Nevada are both seismically active.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/s…
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/s…
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/s…
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/s…
8
Oyster Creek was mentioned on Democracy Now this morning as being the one most likely to have issues.
9
My premise is that examining deaths caused per terawatt hour of energy provided gives us a good idea of which sources of energy are safer, and which are more dangerous.
10
It should be noted that Oyster Creek was offline for maintenance when Sandy hit, and had been for some time. Fukushima was online when the Tohuku earthquake took it offline, and then it was flooded by the tsunami. So what happened in Fukushima is not what could happen to Oyster Creek. Still a problem? Yes, but not on the level of what the Japanese dealt with in 2011.
11
So while people are actually dying in the real world do to a real, actual disaster, I'm supposed to be scared of overwrought hypotheticals? I guess that's the nuke fearmongering community in a nutshell.
13
@2 & @9 -
Then you are fine letting Price-Anderson expire? The nuclear industry seems to believe they can't survive without it. Not so safe if you can't insure it.
Then you are fine letting Price-Anderson expire? The nuclear industry seems to believe they can't survive without it. Not so safe if you can't insure it.
14
@9 - And not which source can render millions homeless because their region is deemed uninhabitable? Deaths-per-kilowatt-hour seems like cherry-picking to me.
I'm a fan of nuclear for the low-carbon impact, but keeping a reactor going in a highly populated area seems nuts to me.
I'm a fan of nuclear for the low-carbon impact, but keeping a reactor going in a highly populated area seems nuts to me.
17
In addition to what sperifera said, Oyster Creek is the nation's oldest and it's set to close in 2019, according to the AP. Nuclear power plants are made to withstand major calamities, including airplane collisions. However, as has been widely mentioned and demonstrated by Fukushima, flooding is a vulnerability. As far as I know, we haven't had a new nuclear plant in ages and ages.
From what I remember, government-corporate corruption made the Fukushima disaster even worse than it needed to be. Not that we're so superior, but whatever safety guidelines we have right now, a Romney administration would probably take down in the interest of "creating jobs," or something.
From what I remember, government-corporate corruption made the Fukushima disaster even worse than it needed to be. Not that we're so superior, but whatever safety guidelines we have right now, a Romney administration would probably take down in the interest of "creating jobs," or something.
18
@14 Even setting aside the global warming making millions homeless, the point is we live in fear of what MIGHT happen with nuclear power (deaths), while fossil fuels are RIGHT NOW killing people. Is there danger? Sure! Should we work to minimize that danger? Of COURSE, but don't let it stop us. Same with solar power.
19
@18 - There you go, bringing up deaths again. Was that my argument against it?
Question: Do you support locating or maintaining a reactor in a metropolis?
I like nuclear power, but it has no business being situated where millions live.
Question: Do you support locating or maintaining a reactor in a metropolis?
I like nuclear power, but it has no business being situated where millions live.
20
@18 This makes sense if regulators were not in the pockets of the industry. I'm actually all for making/developing nukes if the waste could be minimized and stored or, ideally, reused (which I think Bill Gates' little traveling wave nuke project does nicely in theory).
But I think it's good to keep in mind that back in 2011 people in this very thread were trying to mitigate the Fukushima disaster right on down the line until authorities admitted it was out of control and a real disaster--even though it was fairly obvious. I don't know where that kind of denial comes from but it was both irritating and fun to watch. Although the tsunami remains the big disaster, Fukushima is negatively affecting an entire ecosystem for a long time.
But I think it's good to keep in mind that back in 2011 people in this very thread were trying to mitigate the Fukushima disaster right on down the line until authorities admitted it was out of control and a real disaster--even though it was fairly obvious. I don't know where that kind of denial comes from but it was both irritating and fun to watch. Although the tsunami remains the big disaster, Fukushima is negatively affecting an entire ecosystem for a long time.
21
Anyone interested in the ongoing danger posed by all nukes should read Arne Gunderson at www.fairewinds.com There is no safe nuclear power, just as there is no clean coal.
Regarding corruption and Fukushima, that was also the case at Chernobyl, where political appointees ran the plant (which has outlived its original sarcophagus and is now in danger of a new disaster).
Regarding corruption and Fukushima, that was also the case at Chernobyl, where political appointees ran the plant (which has outlived its original sarcophagus and is now in danger of a new disaster).
22
Color me conservative when it comes to nuclear power - I'll support it when: 1) the industry can buy insurance on the private market without government guarantees or liability limits; 2) the industry is capable of selling its own bonds on the open market while offering competitive electricity rates to its customers; and 3) when the industry can provide enough funding to store its waste responsibly for as long as it constitutes a danger.
23
Let us know when the first person dies of a nuclear accident in the US, Goldy. Until then, I'm ignoring these posts, and advise everyone else to do the same.
There are enough actual issues with the storm to worry about without making up new hypothetical ones.
There are enough actual issues with the storm to worry about without making up new hypothetical ones.
24
@23 Of course, this is highly unlikely to be a nuke related accident at all whatsoever but I'm glad to see you revisiting your May 2011 rhetoric.
Oh, those were the days!
First it was: "It will *never* melt down!"
Next: "It may partially melt down, but it will be contained."
Then: "The amount of radiation released is nothing to worry about [banana equivalents, "safe" dose nonsense, etc.]"
Finally it became: "Oh, I'd eat that food. No big deal. Bring on the cesium-tainted food! It's all within 'safe dose' levels!"
And to think the Japanese get a bad rap for denial.
Oh, those were the days!
First it was: "It will *never* melt down!"
Next: "It may partially melt down, but it will be contained."
Then: "The amount of radiation released is nothing to worry about [banana equivalents, "safe" dose nonsense, etc.]"
Finally it became: "Oh, I'd eat that food. No big deal. Bring on the cesium-tainted food! It's all within 'safe dose' levels!"
And to think the Japanese get a bad rap for denial.
25
I'm surprised that no one here understands how nuclear power works. You need a source of water, ideally one that isn't wasting the much more value resource, fresh water. Nuclear plants will always be near oceans or major rivers so those middle of nowhere regions don't make sense.
I'm honestly on the fence when it comes to nuclear as a source of power. There's a lot of risk involved. Almost all human settlements are based on being by the water, so we really can't keep it far enough to not have an impact on people.
That said, climate change is already happening, I doubt we can stop it, but ideally we can mitigate it and more importantly keep whatever land healthy in that condition. A thoughtful approach to environmental stewardship is all we can hope for.
I'm honestly on the fence when it comes to nuclear as a source of power. There's a lot of risk involved. Almost all human settlements are based on being by the water, so we really can't keep it far enough to not have an impact on people.
That said, climate change is already happening, I doubt we can stop it, but ideally we can mitigate it and more importantly keep whatever land healthy in that condition. A thoughtful approach to environmental stewardship is all we can hope for.
26
@25 It's amazing what you can do with pipes and canals these days. You don't have to be that far from a river to make the flood risk near zero.
28
This bullshit of having individual nuke plants store their old fuel indefinitely is the result of Goldyism. It's been the ongoing mess at Fukushima, and this old NJ plant. Untold billions dumped at Yucca Mountain.... but the power of constipating NO killed that.
30
So the worst hurricane to hit the east coast in forever and oyster creek makes it through fine? Seems like a great advertisement for the safety of nuclear power to me.
31
A possible nuclear accident on the eastern seaboard is nothing to be glib about.
These older plants have been hobbling along way past their shelf life and nobody wants to talk about it seriously. Not even anti-nuke people with their ridiculous NIMBY horse shit. They insist on keeping the waste on on site and they insist on not investing in newer safer plants. Ruh-roh!
The problem is everybody wants cheap energy. But the age of cheap energy is probably going to be over very soon. For a while anyway.
But everybody want the magic energy fairy to build them unicorn magic solar or wind plants and shit that don't pollute aren't ugly or noisy and wont hurt animals and will produce super-cheap abundant energy. They don't exist. Not with consumption levels literally doubling ever few years. Solutions will be like power rationing and energy austerity. That's where we are heading.
There are no good options here. Shutter these older plants completely today and you have indefinite brown outs and economic interruption to an energy hungry population on a massive scale. Let the keep going - and with more and worse super-storms on the horizon - its only a matter of time before something bad happens.
We are between a rock and radioactive place.
These older plants have been hobbling along way past their shelf life and nobody wants to talk about it seriously. Not even anti-nuke people with their ridiculous NIMBY horse shit. They insist on keeping the waste on on site and they insist on not investing in newer safer plants. Ruh-roh!
The problem is everybody wants cheap energy. But the age of cheap energy is probably going to be over very soon. For a while anyway.
But everybody want the magic energy fairy to build them unicorn magic solar or wind plants and shit that don't pollute aren't ugly or noisy and wont hurt animals and will produce super-cheap abundant energy. They don't exist. Not with consumption levels literally doubling ever few years. Solutions will be like power rationing and energy austerity. That's where we are heading.
There are no good options here. Shutter these older plants completely today and you have indefinite brown outs and economic interruption to an energy hungry population on a massive scale. Let the keep going - and with more and worse super-storms on the horizon - its only a matter of time before something bad happens.
We are between a rock and radioactive place.
32
@9: Uh, that's ridiculous. Nuclear Power has made a large swath of the Ukraine uninhabitable forever. We have no solution to nuclear waste. Japan was on the cusp of LOSING THE CITY OF TOKYO forever.
Keep jerking off to the magic of nuclear energy. Civilian nuclear reactors have a nearly 1 in 100 chance of serious meltdown, a disaster which humankind has *no* significant technologies or capabilities to mitigate.
We are, as mankind, still in the midst of ongoing nuclear disasters at two major sites.
Your numbers are also utter and complete bullshit.
Keep jerking off to the magic of nuclear energy. Civilian nuclear reactors have a nearly 1 in 100 chance of serious meltdown, a disaster which humankind has *no* significant technologies or capabilities to mitigate.
We are, as mankind, still in the midst of ongoing nuclear disasters at two major sites.
Your numbers are also utter and complete bullshit.
33
@2, 4: you may be well-intentioned, but your suggestion is rather ill informed and ridiculous.
Nuclear power plants MUST be built immediately adjacent to an ocean or a major river. That's how they work. Otherwise you cannot cool them and they explode. To cool them requires a major body of water such as a sea, ocean, major river, or massive lake. There is no other way.
It would be like suggesting we build solar panels underground so they aren't damaged by sunlight, or windmills so they aren't damaged by wind...
Nuclear power plants MUST be built immediately adjacent to an ocean or a major river. That's how they work. Otherwise you cannot cool them and they explode. To cool them requires a major body of water such as a sea, ocean, major river, or massive lake. There is no other way.
It would be like suggesting we build solar panels underground so they aren't damaged by sunlight, or windmills so they aren't damaged by wind...
34
@17: "Nuclear power plants are made to withstand major calamities, including airplane collisions"
An airplane collision is nothing, and hardly a 'major calamity.' You could fly airplanes into a nuclear plant all day long if you wanted to. It's like flies at your windshield.
From what I remember, government-corporate corruption made the Fukushima disaster even worse than it needed to be. Not that we're so superior
Um, not really. There may have been a little added intransigence about building more massive seawalls, sure, but the Japanese sites are actually better defended than most US sites, and their SBO capabilities are stricter than in the USA. Their reactors are all American reactors, operated very much identically to ours. As far as response after the SBO, they may have been slower or more methodical than the USSR was, or perhaps the USA would have been, but there really are no capabilities, materials, or technologies that any humans have to control a total LOCA meltdown. We as mankind have no tools whatsoever to deal with this, and the Japanese are not gods, unfortunately.
We do not even have the tools to clean up the site, which will take more than a century most likely, certainly not in any of our lifetimes.
An airplane collision is nothing, and hardly a 'major calamity.' You could fly airplanes into a nuclear plant all day long if you wanted to. It's like flies at your windshield.
From what I remember, government-corporate corruption made the Fukushima disaster even worse than it needed to be. Not that we're so superior
Um, not really. There may have been a little added intransigence about building more massive seawalls, sure, but the Japanese sites are actually better defended than most US sites, and their SBO capabilities are stricter than in the USA. Their reactors are all American reactors, operated very much identically to ours. As far as response after the SBO, they may have been slower or more methodical than the USSR was, or perhaps the USA would have been, but there really are no capabilities, materials, or technologies that any humans have to control a total LOCA meltdown. We as mankind have no tools whatsoever to deal with this, and the Japanese are not gods, unfortunately.
We do not even have the tools to clean up the site, which will take more than a century most likely, certainly not in any of our lifetimes.
35
@24 Remind me to light candles for all of the 0 people who died in Fukishima as a result of radiation exposure.
@Wiggette, I actually agree with your post at 33. Everything else you post appears to be completely pulled out of your ass.
@Wiggette, I actually agree with your post at 33. Everything else you post appears to be completely pulled out of your ass.
36
@35: cite me one thing that is "pulled out of my ass." Everything I've stated is quite well documented, and not from batshit anti-nuke screechers.
37
@Captain Wiggette:
We have had the tools to clean up nuclear waste and store it safely on land since the 1960s. You should read about the testing they did at Area 51on nuclear waste, and how to clean it up. Sites where they detonated nukes and simulated horrendous meltdowns are now clean of dangerous radiation, and have been for decades.
Your "1 in a 100" meltdown probability means nothing (at least without any context), and you seem to have completely made it up anyway.
Tokyo was never near the cusp of being lost, and Ukraine is a disaster because no one tried to clean it up or solve the problem.
Basically nothing you are saying here is true.
We have had the tools to clean up nuclear waste and store it safely on land since the 1960s. You should read about the testing they did at Area 51on nuclear waste, and how to clean it up. Sites where they detonated nukes and simulated horrendous meltdowns are now clean of dangerous radiation, and have been for decades.
Your "1 in a 100" meltdown probability means nothing (at least without any context), and you seem to have completely made it up anyway.
Tokyo was never near the cusp of being lost, and Ukraine is a disaster because no one tried to clean it up or solve the problem.
Basically nothing you are saying here is true.
38
@ 37, we've had the know-how, just not the people who are really willing to either pay for the job to be done properly, or the people willing to set enough of the profit motive off to the side in the name of safety. The clean-up and storage is only as good as the people who are in charge of it.
39
@37: "We have had the tools to clean up nuclear waste and store it safely on land since the 1960s."
No, we have not. We do not even have the tools to APPROACH an exposed melted core. That is why Chernobyl has not been cleaned up, and the current Chernobyl plan is the construction of a new Sarcophagus and the slow dismantling of the site with the aim of accessing the melt and assessing it, and hopefully cutting and removing it. Goal for this project is completion over the next century.
We have the tools to store it safely on land since the 1960s? WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THAT TODAY!? What the fuck are you talking about? There is only ONE long-term land-based disposal site for high-level waste, which is the Onkalo site in Finland, currently under construction. There are NO other long-term waste disposal strategies currently deployed on planet earth for anything but low-level waste or the "just bury it in a hole and hope nobody notices, or dump the barrels into the ocean off The Sudan while nobody is looking" strategy.
So again, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
"You should read about the testing they did at Area 51on nuclear waste, and how to clean it up. Sites where they detonated nukes and simulated horrendous meltdowns are now clean of dangerous radiation, and have been for decades."
Are you high? Let me know when Hanford is cleaned up. What do you think Japan is going to do, remove the forests and several inches of topsoil from all of northern Japan and the ocean floor across a large swatch of the Pacific Ocean, and what, bury it on the vast open space Japan has access to?
Let me translate that into obvious: what in the flying FUCK are you talking about?
"Your "1 in a 100" meltdown probability means nothing (at least without any context), and you seem to have completely made it up anyway."
DO FUCKING MATH DIPSHIT:
There are roughly 430 civilian nuclear reactors in the world:
http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclop…
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf01.…
There have been essentially 6 pretty serious meltdowns at civilian plants, including the 3 at Fukushima.
That's an order of magnitude of about 1-in-100 (1 in 72). That's the historical REALITY of the rate of nuclear meltdowns across civilian nuclear reactors.
If you include in this figure some more minor accidents and much smaller fuel melt accidents or accidents in smaller reactors:
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/1…
...then you end up at a rate that's closer to 1-in-50.
"Tokyo was never near the cusp of being lost, "
Yes, actually it was. Permanently. The bulk of the airborne plume was advected over the Tokyo area (translation: the shit blew over Tokyo), over the days of 14-15 of March, however it did not rain during this time, which so there was no washout onto the Tokyo metropolitan area and the bulk of central Japan. This is explained and discussed here (which I have also quoted previously on slog):
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/1…
To wit:
Or from Japanese officials:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl…
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano:
"and Ukraine is a disaster because no one tried to clean it up or solve the problem."
The Soviet Army deployed half a million people for cleanup and mitigation. Mankind at that time lacked the tools and technology to approach the melt or deal with raw exposed core, regardless of cost. The decision was made to encase the reactor building in a sarcophagus for a couple decades with the hope that new technologies would be developed. Those technologies have not been developed or deployed to this day.
If the ONLY existing major nuclear meltdown has not been in ANY way meaningfully addressed by humankind on planet earth, what the fuck do you think is going to happen with THREE much more inaccessible meltdowns? It's going to take a century, at least. Right now, they're working on building a massive underground wall in a feeble attempt to prevent groundwater from continuing to leak into the ocean, and they are working on paving the ocean floor to contain radioactive deposition on the seafloor.
"Basically nothing you are saying here is true."
You have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about, and no experience on the topic. You're not even aware of history, let alone the reality of current events.
More...
No, we have not. We do not even have the tools to APPROACH an exposed melted core. That is why Chernobyl has not been cleaned up, and the current Chernobyl plan is the construction of a new Sarcophagus and the slow dismantling of the site with the aim of accessing the melt and assessing it, and hopefully cutting and removing it. Goal for this project is completion over the next century.
We have the tools to store it safely on land since the 1960s? WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THAT TODAY!? What the fuck are you talking about? There is only ONE long-term land-based disposal site for high-level waste, which is the Onkalo site in Finland, currently under construction. There are NO other long-term waste disposal strategies currently deployed on planet earth for anything but low-level waste or the "just bury it in a hole and hope nobody notices, or dump the barrels into the ocean off The Sudan while nobody is looking" strategy.
So again, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
"You should read about the testing they did at Area 51on nuclear waste, and how to clean it up. Sites where they detonated nukes and simulated horrendous meltdowns are now clean of dangerous radiation, and have been for decades."
Are you high? Let me know when Hanford is cleaned up. What do you think Japan is going to do, remove the forests and several inches of topsoil from all of northern Japan and the ocean floor across a large swatch of the Pacific Ocean, and what, bury it on the vast open space Japan has access to?
Let me translate that into obvious: what in the flying FUCK are you talking about?
"Your "1 in a 100" meltdown probability means nothing (at least without any context), and you seem to have completely made it up anyway."
DO FUCKING MATH DIPSHIT:
There are roughly 430 civilian nuclear reactors in the world:
http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclop…
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf01.…
There have been essentially 6 pretty serious meltdowns at civilian plants, including the 3 at Fukushima.
That's an order of magnitude of about 1-in-100 (1 in 72). That's the historical REALITY of the rate of nuclear meltdowns across civilian nuclear reactors.
If you include in this figure some more minor accidents and much smaller fuel melt accidents or accidents in smaller reactors:
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/1…
...then you end up at a rate that's closer to 1-in-50.
"Tokyo was never near the cusp of being lost, "
Yes, actually it was. Permanently. The bulk of the airborne plume was advected over the Tokyo area (translation: the shit blew over Tokyo), over the days of 14-15 of March, however it did not rain during this time, which so there was no washout onto the Tokyo metropolitan area and the bulk of central Japan. This is explained and discussed here (which I have also quoted previously on slog):
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/1…
To wit:
Cs (Cesium) deposition and precipitation amount on 15 March. The cyclone produced a few millimeters of rain in areas on Honshu Island engulfed by the FD-NPP plume, which led to 137Cs washout. Precipitation was strongest (6mm) near FD-NPP, which produced particularly large deposition amounts of up to nearly 1000kBqm-2 in the vicinity of FD-NPP.
Our simulation suggests that this was the main deposition event over Japan for the entire duration of the disaster. It was due to an unfortunate combination of three factors: (1) the highest emissions of the entire duration of the accident occurred during 14–15 March, (2) the winds transported these emissions over Japan, and (3) precipitation occurred over eastern Japan. Luckily, it did not rain (also confirmed by radar data) exactly at the time when – according to our simulation – the highest concentrations were advected over Tokyo and other major Japanese cities. In such a disastrous scenario, much higher 137Cs deposition in the major population centers would have been possible.
Or from Japanese officials:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl…
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano:
The report, "Independent Investigation Commission on the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident," is based on interviews with more than 300 officials, utility executives and TEPCO employees. ... The report quotes Kan's chief Cabinet secretary, Yukio Edano, as experiencing a "demonic scenario in my head" in which four of the plant's six reactors exploded, setting off more explosions at a nearby plant, with massive releases of radiation, according to reports from Japan.
"If that happens, Tokyo will be finished," Edano recalled thinking at the time, according to the foundation report. Edano's public statements at the time did mentioned those fears.
"and Ukraine is a disaster because no one tried to clean it up or solve the problem."
The Soviet Army deployed half a million people for cleanup and mitigation. Mankind at that time lacked the tools and technology to approach the melt or deal with raw exposed core, regardless of cost. The decision was made to encase the reactor building in a sarcophagus for a couple decades with the hope that new technologies would be developed. Those technologies have not been developed or deployed to this day.
If the ONLY existing major nuclear meltdown has not been in ANY way meaningfully addressed by humankind on planet earth, what the fuck do you think is going to happen with THREE much more inaccessible meltdowns? It's going to take a century, at least. Right now, they're working on building a massive underground wall in a feeble attempt to prevent groundwater from continuing to leak into the ocean, and they are working on paving the ocean floor to contain radioactive deposition on the seafloor.
"Basically nothing you are saying here is true."
You have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about, and no experience on the topic. You're not even aware of history, let alone the reality of current events.
40
Is the backup generator on high ground? Remember, the key design flaw at Fukushima was the location of the backup generator, not the design of the reactor itself.
41
@39: You clearly do not have any idea about what nuclear waste is, or how it works. You also show no ability to understand statistics or probabilities. Also, an article claiming that if circumstances were entirely different that Tokyo may have suffered high levels of radiation does not mean Tokyo was nearly destroyed.
Your assessment of the reality of storing and cleaning up nuclear waste is completely false and without any scientific merit, and your statement that we do not know how to clean up or store nuclear waste is just baffling.
It is sweet and flattering that you devoted so much time and text to me though. Let me know when you read up on what nuclear waste is, clean up/storage procedures, and the like. This is a good start: a chapter from a peer reviewed book written by a nuclear physicist. It is much more accurate than what you have learned on The Simpsons about nuclear waste:
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/cha…
Your assessment of the reality of storing and cleaning up nuclear waste is completely false and without any scientific merit, and your statement that we do not know how to clean up or store nuclear waste is just baffling.
It is sweet and flattering that you devoted so much time and text to me though. Let me know when you read up on what nuclear waste is, clean up/storage procedures, and the like. This is a good start: a chapter from a peer reviewed book written by a nuclear physicist. It is much more accurate than what you have learned on The Simpsons about nuclear waste:
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/cha…
42
"and Ukraine is a disaster because no one tried to clean it up or solve the problem."
Oh, this is brilliant. You criticize Wig for making conjecture based on computer simulations while you sum up what Ukraine could have done different without what seems to be any source. Well, while we're at it, what do you think will happen here? NRC is not at the top of my list of good government organizations.
Oh, this is brilliant. You criticize Wig for making conjecture based on computer simulations while you sum up what Ukraine could have done different without what seems to be any source. Well, while we're at it, what do you think will happen here? NRC is not at the top of my list of good government organizations.
43
@41: All you have ever done is accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about. You cite no contrary information, you make no explanations yourself, and illustrate zero understanding of anything I am talking about.
"How it works?" What the fuck are you talking about? High-level waste like spent fuel has to be cooled for several years, then place in some kind of stable container and deposited somewhere forever. As I stated quite accurately NO SUCH LOCATION EXISTS. Only the Onkalo project is currently underway. The temporary solution is either leaving it for now in pools (USA) or above-ground dry-cask storage.
" Also, an article claiming that if circumstances were entirely different that Tokyo may have suffered high levels of radiation does not mean Tokyo was nearly destroyed."
The difference between "gee, it happened not to rain, luckily, like it did in Iitate and the eastern slopes of the mountains to the West of Fukushima" and washout is, in any cogent sense of the term "nearly." If the weather over central Japan had been rainy, Tokyo would have been evacuated, a very real and precarious possibility that policy-makers in Japan very much confronted.
To pretend that such a thread was distant or of extremely low probability given multiple meltdowns and total containment failure (and the added possibility, though more distant, of a SFP collapse or fire) is just basic dishnest pro-nuclear propaganda bullshit, which is par for the course for you.
Your assessment of the reality of storing and cleaning up nuclear waste is completely false and without any scientific merit, and your statement that we do not know how to clean up or store nuclear waste is just baffling.
Baffling? Really? How so? HAS HUMAN KIND EVER CLEANED UP A NUCLEAR MELTDOWN that breached the RPV of a large power reactor? NO.
Has mankind EVER decontaminated major portions of an entire country and a large swath of the Pacific Ocean? NO.
WHAT the FUCK are you talking about?
I appreciate that you read a picture book in seventh grade that told you that Nuclear Power was magic, but you are grotesquely ignorant.
I asked you SPECIFICALLY to cite ONE THING that is supposedly 'pulled out of my ass.' You have pointed to nothing at all, and the best you can do is link to a 25-year old pro-nuclear shill book. WHOOPDY FUCKING DOO.
It's amusing that you're even attempting to have a conversation with me given your profound and relentless ignorance on the entire topic of nuclear energy.
More...
"How it works?" What the fuck are you talking about? High-level waste like spent fuel has to be cooled for several years, then place in some kind of stable container and deposited somewhere forever. As I stated quite accurately NO SUCH LOCATION EXISTS. Only the Onkalo project is currently underway. The temporary solution is either leaving it for now in pools (USA) or above-ground dry-cask storage.
" Also, an article claiming that if circumstances were entirely different that Tokyo may have suffered high levels of radiation does not mean Tokyo was nearly destroyed."
The difference between "gee, it happened not to rain, luckily, like it did in Iitate and the eastern slopes of the mountains to the West of Fukushima" and washout is, in any cogent sense of the term "nearly." If the weather over central Japan had been rainy, Tokyo would have been evacuated, a very real and precarious possibility that policy-makers in Japan very much confronted.
To pretend that such a thread was distant or of extremely low probability given multiple meltdowns and total containment failure (and the added possibility, though more distant, of a SFP collapse or fire) is just basic dishnest pro-nuclear propaganda bullshit, which is par for the course for you.
Your assessment of the reality of storing and cleaning up nuclear waste is completely false and without any scientific merit, and your statement that we do not know how to clean up or store nuclear waste is just baffling.
Baffling? Really? How so? HAS HUMAN KIND EVER CLEANED UP A NUCLEAR MELTDOWN that breached the RPV of a large power reactor? NO.
Has mankind EVER decontaminated major portions of an entire country and a large swath of the Pacific Ocean? NO.
WHAT the FUCK are you talking about?
I appreciate that you read a picture book in seventh grade that told you that Nuclear Power was magic, but you are grotesquely ignorant.
I asked you SPECIFICALLY to cite ONE THING that is supposedly 'pulled out of my ass.' You have pointed to nothing at all, and the best you can do is link to a 25-year old pro-nuclear shill book. WHOOPDY FUCKING DOO.
It's amusing that you're even attempting to have a conversation with me given your profound and relentless ignorance on the entire topic of nuclear energy.
Comments (44) RSS