Fukushima 1 reactor official meltdown.

[PA5COR]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/12/975545/-Fukushima-Dai-Ichi-Unit-1-is-officially-in-a-state-of-Meltdown?via=siderec


Tokyo Electric Power Company says the No.1 reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is believed to be in a state of "meltdown". The utility company said on Thursday that most of the fuel rods are likely to have melted and fallen to the bottom of the reactor. Earlier in the day, it found that the coolant water in the reactor is at a level which would completely expose nuclear fuel rods if they were in their normal position.
The company believes the melted fuel has cooled down, judging from the reactor's surface temperature.
But it suspects the meltdown created a hole or holes in the bottom of the reactor causing water to leak into the containment vessel.
It also suspects the water is leaking into the reactor building.

Groundwater heavily contaminated around the powerplant moving northwards...


...Utah is left with a toxic legacy that has killed and sickened untold thousands of uranium miners and mill workers (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/250010691/Uranium-mining-left-a-legacy-of-death.html), contaminated water supplies for generations to come, and infected an otherwise stunning red-rock landscape with millions of tons of radioactive mill tailings that will cost American taxpayers billions of dollars to remove and bury safely out of sight... ...."Las Vegas residents are drinking Colorado River water enriched with uranium," Shumway says with a chuckle.
But families of those who did not survive the effects of prolonged exposure to radiation are not laughing. The dead and dying include miners and mill workers, innocent children who found mill tailings to be an inviting sand box, mothers who swept and dusted the wind-borne radioactive dust that filtered into their homes....

Ah, safe electricity, too cheap to meter...:squint:
What does a dead child or person cost?

[W3MIV]

Nuclear power is harmless, Cor. Everybody knows that! This report must be an invention.

[NQ6U]

San Diego and all of southern California gets about 1/3 of it's water from the Colorado River.

[KC2UGV]

Nuclear power is harmless, Cor. Everybody knows that! This report must be an invention.

Nothing is harmless. However, given the track record of nuclear power (Only 3 accidents in history that are of note), it's one of the safest methods of energy production.

[WB0LSR]

Nothing is harmless. However, given the track record of nuclear power (Only 3 accidents in history that are of note), it's one of the safest methods of energy production.

I agree 100%. The only problem with nuclear power is what can happen when things go out of control, but that applies to so many different types of technology..

[KC2UGV]

I agree 100%. The only problem with nuclear power is what can happen when things go out of control, but that applies to so many different types of technology..

Exactly. When oil drilling gets out of control, we dump millions of barrel of oil into the water, causing repercussions for years. If a nuclear plant goes out of control, we dump contamination into the air, having repercussions for years. And, when we strip the head of a mountain off, we dump millions of gallons of chemicals into the water table, causing issues for years.

Every method of power generation has faults. It's just that nuclear happens to be one of the safer options.

[kc7jty]

Nuclear power is harmless, Cor. Everybody knows that! This report must be an invention.

It's not harmless but humans are perfectly capable of keeping it out of the danger zone, so yes, an invention probably by those anti Ayn Rand drug addict hippies.

[KG4CGC]

Ruthless Efficiency! Ruthless efficiency I say!

[N8YX]

It's not harmless but humans are perfectly capable of keeping it out of the danger zone.
This is correct.

Remove the "profit at all costs" angle from the nuclear power generation industry, implement and test robust critical-system backup procedures and you'll find the risk of a catastrophe is reduced by a significant amount.

New commentary suggests that if the Fukushima units had not been SCRAMed, they could have been kept online to power their own cooling pumps - the quake itself did not damage the complex.

[PA5COR]

U.S. Review of Nuclear Plants Finds 'Serious Problems' With Emergency Generators (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8523)

Despite repeated assurances that American nuclear plants are better equipped to deal with natural disasters than their counterparts in Japan, regulators said Thursday that recent inspections had found serious problems with some emergency equipment that would have made it unusable in an accident.
...
The briefing was part of a review requested by the commissioners to evaluate the vulnerability of American reactors to severe natural disasters like the ones that hit the Japanese plant in March.
Marty Virgilio, the deputy executive director of the agency, told the five commissioners that inspectors checked a sample of equipment at all 104 reactors and found problems at less than a third of them. The problems included pumps that would not start or, if they did, did not put out the required amount of water; equipment that was supposed to be set aside for emergencies but was being used in other parts of the plants; emergency equipment that would be needed in case of flood stored in places that could be flooded; and insufficient diesel on hand to run backup systems.
...
The two-hour briefing given to the five-member commission was an early assessment, 30 days into a 90-day review being conducted by an N.R.C. task force.
...
[Massachusetts' Democratic Congressman Ed] Markey pointed out that in the last eight years, the commission had received 69 reports of inoperable diesel generators at 33 plants, with six of those generators out for more than a month. The diesels provide power for water pumps that allow removal of “decay heat,” the heat that fuel generates even after a reactor shuts down. The Fukushima plants shut down successfully but decay heat wrecked their cores

Moving on to the latest developments in Japan's ongoing nuclear crisis highly radioactive substances were detected in parts of Tokyo. Japan's Asahi Shimbun reports about 3,200 and nearly 2-thousand becquerels of radioactive cesium per kilogram were found in the soil of Tokyo districts of Koto and Chiyoda, respectively, from testing conducted between April 10th and the 20th. This amount is higher than what was found in the prefectures near the Fukushima plant and experts warn that other areas may be subject to radiation contamination as clusters of clouds containing radioactive material remain in the atmosphere. Meanwhile, the plant's main operator, TEPCO, says that over 3-thousand tons of contaminated water has been found in the basement of the No. 1 reactor, causing a delay in Japan's latest approach to cool down the reactors.

The opening of the spillwaters to release water from the Mississippi river threatens also 3 nuke reactors in the path of the released water.
It does not need to be a tsunami, just a natural disaster is enough.

Japanese widen the no go zone at Fukushima, due to more radiation.

Yep, i see how safe it is

[KC2UGV]

Cor: What natural disaster? For Fukushima, it HAD to be a Tsunami. In fact, a simple move of placing the backup generators on high ground would have precluded the entire thing.

Yes, inop backup gen sets are a disaster waiting to happen. But that's not the fault of the technology, but rather the operator.

[PA5COR]

Just adding:
Radiation over America and Canada.

In a head-in-the-sand refusal to acknowledge publicly that North America is sitting under a radiation cloud from Fukushima, the US and Canadian governments have yet to take official action to protect the public.
Not so in Europe, where the radioactivity measurements show a much smaller fallout, only about 10% of that in North America.
Nuclear authorities know well that even the small level of fallout in Europe is poisonous.

On 7 April 2011, the French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN), and CRIIRAD the French nuclear research institution, issued an information package on the risks of radioactive iodine-131.
They advise all citizens, that the risks from Fukushima, “are not negligible.”
They especially warn pregnant women and infants against “risky behavior,” such as consuming rain water, fresh milk, goat, sheep, and cow cheeses, and vegetables with large leaves.

Simon Fraser University researchers collected samples on Burnaby Mountain and in downtown Vancouver. They first detected the iodine-131 signature in samples from March 19, 20, and 25. Here are the results (measured in Bequerels/L, that is, decays of iodine-131 per second/ per litre of rainwater)
March 18 0 Bq/l
March 19 9 Bq/l
March 20 12 Bq/l
March 25 11 Bq/l

12 Bq/L is equal to 324.3 picoCuries per liter. (Conversion calculator here) EPA drinking water limit for Iodine-131 is 3 picoCuries per liter. So the rain in Vancouver is up to 108 times over the limit.

A good example of the US food chain contamination is milk.
On 8 April, Forbes reported that milk samples from Phoenix and Los Angeles containing iodine-131 at levels equal to the maximum of 3.0 picoCuries per liter permitted by the EPA, The Phoenix samples contained 3.2.

The Los Angeles samples contained 2.9. On 10 April, Forbes reported the highest levels yet, 8.9 picoCuries per liter in samples from Little Rock, three times over the limit. There are now more than 100 similar reports on the internet from universities and research organisations throughout North America.

Fukushima is a very serious catastrophe.
It shows clearly that any technologically advanced civilization, including the US and Canada can be rendered helpless in a second by a nuclear accident.
There is no safe level of man-made radiation.
Some people seem to have forgotten the history.
Richard Feynman, and Robert Oppenheimer, the developers of the Hiroshima bomb, both came to oppose nuclear development in the end.

Einstein, whose genius made nuclear power possible, was against using it from the very beginning. In the 1950s, Linus Pauling, the only two-time winner of the Nobel Prize, warned the public repeatedly about any exposure to radiation. Pauling’s writings were endorsed by thousands of scientists worldwide, which finally led John F. Kennedy to sign the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with the USSR on 5 August 1963

Still no danger from Nuclear energy, it just is spreading world wide, killing people.

[KC2UGV]

How many have died from the radiation Cor?

How many people died from the Tsunami?

I guess we should ban Island living...

[PA5COR]

The answer about how many will die of radiation is in the future, like Tsjernobyl, and the Nuclear industry with Government help will supress these numbers, too much at stake and easy to do..

As we saw in the earlier discussion lots of people fall for the bate and deny radiation deaths and say they were natural, even if the proof is right under their nose.

Does it matter if an nuclear powerplant blows up by human stupidity or natural events or disasters? the outcome is the same, worldwide distribution of longtime radioactive material killing people with cancer.

If you read the above, levels exceeding multiple times the "safe" levels, but there is no safe level is there...

[KC2UGV]

The answer about how many will die of radiation is in the future, like Tsjernobyl, and the Nuclear industry with Government help will supress these numbers, too much at stake and easy to do..

As we saw in the earlier discussion lots of people fall for the bate and deny radiation deaths and say they were natural, even if the proof is right under their nose.


And, lot's of people will rely on faulty research, that attributes EVERY cancer death after the event to be related to the nuclear catastrophe. You have yet to answer from the previous discussions what the deviation from mean is for cancer deaths related to Chernobyl. And, you fail to address links that you supplied which state the research you are relying on for your position consists of poor methodology.



Does it matter if an nuclear powerplant blows up by human stupidity or natural events or disasters? the outcome is the same, worldwide distribution of longtime radioactive material killing people with cancer.

If you read the above, levels exceeding multiple times the "safe" levels, but there is no safe level is there...

Cor, if we go based solely on the fact that people die, then we end up not doing any power generation.

In Coal and Solar, people die from silicosis.

In Natural Gas, people die from toxins released into the air.

In oil, people die in rig explosions and water contamination.

In cement factories, people die from silicosis.

With cars, people die from auto accidents.

There comes a point where the gains outweigh the problems.

[PA5COR]

I provided enough links and data, but you refrained from looking into them in deep.

No problem, we here in Europe know after Tsjernobyl what the effects are when it happens on your own continent, let alone other continents getting a "whiff" of good old long term active radio activity particles, we can still measure them abundantly and food as boars are not eatable through radiation dosis too high for consumption even after 25 years, Fukushima is still an ongoing level 7 disaster.

Even if we half the 1 million deaths through Tsjernobyl the other energy production methods didn't come close.
An oil accident is local, an nuclear disaster as Tsjernobyl and Fukushima is global in effect.

You fail to mention green technology and energy production, just look at solar cells, forgetting windmills, tidal wave generators, and the myriad other green ways to make safe energy.

Instead of pouring money in subsidising the oil and gas companies we should invest in alternative energy, till that can supply us with all energy we need we have to use the old sources.
In the USA we see the oil and gas companies dictating the energy policy, here we think different, that happens when you were in the radio active cloud, and had to destroy food and animals because they were contaminated, i was there then remember?

I know i will never be able to convince you of my view because you are stuck on the old ways of energy production and only defend that way.
Denmark, Germany already supply 20% of their energy green, and in 2025 will reach 50% green energy.
Our country is on the same road.

Your initial claim of safe nuclear energy has been debunked by the lists of accidents worldwide and disasters and near disasters.
Even here in Europe where control is strict we had our goof ups, and that is the reason people chose not to go the nuclear way.
We've been there already, the Japanese just arrived there....and will cut back or stop using the nuclear energy as well, pity it cost peoples life and health.

Tokio now has found serious contaminated zones in the city, 200 miles from Fukushima.
Indeed, living on an island you have the sea in your back if you f*ck up your country with radio active material.
Looking at the report about the conditions in US nuke power plants it can happen just as easy there, i hope it won't but if it happens i will not be surprised.

We here look for reduction in energy use, alternative energy production like green and try to be good keepers of the earth because there is no plan 2 another earth to go to if we destroy this one.....

Must be the republican indoctrination that there is no climate change nor any danger in nuclear power plants...

Reality already proved them wrong.

[N2NH]

Nuclear Power is 150% safe and I know anything to the contrary is just emotional libby blather.

I know because someone here told me so.

[KC2UGV]

I provided enough links and data, but you refrained from looking into them in deep.


'Cor, listen to yourself: One of the sources you provided stated another source you provided was invalid! How much deeper do you need me to look?



No problem, we here in Europe know after Tsjernobyl what the effects are when it happens on your own continent, let alone other continents getting a "whiff" of good old long term active radio activity particles, we can still measure them abundantly and food as boars are not eatable through radiation dosis too high for consumption even after 25 years, Fukushima is still an ongoing level 7 disaster.


'Cor, the "huge dose of radiation" we're getting here in the US, and the "huge dose" you got in Europe from Chernobyl was lower than the usual background radiation of some parts of the world.



Even if we half the 1 million deaths through Tsjernobyl the other energy production methods didn't come close.
An oil accident is local, an nuclear disaster as Tsjernobyl and Fukushima is global in effect.


I'll make sure I tell Japan that oil spills are local, when they get their next red tide caused by the Exxon Valdez incident in Alaska.



You fail to mention green technology and energy production, just look at solar cells, forgetting windmills, tidal wave generators, and the myriad other green ways to make safe energy.


Tidal wave generators? You really think that would supply enough power for the any industrialized nation?



Instead of pouring money in subsidising the oil and gas companies we should invest in alternative energy, till that can supply us with all energy we need we have to use the old sources.
In the USA we see the oil and gas companies dictating the energy policy, here we think different, that happens when you were in the radio active cloud, and had to destroy food and animals because they were contaminated, i was there then remember?


You didn't have to destroy the food. You thought you had to destroy the food. The doses of radiation Europe got over the course of a decade was on par with a Chest X-Ray.



I know i will never be able to convince you of my view because you are stuck on the old ways of energy production and only defend that way.
Denmark, Germany already supply 20% of their energy green, and in 2025 will reach 50% green energy.
Our country is on the same road.


That's awesome Cor! I'm glad. However, in the US, we consume the amount of electricity in a couple of months that your country uses in a year. And, it's not that I'm "stuck in my ways", you won't convince me because you have yet to show any reputable research demonstrating your claim. You've sourced a student union whose sole goal is to make nuclear power generation look too dangerous to use.



Your initial claim of safe nuclear energy has been debunked by the lists of accidents worldwide and disasters and near disasters.
Even here in Europe where control is strict we had our goof ups, and that is the reason people chose not to go the nuclear way.
We've been there already, the Japanese just arrived there....and will cut back or stop using the nuclear energy as well, pity it cost peoples life and health.


How many people died from Chernobyl? The most reliable source places the upper end near 6000 people. More people die in a single month due to car accidents here in the US. Should we ban cars?



Tokio now has found serious contaminated zones in the city, 200 miles from Fukushima.
Indeed, living on an island you have the sea in your back if you f*ck up your country with radio active material.
Looking at the report about the conditions in US nuke power plants it can happen just as easy there, i hope it won't but if it happens i will not be surprised.

We here look for reduction in energy use, alternative energy production like green and try to be good keepers of the earth because there is no plan 2 another earth to go to if we destroy this one.....


I'm hoping we start looking at ways to reduce our energy consumption as well. The fact of the matter is, we use an enormous amount right now, and we need to find a way to power our country. Nuclear is about as safe as we can get. Much safer than driving cars.




Must be the republican indoctrination that there is no climate change nor any danger in nuclear power plants...


Wow, you are really barking up the wrong tree here...



Reality already proved them wrong.

Reality proved that a horrible catastrophe in nuclear power kills fewer people than a Tsunami. A horrific nuclear catastrophe kills fewer people than guns do in a year.

[n2ize]

Slightly elevated radiation "dosages" here in the US have been monitored in about 13 states yet still way below the levels that would be considered a health risk. My own private Geiger counter is showing me absolutely no change in normal background levels.

[PA5COR]

'Cor, listen to yourself: One of the sources you provided stated another source you provided was invalid! How much deeper do you need me to look?



'Cor, the "huge dose of radiation" we're getting here in the US, and the "huge dose" you got in Europe from Chernobyl was lower than the usual background radiation of some parts of the world.

Enough radiation from Tsjernobyl to have our crops destroyed over the EU, and as stated enough that after 25 years Boars in Germany still need to be destroyed for too high levels of radiation.
Also in the links i provided, so again, you were selectively reading...


I'll make sure I tell Japan that oil spills are local, when they get their next red tide caused by the Exxon Valdez incident in Alaska.
Not the point i made in my posts, even with the earthquake and tsunami the wind generators in Japan survived and deliver energy, without any influence on nature, that was my point, investing in alternative energy and till then we have to use ( as less as possible) the old energy.


Tidal wave generators? You really think that would supply enough power for the any industrialized nation?
Again, selective reading, in my former posts i mentioned a myriad of alternate energy production, solar, wind, tidal wave etc generation, which by now is cheaper as nuclear energy production and lots safer too...
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/03/18/offshore-wind-energy-cheaper-than-nuclear-energy-eu-climate-chief-says/


You didn't have to destroy the food. You thought you had to destroy the food. The doses of radiation Europe got over the course of a decade was on par with a Chest X-Ray.
Wrong, levels measured in vegetables were way above what then was accepted safe even when the levels were adjusted upwards.
In the last decades the levels have been set back lower after clinical and scientific research proved them to be too high.


That's awesome Cor! I'm glad. However, in the US, we consume the amount of electricity in a couple of months that your country uses in a year. And, it's not that I'm "stuck in my ways", you won't convince me because you have yet to show any reputable research demonstrating your claim. You've sourced a student union whose sole goal is to make nuclear power generation look too dangerous to use.
Hmm, ever seen the level of energy Germany uses? or the EU combined with 5010 million people?
If you don't look into reports because you deem them not to come from reputable sources but forget to look who did the actual investigation, you will turn down any report what is made outside the nuclear energy industry, it shows objectivtivity to only believe the reports of the nuclear industries and governments who have the most interest in that field to promote it, isn't it?


How many people died from Chernobyl? The most reliable source places the upper end near 6000 people. More people die in a single month due to car accidents here in the US. Should we ban cars?
Just the cleanup crews there were 100.000's killed, but then it took a few years, and Russia was not so open as to make that public, wasn't it?
Reliable source? the institute thaat was founded to PROMOTE nuclear energy? what a laugh....


I'm hoping we start looking at ways to reduce our energy consumption as well. The fact of the matter is, we use an enormous amount right now, and we need to find a way to power our country. Nuclear is about as safe as we can get. Much safer than driving cars.
We're decades ahead here in reducing energy, we DID invest in alternative sources, isolating homes, have high return natural gas heating, double glazing, heatpumps, etc, and lots of alternative energy production methods already installed and running.
Comparing car driving and atomic energy risks is nuts as you know.
Put up the same amount nuclear energy plants as cars and we will see how that comparison works for you...




Wow, you are really barking up the wrong tree here...



Reality proved that a horrible catastrophe in nuclear power kills fewer people than a Tsunami. A horrific nuclear catastrophe kills fewer people than guns do in a year.

Yapping in the dark again are you?
As stated before, the real number of people killed by the radiation will only be known in the future, it takes time for cancer to show up, and undoubtly as we already saw from Tepco and the Japanese government, the keep it quiet and hidden measures, are already in place.

Same as here actually: http://www.scribd.com/doc/50890761/Nuclear-s-Endless-Nightmare-The-Real-Chernobyl-Death-Toll written by a real DR. ROSALIE BERTELL and have a look at the sources used, nothing student like is it?
IAEA admits to lying about Chernobyl death count.. http://energy.edu.pl/oil-1696.html

Keep your rosecoloured sunglasses up.

We here don't.

[KC2UGV]

Enough radiation from Tsjernobyl to have our crops destroyed over the EU, and as stated enough that after 25 years Boars in Germany still need to be destroyed for too high levels of radiation.
Also in the links i provided, so again, you were selectively reading...


I know, selective reading. I discard two sources you supply because they contradict each other... Again, the radiation dose Europe recieved in a decade was about the same as one gets from a chest X ray.



Not the point i made in my posts, even with the earthquake and tsunami the wind generators in Japan survived and deliver energy, without any influence on nature, that was my point, investing in alternative energy and till then we have to use ( as less as possible) the old energy.


And, in reality, had Fukushima not been scrammed, we'd be all fine right now. Because the cooling pumps would have remained online.



Again, selective reading, in my former posts i mentioned a myriad of alternate energy production, solar, wind, tidal wave etc generation, which by now is cheaper as nuclear energy production and lots safer too...
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/03/18/...te-chief-says/


I'm sure it's cheaper. However, with much our our land going towards food production so you guys in Europe can have cheap food; we need something that has a small footprint, and returns a lot of energy per sq/ft.

Nuclear fits that profile.

And, define "safe" please. Chernobyl, the worst disaster on record, only killed about 600,000 people.



Wrong, levels measured in vegetables were way above what then was accepted safe even when the levels were adjusted upwards.
In the last decades the levels have been set back lower after clinical and scientific research proved them to be too high.


What research? The only research you've supplied consisted of book reviews, and student union's propaganda piece...



Hmm, ever seen the level of energy Germany uses? or the EU combined with 5010 million people?

And our population is much bigger than that. We use the the same energy the EU uses in a year in about 6 months.



If you don't look into reports because you deem them not to come from reputable sources but forget to look who did the actual investigation, you will turn down any report what is made outside the nuclear energy industry, it shows objectivtivity to only believe the reports of the nuclear industries and governments who have the most interest in that field to promote it, isn't it?

Cor, I look at what the scientific consensus says. And, it says nuclear power is relatively safe. Safer than cars.



Just the cleanup crews there were 100.000's killed, but then it took a few years, and Russia was not so open as to make that public, wasn't it?
Reliable source? the institute thaat was founded to PROMOTE nuclear energy? what a laugh....


I guess I should just selectively pick sources that are done by groups actively opposed to nuclear power, huh? The report that was done was performed by the Science Councils of all the nations affected, and the published by the UN.

I know, it's unreliable. I should use lone scientist's books, and papers done by student unions instead...



We're decades ahead here in reducing energy, we DID invest in alternative sources, isolating homes, have high return natural gas heating, double glazing, heatpumps, etc, and lots of alternative energy production methods already installed and running.

I'm glad you did. We didn't. Now, we need to find a stop gap until we get to that point. Nuclear fits the bill.



Comparing car driving and atomic energy risks is nuts as you know.
Put up the same amount nuclear energy plants as cars and we will see how that comparison works for you...


No, you just need to compare people served by nuclear power vs. people served by cars. Isn't France all nuclear? And don't they have more car fatalities than nuclear fatalities?



Yapping in the dark again are you?
As stated before, the real number of people killed by the radiation will only be known in the future, it takes time for cancer to show up, and undoubtly as we already saw from Tepco and the Japanese government, the keep it quiet and hidden measures, are already in place.


Yeah, their keeping a lid on things... I'm shocked by your pronouncement here, since there are TV crews on site right now... As for cancer deaths, you have yet to supply the deviation from mean in Europe due to Chernobyl. Your only report blames all cancers on Chernobyl...



Same as here actually: http://www.scribd.com/doc/50890761/Nuclear-s-Endless-Nightmare-The-Real-Chernobyl-Death-Toll written by a real DR. ROSALIE BERTELL and have a look at the sources used, nothing student like is it?



Yep, nothing like a student. Much like a nutter. You know she's a HAARP conspiracy theorist too, right?

PS Look at who you source. I'm VERY familiar with her... Look up where she works at...



Keep your rosecoloured sunglasses up.

We here don't.

Sure you do. They're just a different tint.

[PA5COR]

I know, selective reading. I discard two sources you supply because they contradict each other... Again, the radiation dose Europe recieved in a decade was about the same as one gets from a chest X ray.
Source? as i linked to several sources proving that was not the case, as is proved by the boars that are not fit for consumption after 25 years because of too high radiation....as are other products from Europe that were highly intoxicated with fall out from Tsjernobyl, like the north of the UK ( sheep) Sweden etc...


And, in reality, had Fukushima not been scrammed, we'd be all fine right now. Because the cooling pumps would have remained online.

How? with broken lines from outside no electricity.
With backup diesels under water no electricity.
Without a source of the electricity to go to, ( broken electricity lines) the reactors had to be scrammed, the electricity generated had no place to go....
Did the earthquake destroy the rods or the lack of cooling? a full running reactor needs a lot more cooling as a scrammed reactor that only needs to lose its redundand energy removed on a much lower level.
Cooling lines were broken in the earthquake, if the reactors weren't scrammed, what would be the result?
That is why in an earthquake it is S.O.P to scram reactors...

I'm sure it's cheaper. However, with much our our land going towards food production so you guys in Europe can have cheap food; we need something that has a small footprint, and returns a lot of energy per sq/ft.
The Netherlands and the European countries produce more food as they need, and export that even to you guy's.
With all that land you cannot find a few square meters for a wind gebnerator? or put them out in sea like we do?, same as biomass generators, etc?
The latest windgenerators produce 5 to 10 Mw each.
Whole fields are build here 10 miles in sea producing a gaggle of electicity, and by using heat salt you can store the energy for night use.

Nuclear fits that profile.

Nope, not just anymore, the world goes on and new sources are already working and less dangerous and even economically cheaper.

And, define "safe" please. Chernobyl, the worst disaster on record, only killed about 600,000 people.
How many will die from Fukushima? or the accidents we had or will have next, because there will be more Fukushima's and Tsjernobyls.



What research? The only research you've supplied consisted of book reviews, and student union's propaganda piece...
Contrary to your biassed reports from body's that have only as goal to propagate nuclear energy and limit liabillety the reports named had per review, that you don't accept that does not change the facts.



And our population is much bigger than that. We use the the same energy the EU uses in a year in about 6 months.
Your country has 304 million people, the Eu 510 million, say what?
We know, the largest polluter is the USA, because energy saving is not in your genes? or maybe because the energy lobbyists already bought your governnment decades ago?
We don't have an outdated powergrid in our countries and between the countries, but a modern energy efficient power grid, we DID invest in the EU.
EU 2,858,000,000,000 kWh United States (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/ene-energy):3,873,000,000,000 kWh mostly caused by energy inefficient installations, more use of energy by the people ( less use of energy saving lights and appliances) less effective energy grid, etc.



Cor, I look at what the scientific consensus says. And, it says nuclear power is relatively safe. Safer than cars.
No comparison possible.
Apples and eggs....



I guess I should just selectively pick sources that are done by groups actively opposed to nuclear power, huh? The report that was done was performed by the Science Councils of all the nations affected, and the published by the UN.
Liabillety was the key, not to bring out an honest report, supported by the governments already in the pockets of the energy corporations, and heavily invested into it, and not wanting to lose face, reality already overtook that.

I know, it's unreliable. I should use lone scientist's books, and papers done by student unions instead...
Again, lots of links and proof from real institutes, like USA respected universities, MD's Professors etc, not students, nice picking, no cigar.


I'm glad you did. We didn't. Now, we need to find a stop gap until we get to that point. Nuclear fits the bill.
As does natural gas, and an enhanced programs into alternative energy and stopping throwing billions of dollars into the lap of energy corporations in the form of subsidizing, spend it on alternative energy resources.



No, you just need to compare people served by nuclear power vs. people served by cars. Isn't France all nuclear? And don't they have more car fatalities than nuclear fatalities?
Lots of near accidents in France with reactors, people there already supporting alternative energy, no nes reactors were build there sometime, and no new will be build.
Again, put up as much rwactor as cars and then you can compare the fatalities.
Apples and eggs comparison.



Yeah, their keeping a lid on things... I'm shocked by your pronouncement here, since there are TV crews on site right now... As for cancer deaths, you have yet to supply the deviation from mean in Europe due to Chernobyl. Your only report blames all cancers on Chernobyl...
Tepco and their government only took action when reports from outside their group showed the dangers, like Greenpeace measuring radiation and is kept out of territorial water, something to hide?
Wrong, seems you don't follow the links :doh:



Yep, nothing like a student. Much like a nutter. You know she's a HAARP conspiracy theorist too, right?
One student? or a gaggle of MD's Professors and respected (US) sources is totally different.

PS Look at who you source. I'm VERY familiar with her... Look up where she works at...
Again, concentrating one one source is wrong, look at the broader picture.
And i live here and whitnessed the effects of Tsjernobyl directly involved.
I was in East Germany, West Germany, Poland and spoke to the people there.




Sure you do. They're just a different tint.

Nope, i read multiple sources, go from memory what i saw here in Europe, spoke to effected people, saw the results with my own eyes, so i don't wear any glasses as the prescribed one without colouring.

http://astrohow.org/energy/energy_breakdown.html

We use the numbers for European countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (http://www.oecd.org/home/0,3305,en_2649_201185_1_1_1_1_1,00.html). The European members are Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. The total population of OECD Europe countries in 2005 was 534 million people, according to the CIA World Fact Book, via Nation Master


For instance, the U.S. uses about 60% more per energy per person on industry than Europe, and 2.4 times more energy per person than China. However, from the previous page, we already found that the average U.S. citizen uses twice the energy of the average British or German citizen. The large gap in energy use really comes from residental, commercial, and transportation. In each sector, we use about three times more energy than the average European. This information gives us some ideas as to where we can look for efficiencies. Granted, this will not be easy, but Europe could provide a model for halving our energy use. Many of the efficiencies in Europe are a response to its higher population density. Europe and the U.S. have roughly the same land area, but Europe's population is twice as large. However, Europe also has laws and regulations that encourage conservation. In the following sections, we will look at where energy goes in the U.S. sector-by-sector.

In examining these numbers, it is useful to keep in mind that electricity, which makes up 40% of energy use in the U.S., is currently rather inefficient to generate. Typically only 32% of the enery used to generate electricity is useful; the rest is lost in the process of generating, transmitting, and distributing the electricity. Commercial and residential users rely heavily on electricity, so about half of their energy consumption disappears into electrical losses. The charts on this page include all of the energy consumed by a sector, including estimates for electrical losses.

Follow the link for the rest, or maybe the CIA factbook is also student made?
Or the data from the Energy Information Administration made up by students?

.

[KC2UGV]

Cor, your reply is a pain in the arse to reply to. Can you separate your quotes from mine, and then I'll give a point by point rebuttal again. Thanks.

[PA5COR]

I had no problem when you did the same.

Simply stated, your facts were debunked, we roughly have the same size in landmass, but we here have close to double the people, but use 3/4 of the energy as you guy's do because we have much more energy efficient production methods and use.
That totaly debunked your statement.


Countries in Europe are moving out in front of the United States when it comes to transitioning from fossil fuel to clean, renewable energy.
Portugal, Germany and Spain are showing the world that it is possible to make policy and offer incentives that are effective in encouraging investment in wind, solar and hydro-electric energy.

Portugal is becoming the star of renewable energy with nearly 45 percent of it’s electricity grid now coming from renewable sources.
Using a combination of wind, hydropower, solar and even ocean waves, the country has increased its use of renewable energy sources almost 30 percent in five years. Portugal plans to be the first to make available a network of charging stations for electric cars next year.


Another important factor is that the governments of European countries are serious about averting climate change by reducing CO2 emissions.
The U.S. government during the Bush Administration simply denied that climate change is serious.
Some companies are still denying the serious consequences of climate change in their advertising,” Kapner says. “They stack climate protection against economic growth, and of course economic growth always wins.” One of the policies that has been effective in Europe to encourage renewable energy investment is the “feed-in-tariff” (FIT). It requires that the electricity provider purchase electricity from renewable energy sources above the current market price for electricity.

Furthermore the wish to be as much as possible being independant of oil or other imports is a key reason in Europe.


The rest is above.

[n2ize]

Yep, nothing like a student. Much like a nutter. You know she's a HAARP conspiracy theorist too, right?

PS Look at who you source. I'm VERY familiar with her... Look up where she works at...



Sure you do. They're just a different tint.

Bertell is also a chemtrail conspiracy theorist.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st3lHWZTrwQ

[W2NAP]

Another important factor is that the governments of European countries are serious about averting climate change by reducing CO2 emissions.
The U.S. government during the Bush Administration simply denied that climate change is serious.
Some companies are still denying the serious consequences of climate change in their advertising,” Kapner says. “They stack climate protection against economic growth, and of course economic growth always wins.” One of the policies that has been effective in Europe to encourage renewable energy investment is the “feed-in-tariff” (FIT). It requires that the electricity provider purchase electricity from renewable energy sources above the current market price for electricity.


oh what happened to that "global warming" oh right it dont exist so now its called climate change. looks like fear mongering to me.

[W1GUH]

The report says, "The utility company said on Thursday that most of the fuel rods are likely to have melted and fallen to the bottom of the reactor." Seems like it might contain a seed for a fail-safe design...or maybe they are already.

The water level falls, partially exposing the fuel. The fuel heats up, melts, and slumps down into the water, cools and melts no more. Presto! Meltdown self-limiting?
:chin:

[KC2UGV]

oh what happened to that "global warming" oh right it dont exist so now its called climate change. looks like fear mongering to me.

The same group that figured out Climate Change also figures that nuclear power is safe. Cor accepts one at face value, but denies the other claim...

[KC2UGV]

The report says, "The utility company said on Thursday that most of the fuel rods are likely to have melted and fallen to the bottom of the reactor." Seems like it might contain a seed for a fail-safe design...or maybe they are already.

The water level falls, partially exposing the fuel. The fuel heats up, melts, and slumps down into the water, cools and melts no more. Presto! Meltdown self-limiting?
:chin:

Exactly...

A "Core Meltdown", while dangerous, is not inherently catastrophic. One reason why pellet bed reactors are inherently safe in their design. Should the core meltdown completely, it can't sustain the reaction, and thereby cools off quickly.

[n2ize]

oh what happened to that "global warming" oh right it dont exist so now its called climate change. looks like fear mongering to me.

Where do you get the notion that global warming/climate change doesn't exist ? Matter of fact it is an accepted fact that it does exist If you have any data that shows it doesn't exist you should present it.

[n2ize]

The same group that figured out Climate Change also figures that nuclear power is safe. Cor accepts one at face value, but denies the other claim...

It's called "selective belief". It's where you throw facts, figures, data, etc. out the window and instead follow what you would like to believe.

[PA5COR]

You can do better than that.
Global warming exists and threatens the USA just as well as all other continents.
Nuclear reactors are not absolutely safe, Tsjernobyl, 3 mile Island, Fukushima, Windscale ( former Sellafield) ( UK level 5 event) in short:
We have identified 33 serious incidents and accidents at nuclear power stations since the first recorded one in 1952 at Chalk River in Ontario, Canada.
The information is partially from the International Atomic Energy Authority (http://www-ns.iaea.org/) - which, astonishingly, fails to keep a complete historical database - and partially from reports. Of those we have identified, six happened in the US and five in Japan. The UK and Russia have had three apiece.

So yes, seems that with Fukushima added to the list the conclusion can only be that nuclear energy is not safe, as was told to us by our governments and power generating corporations.

Reality debunked that myth.

With the IAEA recording over 960 REPORTED individual nuclear incidents since 1990 and only around 450 reactors being online world wide in that time frame there is no way anyone can say that nuclear power is safe.
And it is in no way cheap, reactors cost 10-20x what an LPG power station costs, don't really put out any more power, are more expensive to operate and the full life cycle of the material from mining, refining, encapsulating, reactor construction, reactor operation, waste disposal, and reactor decommissioning create FAR more pollution and greenhouse gasses than any other generation facility.
The numbers claiming it is safer, greener and produces more power come from sources that have vested financial interest in making these money pits exist.





The same group that figured out Climate Change also figures that nuclear power is safe. Cor accepts one at face value, but denies the other claim...

[KC2UGV]

You can do better than that.
Global warming exists and threatens the USA just as well as all other continents.
Nuclear reactors are not absolutely safe, Tsjernobyl, 3 mile Island, Fukushima, Windscale ( former Sellafield) ( UK level 5 event) in short:
We have identified 33 serious incidents and accidents at nuclear power stations since the first recorded one in 1952 at Chalk River in Ontario, Canada.
The information is partially from the International Atomic Energy Authority (http://www-ns.iaea.org/) - which, astonishingly, fails to keep a complete historical database - and partially from reports. Of those we have identified, six happened in the US and five in Japan. The UK and Russia have had three apiece.

So yes, seems that with Fukushima added to the list the conclusion can only be that nuclear energy is not safe, as was told to us by our governments and power generating corporations.

Reality debunked that myth.

With the IAEA recording over 960 REPORTED individual nuclear incidents since 1990 and only around 450 reactors being online world wide in that time frame there is no way anyone can say that nuclear power is safe.
And it is in no way cheap, reactors cost 10-20x what an LPG power station costs, don't really put out any more power, are more expensive to operate and the full life cycle of the material from mining, refining, encapsulating, reactor construction, reactor operation, waste disposal, and reactor decommissioning create FAR more pollution and greenhouse gasses than any other generation facility.
The numbers claiming it is safer, greener and produces more power come from sources that have vested financial interest in making these money pits exist.

960 accidents, and only 6000 dead... Sounds safer than airflight to me. 2 planes crashed, and 5000 die. Maybe we should ban airflight.

[PA5COR]

Ah, about those so safe pebble bed reactors
THE PBMR: "OLD WINE IN A NEW BOTTLE"
http://www.tmia.com/old-website/industry/pebbles.html
There's already been an accident at a pebble bed reactor in Germany due to fuel handling problems. </B>

the lack of a containment building leaves the reactor(s) wide open to a terrorist attack.

The industry acknowledges that "fuel pebble manufacturing defects are the most significant source of fission product release." Recent history shows that some companies have falsified fuel quality. In fact, there have been instances of fuel sabotage and tampering over the last few decades. Germany and Japan have shut down plants or refused fuel shipments once the problems were discovered. The industry can't produce "defect-free" fuel and therefore it is a certainty that a pebble bed reactor will experience an accident. The industry acknowledges that there is approximately 1 defect per pebble associated with these layers

There was a pebble bed reactor accident at Hamm-Uentrop West Germany nine days after the Chernobyl accident. On May 4 1986, a pebble became lodged in a feeder tube. Operators subsequently caused damage to the fuel during attempts to free the pebble. Radiation was released to the environs. The West German government closed down the research program because they found the reactor design unsafe.

The nuclear industry has been subsidized an average of $3 billion dollars per year. The industry was also just bailed out nearly $100 billion dollars by rate payers . The proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site is now approaching $100 billion dollars. If we use just a portion of that money for renewables (solar, wind, fuel cells etc.) we'd have plenty of electricity and very little wastes. Using the "yard stick" of economic feasibility, the nuclear industry is a complete failure.

So sorry to disappoint you, reality is a bitch

[n2ize]

You can do better than that.
Global warming exists and threatens the USA just as well as all other continents.
Nuclear reactors are not absolutely safe, Tsjernobyl, 3 mile Island, Fukushima, Windscale ( former Sellafield) ( UK level 5 event) in short:
We have identified 33 serious incidents and accidents at nuclear power stations since the first recorded one in 1952 at Chalk River in Ontario, Canada.
The information is partially from the International Atomic Energy Authority (http://www-ns.iaea.org/) - which, astonishingly, fails to keep a complete historical database - and partially from reports. Of those we have identified, six happened in the US and five in Japan. The UK and Russia have had three apiece.

So yes, seems that with Fukushima added to the list the conclusion can only be that nuclear energy is not safe, as was told to us by our governments and power generating corporations.

Reality debunked that myth.

With the IAEA recording over 960 REPORTED individual nuclear incidents since 1990 and only around 450 reactors being online world wide in that time frame there is no way anyone can say that nuclear power is safe.
And it is in no way cheap, reactors cost 10-20x what an LPG power station costs, don't really put out any more power, are more expensive to operate and the full life cycle of the material from mining, refining, encapsulating, reactor construction, reactor operation, waste disposal, and reactor decommissioning create FAR more pollution and greenhouse gasses than any other generation facility.
The numbers claiming it is safer, greener and produces more power come from sources that have vested financial interest in making these money pits exist.

I don't think anyone is trying to say nuclear power is absolutely safe. However, based on past evidence it is safer than many other things that we do. Even when we factor in the few accidents that have occurred we don;t find anywhere near the frequency of occurrence nor the death tolls attributed to other things. Mileage will vary with respect to statistics after the fact. organizations like Greenpeace or "anti-nuclear students for a non-nuclear future" will try to argue that every death and illness on the face of the earth is due to nuclear power and they will compile their statistics to favor a high percentage of deaths and injuries. Pro nuclear groups might very well do the exact opposite. Statistics is an interesting subject.. Properly used it can give us a good insight into what is going on. But, it can also be misused to generate biased results coupled with some technically sounding terms which may sound convincing to those who don't have a clear cut understanding of statistical methods. Unless one can be shown a detailed breakdown of how the data was collected and analyzed and assuming one has the background to assess such studies or do ones own there is a point where one may have to take the results on faith that they were not deliberately fudged. For that reason I tend to look at the reports from relatively independent entities that have the least amount of self interest or gain. And when I do look there I find nothing alarming and nothing indicating the massive death and destruction tolls provided by Greenpeace or other groups with a clear cut agenda.

This is why it is so important to look at deviations from normal or expected values as UGV alluded to.

As far as alternatives go, yes, I too would like to believe that we could simply shut all coal, oil and atomic energy sources down and simply run everything on "renewable energy". Unfortunately the numbers do not balance when we look at the generating capacity and feasibility of renewables versus growing energy demands. Should we look ahead to adopting more and more renewable energy ? Yes, we most certainly should. But until such technologies are perfected and become more efficient we are still going to have to rely on coal, oil, gas and atomic energy. facing issues of pollution, climate change, and other pressing issues nuclear energy is the least damaging to the environment and the safest overall. At least for the time being until renewable energy is ready for prime time.

[KC2UGV]

Ah, about those so safe pebble bed reactors
THE PBMR: "OLD WINE IN A NEW BOTTLE"
http://www.tmia.com/old-website/industry/pebbles.html
There's already been an accident at a pebble bed reactor in Germany due to fuel handling problems. </B>

the lack of a containment building leaves the reactor(s) wide open to a terrorist attack.

The industry acknowledges that "fuel pebble manufacturing defects are the most significant source of fission product release." Recent history shows that some companies have falsified fuel quality. In fact, there have been instances of fuel sabotage and tampering over the last few decades. Germany and Japan have shut down plants or refused fuel shipments once the problems were discovered. The industry can't produce "defect-free" fuel and therefore it is a certainty that a pebble bed reactor will experience an accident. The industry acknowledges that there is approximately 1 defect per pebble associated with these layers

There was a pebble bed reactor accident at Hamm-Uentrop West Germany nine days after the Chernobyl accident. On May 4 1986, a pebble became lodged in a feeder tube. Operators subsequently caused damage to the fuel during attempts to free the pebble. Radiation was released to the environs. The West German government closed down the research program because they found the reactor design unsafe.

The nuclear industry has been subsidized an average of $3 billion dollars per year. The industry was also just bailed out nearly $100 billion dollars by rate payers . The proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site is now approaching $100 billion dollars. If we use just a portion of that money for renewables (solar, wind, fuel cells etc.) we'd have plenty of electricity and very little wastes. Using the "yard stick" of economic feasibility, the nuclear industry is a complete failure.

So sorry to disappoint you, reality is a bitch

Wow, that horrific, terrible, catastrophic accident with a PBR reactor!!! How many are dead? How many health related problems due to it?

[PA5COR]

Is that the best you can come up with?

[KC2UGV]

Is that the best you can come up with?

You state that we have all these accidents with nuclear power. The pertinent question is: How many died/injured by the events?

Your wind turbine production line has about 100 accidents per year, per factory (A pretty standard accident rate in factories). Very few, if any are killed or even injured however. Using your proposed logic, manufacturing plants are unsafe, and we need to abandon them.

So, answer the question: How many died, or were injured by this PBR event you sourced? I'll forgive the fact that it's a clearly anti-nuclear power web site you grabbed it from.

[n2ize]

I don;t know about you guys man but I get all of my nuclear information from this unbiased site. :rofl:

http://no-nukes.org/ (http://no-nukes.org/)

[PA5COR]

You state that we have all these accidents with nuclear power. The pertinent question is: How many died/injured by the events?

Again you quickly try to pass reality, effects of radiation takes years to develop, and you keep denying the dead people through Tsjernobyl, so what is the reason to repeat myself?

Your wind turbine production line has about 100 accidents per year, per factory (A pretty standard accident rate in factories). Very few, if any are killed or even injured however. Using your proposed logic, manufacturing plants are unsafe, and we need to abandon them.

Nice statement, do you have any proof of those accidents? or a valued and peer reviewed source of those accidents?


So, answer the question: How many died, or were injured by this PBR event you sourced? I'll forgive the fact that it's a clearly anti-nuclear power web site you grabbed it from.

That was not the question, the statement was that pebble reactors were absolutely safe, i made good points they weren't that flawless, and many countries stop looking into them for the same reason.
That it was an anti nuclear site? the info was correct, so what is your beef with that?, lost with valid arguments?, so blame the site that comes up with correct data?
That shows some clear and unbiased thinking, i read both sides of the argument and i am just as critical for both sides.

[W1GUH]

Wow, a thread with discussions of both GW and nuke plants. Maybe smoking pot makes both problems go away? Especially with no-code hams?

[NQ6U]

Wow, a thread with discussions of both GW and nuke plants. Maybe smoking pot makes both problems go away? Especially with no-code hams?

Only if the hams are not contesters.

[NA4BH]

Only if the hams are not contesters.

Running QRP.

[ki4itv]

Or Winlink'ers
Send it like you stole it.;)

[KC2UGV]

That was not the question, the statement was that pebble reactors were absolutely safe, i made good points they weren't that flawless, and many countries stop looking into them for the same reason.
That it was an anti nuclear site? the info was correct, so what is your beef with that?, lost with valid arguments?, so blame the site that comes up with correct data?
That shows some clear and unbiased thinking, i read both sides of the argument and i am just as critical for both sides.

Nothing is absolutely safe. Not even water.

The info is automatically suspect, when it is not sourced to reliable sourcing, and comes from an obviously biased source.

[NQ6U]

Nothing is absolutely safe. Not even water.

In fact, water is quite dangerous stuff (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html).

[W1GUH]

In fact, water is quite dangerous stuff (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html).

Nowhere in that link did they say wheter or not it's addictive. Are they keeping that a secret so as to promote rancorous debate amongst the citizenry?