A Different Chernobyl

The problem with nuclear power and "this is too dangerous!!!!!" is also the waste built up.

So coal plants must all be shut down immediately? Not only do they produce FAR more HazMat per Kw/h, they even bring radiation to the surface and concentrate it in their waste.

That a nuclear plant operating in normal circumstances is not dangerous is not nearly as big a deal as the fact a disaster really is a major disaster by definition, so I find that less than convincing.

Define "major disaster". While such a definition is subjective, my own includes "lots of people die as a direct result". Among nuclear incidents, only Chernobyl qualifies to the best of my knowledge. Compare that to plane crashes, coal-mine explosions, or earthquakes.

Speaking as someone anti-nuclear and a pessimist...but determined not to let either become an ideological thing on my part.

Thank you for being both honest and open minded. Hopefully I can persuade you. :)

Not sure if it needs a 9.0 earthquake to be Oh My God Disaster either - but even 8.something are uncommon, speaking as a Californian (as in, someone who lives where earthquakes can be expected now and then).

Again looking at Japan, and again acknowledging that I lack complete information, the quake itself did not cause anything but what would have been a temporary shut down. Had the tsunami not destroyed both the primary and secondary generators there would have been no hazard from the plant beyond normal operations (I can't say any power plant is truly 'safe' since they tend to contain large amounts of high-energy steam, which can be extremely dangerous). Had the plant been a mile inland or behind a better seawall...
 
So coal plants must all be shut down immediately? Not only do they produce FAR more HazMat per Kw/h, they even bring radiation to the surface and concentrate it in their waste.

Not to the extent nuclear power does, unless you have some evidence on that waste remaining dangerous and hard to store safely for an equivalent length of time.

Also, I wouldn't mind seeing coal plants shut down. Coal is ridiculously filthy.

I'm not sure if there are any good replacements, however, but saying "and coal is dangerous too, why don't you oppose that?" won't go anywhere.

Define "major disaster". While such a definition is subjective, my own includes "lots of people die as a direct result". Among nuclear incidents, only Chernobyl qualifies to the best of my knowledge. Compare that to plane crashes, coal-mine explosions, or earthquakes.

"Lots of people die as a direct result" and/or long term damage to the area - if the cancer rates skyrocket, even if few people are killed in the disaster itself, I'd count it as a major disaster. Not sure if this is part of your definition of "direct", but its part of mine for major disaster.

And I think for purposes of this we need to stick to comparable scenarios - coal mine explosions and oil spills, yes, plane crashes no.

Thank you for being both honest and open minded. Hopefully I can persuade you. :)

Open minded might be generous. But hopefully, because the good aspects of nuclear power are real and the alternatives do also suck. There are no unambiguously good choices here.

So your task if you want to change my mind is to convince me that the likelihood of disaster and danger of disaster are sufficiently low to be compared to the alternatives, since all things being even on that front, nuclear power is unambiguously superior to coal or oil or natural gas.

Disaster & routine operation, but routine operation other than nuclear waste is pretty safe.

And solar and wind are underdeveloped at this point, so they're not a viable option as a replacement - worth research, yes, but that's it, so that's easy to ignore for purposes of our discussion.

Additionally, we probably need to compare the extraction of the material necessary for nuclear power and any processing to that needed for other forms of power, since that is part of the process.

I don't know enough about it to say anything, but if you're going to mention the dangers of coal mining, the dangers with uranium have to at least be glanced at for the sake of completeness.

Again looking at Japan, and again acknowledging that I lack complete information, the quake itself did not cause anything but what would have been a temporary shut down. Had the tsunami not destroyed both the primary and secondary generators there would have been no hazard from the plant beyond normal operations (I can't say any power plant is truly 'safe' since they tend to contain large amounts of high-energy steam, which can be extremely dangerous). Had the plant been a mile inland or behind a better seawall...

We probably wouldn't be wondering if this will be a horrible situation - though I think this counts as a disaster of the nonnuclear sort for purposes of the kind of risks we have to worry about. That is, nuclear power didn't cause this, it just got involved. Bad enough, but different.

Was the tsunami a result of the quake (in which case whether it takes a quake that serious to be that bad should come up), or was it just a double whammy, incidentally? I haven't been following, you presumably have at least to some extent.
 
Also, I wouldn't mind seeing coal plants shut down. Coal is ridiculously filthy.

I'm not sure if there are any good replacements, however, but saying "and coal is dangerous too, why don't you oppose that?" won't go anywhere.

Quite happy to continue using the electricity it produces though aren't you....


Was the tsunami a result of the quake (in which case whether it takes a quake that serious to be that bad should come up), or was it just a double whammy, incidentally? I haven't been following, you presumably have at least to some extent.

:eek::eek::eek:

This board really needs to assess who it lets make posts......
 
Quite happy to continue using the electricity it produces though aren't you....

Not particularly, no. I regard coal as less bad than some of the alternatives, however.

:eek::eek::eek:

This board really needs to assess who it lets make posts......
I find current events depressing, so I pay minimal attention to them.

And if you're referring to my knowledge or lack thereof in regards to tsunamis, its not something that gets extensively covered in the Teach Children to Pass Standardized Tests curriculum American public schools have fallen into.

"You say we go round the sun. If we went around the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or my work." - Sherlock Holmes.

My interests lie in history and human psychology. The source of tsunamis is almost irrelevant, just as details of astronomy are of no use to Holmes.

In other words: What the ::censored:: are you going on about?
 
And if you're referring to my knowledge or lack thereof in regards to tsunamis, its not something that gets extensively covered in the Teach Children to Pass Standardized Tests curriculum American public schools have fallen into.

"You say we go round the sun. If we went around the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or my work." - Sherlock Holmes.

My interests lie in history and human psychology. The source of tsunamis is almost irrelevant, just as details of astronomy are of no use to Holmes.

In other words: What the ::censored:: are you going on about?

I'm referring to your lack of knowledge of the world around you - you almost sound like a politician with the level of ignorance you have just demonstrated.

To not know after around 4 weeks that the tsunami was caused by an earthquake and then the admit to that........:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
I'm referring to your lack of knowledge of the world around you - you almost sound like a politician with the level of ignorance you have just demonstrated.

To not know after around 4 weeks that the tsunami was caused by an earthquake and then the admit to that........:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

And you almost sound like a troll, but I'm in a reasonably good mood today and don't feel like reporting you for being insulting (referring to your earlier post about how I shouldn't be posting here more than the comment about sounding like a politician).

As stated, I don't follow current events very thoroughly because they leave me feeling upset and angry at the world, in a "Why don't we use nuclear weapons to solve overpopulation? Can't f--k things up more than they are already." sort of way.

And its not healthy to think like that, even as a stress release. It is the kind of direction my thoughts go when I get upset with world events, however.

So, do you have something constructive to say, or do you just want to be rude?
 
Not to the extent nuclear power does, unless you have some evidence on that waste remaining dangerous and hard to store safely for an equivalent length of time.

It is indeed quite hazardous for long periods of time; I used to live in PA, and periodically noted yet another story about run-off from the ash piles putting "x" hazardous material into "y" river. Lots of nasty stuff in coal tailings, ash, and slag. To give an idea of the scale of the problem, there are entire artificial hills near Pittsburgh made from the waste from coal plants. They still radiate heat that can be felt to the touch. It is quite a disturbing experience.

Also, I wouldn't mind seeing coal plants shut down. Coal is ridiculously filthy.

I'm not sure if there are any good replacements, however, but saying "and coal is dangerous too, why don't you oppose that?" won't go anywhere.

Fair enough.

"Lots of people die as a direct result" and/or long term damage to the area - if the cancer rates skyrocket, even if few people are killed in the disaster itself, I'd count it as a major disaster. Not sure if this is part of your definition of "direct", but its part of mine for major disaster.

The simple fact of human presence has a distressing tendency to cause long term-damage to an area. Strip mining for coal would qualify as a disaster just through normal operations.

And I think for purposes of this we need to stick to comparable scenarios - coal mine explosions and oil spills, yes, plane crashes no.
Fair enough.

Open minded might be generous. But hopefully, because the good aspects of nuclear power are real and the alternatives do also suck. There are no unambiguously good choices here.

So your task if you want to change my mind is to convince me that the likelihood of disaster and danger of disaster are sufficiently low to be compared to the alternatives, since all things being even on that front, nuclear power is unambiguously superior to coal or oil or natural gas.

Disaster & routine operation, but routine operation other than nuclear waste is pretty safe.

A reasonable proposition. FYI, my own ranking of 'best' sources puts hydro-electric as far and away #1, since it is truly renewable and can be very environmentally friendly if done properly. Also, if done properly, naturally-occurring hazards are minimal. Nuclear is #2. "Well, why not use all-hydro?" There just isn't enough available, as it requires geographical features that are impractical to produce artificially. "Burning stuff" (oil, natural gas, coal, wood) is a distant third, and solar/wind/geothermal a fairly close fourth in theory and a fairly distant fourth in current practice. Fusion would probably jump to #1.5 or so once it is developed into a working power-generation technology.

And solar and wind are underdeveloped at this point, so they're not a viable option as a replacement - worth research, yes, but that's it, so that's easy to ignore for purposes of our discussion.
Thank you, though I'm an advocate of space-based solar arrays and beamed power for the mid-future. :)

Additionally, we probably need to compare the extraction of the material necessary for nuclear power and any processing to that needed for other forms of power, since that is part of the process.

I don't know enough about it to say anything, but if you're going to mention the dangers of coal mining, the dangers with uranium have to at least be glanced at for the sake of completeness.
Certainly.

Was the tsunami a result of the quake (in which case whether it takes a quake that serious to be that bad should come up),

Yes. Tsunamis of any notable size are only caused by large quakes or big rocks falling from the sky AFAIK. The storm surge from a hurricane/cyclone is similar but apparently technically different for reasons that I have no clue about.

Would you prefer to continue the discussion here or via PM?
 
For those worried about the hazards of storing spent nuclear fuel, I have just to words for you: Nuclear Reprocessing. The Genocide's link is here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing

With Nuclear reprocessing, you can use up the spent fuel, generate more enriched Uranium for use in commercial reactors, and increase the efficiency of the entire fuel process. The downside to this is that it generates weapons grade plutonium, which is seen as a bad thing.

The US used to reprocess its nuclear fuel, but Carter killed off the government run program in the 70's, and it's cheaper to not reprocess. The Feds also promised a safe place to store America's spent fuel by 1988. This was supposed to be Yucca Mountain, but NIMBYism and politics have killed it, pretty much.
 
It is indeed quite hazardous for long periods of time; I used to live in PA, and periodically noted yet another story about run-off from the ash piles putting "x" hazardous material into "y" river. Lots of nasty stuff in coal tailings, ash, and slag. To give an idea of the scale of the problem, there are entire artificial hills near Pittsburgh made from the waste from coal plants. They still radiate heat that can be felt to the touch. It is quite a disturbing experience.

Long periods and centuries and centuries are two different things, though point taken. This is something conveniently not mentioned in general by the anti-nuclear crowd.

Where would you put the other forms of "burning stuff" in this regard? Assuming no spills or the like, since those are not routine operation consequences the way the coal slag is.

Fair enough.
Thank you.

The simple fact of human presence has a distressing tendency to cause long term-damage to an area. Strip mining for coal would qualify as a disaster just through normal operations.
Yep. See above question on oil and the other alternatives.

Fair enough.
Again, thank you. Easier to discuss this if we're not getting caught up in side issues.

A reasonable proposition. FYI, my own ranking of 'best' sources puts hydro-electric as far and away #1, since it is truly renewable and can be very environmentally friendly if done properly. Also, if done properly, naturally-occurring hazards are minimal. Nuclear is #2. "Well, why not use all-hydro?" There just isn't enough available, as it requires geographical features that are impractical to produce artificially. "Burning stuff" (oil, natural gas, coal, wood) is a distant third, and solar/wind/geothermal a fairly close fourth in theory and a fairly distant fourth in current practice. Fusion would probably jump to #1.5 or so once it is developed into a working power-generation technology.
This is pretty hard to argue with, but I'd put nuclear just behind "burning stuff". Its downsides are very ugly if very improbable, just as "burning stuff" is more regularly bad but less catastrophic. Trade offs.

Not to mention that coal and oil and natural gas are a disaster of a greater or lesser level to extract, which is a reason to hope and work for better alternatives ASAP. Uranium...good question. Mining is unlikely to be environmentally friendly by definition.

Thank you, though I'm an advocate of space-based solar arrays and beamed power for the mid-future. :)
No problem with that myself, but its not something we can use now, so while that's being developed we need one of the less desirable options.

And is it just me, or is that just plain awesome in a Technology is Cool sort of way? Totally irrelevant, but it just occurred to me.

Yes. Tsunamis of any notable size are only caused by large quakes or big rocks falling from the sky AFAIK. The storm surge from a hurricane/cyclone is similar but apparently technically different for reasons that I have no clue about.
Gotcha.

Would you prefer to continue the discussion here or via PM?
PM. Responding here out of convenience's sake.
 
Last edited:
And you almost sound like a troll, but I'm in a reasonably good mood today and don't feel like reporting you for being insulting (referring to your earlier post about how I shouldn't be posting here more than the comment about sounding like a politician).

If you are going to start talking about current events - earthquake, tsunami, Japanese reactors of a questionable design then it is wise to actually know something about what happened, a 5 second search on the internet would have done the job.
 
Another factor at Fukushima was that the reactors involved were of a older generation, Unit 1 was approaching it's 40th anniversary when the disaster struck and therefore were entirely dependent on the operation of the cooling system. Modern reactors are designed to incorporate "passive cooling" which uses the natural convection created by decay heat to keep the coolant flowing through the core even if all the coolant pumps have been knocked out as happened at Fukushima.

In hindsight yes it was a bad idea to build a nuclear power plant in an area so prone to tsunamis but had this been a more modern reactor design then subsequent events would have been different.
 
If you are going to start talking about current events - earthquake, tsunami, Japanese reactors of a questionable design then it is wise to actually know something about what happened, a 5 second search on the internet would have done the job.

It is also wise to know something about what events and issues my post and argument is focused on before criticizing me for asking here about the source of the tsunami as an "Oh by the way while I have your attention." question.
 
Last edited:
It is also wise to know something about what events and issues my post and argument is focused on before criticizing me for asking here about the source of the tsunami as an "Oh by the way while I have your attention." question.

No, you used Japan as an example without knowing or even bothering to find out that the major problem was caused by the earthquake generated tsunami that was higher than planned for, without mentioning the design is a 30 years old one that wouldn't get built now and that even though it is an old design it survived an earthquake that was more powerful than it was designed to handle.
 
And if you're referring to my knowledge or lack thereof in regards to tsunamis, its not something that gets extensively covered in the Teach Children to Pass Standardized Tests curriculum American public schools have fallen into.

Er, a school not teaching about Tsunamis? I learned that so long ago I can't remember when I exactly did learn it..........
 
Yes. Tsunamis of any notable size are only caused by large quakes or big rocks falling from the sky AFAIK. The storm surge from a hurricane/cyclone is similar but apparently technically different for reasons that I have no clue about.

Tropical storms have lower air pressure than normal, which causes the water levels directly underneath them to rise. The lower the pressure the bigger the bulge of water. This bulge travels with the storm. It can be made worse by full moons and high tides.

Torqumada
 
No, you used Japan as an example without knowing or even bothering to find out that the major problem was caused by the earthquake generated tsunami that was higher than planned for, without mentioning the design is a 30 years old one that wouldn't get built now and that even though it is an old design it survived an earthquake that was more powerful than it was designed to handle.

Please reread:
Elfwine said:
We probably wouldn't be wondering if this will be a horrible situation - though I think this counts as a disaster of the nonnuclear sort for purposes of the kind of risks we have to worry about. That is, nuclear power didn't cause this, it just got involved. Bad enough, but different.

Or in even plainer English: If the plant hadn't been hit as it was, we wouldn't be worried about whether or not the natural disaster caused problems here. So I am not using this as an example because I don't think the situation is a nuclear disaster for purposes of this discussion. It is a natural disaster that happened to impact a nuclear plant.

Other people may be using it as an example of nuclear danger, I am deliberately not doing so here.

Grey Antarctica said:
Er, a school not teaching about Tsunamis? I learned that so long ago I can't remember when I exactly did learn it..........

I wouldn't say they were never mentioned, but I would say it wasn't exactly something they tried very hard to ensure we understood or remembered, either.
 
Last edited:
Top