TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Massive Quake Hits Japan!
Pages (29): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 »

^^^^ but building a nuclear plant in a region that is prone to earth quakes .. boils down to plain stupidity yet the number of live nuclear bomb tests far outweight the number of nuclear plant accidents ..

I'm with nou on this one...

quote:

Originally posted by colin traveller ^^^^ but building a nuclear plant in a region that is prone to earth quakes .. boils down to plain stupidity yet the number of live nuclear bomb tests far outweight the number of nuclear plant accidents ..

Building a nuclear plant in a region prone to earthquakes is fine. If this had just been an earthquake there would be no crisis. The issue came at Fukushima #1 when the tsunami hit and flooded out the generator rooms, which were built at ground level. The sea-wall built to protect against a tsunami were not meant to protect against one so large (remember this earthquake is considered a 1 in 10,000 year event, as in, this is not something anyone was predicting, even after expanding out and revising to over-compensate in designing that sea-wall).

There are dozens and dozens of nuclear plants built in and around fault lines, and they will be perfectly fine if their back up generators work and the plants initiate automatic shutdown procedures (like the Japanese plants did!). As long as the cooling systems stay intact the reactors are fine, they will cool down to the point where they are no longer a risk, and then the plants can start back up again.

You point on nuclear weapons. The US, Russians, British, Chinese and French all conducted atmospheric nuclear tests for MANY years, detonating thousands of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, a lot of the very inefficient and producing lots of fallout. The amount of heavy radiation released by nuclear testing is so much more than anything we will see here. Fortunately most of it was dispersed over time and caused limited damage, but remember that a crew of a Japanese fishing vessel was killed by fallout from the unexpected yield and winds of the Castle Bravo test. Also towns in Utah and eastern Nevada were heavily covered in radiation from testing at the Nevada test site. What happened in the Soviet testing areas was even worse, often people were still living within close distances of the blast ranges, having their windows blown out and being covered in radioactive fall out.

Again, all of this is worse than what is going to happen at Fukushima #1.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby If you know anything about nuclear reactors, even very basic operating principals, you'd understand what I am saying, but no, apparently you don't. The reactor is designed to fail gracefully and so far that is what its doing. Yea its horrible and scary, omg fires and explosions, but if you look at it from a rational engineering standpoint you'd understand that things are about as bad as they can get right now, and I mean that in a way to suggest that its limited to what is happening right now. No one ever denied that there would be large radioactive increases in the immediate local area, no one ever said there wouldn't be some radiation released, no one ever said there wouldn't be explosions or fires in the fuel pools. No one said that, what everyone who has a clue has been saying is that there is a bad situation, but do not blow it out of proportion and cause panic. The amount of radiation extending into populated areas, that haven't been evacuated is minimal, short term, and not a threat, especially if people keep inside. The reactors, even if they have undergone a partial meltdown are COOLING DOWN NATURALLY because they are no longer producing a fission reaction. Even if some of the fuel rods have been exposed, the ceramic fuel pellets are more than likely still intact and still in configuration. If the core breaches on the bottom, the molten fuel will pool across an area that prevents it from sustaining a fission reaction, and will also be easier to cool, since it is no longer inside a pressure vessel. Yes radiation will be a huge issue, the area will probably be closed off and abandoned for decades, but it will be a small, small area. This is fact, this is what is going to happen, why you doubt this I do not know...

Here's how I qualify bad. No nuclear reactors have been built in the USA since 3 mile island. This is far worse than that. A number of experts are rating this 5-6 on a scale of 7 (seven being the worst). So whether or not there is fallout reaching the USA or any of the other qualifiers you have listed is a moot point. No one knows about the integrity of the containment wall now or going forward.

Please keep blabber on.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow Here's how I qualify bad. No nuclear reactors have been built in the USA since 3 mile island. This is far worse than that. A number of experts are rating this 5-6 on a scale of 7 (seven being the worst). So whether or not there is fallout reaching the USA or any of the other qualifiers you have listed is a moot point. No one knows about the integrity of the containment wall now or going forward. Please keep blabber on.

That scale right now is very relative to the people observing and when and where they are.

Yes, this is worse than 3 Mile Island, but I don't know how no plants being built after relates, besides maybe to your stupidity and uneducated fear of nuclear power.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby That scale right now is very relative to the people observing and when and where they are.

Including you? I know they are only nuclear scientists, so we should give your ratings and opinions more weight...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Building a nuclear plant in a region prone to earthquakes is fine. If this had just been an earthquake there would be no crisis. The issue came at Fukushima #1 when the tsunami hit and flooded out the generator rooms, which were built at ground level. The sea-wall built to protect against a tsunami were not meant to protect against one so large (remember this earthquake is considered a 1 in 10,000 year event, as in, this is not something anyone was predicting, even after expanding out and revising to over-compensate in designing that sea-wall).
........................

Am actually astonished that you firmly believe the risks are acceptable .. to build plants in regions that are prone to Earthquakes

Consider the tsunami was 30ft in max height reportedly .. 30ft is SFA in sailing in storm force seas as this video will show you and please notice that the flight deck sits 60ft above the water line ..and still the waves come over the top again that blows your claim that the 30ft waves is only a 1 in 10,000 year event ..

when waves of such height are a common occurance out at sea

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccn3ieux6iU

the plant is being evacuated because the risk is too great ...

taken from sky news ....press release 15mins ago


Japan has withdrawn all of its workers from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, saying it is too dangerous after a surge in radiation.

The decision comes after a second fire broke out in number 4 reactor after a prior blaze had not been properly extinguished.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said the workers dousing the reactors in a frantic effort to cool them needed to withdraw.

"The workers cannot carry out even minimal work at the plant now," Edano said.

The latest fire is believed to have started in the outer housing of the reactor's containment vessel.

The flames were brought under control but white smoke or steam has been seen rising from the facility in the northeast of the earthquake and tsunami devastated country.

Officials have been struggling to address the failure of safety systems at several of the plant's reactors.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby maybe to your stupidity and uneducated fear of nuclear power.

I bet if you were living in northEast Japan right now, you'd be shitting yourself.

The workers have returned to the plant.

Also, I'll say this again. The earthquake didn't cause this issue, the tsunami did.

Its perfectly safe to build nuclear power plants in earthquake zones. It is not safe to build their redundant systems below the water level of a potential tsunami though.

quote:

Originally posted by Mmanu I bet if you were living in northEast Japan right now, you'd be shitting yourself.

No, I wouldn't. I am not the type to shit myself in a disaster. I understand the consequences, the probabilities, and the risks, and I react to that. That is how you survive in situations like these, not by running around like a fucking retard gobbling down iodine pills 6000 miles away from a nuclear plant that is barely releasing dangerous levels of radiation into the atmosphere.

Rrrrright. Another mass bullshit e-provider.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Its perfectly safe to build nuclear power plants in earthquake zones.

The current situation looks very very safe indeed

quote:

Originally posted by Mmanu The current situation looks very very safe indeed

Well lets see... All the reactors that weren't hit by a tsunami are fine.... Kinda makes me think the earthquake wasn't the fucking problem.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Well lets see... All the reactors that weren't hit by a tsunami are fine....

Looks very fine indeed. I'm sure it's perfectly safe too.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby The workers have returned to the plant.

That's good news. Did they get the radiation under control then?

What source are you using for info?

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Well lets see... All the reactors that weren't hit by a tsunami are fine....

are you a TEPCO media rep or something ?

quote:

The workers have returned to the plant.

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


_______________

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Well lets see... All the reactors that weren't hit by a tsunami are fine.... Kinda makes me think the earthquake wasn't the fucking problem.

Earthquakes cause tsunamis. They are in a very volatile region, living on a fault line, on the water.

While I get what someone else said that it was more efficient, it's still a massive risk to take considering how likely they are to experience catastrophes like this one. I think using a safer, more expensive or less efficient source is better. All you need is one disaster to fuck up the lives of every single person around the plant... not worth the risk in my opinion.

Also, it really does leave the country vulnerable. In a case of terrorism or war, all you gotta do is blow up a nuclear plant and you win. Again... risks outweigh the benefits from the way I see it.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby stupidity and uneducated

Pot. Kettle. Black

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk That's good news. Did they get the radiation under control then? What source are you using for info?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...3065754088.html


They only moved temporarily.

quote:

Originally posted by Mmanu Pot. Kettle. Black

You are entitled to agree with him or not, but it's pretty clear he is educated on this matter.

quote:

Originally posted by WittyHandle You are entitled to agree with him or not, but it's pretty clear he is educated on this matter.

Assuming that the tsunami was the problem and not the earthquake shows a clear lack of knowledge regarding cause and effect.

quote:

All the reactors that weren't hit by a tsunami are fine.... Kinda makes me think the earthquake wasn't the fucking problem.

I rest my case. It does look fine.

quote:

people are making it out to be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay worse than it is or will be,

Will be. Cristal ball much?

quote:

The reactor is designed to fail gracefully and so far that is what its doing.

quote:

Originally posted by Mmanu Assuming that the tsunami was the problem and not the earthquake shows a clear lack of knowledge regarding cause and effect.

Yea, cause thats exactly what you meant when you said "its stupid to build reactors in earthquake zones."

I am sorry I didn't magically read that as "its stupid to build reactors in tsunami prone areas."

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...3065754088.html They only moved temporarily.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/201...adiation-spikes

The wall street journal is there to influence stock market exchange. Aka influence money movements.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/15/ca...apan/index.html



Pretty amazing...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.