Fukushima - The cover-up, the lies, the facts & the figures

[Grassland Blue]

I think that rocket technology is sound enough these days, with all due respect.

 

[purplenose]

I think that rocket technology is sound enough these days, with all due respect.

Still see a few blow up on the launchpad or soon after launch, would only take one full of nuclear waste to blow up at Kennedy and no more Disney Land Florida.

 

[i kne albert davy]

I think that rocket technology is sound enough these days, with all due respect.

I certainly wouldn't fancy several tons of waste nuclear material scattered in the atmosphere 30 miles up when one go's wrong.

 

[aguero93:20]

Fukushima was exceptional in that outside factors (an earthquake followed by a tsunami) caused the problems there. The chance of a similar combination of events must be millions to one.

It's not millions to one when you build the thing on the east coast of Japan is it though? That's like building one on the slopes of Mt. Etna and then holding your hands up saying "how were we supposed to know that was going to happen" when the fucker erupts, or building one on the San Francisco fault line and acting surprised when an earthquake causes a meltdown. :)

 

[TonyM]

It's not millions to one when you build the thing on the east coast of Japan is it though? That's like building one on the slopes of Mt. Etna and then holding your hands up saying "how were we supposed to know that was going to happen" when the fucker erupts, or building one on the San Francisco fault line and acting surprised when an earthquake causes a meltdown. :)

You've got a knack for a good disaster movie plot. Go to LA and make your fortunes. ;-)

 

[west didsblue]

Even my Dad has said nuclear power should get the cold shoulder, i was shocked at that. Having seen the devastation and recently watched updates on it then i have to agree, when one goes wrong the consequences are to severe imo. We now have more people employed in the renewable power source industry than the rest combined. I feel will will regret not being decisive with moving to renewable sources in many parts of the world in a few years.

The problem with that logic is that although Fukushima was the second worst nuclear accident ever, no-one was actually killed as a result of it and even the long term effects on life expectancy of people who were nearby at the time is expected to be negligible. Compare that with deaths as a result of any other energy generating industry including wind power and nuclear looks very favourable. At the moment the argument for not pursuing a nuclear energy strategy is economic due to the high cost of building the facilities.

 

[aguero93:20]

The problem with that logic is that although Fukushima was the second worst nuclear accident ever, no-one was actually killed as a result of it and even the long term effects on life expectancy of people who were nearby at the time is expected to be negligible. Compare that with deaths as a result of any other energy generating industry including wind power and nuclear looks very favourable. At the moment the argument for not pursuing a nuclear energy strategy is economic due to the high cost of building the facilities.

What about the long term ecological effects of the accident? Water is a major resource as are the fisheries and there was a ridiculous amount of radioactive waste leaked into the biggest body of water on the planet as a result.

 

[west didsblue]

What about the long term ecological effects of the accident? Water is a major resource as are the fisheries and there was a ridiculous amount of radioactive waste leaked into the biggest body of water on the planet as a result.

Hard to say but maybe not as bad as some feared.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161018141309.htm

I have to say that building a nuclear reactor on a fault line didn't seem to be the best of ideas but using the accident as justification for not using nuclear power at all doesn't seem right. The lesson learnt is not to build a power station in an earthquake zone susceptible to tsunamis I would have thought.

 

[aguero93:20]

Hard to say but maybe not as bad as some feared.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161018141309.htm

I have to say that building a nuclear reactor on a fault line didn't seem to be the best of ideas but using the accident as justification for not using nuclear power at all doesn't seem right. The lesson learnt is not to build a power station in an earthquake zone susceptible to tsunamis I would have thought.

Still worse than was necessary, surely they should have realised that the west coast of the island was a far better bet than the east given past events?

 

[west didsblue]

Still worse than was necessary, surely they should have realised that the west coast of the island was a far better bet than the east given past events?

Can't disagree with that.