Discussion in 'Current Affairs & Debate' started by Suedey, Mar 11, 2011.
She can definitely climb it when she wakes up. Saved!
Oh my god I hope that cats ok
this is all so
it shouldn't take a natural disaster to review nuclear safety. It should be fucking safe full stop.
I hate the mentality of wait for something bad to happen before fixing it. Not everything has to be driven by keeping the mass rabble and the media outlets from grabbing their pitchforks.
Don't worry it's in a better state than the various schools, hospitals, orphanages, homes, offices, shops, boats, cars, trains, and factories in the area.
It's like installing speed cameras on a dangerous road after someone's died. Why does someone have to die for someone to stand up and realise the road was dangerous? It makes me so angry.
Germany, China and others (but they're the biggest two) aren't exactly likely to encounter any 9.0 earthquakes any time soon so to put their nuclear programmes indefinitely on hold because a country ON A FAULT-LINE has encountered one strikes me as just talk to please the masses.
China has loads of earthquakes
If it takes a 9.0 earthquake and a 10 meter tsunami to slowly destabilize a 40 year old nuclear power plant, that's indication enough for me that it's safe.
Meanwhile, China and Korea are getting understandibly antsy if their dialect with Japanese officials is anything to go by.
I realise my cat post wasn't very sensitive!
I just love all the ARMCHAIR EXPERTS dispensing their great WISDOM and ADVICE on the NEWS WEBSITE COMMENT THREADS
Yeah 'cause OBVIOUSLY YOU KNOW BEST
Yes, but they also have lots of space to place their nuclear plants away from human life and from fault lines, which I'm assuming/hoping would be the plan. Japan doesn't have that option.
The thing is, it's not the earthquakes causing the problem, the reactor survived that fine, it was just the tsunami! They are by the sea just for that ready supply of water, but I guess those are the risks. If they could get a useful water source inland I'm sure they would use it
Come on now all you pro-nuclear peeps. No one is saying the UK is at risk of 9.0 earthquakes or tsunamis but you cannot ignore the threats we are faced with: sea surges, um, TERRORISM.
More nuclear power plants are proposed for the UK. Additional nuclear subsidies are proposed for the UK. Meanwhile we could be investing and capitalising on renewable energy, creating a hell of a lot of jobs in the process.
Im not really pro or anti, I'm just pro-RATIONALITY, and that seems a bit sparse lately
Ok granted I haven't seen specifically them talking about tsunamis in the uk, but the reactions all seem to be like "this could all happen here". I would understands if it was, say, a fault in a plane which had implications for everyone using that kind of plane, but it's not like that.
The reactors as far as I can tell were fine until this tsunami hit, so this exact event is unlikely to arise in the huge majority of cases.
We have our own issues like flooding etc, but there are features in reactors for these sorts of things, passive safety so even if it's just flooded and left alone, it can still be safe without anyone doing this.
I dont think bringing terrorism into this is relevant, that can affect an oil refinery or a solar farm just as much, you can't just wander in and nick a uranium core, even if there were no people to stop you!
Btw I wasn't trying to imply you were being irrational kitty, I meant the evil media etc
Renewable energy sources (let's take wind and solar as an example) still just aren't at that level yet where they can provide 100% of a country like the UK's needs. Like Floppet said earlier in this thread, the premise is good, but there's still major problems with reliability. Nuclear energy, if handled correctly, is a good alternative alongside renewable energy and we should be working on how to keep it safe. Not on how to get rid of it all together when we've spent the last 40 years piling money into it and slowly expanding our own programme.
And anyway, France has TONS of nuclear power stations, so if one of them explodes, we're pretty much doomed anyway.
Good, all of that Tisch I couldn't tippy tap all that out on my phone just after I woke up.
What is all this anti-nuclear shit? Chernobyl was a communist fuck up. Fukushima was caused by one of the worlds worst disasters. That's two. Two. I wonder how much the smog used to kill every winter in London? That wasn't just 1950s fog. That was caused by industry. Nuclear power has killed how many in the UK?
The USA and Europe can stand pretty proud of their record. A Three Mile Island or Windscale is hardly enough to justify stopping the whole thing.
And yes renewable energy is something we will no doubt see the advancement of in the next few decades, but we can't run the nation on what amounts to a few wind farms at present. And going back to the filthy ways of the past is not an option.
Yes I am a Green voter. A realistic one.
That's what depresses me about this. The hippie-types must be having an absolute field day. They're probably pooing in a bag as we speak.
But I think all this business with the SPENT FUEL RODS will make people think a bit more about what never seems to get mentioned much in NUCLEAR DEBATES - WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH ALL THE SHIT THAT'S LEFT OVER AFTERWARDS and is dangerously radioactive for THOUSANDS of YEARS?
Space would be my choice of location for fuel rods.
The same as what they've been doing with it? I've no idea what that is mind as I'm no nuclear expert.
They don't KNOW what to do with it, that's why it's just LYING AROUND at these places. They used to send it all to Sellafield but they shut the reprocessing plant down there because it was so DODGY. Their NEW plan seems to be DIG A BIG HOLE IN THE GROUND AND THROW IT ALL IN
Recycle (if they can), bury them as deep as possible or keep them in permanent storage!
Again, I'm no expert, but surely digging a big hole in the ground is the most logical option? Provided that hole's not near human life of course.
Oh shut the fuck up. It's not about 'having a field day' it's about taking action on an issue which has been brought into the limelight but is an ongoing threat and something which needs to be addressed. Don't resort to stereotypes and cliches; it really weakens your argument.
There are parallels with animal testing here; we need to put more money into alternatives rather than relying on the current problematic source. Plus we need to vastly improve energy efficiency and clean up fossil fuels. We need to think about the future. We're burying our heads in the sand about nuclear, as well as burying the dangerous waste which we have no safe way of disposing. Huge amounts of taxpayers' money is subsidising the nuclear industry, and it's not a sustainable one to support.
Woah! No need for that! You can't deny there are some militant Hippy-types out there that must be loving all this. The fact stands, this has happened because of an enormous freak of nature. You can prepare for an earthquake all you want, but when a massive one hits, it's going to cause damage to nuclear plants and whatever else happens to be around there.
They are. Wind energy et al is improving all the time, but it still isn't quite there yet. Nuclear is the most reliable renewable energy source at the moment, so why not spend money on improving that as well? (I know it's not technically 'renewable', but I'm grouping it away from coal and oil for argument's sake).
Are we? We all know the dangers, hence why all these safety checks are being carried out all over the world.
Blah blah blah tax payers' money blah blah blah. Tax payers' money is spent on about 50 trillion things. It's such a poor argument for anything.
That's oversimplifying things. Why focus on that aspect when the overwhelming thing to highlight amongst this is the need to review our use of nuclear and the need to do more to champion and develop renewables.
Again, too simplistic. More money is being invested in nuclear than renewables. This has to change.
AFTER the disaster in Japan, not before.
How is taxpayer's money a poor argument when taxes are rising and services are being cut?! You cannot be blase about these things. It's delusional and pathetic.
Interesting Grist article.
I don't see what's wrong with putting money into the only form of power generation that can definitely fulfil our energy needs for the next 100 years. It undeniable that there are problems with nuclear, but they're much smaller than those that would have to be overcome to make any combination of renewables the sole source of power. Of course we should be researching renewable energy, but putting all of our eggs in a renewabel basket would be short sighted in the extreme.
Not at all as this will then infect the water body which is underneath in the ground spreading the contamination to tap water, plants, animals and us.
I don't always agree with Monbiot.. but I do this time
The chart linked there is here: http://xkcd.com/radiation/ .. very interesting.
We must cut fossil fuel usage. Nuclear is there as well as wind, hydro etc etc etc. The answer is to not rule anything out and certainly not rely on one particular source of power. It's going to be difficult to get all the power we need from renewables, that's just a fact. Likewise we can't rush proposals on nuclear. The situation in Japan is an outlier and shouldn't muddy our perspective.
I am honestly REALLY FUCKING CONCERNED for that cat. Does anybody know if it survived?!
I've been praying every night.
GOD SPEED DAMP MOGGY
I think it's important to say that anti-nuclear campaigners are not anti-nuclear because of Japan, it just adds to the argument.
but it shouldn't add to the argument. old, failing reactor with apparently bad staffing withstands an 8.9 earthquake, massive tsumani, explosions and fires and is still only emitting reletively tiny amounts of radiation and is at no risk of meltdown since the hydro cooling system can't heat up and any meltdown would go into underground containment ANYWAY.
Gen3 reactors eliminate all the inherent design flaws as well.
We'll all be fine.
The cat died.