four-wheel-drive Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Just a thought but am I the only person that thinks that it was not a good idea for the Japan to be building all of these Nuclear power stations in a country that is prone to have lots of earthquakes you could argue that they have not had a problem for the past 40 years but that could be just down to good luck. Nuclear power I think is a good thing but keep it to parts of the world that are relatively quake free Ie UK France etc that way it would leave the oil to be used by places like Japan. This situation in Japan is looking bad with the building blowing up I just hope that they get it under control before it spurts out to much radiation etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Just a thought but am I the only person that thinks that it was not a good idea for the Japan to be building all of these Nuclear power stations in a country that is prone to have lots of earthquakes you could argue that they have not had a problem for the past 40 years but that could be just down to good luck. Nuclear power I think is a good thing but keep it to parts of the world that are relatively quake free Ie UK France etc that way it would leave the oil to be used by places like Japan. This situation in Japan is looking bad with the building blowing up I just hope that they get it under control before it spurts out to much radiation etc. its not down to "good luck" its down to engineering and planning? we dont know whats gone on here, yes we have seen an explosion no it wasn't the reactor building dont know what it was or why it happened, my money is on one of two things hydrogen looking at the force of blast and lack of flame, or a station transformer going up when reconnected in attempts to re-establish grid supplies, either way not good but then not the end of the world either, especially for thsie dealling with the problems at the plant or those simply trying to cope after the tsunami. KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kay Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Its not looking very good theres just been a report from the Japanese government thats theres been a radiation leakage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
four-wheel-drive Posted March 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 its not down to "good luck" its down to engineering and planning? we dont know whats gone on here, yes we have seen an explosion no it wasn't the reactor building dont know what it was or why it happened, my money is on one of two things hydrogen looking at the force of blast and lack of flame, or a station transformer going up when reconnected in attempts to re-establish grid supplies, either way not good but then not the end of the world either, especially for thsie dealling with the problems at the plant or those simply trying to cope after the tsunami. KW So its all a coincidence and nothing to do with the earthquake I do not think so some how. why on earth would you put a thing like that on top of a geological fault line that is good planing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortune82 Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Japan has the problem of not really having any Coal, Oil or Gas of its own. Nuclear is and was the best solution for the country. At least Uranium comes from stable regions of the world. at least with Nuclear you aint being bent over a barrel by North Africa and The Middle East. Fun times ahead if Saudi Arabia goes the way of Libya!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
four-wheel-drive Posted March 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Japan has the problem of not really having any Coal, Oil or Gas of its own. Nuclear is and was the best solution for the country. At least Uranium comes from stable regions of the world. at least with Nuclear you aint being bent over a barrel by North Africa and The Middle East. Fun times ahead if Saudi Arabia goes the way of Libya!!! So what we got loads of coal but we cannot use it as it puts out to much **** we have been in the same boat and we mostly use Oil and Gas to generate electricity. what Nuclear we have is well past its sale by date. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) So its all a coincidence and nothing to do with the earthquake I do not think so some how. why on earth would you put a thing like that on top of a geological fault line that is good planing. did I actually say it was nothing to do with the earthquake? I said that the fact that they had not had a problem for 40 years was down to engineering and planning rather than good luck, have I put that simple enough for you to understand? KW Edited March 12, 2011 by kdubya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) So what we got loads of coal but we cannot use it as it puts out to much **** we have been in the same boat and we mostly use Oil and Gas to generate electricity. what Nuclear we have is well past its sale by date. is it all past its sell by date? KW Edited March 12, 2011 by kdubya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Nuclear is just far too dangerous to be a viable energy source. That little incident in Russia should have been enough to show the world how great nuclear is. There are too many variables to keep it safe; terrorists, earth quakes, meteor strikes or just plain badly thrown together by a crew of monkey hangers etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Chernobyl was a totally different situation I like the blame the moon theory tho! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 It just shows you that nothing is 100% absolutely safe. With nuclear, it's a bigger scale of what can go wrong if something does go wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleeh Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Wow! I never knew we had so many Nuclear physicists, city planners, and industrial architects on this website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 You don't need to have a science specific qualification to know that: 1. living within 100 miles of Chernobyl would be "bad" 2. when the roof blows off a Japanese nuclear facility that would also be "bad" It don't get much more complicated than that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleeh Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 You don't need to have a science specific qualification to know that: 1. living within 100 miles of Chernobyl would be "bad" 2. when the roof blows off a Japanese nuclear facility that would also be "bad" It don't get much more complicated than that You wouldn't think twice if it was a spill/fire at an Oil Refinery. It's just what you've been conditioned to, and what sounds more exciting for the press to print. Nuclear energy is like flying by air. It's very, very safe, you get a million road accidents to a single major airline plane crash - but that's hardly exciting; is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Point to one oil refinery, gas or coal fired station that went wrong to the extent that Chernobyl did. Nuclear gone wrong is on a scale all of it's own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libs Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Point to one oil refinery, gas or coal fired station that went wrong to the extent that Chernobyl did. Nuclear gone wrong is on a scale all of it's own. It's also the legacy of an atomic incident. You don't get web footed, 3 eyed clingons when someone splashes some petrol down a drain, but when the U-235 hits the fan the effects can be felt for decades if not centuries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleeh Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) Point to one oil refinery, gas or coal fired station that went wrong to the extent that Chernobyl did. Nuclear gone wrong is on a scale all of it's own. How do you measure extent? The human life cost? the second hand human life cost though contamination? the effected area? Human Life cost Chernobyl (Within 6 months): 28 or so. Human life cost of Piper Alpha explosion (on the day): 166 Second Hand Contamination Deaths: 4,000 (From cancer, etc). Bhopal disaster: 2,259 immediate, then 3,500 later. The exact amount has been a matter of much controversy with government estimates up to 15,000. (Not forgetting the 558,125 injuries including 38,478 temporary partial and approximately 3,900 severely and permanently disabling injuries) Area effected: 200,000km2 (total, not at one time) by Chernobyl Deep water Horizon: 176,000km2 (at some point, and arguably more seriously than Chernobyl). This is one oil spill of the dozens we see each decade, rather than the only serious nuclear disaster ever seen in human history. Like I said, It's a common car crash vs. airplane situation - either way we loose and Mother nature takes another one for the team. Edited March 12, 2011 by Bleeh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Union carbide was a chemical factory and that was an escape of a toxic and explosive gas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleeh Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Union carbide was a chemical factory and that was an escape of a toxic and explosive gas. It just shows you that nothing is 100% absolutely safe. With nuclear, it's a bigger scale of what can go wrong if something does go wrong. Look, we are both intelligent blokes and we both know we won't loose to one another. Now I think it about it it's like arguing about the difference between getting shot with a 12b or a 16b. Either way it hurts and there is a good chance you'll end up dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ME Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Look, we are both intelligent blokes and we both know we won't loose to one another. Mung, you must be chuffed that Bleeh sees you as an equal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 We'll call it a draw. Mind you if it goes erm "nuclear" in Japan, then.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashman Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 There is a certain irony that Japan suffers another atomic incident... The trouble with future energy supply is that the world cannot rely on fossil fuels, what with then running out or polluting the air as a by-product of burning them. Renewable energy isn't efficient yet or likely to be any time soon. What are the alternatives? The world returns to pre-industrial revolution consumption or we find another source of energy. Most countries decided on nuclear energy. Western technology is somewhat better than 1960's Soviet rubbish, so countries sited outside of Godzilla's range should be fine. With regard to Japan, what do you suggest they do for power? The last time they worried about raw materials running out, they needed Slim's Fourteenth Army to remind them not to steal from China, Burma, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc. Time will tell whether there's a serious leak from the power plant. It's built to cocoon the reactor, so worst case is that it buries itself. Unless Godzilla or Mothra have another go... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleeh Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) Mung, you must be chuffed that Bleeh sees you as an equal Quiet underling. Edited March 12, 2011 by Bleeh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Unless Godzilla or Mothra have another go... I think mothra will sat at his desk waiting for the claims to come in KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksdad Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Does the UK (England) still process the nuclear waste for japan? When my late dad worked for UKAEA we took the #### from all over the world.... I personally think nuclear is the only option we will have in a few years time, I bet a lot more people will 'welcome' it then :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.