Quake Rocks Japan

[SD]

you should move near the linc

[Don Ho]

by this point, I've seen most of the videos available, but somehow this one got by me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APEsVeE7FGk&feature=related

street level view (at first) of tsunami rolling through town...then from above (the guy must have been able to climb something that didn't float away)

Holy shtein!  Starts off as a little trickle and in seconds all helll breaks loose.  Unbelievable.

[Rome]

No one will ever convince me that using nuclear power is a necessity we can't do without.  The risks are staggeringly awful and far outweigh any benefits its use might provide.

There are 104 ticking time bombs in this country, many of which are far older than their original useful life.  If that doesn't scare the farg out of you, especially in light of what happened in Japan, then there isn't much more I can say to convince you.

Sadly I think what's going to have to happen is a massive loss of human life and environmental damage beyond the scope of our ability to reason for us to STOP using them.  Even then there will be naysayers who insist they're "safe".  Like Dio said, you live by them.  I'll pass, thanks.

[mpmcgraw]

Going forward nuclear power is one of our only viable options. 

[MMH]

Yeah, the earthquake was big, and that's the point.  We can't control what might happen, and the Japanese did it best, and are still overwhelmed.

One big happening (earthquake, tornado, volcano) and all hell can break loose over a much larger area than that affected by the natural disaster.

[mpmcgraw]

Good thing we don't need energy and fossil fuels are a totally sustainable source anyway.

[Rome]

So we're supposed to use a completely lethal form of energy simply because we don't have any viable alternative yet?   That's brilliant.

Look, even if they can find a way to make it safer there's still the problem of the incredibly lethal waste that is produced as a by-product.  And it stays lethal longer than the entire recorded history of the human race.

Like I posted earlier... I'll pass, thanks.

[QB Eagles]

There are 104 ticking time bombs in this country, many of which are far older than their original useful life.  If that doesn't scare the farg out of you, especially in light of what happened in Japan, then there isn't much more I can say to convince you.

If there actually were 104 time bombs, that would be scary. Fortunately, they aren't time bombs, they are large industrial plants that, like any other kind of large industrial plant are susceptible to certain accidents in extreme situations. [Unlike coal power, nuclear power plants don't kill people simply by operating in their normal condition, however.] Western civilian nuclear power plants, of the type operated by the US, France, Japan, and many other countries, are among the most highly engineered and regulated technologies in the world.

Notice that when things do go wrong, like in Three Mile Island or in this Japanese situation.... no one actually dies. In fact the core could get in much worse shape and still not release lethal radiation doses to the general public. Sorry if that doesn't "scare the farg out of me". In 50 years, nuclear power has had one major accident that harmed the public, Chernobyl, which killed somewhere between 50 and 10,000 people (depending on the applicability of the controversial linear no-threshold model). And technologically and in terms of the competence of the people running it, Chernobyl is to a modern Western plant as the Titanic is to a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. Does that mean it's impossible that an accident or natural disaster like this one could lead to someone getting harmed? Of course not, but the same is true for any other large industrial plant, or a host of other daily human activity.

Nuclear energy is a technology, not black magic. Like any other technology that's been around for 70 years, we know how to control it and are constantly making it better. Something like 40,000 people a year die on the American roads versus zero from nuclear power. People's sense of risk is totally of out whack because they hear the word "nuclear" and start imagining mushroom clouds (which is something that couldn't even happen at the worst WWII-era reactors). The death rate of nuclear power per GWy is on the same scale as hydro and wind power (and has even been calculated as being smaller than hydro and wind by an EU study). If nuclear power scares the farg out of you, I'd hate to see you when you're out driving on the highway.

[Diomedes]

If there actually were 104 time bombs, that would be scary. Fortunately, they aren't time bombs, they are large industrial plants that, like any other kind of large industrial plant are susceptible to certain accidents in extreme situations. [Unlike coal power, nuclear power plants don't kill people simply by operating in their normal condition, however.] Western civilian nuclear power plants, of the type operated by the US, France, Japan, and many other countries, are among the most highly engineered and regulated technologies in the world.

Notice that when things do go wrong, like in Three Mile Island or in this Japanese situation.... no one actually dies. In fact the core could get in much worse shape and still not release lethal radiation doses to the general public. Sorry if that doesn't "scare the farg out of me". In 50 years, nuclear power has had one major accident that harmed the public, Chernobyl, which killed somewhere between 50 and 10,000 people (depending on the applicability of the controversial linear no-threshold model). And technologically and in terms of the competence of the people running it, Chernobyl is to a modern Western plant as the Titanic is to a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. Does that mean it's impossible that an accident or natural disaster like this one could lead to someone getting harmed? Of course not, but the same is true for any other large industrial plant, or a host of other daily human activity.

Nuclear energy is a technology, not black magic. Like any other technology that's been around for 70 years, we know how to control it and are constantly making it better. Something like 40,000 people a year die on the American roads versus zero from nuclear power. People's sense of risk is totally of out whack because they hear the word "nuclear" and start imagining mushroom clouds (which is something that couldn't even happen at the worst WWII-era reactors). The death rate of nuclear power per GWy is on the same scale as hydro and wind power (and has even been calculated as being smaller than hydro and wind by an EU study). If nuclear power scares the farg out of you, I'd hate to see you when you're out driving on the highway.

a.) awesome post (no sarcasm)
b.) still, NIMBY

[Eagaholic]

Unlike coal power, nuclear power plants don't kill people simply by operating in their normal condition, however

True, especially the cogenerator plants using bogus environmental impact models. Hundreds of unregulated potentially toxic compounds are released by exploiting loopholes to burn low grade bituminous grade coal and worse. But the comparison is based on when nuke plants are working properly, which isn't the issue here. It's when they fail the is the issue.

Notice that when things do go wrong, like in Three Mile Island or in this Japanese situation.... no one actually dies

You are basing this assumption on what, exactly?

And technologically and in terms of the competence of the people running it, Chernobyl is to a modern Western plant as the Titanic is to a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. Does that mean it's impossible that an accident or natural disaster like this one could lead to someone getting harmed? Of course not, but the same is true for any other large industrial plant, or a host of other daily human activity.

But this ignores the potential damage of a failed coal plant vs the catastrophic consequences of a nuclear meltdown, which is like comparing a space shuttle to a spitball. Btw, the pollution caused by even a dirty coal plant at any given time will be cleared from the atmosphere within months. The half life of uranium-235 is 700 million years (meaning that if a kilo of U-235 is washed out into the environment, dispersed into the atmosphere etc., in 700 million years there will still be a half a kilogram left of radioactive U-235. A least it's not like U-238, which has a half life of 4.5 billion years. That would be a bummer of an accident.

[Rome]

Notice how proponents use completely unrelated risks like driving on a highway to counter arguments against nuclear power? 

Red herring arguments rule.

[phillymic2000]

So whats the alternative? Some are bitching about nuclear power, but what else is there?

[Diomedes]

So whats the alternative? Some are bitching about nuclear power, but what else is there?

Use less/Stop wasting.   
Solar
Wind
Tidal

who knows....we haven't actually tried anything else yet.

oil and gas aren't going to run out tomorrow, so in the time we have before they do, we ought to be investing heavily in finding ways to use less energy and create clean or renewable energies.

we went to the goddamn moon, this should be cake

[Diomedes]

[phillymic2000]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2011/03/13/2011-03-13_hundreds_flee_in_japan_after_shinmoedake_volcano_begins_spewing_ash_boulders.html