Nuclear Meltdown?
Mar 11th 2011 | 10:24 pm
#32
Thread Starter
Mostly Harmless
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,111
From: Semi-rural wonderworld, Brisbane
Mar 11th 2011 | 10:35 pm
#33
Auntie Fa
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,344
From: Seattle
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Shite, just seen the news.
Mar 11th 2011 | 10:38 pm
#34
(It's not my real name)
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 12,469
From: Ilukapool. WA
Mar 11th 2011 | 10:39 pm
#35
(It's not my real name)
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 12,469
From: Ilukapool. WA
Mar 11th 2011 | 10:41 pm
#36
Crazy Cat Lady
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 65,493
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
I have to ask who thought it would be a good idea to build a nuclear power plant on a major fault line. I mean, I know sod all about them but it doesn't sound like a good plan to me. However I'm someone who doesn't understand why they build major cities on fault lines either so what do I know.
Mar 11th 2011 | 10:44 pm
#38
Auntie Fa
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,344
From: Seattle
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
I have to ask who thought it would be a good idea to build a nuclear power plant on a major fault line. I mean, I know sod all about them but it doesn't sound like a good plan to me. However I'm someone who doesn't understand why they build major cities on fault lines either so what do I know.
Mar 11th 2011 | 10:44 pm
#39
snÉןɔ ʎʇıuÉs
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,558
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
I have to ask who thought it would be a good idea to build a nuclear power plant on a major fault line. I mean, I know sod all about them but it doesn't sound like a good plan to me. However I'm someone who doesn't understand why they build major cities on fault lines either so what do I know.
ie Everywhere in Japan is on the fault line, and given they have b*gger all in the way of energy resources, they don't have a lot of options.
Mar 11th 2011 | 10:45 pm
#41
ah-beng
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,113
From: ^.^
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
I have to ask who thought it would be a good idea to build a nuclear power plant on a major fault line. I mean, I know sod all about them but it doesn't sound like a good plan to me. However I'm someone who doesn't understand why they build major cities on fault lines either so what do I know.
Mar 11th 2011 | 10:46 pm
#42
(It's not my real name)
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 12,469
From: Ilukapool. WA
Mar 11th 2011 | 11:09 pm
#44
Greetings Traveller
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 278
From: Sydney
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
I have to ask who thought it would be a good idea to build a nuclear power plant on a major fault line. I mean, I know sod all about them but it doesn't sound like a good plan to me. However I'm someone who doesn't understand why they build major cities on fault lines either so what do I know.
The airborne emissions from coal burning power stations are actually more radioactive than that from nuclear operators (per unit of power generated) due to the uranium & thorium contained in the coal that's burnt. The particulates in the airborne emissions from coal burning power stations contribute to lung disease & coal mining itself has a very poor safety record- thousands of deaths every year directly to mine collapses & accidents, & also further illnesses & deaths from lung disease ("black lung). Then there are the indirect illnesses & deaths due to emission of greenhouse gases & subsequent environmental issues. Swings & roundabouts at the end of the day.
Mar 11th 2011 | 11:13 pm
#45
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,959
From: Somewhere South... Not Telling YOU
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Well, if they build the cities in an area prone to seismic area the people that live there will need ever-increasing amounts of power.
The airborne emissions from coal burning power stations are actually more radioactive than that from nuclear operators (per unit of power generated) due to the uranium & thorium contained in the coal that's burnt. The particulates in the airborne emissions from coal burning power stations contribute to lung disease & coal mining itself has a very poor safety record- thousands of deaths every year directly to mine collapses & accidents, & also further illnesses & deaths from lung disease ("black lung). Then there are the indirect illnesses & deaths due to emission of greenhouse gases & subsequent environmental issues. Swings & roundabouts at the end of the day.
The airborne emissions from coal burning power stations are actually more radioactive than that from nuclear operators (per unit of power generated) due to the uranium & thorium contained in the coal that's burnt. The particulates in the airborne emissions from coal burning power stations contribute to lung disease & coal mining itself has a very poor safety record- thousands of deaths every year directly to mine collapses & accidents, & also further illnesses & deaths from lung disease ("black lung). Then there are the indirect illnesses & deaths due to emission of greenhouse gases & subsequent environmental issues. Swings & roundabouts at the end of the day.
