Nuclear Meltdown?
Mar 12th 2011 | 3:57 pm
#91
Thread Starter
Mostly Harmless
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,111
From: Semi-rural wonderworld, Brisbane
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
And personally, I’d much rather live next door to a reactor plant than to a coal fired power station (assuming both are properly maintained), but that’s just my opinion after having worked in both. Having said that, I’d rather live next to a PWR than a BWR (which is what Fukushima is).
I read that the power station was only rated safe up to M7.9 as this was deemed the maximum that a 'worst case' earthquake could produce. Only goes to prove that some experts know shit.
Sounds like a case of 'she'll be right mate'.
Mar 12th 2011 | 4:01 pm
#92
You sip .... I glug !!!
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,790
From: Over the hill!
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Would you rather live next to a coal-fired power station if it was located next to one of the world's most active fault lines?
I read that the power station was only rated safe up to M7.9 as this was deemed the maximum that a 'worst case' earthquake could produce. Only goes to prove that some experts know shit.
Sounds like a case of 'she'll be right mate'.
I read that the power station was only rated safe up to M7.9 as this was deemed the maximum that a 'worst case' earthquake could produce. Only goes to prove that some experts know shit.
Sounds like a case of 'she'll be right mate'.
I wouldn't live on an active fault line full stop.
Mar 12th 2011 | 4:02 pm
#93
Thread Starter
Mostly Harmless
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,111
From: Semi-rural wonderworld, Brisbane
Mar 12th 2011 | 4:27 pm
#94
Rhino with a big horn!
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,117
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
[COLOR=#333333]
Well I'm not a beardie weirdie physicist (mainly cos I'm a female and my degrees are in Chemistry and Engineering
), but as someone who used to work for the Atomic Energy Authority designing and validating some of the inspection and safety regimes currently in use in the industry today, and has worked for a company that manufactures the reactor cores themselves, I have to say that GarryP and Justbecause raise some very good points.
A lot of what is being reported at the moment is media hyperbole and kneejerking so take what you see and read there with a huge pinch of salt. As usual the truth is not as interesting or exciting as what is being reported.
To the other points that have been raised by posters...
Agreed, nuclear power is certainly not the be all and end all of power solutions, but it does have a place in modern society (IMO) in amongst traditional technologies such as coal or oil fired plants and hydro plants, as well as 'alternative' technologies such as solar/wind/wave.
And personally, I’d much rather live next door to a reactor plant than to a coal fired power station (assuming both are properly maintained), but that’s just my opinion after having worked in both. Having said that, I’d rather live next to a PWR than a BWR (which is what Fukushima is).
Its akin to road travel vs air travel. Air travel (Nuclear power) is statistically much safer than road travel (Coal power) but when it fails, it fails big and makes headlines. It’s the few nuclear events that make the headlines the same way its the few aircrashes that make the headlines and cause people who are happy to get in a car be scared of flying.
Well I'm not a beardie weirdie physicist (mainly cos I'm a female and my degrees are in Chemistry and Engineering
), but as someone who used to work for the Atomic Energy Authority designing and validating some of the inspection and safety regimes currently in use in the industry today, and has worked for a company that manufactures the reactor cores themselves, I have to say that GarryP and Justbecause raise some very good points.A lot of what is being reported at the moment is media hyperbole and kneejerking so take what you see and read there with a huge pinch of salt. As usual the truth is not as interesting or exciting as what is being reported.
To the other points that have been raised by posters...
Agreed, nuclear power is certainly not the be all and end all of power solutions, but it does have a place in modern society (IMO) in amongst traditional technologies such as coal or oil fired plants and hydro plants, as well as 'alternative' technologies such as solar/wind/wave.
And personally, I’d much rather live next door to a reactor plant than to a coal fired power station (assuming both are properly maintained), but that’s just my opinion after having worked in both. Having said that, I’d rather live next to a PWR than a BWR (which is what Fukushima is).
Its akin to road travel vs air travel. Air travel (Nuclear power) is statistically much safer than road travel (Coal power) but when it fails, it fails big and makes headlines. It’s the few nuclear events that make the headlines the same way its the few aircrashes that make the headlines and cause people who are happy to get in a car be scared of flying.
Mar 12th 2011 | 6:13 pm
#95
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 16,623
From: Hill overlooking the SE Melbourne suburbs
Mar 12th 2011 | 10:13 pm
#96
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 405
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Just read the entire thread and a number of interesting points raised by many posters, but no one has mentioned yet, so far as i could see, the realistic and obvious solution to our energy needs, simply turning off all of our (mostly) un-necessary electronic shite which we immerse our lives in daily! Im as guilty as the next guy so dont shout me down, but it is true, we waste more than we use so have to keep dreaming up more effective ways of supplying our habit. Im not a greenie either before someone says it, i have real issues with the whole global warming thing, largely because most of the facts put forward by the authorities are put forward by the authorities! and history has shown them en-masse to be less than honest, shall we say. We could avert a lot of the risks associated with any and all manner of energy production if we didnt have as many production facilities in the first place. My point in all this? I have no idea, were all doomed anyway.Keep crossing them and it might just be ok 
Mar 13th 2011 | 12:27 am
#98
Thread Starter
Mostly Harmless
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,111
From: Semi-rural wonderworld, Brisbane
Mar 13th 2011 | 2:20 pm
#99
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,237
From: Perth
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
From BBC live website http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698:
0218: Column of smoke escaping from Reactor 3 at the Fukushima 1 nuclear power plant - Japanese TV.
0221: Urgent: Explosion at Reactor 3 - AFP.
0220: Sea level has dropped five metres off Fukushima, confirming imminent arrival of tsunami - Japanese TV.
0218: Column of smoke escaping from Reactor 3 at the Fukushima 1 nuclear power plant - Japanese TV.
0221: Urgent: Explosion at Reactor 3 - AFP.
0220: Sea level has dropped five metres off Fukushima, confirming imminent arrival of tsunami - Japanese TV.
Last edited by HelenTD; Mar 13th 2011 at 2:24 pm.
Mar 13th 2011 | 2:28 pm
#100
(It's not my real name)
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 12,469
From: Ilukapool. WA
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
From BBC live website http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698:
0218: Column of smoke escaping from Reactor 3 at the Fukushima 1 nuclear power plant - Japanese TV.
0221: Urgent: Explosion at Reactor 3 - AFP.
0220: Sea level has dropped five metres off Fukushima, confirming imminent arrival of tsunami - Japanese TV.
0218: Column of smoke escaping from Reactor 3 at the Fukushima 1 nuclear power plant - Japanese TV.
0221: Urgent: Explosion at Reactor 3 - AFP.
0220: Sea level has dropped five metres off Fukushima, confirming imminent arrival of tsunami - Japanese TV.
Holy F * * K!
Mar 13th 2011 | 2:38 pm
#102
Thread Starter
Mostly Harmless
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,111
From: Semi-rural wonderworld, Brisbane
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Let's hope that's the case.
On the downside there has been a hydrogen explosion in the Number 3 reactor ... Let's also obviously hope those containment vessels hold ...
Mar 13th 2011 | 2:39 pm
#103
(It's not my real name)
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 12,469
From: Ilukapool. WA
Mar 13th 2011 | 2:41 pm
#104
Thread Starter
Mostly Harmless
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,111
From: Semi-rural wonderworld, Brisbane
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
0220: World War II bomber found on the moon
0231: World War II bomber found on the moon missing
http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile...044_8523_n.jpg
0231: World War II bomber found on the moon missing
http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile...044_8523_n.jpg
Mar 13th 2011 | 2:47 pm
#105
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,188
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
0220: World War II bomber found on the moon
0231: World War II bomber found on the moon missing
http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile...044_8523_n.jpg
0231: World War II bomber found on the moon missing
http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile...044_8523_n.jpg
