An update on recent technical problems and more from the admin: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/250292/on-technical-difficulties-mod-coverage-and-other-things/p1?new=1
Options
Radiation leak at Tokyo Electric Power Co after earthquake
bigtimeslacker
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
But while TEPCO had initially said that the lethal earthquake had not caused any leaks, it revealed later on Monday night that 1,200 liters of radioactive water had sloshed into the sea from its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant in Niigata.
....
Also on Tuesday, the company admitted that a small amount of radioactive materials -- cobalt-60, iodine and chromium-51 -- had been emitted into the atmosphere.
I guess there have been problems in the past about cover ups about this sort of thing and saying nothing was leaking and then changing the story doesn't look really good. It makes me wonder how bad it really is over there.
Which way do the winds and currents go? What countries could be effected if this is worse then they claim?
tl;dr: omg radiation! is my weiner going to fall off?
bigtimeslacker on
0
Posts
As for currents, the Pacific Ocean splits off in many directions and goes all over the place, it's kind of difficult to guess where the water might go. My guess would be the Phillipines and that area.
I think the jet stream will carry the gases over to the US.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
― Dr. Seuss, Oh, the Places You'll Go!
This thread should help explain why getting your "facts" from a couple of people who make a living out of deception might not be the best of ideas.
When something like this happens you think it's bad it will delay the acceptance of nuclear power?
Thats why I said to get facts about anything is not longer unbiased but favored to someone. I am not saying I agree with the show but made me realize that the environmentalist and Industrial Energy Companies distort the information too much that its hard to know whats the facts, not opinion or someones own views.
(Sorry, I have hard time writing, probably made you understand something else.)
― Dr. Seuss, Oh, the Places You'll Go!
No, I think it's a excellent opportunity to take a step back and ask if nuclear power is really as safe and secure as it should be.
If you knew anything about modern nuclear plant design then you would know they are perfectly safe.
Earthquakes can also damage sewer systems and cause excrement to contaminate drinking water.
But isnt any other source of energy the same, coal bad for your lungs. HydroPower Plants, only bad thing I see is an earthquake breaks them causing a flood of water. I vote to get hamster run those mouse wheels to meet the needs of the world electricity. Environmentally safe, clean and cute (I wonder who can guess where I got this from)
― Dr. Seuss, Oh, the Places You'll Go!
Totally.
bbiab, I'm going to go make myself a petroleum latte.
It's actually not very likely at all. Even in this case, in which a very strong earthquake struck a powerplant that hadn't been designed to withstand quakes of that power, the effects were that a small amount of water contaminated with trace amounts of radioactive crap spilled into the sea, and a little bit of radioactive gas seeped into the atmosphere. Current assessments are that neither of these things pose any real threat to the environment.
Contrast this with, say, the Exxon-Valdez clusterfuck. I'm going to side with nuclear, here.
― Dr. Seuss, Oh, the Places You'll Go!
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
Right because massive floods are very very minor events that definitely don't deal long-lasting damage.
I also like this one:
The deadliest accident at a nuke plant in Japan in history involved a burst steam pipe and killed four people. That's not exactly terrifying.
Wasn't there a criticality event at a Japanese nuclear power-plant not so long ago?
Edit: Just a minor one, IIRC, before everyone starts getting excited.
So consistently daming a river (to the point where some of them no longer reach the sea) and flooding vast stretches of land has no environmental impact on the areas micro-climate? Huh.
/edit: And, to clarify, I'm not trying to say that we should get rid of all nuclear power. I'm just trying to say that because of the risk involved in nuclear power, it should not be the 'magic bullet' that most people are seeking for our energy crisis.
Yeah, there have been a couple changes in nuclear power plant design in the last 30 years. France gets almost all of its power from nuclear, and yet they haven't all turned into canceritic mutants.
It's worth pointing out that coal burning power plants release more radioactive material per day then your typical nuclear power plant. This is due to thorium and uranium found in coal.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
When you take into account the number and size of accidents at modern nuclear plants, I don't think you can possibly argue that they release more radiation then coal.
In fact, the Chernobyl reactors were already dangerously outdated at the time they were constructed.
No, but their unhealthy infatuation with runny cheese can't be natural.
Burning coal also throws up literally tons of uranium, thorium and mercury. Heavy metals and radioactives vaporized for breathing pleasure. Yum.
Plus the fact that we've pretty much tapped out all available hydro sources and it doesn't come close to filling our energy needs. I'm all for the use and development of solar, wind, tidal, geo, etc, but unfortunately all of them together can't presently fill our hunger for more energy. In addition there are hidden costs associated with some of them. For example, the production of solar cells isn't exactly clean. There was also the unforeseen problem with birds and wind turbines.
In spite of the problems it has, nuclear is currently our best option out of a bunch of bad choices for large scale power generation. At least with nuclear we have a very clear idea of what the risks are and how to mitigate them.
Well, a good chunk of that has to do with our incredibly inefficiencies in a variety of things that exist for no other reason than it's easier that way.
I agree with you there. I'm appalled by the amount of electricity that is wasted in the current distribution grid. It could be upgraded to significantly improve it's efficiency. However, that would be expensive so no one wants to do it.
To address your point above, I don't think there is a magic bullet when it comes to filling our energy needs. All of our options kinda suck. Nuclear just sucks somewhat less that the things it would replace. It also has the advantage of being able to fill our energy needs for the next 200 years or so. More if you can convince the public that a full-fuel cycle is an acceptable risk.
Should we continue to research and develop alternative energy sources and improve the efficiency of our current systems? Absolutely. But we also have to deal with the reality of what we have now and where energy demand is going in the future. Baring a unforeseen breakthrough (fusion, I'm looking at you), that reality is a choice between nuclear and coal.
I never said anything about fossil fuels.
Nothing is perfectly safe, as evidenced by what just happened in Japan. Shit happens but I'd rather my solar array break down or my windmill fall over than leak radioactive material.
True, but even this reactor was so safe that it was hit by a major earthquake and only leaked minimal and non-threatening amounts of radioactive materials into the environment. Nuclear power really is pretty awesome, and the kinds of reactors they can build these days (and the kinds coming down the pipeline) are extraordinarily safe.
I'm not saying don't go with solar/wind/hydro/whatever where you can, but these sources aren't going to meet all of our energy requirements. We need to supplement with nuclear.
I agree, at least right now renewable can't meat the demands of the entire world and it should work in conjunction with nuclear power but there is no catch all for the world's energy supply. Wind power would be fantastic for powering the midwest US but not so in urban settings, in areas that are earthquake (and other natural disasters) prone nuclear may not be the best option.
Earthquakes occur along fault lines, and we generally know where those are. It's not hard to build plants in areas that are kinda-sorta far from fault lines and then just pipe the power on over. At least, not in a geographically huge region like the US. Japan is small, so they can really only get so far from the fault lines before their nuke plants are, like, in the ocean.
Alright, heres the deal with nuclear plants. Theyre usually really old because theyre good for like 40 years and are super expensive to build.
So, when I say modern I mean modern technology. China is making a bunch of mini reactors now for use in rural china - they have tried to literally cause meltdown in them hundreds of time, but they never melt down. Pebble bed reactors are in fact the shit.
And as far as an earthquake happening and cracking a plant, this is like the first time ive ever heard of it happening, and it didnt really do anything. So its a null point. And what jeff just said.
Actually, the wildlife around Chernobyl is doing surprisingly well. There may be a higher rate of mutation and cancer, but the critters seem to be living long enough to breed. In other words, they are adapting.
For humans, it's not so good. Radiation levels are still high enough that spending too much time there is a pretty bad idea. Since not many want to go there, the accident turned the area around the reactor into an unintended nature preserve.
Actually you reminded me of something that Russian scientists found in the reactor area itself. There is a lichen growing there that uses ionizing radiation as a power source rather than sunlight. It literally eats radiation.
Cool as hell.
What kind of ionising radiation? It would make for pretty cool radiation shielding if it also was adapted to absorb the particles.