Nuclear plant leaks after quake

[Micah 16]

A massive quake killing 7 jolted northwestern Japan. Not only did it cause widespread damage, but the world's largest nuclear plant, the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant, leaked water containing radioactive materials. The radioactive water did, in fact, flow into the Sea of Japan. At the moment, they believe the radioactive level of the material is low enough that it poses no danger to the environment. 

It will be interesting to hear what you think about nuclear technology after this incident. Has it changed your mind about nuclear power plants or...?

Here's more details if you wish to read them. 

My thoughts: Despite this incident, I think it's still one of the best sources of energy in the world, in my opinion. However, it does make me wonder how the nuclear plants near fault lines will do when another earthquake hits.  

[+Guest]

I think that nuclear power is a very very good way to get a lot of power but they have to built with absolutely no faults what so ever because when something wrong it could potentially be a HUGE disaster, like Chernobyl. Like I said, great source of energy but potentially extremely dangerous. The placement of these plants need to be very carefully thought out to prevent a lot of possible disasters.

[The boy formerly known as Evil Muzz 27]

The reason people don't think Nuclear power is safe is almost exactly the same as that of aircraft safety; there rarely is an accident, but when there is it can be so serious and widely publicised that it terrifies people, so they opt for a form of transport (or in this case energy source) that does in fact have a higher accident rate, it just isn't as publicised as the one they are afraid of.

Plus I think a stigma surrounds nuclear power because of it's associations with nuclear weapons, something that is widely protested and seen as a bad thing by many, and also because of exaggerated safety problems on the TV, animal mutation etc.

In my opinion Nuclear power is the safest and the most environmentally friendly energy source that is also efficient (well actually maybe second after tidal).

[autoVino 26]

Well, I'd have to admit, building a nuclear power plant next to a fault line isn't the best idea.  But hey, no one could have predicted this.

Still, I think that nuclear power is the best way to go right now.  It's rather safe and cheaper than solar power and can be put anywhere.  Even with a large earthquake it leaked some water that has been said for the most part to be harmless.  If you think about it, it's much safer than todays fossile fule plants.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: The boy formerly known as Evil Muzz The reason people don't think Nuclear power is safe is almost exactly the same as that of aircraft safety; there rarely is an accident, but when there is it can be so serious and widely publicised that it terrifies people, so they opt for a form of transport (or in this case energy source) that does in fact have a higher accident rate, it just isn't as publicised as the one they are afraid of.

Plus I think a stigma surrounds nuclear power because of it's associations with nuclear weapons, something that is widely protested and seen as a bad thing by many, and also because of exaggerated safety problems on the TV, animal mutation etc.

In my opinion Nuclear power is the safest and the most environmentally friendly energy source that is also efficient (well actually maybe second after tidal).quote>

 

Exactly.  While I am not going to go so far as calling it one of the most environmentally friendly, it is without a doubt one of the safest apart from something like tidal energy.  Despite the problem that developed, Three Mile Island taught us two things.  First, that accident wouldn't have happened if the operators had used their heads and hadn't taken the emergeny cooling system offline (or something like that).  Second, even with the damage that was done, the only thing vented was radioactively-laced steam.  When something like this happens at an oil plant or some other fossil fuel facility, the whole darn place blows away and dozens, if not hundreds of people are killed or maimed.  Barring Cherynoble as it was a crappy design (and btw, despite its design flaws, even that wouldn't have been nearly as bad if it wasn't for the operators messing with the emergency system - the emergency computer system tried to shut the reactors down and the operators overrode the system to keep the reactors hot) nuclear power has time and again shown that it's safer than most anything else out there.

Unfortunately, the media has taken to forcing their agenda on everyone and has successfully worked the propoganda machine.

[Mikeaut1 261]

Nuclear Power owns. Even if its not environmentally friendly, it is a great source of power, and if the risk of radioactivity in the sea is at a low scale, then there is nothing to worry about.

[Easy Bakes 253]

This look likes another 3 mile island case.

The Plant did what it was desigend to do.

All the reactors were either already shut down or automatically switched off by the quake. quote>

[BurroDiablo 222]

It shouldn't case much harm... although, Japan loves its Fish, wouldn't surprise me if some got a good doseage of Radiation...

Despite that, I'm very Pro-Nuclear... Its the greatest source of energy we have at the moment, despite all the danger's I poses. Untill Fusion comes along, we'll have to build more Nuclear Plants... Renewables CANNOT account for 100% of the worlds energy use... it's an impossibility.

To be honest... it'd rather have a few Nuclear Plants built in my region other than hundreds of thousands of Wind Turbines scarring the hillsides.

[hamsterTK 93]

No big deal.

I would be more worried about the mecury from coal and fossil fuels than the odd chance of a low dose radiation. they named mercury poisoning Minamata disease for a reason

[Barbarossa 51]

I have mixed feelings about nuclear energy. I see a lot of potential, but a full-blown meltdown would be catastrophic. I do not pay any attention to comparisons with more standard energy technologies. It is like comparing apples and oranges. A refinery problem can lead to an explosion, killing only workers (which is bad, but expected), and possibly cause an environmental problem requiring clean-up. Even hydroelectric power is less risky, even if a dam bursts. At least the terrain is still usable after the event. However, a meltdown is much, much, much, much (did I mention much?) more severe. Not only workers die. The radiation can move great distances, and it will. The local environment for miles around can become contaminated, leading to progressive failure of wildlife and humans, usually in the form of cancers, lower birthrates, and a resurgence of Mad Max movie fandom.

Does it happen a lot? Well, depends on your viewpoint. Three Mile Island was an issue. Chernobyl was an issue. Now Japan is an issue. And, there have been a few close calls that could have turned for the worse.

Regardless, I am not aiming to be a nay-sayer. I just want to say I am sitting on the fence. We need power, no doubt about it. And our needs are growing faster than we can accommodate. But, I think mankind is ingenious enough to come up with safer energy, if we put our minds to it.

Barbarossa

[John94538 0]

Hmm... Nuclear Power.

Well, the only issue I think it has is the problem of where are you going to put the waste porducts (spent fuel rods, dirt water, etc.)? I have heard that most nuclear fuel goes deep underground to sit there. But it takes like a million years for the fuel to decay.

[Barbarossa 51]

Originally posted by: John94538 Hmm... Nuclear Power.

Well, the only issue I think it has is the problem of where are you going to put the waste porducts (spent fuel rods, dirt water, etc.)? I have heard that most nuclear fuel goes deep underground to sit there. But it takes like a million years for the fuel to decay.quote>

Excellent point.  This is something I thought about, but chose to except from my POV.  This, too, deserves attention.  There are plenty in the (ST) community who will blab about how "some waste can be reused, blah blah blah", but they neglect to mention that, for some reason, we still have to store it, and there are very few states willing to have this stuff  "stored" in their state, the Yucca Mtns being a prime example.  A perfect case of NIMBY.  "We want the benefits, but someone else should suffer the consequences."

Barbarossa

[dralin321 0]

I find nuclear power a perfectly safe source of energy as long as it is placed and handled the right place and properly. But one thing I am confused about is WHY some countries like North Korea and Iran have nuclear weapons. I mean I don't see the need for them anyway. World War III would be a little off topic but another Hiroshima or Nagasaki is something that REALLY worries me.