Earthquake in Japan....9.0...ouch!

Germany shuts down 7 nuclear plants.

A temporary measure while the German's assess its nuclear strategy. I suppose this is bowing to public demand after the events in Japan but seems a bit much.


Oh for gods sake.

Although it is pre-1980 reactors, which is fair enough I suppose but still, Germany isn't likely to be hit by a 9.0 earthquake any time soon is it.

:rolleyes:

Oh well, when rolling blackouts start occurring because of the lack of capacity then we'll see the same people complaining.
 
Sorry Robbie, but that picture is just not pertinant to laymans fission, the many other pictures on that same page are. You have been selective in what you use. The products would suggest that is the as Krypton is not typical. Continuing from the wiki link YOU provided.



Its spontaneous, bombardment. You are currently trying to correct layman understanding which is similiar to saying at the moment of a car crash the two cars become one enitity that can be described as a single car.

I'm not trying to correct layman understanding, I'm trying to correct you when you said:

U235 does not turn into a 236, this is fission, not fusion.

Saying it's not pertinent to layman's fission is a relevant comment in isolation, but not when taken in the context of your assertion that U235 does not change to U236 before it splits.

What you should have said, was that it's rare for it to be anything other that neutron bombardment that induces fission in a reactor. The extract you quoted disproves your comments once again, so I'm not sure why you quoted it as some kind of evidence in your favour?
 
I'm not trying to correct layman understanding, I'm trying to correct you when you said:



Saying it's not pertinent to layman's fission is a relevant comment in isolation, but not when taken in the context of your assertion that U235 does not change to U236 before it splits.

What you should have said, was that it's rare for it to be anything other that neutron bombardment that induces fission in a reactor. The extract you quoted disproves your comments once again, so I'm not sure why you quoted it as some kind of evidence in your favour?

I think the onus of proof is on you at the moment. Im curious why you didnt use any of the other pictures that show it splitting and releasing the energy rather than this absorbtion idea being the chain reaction mechanism. There is no text you can find on google to descibe u236 either?

Its like kicking a ball into a net of 235 balls, they dont just sit there with 236 balls then moments later the net bursts and two groups of the balls fly off in different directions with no additional energy input. Its the initial ball hitting the group, two main clusters seperate and between 2 and 3 random white balls fly off in other directions. At no point did the bag have 236 balls in.

Why make it more complicated than that when thats what happens? But then what do I know. Im a forum smart-arse on a 'mega nerd rage' who got 'sacked' from 'cleaning sub toilets' :P
 
Last edited:
France's nuclear safety authority says it classifies the Fukushima plant accident as level six. The maximum is level seven, used only once for the 1986 Chernobyl accident, Reuters reports.

Can anyone shed light on what the levels mean? Obviously I can guess with Level 7 but what does a Level 6 accident entail?
 
What makes me laugh is the constant blinkered adoration of nuclear energy by most people on this board.

I understand it is essential, I understand that we need it for the moment given we have a pending energy shortfall with current sources, however to blindly defend it is naive.

We've had a major disaster in Chernobyl, other lesser so disasters elsewhere and then this in Japan. Saying 'oh it would have survived the earthquake'... 'the tsunami was unforseen' isn't enough! Try telling that to the people that may possibly be affected by the coming days fallout.

It doesn't matter how safe nuclear energy can be - we need to be realistic. Corner's are always going to be cut in business. We need to be sure it's safe. We need to criminalise cost cutting in business with technologies like this that can have such severe consequences. Not just at a national level, we need to have worldwide acceptance.

We need a comprehensive review of the current situation worldwide in any case (that can not be bad) and hopefully some new found investment and worldwide support for alternative energy.
Aren't you forgetting a load of other accidents that have ahappened in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents
 
Everything has a risk, it is how you manage and mitigate that risk that matters

I'm going somewhat against the majority view here. In light of current events I can't help but think this statement in it's context is nieve and daft (I'm not singling out one poster here, just that sentence in particular stood out for me and seemed to be something people are agreeing with).

One of the world's richest and most precautious countries is currently having a nuclear emergency following unforseen events. Note the use of the word unforseen. Secondly, nuclear power plants whilst having obvious benefits have an absolutely enourmous risk to them in terms of the damage they can cause to human health and the environment if something goes wrong, a risk that totally dwarfs all other sources of power.

A week ago, nobody would have even questioned the safety of nuclear power, including myself, and now look what is going on. Sure, a earthquake of such ferocity might have been unlikely or unpredictable, but it did happen.

And people are saying that it's wrong to be questioning the safety of nuclear power?

There is one clear line of thinking with everyone which has raised who is concerned about nuclear power - damage control. With a nuclear powerplant it is clear that the risk of a emergency are low in forseeable conditions. What's going on right now has shown that forseeable conditions might not be enough to guarantee safety or predict risk. Without nuclear power, the risk of such a nuclear emergency is a guaranteed zero.

I'm not necessarily against nuclear power, but I think that being concerned about the safety of nuclear power is the only sensible possition to have right now as current events have shown that even the unthinkable and unpredictable can happen.
 
Last edited:
If its upgraded to a level 6 accident by everyone, not just a panicky, wants to be on TV frenchman, then most people would considering it the 2nd worst nuclear accident to date. The worrying thing is, its clearly esculating, its esculating and its spreading as heat and radiation, explosions appear to have caused the probems at the other reactors(at least partially) and as radiation gets worse, less people are on site, dealing with worsening situations gets harder and harder.

Nitefly, I've said before, at some stage you have to consider what happens in unforseen circumstances, what happens when EVERYTHING goes wrong, everything, and how much damage can happen there, the reward should be weighed against THAT risk, not the "what if everything goes right" risk.

Asides from that, either the two worst nuclear reactor incidents, or two of the top 3 now, were caused by human error, not the plant itself or the poor or great design. If the people working in Chernobyl or Threemile had not made critical errors neither accident would have happened.

The best designed reactor can still fail by human error and over riding, enacting something too soon, turning something off. In the case of Three mile all the safety systems kicked in IIRC, they turned off the safety systems because they thought the situation was "fixed" at that point.

Now plants after that will have, more automation maybe and lock out the ability to make the same mistake, but ultimately there will still be something else someone can do to screw it up.

Who knows if nuclear is worth the risk, one problem at the moment is, what would happen to the world if we end up without coal, or basically got to the point no one could afford to buy what was left, then what? What would happen to society when communication, entertainment, most peoples jobs all turn off..... I dread to think. Will it happen in our life times, who knows, can renewable catch up to our power usage, nope, can our current world economy cope with a dramatic cut back in power usage, nope. Is nuclear fuel and a few accidents a better option than simply running out of power and having society meltdown instead........... probably.
 
Last edited:
I'm not necessarily against nuclear power, but I think that being concerned about the safety of nuclear power is the only sensible possition to have right now as current events have shown that even the unthinkable can happen.

Depends on the plants location, design and age and which regulations they have been designed and built to, you can't tar all stations around the world with the same brush.

Can i start talking about the cost of a human life in industry yet?
 
Thats simply not true, the problem is nuclear accidents cause MANY more LONG TERM DEATHS due to cancers and sickness than instant deaths.

Dolph posted that Chernobyl only killed 4000 people and the current situation quake and Tsunami is in the 10k's(or will be).

The problem is Chernobyl has been accredited with killing anything from 250k to 1million people since from cancers that are very common with those kinds of radiations, the vast majority of those being in Russia/Ukraine/Belarus which got a lot of the worst fallout. Its obviously impossible to know exactly who got cancer and why, but when hundreds of thousands of people, in the worst hit area's from Chernobyl all get the same types of cancer in patterns completely different to less or non effected area's, the probability of those being effectively "Chernobyl deaths" is extremely high.

Sorry but Chernobyl deaths absolutely dwarf current death toll in Japan, and yearly deaths in the uk from road accidents don't even compare.

This excludes a quite devestating number of things like still babies born from radiation effected women, babies born with defects, all at vastly increased rates vs non effected area's or previous years in the same area's before the accident.
Im sorry but I do not agree with that. Can you provide evidence of such figures?
 
Depends on the plants location, design and age and which regulations they have been designed and built to, you can't tar all stations around the world with the same brush.

I'm not tarring all stations with the same brush. What I am saying is that nuclear power stations are clearly a multiplier for damage in an unpredictable natural disaster, and such disasters do occur.

Whilst an earthquake might be more likely in Japan and Europe for example, if they didn't think it wouldn't have been safe they wouldn't have built it in the first place.

Did they think the plant was safe enough to be built there? Yes.

Is the plant safe now? No.

I think everyone is right to start freely questioning nuclear power regardless of there background because you don't need to be a nuclear physisist to be able to acknowledge that a nuclear power plant is a potentially serious hazard.
 
I'm not necessarily against nuclear power, but I think that being concerned about the safety of nuclear power is the only sensible possition to have right now as current events have shown that even the unthinkable and unpredictable can happen.

Of course you have to be careful, but then what are the alternatives?

Burning fossil fuels is dirty, the fuel is running out, countries are supposed to be cutting carbon emmissions. This clearly isn't the energy source of the future.

Renewable energy sources are great, but don't produce anywhere near the megawattage needed by modern society. This is where we should be researching for the future, but they're not a viable primary source.

I wonder how Germany is going to cope with their demand after shutting down these plants.
 
Surprising how many of those are down to operator error.

The best and worst designed reactors just needs one a-hole to screw it up, Chernobyl, a not safe design and Three Mile, a safe design were both screwed by human errors.

That is just comical. Daft really, just daft!

Again, Merkel, whose beind the calls for safety and shutting down the plants is in a re-election campaign she is apparently expected to get trounced in, so she's going crazy over the current nuclear scare to try and drum up votes, it could work, :(
 
I'm going somewhat against the majority view here. In light of current events I can't help but think this statement in it's context is nieve and daft (I'm not singling out one poster here, just that sentence in particular stood out for me and seemed to be something people are agreeing with).

One of the world's richest and most precautious countries is currently having a nuclear emergency following unforseen events. Note the use of the word unforseen. Secondly, nuclear power plants whilst having obvious benefits have an absolutely enourmous risk to them in terms of the damage they can cause to human health and the environment if something goes wrong, a risk that totally dwarfs all other sources of power.

A week ago, nobody would have even questioned the safety of nuclear power, including myself, and now look what is going on. Sure, a earthquake of such ferocity might have been unlikely or unpredictable, but it did happen.

And people are saying that it's wrong to be questioning the safety of nuclear power?

There is one clear line of thinking with everyone which has raised who is concerned about nuclear power - damage control. With a nuclear powerplant it is clear that the risk of a emergency are low in forseeable conditions. What's going on right now has shown that forseeable conditions might not be enough to guarantee safety or predict risk. Without nuclear power, the risk of such a nuclear emergency is a guaranteed zero.

I'm not necessarily against nuclear power, but I think that being concerned about the safety of nuclear power is the only sensible possition to have right now as current events have shown that even the unthinkable and unpredictable can happen.


So we should question building nuclear power plants in this country (or in-fact any country) which does not suffer from such natural events but are built (I assume) to the same standards?

Most of the disasters are down to human error. Reminds me of a quote by Barnes Wallis: "It's so hard to make things foolproof because the fools turn out to be so damned inventive".

Same applies to everything. Put an idiot in-charge of a car, aeroplane, boat, gun. People die.

Nuclear when designed properly and operated correctly are perfectly safe, as is everything.
 
Back
Top Bottom