Nuke Plants.....love 'em...leave 'em ??

[Statman]

Dave, I don't know the stats, but stats are just stats until they happen in your back yard to friends and neighbours (Chernobyl is a world away).

We cannot just ask how many times a complete meltdown has occured. We have to consider the potential impacts of a meltdown. California is experiencing the impacts of what happened an ocean away.

I'm with Joe on this one.

What impact would that be Bernard? Something my dad used to repeat when we were out driving sometimes and that was,"if Mother nature doesn't get, you Father time will"! You'll likely die in car crash before you witness a meltdown and become DIRECTLY affected by it.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Hi Stat,

You state a perspective, if I understand your post correctly, that has crossed my mind.

Absent Chernobyl, which was clearly a nuclear plant not designed to handle a major event from a containment perspective, history over the last 40 years (Three Mile Island and the recent situation in Japan) MAY suggest that people's fear of the what if are somewhat unfounded.

GG

 

[amey01]

Hi Stat,

You state a perspective, if I understand your post correctly, that has crossed my mind.

Absent Chernobyl, which was clearly a nuclear plant not designed to handle a major event from a containment perspective, history over the last 40 years (Three Mile Island and the recent situation in Japan) MAY suggest that people's fear of the what if are somewhat unfounded.

GG

Yes Gordon. A disaster is a bad thing, but even even with the Japan disaster - how many people has/will Fukushima actually kill? Not as many as air travel has killed in the intervening period since 1986 (Chernobyl). In fact, I'd say not as many as air travel has killed this year alone!

And in the final analysis, we can do without air travel a lot easier than we can do without electricity!

 

[Bernard]

What impact would that be Bernard? Something my dad used to repeat when we were out driving sometimes and that was,"if Mother nature doesn't get, you Father time will"! You'll likely die in car crash before you witness a meltdown and become DIRECTLY affected by it.

Haven't higher radiation levels been measured ? Not life-threatening, but there has not been a meltdown.

 

[Rich]

What impact would that be Bernard? Something my dad used to repeat when we were out driving sometimes and that was,"if Mother nature doesn't get, you Father time will"! You'll likely die in car crash before you witness a meltdown and become DIRECTLY affected by it.

The problem with this kind of logic is it ignores the scale of the potential catastrophe. A car crash kills a few people, and the mess is cleaned up rather quickly. A nuclear meltdown can affect thousands to hundreds of thousands, with radiation potentially seeping into air, food and water sources that impact a much larger area than just right around the nuke plant. Don't know if you know much about radiation sickness and cancer, but it isn't really a pretty way to die. Further, once the radiation is released, the area around the nuke plant is a virtual dead zone for potentially hundreds of years.

I agree that the potential for a full-blown meltdown seems very low, but I'm sure the Japanese and Russians thought that as well. The impacts if it does occur are much, much greater and far-reaching than a simple car crash, to use your analogy. Honestly, just the notion that you seem to imply, that you shouldn't worry about nuclear meltdowns since you are highly unlikely to be personally directly affected by one, reeks of narcissistic self-absorption. I am not likely to be personally directly impacted by child sex trafficking either, but it is still an issue that I am concerned about and think my government should take action against.

 

[twich54]

Points well made Rich, is it me or have we just not seen much from the 'witch hunt' media lately on the one Country that apparently has done nuclear well as of late......France ???

 

[Rich]

is it me or have we just not seen much from the 'witch hunt' media lately on the one Country that apparently has done nuclear well as of late......France ???

True, Dave. You just have to look beyond the mainstream media for any real information these days. Here's a few for you:

French nuclear love affair starts to cool

France orders tests on all nuclear power stations after leak (this one's from '08)

Key Facts About French Nuclear Power Giants

Japan's Nuclear Nightmare Arouses French Fears

France aims to streamline, unify nuclear industry

Areva Slumps After Japan Quake as France Defends Nuclear Power

Most French want to keep nuclear power: poll

 

[projectormovielover]

Keep the clean nuke power

 

[Gordon Gray]

Hi Rich,

Re-reading Stat's comments, I think he could have made a better analogy but guilty of narcissistic self absorption? Those are pretty strong words.

I believe his point was to create some type of comparative event and not to necessarily be insensitive to other people that may be affected by a meltdown.

Absent Chernobyl, there hasn't been a similar event (to the best of my knowledge) since nuclear plants came on line. And that's where the challenge lies. The objective (versus speculative) conundrum is what may occur (the what if scenarios) versus what will occur. I don't have the crystal ball but it is, admittedly, a very challenging issue.

As I said on several occasions, I admire your tenacity but you may be "reading" too much into Stat's post.

Best,

Gordon

 

[twich54]

Interesting reads Rich....Thanks !

 

[Gordon Gray]

Agreed Dave. Rich does provide very pertinent information regarding any issue he takes on. Thanks amigo.

It is a vexing challenge knowing that a catastrophic meltdown has catastrophic consequences. Witness Chernobyl.

Having said that, I don't know if the decision to use or not use this technology by any government is based on science, redundant safety measures, need, politics, economy, emotion, speculation, and on and on.

In the end, each country must decide. The problem, of course, is that malfunctions at nuclear plants, depending on the severity of the incident, affect adjoining countries, regardless of each country's policy.

And maybe that's the crux of the issue. Does a sovereign country have the right to potentially harm their neighbors as a result of using this technology?

Gordon

 

[Jimna]

Great sources, Rich, thanks!

"Don't tell me this town ain't got no heart. You just gotta poke around."

 

[Rich]

Thanks, Guys. I'm just a google-a-holic.

In the end, each country must decide. The problem, of course, is that malfunctions at nuclear plants, depending on the severity of the incident, affect adjoining countries, regardless of each country's policy.

And maybe that's the crux of the issue. Does a sovereign country have the right to potentially harm their neighbors as a result of using this technology?

Gordon, you frame the primary issue well, and it holds especially true in an area like Europe, where you have so many smaller countries so close together, and what each does necessarily has effects on its neighbors. What good does it do Germany to give up nuclear power if France puts a plant right on their border with Germany. Prevailing winds will carry radiation from any meltdown right across the border. Difficult issues, for sure.

The problem with our embrace of nuclear energy is our attitude, much like Statman exhibits, that we know everything, have it all under control, and nothing is likely to go wrong that would affect us. Of course, all of that assumes the status quo goes on forever, and we know that just doesn't happen. What happens when there is a catastrophic natural event and we don't have the ability and/or manpower to continue maintenance of these nuclear facilities? Natural disasters like earthquakes and tornadoes are one thing. But even if there was a pandemic or food supply shortage that reduced the world population by a fair percentage, or if there were some civil wars in large countries, and chaos reined for a time, how can we be assured all these hundreds of plants would be maintained and we wouldn't have multiple meltdowns all over the world? Just a thought.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Rich,

As always, insightful observations.

That is the problem. There are no guarantees and extreme failure with this technology has dire consequences on a massive scale.

One can only hope that those who are watching the chicken coup realize the gravity of their task.

Gordon