The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has warned there is no water left in the spent fuel pool of reactor No. 4 at the plant, resulting in "extremely high" radiation levels. High-pressure water cannons will now be used to try and spray water into the reactors.
The situation has been described by the International Atomic Energy Agency as "very serious" and US officials now say radiation levels at the plant may give emergency workers "lethal doses" in a short period of time, meaning their ability to take corrective measures will be hampered.
Sources: MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering / Professor Stephen Lincoln, School of Chemistry and Physics, University of Adelaide.
I live near a nuke plant here in New York, Indian Point, and our new Governor, whom hates the idea of nuke plants, is taking advantage of this situation and fear mongering all over the local news.
JBrazen wrote:I live near a nuke plant here in New York, Indian Point, and our new Governor, whom hates the idea of nuke plants, is taking advantage of this situation and fear mongering all over the local news.
Not familiar with the situation but if I lived near a nuclear plant (which I do...5 miles) I'd be nervous too.
With my limited knowledge nuclear energy CAN be clean and safe, but only in a perfect world.
Reactors are one thing and pose one host of problems.
Spent fuel is just as large a consideration, they go hand in hand.
IMO , given our current technology, the drawbacks far outweigh the benefits.
JBrazen wrote:I live near a nuke plant here in New York, Indian Point, and our new Governor, whom hates the idea of nuke plants, is taking advantage of this situation and fear mongering all over the local news.
------ “The most beautiful thing we can experience in life is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: for his eyes are closed.” - Albert Einstein
Humboldt wrote:Not familiar with the situation but if I lived near a nuclear plant (which I do...5 miles) I'd be nervous too.
With my limited knowledge nuclear energy CAN be clean and safe, but only in a perfect world.
Reactors are one thing and pose one host of problems.
Spent fuel is just as large a consideration, they go hand in hand.
IMO , given our current technology, the drawbacks far outweigh the benefits.
From what I gather the plants in Japan have had a horrible record of safety and maintaining equipment which had the guy in charge of all resign in the middle being discovered that they hide the results of tests and such. I have an uncle that just retired from working at a Nuke plant, he said these things in the US have several layers of backups to prevent such a issue and the security at them is insane. We do however need more wind drivin power, more solar power generated for not only power consumption but also ways to get away from high gas prices.
JBrazen wrote:whom hates the idea of nuke plants, is taking advantage of this situation and fear mongering all over the local news.
yeah too much of this going on... too many getting all upset over nothing. There are measures in place for just about everything, but providing current events keep up with the 2012 timeline ya never know what could happen. Hell even the moon is getting on it with it coming closest to the Earth in over 20years!!!
Sava700 wrote:yeah too much of this going on... too many getting all upset over nothing. There are measures in place for just about everything, but providing current events keep up with the 2012 timeline ya never know what could happen. Hell even the moon is getting on it with it coming closest to the Earth in over 20years!!!
Start watching for Wormwood.
Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces people into thinking they can't lose. -Bill Gates
A perfect world starts with nuclear plants not being built near fault lines.
That and the means to bury their waste for a few millennia safely.
Hell_Yes
Luck is where preparation meets opportunity - Seneca
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book. - Friedrich Nietzsche
Coal may not have the immediate-risk possibilities, but as safe, reliable and 'green' power goes-- nuclear is pretty much it. Decommisioning nuke plants and replacing them with "clean" coal will have more long-term health effects, discounting even climate change.
If your browser can't read unicode, you should probably switch!
Coal may not have the immediate-risk possibilities, but as safe, reliable and 'green' power goes-- nuclear is pretty much it. Decommisioning nuke plants and replacing them with "clean" coal will have more long-term health effects, discounting even climate change.
Not a fan of coal either, which is why I feel wind and solar have so much potential. Solar and passive solar are highly under-utilized.
The house I moved out of last summer....we had a view of the nuke plant right across the cove. "Millstone/Dominion plant" Less than 1 mile away. Lit up the night time with all their lights.
House we just bought and moved into is only 2 blocks away from that, but view is now blocked by a small hill.
MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
Guinness for Strength!!!
First, consider the meltdown. The risk of such a catastrophe is not trivial. In fact, the five reactor meltdowns in history represent more than 1% of the more than 440 nuclear reactors on Earth.
Why do we need nuclear energy when we have safer, cleaner options that can provide greater power for a much longer period and at lower cost to society? These better options are called WWS, for "wind, water and sunlight." The chance of catastrophe caused by nature or terrorists acting on wind or solar, in particular, is zero.
During their lifetimes, WWS technologies emit no pollution - whereas nuclear does, since continuous energy is needed to mine, transport and refine uranium, and reactors require much longer to permit and install than do WWS technologies. Overall, nuclear emits 9 to 25 times more air pollution and carbon dioxide than does wind per unit energy generated.
***
Some argue that nuclear is more reliable than WWS systems. This is not true. A nuclear reactor affects a larger fraction of the grid when it fails than does a wind turbine. The average maintenance downtime of modern wind turbines on land is 2%. That of France’s 59 reactors is 21.5%, with about half due to scheduled maintenance.
What about matching energy supply with demand? Nuclear power plants most efficiently provide constant power when they are on. But power demand varies continuously. Some WWS options (such as geothermal and tidal) also provide constant output. However others (wind, solar, wave) are variable, and hydroelectricity can be turned on and off quickly. It has been shown with data that combining WWS technologies as a single commodity allows power demand to be supplied hour by hour with virtually no backup.
