Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    7:20 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Does the earthquake in Japan change your mind about nuclear power? Back to Topics
101Speedster

Champion Author
Ventura

Posts:31,485
Points:2,826,380
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Mar 12, 2011 1:02:45 PM

Does the earthquake in Japan change your views about having nuclear power plants near your house and powering your house?

I live in California which is prone to earthquakes, as is Japan. If it can happen there, it can happen here.

Someone is going to have to convince me that the people of Japan are not in danger because of those out-of-control nuclear reactors.

At this point, I would rather stick with safer RENEWABLE types of energy like solar; wind; geothermal; plant biofuels; and hydroelectric, including that from the ocean: tidal barrage, tidal stream, and wave power.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:21,797
Points:2,691,435
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 15, 2014 4:55:07 AM

I just saw an excellent movie on this topic, "Pandora's Promise". It really explodes many myths on the subject.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:21,797
Points:2,691,435
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Feb 11, 2014 12:29:16 PM

Keep in mind that high level nuclear waste is only high level radioactive because it was concentrated in the first place.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,223
Points:458,470
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 11, 2014 11:21:26 AM

"Dilution to pollution is not the solution"

If it is naturally occurring, how can it be labeled as 'pollution'?
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,239
Points:149,355
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Feb 11, 2014 9:59:03 AM

Dilution to pollution is not the solution
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:21,797
Points:2,691,435
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Feb 11, 2014 9:34:23 AM

My brother-in-law works in nuclear waste disposal, and he came up with an excellent solution to disposal of high level nuclear waste. Dissolve it in something, dilute it until it reaches background radiation levels, and then dump it anywhere.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,223
Points:458,470
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 11, 2014 9:21:32 AM

"How many parts per billion is it, 101Speedster? Last time it was counting individual atoms..."

Yes, the facts always seem so much less impressive than a sensational statement like there being "radioactive water off the west coast of the United States."

"lol, at weaslespit's comment ;-)"

See, now I feel better - took 2 months off ;) lol
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:21,797
Points:2,691,435
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Feb 10, 2014 2:59:03 PM

How many parts per billion is it, 101Speedster? Last time it was counting individual atoms...
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,485
Points:2,826,380
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Feb 10, 2014 2:42:19 PM

I guess no one here has seen the news reports of radioactive water off the west coast of the United States.

BTW, Shock, when do you think Japan will be able to stop dumping their radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean 24/7, 365.
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:18,004
Points:783,165
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2013 11:10:44 AM

There is a mountain on federal land in Colorado that is so full of uranium that it literally glows after lightning hits it.

Japan used nuclear power since they had almost no natural coal, gas or oil reserves to power their economy. Is it riskier to build nuclear power plants in an earthquake-prone area? Sure, that's why all nuclear power plants are protected from normal natural events. In hindsight, they should have had better tsunami protection. Closing all nuclear power plants is cutting your nose off to spite your face.

lol, at weaslespit's comment ;-)

[Edited by: teacher_tim at 12/2/2013 11:11:05 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,223
Points:458,470
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2013 9:42:28 AM

Feels strange agreeing with shock so much - I will have to frequent this thread less often...
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,476
Points:2,519,030
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2013 9:36:19 AM

"I guess we should just start dumping all of our radioactive waste into our oceans"

An irrational idea from an irrational individual...

The point that was being made speedy, is that the sky is not falling, but then, you believe the Tesla was going to be run in Nascar, so that demonstrates how ineffective you are at filtering fact from fiction....
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:21,797
Points:2,691,435
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Dec 1, 2013 7:02:39 PM

Speedy, is everything about overreacting? What's wrong with a measured response?
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,239
Points:149,355
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 1, 2013 6:41:45 PM

It's easier to catch fish that glow.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,485
Points:2,826,380
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Dec 1, 2013 2:14:11 PM

I guess we should just start dumping all of our radioactive waste into our oceans.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,006
Points:322,590
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Nov 26, 2013 12:07:05 AM

"So, Speedy, should the Earth feel guilty about harming the Earth? "

Speedster acts as if radioactivity is some unnatural man made thing.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,223
Points:458,470
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Nov 25, 2013 10:50:09 AM

"So it doesn't bother you, Weasle, that radioactive water continues to pour into the ocean 24/7, 365 days a year? You have to wonder, for example, what that is doing to our seafood."

Correct, it doesn't bother me. As long as you don't eat seafood caught in the affected area, no worries mate. I never had any fears of eating seafood caught in the Gulf either...
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:21,797
Points:2,691,435
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Nov 24, 2013 2:58:12 PM

Here's a link to support the fact that the Earth naturally adds large amounts of radioactivity into the oceans. So, Speedy, should the Earth feel guilty about harming the Earth?
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,006
Points:322,590
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Nov 24, 2013 12:39:32 PM

"So you are saying that you do not think it is hurting the ocean to be pouring radioactive water directly into the ocean from a nuclear reactor?"

Since deep sea thermal vents have poured radiation into the ocean for billions of years I don't think this will hurt anything.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:21,797
Points:2,691,435
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Nov 23, 2013 9:16:00 PM

Speedy, water just doesn't get significantly radioactive. It CAN'T be a problem. There's a LOT of water in the ocean. Perhaps particulates in the water might be, but they'd settle to the bottom locally. Just don't eat any local seafood and you'll be fine.

What, are you worried about Godzilla attacking Tokyo?
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,485
Points:2,826,380
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Nov 23, 2013 8:35:03 PM

So you are saying that you do not think it is hurting the ocean to be pouring radioactive water directly into the ocean from a nuclear reactor?
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,006
Points:322,590
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2013 5:54:20 PM

"So it doesn't bother you, Speedy, that people have radioactive countertops in their kitchens"

And its radioactive enough to set of radiation detectors at ports of entry to the united states (when granite is imported). The cesium 137 in granite is also found in radioactive fallout from nuclear weapons and nuclear reactor waste.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:21,797
Points:2,691,435
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2013 7:00:03 AM

Water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. The longest lived isotope of oxygen is oxygen-15, with a half life of 122 seconds. It becomes effectively non-radioactive in less than an hour. The longest lived isotope of hydrogen is tritium, with a half life of 12 years. It becomes effectively non-radioactive in a few decades. Both isotopes are found in only minute quantities in water. Tritium used to be used as a tracer in medical testing, but has been replaced by shorter lived isotopes.

Radioactive water is effectively harmless.

I once visited the storage facility at the Idaho National Laboratory for Uranium and Plutonium removed from reactors and other things. I stood 30 feet from large quantities of materials that were about as radioactive as anything gets (like reactor fuel). They were at the bottom of a large tank of water that protected me from dying.

In the International Space Station, in case of a radiation storm the astronauts and cosmonauts go to a place where they are surrounded by their water supply that protects them from dangerous cosmic rays.
Profile Pic
herbiepopnecker
Champion Author British Columbia

Posts:15,181
Points:2,824,195
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Nov 14, 2013 10:09:39 PM

YEah it does. We shouldn't build them in earthquake zones.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:21,797
Points:2,691,435
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Nov 14, 2013 8:44:26 PM

So it doesn't bother you, Speedy, that people have radioactive countertops in their kitchens, 24/7, 365 days a year? You have to wonder, for example, what that is doing to their food. (All granite is radioactive. There are degrees of radioactivity. Water is typically used to shield against radioactivity, and doesn't become very radioactive.)
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,485
Points:2,826,380
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Nov 14, 2013 8:30:25 PM

So it doesn't bother you, Weasle, that radioactive water continues to pour into the ocean 24/7, 365 days a year? You have to wonder, for example, what that is doing to our seafood.

Will they ever be able to stop that radiation from going into the ocean?
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,006
Points:322,590
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Nov 14, 2013 2:15:09 PM

"Nuclear Power generated Electricity can replace oil generated electricty and a heat source for industrial processes."

The less than 1% of U.S. electrical power generated by oil is in places like Guam and remote Alaska. A nuclear plant is simply not feasible for these locations. The U.S. army core of engineers tried it in the 1960s and it didn't work.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:21,797
Points:2,691,435
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Nov 14, 2013 10:37:29 AM

Solar Companies Creating Millions Of Pounds Of Polluted Sludge, Contaminated Water

[Edited by: ldheinz at 11/14/2013 10:38:42 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,476
Points:2,519,030
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Nov 13, 2013 4:50:28 PM

"Nuclear Power generated Electricity can replace oil generated electricty"

Very, little electricity is produced in the US using oil (1%).

But that tiny amount is still more then is produced with Solar power (.11%)....
Profile Pic
wbacon
Champion Author Philadelphia

Posts:15,103
Points:3,318,745
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Nov 13, 2013 3:54:00 PM

Nuclear Power generated Electricity can replace oil generated electricty and a heat source for industrial processes. It can replace a lot of oil imports. Do you think that OPEC is behind the opposition to Nuclear power?
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,476
Points:2,519,030
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Nov 13, 2013 3:40:00 PM

". . . and the radiated water continues to spill into the ocean every day 24/7, 365 days a year"

And despite that Nuclear Power it still is less deadly then power created by wind, solar, and fossil fuels....

So what exactly is your point speedy?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,223
Points:458,470
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Nov 13, 2013 3:25:42 PM

Looks like I agree with shock on this one. Nuclear has a very long and safe track record. If it takes historic, catastrophic natural disaster to cause a 'Fukushima'... There are other things to worry about first.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,485
Points:2,826,380
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Nov 13, 2013 1:21:51 PM

. . . and the radiated water continues to spill into the ocean every day 24/7, 365 days a year.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,476
Points:2,519,030
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Nov 6, 2013 10:05:54 AM

"Haven't you heard that we all of a sudden have all of this surplus oil, OPEC is shaking in their boots, and gasoline prices are going to start dropping any day now?"

Exactly oilpan. What does nuclear generated electricla power have to do with oil??

Sounds like Speedy is grasping at floating straws being left behind by his strawman arguments...
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,006
Points:322,590
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Nov 5, 2013 10:51:42 PM

How does electrical power displace oil use?
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,485
Points:2,826,380
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Nov 5, 2013 9:50:10 PM

Haven't you heard that we all of a sudden have all of this surplus oil, OPEC is shaking in their boots, and gasoline prices are going to start dropping any day now?
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,006
Points:322,590
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Nov 4, 2013 9:00:24 PM

How does nuclear power or any other electrical power source compete with OPEC?
Profile Pic
wbacon
Champion Author Philadelphia

Posts:15,103
Points:3,318,745
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Nov 4, 2013 6:49:53 PM

nO, i'M STILL PRO NUCLEAR AS COMPETITION TO OPEC, KIND OF EXPLAINS THE OPPOSITION TO NUCLEAR POWER DOESN'T IT?
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,006
Points:322,590
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Nov 4, 2013 5:54:19 PM

"Even the climate scientist approve of nuclear over solar and wind"

Works for me.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,476
Points:2,519,030
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Nov 4, 2013 3:46:51 PM

Even the climate scientist approve of nuclear over solar and wind:

Experts say nuclear power needed to slow warming
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,476
Points:2,519,030
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 27, 2013 11:11:19 PM

"YOU hijacked the topic with YOUR comment on solar"

Wrong answer, this topic relates to nuclear safety. My post demonstrates nuclear power is as safe as any power source out there...
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:24,873
Points:3,794,735
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Oct 27, 2013 5:24:11 PM

YOU hijacked the topic with YOUR comment on solar.
If you can't see that, there is no point in responding to you on it, there is no winning position, only losing ones.
This tack of yours adds nothing, it merely allows the thread to degenerate into personal responses.
So pretend you won something if it suits your agenda.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,476
Points:2,519,030
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 27, 2013 1:03:13 PM

"If you wanted the subject to be only nuclear power, perhaps YOU shouldn't have hijacked it into solar by opening the door to replies"

If you want to suggest that Nuclear power is safer then coal, oil or natural gas, then your comments would be germane. If you compare these fossil fuels to solar, then you are simply hijacking the topic...
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:24,873
Points:3,794,735
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Oct 26, 2013 3:47:55 PM

Shockjock1961 said, on Oct 20, 2013: "The WHO has done a study which shows that there are 4 to times as many people who die per Twh of power produced from solar generation then who die per Twh of power produced from Nuclear generation. Perhaps the question should be asking if we should be changing our minds about solar?"

If you wanted the subject to be only nuclear power, perhaps YOU shouldn't have hijacked it into solar by opening the door to replies.
Discussion is fluid, one can't expect others to talk of only what you think they should talk about if you are the one that diverts it.

[Edited by: rumbleseat at 10/26/2013 3:50:34 PM EST]
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:20,439
Points:842,430
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Oct 26, 2013 1:37:20 PM

Well the Oarfish speak the truth. Fukushima nuclear power plant undamaged after 7.3 earthquake off coast of Japan

"The operators of Japan's crippled nuclear power plant said there was no further damage caused to the wrecked plant, despite a magnitude 7.1 to 7.3 earthquake striking offshore and triggering a small tsunami.

An earthquake official with the Japan Meteorological Agency said the quake was an aftershock of the magnitude 9.0 earthquake and tsunami that struck the same area in 2011, killing about 19,000 people and devastating the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power plant.

Workers at the plant were told to leave waterfront areas and head to higher ground.

Japanese television reported a one foot tsunami had reached Japan's east coast, but one-metre high tsunami advisory warnings were lifted approximately two hours later."

[Edited by: btc1 at 10/26/2013 1:37:59 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,476
Points:2,519,030
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 26, 2013 10:59:58 AM

"Then, when it is pointed out using the same criteria solar is safer than coal, oil, or gas tries to dismiss it"

Once again, rumbleseat, the topic is nuclear power. Why are you trying to hijack it to further your agenda?
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:24,873
Points:3,794,735
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2013 7:56:05 PM

Well, let's see now, Shocky brings in a study to show"there are 4 to times as many people who die per Twh of power produced from solar generation then who die per Twh of power produced from Nuclear generation."
Then, when it is pointed out using the same criteria solar is safer than coal, oil, or gas tries to dismiss it.
Funny, you brought the study into play, if you didn't want to have it used, maybe you shouldn't have done so. But it does explain why you didn't link to it in your post.
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:20,439
Points:842,430
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2013 6:19:41 PM

What about the unusual number of Oarfish that washed ashore just before that earthquake.

Now they are predicting one in California, with the Oarfish washing up there.

Still Nuclear Power? I just do not think it is going to expand, now.
Profile Pic
greentre
Champion Author Pensacola

Posts:1,272
Points:396,520
Joined:Oct 2011
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2013 5:26:47 PM

Back to the OP; not really. At least not for nuclear power here in the US.
According to this map almost all the reactors in America are away from known sources of earthquakes. California is the exception, but then again, California has fault lines running the length and width of the state.

Renewable is good in some instances and unreliable in others. Wind is fickle, solar dependent on the weather, geothermal is pretty reliable as is hydroelectric (river based).

The hydroelectric does have it's drawbacks also; have to form a reservoir on rivers, tidal types use ocean power that could be compromised by weather or tsunamis.

Fusion would seem to be the hope if scientists can figure out how to keep a reaction going in a cost efficient manner.

"For fusion to occur the atoms must be confined in the magnetic field and raised to a temperature of 100 million Kelvin or more. This takes lot of electricity and hence cost inefficiency comes in the picture."
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:21,797
Points:2,691,435
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2013 2:41:38 PM

Yes, Germany is shutting down perfectly good nuclear power plants so that they can switch to coal for the environment! How incredibly stupid!
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,476
Points:2,519,030
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2013 2:39:40 PM

"Yes, solar is far safer than coal, oil, and natural gas"

What exactly does that have to do with the safety of Nuclear Power?

You know... The subject of this particular topic...
Post a reply Back to Topics