next »

[s0]

hey guys just droppin by to letcha know this thread about a natural disaster that destroyed entire towns is the PERFECT place for inane forum memes

[Superb Joe]

the sl-1 reactor accident was the best one because a guy got pinned to a ceiling through his groin

[Blademasterbobo]

I am shame 

[Rob Lach]

the sl-1 reactor accident was the best one because a guy got pinned to a ceiling through his groin

I hope it was because he got a radioactive boner.

[Dacke]

@Dracke
The discussion is about is nuclear safe, not about general consumption strategy

The primary argument for using uranium-based power is that we need to, even if it's bad. If we cut down on power usage we won't need uranium as much.

But either way..
I really hope they'll be able to get enough water into the reactor to prevent a catastrophe.

[Mipe]

Underwater power plants.

Woah woah woah woah. FUCK NO

Look up the bikini atoll nuclear bomb tests. The worst of ALL of them was the underwater detonation. With a above-water nuclear dispersal, the radioactive material travels a relatively short distance before settling. With an underwater one, the material is carried a lot further by currents in the seas. It's like the difference between a leak at a oil well on land, and one underwater.

We really need more research into nuclear fusion. The amount of energy per gram of deuterium fusion is many times more than that of uranium fission. Plus, there's a huge supply of it, given that about 1% of the oceans are deuterium.

Uh, nuclear bomb != nuclear plant. One is designed to go boom and cause as much destructive power as possible. Other is not. Nuclear plants don't go KA-BOOM. They go *pop* and then spew shit out.

But yeah, point taken in regard to spread of radioactive matter. S'why I said it should be designed to collapse under the massive water pressure at seabed level. Then you just have to seal it.

[slembcke]

Yeah, but you could make the same claim that wind farms are bad because they kill millions of birds and affect wind patters, or that hydroelectric power is bad because you have to create dams that cause significant ecological change. (Colorado river anyone?)

Plastics are bad because they are based off of petroleum. Copper is bad because the way it is mined does significant ecological damage, etc. You wouldn't have the luxury of posting on an internet forum if it wasn't for all the "bad" things that made it work. The problem isn't that these things are particularly bad, but that we are using them up at an unsustainable rate. We need more and more of resources and constantly need to find faster and cheaper ways of getting them. That's generally the opposite of safer and ecologically sound.

[Dacke]

I think uranium belongs to the top-tier of dangerous things. Neither the explosive dangers nor the long term dangers should be underestimated.

But sure, it is a good idea to cut down on those other things too if possible. Nuclear power is not nearly the most important thing to worry about. Not even close. But I guess I'll repeat my point from before: several things can be bad at the same time. Just because other things are worse doesn't mean that this is good. Where part of the solution definitely is to consume resources a slower rate (which I am trying to do). And another part of the solution is to create things in the digital world instead of the physical world.

[Tycho Brahe]

Uh, nuclear bomb != nuclear plant. One is designed to go boom and cause as much destructive power as possible. Other is not. Nuclear plants don't go KA-BOOM. They go *pop* and then spew shit out.

But yeah, point taken in regard to spread of radioactive matter. S'why I said it should be designed to collapse under the massive water pressure at seabed level. Then you just have to seal it.

I realise that, but a nuclear power station is even worse, as there is a greater quantity of unstable fissionable material, so more is distributed into the ocean.

It's not quite pop though, its more like a large explosion, not as big as a nuclear bomb, but still fucking huge.

As for collapsing...well you could have a sort of double hulled system. With a thick concrete/rock shell around the power station, with a layer of water or air between them.

Even better, put the whole thing underground, I'm sure there are some bit enough underwater caves to up it in.

[Dacke]

If I'm not mistaken, it is very dangerous to get radioactive contamination in the groundwater. I think it is preferable to have it spread into the atmosphere. (This comment is not based on any reliable sources.)

[Mipe]

I'm not worried about nuclear power, just the nuclear plants that are older than me.

These modern plants are so durable they could withstand a 9 quake and a tsunami. In fact, there are two more power plant complexes near Fukushima and they're fully operational. One of them is even closer to the epicenter.

I don't understand panic mongers. I don't take risks, which is why I don't approve of half-assed management of obsolete plants. Roll those 3+ gen plants out, screw the older generations.

[gimymblert]

Cesium is the new CO²

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I think uranium belongs to the top-tier of dangerous things. Neither the explosive dangers nor the long term dangers should be underestimated.

of course, but as that article i quoted mentioned, the danger from natural uranium, which we can't do anything about since it's part of the earth's materials, exceeds the danger of nuclear plant waste uranium by many times. did you read that part about how if all the radioactive nuclear waste in the US were put directly into the colorado river rather than stored in containment units, it would still only be 1/20th of the natural radioactiveness in that river, from natural sources? and putting it directly in the rivers is not even what is being done with it

[Superb Joe]

I'm not worried about nuclear power, just the nuclear plants that are older than me.

where do you live and how old are you? because every single u.s nuclear power plant started construction in the 70's or earlier

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

yeah definitely -- there's one like that even in new jersey. which is, paradoxically, why *fear* of nuclear power actually makes it *more* dangerous. it's hard politically to build new nuclear power plants in the US because people fear them so much. but because of that fear the old, dangerous ones aren't being replaced by the new, safer ones.

[Superb Joe]

also the absurdly enormous coal/oil lobby and the fact that buying public officials is now protected free speech. i am Shuma Borat. Hyper Mystic Ray. Very Nice.

[Μarkham]

Yeah, but you could make the same claim that wind farms are bad because they kill millions of birds and affect wind patters, or that hydroelectric power is bad because you have to create dams that cause significant ecological change. (Colorado river anyone?)

Colorado river?  I think China's Three Gorges dam is a better example, as scientific exports think the reservoir's massive size is affecting the tectonic activity in the area, among other things.

I think people are more concerned with a lack of constant efficiency with wind-power, though.  Most of the time that I see those things, they aren't moving at all.

Geothermal electricity, though, looks like a decent alternative to coal and oil plants.  It apparently still vents out harmful gasses, but nowhere to the extent of coal and oil.

[supershigi]

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

:

i liked it but i felt the end was a bit too reassuring! it's like, you shouldn't lie to kids and tell them everything will be fine if you aren't sure yet, cause then they'll never trust adults again!

[Μarkham]

Earthquake Journalist Wall of Shame