or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Failsafe nuclear power stations fail in Japan.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Failsafe nuclear power stations fail in Japan. - Page 2

post #41 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Marc. Im not willing to take the risk. I believecwe can and should do better. We are not animals we arexhuman we owe it to eachother and our beautiful planet not to destroy it. The consequences to the fragility of our wonderful earth should not be underestimated any more than it already has been.

I was reluctant to post this earlier in case it wasn't genuine. Now the Guardian is reporting the same-

"Reuters reports that the Fukushima nuclear plant has also lost the emergency cooling system at its No 3 reactor, according to the Japan Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency. This requires the facility to urgently secure a means to supply water to the reactor a Japanese official said"

The alternatives are not only possible they are neccesity. Fight to mske them happen.

You lack the scientific understanding of nuclear power to make such a sweeping judgment here. You don't understand the risk. Your fears are unfounded. This is the equivalent of the ignorant anti-evolution crowd trying to dictate what's in the science curriculum at public high schools.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #42 of 179
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You lack the scientific understanding of nuclear power to make such a sweeping judgment here. You don't understand the risk. Your fears are unfounded. This is the equivalent of the ignorant anti-evolution crowd trying to dictate what's in the science curriculum at public high schools.

To a degree that's true, but only to a degree. We know tge possible consequences and God no I won't knife someone and hope they'll live.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #43 of 179
Except you don't actually know the consequences. A pebble bed reactor CANNOT meltdown. So, what are the consequences?

A 40 year old nuclear reactor survives a 9.0 earthquake. What are these alleged consequences?

If you want to decommission all old nuclear power plants and replace them with the new meltdown proof designs, fine. Even then, you're going quite overboard. A 40 year old nuclear reactor nearing the end of its useful life survived a fucking 9.0 earthquake.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #44 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Japan (and the ocean surrounding) has a history of large and damaging earthquakes. The power company design team didn't allow for anything larger than a 7, when there is a known potential, and long and well documented history for quakes in the region to exceed 7.. and by a large margin?????!!!!!! ?????

That is what I call "not doing their homework properly".

Let's do a little homework on this subject, shall we?

According to Wikipedia's list of earthquakes in Japan (with a magnitude of 6.5 or higher), we find the following that are greater than 7.0:
  1. June 28, 1948 (7.1)
  2. March 11, 2011 (7.1) -- an aftershock from the 8.9 on the same day
  3. September 10, 1943 (7.2)
  4. August 16, 2005 (7.2)
  5. March 9, 2011 (7.2) -- a foreshock from the 8.9 two days later
  6. December 21, 2010 (7.4)
  7. March 27, 1927 (7.6)
  8. June 16, 1964 (7.6)
  9. June 12, 1978 (7.7)
  10. January 18, 1586 (7.8) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
  11. June 5, 745 (7.9) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
  12. December 31, 1703 (8.0) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
  13. October 28, 1891 (8.0) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
  14. November 29, 684 (8.0–8.4) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
  15. December 20, 1946 (8.1)
  16. September 1, 1923 (8.3)
  17. November 15, 2006 (8.3)
  18. December 23, 1854 (8.4) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
  19. December 24, 1854 (8.4) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
  20. March 2, 1933 (8.4)
  21. June 15, 1896 (8.5) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
  22. October 28, 1707 (8.6) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
  23. March 11, 2011 (8.9)

Excluding the recent one, in the last 100 years this what's happened (greater than 7.0):
  1. September 1, 1923 (8.3)
  2. March 27, 1927 (7.6)
  3. March 2, 1933 (8.4)
  4. September 10, 1943 (7.2)
  5. December 20, 1946 (8.1)
  6. June 28, 1948 (7.1)
  7. June 16, 1964 (7.6) - Niigata
  8. June 12, 1978 (7.7) - Miyagi
  9. August 16, 2005 (7.2) - Miyagi
  10. November 15, 2006 (8.3)
  11. December 21, 2010 (7.4)

Of those, only 3 (in bold above) were even close to where these nuclear power plants are now located (Fukushima Prefecture). All other earthquakes were much further away and would not have affected this plant if it existed at the time of the earthquake. This plant has also been in operation since 1971. Despite the two earthquakes in nearby Miyagi prefecture (1978 and 2005) of magnitudes greater than the 7.0 specification it was built for (7.7 and 7.2) it isn't until now that there has been a problem.

What it looks like to me is that they:
  1. located this plant in the area least likely to be impacted my major earthquakes to begin with,
  2. spec'ed to to a fairly high level in keeping with probabilities,
  3. balanced this with the undoubtedly exorbitant costs to make it withstand anything, anytime, and
  4. have provided the Japanese people with consistent, economical electricity for 40 years...almost to the day as it turns out) without an incident like this until now

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #45 of 179
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Let's do a little homework on this subject, shall we?

According to Wikipedia's list of earthquakes in Japan (with a magnitude of 6.5 or higher), we find the following that are greater than 7.0:
  1. June 28, 1948 (7.1)
  2. March 11, 2011 (7.1) -- an aftershock from the 8.9 on the same day
  3. September 10, 1943 (7.2)
  4. August 16, 2005 (7.2)
  5. March 9, 2011 (7.2) -- a foreshock from the 8.9 two days later
  6. December 21, 2010 (7.4)
  7. March 27, 1927 (7.6)
  8. June 16, 1964 (7.6)
  9. June 12, 1978 (7.7)
  10. January 18, 1586 (7.8) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
  11. June 5, 745 (7.9) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
  12. December 31, 1703 (8.0) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
  13. October 28, 1891 (8.0) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
  14. November 29, 684 (8.08.4) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
  15. December 20, 1946 (8.1)
  16. September 1, 1923 (8.3)
  17. November 15, 2006 (8.3)
  18. December 23, 1854 (8.4) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
  19. December 24, 1854 (8.4) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
  20. March 2, 1933 (8.4)
  21. June 15, 1896 (8.5) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
  22. October 28, 1707 (8.6) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
  23. March 11, 2011 (8.9)

Excluding the recent one, in the last 100 years this what's happened (greater than 7.0):
  1. September 1, 1923 (8.3)
  2. March 27, 1927 (7.6)
  3. March 2, 1933 (8.4)
  4. September 10, 1943 (7.2)
  5. December 20, 1946 (8.1)
  6. June 28, 1948 (7.1)
  7. June 16, 1964 (7.6) - Niigata
  8. June 12, 1978 (7.7) - Miyagi
  9. August 16, 2005 (7.2) - Miyagi
  10. November 15, 2006 (8.3)
  11. December 21, 2010 (7.4)

Of those, only 3 (in bold above) were even close to where these nuclear power plants are now located (Fukushima Prefecture). All other earthquakes were much further away and would not have affected this plant if it existed at the time of the earthquake. This plant has also been in operation since 1971. Despite the two earthquakes in nearby Miyagi prefecture (1978 and 2005) of magnitudes greater than the 7.0 specification it was built for (7.7 and 7.2) it isn't until now that there has been a problem.

What it looks like to me is that they:
  1. located this plant in the area least likely to be impacted my major earthquakes to begin with,
  2. spec'ed to to a fairly high level in keeping with probabilities,
  3. balanced this with the undoubtedly exorbitant costs to make it withstand anything, anytime, and
  4. have provided the Japanese people with consistent, economical electricity for 40 years...almost to the day as it turns out) without an incident like this until now

Not trying to knock you but my understanding is the depth is important too.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #46 of 179
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Except you don't actually know the consequences. A pebble bed reactor CANNOT meltdown. So, what are the consequences?

A 40 year old nuclear reactor survives a 9.0 earthquake. What are these alleged consequences?

If you want to decommission all old nuclear power plants and replace them with the new meltdown proof designs, fine. Even then, you're going quite overboard. A 40 year old nuclear reactor nearing the end of its useful life survived a fucking 9.0 earthquake.

I'd rather new capital was spent on clean tech.

You never responded in a previous thread to links I posted about terrorism. This is some crazy game, and I've had it with BS safety crap. Back to the caves for me, thank you.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #47 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Now in the ultimate irony, watch Lundy honor your request due to Sammi reporting an insult from you to her.

I got banned, for 2 weeks (several years ago) for returning an insult at someone who insulted me. The person who insulted me was not banned. I am hardly likely to report such to the "moderators" on account of the the double standards on display here.

Quote:
As you note Sammi, no one has more experience and likely better designed attempts to deal with this than the Japanese. So when they couldn't deal with it, that simply means it couldn't be dealt with at all. The darn reactor has to assume some norms like the entire planet not disappearing from underneath it or the nature of water not changing, etc. This quake was historically unprecedented.

This was not an unprecedented event. Larger earthquakes have occurred in modern history, such as Chile, Alaska and Indonesia...on the Pacific Rim... and Japan happens to qualify.

Damaging tsunami can be generated by earthquakes considerably smaller than what happened in Japan. Sometimes, a major quake wont generate one, other times a smaller quake will. The size of a tsunami depends on a huge number of geographical variables re. the quake. Coming to think about it, despite the loss of life and huge damage, they dodged a bullet. Imagine if the epicenter of a quake that powerful was located under a major metropolitan area... like Tokyo or Osaka? The city which was damaged the most was 80 miles away... and the damping effect of that distance on the severity of the shaking is considerable. Tokyo is 230 miles from the epicenter... and got shaken severely... tall buildings were still swaying in downtown Roppongi half an hour afterwards.

Just up the road from me is Diablo Canyon nuke. It's not in the best shape, and its built within a few miles of several (known) faults which could generate a 7 if they ruptured fully.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #48 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Let's do a little homework on this subject, shall we?

According to Wikipedia's list of earthquakes in Japan (with a magnitude of 6.5 or higher), we find the following that are greater than 7.0:
  1. June 28, 1948 (7.1)
  2. March 11, 2011 (7.1) -- an aftershock from the 8.9 on the same day
  3. September 10, 1943 (7.2)
  4. August 16, 2005 (7.2)
  5. March 9, 2011 (7.2) -- a foreshock from the 8.9 two days later
  6. December 21, 2010 (7.4)
  7. March 27, 1927 (7.6)
  8. June 16, 1964 (7.6)
  9. June 12, 1978 (7.7)
  10. January 18, 1586 (7.8) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
  11. June 5, 745 (7.9) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
  12. December 31, 1703 (8.0) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
  13. October 28, 1891 (8.0) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
  14. November 29, 684 (8.0–8.4) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
  15. December 20, 1946 (8.1)
  16. September 1, 1923 (8.3)
  17. November 15, 2006 (8.3)
  18. December 23, 1854 (8.4) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
  19. December 24, 1854 (8.4) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
  20. March 2, 1933 (8.4)
  21. June 15, 1896 (8.5) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
  22. October 28, 1707 (8.6) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
  23. March 11, 2011 (8.9)

Excluding the recent one, in the last 100 years this what's happened (greater than 7.0):
  1. September 1, 1923 (8.3)
  2. March 27, 1927 (7.6)
  3. March 2, 1933 (8.4)
  4. September 10, 1943 (7.2)
  5. December 20, 1946 (8.1)
  6. June 28, 1948 (7.1)
  7. June 16, 1964 (7.6) - Niigata
  8. June 12, 1978 (7.7) - Miyagi
  9. August 16, 2005 (7.2) - Miyagi
  10. November 15, 2006 (8.3)
  11. December 21, 2010 (7.4)

Of those, only 3 (in bold above) were even close to where these nuclear power plants are now located (Fukushima Prefecture). All other earthquakes were much further away and would not have affected this plant if it existed at the time of the earthquake. This plant has also been in operation since 1971. Despite the two earthquakes in nearby Miyagi prefecture (1978 and 2005) of magnitudes greater than the 7.0 specification it was built for (7.7 and 7.2) it isn't until now that there has been a problem.

What it looks like to me is that they:
  1. located this plant in the area least likely to be impacted my major earthquakes to begin with,
  2. spec'ed to to a fairly high level in keeping with probabilities,
  3. balanced this with the undoubtedly exorbitant costs to make it withstand anything, anytime, and
  4. have provided the Japanese people with consistent, economical electricity for 40 years...almost to the day as it turns out) without an incident like this until now

There are many unknown faults... The Northridge quake of 1994, 2800 times weaker than the recent Japan quake.... (a mere $30 billion in damage)... was caused by a previously unknown fault.

You're wish casting!

You design a nuclear power facility, in an earthquake prone area, bearing in mind a worst case scenario... not a "hope for the best and keep our fingers crossed" outlook.....

A much smaller quake, say a 7.5 or 8.0 right underneath a nuclear power plant is a scary proposition. Even a 6.x at a shallow depth can cause massive damage.

"Public Safety" = "Commie talk"? Still?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #49 of 179
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

There are many unknown faults... The Northridge quake of 1994, 2800 times weaker than the recent Japan quake.... (a mere $30 billion in damage)... was caused by a previously unknown fault.

You're wish casting!

You design a nuclear power facility, in an earthquake prone area, bearing in mind a worst case scenario... not a "hope for the best and keep our fingers crossed" outlook.....

A much smaller quake, say a 7.5 or 8.0 right underneath a nuclear power plant is a scary proposition. Even a 6.x at a shallow depth can cause massive damage.

"Public Safety" = "Commie talk"? Still?

I'm reminded of whats his face.

Known unknonws etc.

So why are you in favour of nuc power when all hell can come from it?



If i invite someone into my house and tell them that the building might blow up because i can't be a 100% sure that nothing will malfunction do they have reason to think "wtf im out of here"?

Yes they do, but i can assure them that only a tiny number of people have died and the reports of a million deaths from chernoble are just fear mongering, i can also tell them that they're gw fears are real and that nucs is a real saviour for those poor souls.

Well they all leave.

Why?

Because they intuitively know that all power corrupts and ...you know the rest.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #50 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I'd rather new capital was spent on clean tech.

You never responded in a previous thread to links I posted about terrorism. This is some crazy game, and I've had it with BS safety crap. Back to the caves for me, thank you.

Nuclear power IS clean tech. Your failure to understand the science does not change that.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #51 of 179
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Nuclear power IS clean tech. Your failure to understand the science does not change that.

Are blacks treated wqualy when calling a cab?

Are plants represented in d.c?
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #52 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I'm reminded of whats his face.

Known unknonws etc.

So why are you in favour of nuc power when all hell can come from it?

Nukes in places which are seismically quiet/inactive are not going to get wrecked in an earthquake. What is such a great problem in designing a nuke in earthquake prone regions with the anticipated worst case scenario in mind? And... one's up against Murphy's law as well. Just do the job properly and don't scrimp on safety.

But... there are new technologies which are inherently far safer than the "boiling water reactor" affected in Japan.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #53 of 179
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Nukes in places which are seismically quiet/inactive are not going to get wrecked in an earthquake. What is such a great problem in designing a nuke in earthquake prone regions with the anticipated worst case scenario in mind? And... one's up against Murphy's law as well. Just do the job properly and don't scrimp on safety.

But... there are new technologies which are inherently far safer than the "boiling water reactor" affected in Japan.

I've spent years telling friends i support nuclear weapons, but i strongly oppose nuclear power. Mostly had no agreement, just surprised looks. You nuke me, i'll nuke you...you bet.

I hope this gets under control soon.

Be safe all,

Very disturbing day.

Trust Christ.


Peace...because it's all we want.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #54 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

You're wish casting!




Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

You design a nuclear power facility, in an earthquake prone area, bearing in mind a worst case scenario... not a "hope for the best and keep our fingers crossed" outlook.....

Come to think of, I'm sure you're quite right. That's probably exactly how the design sessions went.

In the future the people with years or decades of experience planning, designing, building and maintaining nuclear power plants should consult...you.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #55 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

What is such a great problem in designing a nuke in earthquake prone regions with the anticipated worst case scenario in mind?

I don't know.

Why don't you and Hands Sandon tell us all. You are both clearly experts in the subject. Surely you can tell us precisely what more can and should have been done...how much it would cost and so on.

Go ahead...

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #56 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Are blacks treated wqualy when calling a cab?

Are plants represented in d.c?

What? Is there a point that I missed here? Racism and what?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #57 of 179
http://www.space.com/11115-japan-ear...arth-days.html

An example of how powerful the quake was.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #58 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Except you don't actually know the consequences. A pebble bed reactor CANNOT meltdown. So, what are the consequences?

A 40 year old nuclear reactor survives a 9.0 earthquake. What are these alleged consequences?

If you want to decommission all old nuclear power plants and replace them with the new meltdown proof designs, fine. Even then, you're going quite overboard. A 40 year old nuclear reactor nearing the end of its useful life survived a fucking 9.0 earthquake.

But it didn't. If it had survived, then there would be no concern about it and we would only be watching news about the quake, tsunami and the rescue efforts.

There are 160+ people being treated for radiation exposure (including rescuers and medical staff who are urgently needed elsewhere), and the situation at the plant continues. Desperately needed helicopters and rescuers are being diverted to the nuclear power plants. A special medical team as well. There was a slight scare an hour or so ago when yet another plant showed high levels of radiation outside the plant, but the thinking goes that it was actually blown there from the Fukushima plant.

People where I live (well south of the quake area but just just up river from a nuclear plant) were today discussing the fact that the main issue here with the nuclear plants is that valuable resources (including planning resources to the highest levels) that need to be being directed at rescue efforts (there are 10,000 people missing) are being directed towards the power plants. The world media (and the local media as well) are spending tremendous amounts of air time on the nuclear issue.

There is talk around me (amongst Japanese) that nuclear power has no place here in the country after this disaster. At least one TV channel is discussing this point as well.

---

At least 3 nuclear power plants (possibly some oil and coal-fired ones as well) are shut down for safety reasons for the near future. There was just an announcement that there is a 70% chance of a 7.0 or greater aftershock within the next week. Rolling blackouts are being discussed from Tokyo north.

---
Sorry. The blackouts start tomorrow morning. One guest on a news show is tearing into the government for this right now. There was no announcement about considerations for all-electric homes (something pushed here over the past few years), people with medical needs, old people and the cold. The blackouts are simply to allow factories to return to work.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #59 of 179
First, I still think you are sensationalizing this whole situation. Second, how many lives will the pollution from coal or oil cost? Third, you haven't put forth any kind of counterargument against meltdown proof plants which use new nuclear technology--not the 40 year old technology which still survived a 9.0 earthquake. The current radiation levels outside the plant are above the safety limit but do not pose an immediate threat.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #60 of 179
Fuck this shit.

Cant we get Lundy to ban earthquakes, tsunamis, and meteor impacts.?

They really insulted me this time.
post #61 of 179
There was just an announcement: everyone evacuated from the area around the plant will be tested for radiation exposure. That is almost 120,000 people. The medical staff is needed elsewhere.

Three reactors are showing signs of trouble.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #62 of 179
The media is spending a tremendous amount of time on the nuclear problem.

Randomly switching channels just now, four out of six were discussing the nuclear issue. The other two soon switched to it.

----

The number of dead is now listed as likely being over 3000.

Almost ten thousand still missing... from one town.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #63 of 179
The media is focusing on the nuclear situation because ignorant knee-jerkers eat that shit up. You know, ratings?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #64 of 179
Does anyone have any information on the differences in cost and design to build modern nuke plants to survive a 9.0 earthquake and its aftershocks?

Because that's the only real argument here.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #65 of 179
Amazing before and after the tsunami pics.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...r-tsunami.html

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #66 of 179
I found it interesting and telling that they are adding boron to the cooling sea water. They may have reason to think the neutrons are escaping at a higher rate either because the existing neutron shielding is failing or they anticipate it too. Maybe it can moderate the reaction but how could that be?
post #67 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Does anyone have any information on the differences in cost and design to build modern nuke plants to survive a 9.0 earthquake and its aftershocks?

Because that's the only real argument here.

The simple fact, is that a magnitude 9.0 earthquake releases so much energy - its about 450 Megatons of TNT, that there is nothing you can do in the design to mitigate.

Ok, maybe you could enclose the whole thing in a stainless steel precipitation hardened sphere 100 metres thick machined out of a solid billet to prevent any seams. Then you would dangle it over a 100 mile deep hole filled with water incase you needed to drop it into the centre of the earth - Is that realistic?

Its like asking to design an aircraft hanger that will withstand a direct hit from the most powerful nuclear bomb created. Its just not possible. You might get lucky, but its the law of diminishing returns vs probability. A magnitude 9, really isn't all that probable - even for Japan.

Thats why they designed to magnitude 7. Thats all that realistically can be achieved. Remember that the Richer Scale is logarithmic. 9 is many thousands of times more powerful than 7. Its total distruction.

You take the chance that if you want the power station, that a magnitude 9 doesn't hit too often in its vicinity. Japan has not had a mag 9 in its recorded history, and it wouldn't be possible to design anything to withstand a magnitude 9, so why bother?
post #68 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Let me thank you for trusting in me that this thread in no way was intended to rejoice in the suffering of the Japanese people because of my concerns about nuclear power.

Good luck convincing SDW though.


I never posted that. You did not "rejoice" as far as I can tell. But you did use this unspeakable disaster to push anti-nuclear views. Just admit it.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #69 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

I got banned, for 2 weeks (several years ago) for returning an insult at someone who insulted me. The person who insulted me was not banned. I am hardly likely to report such to the "moderators" on account of the the double standards on display here.

I didn't mean to imply that you would Sammi. I was just having some fun because MarkUK has such an interesting sig.
Quote:
This was not an unprecedented event. Larger earthquakes have occurred in modern history, such as Chile, Alaska and Indonesia...on the Pacific Rim... and Japan happens to qualify.

Damaging tsunami can be generated by earthquakes considerably smaller than what happened in Japan. Sometimes, a major quake wont generate one, other times a smaller quake will. The size of a tsunami depends on a huge number of geographical variables re. the quake. Coming to think about it, despite the loss of life and huge damage, they dodged a bullet. Imagine if the epicenter of a quake that powerful was located under a major metropolitan area... like Tokyo or Osaka? The city which was damaged the most was 80 miles away... and the damping effect of that distance on the severity of the shaking is considerable. Tokyo is 230 miles from the epicenter... and got shaken severely... tall buildings were still swaying in downtown Roppongi half an hour afterwards.

Just up the road from me is Diablo Canyon nuke. It's not in the best shape, and its built within a few miles of several (known) faults which could generate a 7 if they ruptured fully.

The reality is that all engineered structures are trade-offs between cost, strength, and probabilities. There could be criticism if these plants had cost 10 times more to be engineered for a disaster that never happened as well. The trade-offs here seem reasonable and short of people with an agenda, that outcomes, be they good or bad, reflect the right set of trade-offs in a world where there are always trade-offs.

It's only where there is a world where there are no trade-offs and we want utopia where this is unacceptable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Nukes in places which are seismically quiet/inactive are not going to get wrecked in an earthquake. What is such a great problem in designing a nuke in earthquake prone regions with the anticipated worst case scenario in mind? And... one's up against Murphy's law as well. Just do the job properly and don't scrimp on safety.

But... there are new technologies which are inherently far safer than the "boiling water reactor" affected in Japan.

Except the areas that are seismically inactive seem prone to hurricanes, tornadoes and power failures due to extreme weather.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

There was just an announcement: everyone evacuated from the area around the plant will be tested for radiation exposure. That is almost 120,000 people. The medical staff is needed elsewhere.

Three reactors are showing signs of trouble.

As with most efforts of this nature, they will test people who have no business being tested simply because the rate of failure, as evidenced by the discussion here is less than zero.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marcUK View Post

The simple fact, is that a magnitude 9.0 earthquake releases so much energy - its about 450 Megatons of TNT, that there is nothing you can do in the design to mitigate.

Ok, maybe you could enclose the whole thing in a stainless steel precipitation hardened sphere 100 metres thick machined out of a solid billet to prevent any seams. Then you would dangle it over a 100 mile deep hole filled with water incase you needed to drop it into the centre of the earth - Is that realistic?

Its like asking to design an aircraft hanger that will withstand a direct hit from the most powerful nuclear bomb created. Its just not possible. You might get lucky, but its the law of diminishing returns vs probability. A magnitude 9, really isn't all that probable - even for Japan.

Thats why they designed to magnitude 7. Thats all that realistically can be achieved. Remember that the Richer Scale is logarithmic. 9 is many thousands of times more powerful than 7. Its total distruction.

You take the chance that if you want the power station, that a magnitude 9 doesn't hit too often in its vicinity. Japan has not had a mag 9 in its recorded history, and it wouldn't be possible to design anything to withstand a magnitude 9, so why bother?

Again great points. These structures are built on something. If that something hits certain extremes, then there is nothing that can mitigate that.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #70 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The reality is that all engineered structures are trade-offs between cost, strength, and probabilities. There could be criticism if these plants had cost 10 times more to be engineered for a disaster that never happened as well. The trade-offs here seem reasonable and short of people with an agenda, that outcomes, be they good or bad, reflect the right set of trade-offs in a world where there are always trade-offs.

It's only where there is a world where there are no trade-offs and we want utopia where this is unacceptable.

+1 on this.

This is ultimately the point. We live in an imperfect world with imperfect knowledge and information. As we go along we gain more knowledge and understanding and learn to solve problems that occurred in the past so they won't (or are less likely to) happen in the future. But it is still an imperfect world that always involves trade-off choices and decisions.

I've been trying to teach my kids this for a couple of decades. When they were young they didn't understand this concept and would often react emotionally even to the point of a tantrum shouting "that's not fair!" As they've grown and matured, there's less of this.

This business of understanding trade-offs (sometimes referred to by saying TANSTAAFL) seems to be lost on a great number of people who, admirably, desire and seek a perfect Utopian world but, frustratingly, fail to realize we don't have one (and never will).

This situation with the nuclear plant may in fact turn tragic (on topic of the tragedy of the multiple major earthquakes and tsunamis that have already occurred.) But, unless we find evidence that they deliberately were negligent here (quite doubtful on this particular issue especially in Japan), we're going to have to accept the fact that a complete set of decisions was made that may ultimately end in a bad way, but were the right choices to make at the time they were made.

Going forward some will say they shouldn't have any nuclear plants at all in earthquake-prone areas. Fine. What will they use instead? Many of the same people are stridently anti-coal also. "Solar and wind are the answer!" they will say. Or not...when you are trying to consistently and reliably provide energy for millions of people so they can live their lives.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #71 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I'm reminded of whats his face.

Known unknonws etc.

So why are you in favour of nuc power when all hell can come from it?



If i invite someone into my house and tell them that the building might blow up because i can't be a 100% sure that nothing will malfunction do they have reason to think "wtf im out of here"?

Yes they do, but i can assure them that only a tiny number of people have died and the reports of a million deaths from chernoble are just fear mongering, i can also tell them that they're gw fears are real and that nucs is a real saviour for those poor souls.

Well they all leave.

Why?

Because they intuitively know that all power corrupts and ...you know the rest.

Your house CAN explode. It has a natural gas pipeline in it And a hot water tank ( a boiler just like a nuke plant without the fuel rods). You better leave.
post #72 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

+1 on this.

This is ultimately the point. We live in an imperfect world with imperfect knowledge and information. As we go along we gain more knowledge and understanding and learn to solve problems that occurred in the past so they won't (or are less likely to) happen in the future. But it is still an imperfect world that always involves trade-off choices and decisions.

I've been trying to teach my kids this for a couple of decades. When they were young they didn't understand this concept and would often react emotionally even to the point of a tantrum shouting "that's not fair!" As they've grown and matured, there's less of this.

This business of understanding trade-offs (sometimes referred to by saying TANSTAAFL) seems to be lost on a great number of people who, admirably, desire and seek a perfect Utopian world but, frustratingly, fail to realize we don't have one (and never will).

This situation with the nuclear plant may in fact turn tragic (on topic of the tragedy of the multiple major earthquakes and tsunamis that have already occurred.) But, unless we find evidence that they deliberately were negligent here (quite doubtful on this particular issue especially in Japan), we're going to have to accept the fact that a complete set of decisions was made that may ultimately end in a bad way, but were the right choices to make at the time they were made.

Going forward some will say they shouldn't have any nuclear plants at all in earthquake-prone areas. Fine. What will they use instead? Many of the same people are stridently anti-coal also. "Solar and wind are the answer!" they will say. Or not...when you are trying to consistently and reliably provide energy for millions of people so they can live their lives.

And we all know that utopia is just that... unattainable. Resorting to framing the discussion in black and white fashion is wholly unrealistic (despite being politically "fashionable" especially in the last 10 years).

The backup generators are there to maintain a nuclear plant in the event of a problem.... the type of problems that result from an earthquake and/or tsunami. So why locate the generators where they are vulnerable to the after-effect (tsunami) of the event (earthquake) they were intended to protect against? () And when it comes to these old types of reactors, which can prove hazardous if in an interruption of power, perhaps a multiple redundant backup system would be prudent? Hindsight is easy... but WTF?

This is nowhere near your notion of "utopia"... How many modern systems of technology have multiple backups in the event of failures? Ask your local Boeing dealer...

Nuclear power could have been the energy savior in a post fossil fuel world. It will take a huge PR effort now to convince the general public that they *can be* safe... and convincing people that the new generations of nuclear technology is a different ball of wax (safety wise) compared to the kind of reactors in trouble here.

Does anyone here make multiple backups of their data? probably not, by the sound...
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #73 of 179
That's all well and fine sammi_jo. But I'm still waiting for you and Hands Sandon, what with your years of training, education and experience in planning, designing, building and maintaining nuclear power plants (especially those in earthquake zones) what precisely should have been done differently and what the cost of this would have been.

Do you have specific knowledge that can help us understand specifically what should have been done differently?

It looks like you're just hand-waving with a bunch of questions that might be valid and might not be valid trying to create the appearance of gross negligence here.

What you are essentially implying is that Utopia/perfection could have been achieved here but wasn't.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #74 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

Your house CAN explode. It has a natural gas pipeline in it And a hot water tank ( a boiler just like a nuke plant without the fuel rods). You better leave.

And if there were a 9.0 quake under his home it would likely fail and collapse on him possibly causing his death and those in his home. And if the gas line ruptures, which is quite likely under such extreme circumstances it could explode damaging the homes around his. What a utterly useless and dangerous outdated design this home sounds like.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #75 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

That's all well and fine sammi_jo. But I'm still waiting for you and Hands Sandon, what with your years of training, education and experience in planning, designing, building and maintaining nuclear power plants (especially those in earthquake zones) what precisely should have been done differently and what the cost of this would have been.

Do you have specific knowledge that can help us understand specifically what should have been done differently?

It looks like you're just hand-waving with a bunch of questions that might be valid and might not be valid trying to create the appearance of gross negligence here.

What you are essentially implying is that Utopia/perfection could have been achieved here but wasn't.

A technological system that is a fraught with as much potential hazard as an old fashioned nuclear power station in an earthquake prone region, with only one backup system, located in the most vulnerable place, right on the ocean at almost sea level... is pushing one's luck. Tsunami bait?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #76 of 179
Well the truth of the matter is that no design would withstand the stress of an 8.9 or 9.0. However that being said solar or wind wouldn't blow up ( a gas line ) and damage a large area or ( Nuclear ) release a radioactive cloud. I'm thinking in the future both of those older technologies will be on the way out. Safer types of nuclear power like fusion and harnessing the energy of the sun ( and also wind some of it to charge the batteries of our electric cars at stations http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/05/better-place/ and http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0421111353.htm ) will be the way we will go. This disaster unfortunately clearly illustrates what's wrong with those outdated technologies ( and yes I currently use gas in my home but that doesn't mean my grandkids will in theirs ).
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #77 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

A technological system that is a fraught with as much potential hazard as an old fashioned nuclear power station in an earthquake prone region, with only one backup system, located in the most vulnerable place, right on the ocean at almost sea level... is pushing one's luck. Tsunami bait?

You've already been told that there was more than 1 backup system that failed. How many backup systems do you think is acceptable?

You've already been told that in thew worst case scenario, this type of reactor will never explode from meltdown, but will simply melt through its primary casing, into its second casing - If that were to fail as well, it would melt into the earth - Causing localized pollution only. No one is claiming that is a good scenario, but its the worst that can happen.

For a supposed expert, as you lead us to believe, - Do you really not know why they build nuclear reactors on the shore line? Would it be better if they built them at the top of Mount Fuji?

You seem to suggest that these diesel generators should be located miles away in the event of requirement - How are you going to transmit this power to the pumps? I suppose youre going to lay a network of 500 mile long Mag 9.0 proof, stainless steel cased outer protective environment, 2 metres thick on earthquake proof damped stilts, from generator to pump?

How many of these networks are you going to lay to each cooling pump to ensure enough redundancy if some of them take a direct hit from a mag 9.0 quake.

Hadn't we better have an array of cooling pumps all over the country, just incase some of them fail as well. Perhaps we can build a network of reinforced cooling pipes all over the country, just in case.

We'd better employ an army of engineers, ready to connect any of these powerlines to the diesel generators, just in case. Perhaps we should mount them all on 20m high stilts, and have a team living up in the air to avoid a very unlikely tsunami, ready to jump into action.

Prepare to pay $100 every time you put your iPod on charge
post #78 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well the truth of the matter is that no design would withstand the stress of an 8.9 or 9.0.

Yes, that is the essential truth of the matter.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

However that being said solar or wind wouldn't blow up ( a gas line ) and damage a large area or ( Nuclear ) release a radioactive cloud.

Probably true...but then it won't provide the energy required as efficiently as these current technologies do.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

This disaster unfortunately clearly illustrates what's wrong with those outdated technologies

These aren't outdated technologies (I'm speaking broadly here about things like coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear...not the specific technology employed in this plant which I have read is not the latest in nuclear technology.) They are present day technologies that are efficiently and economically and (mostly) safely providing energy to hundreds of millions of people so their lives will be better off.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

( and yes I currently use gas in my home but that doesn't mean my grandkids will in theirs ).

I bet they will.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #79 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Yes, that is the essential truth of the matter.




Probably true...but then it won't provide the energy required as efficiently as these current technologies do.




These aren't outdated technologies (I'm speaking broadly here about things like coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear...not the specific technology employed in this plant which I have read is not the latest in nuclear technology.) They are present day technologies that are efficiently and economically and (mostly) safely providing energy to hundreds of millions of people so their lives will be better off.


I bet they will.


MJ once develop those other technologies ( especially fusion ) those other ideas will seem really backward and dangerious. Let me copy paste the simple truth about the difference between fission and fusion : [QUOTE
Why are fusion reactors considered to be safer than fission reactors?
Fusion reactors are very much safer because--

1) They can't "run away"

2) They leave few radioactive products when worn out.

3) They have no radioactive spent fuel.

4) They don't become dangerous if anything fails, they just stop

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_fu...ixzz1GVXJUdRx][/QUOTE]

And fusion produces much more energy at the same time.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #80 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

MJ once develop those other technologies ( especially fusion ) those other ideas will seem really backward and dangerious [sic].

Once they are developed, yes. You are attempting to predict the future. Great! That's fine. Perhaps you are even right. We won't know until we get there of course...and there may be many more barriers to getting there than we current realize. But, as for the present...this is what we have now. I truly applaud all those who freely undertake to research and invent new technologies (in energy or other areas) to enable us to have all the energy we need and want, inexpensively and safely. However:

Quote:
Research into controlled fusion, with the aim of producing fusion power for the production of electricity, has been conducted for over 50 years. It has been accompanied by extreme scientific and technological difficulties, but has resulted in progress. At present, break-even (self-sustaining) controlled fusion reactions have not been demonstrated in the few tokamak-type reactors around the world. Workable designs for a reactor that theoretically will deliver ten times more fusion energy than the amount needed to heat up plasma to required temperatures (see ITER) were originally scheduled to be operational in 2018, however this has been delayed and a new date has not been stated.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Failsafe nuclear power stations fail in Japan.