Originally posted by ares834
Nuclear Meltdowns... Pfft. That is hardly a danger. There have been a bit over a dozen of such incidents and most have caused little harm or impact on the evnironment and people. Really, aside from Chernobyl, there really haven't been that many major incidents. IMO, the problem with nuclear power is the nuclear waste.
exhibit a:
"a major meltdown at a nuclear station is actually proof of how safe nuclear power is"
Originally posted by ares834
No. The danger of nuclear meltdowns is way overblown. For example, almost everyone knows about Three Mile Island and how it was one of the worst nuclear accidents ever. The truth of the matter is no one was killed or even injured. Heck, when someone goes to the doctor and gets X-rayed they are exposed to more radiation then if they had lived near the Island when it "blew".And of course, standards and equipment have increased over time. Making such an incident less likely to occur.
That’s not to say nuclear power is perfect, it’s not. But nuclear meltdowns are hardly the biggest problem with nuclear power.
3-Mile was minor in comparison, as it wasn't a full-blown reactor-core meltdown.
Chernobyl is a proper example of the dangers of not keeping nuclear-plants up to spec. To date, the city of Chernobyl is considered uninhabitable.
2037: The US-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) has said it agrees with the assessment of France's Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) that the incident at Fukushima should be classified as level 6 on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES), one below Chernobyl. Following a number of explosions and a fire at the plant which released dangerous levels of radiation, ISIS said the situation had "worsened considerably" and was now closer to a level 6 event. "It may unfortunately reach a level 7," it added.
Just up on the bbc website.
Originally posted by Robtard
3-Mile was minor in comparison, as it wasn't a full-blown reactor-core meltdown.Chernobyl is a proper example of the dangers of not keeping nuclear-plants up to spec. To date, the city of Chernobyl is considered uninhabitable.
Oh for sure. Chernoybl was terrible, however, such an incident is extremley unlikely to happen in the US. I mean we have far higher standards for nuclear powerplants than the Soviet Union had. Not to mention we have better technology now. The chances of a "Chernoybl" happening in the US are astronomically low.
Originally posted by ares834
Oh for sure. Chernoybl was terrible, however, such an incident is extremley unlikely to happen in the US. I mean we have far higher standards for nuclear powerplants than the Soviet Union had. Not to mention we have better technology now. The chances of a "Chernoybl" happening in the US are astronomically low.
Due to idiocy and negligence, sure. But natural disasters are another story.
There are [older] US plants that are rated to safely withstand earthquakes in the 7. range. IMO, these should be looked at and retrofitted to withstand more.
Originally posted by inimalist
well, sure, but the lesson to learn from this quake is that relying on probability is not a good enough security policy
California's plants which happen to be built relatively close to fault lines, the reassurances PG&E gives is "those faults are unlikely to produce greater than a 7.0 or 7.5; the plant can operated safely during an quake of that size.
Genius.
Originally posted by inimalist
well, sure, but the lesson to learn from this quake is that relying on probability is not a good enough security policy
Well, it is to a degree. I suppose you could try to shield against unicorn from outer space attacks, but I'd not hold it against you if you weren't due to them being improbable, in fact I think even if they were to happen we could cut the people in charge some slack for not considering them.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, it is to a degree. I suppose you could try to shield against unicorn from outer space attacks, but I'd not hold it against you if you weren't due to them being improbable, in fact I think even if they were to happen we could cut the people in charge some slack for not considering them.
I think we can draw a distinction between "expecting low probabilities to keep us safe" and "things that would redefine the human understanding of reality"
that being said, unless the unicorn is using some type of rainbow magic, we probably should have plants that could withstand physical trauma. For instance, and I don't even mean terrorism here, but we should probably be sure that a plant would be safe if it were to be hit by a plane.
Originally posted by inimalist
I think we can draw a distinction between "expecting low probabilities to keep us safe" and "things that would redefine the human understanding of reality"that being said, unless the unicorn is using some type of rainbow magic, we probably should have plants that could withstand physical trauma. For instance, and I don't even mean terrorism here, but we should probably be sure that a plant would be safe if it were to be hit by a plane.
I disagree, we can not.
Originally posted by ares834
The chances of a "Chernoybl" happening in the US are astronomically low.
Specifically because we're conscious of the dangers of nuclear power . . .
Originally posted by King Castle
we should probably be more worried about the nuclear reactor satellites in orbit that can wipe out all of humanity if one of them crashes and releases it's radioactive material in Earth's atmosphere.
Last time that happened the Air Force vaporized it!
haermm