Japan 8.9 earthquake

Originally posted by Robtard
I think you should like those Greenpeace peeps know that a nuclear power-plant likely supplied the power to the Toyota factory that produced the Priusus (Priusi? What's the plural for Prius?) they drive around with airs of superiority.

what you are saying is that nuclear power is responsible for California's smug problems?

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Yep in Germany they started protests and all that, now there´s a big review of the power stations, they might even shut the older ones down.

So many earthquakes in Germany then🙂

/facepalm

is anyone talking about the fact that these were reactors built in the 60s, when nuclear power was in its infancy?

though, don't get me wrong, this event does temper my pro-nuclear stance a little. Obviously, there is no 100% safe, so lets not build nuclear plants anywhere they are going to get flooded.

Originally posted by inimalist
/facepalm

is anyone talking about the fact that these were reactors built in the 60s, when nuclear power was in its infancy?

though, don't get me wrong, this event does temper my pro-nuclear stance a little. Obviously, there is no 100% safe, so lets not build nuclear plants anywhere they are going to get flooded.

I don't know. The reactors were build to withstand up to an 8.5 quake. They got hit by an 8.9 quake (four times as powerful) and a tsunami. Half of the reactors came through perfectly fine. If there's ever a tsunami where I live (15km inland) I'd try to find a nuclear plant to hide in.

Though yes, this obviously shows the potential for problems. But this would be an extreme outlier case.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't know. The reactors were build to withstand up to an 8.5 quake. They got hit by an 8.9 quake (four times as powerful) and a tsunami. Half of the reactors came through perfectly fine. If there's ever a tsunami where I live (15km inland) I'd try to find a nuclear plant to hide in.

Though yes, this obviously shows the potential for problems. But this would be an extreme outlier case.

oh, for sure

I suppose I'm more saying that this changes my "nuclear power is always awesome" stance to "ok, maybe there are some problems".

I hadn't really thought of all out doomsday scenarios like this one, and I know for a fact that reactors built by Canadian manufacturers have better safeguards than those in Japan (CANDU reactors, iirc)

Originally posted by inimalist
what you are saying is that nuclear power is responsible for California's smug problems?

/facepalm

is anyone talking about the fact that these were reactors built in the 60s, when nuclear power was in its infancy?

though, don't get me wrong, this event does temper my pro-nuclear stance a little. Obviously, there is no 100% safe, so lets not build nuclear plants anywhere they are going to get flooded.

You should come to the Bay Area, so many assholes driving a Prius and they assume they should get special treatment and considerations cos they drive one. They're almost like Mac users, ever ready to tell you they drive one and how superior it is to what you got.

IMO, they should built nuclear-reactors (or retrofit older ones) to withstand Ragnarok, considering the potential damage they can cause when they malfunction as seen with Chernobyl.

Honestly mad at God over all this. And I'm certain that by any eternally just standard that's quite forgivable.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Although I was always under the impression that the reason the danger is so low is BECAUSE people worry so much ('overblown' as you put it). Or how many times does charnobyl have to happen for something to be serious? Like nuclear war - if we were all just a little more relaxed about it, we'd already have been to hell and back.

"The Road"

Originally posted by Quark_666
Although I was always under the impression that the reason the danger is so low is BECAUSE people worry so much ('overblown' as you put it). Or how many times does charnobyl have to happen for something to be serious? Like nuclear war - if we were all just a little more relaxed about it, we'd already have been to hell and back.

You still have to admit that "People" worrying made no difference in this situation.

The Japansese have certainly established protocols and regulations that should likely govern ever national standard, but those standards have failed in this case. Those developed standards always will fail.

I agree that we assume the idea of mutually armed college students makes no sense, especially when we appply it to our own foreign poliy AND our nuclear policy. We hate anyone else has "THE BOMB"..while ignoring we developed it, love everyone has a gun, stop everyone else (except those we support) from getting it, and are now trying to stop our enemies from using them on us.

Originally posted by Robtard
You should come to the Bay Area, so many assholes driving a Prius and they assume they should get special treatment and considerations cos they drive one. They're almost like Mac users, ever ready to tell you they drive one and how superior it is to what you got.

IMO, they should built nuclear-reactors (or retrofit older ones) to withstand Ragnarok, considering the potential damage they can cause when they malfunction as seen with Chernobyl.

Why would a MAC user think they are superior, MAC´s are overpriced & slower than PC´s. No wonder they are starting to put Intel chips in them.

Another building blew up last night (depending where you are). And they are saying there container is damaged this time. Friggin hell are all of them going to go up on that site?

Mr Murphy has definetly been visiting Japan the past week.

Indeed he has, Bicnarok.... 🙁 And his law governs all over there right now, by the looks of it.

(Also: Macbook pro:- Pwns any PC Ive had. 😛 )

"Japan 8.9 Earthquake"?
What kind of sicko rates an earthquake out of 10? How do you sleep at night?

Originally posted by TitanicFTW
"Japan 8.9 Earthquake"?
What kind of sicko rates an earthquake out of 10? How do you sleep at night?

Originally posted by Quark_666
Honestly mad at God over all this. And I'm certain that by any eternally just standard that's quite forgivable.

That presumes (mostly likely falsely) that god was existant enough to responsible.
So "his" forgiveness is quite unnecessary.

If anything, things like this are massive ammo argument against an intervening, petitionable god.

It would make more sense to be mad at Earth and her tectonic plate system...or the engineers who put an evidently delicate nuclear reactor in an unstable zone where tonnes of seismic activity goes on...

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
That presumes (mostly likely falsely) that god was existant enough to responsible.
So "his" forgiveness is quite unnecessary.

If anything, things like this are massive ammo argument against an intervening, petitionable god.

It would make more sense to be mad at Earth and her tectonic plate system...or the engineers who put an evidently delicate nuclear reactor in an unstable zone where tonnes of seismic activity goes on...

Though I find your certainty presumptuous, I see where you're coming from, and I reserve my right to be angry at God whether he exists or not!

Cool....At least you can see the spirit I meant it in.... IE: Not having a dig at you. 🙂

I was wondering if there actually people working at these Nuclear power plants trying to get them under control. And what do they do when one blows up, are they aware of the impending explosion because of guages and do a runner until it´s over?

Not only that, what sort of person voluntarily participates in such work? They could offer x ammount of money, I´d wouldn´t go near the place.

Well if they live local to the disaster, then presumably the motive would be defending their nearby loved ones.