It’s hard not to be horrified when reading news of an impending disaster of the Three Mile Island variety in Japan. There’s been lots of dropping of the name “Chernobyl” but given what we know about the safety systems and the nuts and bolts of the accident (notice how suddenly there are lots of experts on nuclear power plant safety everywhere?) it looks more like Three Mile Island than Chernobyl. Let us hope that it doesn’t get even that far.
With that said, we mustn’t allow events in Japan to leap out of perspective and thwart us — and by “us” I mean “the entire freaking industrialized world” from developing and creating nuclear power plants. In case you hadn’t noticed, the earthquake off of Japan’s coast that caused the problems that may yet turn in to a disaster was among the most powerful in modern history. It is an outlier. While technically that means nothing — for all we know, another 8.9 quake could hit Los Angeles, Mexico City, Santiago, Rome, or any other earthquake-prone city today despite the recentness of the Sendai quake — it is at the top end of the scale. That doesn’t mean we don’t have to take into account the possibility that something like this can happen, but it does mean we can consider such a possibility to be unlikely.
Nor does the scary reality of earthquakes diminish the also-scary reality of a world in which we are unable to produce sufficient electricity for the modern world to use, without belching coal smoke into the atmosphere. Even if you are not a believer in anthropogenic global warming, you need not look at a coal-powered electrical plant with pleasure. Nuclear power is cleaner and greener than coal power.
Fukushima Daiichi will teach safety engineers important lessons, which will be incorporated in the next generation of nuclear power plants. But even if things go even more seriously wrong in Japan than they already have, let there be a next generation of nuclear power plants.
I’d be far more interested in talking to an Earthquake expert at this point.
How likely is an 8.9 to hit, say, the East Coast?
I can understand not wanting to build a nuclear reactor in California… but should we avoid nuclear plants in Michigan? Virginia? Texas?
How likely are 8.9 earthquakes? When was the last time we had one? When is the next time we might expect one?
While discussing in the lab, I heard that this is the 4th largest quake in recorded history… it’s also been moved from an 8.9 to a 9.0.
Which doesn’t sound like much, but if my math is right going from 8.9 to 9.0 represents an increase of 25%.
A point to consider. Just because it was an 8.9-9.0 magnitude earthquake does not prove or even suggest that the same result might not happen somewhere else with a 6.0-8.5 magnitude earthquake. Nor does it prove that the same result may not happen somewhere else due to human error.
A point to consider. Just because it was an 8.9-9.0 magnitude earthquake does not prove or even suggest that the same result might not happen somewhere else with a 6.0-8.5 magnitude earthquake.
The difference between a 6.0 earthquake and an 8.0 earthquake is two orders of magnitude.
It’s possible to build a structure that can handle a 6.0 earthquake with minimal, if not negligible, damage. Much more difficult to build one that can handle a 7.0. And again to handle an 8.0.
From what I understand, Japan’s reactors were built to withstand a 7.5.
If we build buildings that can withstand a 7.5 in places that are never, ever expected to exceed a 6.0 (are there such places on the planet? The Dakotas? Denver? Virginia?), is that insufficiently careful?
Nor does it prove that the same result may not happen somewhere else due to human error.
We can make sure that the humans in charge are all in a union.
It is time to start implementing solar as an alternative to nuclear immediately. There is not only no safe and foolproof way to run a nuclear plant, there is no known safe way to store nuclear waste. There is only speculation.
Germany is an industrialized nation that has been implementing solar with great success. Stop building Nuclear and focus like we did during the Manhattan Project (no irony intended) on Wind and Solar.
That’s the answer. We need a energy source where we are not producing incredibly toxic waste.
Yeah, because wrecking the Chinese countryside right now with tailings from Cadmium-Telluride wafer production is so much better than possibly contaminating a square mile with radioactive elements once or twice in the next four hundred years.
What’s interesting to me is that:
*This was the “three-nines event”, the one-in-a-thousand, the worst-on-worst scenario, and…
*The current situation is that several power plants have been knocked out permanently, and some steam with radioactive contamination has been released, causing the surrounding several dozen miles to experience radiation levels comparable to eating a banana.
*The worst-case scenario would see those same power plants still permanently shut down, but with a more-expensive cleanup.
The world ended, and the nuclear power plants didn’t render Japan uninhabitable. Remember that the next time you talk about how “we can’t calculate the possible effects of a major disaster near a nuclear plant”.
Has anyone yet estimated to total years of life lost to the radiation leaks? My guess is that it doesn’t approach a decade’s worth of coal-mining cave-ins.
It is apparent that you have no knowledge of the difference between the radiation given off by potassium and cesium, plutonium, or iodine. I can’t believe I am replying to your comment.
Well, it depends on the isotope doesn’t it?
And from the elements you named, you don’t seem to understand the fission product yield curve.
Well hello Kolohe
Yes, it does depend on the isotope. I didn’t list them because I viewed it as unnecessary. I still do. If you don’t know the isotope number of the radioactive element, then you can google it. Done with that.
Apparently you did not read the above post that I replied to. The comment of radiation levels reaching those comparable to eating a banana is what i was replying to and why I listed the elements I listed. Potassium is what is radioactive in a banana and it gives off alpha radiation. The other elements I listed are more serious, and given the different type of reactors, with 3 being a MOX reactor, they are relevant. Now, say what you may but from what we have seen, and for someone who is familiar with chemistry and physics this was apparent from the beginning that the banana comparison was inane.
Now, let us all wish those in Japan the best. They have handled with a calm and civility that is enviable and admirable to anyone.
Since K-40 is actually a beta emitter, I remain unpersuaded that you have a grasp of either nuclear physics, electrical power engineering, or irony.
But I, too, wish the best for the Japanese people. (except for Shintaroo Ishihara, who seems like an all around jerk-off)
Kolohe. Yes, I occasionally get a fact wrong. Sue me. I don’t care less if you are persuaded by my grasp of a subject matter. I’m not convinced of your grasp of any of the subject matters either. More importantly, I am even less convinced of your ability to follow the logic of a thread. For your own safety, I recommend you stay at least 50 miles away from the nearest banana.
I’m on the fence about nuclear power plants. I see their advantages, and I also see their risks. But since we are talking about the impact of building them in geological danger zones, let’s make sure we don’t put one right outside of Yellowstone.