|
8.8 Earthquake in Japan |
GameCreator
Member #2,541
July 2002
|
nm
|
Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010
|
X-G said: I like how the assertion that "there is no data to prove it is exceptional!", while ignorant and false in and of itself, is somehow implied to also mean "therefore it is extremely common!".
No. Not common for us. But maybe normal for the earth, though at large intervals. Quote: Get educated. Modern nuclear power is more than safe enough (although more science is always better!), and the alternatives are not good enough to satisfy our energy needs. The "giga-risks" you are talking about do not exist.
The keyword here is "modern". I'd guess that half of the plants in operation today (and often not to be shut down permanently very soon) predate 1980 and that a quarter or so will predate 1975. So, you may repeat your phrase of "modern - no risk" until the next accident. I will probably agree with you then, when you will state: "Oh, it was not modern." |
X-G
Member #856
December 2000
|
Polybios said: And it won't be for quite some time, because there aren't enough plants planned now to replace older ones. Gee, I wonder why that is. It could be because of ignorant enviro-scaremongers like you who and other lobbyists who are preventing new plants from being built. Alternatives? There are no viable alternatives that work to scale. Get real. -- |
GullRaDriel
Member #3,861
September 2003
|
Nuclear energy is only around 14 % of the global generated energy. "Code is like shit - it only smells if it is not yours" |
X-G
Member #856
December 2000
|
GullRaDriel said: Nuclear energy is only around 14 % of the global generated energy. And most of the rest is coal and oil (well over 60%) as well as natural gas (some 25%). I have a feeling the enviro-scaremongers aren't actually proposing we do more of any of those, either (nor should they -- they are really bad for the environment). Which doesn't leave a hell of a lot. Nuclear really is the greenest and safest alternative that can still provide us with the energy we need. -- |
type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
|
GullRaDriel said: Nuclear energy is only around 14 % of the global generated energy. The trend is up..
|
HardTranceFan
Member #7,317
June 2006
|
X-G said: And most of the rest is coal and oil (well over 60%) as well as natural gas (some 25%). Ours is predominantly hydro, with a fair number of windfarms popping up around the country. After the Japan disaster, nuclear shouldn't be an option here given that we're straddling a fault line, regardless of how safe the nuclear advocates claim it to be. Following the earthquake a month ago, someone is now predicting another significant earthquake "soon". -- |
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
|
After the Japan disaster, living near the coast shouldn't be an option anymore. |
LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
|
HardTranceFan said: Following the earthquake a month ago, someone is now predicting another significant earthquake "soon". That guy is a public menace who should be buried in a very deep hole somewhere.
|
axilmar
Member #1,204
April 2001
|
If nuclear plants were built deep in the ground, then would not they be safer in case of a problem? let's say 300 meters below the surface. 300 meters of ground would not let the radiation leak, would it? I'd like to point out that when it comes to things like nuclear plants, there is no such thing as exceptional circumstances. Nuclear plants must be built to withstand earthquakes that have never happened before and that will never happen. Otherwise, it is a call for disaster. The "unsinkable" Titanic didn't give us a lesson, as I can see. I am all for nuclear power, provided that it is as safe as it can possibly be. |
type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
|
@ramlixa The only nuclear disaster so far with Chernobyl, due to ill experimenting(it didn't happen during regular operation, but rather during an experiment), and a array of facts not known to the people there.. All of the other "disasters" are rather jokes, including our currently pending one. I really like the thing molang point out: 5k dead to tsunami & EQ itself, and no single casualty to the nuke plant. And I don't think there will be any, but since people are afraid of radiation the "danger" will be spammed out as long as the ads are being transmitted.
|
23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
|
The Titanic point is a good one, nevertheless. You can't really over-plan for safety when it comes to stuff like this. Or would you rather wait for a disaster that isn't a joke first? Ounce of maintenance, pound of cure ... -- |
Bob
Free Market Evangelist
September 2000
|
At one point, a rock crashed into the Earth with such energy that it turned the whole planet into a giant ball of magma. That rock then bounced off and started orbiting the Earth! I'm not saying that this is a common event, I'm just implying that it could occur again, at any time. Nuclear safety protocols probably don't cover that eventuality, so nuclear energy can't possibly be safe. -- |
Neil Black
Member #7,867
October 2006
|
At one point an entire universe exploded out of nothing. Now, there's very little evidence that this could happen again, but there's also very little evidence that it won't happen five minutes from now. Current safety standards for chairs don't account for this, therefore chairs are horrendously unsafe and we should not allow people to build them.
|
superstar4410
Member #926
January 2001
|
Don't take yourself too seriously, but do take your responsibilities very seriously. |
J-Gamer
Member #12,491
January 2011
|
^This " There are plenty of wonderful ideas in The Bible, but God isn't one of them." - Derezo |
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
|
superstar4410: ... and apparently, fixing the power grid is even harder than it should be: http://www.itworld.com/business/140626/legacy-1800s-leaves-tokyo-facing-blackouts -- |
Johan Halmén
Member #1,550
September 2001
|
From Superstar's linked video. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Years of thorough research have revealed that what people find beautiful about the Mandelbrot set is not the set itself, but all the rest. |
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
Matthew Leverton said: After the Japan disaster, living near the coast shouldn't be an option anymore. I wish someone would clue in these rich North Carolina people about this, rebuilding multiple times right on the very edge of the beach after each hurricane and expecting the govt. to help pick up the tab. Same for the mud-slide people in California. They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
Striker
Member #10,701
February 2009
|
All over the world people are trusting the ocean as if nothing has happened: {"name":"603690","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/0\/b07f6471ef8ac928e5f8c51d2b315dba.jpg","w":800,"h":528,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/0\/b07f6471ef8ac928e5f8c51d2b315dba"} Burj Al Arab
|
type568
Member #8,381
March 2007
|
WSJ.com said:
Japan's chief government spokesman said Saturday that higher-than-normal levels of radiation were detected in milk produced in Fukushima prefecture and spinach from neighboring Ibaraki The disclosure could put new scrutiny on Japanese food exports, which have already subject to additional testing in some areas since Japan's nuclear crisis began last week. Why do I think it is nonsense? Append: Now that is sweet, although getting a poor habit during the latest ~70 years.
|
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
|
I don't think it's nonsense. It's quite possible that produce around Fukushima could have been contaminated by the various ventings (why the heck didn't that plant have scrubbers? ) and explosions. -- |
decepto
Member #7,102
April 2006
|
I lived in Fukushima for 2 1/2 years. I was in Koriyama and Sukagawa to be exact. I've visited Fukushima's eastern coast a countless number of times. -------------------------------------------------- |
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
|
From the data set page I linked to earlier (but I don't recall this link being there before): So there are raised values, but not at all dangerous. -- |
decepto
Member #7,102
April 2006
|
gnolam said: (for example, the background gamma in my apartment right now is 0.18 µSv/h). Gnolam... do you have a Geiger counter in your apartment? If so, that's badass. -------------------------------------------------- |
|
|