Craig 6682 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Third ones gone pop apparently. Aye, this is not looking good like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 They were expecting the 3rd one to blow; as long as the walls stay intact around the rods, even if they melt, there won't be severe leakage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden McGroin 6549 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Apparently its been upgraded to a level 6 crisis. Level 7 is the highest. Chernobyl was a 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted March 15, 2011 Author Share Posted March 15, 2011 They were expecting the 3rd one to blow; as long as the walls stay intact around the rods, even if they melt, there won't be severe leakage. did you hear the things that went wrong? the generators were too low and were damaged by the tsunami the fire engine ran out of fuel....................... talk about it all going wrong at once Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 175 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Stupidity and ignorance never fails to surprise me. http://ignorantandonline.tumblr.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7074 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 The ramifications for this with peak oil and climate change already massive issues are mind boggling. Germany already talking about backing away from nuclear. Start growing trees everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 42186 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Off to the Fist Family secret survival camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21428 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 The ramifications for this with peak oil and climate change already massive issues are mind boggling. Germany already talking about backing away from nuclear. Start growing trees everyone. The Germans are mad luddite bastards though. Lets wait and see what happens, if there is no significant leak, we can be confident about the safety of nuclear power. If there is a catastrophe, well fuck it, we don't live on a tectonic plate anyway. Chernobyl killed 50 people. FIFTY! This natural disaster will have killed thousands without anything to do with nuclear power. Let's get things in perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7074 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 we can't do much to minimize an earthquake though. Even if they do contain it it's hard to imagine nuclear power holding much political strength anywhere over the next few years. Which in light of the energy problems we face means either saying suck it up to the politicians and/or the general public or figuring out much more costly and challenging solutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21428 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 we can't do much to minimize an earthquake though. Even if they do contain it it's hard to imagine nuclear power holding much political strength anywhere over the next few years. Which in light of the energy problems we face means either saying suck it up to the politicians and/or the general public or figuring out much more costly and challenging solutions. Agreed. I just don't see a viable alternative to nuclear energy though. Windmills and solar panels can only contribute so much, so do we just continue consuming ever more volumes of fossil fuels? No win situation. What with the banking collapse a couple of years ago, the carry on in the Middle East, Japan in chaos, and the unstoppable rise of China it feels like the world is fucked right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4375 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Chernobyl killed 50 people. FIFTY! This natural disaster will have killed thousands without anything to do with nuclear power. Let's get things in perspective. Directly yes - legacy deaths will exceed that and they were lucky with the prevaling wind in the hours after the explosion. I think its a bit early for your "its proved it's okay" position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden McGroin 6549 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Chernobyl killed 50 people. FIFTY! This natural disaster will have killed thousands without anything to do with nuclear power. Let's get things in perspective. Directly yes - legacy deaths will exceed that and they were lucky with the prevaling wind in the hours after the explosion. I think its a bit early for your "its proved it's okay" position. I thought the figure was something like 2,000 - that could be attributed to the Chernobyl disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7074 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 we can't do much to minimize an earthquake though. Even if they do contain it it's hard to imagine nuclear power holding much political strength anywhere over the next few years. Which in light of the energy problems we face means either saying suck it up to the politicians and/or the general public or figuring out much more costly and challenging solutions. Agreed. I just don't see a viable alternative to nuclear energy though. Windmills and solar panels can only contribute so much, so do we just continue consuming ever more volumes of fossil fuels? No win situation. What with the banking collapse a couple of years ago, the carry on in the Middle East, Japan in chaos, and the unstoppable rise of China it feels like the world is fucked right now. RHI announced last week. We'll all be subsidised for burning wood - Return to the source! The rise of China may prove to be a saviour. They can act without the shackles of democracy, they have thousands of years of understanding about conflict and resource management and are not encumbered by religious zealots. They are powering ahead with renewables. Just to join in with some of the previously displayed optimism. The world is however always fucked up. We just get it tweeted to us in our sleep now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21428 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Chernobyl killed 50 people. FIFTY! This natural disaster will have killed thousands without anything to do with nuclear power. Let's get things in perspective. Directly yes - legacy deaths will exceed that and they were lucky with the prevaling wind in the hours after the explosion. I think its a bit early for your "its proved it's okay" position. A bit early? It was over 25 years ago. The 'indirect' deaths have proved much less than people originally feared, that's a fact, a fact which the likes of Green Peace are very keen to distort to support their antinuclear agenda. There was a predictable rise in thyroid cancer but this is fortunately very treatable. I wonder how many people have died as a result of 'conventional' accidents or how many will perish if the climate change caused by burning fossil fuels wreaks havoc as is accepted by most climatologists? There's no easy answers which is why I hate the pathetic dogmatic stance of the Green groups regarding these issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7074 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I think he meant Japan not Chernobyl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Agree with Renton. Looks like Fukuyama was wrong about the end of history like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21428 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I think he meant Japan not Chernobyl Fair enough but it's obvious we need to wait a few days to see if the reactors are controlled. If they are then any suggestion of mass deaths in the population would be Parky territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4375 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I think he meant Japan not Chernobyl Fair enough but it's obvious we need to wait a few days to see if the reactors are controlled. If they are then any suggestion of mass deaths in the population would be Parky territory. I meant both really - as I said originally I'm not anti-science - I've just always thought Fission was iffy. I'd love to see real urgent research on a huge scale to develop new sources - I've always been disappointed that there doesn't seem to have been that much progress in solar power in recent decades for example. Comparing the scale of deaths from a meltdown to the whole climate change scenario is fair enough but I still wouldn't want to see "only" 20000 (completely arbitrary) deaths as some kind of acceptable risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7074 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 home gyms with clockwork in them. You want to watch Eastenders? Cycle though it you fucking couch potatoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21428 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I think he meant Japan not Chernobyl Fair enough but it's obvious we need to wait a few days to see if the reactors are controlled. If they are then any suggestion of mass deaths in the population would be Parky territory. I meant both really - as I said originally I'm not anti-science - I've just always thought Fission was iffy. I'd love to see real urgent research on a huge scale to develop new sources - I've always been disappointed that there doesn't seem to have been that much progress in solar power in recent decades for example. Comparing the scale of deaths from a meltdown to the whole climate change scenario is fair enough but I still wouldn't want to see "only" 20000 (completely arbitrary) deaths as some kind of acceptable risk. I think you have to accept risks like that though. It all pales into insignificance compared with other natural events and wars etc. I wish there was good alternatives but at the minute other technologies just can't deliver and perhaps never will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21428 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I'd also add that France is a fairly good model for nuclear power. They would struggle massively without it and can even afford to sell us their excess power. Useful for their trains as well etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I suppose nobody cites Bhopal as a reason for not having chemical plants. I wouldn't want one of them near me either like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I'd also add that France is a fairly good model for nuclear power. They would struggle massively without it and can even afford to sell us their excess power. Useful for their trains as well etc. Portugal's a fairly good model for renewable energy too... There has been a recent trend towards the development of a renewable resource industry and reduction of both consumption and use of fossil fuel resources. In 2006, the world's largest solar power plant began operating in the south, while the world's first commercial wave power farm opened in the Norte region (October 2006). By the end of 2006, 66% of the country's electrical production was from coal and fuel power plants, while 29% were derived from hydroelectric dams, and 6% by wind energy. In 2008, renewable energy resource methods began to take-up 43% of the nation's consumption of electricity, even as hydroelectric production decreased due to severe droughts. As of June 2010 the electricity exports have outnumbered the imports; 70% of the national production of energy has transitioned to renewable sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal Isn't that preferable/safer? It's an impressive reversal of the numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30393 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 How much has it cost them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I'd also add that France is a fairly good model for nuclear power. They would struggle massively without it and can even afford to sell us their excess power. Useful for their trains as well etc. Portugal's a fairly good model for renewable energy too... There has been a recent trend towards the development of a renewable resource industry and reduction of both consumption and use of fossil fuel resources. In 2006, the world's largest solar power plant began operating in the south, while the world's first commercial wave power farm opened in the Norte region (October 2006). By the end of 2006, 66% of the country's electrical production was from coal and fuel power plants, while 29% were derived from hydroelectric dams, and 6% by wind energy. In 2008, renewable energy resource methods began to take-up 43% of the nation's consumption of electricity, even as hydroelectric production decreased due to severe droughts. As of June 2010 the electricity exports have outnumbered the imports; 70% of the national production of energy has transitioned to renewable sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal Isn't that preferable/safer? It's an impressive reversal of the numbers. How much power do they (Portugal) need to produce compared with Britain? Are there more logistical obstacles here than there? How's the decriminalization of weed going there? The last I saw it was a success in every area that could be quantified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now