shetlandpeat Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 The whole of Japan is at risk of earthquakes, as they have limited natural resources they had to go nuclear. Japan have lead the way with this technology with respect to the risk from earthquakes and Tsunamis.The quake was bigger than they had planned for, but the station held, the problem I believe was the sea wall was a couple of meters to short, or not tall enough.The reactors did what they were supposed to during a quake. We human beans to tend to live in daft places, the amount of cities that are built around the Pacific basin bears witness to that.Sadly the architects do not foresee all the problems and can only build according to budgets. It is not their fault, most times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 When you are building anything somebody essentially choses the level of risk they are happy to go with - you can design for 1 in 50, 1 in 500 or 1 in 5000 year events provided you are given the budget to cover the incresed costs. You can also design smarter, and making things fail safely has been given a lot more thought now than for Fukushimo. Again, their are varying risks, costs and advantages with different means of generating power and you pay your money and take your choice...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Yes, would agree Nuclear Fusion would be the way to go once it's fully up and running but I have a problem trusting some of these operators. Quote re Fukushimo :- On Sunday Tepco said radiation levels at reactor No 2 were 10 million times higher than normal before correcting that figure to 100,000. ( how basic a mistake can you make ? )Does it matter if its 10 million or a hundred thousand time the safe level. At either level your not going to have a very long life. It makes you think of those 50 workers that have been working in those conditions. What heroes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graeme_Storey Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Does it matter if its 10 million or a hundred thousand time the safe level. At either level your not going to have a very long life. It makes you think of those 50 workers that have been working in those conditions. What heroes.I hope the Japanese government make sure and financially look after them, and their families, for the suicidal work they have been doing. Brave people - no question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piddly Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 I think you have to bare in mind that the problems facing Fukishima were caused by the earthquake/tsunami not human error or faulty equipment, you could definately argue that building a nuclear plant on a site which is on a known fault line is taking a bit of a chance.Surely the choice of site was a human error? Sorry EM, that's what i meant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Not the most readable report, but lots of information in there on all kinds of overall effects from different power sourcesTHE INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCYENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH IMPACTS OF ELECTRICITY GENERATIONhttp://www.ieahydro.org/reports/ST3-020613b.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hector's House Posted March 29, 2011 Report Share Posted March 29, 2011 Get yourself the current issue of New Scientist - big article about the future of nuclear energy and the health risk comparisons to other generating systems. Slag heap in your back garden, anyone? I'm all for the quantum leap to fusion energy - although during the testing phase I'm quite happy that the research device is located in France, as if it were to go bang... well, it's in France, innit! My school Economics teacher was from Thurso and claimed he was a foreman on the Dounreay build, and was the last man inside the reactor vessel before it was sealed - we always thought they shut the door too late! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted March 29, 2011 Report Share Posted March 29, 2011 So they knew how to work the microwave then. Funny job change. which was the most dangerous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njugle Posted March 29, 2011 Report Share Posted March 29, 2011 I think that's Economics paulb, not Home Economics. Still a diverse job change nonetheless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 Fusion has pretty much none of the drawbacks that fission has. It would be pretty much 100% safe. That said, I don't have an inherent problem with fission. I think there are a lot of misconceptions about radiation risks and how bad Fukushima is. It was pretty much worse case scenario for one of the crappiest reactors still around, and while obviously some people have been affected and are sick, many orders of magnitude more where affected by the earthquake/tsunami... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unlinkedstudent Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 Fusion has pretty much none of the drawbacks that fission has. It would be pretty much 100% safe. That said, I don't have an inherent problem with fission. I think there are a lot of misconceptions about radiation risks and how bad Fukushima is. It was pretty much worse case scenario for one of the crappiest reactors still around, and while obviously some people have been affected and are sick, many orders of magnitude more where affected by the earthquake/tsunami... Buildings can be rebuilt in a relatively short period of time. I don't think the contamination of the land from radiation recovers within the same amount of time somehow, do you? Imagine you were a Japanese Farmer and discovered that not only were your crops no longer fit for sale, but the land you owned was now incapable of growing crops safely for God knows how many decade(s) to come? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 Actually I do. There are two main isotopes that are worrying people at the moment in soil and milk etc The radiation levels found in milk and spinach were 7 times the safety limit Iodine 131's half life is 8 days Caesium 137 is a bit worse at 30 years, yes, but it's not believed to be the main component causing problems in the food. So in a few weeks pretty much all the iodine is gone, and given that the food safety limits are extremely conservative in the first place, i'm sure they'll be fine. Farmers are currently getting compensation for unsafe crops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unlinkedstudent Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 ^^ So how come parts of grazing land in Cumbria is still out of use since Chernobyl? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 ^^ So how come parts of grazing land in Cumbria is still out of use since Chernobyl? I was talking specifically about Japan. Chernobyl was a disaster many times worse than what we've seen at fukushima... There's also essentially zero chance it'll ever happen again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabiaTerra Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 ^^ So how come parts of grazing land in Cumbria is still out of use since Chernobyl?At Chernobyl the reactor exploded and blew off it's lid. There was no containment building surrounding the reactor, just basically a conventional factory building. The explosion and subsequent fire blew the contents of the reactor into the sky where it then spread all over Europe. In Japan, they vented steam from the reactors. there was hydrogen mixed in with the steam which exploded. These explosions happened outside the containment buildings. The containment buildings are intact. There is a water leak from one of the cooling ponds which is where the high level stuff is coming from but this seems to be only a trickle and has now been plugged. The Chernobyl reactor and power station was a suicidally dangerous design which could and did only happen in the Soviet Union. It would never have gotten off the drawing board anywhere else. You know the concrete sarcophagus they built over the remains of Chernobyl? That's the containment building which should have been there from day one, and which every western reactor already has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.