I'm not getting any comfort on the "it was over 40 yrs old" angle. It was still in operation. In a wealthy and standards conscious nation. Presumably, had been subject to proper inspections and controls in the interim, and deemed safe. Deemed safe last month. Any plant built today, will be 40 yrs old at some point. And the 'designed for 8.2 and survived 9.0' argument is more concerning then comforting. Shows they didn't contemplate what actually *did* occur. That something scientifically improbable is still actually possible. And happens. So...in light of what actually has occurred...they absolutely should be reviewing and reevaluating standards. Looking at worst case scenarios. Reviewing the lifespans of older reactors with a much higher mindset of safety in the event of even highly improbable situations. It's hard to separate reports filled with fear and hype from those that seek overt appeasement of those fears at this point. It appears things are not as bad as they could have been. Or possibly...all things considered...not too bad at all. But I still wouldn't go near that plant. It absolutely should not be 'business as usual' in the nuke industry.
Heres a concept for your feeble brain, build Carnegie Hall out of Bazooka Joe wrappers, you ****ing zealot. My god, your brain is SO FEEBLE! I literally cannot even look at you without laughing at the size of your brain, because it is as laughable as Sarah Palin attempting to write a book. FEEBLE BRAIN! FEEBLE BRAIN!
Semantics... The point is that the ALL of the operational reactors in the US are using technology from the 70's.
And all we're doing at Yucca Mt. is saving the fuel rods until breeder reactor tech can turn a profit burning spent fuel rods. That tech is not far off either.
I'm agreeing with the likes of basso, bigtexx, and CaseyH? Damn! You know you've went too low when I agree with someone on the opposite end of the spectrum!
I dont understand why we dont reprocess our spent rods. Aside from drastically limiting nuclear waste, it also creates more fuel that can be used in plants. France does it with ease and has a fraction of the waste that we have to deal with. It also would make something like Yucca a non-issue.
I generally agree with you but in the case of these reactors they were going to be decommissioned and this earthquake and tsunami happened to hit before that could take place. I am still ambivalent about nuclear and this situation certainly raises some questions in my mind about its safety, just like the Deepwater Horizon also raised concerns about off shore oil drilling. Another situation that I am comparing what is going on Fukushima with is the WTC on 9/11. On the plus side the towers survived the immediate impact of planes larger and more powerful than the 727's they were designed for but they still collapsed with thousands unable to be rescued from them. While almost no one was saying that 9/11 meant that we shouldn't build skyscrapers because of inherent problems with extreme events it did lead to a review and revision of building codes and practices regarding design of skyscrapers. Just to add obviously noone has died (yet) from the Fukushima reactors and I don't think this should be the end of nuclear power but it should lead to some changes regarding how we are handling things like cooling and waste.
If they are built in the 80's and 90's how can you say that? Do you seriously think they didn't revise anything? Have you even been involved on a technical project? do you know why the F35 is so much over budget? Designs change, requirements change technologies change.
This is the only real issue with nuclear power. And the reason we have it is because people are so scared to death of it. Meanwhile BP will explode more low paid workers on the ocean, more coal workers will get black lung, and global warming will get worse. Congrats.
fixed that for ya. I want us to use nuclear, but am not a fan of the waste....someone above mentioned recycling fuel rods, whats the deal with that? Does it work and if it does why arent we doing it? We gotta figger this stuff out, nobody can seriously think we can keep using oil forever.
Yeah, 30 million folks are rushing to buy bottled water as the Tokyo public water supply has too much radiation for kids and probably adults. What is the obsession with nuclear power? I get it that the industry wants to keep making money,but what else? We don't need it. I guess we need millions killed before we move on to something else.
Obsession? How about a means to an end for energy independence. Unless you're okay pretending our mid east intervention policies are really humanitarian efforts as the tv tells us. Nevermind the fact that arguably millions of innocent civilians have already been killed as a result of our country's dependence on foreign oil.
At present we pretty much need either nuclear or fossil fuels to provide the bulk of electricity but I don't think that need always be the way to go. Not just as a country but as a civilization we need to seriously look at conserving and developing other means of providing power. Fossil fuels have all sorts of downsides but an event like this should remind of the downside to nuclear.
There are nuclear weapons proliferation issues. It creates plutonium and other stuff that can potentially be used in weapons.
