We aren't smart enough

That's messed up.
 
532 sieverts per hour detected? And 4 sieverts can kill a handfu of people? A robot was destroyed in about an hour, due to the radiation? Wow! Messed up is right.
 
Well lets see.. something in the neighborhood of 16,000 people died as a result of the tsunami itself. As far as I know no one has died as a result of radiation.

So maybe we're just not smart enough to live on islands.. maybe that should be our take away here.

So messed up.. yes. But maybe a bit of perspective is in order...
 
Either way it's pretty much a "stuff happens" scenario. It's not like the plant was located right on the coastline. They probably never envisioned a tsunami big enough to hit it, it's something like 30-40 miles inland. So it just wasn't possibility they were really prepared for.

So yes, clean up is going to be difficult. But I guess my thought process is houses are destroyed by tornadoes all the time - and people get killed. But we don't abandon houses and all go live in caves as a result. The tsunami itself resulted in a massive number of deaths. The radiation from the plant, to the best of my knowledge hasn't resulted in any. But again I don't see anyone suggesting we abandon living on islands. Nobody's calling for the evacuation of Hawaii.

So again, just suggesting a bit of perspective.
 
Ummmmm....one of the links KmH referred us to states that, "According to data collected by the Fukushima Prefecture, 2014 saw 1,232 nuclear-related deaths. The two towns with the greatest number of deaths were both near the Fukushima plant: Namie, with 359 dead; and Tomioka, with 291 dead.


Learn more: Fukushima disaster caused at least 1,232 fatalities last year as radiation death rate accelerates"

Ok, well certainly doesn't invalidate anything. 16,000 or so directly killed by tsunami, 1,232 or so killed by "nuclear related" causes. So most likely anything that they could blame on radiation as being a possible exacerbating factor.

But again, same logic applies. People haven't abandoned Japan because of the tsunami, even though that death toll was way higher. People aren't abandoning Hawaii either.

So why abandon nuclear technology based on this? The logic simply doesn't hold.
 
They positioned the plant near the ocean to facilitate using sea water for cooling. Saved them the cost of building cooling towers as would have been the case if the plant was built farther inland.

They used a badly-outdated GE reactor design. But it was cheap.

The tsunami knocked out the power lines which disabled the water pumps.

The backup generator was also disabled.

No power, no cooling.

But they saved a few bucks in construction costs.
 
Not all of the houses along the coastline were built with 20' thick ferroconcrete walls and equipped with safety systems specifically designed to withstand a 120-130 ft wall of water.

So, obviously, because of this lack of precaution, we must evacuate Hawaii. And Guam. Oh, and the Philippines.

Yup, all makes total sense now. I'll start making some calls. Anyone happen to know what the phone number is for the Governor of Hawaii?
 
t's not like the plant was located right on the coastline. They probably never envisioned a tsunami big enough to hit it, it's something like 30-40 miles inland. So it just wasn't possibility they were really prepared for.
The town of Fukushima is 30-40 miles inland, but the Tepco station is located on the coastline (look up approx. coordinates: 37.420816, 141.038436). Like @Designer said, they use seawater for cooling.

But, I agree. We shouldn't let this one incident turn us off from nuclear power. We need regulations to ensure that plants are designed and safely built to standards that protect the health and safety of the public and the environment.
 
Its a shame really because nuclear energy incredibly powerful and cheap.

The issue is that so many folks have demonized nuclear power that there is no funding and no new facilities being built. This facility and Chernobyl are dinosaurs in terms of technology. Companies like Toshiba have developed reactors that are orders of magnitudes safer and efficient. Sadly since public opinion is so negative towards the technology it will never see the light of day.
 
Its a shame really because nuclear energy incredibly powerful and cheap.

I'm all for green energy; but wind and solar cannot support industry nor even modern living, esp with the rise of air conditioning as a standard not just a luxury of living for the rich. And hyrdo-electricity from dams is very destructive as you have to flood huge areas of land to provide the reservoir and then you starve the lower stretches of material (the Nile Delta is basically falling apart along with Egypts farming due to their HEP dam). That and they've got a limited life span unless you dredge them out.


Nuclear is cleaner than gas and coal and its only real risk is the long term storage of waste material. Otherwise its a high out put low input energy that generally doesn't produce any long term damage over vast swathes of the environment. And heck if its blows up - well - Chernoble is quite a good nature reserve now.

Although in all seriousness we don't have that many disasters and Chernoble and Japan were not even running errors. The former was an experiment whilst the latter was a vast tsunami hitting older powerplants which were near the end of their functioning lifespan.
 
I have to agree with the OP. We are not smart enough. We are more than capable enough, just not smart enough since we always think of cost savings over safety.
Things not to do.
1. Put nuclear power plant near a fault line.
2. Put a nuclear power plant near the ocean.
3. Use cost saving materials.
4. Save costs buy eliminating some of the redundant safety systems.
5. Let Homer Simpson work there.

Keep in mind that without Nuclear Energy none of this discussion would not exist as we would not exist.

The U.S. plans to build the most advanced fusion reactor ever
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top