• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Japan nuclear crisis on same level as Chernobyl:


I'm about the biggest proponent of nuclear energy you've ever talked to but thanks for the ****in generalization there buddy.
 
It amazes me that people don't realise that globally this is so minor. The Russians have been dumping radioactive waste into the sea since 1959. We know this and the only countries who've cared have been Japan and Norway.

By 1992, 192 700 cubic metres of liquid radioactive waste as well as thousands of kilograms of solid radioactive waste including damaged reactors from nuclear powered ships, (at least one of which was dumped fully fuelled), had been dumped into the Barents and Kara seas off the coast of Novaya Zemlya.

123 497 cubic metres of liquid radioactive waste and thousands of kilograms of solid waste were also dumped into the Sea of Japan from Russian naval bases in Vladivostok and Petropavlovsk.

The largest Russian on shore storage facilities for spent nuclear fuel from naval vessels are Andreyeva Bay and Gremikha. These facilites were beyond capacity in 1990 when the Soviet Union collapsed and only now has the Russian government even started to clean up these sites.

Rosatom, the Russian civilian agency responsible for the Andreyeva Bay site released a report stating that sea water infiltrating into the fuel rod storage tanks had corroded the fuel rods causing them to break up and sink to the bottom of the storage tanks. "The conclusion of Rosatom is that when the amount of particles on the bottom reaches 5 to 10 percent in relation to the amount of water, potentially explosive critical mass will occur," leading to an "uncontrolled chain reaction".

Why do you people not care about any of this but you care about Fukushima?

Russian atomic stockpile at risk of 'uncontrolled chain reaction'
http://www.nks.org/download/seminar/2008_b_nordthreat/NKS_B_NordThreat_1-8.pdf
Radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel - Bellona
http://www.nti.org/db/nisp
 

And even your well-written post only scratches the surface. The USA dumped radioactive wastes in the ocean for years. There are at least 7 sunken nuclear reactors in the world's oceans from sunken nuclear submarines. They are disasters waiting for their fuel rod jackets to corrode. Just because there is so much dangerous junk in our oceans does not make it OK to add one iota more. The line should have been drawn years ago. Politics and bedfellows. That would be sock puppets and their Corporate hands, don't you think?
 
http://www.meti.go.jp/press/2011/04/20110413009/20110413009-3.pdf
(I didn't understand much, but I did see the 6-26 SV/hr that's being reported)

TEPCO confirms damage to part of No. 4 unit's spent nuke fuel | Kyodo News


You're right, more people die in the mining / oil drilling, etc... for energy then with nuclear power.
But, that 4% was that like nuclear workers involved in nuclear accidents?? Or was that 0.04 based on ALL the people that have been killed in the radioactive fallout also included?

The main problem with nuclear energy is that, sure it's safe... BUT when things go wrong, they tend to go horribly wrong.


I was not aware of that, but that's also quite disgusting...
 
I am more and more against current nuclear reactors. Take Chernobyl for example, while it is considered the worst nuclear disaster ever it has had devastating affects. At minimum, a million people have been directly contaminated by the disaster and many more people will be affected in the long term. While cases such as this are rare, they come at an extraordinary human and environmental cost.

I am for speeding up research in safer alternatives. A good example of this is the ITER project that is working with fusion. No radioactive waste or fuel, fuel is SUPER abundant and not rare or radioactive such as uranium. The likelihood of a disaster is near null in the way the technology works. It needs a forced reaction and is not a chain reaction so the moment you stop forcing the reaction it stops.

They estimate about 2.5 kilos of stone and 10 liters of water will provide enough fuel to power a household for a year. They also estimate a full scale reactor supplying power to the public by 2030.

Also magnetic engines have come a long way. Zero fuel needed, no emissions, and take very very little energy to start them. While I admit I haven't looked much into magnetic engines, the little I have seen looks to be very promising for future applications.

I think we need to scrap current nuclear technology and focus more on these safer alternative. I am sure there are many more then the 2 I listed.
 
This is a disaster for Japan, a real catastrophic that will affect every level of their society for decades, if not generations. Don't forget, Chernobyl happened in a rural area where it was relatively easy to rope off a 50 (or whatever) mile radius while the rest of the country went on with their lives. Japan is a tiny island nation, hugely populated, without that luxury. Radiation has entered its foodchain on several levels, and one can only speculate about the long-term situation in their territorial waters. Fish is their major protein staple.

That said, I've always been nervous about nuclear energy. However, considering the thousands of nuclear reactors around the world, it really does have a remarkable safety record with only three major accidents in the past 50 years. Modern civilian globally cannot exist without nuclear energy at this time, but frankly we as a worldwide society have to seriously research safer, cleaner energy sources or in the next century, this planet is going to be in a world of hurt.

I'm not going to panic over what happened in Japan, which was a combination of natural disasters unprecendented in recorded history. If I was Japanese I'd sure panic. This crisis isn't over yet, and there's no way to know the final extent of damage will be to their country. It's already beyond anything we could have imagined a month ago. I'm so sad for them.
 
These numbers, I believe, are approximate. I think they were calculated by a student or something, but they give the proper order of magnitude. I believe he added 4,000 deaths for Chernobyl in the rate due to long term effects, but these are hard to correlate. The numbers are deaths per teraWatt-hours. Solar has deaths because roofing is a dangerous job. Wind power has deaths from accidents from making the steel and mining too. All other forms have some deaths too from accidents.

I'm for nuclear power, just the unsafe and old reactors should be taken offline. If its done safely, it should be no problem.
 

I would assume that includes an estimate for all people exposed to radiation.

BmanMcfly said:
The main problem with nuclear energy is that, sure it's safe... BUT when things go wrong, they tend to go horribly wrong.
Click to expand...

No they don't. No one died from the Fukushima meltdown and no one will. No one died from Three Mile Island and no one will. Even in Chernobyl - the biggest nuclear disaster in history - the death toll was "only" about 4,000. China loses that many people in coal mining accidents every single year.
 

I wouldn't be so sure. One Fukushima worker is dead (not from radiation but indirectly caused by the meldown) and several are in the hospital after having been severely contaminated. These people very well may die from radiation poisoning, and it will still be years before the contamination of the affected populace may result in vastly increased types of cancers.

This is not a global catastrophe, but it is most certainly a castastrophe for the Japanese people. I don't honestly understand why you are dismissing it and diminishing the devastating affect it is having, and will continue to have, on Japan.
 

The 4,000 estimate was the estimate given by the Russian government to down play the disaster. However all other governments and organizations estimate the death toll to be much much higher.

Immediate deaths were not the only factor. Long term deaths and serious health issues must also be considered. Of the approx 500,000 workers used to clean up the area approx 250,000 of those were disabled by the time they reached there 50's.

Fallout health issues must also be included.
 
Kandahar said:
I would assume that includes an estimate for all people exposed to radiation.
Click to expand...

Ya, if that's the case they've taken the lowball estimates.


Ok, Three Mile Island had its effects downplayed, but it really was low on the scale.

Chernobyl caused the deaths of estimated between 500000 to 985000 depending on the reports that were done in the aftermath. Oh, and also, because of that singular accident radiation levels in the northern hemisphere nearly double that of the southern hemisphere...

And for Fukushima, there was only something like 2 reported deaths in the explosions, BUT that's not the end of the death toll.
 

Not sure if it was THIS article, but did you catch the part that they KNEW these things had melted down by day 2?? That's right, 2 days they've known this article to be factual and waited 2 months to make it public?

Oh and Dr Busby, a chemical / nuclear physicist, has come out over the past few days and pointed out that the explosions that were caught on tape of the reactors WERE NOT hydrogren explosions BUT BECAUSE of the chemicals and isotopes released, it's now been CONFIRMED that those were nuclear explosions. NOT hydrogen... which in reactor 3 was my first suspicion, though I lacked any expertise to make the claim.
 

"Nuclear explosions?" This should be interesting. Link these claims please.
 


Simply could not have been nuclear explosions. There's simply no way to concentrate the purified isotopes to the level of prompt criticality when the damn core is melting and mixing.

Just.

Can't.

Happen.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
Simply could not have been nuclear explosions. There's simply no way to concentrate the purified isotopes to the level of prompt criticality when the damn core is melting and mixing.

Just.

Can't.

Happen.
Click to expand...

That's not the part that was said to have exploded... but what he measured was the isotopes released or whatever (I'm not sure the process, just repeating) and concluded that it WAS a nuclear explosion, most likely from the MOX fuel that was stored above the actual reactor....

I linked the video of the report... post #40


This was the one specifically he said was the nuclear explosion... I'm no expert, but to me, my first reaction to watching that was that this was not simply a hydrogen explosion (those towers were 1000 ft tall). Though I definitely lack the expertise to make that kind of assertion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…