[speculawyer]

I've been fascinated by the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant disaster. It is a terrible situation with 3 meltdowns (Fukushima reactors 1, 2, and 3) and 1 spent fuel pool explosion (Fukushima reactor 4).

It is an interesting test for nuclear power. On the one hand, you can say that a bit earthquake and a massive tsunami nailed a nuclear power plant site and no one has died from it directly (except a couple guys killed from the direct effects of quake/tsunami). But on the other hand, a massive amount of real estate is now a no-go zone, massive amounts of contaminated water were dumped in the ocean, and the plant continues to leak radiation and radioactive particles. Then again, it was an ancient Mark 1 reactor design. But the physics are not changing.

No one knows how many people will contract cancer from radiation & radioactive particles emitted from the plant.

By what I understand, the three reactors that were active at the quake have all suffered fuel meltdowns (in the reactor), all have suffered melt-thrus (fuel has burned through the reactor vessels and is on the reactor floor), and some have containment breach (fuel has made it out of the containment structure but not much AFAIK).

They have achieved cold-shut down in one of the three reactors (water is no longer boiling).

The current plans to contain the crisis involve a huge plastic shower curtain to contain reactor 1. Really? That is the best we got? :-/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44120137...clear-reactor/

For more information:

Arnie Gundersen at @ Fairewinds associates has been regularly putting out videos and doing interviews. He seems to largely be an expert for the anti-nuclear side but his work & facts seem quite credible.
http://www.fairewinds.com/
Fukushima could happen here by Arnie Gundersen and David Lochbaum
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbMPrzr7aug


The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a report on the Fukishima mess:
http://www.nrc.gov/japan/japan-info.html

[Gaborn]

a 40 year old nuclear plant with a poor safety record and a history of problems took a top 10 of all time earth quake a direct hit from a tsunami, DID NOT completely melt down and people use this as a criticism against building MODERN nuclear plants as if we haven't improved design capability since the 70s. Makes me sick how anti-science it is.

[Jarmel]

Holy shit this is still ongoing?

[mavs]

a 40 year old nuclear plant with a poor safety record and a history of problems took a top 10 of all time earth quake a direct hit from a tsunami, DID NOT completely melt down and people use this as a criticism against building MODERN nuclear plants as if we haven't improved design capability since the 70s. Makes me sick how anti-science it is.

Three of them probably did completely melt down. They just didn't explode.

[Chiave]

Holy shit this is still ongoing?

Media blackout

[speculawyer]

a 40 year old nuclear plant with a poor safety record and a history of problems took a top 10 of all time earth quake a direct hit from a tsunami, DID NOT completely melt down and people use this as a criticism against building MODERN nuclear plants as if we haven't improved design capability since the 70s. Makes me sick how anti-science it is.

They did melt down. Anti-science would be to ignore the evidence and carefully analyzed it.

No one knows the full extent of the melt-down because no can get close enough to the reactors because they would probably die from radiation exposure if they got close enough.

[xbhaskarx]

They did melt down.

He said "did not COMPLETELY melt down"...

[Gaborn]

They did melt down. Anti-science would be to ignore the evidence and carefully analyzed it.

Alright, fine, they melted down but not in the catastrophic fashion the term is usually used.

[Pepto]

a 40 year old nuclear plant with a poor safety record and a history of problems took a top 10 of all time earth quake a direct hit from a tsunami, DID NOT completely melt down

What do you mean by "completely melt down"? Didn't all the reactors that were on melt?

[Gaborn]

What do you mean by "completely melt down"? Didn't all the reactors that were on melt?

I was referring to a sudden massive explosion that would cause a widespread threat to human life. As Spec noted no one has directly died from this except for the initial quake/tsunami. The big fear with nuclear power is a total melt down leading to an explosion similar to a nuclear bomb.

[speculawyer]

He said "did not COMPLETELY melt down"...

Well WTF does that mean? I carefully wrote the OP to explain the situation as best as I understand it from reading stories and listening to podcasts on it.

The fuel rods melted down . . . but I can see that not being a 'real' meltdown due to the reactor vessel.

But the reactors vessels breached. THat is a real meltdown. OK . . . but the containment structure.

The containment structures have leaked lots of radioactive material. That is as real as a meltdown gets. Chernobyl showed us that the 'China syndrome' is fiction. Luckily, most of the leaks are only because massive amounts of water have been dumped onto reactors to cool them such that radioactive material escaped with the water. This can stop when they are under control.

[AlteredBeast]

Not worried about Nuclear power in the slightest. Earthquake-prone areas like Japan and the entirety of the ring of fire should do well to build even more safety measures to avoid even partial meltdowns, but this was a 40 year old plant for goodness sakes.

[speculawyer]

I was referring to a sudden massive explosion that would cause a widespread threat to human life. As Spec noted no one has directly died from this except for the initial quake/tsunami. The big fear with nuclear power is a total melt down leading to an explosion similar to a nuclear bomb.

No, fortunately that is really never a rational fear that anyone has. That just can't happen.

I think the only way Fukushima could be worse would be:
-Massive containment breach with nuclear material getting into the ground water (which is happening to a small degree)
-An explosion which launches spent fuel all over the place (again, this happened to a small degree)
-An explosion which launches a lot of radioactive material airborne.


I think Fukushima is as bad as it will get . . . but it is an ongoing disaster. The only really bad thing that could happen now is a big earthquake hitting and knocking down one of the damaged buildings thus dumping spent fuel out. But that is very low probability.

[ElTopo]

I was referring to a sudden massive explosion that would cause a widespread threat to human life. As Spec noted no one has directly died from this except for the initial quake/tsunami. The big fear with nuclear power is a total melt down leading to an explosion similar to a nuclear bomb.

Didn't one of their 'experts' (Yamashita) claim that only unhappy people are threatened by radioactivity ? Sounds like they're totally credible regarding everything. It's not like the company (and government)...you know...completely lied about anything that happened inside the reactor for quite some time.

Also I guess the deaths of several workers they sent in are totally unrelated and they're obviously not doing anything to understate the threat of radiation, e.g. raising the radiation workers at nuclear plants or even children (now 20mSv per year) may be exposed to. Also the fact that they've done quite a lot to prevent independent measurements is of course no reason to be concerned.

In all seriousness I wouldn't trust ANYTHING the Japanese government (or Tepco) says in that matter. They're obviously intent on downplaying this incident and in the long run there'll probably be quite a few more deaths (e.g. I would be surprised if some of the workers there don't get cancer).

The big fear with a nuclear plant is not a nuclear explosion, but simply the release of a huge amount of radiation (which in Fukushima is apparently much higher than e.g. the radiation at Hiroshima). As far as I know there's not a high probability (if at all) of an explosion similar to a nuclear bomb, simply due to different material (e.g. bombs might use 80% Uranium-235, whearas plants use roughly 5%). I'm no expert on this though and could very well be wrong.

[Upsidedown Fuji]

Thanks for creating this thread. I am certain as the months and weeks pass by we'll find out even more how widely spread the contamination happens to be and how poorly the J-government has handled monitoring agriculture and livestock supplies in the surrounding areas.

The biggest thing that boggles my mind is how determined the government here is trying to convince people that cleaning up contaminated areas is good enough to bring things back to normal. It won't help anything if they are still burning the contaminated rubble and plants which in turn scatter the particulate further across the countryside.

[FlashFlooder]

As far as I know there's not a high probability (if at all) of an explosion similar to a nuclear bomb, simply due to different material (e.g. bombs might use 80% Uranium-235, whearas plants use roughly 5%). I'm no expert on this though and could very well be wrong.

The probability is 0. The fuel used in a nuclear reactor will never explode.


The OP is at least partially incorrect (and blatantly biased). I'd love to see your sources for some of these claims. For example: "some" fuel has made it out of containment? How do you figure?

[MuseManMike]

If people would like to elaborate their thoughts about nuclear power in your country of residence post-Fukushima (has anything changed/personal concerns), that would be much appreciated. Also, if you have interesting articles or sources about this stuff, that would be nice as well.

Throwing together a controversy brief in the coming weeks. I can reward you with 1 internetz per source.

[Vaporak]

I'd also like some sourced info, last I read there wasn't any confirmation of any nuclear meltdowns.

[ElTopo]

I'd also like some sourced info, last I read there wasn't any confirmation of any nuclear meltdowns.

Well...Tepco/Japanese officials admitted that there's been one meltdown (and at the very least have hinted that there's probably two more from what I remember). The massive amount of radiation leaves - from what I remember reading - little to no alternative other than a nuclear meltdown.

And keep in mind Japan was incredibly lucky: If the wind hadn't blown much of the initial radioactivity towards the sea, it could've contaminated even Tokyo to a non-trivial extent.

I'll see if I can find non-German sources/reports, though there should be plenty (e.g. the Telegraph, see e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ima-plant.html ).

[FlashFlooder]

Well...Tepco/Japanese officials admitted that there's been one meltdown (and at the very least have hinted that there's probably two more from what I remember). The massive amount of radiation leaves - from what I remember reading - little to no alternative other than a nuclear meltdown.

You are correct that Tepco only acknowledged one melt-through.

BUT All of the radiation being released at the site is from the water they are using to cool the reactors. This would happen regardless of whether the fuel melted or not, so your last statement is incorrect.

[ElTopo]

All of the radiation being released is from the water they are using to cool the reactors. This would happen regardless of whether the fuel melted or not.

Are you entirely sure ? I remember some articles about radioactive dust and how Japan had quite some luck that the wind blew most of the heavily-radiated material into the open sea (instead of e.g. Tokyo).

And since I'm lazy, I'm just gonna link to the BBC (since someone here apparently didn't notice there was a meltdown):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13497656

Fortunately the amount of radioactivity released is much smaller than at Chernobyl.

[Utako]

Clever title :P

[FlashFlooder]

Are you entirely sure ? I remember some articles about radioactive dust and how Japan had quite some luck that the wind blew most of the heavily-radiated material into the open sea (instead of e.g. Tokyo).

You're absolutely right about that. There was a lot of radiation released during the first few weeks, and the world is extremely lucky that it decided to blow out to sea.

I was responding to your comment about the continuing release of radiation being evidence that the reactors had suffered a meltdown. Not so.

That said, I personally would expect at least a partial meltdown in Units 2 and 3. I just have a problem with the way the OP states "all 3 meltdowns, all 3 had a reactor vessel breach", since this has not been confirmed AFAIK.

[Upsidedown Fuji]

Here is a blog article that translate and comments on an article from the Asahi Shinbun about the failure of sunflowers planted in the 20km zone to absorb cesium.
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/09/s...-anything.html

Take from it what you will but I find this whole idea of being able to decontaminate open areas by shoveling off topsoil and spraying down buildings to be an absolute futile act. While it may be effective in getting most of the harmful cesuim out of the way it still doesn't prevent winds from other areas and trees from not sprinkling the area again with more crap. While it's a somewhat noble effort, I really think they should focus more on deciding what areas would be best quarantined for the time being.

What really irks me is how this method is being praraded around by news and the government as some fix all solution. While it may be helpful, it still doesn't account for the other strands of radioactive particulate that are also scattered out there along with the cessium everyone seems to be focused on.

[Chiggs]

Nuclear power is the only realistic option for energy in the 21st Century and beyond, barring any future discoveries.

[Upsidedown Fuji]

Nuclear power is the only realistic option for energy in the 21st Century and beyond, barring any future discoveries.

No disagreements here. I may post about the dangers of contamination but I am not anti nuclear energy.

I only hope that another accident like the one in Fukushima never happens again. TEPCO needs to share their data and what mistakes they made with the rest of the Nuclear community so that everybody understands why things were fucked up on March 11th in Japan.

[FlashFlooder]

No disagreements here. I may post about the dangers of contamination but I am not anti nuclear energy. I only hope that another accident like the one in Fukushima never happens again. TEPCO needs to share their data and what mistakes they made with the rest of the Nuclear community so that everybody understands why things were fucked up on March 11th in Japan.

They are already doing this, but they still have a long way to go in assessing the amount of damage done at the plant (which will give more detail about the chain of events).

Here in the US, the Fukushima scenario is already being analyzed and prepared for in plants across the country.

[Blackace]

It's still going on here... Not exactly a full media blackout just really limited coverage.

What's up in France

[Raist]

What's up in France

Nothing?

[Blackace]

Nothing?

Sept 12 they had an explosion at a processing plant or something no? It's all good now?

[DeathIsTheEnd]

Sept 12 they had an explosion at a processing plant or something no? It's all good now?

There wasn't a leak and the explosion killed one and injured another four.

Apparently the French nuclear watchdog had wanted to improve safety measures at the site.

[jcm]

They are already doing this, but they still have a long way to go in assessing the amount of damage done at the plant (which will give more detail about the chain of events). Here in the US, the Fukushima scenario is already being analyzed and prepared for in plants across the country.

TEPCO's performance has been shameful. Which shouldn't surprise anyone, because they've been awful for years, and the Japanese regulators are completely ineffective. This incident should lead to a reform of the nuke industry in Japan. I don't know enough about the environment there to say whether it will, though.

[Frankfurter]

Nuclear power is the only realistic option for energy in the 21st Century and beyond, barring any future discoveries.

Just continue writing that sentence. That surely will give it more credibility.

FYI there is other sources, including wind and solar, that could offer more than enough energy, if they'd actually be used properly.

a 40 year old nuclear plant with a poor safety record and a history of problems took a top 10 of all time earth quake a direct hit from a tsunami, DID NOT completely melt down and people use this as a criticism against building MODERN nuclear plants as if we haven't improved design capability since the 70s. Makes me sick how anti-science it is.

I don't get that argument. How many ~40 year old nuclear plants are their on earth? Are you proposing that all of those should be turned off because they are too risky?

[Zaptruder]

I still think a suitable punishment for anti-nuclear fear mongers is to place them on a small island with old nuclear reactors. Ideally while a neighbouring island uses coal power, whose externalities are all blown across the small gap onto their island.

That's right bitches. Your fear mongering caused those nuclear reactors to be old and decrepit.

[ElTopo]

They are already doing this, but they still have a long way to go in assessing the amount of damage done at the plant (which will give more detail about the chain of events). Here in the US, the Fukushima scenario is already being analyzed and prepared for in plants across the country.

I'll be honest: I wouldn't trust them. They're definitely not as well-prepared as they should:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/2...o-budget-cuts/


Also it's apparently also 'only' prepared for earthquakes up to 6.1 (i.e. only .2 more than the one that hit the region this year).

Let me put it like this: If German nuclear plants have hundreds of 'minor accidents' and faults every year (e.g. cracks in the cooling system of a research reactor at Berlin Helmholtz-Centre) , I'm not sure I'd trust American/French nuclear plants that much more.

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/...ower-2010.html

I wouldn't have any dislike for nuclear energy, if the companies didn't f*** around and if we had any reliable, intelligent plan for the nuclear waste. Unfortunately that's some pretty big ifs...

Oh and of course if we didn't subsidize the energy with billions. If one of the plants fails, there's a good chance the government is gonna have to pay for a lot. Also at least in Germany the billions of euros it'll cost to keep the nuclear waste safely locked away is gonna get paid by - you guessed it - the government.

I'm not sure Greenpeace is incredibly trustworthy in that issue, but in Germany nuclear power - according to their calculation - has been subsidized with roughly 200 billion euros (with 100 billion more to come).

[Tacitus_]

If people would like to elaborate their thoughts about nuclear power in your country of residence post-Fukushima (has anything changed/personal concerns), that would be much appreciated. Also, if you have interesting articles or sources about this stuff, that would be nice as well.

Nothing has really changed. The only thing that worries me with nuclear power are the old plants, especially the ones that have the same reactor type as Chernobyl did. They've had safety upgrades, but I really think Russia should replace them with modern reactors.

[Upsidedown Fuji]

They are already doing this, but they still have a long way to go in assessing the amount of damage done at the plant (which will give more detail about the chain of events). Here in the US, the Fukushima scenario is already being analyzed and prepared for in plants across the country.

I am sure the US companies were analyzing what happened the first day they knew something was wrong. Americans are much more vocal about nuclear power and the news isn't as skiddish to report on it compared to Japanese news agencies.

Speaking of reporting news. A couple days ago the Japanese lower house requested Tepco to release their accident manuals which Tepco did. Only they pulled a dick move and blacked out nearly every line in the document claiming intellectual property rights. Sounds more to me like they're covering their asses here bigtime. This seems to be par for the course for Tepco. They aren't forthwith with any crucial information and really work hard to hold information till it is forcefully wrung out of their hands.

I would hope they would be more open with information after screwing up so bad. It doesn't help their image at all... The rest of the world and Japan needs to have every scrap of info they can on this so we can prevent another disaster like Fukushima from happening. http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_16.html

[magicstop]

Not sure where Gaborn is getting his "science," but nuclear meltdowns != nuclear explosion. It may result in a large release of radioactive material into the environment, but we've already seen that. Nothing proposed for any meltdown scenario like a nuclear bomb going off.
And do you have any idea how many of our reactors are old and in need of updating? Dismissing the failure at Fukushima because of the age and condition of the reactor is no good, considering a large part of even the US's reactors are old and in need of updating in a bad way. Most of them are operating well past their intended lifespan, and without a foreseeable stop to upfit or better secure them. Of our 104 reactors in the US, construction was started on them on or before 1974. That makes most of our fleet aging alongside of the Fukushima reactors.
So, when it's common for nuclear plants to be old, outdated, and therefore more dangerous, I hardly see how we can dismiss the event that took place and say that nuclear power is safe and sound and no worries here boss. Anti-scientific, my ass. Stop lying to yourself, and understand the reality of the situation: our current nuclear setup is a touch scarey, and certainly outdated and in need of revision. And if you take this as an opportunity to start blaming anti-nuclear movements for our lack of newer reactors, consider the hugely prohibitive costs of starting the plants, and the fact that NOBODY wants a reactor in their backyard. Also consider the legitimate concerns for disposing of nuclear waste (without continuing to try to dump it under someone else's mountain/backyard/home).

[Furoba]

Here is a blog article that translate and comments on an article from the Asahi Shinbun about the failure of sunflowers planted in the 20km zone to absorb cesium. http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/09/s...-anything.html Take from it what you will but I find this whole idea of being able to decontaminate open areas by shoveling off topsoil and spraying down buildings to be an absolute futile act. While it may be effective in getting most of the harmful cesuim out of the way it still doesn't prevent winds from other areas and trees from not sprinkling the area again with more crap. While it's a somewhat noble effort, I really think they should focus more on deciding what areas would be best quarantined for the time being. What really irks me is how this method is being praraded around by news and the government as some fix all solution. While it may be helpful, it still doesn't account for the other strands of radioactive particulate that are also scattered out there along with the cessium everyone seems to be focused on.

Cesium leaked into the ocean is expected to return to Japan in 30 years due to the Pacific's currents. The sheer vastness of the ocean reduces the impact of cesium to a certain extend, but like mercury and other materials, it goes all the way up the foodchain...

[Al-ibn Kermit]

I'll be honest: I wouldn't trust them. They're definitely not as well-prepared as they should: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/2...o-budget-cuts/ Also it's apparently also 'only' prepared for earthquakes up to 6.1 (i.e. only .2 more than the one that hit the region this year). Let me put it like this: If German nuclear plants have hundreds of 'minor accidents' and faults every year (e.g. cracks in the cooling system of a research reactor at Berlin Helmholtz-Centre) , I'm not sure I'd trust American/French nuclear plants that much more. http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/...ower-2010.html I wouldn't have any dislike for nuclear energy, if the companies didn't f*** around and if we had any reliable, intelligent plan for the nuclear waste. Unfortunately that's some pretty big ifs... Oh and of course if we didn't subsidize the energy with billions. If one of the plants fails, there's a good chance the government is gonna have to pay for a lot. Also at least in Germany the billions of euros it'll cost to keep the nuclear waste safely locked away is gonna get paid by - you guessed it - the government. I'm not sure Greenpeace is incredibly trustworthy in that issue, but in Germany nuclear power - according to their calculation - has been subsidized with roughly 200 billion euros (with 100 billion more to come).

The Richter scale is logarithmic. Each whole number increase means a 10 times increase in the amount of energy released. An increase of 0.2 is a doubling of the amount of energy released.

Meaning that Virginia plant was rated for twice as strong of an earthquake.

[Gaborn]

I don't get that argument. How many ~40 year old nuclear plants are their on earth? Are you proposing that all of those should be turned off because they are too risky?

Turned off? No. Phased out in favor of newer technology? Sure. I would also modernize where possible. Nuclear energy is safe, but if you have a risk that is, for example, .001% vs .000001% I'd rather take my chances on the latter.

Most 40 year old plants are never going to have a major problem so it's not like it's an IMMEDIATE concern. However, it IS worth noting that a situation like Fukushima or Chernobyl can not be used to justify restrictions or bans on new nuclear plants. The risk is low at the old facilities (though the big problem is they often seem to be poorly maintained which is a separate issue not directly on point to the safety of the technology since you could simply... put more effort at maintaining them) but it's CONSIDERABLY lower for newer plants with better safe guards.

[Upsidedown Fuji]

Cesium leaked into the ocean is expected to return to Japan in 30 years due to the Pacific's currents. The sheer vastness of the ocean reduces the impact of cesium to a certain extend, but like mercury and other materials, it goes all the way up the foodchain...

Yeah its a big mess. The Cesium that will come back to Japan in 30 years will be an unpleasant reminder of a very sensitive part of their past. I wonder if Tepco will be broken up or taken over by the national government by then...

[pestul]

I've watched a few Arnie Gundersen videos over the past months. I hope his analysis is off-base, because he always paints a pretty bleak outcome from just this one disaster.

[Frankfurter]

Turned off? No. Phased out in favor of newer technology? Sure. I would also modernize where possible. Nuclear energy is safe, but if you have a risk that is, for example, .001% vs .000001% I'd rather take my chances on the latter. Most 40 year old plants are never going to have a major problem so it's not like it's an IMMEDIATE concern. However, it IS worth noting that a situation like Fukushima or Chernobyl can not be used to justify restrictions or bans on new nuclear plants. The risk is low at the old facilities (though the big problem is they often seem to be poorly maintained which is a separate issue not directly on point to the safety of the technology since you could simply... put more effort at maintaining them) but it's CONSIDERABLY lower for newer plants with better safe guards.

I'd say that's where we disagree. I think that nuclear power is an inherently unsafe technology (and that incidents like Chernobyl, Fukushima or Three Mile Island are somewhat a prove for this) and while newer nuclear power plants are probably more secure than olders, the inherent danger and the potential consequences remain. Therefore I see nuclear as a technology that needs to be phased out ASAP.
Btw. I don't think your separation of maintaining the power plants and the technology itself is valid. The poor maintaining of many nuclear power plants is directly affecting the likelyhood of accidents happening and is therefore - atleast in a world, where every company tries to make more and more money and therefore cuts down on things like maintaining power plants - part of the problem that nuclear has.

[Zaptruder]

Not sure where Gaborn is getting his "science," but nuclear meltdowns != nuclear explosion. It may result in a large release of radioactive material into the environment, but we've already seen that. Nothing proposed for any meltdown scenario like a nuclear bomb going off. And do you have any idea how many of our reactors are old and in need of updating? Dismissing the failure at Fukushima because of the age and condition of the reactor is no good, considering a large part of even the US's reactors are old and in need of updating in a bad way. Most of them are operating well past their intended lifespan, and without a foreseeable stop to upfit or better secure them. Of our 104 reactors in the US, construction was started on them on or before 1974. That makes most of our fleet aging alongside of the Fukushima reactors. So, when it's common for nuclear plants to be old, outdated, and therefore more dangerous, I hardly see how we can dismiss the event that took place and say that nuclear power is safe and sound and no worries here boss. Anti-scientific, my ass. Stop lying to yourself, and understand the reality of the situation: our current nuclear setup is a touch scarey, and certainly outdated and in need of revision. And if you take this as an opportunity to start blaming anti-nuclear movements for our lack of newer reactors, consider the hugely prohibitive costs of starting the plants, and the fact that NOBODY wants a reactor in their backyard. Also consider the legitimate concerns for disposing of nuclear waste (without continuing to try to dump it under someone else's mountain/backyard/home).

And we shouldn't attribute the fear of nuclear power plants and their overextended use to fear mongers because?

Fact is, energy is a modern necessity - for the most part, energy comes with externalities - the burial of nuclear waste is a relatively, very small externality next to the damaging emissions that arise from fossil fuels. Indeed, considerably more radioactive waste is spewed into the environment from the burning of coal than nuclear meltdowns have caused. Is just in the case of the latter, the externality is smaller and more concentrated.

But with newer plants that eliminate many of the design deficiencies, the chance of nuclear meltdown is removed - it simply stops been a possibility.

The real problem with obfuscating nuclear is that the more we bicker about the various deficiencies of the green energy solutions (including new nuclear), the more we let fossil burning bastards continue to pollute the environment and damage the climate.

Nuclear is a good solution for the mid term - it's necessary to take over the base load of power that we'll need if we start to shutter fossil, while we're waiting out for fusion. And wind and solar are great - but they're not suitable for all conditions. For countries that can afford the land and cost of generating sufficient solar and wind power to replace their current fossil infrastructure, go for it - but eliminating nuclear out of that mix takes out a very potent and green option for energy generation.

[Raist]

People are scared of nuclear plants for the same reason some people are scared of flying and think that driving a car is much safer. It's not. It's just that when shit does happens it's obviously more impressive and maybe deadlier, but overall safety is not higher at all. Quite the contrary.

[Gaborn]

I'd say that's where we disagree. I think that nuclear power is an inherently unsafe technology (and that incidents like Chernobyl, Fukushima or Three Mile Island are somewhat a prove for this) and while newer nuclear power plants are probably more secure than olders, the inherent danger and the potential consequences remain. Therefore I see nuclear as a technology that needs to be phased out ASAP.

What do you define as unsafe? It's true that if something was to go CATASTROPHICALLY wrong (best example being Chernobyl of course) it can kill a lot of people... but what are the odds of that? Coal and especially mining for coal has killed a lot more people than nuclear power has.

The risk of a meltdown in any given instance is very low. With Fukushima for example we had a top 10 earthquake of ALL TIME PLUS a tsunami and we STILL didn't see an explosion or something that took a lot of lives from that event. The tsunami and the earthquake killed thousands but somehow the story for you is the event that impacted people but was largely comparatively non-lethal.

There is always risks with ANY technology but nuclear is simply safer, cleaner, and more efficient than any other option. It'd be great if solar energy for example was substantially more efficient but we're not even CLOSE to the level of efficiency we need to be for that to be practical.

Btw. I don't think your separation of maintaining the power plants and the technology itself is valid. The poor maintaining of many nuclear power plants is directly affecting the likelyhood of accidents happening and is therefore - atleast in a world, where every company tries to make more and more money and therefore cuts down on things like maintaining power plants - part of the problem that nuclear has.

Sure, I think my point was that maintenance issues are not a "structural" aspect of nuclear. That is, a coal mine HAS to deal with the risks of a cave in for example, nuclear plants don't HAVE to be poorly maintained. It's not a defining characteristic that makes a nuclear plant a nuclear plant.

[PdotMichael]

If we talk about the safety of nuclear plants and stuff, we first need a resolution what we will do with the wastes.

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Anyone else think the biggest irony of the US Anti Nuke movement is that by obstructing new power plant construction they've made the situation artificially more dangerous by keeping plants open longer then they were meant and costing lots of jobs too? Making us less safe and costing us jobs, thanks Greenpeace!

[Raist]

If we talk about the safety of nuclear plants and stuff, we first need a resolution what we will do with the wastes.

Like it's been done in France for decades. Recycle it.