THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SAFE NUCLEAR POWER

[RadAreGoodForYou]

After Canada ate a bunch of radiation from the Japan nuclear plant last year, what does our government do? Shut off the radiation detectors Canada had. Does this make sense to the rest of Canadians? Watching the nuclear Nightmare in Japan still unfolding, it's surprising to me it's not on any Canadian network. I mean, three nuclear Meltdowns and throw in one Nuclear Detonation (surprise, the second explosion was a nuclear fuel detonation) would at least be worthy enough to be on page three of the news....As the rest of Japan is being destroyed forever, they speak of nuclear "safety". Think about it Canada....

[punked]

Yah you are crazy and wrong.

[Wayward Son]

I think that punked summed it up perfectly.

[GostHacked]

We have a thread in another section regarding the catastrophe that is Fukushima.

Fukushima had 3 meltdowns, 4 explosions, and they have yet to assess the full damage that this disaster has caused.

We are still seeing the affects of Chernobyl 20 years on. Fukushima is going to cause problems for centuries.

Claiming nuclear power is safe is like hanging on a cliff side with just your fingernails.

Also check out Arnie Gunderson of Fairwinds Associates.

[Guest Manny]

After Canada ate a bunch of radiation from the Japan nuclear plant last year, what does our government do? Shut off the radiation detectors Canada had. Does this make sense to the rest of Canadians? Watching the nuclear Nightmare in Japan still unfolding, it's surprising to me it's not on any Canadian network. I mean, three nuclear Meltdowns and throw in one Nuclear Detonation (surprise, the second explosion was a nuclear fuel detonation) would at least be worthy enough to be on page three of the news....As the rest of Japan is being destroyed forever, they speak of nuclear "safety". Think about it Canada....

Well our nukes are not as dangerous as theirs are, and they have a proven track record for safety. There is no infallible system though and there is always some risk and reason for concern.

Do you have a link showing any info about the shutdown of radiation detectors?

[Wayward Son]

Do you have a link showing any info about the shutdown of radiation detectors?

I believe that this story first appeared when Mike Adams, the uber-conspiracy nut wrote about it in natural news. There is a grain of truth to it. As Canada found that the radiation levels were extremely low and diminishing they decreased the frequency that they were collecting data (decreased - not shut down, but don't expect Mike Adams to worry about reality when there is a conspiracy to believe). That could either be an example of Canada disregarding the safety of their citizens, or it could be that experts used their brains to evaluate the risk levels based on available data.

[Wayward Son]

Claiming nuclear power is safe is like hanging on a cliff side with just your fingernails.

I don't claim that any method of generating power is completely safe. For each one their are benefits and risks to be evaluated and those benefits and risks are different depending on the location in which power generation may be done.

Also check out Arnie Gunderson of Fairwinds Associates.

Why?

I know who he is by the way and saw him several times on TV after Fukushima making claims that I don't feel were accurate. I tend to look at what the majority of relevant experts have to say. Arnie is both in the minority and not really an expert.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Wayward Son

[Wild Bill]

Nothing is safe. It is always easy to criticize. Much harder to offer an alternative

Not a single soul died at Three Mile Island. How many people have died mining coal?

Perhaps we should all just go back up in the trees and scratch ourselves all day!

[Moonbox]

Claiming nuclear power is safe is like hanging on a cliff side with just your fingernails.

It's about as safe as driving your car to work. Find out how many nuclear reactors there are in the world. Google nuclear disasters. Run the math.

[Wilber]

It's about as safe as driving your car to work. Find out how many nuclear reactors there are in the world. Google nuclear disasters. Run the math.

I would hope it's a lot safer than that.

[RadAreGoodForYou]

Do you have a link showing any info about the shutdown of radiation detectors?

http://www.naturalnews.com/031963_radiation_exposure.html

Now why would Canada shut down its radiation detectors? Maybe it's not about HEALTH OF CANADIANS but money. We export Uranium.

[Wayward Son]

Do you have a link showing any info about the shutdown of radiation detectors?

http://www.naturalnews.com/031963_radiation_exposure.html

Now why would Canada shut down its radiation detectors? Maybe it's not about HEALTH OF CANADIANS but money. We export Uranium.

I already covered this at post #6.

1) Canada did not shut down it's radiation detectors.

2) They decreased the frequency of data collection from those detectors because radiation levels were tiny and falling. Just because some people don't understand the levels of natural background radiation, or that taking a 5 hour flight would naturally expose you to up to 50,000 times the radiation detected on the Canadian coast from Japan doesn't mean that taxpayer funds should be used indefinitely to beat the living s@#t out of a dead horse just to try to please some conspiracy theorists. And even so they were still testing, just less frequently, if they saw a change in the trend, they would have increased frequency, but until that time they were devoting more efforts to more productive areas.

3) Mike Adams is a complete lunatic. He has never found a conspiracy he would not promote, even conspiracies that completely contradict other conspiracies that he advocates. People who read his ridiculous nonsense become dumber as they progress from knowing nothing about a topic to knowing things that are completely wrong. They possess negative knowledge which is far worse than knowing nothing, especially as he infuses it from top to bottom with paronia.

[TheNewTeddy]

Nothing is "safe"

I could take a sip from my glass of water, it could break due to a long undetected defect, I could get a star from this, end up cutting my face, be so in shock, I pass out, and bleed to death.

It's a question of HOW safe, and Nuclear is pretty safe. Much like air crashes, when things go wrong, you hear about it - precisely because things normally don't go wrong.

[Guest Manny]

Nothing is "safe"

I could take a sip from my glass of water, it could break due to a long undetected defect, I could get a star from this, end up cutting my face, be so in shock, I pass out, and bleed to death.

It's a question of HOW safe, and Nuclear is pretty safe. Much like air crashes, when things go wrong, you hear about it - precisely because things normally don't go wrong.

Everyone's gonna die sometime, and accidents happen every day. We cannot completely safeguard ourselves from this. But that s hardly the same thing as a device or technology that imposes a measurable, known risk that could lead to the death of thousands of people, and contamination of land that could last for thousands... or even billions(!) of years.

[Tilter]

Well our nukes are not as dangerous as theirs are, and they have a proven track record for safety. There is no infallible system though and there is always some risk and reason for concern.

Do you have a link showing any info about the shutdown of radiation detectors?

By OUR nukes do you mean the same type of reactors as installed in Japan or Candus?

I understand that the Japanese are American designed.

[GostHacked]

I don't claim that any method of generating power is completely safe. For each one their are benefits and risks to be evaluated and those benefits and risks are different depending on the location in which power generation may be done.

Why?

I know who he is by the way and saw him several times on TV after Fukushima making claims that I don't feel were accurate. I tend to look at what the majority of relevant experts have to say. Arnie is both in the minority and not really an expert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Gundersen

Anyone who holds a masters in Nuclear Engineering, in my view , know a few things more than we do.

Because both Tepco and The Japanese government took over 6 months to admit that this happened. (occurred within the first week of the disaster)

Check out the design of these reactors, the spent fuel rods are stored on TOP of the reactors. Guess what is raining down in the debris from that explosion.

[socialist]

Nuclear weapons should be banned world wide. This is why we need a world government that looks after the earth.

[Wayward Son]

Why?

Well I have no idea what you are referring to, but I will assume that you are referring to my statement that the benefits and risks of each method for generating power differs depending upon location. That is for the simple reason that certain methods of power generation are far more or less suited for certain locations. If you live in location with more direct sunlight the benefits of solar power are increased. If you live in a location with a large waterfall or a large rapid stream that shifts the benefits and risks for certain methods of power generation. If you live in an area for which large earthquakes are likely that shifts the risks of certain types of power generation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Gundersen

Anyone who holds a masters in Nuclear Engineering, in my view , know a few things more than we do.

You are repeating the argument from authority logical fallacy. Relying on a lone "expert" because that person happens to say the things that you agree with is one of the main problems today when anyone on the internet can find an expert to support any notion that exists. Arnie may have a masters, but lots of people have Masters and/or PhDs, and if you gathered the opinions of all those experts you would find that Arnie is way out on the fringe. Sometimes people way out on the fringe are right, but it happens extremely rarely. Generally there are real simple reasons why a lone expert is way out on the fringe: use crappy methodology, place their ideology above the facts, lack an understanding of related expertise which shows their fringe ideas to be crap.

Arnie can obviously gain a large following by saying the things that some people want to hear. But, if Arnie wants my support then he has to do what experts in the science and engineering fields do: publish studies in legitimate peer review journals, which then stand up to scrutiny from those in the field.

If Arnie can't win the support of those who know the most about nuclear energy then it seems pretty arrogant for non-experts to conclude that he is right.

[PIK]

Nothing is safe. It is always easy to criticize. Much harder to offer an alternative

Not a single soul died at Three Mile Island. How many people have died mining coal?

Perhaps we should all just go back up in the trees and scratch ourselves all day!

Vote in the green party and that is exactly what we will be doing, not saying anything is wrong with that.

[Guest Manny]

By OUR nukes do you mean the same type of reactors as installed in Japan or Candus?

I understand that the Japanese are American designed.

By our nukes I mean the CANDUs. It's a safer design in terms of risk of meltdown. Plus, not on a coastline susceptible to tsunamis. There is a fault line near one of the Pickering or Darlington sites though, I seem to recall.

[segnosaur]

Do you have a link showing any info about the shutdown of radiation detectors?

http://www.naturalnews.com/031963_radiation_exposure.html

Ummm... do you have any information from a reliable source regarding the shutdown of radiation detectors?

In case you didn't know, Natural News is a 'woo' web site, promoting such scientific nonsense as vaccine hysteria and quack medical cures. You can also find articles on that site promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories. Obviously, they're not exactly a reliable source of information.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews

[dre]

The biggest problem with nuclear energy is economics. Modern plants are pretty safe, but if you take into account the entire life cycle of a plant from breaking ground to decomissioning, and the entire cost of the fuel cycle they just flat out dont make sense except for countries like france that have no oil, no gas, and no coal.

[segnosaur]

The biggest problem with nuclear energy is economics. Modern plants are pretty safe, but if you take into account the entire life cycle of a plant from breaking ground to decomissioning, and the entire cost of the fuel cycle they just flat out dont make sense...

First of all, keep in mind that not all estimates show that Nuclear power generation more expensive than gas/coal/etc. Estimates vary widely, but at least some show that Nuclear can be cheaper. The problem with Nuclear is the huge upfront capital costs (compared to fossil fuel generation, where most of the cost is with the fuel itself.)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_different_sources

Secondly, even when coal/oil is considered cheaper, that is often because only direct costs are measured.... external concerns are not factored in. So the cost of, for example, handling global warming or dealing with health concerns due to smog (both issues with coal generation) may or may not be included when they calculate costs.

Lastly, the costs of nuclear power can be reduced further if spent fuel is recycled (something that isn't often done.)

... except for countries like france that have no oil, no gas, and no coal.

Minor point... France also has to import Uranium, although its probably a lot cheaper to transport a few pounds of uranium instead of a few tons of coal.

[Guest Manny]

They had hoped that further research would come up with a way to deal with the spent fuel rods, but it has not. The depleted rods cannot be transported without special licensing. There is no safe way to get rid of it, not even throwing it into a deep hole in the ground.

That's why it's preferable to keep them there, on-site. No transportation issues, and they can do the maintenance on them as needed. Problem is, they had no backup plan if that system failed on them outright, in a major catastrophe.

Given the fact that tsunamis and earthquakes are common, a fact of life in Japan, one has to wonder why they had not developed any contingency for such occurrences!

[Wild Bill]

Given the fact that tsunamis and earthquakes are common, a fact of life in Japan, one has to wonder why they had not developed any contingency for such occurrences!

Politics Manny, not science, is responsible! The scientists and the engineers never thought they would have to deal with ignorance that had a great deal of political power.

You see, there are many perfectly safe disposal solutions. A borehole a few miles deep into the Canadian Shield is one. That rock has not shifted in hundreds of millions of years. It is not within the realm of possibility that it will shift within the next hundreds of millions of years. We're talking several miles thick of basalt and granite here! There are no fault lines and even if there were, they would be beneath miles of such rock that no crack could possibly reach through.

There is also firing spent rods into the Sun.

Every possible solution has been shot down by the anti-nuke movement! As I have said before, it is always very easy to criticize when you don't have to provide a positive solution yourself.

The anti-nuke group does not WANT a solution! They want no nuclear power at all! So they sit back and object to every proposal anyone dreams up. When you are criticizing, you can stretch points out of all proportion. When you deal in "what if" you can bring forth objections that could only happen in a million million years and ... that's enough!

They are very skilled at frightening uneducated people, uneducated people who vote! Politicians respond to those votes. So nuclear waste gets stored, never safely disposed. Nuclear plants hit the end of their life span and no more are built. Alternate power sources are used, that cost more money and often are not as clean to the environment as nuclear. The politicians don't care! People pay more and no one really notices the nuclear waste piling up. Every year it gets more expensive to store the waste. People's taxes go up but taxes always go up! Electricity rates go up but again, they always go up!

People get what they want. As a populist, I support that. I don't agree with it and I personally feel that most folks are boneheads. I resent being included in those who have to pay more for what I consider no good reason. Still, the majority has spoken.

Perhaps someday the majority will understand what these approaches are really doing and really costing them. If so, people will finally learn. Unfortunately, as a group this is the only kind of lesson that will stick - one that is hard and expensive.