The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > What is worse than an earthquake followed by a tsunami ?.

What is worse than an earthquake followed by a tsunami ?.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
Yes and twice as many people die per year from bacterial infection acquired from a hospital visit than do on our roads, but what does that have to do with the subject Fester.

Nuclear power is too dangerous for words. And when something goes wrong, it can go so wrong that nothing can fix it. Unlike natural disasters, disasters caused by the folly of humankind could have been avoided by better judgement in the first place.

This was the point of my post, not to give people a chance to spout their avaristic attempts to portray a nuclear meltdown as manageable.
Posted by thinker 2, Monday, 14 March 2011 6:41:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"What is worse than (an) earthquake and a tsunami?

A Nuclear power plant meltdown."

Agree.

BUT, people have to question the credibilty, veracity or motives of anyone who has (even now) been spruiking a "meltdown" - especially when it is so easy to do some basic fact checking e.g.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 14 March 2011 7:46:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agree bonmot, and I am not claiming that a meltdown has occurred, I'm just pointing out the fact that a meltdown is worse than an earthquake etc.

I'm not comfortable with nuclear power generation and liken it to a 5yr old playing with a box of matches and a penny bunger.
Posted by thinker 2, Monday, 14 March 2011 8:15:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes,bonmot - very interesting.

It seems to be saying that as long as the core is cooled and contained that eventually it will be cleaned up and all will well.

All of this does beg a few questions, though.
We know that these reactors are built to superior designs than say, Chernobyl. Apparently there were two backup power sources, but these may have been knocked out by the tsunami.
Japan is notoriously shaky and tsunamis are part of Japanese lore, so it wasn't entirely unexpected that this day would come and that the backup power sources would be rendered useless.

In the end, it is an act of desperation to flood these reactors with seawater...stands to reason that many would feel a tad uncomfortable with the situation.
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 14 March 2011 8:45:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yep. Prfecisely why Gen IV reactors are required.
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 14 March 2011 8:58:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen asks
'With everything we now about the non existence of CO2 induced global warming, why would we want to use anything but coal?'

Because burning coal is going to cause Queeensland, NSW and Victoria to be in drought according to the 'science'.
Posted by runner, Monday, 14 March 2011 9:10:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy