Forum
#Topics
+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
-Register
Radiation.
Log In to post a reply
80 messages
View: flat \ threaded
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

wracket
wracket
1426 posts

Re: Radiation.

microbehunter wrote:
The sheer scale of the problem when accident's happen at nuclear plants I find scarey. The Japanese plant is so badly damaged it will be scrapped once they find a way to dismantle the reactors. In the meantime hydrogen explosions, high levels of radiation, thousands of liters of contaminated water dumped into the sea. The fuel has to be disposed, buildings demolished and nearby land and water cleaned up. Some of these nuclear plant's take years to shut down properly.


It is true that dismantling a nuclear plant is a long and costly process. It is also true that building as many nuclear power facilities in one of the world's most active tectonic zones is pretty foolish...and allowing out-dated facilities like those of Fukushima to be clearly not up to the safety requirements of a modern facility in a less vulnerable part of the world, let alone Japan, is bordering on suicidal.

But I'm not sure that this disaster means we should immediately dismiss nuclear power as a viable option for our energy hungry (and hungrier by the day, particularly with the rise of the developing market populations) world. At the very least, we should absolutely learn from these lessons--and hopefully we won't have to pay as dear of a price as the worst case scenario, doomsday criers would suggest--and adjust our way of thinking about how and where to build nuclear power generators.

And perhaps we should just not build them any more at all and slowly decommission the ones currently in operation--but we need the scientific argument on the matter to be better presented and, in that scenario, we need the commitment to develop high gigawatt output-capable renewable generators in the immediate future to stop developing (and developed alike) countries from turning to coal. Because coal (and particularly the shitty lignite coal that places like China are and would be burning) isn't maybe going to fuck the planet the way that nuclear might. We have all the scientific research we could ever need to show that coal does and will bend the planet over the kitchen counter. It just doesn't do it in a way that gets shown in a sexy fashion on CNN.

Apr 24, 2011, 13:30



________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Topic Outline: