Fukushima radiation leaks grow worse.

[ralis]

This is very troubling and yet there is still a push for more nuclear power plants.

 

Fukushima Leak Is An 'Emergency,' Watchdog Official Says

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/05/fukushima-leak-emergency_n_3707075.html

 

According to this article, it is normal for there to be leaks into the environment and yet these plants are touted to be safe. Safe in what way? Safe because an authority says so?

 

"It is unclear what effect the contamination will have on the environment. While the leak is about 10 to 100 times the volume the plant leaks during normal operations, TEPCO maintains the leak is within the regulations set before the disaster, the Asahi Shimbun writes."

Edited August 6, 2013 by ralis

[zerostao]

i looked at a set of 16 photo slides posted on yahoo today,( i shared it on the super moon thread )

very sobering slides

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Be reasonable, the plant was hit by a tsunami and earthquake. This isn't proof that nuclear power is dangerous in normal situations, only that there are problems if the plant is hit by two major natural disasters. That's just common sense, nobody would deny that.

 

A modern nuclear power plant not located in an area with high risk of natural disaster actually releases less radiation into the environment than a coal fired plant.

 

You could camp outside a nuclear power plant and get less radiation doses than someone simply living at a high altitude nowhere near civilisation.

 

It would be unsafe to build a nuclear power plant on the San Andreas fault line or Tornado Alley. France has loads of nuclear power plants with no problem.

 

All the facts suggest nuclear power is really the only choice. Fossil fuels have obvious problems. Renewables simply aren't anything like efficient enough.

 

Nuclear produces loads of power with very little fuel and no pollution. Accidents with modern plants are practically impossible unless there's a massive earthquake or something.

 

Oh, and thorium based plants don't make any nuclear waste. And they can use existing waste for fuel. And they can't meltdown.

 

Oh, and when we get fusion going there will be ridiculous efficiency with no nuclear waste or meltdown, just turning hydrogen into helium.

 

Hmmm... yeah I don't see the problem.

[子時斑]

... =[

[Dark Templar]

Bad news

[Thunder_Gooch]

This never would have happened had the reactors been Molten Salt Reactors of the LFTR kind.

 

As safe as fusion, impossible to melt down, unlimited energy, thousands of times less nuclear waste, only 300 year containment needed for the small amount of waste it does produce, can be used to burn down existing waste stock piles rather than bury it.

 

 

Alvin Weinberg head of Oak-Ridge National Labs and inventor of the light water reactor (like Fukushima) built and tested a prototype LFTR, found it viable and campaigned congress to switch to it for power generation.

 

It could solve all of our energy problems safely for thousands of years.

 

President Nixon's response?

 

Pursue the a different type of reactor for weapons production, can the LFTR project and fire Alvin Weinberg.

 

 

 

 

So we have all this stigma about nuclear power and how bad it is, how dangerous it is, and I agree.

 

There is however a solution to prevent events like Fukushima, and can solve all our problems for thousands of years, and that includes producing synthetic liquid fuels from ocean water, and making synthetic ammonia fertilizer.

Edited August 10, 2013 by More_Pie_Guy