Some Perspective On The Japan Earthquake

[Moscow Mule]

how is that a safe design?!?!

Your alternative is ridiculous - reactors need access to water. Building it in the middle of a mountain away from the sea is crazy talk. What happens to the large bore pipes carrying the water when the mountain suffers an earthquake?

What you actually mean is that nuclear reactors should be more tsunami proof.

[Moscow Mule]

Nowhere - I think this technology is inherently unsafe with deadly consequences much worse than fire.

You're such a nonce sometimes.

[MarillionFan]

How does locating a nuclear reactor in known earthquake zone where tsunamies are common is safe?

Maybe it's entirely safe to build such a reactor in place of shaunbhoy's family house in Devon, but it sure ain't safe in place where that reactor had been.

Frankly this whole concept of "we'll shutdown plant in event of earthquake instantly" is total bulltulip - there is no proper on/off with such reactors, get some damage to water delivery and the whole thing blows - how is that a safe design?!?!

It was built to withstand an earthquake of 8.2 on the richter scale. It did that. If you then happen to have a ridiculous sized tsunami or god forbid a mega tsunami then nothing will withstand it.

At the end of the day we are nothing but insects at the mercy of someone with a kettle of boiling water.

[TimberWolf]

Nowhere - I think this technology is inherently unsafe with deadly consequences much worse than fire.

Using coal stations makes more sense - and if the Greens don't like it then they can live next to nuclear station

Coal station ash is more radioactive and kills more people than nuclear power stations.

[MarillionFan]

You're such a nonce.

ftfy

[AtW]

Your alternative is ridiculous - reactors need access to water.

Then it's inherently unsafe and not worth the risk and cost - it's not like those reactors are super cheap to build, run and clean. Get a few of them to build nuclear weapons - that's ok, just don't keep them near major population centers and near water etc. Can't do it? Feck off and invent something that can get value for money.

[AtW]

Coal station ash is more radioactive and kills more people than nuclear power stations.

That's the same kind of b0ll0x as airplanes safer than trains/cars.



P.S. I've been near Chernobyl sometime before it blown up...

[Moscow Mule]

Then it's inherently unsafe and not worth the risk and cost - .

Bollocks, bollocks and maybe.

[AtW]

Bollocks, bollocks and maybe.

I'd say the nuclear industry is done for the next decade or two - that short assuming nuclear situation in Japan will be brought quickly under control.

What I think we will find out soon that those heroes that stayed at that reactor got more or less fatal dozes of radiation whilst trying to cool it down - more or less same thing was done in Soviet Union, only people were lied to about dangers, but how many people in the west would risk their lifes in such situation?!?!! Not with current Health and Safety laws as they stand now

[TimberWolf]

That's the same kind of b0ll0x as airplanes safer than trains/cars.



P.S. I've been near Chernobyl sometime before it blown up...

Maybe, they clean coal power station exhaust gases these days I gather. But in the old days it must have been the cause of premature death of millions. Maybe still is in the third world. I would say second world but it seems there is no such thing, you go straight from 3rd to 1st.

Okay, another try. If we burnt coal Japan would be flooded by rising sea water level