FabSwingers.com forum: Nuclear Power

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

It would be difficult to convince anyone it is safe after the recent disaster in Japan!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland

So much so that a traditional conservative government in one of Germany's counties lost out to the Green Party today - experts believe that this was almost entirely due to the recent events in Japan.

It certainly raises questions similar to those in 1985 when Tschernobyl happened. I so feel for the people of Japan who simply cannot just leave...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Cause its safe thats why we are building them here pmsl xx

(please note the sarcasm) xx

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

I think it depends a great deal on where the Nuclear plants are built, Britain doesn't have much to fear from natural disasters like Tsunami or Earthquakes so I think we will see nuclear being the future of power here in the UK.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

I went to school not far from one, and went there for a field trip once, and was in awe by it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I gather Nuclear is still our main option for power stations.

But the tragic Japan disaster certainly makes u think about the safety.

However Jane is right, its pretty unlikely we would have the same problems, i imagine our regulations and strict building regs would make it a lot safer than some other countries.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

Well worth taking into consideration that the since the Japanese plants have been built safety technology has improved considerably.

There would be no storing of spent fuel rods within the same building as the main reactor in any new UK Nuclear plants.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Dont they just bury them deep with in the sea beds so future generations will have to deal with it. ?

Thats if there are any future generations ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

Not in the UK they don't, they store them in fuel ponds within facilities like Sizewell. They use sea water in these ponds.

In the new dry ponds they are building at the moment the fuel rods are surrounded by gas rather than water.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

well i dont think they ever thought it was safe but we all know that its efficient

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *arambarMan
over a year ago

swindon

"It would be difficult to convince anyone it is safe after the recent disaster in Japan!

On the contrary - given the scale of what happened in Fukushima on that Friday afternoon, I think the safety record of a nuclear plant whose design is 50 years old has stood up very well. Plants that are built today are based on even safer designs.

There's a very good article called "Fukushima's toxic legacy: Ignorance and fear" which was posted on The Register... I can't link to it because it's not one of the permitted sites, but if you Google it it's the 1st response. Contrary to most other news sources - especially the Daily Mail and the BBC - it's not sensationalist.

Also, Google something called "XKCD Radiation" - it shows how we're all exposed to different levels of radiation just by going about our daily lives. For example eating a banana exposes you to 0.1 µSv (microsieverts), whereas a mammogram is 3 mSv (millisieverts), and at the other end of the scale, severe radiation poisoning happens at 2 Sv (sieverts) and a guaranteed fatal dose is 8 Sv.

Levels measured at Fukushima after the tsunami were in the region of 3 mSv, so about the same amount of radiation someone is exposed to during a mammogram.

Of course, you have to balance this with the amount of time you're being exposed to the radiation... i.e. dose versus dose rate. But then again, the isotope used at Fukushima that is being detected most commonly, namely iodine-131, has a half life of 8 days.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *arambarMan
over a year ago

swindon

"well i dont think they ever thought it was safe but we all know that its efficient"

...and ecologically-friendly - when done properly.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

i think they are perfectly safe just as long as there well maintained and keeped away from disaster zones, were not going to get an earthquake and tsunami in england so it depends on location really

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *arambarMan
over a year ago

swindon

Here's an interesting article...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/energy/788

I know we're not supposed to link to sites other than those specified in the T&C's, but I couldn't resist posting this

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *aucy3Couple
over a year ago

glasgow

nuclear power is our only option,like it or not.

our energy needs,could never be satisfied using green energy,with current technology.

fossil fuels are depleting rapidly.

the need for energy is increasing day on day.

we may not like nuclear,but we would be kidding ourselves on.if we think there's an alternative.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread