FabSwingers.com forum: Fukushima

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

Fukushima is being talked about a lot, haven't seen it on the news here though.

Turns out its a lot worse than people think, There’s more cesium in Unit 4 than 800 nuclear bombs were to explode above ground.

They are still not cleaning the mess up as a molten core is on the floor and they don't even know how to pick it up.

U.N, America want to give them help asap as a small earthquake could be enough to make it go, thats more than 800 nukes going as one.

What are your thoughts?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"Fukushima is being talked about a lot, haven't seen it on the news here though.

Turns out its a lot worse than people think, There’s more cesium in Unit 4 than 800 nuclear bombs were to explode above ground.

They are still not cleaning the mess up as a molten core is on the floor and they don't even know how to pick it up.

U.N, America want to give them help asap as a small earthquake could be enough to make it go, thats more than 800 nukes going as one.

What are your thoughts?"

ALL political and national interests need to be set aside and every effort made to make this safe and to clean up the mess as far as our technology allows...THEN STOP MESSING AROUND WITH NUCLEAR PLANTS especially in areas of high seizmic activity

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

Totally agree. Can't believe our government wants nuclear power. Something goes wrong which it can, then a huge area unusable.

Technology wise we have enough for green energy living.

Our governments should all work together to help in Japan, you'd be an idiot to think if unit 4 goes that it wont affect us.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"Totally agree. Can't believe our government wants nuclear power. Something goes wrong which it can, then a huge area unusable.

Technology wise we have enough for green energy living.

Our governments should all work together to help in Japan, you'd be an idiot to think if unit 4 goes that it wont affect us."

It would be a planet wide disaster

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

japans such a cool place. we must save it!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

What I don't get is why the media doesn't cover any of this. I understand some people would panic but people are more bothered by Kony 2012 and terrorists.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *G LanaTV/TS
over a year ago

Gosport

Interesting reading this and then comparing with the IAEA status updates on the Daiichi plant.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

What I find amazing is how the plant survived the 4th strongest earthquake in history and the tsunami that followed

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

It was an insane idea to begin with building a horde of nuclear power stations in Japan when it suffers so many earthquakes, something like this was bound to happen sooner or later.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *londeCazWoman
over a year ago

Arse End of the Universe, Cumbria

Whilst I somewhat agree that Nuclear stations in an area known to be seismically unstable is a bit daft, there were considerations in the original design in the late 60's/early 70s. The original design intent for Earthquake and Tsunami was based on a 1/1000 year event probability, the actual event was deemed a 1/10000 year probability...can't remember the actual figures as my notes are at work, but something like designed to withstand 8 on Richter/18' wave and event was 9 on Richter/24' wave....the plant staff followed all emergency protocols correctly, but unfortunately, Mother Nature at her fiercest overwhelmed them

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

Nuclear power is devastating at best and the after effects horrendous but Mother Nature cannot be beaten, Its natural culling when she kicks off and nature itself changing.

The problems on this spinning rock are mainly human error and incompetence.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"Whilst I somewhat agree that Nuclear stations in an area known to be seismically unstable is a bit daft, there were considerations in the original design in the late 60's/early 70s. The original design intent for Earthquake and Tsunami was based on a 1/1000 year event probability, the actual event was deemed a 1/10000 year probability...can't remember the actual figures as my notes are at work, but something like designed to withstand 8 on Richter/18' wave and event was 9 on Richter/24' wave....the plant staff followed all emergency protocols correctly, but unfortunately, Mother Nature at her fiercest overwhelmed them"

Thereby proving the point that shit does indeed happen !

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"Our governments should all work together to help in Japan, you'd be an idiot to think if unit 4 goes that it wont affect us."

I was always under the impression the rest of the world actually wanted to help but it was the Japanese goverment who refused and witheld facts about how bad the actual damage was

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

Chernobyl went into meltdown and we're still here aren't we. All this hullaballoo about 800 nukes going off at the same time, pah, sensationalism pure and simple.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *G LanaTV/TS
over a year ago

Gosport

I am not a nuclear expert and I don't know enough details on these reactors to know exactly what the risk is. From all reports I have seen though No. 4 reactor was defuelled at the time so this is the rods in the cooling pond which should in theory be easier to keep suitably wetted and therefore cooled as you don't need to force lots of water through recirculating loops.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

"Chernobyl went into meltdown and we're still here aren't we. All this hullaballoo about 800 nukes going off at the same time, pah, sensationalism pure and simple.

Totally agree.....simple scaremongering.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland

"Chernobyl went into meltdown and we're still here aren't we. All this hullaballoo about 800 nukes going off at the same time, pah, sensationalism pure and simple.

Totally agree.....simple scaremongering."

In Germany they will be shutting all nuclear power plants down.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

"Chernobyl went into meltdown and we're still here aren't we. All this hullaballoo about 800 nukes going off at the same time, pah, sensationalism pure and simple.

Totally agree.....simple scaremongering.

In Germany they will be shutting all nuclear power plants down."

Under their present government maybe....maybe not when they eventually have another government in

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

pretty sure Salmond and the SNP wants Scotland nuclear free aswell, how he's going to do that when 2 nuclear stations provide a third of our power needs i don't know.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland

"Chernobyl went into meltdown and we're still here aren't we. All this hullaballoo about 800 nukes going off at the same time, pah, sensationalism pure and simple.

Totally agree.....simple scaremongering.

In Germany they will be shutting all nuclear power plants down.

Under their present government maybe....maybe not when they eventually have another government in"
I m not sure, Jane - the lobby against has traditiona(I am talking about the last 25 years plus and certainly since Tschernobyl - some say that they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater by shutting down what is considered by scientists a very safe source of energy,

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

"pretty sure Salmond and the SNP wants Scotland nuclear free aswell, how he's going to do that when 2 nuclear stations provide a third of our power needs i don't know."

Maybe power driven by hot air?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

The Germans announced a plan to close down their Nuclear Power Stations over the next 25 years, plenty of time for future governments to amend that plan.

They did so to pay lip service to the Green electorate in Germany, at a time that they needed to court their vote.

I can't see any viable alternative to Nuclear to be honest, it's clean, relatively safe, and in the long term cheap.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ucsparkMan
over a year ago

dudley

So could anybody explain the difference between Japanese, German, French and British nuclear power stations.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"So could anybody explain the difference between Japanese, German, French and British nuclear power stations.

Japanese ones work until nature fucks them up.

German ones work. Perfectly. Zey are German and all German zings work. Perfectly.

French ones work but only if they're on time and half and get every third Sunday off.

British ones pretend they're perfect and will never have a problem, but then they're built by Germans using French materials with Japanese control panels.

Hard hat anyone?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"pretty sure Salmond and the SNP wants Scotland nuclear free aswell, how he's going to do that when 2 nuclear stations provide a third of our power needs i don't know.

Maybe power driven by hot air?"

I see what you did there. Clever. Clever.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ucsparkMan
over a year ago

dudley

"So could anybody explain the difference between Japanese, German, French and British nuclear power stations.

Japanese ones work until nature fucks them up.

German ones work. Perfectly. Zey are German and all German zings work. Perfectly.

French ones work but only if they're on time and half and get every third Sunday off.

British ones pretend they're perfect and will never have a problem, but then they're built by Germans using French materials with Japanese control panels.

Hard hat anyone?

Most of modern British are French design, English engineering with American control panels. All except for British use four guard line systems max British use seven that include usually sea or lake water, reserve ultimate heat sink ( big radiator) and fail to safe drop rod. After windscale we went belt and braces

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"So could anybody explain the difference between Japanese, German, French and British nuclear power stations.

Japanese ones work until nature fucks them up.

German ones work. Perfectly. Zey are German and all German zings work. Perfectly.

French ones work but only if they're on time and half and get every third Sunday off.

British ones pretend they're perfect and will never have a problem, but then they're built by Germans using French materials with Japanese control panels.

Hard hat anyone?

Tbh I have no idea what the difference is between them, or what British nuc reacs are made of. Don't really care either as there isn't a viable alternative.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland

Tbh I have no idea what the difference is between them, or what British nuc reacs are made of. Don't really care either as there isn't a viable alternative."

I think you are right, Wishy - so far there has not been a suitable clean alternative.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"Chernobyl went into meltdown and we're still here aren't we."

26 years since Chernobyl and still no superheroes..I'm disappointed

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ucsparkMan
over a year ago

dudley

Tbh I have no idea what the difference is between them, or what British nuc reacs are made of. Don't really care either as there isn't a viable alternative.

I think you are right, Wishy - so far there has not been a suitable clean alternative."

We are lucky in this country that it takes a age to get one. There will come a time when the tech catches up and gets rid of the waste instead of just trying to contain it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

Tbh I have no idea what the difference is between them, or what British nuc reacs are made of. Don't really care either as there isn't a viable alternative.

I think you are right, Wishy - so far there has not been a suitable clean alternative."

Well, that's not entirely true. They could up the amount of sea-based wind turbines to about 40,000, put them in the North Sea, and the first gust of wind will do two things:

1) provide the UK with enough power to boil a kettle, and

2) blow Europe 2000 miles further south.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland

Tbh I have no idea what the difference is between them, or what British nuc reacs are made of. Don't really care either as there isn't a viable alternative.

I think you are right, Wishy - so far there has not been a suitable clean alternative.

Well, that's not entirely true. They could up the amount of sea-based wind turbines to about 40,000, put them in the North Sea, and the first gust of wind will do two things:

1) provide the UK with enough power to boil a kettle, and

2) blow Europe 2000 miles further south.

I thought that we were some time away from this becoming a possible reality?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

Chernobyl did go in meltdown, its core is still going today as no one knows how to stop/pick it up (dont know the full science terms) its affected over 5 million people, kids born with cancer etc due to it, not far from there. It affected the Uk as an area can not be used to graze. Fukushima is 10xs bigger than Chernobyl so if you think it won't affect us.

How can anyone call nuclear safe, if something goes wrong, that area can not be used for 100s of yrs so expensive wise, it prob costs more, plus it only takes one mistake, natural diaster or even terrorist as they become targets.

Wave, wind, solar, maybe more expensive to setup but its unlimited,and is safe, common sense.

Technology has changed so much over the years but stuff has to go through a lot of testing before it can be used. Another reason the governments refuse to use more green energy is because it becomes cheaper for us, if we spend less, they get less money. They don't care if something is bad for us, if they make money from it, they will keep it for as long as possible, look at smoking as an example.

Pretty much all countries do it. USA, Nevada desert, if you were to use the latest technology solar panels which can absorb more energy, uses mirrors as well, solar farm of couple square miles in one day can generate enough power for the whole USA for the year.

We are surrounded by the sea, so plenty of wave, wind.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"Chernobyl did go in meltdown, its core is still going today as no one knows how to stop/pick it up (dont know the full science terms) its affected over 5 million people, kids born with cancer etc due to it, not far from there. It affected the Uk as an area can not be used to graze. Fukushima is 10xs bigger than Chernobyl so if you think it won't affect us.

Wave, wind, solar, maybe more expensive to setup but its unlimited,and is safe, common sense.

We are surrounded by the sea, so plenty of wave, wind."

Safe as opposed to what? OK nuclear power, badly handled can devastate large ares, but so does open cast coal mining every time. Coal mining, as is oil and gas mining can also be incredibly dangerous, many more people are killed every day by the production of coal, gas and oil that have every been killed by all of the nuclear disasters which have ever happened (not to mention the huge numbers of people killed on the roads using oil products).

Renewable energy it not really going to be able to provide all of the energy we need now, let alone in the future (though I am certainly an advocate of large investment to raise the share of production in wind and tidal wave power plants). Do not, however, go thinking that there is no environmental impact of these energy sources. A really good tidal surge power plant location would be the Severn Estuary, with one of the highest tidal floods in the world, but there would be innumerable habitats destroyed and glass eels (or elvers) would be wiped out.

Another point to consider is the fact that nuclear power produces a fraction of the CO2 emissions that fossil fuel power production does and is more productive (there are less plants to energy out put than coal or natural gas power plants).

A friend of the family worked for British Nuclear Fuels and went to Chernobyl shortly after the explosion and fire (it was not a melt down, though there was the risk of that) and took a gieger counter with him. He attracted more Rads on the flight there than at the plant. The area around Chernobyl is now a thriving wildlife park.

The risk of disaster with nuclear power is incredibly low, all in all, but our perception of that risk is out of all proportion.

As a final aside, although Germany will not be producing nuclear power any more it will be buying it in from France and Poland, so they will still be using it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

I work in the electric industry, I am also qualified in environmental business management and have a friend who is a leading environmental scientist... so all in all have a few different factors that influence my feeling about this all.

Fukushima was a mess. It was an old design, built on a fault line prone to earthquakes. Unfortunately, Japan has lots of seismic activity, but this plant could not have been built in a worse place. The real problem there was the fact that the nuclear fuel rods were not kept cool with water after the disaster. The back up generators that pump the cooling water were placed too low to the ground, so the tsumani wiped them out. Old fuel rods are kept in what is basically a 10 metre deep swimming pool. This is also the way they are stored in the UK. The water is deep enough to negate all radiation from them. My company sent truckloads of equipment and expertise to Japan to help in the crisis and are still advising them. The idea that 800 nukes are about to go off is scaremongering and hokum. Yes, there is high level radiation, but it will not explode like something from Hiroshima.

With regards nuclear power stations in the UK, we have a great safety record. There are new plants being built across the UK. IN a few years, if the are not online when old stations are decommisssioned, we will have a huge energy shortage in the UK. We are already importing from France, and this will become worse.

The Germans had a knee jerk reaction and closed all their nuclear power plants after Fukushima. This was something they had planned long term, but brought it forward. the early closure has caused financial problems for 2 big energy providers, which means they do not have the cash to build nuclear plants in the UK. Another shortfall to our national grid. The Germans were going to rely on coal burning stations with carbon capture, which is relatively 'green'.

With regards wind power, it is a waste of time and money... it does not work. When we need the energy most is on the winter. Sadly, low air pressure in winter weather, means less wind, so they dont work when most needed. Solar and PV is not quite there yet. Tidal is a great idea, but we cannot upscale the technology. It is thought a full size tidal barrage on the Severn, could supply 25% of all UK homes with electricity.

With regards the Scots and Salmond, when you look at your electric bill, think of 20% of that is going to subsidise green energy. England and Wales and Northern Ireland heavily subsidise Scottish power.

Going back to my friend who is the Environmental Scientist. Her company was employed by the last government to prove that nuclear was a no go. After years of research into every possible variation of power sources, her company came to the conclusion that they did not want to admit.. which is the only way forward if nuclear.

There is a looming energy shortage that is a real problem. Think back to the 80's and how few appliances you would have in the home then. Would have been a washing machine, fridge, freezer, 1 0r 3 TVs,and a stereo. Just think how much we have plugged in at home now! Since the 80's we have not invested in the national grid.

Another benefit of nuclear is that it is low carbon and the uranium needed is harvested mainly from Canada that is a politically stable country. The main expense in nuclear stations is the building and decommissioning them. However, when they are working, they are relatively cheap. It does mean that we are not at the mercy of coal prices or even worse, oil prices.

I would love to be able to build a sustainable home that runs on 'green' power, but until the day the tech is there, I just hope the nuclear power sations are brought online soon!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"snip

I would love to be able to build a sustainable home that runs on 'green' power, but until the day the tech is there, I just hope the nuclear power sations are brought online soon!

Yup everything he said! Nuclear is the only way we know at the momement.

Solar will hopefully be used one day, but we don't know how yet. when we do I will convert my home to run on it... but at the moment I would have no choice but to have all the lights on all day long and use candles at night! Batteries may be the answer, but the polution problem of the spent ones far exceed the storage issues of nuclear waste!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

Solar energy is there, yes it would cost a lot to put panels on every roof that isnt blocked by sunlight. The newer tech solar panels can absorb a lot more.

What would help is education, little things help, i charge my phone by a small solar charger.

Where i live we got several huge stacked car parks, even at 3am all the lights are on, the place is closed from 7pm and not reopened till 6am. I'm sure plenty of places do the same, its not needed. We as a country waste far too much esp at night.

Don't know where everyone gets there info but I have watched a few programs, read about stuff, the technology for green energy is there. Hell i even see a guy use water to power his home, free energy exists but obviously no government in the world would want us to know as they loose far too much.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

As regards, coal and oil, gas etc. I dont say use more of that to avoid nuclear.

Don't get me started on fracking.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

Well, that's not entirely true. They could up the amount of sea-based wind turbines to about 40,000, put them in the North Sea, and the first gust of wind will do two things:

1) provide the UK with enough power to boil a kettle, and

2) blow Europe 2000 miles further south.

That's got me giggling like a loony

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ucsparkMan
over a year ago

dudley

"Solar energy is there, yes it would cost a lot to put panels on every roof that isnt blocked by sunlight. The newer tech solar panels can absorb a lot more.

What would help is education, little things help, i charge my phone by a small solar charger.

Well mine comes from working in the industries you have mentioned. Always found first hand knowledge to be the best weapon in a discussion

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread