FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Nuclear experts are scared.
Nuclear experts are scared.
Jump to: Newest in thread
 Neibouring countries Are raiseing the safety alarm and German environment minister, Barbara hendricks, is ready to take Our concerns into a meeting with Belgium tommorow monday 1st february, A radioactive nightmare in such an Overpopulated area affects (us all Across europe)WE ARE ENTERING A NEW ERA OF NUCLEAR RISKS, The 25 oldest Nuclear reactors in Europe are close To or past their 40 years of Operation, and as our nuclear plants Get older, the number of failures and Accidents keeps growing: there has Already been a reported 50% Increase In unexpected failures between 2000 And 2006, BELGIUM IS BECOMEING A GLOBAL SYMBOL OF THE DANGER POSED BY AGEING NUCLEAR PLANTS: Leaks, cracks And even an explosion last december, More worryingly, experts say that Because some of the cracks are on "one Of the most vulnerable parts" of the Plant, IF THE REACTOR PRESSURE FAILS, THEN WE HAVE A CHERNOBYL OR A FUKUSHIMA TYPE ACCIDENT".
The government says they need to keep These broken plants open to give Electricity to the country, But in the Past 2 years they were closed 50% of The Time for malfunctioning, Now the Belgium government is relying on its Majority in parliament to get approval For TWO OTHER SUSPICIOUS PLANTS ON LIFE SUPPORT FOR ANOTHER 10 YEARS!
What are peoples views on these Proposals..  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Hello Coachman, Chernobyl was an accident caused by poorly thought out tests and the disabling of the safety system. Even then the reactor explosion would have been contained if the Russian designers had built a containment vessel around the reactor as most of the rest of the world does. So it is highly unlikely we will hav another Chernobyl in Europe. Alec" This. 
| |||
"Belgium has just restarted two ancient And cracked nuclear power plants that Threaten to unleash ANOTHER CHERNOBYL DISASTER RIGHT IN THE HEART OF EUROPE! One of the ageing reactors suffered a Fire and explosion weeks ago and Belgium`s own nuclear safety chief Called for checks after discloseing 16,000 cracks! Neibouring countries Are raiseing the safety alarm and German environment minister, Barbara hendricks, is ready to take Our concerns into a meeting with Belgium tommorow monday 1st february, A radioactive nightmare in such an Overpopulated area affects (us all Across europe)WE ARE ENTERING A NEW ERA OF NUCLEAR RISKS, The 25 oldest Nuclear reactors in Europe are close To or past their 40 years of Operation, and as our nuclear plants Get older, the number of failures and Accidents keeps growing: there has Already been a reported 50% Increase In unexpected failures between 2000 And 2006, BELGIUM IS BECOMEING A GLOBAL SYMBOL OF THE DANGER POSED BY AGEING NUCLEAR PLANTS: Leaks, cracks And even an explosion last december, More worryingly, experts say that Because some of the cracks are on "one Of the most vulnerable parts" of the Plant, IF THE REACTOR PRESSURE FAILS, THEN WE HAVE A CHERNOBYL OR A FUKUSHIMA TYPE ACCIDENT".
The government says they need to keep These broken plants open to give Electricity to the country, But in the Past 2 years they were closed 50% of The Time for malfunctioning, Now the Belgium government is relying on its Majority in parliament to get approval For TWO OTHER SUSPICIOUS PLANTS ON LIFE SUPPORT FOR ANOTHER 10 YEARS!
What are peoples views on these Proposals.. "Any thoughts on the decommissioning at Sellafield op? It's a bit more "tricky" that restarting a facility that's already been in use. | |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"Nuclear experts aren't shitting themselves. Every single researcher, academic, expert and engineer I've met seems to have a handle on the industry. There's also no conspiracy before you jump to conclusions OP. These people are far too busy for childish games " This too. | |||
"Nuclear experts aren't shitting themselves. Every single researcher, academic, expert and engineer I've met seems to have a handle on the industry. There's also no conspiracy before you jump to conclusions OP. These people are far too busy for childish games "
Exactly: OP: stop quoting nonsense:
If you have an issue; read the reality first.
| |||
"Nuclear experts aren't shitting themselves. Every single researcher, academic, expert and engineer I've met seems to have a handle on the industry. There's also no conspiracy before you jump to conclusions OP. These people are far too busy for childish games
Exactly: OP: stop quoting nonsense:
If you have an issue; read the reality first.
"You won't say that when you are dead | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Couldn't care LESS! they MAKE GREAT chocolate! If a reactor EXPLODES WE will have HOT CHOCOLATE! " 
And if only there was some unmelted vanilla ice-cream left to go with it; heaven | |||
| |||
"https://youtu.be/Rrxmy6R3m90. There's plenty of evidence to suggest the experts don't always have a handle on it!. The one thing I do know about nuclear power, is that it used to be the heaviest regulated industry in the world for a real fucking good reason!" It's still the most heavily regulated industry in the world. | |||
"You won't say that when you are dead" I don't expect to be saying anything when I am dead 
these reactors are probably safe, and if not we'll Belgium could use a valley or 2. the number of deaths in Japan where 4 not 1 reactors went critical is probably less than the number of pedestrians run over in London each year.
The level of fear over nuclear power is way beyond the risk. ask anyone who comes from in Cornwall. where background radiation has always been present. | |||
"Hello Coachman, Chernobyl was an accident caused by poorly thought out tests and the disabling of the safety system. Even then the reactor explosion would have been contained if the Russian designers had built a containment vessel around the reactor as most of the rest of the world does. So it is highly unlikely we will hav another Chernobyl in Europe. Alec" . That's not really true. You can't contain a massive hydrogen explosion with a containment vessel, Fukushima proved that!. Sure there'll give you added protection from minor faults but they don't protect against Chernobyl scenarios | |||
"You won't say that when you are dead I don't expect to be saying anything when I am dead
"Glad someone got the joke, I wondered if I needed a wink in there to make it more obvious | |||
| |||
| |||
"You won't say that when you are dead I don't expect to be saying anything when I am dead
these reactors are probably safe, and if not we'll Belgium could use a valley or 2. the number of deaths in Japan where 4 not 1 reactors went critical is probably less than the number of pedestrians run over in London each year.
The level of fear over nuclear power is way beyond the risk. ask anyone who comes from in Cornwall. where background radiation has always been present.". That's not true either... It's contamination of heavy particles that kill people not radiation perse , that's why they got lithenko to swallow polonium 210 , it's a toxin, ingestion is lethal and has no cure. Comparing it to background radiation in cornwall from radon gas is a bit silly, it's like saying your granite worktops are radioactive | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
" That's not really true. You can't contain a massive hydrogen explosion with a containment vessel, Fukushima proved that!. " Tell me this is ironic? Surely it is? Please? | |||
| |||
"It's contamination of heavy particles that kill people not radiation perse , that's why they got lithenko to swallow polonium 210 , it's a toxin, ingestion is lethal and has no cure. Comparing it to background radiation in cornwall from radon gas is a bit silly, it's like saying your granite worktops are radioactive" good case to bring up, traces were tracked from the hotel across London through an airport and to a Russian plane, presumably with access it could be followed back to its origin if they had access. but it probably only killed 1 person, also my granite worktops are so radioactive they cook the food faster than my oven | |||
" That's not really true. You can't contain a massive hydrogen explosion with a containment vessel, Fukushima proved that!. Tell me this is ironic? Surely it is? Please? " . You can plan for problems and most reactors do with very good design and regulation. But there inherently dangerous once something goes wrong that you didn't plan for or didn't regulate for. Fukushima went up through bad design and regulation because they guessed the chances of the problem happening were very small. They were wrong and there living with that problem! | |||
"Nuclear incidents get away with few deaths the same way asbestos did... People didn't keel over in the factory, they died 20-30 and 40 years later!" Are you serious? You know how long the nuclear industry has been around don't you? How many deaths have been attributed to nuclear contamination since its inception. I'm not talking about actual use of nuclear weapons here, outside of actual detonation. | |||
"It's contamination of heavy particles that kill people not radiation perse , that's why they got lithenko to swallow polonium 210 , it's a toxin, ingestion is lethal and has no cure. Comparing it to background radiation in cornwall from radon gas is a bit silly, it's like saying your granite worktops are radioactive good case to bring up, traces were tracked from the hotel across London through an airport and to a Russian plane, presumably with access it could be followed back to its origin if they had access. but it probably only killed 1 person, also my granite worktops are so radioactive they cook the food faster than my oven ". Granite is radioactive, your Geiger counter will buzz merrily near it!. It's the ingestion of the heavy toxins that kill you not really the gamma or beta waves. There's been serval Russian studies of Belarus, Georgia and the Ukraine which have showed huge rises in cancer types that you'd expect from heavy toxins but trying to get a definitive link is very hard!. What they do know is the higher up the food chain you are like humans, the more it effects you as you get the cumulative effects of eating the animal which ate the animal which ate the animal...ie your getting many more times the dose | |||
" That's not really true. You can't contain a massive hydrogen explosion with a containment vessel, Fukushima proved that!. Tell me this is ironic? Surely it is? Please? . You can plan for problems and most reactors do with very good design and regulation. But there inherently dangerous once something goes wrong that you didn't plan for or didn't regulate for. Fukushima went up through bad design and regulation because they guessed the chances of the problem happening were very small. They were wrong and there living with that problem!" Fukushima survived the earthquake just fine. The reactor buildings had no issues with the tsunami either. What went wrong was that the backup generator house was outside bund wall and didn't survive the wave. This meant there was no electricity to power the pumps so the reactors overheated. So in this respect you are correct and given that they'd put a perfectly good bund round the reactor houses it is hard to explain why they left out the generator house. | |||
"Nuclear incidents get away with few deaths the same way asbestos did... People didn't keel over in the factory, they died 20-30 and 40 years later! Are you serious? You know how long the nuclear industry has been around don't you? How many deaths have been attributed to nuclear contamination since its inception. I'm not talking about actual use of nuclear weapons here, outside of actual detonation." . About 65 years? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Yawn zzzzzz Post in some nerd forum and stop dropping our mood" . There's a nerd forum!!  | |||
" That's not really true. You can't contain a massive hydrogen explosion with a containment vessel, Fukushima proved that!. Tell me this is ironic? Surely it is? Please? . You can plan for problems and most reactors do with very good design and regulation. But there inherently dangerous once something goes wrong that you didn't plan for or didn't regulate for. Fukushima went up through bad design and regulation because they guessed the chances of the problem happening were very small. They were wrong and there living with that problem! Fukushima survived the earthquake just fine. The reactor buildings had no issues with the tsunami either. What went wrong was that the backup generator house was outside bund wall and didn't survive the wave. This meant there was no electricity to power the pumps so the reactors overheated. So in this respect you are correct and given that they'd put a perfectly good bund round the reactor houses it is hard to explain why they left out the generator house." . If I remember correctly they were well aware of the flaw. They changed most of the problems on reactors above 1-4 and didn't get the problem of generator knock out... But 1-4 went China syndrome | |||
"Couldn't care LESS! they MAKE GREAT chocolate! If a reactor EXPLODES WE will have HOT CHOCOLATE!
And if only there was some unmelted vanilla ice-cream left to go with it; heaven"mmmmmmm chocolate and Vanillaaaaaa! | |||
| |||
| |||
"Let Europe blow itself up and then we can pull out of the eu" | |||
"Let Europe blow itself up and then we can pull out of the eu "Gets my vote | |||
"The article link is? I like my pork chops cooked without having to show it the oven/pan– not that I am really sure what pork chop is or how to cook it. Luminous sheep with laser death ray eye balls like Mr Flibbles(google that) – checks ban uplift v Chernobyl “Restrictions covering sheep movements after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster have finally been lifted from all farms in England and Wales after 26 years.” Wonders about: Windscale - so good they had to name it twice. Three mile island who remembers that? That’s what you call keeping it out of the press Fukushima – now, Japan knows how to build in redundancy & safety due the geological diversity of its lands Wonders if the UK has any kind of decent redundancy built into ours – not particularly and do not think for one moment we don’t get tsunamis eg Scotland (6100 BC) Storegga Slide, Lisbon earthquake (1755) ocverdue now I mull that one over, like the Cascadia subduction zone (also due) The UK can afford no new nuclear power plants; the reasons being with unemployment at its lowest, why harp on about benefits and immigrants then and us Scots wanting to rebuild the wall – albeit I would shift it further south. And why our energy bills so high and where does all that money go – oh sypmoned off to the countries that own them We have no money – which seems at odds with unemployment being at its lowest and tax returns. And that useless vacuum pit what’s it called, in france, ITER-fission (well a lot of Europe china russia usa contribute to that ravenous money pit. There is enough renewbale energy x a muffintime to supply the world – lets tax renewables – and drop not the price of fuel/heating when the cost of a barrel of oil is now bested by the cost of the actual barrel. All this started cos I wanted a pork chop spliced with muffin " | |||
| |||
"Nuclear incidents get away with few deaths the same way asbestos did... People didn't keel over in the factory, they died 20-30 and 40 years later! Are you serious? You know how long the nuclear industry has been around don't you? How many deaths have been attributed to nuclear contamination since its inception. I'm not talking about actual use of nuclear weapons here, outside of actual detonation.. About 65 years?" And the answer to the second part of the question? | |||
| |||
"let THERE be ZOMBIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIES" Friday nights in Swingers clubs Some glow in the dark too | |||
"Nuclear experts aren't shitting themselves. Every single researcher, academic, expert and engineer I've met seems to have a handle on the industry. There's also no conspiracy before you jump to conclusions OP. These people are far too busy for childish games " | |||
| |||
 | |||
  | |||
"If anything Belgian,is remotely related to mass deaths,due to radioactive contamination,I'll eat my hat,your hat,and everybody's hat. In Belgium they don't even cross the road,without written permission. They consider sleep,their riskiest pastime. "The riskiest thing in Belgium is the bloody cyclists! | |||
| |||
| |||
" The riskiest thing in Belgium is the bloody cyclists! " Amsterdam my dear, you're thinking of Amsterdam
| |||
" The riskiest thing in Belgium is the bloody cyclists! Amsterdam my dear, you're thinking of Amsterdam
"That's how unrisky the Belgians are, they worry about being knocked over,by a Dutch cyclists. | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"I don't see much of this on mainstream media, but that's not surprising. Probably worried people might panic. Typical, the BBC seem more bothered about Terry Wogan's death." That could of course be because there's actually no story to report and mainstream media has more sense. | |||
"Hello Coachman, Chernobyl was an accident caused by poorly thought out tests and the disabling of the safety system. Even then the reactor explosion would have been contained if the Russian designers had built a containment vessel around the reactor as most of the rest of the world does. So it is highly unlikely we will hav another Chernobyl in Europe. Alec" Why do people keep referring to the Chernobyl disaster as an accident? It was not! It was a deliberate act of sabotage committed over a period of days and weeks by the plant engineers and scientific management! FFS how can anyone say that deliberately manually turning off the water cooling supply, disabling the scram (auto shutdown) and alarm systems and then uncovering the core with all control rods withdrawn is an accident! In fact the plant personnel who were not killed by the released radiation were tried and executed by the Russian State! | |||
"Hello Coachman, Chernobyl was an accident caused by poorly thought out tests and the disabling of the safety system. Even then the reactor explosion would have been contained if the Russian designers had built a containment vessel around the reactor as most of the rest of the world does. So it is highly unlikely we will hav another Chernobyl in Europe. Alec Why do people keep referring to the Chernobyl disaster as an accident? It was not! It was a deliberate act of sabotage committed over a period of days and weeks by the plant engineers and scientific management! FFS how can anyone say that deliberately manually turning off the water cooling supply, disabling the scram (auto shutdown) and alarm systems and then uncovering the core with all control rods withdrawn is an accident! In fact the plant personnel who were not killed by the released radiation were tried and executed by the Russian State!" What utter and complete nonsense: The events leading up to the accident are extremely well documented, every action and consequence is recorded and detailed in huge detail; it was a fault of a test going wrong because a possible known phenomena of powering down that type of reactor was overlooked when the system was powered down . | |||
" The riskiest thing in Belgium is the bloody cyclists! Amsterdam my dear, you're thinking of Amsterdam
That's how unrisky the Belgians are,
they worry about being knocked over,by a Dutch cyclists.
"Now you can understand why we took their bicycles away; it was a H&S issue | |||
"Hello Coachman, Chernobyl was an accident caused by poorly thought out tests and the disabling of the safety system. Even then the reactor explosion would have been contained if the Russian designers had built a containment vessel around the reactor as most of the rest of the world does. So it is highly unlikely we will hav another Chernobyl in Europe. Alec Why do people keep referring to the Chernobyl disaster as an accident? It was not! It was a deliberate act of sabotage committed over a period of days and weeks by the plant engineers and scientific management! FFS how can anyone say that deliberately manually turning off the water cooling supply, disabling the scram (auto shutdown) and alarm systems and then uncovering the core with all control rods withdrawn is an accident! In fact the plant personnel who were not killed by the released radiation were tried and executed by the Russian State!" Of all the nonsense I've read on 'tinternet, that's pretty high on the "utter bollocks" scale.  | |||
" Of all the nonsense I've read on 'tinternet, that's pretty high on the "utter bollocks" scale. "Ah, but you've probably been duped into thinking the Moon landings took place! (I'm sure I'm meant to litter that with capitals but don't know how) | |||
" Of all the nonsense I've read on 'tinternet, that's pretty high on the "utter bollocks" scale.
Ah, but you've probably been duped into thinking the Moon landings took place!
(I'm sure I'm meant to litter that with capitals but don't know how)"People have landed on the moon???????? When the feck did that happen? | |||
"Hello Coachman, Chernobyl was an accident caused by poorly thought out tests and the disabling of the safety system. Even then the reactor explosion would have been contained if the Russian designers had built a containment vessel around the reactor as most of the rest of the world does. So it is highly unlikely we will hav another Chernobyl in Europe. Alec Why do people keep referring to the Chernobyl disaster as an accident? It was not! It was a deliberate act of sabotage committed over a period of days and weeks by the plant engineers and scientific management! FFS how can anyone say that deliberately manually turning off the water cooling supply, disabling the scram (auto shutdown) and alarm systems and then uncovering the core with all control rods withdrawn is an accident! In fact the plant personnel who were not killed by the released radiation were tried and executed by the Russian State!" Do you have factual evidence to corroborate this ? | |||
" Of all the nonsense I've read on 'tinternet, that's pretty high on the "utter bollocks" scale.
Ah, but you've probably been duped into thinking the Moon landings took place!
(I'm sure I'm meant to litter that with capitals but don't know how)
People have landed on the moon????????
When the feck did that happen?"I know, crazy isn't it! Clearly bollocks as Brie couldn't support the lander. | |||
" Do you have factual evidence to corroborate this ?" Factual evidence? That so gets in the way of conspiracy theories! | |||
| |||
"Nuclear incidents get away with few deaths the same way asbestos did... People didn't keel over in the factory, they died 20-30 and 40 years later! Are you serious? You know how long the nuclear industry has been around don't you? How many deaths have been attributed to nuclear contamination since its inception. I'm not talking about actual use of nuclear weapons here, outside of actual detonation." The World Health Organisation reports that there are fewer deaths per kilowatt hour resulting from nuclear than even from solar, let alone from coal, gas, oil etc - and this includes both direct deaths and epidemiological deaths. Only one person died at Fukushima and that was from a heart attack.That tens of thousands died from the tsunamis seems to have been forgotten. Conspiracy theories arise from ignorance. People shouldn't show their ignorance by promoting them. | |||
" Of all the nonsense I've read on 'tinternet, that's pretty high on the "utter bollocks" scale.
Ah, but you've probably been duped into thinking the Moon landings took place!
(I'm sure I'm meant to litter that with capitals but don't know how)
People have landed on the moon????????
When the feck did that happen?
I know, crazy isn't it! Clearly bollocks as Brie couldn't support the lander."It's strong enough to support the weight of a London bus. | |||
"Nuclear incidents get away with few deaths the same way asbestos did... People didn't keel over in the factory, they died 20-30 and 40 years later! Are you serious? You know how long the nuclear industry has been around don't you? How many deaths have been attributed to nuclear contamination since its inception. I'm not talking about actual use of nuclear weapons here, outside of actual detonation. The World Health Organisation reports that there are fewer deaths per kilowatt hour resulting from nuclear than even from solar, let alone from coal, gas, oil etc - and this includes both direct deaths and epidemiological deaths. Only one person died at Fukushima and that was from a heart attack.That tens of thousands died from the tsunamis seems to have been forgotten. Conspiracy theories arise from ignorance. People shouldn't show their ignorance by promoting them. " This. | |||
"Belgium has just restarted two ancient And cracked nuclear power plants that Threaten to unleash ANOTHER CHERNOBYL DISASTER RIGHT IN THE HEART OF EUROPE! One of the ageing reactors suffered a Fire and explosion weeks ago and Belgium`s own nuclear safety chief Called for checks after discloseing 16,000 cracks! Neibouring countries Are raiseing the safety alarm and German environment minister, Barbara hendricks, is ready to take Our concerns into a meeting with Belgium tommorow monday 1st february, A radioactive nightmare in such an Overpopulated area affects (us all Across europe)WE ARE ENTERING A NEW ERA OF NUCLEAR RISKS, The 25 oldest Nuclear reactors in Europe are close To or past their 40 years of Operation, and as our nuclear plants Get older, the number of failures and Accidents keeps growing: there has Already been a reported 50% Increase In unexpected failures between 2000 And 2006, BELGIUM IS BECOMEING A GLOBAL SYMBOL OF THE DANGER POSED BY AGEING NUCLEAR PLANTS: Leaks, cracks And even an explosion last december, More worryingly, experts say that Because some of the cracks are on "one Of the most vulnerable parts" of the Plant, IF THE REACTOR PRESSURE FAILS, THEN WE HAVE A CHERNOBYL OR A FUKUSHIMA TYPE ACCIDENT".
The government says they need to keep These broken plants open to give Electricity to the country, But in the Past 2 years they were closed 50% of The Time for malfunctioning, Now the Belgium government is relying on its Majority in parliament to get approval For TWO OTHER SUSPICIOUS PLANTS ON LIFE SUPPORT FOR ANOTHER 10 YEARS!
What are peoples views on these Proposals.. "It's actually so hard to have a nuclear incident and I have no idea what cracks mean!! | |||
"Nuclear incidents get away with few deaths the same way asbestos did... People didn't keel over in the factory, they died 20-30 and 40 years later! Are you serious? You know how long the nuclear industry has been around don't you? How many deaths have been attributed to nuclear contamination since its inception. I'm not talking about actual use of nuclear weapons here, outside of actual detonation.. About 65 years? And the answer to the second part of the question?" . The second part of the answer is... Nobody actually knows for sure either way. Something's cause specific cancers like asbestos and smoking and you can attribute that cancer to the cause through science!. Having a few particles of iodine cesium or strontium stuck in your system for 25 years is like trying to prove whether drinking 4 units of alcohol over 20 years is good or bad... There's a thousand other things that contribute. So the answer is the WHO, DON'T know how many people have been affected by Chernobyl 20 30 or 40 years down the line just the same as I can't prove its dangerous | |||
"Nuclear incidents get away with few deaths the same way asbestos did... People didn't keel over in the factory, they died 20-30 and 40 years later! Are you serious? You know how long the nuclear industry has been around don't you? How many deaths have been attributed to nuclear contamination since its inception. I'm not talking about actual use of nuclear weapons here, outside of actual detonation.. About 65 years? And the answer to the second part of the question?. The second part of the answer is... Nobody actually knows for sure either way. Something's cause specific cancers like asbestos and smoking and you can attribute that cancer to the cause through science!. Having a few particles of iodine cesium or strontium stuck in your system for 25 years is like trying to prove whether drinking 4 units of alcohol over 20 years is good or bad... There's a thousand other things that contribute. So the answer is the WHO, DON'T know how many people have been affected by Chernobyl 20 30 or 40 years down the line just the same as I can't prove its dangerous" Great answer. Which pretty much negates the first line of your comment; "Nuclear incidents get away with few deaths......" The WHA has yet to find one death attributable to nuclear "polution" for want of a better word. And trust me, they look. And they look hard........ | |||
| |||
"I absolutely love this forum. Only here can you read about a potential world changing danger. A catastrophic event that could potentially kill or f**k up most of Europe. When told on this forum (witch I absolutely support you doing so mate well done) gets a response from many people telling you how to pronounce and paragraph your thread info. Pmsl. " The grammar police are everywhere, it's a conspiracy I tells yah. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I absolutely love this forum. Only here can you read about a potential world changing danger. A catastrophic event that could potentially kill or f**k up most of Europe. When told on this forum (witch I absolutely support you doing so mate well done) gets a response from many people telling you how to pronounce and paragraph your thread info. Pmsl. " Because you can't "read about a potential world changing danger" when the text is illegible! Putting sections in capital letters is like turning up to a fancy restaurant in jogging bottoms. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Nuclear incidents get away with few deaths the same way asbestos did... People didn't keel over in the factory, they died 20-30 and 40 years later! Are you serious? You know how long the nuclear industry has been around don't you? How many deaths have been attributed to nuclear contamination since its inception. I'm not talking about actual use of nuclear weapons here, outside of actual detonation.. About 65 years? And the answer to the second part of the question?. The second part of the answer is... Nobody actually knows for sure either way. Something's cause specific cancers like asbestos and smoking and you can attribute that cancer to the cause through science!. Having a few particles of iodine cesium or strontium stuck in your system for 25 years is like trying to prove whether drinking 4 units of alcohol over 20 years is good or bad... There's a thousand other things that contribute. So the answer is the WHO, DON'T know how many people have been affected by Chernobyl 20 30 or 40 years down the line just the same as I can't prove its dangerous Great answer. Which pretty much negates the first line of your comment; "Nuclear incidents get away with few deaths......" The WHA has yet to find one death attributable to nuclear "polution" for want of a better word. And trust me, they look. And they look hard........" . No it doesn't negate what I'm saying. What I said is the recorded deaths are low because it's extremely hard to prove the pollution caused the cancer or whatever other form of illness that COULD be attributed to it. They haven't proved it safe and it hasn't been proved massively dangerous | |||
"The level of ignorance worries me more than the radiation. Smoking kills far more people, as does drink driving. Alpha can be blocked by a few inches of air, keep it outside your body and it's fine. Infact I gaurantee you're sat within a few meters of an Alpha emitter right now. Have a look at the back of your smoke detectors ". That's like saying weapons grade uranium is harmless because paper shields the alpha waves!... Yes it does your absolutely correct however if you were to consume 1 millionth of a gramme of it, the effects would be completely different. You only have to look at Iraq and the huge increase in birth defects since they sprayed round huge amounts of depleted uranium shells to see, causation, proving that is harder. | |||
"Hello Coachman, Chernobyl was an accident caused by poorly thought out tests and the disabling of the safety system. Even then the reactor explosion would have been contained if the Russian designers had built a containment vessel around the reactor as most of the rest of the world does. So it is highly unlikely we will hav another Chernobyl in Europe. Alec Why do people keep referring to the Chernobyl disaster as an accident? It was not! It was a deliberate act of sabotage committed over a period of days and weeks by the plant engineers and scientific management! FFS how can anyone say that deliberately manually turning off the water cooling supply, disabling the scram (auto shutdown) and alarm systems and then uncovering the core with all control rods withdrawn is an accident! In fact the plant personnel who were not killed by the released radiation were tried and executed by the Russian State! Do you have factual evidence to corroborate this ?" From:http://chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/timeline/ Here is the relevant section of the timeline, I hope that those who have said I am talking rubbish have the good grace to apologise and withdraw their comments. 1986 February – Vitali Sklyarov, Minister of Power and Electrification of Ukraine, in reference to the nuclear reactors in Ukraine, is quoted in Soviet Life magazine as saying: “The odds of a meltdown are one in 10,000 years. The plants have safe and reliable controls that are protected from any breakdown with three safety systems.” 27 March – Literaturna Ukraina (Ukrainian Literature) publishes an article written by Ms Lyubov Kovalevska (believed to be a senior manager at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (NPP)) in which she writes that substandard construction, workmanship and concrete, along with thefts and bureaucratic incompetence are creating a time bomb “The failures here will be repaid, repaid over the decades to come”. 25 April – Friday The test begins. 01:00 – The reactor was running at full power with normal operation. Steam power was directed to both turbines of the power generators. Slowly the operators began to reduce power for the test. The purpose of the test was to observe the dynamics of the RMBK reactor with limited power flow. 13:05 – Twelve hours after power reduction was initiated the reactor reached 50% power. Now only one turbine was needed to take in the decreased amount of steam caused by the power decrease and turbine #2 was switched off. 14:00 – Under the normal procedures of the test the reactor would have been reduced to 30% power, but the Soviet electricity authorities refused to allow this because of an apparent need for electricity elsewhere, so the reactor remained at 50% power for another 9 hours. Emergency core cooling system switched off. 26 April – Saturday 00:00 – Aleksandr Akimov, the unit shift chief in charge of the test takes over from Tregub, who stays on-site. 00:28 – Control rods transferred from local to global control: Power plummets in the reactor; further rods withdrawn. The drop in reactor power from 1500 MWt to 30 MWt is disconcerting; Akimov wants to abort the test, but is over-ridden by Dyatlov and forced to continue. Anatoly Dyatlov, the deputy chief engineer, supervised the test. At the moment reactor power slipped to 30 MW thermal, he insisted the operators continue the test. He overrode Akimov’s and Toptunov’s objections, threatening to hand the shift to Tregub (the previous shift operator who had remained on-site), intimidating them into attempting to increase the reactor power. The power stabilized at 200 MWt at around 1:00 am and did not rise further, due to continued xenon poisoning of the core. 01:03 – Fourth cooling pump connected to right loop. 01:19 – Shutdown signals blocked from steam-drum separators. The operator blocks automatic shutdown due to low water level and the loss of both turbines because of a fear that a shutdown would abort the test. The operator forces the reactor up to 7% power by removing all but 6 of the control rods. This was a violation of procedure as the reactor was never built to operate at such low power. The RBMK reactor is unstable when its core is filled with water. The operator tried to take over the flow of the water which was returning from the turbine manually which is very difficult because small temperature changes can cause large power fluctuations. The operator was not successful in getting the flow of water corrected and the reactor was getting increasingly unstable. 01:19 – Control rods raised. 01:21 – Caps to fuel channels on charge face seen jumping in their sockets. Valeriy Ivanovich Perevozchenko, the reactor section foreman, was present on the open platform at Level +50 shortly before the explosion. He witnessed the 350 kg blocks atop the fuel channels of the Upper Biological Shield jumping up and down and felt the shock waves through the building structure; the rupture of the pressure channels was in progress. He started to run down the spiral staircase to Level +10, through the deaerator gallery and the corridor heading to the control room, to report his observations. 01:21:50 – Pressure falls in steam drums. 01:23:40 – Emergency reinsertion of all control rods. As the temperature of the water became too high Cavitation (bubbles) reached the main circulation pumps. The coolant started boiling in the reactor, and the reactor power slowly increased. Toptunov reports a power issue to Akimov. Akimov presses the AZ-5 button, class-5 emergency. The control rods, according to the synchro indicators, seized at a depth of between 2 and 2.5 meters instead of inserting to their full depth of 7 meters. Akimov disconnected the clutches of the control rod servos to let the rods descend into the core under their own weight, but the rods did not move. The reactor was now making rumbling noises. Akimov was confused. The reactor control panel indicated no water flow and failure of pumps. 01:23:44 – Explosion. The reactor reaches 120 times its full power. All the radioactive fuel disintegrates, and pressure from all of the excess steam which was supposed to go to the turbines broke every one of the pressure tubes leading to an explosion. 01:23:45 – The 1000 ton lid above the fuel elements is lifted by the first explosion. The release of radiation starts. Air reaches the reactor and the oxygen results in a graphite fire. The metal of the fuel tubes reacts to the water. This is a chemical reaction which produces hydrogen, and this hydrogen explodes: the second explosion. Burning debris flies into the air and lands on the roof of Chernobyl Unit 3. (There was barely any attention paid to this hydrogen explosion in the Soviet report about the accident. In studies commissioned by the US government however, it was concluded that the second explosion was of great significance, and that the original explanation of the accident was incorrect. Richard Wilson of the Harvard University in the US said this second explosion was a small nuclear explosion.) | |||
| |||
"Hello Coachman, Chernobyl was an accident caused by poorly thought out tests and the disabling of the safety system. Even then the reactor explosion would have been contained if the Russian designers had built a containment vessel around the reactor as most of the rest of the world does. So it is highly unlikely we will hav another Chernobyl in Europe. Alec Why do people keep referring to the Chernobyl disaster as an accident? It was not! It was a deliberate act of sabotage committed over a period of days and weeks by the plant engineers and scientific management! FFS how can anyone say that deliberately manually turning off the water cooling supply, disabling the scram (auto shutdown) and alarm systems and then uncovering the core with all control rods withdrawn is an accident! In fact the plant personnel who were not killed by the released radiation were tried and executed by the Russian State! Do you have factual evidence to corroborate this ? From:http://chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/timeline/ Here is the relevant section of the timeline, I hope that those who have said I am talking rubbish have the good grace to apologise and withdraw their comments. 1986 February – Vitali Sklyarov, Minister of Power and Electrification of Ukraine, in reference to the nuclear reactors in Ukraine, is quoted in Soviet Life magazine as saying: “The odds of a meltdown are one in 10,000 years. The plants have safe and reliable controls that are protected from any breakdown with three safety systems.” 27 March – Literaturna Ukraina (Ukrainian Literature) publishes an article written by Ms Lyubov Kovalevska (believed to be a senior manager at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (NPP)) in which she writes that substandard construction, workmanship and concrete, along with thefts and bureaucratic incompetence are creating a time bomb “The failures here will be repaid, repaid over the decades to come”. 25 April – Friday The test begins. 01:00 – The reactor was running at full power with normal operation. Steam power was directed to both turbines of the power generators. Slowly the operators began to reduce power for the test. The purpose of the test was to observe the dynamics of the RMBK reactor with limited power flow. 13:05 – Twelve hours after power reduction was initiated the reactor reached 50% power. Now only one turbine was needed to take in the decreased amount of steam caused by the power decrease and turbine #2 was switched off. 14:00 – Under the normal procedures of the test the reactor would have been reduced to 30% power, but the Soviet electricity authorities refused to allow this because of an apparent need for electricity elsewhere, so the reactor remained at 50% power for another 9 hours. Emergency core cooling system switched off. 26 April – Saturday 00:00 – Aleksandr Akimov, the unit shift chief in charge of the test takes over from Tregub, who stays on-site. 00:28 – Control rods transferred from local to global control: Power plummets in the reactor; further rods withdrawn. The drop in reactor power from 1500 MWt to 30 MWt is disconcerting; Akimov wants to abort the test, but is over-ridden by Dyatlov and forced to continue. Anatoly Dyatlov, the deputy chief engineer, supervised the test. At the moment reactor power slipped to 30 MW thermal, he insisted the operators continue the test. He overrode Akimov’s and Toptunov’s objections, threatening to hand the shift to Tregub (the previous shift operator who had remained on-site), intimidating them into attempting to increase the reactor power. The power stabilized at 200 MWt at around 1:00 am and did not rise further, due to continued xenon poisoning of the core. 01:03 – Fourth cooling pump connected to right loop. 01:19 – Shutdown signals blocked from steam-drum separators. The operator blocks automatic shutdown due to low water level and the loss of both turbines because of a fear that a shutdown would abort the test. The operator forces the reactor up to 7% power by removing all but 6 of the control rods. This was a violation of procedure as the reactor was never built to operate at such low power. The RBMK reactor is unstable when its core is filled with water. The operator tried to take over the flow of the water which was returning from the turbine manually which is very difficult because small temperature changes can cause large power fluctuations. The operator was not successful in getting the flow of water corrected and the reactor was getting increasingly unstable. 01:19 – Control rods raised. 01:21 – Caps to fuel channels on charge face seen jumping in their sockets. Valeriy Ivanovich Perevozchenko, the reactor section foreman, was present on the open platform at Level +50 shortly before the explosion. He witnessed the 350 kg blocks atop the fuel channels of the Upper Biological Shield jumping up and down and felt the shock waves through the building structure; the rupture of the pressure channels was in progress. He started to run down the spiral staircase to Level +10, through the deaerator gallery and the corridor heading to the control room, to report his observations. 01:21:50 – Pressure falls in steam drums. 01:23:40 – Emergency reinsertion of all control rods. As the temperature of the water became too high Cavitation (bubbles) reached the main circulation pumps. The coolant started boiling in the reactor, and the reactor power slowly increased. Toptunov reports a power issue to Akimov. Akimov presses the AZ-5 button, class-5 emergency. The control rods, according to the synchro indicators, seized at a depth of between 2 and 2.5 meters instead of inserting to their full depth of 7 meters. Akimov disconnected the clutches of the control rod servos to let the rods descend into the core under their own weight, but the rods did not move. The reactor was now making rumbling noises. Akimov was confused. The reactor control panel indicated no water flow and failure of pumps. 01:23:44 – Explosion. The reactor reaches 120 times its full power. All the radioactive fuel disintegrates, and pressure from all of the excess steam which was supposed to go to the turbines broke every one of the pressure tubes leading to an explosion. 01:23:45 – The 1000 ton lid above the fuel elements is lifted by the first explosion. The release of radiation starts. Air reaches the reactor and the oxygen results in a graphite fire. The metal of the fuel tubes reacts to the water. This is a chemical reaction which produces hydrogen, and this hydrogen explodes: the second explosion. Burning debris flies into the air and lands on the roof of Chernobyl Unit 3. (There was barely any attention paid to this hydrogen explosion in the Soviet report about the accident. In studies commissioned by the US government however, it was concluded that the second explosion was of great significance, and that the original explanation of the accident was incorrect. Richard Wilson of the Harvard University in the US said this second explosion was a small nuclear explosion.) " I can see evidence of serious error of judgement and conflict in decision making process but deliberate sabotage? Where's the facts on executing people as posted earlier? Evidence can be interpreted in many ways. It may be that your claims are accurate but you'd need to provide far more evidence to convince me of your indictment that this is deliberate sabotage. | |||
| |||
"I can see evidence of serious error of judgement and conflict in decision making process but deliberate sabotage? Where's the facts on executing people as posted earlier? Evidence can be interpreted in many ways. It may be that your claims are accurate but you'd need to provide far more evidence to convince me of your indictment that this is deliberate sabotage. " Follow the link I have given. Read the rest of the timeline from where I stopped quoting. Ask yourself some really simple direct questions like why did plant engineers have to manually open water flow valves? And if it takes 4 hours per valve to open them how long does it take to close them? (hint: probably 4 hours) Get a piece of paper and note down each deliberate act to 'test' the reactor to destruction. Note down every time senior management overruled safety warnings and every act that stopped the reactor from automaticly shutting down. Note down every time management refused to stop and forced the 'test' to continue. Note how many times the same management refused to acknowledge what they were being told. And then ask yourself a simple question: Could highly qualified, trained and experienced nuclear engineers and scientists accidentally disable and remove all safety feature on a reactor and then take control of said reactor withdraw all control rods and expose the core without knowing what was going to happen? And then when the inevitable happened in direct contradiction to the evidence of their own eyes refuse to accept that scale of the disaster and in so doing further impede prompt remedial action? I would suggest that any right thinking person would conclude that the only explanation that can be drawn from the evidence is that it was a deliberate well thought out and executed act over a prolonged period of time. It is my belief that it was done in a fit of hubris to prove a point. I further believe the point was that because of corruption and theft the reactors were not safe. How better to prove the point than disable all the safety measures and then cause a deliberate accident. | |||
"I can see evidence of serious error of judgement and conflict in decision making process but deliberate sabotage? Where's the facts on executing people as posted earlier? Evidence can be interpreted in many ways. It may be that your claims are accurate but you'd need to provide far more evidence to convince me of your indictment that this is deliberate sabotage. Follow the link I have given. Read the rest of the timeline from where I stopped quoting. Ask yourself some really simple direct questions like why did plant engineers have to manually open water flow valves? And if it takes 4 hours per valve to open them how long does it take to close them? (hint: probably 4 hours) Get a piece of paper and note down each deliberate act to 'test' the reactor to destruction. Note down every time senior management overruled safety warnings and every act that stopped the reactor from automaticly shutting down. Note down every time management refused to stop and forced the 'test' to continue. Note how many times the same management refused to acknowledge what they were being told. And then ask yourself a simple question: Could highly qualified, trained and experienced nuclear engineers and scientists accidentally disable and remove all safety feature on a reactor and then take control of said reactor withdraw all control rods and expose the core without knowing what was going to happen? And then when the inevitable happened in direct contradiction to the evidence of their own eyes refuse to accept that scale of the disaster and in so doing further impede prompt remedial action? I would suggest that any right thinking person would conclude that the only explanation that can be drawn from the evidence is that it was a deliberate well thought out and executed act over a prolonged period of time. It is my belief that it was done in a fit of hubris to prove a point. I further believe the point was that because of corruption and theft the reactors were not safe. How better to prove the point than disable all the safety measures and then cause a deliberate accident." Even Dick Fosbury would be proud of that....... | |||
"It would appear thermonuclear physicist's are in abundance on fab's, so wtf are we worried about we're all safe on here "Well some of us do it as a career, others as a hobby/interest | |||
"It would appear thermonuclear physicist's are in abundance on fab's, so wtf are we worried about we're all safe on here
Well some of us do it as a career, others as a hobby/interest"I'm fairly certain "some" members work in the industry. | |||
| |||
"It would appear thermonuclear physicist's are in abundance on fab's, so wtf are we worried about we're all safe on here
Well some of us do it as a career, others as a hobby/interest
I'm fairly certain "some" members work in the industry. "I don't I just like to juggle plutonium cos its pretty... We have a rational fear of nuclear power, if it goes wrong it goes very wrong. plus we had the nuclear arms race with extinction event levels of missiles, add to that most of the first and second generation power stations were built to explicitly produce waste product that was wanted for making bombs to fuel that arms race, has kind of eroded the trust a little. We have mostly only figured out how to power stuff by expansion, be that by heating water to make steam or exploding petrol to make gas. only very recently have we started to look at creating that power via other means e.g. solar power, which ironically is only radiation at work. Fear is good, but it does need to be balanced against actual risk, which is something we need trust for as us amature plutonium jugglers, and other fringe hobbies really don't know the answers. | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
" Of all the nonsense I've read on 'tinternet, that's pretty high on the "utter bollocks" scale.
Ah, but you've probably been duped into thinking the Moon landings took place!
(I'm sure I'm meant to litter that with capitals but don't know how)
People have landed on the moon????????
When the feck did that happen?
I know, crazy isn't it! Clearly bollocks as Brie couldn't support the lander.
It's strong enough to support the weight of a London bus. "And a second world war bomber, a Lancaster. That's fact,I saw the pictures. | |||
"Couldn't care LESS! they MAKE GREAT chocolate! If a reactor EXPLODES WE will have HOT CHOCOLATE! " They recorded some great songs. | |||
" Of all the nonsense I've read on 'tinternet, that's pretty high on the "utter bollocks" scale.
Ah, but you've probably been duped into thinking the Moon landings took place!
(I'm sure I'm meant to litter that with capitals but don't know how)
People have landed on the moon????????
When the feck did that happen?
I know, crazy isn't it! Clearly bollocks as Brie couldn't support the lander.
It's strong enough to support the weight of a London bus.
And a second world war bomber,
a Lancaster.
That's fact,I saw the pictures.
"I think you meant FACT. | |||
"It would appear thermonuclear physicist's are in abundance on fab's, so wtf are we worried about we're all safe on here
Well some of us do it as a career, others as a hobby/interest
I'm fairly certain "some" members work in the industry. "I am certain that some do. Wonder how much they charge | |||
"It would appear thermonuclear physicist's are in abundance on fab's, so wtf are we worried about we're all safe on here
Well some of us do it as a career, others as a hobby/interest
I'm fairly certain "some" members work in the industry.
I am certain that some do. Wonder how much they charge "And there's me thinking ...it must cost lots to build one of these nuke things...  | |||
"I don't have the energy to worry about shit that might happen." | |||
"It would appear thermonuclear physicist's are in abundance on fab's, so wtf are we worried about we're all safe on here
Well some of us do it as a career, others as a hobby/interest
I'm fairly certain "some" members work in the industry.
I am certain that some do. Wonder how much they charge
And there's me thinking ...it must cost lots to build one of these nuke things...
"Nuke things? Ooops, I misunderstood, again | |||
"It would appear thermonuclear physicist's are in abundance on fab's, so wtf are we worried about we're all safe on here
Well some of us do it as a career, others as a hobby/interest
I'm fairly certain "some" members work in the industry.
I am certain that some do. Wonder how much they charge
And there's me thinking ...it must cost lots to build one of these nuke things...
Nuke things? Ooops, I misunderstood, again "Nope but I did, I think it's the sheltered life I live  | |||
"Couldn't care LESS! they MAKE GREAT chocolate! If a reactor EXPLODES WE will have HOT CHOCOLATE! They recorded some great songs." Really? I had them down as a one hit wonder myself. "I believe in miricles, since you came along..." | |||
| |||
| |||
"As a level headed reader of the Daily Mail - it's all because of immigration that the nuclear reactors are broken .... !!!!!! I'm outraged!!! I'm writing to my MP!!! Only he's in jail for fiddling expenses!!! " Fuck off. It's obviously the Tory parties fault. | |||
"As a level headed reader of the Daily Mail - it's all because of immigration that the nuclear reactors are broken .... !!!!!! I'm outraged!!! I'm writing to my MP!!! Only he's in jail for fiddling expenses!!! Fuck off. It's obviously the Tory parties fault. " Hahaha bloody tory immigrants!!! | |||
" Of all the nonsense I've read on 'tinternet, that's pretty high on the "utter bollocks" scale.
Ah, but you've probably been duped into thinking the Moon landings took place!
(I'm sure I'm meant to litter that with capitals but don't know how)
People have landed on the moon????????
When the feck did that happen?"Don't worry. It hasn't. THEY just want you to think it has! | |||
"Well we'll all have to move to Ireland i guess. It'll be the only place that you can still drink the water." It'll be novel for the English to be going to Ireland. Do you think you'll be welcome? | |||
| |||
" The OP prompted me to look up Fukushima that little problem the Japanese have "contained" from the 2011 tsunami...I just read a bit about it, not sensationalist press reports a few scientific papers. Some of you might want to have a look for yourselves quite interesting in a fucking hell kind of way.. just saying" Would that be stuff like building a reactor on a mini tectonic plate in a seismicaly active fault zone where the the cooling ponds for the high Level Waste were on the 5th floor of a building right by the sea that although hardened against earthquakes (to a bare minimum standard) had not been designed to protect against tsunami's, a sea wall that the company who ran the plant refused to hightened refused to heighten because did not think the threats credible despite multiple independent reports advising otherwise. | |||
| |||
"Couldn't care LESS! they MAKE GREAT chocolate! If a reactor EXPLODES WE will have HOT CHOCOLATE! They recorded some great songs. Really? I had them down as a one hit wonder myself. "I believe in miricles, since you came along..." " "You sexy thing......." | |||
" The OP prompted me to look up Fukushima that little problem the Japanese have "contained" from the 2011 tsunami...I just read a bit about it, not sensationalist press reports a few scientific papers. Some of you might want to have a look for yourselves quite interesting in a fucking hell kind of way.. just saying Would that be stuff like building a reactor on a mini tectonic plate in a seismicaly active fault zone where the the cooling ponds for the high Level Waste were on the 5th floor of a building right by the sea that although hardened against earthquakes (to a bare minimum standard) had not been designed to protect against tsunami's, a sea wall that the company who ran the plant refused to hightened refused to heighten because did not think the threats credible despite multiple independent reports advising otherwise." No....probably the fact that a 40 year old reactor withstood a magnitude 9 earthquake and a 30 foot tsunami plus the human error of switching of the pumps for the cooling water and nobody was killed. The general level of misunderstanding and ignorance about all matters nuclear, clearly reflected in many of the posts above, is a consequence of the secrecy surrounding the nuclear industry for most of its 65 year history. The fear is a result of the early links between civil and military nuclear with people linking a nuclear reactor to a nuclear bomb - the two are entirely different. A reactor cannot explode like a bomb. | |||
| |||
" The OP prompted me to look up Fukushima that little problem the Japanese have "contained" from the 2011 tsunami...I just read a bit about it, not sensationalist press reports a few scientific papers. Some of you might want to have a look for yourselves quite interesting in a fucking hell kind of way.. just saying Would that be stuff like building a reactor on a mini tectonic plate in a seismicaly active fault zone where the the cooling ponds for the high Level Waste were on the 5th floor of a building right by the sea that although hardened against earthquakes (to a bare minimum standard) had not been designed to protect against tsunami's, a sea wall that the company who ran the plant refused to hightened refused to heighten because did not think the threats credible despite multiple independent reports advising otherwise. No....probably the fact that a 40 year old reactor withstood a magnitude 9 earthquake and a 30 foot tsunami plus the human error of switching of the pumps for the cooling water and nobody was killed. The general level of misunderstanding and ignorance about all matters nuclear, clearly reflected in many of the posts above, is a consequence of the secrecy surrounding the nuclear industry for most of its 65 year history. The fear is a result of the early links between civil and military nuclear with people linking a nuclear reactor to a nuclear bomb - the two are entirely different. A reactor cannot explode like a bomb." . Firstly I'm not anti nuclear power stations, I've been as fair as possible balancing out realities!. I don't think the magnitude was 9 at Fukushima I'm pretty sure it was about 6 , I'm also sure I've read they build them to survive a 7ish and I'm pretty sure you couldn't build one to survive a 9, not without major damage anyhow. I'm not an expert and I don't work in the industry, I've read alot about them and I'm a keen follower of molten salt reactors,I think there's much better hope in those designs than the traditional ones!. Although the safety record of high pressure traditional uranium designs is very good, they do have a habit of going very bad once you've lost control .. I'm pretty sure both Fukushima and Chernobyl lost them on the same problem ie total lack of power although Chernobyl was a deliberate loss of power test! Compared to Fukushimas actual real life scenario!. My real problem is what you do with them once there finished. Nobody's actually ever decommissioned one and nobody can actually give you a cost of it! Until you can factor in that cost, the reality is we wouldn't know if it's cheap or expensive | |||
" The OP prompted me to look up Fukushima that little problem the Japanese have "contained" from the 2011 tsunami...I just read a bit about it, not sensationalist press reports a few scientific papers. Some of you might want to have a look for yourselves quite interesting in a fucking hell kind of way.. just saying Would that be stuff like building a reactor on a mini tectonic plate in a seismicaly active fault zone where the the cooling ponds for the high Level Waste were on the 5th floor of a building right by the sea that although hardened against earthquakes (to a bare minimum standard) had not been designed to protect against tsunami's, a sea wall that the company who ran the plant refused to hightened refused to heighten because did not think the threats credible despite multiple independent reports advising otherwise. No....probably the fact that a 40 year old reactor withstood a magnitude 9 earthquake and a 30 foot tsunami plus the human error of switching of the pumps for the cooling water and nobody was killed. The general level of misunderstanding and ignorance about all matters nuclear, clearly reflected in many of the posts above, is a consequence of the secrecy surrounding the nuclear industry for most of its 65 year history. The fear is a result of the early links between civil and military nuclear with people linking a nuclear reactor to a nuclear bomb - the two are entirely different. A reactor cannot explode like a bomb.. Firstly I'm not anti nuclear power stations, I've been as fair as possible balancing out realities!. I don't think the magnitude was 9 at Fukushima I'm pretty sure it was about 6 , I'm also sure I've read they build them to survive a 7ish and I'm pretty sure you couldn't build one to survive a 9, not without major damage anyhow. I'm not an expert and I don't work in the industry, I've read alot about them and I'm a keen follower of molten salt reactors,I think there's much better hope in those designs than the traditional ones!. Although the safety record of high pressure traditional uranium designs is very good, they do have a habit of going very bad once you've lost control .. I'm pretty sure both Fukushima and Chernobyl lost them on the same problem ie total lack of power although Chernobyl was a deliberate loss of power test! Compared to Fukushimas actual real life scenario!. My real problem is what you do with them once there finished. Nobody's actually ever decommissioned one and nobody can actually give you a cost of it! Until you can factor in that cost, the reality is we wouldn't know if it's cheap or expensive" The Great East Japan Earthquake at 2.46 pm on Friday 11 March 2011 was of magnitude 9.0. Many nuclear reactors, and several in the uk have been or are being decommissioned. The cost is known. | |||
" The OP prompted me to look up Fukushima that little problem the Japanese have "contained" from the 2011 tsunami...I just read a bit about it, not sensationalist press reports a few scientific papers. Some of you might want to have a look for yourselves quite interesting in a fucking hell kind of way.. just saying Would that be stuff like building a reactor on a mini tectonic plate in a seismicaly active fault zone where the the cooling ponds for the high Level Waste were on the 5th floor of a building right by the sea that although hardened against earthquakes (to a bare minimum standard) had not been designed to protect against tsunami's, a sea wall that the company who ran the plant refused to hightened refused to heighten because did not think the threats credible despite multiple independent reports advising otherwise. No....probably the fact that a 40 year old reactor withstood a magnitude 9 earthquake and a 30 foot tsunami plus the human error of switching of the pumps for the cooling water and nobody was killed. The general level of misunderstanding and ignorance about all matters nuclear, clearly reflected in many of the posts above, is a consequence of the secrecy surrounding the nuclear industry for most of its 65 year history. The fear is a result of the early links between civil and military nuclear with people linking a nuclear reactor to a nuclear bomb - the two are entirely different. A reactor cannot explode like a bomb.. Firstly I'm not anti nuclear power stations, I've been as fair as possible balancing out realities!. I don't think the magnitude was 9 at Fukushima I'm pretty sure it was about 6 , I'm also sure I've read they build them to survive a 7ish and I'm pretty sure you couldn't build one to survive a 9, not without major damage anyhow. I'm not an expert and I don't work in the industry, I've read alot about them and I'm a keen follower of molten salt reactors,I think there's much better hope in those designs than the traditional ones!. Although the safety record of high pressure traditional uranium designs is very good, they do have a habit of going very bad once you've lost control .. I'm pretty sure both Fukushima and Chernobyl lost them on the same problem ie total lack of power although Chernobyl was a deliberate loss of power test! Compared to Fukushimas actual real life scenario!. My real problem is what you do with them once there finished. Nobody's actually ever decommissioned one and nobody can actually give you a cost of it! Until you can factor in that cost, the reality is we wouldn't know if it's cheap or expensive The Great East Japan Earthquake at 2.46 pm on Friday 11 March 2011 was of magnitude 9.0. Many nuclear reactors, and several in the uk have been or are being decommissioned. The cost is known." . That's disingenuous, the earthquake never got above 6.7 at Fukushima, it's design criteria was 7.1 had there been a 9 underneath it, I very much doubt it would have survived as much as it did!. I wasn't aware the UK had fully decommissioned any power plants and going off the gov own commissions estimate costs which spiral upwards every year , it seemed they hadn't a clue on that either. The yanks fully decommissioned a plant a few years back called the Yankee Rowe built for 38 million dollars the decommissioned cost was 618 million dollars with 8 million a year upkeep!. Of course that was quite a small plant where as three mile island which they started decommissioning after the core fusing in 1979 is still ongoing and is currently estimated at 850 million | |||
" The OP prompted me to look up Fukushima that little problem the Japanese have "contained" from the 2011 tsunami...I just read a bit about it, not sensationalist press reports a few scientific papers. Some of you might want to have a look for yourselves quite interesting in a fucking hell kind of way.. just saying Would that be stuff like building a reactor on a mini tectonic plate in a seismicaly active fault zone where the the cooling ponds for the high Level Waste were on the 5th floor of a building right by the sea that although hardened against earthquakes (to a bare minimum standard) had not been designed to protect against tsunami's, a sea wall that the company who ran the plant refused to hightened refused to heighten because did not think the threats credible despite multiple independent reports advising otherwise. No....probably the fact that a 40 year old reactor withstood a magnitude 9 earthquake and a 30 foot tsunami plus the human error of switching of the pumps for the cooling water and nobody was killed. The general level of misunderstanding and ignorance about all matters nuclear, clearly reflected in many of the posts above, is a consequence of the secrecy surrounding the nuclear industry for most of its 65 year history. The fear is a result of the early links between civil and military nuclear with people linking a nuclear reactor to a nuclear bomb - the two are entirely different. A reactor cannot explode like a bomb.. Firstly I'm not anti nuclear power stations, I've been as fair as possible balancing out realities!. I don't think the magnitude was 9 at Fukushima I'm pretty sure it was about 6 , I'm also sure I've read they build them to survive a 7ish and I'm pretty sure you couldn't build one to survive a 9, not without major damage anyhow. I'm not an expert and I don't work in the industry, I've read alot about them and I'm a keen follower of molten salt reactors,I think there's much better hope in those designs than the traditional ones!. Although the safety record of high pressure traditional uranium designs is very good, they do have a habit of going very bad once you've lost control .. I'm pretty sure both Fukushima and Chernobyl lost them on the same problem ie total lack of power although Chernobyl was a deliberate loss of power test! Compared to Fukushimas actual real life scenario!. My real problem is what you do with them once there finished. Nobody's actually ever decommissioned one and nobody can actually give you a cost of it! Until you can factor in that cost, the reality is we wouldn't know if it's cheap or expensive The Great East Japan Earthquake at 2.46 pm on Friday 11 March 2011 was of magnitude 9.0. Many nuclear reactors, and several in the uk have been or are being decommissioned. The cost is known." This. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Nuclear power is only safe through massive regulation, this concept of statistics is very disingenuous!. Take airline travel, think of the regulation that's involved in its operation, now apply that same regulation to private vehicles and tell me which form of travel is safest?. Or even better just think of airline travel like private vehicles, just set off when you like without checking oil or tyres or even fuel, fly as fast as you like, right up behind the plane who's just cut you up on the runway, do a few barrel rolls to show off to the bird in the next plane, have a few drinks while your at it... Regulation is what gives airline travel it's safety and its regulation that gives nuclear power its safety. Think about that next time you hear somebody in government slashing regulations for profit!. On one last note about nuclear fallout, because nuclear fallout is what you get when they do go wrong!. Nuclear power stations produce far far far more dirty elements than nuclear explosions these elements and there isotopes have half lives ranging from a few days to few months to 1 billion years. Japan has seriously started to look at genetic mutations in various wildlife around Fukushima since the accident and they've found that low and behold, there finding genetic mutations, especially further down the generational line. Now I can't prove this, but you could expect to see genetic mutations showing up widescale in Europe if that were the case from the Chernobyl fallout!. Are cancer cases up or down?, are they being diagnosed better and treated better, most definitely. Where's the huge rise in autism come from? And who's doing any 25-50 year studies to really really see if it's safe?.... What we're actually doing is a giant experiment that nobody really knows the outcome of!. Nobody would be spending trillions of Euros trying to make fusion reactors work if nuclear was so fucking awesome! Just look at the fucking mess at hinkley, the French can't build them at cost and are years behind schedule, the Chinese are fessing up the dosh with no guarantees, the cost to the taxpayer makes it the most expensive electricity power station in the world ever built and to top it off.... Try getting it insured???? "Today Hinkley; the wheels are starting to turn The French utility, EDF - the company financing most of the £18bn project - is holding a board meeting at which it is expected to approve the investment. Following that agreement, legally-binding contracts will be signed and construction work can begin So we pull out of the EU and the French build us a power station (joke) | |||
| |||
"Pfft! Get with it OP! I know this was originally posted 25 weeks ago but the headline should surely have been Will Griggs inspired : "Belgiums ancient nuclear power stations are on fire, nuclear experts are terrified .." "The thing is, nuclear experts aren't scared, it's the headline posting attention grabbing daily rags scaremongering. The experts know exactly what's going on. Joe Soap and the Daily Fail know eff all. | |||
| |||
"This has been floating around on Facebook as click-bait for ages and is pure twoddle. I work in the power generation industry (non-nuclear) but have a good knowledge of the industry as a whole and our industry standards are the highest in the world. There is no way that anyone would start or be allowed to start up a dangerous reactor,you wouldn't get engineers to recommission or start a dangerous reactor. The poster should put his tin foil hat back on and return to the room under the stairs " One of the biggest problems with Facebook for me is them allowing this kind of advertising trick. People believe it because it's on Facebook. | |||
"This has been floating around on Facebook as click-bait for ages and is pure twoddle. I work in the power generation industry (non-nuclear) but have a good knowledge of the industry as a whole and our industry standards are the highest in the world. There is no way that anyone would start or be allowed to start up a dangerous reactor,you wouldn't get engineers to recommission or start a dangerous reactor. The poster should put his tin foil hat back on and return to the room under the stairs One of the biggest problems with Facebook for me is them allowing this kind of advertising trick. People believe it because it's on Facebook. " A certain type of person believes it... | |||
| |||
| |||
"My question would be why are we not investing more into discovering other forms of power or making current sources safer and cheaper " Because as you correctly identified above, there are inherent limits of physics that make some sources of power inherently cheaper than others | |||
| |||
"Just a thought. If we have "Nuclear Experts" do we have "Nuclear non Experts" as well?" Yep. Most of this forum | |||
"Just a thought. If we have "Nuclear Experts" do we have "Nuclear non Experts" as well? Yep. Most of this forum "I'm a nuclear expert. Just that most of my expertise comes from playing Duke Nukem | |||
| |||
"Just a thought. If we have "Nuclear Experts" do we have "Nuclear non Experts" as well? Yep. Most of this forum "They are non-nuclear experts | |||
"My question would be why are we not investing more into discovering other forms of power or making current sources safer and cheaper Because as you correctly identified above, there are inherent limits of physics that make some sources of power inherently cheaper than others " Agreed, however hydrogen is cheep and under developed also knetic energy above that needed to ionize the molecule is carried away as kinetic energy of the electron ejected which many things with in the home can provide additional power | |||
| |||
| |||
"I think your overreacting "The OP had a meltdown. | |||
| |||
| |||
