Yen, and all others reading this, think about this: almost 800 tonnes of spent fuel in the upper spent fuel pools (reactors one to six, the MOX Mixed Oxide Fuel(Plutonium/Uranium) from reactor 3 included) somewhat more than 100 tonnes of nuclear feul for the reactors themselves (reactor one to six, reactor 3, which is filled up with 37% to 40% MOX fuel) and about 1100 Tonnes of spent fuel in the COMMON SPENT FUEL POOL that isn't even being factored in the day to day calculations. wer'e just not being told enough to make up our own damned minds, so we have to look for information elsewhere. a Tsunami is considered a local event whereas a nuclear meltdown is, in any case a global event, either of you followed economic news lately?,.. as i hereby will recognize that some countries will lean heavier on global economics as others still,.. this is a major one that we will all, including our children, of which i'm blessed with two of them, will feel and see for the years to come, possibly decades to come,..... i think that this is one that fit's "agenda 21" purpose just as well,.... just take a good search, then it will become clear......... for all you non believers out there,... if you are so worried , i will provide links for u,.. if u at all bother to ask....... remember chernobyl, and all of the strange cancer related issues in your direct vicinity, be it at home or in your hometown (this is not just about thyroid related cancers, but developing cancers in general, food additives contribute just about nothing in this scheme, aside from the "agenda 21" proposal...)
And yet one nuclear meltdown is still "local" compared to the unsolvable problem of nuclear waste that's being produced by NPPs all over the planet. That waste lasts us for how many 100s of 1000s years? (too lazy to look it up, better to not even think about it) A problem created only because a few ppl make billions and if something happens WE all pay for it! If NPPs would be forced to have "sufficient" insurance coverage, like we all are when we drive our vehicles on public roads, there would be no Nuclear power, insurance rates would be prohibitive. I have to when I hear ppl calling that insanity "clean energy". Sorry for the rant!
I disagree with some of this especially the "clean energy" comments, but I don't think this is the thread to be ranting about it. Let me just say that if the same attitude was carried into coal mining and vehicle development then we would all be sitting around camp fires and riding bicycles.
Sad. I pray for the families of the victims . I think that nuclear energy is not the villain in the history though it's not a suitable alternative for tectonically unstable places like Japan.
Wow. My condolences to anyone who was affected by the quake and tsunami. This is quite a large quake. Some people say it was pre-planned by the Illuminati. presscore.ca/2011/?p=1624
Interesting stuff that is usually dismissed in our global scientific environment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati
There is only one sort of people saying that nuclear energy is a clean and safe way to produce power: People that are making profit with it! It's that easy...... "Some people say it was pre-planned by the Illuminati." Ridiculous! BS! It was a matter of time until a quake will happen on the Pacific Ring of Fire, USA to be next.
USA to be next...? Pacific NW (Alaska) within the next 5 days perhaps? Do we follow the same sources?
5 days? I'm not talking about aftershocks, lol. I do not follow any source by stating that, to me it's a matter of probability. Fact is that nuclear plants around the Pacific Ring of Fire are unsafe, no matter in which country. I've chosen USA randomly. E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant
Illuminati, Free Masons and New World Order always gets pushed around in conspiracy theories, nothing but rubbish.
I've guessed wrong.. Northern Thailand / Myanmar have been first. AFAIK both haven't nuclear power plants yet (Thailand has planned to build 5 of them, it's time to revoke the plan)......anyway casualties. There ARE tectonic specifics. The plants have no business there! How stupid humans can be? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/24/myanmar-earthquake-2011-70-magnitude_n_840015.html
It's sad to hear of more casualties. But the Ring of Fire does seem to be getting active at the moment. 2 Jan 2011 - Chile (6.2) 11 Feb 2011 - New Zealand (6.3) 9 Mar 2011 - Japan (9.0) 24 Mar 2011 - Myanmar (6.8)
Yes, very sad. My source reported about a 6.8 quake.....some sources even 7.0, also it seems there have been 2 quakes.....
Radiation poison spreads to outside of Japan Hope this wont take a turn for the worse and make people sick like Chernobyl China finds trace radiation in more areas BEIJING (AP) — Chinese authorities say trace amounts of atmospheric radiation from Japan's stricken nuclear power plant have been detected in more part parts of China. Authorities have already reported that low levels of radioactive iodine-131 were detected in the air above northeastern Heilongjiang province over the weekend. In a notice viewed on its website Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Ministry says further traces were found over the southeastern regions of Jiangsu, Shanghai, Zhejiang, Anhui, Guangdong and Guangxi.
Surprise, surprise. Are you surprised about that? It is more than clear that radiation (the radioactive particles) moves depending on the prevailing wind direction. Even in Europe there are elevated values! So the Japanese operators of the nuclear plant in Fukushima do not only harm Japanese people they are harming people around depending on the wind direction! Also the operators are not telling the truth to the people and naively they are returning to their homes at the restricted area. I’m sure there have been meltdowns at least at two blocks already. It is an immense disaster, probably much worse than Chernobyl ! Germany is the only nation that has acted correctly. They immediately switched off 7 of 17 nuclear power plants, because they are old already. Even though Germany has almost no risk of earthquakes. They do not plan to build new ones, they plan to get rid of them step by step. The amount of clean energy is already 17% and Germany is world leader and a great example for the entire world. But the effort of Germany is not much worth if other countries are not following. (Remember: Radiation doesn’t remain where it is emitted). France is a bad example. They are neighbors to the Germans and have got 59 nuclear plants (77%) of the produced power is nuclear power. So they are leader in producing dirty power. Most of the plants are located at the border to Germany. Nuclear power? No, thanks! Renewable energies are the future, Germany is on the best way to become the first country reaching 100%. The year 2050 could be realizable.
Not surprised but worried about the radiation effects on the young and the unborn generation. Clean energy is the energy of the future not the present. Concerns over baseload efficiency prevent complete switchover to solar, wind or thermal clean energy generation plants. Love it or hate it dirty nuclear powered powerplants alongwith coal fired and hydroelectric powerplants are the mainstay of the present energy generation era and we cant escape the pollution caused during their operations
I agree with this outlook. As far as renewable energy is concerned, it has massive logistical consequences. Solar cells are too inefficient and require too much space especially for a place like Japan. Wind, Water and Geothermal are dependent on favourable locations for their implementation. Renewable energy can supplement, but it will not be a major source of power for most countries in the foreseeable future. Nuclear is the most viable of the remaining technologies especially in a fossil fuel dependent world. The problem is the structure of the current nuclear plants especially around unstable areas. There are too many Gen 2 plants, the implementation of 'passive safety' mechanisms in Gen 3 reactors would have prevented the meltdown we see happening now. Money needs to be spent on upgrading Nuclear reactors, whether countries can find it is another story.
Humans are known to go the easiest way. Fukushima tells us that to go for nuclear power is the wrong way and can only be a temporary solution. Nuclear power is simply not controllable by humans. No matter what generations the power plants are. Also where shall we store the used nuclear fuel rods? The issue is not over when the nuclear plants have disappeared. The danger will remain thousands of years. Aren't we responsible for future generations, for the children? Nobody has a solution for that, but we simply continue with it! IMHO your elaborations about need to be revised by research and effort. They are also represented by proponents of the nuclear energy. Why? Because it enables much profit for the operators. As soon as the first final depot of nuclear waste has to be build, the costs of the nuclear energy will reveal its real value, now it is still cheap. We need to rethink about and to research which alternatives are possible and where. We need to research about new ways to store energy. Wind and sun is not available all the time. Also we can grow plants to produce oil, alcohol or even petrol or charcoal. Plants (like rape) are absorbing that amount of CO2 and water (photosynthesis) which they are emitting when burned. So this is clean energy. Countries which still have mineral oil mostly also have much sun. They can build solar parks and export the energy to other countries. The efficiency of solar cells has been improved already. Also we can have more effort in researching about nuclear fusion and build our own sun on earth. There are inventions, solid polymer fuel cell, tidal power plants and wind turbines..... What I want to tell is, if we do not change our mind about nuclear power we will not take the effort quickly enough to get rid of it step by step. It is a matter of probability until the next meltdown will happen again if we don't reduce the amount of nuclear plants. Mineral oil and fossil fuels are limited and not CO2 neutral. Sooner or later we are forced to have a look at alternative ways, so what are we waiting for? We have been on the moon, we want to go to the mars, we should be able to invent alternative ways. If you are asking what can I do to achieve that...well it depends where you live. At some countries you freely can choose from where you want to get your power and how it is produced. Choose one that uses alternative ways to force the changeover. Shall it always be the best cost therefore? I rather pay more to support clean power than to risk the life of others. just my 2 cents.
Wow, this is what happens when humans mess with nuclear power. No srsly. We really don't need nuclear power, to be honest. There's nothing wrong with using petroleum. Global warming is a natural process, like the ice age and we can do nothing to stop it. Sorry if I sound mean and rude, but I really think that whoever researches nuclear physics needs to get a life.