melthebell Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 hmmmmmmmm so im the devil reincarnate for judging things on uptodate info from FIVE different news sources compared to everybody else going on ONE techie website and ONE 2008 pdf that struggles to work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 That is I assume fox news definition. the real definition is:Limited release of radioactive *material likely to require i*mplementation of some planned* countermeasures.Several deaths from *radiation. You've missed a bit off from the IAEA document - see http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7417652&postcount=143 namely, this bit: -Severe damage to reactor core -release of large quantities of radioactive material within an installation with a high probability of public exposure. This could arise from a major criticality incident or fire" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 seems people are picking the bits that suit their agendas what we all must agree on whatever the outcome its NOT a normal safe running of a nuclear plant at the minute and so radiation IS leaking out of the plant abnormally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digglydog Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 I'd agree that nuclear power is relatively safe. But why is it so safe? Because it's inherently very hazardous. It's safety comes from all the safety measures put in place. So, take away all the safety measures from power generation methods - and then compare them: Nuclear fission comes out pretty poorly. It is safe because of the measures put in place to make it so. You are relying on the efficacy of those measures to ensure safety. TEPCO's track record shouldn't be filling people with confidence about those safety measures. Absolutely.This is one reason why it is so expensive. Even so, no one will insure it. It is also only considered safe for certain countries to have it. If you happen to be Iranian you will have to think of another way to generate power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Absolutely.This is one reason why it is so expensive. Even so, no one will insure it. It is also only considered safe for certain countries to have it. If you happen to be Iranian you will have to think of another way to generate power. using a giant orange? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Absolutely.This is one reason why it is so expensive. Even so, no one will insure it. It is also only considered safe for certain countries to have it. If you happen to be Iranian you will have to think of another way to generate power. It's not that expensive - costs for French electricity which is about 80% nuclear generation are far below UK pricing for exmaple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 It's not that expensive - costs for French electricity which is about 80% nuclear generation are far below UK pricing for exmaple. Would you rather live next door to a cheap nuclear reactor, or a very, very modern and expensive one (with 300% redundant reactor core emergency cooling)? (goes back to wikipedia) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Would you rather live next door to a cheap nuclear reactor, or a very, very modern and expensive one (with 300% redundant reactor core emergency cooling)? (goes back to wikipedia) Modern ones actually are cheaper than the older ones - not that it matters as all the one I'm talking about had defence in depth anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 It was more of a joke along the lines of would you prefer a cheaper brain surgeon? But I take your point, I was just reading about some overbudget, gleaming Finnish reactor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digglydog Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 It's not that expensive - costs for French electricity which is about 80% nuclear generation are far below UK pricing for exmaple. It is my understanding that approx half the Dept of energy and climate changes budget is spent on nuclear decommissioning and half of all the said depts civil servants work on nuclear power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.