One (Nuclear Disaster)of the biggest disasters of modern history is happening, and...

[metamorph]

there are hardly any threads on this forum!

What is your take on the safety of nuclear power?

What more does it take to cause a change in politics towards alternative energy sources?

If the scientists could not foresee an earthquake of that scale, why do we assume they cannot happen in the US or Europe (...with similar consequences)...? And, even if you live in a country that has not had any natural disasters for centuries, what about terrorist attacks on nuclear plants?

[Summerbreeze]

I'm not deep in geography, but most likely the earthquakes will be in the areas were the (continental) plates are moving or where two plates interact.

It's not very much a political debate, maybe it should.

The lobby rules and OPEC is a legal cartel, they adjust the prices so that it'll be attractive enough to burn material in order to gain energy.
When we burn stuff to gain energy, we most likely will also use nuclear plants, because of the pricing, otherwise the energy prices would raise. "Ecological" Competitors see the back lights.

Animals can predict earthquakes before they happen, so can we humans when we know how, but it's complicated to convince skeptics of these kind of things.

[elucidate]

I think people are in denial mostly about the seriousness of it all. I just read about the stockmarket encouraging people to cash in on the disaster...it's unreal.

Nuclear power isn't safe...period!

[aelle]

Originally Posted by metamorph

If the scientists could not foresee an earthquake of that scale, why do we assume they cannot happen in the US or Europe (...with similar consequences)...? And, even if you live in a country that has not had any natural disasters for centuries, what about terrorist attacks on nuclear plants?

They could very much forsee it, and the plant did withstand the tremors - most of the damage came from the tsunami, not the quake. Tsunami which has already killed thousands of people, when the nuclear plant has not killed one. And hundreds of thousands more people were made homeless by the quake, in an area that's now under heavy snowfalls. This is certainly going to cause more health hazards than the radiation, but it makes less impressive headline.

I don't wish to minimize the danger of radiation, but keep perspective.

[metamorph]

Originally Posted by aelle

They could very much forsee it, and the plant did withstand the tremors - most of the damage came from the tsunami, not the quake.

Earthquakes can cause a tsunami. ASAIK, people were taken by surprise...

Originally Posted by aelle

Tsunami which has already killed thousands of people, when the nuclear plant has not killed one.

In the long run the nuclear issue can be much more serious! Let's see what will happen to Tokyo.

Originally Posted by aelle

And hundreds of thousands more people were made homeless by the quake, in an area that's now under heavy snowfalls.

There is not much you can do about quakes, tsunamis and snow. With nuclear plants it is a different issue (=avoidable)

[aelle]

Originally Posted by metamorph

In the long run the nuclear issue can be much more serious! Let's see what will happen to Tokyo.

No. The current death toll for the tsunami is already higher than the total death toll for Chernobyl, which was a nuclear accident of much larger proportions than Fukushima could ever reach. Radiation levels are being monitored independently all over the country ; in Tokyo they are slightly elevated but nowhere near health affecting quantities.

As for what can be done about earthquakes: in the past 4 days, after the 9.0 quake, Japan has had 7 aftershocks (so far) greater than last month's Christchurch earthquake. None doing much damage. Japanese antiseismic engineering and strict building codes has saved tens of thousands of lives. I don't think this qualifies as "not much".

[Cochonette]

The magnitude of this disaster is just so mindblowing, most of us don't know what to say... especially now we are just having disaster after disaster in recent years... from Katrina to the tsunamis in southeast Asia to Haiti to the BP oil spill to this... I don't think people want to face this vulnerability we all share. I mean, what can we even do? To think of Armageddon happening in Japan while we are just trying to get our lives together... then again, it makes our problems seem so trivial by comparison...

[aelle]

What news source are you all following to be that panicked? I've been following the BBC live feed (excellent information quality in terms of science, I have to say), NHK and the twitter feeds of academics who are measuring ambiant radioactivity independently. Nothing so far allows to be even cose to consider the word "armageddon" to describe the situation.

[Cochonette]

Originally Posted by aelle

What news source are you all following to be that panicked? I've been following the BBC live feed (excellent information quality in terms of science, I have to say), NHK and the twitter feeds of academics who are measuring ambiant radioactivity independently. Nothing so far allows to be even cose to consider the word "armageddon" to describe the situation.

Over 10,000 people dead on the whim of the earth... that's an abrupt Armageddon for 10,000 people. And like you said 500,000 homeless. I have trouble dealing with life and I have a home and a job and electricity and so on and so forth.

[aelle]

Ah, sorry C, I thought you were referring to the nuclear accident alone.

[Michael Chui]

One of my friends described it as "This is a 40-year-old design that survived an earthquake stronger than it was rated for (7.0, I believe) and is failing only because the water from the tsunami got into the diesel backups..."

To me, the moral of the story seems to be "Start anticipating 9.0 earthquakes and stop using diesel backups," which is not really all that panic-inducing. Or maybe "Try putting nuclear power plants in the middle of a continental plate, rather than somewhere extremely well known for earthquakes."

@metamorph,

There is a huge amount you can do in preparation for earthquakes, tsunamis, and snow. Japan actually had a ton of mitigation. But I mean... this is the fifth largest earthquake in recorded history. It's hard to anticipate "worse than anything we've ever experienced" as that's infinite.

[stormpsyche]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

then again, it makes our problems seem so trivial by comparison...

Sure does, Cochonette.

[Brutha]

If the scientists could not foresee an earthquake of that scale, why do we assume they cannot happen in the US or Europe

Japan has frequent earthquakes while Europe doesn't.

What is your take on the safety of nuclear power?

From what we know about the incident in Japan there no indication that it will kill more people than are killed every year in the US through burning coal.

It's hard to anticipate "worse than anything we've ever experienced" as that's infinite.

In Germany we have harsh building codes even through we don't have earthquakes.

[ssandra]

I discussed this with my husband the other day. One the one hand I don't like nuclear energy. I think it is short sighted to use something that you cannot predict what will happen in the future and where you have no way to get rid of the waste.

On the other hand, fossil fuel for energy isn't that much better, and has worse short term effects.

Clean energy exists but not on the scale yet that it is possible to use all the time, every time. I think great innovations are being made, but non yet in the stage of worldwide implementation.

My point? I don't know if nuclear energy is bad or good. I know that I personally prefer other types of energy, but I don't know if that is feasible yet and if it is a matter of choosing between 2 bad choices (fossil fuel and nuclear energy) for the moment.

[gigij]

I live about 5 km from a nuclear plant, and, strange as this sounds, I found it kind of reassuring. I think it is mind boggling that they withstood a 9.0 earthquake to begin with. They were showing on the news the condition of the plants in comparison with the devastation in the surrounding area.

Aren't there a bunch of oil refineries on fire as well? That can't be too healthy either ... but the focus seems to be only on the nuclear plants.

[metamorph]

Originally Posted by aelle

No. The current death toll for the tsunami is already higher than the total death toll for Chernobyl, which was a nuclear accident of much larger proportions than Fukushima could ever reach.

Radiation levels are being monitored independently all over the country ; in Tokyo they are slightly elevated but nowhere near health affecting quantities.

In the short term, you are right. But you need to consider the long-term consequences of radiation exposure too.

If Tokyo gets away, it is pure "luck". The nuclear accident could have been much worse (as you say), and depending on the weather, the radiation levels in Tokyo could (have) become much worse affecting 35 million people!

[AlmostGodess]

I don't believe decisions made from despair are good ones because then we transform that despair into truth. The whole discussion in France and Germany now is about giving up nuclear power plants. And, whereas, I have no particular view about nuclear energy, I don't think a decision taken based on a disaster like this is very wise.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by metamorph

In the short term, you are right. But you need to consider the long-term consequences of radiation exposure too.

If Tokyo gets away, it is pure "luck". The nuclear accident could have been much worse (as you say), and depending on the weather, the radiation levels in Tokyo could (have) become much worse affecting 35 million people!

Do you stand near power lines, or use cell phones?

[metamorph]

Originally Posted by AlmostGodess

And, whereas, I have no particular view about nuclear energy, I don't think a decision taken based on a disaster like this is very wise.

I never had a particular take on nuclear plants either. But, for me examples such as those are meant for us to learn from them. The politics in Germany and France, as far as I can tell, are just short term populism. Every decision against nuclear plants that may be made in the next couple of weeks will be back to square one in 6 months....

[metamorph]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Do you stand near power lines, or use cell phones?

I am surprised you put those into the same basket as nuclear accidents

[AlmostGodess]

Originally Posted by metamorph

I never had a particular take on nuclear plants either. But, for me examples such as those are meant for us to learn from them. The politics in Germany and France, as far as I can tell, are just short term populism. Every decision against nuclear plants that may be made in the next couple of weeks will be back to square one in 6 months....

Yes, this is exactly what populists will say. And this what terribly bothers me. This disaster that happened in Japan will make the Greens in Germany to win over a very important issue, they will benefit from the disaster to promote their interests and I consider this unfair game.

[metamorph]

Originally Posted by AlmostGodess

Yes, this is exactly what populists will say. And this what terribly bothers me. This disaster that happened in Japan will make the Greens in Germany to win over a very important issue, they will benefit from the disaster to promote their interests and I consider this unfair game.

What is wrong with that? Would it be better to say "this was just a bad luck. Let's keep doing what we have always done!". That would be equivalent to the US not improving their security standards on airports/planes after 9/11....

(I am not for any green movement in particular)

[AlmostGodess]

Originally Posted by metamorph

What is wrong with that? Would it be better to say "this was just a bad luck. Let's keep doing what we have always done!". That would be equivalent to the US not improving their security standards on airports/planes after 9/11....

(I am not for any green movement in particular)

Well, of course not. There is always place for improvement and Chernobyl is a good example in this sense. People are scared and afraid now and fear is not a good place to take decisions from.

Ahmadinejad said today that the tsunami was provoked by women wearing mini skirts and he will make use of this to promote some new extremist policies. Well, to me the Greens are not very much different from Ahmadinejad here

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by metamorph

I am surprised you put those into the same basket as nuclear accidents

You're either worried about radiation reasonably, or you're not. You seem to feel that there are mysterious long-term effects of non-health-affecting radiation, so perhaps you ought to be putting them in the same basket.

[metamorph]

Originally Posted by AlmostGodess

Ahmadinejad said today that the tsunami was provoked by women wearing mini skirts and he will make use of this to promote some new extremist policies. Well, to me the Greens are not very much different from Ahmadinejad here

I don't think this is comparable. The mini skirts are clearly ridiculous. Potential hazards of nuclear energy gone wrong is based on science and statistics. I don't think the greens are any worse than any other party in this respect. Every party tries to capitalise on current events to move the public. That is what politics is all about.

[metamorph]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

You're either worried about radiation reasonably, or you're not. You seem to feel that there are mysterious long-term effects of non-health-affecting radiation, so perhaps you ought to be putting them in the same basket.

Comparing nuclear radiation (alpha, beta, gamma) to electromagnetic fields, is is like comparing apples to elephants.

If you put all radiation into one basket, you have to be afraid of the ultrasound waves bats use for navigation

(it is all about the energy of the radiation!!!)

[AlmostGodess]

Originally Posted by metamorph

I don't think this is comparable. The mini skirts are clearly ridiculous. Potential hazards of nuclear energy gone wrong is based on science and statistics. I don't think the greens are any worse than any other party in this respect. Every party tries to capitalise on current events to move the public. That is what politics is all about.

To me this is called manipulation and, I know I'm idealistic, but I believe manipulating people for the promotion of our own interests is wrong.

[Tanja]

I'm still not sure how I feel about nuclear power plants. A few years ago there were some plans to build one here and many people were against it. However, the people I talked to who actually knew a bit more about it did not share so many concerns. More damage was/is done by oil refineries.
Is it possible to have any 100 % safe energy sources?

I'm all for alternative energy resources. But with a growing demand for energy, what would be the best choice? Maybe in future we will be able to come up with cleaner/safer ways, but what to do in the meantime?
It is my understanding that at present the major ''obstacles' are price (ah, well, of course) and the fact that for, e.g., wind/solar energy you need to use much larger land area. So, in the case of Japan, where you have a large population and restricted amount of land, what would be the best alternative to meet their energy needs? Maybe tidal power?

[Michael Chui]

Incidentally, I just ran across this:

Many Eyes : Deaths per TWh by energy sources

Data source is in the description: Deaths per TWH by energy source

[Digital Jack]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

The magnitude of this disaster is just so mindblowing, most of us don't know what to say... especially now we are just having disaster after disaster in recent years... from Katrina to the tsunamis in southeast Asia to Haiti to the BP oil spill to this... I don't think people want to face this vulnerability we all share. I mean, what can we even do? To think of Armageddon happening in Japan while we are just trying to get our lives together... then again, it makes our problems seem so trivial by comparison...

I havent read further than this post yet, but you said so much here I have to comment... it certainly is hard. Most people try to do everything they can not to get fatalistic about the world and to try and continue living our best lives in our own ways, but when something is so in-your-face as this disaster has been, it is indeed humbling...

I only fear that we've used this excuse of living our own lives and "not worrying so damn much about things we cant change, lol" to the point where we may not be able to completely avoid whats going to happen anymore. There certianly has been a ton of injustice and tragedy and sadness in this world, and we turn a blind eye quite often, too much for the sake of "being cool" and "not being a debbie downer", ect.