The short answer: Way more people than ought to be. On the home page, I talk to several nuclear experts and attempt an English-language introduction to the basics of nuclear power. They make it clear that the media has wildly amplified the threat posed by the Fukushima reactors, and produced a distorted understanding of past nuclear events like Three Mile Island. And that has consequences. Already, support for nuclear power in the U.S. is falling, in the worst possible moment for energy restriction. Dispelling myths about nuclear power is paramount:.
First, shutting down the production of new nuclear facilities would mean more reliance on old nuclear facilities, which are less safe. Second, shutting down or phasing out all nuclear facilities would necessitate greater reliance on other energy technologies that have their own dangers. As Professor Brown says, in a refrain common to all the nuclear experts, “Think of the BP explosion. Or Exxon Valdez. Those were pretty hellacious. And every month there’s a coal-mine disaster, and you read about pipelines exploding.” He recommends acknowledging that we are in “a pragmatic space. That doesn’t mean you don’t think every life is valuable. But you’re balancing risks, and acknowledging their reality in the real world we live in.”…
… in the 20th century, hydroelectric dams’ bursting, coal-mining disasters, and oil explosions have killed tens of thousands. And that includes just direct deaths from accidents, not indirect deaths from displacement, health problems caused by particulate matter, etc. Statistically speaking, nuclear experts claim, uranium fission is the safest major energy source in the world.
I’m not a nuclear expert, but some of our commenters evidently are. Please join the illuminating conversation.
I am not afraid of it, but I life in the midwest. I would say that I question those that operate it though. The actual facility has survived more than anything would be expected to, imagine if they had actually done their jobs and proper inspections and the like. Entire towns vanished, that nuclear plant is still standing, and I read a part of the retaining wall for a tsunami was damaged prior to the earthquake and left in disrepair.
i also think having 6 reactors so close together is a bit of a problem, as they would have had any 3 under control long ago had they not kept having to del with so much at so many all at once.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe media people insist on referring to Three Mile Island as "America's worst nuclear disaster". An incident in which all back up systems operated well and prevented an actual disaster has morphed over time, in the minds of the MSM.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStoppage of new US nukes is already happening. The two unit STP 3 and 4 project south of Houston announced suspension or at least management delays and development cost reductions:
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe only thing that failed in Japan was the backup power.
The diesel generators were knocked out by water that flowed downhill - an issue that has been around for some time.
Why didnt they install the generators and fuel tanks on the top floor?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNever underestimate the capacity of your fellow human beings to ignore facts and believe nonsense.
Here in Panic-ville central, aka CA that is precisely what is going on.
Our Sheriff had to issue an alert instructing people of the hazards of taking multiple courses of iodine pills - can't you sense the radiation cloud descending?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseListen closely, yes - the sky IS falling!
Michio Kaku, well known Japanese physicist, for one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe media is completely responsible for the panic-driven opinion mongering that has accompanied the truly awful natural disaster in Japan.
For the best, most thorough-going skewering of the so-called MSM on the subjects of Japan and Libya, it's hard to beat this from EU Referendum blog:
External Link
It has some withering stuff on the UK's Libya intervention too - altogether a very informative source of intelligent analysis.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's pretty amazing to me how even Fox News jumped on the band wagon to milk this story for all the sensationalism they can squeeze out of it. I can only hope that people will become skeptical at this nearly sarcastic reporting and still give nuclear another chance. I wish more people knew and understood just how much nuclear could do for the world.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere are only two questions I have concerning this issue...
Where is the spent nuclear fuel being stored, and how is it being transported to that location? That, or to what alternative use is it being converted?
It is my understanding that spent nuclear fuel is highly radioactive for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. If this is true, then we must have a location to store this spent fuel for however long it takes, and a failsafe way to transport it to that location.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy husband has worked in the nuclear industry for 43 years. He began his career in the UK at the first nuclear site built there and has worked all around the world(including in the USA). At present his company is producing simulation software for China's nuclear program.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSuffice to say that we have been tearing our hair out at the irresponsible, negligent, misleading and downright sensational reporting on Fukishima. Yes, even Fox News have, for the most part, got it all wrong. Last week they interviewed a "nuclear expert" who is, in fact, a well known member of The Clamshell Alliance - an ANTI nuclear group who think they have died and gone to heaven now.
For the record - No-one died after Three Mile Island and, more than likely, no-one will die after Fukishima. More people die, per year, falling off roofs while fitting solar panels than will EVER die from nuclear industry accidents.
Oh, but, I forget, FACTS are boring, aren't they?
Incidentally, as a teenager I used to deliver cigarettes (for my father's business) to the local nuclear plant. No problems; no radiation sickness and an excellent cup of tea every time I went there!
There's nothing wrong with the article on the home page (unless some small thing has escaped my notice), but I certainly wouldn't call it "an introduction to the basics of nuclear power." It's far too sketchy to deserve that description.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI believe the key here is to get people to understand that no one is suggesting building more 40 year old nuclear plants. That's a good thing since as can be seen they are not without their safety problems. And those problems are not limited just to exposure of the public to radiation. The financial loss to the utilities of a disaster like Fukushima can't be ignored when considering the investment risk in their construction.
I worked in QA during construction at Diablo Canyon in the early seventies. Long before 3 Mile Island there were discussions by my fellow QA people about the possibility that we were getting in over our heads when it came to the demands of the utility and the public to build a 100% safe industrial complex. We did our best but I can still recall events that due to people being what they are things were missed. The level of redundancy and other safety systems brought in long after I left no doubt mitigated these problems since Diablo Canyon has an enviable safety record but it still was enough of a concern to me that I saw a rocky future ahead for Nuclear power and made the decision to leave the industry. I believe the sensitivity of the public and the investors to the cost of accidents at these plants proves that to be a good decision.
It’s kind of like terrorism where we have to succeed 100% of the time but the terrorists only have to succeed once. Every one knows that can’t go on forever and every engineer knows 100% safety at nuclear plants as currently designed can’t either. Since that is what everyone demands, until an inherently safe design for nuclear power is perfected there really are good reasons to not proceed with new building and it's not just a panicky press and uninformed people who are to blame.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusemasterinchancery: Stephen Hawking once stated in an interview that increasing CO2 levels threatened to turn the Earth into another Venus.
Just because one is a well known physicist, doesn't mean that one is an expert on everything.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse-kg-: It was going to be stored at Yucca Mt. Until the environmentalists killed that plan. It was to be transported in secured containers.
As to it being "highly radioactive" for hundreds of years, that depends on what you mean by "highly radioactive". Most of the really radioactive stuff in the used rods decays away in the first few months after they are pulled from the reactor.
In any matter, such rods should not be stored, they should be reprocessed and the remaining uranium, plutonium, whatever used to make new fuel rods. Only 3 to 5 percent of the uranium in a rod is "used up" by the time the rod is pulled from the reactor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse