This conversation is closed.

please answer my questions

1- What do you think about the safety of nuclear energy?

2- What would you think if a nuclear energy located near your house?

3- What would you do if we don’t have any of energy except nuclear energy?

  • thumb
    Apr 30 2012: i would just answer the 2nd

    i do have a nuclear power plant nearby. everyone does who happen to live in budapest. we have two educational nuclear power plants around here.

    here is the cute little thing, 100kWt capacity. some 10km away from me.épületek,%20helyek/Tanreaktor.jpg

    and the other one, you can see the city in the background. that is 10MW, and a little farther.
  • Apr 30 2012: The physics should be acceptable. Do it like the French or Japanese, but not too near the
    ocean. Look at the problems causing the deaths in the space schuttle Challenger. It's
    the old Daoist comment - those who know do not speak, etc. keep the techies
    in charge.
  • thumb
    May 1 2012: 1-In the past, when the "fail-safe measures" have proven to be ineffective the resultt is devastation on a monumental, enduring scale.
    2- See number 1.
    3- I would be very curious how we got into that situation. Again, see number 1.
    • thumb
      May 1 2012: Where is this monumental enduring devastation? I am only aware of Chernobyl and scientific assessment demonstrates a much faster recovery than predicted as far as the ecology of the region is concerned.
      • thumb
        May 1 2012: Some of these (just from the last 36 years) might fit the description:

        2011 Fukushima 5 Japan Reactor shutdown after the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami; failure of emergency cooling caused an explosion
        2011 Onagawa Japan Reactor shutdown after the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami caused a fire
        2006 Fleurus 4 Belgium Severe health effects for a worker at a commercial irradiation facility as a result of high doses of radiation
        2006 Forsmark 2 Sweden Degraded safety functions for common cause failure in the emergency power supply system at nuclear power plant
        2006 Erwin US Thirty-five litres of a highly enriched uranium solution leaked during transfer
        2005 Sellafield 3 UK Release of large quantity of radioactive material, contained within the installation
        2005 Atucha 2 Argentina Overexposure of a worker at a power reactor exceeding the annual limit
        2005 Braidwood US Nuclear material leak
        2003 Paks 3 Hungary Partially spent fuel rods undergoing cleaning in a tank of heavy water ruptured and spilled fuel pellets
        1999 Tokaimura 4 Japan Fatal overexposures of workers following a criticality event at a nuclear facility
        1999 Yanangio 3 Peru Incident with radiography source resulting in severe radiation burns
        1999 Ikitelli 3 Turkey Loss of a highly radioactive Co-60 source
        1999 Ishikawa 2 Japan Control rod malfunction
        1993 Tomsk 4 Russia Pressure buildup led to an explosive mechanical failure
        1993 Cadarache 2 France Spread of contamination to an area not expected by design
        1989 Vandellos 3 Spain Near accident caused by fire resulting in loss of safety systems at the nuclear power station
        1989 Greifswald Germany Excessive heating which damaged ten fuel rods
        1986 Chernobyl 7 Ukraine (USSR) Widespread health and environmental effects. External release of a significant fraction of reactor core inventory
        • thumb
          May 1 2012: can you give us the following total numbers?:

          1. people died
          2. people severely injured
          3. property damaged (not including the reactor itself, it is operational cost)
          4. area contaminated at dangerous levels of radiation
          5. total amount of radiation released compared to the normal background
          6. the number of actual power plants on your list
      • thumb
        May 1 2012: plus let us underline that in chernobyl, not the safety mechanisms failed, but the crew deliberately screwed things up.
        • thumb
          May 1 2012: I could dig deeper into the plethora of data online, as could you. I won't though. In the interest of staying on-topic, particularly Mr. A Siri's question no. 1. My opinion is that the safety of nuclear energy is much more difficult to guarantee than other energy production methods. The results of malfunctions in nuclear operations go way beyond bothersome inconveniences. For example, safety measures should preclude the possibility of sabotage-by-staff. Like it or not, the fact is risk will always be non-zero unless we ban the industry.
    • thumb
      May 1 2012: then i tell you: people died in nuclear reactor accidents are below 10, plus the ones in chernobyl and mayak. both are unspeakable recklessness of soviet leaders.

      most of the items on your list are not at all nuclear power plants. for example the 1999 peru incident was a mishandled hospital equipment. i trust you don't want to shut down radiology, do you?

      others resulted in no deaths, no injuries and no danger to the public.

      even the biggest accidents, like three mile island or fukushima, did not claim civilian lives, and did not contaminate significant land. in the tmi case, these numbers are zero. in fukushima, 3 died, and some 50km is evacuated.

      the effects of these accidents on the environment and on society are negligible.

      and you call that "devastation on a monumental, enduring scale"

      i can tell you devastation on monumental, enduring scale. it was a chemical plant accident in bhopal, killing thousands. why don't you want to shut down chemical plants instead?
  • thumb
    May 1 2012: I live in Australia. In Australia the anti-nuclear sentiment is extreme, even though we live in one of the most geologically stable places in the world. All the documented incidents at nuclear power stations can be put down to mismanagement or poor design. 3 mile island mismanagement Chernobyl poor design and mismanagement. Fukushima poor design. Any industrial facility at Fukushima would have been destroyed. I can't imagine why you would build any sort of power plant near the coast in Japan. If well designed and located appropriately nuclear is as safe as any other power option. The big deal changer will be when they start building commercial scale LFTR reactors. They are melt-down proof and create virtually no waste. Quite happy to live next door.
    • thumb
      May 1 2012: just want to add that besides the LFTR, we have a number of other promising designs, like the pebble bed, traveling wave or fast neutron designs. many of these are in final design phases, and experimental reactors actually exist.