|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:45 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| ZIFA wrote: |
Why have such dangerous technology if you do not know how to fix it when it goes wrong? |
It's being contained pretty effectively so far, despite the fact that hell pretty much broke loose on it. Just how many people do you think this "dangerous technology" has killed in the last 60 years?
To put it in perspective, the Chernobyl event was more than just a meltdown, the Soviets allowed it to sit and burn for weeks, spreading TONS of radiation. Even a complete meltdown in this case should be isolated by the containment building. And if that fails, the Japanese will still respond far more forcefully and effectively than the Soviets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
silkhighway
Joined: 24 Oct 2010
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ZIFA wrote: |
I think my questions are probably the same as on everyones lips.
Why have such dangerous technology if you do not know how to fix it when it goes wrong?
|
In fairness, how do you prepare for the unknown? It's easy to suffer hindsight bias, to understand a design or process flaw after a disaster or incident happens. Scientists and Engineers are very guilty of this too.
I think a deeper question is, is the cost of a potential nuclear catastrophe simply too high, no matter how small the risk is, that it's not worth it? And if that's the case, how do we meet our massive energy concerns over the next few decades as we wean off carbon-based fuels?
| Quote: |
Why did they not build it to withstand a 9.0 earthquake..or even a 10.0 one for that matter. When you are dealing with nuclear power, you need to be able to safeguard it 100%. That includes providing multiple back-up power sources. Not just two. And they better be shockproof, waterproof, windproof, meteorite-proof..and everything-else-proof.
|
How about an 11.0? 12.0? 13.0? 15m tsunami? 25m tsunami? meteorite crash? I'm not making fun of you here, I'm just making the point that you can't possibly prepare against everything. Not only that, there are a lot of trade-offs both economically and practically. How much more expensive is it to prepare and stress test a power plant for a 12.0 quake than it is a 9.0? Also, does over-preparing for a disaster make you more vulnerable to another one? A more complicated system may protect against better against the elements, but then does it introduce the chance of more operator error or chance of unforeseen design flaw? Does it make maintenance of the system unpractical?
To give an example from another industry. Most of the computer systems handling air traffic control have been around since the 60's, because it's just too astronomically expensive and complicated to replace them and guarantee a near 0% chance of error.
| Quote: |
If this had ocurred in the west, would it have been handled any better? Who knows.  |
I don't think so. Maybe they would have had better communication and someone would have taken responsibility of the situation earlier, maybe. Maybe this also would have been true if they had a different group of executives as TAPCO. As wary as I am about the situation, I think it's important to keep things in perspective. It was rattled by a 1000year disaster. If any country in the world was prepared for this kind of event, it was Japan, but the magnitude of the disaster is so big it has overwhelmed even them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
silkhighway
Joined: 24 Oct 2010
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| ZIFA wrote: |
Why have such dangerous technology if you do not know how to fix it when it goes wrong? |
It's being contained pretty effectively so far, despite the fact that hell pretty much broke loose on it. Just how many people do you think this "dangerous technology" has killed in the last 60 years?
To put it in perspective, the Chernobyl event was more than just a meltdown, the Soviets allowed it to sit and burn for weeks, spreading TONS of radiation. Even a complete meltdown in this case should be isolated by the containment building. And if that fails, the Japanese will still respond far more forcefully and effectively than the Soviets. |
This is not directed at you, but I wish people would stop making comparisons to Chernobyl. It doesn't help either case, optimist or pessimist. This is it's own disaster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| silkhighway wrote: |
| I think a deeper question is, is the cost of a potential nuclear catastrophe simply too high, no matter how small the risk is, that it's not worth it? And if that's the case, how do we meet our massive energy concerns over the next few decades as we wean off carbon-based fuels? |
E.F. Schumacher writing on nuclear power in the �70s:
We are told that we are moving rapidly into the nuclear age. Of course, this has been the story for quite some time, for over twenty years, and yet the contribution of nuclear energy to man's total fuel and energy requirements is still minute. In 1970, it amounted to 27 per cent in Britain; 0.6 per cent in the European Community; and 0.3 per cent in the United States, to mention only the countries that have gone the furthest. Perhaps we can assume that nature�s tolerance margins will be able to cope with such small impositions, although there are many people even today who are deeply worried, and Dr Edward D. David, President Nixon's Science Adviser, talking about the storage of radioactive wastes, says that 'one has a queasy feeling about something that has to stay underground and be pretty well sealed off for 25,000 years before it is harmless'.
However that may be, the point I am making is a very simple one: the proposition to replace thousands of millions of tons of fossil fuels, every year, by nuclear energy means to 'solve' the fuel problem by creating an environmental and ecological problem of such a monstrous magnitude that Dr David will not be the only one to have 'a queasy feeling'. It means solving one problem by shifting it to another sphere - there to create an infinitely bigger problem.
Having said this, I am sure that I shall be confronted with another, even more daring proposition: namely, that future scientists and technologists will be able to devise safety rules and precautions of such perfection that the using, transporting, processing and storing of radioactive materials in ever increasing quantities will be made entirely safe; also that it will be the task of politicians and social scientists to create a world society in which wars or civil disturbances can never happen.
Forty years later, is there any reason to disagree with him? I�m not just asking silkhighway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
silkhighway
Joined: 24 Oct 2010
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
Forty years later, is there any reason to disagree with him? I�m not just asking silkhighway. |
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, but it's quite timely that I read this post at the exact same time that I read one of the latest updates on BBC's live feed:
| BBC wrote: |
| #1729: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said the US has to answer questions about "the costs and the risks" of nuclear power. "We get 20% of our energy right now in the United States from nuclear power," she said. |
20% is significant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnnyenglishteacher2
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| silkhighway wrote: |
| Quote: |
Why did they not build it to withstand a 9.0 earthquake..or even a 10.0 one for that matter. When you are dealing with nuclear power, you need to be able to safeguard it 100%. That includes providing multiple back-up power sources. Not just two. And they better be shockproof, waterproof, windproof, meteorite-proof..and everything-else-proof.
|
How about an 11.0? 12.0? 13.0? 15m tsunami? 25m tsunami? meteorite crash? |
No earthquake has ever been recorded or estimated at Richter 10.0 or above (the record is 9.5), whereas a 9.0 or above happens a few times a century. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| silkhighway wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
Forty years later, is there any reason to disagree with him? I�m not just asking silkhighway. |
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, but it's quite timely that I read this post at the exact same time that I read one of the latest updates on BBC's live feed:
| BBC wrote: |
| #1729: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said the US has to answer questions about "the costs and the risks" of nuclear power. "We get 20% of our energy right now in the United States from nuclear power," she said. |
20% is significant. |
So Schumacher is no longer correct on a matter of fact; that�s to be expected after forty years have elapsed. Does that touch his point, however? You�re aware that America currently has no idea what to do with its accumulating nuclear waste, even at just 20%, and that despite this the administration plans to increase nuclear production? How is America, how is anyone, to guard this stuff in ever-growing amounts for 25,000 years per batch? The only solution we seemingly have is this vague hope that in the future, science will solve the problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As I saw in an opinion column- A 9.0 earthquake will topple tall buildings, does that mean we shouldn't build skyscrapers?
Actually It will topple small buildings too, does that mean we should live in grass huts?
We think "meltdown" and we have an image in our heads that is not in line with what will actually happen here. We need to fix that mental disconnect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
As I saw in an opinion column- A 9.0 earthquake will topple tall buildings, does that mean we shouldn't build skyscrapers?
Actually It will topple small buildings too, does that mean we should live in grass huts? |
There is no comparison. Buildings can be rebuilt. Nuclear fallout effects everyone, poisons everything around it, and lasts for a very long time
| Quote: |
| We think "meltdown" and we have an image in our heads that is not in line with what will actually happen here. We need to fix that mental disconnect. |
What is actually happening is now looking more and more like a full-blown freaking catastrophe. New reports have been showing schematic diagrams of the plants in question, basically housing thousands of spent fuel rods in big bins attached the ceilings (*not* inside or protected by the main thick steel reactor containers). At least one of these ceilings has blown sky high (as seen in the video), and the others have spent fuel rods boiling away all the water required to cool them, and releasing radioactive steam into the atmosphere. Moreover the main reactor container has been breached in at least one site (which contains Plutonium and Uranium).
Last ditch efforts like bringing in riot police spray vehicles to spray the rods with water from a distance are being tried this morning... Efforts to drop water from above by helicopter were scrapped yesterday due to high radiation. There is nobody there actively monitoring the inside of the facilities... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
silkhighway
Joined: 24 Oct 2010
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Back to the scene in Fukishima, they're currently dropping water on the reactors from helicopters and spraying from firetrucks because the radiation levels are too high for the workers to get close enough to do it on-site. Anyone have any idea what those levels actually are? How effective could water drops and sprays possibly be? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"The State Department strongly urges U.S. citizens to defer travel to Japan at this time and those in Japan should consider departing," it said...
"A United Nations forecast projects the radioactive plume from the Fukushima facility would reach the Aleutian Islands on Thursday and hit Southern California late on Friday, The New York Times reported.
The projection, calculated on Tuesday and obtained by the newspaper, gives no information about actual radiation levels, it said. Health and nuclear experts emphasize that radiation in the plume will be diluted as it travels and will have extremely minor health consequences in the United States, it reported.
The U.S. military has ordered its forces to stay 50 miles away from the plant, the Pentagon said. There are at least 55,000 members of the U.S. forces in Japan and offshore assisting the relief operation.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/sc_nm/us_nuclear_usa
"Australia, Britain and Germany advised their citizens in Japan to consider leaving Tokyo and earthquake-affected areas, joining a growing number of governments and businesses telling their people it may be safer elsewhere."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110317/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_earthquake_foreigners_leaving
A slow motion horror. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
"A United Nations forecast projects the radioactive plume from the Fukushima facility would reach the Aleutian Islands on Thursday and hit Southern California late on Friday, The New York Times reported.
|
I have to say I am fairly relieved I'm on the East Coast now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ^ditto |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
ditto ditto
I don't have anything to add to this thread. This is a tragedy. A horrible tragedy.
http://www.nationalreview.com/developing/262287/emergency-workers-not-afraid-die-nat-brown
| Quote: |
Japanese emergency teams say they are �not afraid to die� as they face dangerous levels of radiation in the fight to stop catastrophe at the tsunami-hit Fukushima nuclear plant.
The stricken power station was abandoned for hours today, as soaring radiation forced the emergency workers to flee for their lives and authorities were reduced to spraying reactors with police water cannons.
But 180 workers this afternoon bravely headed back towards the plant to pump water on to the over-heating reactors. Some experts speculated that they were on a �suicide mission� as options to control radiation leaks rapidly run out. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
I don't have anything to add to this thread. This is a tragedy. A horrible tragedy. |
Yes. I should e-mail a couple friends that live in Tokyo. Right after the earthquake, I figured they were perfectly fine and in no danger but now...
Have to say I'm a bit concerned.
2011 has been a bizarre year so far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
