| Disasters
|
[
Disasters ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
8070 |
|
|
Date: March 19, 2013 at 16:11:41
From: Polydactyl in N. Bay, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Bad news from Fukushima |
URL: http://enenews.com/ |
|
Headlines from ENEnews. Mosey on over and have a quick view of the current loss of power issues. I didn't know the common fuel pool is without cooling too! I'm unsure if this will mean a ton more rads crossing the Pacific but it might mean we'll have a few more 'puffs' of radiation on the West Coast in another 4 days or so. Consider also that the solar flares helps the rads, not us (except to 'fluff out' our atmosphere) by spalliation of non-rad particles into rad particles, with the result of more radiation. I swear, the more I know about this stuff the more grim it seems. Imagine if we simply had not started and continued in a nuclear direction for energy. Would coal and wood burning and gas extraction killed us off the same? Does anyone know offhand? Would it have been feasible to use nuclear power only for weapons and not for 'energy?'
Japan (Fukushima)
U.S. scientists find Fukushima cesium in turtles, whales, fish
Power still not restored at Fukushima Unit 3 fuel pool and Common Fuel Pool -- N…
****This was a different message than what first came out that 1-3 reactors were 'okay' situation snafu, at least not on the edge of burning out of control which means 'light's out' btw, in that once the fuel rods reach a certain temperature, they cannot be cooled. Hindsight is always so much clearer, rather than the hazy view we have now of the future!
Temperatures rise in Fukushima fuel pools after nearly 20 hours without power --…
Bloomberg: Gundersen says radiation levels will increase from higher temperature…
*****Have extra food and water just in case. Well, it doesn't hurt anyway- :)
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[8072] [8083] |
|
8072 |
|
|
Date: March 22, 2013 at 14:57:07
From: Bill Silver Eagle, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Does anyone know offhand? |
|
|
Would it have been feasible to use nuclear power only for weapons and not for 'energy?'
Actually Polydactyl .... I think the real question and issue is the reverse, i.e., for energy and not for weapons. However the problem with its use for energy is the corporate bottom line and profit margin. If making a "profit" on energy delivered was illegal, I know sounds anti-capitalist, the necessity to cut safety corners most likely would not exist.
I would cite the experience of the United States Navy and its use of nuclear reaction both in the production of energy, as well as it's destructive force via sea-launched-ballistic-missiles. To my knowledge the United States Navy's nuclear reactors powering all of this countries aircraft carriers, some of the Ticonderoga-class cruisers, have never experienced a meltdown or disaster on the nature of Three Mile Island, Fukushima, Chernobyl, etc. Yes nuclear ships have had accidents but they were not attributed to the operation of the nuclear reactor.
Maybe the Navy should be managing all the nuclear reactors that produce power, i.e., electricity, since they appear to have an excellent safety record.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[8083] |
|
8083 |
|
|
Date: March 30, 2013 at 03:06:42
From: Polydactyl in N. Bay, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Does anyone know offhand? |
|
|
Thanks for your perspective on the safety issue of nuclear! Too bad it's not in better hands and now we've got huge radioactive waste messes to clean up. Like you said the 'for profit' means of producing the energy lead to sloppy construction and maintenance. It's truly absurd to try and cut costs on something that is so dangerous and so expensive to produce, from mining-to waste management-to potential disasters.
I am really glad to hear that someone is producing nuclear energy efficiently, although I'm not sure how they dispose of any rad waste material or gases on a submarine.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
Disasters ] [ Main Menu ] |