Bearice, as usual you're off on another screwball tangent. Not only that, but your premise that nuclear energy is unsafe is obviously wrong. The disasters in Japan and at three-mile island both show nuclear to be safe even in the worst situations as long as the design is good. (Chernobyl was not a safe design.) The problem is not safety, but cost. The cost of these clean-up operations is huge and has to be factored into the overall economics of nuclear. We will learn a great deal from this incident in Japan and future reactors will be even safer. The new reactors will use convection driven cooling so cooling will continue even in the absence of external power. More reliable back-up systems will also result from experience in Japan, and better methods of storing spent fuel rods during cool-down will be developed. The design of these plants in Japan was what? forty years old maybe.. and look how safe they have proved to be. We don't know of any deaths yet directly related to the nuclear plants -- there may be some, but contrast that with the safety record of coal and petroleum over the years and its easy to understand why nuclear is superior from an environmental and safety standpoint. The real question is that of economics and that's what will ultimately decide the issue, assuming public hysteria does not rule the day. You know, in the USA an entire generation of kids was raised eating on uranium glazed dinner plates (the red-orange fiesta ware plates from the 1930's will peg a Geiger counter) and a very limited number of their offspring, so far!, have turned up with three ears.
What piezoe said. When the dust settles, one of the things that will probably come out will be some failures of regulation in Japan. Apparently the plant at Fukushima Daiichi was required by the regulator to withstand a tsunami of 5.7 metres. But the estimated height was 10 metres. At Fukushima Dainii the design requirement was 5.2 metres but the estimated height was 12 metres. That's a really big margin. What is really interesting is that the reactors themselves have stood up remarkably well and scramed as designed in an earthquake that was 7 times stronger than what they were designed to handle. It is secondary systems that got clobbered. It's pretty clear that such underestimation is not going to recur and inevitably existing plants will be strengthened in light of experience. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Stabilisation_at_Fukushima_Daiichi_2003111.html
The nuclear plants in germany are even closer to densely populated areas. radiation in milk and plants. 30 mile radius uninhibited for 10,000 years!!!!! This is worse than nuclear explosion. In nuclear explosion radioactive material is used up. in a nuclear meltdown the fuel is stuck there radioactive contaminatino for 10,000 years!!! chenobyle entire 20 KM radius block with barbwired for 10,000 years. talk about destruction of the earth. All the used radioactive material is supposed to be buried deep under the earth. put concrete in radioactive stuff. These stuff give off radiation. 30KM away. invinsible radiation. gamma rays. The nuclear plants probably will have self-destruct mechanism as this backup pump system is b.s. who designed thsi nuclear reactor---GE! pump breaks and the reactor melts? the people living there was told the nuclear reactors were 'SAFE' even if earthquake.. the result is electricity rates will go up.
Estimate of tsunami height at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant revised upward to 14 ms http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...by-14-metre-wave/story-fn3dxity-1226025962195
A lot more than you, it would seem. The explosions were not in the reactors or the reactor containment. They were hydrogen explosions in the outer building shell in an area used for cranes and so forth used for handling fuel rods during reactor maintenance and refueling. The explosions blew away the upper outer shell but it seems did not breach the containment. They may have been due to hydrogen released due to venting to release pressure in the reactor cores and/or exposed spent fuel, but <b>this was nowhere near a reactor meltdown where the PV is breached, the containment is breached and a molten mass falls through the bottom of the reactor building</b>. Your hysteria is blinding you to the facts. It's not a dead zone. There are people who against official advice are living in the 20 km zone. Wildlife seems to be doing quite well and very likely is doing a lot better than when it had to compete with the humans. Chernobyl is being promoted as a tourist destination. As I understand it, the criteria for permanent evacuation was a projected lifetime exposure of 350 mSv of radiation. It is worth pointing out that in some places in the world people live with higher natural exposures than that with no apparent ill effects. Denver, Colorado is one of those. This of course is only part of the story because contamination is spread unevenly in the exclusion zone and while some parts may be safe for humans, others still are not. I'm not trying to trivialize Chernobyl disaster, but point out that a realistic, science-based assessment is the only thing worth listening to - not a bunch of crazy made up hysteria.
Wood coal is used in small quantities as medicine for stomach problems. Some people use wood coal as filters to clean water.
punks like you want censorship? get out the country. there is freedom of speech and freedom of expression in America. okay if it wasn't for the lies by the japanese gov't and tepco that fukushima plant should have been shut down years ago. but greedy tepco wanted profits over safety. they want to build more nuclear plants.. imagine all the nuclear plants melted. in less than 25 years 2 nuclear plant reactor meltdown and nuclear plants only been around for 40 years. now huge radius of the planet is '''uninhabitable'''. 30 KM in chernoble not 30 KM in fukishima. those nuclear plant designers don't know what the hell they dare doing. pouring sea water into nuclear material and leaking it into the ocean. this is their emergency plan. I used to believe the lies that nuclear energy was SAFE well it's NOT! and who was pro-nukes plants the global warming guys. coal and oil may be expensive but it won't kill anyone. coal is even cheaper than nuclear plants.
Coal fired power stations are responsible for hundreds of theousands of premature deaths and heart attacks every year world wide due to air pollution. Harm to public heath by nuclear is not in the same league - nuclear is much safer, even including Chernobyl.
nuclear plants are only unsafe until there is an impossible 'accident' and the entire radius is uninhatible for centuries there is no other form of safe energy to generate 'electricity' other than hydro of natural gas. nuclear generated electricity actually is MORE expensive than fossil fuel generated electricity and with radiation exposure to gamma rays it not only kills you it aslo damages your DNA so future generations is annilated..scientitst use radiation to sterilize animals. entire mankind can be eliminated with exposure to gamma rays. QUOTE]Quote from dcraig: Coal fired power stations are responsible for hundreds of theousands of premature deaths and heart attacks every year world wide due to air pollution. Harm to public heath by nuclear is not in the same league - nuclear is much safer, even including Chernobyl. [/QUOTE]