# Still support nuke power plants? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 14, 2011, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647 "2011-03-14T11:56:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/181 "2011-03-16T02:41:15Z")
> [@xenophon41](#): > > Thank you for your post, **Una**. It may have been wasted on some readers, but I for one appreciate your effort. I’m sure others agree. Well I cheated somewhat, in that Cecil asked me to look up mining stats last summer and I had some info handy. Or maybe that’s not cheating; I still had to go to the library and do the work instead of sitting at home and relaxing…in any event, I hope it at least provides some useful data points for folks in any relative comparison of total fuel-cycle safety. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/182 "2011-03-16T02:53:53Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Three of the Tokyo nuke plant execs resigned in shame for fudging safety records. They were caught . It was some time ago. That is business as usual in power. > You should read up on alternative energy. There are some interesting developments coming up. > CNN is saying they withdrew the last 50 workers from the plants. The nuke expert ,who was mostly pro seems shocked. > [Fukushima: Mark 1 Nuclear Reactor Design Caused GE Scientist To Quit In Protest - ABC News](http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fukushima-mark-nuclear-reactor-design-caused-ge-scientist/story?id=13141287) It is largely a human problem. But not totally. Coal is worse and there is no other alternative. BTW do you power your computer with solar or wind? Mine is nuke and coal. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/183 "2011-03-16T03:02:18Z")
> [@xenophon41](#): > > [Another summary](http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/16/fukushima-16-march-summary/) is available from Barry Brook at BraveNewClimate. These have been the most accessible explanations of what’s going on that I’ve found. Easy to follow if you’re not technically illiterate, but not over the head of non-engineers/scientists. I disagree when he says it is not a failure but proof of the robustness of nuke plants. The containment buildings are blowing up leaving the cooling tanks exposed. There is cesium being vented.and now the workers have abandoned the plants. This could get super ugly. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/184 "2011-03-16T03:04:10Z")
According to the experts, it’s already seriously seriously bad. If only there was a way to measure the radiation coming out of the plant somehow. And a way to fly a craft over the plant and take video. But until such things exist, we wait. In the dark, so to speak. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/185 "2011-03-16T03:12:24Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > I disagree when he says it is not a failure but proof of the robustness of nuke plants. The containment buildings are blowing up leaving the cooling tanks exposed. There is cesium being vented.and now the workers have abandoned the plants. This could get super ugly. Do you think that there will be more overall danger from materials emitted into the environment than would have been created by the hundreds of coal fired plants that would have been required over the last half century to replace Japan’s nuclear power industry? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/186 "2011-03-16T03:15:54Z")
My biggest objection to nuclear as opposed to other energy sources is the worst case scenario. If everything goes sideways in a coal plant or coal mine or anywhere in between, It can never be as bad as the worst case scenario for nuclear. No matter how reassuring the proponents wax, no matter how remote the statistics suggest the worst may be, the fact remains that if the stars align to beat the odds, we could be well and royally fucked for a long time. We are seeing some of that play out in Japan, so claims that “that could never happen here” are ringing very hollow. Some of the nuclear plants on the west coast are constructed to [withstand only withstand a 7.0 earthquake](http://www.ocregister.com/articles/plant-291963-alexander-onofre.html?pic=1). Are you really willing to stake the future of a large swath of California on the hope that the Big One that is way overdue will respect the design limits of San Onofre? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/187 "2011-03-16T03:19:37Z")
[http://www.deccanherald.com/content/146030/japan-pm-nuclear-power-firm.html](http://www.deccanherald.com/content/146030/japan-pm-nuclear-power-firm.html) It is the same all over the world. Money trumps safety and the public health. The Japanese have had repeated problems with safety violations. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/188 "2011-03-16T03:22:47Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Ah… > > I should have known better than to try to bring some facts to the table. The fault is mine, really, for trying. It’s not lost on me. A while back a dump truck full of yellowcake overturned on the highway in Colorado Springs. There was a little worry, but it turns out uranium ore and yellowcake are fairly innocuous. Its transport is governed by hazmat, but it’s not considered nuclear material. I wouldn’t take a bath in it, but it’s no reason to run screaming, either. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/189 "2011-03-16T03:33:39Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [Japan PM to nuclear power firm: "What the hell's going on?](http://www.deccanherald.com/content/146030/japan-pm-nuclear-power-firm.html) It is the same all over the world. Money trumps safety and the public health. The Japanese have had repeated problems with safety violations. And more coal plants would fix this how? ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/190 "2011-03-16T03:33:54Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > No matter how reassuring the proponents wax, no matter how remote the statistics suggest the worst may be, the fact remains that if the stars align to beat the odds, we could be well and royally fucked for a long time. We are seeing some of that play out in Japan, so claims that “that could never happen here” are ringing very hollow. As I said in post #9, it isn’t the odds, it’s the stakes. Last I heard, the reactor containments were all intact and the seawater flooding had gone successfully. The decay heat is dropping off all the time and the reactors _may_ be okay for the moment. The fuel pools are a different matter and the radiation released by the fuel pool fire at reactor 4 has driven all personnel off site. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/191 "2011-03-16T03:36:00Z")
I think no matter how bad it gets, pro nukers will still be claiming nuclear power is safe. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/192 "2011-03-16T03:43:46Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I think no matter how bad it gets, pro nukers will still be claiming nuclear power is safe. Do you have a link to any reasoned argument that coal is an overall safer way to generate power? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/193 "2011-03-16T03:49:07Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > Do you have a link to any reasoned argument that coal is an overall safer way to generate power? What’s the worst that could happen? ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/194 "2011-03-16T03:50:35Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > Do you have a link to any reasoned argument that coal is an overall safer way to generate power? Not to sound like an ass, but it depends how you define safer. I don’t think anyone cares if terrorists get their hands on a bucket of coal and set it on fire. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/195 "2011-03-16T03:51:11Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > My biggest objection to nuclear as opposed to other energy sources is the worst case scenario. If everything goes sideways in a coal plant or coal mine or anywhere in between, It can never be as bad as the worst case scenario for nuclear. When you say worse case scenario do you mean like Chernobyl or something even worse? Chernobyl was a very bad industrial accident but there have been others just as bad or worse in other industries, industries which are still intact presumably because society deems the risk to be worthwhile. And the up side of nuke power, all that power, is a big one. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/196 "2011-03-16T04:01:56Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Not to sound like an ass, but it depends how you define safer. I don’t think anyone cares if terrorists get their hands on a bucket of coal and set it on fire. Part of the appeal of a dirty bomb would be the hysteria caused by the reporting of a dirty bomb, regardless of how effective an actual weapon had been constructed. There are all kinds of nasty chemicals around and many other ways to do damage that would be easier and more practical than finding and carting around nuclear fuel, including buckets of burning coal. It is always easier to destroy than to create. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/197 "2011-03-16T04:05:35Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [Japan PM to nuclear power firm: "What the hell's going on?](http://www.deccanherald.com/content/146030/japan-pm-nuclear-power-firm.html) It is the same all over the world. Money trumps safety and the public health. The Japanese have had repeated problems with safety violations. Well the not-for-profit chernobyl went to fuck and back so maybe you could stick a pin in your profit-is-eevil montra for a bit. There are hundreds of other nuclear plants running just fine. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/198 "2011-03-16T04:08:42Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > What’s the worst that could happen? A child who would otherwise have cured cancer/ ended war/ invented cool moon base technology, gets mercury poisoning and brain damage from burnt coal. Then we get hit by a huge asteroid that we would have been able to escape otherwise. You asked for the worst. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/199 "2011-03-16T04:12:02Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > What’s the worst that could happen? [http://climateprogress.org/2010/11/29/royal-society-special-issue-4-degrees-world/](http://climateprogress.org/2010/11/29/royal-society-special-issue-4-degrees-world/) > [@](#): > > **Royal Society special issue details ‘hellish vision’ of 7°F (4°C) world — which we may face in the 2060s!** > > One of the greatest failings of the climate science community (and the media) is not spelling out as clearly as possible the risks we face on our current emissions path, as well as the plausible worst-case scenario, which includes massive ecosystem collapse. So much of what the public and policymakers think is coming is a combination of > > 1. The low end of the expected range of warming and impacts based on aggressive policies to reduce emissions (and no serious carbon-cycle feedbacks) > 2. Analyses of a few selected impacts, but not an integrated examination of multiple impacts > 3. Disinformation pushed by the anti-science, pro-pollution crowd > > In fairness, a key reason the scientific community hasn’t studied the high emissions scenarios much until recently because they never thought humanity would be so self-destructive as to ignore their warnings for so long, which has put us on the highest emissions path (see U.S. media largely ignores latest warning from climate scientists: “Recent observations confirm … the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised” — 1000 ppm [A1FI]). > > Another important Royal Society article is the concluding piece, “The role of interactions in a world implementing adaptation and mitigation solutions to climate change,” by Rachel Warren. She makes a crucial point that is all too neglected in most discussions of adaptation — it is the interaction of impacts that is likely to overwhelm, particularly when you consider the very real risk of eco-system collapse over large parts of the Earth: > > … > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > … a 4°C world would be facing enormous adaptation challenges in the agricultural sector, with large areas of cropland becoming unsuitable for cultivation, and declining agricultural yields. This world would also rapidly be losing its ecosystem services, owing to large losses in biodiversity, forests, coastal wetlands, mangroves and saltmarshes, and terrestrial carbon stores, supported by an acidified and potentially dysfunctional marine ecosystem. Drought and desertification would be widespread, with large numbers of people experiencing increased water stress, and others experiencing changes in seasonality of water supply. There would be a need to shift agricultural cropping to new areas, impinging on unmanaged ecosystems and decreasing their resilience; and large-scale adaptation to sea-level rise would be necessary. Human and natural systems would be subject to increasing levels of agricultural pests and diseases, and increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. > > > > In such a 4°C world, the limits for human adaptation are likely to be exceeded in many parts of the world, while the limits for adaptation for natural systems would largely be exceeded throughout the world. Hence, the ecosystem services upon which human livelihoods depend would not be preserved. Even though some studies have suggested that adaptation in some areas might still be feasible for human systems, such assessments have generally not taken into account lost ecosystem services. > > > > ``` > > Precisely. > > Right now, even the worst-case analyses for adaptation ignore the potential impact of ecosystem collapse (see Scientists find “net present value of climate change impacts” of $1240 TRILLION on current emissions path, making mitigation to under 450 ppm a must). Mind you, you are asking for the worst, that piece is missing the expected ocean acidification and other bad effects. That is the picture if the high end of the uncertainties comes to pass, you do not want to see the less supported effects that alarmists outside of science or with less support are claiming the high end could be. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2011, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/200 "2011-03-16T04:13:32Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Well the not-for-profit chernobyl went to fuck and back so maybe you could stick a pin in your profit-is-eevil montra for a bit. There are hundreds of other nuclear plants running just fine. Tell the Japanese ,the people at Chernobyl ,the people at 3 mile island and the people around the Fermi plant in Detroit , that nuclear power is fine. What is it, they are safe until 50 percent of them blow up? At what point do you question? Probably none. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647.md?page=11)