# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2011, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/41 "2011-03-14T17:57:46Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > You can be sure the spokesmen for the Japanese plants are telling the truth about the problems they are facing. They would never lie to the people. > Of course sailors on the Reagan are getting exposed to the completely contained radiation. **gonzomax** , you kept making the same sarcastic little “nothing to see here” comments in the Pit thread, and I didn’t call you on them. I think, considering the venue of this thread, I’ll push: Where exactly do you think Tokyo Electric Power and/or the Japanese government are being dishonest or inaccurate in their statements? Could you provide actual quotations and cite actual evidence contradicting the pronouncements? And what do you mean about the sailors being exposed to radiation, other than stating the obvious? Right now, _ **you** _ are being exposed to radiation as well. Do you think you’ve said anything meaningful or significant? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2011, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/42 "2011-03-14T18:29:33Z")
Best of a bad lot? Likely so. I’ve been trying to adjust to nuke power because, just as is said, it may very well be unavoidable. And I must take a moment to remind you guys, once again, that if you had listened to us crazy ass moonbats forty years ago, and started plowing some serious bucks into alternative energy resources, we might not be in this mess. We didn’t, because there was no profit to be had. Oh, sure, some gestures were made, a bit of research here and there, looks good for the PR front. And thereby hangs the tale. We are a capitalist/consumerist nation, and that presents us with certain inherent weaknesses. Our science follows money. Just for instance, we know a whole lot about viruses that cause cancer, we are pretty thoroughly researched on that. Why? Because tobacco companies cheerfully funded such research, hoping to get out from under lung cancer. Turns out, viruses don’t cause very much cancer, but we know lots and lots about it! Yay! There’s an inherent bias in our information. That is not the same as saying the books are cooked, or the science is faked, not at all. But if a scientists approaches these issues from a strictly non-biased viewpoint, he is a fool if he doesn’t know that one set of results will be greeted with glad cries and hosannas, and another set of results might ensure that he never gets another research grant as long as he lives. TL:DR - we don’t pay for non-biased research, we demand practical results. Results that cost us money and/or profitability are not welcome. And how much are we willing to pay for safety? Sure, the engineers can cook up a plan with double, triple safeguards. What is the cost of implementing those safeguards, at what point will a bean-counter say “Well, really, this is going to cost us 10 percent of our profit margin, we probably don’t need it, why, Ive got research right here from Unbiased University that says the odds are a million to one against! And we know the research is good because we paid for it!” Unbiased decisions cannot meaningfully exist where profit is a motivator. And then there’s Catch 22, where “22” is an exponent: water. I am compelled in the direction of nuke plants largely from the threat of global warming. But nuke plants _must_ have water. And brothers and sisters, pals and gals, the next big fight isn’t going to be about oil. Its gonna be about water. If we’re gonna build a buttload of nuke plants, well, where? The middle of American used to be called the Great American Desert. (Take a moment to plug a history by Jonathon Raban, _Badlands_, helluva story, true story, grim story…) So there’s plenty of places to put nuke plants where hardly anybody lives. But the reason nobody lives there is because there’s no water. So we either build in highly populated areas, with another set of concerns, because that’s where the water is, or we find water we there is none. Maybe we could build them all in Canada? Canada has lots of water, they won’t mind. The love us to pieces up there, they’ll be happy to take on our risk. Besides, give us any shit, we raise their rent. The only answer is the Holy Grail of Cheap, Clean Energy. The Green Goblet. But nuke power isn’t a cure, its a crutch. And sure as shit, if we get a bunch of nuke energy, we most likely will squander it just like we squandered all the others. Its what we do, we’re consumers. We consume. Anyway, I’m trying to adjust to what appears to be the Inevitable. I was heartened by the admirable safety record. I’d have to be, I’ve been beaten about the head and shoulders with that safety record for years. “Look at France! Look at Japan! Shuttup, you Luddite moonbat, and look at France and…OK, look at France!” ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2011, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/43 "2011-03-14T18:41:11Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Best of a bad lot? Likely so. I’ve been trying to adjust to nuke power because, just as is said, it may very well be unavoidable. And I must take a moment to remind you guys, once again, that if you had listened to us crazy ass moonbats forty years ago, and started plowing some serious bucks into alternative energy resources, we might not be in this mess. We didn’t, because there was no profit to be had. Oh, sure, some gestures were made, a bit of research here and there, looks good for the PR front. [/QUOTE] And if you moonbats hadn’t gotten your panties in a twist over evil nuclear energy perhaps we wouldn’t have 40 year old designs still in commission, and instead we’d have a lot more NEW designs in use that would be a hell of a lot safer. And perhaps we’d have fewer coal fired plants in production, ehe? > [@](#): > > Anyway, I’m trying to adjust to what appears to be the Inevitable. I was heartened by the admirable safety record. I’d have to be, I’ve been beaten about the head and shoulders with that safety record for years. “Look at France! Look at Japan! Shuttup, you Luddite moonbat, and look at France and…OK, look at France!” Yeah, 'cause if a nuclear power plant can’t survive a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and subsequent tidal wave intact without killing thousands of people then…oh, wait! They DID survive. Intact. Even though it was 40 years old, and not the safest design. And, oh yeah, did I mention that this was one of the largest earthquakes in recorded history? And that it was also hit by a tidal wave? > [@](#): > > The only answer is the Holy Grail of Cheap, Clean Energy. The Green Goblet. But nuke power isn’t a cure, its a crutch. And sure as shit, if we get a bunch of nuke energy, we most likely will squander it just like we squandered all the others. Its what we do, we’re consumers. We consume. Yeah. Sadly, the ONLY Clean Energy that actually can be scaled up to meet our needs is…nuclear. Ironic, no? 😛 ETA: > [@](#): > > And then there’s Catch 22, where “22” is an exponent: water. I am compelled in the direction of nuke plants largely from the threat of global warming. But nuke plants must have water. And brothers and sisters, pals and gals, the next big fight isn’t going to be about oil. Its gonna be about water. If we’re gonna build a buttload of nuke plants, well, where? I assume you mean ‘drinking water’, since water on a planet composed of 70% oceans isn’t a major problem. Have you been following the big floods happening on the East Coast by chance? (I do agree that water is going to be a big deal, especially in the desert regions…but I’m not particularly worried about building nuclear power plants next to water, especially if you moonbats ever get out of the way and allow newer designs to be built…some of which don’t have near the same water requirements for cooling at least) -XT ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2011, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/44 "2011-03-14T18:47:05Z")
It did not survive. it will have to be shut down. It suffered a meltdown. That is bad. That is not a point for its safety. It will take about 10 years to construct a new nuke plant with the normal huge cost over runs. Who knows what the next decade will bring in alternative energy improvements. Nuclear is yesterdays answer. It is not the energy of the future. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2011, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/45 "2011-03-14T18:49:27Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > … ehe?.. You promised. Never again with that annoying affectation. Look, you need some sort of mild, hamless eccentricity to show how individual you are, wear a bow tie, ok? ---
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2011, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/46 "2011-03-14T18:52:43Z")
Folks might want to Google “Thorium reactor” to see where we might head technology-wise. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2011, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/47 "2011-03-14T18:53:39Z")
[QUOTE=gonzomax] It did not survive. it will have to be shut down. It suffered a meltdown. That is bad. That is not a point for its safety. [/QUOTE] It survived INTACT gonzo. If it didn’t, then it would be a huge radiating nuclear disaster. It is finished as a power plant most likely, but it did what it was built to do…contain the radiation in even such a disaster as a huge earthquake and tidal wave. > [@](#): > > It will take about 10 years to construct a new nuke plant with the normal huge cost over runs. Who knows what the next decade will bring in alternative energy improvements. I can pretty confidently say that in 10 years alternative energy will still not make up a majority of any major nations energy mix. And in Japan they won’t be able to build the same capacity alternative power plant using alternative energy means as a new nuclear plant…so the ‘alternative’ would be a large coal fired plant. > [@](#): > > Nuclear is yesterdays answer. It is not the energy of the future. And yet technologies that scale up to the same level as coal today don’t exist EXCEPT for nuclear. Maybe the other will in the ‘future’…if we want to wait around another couple of decades or a century or so. -XT ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2011, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/48 "2011-03-14T18:55:42Z")
> **[Japan Nuclear Plant Rocked By Second Blast](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/japan-nuclear-plant-japan-earthquake-2011_n_835279)** > > Japan Nuclear Plant Rocked By Second Blast Yep, XT this is a roaring success. The plant has blown the top off of 2 containment buildings. That is still intact only in your world. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2011, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/49 "2011-03-14T18:56:31Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] You promised. Never again with that annoying affectation. Look, you need some sort of mild, hamless eccentricity to show how individual you are, wear a bow tie, ok? [/QUOTE] I did promise that, but in my defense I only trot it out on special occasions these days…or when I’m feeling particularly mischievous or exasperated. As for the bow tie…have you ever seen a fat, balding Hispanic male wearing a bow tie? Yikes! :eek: -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2011, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/50 "2011-03-14T18:59:54Z")
[QUOTE=gonzomax] Yep, XT this is a roaring success. The plant has blown the top off of 2 containment buildings. That is still intact only in your world. [/QUOTE] From your own cite: > [@](#): > > SOMA, Japan – The second hydrogen explosion in three days rocked a Japanese nuclear plant Monday, sending a massive cloud of smoke into the air and injuring 11 workers. The blast was felt 25 miles (40 kilometers) away, but the plant’s operator said the radiation levels at the affected unit were still within legal limits. So…it is intact. It did what it was designed to do which is to contain the radiation. What part of this are you NOT getting, gonzo? Here, perhaps your own cite can explain it in terms you will be able to grasp: > [@](#): > > **The inner containment shell surrounding the Unit 3 reactor was intact** , Edano said, allaying some fears of the risk to the environment and public. But the outer building around the reactor appeared to have been devastated, with only a skeletal frame remaining. I helpfully bolded and underlined the key phrase for you. Let me know if you are still having trouble grasping the point. -XT ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2011, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/51 "2011-03-14T19:04:04Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [Japan Nuclear Plant Rocked By Second Blast, Nuclear Rods Likely Melting | HuffPost The World Post](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/14/japan-nuclear-plant-japan-earthquake-2011_n_835279.html) > Yep, XT this is a roaring success. The plant has blown the top off of 2 containment buildings. That is still intact only in your world. **gonzomax** , any chance you’ll you respond to [post #41](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13570465&postcount=41)? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2011, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/52 "2011-03-14T19:05:32Z")
> [@](#): > > The inner containment shell surrounding the Unit 3 reactor was intact, Edano said, allaying **some** fears of the risk to the environment and public. But the outer building around the reactor appeared to have been devastated, with only a skeletal frame remaining. I helpfully bolded and underlined the key phrase for you. Let me know if you are still having trouble grasping the point. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2011, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/53 "2011-03-14T19:07:15Z")
> [@](#): > > Anyway, I’m trying to adjust to what appears to be the Inevitable. I was heartened by the admirable safety record. I’d have to be, I’ve been beaten about the head and shoulders with that safety record for years. “Look at France! Look at Japan! Shuttup, you Luddite moonbat, and look at France and…OK, look at France!” The plants in Japan are currently doing an excellent job of demonstrating how safe nuclear power is. Can you name me a single energy-production facility, other than nuke plants, that survived unharmed in Japan? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2011, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/54 "2011-03-14T19:11:24Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] I helpfully bolded and underlined the key phrase for you. Let me know if you are still having trouble grasping the point. [/QUOTE] Actually yeah…I’m having trouble grasping the relevance of this wrt the side discussion. The fact that there are still some ‘fears’ (from the public) really has little or nothing to do with the fact that, thus far the containment vessels continue to remain ‘intact’…which is what I said. Perhaps another massive quake will hit and that won’t be the case anymore (anything human built can only take so much after all). Of course, if that happened then that plant losing containment will be the least of the Japanese worries. If you’d like to, er, elucidate whatever point you think you are making here that I’m missing wrt what’s actually being discussed, feel free. -XT ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2011, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/55 "2011-03-14T19:12:30Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I helpfully bolded and underlined the key phrase for you. Let me know if you are still having trouble grasping the point. **'luce** , what does that mean? We already have one person in the thread making arch and content free insinuations. I thought you had a clearer head than this, and that you at least were able to follow the flow of arguments adequately. I’m pretty sure **xtisme** never claimed the continued integrity of the containment vessels took care of _every_ public safety concern, but maybe you could be more responsive than **gonzo** and actually show me where anyone said it did? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2011, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/56 "2011-03-14T19:38:27Z")
Its spin by implication, by omission. The more correct statement would be “there are reassuring signs of containment integrity, but it ain’t over till its over.” And it ain’t. If **Gonzo** doesn’t get a “spin pass”, why should he? ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2011, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/57 "2011-03-14T19:50:55Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > Who was it that used to post the [video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25vlt7swhCM)of the jet plane hitting a mock up of a containment dome? IIRC, it was a doper whose dad had been in charge of the test, and was literally looking to see if a containment dome would withstand the strike. The plane simply crumbles into dust. > > It would take a LOT to compromise the containment dome of a nuclear power plant, and, if I understand correctly, until that happens, any sabotage is going to be a huge, ugly, expensive mess, but not a danger to public safety. That was me, and my Dad ran that test. IIRC, for the Japanese no less. I still fully support nukes. This is about the worst possible series of events that could happen to a nuke plant. They came through ok considering that they got hit by a massive earthquake and freaking tsunami. What really kinda freaks me out about the whole ‘nuclear is gonna kill us ALL!’ folks is that they apparently cannot understand relative safety. What happened to the Japanese plants is bad. However, over their 40 year lifespan this is the worst that has happened by far. If you tally up the deaths from a coal fired plant over 40 years due to pollution and other related issues, it is gonna be clear that the coal plant will have killed or injured way more than a nuke plant. Yet the anti-nuke folks can’t quite seem to grasp this. Slee ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2011, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/58 "2011-03-14T20:02:46Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Its spin by implication, by omission. The more correct statement would be “there are reassuring signs of containment integrity, but it ain’t over till its over.” And it ain’t. If **Gonzo** doesn’t get a “spin pass”, why should he? Neither of them are spinning. Brother **gonzo** hasn’t said anything of enough substance to be spun, and **xtisme** said quite truthfully the containment vessels are intact. It would be spin if he’d also said “so there’s no possibility of any worse radiological disaster”, but he never even implied that as far as I can tell. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2011, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/59 "2011-03-14T20:06:46Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > \… over their 40 year lifespan this is the worst that has happened by far. If you tally up the deaths from a coal fired plant over 40 years due to pollution and other related issues, it is gonna be clear that the coal plant will have killed or injured way more than a nuke plant. Yet the anti-nuke folks can’t quite seem to grasp this. Quoted for truth. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2011, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/60 "2011-03-14T20:07:36Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > If you tally up the deaths from a coal fired plant over 40 years due to pollution and other related issues, it is gonna be clear that the coal plant will have killed or injured way more than a nuke plant. Yet the anti-nuke folks can’t quite seem to grasp this. Agreed but nuclear power evokes a visceral reaction that you don’t get from some vague idea that coal power maybe reduced your lifespan by a few years. I think many people suppose a nuclear power plant can blow up like a bomb (it can’t). Or that they will get radiation sickness which is pretty horrible. Or that a nuclear accident can render a whole area uninhabitable (ala Chernobyl). Coal just doesn’t seem as scary. Education is the solution to this but most people won’t bother and prefer to live with their fears. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647.md?page=4)