What evidence? The entire US intelligence community says otherwise.
But I wouldn’t trust Zimbabwe to run a coal-fired plant either. They likely won’t pay any attention to the environment and will fill the air with toxins, adding acid rain to the problems of the surrounding countries. I don’t know where the coal would come from but if Zimbabwe was in charge then thousands of miners would likely die in the tunnels or from lung disease. The resulting slag heaps would poison the water shed for decades. Then, of course, are the problems brought on by the CO2 and AGW.
So I guess the question is to you: what’s the lesser of two evils, a nuclear plant or the equivalent coal-fired plants?
I think you’ve put your finger on the common perception of nuclear power. I don’t think Homer Simpson is running it, but I’m afraid that Monty Burns is managing it - look at what’s happening with the US universal healthcare debacle to see how the best intentions get perverted by lobby groups, egos, and profit-above-all-else capitalism.
That was kind of my point, too - I don’t want any kind of Mugabe or Kim Jong Un or Ahmadinejab running nuclear plants in Canada, but who am I to say what they do in their own countries?
Well, NPPs are usually sited next to oceans, lakes and rivers that other people use, so there’s that. Also, you don’t want a nutjob with enrichment and reprocessing technology hemorrhaging nuclear fuel and waste to whomever is willing to pay for it, for whatever nefarious purpose.
OTOH, it’s hypocritical for the US & Canada to play with this technology and deny it to other sovereign states like Iran.
Well, if I got a job in Zimbabwe, Id want to be 5 miles away from the coal plant, and 100 miles away from the nuclear plant.
I don’t think you’re calculating the risks correctly. Assuming equal negligence in both cases you are more likely to die (or have lingering health issues) from the smog or chemicals leaching into your water supply than a nuclear disaster.
To avoid the hijack, I will amend to claimed evidence or percieved fear of … 'kay?
There is only one nuclear power plant in Québec.
Its reactor, a standard CANDU-6, is being decommissioned. The decision to shut it down was taken in 2012; official reason was that it was due for an overhaul and the overhaul of a similar reactor at Pointe-Lepreau (New Brunswick) had cost way more than planned. There was also some political aspect to this, NIMBY being quite popular.
I haven’t heard of any significant accidents at Gentilly-2 in its 30 years of operation. Or of any corruption scandals concerning it.
Here you are:
So it’s 74% and not 80% in this poll. Sue me.
The other elements have already been addressed. This is not just my opinion, this reflects the opinion of the people living in Japan. I was there during that period.
What will the politicians and business people do? DSeid hit it squarely in his post and I’ve already said it as well. They are turning to fossil fuel while looking for alternatives.
What hard evidence? That not as many people have died in nuclear accidents? I’ve already said that I know that.
No one has addressed how to the safety concerns for the Japanese. Simply dismissing them as “emotion response” is not furthering your aims.
Nor have I glossed over the problems caused by fossil fuels. I’ve repeated stated that this is a tough decision.
I’m not sure I see a point in continuing this discussion. We’re down to repeating ourselves.
Unless there is anything further, I’m not particularly interested in having the concerns of my friends dismissed as “emotional.”
One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. What some call common sense is group think for others. Most people are not particularly good at having give and take discussions. It’s just easier to attack people rather than try to understand them.
Cat, asked but not answered:
But IMO it is an emotional response. It is very similar to people who are afraid of flying despite evidence that flying is safer.
My husband pointed something out to me that I had been missing - Japanese people do indeed have an emotional response to all things nuclear, and rightly so. It would be foolish to overlook how emotions play into the nuclear debate in Japan.
To refresh my memory, the original post by me:
The dangers of nuclear power can be mitigated by strict, regulations and third-party oversight and massive penalties for non-compliance,up to an including shutting plants down.
Mitigating should also include making the technology better, and using the best technology available to create the smallest problems possible.
I don’t know what to do about Japan. It’s hard to escape the reality of requiring a large amount of energy, and that energy is likely to come from nuclear power plants. If you don’t trust your government to regulate them properly, I don’t know what the solution is. I don’t think no nukes is the answer, though - I think that’s a knee-jerk reaction.
As for what should happen in China, everything I’ve just said. They should also have strong third-party oversight and massive penalties for fucking around. As with Zimbabwe, though, they are a sovereign nation and will do as they please in their own country.
One thing that occurs to me regarding nuclear power versus coal plants - if China doesn’t maintain their nuclear plants properly, it kills Chinese people and contaminates
Chinese soil. Dirty coal plants pollute the air for everyone, and China has A LOT of dirty coal plants. In some ways, nuclear plants in China worry me a lot less than all their coal plants.
I support it whole-heartedly as the best alternative to fossil fuels.
TokyoBayer, I apologize if you’ve already said it, but would your feelings change about nuclear power if it wasn’t operated by lying scumbags like TEPCO? One advantage of the US’s tort regime is that it does help keep corporate interests somewhat honest. (At least compared to other nations. Really. Stop laughing. And I know Price-Anderson screws that idea up a bit.)
Absolutely. I stated upstream that I had been a proponent of nuclear energy.
To recap:
My greatest objections to nuclear power are in Japan. That is 100%. TEPCO and the government have proven that they are completely unable to handle nuclear energy safely and have shown callous disregard for public safety. Ironically, while I had been concerned prior to Fukushima, it wasn’t until the ongoing insanely stupidity in their mishandling which continues today.
Here’s an example from a story in CNN last year.
While the New York Times has run many articles on the various incidents which have occurred post tsunami, including idiotic operator errors, let’s look at the water situation. There is all of this highly radioactive water and they don’t know what to do. No volume gauges? Bolting water tanks together? Does this seem like a good idea to you? I’m not going to bore you with a bunch of quotes, but this is an ongoing, serious issue and neither TEPCO nor the government really has any good ideas.
Nuclear power plant operators in Japan have continued to skip inspections, even after Fukushima. At this stage, they simply cannot be trusted.
Second, I do not like nuclear power for the rest of East Asia because of inadequate government oversight.
Finally, for the US, as I have stated that I am not completely against nuclear power, although I can understand people who are. I’m not out in the streets demanding that current power plants be taken offline, although I would be very much opposed to building new plants until they solve the spend fuel issue.
Emotions play a part in *every * discussion of serious topics. Every time time there is another school shooting in America, for example.
I suspect that you are not particularly interested in really addressing the concerns by those who don’t agree with you and dismissing them as “emotional” and my implication, not rational doesn’t really leave much to discuss.
Which is what we forced in Japan, except that because there wasn’t strict regulations and because the power companies were falsifying tests and skipping inspections, the public went straight to the “nuclear option” on nuclear power. Shut it down. Which is what you are recommending.
Which comes with much of a cost, as discussed above. Hence nuclear power is too expensive.
That’s probably because you aren’t aware of the depth of problems plaguing the nuclear industry. The residents of Japan are aware and this is why they follow your logical advice. When regulation and oversight fail, then shut things down.
What should happen and what does happen are completely separate issues. It’s incredible naive to say that China should have strong third-party oversight as that ain’t the case.
Wow. This is the bottom line, isn’t it? Most people are less honest in citing selfish interests when casually disregarding other human lives.
I can’t agree with you. I believe that even Chinese lives are worth something and it’s deeply disturbing to read someone who doesn’t.
In your assessment, what is the actual danger of an nuclear incident in Japan? What factors does it depend on? What are the risks? Is it completely or almost completely without risk? What would be the possible consequences?
You are stating a fact, so I presume you have a good handle on the situation. I’m interested in your assessment.
And you would be wrong. Your contributions to this thread have been very valuable to me.
I think you may have misunderstood me; Japan has had nuclear bombs dropped on their populace, and have lived with the repercussions of those events for decades. Very few other nations have had this experience with nuclear radiation, and it makes sense to me that the Japanese people would have a very gut reaction to the idea of further nuclear damage. I wasn’t being dismissive of the Japanese people for being emotional about nuclear power; they have a very good reason for being so.
China should have third-party oversight, just like everyone else. I’m nowhere near naive enough to think that China is going to allow it, though. China does as China wants.
If I have a choice between China crapping up the whole planet, or China just crapping up China, I’m going to choose the latter, and I don’t think that makes me a monster or indicates that I don’t value Chinese life. I’d prefer China not crap anything up.
China has 15 locations that are members of WANO. WANO doesn’t screw around.
Some people are pulling speculations out of their butt here without knowing facts.
The nuclear industry is amongst the safest industries in the world. Occasionally shit happens. Occasionally planes crash, accidents are investigated and corrective actions are implemented.
Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States
[ul]
[li]there have been at least 56 accidents at nuclear reactors in the United States (defined as incidents that either resulted in the loss of human life or more than US$50,000 of property damage)[/li]
[li]The United States General Accountability Office reported more than 150 incidents from 2001 to 2006 alone of nuclear plants not performing within acceptable safety guidelines.[/li]
[li]In 2006, it said: “Since 2001, the ROP has resulted in more than 4,000 inspection findings concerning nuclear power plant licensees’ failure to fully comply with NRC regulations and industry standards for safe plant operation, and NRC has subjected more than 75 percent (79) of the 103 operating plants to increased oversight for varying periods”.[/li]
[li]Seventy-one percent of all recorded major nuclear accidents, including meltdowns, explosions, fires, and loss of coolants, occurred in the United States, and they happened during both normal operations as well as emergency situations such as floods, droughts, and earthquakes.[/li][/ul]
I remain unconvinced by nuclear proponents’ emotional pleas about nuclear power’s safety and even less convinced that even more safety regulations would somehow make it in any way economical.
How many people died in those accidents, to offset the numbers of people we know died as a result of fossil fuel usage?
Regards,
Shodan
1980 called, wants its argument back.
According to the wikipedia link you provided, there have been 9 fatalities since 1955 (59 years). 4 of which appear to be due to electrocution, and one due to a falling piece of equipment. 3 People died when there was an explosion and meltdown at an experimental reactor in 1961. These 3 deaths are the only deaths attributable to a reactor incident in the United States.
In 2012, 20 people died in coal mines, one of the lowest death tolls by year on record. http://www.msha.gov/MSHAINFO/FactSheets/MSHAFCT10.HTM
There may be an an agrument to be made against nuclear in the US, but safety probably isn’t it.