deltamrey wrote: CG - some nuclear plants are sited near faults.
Indeed we via 104 plants generate more power that other nations. Get used to it, get over it.....it is the future. The best we can do is to minimize the probability of future accidents. Solar/wind.........tooo small to have any impact on our (400 million USA souls) need for power. We all cannot live in old VW buses, smoke dope, and whine.......those folks (few remain) will be dead really soon.
So its either one or the other? That seems a rather foolish point of view. I don't trust nuclear power and don't want it in my back yard or, for that matter, anywhere close to where I live, but I don't live in a VW and smoke dope.
Electricity is essential TM, that is why it has been labeled a utility instead of a commodity. The nation needs to have a predictable and reliable amount of electricity. We can't get that from sources that rely on variables over which there is no control. That predictable and reliable power can only come from source that derives its power from fuel that can be controlled. Currently that leaves us with a choice between fossil and nuclear, unless we want to start damming up the rivers and building hydroelectric plants that is, which is almost as offensive, if not more offensive, to the environmentalists than nuclear power is. Someday, hopefully soon, some kind of fuel cell, either individual or commercial, will be developed that replaces these forms, but until that day comes, we have to have a supply that is predictable and relatively inexpensive or our whole nation comes to a grinding halt economically.
So, for now at least, we either have to continue to spew all that CO2 into the atmosphere and risk falling off the precipice of an irreversible warming cycle (if you believe in AGW), build nuclear plants that could, possibly, if layer upon layer upon layer of safeties fail, irradiate a relatively small area of land that precludes us from living there (Chernobyl exclusion zone is 30km - an area of about 2830 miles total), or dam up the rivers and use the power of falling water to drive the turbines (which risks extinction for animals whose importance to the ecological balance we don't fully understand). Pick you poison, or mix of them you find acceptable, TM. Economic deflation and a lower, less healthy standard of living, poisoning of the atmosphere, risk of radiation, or destruction of entire species.
deltamrey wrote: CG - some nuclear plants are sited near faults.
Indeed we via 104 plants generate more power that other nations. Get used to it, get over it.....it is the future. The best we can do is to minimize the probability of future accidents. Solar/wind.........tooo small to have any impact on our (400 million USA souls) need for power. We all cannot live in old VW buses, smoke dope, and whine.......those folks (few remain) will be dead really soon.
So its either one or the other? That seems a rather foolish point of view. I don't trust nuclear power and don't want it in my back yard or, for that matter, anywhere close to where I live, but I don't live in a VW and smoke dope.
Electricity is essential TM, that is why it has been labeled a utility instead of a commodity. The nation needs to have a predictable and reliable amount of electricity. We can't get that from sources that rely on variables over which there is no control. That predictable and reliable power can only come from source that derives its power from fuel that can be controlled. Currently that leaves us with a choice between fossil and nuclear, unless we want to start damming up the rivers and building hydroelectric plants that is, which is almost as offensive, if not more offensive, to the environmentalists than nuclear power is. Someday, hopefully soon, some kind of fuel cell, either individual or commercial, will be developed that replaces these forms, but until that day comes, we have to have a supply that is predictable and relatively inexpensive or our whole nation comes to a grinding halt economically.
So, for now at least, we either have to continue to spew all that CO2 into the atmosphere and risk falling off the precipice of an irreversible warming cycle (if you believe in AGW), build nuclear plants that could, possibly, if layer upon layer upon layer of safeties fail, irradiate a relatively small area of land that precludes us from living there (Chernobyl exclusion zone is 30km - an area of about 2830 miles total), or dam up the rivers and use the power of falling water to drive the turbines (which risks extinction for animals whose importance to the ecological balance we don't fully understand). Pick you poison, or mix of them you find acceptable, TM. Economic deflation and a lower, less healthy standard of living, poisoning of the atmosphere, risk of radiation, or destruction of entire species.
PS, what you describe is simply life on earth, regardless of who or what is involved there are always going to be risks. Each and every living thing as thing has a physical or biological impact on other organisms. As you understand that is simply nature. There is no like or dislike, or even consideration in nature, it simply is and all organisms react as part of an ecologic interaction. All life strives to exist, sometimes at the expense of other living things. Humans try to elevate themselves above all other life because of their intellect. Interestingly, our awareness causes more consternation than anything else. Instead of reacting to natural pressures we or others exert, we strive to understand and prevent nature from being nature and evolution from proceeding. How laughable, even in our efforts to minimize our impact evolution proceeds and not necessarily for the better. Like our immune system needs to be subjected to develop its defenses, so does the rest of nature act to develop defense against our impression within the interaction of all life. It's a feedback loop that guides evolution, the process that fine tunes all life. Be it CO2, airborne sulfur from burning coal, or radioactivity, life systems will respond to these threats one way or another. While death from radiation (a local disturbance) on a global scale will diminish us inside the radius of nuclear fallout, our death serves to restore to reduce our competitive dominance and perhaps in those of us whose exposure to radiation is less, find genetic solutions that will in future generations allow us to survive in environments with higher levels of radiation. It is not too far fetched to imagine that such an evolution of our species will ultimately better prepare us to sail through the galaxy where radiation is a abundant threat.
I guess I've digressed from the thread some, but my view clearly is that not all exposure to irradiation is negative and it should (and likely will not) deter us from pursuing its energy.
Now they show radiation in Tokyo's tap water. Scary.
And looting was revealed, only hours after the quake, residents were "rooting" (get it?) the Kirin beer warehouse. I can see this. They aren't stealing TV's, just what they need to survive and beer was safer than tap water. And Kirin probably couldn't sell the radioactive beer anyway.
Interesting Note: Japan has turned down many international offers of aid. Too proud? Or do they realize they have the cash to rebuild unlike Haiti and Chile.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Tokyo's water supply serves about 5 million m3 (over a billion gallons) of water everyday to 12 million citizens in Tokyo. The water is supplied by four rivers Tone, Ara, Tama and Sagami, which flow into the Metropolitan area. The untreated water is taken from these rivers and purified through three processes - coagulation, sedimentation and filtration at local plants. It is then pressurised and supplied to customers as tap water through underground pipelines.
Tone River System and Ara River System:
The source of the river is Mount Ōminakami which straddles the border between Gunma and Niigata Prefectures. It gathers tributaries and pours into the Pacific Ocean at Choshi city in Chiba Prefecture. The Edo River branches away from the river and flows into Tokyo Bay.
Major tributaries of the river include the Agatsuma, Watarase, Kinu, Omoi, and Kokai rivers.
It appears that the contamination is the result of contact with surface waters (rivers and holding reservoirs). The contaminants can't be treated out by conventional methods and now it appears that it is already in the distribution system. They are screwed.
And while Germany is shutting down nuclear plants and other western countries are re-examining their nuclear programs, mainland China is continuing expansion of their nuclear power industry. They are planning to build 72 in the next 10 years. In a earthquake prone country and without the normal safeguards of a free press and a powerful ecological movement.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
