Slog
News & ArtsSaturday, March 12, 2011
Panic Japan Goes Nuclear
Posted by Charles Mudede on Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 3:36 AM
Holy shit! This looks like the dark end of that path to energy solutions. There are clearly other and safer paths. Even money knows Fukushima is the end:
“If they cannot get the nuclear reactor back under control during the day, this may end up being the biggest problem of all,” said Ken Courtis, former vice chairman of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. in Asia. “A meltdown, which would cause massive immediate damage, would also set the nuclear industry back decades. This would have vast implications for the global energy equation and perforce the world economy.”
1
Nuclear power is totally safe. There's never been any issues with it ever, it's infallible, we should totally use the full faith of the government to build several more. Don't you know we need power? We should be willing to go the distance for nuclear till the very end. It's completely safe, unlike that Solar, wind and geo-thermal plants that are giving off all that radiation. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
We should be thankful the Japanese didn't build so many solar panels, some of them broke into 2 pieces. 2! How the fuck do you put something together that used to be together? That's like voodoo magic shit right there. It's going to destroy the fabric of space time!
We should be thankful the Japanese didn't build so many solar panels, some of them broke into 2 pieces. 2! How the fuck do you put something together that used to be together? That's like voodoo magic shit right there. It's going to destroy the fabric of space time!
2
I agree #1!!! And not only that we should build a nuclear power plant next to every preschool across America!!
AND along with that we need to make sure everyone one of these infallible sources of energy is not riddled with "big government regulation".
AND along with that we need to make sure everyone one of these infallible sources of energy is not riddled with "big government regulation".
3
#1: Don't build nuclear power plants on islands formed by active volcanoes over the junction of two tectonic plates. (Sorry Hawaii)
#2: There were probably more harmful elements/pollutants/etc. released by the burning oil refineries than by the nuclear plant, but nobody will care because it's not nuclear.
#2: There were probably more harmful elements/pollutants/etc. released by the burning oil refineries than by the nuclear plant, but nobody will care because it's not nuclear.
4
If the environmental groups and media jump on this as evidence of the dangers of nuclear power (as I hope they do) i would like to see a mature conversation about the role of renewables.
Yesterday, on all my liberal radio programs, they kept talking about solar and wind as if they were a panacea. Solar and wind (and other renewables) are important, and should be greatly expanded, but we ned to address the issue of base load. Nucor Steel cannot run on solar. Boeing can not run on solar. Downtown Seattle and Bellevue cannot run on solar. All of those places can offset their load, perhaps significantly, by investing in renewables, but that means spending money, and the rich have all the money now.
In the more immediate sense, environmental and health issues aside, Japan is in a dire power situation for the short-term future, especially if those plants can't be repaired. It's not like they can build new plants in a few weeks. That could impact the world economy as well.
Yesterday, on all my liberal radio programs, they kept talking about solar and wind as if they were a panacea. Solar and wind (and other renewables) are important, and should be greatly expanded, but we ned to address the issue of base load. Nucor Steel cannot run on solar. Boeing can not run on solar. Downtown Seattle and Bellevue cannot run on solar. All of those places can offset their load, perhaps significantly, by investing in renewables, but that means spending money, and the rich have all the money now.
In the more immediate sense, environmental and health issues aside, Japan is in a dire power situation for the short-term future, especially if those plants can't be repaired. It's not like they can build new plants in a few weeks. That could impact the world economy as well.
5
#3 has the gist of it. Quite frankly, this is an older reactor design. More modern designs have better safeguards against meltdowns, even in geologically unstable areas. We are terrified of radiation because it is something relatively new to the human experience, and we trust fire and smoke because they have been with us long before we ever understood the concept of "hazardous to your health." I'd argue that coal smoke going into the sky has done more damage to the health of people than all the radioactivity that has been kicked into the air by all the nuclear accidents and (admittedly, poorly advised) open-air atomic tests that have happened in the past. And don't get me started on the so-called "clean coal" technology...
Ultimately, we do need to have a real conversation about power sources. If we want to maintain our level of energy utilization, it's going to have to come from somewhere.
Ultimately, we do need to have a real conversation about power sources. If we want to maintain our level of energy utilization, it's going to have to come from somewhere.
6
@3 - Hawaii is not at the junction of active tectonic plates, and has low earthquake risk. Washington is at such a junction, though; a major earthquake here could be of similar magnitude to the one in Japan.
7
The best part about nuclear power is that there is no waste! The spent nuclear fuel turns into magic fairy dust that you can sprinkle on pancakes and waffles. There's no need to build structures to house it safely for thousands of years.
8
"There were probably more harmful elements/pollutants/etc. released by the burning oil refineries than by the nuclear plant, but nobody will care because it's not nuclear."
Oh, come now.... There are people who care, but just not that many. You must try not to sound so defensive.
And here's the big difference: With fossil fuels, we can live in our filth (My, that sounds like something Charles would say, doesn't it?) Sure, it gives us asthma and cancer and all sorts of other unpleasant things that burden our society far beyond the price at the pump or on the power bill, but not everyone gets those diseases, and it allows us to indulge in our little lifestyle quirks like Slog and NASCAR and home canning without having to fire up the woodstove.
Radiation - at least the kind of radiation given off in events like this and worse - isn't as forgiving. Plus, just as we've been fed a steady diet of wealthy worship and labor disdain, we've also been subject to decades of movies about giant ants and whatnot that wreaked havoc on everything, and all because of nuclear radiation.
We're a simple folk, and we like our creature comforts, as long as the way they're provided isn't too scary.
Oh, come now.... There are people who care, but just not that many. You must try not to sound so defensive.
And here's the big difference: With fossil fuels, we can live in our filth (My, that sounds like something Charles would say, doesn't it?) Sure, it gives us asthma and cancer and all sorts of other unpleasant things that burden our society far beyond the price at the pump or on the power bill, but not everyone gets those diseases, and it allows us to indulge in our little lifestyle quirks like Slog and NASCAR and home canning without having to fire up the woodstove.
Radiation - at least the kind of radiation given off in events like this and worse - isn't as forgiving. Plus, just as we've been fed a steady diet of wealthy worship and labor disdain, we've also been subject to decades of movies about giant ants and whatnot that wreaked havoc on everything, and all because of nuclear radiation.
We're a simple folk, and we like our creature comforts, as long as the way they're provided isn't too scary.
9
Damn, Catalina, you've been adding so much to the coverage here. Really appreciate the philosophy you're bringing. Thanks.
10
Mudede, let's see the math that you used to come up with "other and safer paths". There's no way we can reduce our greenhouse gas production without using this relatively safe energy source. Why are you not commenting on all the explosions at gas plants and refineries????
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (10) RSS