Nuclear disaster in Japan: could it be possible in other nuclear countries?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Here, in France, a debate just begins about the opportunity to take down the nuclear energy as n°1 for electricity production...

This sounds incredible, but we have:
- 58 reactors (55 for Japan, 105 for USA)
- 78% of our electricity is produce with these 58 reactors. (30% for Japan and 20% for USA)




I can't imagine what could be the problems if a similar catastrophic event should occurs here in France.

In the debate, we have those who said that this is simply impossible because France is not an earthquake place and because Nuclear plants are not built on the same basis as those in Japan (primary and secondary cooling system especially)

However, who knows? While an extraordinary event is unlikely, we definately cannot built our power plants without taking account of all the possibilities, including the more unexpected.

In the Fukushima power plant, there was a 10m wall protection for the cool system engines...... but the tsunami had 14m high waves...

And what about the USA power plants? Are they really ready to face any "unlikely event" to occurs?




posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Being from Austria that has NO nuclear plants (because we are very small), it is extremely concerning to have tons of powerplants on fault lines surrounding us. I and the world can only hope that some countries rethink their policies!!!



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by HedyLamarr
 

Yes! "Rethink the policies", that's the right word!

Another problem is the age of the power plants: oldest here is the one of "Fessenheim", built in 1970....The plant was designed to withstand a 6.7 magnitude earthquake..... only 6.7!!

But there are other possiblities for a problem to occurs in reactors, let's not forget that in 1969 there was two LEVEL 4 incidents (and another in 1980) in two separate reactors due to mishandling....

All of the above are some (amongst many other) good reasons to change our nuclear policy.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
In answer to your question 'Nuclear disaster in Japan: could it be possible in other nuclear countries?. The answer must surely be a resounding Yes. We all know about the clear and present dangers to the US West Coast. As with Japan, they were idiotic to have built nuclear reactors so close to a dangerous fault zone.

But there is somewhere else, with two active reactor sites, that might also be at risk. And its location will surprise you... the Severn Estuary in the UK.

400 years ago a small earthquake on the active fault system under the southern sea of Ireland, or a landslide off the continental shelf between Ireland and Cornwall created a tsunami that raced up the estuary destroying everything in its path. Because the estuary narrows and becomes shallower further upstream, the wave was amplified and reached a height of over 7 metres (23 ft), possibly as high as 10 metres (32 ft) and penetrating inland by as much as 14 miles as far as Glastonbury. 3,000 or more people died - many more would die today due to the higher population density from new settlements.

I have been arguing for some time to anyone that listens that should a similar event happen then the ensuing disaster would be catastrophic and about the foolhardiness of situating nuclear power stations along the estuary. There's more here, but basically, this would be as serious as what just happened in Japan since a meltdown on the Severn estuary would carry the radiation on the prevailing south-westerly winds right across Western Europe, as the article explains.

What would happen if a tsunami hit the Severn estuary?

Bristol Channel floods, 1607
edit on 15-3-2011 by the.lights because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by the.lights
In answer to your question 'Nuclear disaster in Japan: could it be possible in other nuclear countries?. The answer must surely be a resounding Yes. We all know about the clear and present dangers to the US West Coast. As with Japan, they were idiotic to have built nuclear reactors so close to a dangerous fault zone.

But there is somewhere else, with two active reactor sites, that might also be at risk. And its location will surprise you... the Severn Estuary in the UK.

400 years ago a small earthquake on the active fault system under the southern sea of Ireland, or a landslide off the continental shelf between Ireland and Cornwall created a tsunami that raced up the estuary destroying everything in its path. Because the estuary narrows and becomes shallower further upstream, the wave was amplified and reached a height of over 7 metres (23 ft), possibly as high as 10 metres (32 ft) and penetrating inland by as much as 14 miles as far as Glastonbury. 3,000 or more people died - many more would die today due to the higher population density from new settlements.

I have been arguing for some time to anyone that listens that should a similar event happen then the ensuing disaster would be catastrophic and about the foolhardiness of situating nuclear power stations along the estuary. There's more here, but basically, this would be as serious as what just happened in Japan since a meltdown on the Severn estuary would carry the radiation on the prevailing south-westerly winds right across Western Europe, as the article explains.

What would happen if a tsunami hit the Severn estuary?

Bristol Channel floods, 1607
edit on 15-3-2011 by the.lights because: (no reason given)

Very interesting article! Thanks!

Yes, it's very surprising that a tsunami could occurs again in the UK, as this is not really an earthquakes area, but, like you show it, even if, statistically, there are less chances for such a "big one" to happens over there, we should not dismiss it.

Here in France, there's NOTHING that we can do, (at least at short-run) as almost 80% of our electricity is produced by nuclear plants.
And when I heard today that our politicians decided NOT to organize a referendum to ask people what should be the future of our energy, it's really upsetting...

Again, the strong decisions will be made after the facts, what a shame...



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Maybe it's "simply" time to upgrade, or change if you will, the technology in the reactors from what they are to the newer thorium reactors?



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 


But shouldn't the Thorium reactor have more disadvantages than advantages?

I thought also that, even in Th. reactors, one need to use Uranium at some stages to the process, am I wrong?



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
For it to happen elsewhere, first something would have to occur to trigger the automatic shutdown procedures. In the case of Japan it was a massive earthquake thousands of times stronger than the reactors had been built to withstand. The reactors withstood the earthquake just fine


Then, and only then, you need something else to unexpectedly take out all of the diesel generators that are designed to continue the cooling process after automatic shut-down, as well as destroy all the surrounding infrastructure, roads etc. In the case of Japan it was an unstoppable 30 foot high wall of water.

How likely are these 2 events to occur in France, Germany, Britain etc? Really?

It's actually as likely a huge meteorite will hit a reactor in Britain. In which case, best we not build any reactors. Best not build anything at all. In fact, hide in a cave. Quick! Now! Before it's too late ......



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Yes, I agree; however no need to invoque a meteor as a unique cause of a similar event in Europe; let's not forget that level 4 alerts already occured and that the only cause was mishandling.

Human weakness...



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
For it to happen elsewhere, first something would have to occur to trigger the automatic shutdown procedures. In the case of Japan it was a massive earthquake thousands of times stronger than the reactors had been built to withstand. The reactors withstood the earthquake just fine


Then, and only then, you need something else to unexpectedly take out all of the diesel generators that are designed to continue the cooling process after automatic shut-down, as well as destroy all the surrounding infrastructure, roads etc. In the case of Japan it was an unstoppable 30 foot high wall of water.

How likely are these 2 events to occur in France, Germany, Britain etc? Really?

It's actually as likely a huge meteorite will hit a reactor in Britain. In which case, best we not build any reactors. Best not build anything at all. In fact, hide in a cave. Quick! Now! Before it's too late ......


You clearly have not read my post!

There was a sizeable tsunami that hit the Severn estuary in the UK in 1607, of the magnitude of that that just hit Japan (+30 ft). Tsunamis can be much larger than the earthquakes or underwater/above water landslides that cause them. When localised, the wave magnitude is much larger. Look at the Fairwater Fault tsunami that struck Lituya Bay, Alaska in 1958. This tsunami reached a height of a half kilometre (third of a mile!!!)

MEGA TSUNAMI Lituya Bay


A combination of disturbances triggered by the earthquake generated a mega-tsunami wave that rose to a maximum height of 1,720 feet (516 m) at the head of Lituya Bay.


There is a clear and present danger right around the Pacific rim from nuclear reactors sited in ridiculous locations where no thought whatsoever has gone into the ramifications and implications of the dangers of natural phenomena such as tsunamis.

And as I have said many times to anyone that will listen, the Severn estuary in the UK is another risk site from a localised earthquake caused by the fault zone south of Ireland or a marine landslide between the Ireland and Cornwall. Again, localised but the effect would be dramatic along the estuary.

The 1607 tsunami in this area was also not the first. Geologists have found evidence right the way up the estuary of sizeable, devestating tsunami waves through history.

As I stated in my previous post, there are two active nuclear reactors along the Severn, and they are about to build another. It is utterly stupid and dangerous for the safety of the whole of the UK and beyond.
edit on 17-3-2011 by the.lights because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   
While I am not against the use of nuclear reactors in general, I cannot help but notice how many are built along fault lines or close to the sea. I wonder if this is a conspiracy or "just" lack of planning on the part of governments, atomic energy commission and corporations.

Its truely sadening and disturbing for everyone and I suprised that greenpeace and all the other enviromentalist groups do not cry foul and try to raise public awareness of the issue. Perhaps the money involved is too great to compete against common sense until millions die of radation poisoning which forces "us" to rethink our strategy.

Then you have the issue of national "security" which is a government cop-out to be used whenever they feel like it, so no "terrorist" can develop nuclear weapons and use them...much like the cia used on 9-11 to bring down the twin towers.

Its ok to be a national terrorist but its not ok to be a palestinian "terrorist" or constitutional "terrorist". Thats the message I am getting and perhaps thats why europe has developed into a police state rather than civilians being able to defend themselves. Just install 1 million cameras and know everything about everyone, much like the Big Brother show.

Just look at how many reactors are located close to the san andreas fault line, new madrid faultline and along the eastern seaboard of the USA, then look how many in western europe again close the atlantic seaboard. If a medium sized asteroid crashes into the atlantic or one of those unstable canary island splits in half your talking about a hundred foot tidal wave impacting every atlantic ocean nation with devasting consequences.

Its amazing that no "elected" official or "scientifc" body ever considers such things until its too late to do anything about it. Thats why I say illuminati conspiracy at the risk of sounding "crazy".......



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
While I am not against the use of nuclear reactors in general, I cannot help but notice how many are built along fault lines or close to the sea. I wonder if this is a conspiracy or "just" lack of planning on the part of governments, atomic energy commission and corporations.

Its truely sadening and disturbing for everyone and I suprised that greenpeace and all the other enviromentalist groups do not cry foul and try to raise public awareness of the issue. Perhaps the money involved is too great to compete against common sense until millions die of radation poisoning which forces "us" to rethink our strategy.

Then you have the issue of national "security" which is a government cop-out to be used whenever they feel like it, so no "terrorist" can develop nuclear weapons and use them...much like the cia used on 9-11 to bring down the twin towers.

Its ok to be a national terrorist but its not ok to be a palestinian "terrorist" or constitutional "terrorist". Thats the message I am getting and perhaps thats why europe has developed into a police state rather than civilians being able to defend themselves. Just install 1 million cameras and know everything about everyone, much like the Big Brother show.

Just look at how many reactors are located close to the san andreas fault line, new madrid faultline and along the eastern seaboard of the USA, then look how many in western europe again close the atlantic seaboard. If a medium sized asteroid crashes into the atlantic or one of those unstable canary island splits in half your talking about a hundred foot tidal wave impacting every atlantic ocean nation with devasting consequences.

Its amazing that no "elected" official or "scientifc" body ever considers such things until its too late to do anything about it. Thats why I say illuminati conspiracy at the risk of sounding "crazy".......


You are absolutely right.

The only part I disagree with you on is the conspiracy element.

This is not the fault of some secret cabal or society. It is the fault of every government, nuclear industrialist and individual involved in the commissioning, building and operation of nuclear power stations in areas where stress and scenario testing has not been done properly or thoroughly.

Japan, the US, UK and I suspect France and other nations with nuclear power plants are all to blame!

You are absolutely right to draw a comparison with terrorists. These are terrorists under the guise of financiers, government ministers and nuclear industrialists. They are all complicit in making short-sighted decisions about meeting pressing energy needs without taking into account the potential hazards.

An anology would be a handing a chimpanzee a lighter and a box of fireworks.

You play with fire. You get burned. People of the world, the shock and horror at what we are witnessing in Japan should be turned to anger. Anger at those who have allowed this to happen. We have been sleepwalking, for some time, toward this disaster. And now, finally, perhaps too late, we are waking up.

We need people power to create enough international pressure that industry and government are left with no choice but to decomission all operational nuclear power stations worldwide. And actually, whilst we're at it, lets do the same with the tens of thousands of nuclear warheads too.
edit on 17-3-2011 by the.lights because: typo!
edit on 17-3-2011 by the.lights because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by the.lights
As I stated in my previous post, there are two active nuclear reactors along the Severn, and they are about to build another. It is utterly stupid and dangerous for the safety of the whole of the UK and beyond.


Well given the Jap tsunami doesn't appear to have caused damage to the actual reactors, why would one in the Severn be any different? And so long as an earthquake doesn't trigger an automatic shutdown before any tsunami hits and/or if it does the reactors do not rely on diesel generators for cooling after shut-down which then get taken out by the tsunami, what's the problem?

A whole sequence of unlikely events have to occur. And anyway, I'm sure a new reactor would be somewhat safer than one that is 40 year old? I understand modern systems don't need diesel generators ...... making what happened in Japan almost impossible.

And given the choice between a nuclear reactor, a coal power station, and an oil refinery, I know which I'd feel safer living next to!
edit on 17-3-2011 by Essan because: typo



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07


Just look at how many reactors are located close to the san andreas fault line, new madrid faultline and along the eastern seaboard of the USA, then look how many in western europe again close the atlantic seaboard. If a medium sized asteroid crashes into the atlantic or one of those unstable canary island splits in half your talking about a hundred foot tidal wave impacting every atlantic ocean nation with devasting consequences.


If that happened, dying of cancer in 20 years time would, quite frankly, be the least of my worries.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by the.lights
You are absolutely right.

The only part I disagree with you on is the conspiracy element.


This is not the fault of some secret cabal or society. It is the fault of every government, nuclear industrialist and individual involved in the commissioning, building and operation of nuclear power stations in areas where stress and scenario testing has not been done properly or thoroughly.

Japan, the US, UK and I suspect France and other nations with nuclear power plants are all to blame!


So why would they concentrate so many nuclear reactors in dangerous areas? Its one thing to have faulty powerplants and its quite another thing to build them at the worst possible locations......



You are absolutely right to draw a comparison with terrorists. These are terrorists under the guise of financiers, government ministers and nuclear industrialists. They are all complicit in making short-sighted decisions about meeting pressing energy needs without taking into account the potential hazards.


Forgive me but I believe that is naive thinking. If someone with a high school or batchelors degree can see the dangers then why can't people with a PhD? Most of these decision makers study at harvard, yale, cambridge, oxford, princeton, etc....



We need people power to create enough international pressure that industry and government are left with no choice but to decomission all operational nuclear power stations worldwide. And actually, whilst we're at it, lets do the same with the tens of thousands of nuclear warheads too.
edit on 17-3-2011 by the.lights because: typo!
edit on 17-3-2011 by the.lights because: (no reason given)


Again I disagree. Only those in immediate danger areas should be decommissioned and overall we should relly less on nuclear energy and more on renewable energy such as wind/sea and why not coal. Carbon Dioxide "pollution" is an illuminati myth to rip off the public!

Yes I partially agree with the nuclear warhead issue. We should destroy most of them and leave 1 to 5 percent for special case operations such as uncontrollable oil/gas leaks, asteroid detterance and other extreme examples I cannot think off.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


We'll beg to differ.

I'm citing gross incompetence and vested industrial/govenment interests as the reason. There's many a stupid decision made by those holding Phd's and similar. Intelligence does not automatically equal common sense. I think we'd be surprised at the lax forethought that probably goes into the decision making around these things.

I think my analogy of the chimpanzee with a naked flame and a box of fireworks is a good one.
edit on 17-3-2011 by the.lights because: typo!



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07


Just look at how many reactors are located close to the san andreas fault line, new madrid faultline and along the eastern seaboard of the USA, then look how many in western europe again close the atlantic seaboard. If a medium sized asteroid crashes into the atlantic or one of those unstable canary island splits in half your talking about a hundred foot tidal wave impacting every atlantic ocean nation with devasting consequences.


If that happened, dying of cancer in 20 years time would, quite frankly, be the least of my worries.


Except those 20+ miles inward, who probably will survive the tidal waves, will end up dieing from radiation exposure. Short sighted decisions or purposeful errors have their price in blood. Your basically saying its ok to compound problems rather than reduce the risks.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by the.lights
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


We'll beg to differ.

I'm citing gross incompetence and vested industrial/govenment interests as the reason. There's many a stupid decision made by those holding Phd's and similar. Intelligence does not automatically equal common sense. I think we'd be surprised at the lax forethought that probably goes into the decision making around these things.

I think my analogy of the chimpanzee with a naked flame and a box of fireworks is a good one.
edit on 17-3-2011 by the.lights because: typo!


Sorry. I did not want to be abrasive because it appears we share similar feelings. What I do not understand is why would you want to get rid of ALL nuclear powerplants when clearly the issue lies with faulty design models and poor placement?

As for it being a conspiracy, although I cannot be 100 percent sure, I have seen so many odd "coincidences" the last 10-20 years, its REALLY HARD to ignore this. 9-11 was proven *inside job*, hurricane katrina, fema concentration camps, project echelon, gulf oil "spill"(more like an oil volcano), powerplants placed on fault-lines and close to sea, national "security" this and that, 2012...........the list is endless!



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I'm referring to the scenario of a massive asteroid impact in the Atlantic and resultant tsunamis taking out dozein of nucelar power stations aorund the US and European coasts.

I agree, for some people, inland from the reactors and largely unaffected by the quake and tsunami, the risk of radiation poisoning is greater, though still IMO a lesser problem than that which affects many, many more people in the country. Of course I can only speak for myself in saying that even were I living there, I would consider the radiation risk still to be a lesser immediate concern.

The fact these reactors withstood an earthquake thousands of times stronger than they were designed, when built 40 years ago, to withstand is, I think telling. Modern reactors are much, much safer and even more robust (and I understand generally do not rely on back-up diesel generator after automatic shut-down - though in that I may be wrong?). I find the reaction of the rest of the world both stupid and rather worrying.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
We have the same discussion in Germany. Shortly before the japan disaster our 'great' politics decided to extend the life of our nuclear reactors, some until 2023! Some of them are already 30,40 years old and i don't like it.
Now they talk about, because of Japan to not extend the lifetime of those reactors, but i don't believe them.

Those reactors aren't safe. One just need to take a look at our AKW Kruemmel (It's in Schleswig-Holstein south-east of Hamburg). They started the reactor in 1984 since then the number of people and especially children with Lukemania rised drastically - and nobody gave a # about it. That Power Plant had so many incidents over the years that they were forced to install some sort of "Black Box" that writes down all incidents and everything that is happening at that Power Plant. The owning company of the Power Plant even sued against that, they didn't want that sort of device and disabled it...then another incident happened


Honestly i don't wanna know what is going down at all the nuclear Power Plants in europe, they are all old, they all have flaws, they all were build as cheap as possible. Even newer ones have their problems, like that one in Temelin, Czech Republic.
If a big disaster happens it won't be because of an earthquake or an tsunami but because the Plants are old, cheap and a dangerous threat.

I just wait that the Power Plant Isar 2 explodes, they started building it in 1971, so it's basically 40 years old and they wanna run it until at least 2021. There's nothing like having a 50 year old nuclear power plant in your neighbourhood

I remember from stories and reading about it, when in 1988 a french Mirage Fighter Jet crashed just about 1 mile from that reactor. It was a big discussion and they basically said that the Plant isn't build to withstand a crash from even a rather small Airplane. Something like this incident could happen again, anywhere.






top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join