It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Questions the Skeptics, Media and Government(s) Can’t Answer.

page: 15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 12:13 PM
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

In my opinion nuclear energy should not be used it's to dangerous. Of course we will learn but one error can and will last a life time with nuclear power. I'm with protoplasmistraveler, wind and sun.

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 12:24 PM
reply to post by monkeyman03

I would certainly like to see more wind, sun, geothermal, all kinds of stuff. I just wouldnt rule out nuclear until someone sat down and actually did the cost benefit analysis in a non hysterical fashion. We fear nuclear energy, and so that skews our opinion of it.

More of us are being affected by hormones in our water right now, than radiation from meltdowns. More of us will die in car accidents than because of meltdowns. But we dont calculate our fear level on "actual likelihood of resulting in our death" we calculate our fear level on hype, how mysterious something is to us, our level of understanding, random psychological factors, all kinds of stuff. We see the same kind of hysteria with terrorism. The actual threat to the average American from a terrorist is tiny. But our fear is huge, and because of that, our spending on it is laughably irrational.

I personally would want to see the math before I got my underwear in too much of a twist. Humanity gets no where fast running all over the place screaming "ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!" Its fine if some people do that, but someone actually does have to look at the facts and make decisions based on things like cost benefit analysis.

It would be nice if we didnt have big oil having such a stranglehold on global politics. It WOULD open us up to developing other options that would definitely change the equations.

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 12:38 PM
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

You're right. I did not think of the cost I only though of the nuclear part. It's true nuclear accidents are like plane crash they are rare but impresive when they happen.

It's true our biggest problems right now are not the nuclear power plants but all the oil we are burning.

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:02 PM

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Sad to say, where the heck is Obama? This is the crisis moment of his presidency, and he has disappeared.

Tucked away in Airforce 1 or a DUMB probably.

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:04 PM
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

I disagree on keeping Nuclear power they have proven on numerous occassions when control of it gets away from them, it's a very deadly exercise in getting some modicum of control back over it.

So I don't see how its beneficial when it can't be safely relied on.

Wind carried us all the way around the world, and the sun shines on us throughout the year.

Nuclear power is obviously something that has real drawbacks that really don't merrit any kind of cost annalysis when some of that cost is human life snuffed out prematurely as a result.

Proto declares this a bad deal.

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:24 PM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

I wanted to throw a couple of questions in here that I've come up with over night. We realize the futility of using fossil fuels and nuclear technology as one kills us slowly and the other rapidly when the inevitable accident occurs. I have my suspicions that there is a technology that is being withheld at this time but that's for another thread.

How much are the wars costing the US every week or month or year? How much does it cost to maneuver assets and position ourselves for yet another war? How much money is being invested in new and better ways to track and kill people that dare to oppose these wars? We can boil all this money down to being spent on oil resources.

What would happen if we could allot all of that money to researching photovoltaic and wind energies. I read about a solar technology institute being opened soon. The article boasted about the four million dollars that were to be invested in five projects. I believe we are spending that kind of money in about an hour on the wars for oil. It's a crazy world my friend.

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:34 PM
reply to post by poet1b

I'm glad you did some research...Yes, the shutdown you described is basically how one would go about shutting down a reactor...The key to stopping a chain reaction is to catch all the neutrons in the stall rods(graphite or sometimes steel or iron if I'm not mistaken) that are pushed into the spaces between the fuel rods...We all also need to keep in mind that nuclear reactors really haven't changed since the 1950s and 1960s when the vast majority were built...The design and general operating procedures have not changed since the 1950s

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:40 PM
I enjoy your threads and your deductive and critical reasoning Proto, but on these issues I have to agree with the few voices that are trying to give you and others here in this thread a bit of understanding of not just basic Nuclear Power Plant design, and the basics of Fission within said facilities. That encompassing the technical aspects, on the human aspects I am as always in total agreement.

But there are those who are also trying to give some insight on Industrial Power Distribution, Distributive Control System Philosophy, ESD, (Emergency Shutdown) Systems, and other Automation and Control Systems that do work to reduce the impact and calamity instances of the incident and/or catastrophe such as being interpreted by most of the people today.

When doing the HAZOP for a new installation, everything known to that point within lessons learned and past the past history of Engineering and Design are incorporated into these HAZOP, (Hazard and Operability Study), naturally on an a specific Installation. These studies can range from a new Truck Loading Terminal to a Nuclear Power Plant, and is not restricted to only hazardous installations but any and all Industrial installations that can cause any type of impact to HSE, (Health, Safety, Environment).

Besides the fact that under our current system of, “Debt Based Currency Economies”, said studies aren’t even looked at until the financial issues are determined. And just like buying different types and models of cars, an individual or corporation can buy the” Rolls Royce” type of and installation, or a “Chevy”.

That being said there are certain guidelines and minimal specifications and procedures that EPC, (Engineering Procurement & Construction), companies have to conform too. These Specifications and Procedures are set as Statutes at the International, National, and Local levels, and are at the most part uniform. Individual companies also have of course their own set of Specifications & Procedures and generally are more stringent and/or strict then those set at the Government level strictly due to the fact that HSE Standards & strict adherence to Company and/or Installation Specifications & Procedures protect profitability in more ways than on the balance books.( That is another thread)

So now let’s get to the problem at hand.

Disclaimer: This is a discussion and at no time will I offer sources and/or references for my statements. Said statements are a matter of conjecture and really should be researched and/or verified by independent analysis.

Basic Power Distribution

These sorts of systems have two or in this case, three power supply systems for the entire electrical infrastructure in said installation. But all three of these are supplied from the main power grid which is the very same places your get your electrical power from at home.
Of course the HAZOP identified this dependency on said power grid to be a hazard and that is why they have distributed the main incoming feed to different local incoming feeds maintaining an ability to be able to service and repair internal infrastructure without taking away the incoming feeds needed to operate the installation. Also it is double or triple redundant for facility internal equipment failures.

Now we come the much alluded to “Redundant Systems”.

Redundant Systems

Redundant Systems as referred to by the MSM and others would be in this instance, according to my interpretation, the UPS, (Uninterrupted Power Supplies). There will generally be two types of these systems used in industry currently.

1. High Voltage Backup Generators (traditionally diesel driven electrical generators)
2. UPS (Uninterrupted Power Supplies)

The HV Backup Generators are generally used to back up the feed electricity to the, (before in the thread mentioned), MCCs, (Motor Control Centers). MCCs generally provide the power for mid-level voltage, (400/200 VAC in Europe 660/240/110 VAC in US...AC meaning Voltage Alternating Current), consumers such as Infrastructure Utility pump motors, electrical outlets, flood lighting and applications and/or equipment requiring said sort of electrical power.

The UPS System on the other hand is used to provide power to the Systems and devices that control the process and/or automation of equipment within the installation that is producing, finishing, and/or transporting the product through the installation or to delivery terminals and/or warehouses. These Systems generally require a Voltage of 24VDC, (Voltage Direct Current).

The UPS system takes its incoming electrical feed from one of the 2 or 3 main power suppliers and uses said feed to charge/discharge and hold the battery packs at full capacity for when a disruption/interruption in the main power supply grid occurs.

Now without getting too technical for the laymen, the UPS Systems power the Controls Systems and the HV Backup Generator Systems power the pumps and equipment up to 600VAC.

This means when the Tsunami killed the main power supply grid and HV Backup Generator Systems, the External Cooling system died and was not able to fill the spent rod cooling basins and also were not able to pump in external water supplies for the closed contained cooling system of the reactor.

The statement made by MSM that the redundant systems could run for 24 to 36 hours was true. But as previously stated these Redundant Systems I have interpreted to mean the UPS Systems that power the Control Systems and nothing more. (Ok technically they power the F&G Systems, Analytical Systems, and Process Control Servers and such…)

So when Engineers and Technicians come on this thread to offer some insight, please don’t automatically reject it as disinformation agents attempts.

edit on 18-3-2011 by rougeskut because: spelling

edit on 18-3-2011 by rougeskut because: spelling

edit on 18-3-2011 by rougeskut because: spelling

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:48 PM
reply to post by rougeskut

Good to see another PHA trained guy on here. You want to sit through something fun, try a project HAZOP for a nuke with a couple guys from the NRC sitting it. Each section takes a week

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:51 PM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

What are the numbers?

How many people die because of oil use, from war victims, to oil rig and refinery disasters, to pollution.............etc. How many would die from various causes if we didnt have nuclear energy? How much would increased demand on oil drive up price, how would that effect other prices, how many people would be priced out, etc.

You know if you want to make an accurate judgment, not just one based on fear, you really have to do the math.

Im not saying you are wrong. Im saying who has done the math and compared the costs? Have you? NOT having done the costs, but just gathering together a list of things that would have to be compared to say accurately, I am already going to GUESS that oil use is by far more costly in terms of human life and suffering right now.

Im not saying you should ignore the dangers and embrace it mindlessly. Im saying there is a serious logical flaw with the reasoning.

"X has happened and look how dangerous it is" unless you put that in perspective.

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:52 PM
I was chatting with a few co-workers this morning and few of them offered some unique views of the situation.

One of them mentioned that there was a conspiracy behind the whole nuclear fall out incident at Japan.

Hey, this is not verifiable fact, this is just a conversation between one guy to another.

My co-worker basically claims that after Japan was defeated during the World War era, pretty much they were on a short leash with the rest of the world.

Japan is not allowed to have their own military, instead they call their troopers something else. They are not allowed to have Nuclear weapons. I think this is common knowledge, unless you're not aware of this, Google it.

Point is, my co-worker suspects that Japan was co-working with France on developing nuclear technology and eventually Japan can weaponize it.

Supposedly, the Japanese nuclear reactors only use Uranium 235, or at least they're only allowed to have and use Uranium 235. I'm not sure if this information is correct or verifiable, if there's any experts here, perhaps can back up my claims.

What they're not supposed to have, use, or refined, is Plutonium, 230 Pu & 240 Pu.

The conspiracy behind it is, why won't Japan ask for help until the last minute?

Well, yesterday, while watching an interview about the Japan incident, we see how the Soviet Union solved/contained the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl. Question remains, why didn't the Japanese just use the same method right at the beginning?

Why did the Japanese keep telling the world that everything is "Under Control" and they did not want outside assistance until last minute?

Well, the news that's being passed around in my company is that Japan had Plutonium at those plants and they did not want the U.S. or another super power country to find out.

Don't know if this is true or not, but it does answer a lot of questions on people's minds.

Just my 2 cents.

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:00 PM
reply to post by truthseeker84

That is an enteresting conspiracy.

It sure makes you think...

And how did the the Soviet Union solved Chernobyl?
edit on 18/3/2011 by monkeyman03 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:05 PM
reply to post by soficrow

Thanks for those links Soficrow, interesting.

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:08 PM
reply to post by SirMike

It is bad enough in Oil & Gas, wouldn't want to go that route.

But then again, the learning curve interests me....

edit on 18-3-2011 by rougeskut because: added comment

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:14 PM

Originally posted by truthseeker84
Well, the news that's being passed around in my company is that Japan had Plutonium at those plants and they did not want the U.S. or another super power country to find out.

Don't know if this is true or not, but it does answer a lot of questions on people's minds.

The Fukushima 3 reactor was fueled with MOX (mixed oxide) weapons-grade plutonium 239 that was re-processed in France and loaded in Sept. 2010.

Japan wasn't hiding anything from the US, as the DOE is a sponsor and does a lot of the plutonium re-processing at their Savannah River Site.

More info here.

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:22 PM
reply to post by rougeskut

A good leader who can keep the group on topic is key … otherwise it turns into a debating committee. The one I was involved in had something like 5 operators, 5 engineers, 3 supervisors, and engineering manager, and operations manager, a maintenance manager (because we did a full HAZOP on the new O&M procedures) a couple EH&S guys and an NRC guy and it was a nightmare.

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:22 PM
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

There is no room for oil use either, no nuclear, no oil, solar, and wind, and people power.

We haven't needed oil for a long time, the oil companies and car companies simply insist we use it because it's profitible to them and their control.

This is why I got rid of my car and bought a bicycle.

I highly recommend more people do the same.

As long as their are consumers for destructive products, then they will sell, profit off of, and control the masses through destructive products.

I don't know what to tell people other than a lot of people would like to use very grown up sounding words and accronyms in a very serious and scientific manner, which is really neither as grown up, wise, or scientific as they imagine it to be.

Statistical annalysis does not equate to common sense or common sense conclusions, in fact that's what gamblers do, they annalyse statistics looking to make the 'safest' bet that they can knowing full well it entails elements of risk.

We have the technology and certainly the unemployed people available throughout the world to get to work on wind and solar power infrastructures, batteries for electric cars that can be powered through solar and wind.

Its just not profitible or safe for the oligarchs.

How much power would you like in their hands, how many monopolies, how many things that they get to regulate the rules and terms for?

I think that's been a disaster and we need to look at some common sense solutions rather than trying to continually be the hero that finally fits the square peg in the round hole.

Things are going to have to change, or it's going to be the end of everyone, it's really simple.


posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:35 PM
reply to post by monkeyman03

I don't know dude, but looking at one of the interviews done with Michio Kaku, it seems like they poured 30 tons of sand or whatever on to the thing and covered it with some type of cement dome.

Don't know if that's what the Soviet Union used, but it is definitely contained, as Chernobyl happened back in 86'.

So for the longest time, I couldn't figure out why they just didn't follow methods that worked for us in the past.

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:37 PM
reply to post by GoldenFleece

That is good information, I was not aware of this, hence my previous post I asked for verifications.

Well, is it possible that these weapon grade Plutonium are being misused in some way?

I'm just thinking from all angles right now, trying to figure out why Japan hesitated, delayed international help. While pumping out incorrect information regarding the seriousness of the incident.

It just smells fishy to me

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:45 PM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Perspective. Thanks to another member in another thread for finding this,

Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

And we all know the figures there for oil do not include the people murdered to gain access to said oil.

But perspective is important in decision making.

<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in