All Nuclear Reactors Must Go Now, Expert Panels Charge

page: 1
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I know attention has been drawn away from this ongoing catastrophe but I thought I share the lastest:

www.commondreams.org...

Here are the members of the panel with bona fides:



Gregory Jaczko, formerly on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and chairman during the Fukushima-Dai-ichi accident in Japan; Peter Bradford, an NRC commissioner during the Three Mile Island accident; nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen; and former Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan all gave convincing arguments to shutter the plants, periodically alluding to Plymouth's 41-year-old Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station during a panel discussion at the Statehouse Wednesday. State Sen. Daniel Wolf, D-Harwich, who represents communities on the Cape, joined the panel as a last-minute addition.


www.capecodonline.com.../20131010/NEWS/310100333/-1/NEWS11

Some quotes from the original article:

Regarding the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Massachusetts:



"Is Pilgrim any different from Fukushima Daiichi? The reactor is identical to Daiichi's units 2 and 3," Gundersen said. "In a critical way, it's worse. The Japanese have seven or eight years of spent fuel stored there, we have 35 years of spent fuel sitting in a pool in Pilgrim, and the pool sits on top of a building."


And at a futher discussion in New York:



"After experiencing the [Fukushima] disaster of March 11, I changed my thinking 180 degrees completely," said Kan, who was in office at the time of the meltdown. "We do have accidents ... and sometimes hundreds of people die in an accident. But there's no other accident that would affect 50 million people—maybe a war—but there's no other accident so tragic."

"If humanity really worked together, we could generate all of our energy through renewable energy. I firmly believe that," Kan said.

"There is only one way to eliminate accidents," he said, "which is to get rid of all nuclear power plants."


We could generate all our energy, and jobs - good local jobs - and who knows what else if we did this.

And save countless lives over generations.




posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


People have been talking about nuclear power being safe and one of the cleanest sources of energy around, but as the Japanese are now saying, one mistake and a lot of people and land are effected.

I read on the BBC that although nuclear power might supply 2-3 generations with a good source of power, it could potentially affect up to 3,000 generations with the waste generated, not to mention nuclear disasters like Fukushima.

The fact that Fukushima happened is already probably going to cause enough damage to Japan to make it look like not having nuclear power in the country would have been a good decision in hindsight.

I mean, look at Fukushima - the probability that it would be hit by a high magnitude earthquake and tsunami at the same time - this is very low. But the problem is, that probability was hit on - and the consequences of hitting that probability are so high that it makes it not worth it, i.m.o.
edit on 10-10-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I concur, leave few for Isotope productions for the World, with shared resources and peace in mind!!



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   

darkbake
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


People have been talking about nuclear power being safe and one of the cleanest sources of energy around, but as the Japanese are now saying, one mistake and a lot of people and land are effected.

I read on the BBC that although nuclear power might supply 2-3 generations with a good source of power, it could potentially affect up to 3,000 generations with the waste generated, not to mention nuclear disasters like Fukushima.

The fact that Fukushima happened is already probably going to cause enough damage to Japan to make it look like not having nuclear power in the country would have been a good decision in hindsight.

I mean, look at Fukushima - the probability that it would be hit by a high magnitude earthquake and tsunami at the same time - this is very low. But the problem is, that probability was hit on - and the consequences of hitting that probability are so high that it makes it not worth it, i.m.o.
edit on 10-10-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)


Who are these people who have been talking ......?

You do realize that 2 to 3 generations have passed since 1945? But the damage will last for 100s if not thousands of generations even if we STOP TODAY.

Don't forget Chernobyl. It is a miracle that nothing worse has happend before - read the article about the state of the Pilgrim Reactor. Read about all the 'near misses'. All these reactors are old, old and beyond their 'design life'.

A low probablity isn't the same as safe. In japan this confluance of events is fairly common.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


Mankind has MORE than proven that it CAN'T use nuclear power responsibly.
Even worse, it has proven we can't dispose of or decomission reactors safely nor can it store or dispose of spent feul rods or heavy water.
No one has to worry about terrorists getting their hands on a dirty bomb....every single city pretty much has a reactor on its doorstep and over half of these things are leaking as it is.
Cleanest energy source?
Easiest to profit from maybe...but that's no reason to court the extinction of the species just because some fanboys got lazy wanna leave the lights and AC on while playing x-box all night long.
Nuclear power has GOT to go for the future of humanity.
Not that we actually HAVE a future...because even, if for some miracle, we abandoned it overnight, there's STILL enough contaminated material to ensure the end of mankind in very short order because we have no idea where to put all that junk.
It's like keeping a hungry great white shark in the pool, not warning anyone it's in there...then acting suprised when Billy and Suzy get eaten.
The same companies telling you its the only alternative have been stifling alternative energy research for decades because it will upset their profit margins.
It ridiculous any way you slice it but pretending we have no choice is even worse.
Fukashima SHOULD have been the tipping point. Instead, it's just another footnote on some rich white guys accounting ledger.

-Amitaba-

(I did not mean that to come off sounding like I am cheesed at you...this topic always gets me riled)
edit on 10-10-2013 by Eryiedes because: Added Sentiment



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


I was under the impression that nuclear power has come a long way and is much safer now than before in the newer facilities. The problem is most nuclear reactors are outdated and not built like the newer ones, so they still pose a threat, like the ones in Japan and many here in America.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   

darkbake
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


People have been talking about nuclear power being safe and one of the cleanest sources of energy around, but as the Japanese are now saying, one mistake and a lot of people and land are effected.

I read on the BBC that although nuclear power might supply 2-3 generations with a good source of power, it could potentially affect up to 3,000 generations with the waste generated, not to mention nuclear disasters like Fukushima.

The fact that Fukushima happened is already probably going to cause enough damage to Japan to make it look like not having nuclear power in the country would have been a good decision in hindsight.

I mean, look at Fukushima - the probability that it would be hit by a high magnitude earthquake and tsunami at the same time - this is very low. But the problem is, that probability was hit on - and the consequences of hitting that probability are so high that it makes it not worth it, i.m.o.
edit on 10-10-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)


The real issue about nuclear power is we are currently using nuclear fission instead of nuclear fusion.
Fusion does no radioactivity problems as fission does, I believe it is the future in energy, time might prove me right or wrong.



Thruthseek3r



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   
It is easy to say: "turn them off" but what is the/ your Alternative?

I am against NPPs but to keep them offline we need a different
social Model and this is imho. a very difficult task!

Are you seeing what is going on in China?
Do you know how many People die because of their use of Coal
to keep the Powerhouse running,
do you know that the Pollution there is so bad
that the Visibility is max. a few hundred Meters?



And do you know that they need 200% as much Energy every 5 Years?
And don't even start to think about India!


We need to look further and for this we need Energy and "Education"!!!
edit on 10-10-2013 by Human0815 because: pics



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Nevermind.
edit on 10-10-2013 by ColCurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   

tehdouglas
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


I was under the impression that nuclear power has come a long way and is much safer now than before in the newer facilities. The problem is most nuclear reactors are outdated and not built like the newer ones, so they still pose a threat, like the ones in Japan and many here in America.


Perhaps - I'm not cognizant of the state of modern reactors. I don't think there are any in the US and I don't know about reactors around the world. I will look into it.

However, the reactor itself is only a small part of the overall problem of Nuclear energy. One that can cause catastrophic damage to the environment but so can nuclear weapons. Mining, refining, transporting, storing, reprocessing, decontaimination (if it's even possible) are all extremely dangerous activies and - and horribly damageing to the ecosystem.

You cannot call a single part of a system 'safe' if the entire system is riddled with dangers.
edit on 11-10-2013 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Human0815
It is easy to say: "turn them off" but what is the/ your Alternative?

I am against NPPs but to keep them offline we need a different
social Model and this is imho. a very difficult task!

Are you seeing what is going on in China?
Do you know how many People die because of their use of Coal
to keep the Powerhouse running,
do you know that the Pollution there is so bad
that the Visibility is max. a few hundred Meters?



And do you know that they need 200% as much Energy every 5 Years?
And don't even start to think about India!


We need to look further and for this we need Energy and "Education"!!!
edit on 10-10-2013 by Human0815 because: pics


You are completely right and I refer you to the article quoted in the Original Post.

It can be done and perhaps - just perhaps - we will start to see the need because of fukushima.

Bring the soldiers home, stop the wars, get scientists and engineers working on alternative energy instead of weapons of destruction, put the soldiers to work building solar, wind and geothermal plants, household and buldings all need solar or wind - everybuilding in creation can contribute to the local grids.

A true global iniative. Global cooperation not global competition. Healthy competition and collaboration - not the lying, cheating and stealing that is called free market competition.

You mention the dire circumstances of the Chinese - I believe they are the current leaders in Solar Tech. What more could they do if they didn't have to maintain a million man army - and could put those people to work on Solar and Wind. They have a huge fresh water crisis looming - how can we help them - the world needs massive research and development in the area of fresh water.

There are alternatives - there have been for decades - money wants the status quo - President Carter in the US started such an initiative here and look what THEY did to him.

This is the time we all need to realize that what is good for everyone is good for me.

Subject gets me riled as well.
edit on 11-10-2013 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-10-2013 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


So you realized that we need a different social Model
than the current one,
but this is very difficult to transform our World-Societies
and dangerous too, are we really ready to risk a more
or less working System against one which exist only
in Theory and which need a lot of Goodwill?

Are we in the position to demand something that important
or is this just pure recklessness?



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Japan isn't well suited for nuclear power. It's a small island on a fault line and has a closed society with inability to admit failures publicly or ask for help. A dangerous combination. That doesn't mean nuclear power can't work elsewhere but this crisis should make people more aware of its dangers if they weren't for some reason in the first place.



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ObamaCareBear
 


But Japan do not have Oil, Coal and/ or Gas at all!



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Human0815
 


Yeah Japan seems like a strange and unsafe place for large human population in general to have developed. It's surprising it developed to the level it has today with so few disasters. All the places in the world on major fault lines with huge cities are ticking time bombs. Nuclear plants make them ticking nuclear time bombs which is much more dangerous than just a regular time bomb. Any of the other options for power are safer but more expensive.



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Nuclear energy, as we know it, was simply an example of mans childishness. Placing our wants before looking at the future. Without looking at how it will impact our needs.

Unfortunately, I believe we have pretty much doomed ourselves and our planet with this poison. We can dismantle ever single nuclear reactor starting today, and it will not save us. The very act of starting these horrible engines has created a poison that will out last our puny existence. As a race of creatures.

There is an old saying about peeing in a pool. You cannot stand to one side and declare yourself safe from the effect of the urine.

With all luck, we will be bright enough to develop a way to clean up our mistakes. I truly hope this. I don't think we can clean this up. I am obviously not an optimist. But that doesn't mean I cannot hope, or promote attempting to do so.

Nature moves on. Chernobyl has shown this. There are animals thriving there now. Perhaps we will too.

It is our own greed that has gotten us here. We need to shelve that greed, and think about our very existence. Think about what we do to this beautiful planet. Think about what we do to the wildlife we are so lucky to share a world with. The vast array of plants and elements. The children.


Wow, am I capable of creating more syrup then a maple tree



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Nuclear reactors have, and always will be, creators of weapon material. Their byproduct, not their reason for being, their byproduct is heat/steam.

They were never intended to make power, they were intended to put the cost of making weapons to kill ratepayers, on the ratepayers themselves - they pay for their own demise.

Why do you think they have no plan for disposing of the waste, and never did? Right from the get go, they knew exactly what the two by products would be: weapons and waste. The took the weapons grade stuff and just left the waste, in a "who gives a crap about that stuff" attitude.



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
The reason that any of you right now can post on a forum and have your views on nuclear is because, wait for it, nuclear power is powering your computer.

I'm just throwing that out there.



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Alekto
 


That's not accurate either because some of us (wait for it) get our power from coal plants.

-Amitaba-



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Alekto
 


The only nations where that would be beyond a 50% probability are Belgium, Slovakia and France. In Japan only 18.1% of power is produced by nuclear and most nations have no nuclear power at all and for the record my computer is powered by sunshine and lollipops. Ok maybe that last claim is just in my imagination but the rest of my post is factually correct.

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 12-10-2013 by ObamaCareBear because: (no reason given)



new topics
 
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join