Have a look at this link -
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2011/03/whats-happening-in-affected-japanese.html
Thoughts .. ?
The Real Wizard
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Mr Mercury
Unbelievable!! These Scots rescuers were prevented from doing their job by bureaucratic lunacy........
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/235671-scots-rescuers-disgusted-after-red-tape-bars-them-from-joining-japan-quake-and-tsunami-aid-effort/
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/235671-scots-rescuers-disgusted-after-red-tape-bars-them-from-joining-japan-quake-and-tsunami-aid-effort/
JoxerTheDeityPirate
^dont you wish that the reactors were encased in the same red tape as beauracracy..? :-p
[even if i cant spell it]
[even if i cant spell it]
YourValentine
A very interesting essay, Bob but unfortunately we are 3 explosions and 2 fires beyond the statements in this essay - like for example the statement that the radiation from the reactors is not dangerous or the statement that the plant is "safe now and will stay safe". Maybe if the Japanese people are lucky and the very worst can still be prevented - if the power supply will be built in time, if the army manages to cool the reactors from the air or from the ground, if the wind blows the radiation to the ocean and not to Tokyo...we can only hope.
What Donna says is very interesting : yes in the cases of Challenger and Columbia risks were taken because the public interest was so big and a further delay was unwanted (Challenger) or because the problem was so old that NASA believed it would not cause a real threat to a mission because nothing happened in the previous flights (Columbia). Of course in both cases money was an issue - mainly in the Columbia flight. The big difference is that nobody is forced to fly in a space shuttle and that - although it was a terrible and heartbraking catastrophe in both cases - no outsiders were hurt in the process. In a nuclear accident, however, a whole population and unknown future generations can be harmed for centuries to come. It is no coincidence that most nuclear plants are built near the borders hoping that the neighbour is hurt and not the own people in case of an accident. Nobody should have the right to run such a dangerous technology. There is simply no protection against radioactive contamination with all the horrible results. I would not say anything against the risk if there were no alternatives but there are. Modern societies do not need nuclear energy, a modern de-centralized energy net with renewable energy sources can replace all the old nuclear plants in very short time, it's just a question of decision.
In the news they said that China wants to postpone their plans to build new nuclear plants - who would have expected that!
What Donna says is very interesting : yes in the cases of Challenger and Columbia risks were taken because the public interest was so big and a further delay was unwanted (Challenger) or because the problem was so old that NASA believed it would not cause a real threat to a mission because nothing happened in the previous flights (Columbia). Of course in both cases money was an issue - mainly in the Columbia flight. The big difference is that nobody is forced to fly in a space shuttle and that - although it was a terrible and heartbraking catastrophe in both cases - no outsiders were hurt in the process. In a nuclear accident, however, a whole population and unknown future generations can be harmed for centuries to come. It is no coincidence that most nuclear plants are built near the borders hoping that the neighbour is hurt and not the own people in case of an accident. Nobody should have the right to run such a dangerous technology. There is simply no protection against radioactive contamination with all the horrible results. I would not say anything against the risk if there were no alternatives but there are. Modern societies do not need nuclear energy, a modern de-centralized energy net with renewable energy sources can replace all the old nuclear plants in very short time, it's just a question of decision.
In the news they said that China wants to postpone their plans to build new nuclear plants - who would have expected that!
john bodega
Nuclear just isn't a great solution, period. We treat it as long-term because uranium supplies and what-not would be able to see us just beyond our lifespans. After that, who cares - right?
Pretty unacceptable if you ask me - critics of switching over to renewable energy are living in the 1920's if they think that money can't be made from it. It would show true enterprise if they would lead the way themselves, have a monopoly on all that green shit.
Pretty unacceptable if you ask me - critics of switching over to renewable energy are living in the 1920's if they think that money can't be made from it. It would show true enterprise if they would lead the way themselves, have a monopoly on all that green shit.
GratefulFan
YourValentine wrote:
In the news they said that China wants to postpone their plans to build new nuclear plants - who would have expected that!
=================
Yes, brilliant response from various points around the globe. Let's do fail to replace 40 year old nuclear technology with better and safer reactors.
In the news they said that China wants to postpone their plans to build new nuclear plants - who would have expected that!
=================
Yes, brilliant response from various points around the globe. Let's do fail to replace 40 year old nuclear technology with better and safer reactors.
GratefulFan
Donna13 wrote: I guess it is the simple things that can bring down a system. The fact that they had the backup generators in the basement of this complex even though they are at the edge of the ocean and everyone knows that a tsunami is possible and even expected eventually in an area with a lot of potential for big earthquakes ... that is a surprisingly simple mistake they made. It reminds me of the heat shield tile breaking off of the shuttle and nobody bothering to check on that prior to reentry. Or the o-ring - some engineers were concerned that it might fail at low temperatures, but nothing was done in time to stop the launch. Or how about the Toyota floor mats?
========================
Though it's not completely clear from what I've read, I think the basement generators may have survived but all but one of their fuel tanks at ground level were swept away by the tsunami. Elevate the generators and make them potentially vulnerable to a large earthquake, or build them underground? I think they were in a bit of catch 22 situation given their geography/geology, though the engineering clearly critically underestimated the effects of a powerful tsunami.
With regard to your interesting larger point about simple points of failure, I wonder how much of that is a bit deceptive? Muddied perhaps by the 20/20 nature of hindsight and the fact that any complex system is really just a collection of hundreds or thousands of interdependent simple things.
========================
Though it's not completely clear from what I've read, I think the basement generators may have survived but all but one of their fuel tanks at ground level were swept away by the tsunami. Elevate the generators and make them potentially vulnerable to a large earthquake, or build them underground? I think they were in a bit of catch 22 situation given their geography/geology, though the engineering clearly critically underestimated the effects of a powerful tsunami.
With regard to your interesting larger point about simple points of failure, I wonder how much of that is a bit deceptive? Muddied perhaps by the 20/20 nature of hindsight and the fact that any complex system is really just a collection of hundreds or thousands of interdependent simple things.
GratefulFan
YourValentine wrote:
It is no coincidence that most nuclear plants are built near the borders hoping that the neighbour is hurt and not the own people in case of an accident.
=========================
I think that may be a bit unfair. Nuclear plants are ideally built on large bodies of water for obvious reasons, which are also often border areas, for equally obvious reasons.
It is no coincidence that most nuclear plants are built near the borders hoping that the neighbour is hurt and not the own people in case of an accident.
=========================
I think that may be a bit unfair. Nuclear plants are ideally built on large bodies of water for obvious reasons, which are also often border areas, for equally obvious reasons.
Holly2003
It seems some cold water has been poured onto the problem tonight, and the possibility of an explosive release has been lessened --- for the moment, at least. We'll have to see how that develops though, and I wouldn't rule out some hairy moments over the next few days.
YourValentine
GratefulFan wrote:
.
With regard to your interesting larger point about simple points of failure, I wonder how much of that is a bit deceptive? Muddied perhaps by the 20/20 nature of hindsight and the fact that any complex system is really just a collection of hundreds or thousands of interdependent simple things.
But that is exactly the point, GFF. Space technology is probably the most advanced and innovative technology but men make decisions and evaluate situations. Even if NASA had no decided to risk a take-off in cold weather for Challenger and even if they had handled the foam burst-off before Columbia was hit there could have been other risks and unforeseen problems. Also, there is pressure from politics and powerful money interests which can lead to wrong evaluations. As long as there is man-made technology there will be failure. In the end a small piece of foam can bring down the most advanced space ship in human history. The advantage of hindsight is that we can learn from mistakes, not act like failure never will happen.
Unlike any other technology nuclear technology does not allow for any failure. If a reactor fails the consequences are so horrible that it is irresponsible to even run a nuclear power plant. Just a simple example: almost no nuclear power plant that was built before 1980 is protected against a terror attack. It is very easy to blow up the cooling system - you do not even need an airplane to run into the plant - that is what many people have in mind when they think of a terror attack. How can anybody feel safe when such a possibility which is getting more dangerous and not less dangerous does exist?
In an earlier post you said that in such a state of emotions decisions about energy politics should not be made. I have to disagree and my reason is: we have to make these decisions now that we see the consequences on our TV screens or else our politicians will return to the "business as usual", i.e. telling us how safe our nuclear plants are although we have hundreds of incidents each year and the number is growing. It is not that the anti-nuclear movement has fallen from the sky since last Friday - it has existed since decades, the discussion is not new at all. We have to learn from this horrible catastrophe or else we will never have a chance to save our civilization. We cannot sacrifice the very basics of our existence to the profit of some energy monopolists who are not willing to invest into modern and renewable energy.
And China did not plan to replace old reactors - they wanted to build additional plants.
.
With regard to your interesting larger point about simple points of failure, I wonder how much of that is a bit deceptive? Muddied perhaps by the 20/20 nature of hindsight and the fact that any complex system is really just a collection of hundreds or thousands of interdependent simple things.
But that is exactly the point, GFF. Space technology is probably the most advanced and innovative technology but men make decisions and evaluate situations. Even if NASA had no decided to risk a take-off in cold weather for Challenger and even if they had handled the foam burst-off before Columbia was hit there could have been other risks and unforeseen problems. Also, there is pressure from politics and powerful money interests which can lead to wrong evaluations. As long as there is man-made technology there will be failure. In the end a small piece of foam can bring down the most advanced space ship in human history. The advantage of hindsight is that we can learn from mistakes, not act like failure never will happen.
Unlike any other technology nuclear technology does not allow for any failure. If a reactor fails the consequences are so horrible that it is irresponsible to even run a nuclear power plant. Just a simple example: almost no nuclear power plant that was built before 1980 is protected against a terror attack. It is very easy to blow up the cooling system - you do not even need an airplane to run into the plant - that is what many people have in mind when they think of a terror attack. How can anybody feel safe when such a possibility which is getting more dangerous and not less dangerous does exist?
In an earlier post you said that in such a state of emotions decisions about energy politics should not be made. I have to disagree and my reason is: we have to make these decisions now that we see the consequences on our TV screens or else our politicians will return to the "business as usual", i.e. telling us how safe our nuclear plants are although we have hundreds of incidents each year and the number is growing. It is not that the anti-nuclear movement has fallen from the sky since last Friday - it has existed since decades, the discussion is not new at all. We have to learn from this horrible catastrophe or else we will never have a chance to save our civilization. We cannot sacrifice the very basics of our existence to the profit of some energy monopolists who are not willing to invest into modern and renewable energy.
And China did not plan to replace old reactors - they wanted to build additional plants.
magicalfreddiemercury
[QUOTE] YourValentine wrote: The advantage of hindsight is that we can learn from mistakes, not act like failure never will happen. [/QUOTE]
I applaud your entire post, YV, but this line says it all for me. Beautifully expressed.
I applaud your entire post, YV, but this line says it all for me. Beautifully expressed.
GratefulFan
YourValentine wrote:
But that is exactly the point, GFF. Space technology is probably the most advanced and innovative technology but men make decisions and evaluate situations. Even if NASA had no decided to risk a take-off in cold weather for Challenger and even if they had handled the foam burst-off before Columbia was hit there could have been other risks and unforeseen problems. Also, there is pressure from politics and powerful money interests which can lead to wrong evaluations. As long as there is man-made technology there will be failure. In the end a small piece of foam can bring down the most advanced space ship in human history. The advantage of hindsight is that we can learn from mistakes, not act like failure never will happen.
Unlike any other technology nuclear technology does not allow for any failure. If a reactor fails the consequences are so horrible that it is irresponsible to even run a nuclear power plant. Just a simple example: almost no nuclear power plant that was built before 1980 is protected against a terror attack. It is very easy to blow up the cooling system - you do not even need an airplane to run into the plant - that is what many people have in mind when they think of a terror attack. How can anybody feel safe when such a possibility which is getting more dangerous and not less dangerous does exist?
In an earlier post you said that in such a state of emotions decisions about energy politics should not be made. I have to disagree and my reason is: we have to make these decisions now that we see the consequences on our TV screens or else our politicians will return to the "business as usual", i.e. telling us how safe our nuclear plants are although we have hundreds of incidents each year and the number is growing. It is not that the anti-nuclear movement has fallen from the sky since last Friday - it has existed since decades, the discussion is not new at all. We have to learn from this horrible catastrophe or else we will never have a chance to save our civilization. We cannot sacrifice the very basics of our existence to the profit of some energy monopolists who are not willing to invest into modern and renewable energy.
And China did not plan to replace old reactors - they wanted to build additional plants.
===============================
The human and environmental toll of nuclear energy cannot hope to be accurately perceived unless it's assessed alongside the same for the pursuit of ALL energy. You think this Japan event is a clarifying event, and my concern is that it may actually clouds the facts. A severe compromise of the integrity of a nuclear plant is extremely unsettling partly because it IS so rare and because every one is in theory a potential catastrophe. Potential. You still seem not to have considered that the Japan nuclear situation remains even this hour only a potential catastrophe. The only currently clear and tangible catastrophe is the thousands of dead and missing from the quake and tsunami, and yet everywhere one reads the focus is on this nuclear event which may yet be little more than a scary footnote in the history of nuclear energy. The most pessimistic (and heavily challenged) estimates of the people that will ultimately die or be harmed from Chernobyl are dwarfed, absolutely, thoroughly dwarfed by the numbers of people that have died in the 25 years since in industrial accidents in the energy industry, in wars directly or indirectly related to the oil industry and through illness related to fossil fuel air pollution. Look at the numbers for the latter in particular. They are shocking.
I find it difficult to think of nuclear plants as fundamentally unsafe. 25 years since Chernobyl and 31 since Three Mile Island, and the scope of the former is largely seen as an outlier due to the complete lack of any containment vessel and the emphasis on secrecy in the early handling of the crisis. In the case of Japan, we've had a once every 20 years magnitude earthquake, a massive tsunami, 40 year old nuke technology, a good share of human error and boneheaded mistakes made by heroes forced to be playing whack-a-mole in the dark in a nuclear plant with no power to it, and WE ARE STILL HANGING IN THERE. How can you possibly say that "nuclear technology does not allow for any failure"? Most of all, the risk of harmful radiation outside the immediate area of the plant given the precise circumstances of this plant and this accident has from the beginning been exaggerated and misunderstood.
Clearly the ultimate goal is the green energy you reference, but until we are there, nuclear can and will and should be a part of the mix. Instead we have politicians making partly self interested decisions that will at best delay the replacement of old plants with new ones, and at worst run old ones to the ground and potentially to some new ugly, thoroughly preventable nuclear incident. The assumption is that advances in green energy are solely or mostly held up by oil lobbies but the fact that the industry is still nascent in a relative sense is part of the issue as well. If living beside the United States informs one on anything, it's the power of the almighty market. A good, workable green solution will rise and will work and will be adopted because someone will find a way to make money out of it. There are a slew of obscenely rich people in the world and investors can almost always be found for good ideas. We've made mistakes in the pursuit of green energy already, with things like fuel from corn and such, and that industry was heavily, heavily subsidized, so it's simply not just about big oil holding the purse strings.
Personally I think a good first step would be to double or triple the price of gas in North America. In my opinion cheap energy more than anything informs what is frankly an often wasteful and self indulgent culture. And I include myself in that assessment. I can't seem to get in my car without putting 50 kilometers on it because I love driving around and listening to music as a temporary escape from regular duties and responsibilities and expectations. I do it all the time. In the winter I often take two long, hot, uninterrupted showers a day (or one shower and one bath) - one to get clean in the morning and one to warm up and feel nice before I go to bed. I understand I'd be killed or something if I tried that in Germany. ;) It's a lovely existence to be so few in such a huge, resource rich land full of fresh air and fresh water and green trees at almost every turn, but it distorts reality and almost everybody is vulnerable to energy apathy.
But that is exactly the point, GFF. Space technology is probably the most advanced and innovative technology but men make decisions and evaluate situations. Even if NASA had no decided to risk a take-off in cold weather for Challenger and even if they had handled the foam burst-off before Columbia was hit there could have been other risks and unforeseen problems. Also, there is pressure from politics and powerful money interests which can lead to wrong evaluations. As long as there is man-made technology there will be failure. In the end a small piece of foam can bring down the most advanced space ship in human history. The advantage of hindsight is that we can learn from mistakes, not act like failure never will happen.
Unlike any other technology nuclear technology does not allow for any failure. If a reactor fails the consequences are so horrible that it is irresponsible to even run a nuclear power plant. Just a simple example: almost no nuclear power plant that was built before 1980 is protected against a terror attack. It is very easy to blow up the cooling system - you do not even need an airplane to run into the plant - that is what many people have in mind when they think of a terror attack. How can anybody feel safe when such a possibility which is getting more dangerous and not less dangerous does exist?
In an earlier post you said that in such a state of emotions decisions about energy politics should not be made. I have to disagree and my reason is: we have to make these decisions now that we see the consequences on our TV screens or else our politicians will return to the "business as usual", i.e. telling us how safe our nuclear plants are although we have hundreds of incidents each year and the number is growing. It is not that the anti-nuclear movement has fallen from the sky since last Friday - it has existed since decades, the discussion is not new at all. We have to learn from this horrible catastrophe or else we will never have a chance to save our civilization. We cannot sacrifice the very basics of our existence to the profit of some energy monopolists who are not willing to invest into modern and renewable energy.
And China did not plan to replace old reactors - they wanted to build additional plants.
===============================
The human and environmental toll of nuclear energy cannot hope to be accurately perceived unless it's assessed alongside the same for the pursuit of ALL energy. You think this Japan event is a clarifying event, and my concern is that it may actually clouds the facts. A severe compromise of the integrity of a nuclear plant is extremely unsettling partly because it IS so rare and because every one is in theory a potential catastrophe. Potential. You still seem not to have considered that the Japan nuclear situation remains even this hour only a potential catastrophe. The only currently clear and tangible catastrophe is the thousands of dead and missing from the quake and tsunami, and yet everywhere one reads the focus is on this nuclear event which may yet be little more than a scary footnote in the history of nuclear energy. The most pessimistic (and heavily challenged) estimates of the people that will ultimately die or be harmed from Chernobyl are dwarfed, absolutely, thoroughly dwarfed by the numbers of people that have died in the 25 years since in industrial accidents in the energy industry, in wars directly or indirectly related to the oil industry and through illness related to fossil fuel air pollution. Look at the numbers for the latter in particular. They are shocking.
I find it difficult to think of nuclear plants as fundamentally unsafe. 25 years since Chernobyl and 31 since Three Mile Island, and the scope of the former is largely seen as an outlier due to the complete lack of any containment vessel and the emphasis on secrecy in the early handling of the crisis. In the case of Japan, we've had a once every 20 years magnitude earthquake, a massive tsunami, 40 year old nuke technology, a good share of human error and boneheaded mistakes made by heroes forced to be playing whack-a-mole in the dark in a nuclear plant with no power to it, and WE ARE STILL HANGING IN THERE. How can you possibly say that "nuclear technology does not allow for any failure"? Most of all, the risk of harmful radiation outside the immediate area of the plant given the precise circumstances of this plant and this accident has from the beginning been exaggerated and misunderstood.
Clearly the ultimate goal is the green energy you reference, but until we are there, nuclear can and will and should be a part of the mix. Instead we have politicians making partly self interested decisions that will at best delay the replacement of old plants with new ones, and at worst run old ones to the ground and potentially to some new ugly, thoroughly preventable nuclear incident. The assumption is that advances in green energy are solely or mostly held up by oil lobbies but the fact that the industry is still nascent in a relative sense is part of the issue as well. If living beside the United States informs one on anything, it's the power of the almighty market. A good, workable green solution will rise and will work and will be adopted because someone will find a way to make money out of it. There are a slew of obscenely rich people in the world and investors can almost always be found for good ideas. We've made mistakes in the pursuit of green energy already, with things like fuel from corn and such, and that industry was heavily, heavily subsidized, so it's simply not just about big oil holding the purse strings.
Personally I think a good first step would be to double or triple the price of gas in North America. In my opinion cheap energy more than anything informs what is frankly an often wasteful and self indulgent culture. And I include myself in that assessment. I can't seem to get in my car without putting 50 kilometers on it because I love driving around and listening to music as a temporary escape from regular duties and responsibilities and expectations. I do it all the time. In the winter I often take two long, hot, uninterrupted showers a day (or one shower and one bath) - one to get clean in the morning and one to warm up and feel nice before I go to bed. I understand I'd be killed or something if I tried that in Germany. ;) It's a lovely existence to be so few in such a huge, resource rich land full of fresh air and fresh water and green trees at almost every turn, but it distorts reality and almost everybody is vulnerable to energy apathy.
GratefulFan
Just a quick afterthought: People hear nuclear and they automatically think 'uncontrolled release of energy'. Despite the fundamental scientific error in that, am I alone in thinking it's kind of awesome, in the biblical sense, anyway? One can only marvel at the sudden conversion of relatively stable and benign elements to some critical mass that creates a reaction so inherently resistant to being stopped and whose momentum is almost always so relententlessly forward that sometimes the only thing to do in situations that are dangerous is to bury it in sand and concrete and silence and try to forget it's there. Maybe it's just the science geek in me, but I can't help but be a little awed by that. Just a week out and with terrible headlines everywhere I still think you could find one or two honest Japanese people who would acknowledge missing that downed plant a little already. Ironically, despite the challenges and the loss of that resource Japan is likely to remain a nuclear powerhouse for the forseeable future. Even now people are turning to the Japanese and will likely continue turning Japanese for expertise and solutions, for some time to come.
YourValentine
GratefulFan wrote:
"I can't seem to get in my car without putting 50 kilometers on it because I love driving around and listening to music as a temporary escape from regular duties and responsibilities and expectations. I do it all the time. In the winter I often take two long, hot, uninterrupted showers a day (or one shower and one bath) - one to get clean in the morning and one to warm up and feel nice before I go to bed. I understand I'd be killed or something if I tried that in Germany. ;) It's a lovely existence to be so few in such a huge, resource rich land full of fresh air and fresh water and green trees at almost every turn, but it distorts reality and almost everybody is vulnerable to energy apathy. "
====
I really try not to allow myself to get personal in such discussions but this upsets me greatly. You can thank God (or fate or coincidence) every day that you were not born a First Nation Canadian in Alberta. That your water is not contaminated and your land is not destroyed by oil sand strip mining. That your fish and deer are not poisoned and your kids do not die of cancer as a result of the incredible pollution. That your rich land and green trees have not been turned into black, hostile, poisonous waste land.
But probably there is no scientific proof that all this is a result of oil sand mining? Certainly more people must have died of age than of cancer due to pollution over the centuries? Certainly we must see the bigger picture and wait until the scientific results are available in 100 years? Let us not get to premature conclusions hat might disturb our sleep walking!
Back to the topic: I am not going to count the victims of the eartquake and Tsunami against the victims of the nuclear catastrophe or potential nuclear catastrophe. Or compare the number of still suffering Chernobyl victims to victims of other tragedies - that is just shameful. I wish you are right and the worst can be prevented but I have very little hope considerating that radiation has already been detected in Tokyo's drinking water. The reason why the international focus is on the nuclear situation is that earthquake and tsunami cannot be prevented. We can help as much as we can but we cannot blame the earth for creating earthquakes and tsunamis. Nuclear technology, on the other hand, is man-made and we would not be responsible human beings using our brains if we would not try to avoid such horrible disasters which are in fact much worse than any other energy casualties because the affected areas are inhabitable for centuries. Even in the above mentioned strip mining areas nature could return if the government would make it a law that the companies must rebuild the landscape and cannot just poison the water but a nuclear accident affects the very fundaments of our existence for an unmeasurable time. Apparently, it is very hard for the apologists of nuclear power to actually understand the extent of the possible consequences.
I never said that oil lobbies hold up the development of renewable energy systems. Electric power is usually not won from oil, at least not in Europe. The "dirty" energy plants are the coal plants. Also, I do not think that any lobby should hold up any progress in a democracy and it is exactly NOT the market that determines decisions, it's energy monopolists and corrupt politicians who put the interests of the monopolists over the interests of the population. If there is no market I wonder why the solar and wind energy technology is such an export hit and wanted by so many countries.
I always find it funny that people in North America think their fuel is cheap because they only pay a fourth of the price Europeans pay. But Europeans (at least in the "old Europe") do not pay for the Iraq war, they do not pay for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico or the loss of nature in Alberta. In the same way we do not want to pay for the extreme costs of nuclear waste management, cancer treatment, security measures. Last week a survey in Germany showed that 78% of the citizens want the nuclear plants gone as soon as possible and 76% were ready to pay a higher price for renewable energy. At least we will get what we pay for.
"I can't seem to get in my car without putting 50 kilometers on it because I love driving around and listening to music as a temporary escape from regular duties and responsibilities and expectations. I do it all the time. In the winter I often take two long, hot, uninterrupted showers a day (or one shower and one bath) - one to get clean in the morning and one to warm up and feel nice before I go to bed. I understand I'd be killed or something if I tried that in Germany. ;) It's a lovely existence to be so few in such a huge, resource rich land full of fresh air and fresh water and green trees at almost every turn, but it distorts reality and almost everybody is vulnerable to energy apathy. "
====
I really try not to allow myself to get personal in such discussions but this upsets me greatly. You can thank God (or fate or coincidence) every day that you were not born a First Nation Canadian in Alberta. That your water is not contaminated and your land is not destroyed by oil sand strip mining. That your fish and deer are not poisoned and your kids do not die of cancer as a result of the incredible pollution. That your rich land and green trees have not been turned into black, hostile, poisonous waste land.
But probably there is no scientific proof that all this is a result of oil sand mining? Certainly more people must have died of age than of cancer due to pollution over the centuries? Certainly we must see the bigger picture and wait until the scientific results are available in 100 years? Let us not get to premature conclusions hat might disturb our sleep walking!
Back to the topic: I am not going to count the victims of the eartquake and Tsunami against the victims of the nuclear catastrophe or potential nuclear catastrophe. Or compare the number of still suffering Chernobyl victims to victims of other tragedies - that is just shameful. I wish you are right and the worst can be prevented but I have very little hope considerating that radiation has already been detected in Tokyo's drinking water. The reason why the international focus is on the nuclear situation is that earthquake and tsunami cannot be prevented. We can help as much as we can but we cannot blame the earth for creating earthquakes and tsunamis. Nuclear technology, on the other hand, is man-made and we would not be responsible human beings using our brains if we would not try to avoid such horrible disasters which are in fact much worse than any other energy casualties because the affected areas are inhabitable for centuries. Even in the above mentioned strip mining areas nature could return if the government would make it a law that the companies must rebuild the landscape and cannot just poison the water but a nuclear accident affects the very fundaments of our existence for an unmeasurable time. Apparently, it is very hard for the apologists of nuclear power to actually understand the extent of the possible consequences.
I never said that oil lobbies hold up the development of renewable energy systems. Electric power is usually not won from oil, at least not in Europe. The "dirty" energy plants are the coal plants. Also, I do not think that any lobby should hold up any progress in a democracy and it is exactly NOT the market that determines decisions, it's energy monopolists and corrupt politicians who put the interests of the monopolists over the interests of the population. If there is no market I wonder why the solar and wind energy technology is such an export hit and wanted by so many countries.
I always find it funny that people in North America think their fuel is cheap because they only pay a fourth of the price Europeans pay. But Europeans (at least in the "old Europe") do not pay for the Iraq war, they do not pay for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico or the loss of nature in Alberta. In the same way we do not want to pay for the extreme costs of nuclear waste management, cancer treatment, security measures. Last week a survey in Germany showed that 78% of the citizens want the nuclear plants gone as soon as possible and 76% were ready to pay a higher price for renewable energy. At least we will get what we pay for.
*goodco*
Simply looked up info on Cook Nuclear plant in Michigan (http://www.cookinfo.com/default.asp), that I visited as an 8th grader eons ago. What a lovely place per its website.
Scroll down to near the bottom and click their pdf 'in case of emergency' link. I could point out hundreds of holes in their system. Also, I'd guess some of their comments were based on a 'short term' problem. Japan's will last how long? And to what degree?
What are they going to do with all the contaminated soil and materials? We're not talking a square mile or kilometers worth, after all.
The tsunami damage was/is bad enough. I don't have the link, but the short video I saw of an orphaned 8 year old being reunited with her dog, and laying next to it at a shelter, ............,......tugged hard at my soul.
Scroll down to near the bottom and click their pdf 'in case of emergency' link. I could point out hundreds of holes in their system. Also, I'd guess some of their comments were based on a 'short term' problem. Japan's will last how long? And to what degree?
What are they going to do with all the contaminated soil and materials? We're not talking a square mile or kilometers worth, after all.
The tsunami damage was/is bad enough. I don't have the link, but the short video I saw of an orphaned 8 year old being reunited with her dog, and laying next to it at a shelter, ............,......tugged hard at my soul.