Abe: “We Need More Nuclear Reactors!”

abe-of-the-clenched-fist.jpg

Japan’s former PM and current LDP leader Shinzo Abe has stunned many Japanese with talk of building even more nuclear power plants, even as parts of the nation remain radioactive wastelands – though he very reassuringly talks of building them using the “latest technology” in “extremely safe” locations.

Ex-PM Abe, now the leader of the LDP in opposition and set to become PM should the LDP manage to win the upcoming general election, amazed even some of his staunch supporters in a recent interview with his continued insistence on promoting nuclear power in quake and lately radiation ravaged Japan.

After affirming that he would do his best to introduce more renewables, he also affirmed his continued support for more nuclear reactors:

“Incorporating the latest technology, we should be considering how we can build new reactors in extremely safe locations”

He did however still dodge the question of whether existing reactors should be restarted:

“This should be determined by a government comprised of representatives the people have chosen.”

The current government’s policy is to abolish nuclear power from Japan’s energy mix over some decades, although despite this work on some new reactors is apparently still going ahead.

Most of Japan’s political parties have either vowed to abandon nuclear power or given vague assurances that they will at least not let any more be built and allow the attrition of elderly plants to take its course.

Public opinion appears to be overwhelmingly in favour of abandoning nuclear power completely, with those brazen enough to still promote it being limited to crazed online right-wingers and stooges of the nuclear power industry (apparently including much of the LDP, which oversaw their construction in the first place).

Abe’s other vote-grubbing antics include various displays of rabid patriotism – including a recent press conference in which he tactfully dismissed the comfort women issue as “made up in a fraudster’s book and circulated by the Japanese media” and repeated his view that “there was no element of compulsion involved.”

Whilst his nationalist grandstanding has proven popular amongst creepy online extremists, even many of them baulk at more fault-straddling reactors huddled along Japan’s coastlines in the path of regular tsunami:

“First make an extremely safe location!”

“What is wrong with this guy! Does he intend to completely ruin Japan!?”

“The LDP has gone right back to its old ways of serving vested interests.”

“At least this is better than continuing to use the old ones…”

“They haven’t even done anything about Fukushima’s yet.”

“He’s just going to keep all the old dangerously situated ones running.”

“The problems happened with maintaining the plants. No matter what technology you employ, you still have to maintain proper inspections!”

“It has more to do with people than technology. You cannot expect their management to take real responsibility for the plants unless they are at least threatened with jail when they screw up.”

“Use all the technology you want, the problem is when you have an outfit like TEPCO managing it all.”

“Just build them on Okinawa where there are no quakes…”

“Try the Senkaku isles.”

“Why do they have to keep building the damn things right by the coast?”

“They need lots of water for cooling and apparently they cannot find any suitably large rivers to use in Japan, as they do in most other countries.”

“There is no extremely safe location in all Japan. The entire landmass is a severe earthquake risk compared to the US or EU.”

quake-risk.jpg

“I don’t oppose nuclear power, but the policy of building them in a place like Japan is utter insanity.”

“This guy is a total moron. At this time, he proposes making more of the things!?”

“It doesn’t matter though – there is no way such projects will ever overcome local opposition now.”

“The LDP is totally in thrall to the nuclear power lobby so it should not surprise anyone who votes for them that they fully intend to build more of them.”

“Abe is a joke – live in the most seismically active nation on the planet and build more of them and another defect will just cause one to explode down the line. He’s finished.”

“Abe is done with. Being a patriot doesn’t somehow mean you have to support nuclear power.”

“Why do the LDP love nuclear reactors so hard?”

“They still take so much in donations from the nuclear power companies there is really no hope for them now.”

If they’d but sacrifice a few onsen we could all have geothermal power now…”

“Use the latest technology – to make better fossil fuel plants. Invest in reducing the pollution and fuel requirements, not in nuclear plants.”

“They ignored the risk until now and now they expect anyone to believe them when it comes to safety?”

“There is no safe place for these things. See if Abe lets them build one in his back garden.”

“Just make them build it in Tokyo Bay and see how they like it then.”

“Safe nuclear power is a delusion. The risk may be small, but that is not the same thing as it being safe. They haven’t properly engineered any of the existing plants for high earthquake resistance and if they did the cost would be astronomical.”


    Post Comment »
    202 Comments
    Sort by: Date | Score
    Comment by Anonymous
    21:57 01/12/2012 # ! Good (+0.6)

    Everyone is anti-nuke until the bills and brown outs hit.
    The question is if renewables can fill the gap before budgets change minds.

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:08 02/12/2012 # ! Quality (+1.0)

    The immediate economic losses of the "nuclear scare" would have paid replacement of all Japanese nuclear energy with expensive renewables 850 times over.

    Yes, these losses are almost entirely due to people panicking and pulling investments, but human nature isn't going to change.

    Perception dictates reality. You can try to convince people nuclear power is safe, meanwhile, your economy goes down the drain.

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:04 02/12/2012 # ! Good (+0.8)

    Nuclear power is safe when done properly and most people were astounded by that this nuclear plant survived an earthquake and tsunami, the first multiple times more powerful than the plant was designed for and the second which had never even been thought of happening.

    Comment by Anonymous
    10:37 02/12/2012 # ! Good (+0.8)

    You advocate caving to mob ignorance while criticizing someone else as burying his head in the sand? For real?

    Modern reactor designs do not meltdown. An earthquake could stop them from generating power, just it would stop any other power plant, but there would be no irradiation.

    The people I feel bad for are the Chinese living near coal plants. Burning that stuff exposes people to more radioactivity, by far, than living near a nuke.

    Don't cave to ignorance; fight back.

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:28 02/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    And while you're trying to convince people that, the stock market is crashing, your retirement evaporates, and your real estate near that "safe" nuclear plant suddenly worth less than the cost of building a house on, which nobody will come rent.

    This is along the lines of "if everybody just be nice, we'll have world peace."

    "Everyone" won't think the way you want them to, even if you think you're right and they're wrong. Stop burying your head in the sand.

    Comment by Anonymous
    11:36 02/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    Anonymous
    10:37

    i dont cave, but damnit, itd hsrd to get people on yor side when they all believe something that is wrong,

    Comment by Anonymous

    Nuclear power is the safest form of non-renewable energy ever invented. Why, oh why do people always seem to forget that fossil fuels kill hundreds of thousands of people every year from pollution and various respiratory diseases? Just Google it if you don't believe me. And renewables can be deadly too - over a quarter of a million people lost their lives in China in 1975 after a series of hydroelectric dam failures.

    Comment by Anonymous
    18:36 02/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    I'd love to say nuclear energy is entirely viable, but as soon as humans step into the theory, things start running very differently. Over here in Germany we constantly get alerts because nuclear waste is tossed in random abandoned salt mine shafts, sometimes dangerously close to ground water.
    Additionally, we got something of an energy monopoly agreement between a few highly powerful companies here, and politicians are eager to change laws for them so their security checks get less tedious or happen more rarely, allowing them to run with ancient unsafe (and cheap) tech. If you want to sell energy cheaply, you cut corners everywhere and just stop giving a damn at some point.

    In theory we could all do it like Sweden, but in praxis this shit's ridiculous. It's not even about powerplants blowing up, it's about the waste. We already got a giant fucking waste problem on this globe that proves we can't handle it at all, and now it's getting radioactive on top of things.

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:17 04/12/2012 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    Not sure if they really banned or it was more a "we'll ban them surely" thing.

    Anyway Germany has 25% of its electricity from renewables, which is pretty damn amazing for a northern country without much of a coastline or sismic activity.
    The question is: is the sector saturated or they could make it grow still more? Considering a +5% in the last year, I'd say there is much room to do that.

    Comment by Anonymous
    00:04 04/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    Germany banned its nuclear reactors because the population went hysterical and still it needs energy. Energy it imports from France which uses Nuclear reactors for 80% of its energy production.

    Considering France is its neighbor and a nuclear incident would affect Germany, all Germany accomplished was to pay more for its energy in the end, but the stupid ignorant mass are now happy.

    Avatar of Busy
    Comment by Busy
    10:51 04/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    So many countries don't even have nuclear plants, austria as example never had any active ones because using wind, solar and water energy is profitable enaugh over there.

    Comment by Anonymous

    People should adopt my mindset.. If you don't know how it works, don't be scared of it! :D

    Well, I've never understood what's so bad about nuclear power, it's efficient and isn't really that dangerous if all safety protocols are held... and not built a few inches away from the ocean.
    I think it's better to let people who know what they're doing do their stuff, and not interfere when one has no clue about things.

    Comment by Anonymous
    09:40 03/12/2012 # ! Neutral (+0.4)

    All protocols held? If you read the Euro report after Fukushima review you will find out that most of the Europe nuclear plants will need to upgrade. In fact, some plants' upgrade requirements were posted after Chernobyl incidents but they were never implemented.

    Comment by Anonymous
    00:21 03/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    Actually, this is much more accurate than your typical alarmist's idea of nuclear power.

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:27 01/12/2012 # ! Neutral (+0.3)

    Alternatives have their own dividends and costs. There is a factor of long term benefit versus short term cost.

    However, current publicly shown technology is not so economical to assure even that level of economic returns in the near future. Not to mention, powering a developed nation purely from renewable energy is incredibly uneconomical and would require tremendous amount of capital and government investment that a nation with 234% GDP debt cannot possibly afford, even if it is a portion of their total power consumption.

    The reason for many nations to still rely on coal and oil, and nuclear is not because they cannot build renewable power plants - it is because economically speaking 'cleaner' fossil fuel plants and nuclear plants are better bang for the buck. Currently, the renewable energies in most developed nations are more or less 'test' cases deployed to see how reliable and economical they are, and how they can be made so through technological advancement based on those real life test results.

    Also, there is a political consideration to this issue. Energy is byword for 'lifeblood' of modern civilization, and thus intrinsically connected to geo politics at fundamental level. To control petroleum is part of the game being played to leverage influence over certain political situations across the world, and same goes for uranium. This means that until those resources are near depletion, and as long as they remain economical and generate so much energy for relatively manageable and sustainable environmental cost, world would be relying on them for the foreseeable future. Just developing new technology would not get anyone out of this power play - in fact, while you dick around with expensive toys, other nations will jump at the vacated spot and be able to power themselves so much cheaper and thus gain greater political leverage at your expense. Also, due to the nature of technology, your painfully innovated advancements can easily be taken over by other nations for way cheaper costs and time, as US have learned and is now taking measures against.

    My opinion is that US and other nations have already seen to developing a certain degree of economically viable renewable energies, but are holding their cards close to whip it out at the right moment in order to gain maximum political clout while managing non-renewable sources the best they can environmentally to the benefit of the people. Anyone who doubts this needs to only check some of the statistics and environmental data from 50 years ago compared to today. We are for the most part at sustainable level environmentally, something those tree-hugging environmentalists ignore.

    For people to blame this on 'lobby' and such is too short-sighted. They need to understand that technology of this type (one linked not just to energy power and geopolitics) are not perfectly refined or developed overnight due to need for perfection stemming from various national implications, and those who HAVE developed such technology must by necessity hold their own innovations close in order to best offer their citizens greatest economical, social, and political clout domestically as well as internationally. Best example of this is how US handled the shale oil/gas tech until now when oil reserve trend in the middle east is generally in a downward spiral. You have to know when to whip out the good cards at the right time, instead of being like japan and just spewing out your 'achievements' left and right while racking up 234% debt and constantly being in recessions for the last 23 years, only to discover that other nations have already developed their own technology for which japanese tech is but a foot note compared to their own innovations - afterall, critical supercomputers and most essential technologies in government in US are innovated (note: innovated) here, sometimes in europe, but not in japan. To compare commercial electronics and equate that with true technological innovations is a folly. As far as I know, Packet switch tech, arpanet, and GPS, etc etc of which we owe a great deal of revolutionary progress originated first from US defense and government organizations.

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:59 01/12/2012 # ! Neutral (+0.4)

    Japanese was not in recession for 23 years. In fact, it was growing even in most partsY/&§
    of the nienties.
    Difference is slower growth.

    And also, please, it's not a problem of technology. Tech does go on on solar as much as nuclear (heck, probably nuclear isn't so good because of lesser and older plants). Simple truth is... some power is not so efficient as others, in terms of bucks per wh (and bucks eventually mean, for example, acres of land covered in solar panels. Desert is good for this not only because of solar irradiation, but because it's otherwise useless land. And... there are not many nations with enough desert to spare, especially rich countries).

    Nowdays USA seem to be really ready to go on shale gas (oil tech goes on as well), and I don't think much tears will be shed in Washington when they'll not need to give much of a fuck about some infamous oil-exporting countries. It's not a "last resort" card, Saudi Arabia isn't depleted at all.

    Avatar of cats2
    Comment by cats2
    01:12 02/12/2012 # ! Quality (+0.8)

    It's more about how they're run...

    When NATO got to Japan and realized they where god damn near retarded with their handling of the plants and the emergency they even publicized the comments openly..

    Nuclear plants provide a lot of power for the "cost" of a handful of pellets that end up buried in deserts and the like normally..

    Avatar of kazaza2
    Comment by kazaza2
    02:33 02/12/2012 # ! Good (+0.6)

    @ cats2

    I agree with you 100%. No other energy source currently available is going to give you the value per KWH that nuke plants do.

    On top of that everybody is all for going green until the electric bill comes or they're PS3/ PC takes a dump in the middle of a boss battle because of a brownout.

    Keep looking for an efficient, economical alternative but also keep building nuclear plants until you really find a technology that works

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:11 02/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    Cite for the "not drilling" oil? Sincerely interested, I guess it's coal liquefaction or whatever it's called?

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:20 02/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    23:59

    Bitch please. Contracting GDP and ping pong growth IS recession. Graph doesn't have to sink like a rock in order for the economy to be that bad. Did you even check whether your data is inflation adjusted? Or know that upward trend is not indicative of overall picture? "Constantly in recession for the 23 years". Check your facts about their GDP growths each year. Decreasing total GDP is recession, and there have been more than few for japan, where as for US except for the recent crisis, was never a ping pong economy, but rather cyclical with 16 or 20 something year period.

    Please, learn your facts. Economical factor is part of the technical problem. When technology is such that returns are not worth the cost, then technical and economical problems go hand in hand. Saudi Arabia is not as rich in oil as it was before, and that is a fact. In fact, they are pumping more water and chemicals into the sand just to scrape up some more out of rapidly depleting reserves, compared to other places in the world where oil is booming. There is a growing evidence many OPEC nations have over inflated their oil reserve estimate, with some by as much as 200% to 400% of their actual reserves.

    Who said it was 'last resort' for US to tap the shale oil. It is only another useful card in the long line of far-seeing policies that are quietly being implemented by wise and silent functionaries as geo politics follow a predictable path, at least in terms of energy consumption. As far as I know, with US controlling 50 to possibly 73% of the entire world's shale oil reserves (reserves in china have not been proven to be either economical or as plentiful), power dynamic of geo politics is about to change a bit.

    Should shale oil run out, we always have technological advancement we can unveil at the right moment. Not too many were sure whether we could use shale tech either and many experts from japan and other countries tried to call US bluff on shale oil. They are feeling pretty cold at the moment :)

    Comment by Anonymous
    20:18 02/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    Erm.. contracting GDP is normaly indicator of recesssion but in the case of Japan GDP per person is a better indicator of economic activity due to low birth rates.

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:53 02/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    Actually, Anonymous, they already have means to manufacture oil that per gallon is competitive with drilling it out of the ground.

    So yes, we will have oil in the future.

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:11 02/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    We'll just have to wait.
    There's something that always make supply and demand meet, and that's the price. We'll probably still have oil in 200 years, but it'll just be not affordable. The Energy Return on Invested (EROI) for Oil is declining rapidly.

    The biggest problem for renewable energy today especially for mobile use, is buffering.

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:05 02/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    So what you are saying is that we should forget about using renewable energy now, and keep fucking with the environment until it's bad enough?

    Then what? One country has good renewable tech, the other doesn't, and that is good, you say? So one country will provide well-being for its citizens and "gain political advantage" right in time, at the expense of most of mankind?

    If we have a situation where most people will get the short end of the stick, that might just be you. Do you realise that? Or you think the USA is an economy that won't ever fall?

    Avatar of Gitami
    Comment by Gitami
    09:41 02/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    Elucidate 'may be more dangerous in long term" please.

    Comment by Anonymous
    08:20 02/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    >>Bitch please. Contracting GDP and ping pong growth IS recession.

    Japan GDP, year per year from 1992 to 2011:

    0.8 0.2 0.9 1.9 2.6
    1.6 -2.0 -0.2 2.3 0.4
    0.3 1.7 2.4 1.3 1.7
    2.2 -1.0 -5.5 4.4 -0.7

    Adjusted. And no, recession is when the little number is negative. I'm an european, so trust me: a +1 does make the difference already for people.
    Source is http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?page=3

    >>Who said it was 'last resort' for US to tap the shale oil.

    You: Best example of this is how US handled the shale oil/gas tech until now when oil reserve trend in the middle east is generally in a downward spiral.

    Or at least I took it that way: I thought you meant that tech was avaible earlier, but they waited for shit to be ready to happen (reserves fucked up).
    I think the simple truth

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:37 02/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    Did you miss the whole point about 'sustainable' environment development? Or are you so coked up in 'evil factory' vs. 'pure and awesome trees' childish bull shit that you can't see reality?

    People have learned that it is not only miserable but also extremely UNECONOMICAL in the long run to ruin the environment for a short term gain. You can't deplete the soil for a good haul one year and hope to live off that land for too long. That means that industry/energy and environment actually go hand in hand. Except for fucktarded nations like china, developed nations have learned this lesson.

    You also did not read about how tech innovations work, and are too narrow-minded with persecution complex to imagine any thing other than a zero-sum game. I never said the pie could not be enlarged, amusing how you jumped to conclusions based on infantile wailing about 'you tooook our stuuuufff'.
    US economy is resilient enough to withstand direct depression and recessions as it has been proven again and again. I cannot say the same for multiple nations whose corruption alone negates much of their economic successes for the public.

    Everyone gets a turn getting the short end, but there is a plenty of difference between those grabbing them. Issue is political and economical, and unfortunately for you, US has great deal of power in both areas. Don't worry, we won't be as stingy or ungenerous as if china or middle east was reigning as #1 super power in the world.

    Bitching about US is one sure sign the writer is a soft ass fuck who never lived through some of the harshest times in recent human history. Comparing US faults to others is like comparing petty speeding driver to a homicidal maniac on a bull dozer razing 12 houses and killing 200 people in the process. Get some perspective under your belt then open your mouth about world affairs.

    Comment by Anonymous
    09:52 10/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    A country is huge. Green energy can be used at various spots to reduce the demand. It's the general trend and is especially important in areas having high earthquake risk. Even the US is moving towards it. The goal is not to eliminate whatever type of energy but to choose the best within a defined area, not only considering the cost.

    Comment by Anonymous
    09:13 04/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    08:20

    If you took inflation into account, those numbers are mostly negative, since dollar inflation out-paces their growth by large. Point is not nominal growth, but how it is measured against the dollar. Even when there is growth, it is negated by extremely aging population and shrinking workforce. Where as for US, the lost ground is quickly regained and expansion and recession are healthily cyclical, as is expected of market economy. We were also due another big recession/depression by now, and financial crisis was by comparison moderate and a good wake up call for many people. It was severe, but not as unmanageable or impossible. US had the foundation and infrastructure in place to weather the storm. Unfortunately for our European friends, they did not. But I am sure US can help out in ways you cannot since security and prosperity of Europe is tied to security and economic benefits of US. Now if only europe would get its act together and stop being so damn bitchy towards us we might just be friendlier.

    Also, you did take my statement about shale oil the wrong way. It is but a portion of what the influence of US can reach, and all the taxes and revenues can help further renewable and economical resources in the future. We are now providing those resources to select allies and nations who can make a fair deal with us. Also when importing oil we pay fair dollars for those resources, but apparently many oil exporting nations do not like to share their wealth with the nation but horde it all to their own private accounts.

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:12 03/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    The best is a change both in new forms of energy, and devices with low power consumption .......
    For example leds this more than proven that LEDs have very low consumption so why not give starting cheapen its cost and replace the bulbs worldwide, which in some places is still incandescent (filament)?
    Coal plants pollute the environment and the generated heat brings up global warming.

    One idea nuclear power stations submerged in locations where less affect the environment and increase safety population.

    Yes the cost would be astronomical and perhaps created mutants marine (Godziraaa..) :P

    The truth is that the world is getting smaller and the only hope would be the Space!!
    (thank you USA for close to NASA and leave in the hands of small corporations will invest in only rides for millionaires trough atmosphere .........)

    Comment by Anonymous

    Methods to get "renewable energy" may be more dangerous in long term, than nuclear plant ever be. I, for one, make a bet on fusion power.

    Comment by Anonymous

    Green energy is not feasible. You can't run an industrial society on it. It's either nuclear, coal, or back to the bronze age.
    If you want us to go with renewable, you can forget about TVs, computers, cars, refrigerators, air conditioning, and pretty much any modern convenience you can think of.

    Comment by Anonymous
    01:04 02/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    23:27 must be the longest comment in SanCom ever.

    Comment by Anonymous

    There is no such thing as "renewable" energy. Even if the sources are unlimited for all practical purposes, the collectors aren't.

    Comment by Charismatic Vampire
    01:46 02/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    Then answer to Japan's energy woes is LFTR.
    http://energyfromthorium.com/

    Plus geotheormo.

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:26 02/12/2012 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    LFTR is the way to go safer then any thing else ever dirt cheap and and we will NEVER run out of fuel

    Avatar of Deus_mechanicus
    Comment by Deus_mechanicus
    02:01 02/12/2012 # ! Good (+0.6)

    Dear lord the level of ignorance being spouted by the anti nuclear Luddites in this comment thread is astounding.

    Do the species a favor and do not breed, then again you're on sancom so thats thankfully probably not going to happen.

    Comment by Anonymous
    18:45 04/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    I'd suggest for them to go live in the exclusion zone, but then again noone has gotten cancer from it yet (cept within the plant grounds).

    Comment by Anonymous
    10:58 02/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    nah.. at our current lifestyle, i don't think we're even deserve to colonize other planets lol.

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:27 02/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    "Do the species a favor and do not breed, then again you're on sancom so thats thankfully probably not going to happen."

    I'm not planning to. Children are expensive and i value my freetime. So way in hell am I willingly going to give either resource to an ungrateful little shit. [Also I probably have a 2 year old illegitimate daughter already.]

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:33 03/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    too bad your mama didn't think the same

    Comment by Charismatic Vampire
    01:44 02/12/2012 # ! Good (+0.4)

    It depends what kind of reactors he's talking about.

    If something newer such as molten salt reactors which simply cannot go into runaway and are safer then Carl Sagan petting a baby seal or CANDU reactors which lack a the dangerous high pressure core then yes.

    If more of the out dated high pressure BLWRs like in Fukkishima which for some reason did not have a concrete containment dome then no.

    Personally I think Japan should pour money into thorium molten salt reactors as this could give it the cheap and safe energy it needs.

    Comment by Anonymous
    00:10 02/12/2012 # ! Neutral (+0.4)

    nuclear plants are quite safe, problem as always is the human factor, it fucked up chernobyl and it fycked up in japan, both during building of those power plants and during its management.

    I.e. did you know that in japan while core was build with all quake safety standards, its failsafe mechanisms which were needed were built cheaply? apparently they thought it won't be needed.

    also people who worked at planta had to scavenge their own cars for batteries during power outage at generator.. only cause no one bothered to deliever them to plants before.

    there's been shitload of lazy and cheap fucks screwing up.. after all what could happen to a nuclear plant at an island plagued of tsunamis and earthquakes.

    Comment by Anonymous
    01:46 02/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    Does the reason matter? End result is the same. Nuke plants' tolerance to human stupidity is too low to be safe. And rest assured that human stupidity will remain, as illustrated by this right wing nut.

    Comment by Anonymous
    09:04 03/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    "Human stupidity"? Such as an earthquake and a tsunami hitting a plant all at the same time? That thing was an old reactor and STILL it held up without trouble for all these years, up until the wrath of fucking god was released on it. And even then it didn't immediately melt down.

    The only human fucking stupidity lies with the anti-nuclear protestor pitchfork mob.

    Comment by Anonymous
    09:56 10/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    Within 1 month the incident happened there were already rumors about human factors. I doubted it at first as there were not much proof. But records of discussions reviewed that humans did contributed to the worsening of situation.

    Avatar of Kashiwazaki "Niku" Sena
    21:51 01/12/2012 # ! Good (+0.3)

    Just build the nuclear reactors next to his house. I'm sure he won't complain cause they're made with the latest technology.

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:58 01/12/2012 # ! Good (+0.7)

    I will gladly vote for a modern nuclear reactor to be built right in my back yard if that's gonna help, because I'm not a fucking retard like all mindless, panicky anti-nuclear protestor sheep are.

    You people are contributing to the stagnation of energy technology and to global warming, with your brainless panic reactions. Fucking educate yourself.

    Comment by Anonymous

    So you don't mind them storing nuclear waste in your backyard then?

    Comment by Anonymous
    10:42 02/12/2012 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    We've got digester reactors now; the waste is fuel; we don't have to bury it.

    Comment by Anonymous

    Fuck that, imagine all the traffic... now maybe if I had a parking garage...
    Anyways it being nuclear power and the US government being more and more bold about abusing power they would just take my land and give me like 2 bucks in return.

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:16 01/12/2012 # ! Good (+0.6)

    Well, even nuclear plants made in the 70s and 80s still give off less radiation than living beside a coal power plant within several miles (somthing all the "clean coal" wackjobs never talk about). If he was going to build using the newest tech I certanly wouldnt mind living near it since its very safe.

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:21 01/12/2012 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    'safe' until disaster happens :/

    Comment by Anonymous
    00:48 02/12/2012 # ! Neutral (+0.4)

    What kind of disaster? Is it like hackers making planes drop out of the sky? AKA made up fear-mongering BS?
    Way more people die in coal power plant related accidents than in nuclear power plants.

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:42 01/12/2012 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    Well, of course, that's why it's called a disaster :/

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:03 02/12/2012 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    disaster such as human mistake and not being able to predict the damage that natural disasters can do(ahem fukushima)

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:33 02/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    Fukushima failed because those bastards that were supposed to start the emergency pumps ran the fuck away. afterwards it was too late and hydrogen explosions made some nice leaks so they could easily get close.

    Comment by Charismatic Vampire
    01:52 02/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    It really depends on the design not all reactors are equal when it comes to safety.

    A CANDU or LFTR is much safer then a BLWR reactor.
    Fukkushima also lack a key safety feature any boiling light water reactor should have, a concrete containment dome.
    This is why 3 mile Island's partial meltdown did not harm anyone or the surrounding environment.
    Other design flaws the location and having the backup generators in the basement.

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:24 02/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    Nuclear reactors are perfectly safe, the one in Chernobyl failed because the USSR built it using shoddy parts. The communists did not have the funding to build a reliable plant. And Fukushima failed because the quake cut off coolant to the reactor core. Wrong location for a uranium power plant. If it were a thorium power plant, the plant simply would have gone offline. So in the end, the faults lie with cost & arrogance.

    Comment by Anonymous
    00:13 02/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    nuclear plant workers are least likely to be affected by radiation, due to their work theyre more resistant than normal people.

    Comment by Anonymous
    15:57 03/12/2012 # ! Neutral (0)

    WTF?! Wow, please send your study results to the IEC. These radiation resistant humans are a major evolutionary step! Why do people think stuff like this factual?
    Maybe the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors can get some good paying jobs cleaning up Fukushima.







    Post Comment »

Popular

Recent News

Recent Galleries

Recent Comments