Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
ILoveRegulation
Participant[quote=paramount]I found this site that may be helpful:
http://www.radiationnetwork.com/%5B/quote%5D
Supposedly any fallout is likely to hit the Northwest first. Current readings on that map are 14 in Vancouver, 38 in Seattle, 25 in San Francisco, and 18 in Arizona.
If the U.S. continues to build nuclear plants, I hope the government provides whatever subsidies are needed so that they can be way overbuilt. Leaving energy production solely to private corporations has led to too many disasters (Gulf of Mexico, Fukushima, etc.). The market doesn’t work when it comes to energy as externalities and tail risk is ignored. This disaster just proves once again what a fraud libertarianism is.
In the Fukushima case, I read that it was built for a 23 foot Tsunami. If the Japanese government had provided subsidies so that the plant could have withstood a 40 foot Tsunami, Japan wouldn’t be in this situation.
Participant[quote=paramount]I found this site that may be helpful:
http://www.radiationnetwork.com/%5B/quote%5D
Supposedly any fallout is likely to hit the Northwest first. Current readings on that map are 14 in Vancouver, 38 in Seattle, 25 in San Francisco, and 18 in Arizona.
If the U.S. continues to build nuclear plants, I hope the government provides whatever subsidies are needed so that they can be way overbuilt. Leaving energy production solely to private corporations has led to too many disasters (Gulf of Mexico, Fukushima, etc.). The market doesn’t work when it comes to energy as externalities and tail risk is ignored. This disaster just proves once again what a fraud libertarianism is.
In the Fukushima case, I read that it was built for a 23 foot Tsunami. If the Japanese government had provided subsidies so that the plant could have withstood a 40 foot Tsunami, Japan wouldn’t be in this situation.
Participant[quote=paramount]I found this site that may be helpful:
http://www.radiationnetwork.com/%5B/quote%5D
Supposedly any fallout is likely to hit the Northwest first. Current readings on that map are 14 in Vancouver, 38 in Seattle, 25 in San Francisco, and 18 in Arizona.
If the U.S. continues to build nuclear plants, I hope the government provides whatever subsidies are needed so that they can be way overbuilt. Leaving energy production solely to private corporations has led to too many disasters (Gulf of Mexico, Fukushima, etc.). The market doesn’t work when it comes to energy as externalities and tail risk is ignored. This disaster just proves once again what a fraud libertarianism is.
In the Fukushima case, I read that it was built for a 23 foot Tsunami. If the Japanese government had provided subsidies so that the plant could have withstood a 40 foot Tsunami, Japan wouldn’t be in this situation.
Participant[quote=paramount]I found this site that may be helpful:
http://www.radiationnetwork.com/%5B/quote%5D
Supposedly any fallout is likely to hit the Northwest first. Current readings on that map are 14 in Vancouver, 38 in Seattle, 25 in San Francisco, and 18 in Arizona.
If the U.S. continues to build nuclear plants, I hope the government provides whatever subsidies are needed so that they can be way overbuilt. Leaving energy production solely to private corporations has led to too many disasters (Gulf of Mexico, Fukushima, etc.). The market doesn’t work when it comes to energy as externalities and tail risk is ignored. This disaster just proves once again what a fraud libertarianism is.
In the Fukushima case, I read that it was built for a 23 foot Tsunami. If the Japanese government had provided subsidies so that the plant could have withstood a 40 foot Tsunami, Japan wouldn’t be in this situation.
Participant[quote=KSMountain]
If you read your TMI wiki link you’ll see multiple studies have had trouble showing even one death as a result of Three Mile Island – which I venture to say is not what most people think.[/quote]
One study I saw attributed approximately 1 million deaths to Chernobyl. I’m neutral on nuclear power. There may not have been any deaths due to Three Mile Island, however, the public (rightly) understands that things can go very wrong at nuclear power plants. It’s happened before and it may be happening again.
People don’t get a good feeling when they see buildings housing nuclear reactors explode. Clearly things aren’t hunky-dory in Japan and several TV talking heads have said that using sea water as a coolant is basically a last line of defense.
Participant[quote=KSMountain]
If you read your TMI wiki link you’ll see multiple studies have had trouble showing even one death as a result of Three Mile Island – which I venture to say is not what most people think.[/quote]
One study I saw attributed approximately 1 million deaths to Chernobyl. I’m neutral on nuclear power. There may not have been any deaths due to Three Mile Island, however, the public (rightly) understands that things can go very wrong at nuclear power plants. It’s happened before and it may be happening again.
People don’t get a good feeling when they see buildings housing nuclear reactors explode. Clearly things aren’t hunky-dory in Japan and several TV talking heads have said that using sea water as a coolant is basically a last line of defense.
Participant[quote=KSMountain]
If you read your TMI wiki link you’ll see multiple studies have had trouble showing even one death as a result of Three Mile Island – which I venture to say is not what most people think.[/quote]
One study I saw attributed approximately 1 million deaths to Chernobyl. I’m neutral on nuclear power. There may not have been any deaths due to Three Mile Island, however, the public (rightly) understands that things can go very wrong at nuclear power plants. It’s happened before and it may be happening again.
People don’t get a good feeling when they see buildings housing nuclear reactors explode. Clearly things aren’t hunky-dory in Japan and several TV talking heads have said that using sea water as a coolant is basically a last line of defense.
Participant[quote=KSMountain]
If you read your TMI wiki link you’ll see multiple studies have had trouble showing even one death as a result of Three Mile Island – which I venture to say is not what most people think.[/quote]
One study I saw attributed approximately 1 million deaths to Chernobyl. I’m neutral on nuclear power. There may not have been any deaths due to Three Mile Island, however, the public (rightly) understands that things can go very wrong at nuclear power plants. It’s happened before and it may be happening again.
People don’t get a good feeling when they see buildings housing nuclear reactors explode. Clearly things aren’t hunky-dory in Japan and several TV talking heads have said that using sea water as a coolant is basically a last line of defense.
Participant[quote=KSMountain]
If you read your TMI wiki link you’ll see multiple studies have had trouble showing even one death as a result of Three Mile Island – which I venture to say is not what most people think.[/quote]
One study I saw attributed approximately 1 million deaths to Chernobyl. I’m neutral on nuclear power. There may not have been any deaths due to Three Mile Island, however, the public (rightly) understands that things can go very wrong at nuclear power plants. It’s happened before and it may be happening again.
People don’t get a good feeling when they see buildings housing nuclear reactors explode. Clearly things aren’t hunky-dory in Japan and several TV talking heads have said that using sea water as a coolant is basically a last line of defense.
ParticipantPoster Common Sense from this article seems like the real deal:
So it sounds like possibly two of the reactors are in meltdown and the question is whether the meltdown will be contained in the containment facility or whether it will actually ‘melt through’ and cause some type of radioactive explosion.
Common Sense expects the meltdown to be contained in the containment facility. However, he says the entire core melted down at Three Mile Island, but wikipedia says that only part of the core melted down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
Further, the Three Mile Island reactor is different than the Japanese reactors. Supposedly, the Japanese reactors are 40 years old and it’s not clear how well they can withstand a meltdown.
ParticipantPoster Common Sense from this article seems like the real deal:
So it sounds like possibly two of the reactors are in meltdown and the question is whether the meltdown will be contained in the containment facility or whether it will actually ‘melt through’ and cause some type of radioactive explosion.
Common Sense expects the meltdown to be contained in the containment facility. However, he says the entire core melted down at Three Mile Island, but wikipedia says that only part of the core melted down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
Further, the Three Mile Island reactor is different than the Japanese reactors. Supposedly, the Japanese reactors are 40 years old and it’s not clear how well they can withstand a meltdown.
ParticipantPoster Common Sense from this article seems like the real deal:
So it sounds like possibly two of the reactors are in meltdown and the question is whether the meltdown will be contained in the containment facility or whether it will actually ‘melt through’ and cause some type of radioactive explosion.
Common Sense expects the meltdown to be contained in the containment facility. However, he says the entire core melted down at Three Mile Island, but wikipedia says that only part of the core melted down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
Further, the Three Mile Island reactor is different than the Japanese reactors. Supposedly, the Japanese reactors are 40 years old and it’s not clear how well they can withstand a meltdown.
ParticipantPoster Common Sense from this article seems like the real deal:
So it sounds like possibly two of the reactors are in meltdown and the question is whether the meltdown will be contained in the containment facility or whether it will actually ‘melt through’ and cause some type of radioactive explosion.
Common Sense expects the meltdown to be contained in the containment facility. However, he says the entire core melted down at Three Mile Island, but wikipedia says that only part of the core melted down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
Further, the Three Mile Island reactor is different than the Japanese reactors. Supposedly, the Japanese reactors are 40 years old and it’s not clear how well they can withstand a meltdown.
ParticipantPoster Common Sense from this article seems like the real deal:
So it sounds like possibly two of the reactors are in meltdown and the question is whether the meltdown will be contained in the containment facility or whether it will actually ‘melt through’ and cause some type of radioactive explosion.
Common Sense expects the meltdown to be contained in the containment facility. However, he says the entire core melted down at Three Mile Island, but wikipedia says that only part of the core melted down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
Further, the Three Mile Island reactor is different than the Japanese reactors. Supposedly, the Japanese reactors are 40 years old and it’s not clear how well they can withstand a meltdown.
-
AuthorPosts