Science > Environmental Issues
Nuclear Power Madness
Anders:
There has been a lot of talk and a couple of documentaries in recent times pertaining to show the valeur of Nuclear Power as the saviour for energy-hungry people around the world and with the apparent benefit of stopping Green house gasses and thus slow global warming. There are currently about 440 nuclear reactors operating around the world.
As I mentioned at the end of thread http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1027
--- Quote ---The nuclear industry for energy production today relies on a stable society where the whole infrastructure is functioning. In case of a slight accident, emergency procedures and contingency plans are activated, yet these plans rely on
1) Power supply
2) People to implement the emergency procedures and contingency plans
3) Helicopter and aircraft to encapsulate the reactor as seen with Chernobyl
4) Normal infrastructure such as roads, communications network etc.
--- End quote ---
My attention got caught on SOTT article from the 10th of May where it reads:
--- Quote ---Earthquake leaves 10 million Philippines residents without power
Manila Standard
10/05/2006
An earthquake that damaged a transmission tower and shut down four power plants left more than 10 million people in Cebu without electricity yesterday, officials and residents said.
The relatively mild quake, measuring 3.7 on the Richter scale, struck Leyte at 10:02 a.m, the seismology office in Manila said, triggering a chain reaction of power generation units shutting down.
--- End quote ---
So we see that a small quake by normal standards can severely unstabilise an infrastructure in a region.
Indonesia is one of these countries looking to nuclear energy. One article in Jakarta Post (http://e.sinchew-i.com/content.phtml?sec=2&artid=200604280000) says:
--- Quote ---A nuclear power plant for Indonesia is now on the front burner. Soedyartomo Soentoro, head of the National Nuclear Energy Agency (Batan), says the nation needs 100 gigawatts of electric power by 2025. Four nuclear power plants would provide a total of 4 gigawatts.
He gave a nuclear plant timetable: in 2006 the site permit is procured, 2008 bidding opens, 2016 plant in operation, 2017 commercial use begins.
The most probable site is 7km from the Tanjung Jati B power plant on Muria Peninsula on the north coast of Central Java. The site is in Jepara regency near Mount Muria, an inactive 1,602m volcano. The Muria area is chosen because of the relatively low probability of an earthquake occurring there.
Geologists say Kalimantan would be a better site as it is less vulnerable to quakes. But as more than 60% of Indonesia's electricity needs are in Java, Bali and Madura, a future chain of nuclear plants will be built on and for these three islands.
--- End quote ---
In the last few days we have heard that one of the volcanoes in Indonesia is on red alert. So apart from earthquake risk which is mentioned in the Jakarta Post article there is also a volcano. As a matter of fact there are at least 130 active volcanoes in Indonesia according to this site http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/Krakatau.html which also mentions the eruption in 1883 of Krakatau. Location of the some of the volcanoes are shown on a map for those interested.
For general info, Indonesia sits on the "Pacific rim of fire", a map with earthquake epicentre for activity >5 between 1980-1990 is found here http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/images/RIM_of_FIRE_gif_image.html&edu=high
So without even taking into account cyclical comet showers, global warming with resulting rising sealevels, likely increased hurricane activity and intensity (with the probable flow on effect of stimulating earthquakes) this appears to me to be globally irresponsible.
In regard to the known case of a limited nuclear disaster namely Chernobyl then the effects were and still are widespread. Reports on our own Forum here from Turkiye and Greece attest to that http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1298
This article in Pravda http://english.pravda.ru/topic/Chernobyl-119/ which commemorates the 20th anniversary says:
--- Quote ---The explosion of the nuclear reactor of the Chernobyl power plant contaminated a vast territory of the European continent
A serious catastrophe is likely to occur on the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 2006. The disaster may become even more serious than the world-known blast of the station, which occurred on April 26th 1986. Specialists installed a sarcophagus around the nuclear reactor that year – the sarcophagus was supposed to protect the world from the harmful influence of radiation coming from the remnants of the hazardous production for 20 years. The warranty period has already elapsed
--- End quote ---
It just makes me wonder what happened to common sense...
Yossarian:
Excellent point, I think.
I just read an article in the NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC about Chernobyl, that was really a dishonest and deceptive plug for Nuclear Power in thinly veiled disguise. [Chernobyl wasn't really that bad. We do things so much better in the West] I recommend "Chernobyl, Insight from the Inside" by Vladimir Chemousenko, an excerpt can be found here: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/ChernobylIftI.html
After having read Chemousenko's book, and other research, I was able to spot the inconsistencies, the shaded emphasis, and outright lies that powered this article that really touts our "last great hope" for an alternative energy source.
The major cause of the disaster was the well known by the bureaucracy design fault in the reactor and their refusal to pay for necessary modifications. The instability in the design meant that the instability could neither be accurately predicted or prevented. To the pathocrats it was an acceptable risk.
Chernobyl is the result of a pathocratic bureaucracy like the one that is rapidly entrenching itself in the U.S. Chernobyl can and could easily happen again--given the current trajectory. Ironically, the Nuclear Power Industry and their tax payed lobby organization, the AEC (Atomic Enery Commission), had a bill before Congress that would provide those would be mass murderers with UNLIMITED protection from liability for whatever they do wrong and the accidents that result. Fortunately, (in a sick way) Chernobyl stopped that particular Pathocratic attempt to create "Law." (I say "Law" because the Declaration of Independence clearly states that when a government no longer serves the interest of "the people," that it is in fact illigitimate and illegal, hence any laws that it propagates are morally and ethically non-binding.)
Aeneas:
--- Quote from: Anders on May 16, 2006, 11:12:41 AM ---...
As I mentioned at the end of thread http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1027
--- Quote ---The nuclear industry for energy production today relies on a stable society where the whole infrastructure is functioning. In case of a slight accident, emergency procedures and contingency plans are activated, yet these plans rely on
1) Power supply
2) People to implement the emergency procedures and contingency plans
3) Helicopter and aircraft to encapsulate the reactor as seen with Chernobyl
4) Normal infrastructure such as roads, communications network etc.
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
The earthquakes in Japan at the moment just highlighted this issue as one can read in todays news:
Emergencies declared at 5 Japan nuclear reactors
--- Quote ---Japan's nuclear safety agency said the situation was most dire at Fukushima Daiichi's Unit 1, where pressure had risen to twice what is consider the normal level. The International Atomic Energy Agency said in a statement that diesel generators that normally would have kept cooling systems running at Fukushima Daiichi had been disabled by tsunami flooding.
--- End quote ---
And as Anders mentions:
--- Quote ---So without even taking into account cyclical comet showers, global warming with resulting rising sealevels, likely increased hurricane activity and intensity (with the probable flow on effect of stimulating earthquakes) this appears to me to be globally irresponsible.
--- End quote ---
We now know that global warming is not relevant, but global cooling and cometary showers along with electrical alignments in our solar system are to be reckoned with. If a Tunguska type event happened around a nuclear power station, then there would be no emergency workers close by and all infrastructure would be wiped out, not to mention the damage to the plant itself.
Will the safety of nuclear plants be reconsidered in light of the earthquake? The general amnesia of history, which leans heavily on the idea of gradual changes as opposed to catastrophic changes to planet earth, doesn't help the situation.
edit: mod fixed quotes
Avala:
While I think there is good reason to be worried about nuclear plants in Japan, I also think that we must be very cautious with reaction on news about those plants. I would say that there is big chance that global "masters of fear" will potentiate and use it in the coming days.
Aeneas:
--- Quote from: Avala on March 12, 2011, 02:49:47 PM ---While I think there is good reason to be worried about nuclear plants in Japan, I also think that we must be very cautious with reaction on news about those plants. I would say that there is big chance that global "masters of fear" will potentiate and use it in the coming days.
--- End quote ---
I think we can safely say now a year later that the real catastrophe that happened in Fukushima and which is ongoing got underreported. And that is even an understatement. The estimate is that it will take 40 years to decontaminate the area and that is under the assumption that it will not get worse.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version