View Single Post
  #4  
Old 03-16-2011
The Conquistador's Avatar
The Conquistador The Conquistador is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: United Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C)
Posts: 1,307
The Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to beholdThe Conquistador is a splendid one to behold
Send a message via MSN to The Conquistador
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randolph View Post
Obama's director of energy development has announced that the US should continue building nuclear plants despite what has happened in Japan. This seems very premature. We don't know yet how the nuclear disaster in Japan is going to play out. All the assurances about nuclear safety over the years are out the window. There has been controversy over the GE Mark 1 reactor since the 1970's. Is the containment vessel strong enough to withstand a coolant failure? Well, we will soon see.
But that is assuming that most of the reactors being built are of the Gen.I type like the Japanese type of reactors. Most of the Gen. II or III type here in the US and reactors are constantly being updated or replaced by new technology. Also, where in the US are the reactors located? Are they located near the coast where there is a possibility of tsunami or hurricane? Are they located near an active fault line?

Obviously, a reactor situated in Japan is going to be more succeptible to such things as tsunamis and earthquakes given that they are 1) on a relatively teeny weeny island compared to other land masses and that the effects of things are going to be much greater than say, Australia or Africa, 2) they are on a region of the sea known as The Ring of Fire( http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/...f_fire_650.jpg )which is known for its violent and constant seismic activity and 3) that most of the fault lines near Japan are underwater and that tsunamis can occur in the event that the earthquake is powerful enough. A powerplant by the coast and an active fault line has alot more risks than one sitting above bedrock in the middle of nowhere. Does that mean that nuclear power is a bad investment? Not really. What can be taken away is that there needs to be a bit more planning in where reactors are put and that there should be a certain planned obsolescence where old technologies are either updated or replaced altogether.

Just because someone gets into a car accident does not mean cars are unsafe and should never be used. There just needs to be a healthy amount of risk anticipation and mitigation when using such technology is all.
__________________
*More posts than Bionca*
[QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
Reply With Quote