I sure wish what has happened in Japan hadn't, the quake, the dam breaking,

[madokie]

the nuclear power plants going south on them but you know, down deep I felt something like this was bound to happen, not necessarily whats happened in Japan but somewhere a natural disaster was going to cross paths with a Nuclear power plant, odds were in that happening at some point. We don't have any idea as to just how this will end but already it doesn't look like it will be good but we'll see, I personally hope for the best for our Japanese brothers and sisters. At least I believe here, at least I read in Florida they shut down their nuclear power plants when a hurricane comes and I see that as good, (I like that) but what about all the other nukes that are either close to the ocean, ie. a threat of a tsunami because also being near a fault line and those sited near a known fault line, what is the chances they get a warning that comes in time to do what I've read Florida does with their Nuclear power plants when a hurricane is coming?

I really think we should have an open and frank discussion in our government, also in the public arena and come to some conclusions as to what we do going from here. I believe with what we've seen and are seeing that is going on in Japan today warrants that we do.

I think many of us would and I think we could conserve the amount of energy we use that the nuclear power plants are necessary to produce so we can live our lives somewhat like we do now so maybe we should just shut them down. We have a real problem, C02, and I believe its pretty much a given that there is no way we can build enough nuclear to do anything about that in the short term, long either when you think about how many would needed to be built so why do we keep proposing doing that very thing? The mining of the coal, just replace that with the mining of the fuel for nuclear, not a whole lot of difference there, both is dangerous to the health of the people who do the work and that live nearby. To build a nuclear power plant is a labor and resource hog too and very dirty as construction is, as is the mining the fuel once the plant is completed, lots of co2 produced.

Lately I've talked to some of the people who are working at our local power plants and all of them has said they could produce a lot more energy than they currently do but they don't because the demand isn't there.

I believe what I'm proposing is doable.

What say anyone out there??

Can we talk about this a little?

[SheilaT]

1. What we're really seeing in Japan is the vulnerability of

a complex infrastructure. Even without the nuclear thing, the powerful earthquake and the tsunami did such incredible damage to the northern part of that country.

Nature is a powerful force. And every day there are more and more people on this planet, more and more buildings that can then be damaged by whatever Nature throws at us.

It's been at least twenty years that the warnings have been out about a significant percentage of the population of the United States living within about twenty miles of the ocean, and so being vulnerable to Hurricanes. And also, probably, tsunamis. And yet people continue to move there. They have jobs or they retire and it seems like a nice place to be. In the center of this country you have tornadoes. And look at the incredible winter weather recently. No place is risk free. It just comes with living on this planet.

[FBaggins]

2. I wouldn't say it's the vulnerability of a complex infrastructure.

It's simply the power of nature.

Take a look at Haiti. The earthquake was roughly 1/100th as severe and there wasn't a tsunami worth comparing... yet over 100,000 people died.

Japan did something right... not something wrong. You're right to say that nothing is risk free... but the risks were minimized about as much as was possible.

[SpoonFed]

3. you wouldn't say alot of things...

and minimizing the risks as much as possible would be to make the risk entirely zero by not building reactors there,
or anywhere else for that matter.

it's a pretty solid risk analysis I think.
if you don't build them, the risk is non-existent.

[madokie]

4. There's really no comparisons with Haiti and Japan

In Japan they've been building with an earthquake in mind where in Haiti they were simply building shelters to get in out of the weather. In Japan the government there is more like a democracy where the people have a say where as in Haiti they've been exploited, stole from with no look to the future. Totally different circumstances altogether
Anyways nice that you're attempted to steer this post in another direction as you seem to do whenever a post is not favorable or questions the wisdom of nuclear power.

What about we discuss what I've proposed, the wisdom or the fallacy, not run off in tangents that have nothing to do with what I'd hoped to discuss.

What say you?

[FBaggins]

5. So you're agreeing with me... but testily just for good measure?

Totally different circumstances altogether

That was my point. And part of those differences involves a "complex infrastructure" that helped the Japanese people rather than hurt them.

Anyways nice that you're attempted to steer this post in another direction

I'm sure that you would like to control any and all conversation on threads that you start... but it wasn't me that sent us in another direction. My reply was certainly on-topic with the post I relied to.

What about we discuss what I've proposed,

Your post asks a reasonable question, but the answer really hasn't changed. Over the long haul, coal power generation does far more damage to public health and the environment than nuclear. It's fine that you're willing to do with less (though not everyoen in the country will agree with you) to reduce risks... but your focus is in entirely the wrong place.