they try to say nuke plants are safe

[ensho]

http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index.php?smp=&lang=eng


Staff at Czech nuclear power station Dukovany had to shut down one of the plant's four blocks owing to human error today, spokesman Petr Spilka has said. An employee working in the unit number two by mistake closed one of the six circuits with cooling water in the unit's nuclear zone. Automatic protection systems then disconnected two turbines from the power grid and reduced the output of the block fast. The incident had no impact on nuclear safety of the plant, Spilka said. The block should start to operate at full capacity in the evening. The remaining three blocks supply power at full output. "The incident is only loss of power production and has had no impact on the environment, no radiation has leaked out," Spilka said, adding it is around six years since the power station last had to make such a fast shutdown. The incident happened in 09:30 a.m. Technicians had to reduce the output of the reactor to 6 percent. Steam from the secondary circuit was partly let out also on the roof of the machine room after the shutdown of the turbines, which could be seen and heard in the nearest vicinity. One of the two turbines, which were disconnected from the grid, has already been hooked to the network again.
-------------------------

[MercutioATC]

1. The argument is that there's an element of risk to EVERYTHING.

You can slip in the shower and die.


...which is true, but if I slip in the shower, people in Sweden don't have to stop eating vegetables...

[havocmom]

2. As a westerner, I figure if it's all so safe, they can keep all the waste where they create it

and stop trying to put in in my back yard.

If it's so friggin safe, let the big stockholders take the waste home to THEIR houses.

[ben_meyers]

3. Sounds to me like the safety systems worked as they

were supposed to. How does that make a nuke plant unsafe?

[TheWraith]

5. Yes, safety systems working as they're intended to are apparently terrifying.

While 50,000 people will die in the US this year from the NORMAL operations of coal-fired power plants, which nobody cares about.

More people die MINING coal, just in China, in two years than have been killed by the entire history of civilian nuclear power worldwide.

People don't appreciate that being anti-nuclear means you're pro-coal.

[Hydra]

4. Yup

You have to wonder how much we are really being allowed to see these days:

The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency found radioactive iodine had leaked from an exhaust pipe at the plant, Kyodo News agency and national broadcaster NHK reported. Operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. already had announced the release of other radioactive materials from the exhaust vent previously.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19844998/

[ensho]

7. they have been having a lot of trouble at that plant in Japan

local citizens are very upset

[Hydra]

8. I would be too

"Earthquake proof- except in this case!"

[klyon]

6. When we have solar, why would we even consider nuclear power?

danger of accident
insurance not available unless US government pays for it
costs- return on investment so far down the road if ever
limited nuclear material (Iran is the largest holder of natural resources)
long term waste problem
long term confinement after plant life runs out
amount of oil needed to construct and operate

WHY WHY WHY?????????

[Hydra]

9. Because the nuke rats have the excuse of Peak Oil

I never thought I'd EVER see something that would get environmentalists to root for nuclear power...never say never, I suppose.

I still maintain that atomic energy/weapons were the STUPIDEST thing we have EVER done, and we may yet live to regret the manhattan project.

[SidDithers]

10. Sounds like the safety systems worked properly...

Is this supposed to be an example of a lack of safety?

Sid

Edit: I should read the whole thread before replying. I'm repeating what ben said upthread.

[MiniMe]

11. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island say it all for me

Now go build one in an earthquake zone, great idea.

[ljm2002]

12. To answer some of the questions...

...about how this shows that nuclear power plants aren't safe, since after all the safety systems worked?

First of all, it reiterates that there is ALWAYS an element of human error
Second, when the error results in something really bad (which it did not this time), it can be REALLY, REALLY bad
Third, you cannot design control systems for every possible eventuality

As to "clean" nuclear energy: of course it is true that, on a day to day basis, they run cleaner than coal plants. That is undeniable, and is a large part of what makes this technology look attractive. But you cannot calculate how clean it runs without factoring in the waste, and that is a huge problem, given how long it lasts. Furthermore, ask yourself: just why is it that private insurance companies will not insure nuclear power plants? I mean, these people are the best t assessing risk, it's what they do, and they do it well. So there must be a huge downside potential to nuclear power plants -- ya think? Finally: there is a standard mean time between failures (MTBF) for any component of an engineered system. Right now there are relatively few nuclear power plants, and we only have occasional oopsies (not to mention the occasional REALLY BIG oopsies, like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl -- plus some other close calls that are very scary to read about). So what happens if we have 10 times more? I'll tell you what happens -- more oopsies, that's what. By at least a factor of 10. Not to mention the nuclear waste stream, which will become a river, and what the heck is supposed to be done with it? Transport it to central locations? Then we'll be seeing more oopsies with train wrecks, trucking mishaps, etc. (I am reminded of a freight train that went off the tracks near Glacier Park, the whole train fell down into the water -- mmm, what if it had been carrying nuclear waste???)

We do have solar and wind and geothermal that we could be developing. In my view, the reason nuclear power plants are still being touted is the usual: big corporations will profit from building them. Then the costs of running them can be put onto the consumers. (one of my pet peeves, as a native Montanan -- everyone in Montana had cheap and plentiful hydroelectric power, then they became part of a big regional power company who built nukes in Oregon or Washington, I forget which, and then all of a sudden Montanans along with everyone else in that region had to pay more -- lots more -- for their electricity, in order to finance the nuclear power plants that they received no benefit from)

Okay, rambling now. Sorry.