Before I begin, I ask that you hope, pray, think good karma, or whatever you do on behalf of the people of Japan who are caught up in this tragedy. At the same time, if we don’t learn a lesson from their misfortune, we put ourselves in peril. Japan’s nuclear energy industry operates under excellent safety regulations, gar better than anything likely here, considering Republicans desire to put public safety even more at risk in favor of corporate profit. Putting nuclear reactors in places where earthquakes happen is not safe and cannot be made safe.
Workers continued efforts to cool down fuel rods inside two nuclear reactors Sunday as a Japanese government official warned that a second explosion could occur at the plant.
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said an explosion could take place in the building housing the No. 3 reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in northeastern Japan.
"There is a possibility that the third reactor may have hydrogen gas that is accumulating in the reactor (that) may potentially cause an explosion," he said.
An explosion caused by hydrogen buildup Saturday blew the roof off a concrete building housing the plant’s No. 1 reactor, but the reactor and its containment system were not damaged in the explosion.
Edano said the No. 3 reactor would also likely withstand a similar blast, noting that workers had already released gas from the building to try to prevent an explosion.
Workers have been scrambling to cool off fuel rods at both reactors after a massive earthquake and tsunami disabled their cooling systems. Japanese authorities have said there is a "possibility" that a meltdown has occurred in the reactors.
A meltdown is a catastrophic failure of the reactor core, with a potential for widespread radiation release.
But Japanese officials stressed that there were no indications of dangerously high radiation levels in the atmosphere around the two reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in northeastern Japan. They said they were unable to confirm whether a meltdown had occurred because they cannot get close enough to the reactors’ cores… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <CNN>
Unless we change our course, worse will happen here. While corporations protest their innocence, common people will suffer the consequences of their greed and pay the cost of recovery. Germans seem to have the right idea.
An explosion at a Japanese nuclear power plant has given new fuel to a long-running dispute over the technology’s future in Germany, where thousands on Saturday demonstrated against plans to extend the life of the country’s nuclear power stations.
Participants of a huge anti nuclear demonstration form a human chain in Neckarwestheim, southern Germany on Satuday March 12, 2011. Tens of thousands of people have demonstrated against plans to extend the life of Germany’s nuclear power stations as an explosion at a Japanese plant gives new fuel to a long-running battle nuclear power’s future. (APMichael Latz) Organizers said tens of thousands formed a human chain between the Neckarwestheim nuclear plant and the southwestern city of Stuttgart, which are 28 miles (45 kilometers) appart- some waving yellow flags with the slogan "Nuclear power – no thanks." Police didn’t immediately give a figure.
The demonstration was planned long before the post-earthquake blast at Japan’s Fukushima Dai-ichi plant, but the fears of possible disaster gave an added focus to opponents of the technology in Germany.
Saturday’s explosion destroyed a building housing the reactor, but a radiation leak was decreasing despite fears of a meltdown from damage caused by a powerful earthquake and tsunami, officials in Japan said.
Germany’s government last year decided to extend the life of its 17 nuclear plans for an average 12 extra years. A previous government had said it wanted them all shut by 2021.
While Germany – unlike some of its European Union partners – has no plans to build any new plants, the extension was divisive… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Common Dreams>
Let me be clear. Unless an area is 100% geologically stable, and I suspect that few places, if any, fit that description, building neclear plants there is an act of insanity.
6 Responses to “Green or Nuclear?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Nuclear energy needs to be phased out. The dangers are too great, and the radioactive waste produced by the process is a huge environmental albatross.
Do you realize that the anniversary of the Three Mile Island incident is coming up at the end of March? It’s a pity that TMI and Chernobyl didn’t convince people of the real dangers of nuclear power.
I didn’t realize that. Thanks Ahab.
I’m with you, TomCat. We’re still babes in the woods when it comes to nuclear power, and so far, NOBODY has ever developed a fully safe nuclear power plant!
That’s the way I see it, Jack.
Lets get this straight I am NOT a fan of nuke energy but right now it is the only viable option to cut our dependence on coal fired electric generating plants. Yes, I know wind and solar are very promising but various factors both technical and political are slowing their development and implementation.
I truly believe the world is in danger from human-induced climate change but that problem will not be solved with environmental good wishes and hopes. Conservation and alternate energy both on the industrial and personal scales are important parts of the solution but even the most optimistic estimates still leaves a huge power supply hole to be filled.
Making matters worse we not only have oil corporations and politicians wanting to derail alternate energy development but limousine liberals who complain about offshore wind farms and solar arrays spoiling their expensive views of the landscapes and property values.
There are more advanced reactor designs that greatly reduce the chance of meltdowns, one called a “pebble bed reactor” shows great promise to supply enough energy for major urban areas while not causing as many problems.
Beach I hear you. I claim no expertise in nuclear reactors I’m not against nuclear by definition. I think fusion may be the best long term solution, but I cannot support more fission reactors, until I start hearing from experts, who are not paid for their opinions, with strong environmental credentials that a design is 100% safe for humans and our environment.