3 ms·

"All possible emergency situations have been tested."* It's hard to believe this. Sometimes humans are getting a little haughty. What about a small comet? What

by tintin 15y ago

"All possible emergency situations have been tested."* It's hard to believe this. Sometimes humans are getting a little haughty. What about a small comet? What about lack of recourses maintaining the thing? I'm still not convinced nuclear is the way to go. But spilling oil isn't either..

bruce511 15y ago
Not to be picky, but a small comet? that's what you're worried about <g>? A small comet is probably the least of the worries. First of all even a small coment is gonna make a mighty big bang. Sure it might hit a nuclear power station (on land _or_ sea) but it's also gonna make a big mess. Actually, given that the ones on water can be moved they're probably safer than the ones on land. Regarding the maintainence - it's really no different to one on land, and some might say better than on land because there's no lack of cooling material. Worst case it sinks, which 'aint gonna be great for the sea-floor nearby, but it wouldn't be the first "sunk" nuclear reactor (there are already some 18 odd reactors underwater http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lost_nuclear_submarines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lost_nuclear_submarine...) and the risk of an explosion becomes zero. Of course Nuclear is in the news a lot, thanks to Japan. But there are a couple facts to put things in perspective. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing) Around 2000 nuclear explosions have occurred during bomb testing. From 1945 to 1998 there wasn't a single 2-year period _without_ a nuclear explosion. Over 500 tests have been atmospheric. The _average_ is 37 tests per year from 1945 to 1998. The peak was in 1962 with an average of just under 3 per _week_. Forget the Russians, there were 100 nuclear explosions _above ground_ (and 921 underground) in Nevada between 1951 and 1992. This isn't in some south pacific atoll, this is 100 miles from Las Vegas. But if there's talk of a radioactive leak in Japan, or a complete explosion like at Chernobyl, people in California start buying iodine tablets. Some perspective is certainly required. At the end of the day _all_ current practical energy sources are dangerous. All have direct, and indirect pollution aspects. But the N word trumps all rational discussion.
- rimantas 15y ago
  There is visualization of nuclear tests: http://blip.tv/file/1662914 http://blip.tv/file/1662914 I had no idea how many tests were performed before I saw this. Jaw-dropping.

by tintin 15y ago

bruce511 15y ago

Not to be picky, but a small comet? that's what you're worried about <g>? A small comet is probably the least of the worries. First of all even a small coment is gonna make a mighty big bang. Sure it might hit a nuclear power station (on land _or_ sea) but it's also gonna make a big mess. Actually, given that the ones on water can be moved they're probably safer than the ones on land. Regarding the maintainence - it's really no different to one on land, and some might say better than on land because there's no lack of cooling material. Worst case it sinks, which 'aint gonna be great for the sea-floor nearby, but it wouldn't be the first "sunk" nuclear reactor (there are already some 18 odd reactors underwater http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lost_nuclear_submarines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lost_nuclear_submarine...) and the risk of an explosion becomes zero. Of course Nuclear is in the news a lot, thanks to Japan. But there are a couple facts to put things in perspective. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing) Around 2000 nuclear explosions have occurred during bomb testing. From 1945 to 1998 there wasn't a single 2-year period _without_ a nuclear explosion. Over 500 tests have been atmospheric. The _average_ is 37 tests per year from 1945 to 1998. The peak was in 1962 with an average of just under 3 per _week_. Forget the Russians, there were 100 nuclear explosions _above ground_ (and 921 underground) in Nevada between 1951 and 1992. This isn't in some south pacific atoll, this is 100 miles from Las Vegas. But if there's talk of a radioactive leak in Japan, or a complete explosion like at Chernobyl, people in California start buying iodine tablets. Some perspective is certainly required. At the end of the day _all_ current practical energy sources are dangerous. All have direct, and indirect pollution aspects. But the N word trumps all rational discussion.

rimantas 15y ago
There is visualization of nuclear tests: http://blip.tv/file/1662914 http://blip.tv/file/1662914 I had no idea how many tests were performed before I saw this. Jaw-dropping.