5 ms·
>« Even if nobody would die under normal conditions (nuclear and coal » Except the point of what I was saying and of the link I gave is precisely that under "n
by Typhon 15y ago
>« Even if nobody would die under normal conditions (nuclear and coal »
Except the point of what I was saying and of the link I gave is precisely that under "normal conditions", people die due to coal, whereas it is not the case with nuclear plant.
The reason is that all a nuclear plant releases in the air is water.
> « the consequenences of a (more or less probable) big catastrophe (height of fall) are the main counter argument against nuclear power. »
You must take into account the odds of a probable disaster, such as an earthquake in Japan, but not the consequences of any disaster.
It's just unreasonable to assume an improbable disaster will happen. You end up renouncing any technology by thinking that way.
Obviously, Nuclear power plant must be built with security as the main concern. Obviously, a nuclear reactor can be very dangerous.
But refusing to use nuclear plants, which are much more efficient than classic ones and a good long-term investment, is idiotic.
We're far more likely to die in a car accident than because of radio-activity, or any other disaster that's on television.
Yet, noone is suggesting that a country should be "car free".
Until a better, safer replacement is found, we'll use cars, and nuclear plants.
- moe 15y agoUntil a better, safer replacement is found, we'll use cars, and nuclear plants. I'd wager the change of mind will happen rather quickly after the first terrorist crashes a plane into an US nuclear facility.
- vukk 15y agohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY
- moe 15y agoImpressive video. However, I wonder if that test would look as good with a real passenger jet. According to wikipedia the empty weight of a Phantom F4 is 30,328 lb. The empty weight of a Boeing 737 is up to 80,000 lb (almost 3x as much). The empty weight of an A380 is 610,000 lb (20 times as much).
- eliasmacpherson 15y agoWould that the walls of the containment area on the reactors in Fukushima were that thick.
- Typhon 15y agoI'm pretty sure a big earthquake followed by a tsunami is more damaging than a plane crash.
- lispm 15y agoThe recent review of reactor safety here in Germany found that not a single site would survive a large passenger aircraft crashing into it. http://www.bz-berlin.de/aktuell/deutschland/kein-deutsches-akw-sicher-vor-jet-absturz-article1184819.html http://www.bz-berlin.de/aktuell/deutschland/kein-deutsches-a...
- Typhon 15y agoI don't read German. >« not a single site would survive a large passenger aircraft crashing into it. » Now, what does that even mean ? If surviving means "keep on working", obviously not. If it means destruction of the protection layers of concrete around the reactor, it's more dangerous, but just because the reactor is open, it doesn't mean the radioactive material is going to fly away.
- moe 15y agojust because the reactor is open, it doesn't mean the radioactive material is going to fly away. How is the radiation supposed to be contained when your reactor just turned into a burning pile of rubble?
- Typhon 15y agoThat's exactly why it's dangerous to anyone near the plant, as opposed to a Chernobyl-style or Fukushima-style disaster, where radioactive material is disseminated.
- moe 15y agoSo, your reactor was just turned into a burning pile of radioactive rubble by having something like 150,000 lb of mass smashed into it. And you say radioactive material will not disseminate?