Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol
I think they are definitely not giving the Fukushima meltdown enough coverage. From what I've read this disaster is dwarfing the Chernobyl incident, yet it isn't being talked about. Instead we have to hear about Weinergate and other stupid issues.
|
No, sorry, I don't know what you're reading but Fukushima is not
remotely on par with Chernobyl in any way shape or form. In fact that comparison is SO absurd it is LITERALLY the equivalent of comparing a spill in the oil aisle at pep boys to the gulf oil spill. In chernobyl the reactor itself exploded and turned into a gigantic open-air geyser of radioactive material and massive numbers of people were sent in with negligible protection and knowledge of radiation hazards (if any at all) in a typical soviet "men are disposable" style solution.
Fukushima is, if anything, ENCOURAGING because it shows that even an ancient active-safety reactor that was scheduled to be decommissioned can stand up to not only one to an earthquake so absurdly powerful it moved the whole damn
planet four inches off axis and their entire country eight feet to the side but also having a mass of water on par with the great lakes thrown at you at a couple hundred miles per hour and STILL not go full chernobyl and present a genuine threat to the surrounding public.
If that were a modern passive-safety reactor you could've just walked away from it and let the reaction die on its own. The problem isn't nuclear power, it's that we habitually underbuild and underregulate power plants and then once they ARE built every time an inspection comes up we just relax regulations rather than fix any problems and we never bother to retire old plants or upgrade to better and more safe reactor designs. We just throw it at the lowest bidder and then pretend it's not our problem when the thing crumbles from mistreatment over decades.