Crisis? What crisis?

[pdqaltair]

I figure humans are something like rabbits; in the absence of predators we multiply like--well, rabbits--and destroy our own environment. A natural result of evolution.

I for one still have a caveman-brain, still horde material things, eat too much, enjoy sex, and worry only over that which will affect my immediate clan in the next few days. We believe in mythology, fear the dark, and distrust what we do not personally understand. We measure too often in absolutes. Really, I hope we can grow past this, but I'm not impressed with our emotional progress and respect how we are hard-wired to act. Evolution is slow. Memes evolve so much faster than humans.

So, it's all natural.

[Artwerke]

Bent sailor, I'm not setting up a strawman. Didn't you say nuclear powers not worth the risk. There are plenty of posts on the global warming thread detailing all the end of the world scenarios from carbon fuels. If this nuclear disaster in Japan is going to kill all these millions of people by the butterfly effect ,how many millions died that wouldn't have otherwise, from all the above ground nuclear & thermonuclear tests as well as the 2 detonated in anger to "Make the world safe for democracy". So if nuclear Power is out, do we just keep using carbon based fuels, or are there valid arguments to be made that they're not worth the risk also. There 's no way solar & wind power is going to fuel this 21st century planet. So what's next? Do we just divy up the worlds resources to those who are willing to do what ever it takes to get them? That sounds so 20th Century. Try putting that Geni back in the bottle.
On another note, I may be a bit myopic on the Aug. 1945 detonations, as at that time my father was working his way north to Japan 1 beach at a time, so
if not for the Enola Gay, I might never have been at all!

[BentSailor]

It is a strawman as my comment about risk was about nuclear power, specifically as generated in the Japan reactors. If you've read my posts, you will note I am tentatively in favour of the IFR branch of nuclear energy generation.

To extrapolate from my opinion of the risks one specific form of nuclear energy generation and the immediate & medium-term consequences of it's failure to an argument about all forms of non-renewable energy, the risks of failure they have, and my attitude to the generation of plastics from fossil fuels is a strawman.

It is a common form of strawman too. Take a statement from someone, apply an extreme extrapolation of their viewpoint (as you see it), then get them to argue against your extrapolation as opposed to just getting them to support what they said (and only what they said).

[SailKing1]

I know this is far off base from the original post, but based on the last exchanges about fossil fuels, types of energy and where the future might take us it makes an interesting read.

I was waiting for my car to get repaired and read this article in the waiting area.

After Earth: Why, Where, How, and When We Might Leave Our Home Planet | Popular Science

[BentSailor]

The severity of the incident (which is still ongoing) has been raised to the same level as Chernobyl (severity 7) by the Japanese themselves.

Not making a political point, just updating the information (given the title of "What Crisis?", I thought updates to the severity would be pertinent).

[BentSailor]

Latest update

Japan's Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper says this "melt-through" is far worse than a core meltdown, and is the worst possibility in a nuclear accident.

In regards to the title of "Crisis? What Crisis?", I think the answer is simply "That Crisis.".

[CapnBilll]

I'm as neutral as I can be on the subject of Nuclear power. I would prefer to get my power, (as much as I currently use), as cheaply as possible. Nuclear is one of several possibilities. It does have however several downsides, (I have studied nuclear energy as part of my progress to an engineering drgree).

1. The long half lives of spent fuel, if the political climate was different some could be recycled. Also currently we have no viable place to store it, also because of politics. The requirement of cooling on spent pools surprised me, I would have thought that they would be stored seperated enough that passive cooling would be sufficient, (apparently not).

2. The idea of using cooling water as a moderator, big risk in case of loss of cooling water as we found out both in Japan and 3-mile.

3. Out of all the nuclear technologies we currently have patented, only the biggest and most expensive, and least efficient is being used.

4. Due to politics and corruption the nuclear industry has become a trillion dollar boondoggle.

In my home town a huge 100 Billion dollar gigawatt reator was built, loaded with millions of dollars of fuel, and then dismantled without producing a single watt; due to lack of a permit to sell electricity produced.

Not having a backup plan for cooling in case of power failure was a big mistake. Not being able to use excess steam pressure to run a pump was just plain stupid. A nuclear reactor is just a big steam engine with 1800's technology powered by 20th century science. An 18th century steam tractor could power an impeller on a pump. Or at least an auxilary turbine with dedicated lines running directly to pumps???

After studying Iodine poisoning and copper cancer in reactor vessels, I think nuclear power should be thought out a little more carefully before putting into the hands of a homer simpson clone.

The failures that have occured just reinforce this opinion.