Location: On a single planets of many in this universe....
Posts: 150
The construction of nuclear reactors in areas with high seismic activity
As the example of Japan shows, Nuclear Reactors should not be constructed in countries or regions with high seismic activity, high probability of natural disaster, or regions located near fault lines.
If the reactor in Japan explodes, we will see an explosion greater than that of an atomic bomb, and will leave Tokyo uninhabitable, as it will be blown to pieces, and radiation would prevent reconstruction.
This reactor is second largest in the world, and built in Japan, an area reknowned for its seismic activity, with multiple fault lines, and a small amount of land. Reactors of this magnitude should not be constructed in Japan, if at all, as they are a major hazard. There are other energy alternatives, and the lack of a reactor would act to retard population growth to such an extent that it would be required.
This point was backed by Professor Malcolm Sperrin, director of medical physics and clinical engineering at Royal Berkshire hospital. "There is a lot we don't know at the moment, but this looks very serious. However, there are a number of things that we should remember. The big difference between something like this and previous accidents elsewhere in the world is that there will be mechanisms in place to deal with the explosion and any impacts it might have. And although there is a lot we don't know, it is very unlikely that this was an explosion involving the core."
However, Naoto Sekimura, a professor at Tokyo University, insisted there was little chance that Japan came close to experiencing a Chernobyl-style meltdown. "No Chernobyl is possible at a light water reactor," he said. "Loss of coolant means a temperature rise, but it also will stop the reaction. Even in the worst-case scenario, that would mean some radioactive leakage and equipment damage, but not an explosion.
"If venting is done carefully, there will be little leakage. Certainly not beyond a radius of three kilometres."
People overreact to everything about nuclear plants. Nuclear reactors that are built in areas with a high probability of a natural disaster are probably built in a way to prevent major problems when a disaster happens.
Location: On a single planets of many in this universe....
Posts: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordan
An earthquake can happen anywhere and the odds of a 8.9 are really low.
I agree with Netrix
Not anywhere. Only likely in certain areas near the meeting of tectonic plates. Occurs near the coast of California, Indonesia, Japan, are some of the major ones. And an 8.9 scale earthquake is moderately likely. Case in point, Indonesia 2004.
MercifulBoss, on average there are 12,000 to 14,000 earthquakes each year. And on average of those 12,000 to 14,000 earthquakes only 18 are major (7.0 to 7.9) and only 1 is a great earthquake (8.0+). So your actually more likely to be in minor earthquake then in a major or great earthquake.
And I agree with Alex, while not likely to be the next Chernobyl, this situation could get ugly fast. At least two nuclear plants have had partial meltdowns.
The reactor was made to survive the earthquake. That was taken into consideration when it was built. They just didn't predict the earthquake then the tsunami.
In all reality, we in the western world shouldn't be worried. Check out the "How stuff works podcast" they have one on how nuclear meltdowns work....
Instead of a reactionary and irresponsible ban, we should use this as a (cliche) wake up call. Nuclear power is usually very safe, but we should work harder to safeguard our power plants against disasters like this.
Instead of a reactionary and irresponsible ban, we should use this as a (cliche) wake up call. Nuclear power is usually very safe, but we should work harder to safeguard our power plants against disasters like this.
It is also not an issue in all places. For instance, we do not have to worry about earthquakes or tsunamis here in Ontario.
The construction of nuclear reactors in areas with high seismic activity
