[kevin]

The BBC has been running fairly constantly updates about it but it's often based on the information being released by the Japanese authorities and the analysis of footage by various experts in these sorts of fields.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

The company tricked the public before, the regulators have only imperfect insight and more than 100.000 people are evacuated so it's safe to assume that a meltdown is happening. The chances that the thing explodes might be small but we all know Murphy's Law.
I am not anti-nuclear but with three nuclear worst case scenarios during the short time in which we have used nuclear energy I am not a technology apostle either.

Well, yep there are risks with Nuclear.

There are risks with Oil, Gas, etc as well so - nothing comes free.

There's been no confirmation of a Meltdown as yet, although I believe that there has been concern reported at about 5 reactors in the country. Again, according to the interviews of those familiar with the type of design of this reactor (which was built 40 years ago and not how they are built today) they supposedly have a lower risk of actually exploding even if they do go into meltdown.

[Akula2ssn]

Originally Posted by horatio

The company tricked the public before, the regulators have only imperfect insight and more than 100.000 people are evacuated so it's safe to assume that a meltdown is happening. The chances that the thing explodes might be small but we all know Murphy's Law.
I am not anti-nuclear but with three nuclear worst case scenarios during the short time in which we have used nuclear energy I am not a technology apostle either.

As we say in the military, our safety procedures are written in blood. Meaning at some point in time, somebody did something or didn't do something that cause some other thing very unpleasant to happen. Unfortunately it's a very reactionary way of handling things with no foresight involved and means that it takes lives for things to change. Often times lives that didn't need to be lost in the first place.

[kevin]

This contains some information updates etc

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698

[Akula2ssn]

Originally Posted by kevin

Well, yep there are risks with Nuclear.

There are risks with Oil, Gas, etc as well so - nothing comes free.

There's been no confirmation of a Meltdown as yet, although I believe that there has been concern reported at about 5 reactors in the country. Again, according to the interviews of those familiar with the type of design of this reactor (which was built 40 years ago and not how they are built today) they supposedly have a lower risk of actually exploding even if they do go into meltdown.

Well if you mean explode like big mushroom cloud end of the world, your chance of getting killed in a plane crash are much much much higher. Achieving an uncontrolled chain reaction is difficult enough when you're trying to do it with the proper setup. If you're talking about an explosion as in a sudden and extremely violent release of pressure due to a failure of the reactor vessel then that's a different matter.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Akula2ssn

Well if you mean explode like big mushroom cloud end of the world, your chance of getting killed in a plane crash are much much much higher. Achieving an uncontrolled chain reaction is difficult enough when you're trying to do it with the proper setup. If you're talking about an explosion as in a sudden and extremely violent release of pressure due to a failure of the reactor vessel then that's a different matter.

Sure, and again, it's based on the limited information coming from the authorities.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

Well, yep there are risks with Nuclear.

There are risks with Oil, Gas, etc as well so - nothing comes free.

There's been no confirmation of a Meltdown as yet, although I believe that there has been concern reported at about 5 reactors in the country. Again, according to the interviews of those familiar with the type of design of this reactor (which was built 40 years ago and not how they are built today) they supposedly have a lower risk of actuallya exploding even if they do go into meltdown.

Depends on discounting. If you don't care much abut the far future any other nuclear energy is preferable to fossil energy sources that heat up out atmosphere for the immediate future.
If you also care about the far future CO2 emissions are preferable to nuclear waste endangering thousands of future generation.

But perhaps you gotta include the three meltdowns in this equation and yes, I am sure it will be three as the situation is out of control in Japan. After all they pump in water now and this doesn't seem to be much of a solution to get the heat out of there.

About the reactor, that's strange, why would the newer reactors have a higher risk of exploding? Must be like with modern cars who have a higher risk of failing due to all the electrical gadgets than due to the motor.

[kevin]

I leave power generation in foreign countries to those charged with it. I'm not an extensive tree-hugger to any special degree although I think we could better organise things.

[horatio]

The question doesn't have anything to do with tree-hugging just because tree-huggers are anti-nuclear. Folks over here were impacted by Chernobyl, there are externalities so it's not just an issue of that very country. Just like your neighbour listening to music at house-shaking volume at 3 in the morning is not just his issue.

[kevin]

Folks in Scotland were as well.

And if one or more in Japan goes into meltdown and we have another Chernobyl it will impact people again. But ya know what? I'm not able to stop it, and it likely won't stop the use of Nuclear Power for the immediate time. It didn't when it happened before.