Has Our Gov't Learned NOTHING from the Japanese Nuclear Disaster at Fukushima?

[Mustang]

It looks like this has been going on for years and years. The Japanese learned the hard way about being overconfident in their safety measures. Why do we have to tempt fate in light of what we now know AND after 3 well-publicized major nuclear disasters in the last 30 years?

If our gov't is not going to decommision these nuclear plants and shut them down, they should at least require the utility companies to modernize the plants in order to minimize the chances of any nuclear accident.

Safety rules loosened for aging nuclear reactors

LACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J. — Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.

Time after time, officials at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have decided that original regulations were too strict, arguing that safety margins could be eased without peril, according to records and interviews.
The result? Rising fears that these accommodations by the NRC are significantly undermining safety — and inching the reactors closer to an accident that could harm the public and jeopardize the future of nuclear power in the United States.

Examples abound. When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed — up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards.
Failed cables. Busted seals. Broken nozzles, clogged screens, cracked concrete, dented containers, corroded metals and rusty underground pipes — all of these and thousands of other problems linked to aging were uncovered in the AP's yearlong investigation. And all of them could escalate dangers in the event of an accident.

Yet despite the many problems linked to aging, not a single official body in government or industry has studied the overall frequency and potential impact on safety of such breakdowns in recent years, even as the NRC has extended the licenses of dozens of reactors.

Industry and government officials defend their actions, and insist that no chances are being taken. But the AP investigation found that with billions of dollars and 19 percent of America's electricity supply at stake, a cozy relationship prevails between the industry and its regulator, the NRC.

Records show a recurring pattern: Reactor parts or systems fall out of compliance with the rules. Studies are conducted by the industry and government, and all agree that existing standards are "unnecessarily conservative."

Regulations are loosened, and the reactors are back in compliance.
"That's what they say for everything, whether that's the case or not," said Demetrios Basdekas, an engineer retired from the NRC. "Every time you turn around, they say 'We have all this built-in conservatism.'"

The ongoing crisis at the stricken, decades-old Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear facility in Japan has focused attention on the safety of plants elsewhere in the world; it prompted the NRC to look at U.S. reactors, and a report is due in July.

But the factor of aging goes far beyond the issues posed by the disaster at Fukushima.

Commercial nuclear reactors in the United States were designed and licensed for 40 years. When the first ones were being built in the 1960s and 1970s, it was expected that they would be replaced with improved models long before those licenses expired.

Aging nuclear reactors get safety passes - US news - Environment - msnbc.com

 

[Jarhead]

After the first plane crash, the government should have outlawed air travel.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Mustang.

Do yourself a favor. Research how many people are injured/killed in coal mines and/or oil rigs, just in America this year.

Then compare it to the injured/killed using neclear in the world over the last 30 years.

Then come back and speak with some knowledge. Cuz you're idotic, knee jerk assumptions are working for you.

 

[Two Thumbs]

After the first plane crash, the government should have outlawed air travel.

The only way to live the perfect liberal life is to live along the equator, eating raw food.

 

[Mustang]

Mustang.

Do yourself a favor. Research how many people are injured/killed in coal mines and/or oil rigs, just in America this year.

Then compare it to the injured/killed using neclear in the world over the last 30 years.

Then come back and speak with some knowledge. Cuz you're idotic, knee jerk assumptions are working for you.

Nuclear accidents aren't the same as other accidents when it comes to energy production. Gas explosions and mine disaster are over in a pretty short period of time, and any affects are short in duration. Even the Gulf oil spill seems to have had limited damage. Nuclear disasters are not like that. The damage lasts for decades. Hell, the area around Chernobyl is still abandoned as is not safe for human or animal habitation.

Do yourself a favor. Take your head out of your ass long enough to learn something.

The battle to contain the contamination and avert a greater catastrophe ultimately involved over 500,000 workers and cost an estimated 18 billion rubles, crippling the Soviet economy.[2]

Chernobyl disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Democrats want to strangle the American economy

 

[StevenC]

It looks like this has been going on for years and years. The Japanese learned the hard way about being overconfident in their safety measures. Why do we have to tempt fate in light of what we now know AND after 3 well-publicized major nuclear disasters in the last 30 years?

If our gov't is not going to decommision these nuclear plants and shut them down, they should at least require the utility companies to modernize the plants in order to minimize the chances of any nuclear accident.

Safety rules loosened for aging nuclear reactors

LACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J. — Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.

Time after time, officials at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have decided that original regulations were too strict, arguing that safety margins could be eased without peril, according to records and interviews.
The result? Rising fears that these accommodations by the NRC are significantly undermining safety — and inching the reactors closer to an accident that could harm the public and jeopardize the future of nuclear power in the United States.

Examples abound. When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed — up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards.
Failed cables. Busted seals. Broken nozzles, clogged screens, cracked concrete, dented containers, corroded metals and rusty underground pipes — all of these and thousands of other problems linked to aging were uncovered in the AP's yearlong investigation. And all of them could escalate dangers in the event of an accident.

Yet despite the many problems linked to aging, not a single official body in government or industry has studied the overall frequency and potential impact on safety of such breakdowns in recent years, even as the NRC has extended the licenses of dozens of reactors.

Industry and government officials defend their actions, and insist that no chances are being taken. But the AP investigation found that with billions of dollars and 19 percent of America's electricity supply at stake, a cozy relationship prevails between the industry and its regulator, the NRC.

Records show a recurring pattern: Reactor parts or systems fall out of compliance with the rules. Studies are conducted by the industry and government, and all agree that existing standards are "unnecessarily conservative."

Regulations are loosened, and the reactors are back in compliance.
"That's what they say for everything, whether that's the case or not," said Demetrios Basdekas, an engineer retired from the NRC. "Every time you turn around, they say 'We have all this built-in conservatism.'"

The ongoing crisis at the stricken, decades-old Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear facility in Japan has focused attention on the safety of plants elsewhere in the world; it prompted the NRC to look at U.S. reactors, and a report is due in July.

But the factor of aging goes far beyond the issues posed by the disaster at Fukushima.

Commercial nuclear reactors in the United States were designed and licensed for 40 years. When the first ones were being built in the 1960s and 1970s, it was expected that they would be replaced with improved models long before those licenses expired.

Aging nuclear reactors get safety passes - US news - Environment - msnbc.com

I have a simple solution. Replace all the existing plants with new ones. In fact we should build two plants for every existing one and we could get 40% of our electric from them reducing our need for oil and coal. It would also boost the economy with thousands of high paid private sector jobs and tens of thousands of ancillary jobs.

 

[Seawytch]

The recent oil spill in the gulf and the nuclear disaster in Japan has given us proof positive that these companies don't know how to handle disasters of ANY magnitude. They have no contingency plans and no plan for cleaning up a mess once its made. God forbid we try to actually regulate these dangerous companies.

How many people have been killed in solar panel or wind turbine disasters?

 

[kiwiman127]

We don't want no regulations because that would hurt the economy.
With that in mind, let's just let our nuclear infrastructure continue to deteriorate. When we have our Chernobyl, well it will have positive effects. It'll help create jobs.\
In reality, no new nuclear plant has been built in over 30 years, many of our nuclear plants were built in the . Seventy-five percent of the operating nuclear plants have had radioactive leaks. Their infrastructure is aging and failing, after all it's been over thirty years. Now right there, normal people would recognize that we have an issue here.
This shouldn't be a partisan issue, but as the posts on this thread show, it is a partisan issue. Amazing.

 

[Seawytch]

Other countries are learning...

Germany says no nuclear power by 2022

We can replace our nuclear with renewables as well.

 

[bripat9643]

It looks like this has been going on for years and years. The Japanese learned the hard way about being overconfident in their safety measures. Why do we have to tempt fate in light of what we now know AND after 3 well-publicized major nuclear disasters in the last 30 years?

If our gov't is not going to decommision these nuclear plants and shut them down, they should at least require the utility companies to modernize the plants in order to minimize the chances of any nuclear accident.

Let's see: how many people died from the FUkushima "disaster?"

The answer: a big fat 0

That's nada, zip, zilch

Despite one of the worst Earthquakes in the last 100 years, and one of the most devastating tsunamis that has ever occurred, no one has died from anything occurring at the Fukushima nuclear power plant.

Conclusion. nuclear power is far, far, far safer than simply living within 5 miles of the coast.

 

[Mustang]

It looks like this has been going on for years and years. The Japanese learned the hard way about being overconfident in their safety measures. Why do we have to tempt fate in light of what we now know AND after 3 well-publicized major nuclear disasters in the last 30 years?

If our gov't is not going to decommision these nuclear plants and shut them down, they should at least require the utility companies to modernize the plants in order to minimize the chances of any nuclear accident.

Let's see: how many people died from the FUkushima "disaster?"

The answer: a big fat 0

That's nada, zip, zilch

Despite one of the worst Earthquakes in the last 100 years, and one of the most devastating tsunamis that has ever occurred, no one has died from anything occurring at the Fukushima nuclear power plant.

Conclusion. nuclear power is far, far, far safer than simply living within 5 miles of the coast.

Their land is contaminated. Their food is ALSO contaminated which affects both domestic consumption AND exports. Their economy is screwed. Their manufacturing exports have fallen. They're facing hundreds of billions of dollars in losses and clean up costs. The clean up time alone is estimated to be 3 years. Their population is displaced. People who previously were contributing members to society are now wholly dependent on charity and/or state aid.

Yeah, nuclear power disasters are merely an incidental cost equivalent to the disasters of other energy production accidents...NOT!

 

[johnrocks]

Maybe we should learn one thing from the French.....

France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.
France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.
It is building its first Generation III reactor and planning a second.
About 17% of France's electricity is from recycled nuclear fuel.
Nuclear Power in France | French Nuclear Energy


Has there ever been a major nuclear accident there? Perhaps we should model our nuclear facilities instead of our healthcare like them.

 

[Mustang]

Maybe we should learn one thing from the French.....

France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.
France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.
It is building its first Generation III reactor and planning a second.
About 17% of France's electricity is from recycled nuclear fuel.
Nuclear Power in France | French Nuclear Energy


Has there ever been a major nuclear accident there? Perhaps we should model our nuclear facilities instead of our healthcare like them.

I believe they also build smaller, more easily manageable plants as opposed to the behemoth-size nuclear plants that America builds.

 

[bripat9643]

It looks like this has been going on for years and years. The Japanese learned the hard way about being overconfident in their safety measures. Why do we have to tempt fate in light of what we now know AND after 3 well-publicized major nuclear disasters in the last 30 years?

If our gov't is not going to decommision these nuclear plants and shut them down, they should at least require the utility companies to modernize the plants in order to minimize the chances of any nuclear accident.

Let's see: how many people died from the FUkushima "disaster?"

The answer: a big fat 0

That's nada, zip, zilch

Despite one of the worst Earthquakes in the last 100 years, and one of the most devastating tsunamis that has ever occurred, no one has died from anything occurring at the Fukushima nuclear power plant.

Conclusion. nuclear power is far, far, far safer than simply living within 5 miles of the coast.

Their land is contaminated. Their food is ALSO contaminated which affects both domestic consumption AND exports. Their economy is screwed. Their manufacturing exports have fallen. They're facing hundreds of billions of dollars in losses and clean up costs. The clean up time alone is estimated to be 3 years. Their population is displaced. People who previously were contributing members to society are now wholly dependent on charity and/or state aid.

Yeah, nuclear power disasters are merely an incidental cost equivalent to the disasters of other energy production accidents...NOT!

All those issues are the result of the earthquake and the tsunami, not the nuclear plant problem. Why do you expect a nuclear plant to survive a tsunami and 9.1 Earthquake when nothing else in the are did?

the upshot of the nuclear plant problem is a slight elevated level of radiation within 5 kilometers of the plant. Most of the radioactive material will be washed away by the rain in a single year.

That's it. Wow, that is such a catastrophe as a result of the biggest natural disaster in history!

There have been LNG disasters that have killed hundreds of people, but I don't see any of you anti-nuclear fruitcakes whining about LNG.

 

[johnrocks]

Maybe we should learn one thing from the French.....

France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.
France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.
It is building its first Generation III reactor and planning a second.
About 17% of France's electricity is from recycled nuclear fuel.
Nuclear Power in France | French Nuclear Energy


Has there ever been a major nuclear accident there? Perhaps we should model our nuclear facilities instead of our healthcare like them.

I believe they also build smaller, more easily manageable plants as opposed to the behemoth-size nuclear plants that America builds.

Then let's do that, they have had plants since 1977 and no major problems but they have two with Capacity MWe net of 1500 and we don't have one according to this chart
Nuclear power stations and reactors operational around the world: listed and mapped | News | guardian.co.uk


Now;I don't know a thing about nuclear energy; but it looks like they have more and bigger plants than we do. I'm also surprised at how many Japan has.

 

[Mustang]

Democrats want to strangle the American economy

Have you ever heard the saying, "penny wise and pound foolish"?

 

[auditor0007]

It looks like this has been going on for years and years. The Japanese learned the hard way about being overconfident in their safety measures. Why do we have to tempt fate in light of what we now know AND after 3 well-publicized major nuclear disasters in the last 30 years?

If our gov't is not going to decommision these nuclear plants and shut them down, they should at least require the utility companies to modernize the plants in order to minimize the chances of any nuclear accident.

Let's see: how many people died from the FUkushima "disaster?"

The answer: a big fat 0

That's nada, zip, zilch

Despite one of the worst Earthquakes in the last 100 years, and one of the most devastating tsunamis that has ever occurred, no one has died from anything occurring at the Fukushima nuclear power plant.

Conclusion. nuclear power is far, far, far safer than simply living within 5 miles of the coast.

I have no issue with us using nuclear energy. However, we need to do everything possible to make certain it remains safe, and with these aging power plants, safety is definitely not at the top of the list currently.

As usually, your response is the most simple minded at hand. Everything you ever post is simple minded and black and white. Unfortunately, life in general is not black and white, although I'm sure you will now tell us all how it is.

 

[saveliberty]

Now the left accepts research by the AP on scientific issues? Note the "report" only suggests fears are higher. Well no kidding? Color me shocked the government over regulated something. Next you'll be telling me people are afraid of bunnies over 25 pounds. Eek!

 

[auditor0007]

Maybe we should learn one thing from the French.....

France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.
France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.
It is building its first Generation III reactor and planning a second.
About 17% of France's electricity is from recycled nuclear fuel.
Nuclear Power in France | French Nuclear Energy


Has there ever been a major nuclear accident there? Perhaps we should model our nuclear facilities instead of our healthcare like them.

I believe they also build smaller, more easily manageable plants as opposed to the behemoth-size nuclear plants that America builds.

Then let's do that, they have had plants since 1977 and no major problems but they have two with Capacity MWe net of 1500 and we don't have one according to this chart
Nuclear power stations and reactors operational around the world: listed and mapped | News | guardian.co.uk


Now;I don't know a thing about nuclear energy; but it looks like they have more and bigger plants than we do. I'm also surprised at how many Japan has.

Japan does not have the natural resources to provide for their own electricity. As their population soared, they had to find a cheap form of energy or they would have been forced to import massive amounts of gas and coal in order to do the job. I think this is the main reason they have so many plants and that the plants are so big.

If you look at Japan's population density, you will see that it is almost 11 times that of the US. It would be as if we, in the US, had to provide enough energy for over 3 billion people.