About a month ago Mauro said that what had happened was thus far a proof of safety. Now that they admit there was a full meltdown in the reactor, do you now still think that Nuclear power is safe? (or will every meltdown be the exception?)
After weeks of denials and downplaying the truth, TEPCO has now reluctantly admitted that *Fukushima suffered a core fuel nuclear meltdown*. This means the fuel rods in reactor No. 1 were not sufficiently cooled, so they physically melted, releasing vast amounts of radiation into the containment vessel. Even worse, this nuclear meltdown apparently resulted in a *containment vessel breach*, melting through the floor of the reactor. This is what caused radiation to escape into the environment (air and ocean water). Here's the latest: http://www.naturalnews.com/032378_nuclear_meltdown_TEPCO.html On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Mauro Lacy <ma...@lacy.com.ar> wrote: > On 03/13/2011 08:37 AM, John Berry wrote: > > Might be fewer people stupidly insisting Nuclear power is safe now... > > > I disagree. What happened to this point (always based on available news > reports, of course) is a proof of safety, more than anything else. > The fact that the containment vessel resisted the explosion of the reactor > building and that no major radioactive leaking occurred, even when the > reactor core seems to be in a partial meltdown, and after the most powerful > recorded earthquake struck really close, says a lot about the level of > precaution, planning and safety those plants have. > > I can be wrong, and the containment vessel will end up not being able to > contain the meltdown(or partial meltdown, according to reports), but to this > point, the available evidence is indicating that it will be able to do it. > The fact they have decided to use sea water to cool down the reactors also > seems to strengthen this, because the temperatures and pressures will > decrease. > > Probably the level of contamination and consequent cancer increase produced > by the burning of the oil and gas facilities will be much greater than the > one produced by the radioactive leaking produced by venting. Not to talk > about the diseases and deterioration of quality of life caused by the > atmospheric pollution, which results from the burning of fossil fuels > regularly. > > Nuclear reactors have the potential to cause great damage, but just due to > that, their level of safety is greater. And that level seems to be adequate, > at least in this case, and until this moment. > > Conventional nuclear power is certainly not a perfect solution, but I think > nuclear power and their associated dangers are preferable to the burning of > fossil fuels and their associated problems. > > Regards, > Mauro >
