Fukushima Could Be 85 Times Worse than Chernobyl

22 May

English: Internationally recognized symbol. De...

English: Internationally recognized symbol.  Image:Radioactive.svg (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Sobering.  Worst case: global catastrophe.

It’s hard to listen to this video without thinking about End Times.

General Electric has built a number of nuclear power plants in the US that are reportedly identical to Fukushima Reactor #4.   If so, those US reactors may also store their radioactive waste on the roof of the reactors.  If the reactor building is destroyed, the nuclear waste might render hundreds, perhaps thousands, of square miles uninhabitable.

Nuclear power is a colossally stupid, short-sighted technology.  We get cheap energy for 20 to 50 years, then we have to figure out how to safely store the highly toxic, radioactive waste for thousands, perhaps even a million,  years. Given the storage problem, the nuclear power technology is insane.

video   00:05:31


Posted by on May 22, 2012 in Fukushima, Nuclear Power, Video


Tags: , , ,

3 responses to “Fukushima Could Be 85 Times Worse than Chernobyl

  1. Lex Mercatoria

    May 22, 2012 at 6:16 PM

    Fuk-U-Shima is just another in a long string of media hoaxes–but wait, how can that be? They presented the story as “news”, so the imagery must be real, right? It’s little more than cheap composite video & CGI.

  2. Yartap

    May 22, 2012 at 7:33 PM

    I agree with You!

    So, some of these nuclear plants are not disposing of their nuclear waste. That will keep the price down. I guess they are waiting on the American public to bail out these nuclear plants that cannot dispose of the waste properly, nor give up any of their profits. Sounds just like our U.S. government: “Live for today and don’t worry about tomorrow.” Our children will have to pay the cost of, not only, our debts; but also, the grave yards of nuclear waste, if we dispose of it or not! So, what is the real cost to us?

    According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the average cost of the major supply sources of electricity with advanced energy systems (clean energy) are as follows: Natural Gas is $89.30/Mega-Watt Hour; Coal is $136.20/ Mwh.; Nuclear is $113.90/ Mwh. But, without disposal of some of the nuclear waste, is the cost of nuclear power really “its cost?” The U.S. is the ONLY country that has cheap nuclear power. In all the other countries, nuclear power is the most expensive. WHY? Could it be that they dispose of their waste properly?

    Natural Gas makes up 13.17% of our electrical supply, Nuclear makes up 20.81% and Coal make up 53.42%, over half. Coal is our most pollutant source; but with the advent of advance carbon scrubbing for both Coal and Natural Gas, they are some of our cleanest! In France, nuclear power supplies 70% of their electricity!

    Read this from,
    “Nuclear power plants are intermittent in that they will sometimes fail unexpectedly, often for long periods of time. For example, in the United States, 132 nuclear plants were built, and 21% were permanently and prematurely closed due to reliability or cost problems, while another 27% have at least once completely failed for a year or more. The remaining U.S. nuclear plants produce approximately 90% of their full-time full-load potential, but even they must shut down (on average) for 39 days every 17 months for scheduled refueling and maintenance.”

    What many DO NOT KNOW is that nuclear power plants have to have other backup power sources for safety reasons! Without these backup power sources (like diesel, coal and natural gas), these nuclear plants fail/melt-down. When they shut down a nuclear reactor, it is the other power sources that keep the pumps going to cool the nuclear reactor rods/core. This is what happened at Fukushima. They turned off the reactors due to the approaching storm and the other power sources were destroyed, stopping the cooling of the rods/cores, and also the stored wasted rods (I knew I forgot to take out the trash!. This is what happened at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Shutting down a reactor is a very dangerous thing, because it takes a week to just bring a reactor back up to 10% of its power. Shutting down is quick, but bring it back up to full power can take a month and a half. And the other power sources have to work for at lease a week or longer.

    Once again, read this from Wikipedia,
    “The nuclear industry says that new technology and oversight have made nuclear plants much safer, but 57 accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. Two thirds of these mishaps occurred in the US. The French Atomic Energy Agency (CEA) has concluded that technical innovation cannot eliminate the risk of human errors in nuclear plant operation. An interdisciplinary team from MIT have estimated that given the expected growth of nuclear power from 2005–2055, at least four serious nuclear power accidents would be expected in that period.”

    So, why the push for nuclear power, knowing the dangers? Why the push against Coal and Natural Gas by our government? Can we really afford another Three Mile Island or Chernobyl? Can we and our children survive and afford Fukushima? Why has America stopped helping Japan to stop the disaster? We sent U.S. Naval ships to help, why did we bug-out? Why has our government upped the acceptable amounts of radiation levels/doses in our country? Does our government and other governments know something that the rest of us does not known about Fukushima? YOU SHOULD KNOW AND FACE THE ANSWERS!

  3. Mark West

    July 27, 2017 at 3:28 PM

    The disaster at Fukushima occurred due to failure of the diesel generators. The generators failed because they were flooded by the ocean. Seems simple enough to put them up in the air in a location known to flood doesn’t it?
    The Three Island incident was a small release, the equivalent of an x-ray for locals.
    The Chernobyl incident was due to the operations group testing their ability to recover from a loss of power. They shut off the safety trips and failed the coolant. They were successful the first few tries and finally went beyond possible recovery and melted down. Not human error, but human stupidity. Warning, don’t take out your brain and play with it.
    Storage above the reactor for spent fuel is to allow the very high radiation levels of waste product to reduce enough to safely haul the waste. The second reason is the failure of the US government to accept the wastes, for which they have been paid. This cool down occurs through the conversion of the most unstable isotopes (those with shorter half-lives).
    A book written about 1975 or so details the politics of nuclear power. In the US we ask the movie actors and sports figures if it is safe, in France they ask the nuclear physicists. Who has the most nuclear plants?
    The latest Westinghouse designs (GEN 2) are far safer than the old GEN 1 plants. They are US government pre-approved designs. they have gravity fed cooling systems as an example that don’t need the emergency generators. This company ownership moved for the US to England to Japan, and are now available for purchase, I believe.
    The GEN 2.5 designs are awesome. They operate at much higher temperatures. This allows a water feed to be thermally divided into oxygen and hydrogen. The Japanese were preparing plans to install these on Pacific Islands or atolls to jump start the hydrogen economy. Shame we missed this boat.
    One solution proposed for nuclear wastes was to drill to about 10,000 feet and install a heavy pipe wall. The nuclear waste could then be dropped into the pipe and it would melt a pathway into the rock, going down/down/down.
    Finally, the major problem of nuclear waste is self inflicted. It due to the use of low enriched uranium (LEU) in the reactors. LEU is about 10 to 15% U235, The US Military uses highly enriched uranium (HEU) for its reactors (aircraft carriers and submarines). This produces FAR less waste but is consideered dangerous because bombs can be made from HEU.This hasn’t stopped Iran, Pacistan, or North Korea has it?
    Recent advances in enrichment, developed at the Lawerence Livermore Labs (patents issued) uses tuned lasers to preferentially ionize either the U235 or U238 (not sure which). The ions are collected on charged plates, producing LEU or HEU at very little cost. Google can guide to a large number of articles on this topic.
    In summary, if we want cheap, safe, environmentally clean (no CO2 production) power production, this is the way to go. If not, we may as well learn Mandarin Chinese.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s