Engineers Find Nuclear Meltdown At Fukushima Plant

fysdt writes "Engineers from the Tokyo Electric Power company (Tepco) entered the No.1 reactor at the end of last week for the first time and saw the top five feet or so of the core's 13ft-long fuel rods had been exposed to the air and melted down. Previously, Tepco believed that the core of the reactor was submerged in enough water to keep it stable and that only 55 per cent of the core had been damaged."

Re:The "I Told You So" Thread?

[Microlith]

I don't think there have been any "Nuclear Power at Any Costs" types. Everyone who wants it also wants it to be safe. Of course, the anti-nuke people would like you to think that any and all nuclear supporters wouldn't give a damn when one had a failure.

The possibility of a blob of molten nuclear fuel in a full blown fission reaction melting its way through the subsoil and into groundwater, contaminating everything in its path and blowing a very dirty plume of steam into the atmosphere is not welcome news.

No, but at the same time it isn't very likely. I mean, unless you have evidence to back up your fear-induced claim. Certainly it would have happened now if it were that out of control.

Re:Nuclear power arguments

[Microlith]

in other words, other people skip right by condemning only management and engineering failures, and go right on to condemn the entire concept of nuclear power. and this is logical and correct, since management and engineering failures are ubiquitous and always will be/blockquote.

And by that retarded logic, society and all progress (starting from the discovery of fire) should be condemned. Ban civilization, it can cause bad things to happen as a result of human nature!

Is Slashdot being astroturfed?

[theshibboleth]

Reading over Slashdot comments since the Fukushima disaster started, I've been struck by the large number of comments that either say nuclear energy is actually less dangerous than coal, etc. even in the face of possible nuclear meltdown or that blame "anti-nuclear luddites" for the disaster. It's hard for me to understand how anyone, especially since this disaster has released radiation that will likely cause cancer and birth defects, could not at least acknowledge the tragedy that has happened even if they remain committed in the long run to nuclear power. It makes me wonder exactly what the motives are of these people. Personally it's made me realize that nuclear power is much more complicated than I had once thought; like many other industries it would seem to be rife with the profit motives of large corporations overriding responsible regulation. So even if nuclear power is hypothetically safe if regulated properly, it would seem that it's actual implementation is not in the context of the huge corporate influence on the political system. Also, some have said the problem was merely that the plant was not decommissioned on time or not upgraded to be in line with current safety measures, but were not the same safety risks present during the near 40 years leading up to this disaster? And how can anyone trust that the nuclear industry's current safety measures are really safe when the same was probably said 40 years ago?

Re:Nuclear power arguments

[Target Drone]

coal is actually WORSE than nuclear in both radiation output and toxic byproducts that need disposal

For a properly functioning power plant Coal puts out about 100 times [scientificamerican.com] the radiation of Nuclear. However even if you live near a coal plant it will only up your anual background radiation does by about 0.5%.

The coal industry will put out about 101 PBq [wikipedia.org] of radiation for the years 1937-2040. By comparision Fukushima has spit out about 130-150 PBq [wikipedia.org] of iodine-131 and Chernobyl was about 1760 PBq.

Having said all that I think neither are great solutions and we should really be investing more money in alternatives.

Re:The "I Told You So" Thread?

[Coren22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S [wikipedia.org]

I can't wait. I would gladly have one in my back yard and sell power to the neighborhood.

Re:nuclear can be safe; short term profit preferre

[peppepz]

Even chernobyl only killed around 50 people.

The IAEA, i.e. the group lobbying worldwide for the construction of new nuclear power plants and the minimization of nuclear fear among the population, estimates 4,000 deaths at Chernobyl because of the disaster (source [iaea.org]). Yet with your faith in nuclear power you managed to be more catholic than the pope and lowered the death toll by 80 times. Enough said.