Skip to main content

View Diary: Thirty-Five USA Nukes at risk of Fukushima-style flooding and disasters (112 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I concur with Union of Concerned Scientists... (9+ / 0-)


    Nuclear energy research and development (R&D) should therefore continue, with a focus on enhancing safety, security, and waste disposal.
    But meanwhile, nuclear power is  not safe "enough", especially due to lax regulation and enforcement.  

    UCS Position on Nukes

    Personally, I think new deployment should be curtailed, and existing plants should be shut down and decommissioned if they cannot be rendered safe, which I don't think they can.

    The decommissioning itself will take many years, with huge costs, including further R&D just to figure out how to do it properly, especially in regard to all the waste we've already piled up.

    Our only hope for really getting on top of this issue is a fully staffed and funded EPA that's Not rotten with Chamber of Commerce hacks from the same industries they're supposed to regulate.

    I have no doubt such an EPA would soon put a report on the desk of the Prez, informing him that there presently is no such thing as "safe" nukes (or "clean" coal), and that we must go green, all the way, immediately, to save the planet.

    And the Prez will say "OK, let's do it!".

    But for this to happen will require substantially more progressive plurality in the House and Senate, plain and simple.

    As long as we're hostage to right wing majorities the whole world is screwed, on this, or any other issue.

    Bring the Better Democrats!

    All Out for the Primaries!

    Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle.

    by Radical def on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 03:34:11 PM PST

    •  Safety Could be Ensured - Just Not Cheaply (8+ / 0-)
      "...Personally, I think new deployment should be curtailed, and existing plants should be shut down and decommissioned if they cannot be rendered safe, which I don't think they can..."
      For half a century the US Navy followed a basic principal in the deign of its battleships (the dreadnoughts, those old ships named after states).  All of the critical components were placed inside a heavily armored area of the ship called a citadel.  The items placed inside this area were necessary  for the functioning of the ship in battle and its return to port even after receiving heavy damage.

      This principal could be followed with nuclear reactors.  It would just involve an expansion of what is considered vital to the the reactors safe operation and shut down.  It would mean that much more electrical and control equipment would need to be treated with the same reverence given to the reactor core itself.  Much of this equipment is pretty mundane - plant control systems, electrical switchgear, diesel generators, plant emergency batteries, diesel fuel tanks.  All of it would need to be placed in a hardened environment impervious to flood and fire and storm, similar to the reactor's containment vessel.  It just wouldn't be cheap.  That is the principal reason it hasn't been done, not that it can't be done.

      "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

      by PrahaPartizan on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 03:57:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  EPA abrogated its (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ozsea1, Radical def, Russgirl, Deep Harm

      responsibilities by shutting down the constant-read RadNet when releases INCREASED at Fukushima last year, going back to occasional monitoring of food, milk, water and such.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (125)
  • Community (60)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Culture (23)
  • Environment (21)
  • Law (20)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Science (19)
  • Labor (18)
  • Education (17)
  • Elections (16)
  • Marriage Equality (16)
  • Media (16)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (16)
  • Economy (15)
  • Republicans (14)
  • Ireland (14)
  • Josh Duggar (13)
  • Racism (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site