2012-07-06, 01:59 | Link #22382 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
All hail plutocracy!
__________________
|
|
2012-07-06, 04:24 | Link #22384 | |
...
Join Date: Aug 2006
|
Really informative read about Japan's anti nuclear protests.
Quote:
|
|
2012-07-06, 05:20 | Link #22385 | |
cho~ kakkoii
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 3rd Planet
|
Quote:
“What must be admitted, very painfully, is that this was a disaster ‘Made in Japan,’ ” Dr. Kurokawa said in his introduction to the English version of the report. “Its fundamental causes are to be found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture: our reflexive obedience; our reluctance to question authority; our devotion to ‘sticking with the program’; our groupism; and our insularity.” The Japanese version contained a similar criticism.WOW! Well, it's as real as it gets. I also have to say that the Japanese are stuck with nuclear power for the foreseeable future whether they like it or not if they want to kickstart their growth and prosperity. If they truly want to start from scratch to explore the alternative which is the current populace consensus, their resolve will be tested to the limit just because the alternative has ways to go before it can meet the current output a nuclear energy dependent country like Japan demands. And I'm talking about resolve that span years and years.
__________________
|
|
2012-07-06, 06:04 | Link #22386 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: "Sacrifice one to appease the few."
|
A Lifeguard was fired for saving someones life, but since it was out of his "zone" he had broken the rules for going to the persons aid. Thus they fired him, however his story got on to the news...
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/05/us/flo...red/index.html Than... http://abcnews.go.com/US/fired-fla-l...ry?id=16716225 The guy is smart enough to know they're only offering him his job back because it got in the news and are trying to save their image. Many Lifeguards have quit in protest over what happened. |
2012-07-06, 06:23 | Link #22388 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: "Sacrifice one to appease the few."
|
It's normal, they suffered a huge tradegy and it's still fresh on their minds. It will be years from now before they finally let go and stop making such a huge fuss about it. Besides, whether thet want to admit it or not that need that Nuclear Plant there. Anyone in political power in Japan knows how important Nuclear power is and that nothing they say will change it. They're still years from somehow getting alternate energy sources set up that can produce even a fraction of the output of a single Nuclear Plant.
|
2012-07-06, 06:44 | Link #22389 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
|
The problem with nuclear power in Japan is that there is the so-called "Nuclear Mafia" where the industry, scientists, and bureaucrats all watch each other's back. It's one of the most tightly closed clique within the Japanese industry, which closed it off to oversight from the public. The protests here are much about the Nuclear Mafia as they are about nuclear power in general.
|
2012-07-06, 09:16 | Link #22390 | ||
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
I mean, one of these rotten girls can write/draw a short love manga/LN where a middle-aged divorced nuclear bureaucrat falls in love with a intern nuclear scientist fresh out of Todai, but the intern suffers radiation poisoning due to a covered up nuclear leak. His boss, who is in love with him and intends to make the nuclear bureaucrat his successor, was the one authorising the cover-up and the bureaucrat discovers it. Will he reciprocate his boss's love, or will he stand against all odds to help the young intern he loves? Though there isn't much media coverage about how the nuclear mafia works for anyone to do an expose on it. Quote:
The human focus on nuclear technology is always on the bomb before the power plant because nobody really cares how their appliances are being run; it is pure ignorance converted into stupidified irrational dislike for nuclear power. Unless they have a better solution, I suggest that we make them undergo liposuction and use their fat to fuel the conventional power plants.
__________________
|
||
2012-07-06, 10:28 | Link #22391 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
I don't hate nuclear power at all... I'm just becoming convinced over the decades that very few who wants to own/run one can be trusted with the operation.
__________________
|
2012-07-06, 12:18 | Link #22392 | |
1.048596
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Location?
|
Quote:
That's the problem, politicization.
__________________
|
|
2012-07-06, 12:29 | Link #22393 |
AS Oji-kun
Join Date: Nov 2006
Age: 74
|
That sort of blind trust in "engineers" is part of what the recent report on Fukushima criticizes. For instance, look at how the spent fuel rods were managed, putting them in large pools of water inside the reactor enclosure. That doesn't seem especially safe to me. Couple that with not having any contingencies to pump the necessary water into the pools to keep the rods covered if the main power blew out. The result was that awful hydrogen explosion that sprayed large quantities of radioactive material into the atmosphere and the Pacific.
These plants are based on General Electric designs that are something like half-a-century old now. If anything the problem was too little "politicization," in the sense of active regulation of the industry by government officials. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission also suffers from "regulatory capture" by the industry being regulated. Then there was the "regulation" of oil drilling platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. We all know how well that turned out.
__________________
|
2012-07-06, 12:51 | Link #22394 | |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
One problem is that the political process if clogged by the lobbies. They're not necessarily intrinsically evil, but they do have too much power. Wasn't there an Onion article about a lobby for the common people? Maybe we need something like that... Another is that, despite what I said, nobody really believes in letting people decide. Everyone, me included, always thinks he knows better than the sheeple he's surrounded with. A third, more specific to this case, is that everyone likes cheap electricity, but nobody wants to live near a nuclear plant. (Except the guys who work there, I guess.) |
|
2012-07-06, 13:07 | Link #22396 | |
Barrel!
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: still under a rock
Age: 35
|
(Independent) Malware may knock thousands off the internet on Monday
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-07-06, 13:12 | Link #22397 |
temporary safeguard
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Germany
|
As an engineer myself, I would not trust them blindly, because they are humans too and they may really be wrong sometimes.
But just as an artist is never fully satisfied with their last creation, an engineer always has something they would do better if they could do a project all over again. However economic rules usually don't allow this. Often they don't even allow for the best solution from the beginning. So even if the engineer sees the problem, they have only limited resources to work around it. I am a bit of a technocrate/enthusiast myself. Yet I am still against nuclear power in my own country as it is now. That is not because I have bought into some random scare of 'omg NUCLEAR'. It's just my experience of how the industry works. If a for-profit organization is tasked with operating a nuclear facility, they will lower safety to the lowest possible standard allowed by regulations (or lower if they think they might get away with it) and they will exploit any loopholes not covered by regulations and cut corners wherever possible. In almost every other sector this is balanced out by the risk of getting fined when something goes wrong, which will cut into the all important profits. But with nuclear power plants, just like with big banks, that does not work. If something does go horribly wrong, the damages are so astronomical, that the operating company is screwed anyway. If for example a nuclear powerplant around here would make an area of of say 50km around it uninhabitable, in Germany/NRW one of the densest populated areas of Europe (and yes there are several plants nearby), there is no way the company could ever pay up for the damages. There is also no insurance company that would be crazy enough to insure for such a case. That insurance company would get pulled down along and it wouldn't even make a dent in the total damage number. The insurance rates alone that would be needed to really prepare for such an event would bankrupt the power company in no time. But as long as nothing happens, the plants are a cash cow/money printing machine. And it prints more money, when operated at the bare minimum needed to keep it going. Upgrades would only cut directly into profits. That's why I am not against nuclear power in general, but I am absolutely against nuclear power in the hands of cooperations. These things have to be handled like other vital infrastructure, that may run a deficit, but is not allowed to ever fail. Not even for economic reasons. Last edited by Dhomochevsky; 2012-07-06 at 13:28. |
2012-07-06, 13:17 | Link #22398 | |
Not Enough Sleep
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 48
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-07-06, 13:19 | Link #22399 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Gensokyo
|
Quote:
If you are in Germany, not US then, a public society or the state can take care of the facilities no? |
|
2012-07-06, 13:37 | Link #22400 | |
temporary safeguard
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Germany
|
Quote:
But they didn't. When Germany was hellbend on joining the league of nuclear societies in the 60s/70s, they heavily subsidised the developements and contruction of those plants. But the plants were built and owned by private power companies (with mostly public money). So the public did pay for most of the initial costs of all the plants, we still do pay for all the costs in relation to radioactive waste (transport, interim storage, final storage for the next million years or so... which has not begun yet) and of course we would have to pay for any potential damages caused by catastrophic failure too, s.o.. But the plants are owned and operated by a few big power corps, that are only interested in keeping them running as long as possible with as low cost as possible... Oh and when it's finally time to get rid of old plants, the public does again pay most of the costs of deconstruction and storing the radioactive remains. These are all basic conditions that have been signed off by the German gov back when they were out to gain nuclear power, no matter the costs. I guess this ridiculous setup is part of why the german public does not really like nuclear power all that much. Last edited by Dhomochevsky; 2012-07-06 at 13:50. |
|
Tags |
current affairs, discussion, international |
|
|