France's Institute of Nuclear Safety says all national nuclear plants aren't secure!
yes now its clear france's nuclear power plants are not secure !
if something goes wrong they are doomed and burn in hell and thats for sure.
all France 59 nuclear power plants are not secure if Floods, earthquakes, power outages and malfunctions in the cooling system hit the power plant.
The reactors are far more secure than nearly all other industrial facilities.
Nowhere in that article does it say that "if something goes wrong they are doomed and burn in hell and thats for sure."
Yet more ignorant ramblings from Quazimodo.
For those of you who are interested, here is the Google translate of the article Q linked to:
"France's nuclear power plants are not adequately protected against natural disasters - which has established the Institute of Nuclear Safety to news agency Reuters. The experts insist on a comprehensive upgrade.
Paris / Hamburg - The catastrophe of Fukushima showed that nuclear reactors should be protected against unexpected severe natural disasters. Many European countries have learned from the Japanese disaster consequences: Germany decided to phase up to 2022. Many countries have carried out tests to verify the adequacy of the safety of their reactors - which also happened in France.
Now shares with France's Institute of Nuclear Safety (IRSN), according to the news agency Reuters all 58 reactors in operation in the country, and one under construction plant should be upgraded. The experts describe the required safety measures as "hard core" of the reactors.
Withstand the IRSN has examined how well the nuclear power plants floods, earthquakes, power outages and malfunctions in the cooling system would. The resulting 500-page report now before they put the French Nuclear Safety Authority ASN. The ASN will present their conclusions at the end of the government.
How are earthquake-proof the plants?
It was necessary to incorporate additional mechanisms into the reactors, which are important functions such as cooling and power supply protected, said director Jacques Repussard IRSN. For example, each reactor should have at least one diesel generator at remote site, the failure is not even in the case of a very strong earthquake. Repussard says the reactors should in future also be able to withstand extreme natural disasters - such as an earthquake, which destroyed the southern French city of Nice or the collapse of all dams, which would lead to severe flooding.
France's oldest reactors were built in pairs. If a problem occurs in a reactor, so the resources can be used for the second - as well as technical staff. "There has never imagined that both reactors are simultaneously struggling with a problem," said Repussard.
He could not say how much time the implementation of the proposed improvements would take to complete. Anyway still not clear how high the costs are coming at the electricity company EDF, the operator of the French nuclear power plants. "We would like to see a schedule that includes only a few years," said Repussard. According to his statement all French reactors could be improved so that they meet the new demands."
only nuclear fan-boys are ignorant persons.
Originally Posted by Shielder
the dangerous and pathogenic of nuclear power plants are proved multiple times.
only ignorance people can call nuclear power "Save" and "Healthy"
Okay, I'll bite...
In the last 60 years, how many people have been killed by nuclear power plants and where?
Let's look at the most severe accidents to occur according to Wikipedia:
December 12, 1952 INES Level 5 - Chalk River, Ontario, Canada - Reactor core damaged - no fatalities
September 29, 1957 INES Level 6 - Kyshtym disaster - Mayak, Russia (then a part of the Soviet Union) - no fatalities (not a power reactor)
May 24, 1958 INES Level ? - Chalk River, Ontario, Canada - Fuel damaged - no fatalities
October 25, 1958 - INES Level ? - Vinča, Yugoslavia - Criticality excursion, irradiation of personnel - 1 fatality (not a power reactor)
July 26, 1959 INES Level ? - Santa Susana Field Laboratory, California, United States - Partial meltdown - no fatalities
April 3, 1960 - Waltz Mill, a core melt accident - no fatalities
July 24, 1964 - INES Level needed - Charlestown, Rhode Island, United States - Criticality Accident - 1 fatality (not a reactor facility)
October 5, 1966 INES Level needed - Monroe, Michigan, United States - Partial meltdown - no fatalities
Winter 1966-1967 (date unknown) INES Level needed location unknown loss of coolant accident ~30 fatalities, but not a power reactor.
May 1967 INES Level needed - Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland, United Kingdom - Partial meltdown - no fatalities
January 21, 1969 INES Level: None - Lucens, Canton of Vaud, Switzerland - Explosion - no fatalities
December 7, 1975 INES Level 3 - Greifswald, Germany (then East Germany) - Partly damaged - no fatalities
February 22, 1977 INES Level 4 - Jaslovskι Bohunice, Czechoslovakia - Fuel damaged - no fatalities
March 28, 1979 INES Level 5 - Middletown, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, United States - Partial meltdown - no fatalities
March 13, 1980 - INES Level 4 - Orlιans, France - Nuclear materials leak - no fatalities
March, 1981 INES Level 2 - Tsuruga, Japan - Radioactive materials released into Sea of Japan + Overexposure of workers - no fatalities
September 23, 1983 INES Level 4 - Buenos Aires, Argentina - Accidental criticality - 1 fatality (not a power reactor)
April 26, 1986 INES Level 7 - Prypiat, Ukraine (then USSR) - Power excursion, explosion, complete meltdown - ~60 known fatalities and lots of contamination
May 4, 1986 INES Level 3-5 (need ref) - Hamm-Uentrop, Germany (then West Germany) - Fuel damaged - no fatalities
April 6, 1993 INES Level 4 - Tomsk, Russia - Explosion - no fatalities
June, 1999 INES Level 2 - Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan - Control rod malfunction - no fatalities, falsified records though (where was the regulator?)
September 30, 1999 INES Level 4 - Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan - Accidental criticality - 2 fatalities (not a power reactor)
April 10, 2003 INES Level 3 - Paks, Hungary - Fuel damaged - no fatalities
April 19, 2005 INES Level 3 - Sellafield, England, United Kingdom - Nuclear material leak - no fatalities
November 2005 INES Level needed - Braidwood, Illinois, United States - Nuclear material leak - no fatalities
March 6, 2006 INES Level 2 - Erwin, Tennessee, United States - Nuclear material leak - no fatalities
March 1120, 2011 - INES Level 7 - Fukushima - no fatalities (note, during the earthquake, a worker fell to his death from a crane, and during clean up another worker collapsed and died from a suspected heart attack. Neither death is nuclear related).
Okay, so in 60 years, there have been about 100 deaths directly due to power reactor operations, and one of those was a design that would never have been accepted in the West (Chernobyl).
Let's now look at hydro power over the same period and see what we find:
Vajont dam - 1900 - 2500 deaths
Buffalo creek Flood - 125 deaths (okay, I'm stretching things here, but it is a dam collapse)
Banqiao Dam - ~171,000 deaths
Kelly Barnes Dam - 39 deaths
Lawn Lake Dam - 3 deaths (not strictly a hydro power dam, but it did cause the failure of a hydro electric dam downstream)
I'm not including the Val di Stava Dam collapse because it isn't a hydro power dam.
Camara Dam - ~3 deaths
So, from this (admittedly incomplete) list, we see that hydro power has caused at least 1700 times more deaths than nuclear power.
I can't be bothered to look for anything else, it's late, and I've got to take my son to the zoo tomorrow. But, the raw figures don't tell the whole story do they?
If a reactor goes pop, like at Chernobyl and Fukushima, there is contamination that lies around the plant and across the country for years.
What makes this different to the pollution that occurs after a chemical plant accident? What makes this different to the pollution from a fossil fuel plant (see acid rain for details)?
The difference is, it's nuclear pollution. The fact that the pollution from chemical plants or fossil fired power stations is far more poisonous and has a more immediate effect on the environment doesn't matter. It isn't nuclear.
Far too many people get obsessed with the 'n' word and less about the science behind pollution. They need to understand just how hard the industry is working to reduce the small chance of a serious accident even further, like going 10 times further in reducing risk, dose and releases than the most stringent of national targets in the new designs. On an industrial scale, nuclear power plants are the safest plants in the world. They are also the most highly regulated.
The next time someone asks you why nuclear costs so much, it isn't the materials that go into a plant that cost, it is the engineering design, safety assessments, risk assessments, backup systems, regulation etc etc that cause nuclear to be so expensive. But it is still the most reliable, safest and one of the least expensive base load generation platforms we have. It has to be part of the mix to provide a reliable, low carbon energy supply. How else will we keep the lights on when the oil runs out?
only a 1000% save and secure technology is valid.
Originally Posted by Shielder
nuclear power is not 1000% then its invalid.
you just don't have the right to kill any human!
also you only calculate direct deaths but you don't calculate the cancer statistic world wide.
only the German child chancer study in 30km around a nuclear power plant expand your death list over 1000 times.
you are just a child killer nothing more.
i vote for death penalty to kill killers like you!
Just give me a minute...
You're a scream!
Don't stop taking the LSD, you are soooo funny!
End of thread. I can't be bothered with you any more. Eco-mentalist (with the emphasis on mental!) to the max. No sensible debate, just insults.
Like I said, end of thread.
You forgot at least one more. Few days ago in France, a man is dead in a nuclear facility. He was covered with irradiated metal (1600° celcius), during 2 days.
Originally Posted by Shielder
But yeah it's low numbers. Obviously it's easy to not take into account the thousands of people (and probably much more) which are affected by radiation (cancer, leukemia, etc) and that are not included in your stats.
Originally Posted by TASADAR-F
Of course it's cheap because you forgot to take into account most of the REAL cost which bear upon the society.
yes you are right. 1 Castor transport cost Germany million of euros because you need 20 000 police officers to pull all the activists away.
Originally Posted by whitecat
also they don't calculate the necessary risk insurance a sum.
also they don't calculate the disposal costs.
the insurance problem make sure if a nuclear power plant fail the society pay for it 100%!
Nuclear power is a complete and full joke!