Well, as I see it, regarding dangers, the nuclear plants themselves are just the tip of the iceberg of nuclear energy.

What you are neglecting here re: “fail-safe” is that nuclear waste has to be managed for hundreds of thousands of years.

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

I think that there are two important points to consider here.

1) The common argument here is that once radioactive byproduct (aka "nuclear waste" - radioactive minerals, water, materials that cannot be recycled safely) is buried far in the ground and below the water table, the heat that is released from decaying radioactive material will not affect human existence above ground. Unlike geothermal energy where water injected into underground rock can lubricate faults and cause earthquakes, heat from radioactive decay just dissipates slowly into the rock. Still... responsible burying of this stuff requires some serious regulation. Many places just wouldn't have that kind of control and the thought of that is reasonably unsettling.

2) Some radioactive material has a half-life of hundreds of thousands of years, just like how some styrofoam will not degrade for a similar period of time. There are others that decay fully within hundreds of years. Thorium is one such material investigated a while back though I don't know enough about it. The abundance of that material is probably the limiting factor with regards to sustainable energy production.

_________________
Ko is the best solution.
With Ko, I can keep eating and drinking until I am full.

Visit >>>Koosh's Study Journal<<<

Oh dear.

We can and do not handle nuclear waste for some decades. Let alone for millennia.
This quote made me laugh.



I am of the opinion that no man, no man alive now, no man alive ever, will be able to predict/protect against everything over such a time span. And not even AlphaGo could do that.

Humans are known to kill the earth, nature, environment, wildlife. Can we just try to limit or preferably erase at least one of the most preeminent dangers please.

And Koosh: you are from USA? Do you know Hanford? Do you know what Einstein said about nuclear energy? Have you considered the effect of (only) Fukushima on the Pacific and the worldwide food chain? Please, please, read and listen to more (and better) audiobooks and other sources of information.

I have much, much more to say. But please Koosh and others: educate yourself before advocating nuclear.

Yes Koosh, thorium and a new design for thorium fuelled nuclear reactors are now hyped as the new solution.
Marc Zuckerberg (Facebook) is said to consider investing in this new thorium technology.

I do not know enough about this new design and use of thorium. But I am convinced it does not contribute to a solution to the energy problem. I truly hope that Zuckerberg and others are equally not convinced and do not invest in such a new technology (same as other investors will not). This is not the right path.

Radioactivity is natural
sybob seems unreasonably panicky. But the banana he eats is radioactive, the walls of his/her house are radioactive. Humanity has always lived in a radioactive environment. The human body has mechanisms to repair minor damage from all possible sources, also the minor damage from radiation.

Numbers
A 1 Bft breeze is pleasant on a hot day. A 12 Bft hurricane destroys your house.
A single exposure to 1 µSv has no measurable effect. A single exposure to 10 Sv is probably deadly. If one worries about radioactivity one needs to be more precise: how much radioactivity? For example, the estimated maximum radiation dose of the Fukushima evacuees was roughly the dose one gets for a returnflight London - Tokyo.

Safe
Nothing in life is safe. But some courses of action are safer than others. Maybe nuclear is cleaner than coal. Maybe energy sources like wind and sunlight are safer than nuclear.

You keep requesting that we educate ourselves. I want to believe that you know more about this topic than I do, but you offer no evidence that you’ve been (recently) educated on the topic. You’ve also dismissed the education I've had very recently, taught by a very well respected professor in the field, and quite frankly I trust his knowledge on this topic more than I trust yours given that lack of evidence. Still, I want to touch on the items you brought up.

RE: Hanford
Hanford is now a national park and operates a commercial nuclear power plant on its premises. I think I see the point you were trying to make in bringing it up, though, and I agree. Nuclear power was a terrible idea in the mid- to late-1900s and it resulted in a lot of collateral damage. Global use of Nuclear power is probably still a terrible idea today in countries and territories that are struggling to produce sufficient power and don't have the political stability, regulatory and technical systems in place to control it.

RE: Einstein
Didn't Einstein believe that nuclear power would never be of any benefit to society? I'm having trouble placing your point, but I am curious and would like it if you could write further about this.

The key argument here is not that I am advocating for nuclear (your words, not mine). The main argument here is one of control; with modern technology and emergency systems (developed through trial and gross error to date), we already have a reasonable level of control over nuclear power as evidenced by 400+ working nuclear plants. It seems unreasonable to expect the world to switch to solar exclusively because of the sheer space required for solar panels; a quick search will turn up all sorts of articles about this topic, but one I read offers that you'd need to cover the entire country of Spain in panels to produce enough electricity to meet global need (or Kansas in the US); alternately, you could cover all of the world’s golf courses in solar panels and we'd be 10% of the way there. I am referring to figures like that.

A 55-foot tidal wave is an unpredictable occurrence, but the concept of making your emergency systems robust enough to withstand something like this – be it wind, water, earth, fire - should have been of higher priority than it was. I agree with your comment to some extent, but humans assisted by machines are more capable then you might be giving credit. We can predict that Japan is often hit by earthquakes, typhoons, tsunami, etc, but we cannot predict when.

Here’s a relevant quote by the plant manager from the article originally posted by OP:

“We should reset the level we pursue to the very highest. If we cannot achieve that level because of our capability or our culture, it means we are not qualified.” Akira Ono, the plant superintendent at Fukushima Daiichi, is equally blunt—at least in a Japanese ¬context—about the need to reassess the nation’s nuclear future. “Because of the accident,” he says, “nuclear energy is an issue that should be discussed again in our country.”

RE: Impact on the Pacific
“Consider the impact of (only) Fukushima on the Pacific and the worldwide food chain,” you say. This is no laughing matter; I agree with you. There was a terrible impact, and as a result of this, I want us all to better understand the specifics behind nuclear power (benefits and the dangers) and how such incidents can be avoided in the future rather than succumb to the fear mongering of those who don’t understand how nuclear power can be responsible and safely harnessed in today's day and age. It starts with responsibility; I also doubt that most of the world is developed enough to properly handle this responsibility.

Our global output of CO2, methane, and other byproducts of fossil fuel burn into our atmosphere will not be stymied by decommissioning modern nuclear reactors and replacing them with coal/oil/gas until we are ready to switch entirely to sustainable energy sources like solar.

_________________
Ko is the best solution.
With Ko, I can keep eating and drinking until I am full.

Visit >>>Koosh's Study Journal<<<

I don't need to be a genius to know that this is about responsibility for future generations.

And hey, I don't even have children.

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

Do you not realize the hypocrisy of these statements?
How about you practice what you preach and educate yourself?

@vier: I did not want to sound or seem panicky, but I can see why youu used those words.
I know nuclear energy has its advantages.
But I do not think it is correct to label it as safe and/or clean.

@Koosh: Thank you for your extensive reply.
Please accept my apologies. I did not want to portray you as an advocate of nuclear energy.

@HermanHiddema: Wow. Have I offended you or something?
I think we do not know each other, do we? I think you do not know if, and if so, how, I educate myself on this. You do not know how I spend my time.
And yes, I try to educate myself. Not to the extent that I am a nuclear expert, but still, I consider myself better informed and educated than the average person.
When it is about education: first thing about learning is to know and accept one lacks knowledge.
So I don't see any hypocrisy in my earlier remarks. I fairly and openly admit I lack knowledge to make bold statements on this subject.
I thought and hoped it would be clear that if I said that I was convinced thorium technology is not a solution, than that was a personal opinion (not a fact, evidence or argument). And it also was a remark in a broader sense: the energy problem in general, not just thorium technology.

Yes.
And I like to add: it is not just about future generations (of humans), but also earth, nature, environment, wildlife, biosphere.
If for example nuclear energy is beneficial to humans, even if also in the long run, than that in itself may not justify exploiting it, given broader effects.

No, why do you ask? Please don't read a tone to my message that isn't there. I simply remarked that is hypocritical to ask others to educate themselves before arguing for nuclear, only to then go on and argue against nuclear from a self-admitted position of ignorance.