Can the Japan Nuclear crisis happen in North America?

[GeoffrySqueeb]

I was wondering this very question myself, and I googled it, and found this article:

http://abetterenergyplan.ca/#/news/accident-here?

Some of the points that were made, particularly this one:

The short answer is, "No."

Let me give you the reasons. When I say that similar nuclear emergencies could not happen here, I am not writing with a sense of complacency. Safe operations and emergency preparedness are a priority at Ontario Power Generation. Along with other nuclear operators in the world, we will closely examine the Japanese experience to learn how we can make our operations even safer.

It is important to note some basic differences between the conditions in Japan and those of Ontario's 16 operating nuclear reactors.

Japan is in a region where severe earthquakes and tsunamis are not uncommon. Ontario is not such a region. Ontario's reactors are at two sites on Lake Ontario and one site on Lake Huron where major earthquakes are not expected.

Similarly, the Great Lakes are highly unlikely to produce a tsunami that would damage the operations of our nuclear units. They are in a geologically-stable region with a geologically-stable shoreline.

Now I'm sure that not every NA place is exactly like this, but it did bring up a good point: that the conditions associated with the Fukoshima disaster are not going to crop up in other parts of the world. Ontario (where I'm from) is essentially free of these sorts of natural disasters, and depending on where you're from, is probably true for you as well.

[Freezer]

I was wondering this very question myself, and I googled it, and found this article:

http://abetterenergyplan.ca/#/news/accident-here?

Some of the points that were made, particularly this one:



Now I'm sure that not every NA place is exactly like this, but it did bring up a good point: that the conditions associated with the Fukoshima disaster are not going to crop up in other parts of the world. Ontario (where I'm from) is essentially free of these sorts of natural disasters, and depending on where you're from, is probably true for you as well.

Short answer is yes..

It can and will happen, it's only a matter of time.. Nobody.., no country is immune to the forces of nature. Man likes to think he is invincible, but history has given us the answers. Sorry to say there is a much higher danger coming soon that will dwarf anything seen to date, in modern times that is.. Just check 2000 feet underwater off the coast of Bimini to see what I mean..

You have nothing to lose in being prepared, and educating yourself on the dangers that lies ahead.

2011- Economic collapse.
2012- Solar flares, every conceivable natural disaster you can imagine.

Not to be a downer or anything..

[dutchdivco]

Have to agree, obvious answer is YES!!

Will it be exactly the same? probably not.The very fact that the writer is stating they will study the disaster in Japan, seeking lessons learned, is a concession; humans make mistakes, develop 'blind spots', greed, hubris and beurocratic/hierachy inertia.
There probably will be changes made, taking into an account a tsunami.And then, some terrorist will fly an airliner into one.Or, someone will drop a wrench; something totally foreseeable with hindsight, and totally unforeseen beforehand.
Hindsight; "The FIRST thing you see, when you jerk your head outs your *ss!"
4 weeks ago, eveyone thought the japanese nuclear program was the 'Gold Standard'.
Frankly, the answer is so obvious, just based on the mainstream news coverage, that I can't believe your even asking the question.Nuff said.Jim

[bugler]

A lesson learned from the disaster is that behind every single disaster/terrorist atact/etc there is an israeli company in charge of the security.

[Gdez]

Nuclear accident

Here is an article that cites a 1985 NRC report;
“Serious Danger of a Full Core Meltdown”: Update on Japan’s Nuclear Catastrophe
Just something to think about.

[Gdez]

Nuclear accident

Here is an interesting article;
“Serious Danger of a Full Core Meltdown”: Update on Japan’s Nuclear Catastrophe

[mbrownn]

Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment by Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, John P. HoldrenNever let a good crisis go to waste - Google Search

[brenie]

Hi all, ofcorse it will happen. The only reason we have nuclear plants is because of the vast profits too the 'nuke industrial complex'. Take that profit away and the answer would be "are you mad" we dont even know how to deal with the waste !
And Mbrownn points out it is part of the bigger plan.
Henry Kissenger did the report for the UN, he spelt it all out, he said we have to get rid of 1.6 billion. Mind you that in the sixtys, could be a few bill ion more now.
And he suggested nuke war and accidental. So I assume he and his sort are rubbing their hands and suggesting 'well thats a start.
Chernobyl was not in a danger zone,Sellerfield UK, nor 3mile island.
Wherever they are they are bombs waiting for the fuse to ignite.

We might now just have an answer to the Nuclear lobby, google Andrea Rossi,
and let's spread the word now.

[Iotayodi]

It already has but not to the extent of Japan or Russia.
Three Mile Island accident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We have them on the coast here in Florida. They are a perfect terrorist target. Then there is the storage problem of spent rods. Fault lines are all around the world.

[boguslaw]

In 1937 Joe Brandt saw an Earthquake sink Los Angeles, much of California and Japan ?

[dutchdivco]

Actually

I hate to say it, but Kissinger's right.(Or whoever said it) There are way to many F*cking people in the world.Too little food, energy and resources to support the population, and its growing by like,.... a thousand a minute.

Problem with energy is consumption, and I don't mean conservation, although per capita use is steadily increasing. I mean just too many people wanting to use energy to do everything, electric backscratcher syndrome.

But ultimately, just too many people.So, whether Mother Nature evens things up, or we do it to ourselves as a part of some world domination conspiracy, or do it to ourselves due to human nature; Greed, hubris, short sightedness, etc. ultimately we are doomed to experience the 'end times'.

Whether it will truly be the end of humans, or just a severe reduction in population, with us going back to our 'natural' state as hunter gatherers (scavengers) remains to be seen."May you live in INTERESTING times"

To say "This is what they are doing, and we should call them on it. Get the people aroused to stop them!!" What is the alternative you propose? Continued unrestricted population growth? To what end????Jim

[brenie]

[mbrownn]

I hate to say it, but Kissinger's right.(Or whoever said it) There are way to many F*cking people in the world.Too little food, energy and resources to support the population, and its growing by like,.... a thousand a minute.

Problem with energy is consumption, and I don't mean conservation, although per capita use is steadily increasing. I mean just too many people wanting to use energy to do everything, electric backscratcher syndrome.

But ultimately, just too many people.So, whether Mother Nature evens things up, or we do it to ourselves as a part of some world domination conspiracy, or do it to ourselves due to human nature; Greed, hubris, short sightedness, etc. ultimately we are doomed to experience the 'end times'.

Whether it will truly be the end of humans, or just a severe reduction in population, with us going back to our 'natural' state as hunter gatherers (scavengers) remains to be seen."May you live in INTERESTING times"

To say "This is what they are doing, and we should call them on it. Get the people aroused to stop them!!" What is the alternative you propose? Continued unrestricted population growth? To what end????Jim

Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment by Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, John P. Holdren

[bolt1]

When the 9.1 quake hits California VERY soon and half of it slides into the sea then you will see how good the safety features really are....not. You can never make a pressurised water highly radioactive reactor safe especially one that is mounted on the land surface.

Now if they built them at least 500 ft below the surface that would make them a bit safer cos when everything goes tits up just plug the hole up with huge concrete plug and write it off.

The real serious answer is ambient pressure Thorium Fluoride reactors then they can never go unstable. If you lose power you let the salt drain out into a tank and its dead. Its as simple as that. Not only but they are 500% higher efficient then breeder reactors. Cost a 1/3 of the price and the fuel - Thorium is found in vast quantities all over the earth. One small lump of thorium has enough energy to power a town for a year. Its 1960's and 70's proven but shelved in favour of more expensive technology as breeders cos they can extract weapons grade plutonium to make nukes.

[mbrownn]

no doubt they could put the waste products in toothpaste

only joking