Wednesday, April 6, 2011
disaster memory?
This is an interesting blog post that is criticizing Japan for not being more prepared for the nuclear plant problems. The author says that scientists are like a society's elders who should help remember society's disasters that have happened. I think this is interesting and I think Japan needs to learn from this natural disaster. The people were prepared for a disaster but the nuclear plant was not. what are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that Japan should have built their nuclear plant to withstand natural disasters given their history with seismic activity. The lack of attention to a possible tsunami resulted in the loss of many lives. At the same time I don't think they could ever completely avoid disaster. Hopefully other nuclear plants will be able to learn from Japans mistakes.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the blog, the argument that stands out in the comments is whether Nuclear Power is worth the risk. One blogger commented by saying a few people died from the Nuclear Plant but thousands of more would die from lack of power. I would have to agree with this. I believe that Nuclear Power is essential and that the world needs to learn from the crisis in Japan.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Japan is located in such a volatile region known for seismic activity is an AUTOMATIC indicator that nuclear power, while power efficient and cost effective, is too much of a risk with millions living only an hour or so away. Japan is an island. People can't just flee the country, especially after a natural disaster that may cripple airports and harbors: their only way of escape. Why can't they use more solar or wind energy sources? I bet they get a lot of wind being on an island pretty far from the mainland. I CORRECTION:"believe" 5 years after this disaster that you will see a steep increase in solar and wind power farms across Japan.
ReplyDeleteI find this topic very interesting and very useful. Because the past way to learn is from the past. It is just a shame that it has to cost so many lives. But Japan does have a very long history of strong earthquakes and tsunamis. So they probably should have took that into account before they placed their nuclear plants where they did. But I do think they should continue to explore nuclear power and safer means for this. But they should just put better back-ups such as your wind farms to help power the water pumps to keep the radiation towers cool. Also the placement of these plants should be more inland where the elevation is higher and is safer from a tsunami or an earthquakes mudslide.
ReplyDeleteIn agreement with the above comments, Japan should really consider alternative energy sources, such as wind or solar power. If they don't want to consider these alternatives, then they should try to find a way to make their Nuclear Power Plants somehow withstand a natural disaster. Japan is known for its tsunamis, and seismic activity, so they should really try to better their power plants so people won't have to lose their lives if another disaster occurs.
ReplyDeleteI do see why the Japanese placed the the nuclear plants close to the ocean. It provided easy access to endless amounts of water to cool the rods, which is essential for a nuclear plant. However, when a disaster occurs such as a tsunami they must have a back-up plan for cooling the rods. They will correct this for the future. Harnessing nuclear energy is still a learning process for the world. One that, luckily, had no major consequences of a nuclear meltdown.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the use of nuclear power near regions that are historically prone to earthquakes, and tsunami's is acceptable and safe so long as the safeguards are put in place. The Japnaese nuclear reactors were built to withstand earthquakes, but not tsunami's and this, in my opinion, was a serious flaw in the design. It would make sense to build structures to withstand the dangers that are attributed to that location. Two of the back up plans failed due to the earthquake, and the third back up plan failed due to flooding because the generator, if I remember correctly, was placed below sea level. To put a generator below sea level near the coast is a tremendous flaw, and one that should not have been overlooked.
ReplyDeleteThe cliche "The best offense, is a good defense" in my opinion summarizes the basic ideas of this article. The fact that the scientists did not make the nuclear power plants to survive all possible natural disasters is the main issue. LIke matthew said above, since the nuclear reactors were built to withstand earthquakes, but not tsunami's, that was the main flaw in their design. Obviously, the flaw in the design was made early, on during the preparation and construction of these nuclear reactors. In my opinion, if scientists are unable to construct reliable and safe reactors, that can withstand disaster... the only other option is to look else where. If there current model of energy isnt working there really is no other choice, but to be innovative and evolve their energy source, so it is more fitting for Japan's environment.
ReplyDelete