Is world safe enough for more nuclear reactors?
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 18:16
VIEWED: 4705
PAGE 1 of 5
One of my main fears about nuclear power:Quote:
Japan's woes, Mideast unrest fuel fears about expansion plans for atomic energy
Imagine a country where corruption is rampant, infrastructure is very poor, or the quality of security is in question. Now what if that country built a nuclear power plant?
It may sound alarming but that is what could happen in many developing countries which are either building nuclear power plants or considering doing so — a prospect that raises serious questions after Japan's experience handling a nuclear crisis.
A trove of U.S. diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks and provided to Reuters by a third party provide colorful and sometimes scary commentary on the conditions in developing nations with nuclear power aspirations.
In a cable from the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi in February 2007, concerns are raised about storing radioactive waste in Vietnam, which has very ambitious plans to build nuclear power plants. Le Dinh Tien, the vice minister of science and technology, is quoted as saying the country's track record of handling such waste was "not so good" and its inventory of radioactive materials "not adequate."
In Azerbaijan, a cable written in November 2008 describes the man who would have the responsibility for regulation of a proposed nuclear program, Kamaladdin Heydarov, as "ubiquitous, with his hands in everything from construction to customs."
"He is rumored to have made his fortune while heading up the State Customs Service, and is now heavily invested in Baku's rampant construction boom," says the cable, which followed a meeting in Baku between Heydarov, the minister of emergency situations, and then U.S. Special Envoy Frank Mermoud.
Even in India, which already has a well developed nuclear industry and plans to build 58 more reactors, eyebrows can be raised. The security at one nuclear facility visited by a U.S. delegation in November 2008 is described in one cable as only "moderate" with security officers performing bag and vehicle checks that weren't thorough, a lack of cameras in key areas, and some parts having very little security at all.
In response to the disclosures, a Vietnam government official said that the quotes attributed to Tien were "completely ungrounded" and that the country manages radioactive waste in compliance with local laws and recommendations from the International Atomic Energy Agency.
An Azeri official said the government had not taken a decision to construct a nuclear reactor but instead had a plan to conduct a feasibility study into the construction of a nuclear research reactor, which was the subject of talks with the IAEA and had been put off until 2012 from this year. Heydarov could not be reached for comment.
A senior official at India's atomic energy department, A.P. Joshi, said it hadn't previously heard of the security doubts and therefore couldn't comment on them.
Seeking more stringent rules
The anecdotes illustrate risks ranging from corruption to poor oversight and bad infrastructure. The dangers have been thrown into stark relief by two shattering events half a world apart — the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan and the popular unrest that has brought unprecedented political turmoil to the Middle East.
This helps to explain why leaders of the Group of Eight nations late last month sought more stringent international rules on nuclear safety.
The speed with which the operator of the Japanese nuclear plant lost control, and the subsequent meltdowns of three reactors, ensuing explosions and overheating of fuel rod storage pools, were a wake-up call for nuclear regulators.
If in a modern, stable democracy, there could be apparently lax regulatory oversight, failure of infrastructure, and a slow response to a crisis from authorities, then it begs the question of how others would handle a similar situation.
"If Japan can
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So. What are you, us, or anyone gonna do about it? If you're gonna keep generating these "We're all going to die!!!!" posts every day, at least try to find some possible solutions. If there are none, why pile on the woes?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Steam. It's pretty scary.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, we should continue to dick with other countries plans. Which is exactly what got us into our current predicament. Having some insight into the Inshallah mindset any attempt will be late, massively over budget and most likely filled with corruption and shoddy work. Which means it will probably never ben completed or stalled at the fueling stage until decay overtakes the plant. If they want to waste their money trying to build a nuke plant, who are we to stop them?
Or are you saying that foreign threats now need US government intercession? Where does that line get drawn on how MUCH we intercede? Do we go as far as dropping bombs to stop it?
I say let them spend money and try to build it.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Having lived in Afghanistan and experiencing the Inshallah mindset, that made me giggle, it's so right on! Think I've posted before about my dad's frustration. Sent over by Pan Am to create a national airline, he learned early that they were quite content to let the planes fly until they fell down in the desert (literally!), then walk away and grab a camel. If we sent them to the US for training, they didn't want to go home. It's a very valid statement.
Having some insight into the Inshallah mindset any attempt will be late, massively over budget and most likely filled with corruption and shoddy work.
That doesn't mean, to me, that it would never be completed. And there's also the corruption aspect of, say, Russian culture, in which case--as is true right now--it might be completed, a different group come to power, and aspects of it get stolen or sold to other countries.
Please note that Ididn't propose anything, I merely put up an article which expressed my biggest fear about nuclear energy. Address the author if you want to know what his alternative sugestions might be, not me. I'm for renewable energy for US, and hope other nations do too, but I don't have any power over anyone, nor do I want to.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First off, anyone can post anything they want, remember?
Second,Quote:
I don't believe I post "we're all gonna die" material either every day (since I'm not even here every day) or even often, so where that's coming from I don't know. Well, your feelings toward me, probably. As to some kind of rule that if we post something, we have to propose solutions, I must have missed that one... I think a few others might have, as well...especially PN...so you might want to address that to them, too.
If you're gonna keep generating these "We're all going to die!!!!" posts every day, at least try to find some possible solutions.Quote:
I put up something from the news I thought might be of interest, as I do every time I'm here and have the time and inclination. That's all. I post news stories on all kinds of things, as I thought everyone here had the right to do? If you don't like what I post, please don't bother reading or responding; skip to something that you find more interesting. Please.
If there are none, why pile on the woes?
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Chernobyl was built in 1966; Fukushima in 1967; Three Mile Island in 1968.
The first nuclear reactor to go online for regular power production was Dresden 1, in October, 1960, at argon national labs. The first reactors to go up for commercial use were during the 1960s. Argon discovered a flaw in the reactor design in 1967, and started redesigning the system to provide a closed loops system that would shut itself down and would not require pressurizing to operate, which was seen as the source of risk. The project started building in 1984, and a prototype reactor was built, but Congress pulled the plug on the reactor due to "Anti-nuclear activism." so, we are left with old reactors.
The anti nuke crowd started out as "ban the bomb" but in the 1970s was transformed into "nuclear free" with help from massive funding from API, the American Petroleum Institute, aka Cheney's Sect Energy Commisision (not so secret, I know an insider who gave me the whole list. The industry lobby provides almost all the funding for anti-nuclear activism.
In ten years will reactors from the 1970s start failing? Probably not. Some improvements were made, but another reactor from the 1960s will fail. We should consider updating early reactors, starting with the oldest.
Nuclear is a fear buzzword for the hippie generation, and, sure, dangerous if you're in the direct vicinity of a meltdown, but not as dangerous statistically as bathtubs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I didn't used to be opposed to nuclear power, but I am now, we can't control the forces etc. We can't stop other countries from starting, but we can finish up with it ourselves and encourage others to as well, or not to start it. But yeah, we can't _stop them.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Riona,
Consider it this way:
A power station is a giant steam engine. You can use a small very powerful source that will run for very close to forever, which is dangerous... or you can use the same weak burning agent that you've been using for centuries.
Here's the hitch: If you want more of the old fuel, you're going to have to destroy the planet to get it.
It's an either or, unless we stop using electricity. And yes, if you and I do, the rest of the world will go on using it.
Read Niki's first post on her other thread, on coal:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=48688
That is your alternative. Take your pick.
Long term, yes, Hardware has the solution. It's going to be a decade getting there, and a decade of actually trying. Until then, these are the options we're given.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
First off, anyone can post anything they want, remember?
True. And anyone can criticize what folk post. You've done so, as I recall.
Quote:
Second...I don't believe I post "we're all gonna die" material either every day (since I'm not even here every day) or even often...
Seems pretty frequently to me. Although maybe not every day, you often post two or three a day in the gloom and doom category.
Quote:
If you don't like what I post, please don't bother reading or responding; skip to something that you find more interesting. Please.
Sometimes I am interested in what you post, even if I don't agree with the slant your choice of cites portrays. Then again, sometimes it's like you are trolling the internet for the most apocalyptic stuff you can find to re-post here. If you got a right to post it, I got a right to say I don't like it, and vice-versa.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME