bonus points to whoever tl;dr this.
A solar flare that could knock out power probably won't destroy the ozone or melt away our faces either.
Although, I really wish you were right on this one.
Finally. You use the word "implausible". I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.
I have no doubt, but I was referring to the literal situation your excerpt suggested, meaning a solar flare large enough to knock out power for the entire planet, not just the sun-facing side. to do that it would have to penetrate the earth's core, which is mostly iron, saturate it completely, and spill out onto the other side. my point was simply that acting like this would be a global occurrence is wildly misinformed, and that you're trusting someone for information who clearly has no grounding and who clearly has an agenda.
my "implausible" statement was about the whole-world blackout. and I know what the word means, please try to keep the condescension to a minimal.
And you are correct there are closer to 440 nuclear reactors. How many nuclear reactor failures would be acceptable out of that? 200? 150? 50? 10? Just stop me when we hit an acceptable number.
and you're assuming that a simple power failure would lead directly to a meltdown, or that all failures of a nuclear plant is dangerous. dangerous meltdowns happen when the nuclear reaction gets out of control and the fuel melts through its containment and then through the plant itself (this is what happened at chernobyl, but not fukushima). even if a core melts down, that is the worst case scenario and is pretty rare. but it has to be in a meltdown situation for even that to be possible. even if they aren't able to cool it the entire time until the heat dissipates, the containment will fail and some heat will escape, probably be a hydrogen explosion. it might kill some plant workers, maybe starts a wildfire. then it's over. as long as the plant was built to spec, to contain the radiation, then not very much radiation will leak out, mostly from the explosion.
Do you trust shutdown procedures in place in Pakistan and other 3rd world countries?
I trust the procedure sure, what I wouldn't trust is whether they built the plant to spec, as was the case in chernobyl. but since your agenda is obviously to discourage the use of nuclear power in america anyway, it doesn't really matter what we think about pakistan. unless you're suggesting we invade pakistan so we can shut off their mismanaged power plants?
I don't think you've proven that there would be bigger problems than multiple nuclear meltdowns at all. Riots, starvation, entire cities burning down and their populations perishing would be nothing compared to what could happen if a Chernobyl style meltdown, happened in a major population center. Sure those things are horrible, but multiple meltdowns would be the cherry on top of that disaster sundae.
By the way, just because you don't live near a nuclear power plant doesn't mean they are as mythical as unicorns. I live well within 50 miles of San Onofre power plant. As do about another 7.4 million people.
you fucking kidding me? so you think entire cities killing themselves in panic is better than maybe getting cancer in a few years? see how badly this problem has been blown out of proportion, when you view a single meltdown as an apocalypse, but the breakdown of all civilization is just "horrible"?
you live 50 miles from a possible source of radiation that will mostly be contained, and you live I'm guessing 0 miles from millions of stupid, panicky, starving, desperate people with guns. you really need to check your threat assessment.
Nice guess about the EMP protection. I wonder if it's true. I hope it is.
I'd say an educated guess, being as how even I (who has an intermediate at absolute best understanding of electrical engineering) could build a simple EMP assuming I could get my hands on some quality plastic explosive. for a defense budget as large as america's we could afford to EMP harden fucking everything. then again we spend billions on wars that don't make us safer and security measures that are pure posturing, ineffectual bullshit so maybe I'm wrong.
Also, according to this article nuclear power plants aren't built to power themselves.
how are they powered then in their normal operation, by another power plant? seems kinda dumb. so they really can't just divert some of the energy being generated by the turbine to power their cooling and control circuitry, with multiple backups built in? seems like a major design oversight. but look, as long as you can kill the nuclear reaction and cool it enough so that that worst-case-scenario of the core melting through all containment and the reaction running away, which is pretty rare even when absolutely everything goes wrong, then your doomsday doesn't happen.
Now that's an interesting assertion. I hadn't heard that one. Got a source?
you know what, I heard that somewhere and it was wrong. what happened at fukushima was basically everything went wrong at once, and even then it wasn't nearly as bad as people think (see here
but yeah, I heard a statement somewhere from someone who seemed trustworthy that confirmed my bias, so I accepted it. which leads me to my next point...
Look the point isn't to panic or get excited about this. It's just to raise awareness of the things that could possibly go wrong.
right, but when you post stuff like this unsolicited it reminds me of people who talk fearfully about anything "nuclear" and make statements from ignorance to support their purely emotional view. remember the media frenzy right when they were starting to have problems at fukushima, then for a while while some things were breaking down, then most of the stories suddenly stopped? wonder why that is? the press loves to sensationalize, and that first article you linked was sensational and highly hypothetical (not to mention displaying the author's ignorance of general science). listening to most press talk about issues of science is about like when they talk about computer hacking, or when my father talks about terrorists. I cringe listening to so much of it that I pretty much just ignore it now, unless a specific source seems credible. I am a little lazy about vetting sources, and most people don't even try,so I just don't listen to it anymore because it won't change my mind about what policies should be done in the future. more on that later.
look, there are many sources of information, and the vast majority have some sort of bias or underlying objective. if you want to prove something you can always find things to confirm your bias. to be honest I don't think either one of us wants to be convinced, which is why I hate getting into these kinds of arguments. let me just state my position so we're clear: nuclear power carries some danger, but so does most technology worth a damn in its early inception. if properly implemented and carefully controlled, it could be made safe enough for widescale use, and I think we approach that very closely, but accidents will still happen. being mindlessly fearful of it because of a few pictures of atomic flashes and some very unfortunate accidents, and opposing anything that has the word "nuclear" or "atomic" in it unilaterally and without real thought, is what most people that oppose it seem to do. I know that you'll rebut everything I said here, and that's fine, but I'd like this one question answered: do you think nuclear fission power could ever be made safe, EVER? your answer may include caveats about impracticality, if that helps. if you say yes, then our difference of opinion is merely one of time and technology (or perhaps policy). if you say no, then I'm afraid that your opposition seems entirely irrational, and no further discussion would be worthwhile for either of us.
point of interest, I no longer believe building new nuclear plants in America is practical, for various political and economic reasons, so I'm not even going to try to convince you of that. just please stop linking stories from uninformed journalists trying to drum up some shit, I really hate reading that crap.
EDIT: just looked at the music thread and lol'd. you find that during your fantastic google voyage?