some thoughts on present instead of the past would be more relevant

I heard that if reactor 4 explodes it will start a chain reaction with other nuclear plants close by and cause a tsumami that could crest the rocky mountains, dunno if true though

Totally, but it will need to rain for 40 days and 40 nights before hand.

why we use nuclear reactors when there is such better technology out there is beyound me. oh wait... maybe its the wepons aspect of it.

ok who says the risk is worth the power?

First couple minutes are so stupidly misleading I can't believe anything worthwhile is said later

This post was edited by wheniwassevenishotacheetah on May 19 2012 08:33pm

as of right now were sitting in radiation for that plant...it's already spread across the entire planet.

Latest updates on the oil spill in gulf...don't forget they all lie to us oil any power plant they all lie big risk on life on earth for a few lights and greed..

This post was edited by doomchaser on May 21 2012 12:03pm

What's the better technology? The Gen III and III+ reactors with the paper fast fission reactors (traveling wave for example) are amazingly safe and efficient.
I don't understand the weapons aspect you're saying. If you want to make weapons grade U-235 or Pu-239, you wouldn't be producing a lot of power since the reactor would be constantly starting up and shutting down. (protip: this is an easy thing to notice if you're using a commercial reactor)

Chernobyl could have been easily avoided but Russians got a little cocky. The RMBK was a faulty design for the test they were doing with their backup generators since it had a positive fuel coefficient. The test and its flaws is pretty easy to understand if you know anything about reactors. Three Mile Island was a mechanical failure that did cause a problem but it was solved.

Fukushima was hit by strongest forces of natures and its 1960s BWR design was able to prevent itself from a meltdown with passive systems. The article you posted is absurd and the numbers posted are stated in a poor way. After read this thread, its clear that most people just see big numbers and think big things.
"Reactor #4 contains 1,535 spent fuel rods which remain highly radioactive" -> Congrats, fuel rods are ~1cm diameter and only contain 2-4% U-235 in commercial reactors.

I don't think most people in this thread understand the subject from what I've read and my apologies if any tone of aggression is assumed in my response. And yes, I'm very biased for nuclear since it's my field of education.

am i one of those people?