kmart Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 To master potentially dangerous science, you have to have the discipline to have invented that science in the first place. We don't seem to have even mastered the control of an automobile yet, but lets make a quantum leap into nuclear physics on the shoulders of giants, shall we? Only, we'll do it our way.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ijustwannateach Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 ^That's the main point. Where're they going to put it? It's not like they have any wastelands or badlands to hide it in. Will they export it all to Myanmar? Even Japan has worrying nuclear accidents... and they're a dot-the-i's, cross-the-t's kind of country... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard10365 Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 I really like Thailand. For the most part, I like most of the people I meet here. With that said, I just don't get a very good feeling about Thailand building a nuclear power plant. Sometimes, the "decision making process" some Thai leaders go through, seem flawed and destined for failure. Why they do or say some of the things they do is beyond me. Building a large scale nuclear reactor is a very adult thing (so to speak) for a country to do. I don't think Thailand is ready for that yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 I am, like a previous poster, a supporter of using nuclear energy--although I think it is most appropriate for the fully developed countries (the ones who are also creating the most green house gasses and using the most energy), to have them. As a person who very much enjoys Thailand (most of the time), I have concerns about a nuclear reactor. First, these things need to be built, maintained and operated by technocrats, not politicians. Here, politicians have their fingers in everything. Secondly, these things can't operate safely if the awarding of jobs and building contracts is based on patronage--even the subcontracting. You can't skimp on the materials. When you look at the fiasco that is the airport here, you see how the very foundation (literally) of projects is corrupt. Although they are trying to lay the airport problems on Thaksin, the beginnings of the airport go back decades--all of which had dodgy workmanship. A nuclear reactor with cracks in it is a lot more serious than a runway with cracks in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilHarries Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Even if they built it safely.....even if they operated it safely for fifty years....they would then have to manage the nuclear waste safely for about 50,000 years! And the rest PB. Can't be ar5ed to google it and get accurate figures but a half life of a high level radioactive isotope of 50,000 years is not unreasonable. This does not mean in 100,00 years it aint radioactive at all. What it means is that in 50,000 years it is only half as radioactive as it is now and probably still very dangerous indeed. Then in another 50,000 it is only half as radioactive as it was at the 50,000 y.o. stage. So after 150,000 years it is half as radioactive again. Now it's down to an eighth as radioactive as it started out and with high level waste that is still a very lethal level indeed. No country in the world has come up with a satisfactory disposal/storage scheme for these wastes despite there being several proposals knocking around. PS don't quote me on those figures, if I get the inclination I'll check them later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sriracha john Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Even if they built it safely.....even if they operated it safely for fifty years....they would then have to manage the nuclear waste safely for about 50,000 years! Simply discharge it into the khlongs... like they do all the other waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UsuallyCorrect Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 To avoid unneccessary infrastructure a nuclear plant should be out of any densely populated area but close to a major industrial area. The obvious place to site this is near Chonburi. The coatal area around there is blighted already and should be zoned for industry. High value tourism can be concentrated down south. I'm UsuallyCorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 And to save money on those expensive Western scientists, they will make it impossible for them to get visa or work permits. In the meantime, they employ those North Korean refugees that keep coming. After all, N. Korea has a nuclear program, don't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainman Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 If they build it like the new airport, it'll have 'cracks' appearing everywhere in the first 3 months of operation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dah fahrang Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Even if they built it safely.....even if they operated it safely for fifty years....they would then have to manage the nuclear waste safely for about 50,000 years! Simply discharge it into the khlongs... like they do all the other waste. naaah! My village "recycling team" will take care of it. They'll pile it onto their motorcycle sidecar with the mountains of cardboard boxes, empty kao-lao bottles, Pepsi cans - then flog it at 25baht/kilo. Somebody will buy it - or they'll dump it on the rice fields. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sing_Sling Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 (edited) Reuters: Bangkok, Thailand. 27 March 2084 The proposed nuclear power plant, scheduled for completion in 2009, was unveiled today. The ensuing explosion was described by the Prime Minister Mr. Somchai Phatertsagdkfdjfuifhkhlporn as 'festivities akin to fireworks' and assures the public that all is fine and the slight cost increase of 324,984 billion USD was a calculated petty cash overrun. Edited February 2, 2007 by Sing_Sling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ch4co Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 I haven't laughed so much for years. If they go ahead with this I am leaving, probably along with all other westerners. Maybe thats the idea : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeaceBlondie Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 My estimate of 50,000 years is much too short, for the high level nuclear reactor materials to become safe. Let's say 200,000 years. That's 6,667 reigns of 30 years each (Rama the 6,677th). What language and alphabet do you put on the nuclear storage containers, Sanskrit or Pali or Thai or Shagadaggagoodun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimsKnight Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 My estimate of 50,000 years is much too short, for the high level nuclear reactor materials to become safe. Let's say 200,000 years. That's 6,667 reigns of 30 years each (Rama the 6,677th). What language and alphabet do you put on the nuclear storage containers, Sanskrit or Pali or Thai or Shagadaggagoodun? Shaggadagga indeed ! A recent idea put forward to contain nuclear waste is the encasement of it in huge cubes of glass underground. The glass has a life expectancy of 10,000 years. I don't know if its been carried out but as long as the waste is safetly under the ground at great depth it will 'eventually' disperse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artisi Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Nuclear plant - Oh dear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baboon Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Chernobyl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogleg Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 I think the ministers "trial balloon" quite nicely distracted from the real announcement, that fuel prices are going up! At least on this thread. Hot air technology, thats the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John K Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Even if they built it safely.....even if they operated it safely for fifty years....they would then have to manage the nuclear waste safely for about 50,000 years! I admire your realistic posts here, good point in thinking how long does it take for a star to die, what keeps the Earths center hot and liquid. All fall under the same heading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
accesscitrix Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 LOL oh you poor sods who moved away to Thailand from europe I feel sorry for you guys, Thailand is fast becomming the country of disasters and poor politics, generally seen as the laughing boys of Asia at the moment. Now this a nuclear plant LOL LOL good luck! won't be long till you are growing an extra head.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexLah Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 No no no no, The real reason for buiding a nuclear plant is that the great Thai army generals looked at Asia and found out that they are surrounded by countries that have 'Da Bomb' and those that might be capable to make them in near future. ( The have's and not have's) Therefore this is a great militairy threath and as a result, Thailand under the excuse of 'thinking ahead' (A concept not known here and which is the smoking gun in the statement) is going to get in line with regional developments. As long as they do not sign the Nuclear proliveration (How do you write that?) agreement (Like Israel and India) you have nothing to worry about. They will build it as big as they can (See new airport) and then my friends when the whole thing blows up within a month ore two, the Thai's will have accomplished something that will be sealed in history forever, namely the biggest catastrophe ever caused by mankind Something you can be proud off and brag about...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plus Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 I've noticed on that map that India has a few nuclear plants, and Indians are as sloppy as Thais. Maybe it's doable. I think Chernobyl didn't turn out as catastrophic as was initially feared, there were quite a few articles on the topic last year as it was an anniversary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manjara Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 I've noticed on that map that India has a few nuclear plants, and Indians are as sloppy as Thais. Maybe it's doable. I think Chernobyl didn't turn out as catastrophic as was initially feared, there were quite a few articles on the topic last year as it was an anniversary. Having worked in both countries and with Thais and Indians quite a lot I would characterise it as follows: Thai Nuclear plant: 'Hey, what does this button do? <press> {Boom} Oops, better not tell anyone!' Indian Nuclear Plant: 'I think I'd better escalate the pushing of this button to my boss, it might cause me some trouble!' Guess which one would have safer nuclear plants! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Clifton Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 My estimate of 50,000 years is much too short, for the high level nuclear reactor materials to become safe. Let's say 200,000 years. That's 6,667 reigns of 30 years each (Rama the 6,677th). What language and alphabet do you put on the nuclear storage containers, Sanskrit or Pali or Thai or Shagadaggagoodun? It will be yet another new Chinese province by then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
accesscitrix Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Chernobyl turned the water in my pond purple so who knows what it did to people long term and that's in the UK. If thailand decides to go Nuclear all eyes will be watching and if they start using it to make bombs well, you know what will happen then.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beejoir Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 How does one apply a 4 foot thick layer of lead to a Thai built house's walls? It does a good enough job of it on its own! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjaak327 Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 As long as they construct the core "crack free" I wouldn't worry too much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wintermute Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 As long as they construct the core "crack free" I wouldn't worry too much Even if there are cracks i'm sure they will offer some novel scientific solutions like painting over it or simply getting a monk to come over and do a ritual to purge the evil radiation ghosts out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainman Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 I'm not concerned about seeing it in my lifetime. But i'm concerned about my great great great grandchildren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jai Dee Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Protest shuts down Thai hearing on nuclear power Thailand canceled a public hearing on a new power production plan which would include the country's first nuclear plant after protesters turned up to attend on Wednesday. Managers of a Bangkok hotel where the hearing was to have been held asked Energy Ministry officials to cancel the meeting after 200 villagers traveled 300 km (190 miles) from the west coast province of Prachuab Khirikhan to attend. "They don't have a big enough room to put these people in, which would have also annoyed its guests," senior ministry official Norkhun Sitthipong told reporters. The villagers, whose protests in 2002 forced the government to cancel plans for two coal-powered plants there, said they wanted no power plant in the province and would go to every hearing. "If you want to build them, go and build on your homeland," said one of the placards carried by protesters in green t-shirts carrying a picture of a leading environmentalist who was shot dead in 2004. "Whenever there is a hearing, we all will go," said protest leader Jintana Gaewkao. Thailand's latest plan to expand electricity production calls for 11 700-megawatt power plants, three of them coal powered and to be built in Prachuab Khirikhan. It also seeks to lessen dependence on natural gas by using more coal, biofuels and nuclear power and buy more electricity from Laos, Myanmar and China. A 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant was also an option. Source: Reuters - 7 February 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdnvic Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 I hope this is just going to be a pipe dream like the idea they came up with a few years ago for a Thai space program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.jpg.bc523c85a8d558dbc282dca7a2e602c9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now