marsteele Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 (edited) Australia has the largest deposits of uranium in the world and stands to make a fortune it is going to be like oil with 3rd world countries wanting to build nuclear power plants. Australia still won't build one of thier own because it is not consider safe and they have far more experinced engineers and scientists than Thailand. Why would a 3rd world country think that they could even possibly do it? If a modern developed country does not think it is in the best interest why does Thailand. Thailand is getting way ahead of it's capabilities. Edited November 16, 2009 by marsteele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soutpeel Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Australia has the largest deposits of uranium in the world and stands to make a fortune it is going to be like oil with 3rd world countries wanting to build nuclear power plants. Australia still won't build one of thier own because it is not consider safe and they have far more experinced engineers and scientists than Thailand. Why would a 3rd world country think that they could even possibly do it? If a modern developed country does not think it is in the best interest why does Thailand. Thailand is getting way ahead of it's capabilities. Although I accept what you are saying and its every sovereign nations right to decide if they choose to go nuclear, you post is a little contradictory in parts as you state even though Australia has no commerical nuclear power plants by choice but they have personnel who are "far more experienced" than Thailand ?? how can that be if they have never constructed or operated a NPS ?? Bear in mind Australia is only one "first world country" who has decided not to go nuclear....your colonial cousins in the UK have plans on the books for 10 more reactors... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmark Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Being an Aussie .. my main fear of the use of nuclear power is the fact that Australia has one of the largest deposits of yellow-cake. America has a history of "helping" countries with large oil deposits. Myanmar has no oil .. that's why America hasn't "helped" them with their despotic insane government. When yellow-cake starts getting scarce .. will America hit the shores of Sydney in force to "help" us too? .. From what I can't imagine .. but I'm sure they will think of something. If you want to be an Aussie worry wort, be more concerned about the Chinese dragon than Uncle Sam. Americans have always been good friends with Aussies. Ermm .. I was was just going with the flow and inserting my own ridiculous "tongue in cheek" comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaihome Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 ... and lets never forget Chernoble and Three Mile Island...My general fears are amplified in Mai Bpen Rai land... Chernoble and TTM should never be used in the same sentence. What happened at Chernoble could not happen in a western reactor. If you read any of the details and have some knowledge of how plants are suppose to operate you would understand that. The lesson that never comes out of the storey of Thre Mile Island, is it was actualy a case of everything that could have gone wrong just about did and there was still NO major radiation leak, other then a very small amount that was not even detaclable away from the stack. The core did melt and there was a hydrogen bublble, but nothing happened. Interestingly, the result of a class action suit was that the only injuries suffered by the general population was psychological stress during and shortly after the accident mainly due to misinformation spread by by problems of communication within various state and federal agencies and the media hype surrounding the accident. Summary What Happened: The TMI-2 reactor's fuel core became uncovered and more than one third of the fuel melted. Inadequate instrumentation and training programs at the time hampered operators' ability to respond to the accident. The accident was accompanied by communications problems that led to conflicting information available to the public, contributing to the public's fears Radiation was released from the plant. The releases were not serious and were not health hazards. This was confirmed by thousands of environmental and other samples and measurements taken during the accident. The containment building worked as designed. Despite melting of about one-third of the fuel core, the reactor vessel itself maintained its integrity and contained the damaged fuel. What did not Happen: There was no "China Syndrome". There were no injuries or detectable health impacts from the accident, beyond the initial stress. Longer-Term Impacts: Applying the accident's lessons produced important, continuing improvement in the performance of all nuclear power plants. The accident fostered better understanding of fuel melting, including improbability of a "China Syndrome" meltdown breaching the reactor vessel or the containment building. Public confidence in nuclear energy, particularly in USA, declined sharply following the Three Mile Island accident. It was a major cause of the decline in nuclear construction through the 1980s and 1990s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickBradford Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Australia still won't build one of thier own because it is not consider safe Australian scientists know it's safe; Australia's politicians know it is unsafe for their political careers. [see: Backyard, Not In My] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmark Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 you state even though Australia has no commerical nuclear power plants by choice but they have personnel who are "far more experienced" than Thailand ?? how can that be if they have never constructed or operated a NPS ?? We have ... "Lucas Heights" NPS ...your colonial cousins in the UK have plans on the books for 10 more reactors... Err .. other way around. We (the Aussies) "were" the "colonials" .. the Brits "were" the colonizers. The UK has a much bigger population than Oz .. bigger power consumption .. smaller land mass .. less resources. Maybe they have no other choice ... Australia does have other choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdenner Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Australia still won't build one of thier own because it is not consider safe Australian scientists know it's safe; Australia's politicians know it is unsafe for their political careers. [see: Backyard, Not In My] I agree, Australia has been testing, and working on nuclear technologies since the 50's at a small plant at Lucas Heights, South West of Sydney. We (as Australians) have the potential to use and treat electric power with the contempt that the Saudis treat petroleum selling it to their motorists at a pittance. BUT with, common sense, it won't happen.IMO Aust. is maxed out on Hydro, wind and tidal will never be practical so nuclear is the future BUT not to be abused or exploited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soutpeel Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 We have ... "Lucas Heights" NPS Is "Lucas Heights" a research reactor or a NPS.??...not quite the same animal....not familar with this facility.. If research reactor, then Aussie is in the same league as Thailand, they have a research reactor as well.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soutpeel Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Chernoble and TTM should never be used in the same sentence. What happened at Chernoble could not happen in a western reactor. If you read any of the details and have some knowledge of how plants are suppose to operate you would understand that. TH..actually in theroy what happened at Chernoble could actually happen at any western reactor, granted highly unlikely due to the number of safety systems/protocols that would have to be overridden to get in the positionthey found themselves in. In essence, Chernoble occured due the number of control rods in core being below the procedural minimums as well as the shutting down of a primary pump which "starved" the reactor of cooling water, it should be borne in mind that what happened there was an "experiment" with the reactor by operators which went horribly wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmark Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 We have ... "Lucas Heights" NPS Is "Lucas Heights" a research reactor or a NPS.??...not quite the same animal....not familar with this facility.. If research reactor, then Aussie is in the same league as Thailand, they have a research reactor as well.. Mate .. the only difference between a "research nuclear power station" and a "commercial nuclear power station" is that the commercial one has power lines running out of it towards the surrounding countryside. As for being in the "same league as Thailand" .. I wouldn't know. Oz has been researching nuclear power since the 1950's .. we like to do things right. How long has Thailand's research been going for? .... and how much of the technology has been "borrowed". This is the "Land of Copiers" after all. I suggest you make yourself more "familar" (sic) in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaihome Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Chernoble and TTM should never be used in the same sentence. What happened at Chernoble could not happen in a western reactor. If you read any of the details and have some knowledge of how plants are suppose to operate you would understand that. TH..actually in theroy what happened at Chernoble could actually happen at any western reactor, granted highly unlikely due to the number of safety systems/protocols that would have to be overridden to get in the positionthey found themselves in. In essence, Chernoble occured due the number of control rods in core being below the procedural minimums as well as the shutting down of a primary pump which "starved" the reactor of cooling water, it should be borne in mind that what happened there was an "experiment" with the reactor by operators which went horribly wrong... Besides the operator errors, violation of operating procedures and the absence of a safety culture, the basic design of the RBMK reactor was flawed, both by its positive void coefficient which caused to be very unstable at low power levels, and prone to suddenly increasing energy production to a dangerous level and the fact that the controls rods initially displaced coolant during lowering causing an increased reaction rate. There is also the fact that all western reactors are inside containment buildings, which would have minimized the spread of radioactivity instead of blowing it all to hel_l and gone. I still say the designs used in western reactors would prevent such an accident from occurring and even if they did succeed in triggering a steam explosion by bypassing multiple levels of built in safety systems (which no operator I know would do), it would have been contained. TH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soutpeel Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 I still say the designs used in western reactors would prevent such an accident from occurring and even if they did succeed in triggering a steam explosion by bypassing multiple levels of built in safety systems (which no operator I know would do), it would have been contained.TH TH not going to disagree with you, and certainly correct Re the containment, if say a Western PWR managed to get its reactor head blown off, it would be contained and we wouldnt see effects that Chenoble caused. I was working nuclear at the time and remember vividly the discussions, theroies and speculation over what really had happened, obviously post-Chenoble all operating plants looked at their designs/protocols etc as part of the lessons learnt.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nakachalet Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 (edited) ... and lets never forget Chernoble and Three Mile Island...My general fears are amplified in Mai Bpen Rai land... Chernoble and TTM should never be used in the same sentence. What happened at Chernoble could not happen in a western reactor. If you read any of the details and have some knowledge of how plants are suppose to operate you would understand that. The lesson that never comes out of the storey of Thre Mile Island, is it was actualy a case of everything that could have gone wrong just about did and there was still NO major radiation leak, other then a very small amount that was not even detaclable away from the stack. The core did melt and there was a hydrogen bublble, but nothing happened. Interestingly, the result of a class action suit was that the only injuries suffered by the general population was psychological stress during and shortly after the accident mainly due to misinformation spread by by problems of communication within various state and federal agencies and the media hype surrounding the accident. Summary What Happened: The TMI-2 reactor's fuel core became uncovered and more than one third of the fuel melted. Inadequate instrumentation and training programs at the time hampered operators' ability to respond to the accident. The accident was accompanied by communications problems that led to conflicting information available to the public, contributing to the public's fears Radiation was released from the plant. The releases were not serious and were not health hazards. This was confirmed by thousands of environmental and other samples and measurements taken during the accident. The containment building worked as designed. Despite melting of about one-third of the fuel core, the reactor vessel itself maintained its integrity and contained the damaged fuel. What did not Happen: There was no "China Syndrome". There were no injuries or detectable health impacts from the accident, beyond the initial stress. Longer-Term Impacts: Applying the accident's lessons produced important, continuing improvement in the performance of all nuclear power plants. The accident fostered better understanding of fuel melting, including improbability of a "China Syndrome" meltdown breaching the reactor vessel or the containment building. Public confidence in nuclear energy, particularly in USA, declined sharply following the Three Mile Island accident. It was a major cause of the decline in nuclear construction through the 1980s and 1990s. i surely wish, i could in some way turn back the clock and have you stand in front of the senate and tell those high paying senators.... that there were no injuries and detectable health impacts from the accident, beyond the initial stress.... and that all of them would be dead wrong to completely and absolutely authorize the shut down of the NUCLEAR POWER GENERATOR PLANTS.... because as in your estimation it was not serious.... WOULD YOU LIKE TO argue your point in front of the senate.... politely telling them that they were all dead wrong in shutting down 3 mile island NUCLEAR POWER GENERATOR PLANTS....? INCIDENTALLY during the incident of the 3 mile island, were you in anywhere around the proximity of the incident by any chance? "What happened at Chernoble could not happen in a western reactor"..... would you be able to personally guarantee that to so many of us who perhaps are not so well read and bred and schooled and trained in nuclear power generator complexities....pls? actually, there is nothing personal here either, alright.... no ridicule, no putdown, we are just presenting our differences.... Edited November 17, 2009 by nakachalet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaihome Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 I still say the designs used in western reactors would prevent such an accident from occurring and even if they did succeed in triggering a steam explosion by bypassing multiple levels of built in safety systems (which no operator I know would do), it would have been contained.TH TH not going to disagree with you, and certainly correct Re the containment, if say a Western PWR managed to get its reactor head blown off, it would be contained and we wouldnt see effects that Chenoble caused. I was working nuclear at the time and remember vividly the discussions, theroies and speculation over what really had happened, obviously post-Chenoble all operating plants looked at their designs/protocols etc as part of the lessons learnt.... I spent 6 years working on nuclear power plant construction, including much time inside an operating unit while completing the other side. Some people I worked with had been in the business since the Rickover days and many others were graduates of the US Navy's Nuclear Power School. I tell you, these were the smartest people I have ever met in my life. TH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soutpeel Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 i surely wish, i could in some way turn back the clock and have you stand in front of the senate and tell those high paying senators....that there were no injuries and detectable health impacts from the accident, beyond the initial stress.... and that all of them would be dead wrong to completely and absolutely authorize the shut down of the NUCLEAR POWER GENERATOR PLANTS.... because as in your estimation it was not serious.... WOULD YOU LIKE TO argue your point in front of the senate.... politely telling them that they were all dead wrong in shutting down 3 mile island NUCLEAR POWER GENERATOR PLANTS....? INCIDENTALLY during the incident of the 3 mile island, were you in anywhere around the proximity of the incident by any chance? "What happened at Chernoble could not happen in a western reactor"..... would you be able to personally guarantee that to so many of us who perhaps are not so well read and bred and schooled and trained in nuclear power generator complexities....pls? actually, there is nothing personal here either, alright.... no ridicule, no putdown, we are just presenting our differences.... Allow to play devils advocate on this....although I dont have the actual statisics to hand, since the inception of power flight and the internal combustion engine more people have been seriously injured or killed either flying on a commerical flight or while driving their car on the roads, than have been killed or seriously injured by any commcerical nuclear power plant accident. Therefore commerical airlines and motor cars are more dangerous than commerical nuclear power plants, so let ban them as well while we are at it... Go to Boeing and ask them to personally guarantee the next flight you are on will not fall out the sky... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzaa09 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Australia still won't build one of thier own because it is not consider safe Australian scientists know it's safe; Australia's politicians know it is unsafe for their political careers. [see: Backyard, Not In My] There's the issue of stored waste. Not safe. For hundreds of years.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nakachalet Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 zzaa09 you can surely repeat, for the next 10 yrs, that.... " the nuclear waste storage whether under ground, under rock, under mountains, under seas, under water or even in space encapsulation.... is still the same.... its radio isotopes half life remains unchanged.... dangerous for over hundred yrs...." many already decided readers and posters will still not hear you.... lol but surely i am not trying to discourage anyone nor dissuade any person from expressing what they think and/or what they believe.... say what you wish.... lol just as long as what you are going to say.... conforms to the forum rules.... lol SOUTPEEL, i also agree with you.... no one would be able to guarantee anything in terms of nuclear safety and issue.... and even if there is any stupid scientist guaranteeing anything.... it would definitely mean practically NOTHING.... lol on the other hand, i might be hearing from lloyd of london pretty soon.... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaihome Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 WOULD YOU LIKE TO argue your point in front of the senate.... politely telling them that they were all dead wrong in shutting down 3 mile island NUCLEAR POWER GENERATOR PLANTS....?actually, there is nothing personal here either, alright.... no ridicule, no putdown, we are just presenting our differences.... Not meaning to ridicule or putdown, but your entire post is just an emotional response containing no facts (highlighted by your use of colors and large fonts), and actually has several items that show you have no knowledge nor have any desire to gain any, of the nuclear energy business in the US. I highlighted your one statement as an example. TMI-1 was permitted to resume operations in 1985, and continues to do so today. There is an application pending to extend the license to operate from the current expiration date of 2014 to 2034. The US Senate had nothing to do with closing it down or allowing it to start operations. There wasn't even a Senate hearing at which I could have testifed. There was a President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island which issued a report in October 1979 that criticized both the design and operators of the plant. Though there have been a number of anecdotal reports of negative health effects reported by anti-nuclear activist, no scientific study (and there as been many that have tried) has been able to conclude that the accident had substantial health effects. TH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nakachalet Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 (edited) WOULD YOU LIKE TO argue your point in front of the senate.... politely telling them that they were all dead wrong in shutting down 3 mile island NUCLEAR POWER GENERATOR PLANTS....?actually, there is nothing personal here either, alright.... no ridicule, no putdown, we are just presenting our differences.... Not meaning to ridicule or putdown, but your entire post is just an emotional response containing no facts (highlighted by your use of colors and large fonts), and actually has several items that show you have no knowledge nor have any desire to gain any, of the nuclear energy business in the US. I highlighted your one statement as an example. TMI-1 was permitted to resume operations in 1985, and continues to do so today. There is an application pending to extend the license to operate from the current expiration date of 2014 to 2034. The US Senate had nothing to do with closing it down or allowing it to start operations. There wasn't even a Senate hearing at which I could have testifed. There was a President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island which issued a report in October 1979 that criticized both the design and operators of the plant. Though there have been a number of anecdotal reports of negative health effects reported by anti-nuclear activist, no scientific study (and there as been many that have tried) has been able to conclude that the accident had substantial health effects. TH thaihome i really have no urge nor need to argue with you but your post is misleading to readers of thaivisa at say the least.... you know very well that what you stated is only partially correct--statement such as TMI-1 WAS PERMITTED TO RESUME OPERATIONS IN 1985 AND CONTINUES TO DO SO TODAY.... but the attached quote appears to show more than what you knowingly posted and cited.... the severity and damages at 3 mile island were way beyond what you described.... PLS READ FOR YOURSELF i really have nothing to gain from my posts and it won't make a bit of difference to me personally what you believe or what you say or what you gain or not gain from your posts, personally or otherwise.... ok? just try to be more complete in your explanation for readers' sake.... and if you deem that i am equally faulty, i apologize and promise to be more complete in my post next time.... as well ok, thaihome? Edited November 18, 2009 by nakachalet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericthai Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 ... and lets never forget Chernoble and Three Mile Island...My general fears are amplified in Mai Bpen Rai land... Chernoble and TTM should never be used in the same sentence. What happened at Chernoble could not happen in a western reactor. If you read any of the details and have some knowledge of how plants are suppose to operate you would understand that. The lesson that never comes out of the storey of Thre Mile Island, is it was actualy a case of everything that could have gone wrong just about did and there was still NO major radiation leak, other then a very small amount that was not even detaclable away from the stack. The core did melt and there was a hydrogen bublble, but nothing happened. Interestingly, the result of a class action suit was that the only injuries suffered by the general population was psychological stress during and shortly after the accident mainly due to misinformation spread by by problems of communication within various state and federal agencies and the media hype surrounding the accident. Summary What Happened: The TMI-2 reactor's fuel core became uncovered and more than one third of the fuel melted. Inadequate instrumentation and training programs at the time hampered operators' ability to respond to the accident. The accident was accompanied by communications problems that led to conflicting information available to the public, contributing to the public's fears Radiation was released from the plant. The releases were not serious and were not health hazards. This was confirmed by thousands of environmental and other samples and measurements taken during the accident. The containment building worked as designed. Despite melting of about one-third of the fuel core, the reactor vessel itself maintained its integrity and contained the damaged fuel. What did not Happen: There was no "China Syndrome". There were no injuries or detectable health impacts from the accident, beyond the initial stress. Longer-Term Impacts: Applying the accident's lessons produced important, continuing improvement in the performance of all nuclear power plants. The accident fostered better understanding of fuel melting, including improbability of a "China Syndrome" meltdown breaching the reactor vessel or the containment building. Public confidence in nuclear energy, particularly in USA, declined sharply following the Three Mile Island accident. It was a major cause of the decline in nuclear construction through the 1980s and 1990s. i surely wish, i could in some way turn back the clock and have you stand in front of the senate and tell those high paying senators.... that there were no injuries and detectable health impacts from the accident, beyond the initial stress.... and that all of them would be dead wrong to completely and absolutely authorize the shut down of the NUCLEAR POWER GENERATOR PLANTS.... because as in your estimation it was not serious.... WOULD YOU LIKE TO argue your point in front of the senate.... politely telling them that they were all dead wrong in shutting down 3 mile island NUCLEAR POWER GENERATOR PLANTS....? INCIDENTALLY during the incident of the 3 mile island, were you in anywhere around the proximity of the incident by any chance? "What happened at Chernoble could not happen in a western reactor"..... would you be able to personally guarantee that to so many of us who perhaps are not so well read and bred and schooled and trained in nuclear power generator complexities....pls? actually, there is nothing personal here either, alright.... no ridicule, no putdown, we are just presenting our differences.... Yes, I was living in Pittsburgh at the time. Not real close but not far away. I recall the news broadcasts and how concerned my family was, I myself was only 13, but still recall how concerned my parents were As I have cleared pointed out in one of my previous posts that nobody was killed in this accident and the leak was minor, This is due to the fact of the design of these plants that they have containment building just in case something goes wrong. I remember people being evacuated and yes this was dramatic but it was done to avoid anyone for injured from this accident. If you do some research TMI is currently back in operation. The reactor was damaged in the melt down and was shut down and is still not operating, however the other reactor is in operation. I will say this again, Nuclear power has had only a small percentage of deaths related to them compared to coal operated plants. Nuclear Power is a safe way to produce power, are there other options to produce power that are better yes, solar, hydro, wind etc. however at this time they are limited on what they can produce. Do I believe Thailand is ready for Nuclear power, no. Not that Thailand does not have qualified people to build and maintain a plant as they do, but due to the corruption and civil unrest, I just believe it's to much of a risk at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaBuddha Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 WOULD YOU LIKE TO argue your point in front of the senate.... politely telling them that they were all dead wrong in shutting down 3 mile island NUCLEAR POWER GENERATOR PLANTS....?actually, there is nothing personal here either, alright.... no ridicule, no putdown, we are just presenting our differences.... Not meaning to ridicule or putdown, but your entire post is just an emotional response containing no facts (highlighted by your use of colors and large fonts), and actually has several items that show you have no knowledge nor have any desire to gain any, of the nuclear energy business in the US. I highlighted your one statement as an example. TMI-1 was permitted to resume operations in 1985, and continues to do so today. There is an application pending to extend the license to operate from the current expiration date of 2014 to 2034. The US Senate had nothing to do with closing it down or allowing it to start operations. There wasn't even a Senate hearing at which I could have testifed. There was a President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island which issued a report in October 1979 that criticized both the design and operators of the plant. Though there have been a number of anecdotal reports of negative health effects reported by anti-nuclear activist, no scientific study (and there as been many that have tried) has been able to conclude that the accident had substantial health effects. TH thaihome i really have no urge nor need to argue with you but your post is misleading to readers of thaivisa at say the least.... you know very well that what you stated is only partially correct--statement such as TMI-1 WAS PERMITTED TO RESUME OPERATIONS IN 1985 AND CONTINUES TO DO SO TODAY.... but the attached quote appears to show more than what you knowingly posted and cited.... the severity and damages at 3 mile island were way beyond what you described.... PLS READ FOR YOURSELF i really have nothing to gain from my posts and it won't make a bit of difference to me personally what you believe or what you say or what you gain or not gain from your posts, personally or otherwise.... ok? just try to be more complete in your explanation for readers' sake.... and if you deem that i am equally faulty, i apologize and promise to be more complete in my post next time.... as well ok, thaihome? nakchat, I don't understand your post. You provided evidence which supports thaihome's statement and refutes yours. "TMI-1 was permitted to resume operations in 1985, and continues to do so today." It isn't partially correct, it's 100% correct. ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsiaCheese Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 nakachalet,Although there are a lot of "tongue in cheek" comments in this topic and certainly not all Thais are incompetent, I do think it is fair to say that a lot are. Although I don't believe you are serious with your planning, it's always good to have a plan "B" . Look at the internet, a technology that evolved in the West. Yes 12, 15 years ago the internet was not a patch on what it is now. It has evolved rapidly an is amazing now compared to a decade ago. The internet is an example of how the Thais can import a technology and totally F it up. I'll admit that there is not such a large customer base in Thailand, so perhaps not generating the income to improve infrastructure. But nevertheless the internet in Thailand is abysmal and most people accept it because "This is Thailand" When the internet is poor because the engineers either aren't interested or don't possess the skills to correct a problem, it's just a case of a poor or slow connection. When it comes to using radioactive materials that same attitude/competence level could kill people. Judging by my experiences with Thai electricians - If a red bulb is flashing "Core Meltdown Imminent", the obvious and easiest solution is "Unscrew the red bulb" Your comparisons are a bit -- uhm -- airy and far-fetched. It's hardly likely that the personnel involved in running a nuclear power plant would be on the level of those working at Internet providers. Secondly, there's no international agency making sure (through rather tough checks) that everything is top-notch or the plant will be shut down (if that were the case with Internet in Thailand, there wouldn't be any ). And generally speaking: anyone who mistrusts Thai people's competence (with a great deal of input on the part of the builders, who aren't going to be Thai) should also be critical of dams built in this country (take Tak, for example). If a dam like that were to break, there's no telling how many 100s of thousands of people would die. Just a thought into all this negativity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nakachalet Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 (edited) nakchat, I don't understand your post. You provided evidence which supports thaihome's statement and refutes yours. "TMI-1 was permitted to resume operations in 1985, and continues to do so today." It isn't partially correct, it's 100% correct. ------ Scubabuddha what i have been trying to clarify is that three mil island consists of more than one nuclear power generators.... according to the published report, only tmi-1 is allowed to operate several years after the accident.... and the rest of the nuclear power generators in the surrounding location have been damaged too severely in the accident.... even to repair them, if my memory is correct.... it appears my attempt to clarify.... fails miserably.... lol it seems like generations ago.... Edited November 18, 2009 by nakachalet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaBuddha Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 nakchat, I don't understand your post. You provided evidence which supports thaihome's statement and refutes yours. "TMI-1 was permitted to resume operations in 1985, and continues to do so today." It isn't partially correct, it's 100% correct. ------ Scubabuddha what i have been trying to clarify is that three mil island consists of more than one nuclear power generators.... according to the published report, only tmi-1 is allowed to operate several years after the accident.... and the rest of the nuclear power generators in the surrounding location have been damaged too severely in the accident.... even to repair them, if my memory is correct.... it appears my attempt to clarify.... fails miserably.... lol it seems like generations ago.... No I think we all understood..at least I did. There are two reactors at TMI. Always have been. Number two's had a partially melted core and never reopened. I belive this is what you were trying to say when you said, "the rest of the nuclear power generators in the surrounding location have been damaged too severely in the accident" Very confusing the way you wrote it. Not really accurate to say "the rest of the nuclear power generators" or "surrounding area". It was just one reactor, TMI-2, that was damaged beyond repair in a single "location." Then, as stated, reactor one, or "TMI-1", re-opened in 1985 with some design and saftey changes and still operates today. Isn't memory loss the first sign of radiation sickness? lol If you forget you can always Google. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nakachalet Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 (edited) nakchat, I don't understand your post. You provided evidence which supports thaihome's statement and refutes yours. "TMI-1 was permitted to resume operations in 1985, and continues to do so today." It isn't partially correct, it's 100% correct. ------ Scubabuddha it appears my attempt to clarify.... fails miserably.... lol ------- No I think we all understood..at least I did. There are two reactors at TMI. Always have been. Number two's had a partially melted core and never reopened. I belive this is what you were trying to say when you said, "the rest of the nuclear power generators in the surrounding location have been damaged too severely in the accident" Very confusing the way you wrote it. Not really accurate to say "the rest of the nuclear power generators" or "surrounding area". It was just one reactor, TMI-2, that was damaged beyond repair in a single "location." Then, as stated, reactor one, or "TMI-1", re-opened in 1985 with some design and saftey changes and still operates today. Isn't memory loss the first sign of radiation sickness? lol If you forget you can always Google. ------- ha ha ha.... Isn't memory loss the first sign of radiation sickness? lol again, i seem to recall that there were four nuclear power generators in the SURRONDING AREA.... LOL well, since i wasn't there to monitor the tick.... tick.... tick.... counts any more.... lol someone could have removed them and sold them to you know who.... lol are you sure there are only two reactors left standing in the island?.... hmmm very interesting.... well.... to console myself as you aptly said... it could be my first sign of radiation sickness.... for remembering unconsciously there were four towers of doom.... lol Edited November 18, 2009 by nakachalet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david96 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 France, a leader in nuclear technology generates 80% of its base load electricity requirements from this source, they have no problems to speak of. The incident in the US at Three Mile Island was unfortunate setback for the nuclear industry but there were no casualties. Only equipment damage. We live and learn by our mistakes. The incident in the USSR at Chenobyl was basically caued by poor design, poor maintainance and the fact that the real control of the plant was in the hands of those who should have never been in control. Communists were never interested in safety or environmental standards. Australia has large reserves of uranium, and as an Australian myself my view is that we should build nuclear power stations and replace out existing coal fired ones. We can still sell our coal to other countries. But one thing we should be concerned about, selling uranium ore to China ( a communist state) yet refusing to sell to India ( a democracy). Uranium ore should only be sold to countries that have a proven record of open Western style democracy. Thailand is not as yet politically and technologically advanced enough to have a nuclear reactor for electricity production. What gave nuclear energy a bad name was the use of the A-bomb on two Japanese cities in August 1945. Nuclear energy can be used for peace or war, just like ammonium nitrate or dynamite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brahmburgers Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) But one thing we should be concerned about, selling uranium ore to China ( a communist state) yet refusing to sell to India ( a democracy). Uranium ore should only be sold to countries that have a proven record of open Western style democracy. Thailand is not as yet politically and technologically advanced enough to have a nuclear reactor for electricity production. Wow, that puts another nail in the billboard declaring 'Why Nuclear Is Not The Way' Interesting and entirely plausible concept. The very few countries which produce yellowcake (precursor to refined U), could use it as a political bargaining chip, similar to how Uncle Sam uses weapons sales to try and influence the behavior of certain juntas and dictatorships. Only a handful of countries yield yellowcake (and its production can be interrupted for any one of a hundred different reasons, but that's beside the point). Those few disparate countries, including Uzbekistan could wield influence on the world stage when deciding, at any give juncture, which countries are worthy of getting their desperately needed fuel. Sort of like Russia being the major producer of heating oil for chilly western Europe. If the few U producing corps got together as a cartel, and were controlled by, let's say China (which is voraciously trying to buy as many fuel producing entities as it can, worldwide), then that would make things interesting, to say the least. China and/or the U cartel, could hypothetically dictate terms of behavior to western Europe, the US, and others who increasingly depend on nuclear. Little Thailand would be barely significant in the big picture of things. Of course none of that would be a factor with free fuel that's available to any country with a sky. Edited November 19, 2009 by brahmburgers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artisi Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Can you just imagine the state of (dis)repair a nuclear power plant in Thailand will be in after a few years of operation - you just need to look round you to see good examples - roads, bridges, and the railway - bloody hel_l what a disaster - how the trains stay on track is luck not good maintance everyday an accident waiting to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaihome Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Can you just imagine the state of (dis)repair a nuclear power plant in Thailand will be in after a few years of operation - you just need to look round you to see good examples - roads, bridges, and the railway - bloody hel_l what a disaster - how the trains stay on track is luck not good maintance everyday an accident waiting to happen. Your jump in logic that because of what you see in the road, bridges and the railroad means there is some cultural or biological reason Thais are incapable of doing normal maintenance is patently false and could be considered racist in its overtones and it is getting tiresome to keep hearing it. Maintenance is directly related to money made available to do it. There are numerous gas and coal fired power plants and other industrial operations in Thailand that are well maintained. I can show you 20 year old refineries in Thailand that would put many western ones to shame with the level of maintenance that is done. All due to the amount of money made available for it. TH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nakachalet Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 artisi you are scarring me to half death about the thai trains being unsafe and all.... very often i rode the night train to bkk to cast spells on those unbelievers.... lol then caught the evening train back to hiding in oz.... lol pls do post to warn us.... as to whence or about whence the train is going to be running off track.... so i could sleep in for a few days.... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
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