Can A Nuclear Accident Like Japans happen Here?

A very informative article that makes the case for Ontario’s nuclear reactors.

abetterenergyplan(dot)ca/#/news/accident-here?

I think that’s good for that region. It’s always important to be prepared as possible, but it’s good to hear that the Toronto region is at such a low risk.

From what I recall from my earth science/ geology/ natural disasters courses, an earthquake with the magnitude of Japan’s should only happen at the convergent/subduction plate boundaries (Japan is by one, I believe Chile is too). I don’t think that Toronto is near one, which is good. As for the tsunami, Japan’s coastline is not very protected, which made things worse.

You are correct. Toronto is far from any fault lines. This whole area seems to get off very lucky when it comes to natural distastes. A strong storm to people in the midwest would be a natural disaster to us here.

So it seems to me like if you had to pick a place for a nuclear power plant, the Toronto area would be a good candidate for that reason. (Whether or not we should have the power plants at all is a different debate entirely.)

Yea, there is one in Pickering, which is part of the GTA

Oh yeah. I am absolutely convinced it could happen here. Doesn’t anyone remember Three Mile Island?

I just meant that it’s a safer area from a plate tectonics standpoint. I actually don’t think we should have nuclear power plants at all, especially in populated areas.

Three Miles Island and Chernobyl were both before my time, actually. I’ve seen documentaries on them though.

See, I think that’s the problem again. Things are in danger of being passed for nuclear because you youngins’ don’t remember. Now you at least have Japan to think about. I very much remember both disasters. I think it makes a difference — living through something rather than just reading about it.

It does make a difference when you experience something first hand. I think the tragedy in Japan will be life long memories for all of us.

Can you name an energy source that can power an entire country that hasn’t had a major accident that killed numerous people? If you look at the numbers, the simple fact is Nuclear on paper has killed the least amount of people. There are drawbacks to all sources, but nuclear is the safest, and it produces thousands of times more energy than coal or gas while creating to green house gasses. Zero

Another thing that should be taken into consideration is the fundamental design differences between plants in Ontario which are CANDU reactors, and the ones in Japan. Nuclear is not without it’s faults, but those faults are far less dangerous than the ones of other energy systems, where it is less sensational to see an oil well gush oil for an entire month straight which will damage this earth far more than this nuclear incident. Also remember, there is radiation in EVERYTHING. So when they say they have DETECTED it, its not even worth batting an eye for. In fact, a banana is used as as measurement of radiation as they are radioactive. Look it up. In fact the four mile island scare when they said radiation was DETECTED in milk not far away, and people stated freaking out and pouring out all of their milk, the actual readings were the equivalent of eating 4 bananas.

Here is a good argument. abetterenergyplan(dot)ca/#/news/Keep-Building

Kind of hard to remember something that before you were born! But I do agree that experiencing something first hand is entirely different from hearing about it later. (Also, all I was trying to say was that a nuclear accident exactly like Japan’s can’t happen there because of the fault lines, not that one couldn’t happen at all.)

I’m torn. On one hand, I do believe that we have better technology. Whether or not technology helps the radiation, it can spread the word about how to stay safe. We can look up what certain doses of radiation means with a click of the button on the internet. Japan is very high-tech and I think that could be a great tool. The effects from the radiation can be exactly the same, but since we know about what happened, and can read about it on the internet, people can make more informed decisions. I think that’s a significant difference that some people overlook. (People in Japan were sending out messages on Twitter and Facebook minutes after the earthquake, for example. That’s the impact that technology can have.)

It can go the other way too–I mean, I’ve read articles about people as far away as Arizona panicking and buying iodine tablets, which did more harm than good. Radiation is a scary word and can cause panic in people who don’t need to be worried about it.

Now on the other hand, I do live relatively close to a power plant, one that’s on a coast, near a fault line, and has violated safety inspections. If something happened to that, there are 7 million people within a 50 mile radius of it, including myself and most of my family and friends (my parents, for example, live 20 miles away from it). For precisely that reason, I think “What were they thinking!? We shouldn’t have nuclear energy at all!” But whether or not that thought is accurate, it is biased.

I am pro nuclear it is a more economical and earth friendly resource than coal and oil…

i also think that safety is much better now than in the time of Three Mile and Chernobyl.. both of which I remember.

The problems in Japan are pretty unique, it was not the earthquake which caused the problem at Fukushima but the tsunami afterwards which partly knocked out the power supply that controlled the safety measures..

FAilsafes were built in, but obviously not enough of them and they are already busy redesigning these.

I don’t think there is anywhere else in the world that has the same risk as Japan.

What worries me about the California plants is the safety violations!

But yes, I agree with stavy in that Japan’s situation was unique.

Because of geography and geology, very few places, if any at all, can experience exactly what Japan did.

(See, the original question asked if a nuclear accident like Japan’s could happen here. And the answer is no. But that’s not saying that a nuclear accident can’t happen somewhere else. But the circumstances won’t be the same.)

earthling–And from what I’ve read, you would have to eat something like hundreds (maybe even thousands, I don’t remember) of bananas in one sitting to get sick from the radiation! So four is nothing.

there is always a possibility of an accident somewhere…. just like there is always a chnce a chemical plant will blow up and poison the surrounding area for decades or a huge oil explosion like the BP thing…n