A heavier topic: So nuclear power is good?

[Soarer]

Right that things could get much worse very quickly.

Anything could happen.

I posted it when it was level 4.  Now it is a level 6.  

BIG difference.

As far as I know, there's isn't any consensus on the current level.

[keyboardlover]

A French guy, connected with the UN nuclear whatever was the one who said it was most likely a 6.

[RiGS]

[cbf123]

Damn, I'm good.

Threat Level 7.

It looks like this is actually a retroactive thing, based on calculations of the rate of radiation release back during the most severe parts of the crisis.

So far the total radiation release is at about one tenth of Chernobyl, but the isotopes are different so the end result is also going to be different.  Of course they're still releasing radiation so who knows what the final total is going to be.

I heard an interesting interview on CBC radio the other night.  They were talking about liquid salt thorium reactors.  From what it sounded like, they are by their very nature much safer than solid fuel uranium reactors and also produce less waste.  I'm really curious why nobody has ever built one commercially--it would be sad if it was simply because nobody else has.

[Lanx]

yea i'm not visiting japan like, forever.

[digitalleftovers]

I want nuclear power to be an option, but its hard to support something that is so dangerous and still in its infancy.  In the case of a completely compromised plant, what if there were a way to extract the nuclear material and transport it to a safe location.  Will reasearch into such solutions be possible with the political gloom over such an "unsafe" form of energy?