GRAPHIC: Examining U.S. nuclear reactor/fault line geography
Some nuclear power food for thought: A lot of tumult has been taking place here in America over the nuclear crisis unfolding in Japan. This has ranged from rational concerns (this model of reactor seems unsafe!) to the not-so-rational ones (I need to buy potassium iodide RIGHT NOW!). With that in mind, we’ve decided to focus on a simple, practically important question; if the Mark 1 Reactor is indeed inferior on safety, where are ours and are they earthquake safe? The map tells the tale: 23 plants are presently using a Mark 1, all of which are in the eastern half of the country. (h/t to the USGS, Reuters and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the sources of the maps we used). source
Now seems like a good time to bring this back to the fore, considering that the quake happened near a nuclear power plant.
Hello, my name is Green and I’m a geology major.
Cons: From what I’ve read, the safety concerns of the reactors are legitimate. Mark 1 does have some problems.
Pros: At the very least, when reactors are built near/on fault zones, they are usually built to withstand the earthquakes. However - that can only do so much when there is a problem with the design of the REACTOR itself.
My opinion - we need to work on the reactors themselves - building near a fault is not necessarily a huge problem (I wouldn’t recommend it, but it can be managed if done properly).
SO BASICALLY the country needs to take a look at how they manage funds and put some money used for *ahem* other things
lol warsinto1. Upgrading our nuclear power plants
2. Using geothermal energy (Lol check out the Snake River Valley in Idahoooo)
3. Using more Solar/Wind power.
Put you know this will be a fucking huge fight because there are people who don’t want certain OTHER energy industries to fall.
End science rant/
Great commentary on our original graphic.
(Source: shortformblog)
Some nuclear power food for thought: A lot of tumult has been taking place here in America over the nuclear crisis unfolding in Japan. This has ranged from rational concerns (this model of reactor seems unsafe!) to the not-so-rational ones (I need to buy potassium iodide RIGHT NOW!). With that in mind, we’ve decided to focus on a simple, practically important question; if the Mark 1 Reactor is indeed inferior on safety, where are ours and are they earthquake safe? The map tells the tale: 23 plants are presently using a Mark 1, all of which are in the eastern half of the country. (h/t to the USGS, Reuters and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the sources of the maps we used). source
Copyright 2009-2013 Ernie Smith • Ask us stuff! • E-mail us • Follow us on Twitter • Follow us on Facebook
