Before last week, I couldn't remember the last time we had an earthquake with an epicenter that is close to us (within 100 km or so), now we've had a second one. Just a tad weaker than the one at the weekend. Slightly disconcerting to say the least.

And the quake we had this time was one those ones I really hate, where you can actually hear it coming towards you before you feel the full force.

Anyhow, you can back to nuclear power arguments now if you wish.

I am not against nuclear, but calling it "most future oriented energy technology" it´s absurd. All nuclear energy (fision one) is based on the isotope U 235 (only fisionable isotope in nature, another fisionable isotopes can be generated only using uranium 235 as a start). It is a non renovable resource and will not last forever (same with coal or gas), and generates costs (waste products) for future genereations.

Do we have a more future oriented technology right now? That could actually meet the world's energy demands and not just those of Luxembourg?

Yes you do need U235 to spark a fission process, but the waste material can be safely handled and stored, and is nowhere near those volumes generated by fossile fuel based energy.

The only danger seems to be freak accidents and major natural disasters that we can't really design for, and even then most of the nuclear waste products released are isotopes with half-times down into weeks or even days. I believe the only isotope that was largely spread in the Fukushima disaster had a half-time of about 5 days.

I believe so far the most widely spread isotope has turned out to be iodine-131, which has a half life of about 8 days.

And yes, nuclear power is the most future oriented technology out there, now or ever. Uranium is the power source of choice at the moment, but so what? That's because it was so easily laterally changed into a weapon. It's not the only option; thorium, for example, was thought of as a potential source as much as uranium, but since this was during the cold war, uranium turned out to be the winner. In fact, there's already work to start using thorium reactors.

Nothing beats the power density of nuclear power. Nothing beats the longevity.

The biggest problem with nuclear is and remains the waste. Not for it's radioactivity, per se, but because of how long it is toxic and for how long it needs to be monitored. Half-life of some of the fuels used is far, far, far longer than ANY country / society in human history has ever existed, let alone speaking of a bureaucratic entity. We are talking many many generations here.

The waste material will have to be monitored, maintained and guaranteed to be safe for these immense time frames. This is beyond any other human long-term endeavour. Yes, the radioactivity of individual fuel rods will get less and less, but given how problematic finding suitable long-term storage for radioactive waste is in the first place it is likely that these deposits will carry large quantities of radioactive material that, combined, will remain at dangerous levels through much of their decay.

A thorium reactor is not posiible, because you can´t use Thorium as a nuclear fuel. You can design a reactor that use Thorium to produce (using neutrons that come from another fusion reaction) Uranium 233, and this is the fisionable isotope, you still need Uranium 235, because Thorium is not fisionable. As I said before I am not against nuclear energy, but we´ll need to search another tecnogies in the future.

Nuclear energy doesn't have that potential. It's not like all reactors are going to blow up simultaneously.

Again; arguments based on unfounded fears rather than hard science. To be dismissed.

Maybe we should start and have a different thread to fully address this issue on nuclear power safety?

I feel the same, this thread has now got stuck in pro / contra nuclear power argumentation.

Not because of me: I decided to stop caring about that, since there's no real discussion.

,
no, not because of you :)

Edit -just saw it:
The Japanese Government will make it legal to forbid to go within 20km radius zone of Fukushima site.

The trimmers are getting closer to where I live now. Luckily there are on the small scale. The upper 3 to 4.

Anybody knows a good Quake Warning app for iPhone?

I know there is one which is linked to the Japanese Warning System but you only get it with a Japanese iTunes account. My Wife uses it but I am not always with her you see.

I found Quake Warn which is quite close to the happing but no warning of course and no push either.

Of course I COULD authorize my iPod to her computer.

Another `funny´ app is Nuclear Plants which alerts when you get within a distance certain to any nuclear power plant.

I use Yurekuru. A quick Google search offered up this: http://www.filecluster.com/iPhone/yurekuru-call-for-iPhone-102956.html

Which appears to have a non-iTunes download link. But I got mine via iTunes so I can't comment on whether that will work for you or not.