Do nuclear power plants irl disregard safety protocol that badly as they are portrayed in the Simpsons?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Do nuclear power plants irl disregard safety protocol that badly as they are portrayed in the Simpsons?
yes
There would be more disasters if that was the case.
Yes dude. Cartoons are real life!
What a stupid thread. Man, the quality of this board is complete shit.
Yes, the Simpsons was a documentary and the events occurred in real time.
/co/mrades, if you actually looked for a moment, you'd see OP's point is, was this based on a real life thing? Being a satire, etc. Of course he knows cartoons are not true to real life.
As far as I know, no. It could be just a dig at nuclear power, or there might be a simpler reason, i.e. to help show how shit Springfield is for funny.
/co/cksucker, you're a gay and your next blowjob should be to a shotgun instead of your girlfriend's bull.
Chernobyl happened a year before they aired on the Tracy Ullman Show. Actual nuclear power plants are held to excruciatingly high standards for what amounts to a big ole steam engine.
>muh Fukushima
It isn't radiation thats burning a hole in the ozone layer
Its quintuple irony, midwit
>N-n-no u, MIDWIT!
Reddit pseuds need gassed.
wasn't the Fukushima disaster caused because japs were stupid enough to build a nuclear plant in a area historically known for having earthquakes?
also because the walls that were specifically made to resist earthquakes and contain waves collapsed like wet origami in like a minutes, there were too many structural faults at fukushima and many people went to jail for it, hopefully they will learn from the "accident"
Yeah. I think there was also something about them not building the floodwall high enough because they didn't anticipate such a big tsunami, but I might be misremembering.
Funnily enough, though, Fukushima wasn't even THAT bad. It could even be argued that all the evacuations and displacement of people from the area of the accident was unnecessary and a waste of time, resources, and money. Compared to Chernobyl, Fukushima was barely significant, for the simple fact that at Chernobyl, the core actually physically exploded and sent highly radioactive fuel particles into the air and surrounding environment. At Fukushima, the cores did not explode, and were not exposed to the environment, so the contamination caused by Fukushima is not only MUCH less deadly, it's also easier to clean up and will naturally decay much faster.
Chernobyl was a unique failure involving everybody doing essentially everything wrong, all the way from the designing of the reactors, to their construction, to their operation. A western reactor, even in the 80s, was designed in a way that made it inherently safer, and they are all contained inside special buildings made of thick-ass concrete specifically designed to prevent the core from becoming exposed. Chernobyl had no such containment buildings, and the design was flawed from the get go, made worse by the corners that were cut during the design and construction process.
Maybe in places like China or Russia, but that's about it. It's otherwise heavily regulated and under very close scrutiny from officials. Hell, most of the reckless behavior even in those countries is them trying to go too "hot" with their reactors and/or using godawful reactor designs, not the sort of stuff you see in shows like the Simpsons.
Regarding the waste, it's typically solid, although radioactive material can be in a liquid or gaseous state during processing, but that's not the form it's in when being disposed of.
The main problem is that they didn't have the generators far enough off the ground. Even in mainland areas, they're supposed to be at a "floodproof" elevation.
no you moron, what caused the fukushima disaster was the tsunami that hit the powerplant, even then it didn't cause 1/10th of what chernobyl was
Nope
If you actually looked my quote was from Master Shake.
yes. anyone who says otherwise is a glowie
It's called comedic effect, silly.
Nuclear waste isn't what people think it is. In reality it's the waste water from reactors when they're boiling uranium rods. Radiation poisoning is also small particles tearing through your atomic structure at a high speed
No, waste is the parts of the spent fuel that cannot be recycled or used for other means, usually it resembles ceramic. The core water never leaves the reactor and its not even that radioactive anyway (water is one of the best radiation shields).
Only in communist countries.
no
for example in this image you've posted, sitting that close to that much of the kind of nuclear waste that a nuclear power plant creates even for a few minutes would kill you in a matter of days
why do you think everyone's yellow (except Carl)
melanin is a natural shield against radiation
?si=BeH4om7POp7QpVMW
No, not at all. At least not in first-world countries - who knows what they do in shitholes like China.
But in a first world country, nuclear power plants are some of the safest, cleanest, most reliable sources of energy we have.
To give you an idea of how seriously we take nuclear safety in the west, a nuclear plant worker is on average exposed to LESS radiation per year than someone who DOESN'T work in a nuclear power plant. You get more radiation exposure if your house has stone walls or granite countertops, for instance, than you do working at a nuclear power plant.
In the entire history of nuclear plants, there have only been 2 significant accidents - Chernobyl and Fukushima. A lot of people like to talk about Three Mile Island, but everyone who uses it as an example of how nuclear is dangerous makes it obvious that they know nothing about the accident. If anything, Three Mile Island demonstrates how safe a properly constructed nuclear plant can be. Despite the meltdown, the only radioactive contamination released to the environment was a bit of radioactive inert gas which promptly diffused and dissipated away to harmless levels (again, you would receive a higher dose of radiation from simply standing in your basement in an area with radon than you would from being near Three Mile Island during the gas release).
a good post, i can't believe i learn something on Cinemaphile that isn't a pop culture factoid
No, in fact, nuclear power is the safest cleanest, and cheapest energy source we have. The only downside to The Simpson's existence is its betrayal of Nuclear energy made the public at large in at least to some degree not trust nuclear power, which leads to nuclear power plants shutting down, due to public opinion.
>made the public at large in at least to some degree not trust nuclear power
Yeah pure coincidence.
No, for whatever reason in the late twentieth century it was cool to just randomly slander nuclear power, unironically boomer and gen x environmentalists and pop culture single handedly contributed more to global warming than the lumber and oil industries combined.
ironic how the hulk and spiderman wouldn't be a thing if that slander didn't exist
As someone with a history degree I can confirm that Ronald Reagan was planning on shutting down all the fossil fuel companies and investing in nuclear before the Tracey Ullman show convinced him otherwise.
It's not so bad, fear created respecto and nuclear power need this meassure of high safety because we've seen what it can do when not handle properly.
Lumber and oil have existed centuries longer
We could have gone full nuclear decades ago if not for people shitting themselves over "muh noo cllee arrr waste"
Didn't Homer go on to bowl a perfect game that created a shockwave through all the lanes? What was all that about? I'm assuming it was a movie reference.
Well for unlike in cartoon real plants don't bother keeping their nuclear waste underground, instead they leave it out in the open in big cement cylinders.
>how often do they empty/replace those cylinders
That's the thing; They don't. Those few cylinders are going to hold ALL the nuclear waste produced by the plant in it's entire operational life AND any material created when it's eventually decommissioned. That's it. They don't bury it or nothing. Just leaving it there in the sun.
And you're unironically going to get more radiation from than you are standing next to those things.
There were cases of illegally dumped toxic waste in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.
Those were all from hospitals thougever.
But they rarely publicly mention that unless there were large number of civilians that already knew.
Barrels of toxic waste have been dumped in the ocean or buried along with other chemical waste that fricked the soil and water. Clean up operations were going on in the 80s and 90s to take care of it. Here's another incident that involved radioactive hospital equipment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident
>Barrels
nuclear waste from plants isn't stored in barrels tho. The spend fuel rods don't fit in them.
No, nuclear power plants are much safer than people think and these stereotypes are just fear mongering
Even in Fukushima, the biggest nuclear disaster in recent history, only 7 people were got cancer due to radiation and only one died as a result of it. 40-50 other people got wounded in the incident, 2 got radiation burns
And this was all during a combined earthquake and tsunami, Nuclear power plant nowadays are built to be as safe as possible and require exceptional conditions to do damage. Even in those conditions there are several measures to limit the damage
However ever since Chernobyl, a disaster that happened because the power plant itself was badly designed, people are overly afraid of nuclear and TV likes to spread the Nuclear fear. Back in the 70s nuclear was seen as the future of energy.
This has also repercussions for climate change. Nuclear power plants would be a great way to reduce dependency on fossil fuels and consequently global warming, not to mention being less dependent on importing fossil fuels from oppressive regimes. However because of the general public opposition to nuclear we aren't expanding it's capabilities, people instead want nuclear fusion (which is still in its experimental stages and we don't even know if it'll ever be viable enough as a major energy source) and solar/renewable (which is good but cannot adequately supply a majority of the energy demand because it's intermittent and reliant on natural phenomenons and as a result becomes inefficient at high penetration levels)
>radioactive smoke poisoning the admosphere is good for the planet!
you are DERANGED
funny how the average normalgay has no idea that the white fog is just water vapor
I'm pretty sure they're just having a laugh. Nuclear fears often revolve around the concept of irradiated particles, dust that can give you cancer, blowing for miles. It's reasonable to assume that the radiation clings to water vapor like it does dust. That's not how it works, but it takes a good explanation to help people with that conclusion if they've already arrived at it or have an concerns. It requires more technical knowledge than I have if they ask a few good questions.
>solar/renewable (which is good but cannot adequately supply a majority of the energy demand because it's intermittent and reliant on natural phenomenons and as a result becomes inefficient at high penetration levels)
Not to mention how insanely destructive mining for the materials to build those things are for solar panels at least. And wind turbines never generating enough energy in their functional lifetimes to make up for how much it takes to build them on top of being nonrecyclable so the only thing to do with used up turbines is to bury them in a big hole and forget about them.
I've heard that one, but it's mostly in the form of "did you know it requires mining" and any numbers supplied isn't compared with the logistics and infrastructure required for other gas alternatives. There's ways and vested interest to skew the numbers around treating oil and coal as already tapped and thus less impactful while playing up the exploration and excavation of materials that are less in demand.
Oh OP, cartoons don't have to be 100% realistic
Yes, cause cartoons and all media in general are 1:1 representations of real life...
Now go jump off a roof and fly like superman.
OK but here's a real question if Homer is a safety inspector for the power plant how he poor?
Burns don't even rember him ditching work most the time and so he probably should have money from shenanigans
Burns doesn't pay him a lot.
Or Homer makes bad financial decisions.
Or both.
Nowadays nuclear power is pretty safe and designed to require power to raise fuel rods into the chamber (if an accident happens they fall out and stop reacting), right now they've had some breakthroughs making spent nuclear fuel that can be reused as fuel that then goes onto becoming inert radioactively which would revolutionize nuclear power and safety regarding it.
Whats really the problem is there's nuclear material in a ton of hospital equipment and a single device with it's sample taken out of containment can shut down half the city just from simple air exposure, it's insane what hospitals are allowed to have and we are largely only saved by a lack of education on the part of terrorists and the like (similarly firearms and explosives are piss easy to make, a lack of education stops ne'er-do-wells from taking over everything and causing a socialist revolution). One of those africa areas had THREE OUNCES of radioactive salt get spread around from people salvaging an abandoned hospital and of 120k people they tested about 250 were contaminated with radiation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident
Radioactive materials are metals and not sludge like in the Simpsons, if you want real toxic sludge American horror look up Love Canal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_canal
Is it bad that I always wanted to taste the radioactive waste of the show?
Where do the "green nuclear waste" come from?
TMNT
Not really, Green is easier to produce effect
All Nuclear criticalities and radiation is Blue Color.
Uranium
No one incident caused a scare about Nuclear energy more than the collective of USSR's incompetency. Allowing support for fossil fuels for decades to come that slowly put us in a slow spiraling death null.
Where did that rod go? Was it intended to fall on the sidewalk or down the drain? Back when I didn't have these episodes on video and couldn't pause them to look closer, I assumed it somehow got lodged in the skateboard.
I always assumed Bart picked it up
The rod went into the missing frame zone.
Pretty much every story my dad has from working in one is
>Suits trying to cut costs
>Suits trying to push blame just on the chance something went wrong
>That wasn't safe but nobody was gonna listen to you
There are standards they do have to hit, but you can bet your ass they skim that exact line and no more even when they should be.
Sounds like the literal "safety's 4th" business model of trains in America. That's not a joke, that's verbatim what the people in charge say.