Paphos Life

Is any one else concerned that Russia is building a Nuclear power station for Turkey less then fifty miles away from Cyprus?, given the fact that Russian Nuclear stations '' Chernobyl'' arnt the safest?, add the fact that its being build in an area that has a history, of earth quakes etc..then its squeaky bum time me thinks? ( would like to hear Devils thoughts)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-turk ... SKCN1HA2GI

The Aquila wrote: ↑Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 pm I wouldn't at all be concerned, the Pripyat site was built in the early 70's so there have been a host of improvements and safety factors built in since those days and even more so since 1986.

Its the earthquake factor that worry's me more then anything else.

The Japanese power station was modern!

Flossie wrote: ↑Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:08 pm I was brought up in the shadow of Sellafield until I was 26 and I THINK I'm OK!

I wondered why your smiley was so green.

Good points, but its being build in an area known for earthquakes, anybody got a view on that point?

I would think the Israelis will deal with him, way before the despot gets his hands on a nuclear button...

Termites Dream wrote: ↑Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:24 pm WHL I am more concerned with the potential for Turkey to develop a Nuclear weapon with perhaps their new allies Iran to match Israel. Turkey is moving away from NATO more by each day and Erdogan becomes more militant in equal measure. I do not have the knowledge to know if this reactor can be used for such a purpose, but have not seen anything to indicate it is impossible yet.

You might have a point.
https://youtu.be/nBOGVgJzhVA

For me, no problem. Please allow me to correct some misconceptions:
- Chernobyl was an early category II nuclear power station designed in the 1950s with a number of severe design flaws, totally irrelevant to modern nuclear technology. It is ridiculous to use it as an argument against modern nuclear technology, as much as the design of the Ford model T is the same as modern F1 car.
- Fukushima was an accident caused by a stupid design flaw in an early American Generation II system. They put the emergency generators in a basement, where it was flooded by sea water when the sea wall overflowed (1960s design) and the quake cut other external power. Modern IIIA reactors have 3 or 4 emergency generators which are housed in 3 or 4 separate elevated buildings, so that any risk is spread. The actual reactors survived the M9 earthquake, even though they were designed for M7.5.

California had 8 nuclear power stations, all but one closed for political reasons, in one of the most densely populated regions.

For me, I'd be far happier living close to a nuclear power station than downstream from a large dam of any type.

What a lot of people forget when they talk about Chernobyl is the sheer unadulterated bravery of the engineers who stayed to stop it getting any worse, knowing full well that they were killing themselves.

Devil wrote: ↑Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:19 pm It is ridiculous to use it as an argument against modern nuclear technology, as much as the design of the Ford model T is the same as modern F1 car.

Have you seen the McLaren perform over the last few years!


Shane