Writer's Block: Working hard for the money

[Error: unknown template qotd]
Francheska, the gecko that lived under my fridge in Mumbai, was definately a stay-at-home mom. Nothing wrong with that, though, especially when you consider the job she did cleaning up cockroaches.

Writer's Block: Working hard for the money

[Error: unknown template qotd]
Francheska, the gecko that lived under my fridge in Mumbai, was definately a stay-at-home mom. Nothing wrong with that, though, especially when you consider the job she did cleaning up cockroaches.

Writer's Block: Working hard for the money

[Error: unknown template qotd]
Francheska, the gecko that lived under my fridge in Mumbai, was definately a stay-at-home mom. Nothing wrong with that, though, especially when you consider the job she did cleaning up cockroaches.

Not quite sure where to start with the rebuttals here

In light of the damage the tsunami did to some of Japan's nuclear plants its completely understandable that anti-nuclear power protesters are taking the opportunity to protest nuclear power as unsafe. To be fair they have some points. Nuclear power does create a significant waste problem that we have not yet been able to adequately solve, and extreme accidents like Chernobyl would make anyone worry. However, some of the comments I read on the CNN entry on this make me wonder what people are thinking.

The strangest one by far was the person who said that instead of investing in nuclear power Japan should have invested in tidal power stations as they would have not only been more environmentally safe but would also have gotten a boost from the tsunami itself.

For those of you wondering, that "thud" sound was indeed my head hitting my desk at this suggestion.

I'm no engineer but I know that all structures have a certain amount of flex or give built into them, but if you go beyond that structural failure is likely to occur. I'm pretty sure no tidal power plant is capable of absorbing such energy and remaining intact. Not only that but power has to have a means of transmission to its destination, as well as a destination to go to. Its all well and good if a power plant survives and even thrives under such a massive shock but if the shock destroys the entire city its powering, how is that helpful?

Ultimately while it is a good thing to critically analyze anything in a disaster one must make sure that we're not just jumping on the knee jerk reaction bandwagon. Changes will have to be made, for sure, but building such tidal stations will not one of those changes.

Not quite sure where to start with the rebuttals here

In light of the damage the tsunami did to some of Japan's nuclear plants its completely understandable that anti-nuclear power protesters are taking the opportunity to protest nuclear power as unsafe. To be fair they have some points. Nuclear power does create a significant waste problem that we have not yet been able to adequately solve, and extreme accidents like Chernobyl would make anyone worry. However, some of the comments I read on the CNN entry on this make me wonder what people are thinking.

The strangest one by far was the person who said that instead of investing in nuclear power Japan should have invested in tidal power stations as they would have not only been more environmentally safe but would also have gotten a boost from the tsunami itself.

For those of you wondering, that "thud" sound was indeed my head hitting my desk at this suggestion.

I'm no engineer but I know that all structures have a certain amount of flex or give built into them, but if you go beyond that structural failure is likely to occur. I'm pretty sure no tidal power plant is capable of absorbing such energy and remaining intact. Not only that but power has to have a means of transmission to its destination, as well as a destination to go to. Its all well and good if a power plant survives and even thrives under such a massive shock but if the shock destroys the entire city its powering, how is that helpful?

Ultimately while it is a good thing to critically analyze anything in a disaster one must make sure that we're not just jumping on the knee jerk reaction bandwagon. Changes will have to be made, for sure, but building such tidal stations will not one of those changes.

Not quite sure where to start with the rebuttals here

In light of the damage the tsunami did to some of Japan's nuclear plants its completely understandable that anti-nuclear power protesters are taking the opportunity to protest nuclear power as unsafe. To be fair they have some points. Nuclear power does create a significant waste problem that we have not yet been able to adequately solve, and extreme accidents like Chernobyl would make anyone worry. However, some of the comments I read on the CNN entry on this make me wonder what people are thinking.

The strangest one by far was the person who said that instead of investing in nuclear power Japan should have invested in tidal power stations as they would have not only been more environmentally safe but would also have gotten a boost from the tsunami itself.

For those of you wondering, that "thud" sound was indeed my head hitting my desk at this suggestion.

I'm no engineer but I know that all structures have a certain amount of flex or give built into them, but if you go beyond that structural failure is likely to occur. I'm pretty sure no tidal power plant is capable of absorbing such energy and remaining intact. Not only that but power has to have a means of transmission to its destination, as well as a destination to go to. Its all well and good if a power plant survives and even thrives under such a massive shock but if the shock destroys the entire city its powering, how is that helpful?

Ultimately while it is a good thing to critically analyze anything in a disaster one must make sure that we're not just jumping on the knee jerk reaction bandwagon. Changes will have to be made, for sure, but building such tidal stations will not one of those changes.