Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff |
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
07/17/09
The worst thing that could ever happen at a US reactor is TMI, which was bad but had essentially no effect on the surrounding community.
I guess having a star doesn't mean you actually have to know anything before posting opinion as fact...
07/17/09
"I guess having a star doesn't mean you actually have to know anything before posting opinion as fact... "
actually, that's how you get 'em!
07/16/09
07/16/09
Of course, with any movie, creative license is necessary for the plot to work, such as locking yourself inside the control room and other things, but this movie wasn't that far removed from reality in terms of the technical aspects (at least relatively speaking).
Also for anyone who hasn't seen the movie (it actually is worth watching), even the main character isn't opposed to nuclear energy, and the accident wasn't a flaw with the concept of nuclear energy, rather it was corrupt contractors who botched up the facility making it dangerous.
I'm all for nuclear energy, and this movie at the time did a lot to turn people off by feeding anti-nuke hysteria, which is certainly a shame as we look at the situation we're in now.
07/16/09
The problem with "failsafe" systems is that they are designed by humans. And to err is human.
Shit goes wrong, that's a fact. The problem with nuclear is that the capacity for a greatest assumed accident cannot be denied, and as long as there is a potential, it's too risky. The risks to not outweigh the benefits in this case.
07/17/09
Most modern reactors include inherent failsafes - as in, even if all of the electronics and mechanical components stopped working, the physics of how the reactor operates would prevent a meltdown situation because the more out of hand the reaction got, the less capable it would be of sustaining itself.
There are also pebble bed reactors that are very simple and hands-off, but I'm not sure yet how much I'd get behind them just because they're being pushed for small, localized power generation, and it is often more efficient to produce huge amounts of power at a centralized plant.
07/16/09
they do a pretty good job of exposing the ridiculousness of the nuclear paranoia. Plus they show lots of tits so everyone wins.
07/16/09
07/16/09
Imagine if nuclear plants replaced all coal plants in the world. Add all that, so far, useless waste and reconsider your naive comments.
Nuclear power starts off wonderful but the waste becomes a huge issue. Before even acting like it can be managed safely at global levels, let's actually look at how we manage current waste, both hazardous and nonhazardous. Not very well.
Until we figure out how to scrub the waste, or better yet, use it safely. Nuclear power is a bigger pipe dream than Solar. Solar would best place to look for biological power. No more bullshit with boiling our drinking water to make power. It's non-sustainable. Period.
07/16/09
the reason why it would be perfect for nuclear waste is because the area is practically a large desert and devoid of life. plus, the geologic elements the mountain is created from makes it completely safe to store the wastes.
07/16/09
The outside operators had to look through blueprints to find a way to shut down the reactor. What? There are 1001 ways to do that. You sneeze and the reactor will shut down. The real issue is keeping hundreds of system in unison so as to not shut it down. In real life the easiest thing to is to go to the switchroom and press a button to trip the reactor.
All in all, The Three Mile Island safety features took a beating from inept operators and still protected the outside public. The operators caused a financial catastrophe not a human one as with the awful soviet design of Chernobyl.
07/16/09
07/16/09
Less successful than the movie trailer version I'm afraid.
07/16/09
The sad part being that Three Mile Island wasn't even disasterous, compared to Chernobyl. All US Nuclear plants follow safety guidelines and regulations very strictly, compared to Soviet nuclear plants, which were very erratic at best. That's one of the reasons why when Chernobyl went kaput, there was a whole cloud of fallout covering the area due to one of the reactors exploding. In comparison, 3 Mile Island only had a water heating incident that only affected the water ecosystem, at best.
10/29/08