[ilvtofu]

You will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology.

A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.

Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive pollution. For a clearer view, look at the graphic published by xkcd.com. It shows that the average total dose from the Three Mile Island disaster for someone living within 10 miles of the plant was one 625th of the maximum yearly amount permitted for US radiation workers. This, in turn, is half of the lowest one-year dose clearly linked to an increased cancer risk, which, in its turn, is one 80th of an invariably fatal exposure. I'm not proposing complacency here. I am proposing perspective.

If other forms of energy production caused no damage, these impacts would weigh more heavily. But energy is like medicine: if there are no side-effects, the chances are that it doesn't work.

Like most greens, I favour a major expansion of renewables. I can also sympathise with the complaints of their opponents. It's not just the onshore windfarms that bother people, but also the new grid connections (pylons and power lines). As the proportion of renewable electricity on the grid rises, more pumped storage will be needed to keep the lights on. That means reservoirs on mountains: they aren't popular, either.

The impacts and costs of renewables rise with the proportion of power they supply, as the need for storage and redundancy increases. It may well be the case (I have yet to see a comparative study) that up to a certain grid penetration – 50% or 70%, perhaps? – renewables have smaller carbon impacts than nuclear, while beyond that point, nuclear has smaller impacts than renewables.

Like others, I have called for renewable power to be used both to replace the electricity produced by fossil fuel and to expand the total supply, displacing the oil used for transport and the gas used for heating fuel. Are we also to demand that it replaces current nuclear capacity? The more work we expect renewables to do, the greater the impact on the landscape will be, and the tougher the task of public persuasion.

But expanding the grid to connect people and industry to rich, distant sources of ambient energy is also rejected by most of the greens who complained about the blog post I wrote last week in which I argued that nuclear remains safer than coal. What they want, they tell me, is something quite different: we should power down and produce our energy locally. Some have even called for the abandonment of the grid. Their bucolic vision sounds lovely, until you read the small print.

At high latitudes like ours, most small-scale ambient power production is a dead loss. Generating solar power in the UK involves a spectacular waste of scarce resources. It's hopelessly inefficient and poorly matched to the pattern of demand. Wind power in populated areas is largely worthless. This is partly because we have built our settlements in sheltered places; partly because turbulence caused by the buildings interferes with the airflow and chews up the mechanism. Micro-hydropower might work for a farmhouse in Wales, but it's not much use in Birmingham.

And how do we drive our textile mills, brick kilns, blast furnaces and electric railways – not to mention advanced industrial processes? Rooftop solar panels? The moment you consider the demands of the whole economy is the moment at which you fall out of love with local energy production. A national (or, better still, international) grid is the essential prerequisite for a largely renewable energy supply.

Some greens go even further: why waste renewable resources by turning them into electricity? Why not use them to provide energy directly? To answer this question, look at what happened in Britain before the industrial revolution.

The damming and weiring of British rivers for watermills was small-scale, renewable, picturesque and devastating. By blocking the rivers and silting up the spawning beds, they helped bring to an end the gigantic runs of migratory fish that were once among our great natural spectacles and which fed much of Britain – wiping out sturgeon, lampreys and shad, as well as most sea trout and salmon.

Traction was intimately linked with starvation. The more land that was set aside for feeding draft animals for industry and transport, the less was available for feeding humans. It was the 17th-century equivalent of today's biofuels crisis. The same applied to heating fuel. As EA Wrigley points out in his book Energy and the English Industrial Revolution, the 11m tonnes of coal mined in England in 1800 produced as much energy as 11m acres of woodland (one third of the land surface) would have generated.

Before coal became widely available, wood was used not just for heating homes but also for industrial processes: if half the land surface of Britain had been covered with woodland, Wrigley shows, we could have made 1.25m tonnes of bar iron a year (a fraction of current consumption) and nothing else. Even with a much lower population than today's, manufactured goods in the land-based economy were the preserve of the elite. Deep green energy production – decentralised, based on the products of the land – is far more damaging to humanity than nuclear meltdown.

But the energy source to which most economies will revert if they shut down their nuclear plants is not wood, water, wind or sun, but fossil fuel. On every measure (climate change, mining impact, local pollution, industrial injury and death, even radioactive discharges) coal is 100 times worse than nuclear power. Thanks to the expansion of shale gas production, the impacts of natural gas are catching up fast.

Yes, I still loathe the liars who run the nuclear industry. Yes, I would prefer to see the entire sector shut down, if there were harmless alternatives. But there are no ideal solutions. Every energy technology carries a cost; so does the absence of energy technologies. Atomic energy has just been subjected to one of the harshest of possible tests, and the impact on people and the planet has been small. The crisis at Fukushima has converted me to the cause of nuclear power.

Sauce (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima)

Thoughts? Personally I've always preferred nuclear to coal but interested to hear opinions on whether this columnist's cost-benefit analysis makes sense. I recommend taking a look at some of the comments in the link as some commenters have some very valid arguments to make, only if you're interested in the subject of course.

[BNR32_Coupe]

the #1 problem is where do you put the waste? this article fails to address that important issue. no one wants it in their country because once you put it in the ground, you can't touch that ground "forever". any living thing that touches it is fucked. there are running costs of disposing the waste: there has to be security measures to ensure no one can acquire the waste (think terrorists). lastly, if the disposal container leaks then the waste could spread (eg, if theres an underground fault, radiation will be carried to sea where it fucks with our ecosystem).

there have been thoughts about launching the waste into space but the risk is if the shuttle blows up in our atmosphere then its chernobyl^10

personally i dont believe in global warming or conserving the environment but this article is just stupid. it makes it seem like there's a dilemma between energy types. the fact is, if a region requires nuclear power it will get it. if you can use a sustainable resource for energy, you will use it. sustainable energy resources likely have cheaper costs overall than nuclear power (prove me wrong)

[ilvtofu]

the #1 problem is where do you put the waste? this article fails to address that important issue. no one wants it in their country because once you put it in the ground, you can't touch that ground "forever". any living thing that touches it is fucked. there are running costs of disposing the waste: there has to be security measures to ensure no one can acquire the waste (think terrorists). lastly, if the disposal container leaks then the waste could spread (eg, if theres an underground fault, radiation will be carried to sea where it fucks with our ecosystem).

there have been thoughts about launching the waste into space but the risk is if the shuttle blows up in our atmosphere then its chernobyl^10

personally i dont believe in global warming or conserving the environment but this article is just stupid. it makes it seem like there's a dilemma between energy types. the fact is, if a region requires nuclear power it will get it. if you can use a sustainable resource for energy, you will use it. sustainable energy resources likely have cheaper costs overall than nuclear power (prove me wrong)

Completely agree with you, I think what the columnist is trying to put off is that, so far it doesn't seem so bad (what happened at fukushima) but he published the article less than 2 weeks after the earthquake lol. Not sure about costs economically/environmentally linked to sustainable energy resources, and it likely varies region to region significantly

[darkfroggy]

The waste isn't as big a problem as you think. The major obstacle to nuclear power is public perception and big oil companies.

Look what happened to the electric car.

[Nightwalker]

I think the alternatives will leapfrog in effectiveness (technology) before nuclear makes a comeback.

[Mr.HappySilp]

Let's go back to caveman Time!

[Graeme S]

The issue of nuclear waste would be less of a big deal if people were less obstructionist.

There is a giant nuclear waste facility located in Nevada, far from any fault lines or ground water. The estimated life of the facility is (I believe) 10,000 years. And yet, people still feel that it is too unsafe. For an interesting and easy to watch anti-anti-nuclear point of view, I recommend watching Penn & Teller's Bullshit! Episode covering nuclear power.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[TekDragon]

Because the devastation of disposing of nuclear waste is greater than drilling for oil...

[LiquidTurbo]

Place waste in barrels, concrete up, dump it into the ocean :D

[Soundy]

Because the devastation of disposing of nuclear waste is greater than drilling for oil...

DRILLING for oil isn't the damaging part... the by-products of burning it are.

And that's the author's point: EVERY form of energy generation we have has issues - whether dangerous, damaging, wasteful, inefficient, or impractical.

When you weigh in all the factors, beginning to end of the cycle, nuclear ranks among the top two or three in most energy output with least impact.

[iEatClams]

^ another point is that it's relatively more stable/sustainable too. I rather have nuclear than Rely on Middle eastern oil, at least until better and cheaper alternatives become available.

I personally think it's a great source of power as long as safety and construction standards are implemented.

The plants that went down in Japan are older most of us here on Revscene. Technology and standards have increased exponentially since then.

[Graeme S]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP2oG0n4NLc

The basics of what I was talking about before. The full episode is just as good, but this is the essence of it. This one has details on Yucca Mountain. Winsauce!

[Mr.C]

I like coal. I also like Fusion, but that's only going to be available in 2050 if I'm not mistaken.

[adambomb]

Put nuclear waste in rocket. Fire rocket at Sun.



:wiggle:

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

Put nuclear waste in rocket. Fire rocket at Sun.



:wiggle:

they would, if the chances of the rocket blowing up and deadly nuclear waste raining death down upon millions wasnt so great.

i tell ya, if they ever get that space elevator up and running, we'd pollute space like no tomorrow. lol!

[Tapioca]

Even though we have made our consumption of energy more efficient, our overall consumption continues to increase. The demand for power won't decrease, so something has to give. (I personally do believe in the impact that fossil fuels are having on the climate.)

Nuclear is going to be in our future, whether we like it or not.

[hk20000]

those plants should just sit somewhere offshore so that in case of meltdown like Fukushima there won't be massive loss of land use which translates to economic productivity of the area.

unless, of course, the meltdown follows the ocean everywhere lol.

So perhaps put it somewhere not near any human habitants??

[Soundy]

I like coal. I also like Fusion, but that's only going to be available in 2050 if I'm not mistaken.

Fusion would be ideal, because it produces a *lot* of energy with practically no harmful radiation and no harmful wastes... but it takes a LOT of energy input to produce a fusion reaction in the first place (a fusion bomb actually uses a small fission bomb to start the fusion reaction - that's where most of their radiation comes from) and so far, it's a lot harder to control and harness that reaction.

[illicitstylz]

those plants should just sit somewhere offshore so that in case of meltdown like Fukushima there won't be massive loss of land use which translates to economic productivity of the area.

unless, of course, the meltdown follows the ocean everywhere lol.

So perhaps put it somewhere not near any human habitants??

except there's an obvious tradeoff you're not considering

the further energy has to travel, the higher the costs of transporting it and the more of it is generally lost

[hk20000]

but electricity just travels over wires.... if the energy is as cheap as they make it out to be, it is probably not a bad tradeoff...

surely private power companies will think otherwise coz they are penny pinching bastards.

[Hurricane]

Putting the Nuclear waste underground in the desert or prairies until they have developed the synthetic microbes to eat it and turn it into harmless byproduct in 20-50-100 years would be no problem whatsoever. It just so happens the environmentalists would like everyone to think otherwise.

Even though we have made our consumption of energy more efficient, our overall consumption continues to increase. The demand for power won't decrease, so something has to give. (I personally do believe in the impact that fossil fuels are having on the climate.)

Nuclear is going to be in our future, whether we like it or not.

Believe in it? It's not religion, it's science.

Granted science which is in it's relative infancy, and hence the reason people can even conjure up arguments akin to faith about it.

I love how people are still talking about the water level rising to what amounts to absolutely nothing, when in fact we do know there were forests in Antarctica and ice covering all of Canada and the Northern US not too long ago.

It's natural; and if there is anything significant to discuss about human induced climate change, we haven't found it yet. Scientists are working hard everyday on doing so, so let them do their jobs and focus on something more 'relevant.'

[Hot Karl]

i have no idea if this is the case, but
"no one has died from _____"
usually means fuck all coming from a government agency.

because the next line is usually something like
"granted, cancer rates and other crazy diseases seem to occur 100000% more, but those folks died from complications due to their cancer/disease, not radiation"

[Graeme S]

i have no idea if this is the case, but
"no one has died from _____"
usually means fuck all coming from a government agency.

because the next line is usually something like
"granted, cancer rates and other crazy diseases seem to occur 100000% more, but those folks died from complications due to their cancer/disease, not radiation"

Sadly, like hurricane has mentioned, science often takes a long time to figure stuff out because correlation and causation are two very different things. There was a study done once on hot dog consumption. Turns out people who consume a certain number of hot dogs within a week are more likely to have health problems, cancers and whatnot.

Now, is this because hotdogs cause cancers? Or is it because the people who have to eat hot dogs due to financial constraints are more likely to lead less healthy lives in things like diet and health practices? Who knows. All we know is these two are correlated. The nuclear stuff is exactly the same. I'd take nuclear power over coal any day. Luckily, I live in BC for now. So I don't need to worry about either thanks to our abundance of hydroelectricity.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Hehe]

IMO, most green energy support never think deep enough before supporting it.

Going extreme (doesn't matter renewable or nuclear) has very little benefit to us human, the planet and the eco system as a whole.

And the truth is, we as human waste much resources because we can't plan adequately and are afraid of big changes.

It comes down to efficiency for the task that one tries to achieve. For areas who are interested in heavy industries or energy consuming industries, I'd say, just place them all relatively near to a nuclear plant. We could control the pollution (be it from power plant or factories) better as it's all inside a close area. The human resources that these factory requires should live further out (say 40KM away) and be powered more by renewable energy.

By defining clearly the zones for industry, living and natural preservation, we can build more efficient infrastructures and minimize the pollution and effect from industries to our natural environment.

If not, stop complaining because in terms of carbon footprint, as far as I'm aware, only nuclear power is possible to achieve very high energy outputs while producing relatively stable amount of wastes.

[Tapioca]

Believe in it? It's not religion, it's science.

Granted science which is in it's relative infancy, and hence the reason people can even conjure up arguments akin to faith about it.

My comment has nothing to do with religion: it is based on a broad-based consensus that something is happening to the climate.

[Soundy]

No shit something is happening. It's climate; climate BY DEFINITION is variable.

And yes, "Science" (capitalized) IS a religion to some. Complete this sentence: "If _______ says so, it must be true." - acceptable answers are a) God, b) Science.

[Great68]

The issue of nuclear waste would be less of a big deal if people were less obstructionist.

There is a giant nuclear waste facility located in Nevada, far from any fault lines or ground water. The estimated life of the facility is (I believe) 10,000 years. And yet, people still feel that it is too unsafe. For an interesting and easy to watch anti-anti-nuclear point of view, I recommend watching Penn & Teller's Bullshit! Episode covering nuclear power.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

FYI, the Yucca Mountain waste site was never completed, funding was recently terminated and it now sits abandoned.

[Death2Theft]

On November 17, the architect of Fukushima Daiichi Reactor 3, Uehara Haruo, was interviewed in Japan. He warned that a “China Syndrome” situation is inevitable at the plant.

Haruo said that considering eight months have passed since the tsunami and the crippling of the nuclear plant without any improvement in the condition of the reactors, it is likely melted fuel has escaped the container vessel and is now burning through the earth.

On September 20, 2011, Hiroaki Koide, assistant professor at Kyoto University’s Research Reactor Institute, estimated that material from the nuclear fuel rods may be twelve meters deep underground at reactors one and three.

Haruo said debris is spreading in Pacific Ocean. On November 15, tons of radioactive debris reached the Marshall Islands.

If the fuel reaches an underground water source, Haruo explained, it will result in the contamination of water, soil and the sea. More catastrophic, underground super-heated water will ultimately create a massive hydrovolcanic explosion.

Although media in Japan and the alternative media have covered this story over the last few days, it has been uniformly ignored by the corporate media.

[Great68]

I'm pro nuclear.

In fact, I don't know how many other people on Revscene can say that they've actually stood on a working reactor.

But I notice that a lot of pro nukies downplay the risk of Nuclear power. The fact is, the risk is huge and the outcome is potentially huge swaths of land becoming uninhabitable for 1000's of years. No other power generation technology has to potential to do that.

As for fukushima, they now know that a bunch of land is no longer safe for farming:

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/56718000/gif/_56718058_japan_caesium_464.gif

The big problem right now is that the majority Nuke plants are based on really old technology. I want to see new plants with modern technology and safeguards being built and replacing the old plants.

[Death2Theft]

Lets just say if it hits water the radiation will only get worse not better. Upgrades to newer tech in this economy? Yeah right, if anything there will be more failures.

[Manic!]

but electricity just travels over wires.... if the energy is as cheap as they make it out to be, it is probably not a bad tradeoff...

surely private power companies will think otherwise coz they are penny pinching bastards.

Your forgetting line loss. The longer it travels the less energy at the end. When BC Hydro sells California a kilowatt of electricity they charge them for a kilowatt but they don't receive a kilowatt because of line loss.

[97ITR]

Place waste in barrels, concrete up, dump it into the ocean :D

I think you've mistaken nuclear waste with a dead hooker...
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Manic!]

No shit something is happening. It's climate; climate BY DEFINITION is variable.

And yes, "Science" (capitalized) IS a religion to some. Complete this sentence: "If _______ says so, it must be true." - acceptable answers are a) God, b) Science.

You forgot c) Alex Trebek that dudes always got the answers.

[Soundy]

Although media in Japan and the alternative media have covered this story over the last few days, it has been uniformly ignored by the corporate media.

How convenient. Got a link or anything else that shows this whole thing isn't bullshit? I mean, a link other than greenpeace.org or something.

[Infam0us]

Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[flagella]

With the exception of Germany, plenty of other countries are preparing to build a lot more nuclear facilities (China, Saudi, etc.).

[Death2Theft]

How about you google search rising radiation levels in europe. Look at how many article published about it are main strem media. Back in chernobyl days people were told to throw away all the crops and not to eat anything from that region. Now no mention, so enjoy your radiation! Dont worry i'm sure big gov will warn if you there really is a problem worth more attention than pro sports and dancing with the stars!
How convenient. Got a link or anything else that shows this whole thing isn't bullshit? I mean, a link other than greenpeace.org or something.

[MelonBoy]

they would, if the chances of the rocket blowing up and deadly nuclear waste raining death down upon millions wasnt so great.

i tell ya, if they ever get that space elevator up and running, we'd pollute space like no tomorrow. lol!

lol.. I can just imagine us throwing stuff out into space only to have our gravity pull that shit back at us lol like a boommmeerang XD..

[Soundy]

How about you google search rising radiation levels in europe. Look at how many article published about it are main strem media. Back in chernobyl days people were told to throw away all the crops and not to eat anything from that region. Now no mention, so enjoy your radiation! Dont worry i'm sure big gov will warn if you there really is a problem worth more attention than pro sports and dancing with the stars!
What the fuck does Fukushima have to do with radiation levels in Europe?

What a cop-out: post radical claims supposedly made by some "expert" to some unknown, probably heavily-biased publication, and then when asked for proof, go off the rails with some kind of babbling BS.

You're the one posting the claims; the burden of proof is on you to back them up.

[fs604]

Fusion energy :troll:
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Graeme S]

Fusion energy :troll:
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/5756/265899-gotenks_fusion_large.jpg ?

[geeknerd]

Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.


There was a news anchor who tried to promote that Fukashima was safe by eating foods made from that area or something every morning, on the news program. He died of leukemia.

Although it could be a coincidence, it could also be not.

[Soundy]

Fusion energy :troll:
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

Yeah, fusion is SO much better...

http://www.wired.com/images/slideshow/2008/11/gallery_doomsday/spiderman2.jpg

:troll:

[Marco911]

We shouldn't be listening to the opinions of idiot artsy-fartsies trying to write about complex scientific issues. The fact that one of the major premises in his argument that nobody has died from a lethal dose of radiation at Fukushima, while failing to take into consideration the increased cancer risk pretty much speaks for itself. It's almost as if he can only process information where his puny mind can see clear cause and effect.

I place credibility in the scientific community. The arts community can entertain me, they can design my furniture, they can make my coffee and they can sell me my IMACs but they shouldn't attempt to sway public policy on such critical issues.

[dee242]

put nuclear wast in barrels dump them into volcanoes :fuckyea:

[marksport]

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4139/4766211603_76b518485c_b.jpg

[Death2Theft]

Well clearly you can't see the connection, radiation levels just mysteriously rise because they feel like it months after a major event happens. Yep totally not related lets build more.:fuckyea::pokerface:
What the fuck does Fukushima have to do with radiation levels in Europe?

What a cop-out: post radical claims supposedly made by some "expert" to some unknown, probably heavily-biased publication, and then when asked for proof, go off the rails with some kind of babbling BS.

You're the one posting the claims; the burden of proof is on you to back them up.

[Death2Theft]

Gov't eyes Fukushima rice ban after high level of cesium detected
Gov't eyes Fukushima rice ban after high level of cesium detected ‹ Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion (http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/high-levels-of-cesium-detected-in-fukushima-rice)
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant director sick, says TEPCO
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant director sick, says TEPCO ‹ Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion (http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-plant-director-sick-says-tepco)

[Death2Theft]

Back in July, before the latest developments, Dr. Tatsuhiko Kodama of the Radioisotope Center at the University of Tokyo told the Japanese Diet the amount of radiation emitted from the plant was 29.6 times more than the amount of radiation from the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Kodama announces the findings of his study in the following video.

Fukushima - China Syndrome - The Worst Case Scenario - YouTube
TEPCO’s latest public relations effort to underplay the severity of the ongoing crisis at the plant once again reveals that there will be no serious effort to address the grave situation that may soon get much worse if Haruo’s prediction of a hydrovolcanic explosion occurs.

The Japanese government is also actively working to sweep the disaster under the rug. Its Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare recently eliminated Fukushima data from a patient survey it conducts every three years, according to the Fukushima Diary. According to the survey, leukemia cases have increased sevenfold over the last year, the highest rate since 1978 when the ministry first began collecting data.

[ncrx]

i've been to fukushima, stayed at many of their awesome onsens, and been to the coast where they've got a great aquarium and serve fantastic crab sashimi, shame its no good anymore.

i'd still be concerned with nuclear power in a severe earthquake zone, having lived there for a few years and been through the niigata quake... i wouldn't be so confident if you lived within 50km's of a plant. tokyo being so far away from many of the plants... kind of puts the people into a bubble and they ignore whats going on around them.

Study shows deeper meltdown than thought at Fukushima nuclear reactor ‹ Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion (http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/study-shows-deeper-meltdown-than-thought-at-fukushima-nuclear-reactor)



Radioactive debris from melted fuel rods may have seeped deeper into the floor of a Japan’s tsunami-hit nuclear reactor than previously thought, to within a foot from breaching the crucial steel barrier, a new simulation showed Wednesday.

The findings will not change the ongoing efforts to stabilize the reactors more than eight months after the Fukushima Daiichi plant was disabled, but they harshly depict the meltdowns that occurred and conditions within the reactors, which will be off-limits for years.

The plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co said its latest simulation showed fuel at the No. 1 reactor may have eroded part of the primary containment vessel’s thick concrete floor. The vessel is a beaker-shaped steel container, set into the floor. A concrete foundation below that is the last manmade barrier before earth.

The fuel came within a foot of the container’s steel bottom in the worst-case scenario but has been somewhat cooled, TEPCO’s nuclear safety official Yoshihiro Oyama said at a government workshop. He said fuel rods in the No. 1 reactor were the worst damaged because it lost cooling capacity before the other two reactors, leaving its rods dry and overheated for hours before water was pumped in.

The nuclear crisis following the March 11 earthquake and tsunami caused massive radiation leaks and the relocation of some 100,000 people.

Another simulation on the structure released by the government-funded Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization, or JNES, said the erosion of the concrete could be deeper and the possibility of structural damage to the reactor’s foundation needs to be studied.

JNES official Masanori Naito said the melting fuel rods lost their shape as they collapsed to the bottom of the vessel, then deteriorated into drops when water pumping resumed, and the fuel drops spattered and smashed against the concrete as they fell, Naito said.

TEPCO and government officials are aiming to achieve “cold shutdown” by the end of the year _ a first step toward creating a stable enough environment for work to proceed on removing the reactors’ nuclear fuel and closing the plant altogether.

The government estimates it will take 30 years or more to safely decommission Fukushima Daiichi.

[Death2Theft]

Medical Journal Article: 14,000 U.S. Deaths Tied to Fukushima Reactor Disaster Fallout - MarketWatch (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/medical-journal-article-14000-us-deaths-tied-to-fukushima-reactor-disaster-fallout-2011-12-19)

Medical Journal Article: 14,000 U.S. Deaths Tied to Fukushima Reactor Disaster Fallout
WASHINGTON, Dec. 19, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Impact Seen As Roughly Comparable to Radiation-Related Deaths After Chernobyl; Infants Are Hardest Hit, With Continuing Research Showing Even Higher Possible Death Count.

An estimated 14,000 excess deaths in the United States are linked to the radioactive fallout from the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear reactors in Japan, according to a major new article in the December 2011 edition of the International Journal of Health Services. This is the first peer-reviewed study published in a medical journal documenting the health hazards of Fukushima.Authors Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman note that their estimate of 14,000 excess U.S. deaths in the 14 weeks after the Fukushima meltdowns is comparable to the 16,500 excess deaths in the 17 weeks after the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986. The rise in reported deaths after Fukushima was largest among U.S. infants under age one. The 2010-2011 increase for infant deaths in the spring was 1.8 percent, compared to a decrease of 8.37 percent in the preceding 14 weeks.The IJHS article will be published Tuesday and will be available online as of 11 a.m. EST at Radiation and Public Health Project (http://www.radiation.org) . Just six days after the disastrous meltdowns struck four reactors at Fukushima on March 11, scientists detected the plume of toxic fallout had arrived over American shores. Subsequent measurements by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found levels of radiation in air, water, and milk hundreds of times above normal across the U.S. The highest detected levels of Iodine-131 in precipitation in the U.S. were as follows (normal is about 2 picocuries I-131 per liter of water): Boise, ID (390); Kansas City (200); Salt Lake City (190); Jacksonville, FL (150); Olympia, WA (125); and Boston, MA (92). Epidemiologist Joseph Mangano, MPH MBA, said: "This study of Fukushima health hazards is the first to be published in a scientific journal. It raises concerns, and strongly suggests that health studies continue, to understand the true impact of Fukushima in Japan and around the world. Findings are important to the current debate of whether to build new reactors, and how long to keep aging ones in operation."Mangano is executive director, Radiation and Public Health Project, and the author of 27 peer-reviewed medical journal articles and letters. Internist and toxicologist Janette Sherman, MD, said: "Based on our continuing research, the actual death count here may be as high as 18,000, with influenza and pneumonia, which were up five-fold in the period in question as a cause of death. Deaths are seen across all ages, but we continue to find that infants are hardest hit because their tissues are rapidly multiplying, they have undeveloped immune systems, and the doses of radioisotopes are proportionally greater than for adults."Dr. Sherman is an adjunct professor, Western Michigan University, and contributing editor of "Chernobyl - Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment" published by the NY Academy of Sciences in 2009, and author of "Chemical Exposure and Disease and Life's Delicate Balance - Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer."The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issues weekly reports on numbers of deaths for 122 U.S. cities with a population over 100,000, or about 25-30 percent of the U.S. In the 14 weeks after Fukushima fallout arrived in the U.S. (March 20 to June 25), deaths reported to the CDC rose 4.46 percent from the same period in 2010, compared to just 2.34 percent in the 14 weeks prior. Estimated excess deaths during this period for the entire U.S. are about 14,000.

EDITOR'S NOTE: A streaming audio replay of a related news event will be available on the Web at Radiation and Public Health Project (http://www.radiation.org) as of 4 p.m. EST/2100 GMT on December 19, 2011. Embargoed copies of the medical journal article are available by contacting Ailis Aaron Wolf, (703) 276-3265 or aawolf@hastingsgroup.com.

SOURCE Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman, International Journal of Health Services

Copyright (C) 2011 PR Newswire. All rights reserved

[SkinnyPupp]

^^ Not sure if you're posting that because you believe it, or because you think it's bullshit. So I won't fail you for putting it out there ;)

Of course, it's bullshit.

[Ronin]

Keep in mind that this happened in Japan, which is pretty much the most prepared country in the world for earthquakes. While I'm sure no contingency plan is comprehensive enough to deal with the magnitude of the disaster that hit Japan, if there's anywhere on the planet I'd want to be when a 9.0 hits, it would probably be Japan.

You've seen the pictures. Some people went back to work the next day. Roads and shit were repaired in weeks, not months. Basically, if this meltdown happened somewhere else...MAYBE things wouldn't have gone as well?

That being said, I don't have anything against nuclear power. Most of the fears associated with it are antiquated.

[Death2Theft]

Governments Worldwide Raise Acceptable Radiation Levels Based Upon Politics ... Not Science (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/01/governments-worldwide-raise-acceptable-radiation-levels-based-upon-politics-not-science.html)
Governments Worldwide Raise Acceptable Radiation Levels Based Upon Politics … Not Science
Posted on January 24, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog
Instead of Protecting People, Governments Cover Up by Raising “Safe” Radiation Levels
American and Canadian authorities have virtually stopped monitoring airborne radiation.

Neither American nor Canadian authorities are testing fish for radioactivity.

Does that mean that we don’t have to worry about radiation from Fukushima?

It is a little hard to know, given that what is deemed a “safe level” of radiation is determined by politics … rather than science. For example, current safety standards are based on the ridiculous assumption that everyone exposed is a healthy man in his 20s – and that radioactive particles ingested into the body cause no more damage than radiation hitting the outside of the body.

And one of the main advisors to the Japanese government on Fukushima announced:

If you smile, the radiation will not affect you.

(Here’s the video.)http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UOgaBUDFeb4

In the real world, however, even low doses of radiation can cause cancer. Moreover, small particles of radiation – called “internal emitters” – which get inside the body are much more dangerous than general exposures to radiation. See this and this. And radiation affects small children much more than full-grown adults.

Indeed, instead of doing much to try to protect their citizens from Fukushima, Japan, the U.S. and the EU all just raised the radiation levels they deem “safe”.

Nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen says that high-level friends in the State Department told him that Hillary Clinton signed a pact with her counterpart in Japan agreeing that the U.S. will continue buying seafood from Japan, despite that food not being tested for radioactive materials.

And the Department of Energy is trying to replace the scientifically accepted model of the dangers of low dose radiation based on voodoo science. Specifically, DOE’s Lawrence Berkeley Labs used a mutant line of human cells in a petri dish which was able to repair damage from low doses of radiation, and extrapolated to the unsupported conclusion that everyone is immune to low doses of radiation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oe2fMMaVE7Q


In reality, not only is there overwhelming evidence that low doses of radiation can cause cancer, but there is some evidence that low doses can – in certain circumstances cause more damage than higher doses.

As I pointed out in April:

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists reported that one of the best-known scientists of the 20th century – Dr. John Gofman – also believed that chronic low level radiation is more dangerous than acute exposure to high doses. Gofman was a doctor of nuclear and physical chemistry and a medical doctor who worked on the Manhattan Project, co-discovered uranium-232 and -233 and other radioactive isotopes and proved their fissionability, helped discover how to extract plutonium, led the team that discovered and characterized lipoproteins in the causation of heart disease, served as a Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California Berkeley, served as Associate Director of the Livermore National Laboratory, was asked by the Atomic Energy Commission to undertake a series of long range studies on potential dangers that might arise from the “peaceful uses of the atom”, and wrote four scholarly books on radiation health effects.

And see this, this and this.

[Death2Theft]

Over 400 Degrees Celsius
Pretending that the Fukushima reactors achieved a state of “cold shutdown” was a political – rather than scientific - decision.

Tepco itself said the state of cold shutdown could only continue so long as the temperature within the nuclear reactors stayed below 100 degrees Celsius. (Because the thermometers within the reactors have a 20 degree margin of error, Tepco says that any reading over 80 degrees violates the conditions for a cold shutdown.)

As Bloomberg notes today:

Tokyo Electric Power Co. said the temperature in one of the damaged reactors at its Fukushima nuclear station rose to levels above safety limits even as it injected increased amounts of cooling water.

One of three thermometers indicated the temperature at the bottom of the No. 2 reactor pressure vessel rose to 93.7 degrees Celsius (200.7 Fahrenheit) today, higher than the 80 degrees limit, Ai Tanaka, a spokeswoman for the utility known as Tepco, said by phone today.

***

The thermometers have a margin of error of as much as 20 degrees.

But major Japanese news sources Yomiuri and Jiji note that the thermometer in reactor 2 has since climbed to 272.8 degrees Celsius, and then hit the upper limit of the thermometer at 400 degrees Celsius (752 degrees Fahrenheit).

In other words, the thermometer is showing temperatures more than 4 times higher than the 100 degree Celsius limit for cold shutdown.

Tepco claims that such a high reading means that the thermometer must be broken, and is maintaining its declaration of cold shutdown based upon the reading of other thermometers. Of course, the fuel is moving around, so there could be hot spots and cooler spots within each reactor.

Of course, Tepco could be right: the thermometer could be broken. But I am not yet convinced, given that – ever since the earthquake last year – Tepco has repeatedly claimed that an instrument is broken whenever there is a new reading of things gone haywire. (Indeed, one Japanese writer said that Tepco’s spokesman sounded “testy” when asked how Tepco knew that the thermometer was broken.)

In good news, a second, nearby 4-reactor nuclear complex which almost melted down last March – the Fukushima Daini complex (referred to as the Fukushima “2″ complex), which is 7 miles away from the infamous, leaking 6-reactor Fukushima Daiichi complex – apparently is in a true state of cold shutdown.

[Death2Theft]

Diplomat Akio Matsumura is warning that the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan may ultimately turn into an event capable of extinguishing all life on Earth.

Matsumura posted a startling entry on his blog following a statement made by Japan’s former ambassador to Switzerland, Mitsuhei Murata, on the situation at Fukushima.

Speaking at a public hearing of the Budgetary Committee of the House of Councilors on March 22, 2012, Murata warned that “if the crippled building of reactor unit 4 – with 1,535 fuel rods in the spent fuel pool 100 feet (30 meters) above the ground – collapses, not only will it cause a shutdown of all six reactors but will also affect the common spent fuel pool containing 6,375 fuel rods, located some 50 meters from reactor 4,” writes Matsumura.

In both cases the radioactive rods are not protected by a containment vessel; dangerously, they are open to the air. This would certainly cause a global catastrophe like we have never before experienced. He stressed that the responsibility of Japan to the rest of the world is immeasurable. Such a catastrophe would affect us all for centuries. Ambassador Murata informed us that the total numbers of the spent fuel rods at the Fukushima Daiichi site excluding the rods in the pressure vessel is 11,421.

Matsumura then asked Robert Alvarez, former Senior Policy Adviser to the Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary for National Security and the Environment at the U.S. Department of Energy, about the the impact of such an additional catastrophe at Fukushima.

Akio Matsumura.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KwCfAY4iyPQ

Containing radiation at the crippled facility will be not small feat, Alvarez explained. “Spent reactor fuel cannot be simply lifted into the air by a crane as if it were routine cargo. In order to prevent severe radiation exposures, fires and possible explosions, it must be transferred at all times in water and heavily shielded structures into dry casks,” Alvarez told Matsumura.

He then said the 11,138 spent fuel assemblies stored at the Fukushima plant contain “134 million curies is Cesium-137 — roughly 85 times the amount of Cs-137 released at the Chernobyl accident as estimated by the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection.”

“It is important for the public to understand that reactors that have been operating for decades, such as those at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site have generated some of the largest concentrations of radioactivity on the planet,” he concluded.

Matsumura admits this is an astounding number and one difficult to comprehend. He wrote that 85 times more Cesium-137 than released at Chernobyl “would destroy the world environment and our civilization. This is not rocket science, nor does it connect to the pugilistic debate over nuclear power plants. This is an issue of human survival.”

Akio Matsumura sent a letter United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. “It is no exaggeration to say that the fate of Japan and the whole world depends on NO.4 reactor. This is confirmed by most reliable experts like Dr. Arnie Gundersen or Dr. Fumiaki Koide,” he wrote to Ki-Moon. “The world has been made so fragile and vulnerable. The role of the United Nations is increasingly vital. I wish you the best of luck in your noble mission.”

No word yet if this situation even registers on the United Nations’ radar screen.

[FiveDime]

uranium and plutonium rectors are stupid and only used because they didnt want to further develop the technology because it didnt help the war effort.


LFTR in 5 Minutes - THORIUM REMIX 2011 | torij torija torio

[Soundy]

panic panic panic, doom and gloom, the sky is falling, we're all going to die, the terrorists have won, etc. etc.
Serious question: between this and the solar flares and who knows whatever else you're setting your hair on fire over this week... why do you even bother living? Why not just kill yourself and get it over with rather than living every day afraid of your own shadow? It must be a terrible way to exist, so sure that something beyond your control will surely destroy you tomorrow.

BTW, did you know that 100% of people who die of cancer have breathed the Earth's air and drank the water? Better stop doing both - they're killers!

[Hehe]

Seriously, people should think before posting these craps.

With the 3 worst nuclear accidents (three miles, Chernobyl and Fukushima) counted, nuclear power still is and by far the safest power generating method out there.

Not to mention it is also THE cleanest power generating method. Thorium is supposed to be an even clear method, but its technology is still at least 20~30yr away from a full scale commercial implementation.

[Death2Theft]

Why bother living? LOL. The idea of living and talking about real issues, is worth the price of being alive. Maybe you should go back to your sports and porn instead of trying to spout BS about how great radiation is.

[Death2Theft]

Yes because 9/10 reactors in use are running past the design life of 20 years on average. Just because they arn't all exploding at the same time doesn't mean they are safe what so ever. Are you trying to tell me hydro power is by far the safest power generating method out there?
Seriously, people should think before posting these craps.

With the 3 worst nuclear accidents (three miles, Chernobyl and Fukushima) counted, nuclear power still is and by far the safest power generating method out there.

Not to mention it is also THE cleanest power generating method. Thorium is supposed to be an even clear method, but its technology is still at least 20~30yr away from a full scale commercial implementation.

[Farfetched]

Yes because 9/10 reactors in use are running past the design life of 20 years on average. Just because they arn't all exploding at the same time doesn't mean they are safe what so ever. Are you trying to tell me hydro power is by far the safest power generating method out there?

he never mentioned anything about hydro power.

[Hehe]

Why bother living? LOL. The idea of living and talking about real issues, is worth the price of being alive. Maybe you should go back to your sports and porn instead of trying to spout BS about how great radiation is.

Yes because 9/10 reactors in use are running past the design life of 20 years on average. Just because they arn't all exploding at the same time doesn't mean they are safe what so ever. Are you trying to tell me hydro power is by far the safest power generating method out there?


Yes, REAL ISSUES. We, as human, are not perfect. Our technologies is prone to failure despite our best effort, but we learn from it and move on.

I don't promote radiation. I'm simply arguing that no other method for generating power is more stable, efficient, environmental friendly and powerful than nuclear.

Yes, we know most reactors are based on older design and still run the risk of the same failure. But the idea is to learn from Fukushima and better protect our old reactors while moving forward with plans of upgrading to new gen of reactors. Simply boycotting is not a logical move but rather a civil movement or political interest. Germany plans to shut down all its nuclear power plants. Where is it going to get all the power it needs? Buying them from France, a country that produce 70% of power using nuclear. You are telling me that it makes sense? :rukidding:

[Death2Theft]

Typo. He said nuclear is safest. I meant compared to hydro?
he never mentioned anything about hydro power.

[Yodamaster]

It is an excellent system in theory, but as soon as you include human error, it becomes a whole new beast.

Radiation can, and will kill you if you let it. Radiation sickness leading to death will be slow and painful, and it might even last for years. You will lose all of your hair, your skin will become cancerous, you will start to lose feeling in your limbs, you will slowly become mentally ill as the cells in your brain decay.

There are many things to think about before you decide whether nuclear energy would be best for your area of residence. If there is a flaw in the system when a plant is built, it will show later on, and it might end up destroying the environment for generations to come, and it might end up killing you.


In conclusion, tampering with radiation is a serious undertaking, and it is not to be taken lightly. Like playing with fireworks, and having your hand blown off.

[Hehe]

Typo. He said nuclear is safest. I meant compared to hydro?

List of hydroelectric power station failures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectric_power_station_failures)


In conclusion, tampering with radiation is a serious undertaking, and it is not to be taken lightly. Like playing with fireworks, and having your hand blown off.

There are always great consequences when accident happens. The WORST hydroelectric failure caused death of over 200,000 people while affecting 11million others.

We don't wish to blow our hands off, but when we get burned, we learn from it and prevent it from happening to others again by promoting awareness and/or safety procedures rather than banning fireworks entirely.

[iEatClams]

The only logical argument that I have heard against Nuclear power is that Natural Gas is dirt cheap right now, so this will take away some of the demand for nuclear energy as more and more countries increase their NG usage.

Nuclear energy is currently cheap and efficient and most companies should continue developing it. Energy needs of the planet is growing at an alarming pace and only way to make it sustainable is to go nuclear.


Most of these developing countries have shiet loads of Coal, but coal basically fucks up your lungs. Nuclear seems like the way to go.

[Soundy]

And burning both coal and LNG produces greenhouse gases, which if you buy into the climate change panic, will slowly cook us to death. "Pollution" in the traditional sense isn't much of a problem anymore with modern clean-burning methods, but burning ANY carbon-based fuel WILL necessarily produce carbon dioxide.

Ultimately, there is NO form of energy production that is 100% without effect on the planet. Even "golden children" like solar, wind and tidal power have their side effects, besides not being able to reliably produce large amounts of electricity on an constant basis. So it has to come down to risk management; balancing the amount produced vs. the potential harm. Nuclear fission produces immense energy from relatively little raw material and with proper planning and handling, relatively little impact. Hydroelectric leaves no long-term-damaging residue but floods large areas of land for its reservoirs. Hyrdo, however, simply isn't viable where there aren't large amounts of water available and large areas to contain those reservoirs.

Beyond all that, the only real answer is for people to reduce their demand for electricity.

[Death2Theft]

Yet no one can address the life span cycle of nuclear powerplants and what happens to the "waste by products". Why are no reactors shut down until an accident happens? Why are plants designed to run for 20 years still running? Just because the people that are in charge are accepting bribes to keep these things running doesn't mean the rest of the population should trust those "in charge" to keep them safe.

[Graeme S]

Yet no one can address the life span cycle of nuclear powerplants and what happens to the "waste by products". Why are no reactors shut down until an accident happens? Why are plants designed to run for 20 years still running? Just because the people that are in charge are accepting bribes to keep these things running doesn't mean the rest of the population should trust those "in charge" to keep them safe.
So where, then, is the anger and outrage over the slow death that coal power is providing? In America alone, over the last 10 years there have been 35 deaths a year (average) within coal mines; not including the fact that the average coal miner will lose 20-30 years of his life from dealing with that crap underground. Nor taking into account the ridiculous amounts of carbons that are put into the air nor the smoke and other environmental degradation that comes along with it.

Yet no one can address the life span of a coal mine and what happens to the "waste by products". Why are no mines shut down until an accident happens? Why are miners who were not designed to do it working for 20 years still working? Just because the public ignores a slow death doesn't mean the rest of the population should trust those "in charge" to keep them safe.

[Soundy]

Why are no reactors shut down until an accident happens? Why are plants designed to run for 20 years still running?
Simple: because people keep using more and more electricity. As long as there's a demand for more power, someone will have to keep supplying it. As long as nuclear remains one of the most efficient and least troublesome sources of that electricity, the plants will keep running. Supply and demand, nothing more complicated than that.

Just because the people that are in charge are accepting bribes to keep these things running...
You have proof of this, of course? (Hint: "proof" does mean random weblinks from self-style "experts").

[Death2Theft]

Well please provide the proof that your pulling out of your ass, as far as I can see cherynobl has had 1million deaths.
Chernobyl disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster)
Chernobyl Radiation Killed Nearly One Million People: New Book (http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2010/2010-04-26-01.html)
Just because the death certificate doesn't say death due to nuclear radiation doesn't mean that it doesn't kill you over time, I'd take a quick death from any other form of energy vs the slow unknown agonizing death from radiation.

Oh I guess the Army is just doing basic restocking right cuz not like theres any harm in Japan.
The Army Is Stocking Up On A Ton Of Anti-Radiation Pills To Protect Troops - Business Insider (http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-10/news/31316808_1_potassium-iodide-reactor-nuclear-fuel)
The US Military is Stocking Up On a Massive Amount of Anti-Radiation Pills In Preparation for Nuclear Fallout : (http://theintelhub.com/2012/04/11/the-us-military-is-stocking-up-on-a-massive-amount-of-anti-radiation-pills-in-preparation-for-nuclear-fallout/)
The US Army Is Stocking Up On A Ton Of Anti-Radiation Pills To Protect Troops | Saving the Republic: News, Videos & Opinion (http://savingtherepublic.com/blog/tag/the-us-army-is-stocking-up-on-a-ton-of-anti-radiation-pills-to-protect-troops/)

No worries the california sunshine will clear up the radiation in no time!
California Slammed With Fukushima Radiation | The Big Picture (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/03/california-slammed-with-fukushima-radiation/)
California Slammed With Radiation, Highest Level of Radioactive Cesium to Date Found in Fukushima Freshwater Fish « MidnightWatcher's Blogspot (http://midnightwatcher.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/california-slammed-with-radiation-highest-level-of-radioactive-cesium-to-date-found-in-fukushima-freshwater-fish/)
California Slammed With Fukushima Radiation (http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=30043)
Simon Fraser University in Canada also tested North American seaweed after Fukushima:

“In samples of dehydrated seaweed taken on March 15 near the North Vancouver SeaBus terminal, the count was zero; on March 22 it was 310 Bq per kilogram; and by March 28 it was 380 Bq/kg.” -Vancouver Sun
No worries bro it's not like the rest of the planets future depends on what happens with reactor 4 or anything.
http://akiomatsumura.com/2012/04/682.html
http://www.mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/frameset.php?pageid=http%3A//www.mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/press/130411.php

[SkinnyPupp]

So it went from literally zero, to basically zero. Good point there

[conflagrare]

How do I block all posts from Death2Theft ?

[Soundy]

How do I block all posts from Death2Theft ?

:ban::ban::ban:

[Death2Theft]

Yes great selective reading ability you've got there.
So it went from literally zero, to basically zero. Good point there

[Death2Theft]

You could try not clicking on the thread after seeing my last post in it, smartguy.:accepted:
How do I block all posts from Death2Theft ?

[Soundy]

This isn't your thread, douchetard.

[Death2Theft]

Thanks for addressing the real issues at hand:rukidding:
This isn't your thread, douchetard.

[Soundy]

I am - YOU are the real issue. Alarmist bullshit is not.

[Death2Theft]

10 diff websites with clear links and studies from our own sfu is alarmist bullshit? Yes wiki is known to be a great alarmist site too :eyeroll: Keep your blinders on and stop responding here. You obviously know your wrong and can't prove otherwise. Clearly you can't see sh!t because your nose is shoved so far up MR.Burns butt. May as well post your TL: DR and GTFO.:rukidding::rukidding:
I am - YOU are the real issue. Alarmist bullshit is not.

[Soundy]

And dozens of others that say the exact opposite, and hundreds more than have all manner of other conspiracy theories of their own. I could find 10 websites that back up any viewpoint I want to present, including some from SFU, UBC, MIT, JPL, or any other acronyms you want... so what makes your 10 so special?

[Death2Theft]

List them to counter mine or gtfo.
2 to deny that chernobyl has been linked to 1 million deaths since 1986.
3 to deny the us army stock piling anti-radiation pills
3 to deny the 500% increase in cesium found on california coast line
2 to deny that reactor 4 going kaput doesn't put the planet in peril.
THX BYE.

[Soundy]

Okay, let's say I spend my entire afternoon looking up links and posting them...
2 questioning the validity of those links
3 stating that this is SOP for any military given the number of other countries in the world that have or are developing nuclear weapons
3 showing the numbers are bogus or mis-read or just plain made up
2 pointing out that these are just opinions from self-described "experts"

You will naturally not believe any of them anyway because your mind is made up and you're always ready to believe the worst case scenario regardless of what anyone else says, and then proceed to go find 10 more to support your doom-and-gloom theories, and insist that I need to find more to counter or GTFO... and so on and so forth, and next thing you know, we're both dead from the radiation from our WiFi anyway.

Or... I could sit here on my ass getting fat eating chips, secure in the knowledge that the aliens are going to wipe us out long before Fukushima does (I know this because I'm watching it happen on the news... er... oops, my TV got switched over to Independence Day... oh well, it looks real enough), then I'm going to go outside with my dogs and soak up the deadly radiation from the solar flares and breath in the greenhouse-gas-laden air. Maybe I'll take the dogs to the beach and wade in the Cesium sludge, too.

You sit in your bunker and try to enjoy your day as much as possible, mmkay?

http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/ali2.jpg

(Interestingly, this picture came from an MIT study into the effectiveness of tinfoil hats... it's from an actual high-tech university, so they obviously know what they're talking about. You might find it useful: http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/)

EDIT: TL;DR version: STFU you fucking freakshow, and GET A LIFE.

EDIT2: Just had a thought: if you got some of that lead foil like Mythbusters used to make their "lead balloon", that would protect you from the radiation as well. You're welcome.

[Death2Theft]

Great job proving nothing but that your too lazy and unable to counter said articles.

[Soundy]

Why would I waste my time? You won't believe any of it anyway, if you even bother reading any of it. You obviously didn't even read my entire last post where I stated exactly this already. You call it lazy... I call it having better things to do with my day. I was so lazy, in fact, I spent the last six hours walking around Fort Langley with a friend, shopping for dinner fixings, walking the dogs, delivering empty cans and bottles to a charity, and just generally enjoying life free of panic.

You should try it sometime.

[Yodamaster]

I think we can all agree that nuclear waste fucks you over and that safe nuclear power is awesome.

(and that D2T can swallow an egg)

[Death2Theft]

Let me know when you can pull the broom out of your rear long enough to tell me how nuclear energy is the safest form of energy when chernobyl alone is responsible for 1 million deaths? The thread is based on how nuclear energy is safe when clearly it's not.

[Graeme S]

There is no disputing that Nuclear disasters are horrifically poisonous. There is dispute, however, over what the pollution is when a plant is operating within normal paramaters. Have you looked up the details on coal power? Did you know that 48 Tonnes of mercury was released into the atmosphere in the US in 1999 alone? Or that coal mining (as I'd mentioned before) kills hundreds, if not thousands, every year? Or that people are using more and more coal power to charge these electric-only cars that are now being sold in China and the US because they think it's cleaner?


Disasters are disasters. Simply saying "Disasters are terrible" does nothing to improve any situation in any way, shape or form.

[Soundy]

Let me know when you can pull the broom out of your rear long enough to tell me how nuclear energy is the safest form of energy when chernobyl alone is responsible for 1 million deaths?
Sure it is - and for proof of this you offer an article about a book written by Russian enviro-nazis, who have a vested interested in inflating the numbers to support their cause, and a Wikipedia entry which you could have edited yourself, for all we know.
:facepalm:

The thread is based on how nuclear energy is safe when clearly it's not.
No form of energy production that's viable on a mass scale is "safe". So unless you're going to go live in the woods and burn candles for light and power your laptop and internet by pedaling a bike, you need to get over it already.

[Yodamaster]

Let me know when you can pull the broom out of your rear long enough to tell me how nuclear energy is the safest form of energy when chernobyl alone is responsible for 1 million deaths? The thread is based on how nuclear energy is safe when clearly it's not.

Get the dick out of your mouth.


I didn't say that Nuclear plants were safe, I said that safe nuclear energy is awesome.

Nowhere in that statement do I mention that our current plants are "safe"

I retain the opinion that you should swallow an egg.

[goo3]

Well, this is the SFU press release from last year.

SFU Public Affairs and Media Relations - Radiation from Japan reaches B.C. shores - March 28, 2011 (http://www.sfu.ca/archive-pamr/media_releases/media_releases_archives/radiation-from-japan-reaches-bc-shores.html)

Comes with a video too.

Radiation from Japan reaches B.C. shores - YouTube

[Soundy]

Since that article is over a year old, talks specifically about iodine-131 levels, and also states that iodine-131 has a half-life of 8 days... how does that have any relevance today?

[goo3]

Talking to me?

Because the data was brought up here out of context. I felt if it was going to be used for something, it should be brought back into context. Talking points don't really mean anything. I though the takeaway was pretty objective and clear, but you seem to have gotten something else out of it?

[bluejays]

Possible meltdown at Fukushima?
Mystery Steam Over Fukushima Could Be Sign of Another Meltdown (http://gizmodo.com/radioactive-mystery-steam-over-fukushima-could-mean-ano-1492280971)

[Soundy]

Note that there's nothing in the (translated) Tepco release that mentions meltdown... this is largely the speculation of bloggers and other such "internet experts" who apparently don't know what a "meltdown" actually is, or understand how reactors work or are constructed, or just generally haven't been paying much attention and are randomly slapping together unrelated or disconnected facts.

You know, the kind of stuff CiC loves.

[Anjew]

There is no disputing that Nuclear disasters are horrifically poisonous. There is dispute, however, over what the pollution is when a plant is operating within normal paramaters. Have you looked up the details on coal power? Did you know that 48 Tonnes of mercury was released into the atmosphere in the US in 1999 alone? Or that coal mining (as I'd mentioned before) kills hundreds, if not thousands, every year? Or that people are using more and more coal power to charge these electric-only cars that are now being sold in China and the US because they think it's cleaner?



coal power is very dirty, but i think advancements in robotic technology will soon mitigate many concerns of going nuclear. Containment was the real issue as no humans would be able withstand the radiation.

[Soundy]

Just gonna leave this here...
David Suzuki Regrets Dire Fukushima Warning (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/01/20/david-suzuki-fukushima-warning_n_4632950.html)

People pay attention to Suzuki because he has environmental cultural capital. He is not, as bad science debunking website Skeptoid.com points out, "your average Internet crank."

But, the site asserts, people have failed to recognize that Suzuki was speaking well outside his area of expertise. "He's a highly respected guru, internationally honored and venerated for his groundbreaking work – in genetics," the article states. "What he is NOT is a nuclear physicist."

[Yodamaster]

The american government toyed with the idea of sending nuclear waste into deep space via rockets, the only problem being that rockets are unpredictable. In the distant future, when things like space elevators are realised, such a disposal method would be logical.

At the moment, it would make more sense to build facilities based on thorium rather than uranium, less waste. Another problem is how so many of the current nuclear stations in North America are based on old technology, if a plant starts to melt down, no human will be able to enter it to attempt to stop a disaster from occuring. I could see robotics being useful in the event of an emergency, being able to work on the inside without being inside.

[Soundy]

The american government toyed with the idea of sending nuclear waste into deep space via rockets, the only problem being that rockets are unpredictable. In the distant future, when things like space elevators are realised, such a disposal method would be logical.
Yeah, someone had the idea decades ago of storing it in facilities on the dark side of the moon, and look how that turned out...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/39/Space1999_Year1_Title.jpg

[2 n r]

I wonder if we can send nuclear waste to the sun
Posted via RS Mobile

[Hehe]

I wonder if we can send nuclear waste to the sun
Posted via RS Mobile

Not cost effective. Unfortunately, many poor countries are willing to take nuclear waste for way less.

Assuming you can launch a rocket that follows a perfect trajectory toward the sun (no need for any extra propulsion to counter gravitational pull) once it reaches lower earth orbits, the cheapest rocket man made to date still demands close to $4000/lb.

You give 1/10 of that to some poor countries, they will even include the freight charge with some kickbacks too.