Germany's solar power equals 20 nuke plants.

[PA5COR]

Solar power production in Germany has reached a milestone: 22 gigawatts per hour: (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-rt-us-climate-germany-solarbre84p0fi-20120526,0,2322256.story)

German solar power plants produced a world record 22 gigawatts of electricity per hour - equal to 20 nuclear power stations at full capacity - through the midday hours on Friday and Saturday, the head of a renewable energy think tank said.


Norbert Allnoch, director of the Institute of the Renewable Energy Industry (IWR) in Muenster, said the 22 gigawatts of solar power per hour fed into the national grid on Saturday met nearly 50 percent of the nation's midday electricity needs. "Never before anywhere has a country produced as much photovoltaic electricity," Allnoch told Reuters. "Germany came close to the 20 gigawatt (GW) mark a few times in recent weeks. But this was the first time we made it over."
The record-breaking amount of solar power shows one of the world's leading industrial nations was able to meet a third of its electricity needs on a work day, Friday, and nearly half on Saturday when factories and offices were closed.
This amazing production record didn't just happen on its own; it required government support in the form of legislation and subsidies:
Government-mandated support for renewables has helped Germany became a world leader in renewable energy and the country gets about 20 percent of its overall annual electricity from those sources. Germany has nearly as much installed solar power generation capacity as the rest of the world combined and gets about four percent of its overall annual electricity needs from the sun alone. It aims to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020.

Another remarkable aspect of this news: anyone who has lived in Germany can confirm it is not a particularly sunny country. I went to the University of Cologne where it was rainy and overcast about 2/3 of the time. Yet Germany leads the world in displacing nuclear and coal-fired plants with solar:

"This shows Germany is capable of meeting a large share of its electricity needs with solar power," Allnoch said. "It also shows Germany can do with fewer coal-burning power plants, gas-burning plants and nuclear plants."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/26/1095035/-Germany-s-solar-power-the-equivalent-of-20-nukes

[KG4CGC]

That's socialism.

[ki4itv]

...and how do you get the energy if you don't let the smoke out?

[KØWVM]

I noticed that in or near each city, town or local village here in the vicinity of Kaiserslautern, they have these solar panel farms. Now some can be seen depending on where you are at and others are not. Nifty idea for smaller municipalities to look at and start there as they also have wind farms all over the place here, like they do in the midwest. Not saying though it would work everywhere in the US.

[KG4CGC]

Start putting panels on top of water towers and churches. Hey, they put cell towers on church steeples around here.

[ad4mg]

Awesome stuff, could never happen here. We're the dodo bird on this planet, doomed to extinction.

'murica - we're #1

[PA5COR]

Another advantage of using solar/windgenerators etc is that you do it locally, less transport losses too, which can be quite high...

Lots of farmers here have their own 50 or 100 KWH windgenerator, delivering/selling the over capacity to the grid.
Windgenerators deliver power also at night, in case of overcapacity water gets pumped into a higher basin, and used at night to deliver energy again, in Spain they use melted salt ( 800 degrees F ) that can be stored and reused at night.

[NQ6U]

Solar is starting to get big here in sunny San Diego County. Rooftop collectors are showing everywhere and big business (such as Qualcomm) and apartment complexes have begun to shade their parking lots with solar "trees." Not only does it keep the employees/tenants' cars out of the sun, they pay for themselves in a few years.

[n2ize]

...and how do you get the energy if you don't let the smoke out?

You don't. The "smoke" comes in the form of the fuel required to be burned in the process of mining the raw materials, refining them, fabricating them, manufacturing the actual solar devices, the disposal when they are replaced, the delivery required at each step of the way. Fuel is burned at each of these steps. The energy yield is promising and its a great start but there is still a very long way to go and it's still very far from ready for prime time. And certainly not "smoke free".

[W5GA]

Wind power causes climate change. Not quite the panacea that everyone thinks it is.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9234715/Wind-farms-can-cause-climate-change-finds-new-study.html

[N7YA]

I was concerned about wind energy and had questions, so i asked the experts at the oil company and they told me, power is power, your tv or blender doesnt know the difference. So i figured, screw it, as long as i have my conveniences, who cares? I felt much better after that! :-D

[n2ize]

Wind power causes climate change. Not quite the panacea that everyone thinks it is.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9234715/Wind-farms-can-cause-climate-change-finds-new-study.html

The bottom line is that there is no free ride. Everything has it's price. Wind and solar are good alternatives but they all cause pollution, if not so much during the actual operation then during the fabrication, delivery, implementation, disposal, replacement, etc. And in other ways as pointed out here.

I am currently very interested in "clean coal" as an energy source. I have been studying it extensively and it looks extremely promising. Plus coal is extremely abundant. Modern clean coal combustion is far safer and cleaner than traditional coal combustion. And much more efficient.

[N2RJ]

Awesome stuff, could never happen here. We're the dodo bird on this planet, doomed to extinction.

'murica - we're #1

Local government seems to be the problem. All sorts of asinine zoning laws making it a pain in the ass to put up solar panels. And if the zoning laws don't get you, the HOA nazis will.

[N2RJ]

Start putting panels on top of water towers and churches. Hey, they put cell towers on church steeples around here.

We have that here, and local businesses are putting up solar panels too. We even have them on power poles.

[KG4NEL]

I am currently very interested in "clean coal" as an energy source. I have been studying it extensively and it looks extremely promising. Plus coal is extremely abundant. Modern clean coal combustion is far safer and cleaner than traditional coal combustion. And much more efficient.

I'm willing to bet the supply chain for making a wind turbine causes less damage than mountaintop removal in WV does.

[n2ize]

I'm willing to bet the supply chain for making a wind turbine causes less damage than mountaintop removal in WV does.

maybe. But that is a matter of how we get the coal as opposed to the coal itself.

[KG4NEL]

maybe. But that is a matter of how we get the coal as opposed to the coal itself.

Natural gas has the same problem - the fact that it burns clean isn't a lot of solace for the family who can light their tap water on fire, just as it isn't for the families whose water is red from the pollutants in the fill that used to be the mountain next door. Really eye opening to see it, from the times I drove through there...

I'm sure it's possible to do it a lot safer, but will the shareholders and boards of the producers do it on their own - not likely.

[W5GA]

Natural gas has the same problem - the fact that it burns clean isn't a lot of solace for the family who can light their tap water on fire, just as it isn't for the families whose water is red from the pollutants in the fill that used to be the mountain next door. Really eye opening to see it, from the times I drove through there...

I'm sure it's possible to do it a lot safer, but will the shareholders and boards of the producers do it on their own - not likely.
I can do that with my well water, and the oil/gas companies had nothing to do with it.

[n2ize]

Natural gas has the same problem - the fact that it burns clean isn't a lot of solace for the family who can light their tap water on fire, just as it isn't for the families whose water is red from the pollutants in the fill that used to be the mountain next door. Really eye opening to see it, from the times I drove through there...


I'm sure it's possible to do it a lot safer, but will the shareholders and boards of the producers do it on their own - not likely.

Oh I agree. Everything has its down side. And people should be concerned about how coal, gas, etc. is mined. Much as how the raw materials for solar, wind , etc power is mined and obtained. However, along with proper use of alternative energy and atomic where justified and feasible, clean coal is a viable energy source for today and tomorrow.

[PA5COR]

Locally air will mix, no added heat is produced though so the net warming is 0.

Produced electricity offset to electricity produced by using coal or naturl gas is a big bonus, the mixed air is very local, and can be a bonus in cold times warming up the ground preventing crops to freeze, as said, there is no added heat, just mixing of layers of air.


From your article:

However Prof Zhou pointed out the most extreme changes were just at night and the overall changes may be smaller.
Also, it is much smaller than the estimated change caused by other factors such as man made global warming.
“Overall, the warming effect reported in this study is local and is small compared to the strong background year-to-year land surface temperature changes,” he added.
So.. lots of hogwash about nothing..

[N2RJ]

Cor, where does Germany get power from at night?

Our cooperative has about 100 kW of solar at its offices but it is only active during the day. In fact when I look at the monitoring graph, I see maximum production occurring just around noon and actually that varies during the seasons. Cloudy days like all this week, forget it. On a heavily clouded day, they are lucky to produce even 2 kW. Of course in full sun it is not a problem.

I actually like solar, but the problem of getting energy at night is still there. You can pump water up a hill and then use that you drive a hydroturbine, this requires more complication and more real estate.

Canada gets 70% of its power from Hydro. I think they got it right. Of all the renewables, Hydro is the most reliable and the most time tested. We get approximately 70% of all power from Hydro and nuclear power over here. However, that may be less this year due to one of the nuclear reactors being shut down for repairs. The Cooperative wanted a large solar farm, but town that had the approvals decided to not approve it because of aesthetic concerns from residents. I guess they'd rather have sulfur dioxide raining down upon them instead of watching the solar farm which really doesn't produce any noise or other pollution.

In the end I think we need to move towards an all of the above solution instead of just one or two renewables that look like they might solve the problem but really don't. Solar should be part of the complete energy mix that includes other clean energy sources including nuclear power.

[PA5COR]

Germany has lots of windgenerators too, providing power at night.
Using solar power only they can also use their many water basins used for power generation and pump excess water back up in the daytime to be regenerated at night.
Spain uses liquid salt heated to 800 degrees F that can be stored and the heat used at night to generate electricity.
At home you can use the larger bateries like from battery powered fork lift trucks and sinus inverters, the larger batteries used for traction are ideeal for solar power use and can hold a lot of power.

Home users can also opt to sell their eccess to the grid, and use the grid at night and so have their bills slashed.
Or combine your solar panels with a smaller wind generator, there are some good ones delivering 500 watts per hour and combine that with battery and sinus inverter.

300.000 people in the netherlands will have solar panels installed on their home this year, out of 6 million homes.
Lots of factory buildings have them now, municipal buildings etc, no space wasted.
Combine it with geo thermal energy for heating, waste to energy production etc. and you can build a reliable 24/7 energy production covering the needs.
Even if we here in the Netherlands sit on a very large natural gas supply in our ground, and export that, we will be going to alternative green sources as main supply for our electricity needs.
Just like Germany will, Portugal already has 50% of their electricity out of green renewable sources...like Denmark, and Spain.
Less money spend on oil, less pollution, less dependancy on other countries supplying you with energy.
In Europe we have a good grid, so countries can use each other excess with small transport losses.
Countries like the netherlands which are flat and lots of sea can produce lots of power by wind turbing parcs put 10 miles out in the sea, or at land.
There is wind enough, even if it dies down in the Netherland Germany Portugal, Spain Italy or any other country can have excess of power to be sold.
You have lots of waste land left like deserts to put up solar panels that get enough sun every day.
Even here where we have lots of cloudy days we have a positive financial outcome of solar panels.

[N1LAF]

FYI...

Commercial concentrated solar power plants were first developed in the 1980s. The 354 MW SEGS CSP installation is the largest solar power plant in the world, located in the Mojave Desert of California.

The Desert Sunlight Solar Farm is a 550 MW solar power plant under construction in Riverside County, California, that will use thin-film solar photovoltaic modules made by First Solar

The Topaz Solar Farm is a 550 MW photovoltaic power plant, being built in San Luis Obispo County, California.

The Blythe Solar Power Project is a 500 MW photovoltaic station under construction in Riverside County, California

The Agua Caliente Solar Project is a 290 megawatt photovoltaic solar generating facility being built in Yuma County, Arizona.

The California Valley Solar Ranch (CVSR) is a 250 megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic power plant, which is being built by SunPower in the Carrizo Plain, northeast of California Valley.

The 230 MW Antelope Valley Solar Ranch is a First Solar photovoltaic project which is under construction in the Antelope Valley area of the Western Mojave Desert, and due to be completed in 2013.


Bloomberg New Energy Finance, in March 2011, put the 2010 cost of solar panels at $1.80 per watt, but estimated that the price would decline to $1.50 per watt by the end of 2011. Nevertheless, there are exceptions—Nellis Air Force Base is receiving photoelectric power for about 2.2 ¢/kWh and grid power for 9 ¢/kWh.

Also, since PV systems use no fuel and modules typically last 25 to 40 years, the International Conference on Solar Photovoltaic Investments, organized by EPIA, has estimated that PV systems will pay back their investors in 8 to 12 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power

[W5GA]

Unfortunately, PV power can't be used in all parts of the country. I'd hate to see what one hail storm like we get here would do to a PV farm. Baseball and larger sized hail and PV panels don't mix well.

[ad4mg]

Unfortunately, PV power can't be used in all parts of the country. I'd hate to see what one hail storm like we get here would do to a PV farm. Baseball and larger sized hail and PV panels don't mix well.

A fairly good sized PV panel 'farm' was being installed at the new Child Development Center in Norfolk the last time I was there. Hail storms there are not uncommon, and I was pondering that very same thing when I saw it!

[N2RJ]

Unfortunately, PV power can't be used in all parts of the country. I'd hate to see what one hail storm like we get here would do to a PV farm. Baseball and larger sized hail and PV panels don't mix well.

They can cover it with lexan I think.

[PA5COR]

Germany has it's share of thunderstorms with lots of large hail, never heard of broken or destroyed solar cells.
Mine are mounted on thich Stainless steel plates and Lexan covered when produced.
Stiff by the plate behind it, and protected by lexan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Spain

The Andasol 1 power plant went online in November 2008, and has a thermal storage (http://forums.hamisland.net/wiki/Thermal_storage) system which absorbs part of the heat produced in the solar field during the day. This heat is then stored in a molten salt (http://forums.hamisland.net/wiki/Molten_salt) mixture and used to generate electricity during the night, or when the sky is overcast.
A 15 MWe solar-only power tower plant, the Solar Tres (http://forums.hamisland.net/wiki/Solar_Tres) project, is in the hands of the Spanish company SENER, employing molten salt technologies for receiving and energy storage. Its 16-hour molten salt storage system will be able to deliver power around the clock. The Solar Tres project has received a €5 million grant from the EC’s Fifth Framework Programme.[6] (http://forums.hamisland.net/#cite_note-spain-5)

Solar thermal power plants designed for solar-only generation are well matched to summer noon peak loads in prosperous areas with significant cooling demands, such as Spain. Using thermal energy storage systems, solar thermal operating periods can even be extended to meet base-load needs.[6] (http://forums.hamisland.net/#cite_note-spain-5)
BP Solar (http://forums.hamisland.net/wiki/BP_Solar) begun constructing a new solar photovoltaic cell manufacturing plant at its European headquarters in Tres Cantos, Madrid (http://forums.hamisland.net/wiki/Madrid).[11] (http://forums.hamisland.net/#cite_note-BP-10) For phase one of the Madrid expansion, BP Solar aimed to expand its annual cell capacity from 55 MW to around 300 MW.

[N2RJ]

I am pretty sure we have a lot of solar installations in this country. In fact, New Jersey has the best incentives nationwide. The problem with some of the unused land you speak about is that private landowners prefer not to give it up. Somewhere I heard that Ted Turner may have millions of acres in his name that he uses for ranching.

Some land is also owned by Indian tribes and some are owned by US government.

It is the same problem we have with drilling - There are many who do not want to use land for development of energy sources whether it be fossil fuels or renewables. Nobody wants anything in their backyard either. Environmental issues are very real though, the reason you can't just put up solar farms to cover the entire desert is because you might actually end up killing animals and plants there.

Let's face it, there is no such thing as totally green energy. But i favor a balanced approach. solar and wind coupled with Hydro and nuclear will provide all of our energy needs and then some.

[suddenseer]

My neighbor installed photo voltaic panels a few years back. He indicated it will take about 8 more years to break even. He enjoys running a/c in the summer, and still sends a small amount to the grid. John is right, the manufacturing, delivery, replacement parts, etc will not even come close to breaking even with the oil consumed. i look at it as national security issue buying oil from country's whose national religion calls for stoning women, and executing gay people is very unstable. We must stop buying oil from those places.

[suddenseer]

Unfortunately, PV power can't be used in all parts of the country. I'd hate to see what one hail storm like we get here would do to a PV farm. Baseball and larger sized hail and PV panels don't mix well.Not to mention these panels are a hot item to be stolen, and resold on the black market. I have read that a couple of hours work in thievery can net $tens of thousands$.

[HUGH]

Windpower: Figures I calculated for a newspaper derived from information published by cement manufacturers indicated clearly that, just with the concrete used, large, commercial wind turbines would never save enough CO2 in 10 years to offset the production and delivery of concrete, never mind the steel and so on. My figures do not apply to small, domestic installations though!
Ask what happens to life-expired installations when the original owners have declared themselves bankrupt somehow and take no responsibility for removal. It's already happened in the USA.
There's a public resistance to their installation in areas of natural beauty but the decision-makers don't visit these places, probably too busy doing deals. The subsidies in the UK are ridiculously high.

Solar Power: This works better but there is a peak output around midday and then nothing at night of course. EMC problems could be serious if price cuts are made to the equipment, suppression components are likely to comply with industrial specifications rather than domestic in any case.
Dust and wind are a problem in may areas of the world causing dirt build-up and serious abrasion.
There is a problem with lightning causing surges but new industrial equipment is being designed to cope with this.
I have seen a few attractive buildings where the appearance has been ruined by owners more interested in the subsidies.
Some stories have emerged about electricians with no knowledge of building wrecking slated roofs whilst installing roof-mounted panels.

Nuclear: Advocates should be looking at Thorium which delivers far more power per ton of ore than Uranium.
As for fusion, there's still a great deal of work to be done but the prospect of a small "runaway" sun could be alarming.

Take your pick, I'd put wind-power to the bottom of the list so I'll stick to my small, battery-charging solar panels and home-made wind generator doing the same. (3-phase permanent magnet motor and bicycle rims for blade support).

[N2RJ]

My neighbor installed photo voltaic panels a few years back. He indicated it will take about 8 more years to break even. He enjoys running a/c in the summer, and still sends a small amount to the grid. John is right, the manufacturing, delivery, replacement parts, etc will not even come close to breaking even with the oil consumed. i look at it as national security issue buying oil from country's whose national religion calls for stoning women, and executing gay people is very unstable. We must stop buying oil from those places.

It's likely 8 years with taxpayer and ratepayers subsidies. Without those the payback is more like 15 years.

[WØTKX]

We have a major solar project going at work. Subsidized by Excel Energy and the contractor that is installing the panels, we are not paying anything up front.

Ribbon cutting ceremony late next month. I'll post some pics soon.

[N2RJ]

We have a major solar project going at work. Subsidized by Excel Energy and the contractor that is installing the panels, we are not paying anything up front.

Ribbon cutting ceremony late next month. I'll post some pics soon.

Our headquarters in NYC is powered by a hydrogen fuel cell. One of our sister companies has one of the largest private solar installations in the state. It may surprise you but we are well recognized as a leader in being green, (http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/147127-epa-administrator-pokes-fun-at-fox-news-for-becoming-carbon-neutral) winning awards for it too.

[N7YA]

Bet that burns your red ass! ;)

[N2RJ]

Bet that burns your red ass! ;)

LOL!

Im actually a pretty big greenie. Reusable grocery bags and all.

[N7YA]

Hmmm, better than me, ill admit it. :lol:

[N2RJ]

Dont get too excited... The supermarket gives me money back for every reusable bag I use. I do feel nice I'm not using plastic though.

[N7YA]

Im quite liberal, but fail hard at being a greenie.

[ki4itv]

I'm not much on going out of my way to recycle either, Adam.
My plan is to encourage our grandchildren to buy mining rights to as many landfills as possible.

[n2ize]

Windpower: Figures I calculated for a newspaper derived from information published by cement manufacturers indicated clearly that, just with the concrete used, large, commercial wind turbines would never save enough CO2 in 10 years to offset the production and delivery of concrete, never mind the steel and so on. My figures do not apply to small, domestic installations though!
Ask what happens to life-expired installations when the original owners have declared themselves bankrupt somehow and take no responsibility for removal. It's already happened in the USA.
There's a public resistance to their installation in areas of natural beauty but the decision-makers don't visit these places, probably too busy doing deals. The subsidies in the UK are ridiculously high.

Solar Power: This works better but there is a peak output around midday and then nothing at night of course. EMC problems could be serious if price cuts are made to the equipment, suppression components are likely to comply with industrial specifications rather than domestic in any case.
Dust and wind are a problem in may areas of the world causing dirt build-up and serious abrasion.
There is a problem with lightning causing surges but new industrial equipment is being designed to cope with this.
I have seen a few attractive buildings where the appearance has been ruined by owners more interested in the subsidies.
Some stories have emerged about electricians with no knowledge of building wrecking slated roofs whilst installing roof-mounted panels.

Nuclear: Advocates should be looking at Thorium which delivers far more power per ton of ore than Uranium.
As for fusion, there's still a great deal of work to be done but the prospect of a small "runaway" sun could be alarming.

Take your pick, I'd put wind-power to the bottom of the list so I'll stick to my small, battery-charging solar panels and home-made wind generator doing the same. (3-phase permanent magnet motor and bicycle rims for blade support).
I put atomic energy at the top of the list, at least for now. It is quite safe, clean and quite reliable in it's ability to supply the worlds energy needs if properly implemented. Of course, solar, wind, geothermal, fuel cells, hydroelectric are all invaluable as well.

I also feel we shouldn't sell clean coal short. Yeah, true it's a fossil fuel but coal is available in abundance and it's too good an energy source to dismiss or overlook. Until we get more nuclear energy and renewable energy sources on line and operating at max efficiency I think coal is a viable and important energy source

[PA5COR]

Ask the people of Japan how safe they think nuclar energy is, or the people of Chernobyl, or people hit by TMI or.....

[KC2UGV]

Cor, where does Germany get power from at night?

Our cooperative has about 100 kW of solar at its offices but it is only active during the day. In fact when I look at the monitoring graph, I see maximum production occurring just around noon and actually that varies during the seasons. Cloudy days like all this week, forget it. On a heavily clouded day, they are lucky to produce even 2 kW. Of course in full sun it is not a problem.

I actually like solar, but the problem of getting energy at night is still there. You can pump water up a hill and then use that you drive a hydroturbine, this requires more complication and more real estate.

Canada gets 70% of its power from Hydro. I think they got it right. Of all the renewables, Hydro is the most reliable and the most time tested. We get approximately 70% of all power from Hydro and nuclear power over here. However, that may be less this year due to one of the nuclear reactors being shut down for repairs. The Cooperative wanted a large solar farm, but town that had the approvals decided to not approve it because of aesthetic concerns from residents. I guess they'd rather have sulfur dioxide raining down upon them instead of watching the solar farm which really doesn't produce any noise or other pollution.

In the end I think we need to move towards an all of the above solution instead of just one or two renewables that look like they might solve the problem but really don't. Solar should be part of the complete energy mix that includes other clean energy sources including nuclear power.

Most likely, they store it in either battery banks, or in flywheels; with the underage met by old fashioned coal plants (I'm pretty sure Germany stopped nuclear production).

[KC2UGV]

I put atomic energy at the top of the list, at least for now. It is quite safe, clean and quite reliable in it's ability to supply the worlds energy needs if properly implemented. Of course, solar, wind, geothermal, fuel cells, hydroelectric are all invaluable as well.

I also feel we shouldn't sell clean coal short. Yeah, true it's a fossil fuel but coal is available in abundance and it's too good an energy source to dismiss or overlook. Until we get more nuclear energy and renewable energy sources on line and operating at max efficiency I think coal is a viable and important energy source

I'd be on board with most any fossil fuel, if we could sequester the released carbon at the same rate we break it free, or at an extremely reduced rate. I take issue with oil, due to our reliance on something that is in such short supply.

[KC2UGV]

We have a major solar project going at work. Subsidized by Excel Energy and the contractor that is installing the panels, we are not paying anything up front.

Ribbon cutting ceremony late next month. I'll post some pics soon.

Google is looking at implementing something like this: They pay for the panels, you get 50% of the production, and you pay Google for the rest (Or, it's grid fed).

[N2RJ]

Ask the people of Japan how safe they think nuclar energy is, or the people of Chernobyl, or people hit by TMI or.....

I'm sure nuclear safety has improved since the 60s when these plants were built.

[N2RJ]

Google is looking at implementing something like this: They pay for the panels, you get 50% of the production, and you pay Google for the rest (Or, it's grid fed).

There's at least one company that will install panels, take all the incentives (including SRECs) and sell you the electricity at a lower rate.

All systems today except remote off grid are grid tied and excess power is fed back to the grid. However, in most states that I know of you cannot size your system larger than your actual usage. A small buffer is OK but you can't be feeding back hundreds of kWh every month otherwise you will be denied interconnection.

I am looking at a ground mounted installation, 6-8kW which should cover our usage. I don't like the idea of anything on the roof.

[N2RJ]

Most likely, they store it in either battery banks, or in flywheels; with the underage met by old fashioned coal plants (I'm pretty sure Germany stopped nuclear production).

That's my point. They'll most likely be using coal for night time usage.

Battery banks become impractical for utility scale installations and flywheels are only for short duration storage. Usually they are used for frequency correction and stability as well as in UPSes, such as in some broadcast facilities (30-45 seconds, just enough for the diesel generator to start up).

[N2RJ]

By the way, Germany's solar industry is propped up by $130 billion in taxpayer subsidies, $10 billion last year alone.

[NQ6U]

in most states that I know of you cannot size your system larger than your actual usage. A small buffer is OK but you can't be feeding back hundreds of kWh every month otherwise you will be denied interconnection.

Not in California. Not only can you feed back as much as you want, the utility is required to pay you for it at their highest wholesale rate.

[N7YA]

It worked for Hendrix!!

[PA5COR]

Matter of fact is in the USA 75% of the nuke plants leak as a sieve and are of the same kind of Fukushima.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2011-06-27-nuclear-plant-leaks_n.htm
Leaking pipes, and more accidents as you want with any of these possible Fukushima disasters waiting to happen, lots of them build on fault lines...
San Onofre nuke plant in trouble, http://www.fairewinds.org/content/san-onofre-bad-vibrations

The United States General Accountability Office reported more than 150 incidents from 2001 to 2006 alone of nuclear plants not performing within acceptable safety guidelines. In 2006, it said: "Since 2001, the ROP has resulted in more than 4,000 inspection findings concerning nuclear power plant licensees’ failure to fully comply with NRC regulations and industry standards for safe plant operation, and NRC has subjected more than 75 percent (79) of the 103 operating plants to increased oversight for varying periods".[4] (http://forums.hamisland.net/#cite_note-3) Seventy-one percent of all recorded major nuclear accidents, including meltdowns, explosions, fires, and loss of coolants, occurred in the United States, and they happened during both normal operations as well as emergency situations such as floods, droughts, and earthquakes.[5] (http://forums.hamisland.net/#cite_note-4)
Looks like your nuke plants aren't as safe as you thought isn't it?




I'm sure nuclear safety has improved since the 60s when these plants were built.

[N2RJ]

Not disagreeing there, Cor. The govt only recently approved construction for a new plant. All of the nuclear plants operating in the US are pretty ancient. The new ones that the Chinese are building in china are much safer and if only
The govt would hurry up an approve permits we could get rid of a lot of the old unsafe plants.

[PA5COR]

Problem is at what cost? don't just think with the building cost you are done with, but also the nuke material needs to be gained, and the waste stored for 10.000's of years safe..
Then there are the huge decommission costs to demolish the old ones...

Bulding them cost a lot of Co2 producing concrete, Following the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (http://forums.hamisland.net/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster), costs are likely to go up for currently operating and new nuclear power plants, due to increased requirements for on-site spent fuel management and elevated design basis threats.

All of a sudden the price per KWH is not to cheap to meter if you factor in all costs and subsidizing...

[HUGH]

Subsidies for "Green Energy" mean that people of little financial means, including the elderly and disabled, are paying extra for electricity and some of this payment is going to the more well-heeled who stand to benefit from their investments. Making a profit is nothing new and quite acceptable but doing it via a mandatory subsidy payment is not.

[PA5COR]

The Short Story on Subsidies:

1. only taking some hidden coal subsidies out of the picture, coal would be 2-3 times more expensive than wind (and that’s if wind got absolutely no subsidies!);

2. nuclear energy received as much in subsidies each year from 1950-1990 as wind had received in total up to 2007, $3.75 billion (even with all those subsidies, many of which continue today, nuclear can’t compete with other electricity sources)… and this is not taking into account considerable environmental and storage externalities;

3. big oil got more money in tax breaks in 2011 alone ($4 billion) than the wind industry had received in total up to 2007 ($3.75 billion), and it is expected to get $77 billion more by 2021.

In other words, wind power subsidies are nothing compared to fossil fuel and nuclear industry subsidies. Without subsidies, electricity prices would be:
Wind Power: 6-7 cents/kWh
Nuclear Power: 11-20+ cents/kWh
Coal Power: 9-32+ cents/kWh

And coal and nuclear costs are expected to rise considerably in coming years while wind costs fall.
Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/12Hj7) (http://s.tt/12Hj7)
Nuke plants are subsidized as well and that bill is footed just as well by the US tax payer, poor or rich.
Just pointing to the green subsidising what isn't even comming close to the coal natural gas extraction and nuke power and oil is nothing in comparison.

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/06/20/wind-power-subsidies-dont-compare-to-fossil-fuel-nuclear-subsidies/


Have a look...

[HUGH]

Wind turbines in countries where industry occupies flat areas are much less conspicuous than those stuck up on hillsides in rural areas and the grid connections can be almost adjacent to the consumers. In Wales, windfarms are due to obliterate many of the hillsides just to profit a few landowners and there is a great furore about where the necessary 400kV towers and cables are to run as these windfarms are very distant from the majority of consumers. Access is also difficult as roads in Wales are generally 100 years out of date.

Wales is a very small country that people pay to come and visit. I wonder if it will retain the same attraction?

As a footnote, wind turbines use much of their own power for their own use, even running from an external source to keep in sync and overcome static friction when there is insufficient wind. Some of the latest designs have a motor and drive on each blade to change the pitch as the blade descends past the tower or pylon supporting the rotor to decrease blade flexing and damage. There will be a future problem disposing of used, glass-reinforced, polyester no doubt.

Finally, don't be tempted to stand and gaze at one of these things when it's rotating, especially in winter!

[HUGH]

Cor, I don't think your data source is entirely independent. They may have vested interests, and in any case the energy available from subsidised fossil fuel and nuclear fuel probably is worth the subsidy whereas I can't see wind being so.

[n2ize]

I'm sure nuclear safety has improved since the 60s when these plants were built.

Not only has it improved dramatically but consider the accidents we did have. TMI was hardly a serious "nuclear accident". There was no meltdown and radiation levels even at close range to the plant were lower than that from a typical xray. Chernobyl was the epitome of soviet style incompetance and, as it turned out, the effects of Chernobyl were not nearly as bad as originally speculated. Indeed, radiation levels produced by Chernobyl were generally less than many parts of the world with a high level of natural background radiation. None of these accidents has produced any significant deviation from the norm.with respect to radiation related illnesses or deaths. I think we can even chalk up Fukishima to human stupidity. It may not have been the best idea to build a nuclear plant in an area that is prone to earthquakes and tsunami's. Ir it would at least have made sense to have elevated the backup generators such that they don;t get submerged during a tsunami.

[N2RJ]

Problem is at what cost? don't just think with the building cost you are done with, but also the nuke material needs to be gained, and the waste stored for 10.000's of years safe..
Then there are the huge decommission costs to demolish the old ones...

Bulding them cost a lot of Co2 producing concrete, Following the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (http://forums.hamisland.net/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster), costs are likely to go up for currently operating and new nuclear power plants, due to increased requirements for on-site spent fuel management and elevated design basis threats.

All of a sudden the price per KWH is not to cheap to meter if you factor in all costs and subsidizing...

Solar isn't free either and it doesn't work at night (or on cloudy days, or most of winter).

We don't take part in the state subsidy in this part of the state and our utility bills are the lowest in the state. Most of our energy comes from the Susquehanna nuclear plant.

[KG4CGC]

No. It doesn't work at night but batteries do. It needs to be supplemented but as long as it's producing energy you can store it.
GEOTHERMAL. There's another source of energy. It can't be implemented everywhere but it can be use in many places.
Just use what you can where you can. There's always a breeze on the coast as well as wave energy.
Why are we still just talking?

[N2RJ]

No. It doesn't work at night but batteries do.

Not typical batteries. There are some thermal storage batteries out there but lead acid or LiION batteries are impractical for utility scale installations. Most of them simply fall back to coal, natural gas or nuclear for nighttime needs.

It may happen in the future but we can safely say that the baseload solar power plants to cover 100% of our energy needs is pretty far away.


It needs to be supplemented but as long as it's producing energy you can store it.
GEOTHERMAL. There's another source of energy. It can't be implemented everywhere but it can be use in many places.
Just use what you can where you can. There's always a breeze on the coast as well as wave energy.
Why are we still just talking?

I want all those things but people say wind turbines spoil the view and kill birds.

[PA5COR]

@ N2RJ
Try reading he earlier posts, about using melted salt as th Spainish people do to get energy for at ight and cloudy days, there are ready solutions.
Fukushima, the reactors went critical because the piping broke and no cooling was available and the reactor vat drained exposing the core to go in melt mode, not the tsunami killing the pumps...they wouldnt have helped when the pipes were broken.

Nuke safety deteriorated in the USA see my former threads abou the overseers relaxing the rules to make nuke energy a bit more profitable, leading to lots of the faults and problems i put up before.
TMI caused cancer and deaths too.
Still 75% of your nuke plants leak as a sieve, not really safe is it?



We don't take part in the state subsidy in this part of the state and our utility bills are the lowest in the state. Most of our energy comes from the Susquehanna nuclear plant.
I bet that was build with government subsidizing, running with subsidizing, and not a penny is put aside for the decommissioning as the law states, roughly 300 million per plant, used fuel is piling up in that plant as well, no real solution is available to store that for 10 K years safe...

http://www.tmia.com/node/1243 or how not to operate a nuke power plant your's actually ...

[n2ize]

I want all those things but people say wind turbines spoil the view and kill birds.

I can;t say they are entirely wrong. Let's face it, if they can be put in places where they are not readily visible they may not be so bad. But otherwise they are butt ugly. Or, put another way I don;t think we'd want too much of outr landscape dotted with windmills. I mean say you have a pristine area perhaps near a national park overlooking a lake and mountains. Now maybe we can obscure some of those areas with windmills and it wouldn't be so bad and nobody would miss them much. But if it's overdone where so much of the landscape is doted with these things it can really mess things up. I mean there is ecological value to keeping certain landscapes pristine and free from man made structures.

I think solar enery, geothermal, and other renewable sources are good, however, we must remember they pollute the environment in their own way, i.e. mining raw materials, refining, fabrication, manufacture, shipping, installation, disposal (nothing lasts forever) etc. But I think it is an important way we will have to go starting now and into the future. Coal is another important asset and nuclear is definitely something we are going to have to use more of.

[KG4CGC]

Agricultural business also kills birds but fireworks are blamed. It wouldn't take much to find a noise that will keep the birds away from the fan blades and it doesn't have to be loud.
The whole view thing is Vanity. To those who play that card, if it's good for the country then FUCK your vanity.

Energy is becoming a black op industry. I say this because no one in big oil wants any of us to figure out how to power cars without oil and cheaply. We would naturally figure this out by finding new ways to power our homes.
Greed wins and America loses.

[KG4CGC]

I can;t say they are entirely wrong. Let's face it, if they can be put in places where they are not readily visible they may not be so bad. But otherwise they are butt ugly. Or, put another way I don;t think we'd want too much of outr landscape dotted with windmills. I mean say you have a pristine area perhaps near a national park overlooking a lake and mountains. Now maybe we can obscure some of those areas with windmills and it wouldn't be so bad and nobody would miss them much. But if it's overdone where so much of the landscape is doted with these things it can really mess things up. I mean there is ecological value to keeping certain landscapes pristine and free from man made structures.

I think solar enery, geothermal, and other renewable sources are good, however, we must remember they pollute the environment in their own way, i.e. mining raw materials, refining, fabrication, manufacture, shipping, installation, disposal (nothing lasts forever) etc. But I think it is an important way we will have to go starting now and into the future. Coal is another important asset and nuclear is definitely something we are going to have to use more of.

There isn't going to windfarms everywhere. Solar will only pollute the environment, ONCE. That would be during the manufacture. Is this right, John? Better than polluting repeatedly just FOR the energy.

[n2ize]

TMI caused cancer and deaths too.


The radiation dosage within a couple of miles of TMI was no more than an x-ray (or something along those lines, I am not going to look it up right now.). There has been no significant deviation in radiation related cancer and death rates attributable to TMI based on straight statistics. Surely if it did cause cancer and death rates we would be seeing a mathematical deviation that, well, just simply is not there. However, if we skew the results, as some researchers have done, to include ambiguous cases or to say, make a probabalistic assumption that, say x amounts of cancers or deaths would not have occurred had 3 mile Island not happened and then you can take that probability as a percentage and multiply it by total numbers of cancers, or deaths on record and take that percentage to be the percentage cause by three mile island and then argue that it did cause deaths and cancers. The problem I have with that is when we look at how those probabilities are determined we see that they are largely skewed by belief, assumption, guesses, as opposed to hard statistical data. Further, the degree to which they are skewed in that way seems to be related to the degree to which the researchers or individuals compiling the data are against nuke energy. So if we look as Greenpeace, or "Hippie warriors Against Nukes" we find the assumptions skewed to a much greater degree than, let;'s say a more neutral group or organization. Now, on the other siide of the coin we might find industry and lobby groups that do the exact opposite. But it all looks good on paper when you have nice columns of numbers and even some mathematical formulas and it sounds all official and heck, it's gotta be true, right ? That is until you look closer and say for instance, "how did he arrive at this figure for the percentage of deaths attributed to radiation" and then you suddenly find that it is based on things that are assumptions rather than sound measurement.

Still 75% of your nuke plants leak as a sieve, not really safe is it?



I bet that was build with government subsidizing, running with subsidizing, and not a penny is put aside for the decommissioning as the law states, roughly 300 million per plant, used fuel is piling up in that plant as well, no real solution is available to store that for 10 K years safe...

http://www.tmia.com/node/1243 or how not to operate a nuke power plant your's actually ...[/QUOTE]

[n2ize]

There isn't going to windfarms everywhere. Solar will only pollute the environment, ONCE. That would be during the manufacture. Is this right, John? Better than polluting repeatedly just FOR the energy.

Solar panels , like everything else, don;t last forever and overtime they deteriorate and yield lower and lower output and need replacement. Windmills break down, wear out, and need replacing.. Solar panels probably less so, not requiring the complex mechanics of windmills.And all these things are subject to damage when sitting outdoors for years on end. Manufacture, which will include mining, refining, fabrication, delivery, etc. would have to be an ongoing thing.as replacement is going to be a part of maintenance. The way i see it, manufacture will have to be an ongoing process.

I thing we can run the world on hot air. There is plenty of that in Washington DC. I say we should tap that resource and use it to supply all the worlds energy needs.

[KG4CGC]

Over time, all that will improve. Too bad we didn't start advancing the technology in the 70s like we've done with computers and cellphones.

[N2RJ]

@ N2RJ
Try reading he earlier posts, about using melted salt as th Spainish people do to get energy for at ight and cloudy days, there are ready solutions.
Fukushima, the reactors went critical because the piping broke and no cooling was available and the reactor vat drained exposing the core to go in melt mode, not the tsunami killing the pumps...they wouldnt have helped when the pipes were broken.

Nuke safety deteriorated in the USA see my former threads abou the overseers relaxing the rules to make nuke energy a bit more profitable, leading to lots of the faults and problems i put up before.
TMI caused cancer and deaths too.
Still 75% of your nuke plants leak as a sieve, not really safe is it?



I bet that was build with government subsidizing, running with subsidizing, and not a penny is put aside for the decommissioning as the law states, roughly 300 million per plant, used fuel is piling up in that plant as well, no real solution is available to store that for 10 K years safe...

http://www.tmia.com/node/1243 or how not to operate a nuke power plant your's actually ...

Im not debating whether reactors made in the 60s are safe today. However, they could have been replaced with improved ones if the govt would approve permits.

Yes we know the Spanish use melted salt to store energy for later use, but the Germans are using coal and natural gas since they are using conventional PV. Thermal storage typically uses a parabolic mirror to focus the solar energy to melt the salt. That's not what the Germans are using.

In the end no energy source is 100% clean and safe, by nuclear has had an excellent track record. Now if only the govt would allow safer newer plants to be built.

[PA5COR]

How you heat molten salt is not a problem be it with parabolic mirrors or electricity from solar cells, the method to store energy for later use is there.

Even with the nuke plants switched off the Germans stayed a net exporter of electricity without adding natural gas or coal fired plants.
Home solar panels and new wind turbiines were fully adequate to pick up the electricity demand even with switched off nuke plans, further builds of wind turbines and roling out solar panels is done every day.

We here don't need another Fukushima, where the real effects of that disaster come out slowly, of 1/2 a radiated country with untold trillions cost to clean up put a large ? to your statement of nuke power having an excellent record, for got Chernobyl already did you?
Nuke plants going really wrong can happen, and when they do they pollute very large aerea's for 100's ot 1000's of years to come and the radio active particles never heard of borders..

[N7YA]

As an energy source, nuclear is a great choice...as a disaster, i can think of quite a few i would rather endure.

[n2ize]

In the end no energy source is 100% clean and safe, by nuclear has had an excellent track record. Now if only the govt would allow safer newer plants to be built.

^^^ +10000000 It does have an excellent safety record, even when we factor in Chernobyl and, thus far Fukushima. I do feel that there should be some restrictions and some areas should be off limits to nuclear power, such as areas that tend to be prone to tsunami's or earthquakes or flood zones other natural disasters. At the very least special safety measures must apply to such areas. But many areas are quite stable and quite capable of sustaining the presence of nuclear facilities. Hard data has shown nuclear power to be relatively safe. Deaths attributed to nuclear energy cannot even begin to come close to the amount of death and destruction of the environment that fossil fuels have caused.

Unfortunately the "anti-nuke" crowd has terrified the public to a point beyond rationality and has made it next to impossible to permit new plants regardless of safety.

[HUGH]

Unfortunately the "anti-nuke" crowd has terrified the public to a point beyond rationality and has made it next to impossible to permit new plants regardless of safety.

There you have it!

[N7YA]

The only anti-nuke crowd i can hear are the dead and dying.

[KC2UGV]

We here don't need another Fukushima,

Then, don't place your backup generators in a flood plain's low-lying area; or build reactors that fail safe (Yes, it's possible. PBR's fail into a non-critical state).


where the real effects of that disaster come out slowly, of 1/2 a radiated country

Your country (And all other countries) are already irradiated, and continue to be daily, and have been since our sun starting burning, and the cosmic rays started hitting our atmo.


with untold trillions cost to clean up put a large ? to your statement of nuke power having an excellent record, for got Chernobyl already did you?

How many reactors are in operation, and have been in operation since we started using them, and how many accidents have we had? 3? Maybe 4.



Nuke plants going really wrong can happen, and when they do they pollute very large aerea's for 100's ot 1000's of years to come and the radio active particles never heard of borders..

We've been getting bombarded by radioactive particles since the first cellular life arrived. In fact, the first form of life arrived here, because of radiation.

[PA5COR]

How good thought out, accidents will happen, an undiscovered fault will release an earthquake etc, point is when a nuke plant goes up it causes lots more damage and loss in human iife as other energy supplying methods, including green renewable ones.

Adding additional radiation in the air, food is something we can do without, that has nothing to do with background radiation, it is added up radiation what should have been avoided like the atomic bomb tests.
Getting radiation if food and so in your body is more dangerous placed right in your tissues or bone.

Hundreds of accidents to be more precise including meldown reactors in the USA multiple to more exact, including 75% of your reactors leaking like a sieve, dozens over the world including all countries.
Not so save looking anymore is it?


A repeat of the former talking point see answer above.




Then, don't place your backup generators in a flood plain's low-lying area; or build reactors that fail safe (Yes, it's possible. PBR's fail into a non-critical state).



Your country (And all other countries) are already irradiated, and continue to be daily, and have been since our sun starting burning, and the cosmic rays started hitting our atmo.



How many reactors are in operation, and have been in operation since we started using them, and how many accidents have we had? 3? Maybe 4.



We've been getting bombarded by radioactive particles since the first cellular life arrived. In fact, the first form of life arrived here, because of radiation.

[N2RJ]

How you heat molten salt is not a problem be it with parabolic mirrors or electricity from solar cells, the method to store energy for later use is there.

Actually it does matter since using electricity generated from PV to melt salt is far more inefficient than using mirrors.




We here don't need another Fukushima, where the real effects of that disaster come out slowly, of 1/2 a radiated country with untold trillions cost to clean up put a large ?

I agree we don't need another Fukuishima which is why we need to put those plants from the 1960s in the scrap heap and build newer safer plants.



to your statement of nuke power having an excellent record, for got Chernobyl already did you?
Nuke plants going really wrong can happen, and when they do they pollute very large aerea's for 100's ot 1000's of years to come and the radio active particles never heard of borders..

Bringing up Chernobyl isn't doing much for your position because anyone with a clue about nuclear energy knew that doing what was done to cause the Chernobyl disaster would have had the exact outcome it did.

The RBMK reactor is the rough equivalent of using an open fire (not in a fireplace) in the middle of your living room to heat your home. Chernobyl was the head of the household deciding to see what would happen if they poured gasoline on it. But before they did so, they threw away all of the fire extinguishers and turned off the water.

Furthermore, the exact cause of the Chernobyl disaster was an experiment where every last safety feature was disabled. What did you think would happen? They were basically winging it.

Go do some reading on the chernobyl disaster.

[KC2UGV]

How good thought out, accidents will happen, an undiscovered fault will release an earthquake etc, point is when a nuke plant goes up it causes lots more damage and loss in human iife as other energy supplying methods, including green renewable ones.


If you design reactors to fail to a safe state (aka non-critical), then it's no more dangerous than a fuel cell explosion, a silicon mine collapse, or an earthquake.



Adding additional radiation in the air, food is something we can do without, that has nothing to do with background radiation, it is added up radiation what should have been avoided like the atomic bomb tests.
Getting radiation if food and so in your body is more dangerous placed right in your tissues or bone.


Unless of course, we just build up a resistance to radiation. Like fleas, or fruit flies, which can survive the radiation levels present in space.



Hundreds of accidents to be more precise including meldown reactors in the USA multiple to more exact, including 75% of your reactors leaking like a sieve, dozens over the world including all countries.
Not so save looking anymore is it?


So, since there are all of these accidents, all of these leaking reactors; you should be able to FINALLY present evidence of it causing harm on a grand scale. Remember, I've been asking you for this evidence for quite a few months thus far, and you have yet to present it.

Because, if it were as dangerous as you purport; we should all have cancer right now, and dropping like flies when sprayed with Raid.



A repeat of the former talking point see answer above.

Yes, you do keep repeating yourself, but presenting nothing.

[WØTKX]

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-08/thorium-reactors-could-wean-world-oil-just-five-years


An abundant metal with vast energy potential could quickly wean the world off oil, if only Western political leaders would muster the will to do it, a UK newspaper says today. The Telegraph makes the case for thorium reactors as the key to a fossil-fuel-free world within five years, and puts the ball firmly in President Barack Obama's court.

Thorium, named for the Norse god of thunder, is much more abundant than uranium and has 200 times that metal's energy potential. Thorium is also a more efficient fuel source -- unlike natural uranium, which must be highly refined before it can be used in nuclear reactors, all thorium is potentially usable as fuel.

The Telegraph says thorium could be used as an energy amplifier in next-generation nuclear power plants, an idea conceived by Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia, former director of CERN.
Known as an accelerator-driven system, it would use a particle accelerator to produce a proton beam and aim it at lump of heavy metal, producing excess neutrons. Thorium is a good choice because it has a high neutron yield per neutron absorbed.]

[PA5COR]

At this moment none of the more then 400 reactors is of that design, so the dangers still exist.


Do we build up a rsistance agaainst radio activety? not as the science says now...

As long you deny all the points put to you whatever the source why repeat that? denial dosn't bolster your viewpoints either.

Enough reports produced from doctors, Government sources that did prove the dangers and effects on humans and deaths...
See denial...


If you design reactors to fail to a safe state (aka non-critical), then it's no more dangerous than a fuel cell explosion, a silicon mine collapse, or an earthquake.



Unless of course, we just build up a resistance to radiation. Like fleas, or fruit flies, which can survive the radiation levels present in space.



So, since there are all of these accidents, all of these leaking reactors; you should be able to FINALLY present evidence of it causing harm on a grand scale. Remember, I've been asking you for this evidence for quite a few months thus far, and you have yet to present it.

Because, if it were as dangerous as you purport; we should all have cancer right now, and dropping like flies when sprayed with Raid.



Yes, you do keep repeating yourself, but presenting nothing.

[PA5COR]

Chernobyl for whatever reason that it happened was a disater, preventable, but we humans like to keep pleying with risks and have it blown up in our face.
Knowing that 75% of your rectors leak like a sieve, safety rules are regularly violated and reactos are build on flood plains or on faultlines falls in the same category.

[N2RJ]

Chernobyl for whatever reason that it happened was a disater, preventable, but we humans like to keep pleying with risks and have it blown up in our face.

Not humans in general. ONE set of humans - the Soviets.

Hey Cor, fire is dangerous. Does that mean we stop using it?



Knowing that 75% of your rectors leak like a sieve, safety rules are regularly violated and reactos are build on flood plains or on faultlines falls in the same category.

As I've said that's a result of keeping old reactors in service because the Gov't won't allow new ones to be built. Nothing lasts forever.

[KC2UGV]

At this moment none of the more then 400 reactors is of that design, so the dangers still exist.


Yes, and as Ryan said, we should decommission those, and put newer designs in place. Ones that fail into a non-critical state, like PBR's.



Do we build up a rsistance agaainst radio activety? not as the science says now...


Actually, we do. That's what natural selection is, and it's done that since we evolved. If we never built up a resistance to it, then we would all be dead, since we've built up a resistance to background levels.



As long you deny all the points put to you whatever the source why repeat that? denial dosn't bolster your viewpoints either.


I'm not denying anything, I am completely refuting your points. There is a huge difference.



Enough reports produced from doctors, Government sources that did prove the dangers and effects on humans and deaths...
See denial...

What reports? The one that I've completely debunked already as junk science? You know, the one that says every instance of cancer post-Chernobyl was caused by Chernobyl?

Do you understand how ridiculous that is? It's as bad as me claiming every cancer post-tobacco is caused by smoking.


Chernobyl for whatever reason that it happened was a disater, preventable, but we humans like to keep pleying with risks and have it blown up in our face.
Knowing that 75% of your rectors leak like a sieve, safety rules are regularly violated and reactos are build on flood plains or on faultlines falls in the same category.

We DON'T know that 75% of our reactors leak like a sieve. And, reactors CAN be built on floodplains, just not their backup generators (Current designs), or they need to be designed to fail into a non-critical state. And, safety rules are regularly violated in ALL human ventures, should we end all human ventures now?

[PA5COR]

Like Fukushima was such a good idea, people knew earthquakes happened there and tsunami's came much higher as the sea wall build...
USA design with designflaws as well, so here USA and Jam=panese were dicking around.

Fire can be dangerous, but even with a big fire it won't keep radiating a very large piece of real estate for 10.000's of years...

Must be the reason to keep the old ones alive for another extended lease even when they are used up already, more danger then...
Why does your government not want to build new ones?



Not humans in general. ONE set of humans - the Soviets.

Hey Cor, fire is dangerous. Does that mean we stop using it?



As I've said that's a result of keeping old reactors in service because the Gov't won't allow new ones to be built. Nothing lasts forever.

[PA5COR]

Does not happen, ask yourself why, and why the lease of the old worn ones is exended against a ever higher risk...


Natural selection through a low dosis background radiation is totally different from an unnatural high dosis man made radio active particles getting directly in your tissue.
You contradict yourself, we didn't build up a resistance if we still mutate through background radiation is it?
If we build up resistance that background radiation would have no effect on our genes.... but it has and it is at a much lower level as the manmade radiation so figure out what that effect is on people.


Refuting by denying the reliabillety of Government made reports or physicians is is still denial, not refuting, nor proof of your statements.

Totally debunked like the WHO is only allowed to produce reports if the IAEA allows them to?
They refute that evidence, let me have a laugh....

Point is that the reactors and nuke plants were build on floodplanes and stupidly designed, and almost led to a serious accident like Fukushima.
You should keep the effects of your faults in memory playing around with something that dangerous.
There are few ventures that have such far reaching effects as a nuke plantin meltdown mode like Chernobyl or Fukushima.
Ventures fine, but we should always look a the risk when things go really wrong.
Mostly other people bear the brunt of those accidents, not the ones profitting of the venture....
And yes, your own Government overseer reported the 75% of he nuke plants leaking like a sieve.


http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20072884.html

built in a burst of construction during the 1960s and 1970s" - the nuclear energy industry was created for the production of material for nuclear weapons. Electricity is just a byproduct. If it wasn't for the Price-Anderson Act, which puts liability for accidents on taxpayers, the industry would not exist at all.



















ur reactors leak like a sieve. And, reactors CAN be built on floodplains, just not their backup generators (Current designs), or they need to be designed to fail into a non-critical state. And, safety rules are regularly violated in ALL human ventures, should we end all human ventures now?[/QUOTE]

[KC2UGV]

Does not happen, ask yourself why, and why the lease of the old worn ones is exended against a ever higher risk...


Because, we need to replace them, not just eliminate them. And the "No More Nukes" and NIMBY's wont let any new ones get built.



Natural selection through a low dosis background radiation is totally different from an unnatural high dosis man made radio active particles getting directly in your tissue.

And, you have yet to demonstrate this difference. Please do. Because, if it's as bad as you state, there should be demonstrable, world-wide health affects.



You contradict yourself, we didn't build up a resistance if we still mutate through background radiation is it?
If we build up resistance that background radiation would have no effect on our genes.... but it has and it is at a much lower level as the manmade radiation so figure out what that effect is on people.


There is no way for radiation to not affect DNA. It's not possible. But, through mutations, organisms build resistance in the form of multiple codings of the various alleles.

And, in various areas of the planet, the natural background radiation is a much higher level than what is present in areas surrounding Chernobyl today.


Refuting by denying the reliabillety of Government made reports or physicians is is still denial, not refuting, nor proof of your statements.


Just because a report is done by a government, or a physician, does not certify it's validity.

Again, I am not denying these reports. These reports were refuted by others in the field. Such as basing their findings on the assumption ALL cancers post-Chernobyl were caused by Chernobyl.



Totally debunked like the WHO is only allowed to produce reports if the IAEA allows them to?
They refute that evidence, let me have a laugh....


Cor, you really need to READ, and LEARN. The WHO can release reports even if they contradict the IAEA.



Point is that the reactors and nuke plants were build on floodplanes and stupidly designed, and almost led to a serious accident like Fukushima.
You should keep the effects of your faults in memory playing around with something that dangerous.

Yes, we should keep the affects close in memory, so we don't repeat the mistakes. Doesn't mean we should just abandon anything that is dangerous, however.



There are few ventures that have such far reaching effects as a nuke plantin meltdown mode like Chernobyl or Fukushima.
Ventures fine, but we should always look a the risk when things go really wrong.
Mostly other people bear the brunt of those accidents, not the ones profitting of the venture....
And yes, your own Government overseer reported the 75% of he nuke plants leaking like a sieve.


http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20072884.html

built in a burst of construction during the 1960s and 1970s" - the nuclear energy industry was created for the production of material for nuclear weapons. Electricity is just a byproduct. If it wasn't for the Price-Anderson Act, which puts liability for accidents on taxpayers, the industry would not exist at all.


From your source:

While most leaks have been found within plant boundaries, some have migrated offsite. But none is known to have reached public water supplies.

And, a leak does not constitute a sieve... Cor, you are grappling at extremes here.

Did you know your car leaks gasoline like a sieve. You lose 1 drop per day!

[PA5COR]

More because replacing them would be much too costly, so rather as replacing hem and taking the old ones down at considerable cost they extend their lifespan at a much higher risk keeping the old worn reactors working...
Not so cheap looking is it, nuke power, no new atomic bombs to build and all that.. and if anything goes wrong the people hit can find no compensation nor get any money for their lost land, houses and posessions.



The dose at Chernobyl is a bit higher as you write:





CBS News was on the site less than 10 minutes when one member of the group went over his exposure limit.

"Right now the dose rate is 200 times the background of what you'd have in Washington, D.C.," [Laurin] Dodd said.





Further, radiation out of the ground is a bit different as getting hot radio isotopes in dust and air into your body there in Chernobyl...
And depends on the type of radio isotope, as i type in Germany where wild boar, mushrooms are still not fit for consumption because of a too high dose of radiation, separated quite a distance from Chernobyl...
Radiation does not stop at the border...
.


If you know from exerience that the effects of a meltdown are quite costly and losing lots of land through radiation and possible loss of human life is as big as demonstrated in Chernobyl or Fukushima, you better do a rethink.
Certainly for the people living close to those plants, not much chance on a fast evacuation nor any sight on compensation, they lose the most as we saw in Fukushima...

By signed agreement as produced before in other threads all publications about the nuclear effects have to be checked and agreed upon by the IAEA.
Promoting nuclear energy is much more important as safety for the civilians...

Looking at the effects of Fukushima poisoning 1/2 Japan and looking at the nuke plants close to large cities in the USA and the bad rep the nukes have in safety as stated in the latest reports, and at the almost no possebillety to evac the people in those cities, the danger is too big.


Poisoning wateraquifiers, rivers and wells of people living near the plant is in my view not acceptable, they should not leak, period.
The problems and causes were known, nothing was done to correct it, and extending the life of the old plants will only aggravate the problem.

[N7YA]

Well, this thread is getting harder to drop jokes and one-liners into...slow it down, guys!

[suddenseer]

Well, this thread is getting harder to drop jokes and one-liners into...slow it down, guys!Yeah really. How are dumb bass players suppose to amuse themselves anyway?

[n2ize]

More because replacing them would be much too costly, so rather as replacing hem and taking the old ones down at considerable cost they extend their lifespan at a much higher risk keeping the old worn reactors working...

Not so cheap looking is it, nuke power, no new atomic bombs to build and all that.. and if anything goes wrong the people hit can find no compensation nor get any money for their lost land, houses and posessions.

Actually the price would go down considerably if we allowed new ones to be built. The chance of anything going wrong would go down considerably as well.




The dose at Chernobyl is a bit higher as you write:

Further, radiation out of the ground is a bit different as getting hot radio isotopes in dust and air into your body there in Chernobyl...
And depends on the type of radio isotope, as i type in Germany where wild boar, mushrooms are still not fit for consumption because of a too high dose of radiation, separated quite a distance from Chernobyl...


Actually it is the same. The iddue of the shrooms and wild boar are based on the same biased sources that told you you must destroy all you crops.



Radiation does not stop at the border...
.


If you know from exerience that the effects of a meltdown are quite costly and losing lots of land through radiation and possible loss of human life is as big as demonstrated in Chernobyl or Fukushima, you better do a rethink.


Loss of life from Chernobyl was much lower than anticipated. The only people arguing that Chernobyl caused "millions of deaths" world world are biased sources (such as Greenpeace) whpo are basing their estimate of faulty probabilities based on speculative reasoning rather than hard data.


Certainly for the people living close to those plants, not much chance on a fast evacuation nor any sight on compensation, they lose the most as we saw in Fukushima...

By signed agreement as produced before in other threads all publications about the nuclear effects have to be checked and agreed upon by the IAEA.
Promoting nuclear energy is much more important as safety for the civilians...


That is silly. You don;t "promote nuclear energy" by having accidents. And no, they can still be published without the approval of the IAEA.


Looking at the effects of Fukushima poisoning 1/2 Japan and looking at the nuke plants close to large cities in the USA and the bad rep the nukes have in safety as stated in the latest reports, and at the almost no possebillety to evac the people in those cities, the danger is too big.

The "bad rep" comes from outfits like Greenpeace and the "No Nukes (man) Coalition" who have successfully assured thet safer plants won;t come online anytime soon and that old ones will continue to be used. Where is the high radiation count in these areas ? What is the death rate ? If these plants are as bad as you say gieger counters should be clicking like mad and death rates should be way way up.



Poisoning wateraquifiers, rivers and wells of people living near the plant is in my view not acceptable, they should not leak, period.
The problems and causes were known, nothing was done to correct it, and extending the life of the old plants will only aggravate the problem.

Neither should your car or your lawn mower leak fuel but it does. So does tobacco leak dangerous radiation (and other chemicals) poisoning the aquafers and the environment. Again, where are the abnormally high death rates near these plants ? We wouldn;t have to "extent the life of old plants" if we can put newer and safer ones online.

[KC2UGV]

More because replacing them would be much too costly, so rather as replacing hem and taking the old ones down at considerable cost they extend their lifespan at a much higher risk keeping the old worn reactors working...
Not so cheap looking is it, nuke power, no new atomic bombs to build and all that.. and if anything goes wrong the people hit can find no compensation nor get any money for their lost land, houses and posessions.


The cost is largely not the issue. The issue preventing replacement are the NIMBY's and No-More-Nukes crowd, such as yourself.



The dose at Chernobyl is a bit higher as you write:


So, Cor, what is the current level of radiation in the areas around Chernobyl? Last I checked, people can stay there for about a week right now.



Further, radiation out of the ground is a bit different as getting hot radio isotopes in dust and air into your body there in Chernobyl...

It is? Radiation is radiation my friend. The only differentiation is Alpha, Beta, and Gamma radiation.



And depends on the type of radio isotope, as i type in Germany where wild boar, mushrooms are still not fit for consumption because of a too high dose of radiation, separated quite a distance from Chernobyl...


Too high based on what? What is the radiation level present in those organisms? I'll bet the radiation level in the tobacco you smoke is higher...



Radiation does not stop at the border...
.


Quite true. They discovered Cesium in tuna from Japan here in the US. Guess what? Radiation levels from the Cesium were lower than the naturally occurring Polonium and Iodine present.



If you know from exerience that the effects of a meltdown are quite costly and losing lots of land through radiation and possible loss of human life is as big as demonstrated in Chernobyl or Fukushima, you better do a rethink.

Fukushima killed very few people actually. The Tsunami killed magnitudes more than Fukushima did, or will. I guess we need to stop living in Japan, right, I mean, they always get tsunamis.

Chernobyl? The total death toll is somewhere between 6000 (The lowest I've found) and 1 million (The highest I've found). We killed more people in a single war.



Certainly for the people living close to those plants, not much chance on a fast evacuation nor any sight on compensation, they lose the most as we saw in Fukushima...


The people in Fukushima need to worry more about another Tsunami hitting than a nuclear incident. They wont get any compensation for the tsunamic, and will get 0 seconds to evacuate.



By signed agreement as produced before in other threads all publications about the nuclear effects have to be checked and agreed upon by the IAEA.
Promoting nuclear energy is much more important as safety for the civilians...


You've presented no such thing. You presented something you "claim" says that, but it doesn't say that the WHO can't release any report not cleared by the IAEA.



Looking at the effects of Fukushima poisoning 1/2 Japan and looking at the nuke plants close to large cities in the USA and the bad rep the nukes have in safety as stated in the latest reports, and at the almost no possebillety to evac the people in those cities, the danger is too big.


Hm, I'm having trouble finding a source that states 1/2 of Japan was poisoned... Can you provide that?



Poisoning wateraquifiers, rivers and wells of people living near the plant is in my view not acceptable, they should not leak, period.

None of the plants here in the US have done any of what you are stating here. Per your own source. They leak, but have no touched the water supply.



The problems and causes were known, nothing was done to correct it, and extending the life of the old plants will only aggravate the problem.

And, the major problem are NIBMY's and the No-more-nuke crowd, who wont let replacement plants be constructed.

[N2RJ]

More because replacing them would be much too costly, so rather as replacing hem and taking the old ones down at considerable cost they extend their lifespan at a much higher risk keeping the old worn reactors working...
Not so cheap looking is it, nuke power, no new atomic bombs to build and all that.. and if anything goes wrong the people hit can find no compensation nor get any money for their lost land, houses and posessions.

Cost is not the issue at all. We haven't built one in over 30 years because they weren't approved.




The dose at Chernobyl is a bit higher as you write:

Further, radiation out of the ground is a bit different as getting hot radio isotopes in dust and air into your body there in Chernobyl...
And depends on the type of radio isotope, as i type in Germany where wild boar, mushrooms are still not fit for consumption because of a too high dose of radiation, separated quite a distance from Chernobyl...
Radiation does not stop at the border...
.




Why do you keep bringing up Chernobyl?

What if I kept telling you that socialist Europe is going to fail because the communist USSR failed? That's pretty much the same thing you're doing.



Poisoning wateraquifiers, rivers and wells of people living near the plant is in my view not acceptable, they should not leak, period.
The problems and causes were known, nothing was done to correct it, and extending the life of the old plants will only aggravate the problem.

Not far from here, aquifers already have radioactive water, but from naturally occurring radiation. Radiation is natural. You test your water before you commission the well. You don't just be stupid and blindly trust it. We live in an age of science and technology, Cor.

[NQ6U]

Well, this thread is getting harder to drop jokes and one-liners into...slow it down, guys!

You're not eating enough Fig Neutrons.

[PA5COR]

Not really, old ones need to be scrapped and new ones build for lots of dollars, who pays for that?

That order is based on measured radio active particles measured in boar and mushrooms and checked yearly, i've been there visiting friends thatt actually hunt there.

Based on figures from the Government of Belarus etc, that Greenpeace produces a report must really make you feel uncomfortable, Greenpeace doesn't automatically mean they bent the truth.


See former threads about the restrictions the IAEA put on reports of the WHO...

I mow my grass with an electric powered mower, and my diesel tank doesn't leak, just had the M.O.T check done.
Seems that nuke plants don't need these check up's and can leak all they want isn't it?


Actually the price would go down considerably if we allowed new ones to be built. The chance of anything going wrong would go down considerably as well.




Actually it is the same. The iddue of the shrooms and wild boar are based on the same biased sources that told you you must destroy all you crops.



Loss of life from Chernobyl was much lower than anticipated. The only people arguing that Chernobyl caused "millions of deaths" world world are biased sources (such as Greenpeace) whpo are basing their estimate of faulty probabilities based on speculative reasoning rather than hard data.



That is silly. You don;t "promote nuclear energy" by having accidents. And no, they can still be published without the approval of the IAEA.



The "bad rep" comes from outfits like Greenpeace and the "No Nukes (man) Coalition" who have successfully assured thet safer plants won;t come online anytime soon and that old ones will continue to be used. Where is the high radiation count in these areas ? What is the death rate ? If these plants are as bad as you say gieger counters should be clicking like mad and death rates should be way way up.



Neither should your car or your lawn mower leak fuel but it does. So does tobacco leak dangerous radiation (and other chemicals) poisoning the aquafers and the environment. Again, where are the abnormally high death rates near these plants ? We wouldn;t have to "extent the life of old plants" if we can put newer and safer ones online.

[N2RJ]

Cor, out of curiosity do you even know how much a utility scale solar installation costs?

[PA5COR]

# KC2UGV

the issue, demolishing 103 plants times 300 million dollar, building new ones at 3 to 5 billion dollars all need government funding...
Prices will only rise so these estimates are low.
Nor the Government nor private or industry seems eager to finance that...
What you consider nimby's or no nuke crowd has just as much their right to their opinion as you do, and the accidents seems to favour them in their opinion... reality is a bitch.


Already answered that minimum 200 x the background radiation of Washington DC to 100's times more, wind displaces soil containing radiation particles so one place relative low can change to high after a storm.
If the Russians thought it to be safe to reuse the very good agricultural soil again and people could go back safely to live there they would have done that already...

Must be difficult to grasp the added level of radiation and internal and external radiation...
No radiation level is "safe" all added radiation is more risk to the individual, where he/she didn't ask for.
Fukushima is still emitting large levels of their inventory to the sea, let's see how the tuna fare next year...or seaweed that was already over the norm in the USA.


People die in Japan from the radiation now, and since there is some time needed to show the effets they don't die as fast as drowing in a tsunami...but they still will die from radiation...

soil samples from Tokyo should be considered nuke waste in the USA.
10,000,000 Bq/kg of cesium detected in Minamisoma soil sample -Local Official 200miles from the stricken reactors. etc.

That tuna story was about tuna catched in auguust 2011 almost a year back...the levels will be lots higher now.
Top Cancer Doctor: Irresponsible to say cesium in California bluefin tuna is nothing to worry about — You have radioactive material in fish, which is being eaten by people ...
Dr. Michael Harbut, director of the Environmental Cancer Program at Wayne State University’s Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit

“For somebody to say this is an immediate threat to large numbers of humans and their health is irresponsible,” Harbut said. “We don’t see people dying left and right all over the West Coast from radiation poisoning. But to say this is nothing to worry about is equally irresponsible, because you have radioactive material ingested by fish, which is in turn being eaten by people.”

It took more as 1/2 year to bring these results in the open,all the time people ate tuna that had hot particles in them...



After Japan, the next hottest area is the Cascades, the Pacific Cascades
A lot of the radiation came across the Pacific and hit the mountains, hit the Rockies, and deposited on the west side of the Rockies
We’ve seen readings in the Portland areas of about 100 [becquerels/m²] disintegrations per second in a square meter of cesium 134 and 137




We’ll see over time a statistically meaningful increase in cancer on the west coast but I don’t think we’ll be able to compare by any means to what they got in Japan

[PA5COR]

Why limit yourself to just solar installations?

Prices of the solar cells get chaper by the day and https://financere.nrel.gov/finance/content/cost-utility-scale-solar-one-quick-way-compare-projects data here is already old and not relevant anymore.

[N2RJ]

Why limit yourself to just solar installations?

Prices of the solar cells get chaper by the day and https://financere.nrel.gov/finance/content/cost-utility-scale-solar-one-quick-way-compare-projects data here is already old and not relevant anymore.

Dont avoid the question. What is the cost?

[PA5COR]

Read the linky it's all there.
As said, based on old too high prices.

They are build anyway....http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10419537-54.html

[N7YA]

Yeah really. How are dumb bass players suppose to amuse themselves anyway?

5930

[PA5COR]

As to WHO: many of the prime authors of, say, the recent "Preliminary Dose Estimation from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunamii" are pro-nukers, make their living from the nuclear industry; and nobody NOT ONE CRITIC of the industry is involved, ever, in anything they publish on the topic.

On May 28, 1959, WHO drew up an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, never rescinded wherein they unequivocally granted the right of prior approval over any research it might undertake or report on to the IAEA, who serves to advocate for the industry. The IAEA stated mission: ''The agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity through the world.''

If anyone thinks the WHO is an objective source on nuclear power, I have some energy too cheap to meter to sell them. All they have to worry about is the insurance, and guaranteeing my costs in supplying the stuff. (Ask TEPCO and Japan what that means, eh?)
Those who don't depend on an income from, or have an identification with, nuclear power (and who can do arithmetic) see that the spectacular failure rate of nuclear has been on average once every 10.3 years. (The not so spectacular failures are constant and on-going.)

...Catastrophic nuclear accidents such as the core meltdowns in Chernobyl and Fukushima are more likely to happen than previously assumed. Based on the operating hours of all civil nuclear reactors and the number of nuclear meltdowns that have occurred, scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz have calculated that such events may occur once every 10 to 20 years (based on the current number of reactors) -- some 200 times more often than estimated in the past. The researchers also determined that, in the event of such a major accident, half of the radioactive caesium-137 would be spread over an area of more than 1,000 kilometres away from the nuclear reactor. Their results show that Western Europe is likely to be contaminated about once in 50 years by more than 40 kilobecquerel of caesium-137 per square meter.Which cities/parts of nations would you like to part with every 10 years or so?

In an unusually stark warning, Japan (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/japan/index.html?inline=nyt-geo)’s prime minister during last year’s nuclear crisis told a parliamentary inquiry on Monday that the country should discard nuclear power as too dangerous, saying the Fukushima accident had pushed Japan to the brink of “national collapse.”


In testimony to a panel investigating the government’s handling of the nuclear disaster, the former prime minister, Naoto Kan (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/naoto_kan/index.html?inline=nyt-per), also warned that the politically powerful nuclear industry was trying to push Japan back toward nuclear power despite “showing no remorse” for the accident.

Gorbachev said in his memoirs that the Chernobyl accident exposed the sicknesses of the Soviet system,” Mr. Kan said, referring to the 1986 explosion of a reactor in Ukraine, which spewed radiation across a wide swath of Europe. “The Fukushima accident did the same for Japan.”

Gee, looks a lot to the policy of the IAEA...

Your nuclear hobby-horse is dead. Stop beating it.



As Albert Einstein wrote after the war ended, in his 1946 book Out of My Later Years:
“If I had known the Germans would not succeed
in constructing the atom bomb,
I never would have moved a finger.” Einstein went on to describe atomic energy as
“a menace.”

[n2ize]

As to WHO: many of the prime authors of, say, the recent "Preliminary Dose Estimation from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunamii" are pro-nukers, make their living from the nuclear industry; and nobody NOT ONE CRITIC of the industry is involved, ever, in anything they publish on the topic.




What is a "pro-nuker" ? Any one who isn;t part of Greenpeace or the "No-Nukes coalition" ?


n May 28, 1959, WHO drew up an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, never rescinded wherein they unequivocally granted the right of prior approval over any research it might undertake or report on to the IAEA, who serves to advocate for the industry. The IAEA stated mission: ''The agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity through the world.''


Which in no way prevents the WHO from releasing information or reports..


If anyone thinks the WHO is an objective source on nuclear power, I have some energy too cheap to meter to sell them. All they have to worry about is the insurance, and guaranteeing my costs in supplying the stuff. (Ask TEPCO and Japan what that means, eh?)


This is anecdotal and isn;t based on any sound critieria other than the anti-nuke crowd.


Those who don't depend on an income from, or have an identification with, nuclear power (and who can do arithmetic) see that the spectacular failure rate of nuclear has been on average once every 10.3 years. (The not so spectacular failures are constant and on-going.)



Based on what study ? Cite the academic source that derived these results. Those who can do math (or have at least taken undergrad probability theory) understand that the probabilties cited by those organizations with an anti-nuke agenda are not probabilities based on hard data. They are speculative probabilities.



...Catastrophic nuclear accidents such as the core meltdowns in Chernobyl and Fukushima are more likely to happen than previously assumed.

Citation from the unbiased academic source ?


Based on the operating hours of all civil nuclear reactors and the number of nuclear meltdowns that have occurred, scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz have calculated that such events may occur once every 10 to 20 years (based on the current number of reactors) -- some 200 times more often than estimated in the past. The researchers also determined that, in the event of such a major accident, half of the radioactive caesium-137 would be spread over an area of more than 1,000 kilometres away from the nuclear reactor. Their results show that Western Europe is likely to be contaminated about once in 50 years by more than 40 kilobecquerel of caesium-137 per square meter.Which cities/parts of nations would you like to part with every 10 years or so?


And yet it hasn't happened in well over 50 years of operation. Chernobyl is a poor example as it was not an accident, it was a deliberate meltdown. Anyone with even a basic nuclear engineering degree could have prediced the results that occurred when you turn off all the reactors safety features and run it out of control. Not to mention the fact that it was a particularly dangerous design to begin with. And even then we haven't see the high death / illness rate due to contamination that was predicted. From Fukishima we learned that it is a good idea to put backup generators on higher ground if you live in a tsunami zone.


In an unusually stark warning, Japan (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/japan/index.html?inline=nyt-geo)’s prime minister during last year’s nuclear crisis told a parliamentary inquiry on Monday that the country should discard nuclear power as too dangerous, saying the Fukushima accident had pushed Japan to the brink of “national collapse.”
In testimony to a panel investigating the government’s handling of the nuclear disaster, the former prime minister, Naoto Kan (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/naoto_kan/index.html?inline=nyt-per), also warned that the politically powerful nuclear industry was trying to push Japan back toward nuclear power despite “showing no remorse” for the accident.
Gorbachev said in his memoirs that the Chernobyl accident exposed the sicknesses of the Soviet system,” Mr. Kan said, referring to the 1986 explosion of a reactor in Ukraine, which spewed radiation across a wide swath of Europe. “The Fukushima accident did the same for Japan.”


radiation levels which in most cases are no higher than normal background levels.



Gee, looks a lot to the policy of the IAEA...

Your nuclear hobby-horse is dead. Stop beating it.


As Albert Einstein wrote after the war ended, in his 1946 book Out of My Later Years:
“If I had known the Germans would not succeed
in constructing the atom bomb,
I never would have moved a finger.” Einstein went on to describe atomic energy as
“a menace.”



Where are the stats showing the extremely high death rates from Chernobyl and Fukishima ? It's been well over 20+ years since the Chernobyl accident, death rates should have skyrocketed across Europe and the USA and radiation levels should be through the roof by now, perhaps hundreds of times higher than the highest background levels.

[n2ize]

Must be difficult to grasp the added level of radiation and internal and external radiation..
No radiation level is "safe" all added radiation is more risk to the individual, where he/she didn't ask for.
Fukushima is still emitting large levels of their inventory to the sea, let's see how the tuna fare next year...or seaweed that was already over the norm in the USA.


No radiation level is safe ? Then we should all be dead right now/


People die in Japan from the radiation now, and since there is some time needed to show the effets they don't die as fast as drowing in a tsunami...but they still will die from radiation...



In which case we should be seeing massive increases in cancers and deaths in addition to the massive increases from Chernobyl.




That tuna story was about tuna catched in auguust 2011 almost a year back...the levels will be lots higher now.
Top Cancer Doctor: Irresponsible to say cesium in California bluefin tuna is nothing to worry about — You have radioactive material in fish, which is being eaten by people ...
Dr. Michael Harbut, director of the Environmental Cancer Program at Wayne State University’s Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit

“For somebody to say this is an immediate threat to large numbers of humans and their health is irresponsible,” Harbut said. “We don’t see people dying left and right all over the West Coast from radiation poisoning. But to say this is nothing to worry about is equally irresponsible, because you have radioactive material ingested by fish, which is in turn being eaten by people.”


Harbut is hardly an unbiased source. He is a known activist and anti-nuke person.



It took more as 1/2 year to bring these results in the open,all the time people ate tuna that had hot particles in them...



After Japan, the next hottest area is the Cascades, the Pacific Cascades
A lot of the radiation came across the Pacific and hit the mountains, hit the Rockies, and deposited on the west side of the Rockies
We’ve seen readings in the Portland areas of about 100 [becquerels/m²] disintegrations per second in a square meter of cesium 134 and 137




We’ll see over time a statistically meaningful increase in cancer on the west coast but I don’t think we’ll be able to compare by any means to what they got in Japan



Can you cite this from an unbiased academic source as opposed to a doctor with an avid anti-nuke agenda ?

[N7YA]

Admit it guys, this is just fun at this point, right? :-D

[PA5COR]

See the Greenpeace hits, just dishing them for being a group that comes with a different view as anti nukers?
Yes it does, they have the right to view and judge the articles and so can ban them from being published.

That is your interpretation...

See my same post lower from the Max Planck institute.


What reason isn't important, Chernobyl happened, just like stupidity and knowingly building Fukushima there with known faults ad tsunami's caused Fukushima to happen.
The next one will have another rason why it happens but the next meltdown is in the making.

Based on what proof ? academic proof please... just another statement made without reference you want to see from anyone but yourself.
Proof that the radiation isn't higher as the background radiation.

Death rates in Belarussia and the rest of the polluted Eu theater were produced, but since everything except the IAEA sources are deemed biased thrown out as it seems... that while the IAEA is the biassed one..



What is a "pro-nuker" ? Any one who isn;t part of Greenpeace or the "No-Nukes coalition" ?



Which in no way prevents the WHO from releasing information or reports..



This is anecdotal and isn;t based on any sound critieria other than the anti-nuke crowd.




Based on what study ? Cite the academic source that derived these results. Those who can do math (or have at least taken undergrad probability theory) understand that the probabilties cited by those organizations with an anti-nuke agenda are not probabilities based on hard data. They are speculative probabilities.



Citation from the unbiased academic source ?



And yet it hasn't happened in well over 50 years of operation. Chernobyl is a poor example as it was not an accident, it was a deliberate meltdown. Anyone with even a basic nuclear engineering degree could have prediced the results that occurred when you turn off all the reactors safety features and run it out of control. Not to mention the fact that it was a particularly dangerous design to begin with. And even then we haven't see the high death / illness rate due to contamination that was predicted. From Fukishima we learned that it is a good idea to put backup generators on higher ground if you live in a tsunami zone.



radiation levels which in most cases are no higher than normal background levels.



Where are the stats showing the extremely high death rates from Chernobyl and Fukishima ? It's been well over 20+ years since the Chernobyl accident, death rates should have skyrocketed across Europe and the USA and radiation levels should be through the roof by now, perhaps hundreds of times higher than the highest background levels.

[PA5COR]

It adds to your chance of getting cancer or changes to your DNA as many reputable scientists proved.

Chernobyl caused cancers and still does, and deaths, Fukushima will do the same.

So, anything an anti nuker says is automatically untrue even if it is the truth?

Why don't you disprove that statement with unbiassed academic proof?
All i read is anti nuke, biassed, but nothing from you that comes up with irrefutable academic evidence proving them wrong...




No radiation level is safe ? Then we should all be dead right now/



In which case we should be seeing massive increases in cancers and deaths in addition to the massive increases from Chernobyl.





Harbut is hardly an unbiased source. He is a known activist and anti-nuke person.



Can you cite this from an unbiased academic source as opposed to a doctor with an avid anti-nuke agenda ?

[N2RJ]

Read the linky it's all there.
As said, based on old too high prices.

They are build anyway....http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10419537-54.html

The prices are STILL high. OUr co-op built a 105kw installation at its offices. It used tons of money in taxpayer (federal and state grants) and ratepayer subsidies (not from cooperative members, thankfully). It's also recouping the cost by selling SRECs which is a nice way of saying cap and trade.

[PA5COR]

Nuclear economicsThis year, billionaire investment wizard Warren Buffett withdrew financial support for a US nuclear reactor in Idaho, killing the project. Why? Nuclear power is not economical.

A full accounting of nuclear power remains obscured by billions in public subsidy and still-uncertain costs of processing waste and decommissioning plants. Nevertheless, Amory Lovins and Imran Sheikh calculate a kilowatt-hour of electricity from a new nuclear power plant averages about 14 cents compared to a wind farm at 7 cents.

Even this calculation does not account for capital financing, security, waste disposal, insurance, or public health impacts.
No nuclear plant is insured, even with public guarantees, to the full cost of a Chernobyl scale accident, which becomes an unbudgeted liability on the public's balance sheet.
Nuclear power plants have a dismal safety record, featuring thousands of private, public, and military accidents up to the present day. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Kyshtym in Russia (1958), and Idaho Falls in the US (1955) were not anomalies, but simply the most dramatic accidents. The US Davis-Besse Reactor in Ohio has suffered four serious accidents since 1977. The latest, in 2002, followed George Bush era deregulation, allowing a delay in safety inspections. While the Bush team slept, boric acid ate six inches through a 6.5 inch pressure vessel head. A full breach could have caused core damage and full meltdown. The plant closed for two years to repair the damage, spending $600 million. Such costs plague the nuclear industry.

There is no business case for nuclear power except to socialise costs, privatise profits, and leave the garbage for future generations. In the US alone, 104 "private" nuclear power projects have received over $130 billion in taxpayer subsidies, over $1 billion per reactor. Billions more will be needed to solve the nuclear waste backlog.


Nuclear waste remains the untamed demon of nuclear power. After 40 years of research, not a single kilogram of high-level spent-fuel waste has been stored in a permanent repository. Deadly, radioactive plutonium has a half-life of 24,000 years. Some fuel has been reprocessed, itself a polluting industry, but three-quarters of the waste ever produced remains in temporary storage in 50 countries.


No one - corporations, politicians, or public - wants nuclear waste in their environment. In the 1980s, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced it would store waste in a cavern at Yucca Mountain, Nevada by 1998. This year, NRC spokesman Edward McGaffigan told the New York Times that the Nevada repository may not open for 20 years, if ever, due to technical problems, including allegedly fraudulent geological reports. Today, seven years after projecting a $58 billion cost, the NRC estimates a $96 billion cost, paid for by the public.
Over budget and two decades behind schedule, the US industry now finds itself with nuclear waste in storage in 121 temporary facilities, leaking and corroding, and presenting vulnerable targets and security risks.


After a 1972 London Dumping Convention ban, the UK, France, and others nations turned to secretly dumping radioactive waste into the Sea of Biscay from ships MV Topaz and Gem. In 1979, the first voyage of Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior confronted and exposed this illegal dumping, winning the new ban in the 1980s. BOOO HISSS anti nuke greenpeace BOO HISS!!


However, after the 2004 Tsunami, massive drums of toxic and radioactive waste washed up from the Indian Ocean onto 15 beaches in Somalia. Villagers, who attempted to open the containers, were killed, burned, and contaminated by the waste. We don't yet know if these drums came from France, the UK, the US, or elsewhere, but they represent the hidden cost of nuclear power dumped into the sea, a cost paid by the marine environment and the public.

[n2ize]

It adds to your chance of getting cancer or changes to your DNA as many reputable scientists proved.



Chernobyl caused cancers and still does, and deaths, Fukushima will do the same.

So, anything an anti nuker says is automatically untrue even if it is the truth?

No doubt there were deaths, the question is how many.Most reasonably unbiased sources estimate it to be in the thousands, perhaps 6000 although over a wide area no appreciable deviation with regards to the norm for cancer deaths. Some increases in thyroid cancer were seen in parts of Russia however, thyroid cancer is both preventable and highly treatable. if you cite the anti nuke sources they will say deaths in the "millions" but that is based on an assumption of a high probability that most cases of cancer post-Chernobyl are a result of Chernobyl. However, that assumption is flawed and, in some cases when taken to the extreme, as in all cancers post-Chernoby resulted from Chernobyl, are ridiculous.



Why don't you disprove that statement with unbiassed academic proof?
All i read is anti nuke, biassed, but nothing from you that comes up with irrefutable academic evidence proving them wrong...

You make claim you cite.

[n2ize]

Nuclear economics

This year, billionaire investment wizard Warren Buffett withdrew financial support for a US nuclear reactor in Idaho, killing the project. Why? Nuclear power is not economical.

A full accounting of nuclear power remains obscured by billions in public subsidy and still-uncertain costs of processing waste and decommissioning plants. Nevertheless, Amory Lovins and Imran Sheikh calculate a kilowatt-hour of electricity from a new nuclear power plant averages about 14 cents compared to a wind farm at 7 cents.

Even this calculation does not account for capital financing, security, waste disposal, insurance, or public health impacts.
No nuclear plant is insured, even with public guarantees, to the full cost of a Chernobyl scale accident, which becomes an unbudgeted liability on the public's balance sheet.
Nuclear power plants have a dismal safety record, featuring thousands of private, public, and military accidents up to the present day. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Kyshtym in Russia (1958), and Idaho Falls in the US (1955) were not anomalies, but simply the most dramatic accidents. The US Davis-Besse Reactor in Ohio has suffered four serious accidents since 1977. The latest, in 2002, followed George Bush era deregulation, allowing a delay in safety inspections. While the Bush team slept, boric acid ate six inches through a 6.5 inch pressure vessel head. A full breach could have caused core damage and full meltdown. The plant closed for two years to repair the damage, spending $600 million. Such costs plague the nuclear industry.

There is no business case for nuclear power except to socialise costs, privatise profits, and leave the garbage for future generations. In the US alone, 104 "private" nuclear power projects have received over $130 billion in taxpayer subsidies, over $1 billion per reactor. Billions more will be needed to solve the nuclear waste backlog.


Nuclear waste remains the untamed demon of nuclear power. After 40 years of research, not a single kilogram of high-level spent-fuel waste has been stored in a permanent repository. Deadly, radioactive plutonium has a half-life of 24,000 years. Some fuel has been reprocessed, itself a polluting industry, but three-quarters of the waste ever produced remains in temporary storage in 50 countries.


No one - corporations, politicians, or public - wants nuclear waste in their environment. In the 1980s, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced it would store waste in a cavern at Yucca Mountain, Nevada by 1998. This year, NRC spokesman Edward McGaffigan told the New York Times that the Nevada repository may not open for 20 years, if ever, due to technical problems, including allegedly fraudulent geological reports. Today, seven years after projecting a $58 billion cost, the NRC estimates a $96 billion cost, paid for by the public.
Over budget and two decades behind schedule, the US industry now finds itself with nuclear waste in storage in 121 temporary facilities, leaking and corroding, and presenting vulnerable targets and security risks.


After a 1972 London Dumping Convention ban, the UK, France, and others nations turned to secretly dumping radioactive waste into the Sea of Biscay from ships MV Topaz and Gem. In 1979, the first voyage of Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior confronted and exposed this illegal dumping, winning the new ban in the 1980s. BOOO HISSS anti nuke greenpeace BOO HISS!!


However, after the 2004 Tsunami, massive drums of toxic and radioactive waste washed up from the Indian Ocean onto 15 beaches in Somalia. Villagers, who attempted to open the containers, were killed, burned, and contaminated by the waste. We don't yet know if these drums came from France, the UK, the US, or elsewhere, but they represent the hidden cost of nuclear power dumped into the sea, a cost paid by the marine environment and the public.

You can thank the "No-Nukes" crowd and the NIMBY's for fighting against safe waste repositories. In the case of Yucca Mountain the majority of arguments against it came from people who live nowhere near the repository. So, while the "No-Nukers...man" crowd fights tooth and nail against safe respositories the waste material sits in storage pools.

You are aware that in addition to safe respositories there are also other ideas for safely dealing with atomic waste, such as reclaimation for other uses, etc.. Betcha the "No-Nukes" crowd will fight that too.

[N7YA]

Um , John, a whole bunch of us who live near it didnt want it.

[PA5COR]

The claim of 6000 deaths came from the IAEA with has the only interest in downplaying the effects of Chernobyl, hence just as valid as the reports from the government and doctors of Belarussia, which are more believable, certainly because they were documented and enough photograpic proof can be found on the net about that.

Just downplaying thyroid cancer and the operation and taking ,medicine all your life is a poor try here.
Don't forget the mentally handicapped, misbirth, grossly deformed births there still are and deaths.
I never claimed millions, but in total 600.000 is a good bet from all countries that got hit.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/news/2007/august/16080701.asp
Radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl disaster impaired the mental development of Swedish children that were still in the womb at the time of the incident. That's the conclusion of a new study by US-based researchers, showing that affected children went on to perform poorly at school. The findings suggest that infants are endangered by radiation exposure at levels previously thought to be safe.
Indeed, the radiation exposure of Swedish mothers reached a maximum dose of about 4 milliSieverts, perhaps twice the normal background level and within the 'safe' control range of the Japanese study.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4028729.stm
Martin Tondel, a researcher at Sweden's Linkoeping University who headed the study, said that, of 22,400 cancer cases, 849 could be statistically attributed to Chernobyl.
You disaprove of my statements so you better prove that with irrefutable academic proof.




No doubt there were deaths, the question is how many.Most reasonably unbiased sources estimate it to be in the thousands, perhaps 6000 although over a wide area no appreciable deviation with regards to the norm for cancer deaths. Some increases in thyroid cancer were seen in parts of Russia however, thyroid cancer is both preventable and highly treatable. if you cite the anti nuke sources they will say deaths in the "millions" but that is based on an assumption of a high probability that most cases of cancer post-Chernobyl are a result of Chernobyl. However, that assumption is flawed and, in some cases when taken to the extreme, as in all cancers post-Chernoby resulted from Chernobyl, are ridiculous.



You make claim you cite.

[N2RJ]

Nuclear economicsThis year, billionaire investment wizard Warren Buffett withdrew financial support for a US nuclear reactor in Idaho, killing the project. Why? Nuclear power is not economical.

Don't believe him. Anything "not economical" is likely not making him more money and he knows he can drain tax dollars with green energy projects. Buffett also opposes the keystone XL pipeline because it means less money for him shipping oil via CSX rail (and putting more CO2 and other pollutants in the air).

Nuclear power results in lower electric rates. 62% of our power is from the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station and our rates are the lowest in NJ. That's basically the reason. Buffett is a businessman. He wants the most profit, period.

[ad4mg]

Admit it guys, this is just fun at this point, right? :-D
Try posting while naked. You need to get their attention.

Don't sit on cheap plastic lawn furniture while doing so, however, unless you like a checkerboard pattern ironed into your ass... :lol:

[N7YA]

I have a big vinyl office chair. When i sit naked on it, then try to get up, im like a giant roll of duct tape.

[n2ize]

The claim of 6000 deaths came from the IAEA with has the only interest in downplaying the effects of Chernobyl, hence just as valid as the reports from the government and doctors of Belarussia, which are more believable, certainly because they were documented and enough photograpic proof can be found on the net about that.

Just downplaying thyroid cancer and the operation and taking ,medicine all your life is a poor try here.

No, you take iodine and even bif cancer arises thyroid cancers are 98% treatable.


Don't forget the mentally handicapped, misbirth, grossly deformed births there still are and deaths.
I never claimed millions, but in total 600.000 is a good bet from all countries that got hit.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/news/2007/august/16080701.asp
Radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl disaster impaired the mental development of Swedish children that were still in the womb at the time of the incident. That's the conclusion of a new study by US-based researchers, showing that affected children went on to perform poorly at school. The findings suggest that infants are endangered by radiation exposure at levels previously thought to be safe.
Indeed, the radiation exposure of Swedish mothers reached a maximum dose of about 4 milliSieverts, perhaps twice the normal background level and within the 'safe' control range of the Japanese study.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4028729.stm
Martin Tondel, a researcher at Sweden's Linkoeping University who headed the study, said that, of 22,400 cancer cases, 849 could be statistically attributed to Chernobyl.
You disaprove of my statements so you better prove that with irrefutable academic proof.

[/QUOTE]

A study by a group of anti-nuke economists claiming that radiation causes an entirely new ailment is hardly impressive. Cmon you can do better than that..


You disaprove of my statements so you better prove that with irrefutable academic proof.

You make the claims so you carry the burden of proof.

[n2ize]

Don't believe him. Anything "not economical" is likely not making him more money and he knows he can drain tax dollars with green energy projects. Buffett also opposes the keystone XL pipeline because it means less money for him shipping oil via CSX rail (and putting more CO2 and other pollutants in the air).

Nuclear power results in lower electric rates. 62% of our power is from the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station and our rates are the lowest in NJ. That's basically the reason. Buffett is a businessman. He wants the most profit, period.

Exactly. The economics is not an issue except when it comes to special interests, such as Buffet's

[N2RJ]

I have a big vinyl office chair. When i sit naked on it, then try to get up, im like a giant roll of duct tape.

Now *I* need brain bleach.

Thanks a lot. :lol:

[PA5COR]

Yuca mountain might more have to do with that falsified geological report me thinks,, less with the No-Nukers or Nimby's as you so eloquently state.
Having respect for other people with a different opinion is the first base of a good open discussion, name calling shows you already lost your case.

Before you start a new technology isn't it prudent to look for a good safe place to put your waste in? even after almost 70 years no safe place is available...

Depends, if the reclaiming comes with dangers that are in the same ballpark as the benefits are and peopole's lifes are risked at the same level now, i guess they might protest yes, as is their good right.

Up to today the technology is too expensive, dangerous, and waste stil is piled up close to the reactors and we all saw how that works in Fukushima, didn't we, not the brightest idea around....
Let alone speak of the taking down of the old plants, giving lots of radio active waste that also needs to find a safe place.
And is a waste of valuable material.





You can thank the "No-Nukes" crowd and the NIMBY's for fighting against safe waste repositories. In the case of Yucca Mountain the majority of arguments against it came from people who live nowhere near the repository. So, while the "No-Nukers...man" crowd fights tooth and nail against safe respositories the waste material sits in storage pools.

You are aware that in addition to safe respositories there are also other ideas for safely dealing with atomic waste, such as reclaimation for other uses, etc.. Betcha the "No-Nukes" crowd will fight that too.

[PA5COR]

Thanks to all subsidizing it is cheap yes, more as 1 billion per reactor...
Add that money to green renewable projects and see what your country could archieve, but mediocracy is now the new keyword is it?


Don't believe him. Anything "not economical" is likely not making him more money and he knows he can drain tax dollars with green energy projects. Buffett also opposes the keystone XL pipeline because it means less money for him shipping oil via CSX rail (and putting more CO2 and other pollutants in the air).

Nuclear power results in lower electric rates. 62% of our power is from the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station and our rates are the lowest in NJ. That's basically the reason. Buffett is a businessman. He wants the most profit, period.

[PA5COR]

Have you seen the pictures of the children and people that were operated on and had their thyroid gland removed, leaving them for the rest of their life with the Chernobyl "necklace"? as the scar is named? and taking medication the rest of your life?

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/images/2011/march/2011-0322thyroidectomy.jpg/image_preview


Your denial without further proof just calling other people ANti-Nukers lost your case.
You can do better as that come up with academic proof of unbiassed scientists i'm wrong.



No, you take iodine and even bif cancer arises thyroid cancers are 98% treatable.





A study by a group of anti-nuke economists claiming that radiation causes an entirely new ailment is hardly impressive. Cmon you can do better than that..



You make the claims so you carry the burden of proof.[/QUOTE]

[KC2UGV]

# KC2UGV

the issue, demolishing 103 plants times 300 million dollar, building new ones at 3 to 5 billion dollars all need government funding...
Prices will only rise so these estimates are low.
Nor the Government nor private or industry seems eager to finance that...

So, if nobody finances the construction of new ones, so be it. I'm ok with that.



What you consider nimby's or no nuke crowd has just as much their right to their opinion as you do, and the accidents seems to favour them in their opinion... reality is a bitch.


The problem being, both groups are just a vocal minority. Like the Tea Gaggers.




Already answered that minimum 200 x the background radiation of Washington DC to 100's times more, wind displaces soil containing radiation particles so one place relative low can change to high after a storm.

Really? Washington DC's background is 200 times higher all because of Chernobyl? Got a source for that one?



If the Russians thought it to be safe to reuse the very good agricultural soil again and people could go back safely to live there they would have done that already...


I don't grant the Russians too much leeway on figuring out things regarding nuclear anything. After all, they were the ones who caused Chernobyl, due to their idiocy.



Must be difficult to grasp the added level of radiation and internal and external radiation...

No, not difficult at all.



No radiation level is "safe" all added radiation is more risk to the individual, where he/she didn't ask for.

Really? None is safe, if the person didn't ask for it? So, when are you going to stop smoking, which adds to the background radiation for me?



Fukushima is still emitting large levels of their inventory to the sea, let's see how the tuna fare next year...or seaweed that was already over the norm in the USA.


Yes, let's. Because after almost a year, the radiation caused by Fukushima present in tuna is lower than the natural background radiation.


People die in Japan from the radiation now, and since there is some time needed to show the effets they don't die as fast as drowing in a tsunami...but they still will die from radiation...


Really? How many people are dying today from the Fukushima radiation? And, do you have a source for it?



soil samples from Tokyo should be considered nuke waste in the USA.

Why?



10,000,000 Bq/kg of cesium detected in Minamisoma soil sample -Local Official 200miles from the stricken reactors. etc.

That tuna story was about tuna catched in auguust 2011 almost a year back...the levels will be lots higher now.
Top Cancer Doctor: Irresponsible to say cesium in California bluefin tuna is nothing to worry about — You have radioactive material in fish, which is being eaten by people ...
Dr. Michael Harbut, director of the Environmental Cancer Program at Wayne State University’s Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit


There's always been radioactive material present in fish, that we eat, since we fish evolved from multi-cellular organisms. Nothing new.



“For somebody to say this is an immediate threat to large numbers of humans and their health is irresponsible,” Harbut said. “We don’t see people dying left and right all over the West Coast from radiation poisoning. But to say this is nothing to worry about is equally irresponsible, because you have radioactive material ingested by fish, which is in turn being eaten by people.”


Cor, you really, really, really, need to read this quote in it's entirety.



It took more as 1/2 year to bring these results in the open,all the time people ate tuna that had hot particles in them...



After Japan, the next hottest area is the Cascades, the Pacific Cascades
A lot of the radiation came across the Pacific and hit the mountains, hit the Rockies, and deposited on the west side of the Rockies
We’ve seen readings in the Portland areas of about 100 [becquerels/m²] disintegrations per second in a square meter of cesium 134 and 137




We’ll see over time a statistically meaningful increase in cancer on the west coast but I don’t think we’ll be able to compare by any means to what they got in Japan



Ok, so we have the increase in radiation. So, what effect does that have on us? Smoke detectors have 30,000 bq of radiation present in them.

[KC2UGV]

Rather than leaving Cor to find sources for the estimated deaths due to Fukushima, or leaving him to say it will be just as bad as Chernobyl, I have found three estimates.

0, 100, and 1000.

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=148227596

John Boice, a radiation expert at Vanderbilt University, estimates 0. I doubt that figure highly, even given his credentials.

http://www.ans.org/misc/FukushimaSpecialSession-Caracappa.pdf

Peter Caracappa, a doctorate in Nuclear Physics, estimates about 100.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2012/03/15/148703963/the-cost-of-fear-the-framing-of-a-fukushima-report

Frank von Hippel guesses 1000 deaths.

The amount of released radiation is 1/10 that of Chernobyl.

So, while this incident is in fact a catastrophe, let's put it into perspective: At the mid-range estimate (500), an approximation to this is a single 777 crash. Should we ban the flights of 777's? After all, crashes of aircraft occur more often than catastrophes like Fukushima.

[PA5COR]

Seems th public isn't in financing new ones...

Your interpretation, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2011/jun/23/nuclearpower-nuclear-waste The debate over nuclear energy is fiendishly complex, but one important factor is public opinion, and people in 24 nations across the world oppose it.
Reality is a bitch....


You asked about the remaining radio activety level of Chernobyl, good reading of the posts is a prerequisite of good understanding, comparing the radio acivety with the level of Washington DC as i stated quite clearly was just too difficult to grasp?


Russians had a few mishaps not just Chernobyl, just like your country had it's share of melting cores, and other accidents, http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html many involving fatalities.
Pointing fingers att the Russians while your's are just as dirty doesn't bolster your points.


Seemingly it is, since you don't diffrentiate between internal and external radiation....

So, when is the USA going to stop using nuclear energy and take care of the waste and clean up their act of the already hightened background radiation by nuclear testing and the rest?

The tuna tested was last year, lets see what happens this year, Fukushima is still an happening event, and all radiation is dangerous certainly internal radiation what you get eating tuna...

Get the reports from doctors in Fukushima and see how many die or are ill from radiation sickness.
Despite these life-threatening levels of radiation contamination, the majority of pregnant women and children in Fukushima have not been evacuated and they occupy facilities that are unsafe.

Because the levels of radio activety in these soil samples classifies them as nuclear waste measured to USA standards.

It's the added levels of hot radio active particles above the normal background radiation we already raised by dicking around playing with nuke bombs...

I did, and that is why i put it up, not scaremongering but making clear there is a clear and present danger from the added hot radio active particles.

Walking past a smoke detector or live in an area saturated with 3 times that amount you cannot hide for is a bit different, and there are different type's of smoke detectors to wich i can opt to use, i have no choice if i live in a saturated area other as move away.
Again total disregard of internal and external radiation...





So, if nobody finances the construction of new ones, so be it. I'm ok with that.



The problem being, both groups are just a vocal minority. Like the Tea Gaggers.



Really? Washington DC's background is 200 times higher all because of Chernobyl? Got a source for that one?



I don't grant the Russians too much leeway on figuring out things regarding nuclear anything. After all, they were the ones who caused Chernobyl, due to their idiocy.



No, not difficult at all.



Really? None is safe, if the person didn't ask for it? So, when are you going to stop smoking, which adds to the background radiation for me?



Yes, let's. Because after almost a year, the radiation caused by Fukushima present in tuna is lower than the natural background radiation.



Really? How many people are dying today from the Fukushima radiation? And, do you have a source for it?



Why?



There's always been radioactive material present in fish, that we eat, since we fish evolved from multi-cellular organisms. Nothing new.



Cor, you really, really, really, need to read this quote in it's entirety.



Ok, so we have the increase in radiation. So, what effect does that have on us? Smoke detectors have 30,000 bq of radiation present in them.

[KC2UGV]

Seems th public isn't in financing new ones...

Your interpretation, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2011/jun/23/nuclearpower-nuclear-waste The debate over nuclear energy is fiendishly complex, but one important factor is public opinion, and people in 24 nations across the world oppose it.
Reality is a bitch....


A majority of people, or just vocal minorities? Because, generally, what I see, are vocal minorities, with the vast majority not caring.



You asked about the remaining radio activety level of Chernobyl, good reading of the posts is a prerequisite of good understanding, comparing the radio acivety with the level of Washington DC as i stated quite clearly was just too difficult to grasp?


I asked a simple, scientific question; which required a simple, scientific response: How high is the radiation level in the areas surrounding Chernobyl. I did not ask how high is it in Washington, DC.



Russians had a few mishaps not just Chernobyl, just like your country had it's share of melting cores, and other accidents, http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html many involving fatalities.
Pointing fingers att the Russians while your's are just as dirty doesn't bolster your points.


Come on, Cor, you already cited that site once, and we've already taken that apart.

I mean, flushing 1/2 gallon of low-level radioactive waste down a toilet is somehow on par with Chernobyl? Are you familiar with the concept of "False Equivalency"?



Seemingly it is, since you don't diffrentiate between internal and external radiation....


So, since you are so well educated about the differences, please elaborate.



So, when is the USA going to stop using nuclear energy and take care of the waste and clean up their act of the already hightened background radiation by nuclear testing and the rest?


Once you provide the increase in risk of cancer due to radiation that is man-made. And, remember, everything being equal, everyone has an 80% chance of getting cancer in their lifetime, even if never exposed to radiation.



The tuna tested was last year, lets see what happens this year, Fukushima is still an happening event, and all radiation is dangerous certainly internal radiation what you get eating tuna...


Yes, let's see. I'm pretty sure you'll find a Greenpeace article talking about how 47 billion people have died due to Fukushima, as evidence by the total lung cancer deaths worldwide.



Get the reports from doctors in Fukushima and see how many die or are ill from radiation sickness.
Despite these life-threatening levels of radiation contamination, the majority of pregnant women and children in Fukushima have not been evacuated and they occupy facilities that are unsafe.


We have the reports, and the estimates are anywhere from 0 to 1000.



Because the levels of radio activety in these soil samples classifies them as nuclear waste measured to USA standards.


Says who?



It's the added levels of hot radio active particles above the normal background radiation we already raised by dicking around playing with nuke bombs...


Ok, I'll cede that. By how much? And, what is the increase in risk, due to it?



I did, and that is why i put it up, not scaremongering but making clear there is a clear and present danger from the added hot radio active particles.


But, the quote stated there is NOT a clear and present danger. Re-read it.



Walking past a smoke detector or live in an area saturated with 3 times that amount you cannot hide for is a bit different, and there are different type's of smoke detectors to wich i can opt to use, i have no choice if i live in a saturated area other as move away.
Again total disregard of internal and external radiation...

Radiation effect is both a level, and time dependent domain. If you are in an area 3 times the level for 30 minutes, but live in the area with 1/3 the level for your whole life, the latter is worse.

And, not sure if you knew, but radiation does in fact travel...

[N2RJ]

Have you seen the pictures of the children and people that were operated on and had their thyroid gland removed, leaving them for the rest of their life with the Chernobyl "necklace"? as the scar is named? and taking medication the rest of your life?

No sense arguing with you, Cor. You keep bringing up Chernobyl like it's even relevant.

[PA5COR]

It is relevant, whatever the cause nuclear accidents will cause suffering with ordinary people and deaths.


No sense arguing with you, Cor. You keep bringing up Chernobyl like it's even relevant.

[N2RJ]

It is relevant, whatever the cause nuclear accidents will cause suffering with ordinary people and deaths.

I guess we better ban electricity because it causes fires and kills people with electric shock, and ban cars because people are injured and killed.

[KC2UGV]

It is relevant, whatever the cause nuclear accidents will cause suffering with ordinary people and deaths.

Same with smoking. Same with airplane flights. Same with every endeavor by mankind. Should we halt all of mankind's endeavors?

[PA5COR]

Majority of the people is quite clear isn't it? what you see is what YOU want to see, not based on polls and voting from people wher the article was based on.

A simple comparison is just as fine, if you need all your info fed piecemeal ready for consumption do some work yourself, i didn't see any scientific academic accepted reports from you as well to disprove me.

You disproved of that site, what not automatically means all info is bad just because you don't agree with it.

Nice downplay of melting reactors to compare them to flushing some nuclear waste in the toilet. LOL


We've been there, done that and have the T shirt, read up there...


Ask that to the people that got cancer from those tests long before it was their time...or better, ask that to their remaining family.

You really want an answer on that? try to stay serious.

From the WHO in concert with the Japanese Government bent on reducing the damage together with TEPCO in damage control.. yep...


The USA standards that determine the classifcation on what and when something is classified as nuclear waste and needs to be handled like such.

http://home.comcast.net/~glenncheney/testing.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_Stat es


A warning not to relax and acknowledge the danger is a real warning.

I can chose wich type of detector i use, i cannot chose radio activety to pass me by from Chernobyl, atomic bomb tests or Fukushhima, or from an USA based nuke plant if that goes in meltdown mode...







KC2UGV


ow high is it in Washington, DC.



Come on, Cor, you already cited that site once, and we've already taken that apart.

I mean, flushing 1/2 gallon of low-level radioactive waste down a toilet is somehow on par with Chernobyl? Are you familiar with the concept of "False Equivalency"?



So, since you are so well educated about the differences, please elaborate.



Once you provide the increase in risk of cancer due to radiation that is man-made. And, remember, everything being equal, everyone has an 80% chance of getting cancer in their lifetime, even if never exposed to radiation.



Yes, let's see. I'm pretty sure you'll find a Greenpeace article talking about how 47 billion people have died due to Fukushima, as evidence by the total lung cancer deaths worldwide.



We have the reports, and the estimates are anywhere from 0 to 1000.



Says who?



Ok, I'll cede that. By how much? And, what is the increase in risk, due to it?



But, the quote stated there is NOT a clear and present danger. Re-read it.



Radiation effect is both a level, and time dependent domain. If you are in an area 3 times the level for 30 minutes, but live in the area with 1/3 the level for your whole life, the latter is worse.

And, not sure if you knew, but radiation does in fact travel...

[KC2UGV]

Majority of the people is quite clear isn't it? what you see is what YOU want to see, not based on polls and voting from people wher the article was based on.


No, it isn't "quite clear". Do you have a poll showing the majority of people do not want to use nuclear power here in the US?



A simple comparison is just as fine, if you need all your info fed piecemeal ready for consumption do some work yourself, i didn't see any scientific academic accepted reports from you as well to disprove me.


Disprove what? You've demonstrated nothing.



You disproved of that site, what not automatically means all info is bad just because you don't agree with it.


What site? You're not directly quoting anything, so I have no idea what the fsck you are referring to.



Nice downplay of melting reactors to compare them to flushing some nuclear waste in the toilet. LOL


Your list contained only a few examples of melting reactors; and a whole lot of other things tossed in there, like flushing half a gallon of radioactive waste down the toilet.



We've been there, done that and have the T shirt, read up there...


Been there, done what?



Ask that to the people that got cancer from those tests long before it was their time...or better, ask that to their remaining family.


Who got cancer from those tests? How many. Show us a reliable study done, giving us a figure. Was is 5? 10? 100?



You really want an answer on that? try to stay serious.


Yes, I do. What is the increase in risk, from the baseline, due to man-made radiation.



From the WHO in concert with the Japanese Government bent on reducing the damage together with TEPCO in damage control.. yep...


Sorry. Nobody I've cited here is with either the WHO or the Japanese government.



The USA standards that determine the classifcation on what and when something is classified as nuclear waste and needs to be handled like such.

http://home.comcast.net/~glenncheney/testing.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_Stat es


Comcast? Really? How about OSHA? Or, ISO?

And what is the unethical human experimentation link for?



A warning not to relax and acknowledge the danger is a real warning.


Nobody is saying we should relax anything. You, however, are claiming there is a clear and present danger; however, the source you cited for that statement states the exact opposite.



I can chose wich type of detector i use, i cannot chose radio activety to pass me by from Chernobyl, atomic bomb tests or Fukushhima, or from an USA based nuke plant if that goes in meltdown mode...

And, I can not choose radioactivity passed to me by your smoking either. And, you can not choose to set the risk level for airplanes crashing into your house, either.

[PA5COR]

Tepco estimaes the release of Ceasium 4 times higher as Chernobyl.
From the horses mouth themselves...
latest TEPCO (http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/tags/tepco/) estimates of the amount of radioactive fallout released from the Fukushima (http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/tags/fukushima/) nuclear plant in Japan since the March 11th disaster now puts the level of Cesium (http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/tags/cesium/) 137 released into to the atmosphere 4.23 times higher than the amount released from Chernobyl (http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/tags/chernobyl/).
The estimates only include levels of Cesium-137 and Iodine-131 released into the atmosphere and does not include the amount of radiation released into the water (http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/04/05/tons-radioactive-fukushima-water-spills-pacific-ocean-113941/).

no estimates for the amount of radioactivity contained in water sprayed onto the reactors that has ran off into the Pacific and no estimates for the amount of other radioactive substances released from Fukushima, such as Telerium, Xenon, Strontium, Uranium, and Plutonium and other isotopes of Cesium and Iodine .

Nice try of misinformation and remember it is an ongoing event still adding up.

From your link:
The National Resources Defense Council made clear in its report that its calculation of 100 deaths is based on inadequate information. They noted they did not calculate deaths that could occur from ingesting hot particles (ie, contamination from within). They also noted that the estimate of 100 deaths is for *two weeks only*, March 14, 2011 to April 5, 2011. Not only that, but they did not include the FUKUSHIMA or MIYAGI prefectures in their calculations. It's really dishonest of Mr. Harris to suggest that the NRDC's estimate is "high end" and call attention to their note that it's impossible to tell if people stood outside or inside---and not disclose the other particluars about their report; for exmaple, that it only covers two weeks, and excludes radiation from within (because radioactive particles get breathed, eaten and absorbed through pores).
The NRDC's paper is here. http://docs.nrdc.org/nuclear/files/nuc_11041301a.pdf
The other part of the entire discussion on the health impacts of radiation is the difficulty in tracing cause and effect. Just because the relationship is difficult to trace does not mean it does not exist. Witness the explosion of cancers since nuclear technology arrived on planet earth.

Let's hope fuel pool 4 dangling in the air doesn't come crumbling down, then all bets are off.
Scientific experts believe Japan’s nuclear disaster to be far worse than governments are revealing to the public.

Independent scientists have been monitoring the locations of radioactive “hot spots” around Japan, and their findings are disconcerting.
“We have 20 nuclear cores exposed, the fuel pools have several cores each, that is 20 times the potential to be released than Chernobyl,” said Gundersen. “The data I’m seeing shows that we are finding hot spots further away than we had from Chernobyl, and the amount of radiation in many of them was the amount that caused areas to be declared no-man’s-land for Chernobyl. We are seeing square kilometres being found 60 to 70 kilometres away from the reactor. You can’t clean all this up. We still have radioactive wild boar in Germany, 30 years after Chernobyl.”
And that is the core of the cover up, Government and Tepco affraid of telling the truth and cause panic if people know what hit them.
So, please exxplain how your "experts"come to maximum 1000 deaths while 6000 were claimed from Chernobyl where only 1/4 of the radiation was released?
And the radiation of Fukushima is over a much larger area like in Tokyo 200 Km's away?


“We are discovering hot particles everywhere in Japan (http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/06/13/japan-seattle-people-breathing-virtually-undetectable-hot-radiation-particles-26641/), even in Tokyo,” he said. “Scientists are finding these everywhere. Over the last 90 days these hot particles have continued to fall and are being deposited in high concentrations. A lot of people are picking these up in car engine air filters.”
Radioactive air filters from cars in Fukushima prefecture and Tokyo are now common, and Gundersen says his sources are finding radioactive air filters in the greater Seattle area of the US as well (http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/06/13/japan-seattle-people-breathing-virtually-undetectable-hot-radiation-particles-26641/).
The hot particles on them can eventually lead to cancer.












Rather than leaving Cor to find sources for the estimated deaths due to Fukushima, or leaving him to say it will be just as bad as Chernobyl, I have found three estimates.

0, 100, and 1000.

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=148227596

John Boice, a radiation expert at Vanderbilt University, estimates 0. I doubt that figure highly, even given his credentials.

http://www.ans.org/misc/FukushimaSpecialSession-Caracappa.pdf

Peter Caracappa, a doctorate in Nuclear Physics, estimates about 100.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2012/03/15/148703963/the-cost-of-fear-the-framing-of-a-fukushima-report

Frank von Hippel guesses 1000 deaths.

The amount of released radiation is 1/10 that of Chernobyl.

So, while this incident is in fact a catastrophe, let's put it into perspective: At the mid-range estimate (500), an approximation to this is a single 777 crash. Should we ban the flights of 777's? After all, crashes of aircraft occur more often than catastrophes like Fukushima.

[KC2UGV]

Tepco estimaes the release of Ceasium 4 times higher as Chernobyl.
From the horses mouth themselves...
latest TEPCO (http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/tags/tepco/) estimates of the amount of radioactive fallout released from the Fukushima (http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/tags/fukushima/) nuclear plant in Japan since the March 11th disaster now puts the level of Cesium (http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/tags/cesium/) 137 released into to the atmosphere 4.23 times higher than the amount released from Chernobyl (http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/tags/chernobyl/).
The estimates only include levels of Cesium-137 and Iodine-131 released into the atmosphere and does not include the amount of radiation released into the water (http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/04/05/tons-radioactive-fukushima-water-spills-pacific-ocean-113941/).

...

“We are discovering hot particles everywhere in Japan (http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/06/13/japan-seattle-people-breathing-virtually-undetectable-hot-radiation-particles-26641/), even in Tokyo,” he said. “Scientists are finding these everywhere. Over the last 90 days these hot particles have continued to fall and are being deposited in high concentrations. A lot of people are picking these up in car engine air filters.”
Radioactive air filters from cars in Fukushima prefecture and Tokyo are now common, and Gundersen says his sources are finding radioactive air filters in the greater Seattle area of the US as well (http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/06/13/japan-seattle-people-breathing-virtually-undetectable-hot-radiation-particles-26641/).
The hot particles on them can eventually lead to cancer.

Got something other than a blog? Like, I don't know, a peer-reviewed paper?

[n2ize]

“We are discovering hot particles everywhere in Japan (http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/06/13/japan-seattle-people-breathing-virtually-undetectable-hot-radiation-particles-26641/), even in Tokyo,” he said. “Scientists are finding these everywhere. Over the last 90 days these hot particles have continued to fall and are being deposited in high concentrations. A lot of people are picking these up in car engine air filters.”
Radioactive air filters from cars in Fukushima prefecture and Tokyo are now common, and Gundersen says his sources are finding radioactive air filters in the greater Seattle area of the US as well (http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/06/13/japan-seattle-people-breathing-virtually-undetectable-hot-radiation-particles-26641/).
The hot particles on them can eventually lead to cancer.

No surprise, there have been "hot particles" everywhere. They have been around long before any kind of man made bomb or reactor.

[PA5COR]

You know like TEPCO admitted that they had their figures wrong and now admitted the truth?
Use the Google fu for TEPCO and find it.

You lack peer reviewed sources as well, that come up with crap. see above.


Got something other than a blog? Like, I don't know, a peer-reviewed paper?

[PA5COR]

Yes all came from Fukushima too i suppose?
ADDED hot particles not normally in the background radiation.
For some simple to grasp, for others a very difficult task to understand...



No surprise, there have been "hot particles" everywhere. They have been around long before any kind of man made bomb or reactor.

[KC2UGV]

You know like TEPCO admitted that they had their figures wrong and now admitted the truth?
Use the Google fu for TEPCO and find it.


You are making the claim. You have to prove it.



You lack peer reviewed sources as well, that come up with crap. see above.

I posted a peer reviewed source, which states about 100 deaths. I also posted a nuclear physicists "guess" of 1000. You've posted nothing but blogs and anti-nuke groups (Which are obviously biased, and whose "reports" are easily refuted).

So, answer the burning question on my mind for the past 8 months or so, that I've already asked you: What is the increase in risk for humans due to man-made sources of radiation?

[KC2UGV]

Yes all came from Fukushima too i suppose?
ADDED hot particles not normally in the background radiation.
For some simple to grasp, for others a very difficult task to understand...

Your source did not state that. It stated they have found "hot particles".

"Hot particles" have existed since the Big Bang.

And, at what levels were these "hot particles"? In the Tuna samples, they were lower than the background.

[PA5COR]

You posted from sources that according to you were absolutely right, which they weren't, as i proved from that same source.
Fail.

Ask the families and people effected by it, the new Fukushima "necklace" victims or the relatives of the dead.




You are making the claim. You have to prove it.



I posted a peer reviewed source, which states about 100 deaths. I also posted a nuclear physicists "guess" of 1000. You've posted nothing but blogs and anti-nuke groups (Which are obviously biased, and whose "reports" are easily refuted).

So, answer the burning question on my mind for the past 8 months or so, that I've already asked you: What is the increase in risk for humans due to man-made sources of radiation?

[PA5COR]

The source stated hot particles with the signature of Fukushima.

Japan finally releases a nuclear radiation survey that reveals that 45% of Fukushima children had sustained thyroid radiation exposure by the end of March. Despite government attempts to downplay the survey results the data shows that at least 1 in 20 children will develop thyroid cancer.

An indication of the severity of the radiation exposure can be derived from a Kyodo news article which reports (http://enenews.com/45-kids-fukushima-survey-thyroid-exposure-radiation-50-millisieverts-year-equivalent-1-year) that Japan has finally released the results of a radiation survey conducted over 2 months ago by the central government and several local government located within the Fukushima Prefecture. According to the article, the study revelead that 45% of the children surveyed in the Fukushima prefecture had already suffered thyroid radiation exposure by the time the survey was completed at the end of March. The survey found levels up to an equivalent of a 50 millisieverts per year of thyriod radiation exposure for 1 year olds. To put that in perspective, the US has an annual radiation exposure limit (http://forums.hamisland.net/2011/04/15/japan-nuclear-radiation-san-francisco-milk-exceeds-infant-dose-3-gallons-17531/) of 4 millisieverts per year in drinking water for adults.


Nuclear apologists will be quick to say this is all hysteria and turn to their common talking points such as “show me one person who has become sick or has died from Fukushima radiation.” Even though it is well known it can take up to 20 years after radiation exposure (http://www.thyroid.org/patients/patient_brochures/childhood.html) to develop cancer they stick to such cleverly constructed tricks which easily deceive the majority of the masses who are have not yet been equipped with the knowledge required to counter their propaganda. Yet we all know that statistics are easily manipulated and the endless funds of the nuclear industry twists and turns those statistics until they are stretched beyond the limits of our imagination. This is clearly evidence by nuclear industry studies from the Chernobyl disaster which claim only 6,000 people have died from the disaster. Such numbers are not surprising since increased levels of cancers in areas with elevated levels of radiation cannot be definitively tied to the radiation exposures and any studies claiming there is such a correlation can easily be discounted as relying on circumstantial or anecdotal evidence which is far short of scientific proof. Such a reality means radiation statistics lend themselves to easy manipulation by the industry even when our intuition tells us over 1 million statistically significant cancer related deaths in the areas of the Chernobyl fallout our were due to the radiation exposure. Making matters worse is most modern statistical correlations between radiation exposure and cancer rates are extrapolated from the limited and uncontrolled data sets that have been compiled from data collected on the nuclear fallout that was released from the atomic bombs being released on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Even with nuclear radiation being detected at levels 4 times higher than Chernobyl evacuation limits (http://forums.hamisland.net/2011/06/11/japan-no-evacuation-for-4-new-areas-with-radiation-levels-4-times-higher-than-chernobyl-limits-over-50-km-from-fukushima-26031/), in areas far beyond the Fukushima evacuation zone, Japan still refuses to evacuate those areas. Once again a decision that can only be explained by the desire to limit TEPCO’s liability and to protect the nuclear industry. Indeed the nation of Japan, along with other nations around the world, continue to bow down before the one’s they serve. They continue to downplay the crisis by withholding radiation data (http://forums.hamisland.net/2011/06/11/japan-no-evacuation-for-4-new-areas-with-radiation-levels-4-times-higher-than-chernobyl-limits-over-50-km-from-fukushima-26031/), censoring the release (http://forums.hamisland.net/2011/06/10/japan-orders-tea-company-post-radiation-results-online-25111/) of tests, and participating in widespread conspiracies to cover up the incident. Even more shocking, perhaps, is even after there participation in the cover up has been revealed (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.alexanderhiggins.com%2F2011% 2F07%2F03%2Fguardian-leaked-emails-reveal-government-conspiracy-downplay-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-32731%2F&rct=j&q=fukushima%20conspiracy%20gua) to the public the unspeakable actions continues.
Now we know that not only is Japan forcing taxpayers pay (http://forums.hamisland.net/2011/03/29/japan-citizens-pay-bill-tepcos-nuclear-radioactive-fallout-12147/) to clean up TEPCO’s mess financially, but taxpayers are also being forced to pay by sacrificing their health, safety and in fact their lives. Welcome to the new millennium and the era of the corporate dictatorship.







Your source did not state that. It stated they have found "hot particles".

"Hot particles" have existed since the Big Bang.

And, at what levels were these "hot particles"? In the Tuna samples, they were lower than the background.

[KC2UGV]

Sigh.

Get back at me when you have something substantive Cor. Like, something peer reviewed.

[PA5COR]

Same for you M8.

[KC2UGV]

Same for you M8.

I've already done so. You, however, have posted naught but blogs, and obviously biased "reports".

I posted a peer reviewed study that estimates 100 will die due to radiation from Fukushima. I also posted a "guess" given by a nuclear physicist of 1000. I've also posted another nuclear scientist's guess of 0.

You have posted nothing but blogs.

[PA5COR]

Read my post about your failed reviewed study about 100 deaths....hogwash.
My peer reviewed studies weren't good enough for you, neither are your's.

Fact:“IAEA today admitted there is no such thing as ‘safe’ levels of radiation” — Allowable radiation standard based on ‘benefit’, not safety (http://enenews.com/iaea-today-admitted-there-is-no-such-thing-as-safe-levels-of-radiation-allowable-radiation-standard-based-on-benefit-not-safety)

The World Health Organization is in the news today as it ‘weighs in’ on Fukushima (http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/05/world-health-organization-weighs-in-on-fukushima.html).
Here’s some background on the WHO and affiliated organizations:




Intro – Children’s perspective
2:30 – Agreement between IAEA and WHO – WHO cannot research health effects of radiation or effects of nuclear accidents if IAEA does not agree
7:00 – Former head of WHO admits they answer to IAEA
14:00 – Chernobyl had no effect -UN
15:45 – Scientist refutes UN
27:30 – 200km from Chernobyl, 10,000 becquerels measured inside child
30:20 – According to Professor Yury Bandazhevsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yury_Bandazhevsky) (former director of the Medical Institute in Gomel), Over 50 Bq/kg of body weight lead to irreversible lesions in vital organs
30:50 – *MUST SEE* Refutes internal radiation! -Norman Gentner (http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/about_us/bio_n-gentner.html), Secretary of UN UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation), ~2001 (See Gentner speak at 13:55 — No increase in leukemia, even among liquidators)
34:15 – *MUST SEE* Internal or external it makes no difference!
45:20 – Internal lesions
49:25 – Now only 20 out of 100 considered healthy, before it was 80 out of 100
Keep your eye out for Chris Busby at 35:30 and 38:40


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8746168177815160826#



Three years ago, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s research mission visited the contaminated areas. ( Chernobyl)

Dr. Shigematsu [Japanese], chairman of the mission, announced “there are no health damages among the residents.” [...]
Mr. Hirokawa, after looking at your video, I wonder what it was that IAEA announced there were no health damages among the residents. [...]
The local people believed a fair research would be done, because IAEA is an agency of the United Nations and a medical scientist from Hiroshima would lead the research. So, they were astounded that the mission had announced the areas were safe.
But, didn’t the mission actually see the situation there?

Well, according to the local doctors, the mission members didn’t enter the heavily-contaminated areas.

Besides, they brought their food, sourced from far away, and didn’t eat anything local.

Still, they declared it’s safe. No wonder the local people are infuriated.
If the mission found local food too dangerous to eat, they should have said it’s dangerous.
The very credibility of the International Atomic Energy Agency is seriously challenged, isn’t it?
Yes. I hear that when the nuclear industry of the former USSR started to do business with the nuclear industry of the US, they probably agreed that downplaying the damages by the accident would be beneficial for both sides.


More on the IAEA: Bloomberg exposes IAEA: Safety division is a "marketing channel" for nuclear technology, reveals secret US docs (http://enenews.com/bloomberg-exposes-conflicted-iaea-safety-division-is-a-marketing-channel-for-nuclear-technology-reveals-secret-us-docs)


Japan TV: “Truly terrible things emerged several years after the accident” at Chernobyl — 7,800 times more childhood thyroid cancer than average in town 70 km away — IAEA Exposed (VIDEO) (http://enenews.com/japan-tv-truly-terrible-things-emerged-several-years-after-the-accident-at-chernobyl-7800-times-more-childhood-thyroid-cancer-than-average-in-town-70-km-away-iaea-exposed-video) November 29, 2011


US gov’t map shows radioactive particles took direct route to Tokyo after Reactor No. 3 exploded (http://enenews.com/us-govt-map-shows-radioactive-particles-took-direct-route-to-tokyo-on-march-15-2011)


Keith Baverstock – World Health Organisation and IAEA – April 9th 2011, part1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQZr8jbiGH0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQZr8jbiGH0)
[Keith Baverstock, PhD, a graduate of London University, led the Radiation Protection Programme at the World Health Organisation's Regional Office for Europe from 1991 to 2003. His critical views of the management and conduct of the Committee, particularly in its failure to make proper use of science and its lack of adherence to the Code of Conduct in Public Life, resulted in his dismissal. video by http://www.tekknorg.wordpress.com (http://www.tekknorg.wordpress.com/) – more information: http://www.chernobylcongress.org/speakers/artikel/2cc0de2cee21dc8506748b53a7d.. (http://www.chernobylcongress.org/speakers/artikel/2cc0de2cee21dc8506748b53a7d..). – HERE is the IPPNW footage of his speech: http://vimeo.com/22981871 (http://vimeo.com/22981871)

http://www.fairewinds.org/content/tokyo-soil-samples-would-be-considered-nuclear-waste-us

While traveling in Japan several weeks ago, Fairewinds’ Arnie Gundersen took soil samples in Tokyo public parks, playgrounds, and rooftop gardens. All the samples would be considered nuclear waste if found here in the US. This level of contamination is currently being discovered throughout Japan. At the US NRC Regulatory Information Conference in Washington, DC March 13 to March 15, the NRC's Chairman, Dr. Gregory Jaczko emphasized his concern that the NRC and the nuclear industry presently do not consider the costs of mass evacuations and radioactive contamination in their cost benefit analysis used to license nuclear power plants. Furthermore, Fairewinds believes that evacuation costs near a US nuclear plant could easily exceed one trillion dollars and contaminated land would be uninhabitable for generations.

http://enenews.com/california-nuclear-professor-radioactive-tuna-may-raise-cancer-risks-video

A nuclear lecturer says the low levels of radioactivity found in tuna caught near San Diego can produce a small increase in cancer risks.
Daniel Hirsch, lecturer on nuclear policy at the University of California, is concerned about the radioactive tuna caught in August last year that reportedly swam from Japan.

[N7YA]

:lol:

Close...we were close. The posts got short, then BAM!

[n2ize]

Read my post about your failed reviewed study about 100 deaths....hogwash.
My peer reviewed studies weren't good enough for you, neither are your's.

Fact:“IAEA today admitted there is no such thing as ‘safe’ levels of radiation” — Allowable radiation standard based on ‘benefit’, not safety (http://enenews.com/iaea-today-admitted-there-is-no-such-thing-as-safe-levels-of-radiation-allowable-radiation-standard-based-on-benefit-not-safety)

The World Health Organization is in the news today as it ‘weighs in’ on Fukushima (http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/05/world-health-organization-weighs-in-on-fukushima.html).
Here’s some background on the WHO and affiliated organizations:




Intro – Children’s perspective
2:30 – Agreement between IAEA and WHO – WHO cannot research health effects of radiation or effects of nuclear accidents if IAEA does not agree
7:00 – Former head of WHO admits they answer to IAEA
14:00 – Chernobyl had no effect -UN
15:45 – Scientist refutes UN
27:30 – 200km from Chernobyl, 10,000 becquerels measured inside child
30:20 – According to Professor Yury Bandazhevsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yury_Bandazhevsky) (former director of the Medical Institute in Gomel), Over 50 Bq/kg of body weight lead to irreversible lesions in vital organs
30:50 – *MUST SEE* Refutes internal radiation! -Norman Gentner (http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/about_us/bio_n-gentner.html), Secretary of UN UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation), ~2001 (See Gentner speak at 13:55 — No increase in leukemia, even among liquidators)
34:15 – *MUST SEE* Internal or external it makes no difference!
45:20 – Internal lesions
49:25 – Now only 20 out of 100 considered healthy, before it was 80 out of 100
Keep your eye out for Chris Busby at 35:30 and 38:40


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8746168177815160826#



Three years ago, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s research mission visited the contaminated areas. ( Chernobyl)

Dr. Shigematsu [Japanese], chairman of the mission, announced “there are no health damages among the residents.” [...]
Mr. Hirokawa, after looking at your video, I wonder what it was that IAEA announced there were no health damages among the residents. [...]
The local people believed a fair research would be done, because IAEA is an agency of the United Nations and a medical scientist from Hiroshima would lead the research. So, they were astounded that the mission had announced the areas were safe.
But, didn’t the mission actually see the situation there?

Well, according to the local doctors, the mission members didn’t enter the heavily-contaminated areas.

Besides, they brought their food, sourced from far away, and didn’t eat anything local.

Still, they declared it’s safe. No wonder the local people are infuriated.
If the mission found local food too dangerous to eat, they should have said it’s dangerous.
The very credibility of the International Atomic Energy Agency is seriously challenged, isn’t it?
Yes. I hear that when the nuclear industry of the former USSR started to do business with the nuclear industry of the US, they probably agreed that downplaying the damages by the accident would be beneficial for both sides.


More on the IAEA: Bloomberg exposes IAEA: Safety division is a "marketing channel" for nuclear technology, reveals secret US docs (http://enenews.com/bloomberg-exposes-conflicted-iaea-safety-division-is-a-marketing-channel-for-nuclear-technology-reveals-secret-us-docs)


Japan TV: “Truly terrible things emerged several years after the accident” at Chernobyl — 7,800 times more childhood thyroid cancer than average in town 70 km away — IAEA Exposed (VIDEO) (http://enenews.com/japan-tv-truly-terrible-things-emerged-several-years-after-the-accident-at-chernobyl-7800-times-more-childhood-thyroid-cancer-than-average-in-town-70-km-away-iaea-exposed-video) November 29, 2011


US gov’t map shows radioactive particles took direct route to Tokyo after Reactor No. 3 exploded (http://enenews.com/us-govt-map-shows-radioactive-particles-took-direct-route-to-tokyo-on-march-15-2011)


Keith Baverstock – World Health Organisation and IAEA – April 9th 2011, part1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQZr8jbiGH0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQZr8jbiGH0)
[Keith Baverstock, PhD, a graduate of London University, led the Radiation Protection Programme at the World Health Organisation's Regional Office for Europe from 1991 to 2003. His critical views of the management and conduct of the Committee, particularly in its failure to make proper use of science and its lack of adherence to the Code of Conduct in Public Life, resulted in his dismissal. video by http://www.tekknorg.wordpress.com (http://www.tekknorg.wordpress.com/) – more information: http://www.chernobylcongress.org/speakers/artikel/2cc0de2cee21dc8506748b53a7d.. (http://www.chernobylcongress.org/speakers/artikel/2cc0de2cee21dc8506748b53a7d..). – HERE is the IPPNW footage of his speech: http://vimeo.com/22981871 (http://vimeo.com/22981871)

http://www.fairewinds.org/content/tokyo-soil-samples-would-be-considered-nuclear-waste-us

While traveling in Japan several weeks ago, Fairewinds’ Arnie Gundersen took soil samples in Tokyo public parks, playgrounds, and rooftop gardens. All the samples would be considered nuclear waste if found here in the US. This level of contamination is currently being discovered throughout Japan. At the US NRC Regulatory Information Conference in Washington, DC March 13 to March 15, the NRC's Chairman, Dr. Gregory Jaczko emphasized his concern that the NRC and the nuclear industry presently do not consider the costs of mass evacuations and radioactive contamination in their cost benefit analysis used to license nuclear power plants. Furthermore, Fairewinds believes that evacuation costs near a US nuclear plant could easily exceed one trillion dollars and contaminated land would be uninhabitable for generations.

http://enenews.com/california-nuclear-professor-radioactive-tuna-may-raise-cancer-risks-video

A nuclear lecturer says the low levels of radioactivity found in tuna caught near San Diego can produce a small increase in cancer risks.
Daniel Hirsch, lecturer on nuclear policy at the University of California, is concerned about the radioactive tuna caught in August last year that reportedly swam from Japan.

None of these are unbiased peer reviewed academic sources.

[KC2UGV]

:lol:

Close...we were close. The posts got short, then BAM!

Yeah, I'm done with this. Until I see some quantitative data, there is nothing else to discuss (For me at least).

[n2ize]

Fact:“IAEA today admitted there is no such thing as ‘safe’ levels of radiation” — Allowable radiation standard based on ‘benefit’, not safety (http://enenews.com/iaea-today-admitted-there-is-no-such-thing-as-safe-levels-of-radiation-allowable-radiation-standard-based-on-benefit-not-safety)

Of course because the word "safe" in the context of nuclear radiation is not an absolute term. It is a probability term. By the same token there is no safe level of tobacco smoke because the chemicals in one single tiny smoke particle from someone else's tobacco could come in contact with a cell in someones lunk and can potentially induce a cancerous mutation which could end up killing the person. There is no such thing as a safe automobile because anytime a person rides in one there is a potential for a fatal accident. There is no such thing as a safe airliner because any time a person flies in one there is a probability that it may crash killing the person. There is no such thing as safe food because there is always a potential that doods may contain bacteria or toxins that can prove fatal if ingested, regardless of how carefully it is prepared. There is no such thing as a safe home. matter of fact in an absolute sense almost nothing is safe !!


So then how can anyone claim these things are safe ? They can because "safe" is taken as a measure of probability. Yes, a single alpha or beta particle impinging on a single cell may induce a fatal cancer. But the probability that it will is extremely low. Thus we deem certain levels of radioactivity to be "safe"... safe as a measure of probability that is. We are constantly exposed to natural background radiation. We inhale it we ingest it daily. yet the probability it will kill us at those levels is quite low. Thus we deem natural background levels to be safe. If such we not the case and there was no safe level in the context of probability then the probability of dying from a single alpha particle would be 100% and the population of the earth would be zero. We would all be long gone.

[PA5COR]

We're discussing heating up water in the most stupid way to make steam to produce electical energy.
Looking at rhe risks if things go wrong and the cost involved and large area's of land for centuries uninhabitable, too much risk.
Ask the Japanese when the full effect of the disaster comes out and the cost to their people and economy.

The amount of ADDED radio active particles to the background radiation is the key, we cannot stop background radiation, we can stop taking horrendous risks with a technology that has proved time and time again to go terribly wrong.

Enough data produced, from scientists and reputable institutions, but keep hammering "it does not fit in my little world, so i deny it;s importance"


Have fun all ;)

[KC2UGV]

Enough data produced, from scientists and reputable institutions, but keep hammering "it does not fit in my little world, so i deny it;s importance"


Can you show us this data produced by reputable institutions? Because, as of yet; you haven't.

[PA5COR]

Max Planck institute for a start?
WHat reputable sources outside the WHO and IAEA you produce? ;)

[KC2UGV]

Max Planck institute for a start?
WHat reputable sources outside the WHO and IAEA you produce? ;)

http://www.ans.org/misc/FukushimaSpecialSession-Caracappa.pdf

For starters...

However, it is YOU who are making the claim that all radiation is dangerous, and we should never be exposed to a level over 0. So, it is up to YOU to prove your point.

All I need to do is poke holes in the statements you make.

[PA5COR]

Poke holes with irrefutable proof then if you want to put that standard upon someone else obide by it too.

The IAEA themselves have stated that all radiation is dangerous.
See thread above.

Come up with a report published on June 28 2011 with data from before that date? weak, this is still an ongoing event, and the data for releasd radio isotopes and noble gasses have been corrected upwards by the TEPCO as stated above in my posts, so the study you come up with is based on old faulty data.

[NQ6U]

I love the smell of free neutrons in the morning.

[PA5COR]

I rather smell the fresh ground coffee running ;)

[n2ize]

Poke holes with irrefutable proof then if you want to put that standard upon someone else obide by it too.

The IAEA themselves have stated that all radiation is dangerous.
See thread above.

I don't think anyone ever denied that radiation can be dangerous. Did you read what I wrote about safe levels as a measure of probability. Few things in life are absolute and in "yes/no", "safe/unsafe",etc. Probability was invented to help us to try and answer questions for which there is/was no absolute answer. The vast majority of thinggs we decide upon in real life as based on probability as opposed to absolutes. Even an intuitive sense of probability tells us a lot more than an absolute which cannot be determined. . There is no absolute measure of safety with tobacco. One single puff of a cigarette only once may cause fatal cancer. But the probability is extremely low so we deem it safe to take one puff. There is no such thing as a safe commercial airliner, it is possible to be killed on any given flight. But the probability of a catastrophie is low enough where we consider air travel to be safe. A single alpha particle or burst of gamma radiation may be enough to induce a fatal cancer. So yes, in a purely absolute sense there is no safe level. Even normal background radiation may kill you. But the probability is very low so, we generally consider it safe..


Come up with a report published on June 28 2011 with data from before that date? weak, this is still an ongoing event, and the data for releasd radio isotopes and noble gasses have been corrected upwards by the TEPCO as stated above in my posts, so the study you come up with is based on old faulty data.

These were not unbiased peer reviewed academic reports.

[N2RJ]

I rather smell the fresh ground coffee running ;)

Along with cadmium, arsenic and lead? (used to make solar cells)

[PA5COR]

These were not unbiased peer reviewed academic reports

And wrong to be quoted for old data as well, putting the bomb under the peer reciewed reports isn't it?



Along with cadmium, arsenic and lead? (used to make solar cells)

I don't grind solar cells in my coffee ;)