Attachment 5930Quote:
Originally Posted by suddenseer
Printable View
Attachment 5930Quote:
Originally Posted by suddenseer
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On May 28, 1959, WHO drew up an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, never rescinded wherein they unequivocally granted the right of prior approval over any research it might undertake or report on to the IAEA, who serves to advocate for the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’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, 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.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by PA5COR
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..Quote:
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.''
This is anecdotal and isn;t based on any sound critieria other than the anti-nuke crowd.Quote:
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?)
Quote:
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.
Citation from the unbiased academic source ?Quote:
...Catastrophic nuclear accidents such as the core meltdowns in Chernobyl and Fukushima are more likely to happen than previously assumed.
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.Quote:
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?
radiation levels which in most cases are no higher than normal background levels.Quote:
In an unusually stark warning, Japan’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, 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.”
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.Quote:
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.”
No radiation level is safe ? Then we should all be dead right now/Quote:
Originally Posted by PA5COR
In which case we should be seeing massive increases in cancers and deaths in addition to the massive increases from Chernobyl.Quote:
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...
Harbut is hardly an unbiased source. He is a known activist and anti-nuke person.Quote:
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.”
Can you cite this from an unbiased academic source as opposed to a doctor with an avid anti-nuke agenda ?Quote:
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/mē] 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
Admit it guys, this is just fun at this point, right? :-D
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..
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by n2ize
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PA5COR
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PA5COR
You make claim you cite.Quote:
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...