or Connect
VeggieBoards › Forums › General Discussion Forums › The Compost Heap › Nuclear power
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Nuclear power - Page 8

post #211 of 413
Global nuclear summit to open as North Korea's rocket launch looms - The Mainichi Daily News
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree/...17442078364035
ramsss.com
Reply
ramsss.com
Reply
post #212 of 413
The only reason to target nuclear is that "radiation" is a scary word to most people.

Sadly, a better target is probably a form of renewable energy - just look up Banqiao. 26,000 dead.
post #213 of 413
Tokyo Soil Samples Would Be Considered Nuclear Waste In The US
http://fairewinds.com/content/tokyo-...clear-waste-us
ramsss.com
Reply
ramsss.com
Reply
post #214 of 413
Please don't associate dam as hydroelectricity to blame.

The main purpose of building dam is trying to save people's lives in case of flooding.
ramsss.com
Reply
ramsss.com
Reply
post #215 of 413
There's plenty of dams which are hydroelectrical in nature. As well as dams whose primary purpose is irrigation.
post #216 of 413
>> A dark side of solar power

It is the way of production that causes the problem. There are companies cut production cost and adopt production methods that will pollute the environment. But there are good companies as well as bad companies.

http://www.greenpeace.org/hk/news/st...y-development/
sorry, Chinese language only.

Floating Windmills in Japan Help Wind Down Nuclear Power: Energy
http://www.facebook.com/renewableene...75193542502050

>> Roscoe Wind Farm in Texas. It has less than a fifth of Fukushima-I's capacity, and covers 100,000 acres.

Wind farm do not have to claim exclusive land use.
You can use the same area for many other purposes at the same time.
Only limited by your imagination.

Nuclear Power Plant is relatively smaller, but they claim exclusive land use.
Nuclear Power Plant large surounding area cannot turn into a high populated city or town. And the land use surounding the plant is greatly limited. The land area limited in develop potential is a great opportunity cost.
Total land area including (surounding area) is huge !

>> Piqua Nuclear Generating Station

The Piqua facility was built and operated between 1963 and 1966 as a demonstration project by the Atomic Energy Commission.

http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree

Worst Alternative Energy Sources Receive Most Attention
http://www.naturalnews.com/025592_po...rbon_fuel.html

Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy [Paperback]
Arjun Makhijani (Author)
http://amzn.to/hiKr83
download PDF
http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/Carbo...uclearFree.pdf
ramsss.com
Reply
ramsss.com
Reply
post #217 of 413
Those "estimates" that you talk about are a joke. Those estimates are a lie. Those estimates are based on faulty data that is regarding external fast dose exposures and have absolutely no bearing on the reality. MILLIONS will die because of Fukushima. Over a million have already died from Chernobyl. Alexey Yablokov is a very good place to start.
post #218 of 413
They cannot hope to evacuate the 30 million in Tokyo, so they do what they know best: they lie through their teeth. And they BURN the radioactive waste which is putting it right back into the atmosphere.
post #219 of 413
Obviously you know little to next to nothing about this subject. Radiation is a scary thing, not a scary word.
post #220 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic Lies View Post

Those "estimates" that you talk about are a joke. Those estimates are a lie. Those estimates are based on faulty data that is regarding external fast dose exposures and have absolutely no bearing on the reality. MILLIONS will die because of Fukushima. Over a million have already died from Chernobyl. Alexey Yablokov is a very good place to start.

Saying "millions will die" from Chernobyl seems to be relying on risky evidence.

It's like saying a veg*n diet will kill "millions". You'll find people who will claim it, but unless you're biased against veg*nism, you don't accept it without questioning.
post #221 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic Lies View Post

Radiation is a scary thing, not a scary word.

We are bombarded by radiation every moment of our lives. We use radiation in everything we do in our lives. We could not live without radiation.

Radiation in and of itself is not a scary thing, though people are generally concerned with ionizing radiation.
I believe everything.
Reply
I believe everything.
Reply
post #222 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by nogardsram View Post

We are bombarded by radiation every moment of our lives. We use radiation in everything we do in our lives. We could not live without radiation.

Radiation in and of itself is not a scary thing, though people are generally concerned with ionizing radiation.

thats funny coming from you!
* This post may contain pork, beef and fingers of undocumented workers. This post was manufactured in a facility that processes peanuts.
Reply
* This post may contain pork, beef and fingers of undocumented workers. This post was manufactured in a facility that processes peanuts.
Reply
post #223 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by nogardsram View Post

Radiation in and of itself is not a scary thing, though people are generally concerned with ionizing radiation.

Yep. Although people should be more concerned about high amounts of ionizing radiation, especially radioactive isotopes biological organisms tend to accumulate.
post #224 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by otomik View Post

thats funny coming from you!



Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

Yep. Although people should be more concerned about high amounts of ionizing radiation, especially radioactive isotopes biological organisms tend to accumulate.

Agreed.

I'm just bothered by the over concern with a work due to not fully understanding the meaning (in this case 'radiation'). I understand that in normal conversation people use the term 'radiation' to refer to 'ionizing radiation' (or at least that is what they are concerned about). Yet, I've had many conversations with people concerned that microwaves, since they use 'radiation' (and they usually bring up "that's why they call it 'nuking it'"), are cancer causing since 'radiation' is dangerous. Further they hear that cel phones use microwave 'radiation' and therefore cause cancer just as if it were uranium or some such line of thinking.
I believe everything.
Reply
I believe everything.
Reply
post #225 of 413
Japan shut down its last nuclear power plant (for routine maintenance) recently. Here's a link.

Quote:
Since the Fukushima disaster, all the country's reactors have been shut down for routine maintenance. They must withstand tests against earthquakes and tsunamis, and local authorities must give their consent in order for plants to restart.

So far, none have.

Two reactors at the Ohi plant in western Japan have been declared safe. The government says they should be restarted to combat looming shortages.

However, regional authorities would still have to give their approval.

So, no risk of nuclear meltdown now. Hope it's worth the cost of not meeting their greenhouse gas emission targets, as well as dependence on foreign fossil fuels. But hey, it's not like global warming or wars over resources are a realistic possibility in the future...
post #226 of 413
Fukushima reactor No. 4 vulnerable to catastrophic collapse; could unleash 85 times Cesium-137 radiation of Chernobyl; human civilization on the brink
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree/...10062402446439

Fukushima reactor 4 requires urgent intervention; coalition calls for emergency UN action to halt catastrophic release of radiation
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree/...68205283275619
ramsss.com
Reply
ramsss.com
Reply
post #227 of 413
I've been keeping up on Fukushima's #4 lately and wanted to post some news on it when I had the chance. The nuclear power apologists may keep defending all of this up until #4 topples and causes some major catastrophe... or maybe they'll just keep ignoring the problems even after that point... >_>

http://nuclearcrimes.org/
Fear is simply the consequence of the acceptance of ignorance; reject ignorance and accept knowledge-- with knowledge all fears are relinquished and the light of truth within shines through to guide your path.
Reply
Fear is simply the consequence of the acceptance of ignorance; reject ignorance and accept knowledge-- with knowledge all fears are relinquished and the light of truth within shines through to guide your path.
Reply
post #228 of 413
"Nuclearcrimes.org". Huh. No bias warning bells going off for you?

Not even when they blame radiation for the increase in autism rates?
post #229 of 413
Were you outraged??
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree/...24779630874588
-----------
THE WASHINGTON POST Phasing out nuclear
By Editorial Board, Monday, April 23, 2012, 9:49 AM
ramsss.com
Reply
ramsss.com
Reply
post #230 of 413
Interesting that the "were you outraged" article completely neglects the Washington Post's editorial point about nuclear power being a useful tool to reduce climate-change emissions.

I guess that global warming is no longer a problem worth considering.

ETA: I dug through the "rebuttal" document. Interesting mix of cherry-picking of facts and wishful thinking. I wonder if some of the writers worked for TEPCO before.
post #231 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savvington View Post

I'd rather live next to a nuclear powerplant that may someday kill me than a coal powerplant that will work on it slowly for years. Especially if we're using Japan as an example. I mean what, I might have a slightly higher chance of death in the disaster that takes out the powerplant? I'd be more worried about whatever that was than the plant itself. It's probably a fair bit stronger than my theoretical house.

Me too. However the chance of harm from a natural "disaster" that damages a nuclear powerplant, is much higher than if there is no nuclear power plant that is damaged. And death is not the only form of potential harm from nuclear energy. It should be possible to design powerplants that is nearly impervious to serious damage from any natural disaster, except some large earthquakes and tsunamis and floods. I don't like the idea of building nuclear power plant in an earthquake prone area, or near the sea shore, or in a flood-prone area. We all know where they are. Building plants that are impervious to hurricanes, tornados, shouldn't be hard. That leaves human-made disasters to worry about, such as airplanes crashing into nuclear power plants, missles fired at them, bombs dropped on them from above, people starting fires in them.

However more than harm from a malfunctioning nuclear power plant, I am concerned about harm from nuclear waste storage. And a natural disaster has the potential not only to damage a nuclear power plant, but to damage a nuclear waste storage facility.

Again - I am more concerned about constant accumulation of useless nuclear waste, than nuclear power plants. It just accumulates and accumulates.
post #232 of 413
Regardless of what we do, the Earth will live on despite what us puny humans do to it. It may take many millenia, but given enough time the Earth will correct itself and recover from our destructive ways long after we are gone. Even the most non-biodegradable substances will eventually degrade over time and in hindsight we humans will just be a small blip on the timeline. I'm all for nuclear power by the way, in case you didn't infer that yet.
post #233 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by soilman View Post

Me too. However the chance of harm from a natural "disaster" that damages a nuclear powerplant, is much higher than if there is no nuclear power plant that is damaged.

Depends. The worst "green" energy disaster that I can think of has a death toll of 170,000 people.

Quote:
Again - I am more concerned about constant accumulation of useless nuclear waste, than nuclear power plants. It just accumulates and accumulates.

IIRC, the Japanese reprocess, which is far better than the US's once-through nuclear cycle.

It would be nice if the United States would figure out how to build a nuclear waste repository. It's amazing. We have the technology that should store waste safely for as long as radioactivity should be a danger, and the solutions fail because of politics. Yet if someone wants a new landfill where countless tons of waste are separated from the groundwater by a thin plastic liner, there's no problem.
post #234 of 413
A Primer in the Art of Deception The Cult of Nuclearists,
Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science
by Paul Zimmerman 2009
http://www.facebook.com/nuclearfree/...36417953148820
ramsss.com
Reply
ramsss.com
Reply
post #235 of 413
Nuclear stuff sucks.
post #236 of 413
I'm totally against Nuclear power. Aside from all of the other problems with it, I recently learned that it isn't even cost effective.

http://upon2020.com/2011/03/what-is-...-power-plants/
post #237 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by delicioso View Post

I'm totally against Nuclear power. Aside from all of the other problems with it, I recently learned that it isn't even cost effective.

http://upon2020.com/2011/03/what-is-...-power-plants/

Yes. Agree.
post #238 of 413
Nuclear Energy is very expensive (take account of all cost) .
Funny thing is Governments believe in nuclear industry promoters it is the cheapest form of energy and radiation is safe.

And they put this concept into all school textbooks and TV propaganda ads using tax payers' money.

Both corruption and ignorant.
ramsss.com
Reply
ramsss.com
Reply
post #239 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by delicioso View Post

I recently learned that it isn't even cost effective.

http://upon2020.com/2011/03/what-is-...-power-plants/

Quote:
There are other definitions of “complex system”, but this is mine: no one person can understand all aspects of it.

thanks for your input ted kaczynski!
* This post may contain pork, beef and fingers of undocumented workers. This post was manufactured in a facility that processes peanuts.
Reply
* This post may contain pork, beef and fingers of undocumented workers. This post was manufactured in a facility that processes peanuts.
Reply
post #240 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by otomik View Post

thanks for your input ted kaczynski!

I'm enjoying that link. After all, take a wind turbine. According to the author, it must be a complex system, since nobody can tell you all the aspects of the system. The metallurgists who came up with the metals used in the motor can't tell you about the plastics that were used in the motor.

And, as the author points out, we can't understand how complex systems will fail. Before I read this, I thought a failing wind turbine might catch on fire, or disintegrate, or worse-case scenario, cause a failure cascade on the power grid. But since wind turbines are a complex system, according to the author, we can't tell what will happen next if they fail. So presumably, a failing wind turbine could summon Cthulhu. I'm not sure about you, but I'd rather not be driven mad by an elder god summoned from his watery tomb. Would you? We better shut down all wind farms now.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Compost Heap
VeggieBoards › Forums › General Discussion Forums › The Compost Heap › Nuclear power