It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Westinghouse Europe President - Nuclear is the safest of all energy alternatives

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Westinghouse Europe President - Nuclear is the safest of all energy alternatives


news.sky.com

Breaking on sky news, Westinghouse Eurpoe President Anders Jackson has stated that Nuclear is the safest of all energy alternatives.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I cannot believe that someone would actually believe this let alone state it publicy. Nuclear energy is by far the most dangerous. How many other alternatives has the capability to mutate Human DNA? What kind of a person could even dream of saying something so utterly repulsive? Probably a person who has invested great amounts of money into this particular source of energy and now sees that investment going down the swanny.

It's painfully obvious that we need to look beyond Nuclear energy and all efforts should now be made to move away from these timebombs and seriously look at all alternatives. So all scientists around the world who specialise in this particular field need to unite and work towards clean energy fast, otherwise we could well face major rationing of electricity as a form of energy.

news.sky.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Cobaltic1978
 


Replace the word "Safest" with "cheapest"



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
There has been free energy devices out there since the 50's...BUT, we will never get to use them till TPTB are taken down and all disclosed....



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by alldaylong
 


I agree wholeheartedly with that friend. I thought I was seeing things initially, but no, he has said 'safest'.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Nuclear energy is the safest until a tsunami destroys your generators and cooling pumps. Then it becomes apocalyptic and ELE level nightmares threatening with enough radiation to coat the planet 1000x over, make uninhabitable vast stretches of land for over 160,000 years. Not to mention you can't store the waste anywhere because it's nasty as hell so just store it on sight for 40 years +

So as long as no tsunamis, earthquakes, power-outages, leaks, wars and general mishaps it's totally safe! Not like loosing the entire Northern Hemisphere is something to worry about, we still have the south and quite likely enough radiation will soak the planet that no one will be here to care in 10 years.

Have fun ATS... it's been fun up until someone popped the nuclear Apocalypse genie out of the bottle.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
So I guess he hasn't heard about the nuclear crisis in Japan has he?

Maybe whenever he get's a head ache he has the nurses cut a small incision into his scalp to drain away the demons in his head.

What I said and what he said are on par with each other as far as insanity goes.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
westinghouse tricked nicola tessla into giving all his brilliant ideas(afteredison before him) to him for comercial gain and now years down the line executivess of the same corperation want to wring out the last bit of capitalism gain before all of us learn that all the money in the world wont absorb radiation that we cant eat stocks and shares and there is no space in the acountants ledger book for compasion decency or humumility



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Thats an insane thing to say. its safe? i guess thats why people have to be evacuated and hte lland uninhabittal hugh..
what about solar or wind? seems harmless to me.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Nuclear power is hardly dangerous. Other technologies have adverse effects on the environment: hydroelectric dams destroy ecosystems and flood plains by creating artificial lakes, for example. Fossil fuels.. they speak for themselves.

The output from coal plants is far more radioactive than the waste from nuclear plants

Coal Ash is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste

Never mind the coal particulates that decimate workers lungs

You also have to look back at the disaster of last year, Deepwater Horizon. That had a far greater impact on the world than this non-event. Yet people still love to over hype anything nuclear related

A lot of people are also comparing this event to Chernobyl; they are wrong. Chernobyl was caused by human error. They had fail safe mechanisms in the plant. They turned off the said fail safe mechanisms for the routine daily checks. Chernobyl also used graphite in its moderator units (bearing in mind, graphite is explosive [no one uses graphite any more]). Chernobyl didn't even have a containment vessel!! It's not hard to see why Chernobyl happened.
edit on 17/3/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Glad to see it said. Coal kills more people and puts more radioactivity in the air every year than total nuclear power total ever



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
These are typically the kinds of people who tell you smoking is safe, or mercury, or aspartame, or GMO foods... all safe because they are lobbyist for big corporations who themselves are not safe, and are killing our planet and ultimately us.

In there world, the word Safe really means deadly. They have become vastly confused with the lust of power.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Griffo
 


But my question would be, is Nuclear safer than solar power? Safer than Wind Power? Maybe more productive, but not safer. Therefore this man's statement is totally false, a BIG fail. Peace.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Griffo
 


Coal
Most coal contains uranium and thorium, as well as potassium-40, lead-210, and radium-226. The total levels are generally about the same as in other rocks of the Earth's crust. Most emerge from a power plant in the light flyash, which is fused and chemically stable. Some 99% of flyash is typically retained in a modern power station (only 90% in some older ones), and this is buried in an ash dam. Some is sold for making concrete.

The amounts of radionuclides involved are noteworthy. In Victoria, Australia, 65 million tonnes of brown coal is burned annually for electricity production. This contains about 1.6 ppm uranium (U) and 3.0-3.5 ppm thorium (Th), hence about 100 tonnes of uranium and 200 tonnes of thorium is buried in landfills each year in the Latrobe Valley. Australia exports 235 Mt/yr of coal with 1 to 2 ppm U and about 3.5 ppm Th (Dale & Lavrencic 1993) in it, hence up to 400 tonnes of uranium and about 800 tonnes of thorium could conceivably be added to published export figures.

Other coals are quoted as ranging up to 25 ppm U and 80 ppm Th. In the USA, ash from coal-fired power plants contains on average 1.3 ppm of uranium and 3.2 ppm of thorium, giving rise to 1200 tonnes of uranium and 3000 tonnes of thorium in ash each year (for 955 million tonnes of coal used for power generation). Applying these concentration figures to world coal consumption for power generation (7800 Mt/yr) gives 10,000 tonnes of uranium and 25,000 tonnes of thorium per year.

It is evident that even at 1 ppm U in coal there is more energy in the contained uranium (if it were to be used in a fast breeder reactor) than in the coal itself. At 25 ppm U and used in a conventional reactor it would be half as much as the coal.

The actual radioactivity levels are not great. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) estimated that average concentrations in coal worldwide were 50 Bq/kg K-40 and 20 Bq/kg each U & Th, though Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) puts Australian figures at average 830 Bq/kg total radioactivity, related to 1.8 ppm U and 7 ppm Th in the coal, contrasted with some 1400 Bq/kg average in the Earth's crust. The U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) figures give 174 Bq/kg average total radioactivity in US coal. Cooper (2003) gives 100-600 Bq/kg range for New South Wales (NSW) coals and Misha (2004) 145 Bq/kg average in Indian coal.

UNSCEAR (1993) gives 3645 Bq/kg average in flyash. The above US data at 15% ash give 1200 Bq/kg in flyash. Dale (1996) quotes CSIRO figures of 2630 and 3200 Bq/kg from a high-ash NSW coal. Cooper (2003) gives up to 1500 Bq/kg for flyash and up to 570 Bq/kg for bottom ash in NSW. There are obvious implications for the use of flyash in concrete, and the data also may be compared with levels of 1.0 or 3.7 MBq/kg sometimes taken as threshold levels for classifying material as low-level radioactive waste, or with 25 MBq/kg for uranium metal.

With increased uranium prices the uranium in ash becomes significant economically. In the 1960s and 1970s, some 1100 tU was recovered from coal ash in USA. In 2007 China National Nuclear Corp commissioned Sparton Resources of Canada with the Beijing No.5 Testing Institute to undertake advanced trials on leaching uranium from coal ash out of the Xiaolongtang power station in central Yunnan. It and two nearby power stations use lignite with high ash content (20-30%) and very high uranium content, from a single open-cut mine. The coal uranium content varies from about 20 to 315 ppm and averages about 65 ppm. The ash averages about 210 ppm U (0.021%U) - above the cut-off level for some uranium mines. The power station ash heap contains over 1000 tU, with annual arisings of 190 tU. (Recovery of this by acid leaching is about 70%.) Sparton also has an agreement to extract uranium from coal ash following germanium recovery in the Bangmai and Mengwang basins in Yunnan. This ash ranges from 150 to over 4000 ppm U (0.40 %U), averaging 250 ppm U (0.025%). Then Sparton was commissioned by WildHorse Energy to assess the potential for recovering uranium from European coal ash having 80 - 135 ppm U.

Mineral Sands
Mineral sands, mined chiefly for titanium minerals and zircon, often have a significant proportion of monazite, a rare earth mineral containing thorium and other elements of economic significance. The minerals in the sands are subject to gravity concentration, and some concentrates are significantly radioactive, up to 4000 Bq/kg. Dust control in mineral sand plants is the main means of limiting radiation doses to personnel.

Radioactivity in Australian mineral sands (Bq/g)

Thorium Uranium
ore 0.02-0.3 0.03-0.12
concentrate 0.3-3 0-0.8
Ilmenite, rutile 0.2-2 0-0.6
Zircon 0.6-1.2 1-4
Monazite 40-250 6-30

Tantalum concentrate
Tantalum ores, often derived from pegmatites, comprise a wide variety of more than one hundred minerals, some of which contain uranium and/or thorium. Hence, the mined ore and its concentrate contain both these and their decay products in their crystal lattice. Concentration of the tantalum minerals is generally by gravity methods (as with mineral sands), so the lattice-bound radioisotope impurities, if present, will report with the concentrate.

While this has little radiological significance in the processing plant, concentrates shipped to customers sometimes exceed the Transport Code threshold of 10 kBq/kg, requiring declaration and some special documentation, labeling and handling procedures. Some reache 75 kBq/kg.

Phosphates
Phosphate rock used in the production of fertilizer is a major source of naturally-occurring radioactive materials (NORM), containing uranium and thorium. Australian phosphate rock contains up to 900 Bq/kg and imported sources contain about twice this, yielding about 1000 Bq/kg in phosphogypsum waste streams and up to 3000 Bq/kg in the superphosphate product. In the U.S., some 50 million tonnes per year are produced and state figures average up to 10,000 Bq/kg of total radioactivity. Processing this sometimes gives rise to measurable doses of radioactivity to people. Phosphate rocks containing up to 120 ppm U have been used as a source of uranium as byproduct – some 17,000 tU in USA, and are likely to be so again.

European fertilizer manufacturing gave rise to discharges of phophogypsum containing significant quantities of radium-226, lead-210 and polonium-210 into the North Sea and North Atlantic. This has been overtaken by offshore oil and natural gas production in Norwegian and UK waters releasing some 10 TBq/yr of radium-226, radium-228, and lead-210—contributing 90% of alpha-active discharges in those waters (two orders of magnitude more than the nuclear industry, and with this NORM having higher radiotoxicity).

Oil and Gas production
In the oil and natural gas industry, radium-226 (Ra-226) and lead-210 (Pb-210) are deposited as scale in pipes and equipment. If the scale has an activity of 30,000 Bq/kg it is 'contaminated' (Victoria, Australia regulations). This means that for Ra-226 scale (decay series of 9 progeny) the level of Ra-226 itself is 3300 Bq/kg. For Pb-210 scale (decay series of 3) the level is 10,000 Bq/kg. These figures refer to the scale, not the overall mass of pipes or other material (cf Recycling, below). Published data (quoted in Cooper 2003) show radionuclide concentrations in scale of up to 300,000 Bq/kg for Pb-210, 250,000 Bq/kg for Ra-226 and 100,000 Bq/kg for Ra-228. In Cooper 2005, the latter two maxima are 100,000 and 40,000 respectively.

Other solid NORM
Building materials can contain elevated levels of radionuclides including radium-226, thorium-232 and potassium-40, the last being most significant in published Australian data, ranging up to 4000 Bq/kg in natural stone and 1600 Bq/kg in clay bricks and concrete. Bricks can also contain up to 2200 Bq/kg of Ra-226 (Cooper 2005).

In smelting iron ore, lead-210 and polonium-210 accumulate in dust from smelter and sinter plant operations, in the latter case to 34,000 Bq/kg at Port Kembla, Australia.

Granite, widely used as a cladding on city buildings and also architecturally in homes, contains an average of 3 ppm (40 Bq/kg) uranium and 17 ppm (70 Bq/kg) thorium. Radiation measurements on granite surfaces can show levels similar to those from low-grade uranium mine tailings.

Radon
Radium-226 is one of the decay products of uranium-238, a uranium isotope widespread in most rocks and soils. When this radium decays it produces radon-222, an inert gas with a half-life of almost 4 days. Radium-224 is a decay product of thorium, and it decays to radon-220, also known as thoron, with a 54-second half-life. Because radon is so short-lived, and alpha-decays to a number of daughter products which are solid and very short-lived, there is a high probability of its decay when breathed in, or when radon daughter products in dust are breathed in. This is a problem because alpha particles in the lung are hazardous to human health.

Radon levels in the air range from about 4 to 20 Bq/m3. Indoor radon levels have attracted a lot of interest since the 1970s. In the US they average about 55 Bq/m3, with an EPA action level of 150 Bq/m3. Levels in Scandinavian homes are about double the US average, and those in Australian homes average one-fifth of those in US. Levels up to 100,000 Bq/m3 have been measured in US homes. In caves open to the public, levels of up to 25,000 Bq/m3 have been measured.

Radon also occurs in natural gas at up to 37,000 Bq/m3, but by the time the product reaches consumers, the radon has largely decayed. However, the solid decay products then contaminate gas processing plants, and this manifestation of NORM is an occupational health issue.

Recycling and NORM
Scrap steel from gas plants may be recycled if it has less than 500,000 Bq/kg (0.5 MBq/kg) radioactivity (the exemption level). This level, however, is one thousand times higher than the clearance level for recycled material (both seel and concrete) from the nuclear industry. Anything above 500 Bq/kg may not be cleared from regulatory control for recycling.

Decommissioning experts are increasingly concerned about double standards developing in Europe, where 30 times the dose rate from non-nuclear recycled materials than from those out of the nuclear industry is allowed. Norway and Holland are the only countries with consistent standards. Elsewhere, a 0.3 to 1.0 mSv/yr individual dose constraint is applied to oil and natual gas recyclables, and 0.01 mSv/yr for release of materials with the same kind of radiation from the nuclear industry.

The main radionuclide in scrap from the oil and gas industry is radium-226 (Ra-226), with a half-life of 1600 years as it decays to radon. Those in nuclear industry scrap are cobalt-60 and caesium-137, with much shorter half-lives. Application of a 0.3 mSv/yr dose limit results in a clearance level for Ra-226 of 500 Bq/kg, compared with 10 Bq/kg for nuclear material.

The concern arises because of the very large amounts of Tenorm (technologically-enhanced NORM) needing recycling or disposal from many sources. The largest Tenorm waste stream is coal ash, with 280 million tonnes arising globally each year, and carrying uranium-238 and all its non-gaseous decay products, as well as thorium-232 and its progeny. This waste is usually just buried; however, the double standard means that the same radionuclide, at the same concentration, can either be sent to deep disposal or released for use in building materials, depending on where it comes from. The 0.3 mSv/yr dose limit is still only one-tenth of most natural background levels, and two orders of magnitude lower than those experienced naturally by many people, who suffer no apparent ill effects
however there is no mention of man made radoactive materil including plutonium which causes many human cancers also coal ash tends to be burried where as the release of radiation from nuclear plant accidents become air bourne and therfore more widly distributed
ps its uranium 236 which is more reactive which is being released at the japanese plant allong with plutonium which is extremly detrimental to humans and easly absorbed through the resparitory system os please forgive my spelling i am slightly dislexic



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978

Westinghouse Europe President - Nuclear is the safest of all energy alternatives


news.sky.com

Breaking on sky news, Westinghouse Eurpoe President Anders Jackson has stated that Nuclear is the safest of all energy alternatives.
(visit the link for the full news article)



Yea that wind power is so deadly.....OMG no Solar power is killing everyone !!!! Damn that blasted Water and it's never ending renewable source....It's so deadly and dangerous....

I mean seriously.....somebody must have threatened him or his family to get him to say some BS like that.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caji316
There has been free energy devices out there since the 50's...BUT, we will never get to use them till TPTB are taken down and all disclosed....


This assertion is often made on the Boards, but no one has been able to ever point me in the direction of the evidence. The lack of evidence for "free energy devices" is telling. If there's no evidence then it is made up.

To topic. I agree. I think nuclear is the answer to reducing carbon. It is safe if managed properly and although none of us know the facts or the consequences of the events in Japan, we can all see that what has happened has been an unprecedented natural disaster. There’s a lot of scaremongering, but the consensus is that this is not another Chernobyl.

As was pointed out on another thread, nuclear leads to remarkably little harm. How many Chinese miners are killed every year in feeding the coal power stations – indeed, how many miners and oil workers die every year across the world? How many lives are blighted by pollution from fossil fuels and not to mention noisy, unsightly and subsidised wind farms.

Regards



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by satire111
westinghouse tricked nicola tessla into giving all his brilliant ideas(afteredison before him) to him for comercial gain and...


Wrong, Westinghouse took in Nikolai after Edison stabbed him in the back following Wardencliff and gave him the funding he needed for other projects.

Indeed, years later Westinghouse nearly went bankrupt if were not for NT generously agreeing to relinquished his patents and royalty's in recognition for their earlier patronage to him!

The nuclear power industry employs many people and it's a construction workers dream ticket for constant, high-paying work. These solar and wind alternatives are ok and I'm down with them, BUT they aren't good for workers as they employ miniscule numbers compared with nuclear....

I hate the bad vibes and catastrophe from Japan, but I hate even more the bs 'Nuclear power must be stopped in the world' bandwagon that's getting rolling now.
The kneejerk reactions from the msm, liberal mouthpieces and other brainwashed are breathtaking and stupendous in the extreme.
Nuclear, when done right and built away from fault-lines (as almost all in Europe are) is the safest and that's what Westinghouse meant when he said it!
Westinghouse Europe, the clue is in the title and you've all failed to grasp this until now.
The Piper Alpha disaster killed more than the Sellafield outbreak did.
Europe is not on a Japanese fault-line and is also not vulnerable to harbour-waves / tsunami.
edit on 19-3-2011 by WatchRider because: typo and amendment



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 03:57 AM
link   
Wow, here is a name of a mega-rich person, Anders Jackson - saying nuclear power is the safest.

Hi, Anders,

How are your megabucks helping your heart condition, your chloesterol, your wife's infidelity, your kids' rebellion?

What I am trying to say (sorry AJ - that was just an illustration) is that when someone like you says something like that, we can bet it is not for the welfare of the people, it is to make yet more megabucks (what is the point?).



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   
nuclear is safest if we use Thorium based molten salt , fast breeding reactors which can use nuclear waste as bi fuel. until we have fusion under control .



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by MarkLuitzen
 


So, fusion is not under control.

Therefore nuclear power is not safe.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join