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.

 

big oil is purposely overblowing the nuclear radiation issue

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   
So is this a possible retaliatory move by Big Nuke:

NEW - Oil Spill Reported Near Deepwater Drilling Site in Gulf!!!

Not too implausible of a correlation imo, perhaps the energy war is heating up.




posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by okiecowboy
 

Good compilation of info, but he's clearly got you beat on clarity and succinctness in presenting the most important information.

Anyway, my original point was that for all the abuse Alex Jones takes, I've found him to be one of the few honest and accurate sources of information, especially if you don't have the time to weigh and assimilate 100 different articles.

And when you buy up the last remaining stockpile of potassium iodide tablets and sell them to your listeners at cost, I'll praise you too.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by admriker444
 



people freak out about radioiodine but they don't care nearly as much about toxins like mercury, cadmium and arsenic, whose 'half lives' are infinite being stable elements. any mined fuel releases a lot of toxic waste, especially coal. furthermore, today's sensors are quite sensitive, which means every miniscule trace will immediately sound an alarm because these isotopes are artificial and can therefore be attributed.

how many people even know about K 40 (radioactive potassium) which is typically accumulated in plants or cosmic background radiation to put things into perspective?

www.jlab.org...


nuclear accidents can be catastrophic but they are also rare events, while most types conventional power generation continuously damage the environment and who's really interested in cumulative impact considerations? (see energy2050.se... as an example)

of course, prevalent nuclear technology leaves much to be desired, in terms of fuel efficiency, spent fuel use and hazards stemming from spent fuel, but these issues will never be addressed as long as the entire technology is demonized and rejected.

all the spent fuel from solid fueled LWRs can be incinerated in breeder reactors (both fast and thermal, it'll just take longer in case of the latter) in which case, the repository issue just goes away and with it, the primary reason for rejecting nuclear systems.
edit on 2011.3.20 by Long Lance because: tags



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by okiecowboy
reply to post by admriker444
 




3 mile island had a complete meltdown and nobody died. this is a non-incident being hyped up by a media that is owned by big oil, period end of story


Three mile Island never had containment breech...just a coolant loss....
Japan we have several containment failures...and already had deaths...This passed TMI in the first hours of the event.


deaths ? what deaths ? some workers were injured due to the fire and resulting explosions but i havent heard of any deaths from radiation poisoning.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 


A rare accident on the road means nothing. A rare accident with a nuclear power station means 100's to 1000's of years of contamination.

N o accident small or large is acceptable when these are the stakes.

You can try to argue the toss but you will not win. The price of failure is not acceptable, ever.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by UberL33t
So is this a possible retaliatory move by Big Nuke:

NEW - Oil Spill Reported Near Deepwater Drilling Site in Gulf!!!

Not too implausible of a correlation imo, perhaps the energy war is heating up.


Not impossible. But Plausible? I'm not so sure. IT seems FAR more likely that this is related to the deepwater disaster or is a new well or is even a 'natural' leak. But 'Big Nuke'? What did they do, send a N. Korean sub in to blow up a well? And why is everything "Big"? How about using the word "Industry"? I don't think there are any small, mom and pop nuclear power plants.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Long Lance
 


A rare accident on the road means nothing. A rare accident with a nuclear power station means 100's to 1000's of years of contamination.

N o accident small or large is acceptable when these are the stakes.

You can try to argue the toss but you will not win. The price of failure is not acceptable, ever.



let me ask you this way, would you apply the same logic to chemical spills, provided they have long(er) term consequences to the tune of decades? what about death tolls? are they a valid criterion or not, i mean Bhopal's was in the range of 15.000 deaths, right? what about the buildup of toxins (read: mercury) in the environment, does that constitute a long term threat and would you apply the same standards here? if not, why not? unlike radioisotopes, it'll never go away on its own.


no accident large or small? take a short gander at the following list

en.wikipedia.org...

...which doesn't even include lost nuclear submarines or nuclear testing, even though it's kind of related, isn't it?

the amount of nuclear related mayhem has so far been small in comparison with other major industries, it could be improved further by burying the plants and using better (breeder) reactors designs which reduce the amount of required excess reactivity at startup, among other things, but as i said, none of this will happen as long as all nuclear systems are rejected off hand.
edit on 2011.3.20 by Long Lance because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 


Bhopal was a crime not an accident.

Damage to the enviroment from chemicals have caused changes to what is used, example is ozone destroying chemicals.

Coal fired generators are being shut down due to the pollution they emit despite some saying that modern scrubbers would solve this problem.

I could make a larger list but you get the point I hope these measures above have been taken despite no deaths being directly linked to them.

Now look at the risk from nuclear accidents that we were told could not happen and yet they have, do and will which can be directly held responsible for many deaths and their risk goes on for and through generations



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


We were told that these things couldn't happen due to a few reasons...

1.) To keep the citizens from panicking,
2.) Due to how Nuclear Facilities have a list to go down in case this happens. Japans Reactors went offline due to EQ, they use backup generators, those were taken offline due to tsunami, they used backup batteries, those ran dry and the new generators didn't fit the Plant and were unusable.

IMO, the only reason that this all happened at Fukushima is due to piss-poor communication and emergency handling. But hey! Who expects Nuclear plants to head towards a meltdown? For that matter...who expects and EQ AND a Tsunami!?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
One of the worst threads on ATS.



Not because it's entirely off the walls, but because it may have the semblance of a reasonable position, while in fact being entirely asinine. This kind of pseudo critical thinking really gets a lot of the newer members all jumbled up.

I keep hearing just a ton of bs on this site. It's really getting to me at this point. People need to expand their critical thinking skills, and not think so black and white.

I'm actually disgusted that so many still buy the bs that peak oil is a myth. It's gut wrenching at this point, because of how close we are to the cliff being realized by the majority, how much devastation this will cause for civilization, and how entirely clueless the majority are. You're doing a huge disservice to humanity by being so gullible and listening to these con artists.

Think fool!
edit on 21-3-2011 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42


Bhopal was a crime not an accident.


yes?

how is that relevant? the only defense i can see is that the chemicals in question will be degraded long before fission products reach 10 half lives, which may be true for the poison in question but it certainly isn't in the case of elemental poisons, like arsenic, mercury, lead - you name it.

the people (and surely wildlife, too suffered chronic effects

articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com...

many chemical are also mutagenic and carcinogenic, exhibiting a spectrum of disorders you'll find quite similar to the one caused by nuclear fallout. still, no containment around pesticide plants, right?



Damage to the enviroment from chemicals have caused changes to what is used, example is ozone destroying chemicals.


harmless substitutes are always welcome, which is good for purposeful emissions, not so much for by products, which you cannot choose and whose composition you typically can't change much. coal plants use scrubbers and catalytic converters, but due to the nature of combustion, some gets by, but that's beside the point since many parts of the world don't use these options anyway.

[quote[
Coal fired generators are being shut down due to the pollution they emit despite some saying that modern scrubbers would solve this problem.

I could make a larger list but you get the point I hope these measures above have been taken despite no deaths being directly linked to them.


mining deaths can be very directly linked, i presume, while the negative impacts don't require death to be horrific, take strip mining of lignite, simply erasing landscapes. meanwhile, the statistics based approach to loss of life is the same for nuclear and 'fossil' generation, if you consider it invalid, we'll have a hard time comparing the two on that basis.

coal accounts for 45% in the US, i don't see it being phased out anytime soon and natgas won't stay cheap forever, especially if fracking gets banned. i'd only disagree if clathrates were commercially available, until then, natgas will remain scarce.



Now look at the risk from nuclear accidents that we were told could not happen and yet they have, do and will which can be directly held responsible for many deaths and their risk goes on for and through generations


if we have a hard time attributing cancer to nuclear fallout _now_ what makes you think it will become any easier after a few generations? we are entering the realm of myth, i believe. half lives mean nothing when it comes to damaging effects, only activity does, which roughly corresponds to toxicity in chemicals, which is why i made the comparison and asked that question. granted, shorter half lives usually imply higher activity, but there are notable exceptions like Uranium 232 (+ decay products).



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
What do you mean by answering Bopal was a crime by 'yes, how is that relevant'????

Bopal was a crime, mass murder for corperate gain. It cannot be described in any way as an accident.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


Agreed. I keep checking on this thread because I asked a very specific question a few pages back about the quote from the fisherman about this slick 'burning his eyes'. I was hoping to get an answer from someone who might be able to tell me whether raw crude normally does that, or if it's something else (corextit??). Instead, I get no answer and lots of off-topic yammering and hand-wringing. I don't mind a bit, but when it becomes the total sum of contribution, it waters down the usefulness of even visiting the thread, much less the entire site. Bleh!



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
What do you mean by answering Bopal was a crime by 'yes, how is that relevant'????

Bopal was a crime, mass murder for corperate gain. It cannot be described in any way as an accident.


how does that change the consequences? Let's see, in the nuke world, at chernobyl it was operator error or negligence, combined with unsafe design, TMI only operator error but with much less severe consequences while fukushima was caused by a natural desaster and exacerbated by stranger and maybe even negligent design features.

afacs, noone really cares why these incidents happened as long as a repeat performance can't be ruled out, hence calls for shutdown and abandoning all nuclear systems while the same logic doesn't seem to apply to other dangerous technologies, that's all i'm saying.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 


Well if you cannot tell the difference between murder and an accident I think you may also struggle with acceptable and unacceptable risk.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Alex Jones is "telling the truth" more than most others, but his real responsibility appears to be to pull in people who "know" something is going on and don't trust the MSM. However, it's his responsibility to sensationalize things so much that "discerning" people won't consider him credible.

Does anybody really believe AJ is so smart that he just figures all these things out on his own? No way. Somebody is spoon-feeding him selected stories "behind the story" in order to control the message. Thus, as baby with the bathwater, many true whistleblowers are able to be marginalized by being suckered onto his show.

Back to the topic at hand, however, isn't it amazing how many similarities there are with this nuclear reactor response and the way BP was able to completely oversee their own "oil volcano" in the Gulf?



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Long Lance
 


Well if you cannot tell the difference between murder and an accident I think you may also struggle with acceptable and unacceptable risk.


what kind of strawman argument is that? nuclear plants are also susceptible to sabotage and attacks, in fact the whole airplane impact vs. containment scenario is always an issue, but the same type of preparedness does not extend to other dangerous industries.

if you consider Chernobyl unacceptable you must also apply that logic to any manmade desaster of similar scale. are the people who died from Chernobyl more dead than people who died in chemical spills? aren't the ecosystems ruined by cyanide spills destroyed for decades, which doesn't raise too many eyebrows.

the cumulative damage from such chemical desaster has of course so far been greater than that from nuclear ones, including death toll, so why the double standards? i think the reason is simple, radiation is too much like magic and on top of that associated with nuclear weapons.
edit on 2011.3.22 by Long Lance because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsimitpo
Alex Jones is "telling the truth" more than most others, but his real responsibility appears to be to pull in people who "know" something is going on and don't trust the MSM. However, it's his responsibility to sensationalize things so much that "discerning" people won't consider him credible.

Does anybody really believe AJ is so smart that he just figures all these things out on his own? No way. Somebody is spoon-feeding him selected stories "behind the story" in order to control the message. Thus, as baby with the bathwater, many true whistleblowers are able to be marginalized by being suckered onto his show.

Back to the topic at hand, however, isn't it amazing how many similarities there are with this nuclear reactor response and the way BP was able to completely oversee their own "oil volcano" in the Gulf?


the difference though is nobody called for an end to oil usage. however the media and critics are coming out and demanding the end of nuclear power plants.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by admriker444
pay close attention to the media coverage of the japan nuclear power problems. they mix in coverage with stories of Chernobal. I just watched a clip of msnbc showing the devastation of Chernobal, empty schools and carnivals - tugs at the heart.

they cover stories such as radiation being detected in Chicago airport. little is mentioned about the fact that radiation is detected ALL THE TIME at airports. get an x-ray and chances are within 2 days if you enter an airport they will pick up residual radiation.

the media is controlled and owned by big oil. the agenda is clear. kill any funding by the united states to build more nuclear power plants. currently the US gets 20% of its power from nuclear energy. a nation like France gets 86% of its power from nuclear energy. imagine if the usa had that amount coming from nuclear energy. wars over oil wouldnt be necessary

the slanted coverage keeps bringing in experts to discuss nuclear power safety. their bias is clear.


i heard earlier that there was another big oil spill in the gulf of mexico. this would support your theory...to me it is quite obvious the media is distracting us with Libya and fukushima so we won't see what's going on in the gulf and other places.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by admriker444
pay close attention to the media coverage of the japan nuclear power problems. they mix in coverage with stories of Chernobal. I just watched a clip of msnbc showing the devastation of Chernobal, empty schools and carnivals - tugs at the heart.

they cover stories such as radiation being detected in Chicago airport. little is mentioned about the fact that radiation is detected ALL THE TIME at airports. get an x-ray and chances are within 2 days if you enter an airport they will pick up residual radiation.

the media is controlled and owned by big oil. the agenda is clear. kill any funding by the united states to build more nuclear power plants. currently the US gets 20% of its power from nuclear energy. a nation like France gets 86% of its power from nuclear energy. imagine if the usa had that amount coming from nuclear energy. wars over oil wouldnt be necessary

the slanted coverage keeps bringing in experts to discuss nuclear power safety. their bias is clear.


Nuclear power is destructive, dangerous and toxic. It is in the same league as Big Oil. Big Oil didn't blow up the nuclear plant, the tsunami did which exposed how unsafe nuclear power is. Don't try and stifle the truth by saying nuclear power is an "alternative" to oil. Both are destructive to the environment and deserve to be abolished in favor of REAL alternatives.

This is not a "green" alternative. We already have solar, wind and wave power alternatives. That's what Big Oil and Nuclear is trying to stop.
edit on 22-3-2011 by Mercurio because: (no reason given)







 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join