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.

 

American Nuclear Sites, Are They Worth The Risk?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Hey, I've just been reading a couple of articles that seem to indicate that there is an SUBSTANTIAL amount of nuclear radiation which seems to be seeping into the ground and water of various areas across the USA.

The Associated Press claims that a whistleblower has come forward, and states that, "Tritium, which is a radioactive form of hydrogen, has leaked from at least 48 of 65 sites, according to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission records."

Now I get that this is in the MSM, at least being splashed across the screen, but tbh, who knows how long that's gonna last. Sure they could be trying to scare us, or blacken nuclear power in our eyes and minds, but maybe this is the reality of it, and if that's the case, something ought to be done about it don't ya think?

Taks a gander anyway, tell me what you think.

Radioactive leaks widespread

Sta ndards at nuclear facilities in serious question




posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ToFarGone
 


Sounds like they need to take some serious action and either repair the faulty parts or get rid of nuclear plants altogether. If they are not responsible enough to maintain them, they shouldn't build them!



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by MountainEnigma
 


That's pretty much how I feel about it, I am not anti-nuclear power, it is a possible alternative to weening off oil and gas, but if it's going to be used, IT MUST be used responsibly.

That would seem to entail, regular inspection of all aspects, including the actual physical infrastructure of any and all nuclear facilities. Every inch. From the sounds of it, some of these sites have piping, which happens to be burried under ground, have not been inspected for in cases, DECADES Now I can totally get why someone might do that, it's sort of an eyesore I can imagine, but it'd be nothing compared to another nuclear incident that could claim untold lives, and wreak our environment to a whole new level.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ToFarGone
 


Back in my younger days, I thought nuclear power as the way to go. As I got older, I realized that a lot of the people showing up to work at these plants were pretty much working to collect a paycheck. Once they left the plant, they didn’t care.

There are people who work there that do care, but they run into “Financial walls” and are told, “We can’t afford that right now.” Like everything we do, we allow things to fall into disrepair. As these plants age, they are going to crumble. Without constant maintenance, these things are going to fail with devastating results.

And that’ll happen even if nature leaves them alone, which we all know it won’t.

I’m still optimistic though that we’ll solve the Cold fusion riddle. But truthfully, I do claim ignorance on the matter. Is it any safer?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Sure...unless people around the nation are prepared to double their electric bills.
See...nuclear energy is still the best trade off when it comes to reliable, clean energy. Energy that gives us a break from our dependency on foreign oil. And given the huge energy demands we have in this country it's the best option available...



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Sane people, like me, have been arguing against nuclear "power" from the start.

Nuclear "power plants" are like toilets you can never, ever flush. The radioactive poop just keeps piling up.

There is no way to get rid of the poop...the deadly, radioactive poop.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
In short, yes. The tritium leaks are small and tritium has a relatively short half life.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


Tbh with ya, I am a neophyte myself.

I think I do understand where you're coming from in terms of the workers at such places, as well as their inspectors. Working for a paycheck, is probable the only reason a lot of us do what we have to do, I assume. and I understand that not everyone is going to be as diligent as the last. There does need to be a standard though, there are obviously huge risks, when dealing with any sort of nuclear reactions, it is a powerful, and deadly force, if you don't plan to give it your all, stay home!

and the cost factor, isn't that the heart of it? If you're going to build such a device though, you should better plan to maintain it with all that you can give, otherwise you're gonna have WAY more to deal with. It will be much more ugly down the road, that's for sure. It's too bad people hate the thought of workin for free, lol.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by laiguana
 


I'm not necessarily saying, turn them all off (I don't like it, but I also don't care for the dependency on Foreign oil much more). What I'm saying, is that the regulations and safe guards in place seem to be a little lax, for something that could wreak so much havoc on lives and the environment.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by SirMike
In short, yes. The tritium leaks are small and tritium has a relatively short half life.


Could you give me a good example of what is small and what is not?
The half-life seems to be on an average of 12 years, at least according to these guys.

Review on Tritium Half-Life

L. L. Lucas, M. P. Unterweger (2000). "Comprehensive Review and Critical Evaluation of the Half-Life of Tritium". Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 105 (4): 541.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
Sure...unless people around the nation are prepared to double their electric bills.
See...nuclear energy is still the best trade off when it comes to reliable, clean energy. Energy that gives us a break from our dependency on foreign oil. And given the huge energy demands we have in this country it's the best option available...


Greetings:

Would you rather double your electric bill or knowingly kill off future generations by irresponsible use of nuclear power?



nuclear energy is still the best trade off when it comes to reliable, clean energy. Energy that gives us a break from our dependency on foreign oil.


OK, but let's temper that statement with some facts from recent news.

For those of you who might have just tuned in, these are the types of stories we have been discussing here. Some are "fresh" news items plucked from recent headlines and tossed up for discussion. Others are yesterday's news and most interesting when viewed through the lens of time.

To set today's stage, some recent information from various sources:

25 March 2011
Japan Nuclear Crisis:
The Four Destroyed Reactors at Fukushima Was About 70 Billion Lethal Doses



(San Francisco) – Physics Professor Paolo Scampa announced March 23, 2011 that the four destroyed reactors at Fukushima, Japan was about 70 Billion Lethal Doses, finely divided. Professor Scampa used only official IAEA data (International Atomic Energy Agency).

According to the US Census Bureau, there are approximately 6 Billion, 907 Million people on Earth today.

The wrecked General Electric nuclear reactors contained enough radioactive, highly poisonous fuel to kill every person on Earth about 10 times.

The poison is in the atmosphere and spreading all over the world from Japan in 9  to 10 days.
www.infiniteunknown.net...


The Rhenish Institute for Environmental Research at the University of Cologne, Germany stopped publishing the following caesium 137 map that represented the potential dispersion of the radioactive cloud over the northern hemisphere.

The map shows the caesium 137 which disperses itself mostly in water so the biggest risk areas are around the Fukushima plant. Cs-137 has a half life of 30.17 years.

After entering the body, caesium gets more or less uniformly distributed through the body, with higher concentration in muscle tissues and lower in bones.

The biological half-life of caesium is rather short at about 70 days. Experiments with dogs showed that a single dose of 3800 μCi/kg (approx. 44 μg/kg of caesium-137) is lethal within three weeks.

Please note that these maps are of total column atmospheric concentration.





From their site: "This simulation is a so-called "worst case scenario" with continuous release rate. The value of 0.001 Bq/m3 correspond to approximate one millionth of the concentration at the source.

At distances more than appr. 2000 km away from the source, the concentrations are not harmful to health. The simulation starts fictitious at 15.03. 00 UTC and will continue to run in order to demonstrate the intercontinental transport.

When exact release rates are published we will restart the simulation with reliable values."


25 March 2011
On 25 March, IAEA indicated that in the long term, caesium-137 (with a half-life of 30 years) would be the most relevant isotope as far as doses was concerned and indicated the possibility "to follow this nuclide over long distances for several years."





The organization also said it could take months or years for the isotope to reach "other shores of the Pacific".

Where does this information come from? Previous data suggests that radiation reached the mainland U.S. in a matter of days after 3/11.


The poison is in the atmosphere and spreading all over the world from Japan in 9  to 10 days.


The following map shows the potential release plume of Xenon-133. Although Xenon has been released globally, it is considered a far more inert and harmless form of radioactivity (half life of 5 days) in comparison to the far more dangerous iodine-131 and caesium-137.




The observational data of the CTBTO now show a clear decrease of the worldwide radioactive concentrations outside of Japan.

Therefore we now do not continue with the predictions for the northern hemisphere. We thank you for your lively interest in our work, for many questions and comments.


25 March 2011
US Government Admits Radiation Found In Milk from Washington State

Raw milk is poison, whereas irradiated milk is safe!


(Wall Street Journal) –The U.S. government said Wednesday that traces of radiation have been found in milk in Washington state, but said the amounts are far too low to trigger any public-health concern.

The Environmental Protection Agency said a March 25 sample of milk produced in the Spokane, Wash., area contained a 0.8 pico curies per literlevel of iodine-131, which it said was less than one five-thousandth of the safety safety guideline set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The EPA said it increased monitoring after radiation leaked from Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. It expects more such findings in coming days, but in amounts “far below levels of public-health concern, including for infants and children.”

Iodine-131 has a half-life of about eight days, meaning levels should fade quickly. “These findings are a minuscule amount compared to what people experience every day,” the agency said.


26 March 2011
International Commission Recommends Japan Temporarily Increase Radiation Limits For Public


An international advisory body has recommended the Japanese government temporarily raise the annual limit of radiation exposure for the general public in light of the ongoing crisis at the quake- and tsunami-crippled nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture.



The government stipulates that regular citizens in Japan should be exposed to no more than 1 millisievert of radiation per year, but the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) on March 21 recommended the limit be tentatively raised to 20 to 100 millisieverts per year, with the nuclear crisis showing no signs of abating.

The institution pointed out that even if the power plant comes safely out of the critical situation, areas affected by the accident will remain radioactive for many years to come. Therefore, it suggested, even after the power plant crisis is resolved, the government should keep the upper limit at 1 to 20 millisieverts per year before it gradually brings it back to its original 1, in order
to prevent residents of Fukushima Prefecture from abandoning their hometowns.

Both targets proposed by the advisory body greatly exceed the current limit set by the Japanese government, but the ICRP — which normally recommends the annual limit of radiation exposure for nuclear facility workers be set at 50 millisieverts and that for the general public at 1 millisievert — says the proposal is to protect the future of areas facing radioactive contamination.

It is said that radiation exposure in excess of 100 millisieverts per year may slightly increase the risk of cancer.


28 March 2011
EPA Monitoring Continues to Confirm That No Radiation Levels of Concern Have Reached the United States

Release date: 03/28/2011
Contact Information: EPA Press Office press@epa.gov


WASHINGTON – During detailed filter analyses from 12 RadNet air monitor locations across the nation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified [color=limegreen]trace amounts of radioactive isotopes consistent with the Japanese nuclear incident.


"...consistent with the Japanese nuclear incident."

Newspeak? WTH does this actually mean? Remember, these are the same people who refuse to answer direct questions about the number and locations of these monitors.

Pop Quiz: An EPA Radiation Monitor is placed (outside) (inside) a structure and has an effective range of (3 feet) (300 ft) (3 miles) (30 miles) (300) miles).

(Hint
Remember, only 140 of these high-tech devices provide adequate "protection" (monitoring) from radiation for the entire United States, including Alaska and Hawaii.


Some of the filter results show levels slightly higher than those found by EPA monitors last week and a Department of Energy monitor the week before. These types of findings are to be expected in the coming days and are still far below levels of public health concern.

EPA’s samples were captured by monitors in Alaska, Alabama, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands and Washington state over the past week and sent to EPA scientists for detailed laboratory analysis.

Detailed information on this latest round of filter results can be found at: epa.gov...


28 March 2011
EPA: Expect More Radiation in Rainwater


The Environmental Protection Agency yesterday reported finding elevated levels of iodine-131, a product of nuclear fission, in rainwater in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. The levels exceed the maximum contaminant level (MCL) permitted in drinking water, but EPA continues to assure the public there is no need for alarm.
(...)
Note: Since the post was originally published, the Environmental Protection Agency launched a new open-data system where it posts laboratory results from its sampling of air, precipitation, drinking water and milk. The new system can be found here: RadNet Sampling Data.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s RadNet system is designed to detect radiation from accidents like the Fukushima disaster in Japan and from foreign nuclear tests. It displays a map of the United States with monitoring stations highlighted. Click on one for a graphic representation of its data.


EPA U.S. Radiation Monitor Map

Last night the graphs were displaying no data—in the wake of EPA’s revelation that radiation had been detected in rainwater. Above empty frames appeared the message, in bold: “To-date, levels recorded at this monitor have been thousands of times below any conservative level of concern.”

But when the system is working, it collects data from more than 140 monitoring stations that sniff the air at three times the rate of normal human breathing. The stations collect particles on filters, analyze their radioactivity and transmit data hourly to EPA, where officials review the numbers and post the graphs online within two hours.

RadNet also issues a daily report, which almost always says, “EPA’s RadNet radiation air monitors across the U.S. show typical fluctuations in background radiation levels. The levels detected are far below levels of concern.


The radiation you seek to monitor is not here. Move along...

28 March 2011
Radioactive Iodine-131 in Pennsylvania Rainwater Sample is 3300% Above Federal Drinking Water Standard


Governor Corbett Says Public Water Supply Testing Finds No Risk to Public From Radioactivity Found in Rainwater, Pennsylvania Office of the Governor, March 28, 2011:

The [Iodine-131] numbers reported in the rainwater samples in Pennsylvania range from 40-100 picocuries per liter (pCi/L). Although these are levels above the background levels historically reported in these areas, they are still about 25 times below the level that would be of concern. The federal drinking water standard for Iodine-131 is three pCi/L. …

On Friday, rainwater samples were taken in Harrisburg, where levels were 41 pCi/L and at nuclear power plants at TMI and Limerick, where levels were 90 to 100 pCi/L.

Corbett emphasized that the drinking water is safe and there is no cause for health concerns…
“Rainwater is not typically directly consumed,” Corbett said. “However, [color=limegreen]people might get alarmed by making what would be an inappropriate connection from rainwater to drinking water. By testing the drinking water, we can assure people that the water is safe.”


"...inappropriate connection from rainwater to drinking water..."

We are at a loss for words.

30 March 2011

EPA officials have said they are monitoring the air carefully because of the leaks and explosions at the Fukushima nuclear plant following a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami in mid-March.

Several EPA air monitors across the nation have detected very low levels of radioactive material, consistent with estimated releases from the damaged nuclear reactors, according to www.epa.gov.

EPA also has stepped up monitoring of precipitation, milk and drinking water, and officials said radioactivity detected has been far below levels of public health concern.


So the EPA was prepared with release estimates for an event on the scale that Fukushima appears to be now?

30 March 2011
EU Drastically Raises Radiation Limits For Food!


Berlin / Munich. The consumer organization foodwatch and the Environment Institute Munich eV have criticized the information policy of the federal government on food safety after the nuclear disaster in Japan. Federal Consumer Protection Minister Ilse Aigner as in days of “enhanced control measures” and “special protection standards ” – it informs the public but does not make clear the fact that the EU-wide limit values for the radioactive contamination of foodstuffs from the affected areas in Japan increased over the weekend.

It was previously a cumulative radioactivity of Cesium-134 and Cesium-137 and allowed maximum of 600 becquerels per kilogram, this past weekend up to 20 times higher ceilings of up to 12,500 becquerels per kilogram for certain products in Japan in force.


So according to Foodwatch, the upper limit is now 20 times higher for Cesium-134 and Cesium-137.

And our politicians have been prepared for this disaster since 1987!

They had the ‘new’ regulation already stored in the drawer, just in case another nuclear disaster would happen! One would have a sure bet if you wager that food reaching the upper radiation limits after Chernobyl would have been considered totally contaminated before Chernobyl.

31 March 2011
Radioactive Iodine-131 in Rainwater Sample Near San Francisco Was 18,100% Above Federal Drinking Water Standard


March 31st, 2011 at 06:33 PM
UCB Rain Water Sampling Results, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Nuclear Engineering:

Iodine-131 was measured in a rainwater sample taken on the roof of Etcheverry Hall on UC Berkeley campus, March 23, 2011 from 9:06-18:00 PDT. The 3 Liters of rainwater collected contained 134 Becquerels of Iodine for an average of 20.1 Becquerel per liter, which equates to 543 Picocuries per liter .

The federal drinking water limit for Iodine-131 is 3 Picocuries per liter, putting the rainwater sample at 18,100% above the federal drinking water limit.

20.1 Becquerel per liter (Bq/L) = 543 Picocuries per liter (pCi/L)

The federal drinking water standard for Iodine-131 is 3 pCi/L.

Conversion calculator here.


And that is a recap (by no means complete) of some of the relevant stories from only the last six (6) days in March of 2011.

We welcome all participation, comments and suggestions.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

To be continued...

In Peace, Love & Light

tfw



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by mike_trivisonno
 


Oh but sir, you seem to be forgetting mankind's penchant for *snipping* things up.

Before you know it, we'll be launching radioactive poop into the cosmos, for the rest of reality to enjoy.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
Sane people, like me, have been arguing against nuclear "power" from the start.

Nuclear "power plants" are like toilets you can never, ever flush. The radioactive poop just keeps piling up.

There is no way to get rid of the poop...the deadly, radioactive poop.


This may be true for most plants at the moment, but there are now efforts to recycle radioactive waste and reuse it. It's all about perfecting the technology and only through implementation will we ever have the means to develop it. Aside from the usual task of isolating the radioactive waste from human populations, there are emerging technologies that would allow other waste management options to be utilized.

Fusion-Fission Hybrids, fourth generation reactors, accelerator driven sytems all have the potential of reducing nuclear waste.

The following is from a 2008 article, and due to delays and budget cuts from the DOE...it hasn't gone according to schedule. With time these projects will become more common place and reactors may eventually reduce their waste output significantly.


A new recycling plant will soon recover uranium from the ashes of radioactive garbage to be recycled back into nuclear fuel using an efficient, environmentally friendly technology inspired by decaffeinated coffee. The technique’s future may even hold the key to recycling the most dangerous forms of radioactive waste.


link

There are also proposals on producing advanced, zero-waste (or close to zero) reactors.
link



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 


I love how they say, "recommends tempoary increasing of radiation levels for the populace." Because, that makes it safer.....right?


How's that working out for them? Or us for that matter.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 


Thanks thorfourwinds, that is a lot of great information, and I did learn some pretty trippy stuff.

[sarcasm]
Well I'm really glad the government knows what is best for its citizens, raw milk.. kill? radioactive milk..glows?
Well I guess under certain circumstances, glowing is better than killing.
[/sarcams]

That is hardly the worst of it, but that is beyond insane. I'm really glad I don't drink milk.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


Yeah, lol, and there's that. How does that make sense? How can they even pretend that makes sense?

Something like the annual amount of incurred radiation goes from 1 millisieverts per year, to a min/max of 20-100 millisieverts per year. WTF?

It's like something out of 1984 dude. One day this is the truth, and tomorrow the truth is different.
Is everyone still this asleep? Japan, what are you going through?!



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by thorfourwinds
Greetings:

Would you rather double your electric bill or knowingly kill off future generations by irresponsible use of nuclear power?



How exactly are trace amounts posing a threat? It's not like we couldn't use a population reduction anyway. I'm not the least bit concerned about 'killing' off future generations.




OK, but let's temper that statement with some facts from recent news.

For those of you who might have just tuned in, these are the types of stories we have been discussing here. Some are "fresh" news items plucked from recent headlines and tossed up for discussion. Others are yesterday's news and most interesting when viewed through the lens of time....



I'm not going to quote your whole thread, but I get that you're using a lot of the EPA's data at your benefit without bothering to see how it being analyzed by the same agency. However, it is being included in your personal conclusion. One that seems to suggest that there is a huge cloud of radioctive particles headed in our general direction. I'm not alarmed by this at all.

Here are official statements by the EPA's website:


It is important to note that all of the radiation levels detected by RadNet monitors and sampling have been very low, are well below any level of public health concern, and continue to decrease over time. EPA continues to work with federal partners to monitor the situation in Japan and stands prepared to accelerate radiation sampling and analysis if the need arises. Data will continue to be available on EPA's public website.


...

More on EPA's verdict:


In addition, results of EPA’s precipitation sampling and air filter analyses continue to detect very low levels of radioactive material consistent with estimated releases from the damaged nuclear reactors.


I have doubts that trace amounts of radioactive particles will end up killing off future generations around the world as you claim. Japan made an error by allowing the Fukushima reactor to remain operable despite the known risks. It was forseeable.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ToFarGone

Originally posted by SirMike
In short, yes. The tritium leaks are small and tritium has a relatively short half life.


Could you give me a good example of what is small and what is not?
The half-life seems to be on an average of 12 years, at least according to these guys.

Review on Tritium Half-Life

L. L. Lucas, M. P. Unterweger (2000). "Comprehensive Review and Critical Evaluation of the Half-Life of Tritium". Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 105 (4): 541.


You are right about the half life, though it was shorter.

As for the rest …

The EPA’s standards for tritium in groundwater, per the Safe Drinking Water Act, is 20,000 picocuries per liter. Consuming 2 liters of water a day with 20,000 picocuries per liter of tritium every day for 50 years would give the drinker an additional 4 millirems of dose. According to the linear no threshold model for radiation exposure, an additional 4 millirems per year would cause an extra 3.5 cancers in a population of 100,000. One dental x-ray or a one way trip from LA to Boston per year puts people at the exposure risk.

Now, in news stories I read about this issue, there is rarely a mention of concentrations and amounts. I mean, why ruin a perfectly good story with perspective, right? So for the purpose of this demonstration I will use some data from a recent leak at VT Yankee. Out of 27 sample wells, 8 tested positive for tritium. The highest recorded sample was 2,125,800 picocuries per liter … sounds like a lot to be sure. But this is a sample well and its on the bounds of the property, it hasn’t had time to disperse yet and concentrations will be the highest here and the flow, or the amount of tritium laced water being discharged is how much? 100gpm, 1000gpm? Working in plants myself, I think a leak of around 50 gpm or less could go undetected almost indefinitely.

So lets look at the worst case scenario, a leak of 50 gpm at 2,125,800 picocuries per liter right into the Connecticut River (which VT Yankee sits on). The flow for the Connecticut river is, on average, about 250CuFt/sec or 112,000 gpm. So if 50gpm at 2,125,800 was directly injected into a body of water flowing at 112,000 gpm, our final contamination level would be 920 picocuries per liter.

Now, is 920 picocuries per, or anything within an order magnitude, something to be concerned about?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I am not against the existing nuclear power plants running to the end of there life span.

And new plants should only by of the sub critical type.

Building new reactor of the type we have now does not solve any problem they just make things worse with more spent fuel being stored.

Sub critical Accelerator driven reactors can burn up this spent fuel and supply power at the same time.
and they do not need cooling once the Accelerator/neutron source is turned off or stops.
These same Accelerator driven reactors can also burn thorium, weapons pits or depleted uranium.
This would give the US reactor fuel for safe reactor for 2000+ years.

As for tritium leaks how many of the complainers own hand guns with tritium sights.

where did you think they got the tritium from.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
America should have converted to nuclear power years ago. It's safer than any other power source, it's cheap, it's reliable, it's clean. You have pretty much 0% chance of dying from radiation exposure from nuclear energy.

www.nsc.org...


No one died as a result of the Three Mile Island disaster, and experts have published a 148 page report detailing everything that caused the Chernobyl disaster and how it could have easily been fixed.
www-pub.iaea.org...


Coal kills more miners every year than the initial blast at Chernobyl killed, not to mention the pollution caused by fossil fuels which kills countless more people annually.
www.pittsburghlive.com...

A study found that in Europe alone wind energy has killed more people than nuclear energy.
manhaz.cyf.gov.pl...

And the leading cause of accidents with wind power is "blade failure" which is when a turbine blade shatters sending shrapnel flying through the air.
www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk...

Then with hydroelectric power of course you get floods and dam breakage, so remind me again why we're afraid of nuclear power? Did we just randomly decide that this power source is somehow worse than all the others? Or maybe you're all sheep blindly following the media when they tell you that nuclear power is "bad" and that we should return to the dark ages, over-hyping any minor nuclear related incident while covering up and ignoring deaths caused by other power sources.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join