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.

 

Two United States nuclear power plants are on alert!

page: 7
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnixFE
reply to post by Nosred
 


Even good calculated estimates states that at least 20000 were killed by the Chernobyl accident. Some more realistic calculations state 50000-100000. Of cause you can still hold up those lies that nuclear power is safe and the initial explosion just killed a few people. Maybe you can tell the families of those other thousands that it's normal to die with cancer at an age of 20-40.


Please provide a source for this information, fifty people died from direct exposure to radiation from the Chernobyl blast, and it's impossible to determine how many people died or will die as a result of cancer from the incident. Not to mention that I have already stated that Chernobyl could have been easily prevented if the Soviets had taken even basic safety measures, I even provided a 148-paged report detailing exactly what went wrong and how it could have been easily fixed.


Whats next? Tell me that a person who shot someone into the stomach isn't a murderer as those person won't die at the moment of impact - hey, he just lost too much blood after that so it's his fault.


Dependence on nuclear power has never started a war. Fossil fuels have started quite a few. I think we can see which power source is the real "murderer" here.

Edit: I've seen estimates as low as 9,000 for cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl, and it's impossible to determine which is the "most accurate" since they're all just estimates.
edit on 23-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)


Edit: Oh yeah, and the source who's estimate was 9,000 was the "Chernobyl Forum" led by the IAEA, the UN's nuclear watchdog group, and the forum was made up of eight UN agencies and a number of officials from the worst affected countries - Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia - so I think this number might hold a little more weight than your unsourced one.
edit on 23-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
what happens if more water comes down river. We are getting more rain here in minnesota and the mississippi river is rising. All the rivers here are over their banks. the water here is starting to come into town, i can see it when i drive on the road, i feel it may start to overtake the road. Also, they closed the roads just before shakopee mn. due to flooding. i went to the park by the mississippi river and i could not get in, it had a sign that said flooded keep out, closed till further notice. We are far upstream from nebraska, i'm not sure if the elk and the mississippi flow into nebraska, but hopefully it does not because they would be in for a real eye openner if all that water came down there. The weather calls for rain all week, so. I'm curious, does the mississippi river go by or in nebraska? what river is this nuke plant by anyways. does the missouri river run into the mississippi or the mississippi run into the missouri or not at all. I do not have a map in front of me, i will go look.
edit on 23-6-2011 by cloaked4u because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


Ha! Boy, you sure are concerned and stuck on the computer bit aren't ya.

And....ya still just don't get it.


I am not for nuclear power....plain and simple. It harms and people like you are in denial as to the implications.

You can veer off and talk about my pc and or say I don't like science....but that is not at all what I have been saying.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


I'm using the computer as an example that the fact you're posting this is proof that scientists know what they're talking about.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
There are soo many problems in logic here, I don't know where to begin.

First of all, looking to nuclear physicists for information on the safety of nuclear energy is akin to asking cattle ranchers if beef is good for you. Consider the source.

The problem with a media blackout on any subject is the level of conjecture and bias inherent in those who are discussing it.

If Fukushima has taught us anything, its that nuclear energy is not 'safe,' and anyone on here making such a declaration must have a pony in the race, so to speak.

My amazement in the energy question comes from the letters I have personally received from Senators and Congressmen that basically states that, while wind and solar energy are clean and renewable, we don't use them because we don't fund them.

Of course, they used pretty, Congressional redundaspeak, but that is the gist of it.

Wind and sun, wind and sun, wind and sun. Everyday. Yet we don't use them more because...?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
here is a map. i see the missouri runs into the mississippi river complex. looksie. www.mapsofworld.com...
edit on 23-6-2011 by cloaked4u because: fix the link, no success.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   


Edit: Normally in history when misconceptions arise about the safety of something, its the side that believes it's not safe that's wrong. Ex. Tomatoes, planes, medicine, etc
reply to post by Nosred
 


Ahhhh....grasshopper....don't you know that each year they say something is not harmful only to come around and say they were wrong. I mean.....what world do ya live in?


We do not KNOW jack! We think we know a lot...but my friend we did not know the Sun was going to behave in such a way as it is now. We did not know that we are depleting all our planets resources and we even thought Pluto was a planet. I could go on and on about what "we know". Its a joke! And don't even try to twist and say I am against a certain profession. I have much respect for some and I can leave some like Darwin hanging out while he misses the boat. I am just saying....stop putting so much stock in what others tell you. Think for yourself.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


Dude.....they do know some things...I have never said otherwise. Get it? Ok....great! Get off of the pc crap and talk real talk.

I love your passion but deny the ignorance.

I want you to look at it from others perspectives as well. There is nothing safe about Nuclear Energy. I can see where you think that by reading from a thesis or hearing a friend speak and taking on their notions...but I am asking you to think for yourself. The implications are there and the risk is high.

The risk is something we do not "see" immediately....but....we KNOW its there. I do not use my microwave much if I use it at all. I do not like the implications I know it causes. Maybe it is because I researched Leukemia for five yrs. while my son battled and eventually lost his life due to it. I believe he got the virus along with others in the same town because of the Battery plant. EPA found 4,000 the amount of lead in the creek, play area in the back yard, and under driveways there were battery casings buried. This stuff was thought to be harmless. It turned out that a lot of people in the town had died from cancer and had learning disabilities. The plant was forced to close down.

This ^ is another reason why I ask you not to put all your faith into what someone more educated tells you. It does not mean they "know" more.

I do not have proof but something is killing our Oceans.....are our oceans a site for radioactive dumping?
Is what we eat safe now? I mean....ask questions and be open minded to investigate for yourself instead of running with others ideas.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ

...stop putting so much stock in what others tell you. Think for yourself.


BLASPHEMY!



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   


BLASPHEMY!
reply to post by emberscott
 



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
i did not know so many rivers run into the mississippi. The missouri is flooded and that is where the power plants are by and they flow into the miss. and the mississippi is flooding. you guys down south are in for alot , and i mean alot of water. sorry, my link will not work.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimnuggits
First of all, looking to nuclear physicists for information on the safety of nuclear energy is akin to asking cattle ranchers if beef is good for you. Consider the source.


Are you trying to say that cattle ranchers don't know anything about cattle? Actually this is more akin to asking a nutritionist if eating beef is good for, since they're the experts on the subject.


The problem with a media blackout on any subject is the level of conjecture and bias inherent in those who are discussing it.


There's a media blackout on this? I've seen at least ten threads on it.


If Fukushima has taught us anything, its that nuclear energy is not 'safe,' and anyone on here making such a declaration must have a pony in the race, so to speak.


The Fukushima power plant was not up to code and had received several warnings from the IAEA, not to mention that it was built in the 60's and was hit with both an earthquake and a tsunami. Proper safety measures can be taken to prevent something like this from happening again.


My amazement in the energy question comes from the letters I have personally received from Senators and Congressmen that basically states that, while wind and solar energy are clean and renewable, we don't use them because we don't fund them.


No one wants to fund them, the costs would be astronomical to have a society that solely uses renewable energy, at least with the current technology. If you want to pay thousands of extra dollars every year so you can feel a little "safer" (even though you still wouldn't be), then good for you, you're still not thinking realistically.


Wind and sun, wind and sun, wind and sun. Everyday. Yet we don't use them more because..


They're unreliable, expensive, not efficient, and are more likely to cause accidents? Is that enough reasons for you?
edit on 23-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
The risk is something we do not "see" immediately....but....we KNOW its there. I do not use my microwave much if I use it at all. I do not like the implications I know it causes. Maybe it is because I researched Leukemia for five yrs. while my son battled and eventually lost his life due to it. I believe he got the virus along with others in the same town because of the Battery plant. EPA found 4,000 the amount of lead in the creek, play area in the back yard, and under driveways there were battery casings buried. This stuff was thought to be harmless. It turned out that a lot of people in the town had died from cancer and had learning disabilities. The plant was forced to close down.


Nuclear power plants have been proven to have no impact on cancer rates, I don't know what getting Leukemia from a battery plant has to do with whether or not nuclear power is safe. You're trying to imply that nuclear power is unsafe, since the battery plant was unsafe?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


NO!!!!!!!!

Omg....I am done with you man...I mean REALLY? You want us to believe what you have to say is correct and you know it ALL.... and you cant read between the lines?

It was a story for you to realize how one day something is considered "safe" by some...is not really safe.

I know you like to feel on top...but I am a independent minded individual and I only believe what is logic within my own realm of perception. You have not understood a word I have said. You have taken my words and twisted them because you are not slowing down to consider what someone is saying to be true or false...you are just running along..... assuming.

You have zero credibility.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


I have zero credibility? You're the one who thinks that nuclear power isn't safe because you have a feeling that it might not be and that sometime's scientists are wrong, even though you have no logical reason to believe that they're wrong in this instance. You post an unrelated story about battery plants to support your claims that scientists might be wrong about nuclear power's safety.

Edit: Especially since the facts they're looking at say otherwise.
edit on 23-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by jimnuggits
First of all, looking to nuclear physicists for information on the safety of nuclear energy is akin to asking cattle ranchers if beef is good for you. Consider the source.


Are you trying to say that cattle ranchers don't know anything about cattle? Actually this is more akin to asking a nutritionist if eating beef is good for, since they're the experts on the subject.

Actually- the rancher/beef analogy is very correct- in my opinion. How many nuclear scientists did we see on all the news shows spouting that Fukushima was fine, no worries. I personally didn't believe a word they said because I could see the devastation and I have a brain.



Wind and sun, wind and sun, wind and sun. Everyday. Yet we don't use them more because..


They're unreliable, expensive, not efficient, and are more likely to cause accidents? Is that enough reasons for you?
edit on 23-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)
And don't forget not everyone wants a giant windmill in their back yard. I drove down the Columbia River gorge and was amazed at the amount of wind mills. I noticed that it deterred from the scenery and I noticed that half of them were not spinning.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by AuntB
 
This got buried in my reply to the above.

Actually- the rancher/beef analogy is very correct- in my opinion. How many nuclear scientists did we see on all the news shows spouting that Fukushima was fine, no worries. I personally didn't believe a word they said because I could see the devastation and I have a brain.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   


I have zero credibility? You're the one who thinks that nuclear power isn't safe because you have a feeling that it might not be and that sometime's scientists are wrong, even though you have no logical reason to believe that they're wrong in this instance. You post an unrelated story about battery plants to support your claims that scientists might be wrong about nuclear power's safety. Edit: Especially since the facts they're looking at say otherwise.
reply to post by Nosred
 


No....no credibility because if you cant get what I am saying...I just cant believe anything you have to say in regards to the information you retain.

I never said anything about a feeling. I could give you tons of quotes, links and statistics that back my claim and perception that it is indeed dangerous and not healthy for us AT ALL!

Radioactive= Not safe!



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


Please provide me with a couple of links that prove nuclear power is not safe, and do not have anything to do with Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or Fukushima.

I have already posted sources that prove living next to a nuclear power plant does not increase the likelihood of getting cancer, in fact you're exposed to less radiation living next to a nuclear power plant than you are living next to a coal power plant so agreed, Radioactive = not safe. Current renewable energy technology = not realistic. Nuclear power = only viable clean energy source.
edit on 23-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 
MamaJ sorry about the loss of your son. You are very correct. I know of a high radiation (tower) area that had 3 children with lukemia in a school of 300. Many residence had various forms of cancer, yet the gov't did a study on one type of rare brain cancer. They found more cases of this cancer then normal in the area but it wasn't off the charts so they declared the area safe for all.

Nuclear is not safe- period



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join