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.

 

Pro-Nuclear Facts MSM Doesn’t Want You to Know

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Muckster But that’s the problem... You can’t trust them... they will never build them to a safe standard because it’s all about making money. The fat bloke with a cigar on a yacht in the Caribbean really doesn’t give a crap about radioactive waste being dumped in the ground 2000 miles away.

This is overly sceptical. Whilst it’s true (some) nuclear companies would build unsafe power stations if the people let them, a couple of facts remain…
1. There is no worse financial position for these businesses, than for the people to reject nuclear completely because it contains the word “nuclear”. This has already happened in Germany, where (ironically) many of the world’s safest nuclear power stations have been or will be shut down.

Germany's coalition government has announced a reversal of policy that will see all the country's nuclear power plants phased out by 2022. www.bbc.co.uk...
Of course one consequence of this decision is (despite Germany having more solar power than the US) it’s pollution emissions are rising rapidly

German nuclear cull to add 40 million tones CO2 per year www.reuters.com...


Therefore the public are in an extremely strong negotiating position, when it comes to demanding safe nuclear energy if only the anti-nuclear groups would raise the right questions, and inflict intelligent pressures. So far they simply don’t. They see the word “nuclear” and couldn’t really give a **** that safe nuclear power exists, because if they did, that would weaken their argument into something demanding: lower pollution, lower electricity caused deaths, together with rising world living standards. Many seem “ideologically addicted” to the idea that the way cut world pollution, is to somehow revert to how we lived in times past –i.e. by rejecting capitalism, materialism and what the vast majority of the public define as “progress”.

2. Nuclear accidents are not good for business! TEPCO’s share price collapsed after the Fukushima accident, and if it wasn’t for the Japanese government (effectively buying them) they would have gone bankcrupt completely –i.e. non-existent as a place of income for the owners.

3. Good safety does not always equate high cost! In the Pebble Bed Reactor it does, but in the Integral Reactor it means almost nothing in the big scheme of things (the safety primarily consists of some carefully positioned holes, that expand correctly with heat). No wonder then, why this project was cancelled so close to its completion. Because (just like e.g. free Tesla electricity from the sky) the government (and in particular industry that lobbies it) does not actually want virtually limitless, green, and (most offensively of all) cheaper than fossil fuel, electricity.


Every time they build a new nuclear power station they ensure us that they are perfectly safe and provide us with lots of statistics as to why nothing will ever go wrong...
Well yes, they would do! But all this means it’s long overdue for sceptics quit being anti-nuclear per say, and instead unite around opposing all nuclear energy that lacks two meagre significant words: “Passive Safety”.


When a coal power station goes wrong it might kill a few people... when a nuclear power station goes wrong it kills a few million.

No nuclear accident has killed a million –let alone millions! There was a report by seriously, anti-nuclear Greenpeace saying…

A new Greenpeace report has revealed that the full consequences of the Chernobyl disaster could top a quarter of a million cancer cases and nearly 100,000 fatal cancers.
www.greenpeace.org...

But it’s a total joke, and always be sceptical whenever you read the word “could”. The nearest high estimate (with proper science in it) is by the Union of Concerned scientists

Chernobyl Cancer Death Toll Estimate More Than Six Times Higher Than the 4,000 Frequently Cited, According to a New UCS Analysis

I.e. we are talking 24,000 deaths –less than those killed by airborne coal pollution, in just in the US, in just one year www.ecomall.com... I think this report is on the high side, and believe the 13000 estimate switchboard.nrdc.org...
Even so, the Chernobyl accident will (in total kill) less than US coal does in two years. For perspective this means both Fukushima and Chernobyl are currently scheduled to kill far less than the 171,000 in the Banqiao Dam Disaster
en.wikipedia.org... isn’t it testament to the erratic, semi-religious nature, of anti-nuclear paranoia, that hydroelectric dams aren’t being opposed with the same degree of “pro-life” passion?




posted on May, 20 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Liberal1984
 





This is overly sceptical. Whilst it’s true (some) nuclear companies would build unsafe power stations if the people let them, a couple of facts remain…



Well if someone, such as yourself who is clearly pro nuclear energy, admits that "some nuclear companies would build unsafe power stations if the people let them" then there really are no more facts worth looking at...

A few more fukushima type incidents is not what the world wants or needs right now. Personally i would close down ALL nuclear power stations and ban the production of anymore investing the money into solar, wind and tidal power.

The real reasons what alternative energies haven’t progressed much is because the big greedy corporates cant charge you a monthly bill for solar panels you bought and paid for yourself that sit on your own roof.

It’s all to do with greed. Nuclear energy is attractive because it is generated away from people’s homes and piped in; making it easy to charge people a regular bill for use rather than a one off purchase.

Peace



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ixtab
reply to post by SpearMint
 


German nuclear reactors are basicaly melt down proof, there nuclear technology is very advanced. They also dont build them on major fault lines, thats a big help.

Nuclear technology is as only as safe as the people who harness it I guess, so you know.


So, you're willing to trust the people for the next hundred thousand years to protect and preserve all the spent fuel rods buried in the ground? And of course, we, the trusted people of today, have calculated that these storage sites will be safe from any and all of Mother Nature's furies?

If I could travel back in time to when the first nuclear plant was being designed, I'd kill the designers (along with all those convinced nuclear energy is completely safe).



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


Many, many more than just 2 meltdowns have occurred. Just about every point is factually wrong. This reads straight from the typical nuclear power lobby's handbook. I have to go to work, but I'll write up a nice response later tonight. As soon as I saw the guardian link, I knew it was Monbiot. A shill for the nukes. It's no where near as "safe" as the op makes it seem. The fact people think only 2 meltdowns have occurred means misinformation is widespread. Hell, Fukushima is 3 meltdowns all by itself! lol Rocketdyne in CA is another off the top of my head. The company and the gov't didn't bother telling people they were engulfed in a radioactive cloud. How nice for those little children and babies to breath radioactive Xenon gas and radioactive Iodine. That's forgetting the other radionuclides emitted from the meltdown. Nuclear is hush hush on the extreme. Think CIA secrecy of the energy production world. I'll be on later to address the rest.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Muckster Well if someone, such as yourself who is clearly pro nuclear energy, admits that "some nuclear companies would build unsafe power stations if the people let them" then there really are no more facts worth looking at...

A few more fukushima type incidents is not what the world wants or needs right now. Personally i would close down ALL nuclear power stations and ban the production of anymore investing the money into solar, wind and tidal power.

Why not just oppose the unsafe versions of the technology (rather than include in opposition even the most inherently safe versions) ???

Also I will always happily admit whatever I believe to be the truth. But there are other facts worth looking at e.g.…
A. That in total, all nuclear accidents, of all descriptions have killed (at very worst credible estimates) in low the low hundreds of thousands
.B. That coal has in total killed not millions, but certainly tens of millions

As bad as Japan's nuclear emergency could have gotten, it would never be as bad as burning coal. Coal is fantastically dangerous, responsible for far more than 1 million deaths per year, according to the World Health Organization.

Start with the coal miners, thousands of whom die from mine collapses and thousands more from various lung diseases. Next, add the hundreds of thousands of deaths in the public from breathing coal's gaseous and particulate pollution, mostly from respiratory and heart disease.

Next, add the untold deaths and disabilities resulting from mercury in coal entering into the food chain. Then add the millions of acres of land, river and lake destroyed by mining waste.

Some of China's citizens worried about a radioactive wind blowing over from Japan, but coal-burning power plants from China are causing far more health problems for both China and Japan.

Coal even releases more radioactive material than nuclear energy — 100 times more per the same amount of energy produced, according to Dana Christensen of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), as reported in Scientific American in 2007. www.livescience.com...


C. Oil isn’t much better in death rate, per unit of energy. Again here are some visualisations…
www.the9billion.com...
D. That if man made global warming is a problem the deaths from fossil fuels not only be higher, but the deaths & destructions they cause could easily last into the tens of thousands of years –should e.g. a new ice age be triggered.

E. And that even if manmade global warming is not a big problem, the fact is there still aren’t enough (accessible) fossil fuels to meet human kind needs (particularly with literally billions quickly discovering how to have a more Western lifestyle).

G. All renewables are today dependent on (usually very steep) government subsidies. Hydroelectric is an exception, however it’s killed over 171000 in a single burst, upsets wildlife, and most importantly of all can only be done in certain locations anways.
Whilst the taxpayer can pay a lot by sacrificing e.g. healthcare, education & general (basic) well-being provided by government for green subsidies, industry (in particular) is usually (literally) economically compelled to seek the lowest possible electricity price. Losing industry is very bad for the trade deficit, inflation, and national prosperity generally.

MucksterThe real reasons what alternative energies haven’t progressed much is because the big greedy corporates cant charge you a monthly bill for solar panels you bought and paid for yourself that sit on your own roof.

Anyone serious about the energy debate, needs to get serious about the realities of the world we live. We live in a world where scores of genius have been murdered for simply improving the petrol engine, creating real free energy, and other things which challenge the fossil fuel industry. It doesn’t have to be our own: Look at the Middle East every one of them are brutal dictatorships that make little disguising of their murdering of people who do much less to offend them, than those who jeopardise pretty much the only source of national income.

The government doesn’t mind subsidising solar because solar (in light of the above) is probably always going to be more expensive than fossil fuel. And whilst our government hates spending money, it likes even more, to please it’s lobbyist –of which the fossil fuel sector is anything but insignificant.


It’s all to do with greed. Nuclear energy is attractive because it is generated away from people’s homes and piped in; making it easy to charge people a regular bill for use rather than a one off purchase.
That’s why it can actually be developed (in this brutal world, important human decisions, actually exist in). It can developed because it has rich interests behind it.

BUT...
But if you insist on opposing nuclear enough, they aren’t going to do the right thing (morally or in any other sense). All they’re going to do instead is invest in gassing our atmosphere (and ground water) with gas fracking. Of course in an ideal world things would be very different. Likewise: In all the millions of mankind’s existence, never has there been (even for a single millisecond) a moment when an ideal world has actually existed (even just with respect to human nature-governance).


jiggerjSo, you're willing to trust the people for the next hundred thousand years to protect and preserve all the spent fuel rods buried in the ground? And of course, we, the trusted people of today, have calculated that these storage sites will be safe from any and all of Mother Nature's furies?
Cornwall in England has rocks that haven’t changed in 300 to 400 million years. The world is full of such locations, stainless steel will never rust, concrete can be as hard as any stone, and nuclear waste has killed very few indeed (the few cases there are almost exclusively confined to the Soviet Union).


KillThePoor

As soon as I saw the guardian link, I knew it was Monbiot. A shill for the nukes. It's no where near as "safe" as the op makes it seem. The fact people think only 2 meltdowns have occurred means misinformation is widespread.

Nuclear is hush hush on the extreme. Think CIA secrecy of the energy production world. I'll be on later to address the rest.


I look forward to reading it. But can you prove to us all just one thing: That (even completely excluding probable deaths from climate change) nuclear has killed more, per quantity of electricity generated, than fossil fuel?
Because that’s (pretty much) the only way you’ll convince me that nuclear is not a most realistic solution, the many energy problems facing all humanities, imminent future.
edit on 090705 by Liberal1984 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Liberal1984
 





Why not just oppose the unsafe versions of the technology (rather than include in opposition even the most inherently safe versions) ???


Because even the safe versions produce nuclear waste, which is often disposed of in an unsafe manner... And leaks and accidents seem to be a regular occurrence... Yes these are often older designs... but they were once modern and people were once told, by people such as yourself, that it was all completely safe.

Then we get cancer spikes in places like Cumbria and the government does nothing...

UK nuclear power plants cleared of causing leukaemia

Radiation leaked from Dounreay for 20 year and they tried to cover it up...

Scottish nuclear fuel leak 'will never be completely cleaned up'

The Irish sea is the most Radioactive in the world thanks to Sellafield

Sellafield will remain a threat to Ireland

Then we have the spillages and cooling system breakdowns that were hidden from public and only came to light after a leak to the press

Radioactive spills and breakdown revealed at British nuclear plants

I could go on all day providing links and story’s about the horrors of this industry. Now you may argue that coal has killed more... and to be honest that doesn’t surprise me. Coal is a very dirty fuel and is known to cause respiratory complaints and death. However, if you spill some coal on the floor it doesn’t mean that you cannot grow crops for the next 100,000 years. Also, just because coal is bad does not mean that we should automatically give nuclear energy the green light.

If you want to place your faith in the Governments and corporate entity’s that run these plants... well that’s up to you. But time and time again they have failed us. The same as many other industries...

They told us Thalidomide was safe, Asbestos was harmless, smoking was good for a cough, time and time again they have done the despicable... Shell oil in Nigeria, Medical trials on kids by Glaxo, Warner-Lambert Co liver damaging diabetes drugs, Nestle baby milk in the 70's, Sanlu group baby milk, Bayer HIV infected products, Gulf of Mexico oil spill, Bholpal chemical plant, Chernobal, fukushima etc etc etc...

These are the people that run our world. You say "Anyone serious about the energy debate, needs to get serious about the realities of the world we live"... i am... they are all scum and i want no part of it. I would rather have no TV and the raw basics running off solar/wind than rely on these people and have all there electrical gadgetry and toys in my home.

They can keep it all. And that’s what we are doing at the moment, saving our cash so that we can get out of this broken system. My only fear is the, even when we are outside of it, we can still be affected by its blunders.

Sorry but nothing you will say can convince me... i don’t trust any of them.







edit on 20-5-2012 by Muckster because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Ixtab
reply to post by SpearMint
 


German nuclear reactors are basicaly melt down proof, there nuclear technology is very advanced. They also dont build them on major fault lines, thats a big help.

Nuclear technology is as only as safe as the people who harness it I guess, so you know.


So, you're willing to trust the people for the next hundred thousand years to protect and preserve all the spent fuel rods buried in the ground? And of course, we, the trusted people of today, have calculated that these storage sites will be safe from any and all of Mother Nature's furies?

If I could travel back in time to when the first nuclear plant was being designed, I'd kill the designers (along with all those convinced nuclear energy is completely safe).


That would make you not only an ignorant fool, but a murderous ignorant fool. Congratulations.

You know what, that remark is beneath me. I should not have made it. But damn its heartbreaking to be faced with such wrongheadedness. I'm done. Last post on this site.


edit on 20-5-2012 by justwokeup because: Apology and signing off.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Muckster Thank you very much for the clarity of your reply. Many of your thoughts I too have past considered –even if I have arrived at different personal conclusions.


Because even the safe versions produce nuclear waste, which is often disposed of in an unsafe manner...
Yes, a considerable amount of nuclear waste has been created across the world, but whilst it is very toxic…
1. The numbers of deaths caused by it are negligible (relative to those caused by current energy, or indeed left-over conventional munitions. Pretty much all the unsafe disposal of nuclear energy was done by the Soviet Union and United States in the distant past.
2. The volume of waste is very small. For example the UK has one of the world’s largest plutonium stockpiles at 112 tons www.world-nuclear-news.org...
Now: 112 tons of water would be 112 cubic meters (i.e. 1 meter wide, 1 meter long, and 112 meters high).
But because plutonium is very heavy (at 19.816 grams a cubic centre) the actual volume is only 5.65 cubic meters! Although: Because (for safety) it’s stored as a chemically stable, oxide at 11.5 grams a centimter3 this would actually be 9.739 cubic meters.
Then one should times this number by around 20, to include the way it’s actually encased in lead, concrete, and steel.
Even so: Around 200 cubic meters is all it is for the entire UK plutonium stockpile (for perspective: a house 6 meters wide, high and long has 216 cubic meters).
3. In addition to there being rocks several hundred million years old, as well as disused metal mines that can be up to mile deep, barrels made of unreactive alloys, and concrete’s as good a stone, the truth is it’s not even presently considered wise for the UK to dispose of most waste, since much of it promises to be a valuable, future asset...

According to the proposal, there would be two PRISM reactors each generating 300 MW of electrical power. It would take about five years to burn through the 112 tonnes of material. The reactors could be used for up to 60 years. theenergycollective.com...
Although these reactors are specifically designed to destroy-transmute plutonium, it’s also long been possible to create more plutonium than lost, from depletive uranium (through using Fast Neutron -Breeder Reactors), and that’s good because there’s a massive surplus of DU, and I’d rather see this go into plutonium for our National Electricity Grid than depletive uranium weapons (not least because they actually get used in “conventional” warfare).


Muckster And leaks and accidents seem to be a regular occurrence... Yes these are often older designs... but they were once modern and people were once told, by people such as yourself, that it was all completely safe.

Everything was once modern, and the price of progress is usually learning from mistakes made in the past. It’s the same with everything, in literally every category of human experience. Nuclear mistakes have been made, but the damage is way, way, less than other mistakes like oil & coal.
Likewise: It is surely the definition of foolishness & cowardice, verging on the extreme (in both cases) to basically say: “Right; we human have made some serious nuclear mistakes, of great media-fear consequence, but of relatively little (overall) practical consequence –at least in human life terms. And despite knowing how we’ve made mistakes, and usually how to avoid them again, we’re not even going to advocate (or indeed develop) the most progressive, and safest approach’s to this practical, carbon free, nuclear electricity, generating technology” I’m sorry but the world needs electricity that is…
1. Carbon free
2. As cheap as possible: Not only so takes off, but to use it in virtually all domestic heating, transport, and perhaps even one day, food production –should (or when) the world goes short on food)
3. And which kills less people, than the total number of years wiped out from humanity, by current technology -mostly fossil fuel & 1970’s nuclear technology.

A Concession…
I don’t even want many of the US power stations which are today operating, to continue operating –as (literally) most have had their licenses extended way beyond their intended operating life & knowing the subject well, I don’t believe the NRC when it says this is safe.

BUT…
Then I look at the reality of the world human nature & reality once again, actually condemns us to live in, and see something like Virginia’s Mountain removal mining: en.wikipedia.org... and it just makes my heart bleed. It makes my heart bleed particularly because I know, with more nuclear, this destruction (and scores other acts not least including…
A. Contaminating ancient water sources with fracking gas
B. Doing the same with heavy metals leaching from coal mines
C. Or even deepwater and foreign oil wars (because nuclear really could affordably electricity transport)
Would (not could) be 100% uneconomical-avoidable (if only nuclear was more widely embraced).

For this reason my opinion is very much get rid of fossil fuels with nuclear first, then work out how to do cold fusion, or hope the right politics-awakening happens and therefore something like Tesla energy is released by a “good government”.
But you’ll be waiting a very long time indeed, if you all you do to obtain progress is resist the best, of one technology, then wait indefinitely for something else (that’s both economical & allowed) somehow to take place.


Muckster If you want to place your faith in the Governments and corporate entity’s that run these plants... well that’s up to you. But time and time again they have failed us. The same as many other industries...

It’s not them I directly put my trust in! But rather a science. I understand how nuclear energy works intimately, and I understand how it can be done safely, I also understand it’s in literally no one’s interests for it to go wrong.
I don’t deny that: Humanity is often led by the most ruthless & evil amongst all us, that accidents do happen, and this case always has been, and always will be, if anything: Simply because “social power” is both where the ambitions & conditions are best suited, for the cleverest, yet most immoral people.
But despite this truth: The history of nuclear is not a bad one (relatively speaking in terms of life lost) and the very hopeful fact is (that no matter how bad the past is) humanity’s future, justifiably appears brighter -just as tomorrow’s future will do -once again.
edit on 090705 by Liberal1984 because: (no reason given)

edit on 090705 by Liberal1984 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by justwokeup

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Ixtab
reply to post by SpearMint
 


German nuclear reactors are basicaly melt down proof, there nuclear technology is very advanced. They also dont build them on major fault lines, thats a big help.

Nuclear technology is as only as safe as the people who harness it I guess, so you know.


So, you're willing to trust the people for the next hundred thousand years to protect and preserve all the spent fuel rods buried in the ground? And of course, we, the trusted people of today, have calculated that these storage sites will be safe from any and all of Mother Nature's furies?

If I could travel back in time to when the first nuclear plant was being designed, I'd kill the designers (along with all those convinced nuclear energy is completely safe).


That would make you not only an ignorant fool, but a murderous ignorant fool. Congratulations.

You know what, that remark is beneath me. I should not have made it. But damn its heartbreaking to be faced with such wrongheadedness. I'm done. Last post on this site.


edit on 20-5-2012 by justwokeup because: Apology and signing off.


Hey Justwokeup, go back to sleep and try again. If you think burying radiation in the ground is a good idea, you're not just dumb, you're a problem to the solution.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join