reply to post by wantsome
You do realize the ocean is huge?
What I want to know is how much the radioactive waste (that's spilled into the ocean) is circulated. I remember the same concerns emerged when the
Deepwater Horizon platform sank and the piping broke. They wanted to know whether the oil would stick together and be moved by the gulf stream. I
think the best case scenario was/is that the oil gets spread out (as much as possible) so that it's not in thick concentrations. The same hope should
also apply in the case of the radioactive waste. If it gets circulated well then it should be absorbed into a large region of water and be less
I also think that coal power should be looked at just as deeply as nuclear. It's estimated that well over 200,000 people died every 10 years in the US
from coal power plants. After 2001 the rules were strengthened, but even in this new "climate" there still 100,000+ dying every 10 years. (I don't
think this number includes AGW impacts) Worldwide the number is much larger. Furthermore, we know that the amount of radioactive particles that're
released from burning coal are higher on average than what's released from nuclear power plants (barring a disaster like the one we saw/see in
These numbers of deaths are (probably; almost certainly) conservative. And (again) worldwide it's much worse. At least a million people were/are dying
EVERY YEAR from coal power.
So at least 10 million are dying every 10 years in total.
If you're surprised then you're not paying attention.
About the radioactive particles, have a look here:
past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by
coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a
by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant
producing the same amount of energy. * [See Editor's Note at end of page 2]
When you realize coal power has much more widespread use than nuclear you will see that "100 times" is significant. The facts about coal power paint a
very bleak picture.
It's so bleak that all this fixation on nuclear is almost misplaced. I say 'almost' because nuclear disasters DO happen and the nuclear waste problem
exists. If people truly cared about the environment and about saving peoples lives then they would be protesting coal power every bit as much as
they're protesting nuclear power. And as I said, I'm ignoring coal impacts on AGW.
Yes, I'm against MOX fuel. And yes they shouldn't have built the nuclear plants in japan on faults and too close to the shore. But think... now the
nuclear plants are being shutdown. Is this an overreaction? Probably, but then again, if hte companies can't behave responsibly then they shouldn't be
allowed to build these facilities. On the other hand, importing natural gas has its own vices.
I'm talking to you on the WEST COAST of the US. I live at ground zero as an american. I also live next to a river where they want to export coal to
other countries for burning. Furthermore, I rmmeber several years back they had a ship come up with contaminated soil from iraq. Not too far away is
the Hanford site where lots of nuclear waste remains. It's the most contaminated site in the whole US. Both people in my family had bouts wiht cancers
and routinely hear about it in newspaper. There was a protester that recently swam the (dirty) river next to the hanford site. This whole river isn't
just filled with crap from that site but from runoff and junk that comes off ships. It's very polluted.
I'm telling you that the dangers of coal are being greatly underestimated by people.
edit on 1-5-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason
Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.
edit on 1/5/12 by argentus because: changed quote tags to ex tags