It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A life cycle study conducted by scientists Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith determined that nuclear energy produces 30 percent of the total C02 emission of a gas-burning plant, but only when the uranium has been extracted from rich soft ores. When poorer ores are used, nuclear energy produces proportionately more C02, and if lean ores are used with .01 percent or less of uranium, actually emits more C02 than if the same amount of electricity had been produced by burning fossil fuels directly. In other words, a dramatic increase of new nuclear power plants here and abroad and the subsequent need to mine deeper for uranium could, in fact, increase CO2 emissions due to the finite uranium resources available.
Originally posted by TheMindWar
So your saying massive amounts of radoactivity across the planet is a good thing? Hmm, ok.
I would like to see you go and survive in fukushima. We are now getting reports of "lots dying", hair and teeth loss, deformities.
As for chernobyl, mammals are born deformed there, you have been watching to much MSM my freind.
Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
In contrast, the 2009 report, “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment”, published by the New York Academy of Sciences, comes to a very different conclusion. The three scientist authors – Alexey V Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V Nesterenko – provide in its pages a translated synthesis and compilation of hundreds of scientific articles on the effects of the Chernobyl disaster that have appeared in Slavic language publications over the past 20 years. They estimate the number of deaths attributable to the Chernobyl meltdown at about 980,000.
The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that, among the hundreds of millions of people living in broader geographical areas, there will be 50,000 excess cancer cases resulting in 25,000 excess cancer deaths. For this broader group, the 2006 TORCH report predicts 30,000 to 60,000 excess cancer deaths, and a Greenpeace report puts the figure at 200,000 or more. The Russian publication Chernobyl, which has received criticism for its methodology and sourcing, concludes that among the billions of people worldwide who were exposed to radioactive contamination from the disaster, nearly a million premature cancer deaths occurred between 1986 and 2004.
In the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness (ARS), of whom 31 died within the first three months. Most of the victims were fire and rescue workers trying to bring the accident under control, who were not fully aware of how dangerous the exposure to radiation in the smoke was. Whereas, in the World Health Organization's 2006 report of the Chernobyl Forum expert group on the 237 emergency workers who were diagnosed with ARS, ARS was identified as the cause of death for 28 of these people within the first few months after the disaster.
There were no further deaths identified, in the general population affected by the disaster, as being caused by ARS. Of the 72,000 Russian Emergency Workers being studied, 216 non-cancer deaths are attributed to the disaster, between 1991 and 1998. The latency period for solid cancers caused by excess radiation exposure is 10 or more years; thus at the time of the WHO report being undertaken, the rates of solid cancer deaths were no greater than the general population. Some 135,000 people were evacuated from the area, including 50,000 from Pripyat.
Originally posted by TheMindWar
lol, contaminating every atom is not what is going on here, lol. To contaminate the whole ocean does not mean every H20 will be radioactive. think about it this way, radioactive dust in the air doesn't mean that the air is radioactive, it means the "dust" in the air is.
What this means is, there will be nowhere in the ocean that is free from radioactive material, (i.e at the macro level). Basically, there will be no life in the ocean free from radioactivity. Hope that helps you understand whats going on here. Its not the water that becomes radioactive, its the contaminated material "in" the water that is.
provide in its pages a translated synthesis and compilation of hundreds of scientific articles on the effects of the Chernobyl disaster that have appeared in Slavic language publications over the past 20 years.
Further, as Prof Dimitro Godzinsky, of the Ukranian National Academy of Sciences, states in his introduction to the report: “Against this background of such persuasive data some defenders of atomic energy look specious as they deny the obvious negative effects of radiation upon populations. In fact, their reactions include almost complete refusal to fund medical and biological studies, even liquidating government bodies that were in charge of the ‘affairs of Chernobyl’. Under pressure from the nuclear lobby, officials have also diverted scientific personnel away from studying the problems caused by Chernobyl.”
She called the situation in Japan was an “absolute disaster” that could be many, many times worse than Chernobyl. Dr Helen Caldicott raised the possibility of cataclysmic loss of life and suggested the emergency could be far more severe than Chernobyl. “The situation is very grim and not just for the Japanese people,” said Dr Caldicott. “If both reactors blow then the whole of the Northern Hemisphere may be affected,” she said. “Only one reactor blew at Chernobyl and it was only 3 months old, with new cores holding relatively little radiation; these ones have been operating for 40 years and would hold about 30 times more radiation than Chernobyl’s.” Dr Caldicott cited a report from the New York Academy of Sciences, which said that over 1 million people have died as a direct result of the 1986 melt-down at Chernobyl, mostly from cancer. She said authorities had attempted to “hush up” the full scale of the Chernobyl disaster. The official 2005 figure from the International Atomic Energy Agency was just 4,000 fatalities. The NYAS is a credible 200 year-old scientific institution. Their précis of the report is as follows: This is a collection of papers translated from the Russian with some revised and updated contributions. Written by leading authorities from Eastern Europe, the volume outlines the history of the health and environmental consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. According to the authors, official discussions from the International Atomic Energy Agency and associated United Nations’ agencies (e.g. the Chernobyl Forum reports) have largely downplayed or ignored many of the findings reported in the Eastern European scientific literature and consequently have erred by not including these assessments. When asked whether the disaster in Japan could be, say, 30 times worse than Chernobyl, Dr Caldicott said it could be even most catastrophic than that. “It could be much, much, worse than that,” said Dr Caldicott. “This could be a diabolical catastrophe—we’ll just have to wait and see.”
What really aggravates me though is that they say the levels of radiation are low. You know, no immediate harm, no. But if you inhale or ingest these radioactive particles of Strontium 90, Cesium 137, radioactive Iodine, etc., you won’t get Leukemia for five years. So there is no immediate danger ‘per se’. Immediate danger means those poor fellows in the reactor vessels trying to do something, and they’re dead men walking. Many of them are going to be dead within two weeks of acute radiation illness. So they are in immediate danger. Everyone else is in long-term danger of getting cancer, or Leukemia, or having their genes mutated in their testicles or ovaries to affect future generations. AS: Yes, and we saw after Chernobyl the way that people were shunned who came from there. People didn’t want to marry them. People didn’t even want them around. They thought they might have radioactivity on their clothes. We are going to see that again with these Fukushima evacuees, who may never be able to go home. What do you think their situation is? HC: Well, it’s so ironic, and tragic because the ‘Hibakusha’ in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in exactly the same position. The Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission which was run by the U.S., who dropped the bombs, studied these people voraciously to find out what happened to them, because they were the guinea pigs – but they never got any treatment. And people shunned them. They got cancers in large numbers. No one wants to marry them because their genes may have been affected and mutated. So at Chernobyl it’s the same, and here again we have another absolute disaster which if it really is ongoing, it’s going to contaminate the whole of the Northern Hemisphere, as did Chernobyl. AS: In fact, we’ve received radiation here in British Columbia [Canada] and along the West Coast. But it’s also been measured in Iceland, having arrived from Fukushima… HC: Oh really! AS: Now in very low amounts they say, but they can find that signature so it is moving around the northern hemisphere as we speak… HC: Well, when they say low amount, you know, you need one millionth of a gram of plutonium inhaled into your lung, to give you cancer. They are measuring the external gamma radiation, running around with Geiger counters. But that doesn’t give you any indication at all of the kind of isotopes which make up the radiation that they are measuring. They don’t know what they are talking about.
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Ok, all that out of the way... if somebody could actually post some solid numbers we might colletively take a crack shot at trying to determine what the Fukishima mess might increase the already existing normal background radiation levels of the Pacific....
9,488 Bq/Kg of cesium (134 + 137) was measured in Edogawa ku in Tokyo. It equals to 2,566,720Bq/㎡.
In the secondary evacuation area in Belarus, it was 555,000 ~ 1,480,000 Bq/m2 of cesium 137.
Even if you consider the data of Tokyo includes cesium 134, still it can be near the maximum limit of the secondary evacuation area in Belarus.
Originally posted by azureskys
reply to post by TheMindWar
This is where the world as a whole needs to put down the weapons, put their brains together and figure out what to do to keep this disaster from getting any worse. If it isn't far to late already.
We have the ability to create all of this technology, so we should be able to work together to fix things
and make them right.
Of course we could pray to a God to save us or we can wait for the aliens make it all better.