If Radiation From Fukushima is Killing the Planet, How Are They Giving Tours?

page: 2
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
Anti-Nuclear Lobby + Money = Global fear campaign.

Truth is left by the wayside for everyone unfortunately.
edit on 31-5-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)


That's right! It's all BS, "nookler" power is good for us, you tell em BONCHO! Te hell with all them flamin liberal sons a bitches all damn bunch a commies am I right? Nookler power is good fer ye. So saddle yer self up there ole Boncho and head on over to Japan and git yourself a tour!




posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Well the way i see it.
They know the world is #ed and all is going to hell pretty soon, so why the # wouldn't they try to make a quick buck



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
There are basicall two major concerns here.

The first one is about the radiation which is set free in enormous amounts when nuclear fission occurs. For example when a reactor core goes critical or a nuclear warhead explodes. These types of radiation are short-lived and will only kill you when you are relatively close to the source at the time it is released. Even though there are so called re-criticalities occuring in Fukushima this is not the major concern. At least not for the people who do not live close to Fukushima.

The major concern is about the release of radioactive elements, especially the release of vast amounts of Plutonium from the spent fuel pool in Reactor IV. These elemets can be transported through the air, the water and the soil. It will take 250.000 ( !!!! ) years in order for half of the Plutonium to decay. A microgram of this stuff will kill if ingested. Now imagine tons of this stuff released into the ocean and the atmosphere, it might change life on this planet forever.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by HEYJOSE

Originally posted by boncho
Anti-Nuclear Lobby + Money = Global fear campaign.

Truth is left by the wayside for everyone unfortunately.
edit on 31-5-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)


That's right! It's all BS, "nookler" power is good for us, you tell em BONCHO! Te hell with all them flamin liberal sons a bitches all damn bunch a commies am I right? Nookler power is good fer ye. So saddle yer self up there ole Boncho and head on over to Japan and git yourself a tour!



Who were you planning to defend?

Deaths from energy production:





posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by HEYJOSE

Originally posted by boncho
Anti-Nuclear Lobby + Money = Global fear campaign.

Truth is left by the wayside for everyone unfortunately.
edit on 31-5-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)


That's right! It's all BS, "nookler" power is good for us, you tell em BONCHO! Te hell with all them flamin liberal sons a bitches all damn bunch a commies am I right? Nookler power is good fer ye. So saddle yer self up there ole Boncho and head on over to Japan and git yourself a tour!



Who were you planning to defend?

Deaths from energy production:




Im pretty sure that the information in your info graph is a bit skewed and bias. Sense officially the IAEA and the WHO organizations (who openly state they promote nuclear power) say that there have been 4000 deaths attributed to the Chernobyl disaster. But in 2005 the New York Academe of Sciences did a study that concluded around 996,000 deaths attributed to this disaster. I like to see which source they used. Things like these on the internet usual have an agenda, there for the information they present are bias. People should do there own research about a topic, and get there information from multiple sources and come to their own conclusions about it. Also deaths are just a part of the negative aspects attributed to nuclear power. There's also storing this waste for hundreds of thousands of years, the production of WG Pu, genetic defects, and birth deformities. Also the production of nuclear fuel is not exactly a clean processes either they use mines just like coal plants do. I would suggest looking up the nuclear fuel cycle.

www.iaea.org...
www.iaea.org...
www.nyas.org...
www.who.int...



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by BriGuyTM90
 


That graphic is from Scientific American and I assure you incredibly less biased than anything anti-nuclear coming out these days.

If your reading comprehension was better you would notice that those deaths are calculated for total gigawatts produced. And in fact, nuclear energy produces a massive amount of energy from a small amount of material and smaller infrastructure than coal and other methods do.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by BriGuyTM90
 


That graphic is from Scientific American and I assure you incredibly less biased than anything anti-nuclear coming out these days.

If your reading comprehension was better you would notice that those deaths are calculated for total gigawatts produced. And in fact, nuclear energy produces a massive amount of energy from a small amount of material and smaller infrastructure than coal and other methods do.



I actually did read and understand it, I was just wondering what source they used because using 4,000 instead of 996000 I'm sure would still have an effect on the data. And actually you have to mine 6 tonnes of U ore in order to get 1kg of reactor grade uranium. Like I said look into the nuclear fuel cycle you might be surprised by what you find. On a side note notice how I replied to this with out reverting to insulting your intelligence? It would be nice to receive the same respect from you sense it adds no value to this conversation.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
The major concern is about the release of radioactive elements, especially the release of vast amounts of Plutonium from the spent fuel pool in Reactor IV. These elemets can be transported through the air, the water and the soil. It will take 250.000 ( !!!! ) years in order for half of the Plutonium to decay. A microgram of this stuff will kill if ingested. Now imagine tons of this stuff released into the ocean and the atmosphere, it might change life on this planet forever.


Yes most definitely. So what I'm getting from all this is there is nothing really going on (at the moment) that is hurting us in the US. But for Japan it is a different story...

The spent fuel pools however...I for one am fairly convinced they are going to kill us all. It seems that nothing really is being done to reinforce that structure or get that stuff outta there and into a safer situation. There WILL be another earthquake eventually, probably soon considering there is usually plenty of aftershocks and such after a huge earthquake like the last one that hit. And they we are screwed.

I don't understand why they cant get that stuff outta there. Perhaps build a cooling pool that can be transported to the area where they can then use a helicopter(s?) to pick up that whole structure the rods are in now and drop it in the nice and safe new pool. Then they could get it out of the area and take care of it elsewhere. I'm sure I am grossly oversimplifying the situation but there has to be something they can do to fix it, especially if they can get close enough to give tours!



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by BriGuyTM90
 


And the amount of coal needed is in the thousands of tons....


So bearing in mind the above, 1 kg of U235 will produce as much energy as 1500 tons of coal. Let's try: 1kg of U235 (3,75%) has 83,14 TJ/kg. 1J=1Ws (3600Ws=1Wh). 1TJ=1000GJ=1 mio MJ 1kg of coal has 6000Wh/kg. I get 3850tons. Read more: wiki.answers.com...


---


I don't know the 4000 / 996000 number you are referring to...

?
edit on 2-6-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by BriGuyTM90
 


And the amount of coal needed is in the thousands of tons....


So bearing in mind the above, 1 kg of U235 will produce as much energy as 1500 tons of coal. Let's try: 1kg of U235 (3,75%) has 83,14 TJ/kg. 1J=1Ws (3600Ws=1Wh). 1TJ=1000GJ=1 mio MJ 1kg of coal has 6000Wh/kg. I get 3850tons. Read more: wiki.answers.com...


---


I don't know the 4000 / 996000 number you are referring to...

?
edit on 2-6-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)


The 4,000/996000 is deaths attributed to Chernobyl, my post above has sources. Now in ordered to processes natural uranium you first have to make it into yellow cake, Then convert it into UF6 which is an extremely toxic substance and there are "routine emissions" then you have to enrich it threw gaseous diffusion and then convert it back to Uranium Oxide to be made into the final fuel assembly. This processes takes so much energy to that it produces more pollutants and greenhouse gasses than your saving in your energy per unit mass argument. And now there starting to have to use poorer and poorer quality U deposits so its just going to become more inefficient. Now Im not saying that nuclear power is some demonic thing just that the way its being handled is being extremely fudged up. When nuclear power first came out they said your likely to have a major melt down once every 250 years or so and it can have that safety record but the way its been handled we ve seen one just about every 10-15 years.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlausibleDeniability
reply to post by BriGuyTM90
 


I want to know the black and white TRUTH of this issue both for me and everybody else trying to wade through this mess.


Have you considered that perhaps nobody really knows the truth? Nothing on this scale has ever happened before, so I doubt anyone can say definitively what is going to happen.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


I have considered that. It's kind of what I was digging at in this thread.

No one knows what the hell is going on and that's the scariest thing about this whole stupid thing. The whole situation is above everyone's head, we've collectively swam much too far into the deep end this time and by the time we figure it out it will already be over.

The only people that have any sort of idea of what's happening is TEPCO and the governments of the world and God knows they will never EVER tell anybody the truth, especially if it's going to hit any of their pocketbooks. Money above all as always. It is as it always has been.

The naive side of me hopes that they are being secretive about all this mostly to avoid accountability and keep the money flowing, not because we are all going to die slow painful deaths. But the realistic side of me....well, you know....



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by BriGuyTM90
 


Sources for your argument?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   


If Radiation From Fukushima is Killing the Planet, How Are They Giving Tours?


Because Fukushima is not killing the planet, that is stupid fear-mongering, nothing more. They are giving tours because radiation levels around the plant are safe for small periods of time.

Worst-case Fukushima (and any meltdown in general) scenario is somehow increased cancer rate. Anyone that claims Fukushima is killing the planet or is a threat for humanity as a whole can safely be put under the "nutjob" category.
edit on 3/6/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 





Workers have died! They have died while working, not ten years later. That area is HOT! I would not even go on the tour, radiation suit not withstanding.


None of them have died of radiation poisoning.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by BriGuyTM90
 




This processes takes so much energy to that it produces more pollutants and greenhouse gasses than your saving in your energy per unit mass argument.


I highly doubt it. Modern methods of uranium enrichment are highly efficient. Today, it takes a fraction of the energy to enrich a kilogram of uranium than was required just 20 years ago.

The energy spent for processing and enrichment is still small compared to amount of energy uranium produces in a reactor.

Besides, pollutants and greenhouse gases are only produced when you power the process with fossil energy. If we had mainly nuclear grid, processing and enriching uranium would not produce much GHGs.
edit on 3/6/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)
edit on 3/6/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join