Radiation Watch 2013

page: 2
46
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


Well I didn't say we don't need any more.

It is possible to have nuclear power that is safe and clean. Please understand that the tech in current nuclear power is similar to cars int he 70s, in terms of scale. If you took a car from the 70s and put it near, say, Tesla....you should be picking the Tesla.

Likewise, 4th generation reactors are far more than what their predecessors were.




posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


It is possible to have nuclear power that is safe and clean.

Well yah, when they are operating normally.

Oh, except the waste... and when they explode.




posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


And you're ignoring what I said.

Modern nuclear reactors neither produce waste nor explode.

See you just revealed your lack of knowledge in this catagory. Some reactors are already in a melt down state in order to work. And some reactor's waste can be used in other energy gathering sources.

Fukushima was a 1970s reactor design. Not a 2010's reactor design.

What you are doing is like saying cars today are bad because a car in 1970 tended to explode.
edit on 14-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   



The fact also remains: Coal emits 100 times more radiation per unit of electricity generated than an equivalent sized nuclear powered station


You cannot just say 'radiation'. Concrete emits radiation; people emit radiation. You have to be more specific - about type and source. Then there is the chemical toxicity of Radionuclides a much more subtle and devastating poison.

I agree that coal is very toxic as well, but less so in the body in the amounts average people injest





The difference with coal is it tends to contaminate everywhere totally but mildly, whilst nuclear also contaminates everywhere but most a few areas intensely.



and so does the chemical toxicity of radioactive materials. Fukushima is still discharging very contaiminated water into the PACIFIC OCEAN to what effect - we have no idea. HOW LONG will it be effected - forever.




It is Japan’s increased use of coal fools since Fukushima like you should be campaigning against in order to save humanity both from subtle death, and long-term climate problems.
thebreakthrough.org...#

And Japan (like Germany www.bloomberg.com...
are all now using more fossil fuels). This is not what you want, but it is down to what you want i.e. your insane campaigning against nuclear (especially in such a narrowly minded, single sided way).



Again - coal does not continue to destroy the enviroment for hundred of thousands of years - as does the products and waste of the entire Nuclear Cycle.

A few resources:

www.nukefree.org...
www.corbettreport.com...

And a book (in a PDF) on the environmental hazards of the Nuclear Cycle (mining, transportation, enrichment, usage, disposal, storage):

ifg.org...
or to purchase:

www.amazon.com...

Radiation is only the tippy top of the Nuclear iceberg.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by TheToastmanCometh
 



And then you have radioactive bacteria - and so on up the food chain.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Maslo
 

Tha depends on what you consider a "low dose". The "nuclide" (read that smaller than an atom) bit of xray machine in your body that is bombarding nearby cells with alpha radiation is not even detectable unless you get a "full body scan" Those are expensive by the way.

Hers a pic of what it does to living flesh...



A particle of plutonium 239 revealed by autoradiography. The black star in the middle of the picture shows tracks made by alpha rays emitted from a particle of plutonium 239 in the lung tissue of an ape. The alpha rays do not travel very far but once inside the body they can penetrate more than 10,000 cells within their range. This set of alpha tracks (magnified 500 times) occured over a 48 hr period. The plutonium 239 particle that emitted them has a half life of 24,400 years. [Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Berkeley California, September 20, 1982.]



This illustration is taken from Robert Del Tredici's book Working in the Fields of the Bomb - published in 1987. It shows a plutonium particle emitting ionising radiation. The tracks are about 35 microns (5 cell diameters) but this is a two dimensional view of a 3D tissue event, which in fact occurs continuously in biological space. Like a land mine that never stops exploding, it is perpetually damaging and destroying cells.

Did I read that correctly? 24,000 year long mini land mine in my flesh? Some cells are destroyed and die. Others heal but the next time they divide "may mutate" and that gives rise to incidences of cancer. It doesn't mean you are going to get cancer , just that the odds of that are increased by having "radioactive contamination" in your system. This is not a "low dose" as defined by the posters linked article, it is a continuos dose.

www.animatedsoftware.com...
edit on 14-1-2013 by intrptr because: additional...


Excellent post - great source - education, education, education. Thank you.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 


Nuclear power is actually pretty good. You're focusing on primitive nuclear power, while totally ignoring that you can even use nuclear waste as a power source in more modern designs.

Nature isn't at war with nuclear industry. It runs on it. That big sun? That's nuclear. I see no reason to fight what is essentially powering the planet already.


The sun is 93 million miles away. Get a working fusion reactor and we'll talk.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by intrptr
 


Well I didn't say we don't need any more.

It is possible to have nuclear power that is safe and clean. Please understand that the tech in current nuclear power is similar to cars int he 70s, in terms of scale. If you took a car from the 70s and put it near, say, Tesla....you should be picking the Tesla.

Likewise, 4th generation reactors are far more than what their predecessors were.


But 4th gen reactors still do not address any of the other problems of the nuclear cycle - plant safety, need for vaste amounts of FRESH water to cool, transportation of fuel and waste, ad infinitum.
edit on 14-1-2013 by FyreByrd because: spelling




posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 


Dr Helen Caldicott is probably the best source of info on this. Its a long video and I dont agree with everything she says, but she is a good source of info about radiation and its effects.



edit on 14-1-2013 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


It's still nuclear, and I doubt we'll reach fusion if we don't first fully understand fission.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Actually a lot of them do. If you're using the right materials, the waste is an energy source that can be used. If you're using carbon derived containment, salt water can be used, because there's no metal to corrode.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


There is also a big ball of gas a million miles across that uses nuclear fusion, called the sun, that we can utilize to derive energy from. Also it drives the winds on our planet and those also can generate energy. The winds create ocean waves that can also be tapped for energy. And this energy source is good for at least 500 million years longer. The best part is that doing this wont poison our planet. Nuclear power does and will.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by openminded2011
 


Not all nuclear power does actually. As I've stated a few times now.

Furthermore, there is an inherit problem with solar power. It can never quite beat fossil fuels. And as we approach the ability to engineer bacteria that can consume solar energy and output oil, you can bet your but that the oil companies will be all over that.

A barrel of oil always beats a solar panel. Oh what a great irony if solar power made oil renewable.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


And you're ignoring what I said.

No I'm not. I'm responding to it. So are others. Comparing reactors to the sun is ludicrous. They are two entirely different things. But I see you aren't addressing that.


Modern nuclear reactors neither produce waste nor explode.

Modern? As in since all of 50 years modern? As they get older more of them will fail (some catastrophically) because the owners will run the risk of failure higher as they attempt to squeeze every dollar they can from operation before having to shut them down and build new ones. There is the risk of greed clouding judgment.


See you just revealed your lack of knowledge in this category. Some reactors are already in a melt down state in order to work.

WTF? A "meltdown state" is not a "working" state. It is failure.


And some reactor's waste can be used in other energy gathering sources.

The cost voids any profit incentive. All the spent fuel that has ever been produced is in storage either at the reactor site in "spent fuel ponds" or in off site cooling pools. There is no plan currently underway to reuse this dangerous toxic material for anything. "New designs" are a pipe dream.


Fukushima was a 1970s reactor design. Not a 2010's reactor design.

FUKU is real, not a "design".


What you are doing is like saying cars today are bad because a car in 1970 tended to explode.

Cars are not "bad". Oil is bad. Exhaust is bad. Wrecks are bad. Good thing none of that is radioactive too, huh?



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 





Modern? As in since all of 50 years modern? As they get older more of them will fail (some catastrophically) because the owners will run the risk of failure higher as they attempt to squeeze every dollar they can from operation before having to shut them down and build new ones. There is the risk of greed clouding judgment.


I wouldn't have a problem with government run energy or at least highly regulated.




WTF? A "meltdown state" is not a "working" state. It is failure.


Then what do you call a liquid fuel nuclear reactor? IE, a reactor which runs in a melt down state.




The cost voids any profit incentive. All the spent fuel that has ever been produced is in storage either at the reactor site in "spent fuel ponds" or in off site cooling pools. There is no plan currently underway to reuse this dangerous toxic material for anything. "New designs" are a pipe dream.


For the older models.




FUKU is real, not a "design".


A design is a real thing. And a liquid fuel reactor exists...




Cars are not "bad". Oil is bad. Exhaust is bad. Wrecks are bad. Good thing none of that is radioactive too, huh?


Yes, so eliminate the exhaust and problem is solved.

WALA,

Molten Salt Nuclear Reactors with LENR-Induced Transmutation of Nuclear Waste
edit on 14-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 

You may already know there is an ongoing thread here on ATS that has been running since the reactors failed in Japan. It is quite long, but has archives that members have provided as an aid to search thru... You can find the thread and an archive post here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This helped me to understand the disaster better. Like you said... educate ourselves about it. It is the future.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


I wouldn't have a problem with government run energy or at least highly regulated.

The nuclear power industry is already one of the most regulated industries. Government only adds to the bureaucracy and it could be said they that over regulation and design by committee has further complicated the process and the design of the plants to the extent that they are even more dangerous and prone to failure than ever.


Then what do you call a liquid fuel nuclear reactor? IE, a reactor which runs in a melt down state.

Oh, I see what you meant. Which runs in a "molten state" is different than a "melt down state" in a nuclear reactor. The terms are confusing. We are talking about two different things there.

I'll get back to you...

Edit: If you are referring to nuclear fusion reactors, that is only in the design phase (has been for decades). The practical problems are enormous. And molten salt types with nuclear waste added are even more problematic. All these are fancy ways to boil water. I know there is no easy alternative to power generation as it stands today.

Primarily because people consume so much of it. Most of that is waste. Air conditioners , security lighting at night, and Las Vegas use more than their share. Just kidding. Try telling people to cut back. That is the dilemma.

edit on 14-1-2013 by intrptr because: additional...



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Gorman91
 


I wouldn't have a problem with government run energy or at least highly regulated.

The nuclear power industry is already one of the most regulated industries. Government only adds to the bureaucracy and it could be said they that over regulation and design by committee has further complicated the process and the design of the plants to the extent that they are even more dangerous and prone to failure than ever.


Then what do you call a liquid fuel nuclear reactor? IE, a reactor which runs in a melt down state.

Oh, I see what you meant. Which runs in a "molten state" is different than a "melt down state" in a nuclear reactor. The terms are confusing. We are talking about two different things there.

I'll get back to you...

Edit: If you are referring to nuclear fusion reactors, that is only in the design phase (has been for decades). The practical problems are enormous. And molten salt types with nuclear waste added are even more problematic. All these are fancy ways to boil water. I know there is no easy alternative to power generation as it stands today.

Primarily because people consume so much of it. Most of that is waste. Air conditioners , security lighting at night, and Las Vegas use more than their share. Just kidding. Try telling people to cut back. That is the dilemma.

edit on 14-1-2013 by intrptr because: additional...


Whew. Thanks to you and FireByrd for saving me the time of clarifying all of these issues about nuclear power.

I also want to add that unless humans come up with the technology to contain the nuclear fuel rods safely, they will be burning holes through the Earth's crust long after the humans are gone. I don't see that happening with coal plants.

And you're right on the part of today's nuclear power being fancy water boilers, using dangerous fuels.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 





The nuclear power industry is already one of the most regulated industries. Government only adds to the bureaucracy and it could be said they that over regulation and design by committee has further complicated the process and the design of the plants to the extent that they are even more dangerous and prone to failure than ever.


Regulation without initiative is simply delay.




Oh, I see what you meant. Which runs in a "molten state" is different than a "melt down state" in a nuclear reactor. The terms are confusing. We are talking about two different things there.


Actually no. Molten means melt down. See when a melt down occurs, things become molten. So a smart man decided, "hey, molten things still have heat, so let's make a nuclear power plant run on molten material". There are some that actually think this is what the Earth's core runs on. Fission rather than fusion. So really, we're just making smaller versions of what the Earth is doing.

Molten cores are in a melt down state. It is why Molten reactors are melt down-proof.

Now leak proof is another thing. But leaks are rather solvable by the use of either carbon material shells, or of course, or you can use a beam to fix the problem. Something medical technology currently allocates for.

Now to be honest, unless you can prove other wise, I really see no reason to trust you as unbiased. You're clearly out for an agenda. So, prove why I'm wrong if you are so sure.




he practical problems are enormous. And molten salt types with nuclear waste added are even more problematic. All these are fancy ways to boil water. I know there is no easy alternative to power generation as it stands today.


Molten salt reactors produce very little waste. And the correct use and selection of materials enable LENR recycling capabilities for the waste.




Primarily because people consume so much of it. Most of that is waste. Air conditioners , security lighting at night, and Las Vegas use more than their share. Just kidding. Try telling people to cut back. That is the dilemma.


Light pollution is not nuclear waste.
edit on 14-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


It is possible to have nuclear power that is safe and clean.

You are either delusional or are speaking on others behalf in order to dis or mis inform the public at large. Judging by your attentions on this thread I conclude that it is both.

I've had my say here. Last reply.





new topics
top topics
 
46
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join


ATS Live Reality Remix IS ON-AIR! (there are 1 minutes remaining).
ATS Live Radio Presents - Reality Remix Live SE6 EP6

atslive.com

hi-def

low-def