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.
It is possible to have nuclear power that is safe and clean.
The fact also remains: Coal emits 100 times more radiation per unit of electricity generated than an equivalent sized nuclear powered station
The difference with coal is it tends to contaminate everywhere totally but mildly, whilst nuclear also contaminates everywhere but most a few areas intensely.
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).
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...
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.
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.
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 category. 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.
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.
WTF? A "meltdown state" is not a "working" state. It is failure.
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.
FUKU is real, not a "design".
Cars are not "bad". Oil is bad. Exhaust is bad. Wrecks are bad. Good thing none of that is radioactive too, huh?
I wouldn't have a problem with government run energy or at least highly regulated.
Then what do you call a liquid fuel nuclear reactor? IE, a reactor which runs in a melt down state.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is possible to have nuclear power that is safe and clean.