Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Radiation Watch 2013

page: 4
46
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by FyreByrd
 




These are stone structures and again not bombarded by radiation on a daily basis.


Radiation does not damage the structural integrity of anorganic materials in a way that would endanger them.





Nonsense - and again no sources....

To rebut and from a very pro-nuke source:




The effects of low doses, 1020 neutron/cm2 or >1010 rads of gamma,
concrete has been reported to exhibit reduction in compressive and tensile
strength and a marked increase in volume.
The effects of long-term exposure of concrete to elevated temperatures are
a loss of water in the concrete leading to a decrease in compressive strength,
changes in the modulus of elasticity, creep resistance, conductivity, and
diffusivity. Generally speaking, the threshold of degradation is 95C, and the
effects increase with increasing temperature and time exposure.


from the openning summary of a literature review of the subject: www.inl.gov...




posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by openminded2011
 


Well you're sort of wrong on virtually all accords.

Modern reactor designs cannot meltdown. And they cannot cause the scale of disaster you are talking about.

First up is the fact that the Japanese reactor was a poorly built, poorly maintained 50 year old reactor. Would you ban all cars just because a Ford model T killed some people in an explosion?

Your logic really is no different.

Secondly is the fact that a melt down does not create thousands of years of poisoned Earth. It's deathly toxic for a decade or two, then natural processes pull the radiation down and sink the material into the Earth. You have a few higher levels of cancer and defects for a few decades, then nature takes its course and you're pretty ok.

For example, Chernobyl is not a death trap today. Today it has a thriving ecosystem that is reestablishing itself.

And in the past 30 years there have been uncountable deaths in coal and oil extractions that you probably haven't even heard from. Not to mention the calamity of ecological disaster that has come from large scale oil extraction.

I'm sorry, but if Deep Horizon had been an underwater nuclear reactor, it would already have contained itself from the water pressure and cooling effects.

Your choices are simple. Solar and wind, Fossil Fuel, or Nuclear. Bare in mind, again, that solar power enables fossil fuels to become renewable. And wind is not 100% reliable unless you do it widespread across the entire American south.
edit on 17-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by openminded2011
 


Well you're sort of wrong on virtually all accords.

Modern reactor designs cannot meltdown. And they cannot cause the scale of disaster you are talking about.

First up is the fact that the Japanese reactor was a poorly built, poorly maintained 50 year old reactor. Would you ban all cars just because a Ford model T killed some people in an explosion?

Your logic really is no different.

Secondly is the fact that a melt down does not create thousands of years of poisoned Earth. It's deathly toxic for a decade or two, then natural processes pull the radiation down and sink the material into the Earth. You have a few higher levels of cancer and defects for a few decades, then nature takes its course and you're pretty ok.

For example, Chernobyl is not a death trap today. Today it has a thriving ecosystem that is reestablishing itself.

And in the past 30 years there have been uncountable deaths in coal and oil extractions that you probably haven't even heard from. Not to mention the calamity of ecological disaster that has come from large scale oil extraction.

I'm sorry, but if Deep Horizon had been an underwater nuclear reactor, it would already have contained itself from the water pressure and cooling effects.

Your choices are simple. Solar and wind, Fossil Fuel, or Nuclear. Bare in mind, again, that solar power enables fossil fuels to become renewable. And wind is not 100% reliable unless you do it widespread across the entire American south.
edit on 17-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)


Where are your sources?

"Sinks into the Earth" ....yeah and pollutes the ground and water table .... no thank you.

You have a very narrow scope for your vision and understanding. Chernobyl is still a death trap and will be for thousands of years - even with fair containment. What if there were an earthquake that broke the containment (and remember the Soviets dug UNDER the reactor to contain as well) and let the still radioactive and chemical poisons into the environment again.

Where do you get these ideas - even the most ardent supporters of the Nuclear Cycle are cognizant of these dangers. This is in the category of 'intelligent design' anti-science fundamentals.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


You are absolutely correct, yet completely irrelevant to what we are talking about. Not all radiation is equal. Neutron radiation of higher fluxes can cause structural defects (thats what your link talks about), but it is only present in a working reactor (both fission and fusion). Nuclear waste is not critical, it emits only alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. Alpha and beta can be shielded with a few mm of aluminium. The only radiation which would impact external (structural) concrete is gamma radiation. Gammas do not pose a problem for concrete.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Liberal1984
 


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

so you are saying that nuclear is worse than coal, right? both everywhere but with nuclear, some areas are intense(surprise?)

" 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.
"

it does not appear that english is your mother tongue or is japan using "coal fools" more than before? cant really follow that one.

climate problems are mainly due to the vast changes occurring throughout the solar system. they are not mainly anthropomorphic.

anyone who encourages nuclear power before learning how to decontaminate its waste is the dominant fool.


edit on 18-1-2013 by orangutang because: clarify para
edit on 18-1-2013 by orangutang because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


dont forget

tidal power, very clean, although it may slow the moon down.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Yes after polluting the ground water table in those first very toxic decades, it eventually finds its way down to the pits of the Earth where we find other radioactive materials that got their naturally.




You have a very narrow scope for your vision and understanding. Chernobyl is still a death trap and will be for thousands of years - even with fair containment. What if there were an earthquake that broke the containment (and remember the Soviets dug UNDER the reactor to contain as well) and let the still radioactive and chemical poisons into the environment again.


Then those people would be retarded for using the chemicals that create that situation over chemicals that decay in a few decades-hundreds of years, like modern nuclear reactor designs do. Which, again, do not meltdown.




Where do you get these ideas - even the most ardent supporters of the Nuclear Cycle are cognizant of these dangers. This is in the category of 'intelligent design' anti-science fundamentals.


No, it's the catagory of not using dangerous systems that can create those dangers. As common sense would dictate.
edit on 18-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by orangutang
 


Technically every hydro electric dam on Earth is doing that, but let's not get into the space-magic energies of gravity that make no sense.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I didn't get into this thread to say this, but before I go on to that item, I wanted to voice the opinion that we must persist in using nuclear power. We have to master this area of physics. We don't have a choice. Having said that, it is abundantly clear that the nuclear industry needs to be watched like a hawk, and not just by scientists. Somebody once said that war is too important to be left in the hands of the military. The same could be said for science. It is too important to be left in the hands of scientists.

Incidentally, that is something that scientists say all the time, "Hey, I'm just a scientist! The ethics of all this is up to you. Science is pure." (While working on implants to turn people into cold killing machines.)

What I wanted to say is that apparently they have caught a fish off Fukushima with a level of contamination of cesium 2500 times the legal limit in Japan.

www.lefigaro.fr...


Tepco, l'opérateur du site, a mesuré dans ce poisson une quantité de césium radioactif égale à 254.000 becquerels par kilogramme alors que la limite définie pour les produits de la mer par le gouvernement est de de 100 becquerels/kg.

Pour éviter que les poissons hautement contaminés ne partent trop loin au risque d'être consommés par d'autres espèces ou pêchés, Tepco va installer de nouveaux filets.


Tepco, the operator of the site, has measured a quantity of radioactive cesium in this fish, equal to 254,000 becquerels per kilogram, while the limit allowed for seafood by the government is 100 becquerels per kilogram.

To avoid having highly contaminated fish going too far and risking being eaten by other species or caught by fishermen, Tepco is going to install new nets.


Isn't that thoughtful of them? I wonder if it will work. At least they are on the job. Not too much radiation could have leaked in two years, right?


edit on 18-1-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Nets?!?! Thats their answer?

I can see some people going, but thats just one fish.

The debate about this topic is sad. Radiation is bad, and I'm glad for this thread to help keep track of this crap.

Peace



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   
I can't believe the level of conversation taking place here, folks. "We're toasting the planet but lets see if we can invent a better plutonium factory?"
Did somebody invent a new concrete that lasts 100,000 years?

Do some research. Thorium reactors could never replace nuke plants because they need nuke plants to feed them.
Yes..thorium reactors do use plutonium...thorium in itself is not fissile..it becomes a fuel only when mixed with plutonium or enriched uranium and the nuke-mythologists keep telling people nuclear is the way to perpetual energy....but they Hide that the thorium stage is not possible without a large number of uranium reactors first.

These psudo scientists have to find a new multi-billion, BS gimmick so the same welfare sucking, corner-cutting, government controlling, mafia, can convince the sheeple to accept the next gun to our heads.

Its the tritium that the weapons makers need , and thorium reactors do produce heavy water in much higher quantities . the rest seems self apparent to me , there is no way to terrorist proof or mother nature proof any reactor , and having one steaming and smoking for the next 40 years on USA or Canadian soil like in Japan, only has to happen once to do a lot of human and property damage, and like someone mentioned they still have no way {and never will have} any method for getting rid of this poison.
Lets compare the issues of solar with extinction, shall we?......
Solar panels can't blow up and cause world-wide misery and death for 20 generations. Of course the development of this energy won't get any funding unless the same low-life's can control it. It not just about getting rid of nukes. That's only step 1. Step 2 is to put the average home owner in charge of his or her own piece of the grid.
Impossible you say?
When every child in every family has some form of cancer, you'll wish you weren't so quick to dismiss these ideas.

Ok, new biz.
More hot fish 2,500 times the legal limit..... coming to a store near you.
au.news.yahoo.com...

If you were following this thread in 012 you know that the Northern Jetstream is being split in two by La Nina.
www.youtube.com...

My buddy in Brazil has had a lot more hot rain in Brazil than I have had in Canada.
This is his vid from July 012 when his rain hit 100 X background.
www.youtube.com...

And now he has found a hot lake reading more than double background.
He has NO sources of Cesium 137 anywhere near him.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Aircooled
 


You're argument kind of falls short because all nuclear reactors require power to operate. Usually quite the bit.

You don't need a nuclear reactor to power a thorium one. You need power. That can come from anywhere. And then once it begins, you just build more thorium reactors to expand.

And while we haven't invented concrete that lasts 100,000 years, I was in a lab-like setting last year. I can tell you that even I've fabricated some interesting formulas of bio-enhanced plaster of my own flavor. It is possible to create some very very impressive materials with ash and animal bones. Not that this has anything to do with the topic at hand.

Also for your lake, you do realize that there's no reason to assume cesium has anything to do with it? Aside from the fact that it would indicate that the entire region would have to be incredibly radiated, not just one lake. And considering that the entire region is not radiated, then it probably is that lake.

Also you can fake a reading. There's radiation in your fire detector.
edit on 18-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Aircooled
 


You're argument kind of falls short because all nuclear reactors require power to operate. Usually quite the bit.

You don't need a nuclear reactor to power a thorium one. You need power. That can come from anywhere. And then once it begins, you just build more thorium reactors to expand.

And while we haven't invented concrete that lasts 100,000 years, I was in a lab-like setting last year. I can tell you that even I've fabricated some interesting formulas of bio-enhanced plaster of my own flavor. It is possible to create some very very impressive materials with ash and animal bones. Not that this has anything to do with the topic at hand.

Also for your lake, you do realize that there's no reason to assume cesium has anything to do with it? Aside from the fact that it would indicate that the entire region would have to be incredibly radiated, not just one lake. And considering that the entire region is not radiated, then it probably is that lake.

Also you can fake a reading. There's radiation in your fire detector.
edit on 18-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)


Hey there, I'm trying to understand your ardent pro-nuke stance with all of these issues about radiation and death to humans on a massive scale for potentially having the smallest part of radiation in their lungs or other body parts.

I have some questions for you personally:

Would you be willing to live within 50 miles of Fukushima?

How do you suggest Tepco (and whoever else involved at Fukushima) to remove the fuel rods?

What is your suggestion for Japan to store all of their radioactive waste-water they are using to cool down the fuel rods? (This will continue until the fuel rods are removed and safely contained)

I am really curious on your answers, because this same situation could happen to probably most any other nuclear reactor around the world. Just curious =)
edit on 18-1-2013 by Philippines because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 


Most nuclear reactors are old designs from the 60s and 70s.

I wouldn't want to live near them anymore than I'd want to drive a Ford Pinto or live in the polluted cities of the era.


Look up molten salt reactors. I would have no problem living withing 50 miles of them. The most advanced designs have no fuel rods, no risk to meltdown(Because they're in a meltdown state to work), and effectively are the most efficient designs I know of short of orbital solar arrays within today's reach of technology.
edit on 18-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Philippines
 


Most nuclear reactors are old designs from the 60s and 70s.

I wouldn't want to live near them anymore than I'd want to drive a Ford Pinto or live in the polluted cities of the era.


Look up molten salt reactors. I would have no problem living withing 50 miles of them. The most advanced designs have no fuel rods, no risk to meltdown(Because they're in a meltdown state to work), and effectively are the most efficient designs I know of short of orbital solar arrays within today's reach of technology.
edit on 18-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)


Great, so you admit and have the sense to stay away from radiation. I'm still curious on how you would propose to fix the current Fukushima situation. As I said, this same situation could potentially happen at probably any reactor.

I looked up molten salt reactors at Wikipedia here. I did see that there was a Molten Core Salt Reaction Experiment. This experiment was conducted for around 5 years in 1965 onwards. They did suffer some problems and had to shut down the operation. Doesn't this mean that Molten Salt Reactors are also conceptualized and tested during the same time as "old designs"?

I have also looked for any operational molten salt reactors anywhere in the world, but could not find any. Can you please name some in operation and selling electricity somewhere?

Thanks for your time and responses!



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 


I wouldn't have built a reactor on a fault line with the backup generators bellow the water line in both a flood zone and coastal area.

Someone was retarded. To be honest, I don't have a great deal of pity for what happened. They got what they paid for.

Forgive my borderline sociopaths response for it. I just really really really disdain bad designs that are so obvious a middle school child could have done better.



As for the Molten reactor, many many designs that we are considering for the future come from the past. Everything from NASA's SLS to phaser guns.


When I insulted the age of the design of reactors like fukushima, it's because the difference is in concept vs practicality and functionality. We did not have the technology to make such reactor designs work on a practical level. Now we do.

For similar technologies that were not practical when conceived, and now are, enjoy this video. You may notice some of them already have become real. Because now they are practical:

edit on 19-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Philippines
 


I wouldn't have built a reactor on a fault line with the backup generators bellow the water line in both a flood zone and coastal area.

Someone was retarded. To be honest, I don't have a great deal of pity for what happened. They got what they paid for.

Forgive my borderline sociopaths response for it. I just really really really disdain bad designs that are so obvious a middle school child could have done better.



As for the Molten reactor, many many designs that we are considering for the future come from the past. Everything from NASA's SLS to phaser guns.


When I insulted the age of the design of reactors like fukushima, it's because the difference is in concept vs practicality and functionality. We did not have the technology to make such reactor designs work on a practical level. Now we do.

For similar technologies that were not practical when conceived, and now are, enjoy this video:

edit on 19-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)


Again, thanks for your responses, but I don't see any direct answers. When I read between the lines I see this:

"There is no operational molten salt reactor anywhere, it is a pipedream for the future."

Using logic, this means that every nuclear reactor is potentially dangerous to everyone living around it, because they are all based on the old design?

Referring to the OP's map of the USA on page 1, this means most everyone on the East coast is at risk because there are a LOT of reactors. In fact, my brother lives in Tennessee and has a NukAlert keychain radiation detector. I doubt it is as powerful as a larger meter, but if it does start beeping, then there is a significant amount around. Point being: his beeps occasionally around Memphis. I have never heard mine beep once here in the Philippines. There is no nuclear power in operation here, and the tradewinds blow Fukushima East to the USA.

Part of me tends to think you are arguing because you don't want to be potentially wrong about something



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 


I answered quite directly. Those reactors are 40 years old. The age of a design, and the age of a product are two very different things. Calling something a pipe dream is really just saying you don't want to take any risks.

In which case, keep with coal. There's no risks there.

Other countries are building these things. If you want to remain on 19th century technology, that's your choice.
edit on 19-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 01:55 AM
link   
The other day I noticed a news article about fish that have been caught in the Fukushima precinct and radiation levels were reported to be 2500 times the legal limit.

Is this a problem?

Thanks in advance



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Philippines
 


I wouldn't have built a reactor on a fault line with the backup generators bellow the water line in both a flood zone and coastal area.

Someone was retarded. To be honest, I don't have a great deal of pity for what happened. They got what they paid for.

Forgive my borderline sociopaths response for it. I just really really really disdain bad designs that are so obvious a middle school child could have done better.


Distain - that is the word for it.

All nuclear reactors require huge amounts of water for cooling and are sited near bodies of water either fresh or salt. Not stupidity - economics.

Aircooled didn't say that reactors were required to power Thorium reactors, he said they were required to provide fuel for the reactors. I didn't know that and am glad for the information.

And again - no souces to support your arguments - except for one from (wait for it) Disney.






top topics



 
46
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join