Radiation Watch 2013

page: 5
46
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
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)


This is the last one: WHAT OTHER COUNTRIES? China? Where are your sources.




posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
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.


I don't see how it is irrelevant to the discussion of safe containment. Radiation is only one aspect of the safe containment of nuclear accident sites - which was how, I believe we got here. There are other stressors on concrete as well - heat, ground movement, flood, etc.

I know that alpha and beta radiation can only penitrate a few 'cell lengths' (don't know the acutal measurement) and yes it can be easily shielded. But (and this has nothing to do with concrete) particles that radiate in those wavelengths when inhaled do damage surrounding tissues for the life of the particle which is, of course, dependent on the isotope.

I think the problem in this thread is keeping on track and not getting side tracked as we have from the Original Post. Which was "Radiation Watch". I do think it is important to acknowlege that radiation isn't the only danger we are facing from reactor accidents but there is a very real chemical threat to health as well.

All the aspects that have been discussed are important pieces of the understanding puzzle and get so easily confused. It would be nice to have 'sub-threads'

I digress....



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Sources were given. You ignored them. Why give them again?

Yes China actually. And Russia. And Japan. And England. And Norway. And India. Even Israel. Hell, even the Czechs.

www.guardian.co.uk...

www.smartplanet.com...

www.guardian.co.uk...
itheo.org...

www.smartplanet.com...

israel21c.org...

www.praguepost.com...

Like it or not, they are getting built. There's a reason why.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Sources were given. You ignored them. Why give them again?

Yes China actually. And Russia. And Japan. And England. And Norway. And India. Even Israel. Hell, even the Czechs.

Like it or not, they are getting built. There's a reason why.


Great, sources!!! Thanks! I will comment below each one. Are you reading these links before you post them, or just doing some searches on the subject and copy/pasting them?

The question from myself is to cite operational facilities that are selling electricity, if I remember right...



www.guardian.co.uk...

Comment: China is starting to work on research, development, and intellectual property rights as they begin to plan to build this new technology. This guardian sources this, which explains how there is no working facility... yet.

www.smartplanet.com...

Comment: This is a test. It does not say when the test will begin, nor do they plan on releasing that information to the public even if they start. The words "electricity" and "sell" are nowhere in the article body.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Comment: I will let the article, that I hope you read, speak for itself:


China has committed itself to establishing an entirely new nuclear energy programme using thorium as a fuel, within 20 years.



A private company founded by Kazuo Furukawa, designer of the Fuju reactor, called International Thorium Energy & Molen-Salt Technology Inc (iThEMS) aims to produce a small (10MW) reactor within five years. Furukawa is aiming for a retail price of 11 US cents per kWh (6.8p per kWh).


itheo.org...

Comment: Read.

At a press conference at KEIDANREN, an industry organisation with members such as Toyota, Toshiba and Hitachi, IThEMS unveiled their plans to build the world's first commercial Thorium Molten-Salt Reactor (Th-MSR) power generator.


israel21c.org...

Comment: Read the first sentence:

Within three years, an Israeli scientist and his American research partner plan to develop a cost-effective self-sustaining nuclear reactor.


www.praguepost.com...

Comment: Article Subtitle:
-

Dozens of scientists at work on thorium, an alternative to uranium


Doesn't sound like anything is operational here... and many of the articles clearly state this is technology from the 50s and 60s. That sounds around 50 years old to me..

I won't help you with your research again



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Aircooled
 





Do some research. Thorium reactors could never replace nuke plants because they need nuke plants to feed them.


Well, you misunderstood this completely. Initial thorium reactor requires U233. But this is not a problem because only the first one does. Other thorium reactors can be started by U233 from the first thorium reactor, etc.

How come you dont know such basic facts and criticise anyway?



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 03:27 AM
link   
And again, I know this is a conspiracy website and people here are particularly prone to paranoia, however the fact still stands that the best estimate for deaths due to Fukushima are around 100-200. Most likely, there wont even be a measurable increase in cancer rate. In many places in the world, there is higher natural background radiation than what Fuku did to Japan, and at this radiation levels the risk of cancer does not scale linearly. It is probable that even a single polluting coal plant operating as intended kills more people during its lifetime than Fukushima after meltdown.




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


I would. And Id certainly pick this over living near a coal plant.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 


That's exactly my point. It's being simultaneously built world wide.

Do you know what that means? Consensis.

A dozen countries wouldn't be racing to build these things if they didn't have invested interest and minimum risks.

And I know you like acting nice, but you really can't hide the fact that you are ignoring what I said.

60s Designs are not 60s. Products

Nor is age alone a determining factor to indicate bad design. It is, however, a determining factor in antique for **built**things and **produced** products.
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 @ 05:17 PM
link   
And still like typical beaurocrats the real issues are skirted and completely ignored.

Ignorant and blinded by tunnel vision , so hung up on getting their own points across that they miss the fact.

Selective mitigation. That's what it is.

Your a bunch of wanna be scientists and you behave like it too.

Still, no one wants to acknowledge that fish are 2500 times over the legal limit.

So I call your BS.

If your for real, go and eat some sushimi, from the Fukushima area.

Bet that shuts you up.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Philippines
 


That's exactly my point. It's being simultaneously built world wide.

Do you know what that means? Consensis.

A dozen countries wouldn't be racing to build these things if they didn't have invested interest and minimum risks.

And I know you like acting nice, but you really can't hide the fact that you are ignoring what I said.

60s Designs are not 60s. Products

Nor is age alone a determining factor to indicate bad design. It is, however, a determining factor in antique for **built**things and **produced** products.
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)


I have went through your thread and re-read your point that "60s designs are not 60s products."

You're right. 60s designs are not 2010+ products. 2010 products are based on 60s designs. And I am being nice because I really don't understand your platform as it keeps shifting -- except for the designs and product part being 60s and not 2010.



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


This thread has been about the dangers of current nuclear power operations. There is fallout from Fukushima and countless other unknown "leaks" from reactors, along with the issue of where to store the nuclear waste and not displacing communities in the process.

You came along and argue that the new generation reactors are fine and "It is possible to have nuclear power that is safe and clean." Sure, I agree. It is possible.

So here we are now.

There are at least 430 operational nuclear reactors (producing electricity) around the world -- using the current conventional "1960s / 1970s" (old) reactor design.

There is maybe 1 operational (in test phase, maybe) molten state reactor that is not producing electricity that we know of.

You have been stating that new reactors are safer than current reactor designs. That could very well be, but the fact of the matter is that none of them are in operation commercially, and it may be at least 5 years before any one of those reactors maybe comes online.

So now we have 430+ "old" reactors in operation and all of the problem baggage that comes with them -- which is the heart of this thread.

Talking about modern reactors and them being the savior is nice and all, but it doesn't address the current issue of 430 nuclear reactors.

Will they be magically retro-fitted with new technology? Will they be decommissioned as soon as the next-gen technology arrives, or will they continue to operate and produce radioactive waste under a risk of meltdown for the next 50 years?

I think that should be the focus of the thread, not what hope the future holds, but the current state of the nuclear power industry that people living near it's byproducts will have to deal with.... And that usually means an unpleasant death in my opinion.
edit on 19-1-2013 by Philippines because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   
I don't know if you guys have seen this, its from the 19th (today).

hisz.rsoe.hu...

A rockfish caught in the port of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant was found to have radioactive cesium 2,540 times the government's safety standard for foodstuffs, Tokyo Electric Power Co., the plant operator, said Jan. 18. Caught in December, the rockfish had a reading of 254,000 becquerels per kilogram, the largest reading found in seafood since the nuclear disaster of March 2011. The rockfish was caught near an unloading point north of the No. 1 through No. 4 reactors. No fishermen operate in the nuclear plant's port. The previous record was 25,800 becquerels of cesium per kilogram found in two greenlings caught about 20 kilometers north of the plant in August 2012.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:53 PM
link   

intrptr You make stuff up as you go?

"Totally but mildy"

"Few areas intensely".
I meant: Although radioactivity from an operating coal plant is weak at any one moment in time, it’s greater in quantity (owing to its constant production throughout the lifetime of a coal plant) and more widely dispersed (owing to its release in all weathers). Nuclear in contrast (when it goes wrong) tends to contaminate a much smaller area (owing in part to not being flushed up, purpose built chimneys) but far more intensely.


Read that Operating Nuclear Power plants. Not ones that frigging exploded and melted down. Before you call people insane look at your own backyard.
This does nothing to change the fact that combined death toll of all worldwide nuclear accidents, is less than those killed in year from burning coal. In the U.S alone (never mind China & India) coal kills up to 30,000 www.ecomall.com... whilst Chernobyl killed around 20,000-30,000 spectrum.ieee.org...

Hence you anti-nuclear fanatics are unhinged for proclaiming to be motivated by your-our health (yet actually) you all seem to care far more about “invisible nuclear” (which you can detect with scary Geiger Counter) than the even more invisible chemical-radiological deaths of coal!
Rationally it does not stack up (but does make sense when looked through the psychological eyes of misplaced fanaticism-obsession).

Lunchman Attack me your messenger, but you’ll never dent my message (unless you actually say something intelligent… Links would help).

Gorman91 Good points about how the safety has moved on.
The EPR www.areva.com...
And AP100 www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com...
Are two designs due for UK & US construction.

However whilst Thorium reactors do not require plutonium, they do require neutron activated Thorium. Neutron activated Thorium can be produced from other activated Thorium, however it is likely the first commercial reactors will indeed use plutonium. Not that I regard this as a bad thing, as plutonium is a waste product (especially ever since the cold war ended, and so many bombs dismantled) and Thorium reactors will transmute (destroy-expire it) into stable elements.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Gorman.
"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."

So you got nothing? Let's just keep making more and hope in 40 years somebody figures out how to get rid of it? I heard the same crap in 1973.

Gorman
"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."

Did you watch his rain video? The whole area IS being dumped on and his geiger is calibrated for cesium 137.

Gorman.
"Also you can fake a reading."

Pretty desperate ploy. {Let's try to consider everything but the obvious} So all of these concerned/scared people spend hundreds of dollars of their own money, and stand out in this radioactive crap, at all hours of the night and day and they're faking? Lets see you put out the cash and time, bud. Your own numbers will convince you.
I take that as a personal shot at all the folks trying to do what their government isn't doing.
Have I accused you of lying?

Gorman
"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."

I'll bet the nuke gang says the same thing in 2065 when the ones built this year blow up.

Gorman... again.
" 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."
Really? Most of them are. Not just in Japan either.

Here's what really baffles me. The total unapologetic attitude. What is that? Ego?
You know fuk had 1.1 million fuel rods on site, right? You know if there is a 7.5 or 8.0 quake close to fuk tomorrow it'll be last call for most of us. You know fuk can't be stopped because the reactors are all built in clusters right? Are any new designs putting reactors 50 miles apart?
Why would anyone agree that the industry has the right to do more damage than it's doing right now?
If the industry is so damn sure their next design will be flawless, let's see them build just one without public bailout or insurance. They won't. The industry would grind to a halt tomorrow if they had to pay the trillions in damage for their endless fubars.

On to new biz.
Really hot snow near fuk.


Bakersfield.



Arkansas. Hot snow and radnet removes the station that day.


Fukushima ken, date shi, oguni elementary school entrance 37-38,000
www.youtube.com...
The elementary school's lowest reading is equivalent to 4.748 microsieverts per hour (μSv/hr). {Extenal only}

educationinjapan.wordpress.com...



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Liberal1984
 


UCS and Greenpeace are biased, antinuclear organisations with an agenda. The Chernobyl death tolls in tens of thousands they report are wildly exaggerated.

The standard WHO estimate is 4000 to 9000, and thats the worst case scenario based on the dubious Linear no Threshold model (assuming low doses of radiation spread over long time have the same effect as the same doses over short time - there is a growing body of evidence that this relationship is not correct, since the body has far more time to act and repair the damage in the first case - the same dose delivered over long time has less negative effect as delivered over short time).

edit on 20/1/13 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Lots of info tonight.
35 miles from Tokyo. I think he says 3.71 microsieverts per hour. That would be about 37 X background {external only}


It's long, but very good. I'm still listening. Lots of great points and discussion about the Freedom Of Information Act documents released.
Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4


And some info for our constantly off topic, disruptive folks, as well as the concerned and interested.
Trans-generational effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl Nuclear
Plant Accident: A review of studies using mutation markers of repeat DNA
sequences
www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp...

www.infiniteunknown.net... ima-video/

Radio: “Continually, radioactive elements are being flushed into the Pacific” — “The Fukushima accident will never end, they have no idea how to clean it up” -Caldicott
enenews.com...



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Aircooled When you post stuff like “millions will die from Fukushima” does it even ever occur to you, that this is probably propaganda?
Would Japan (for instance) (almost two years on) not be suffering massive hair loss, whitening of their yellow skin, ect?

It’s clear the anti nuclear lobby is telling far more lie’s than Tokyo electric ever did. This is because by being composed of so many unregulated people, and with it essentially being all a sensationalism contest, there is nothing to limit the self-deception which is going on.

But the fact the Japanese are not dropping off like flies, there are no mass graves, indicates that stuff about radiation being high thousands of miles away (in America) is mostly BS. There may have been a few hot particles that made it over the Pacific but very, very, few of them and very well spaced apart.
edit on 090705 by Liberal1984 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
Aircooled When you post stuff like “millions will die from Fukushima” does it even ever occur to you, that this is probably propaganda?
Would Japan (for instance) (almost two years on) not be suffering massive hair loss, whitening of their yellow skin, ect?

It’s clear the anti nuclear lobby is telling far more lie’s than Tokyo electric ever did. This is because by being composed of so many unregulated people, and with it essentially being all a sensationalism contest, there is nothing to limit the self-deception which is going on.

But the fact the Japanese are not dropping off like flies, there are no mass graves, indicates that stuff about radiation being high thousands of miles away (in America) is mostly BS. There may have been a few hot particles that made it over the Pacific but very, very, few of them and very well spaced apart.
edit on 090705 by Liberal1984 because: (no reason given)


Can you please quote Aircooled saying "millions will die from Fukushima"? I went through the thread and didn't find it anywhere.

If I said "Millions will die from tobacco", would you disagree? The statement is pretty open-ended and there is not much detail.

What is your agenda? Because people aren't dropping like flies this must be fake?

Over a Third of Fukushima Children at Risk for Cancer

High Radiation Level from Fukushima Resident Puzzles Experts

If you want more, visit news.google.com and type "radiation fukushima".



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Liberal1984
 


Well then, why don't you go and start a thread called "Radioactive Fallout Is Harmless", or "Tepco Is Truthful and Trustworthy"?
I'm sure lot's of people will visit and agree with you!

This thread is for watching the spread of fallout, hence the title.
You don't read or watch any of the material here. If you did you would found some interesting things in those NRC docs, besides the title of the vid.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 


Thanks.
Also, you know those gross disgusting health warnings they put on cigarette packs? I wonder why nuke plants don't have a 30 ft billboard out in front, with the same picture and warning?

Very good. Can somebody hack into a network and put this on the 6 O'clock news? lol


Looks like contaminated water releases are on the rise, from our #2 reactor with the swiss cheese foundation.
enformable.com...

Let elderly people 'hurry up and die', says Japanese minister.

www.guardian.co.uk...

From November.
Impaired and elderly Fukushima evacuees in need of food and water — Being charged rent to live in a box — Vending machine sings “Don’t give up on Fukushima”
enenews.com... ve-up-on-fukushima



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Philippines Can you please quote Aircooled saying "millions will die from Fukushima"? I went through the thread and didn't find it anywhere.
His last post before your reply, only repeated the words “Millions will DIE from Fukushima NRC Cover-Up” 4 times!

So: “Should have gone to Speck Savers” then! Perhaps whoever starred from post, also needs to go easy on their vodka.

Aircooled

Well then, why don't you go and start a thread called "Radioactive Fallout Is Harmless",
I’m not even arguing that. I’m merely pointing out that coal is responsible for far more death, and environmental damage (per unit of electricity) than nuclear. That till fracking gas, and oil have also stopped causing more trouble than nuclear, nuclear remains (if only by default) a good form of energy. I’m not saying it doesn’t kill people. Water kills people. But it’s the least worst mainstream option. I’m not saying there aren’t nicer options like wind-solar, but the fact is the German electricity price is nearly the British electricity price
www.energy.eu...
And yet Germany only has little over twice the renewable (around 25%).

Since Fukushima both Japan and Germany have had increased C02 emissions, whilst actual electricity production has fallen
www.smartplanet.com...

It’s just strange the people who die from mercury, coal particles, or who starve thanks to global warming are only worth like a thousandth of those who die from radiation.
I’m sure you will justify it (through environmentalist propaganda) but all but the most ridiculous environmentalist, death estimates of civilian nuclear are put nuclear as a fraction of those caused fossil fuels.

Ban fossil fuels first, then nuclear. Meanwhile nuclear looks set to provide hydrogen for vehicle fuels, as well as electricity.
portal.acs.org... &__uuid=49f462df-229d-4441-b4ff-1484bdc026a4



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984

Philippines Can you please quote Aircooled saying "millions will die from Fukushima"? I went through the thread and didn't find it anywhere.
His last post before your reply, only repeated the words “Millions will DIE from Fukushima NRC Cover-Up” 4 times!

So: “Should have gone to Speck Savers” then! Perhaps whoever starred from post, also needs to go easy on their vodka.



Ohhh... I see. I was Ctrl-F(inding) for "millions" and it was not anything Aircooled said, it was the title of the youtube videos.

At any rate...What do you think the effects would be on the environment and humans if a coal power plant were in Fukushima instead of the nuclear power plant there now?

The demand for electricity is just too high for these large corporations to ignore the potential profits... And it IS large multinational corporations that monopolize this industry. Nuclear is a great and "cheap" way to produce energy, while selling it as "green". However, as technology sits, I don't trust these big corporations (GE, Westinghouse, etc.) to tell the truth, to properly manage nuclear materials (including waste), nor do I trust them to properly decommission any nuclear reactor. Coal power plants are much faster to shut down.
edit on 22-1-2013 by Philippines because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join