Forget Fukushima, Nuclear Power Has Saved 1.8 Million Lives

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Forget Fukushima, Nuclear Power Has Saved 1.8 Million Lives


www.fastcoexist.com

Following Fukushima, many people turned their back on nuclear power. Governments, such as Germany’s, decided to halt plans for new stations or phase out existing ones. Critics were happy to say the disaster proved what they’d been saying all along: Nuclear is too dangerous, and we don’t need it.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
pubs.acs.org
grist.org

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Climategate Leaker: Our Civilization Is Being Killed By Lying 'Science' Elitists




posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Yes, brace yourselves for this one.

The studies point is to show that we really can’t
do without nuclear
if we want to keep climate change within manageable boundaries.


Because nuclear power is an abundant, low-carbon source of base-load power, it could make a large contribution to mitigation of global climate change and air pollution.


One is really left wondering about the truthfullness
of this study, as they conclude that even Chernobyl
being the worst nuclear accident in history only caused about 40 deaths,
only 15 from cancer.

While those of us who read up on alternative news site
wont be buying this, as we have a vast knowledge
of Fukushima due to the thread here:
Japan delcares nuclear emergency after quake
...as compared to those who just listen to the MSM news and print.

I wonder what the impact will be on the majority of the news outlets,
and just how much of this the people will buy into.

So much for your nuclear free future,
and really curious as to the thoughts here.

www.fastcoexist.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 6-4-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Read the links but not the PDF, I have to say that I am convinced that we are going to have our Natural gas furnace removed ASAP and replaced with a mini Nuclear reactor.

If the reactor is unavailable then for the time being we will install a coal furnace.

All will be good for us.....cough cough....:-)

Thanks for the information you provided.

This crap never ceases to amaze us here, Yes sir we have 300lb catfish in Russia, Oh and we have 3 headed frogs in Japan also.

S&F
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 


Ah, I guess they did not address any aspect of affordability there,
now that would really shed some light onto the farce the study is.

Granted, its co author being Nasa scientist turned climate activist James Hansen
I could have almost predicted the "outcome".
And let me just say, while I am all for conservation, and being
good stewards of the earth within reason, I find this study preposterous!

Thanks for the chuckle Iwinder, and your comments.



edit on 6-4-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Nuclear is an infinitely better solution than fossil fuels. Compare the death tolls of Chernobyl and Fukushima with those of coal mine collapses and oil rig explosions. Nuclear gets bad press because of NIMBYism and overreacting hippies with no knowledge of the science behind it.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ShadeWolf
 

You forgot to include the real killer......Natural gas which just happens to be almost unlimited in the world.
Burns cleaner than almost all options and is cheap......

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Iwinder
 


Ah, I guess they did not address any aspect of affordability there,
now that would really shed some light onto the farce the study is.

Granted, its co author being Nasa scientist turned climate activist James Hansen I could have almost
predicted the "outcome". And let me just say, I am all for conservation, and being
good stewards of the earth within reason, I find this study preposterous!

Thanks for the chuckle Iwinder, and your comments.

You are welcome and thanks for posting a great thread, after reading the link above about James Hansen I begin to question my common sense in this matter.

What are your personal thoughts on James and the press he seems to attract?

Regards, Iwinder




posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 


Well, in some aspects in his previous research regarding "pollution", I might agree
with him. I am all for advancement in "genuine" clean energy, more efficient use of
the resources we have, and being a good steward.

However, this study really seems to point to serving an agenda,
suprisingly so, especially in that it seems to ignore the environmental
impact Chernobyl had, and I can only imagine how they will
sweep Fukushima under the proverbial rug.

This is eye opening to say the least...
edit on 6-4-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   
It's not nuclear power that's dangerous, it's the radioactive waste left behind that needs to be stored for decades. Some countries in Europe have developed ways to re-use the radioactive waste but as mentioned it is probably more expensive. If radioactive waste needs to be left soaked in some concrete bunker for decades can you imagine what would happen if these nuclear plants popped up everywhere?

Fracking for natural gas is not entirely safe either, even though it is at deeper depths there still could be leaks to ground water, or destabilization of the soil.

I hope the future is bright for solar energy. Prices have gone down tremendously for solar panels and if every building can eventually be disconnected from the grid that would be great. I have heard great things about hemp being used as a fuel but does anyone know if it can be done on a global scale used for modern technology?
edit on 6-4-2013 by peashooter because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-4-2013 by peashooter because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-4-2013 by peashooter because: spelling



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Iwinder
 


Well, in some aspects in his previous research regarding "pollution", I might agree
with him. I am all for advancement in "genuine clean energy, more efficient use of
the resources we have, and being a good steward.

However, this study really seems to point to serving and agenda,
suprisingly so, especially in that it seems to ignore the environmental
impact Chernobyl had, and I can only imagine how the will
sweep Fukushima under the proverbial rug.

This is eye opening to say the least...


Agreed, and to avoid a one line post I hope this thread gets the attention is deserves and that I mean.
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by peashooter
 

Here where we live there is no need to frack for natural gas the stuff is everywhere and cannot be used faster than they allow it out of the ground.

I am absolutely in the anti fracking corner so no argument with you there.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by peashooter
 


On the solar power thing, for us it would be cost negative without a doubt.

Until the panels get much much cheaper and last longer it is throwing money down the drain for a roof top panel setup.

Off the top of my head money wise we checked it out about 5 years ago and to do so would cost us almost 20k to power our home off the grid.

The bad news was that the batteries would need replacing every 6-8 years at a cost of almost 5k. Then we find out that the panels (then 5years ago) only last about 15 years......

So there we sit looking at a 20k investment with another 10k for battery replacement all in the period of about 15 years.

Would we spend that much on electricity? Not at our current rate and usage.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by peashooter
 


Thanks for your comments,

All of radioactive waste, and unintended exposure from leaks,
explosions and meltdowns....Fukushima will definitely be a challenge
to clean up, if it ever happens. Looking at Chernobyl, its going to take a
long time....and likely will not be done in a diligent manner...

I seem to remember reading how they will make concrete with it,
and other things to be shipped out all over the world. ...great huh?

Natural gas is clean comparatively speaking ...
as opposed to coal or oil.

Solar is a good alternative, even so with all of the improvements
we will be burning fossill fuels for sometime to come. ....



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by peashooter
 


Natural gas is clean comparatively speaking ...
as opposed to coal or oil.


It is still a fossil fuel - ultimately it is unsustainable.


Solar is a good alternative, even so with all of the improvements
we will be burning fossill fuels for sometime to come. ....


Indeed

Even if Chernobyl has killed 10,000 people, which is pure speculation on my part, it pales compared to the death toll from coal - over 100,000 Americans have been killed in coal mines since 1900, and China killed 5-6000 people PER YEAR 2000-2005 - it doesn't like this link - let's use the wiki one....
edit on 6-4-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: still trying to fix the link



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by peashooter
 


Solar and wind (and all "green" energy sources) are worthless unless you completely rebuild the power grid to add storage capacity. Natural gas still produces CO2, and would require a lot of infrastructure modification as well. Realistically speaking, our best option is nuclear for the next 15-20 years until fusion becomes viable. Nuclear waste storage? Again, just NIMBYism. Yucca Mountain would be fine.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


How much do you get paid to spout this ridiculous propaganda?

If you were to really look at what is going on in Germany you would see they produce major amounts of renewable energy, reducing the need for dirty dangerous nuclear!


German solar power plants produced a record 22 gigawatts of electricity - equal to 20 nuclear power stations at full capacity,


Source

Yes, the same solar power which your Fox News told the nation would not work in the US because of some magical difference in the sun light!!! LOL How dumb can you get???

So can this misinformation and tell the truth. If there had been a wind farm at Fukoshema (Which being on the coast could have delivered the same amount of power as the nuclear plant did) they would not be in so much trouble as they are now, would they.

If you are not being paid to disseminate these lies and propaganda, apply for a job - you do it so well!



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Nuclear power has become the whipping boy when it comes to energy solutions, and it boggles my mind when I see people protesting it so vehemently. Yes, it does come with risks but it really is the best solution we have these days. I would love to live in a world that uses only clean and renewable energy such a solar, wind and hydro but it is simply not viable right now, not on the scale to satisfy the bulk of our electricity consumption worldwide.

The vast majority of nuclear power plants around the world are operated safely and provide comparatively cheap, clean energy. I think we should be building more, so long as further refinements in the safety in the design, operation and inspection continues. I honestly would not mind if a nuclear power plant were built in my city, or even my backyard. There's statistically more chances of me dying in a car crash or of heart disease than me being killed in a radioactive explosion. So long as I can keep my lights on.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 08:43 PM
link   
it would look to me like they forgot to factor in the waste products,
these products will kill for thousands of years after nuclear plants are banned,
good for now, death for our future

xploder



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by nothingwrong
 


Oh, please reread my comments in my OP. I stated clearly that this study
touting nuclear energy is clean and safe is IMO false, and that it is misleading
in its intentions. Further down, I state that the study, and one of its authors is
agenda driven.


Originally posted by burntheships

One is really left wondering about the truthfullness
of this study, as they conclude that even Chernobyl
being the worst nuclear accident in history only caused about 40 deaths,
only 15 from cancer.

While those of us who read up on alternative news site
wont be buying this, as we have a vast knowledge
of Fukushima due to the thread here:
Japan delcares nuclear emergency after quake
...as compared to those who just listen to the MSM news and print.

edit on 6-4-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
it would look to me like they forgot to factor in the waste products,


Exactly...how big of an "oversight" is that? Its huge,
and I can just see it now....somewhere someone citing this
study as support for Nuclear expansion.






new topics
top topics
 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join