It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Forget Fukushima, Nuclear Power Has Saved 1.8 Million Lives

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 09:05 PM
reply to post by burntheships

I don't understand? Why not put all your comments in the first post - the one I read. I did not notice you were also the author of the second post. Why split things up like that? It leads to this sort of misunderstanding.

I read your opening post, and having no interest in what others may think at his point I reply to it. If you put the bulk of your opinion in the second post...... well, that sort of screws things up a bit doesn't it?

I have always been against nuclear. It only exists in its current state because America wanted nuclear weapons. If it had not been for this there are a lot safer ways (even nuclear ways) of producing electricity.

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

posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 09:15 PM
reply to post by nothingwrong

As the rules here require that we do not add our own comments to the first post....
and we must use the exact headline that is on the article from its source.
We are only allowed to add our comments to the second post.

There you will find my opinions, in the second post and please do check out
the related thread in the OP, that has some very good insight into the false
science that is being pushed upon us.

I wanted to comment on the study, how I see it as false, and flawed,
yet in Alternative Breaking News, we have to use what the news gives
us so to speak in the first post, after that we are allowed add our comments.

Thanks for your comments, I hope this helps.
edit on 6-4-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link Quote:
The US reactors – embrittled, decrepit and crippled – are run about 20% harder than their nameplate capacity, thanks to an always obliging and ever-so-helpful Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC.) The “Commission” likes to act as if they monitor public health; but, the NRC never met a little nuke reactor UpRate Request they did not like. End Quote:

All nuclear reactors also actually manufacture more than 1,946 dangerous and known radioactive metals, gases and aerosols. Many isotopes, such as radioactive hydrogen, simply cannot be contained .

We were sold on nuclear power first to make our bombs...IMO...It worked if you count the Nuclear devices we have.
Power generation could be safe and efficient if the plants were not built on fault lines, they were ran within their design parameters, and designed so that spent fuel rods are not blown 1000 feet in the air if an explosion happens..

Unfortunately that has not been the case.

There are 48 reactors in the states with recorded leaks the last time I read up on such matters. When dealing with a nuclear leak with all the political ramifications, cost, and finger pointing lawsuits, it would be little wonder if such things are under reported.

Nuclear waste with a half life of 250,000 years??(that figure may be wrong but how many generations will pass before it is safe?) still has not been resolved and we have had nuclear power for something like 66 years.

I used to believe in nuclear power; believed that those we intrusted with the safe operation of said plants from design to the actual operation knew what they were doing. As with many other things history has changed my mind. I would not want to live within 100 miles of one and certainly would advise my children to get the heck away....but that is my prerogative. Engineers who work in the field say it is reports say otherwise.

posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 09:40 PM

Originally posted by 727Sky

Nuclear waste with a half life of 250,000 years??(that figure may be wrong but how many generations will pass before it is safe?) still has not been resolved and we have had nuclear power for something like 66 years.

Yes, great post and thank you for your comments.

I wonder how they plan to reconcile the waste, and as you have pointed out,
the half life and exposure....different for each of the elements yet nothing
short of contamination for a lifetime, if something goes wrong,
and it surely has.

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 12:35 AM
So...this is really odd, this scientist was preparting for this "report",
and he prior had edited two studies on Fukushima!

So...caught red handed! I just found this!

Two high-profile Fukushima studies ‘edited’ by global warming advocate James Hansen — Wrote article “Why America Needs Nuclear Energy”

Assessment of individual radionuclide distributions from the Fukushima nuclear accident covering central-east Japan, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), Nov. 14, 2011:

Edited by James E. Hansen, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, and approved September 29, 2011 (received for review July 24, 2011)
Cesium-137 deposition and contamination of Japanese soils due to the Fukushima nuclear accident, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), Nov. 14, 2011:

Edited by James E. Hansen, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, and approved October 5, 2011 (received for review July 25, 2011) nergy

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 12:47 AM
reply to post by burntheships

Very strange indeed. Thank you for the explanation.

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 12:53 AM
reply to post by nothingwrong

Your welcome, and to tell you the truth, I admire that you spoke your mind,
and questioned the truth of my posts. That is the way it is supposed to be here,
good work there on your part!

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 06:23 AM
I hope nuclear power continues. It is our best bet at population control. Every country should have a catastrophic meltdown of their own.
edit on 7-4-2013 by GanjaBudz because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 07:32 AM
I've already stated my opinion in chat during ATS Live when this thread was discussed, but I'll restate my views in more detail here...

Firstly, counting a 'death toll' nuclear power is doomed to be inaccurate because of several reasons. Firstly, it's hard to tell whether a death was caused by nuclear power. Secondly, they have long-lasting impacts. The natural gas plant may be causing cancer, but after it shuts down, the air will be fresher in a matter of years. Radioactive waste hangs around much longer and their effects last forever. Therefore, it isn't right to count up all the nuclear deaths so far and compare the number against natural gas deaths, which is likely already fixed.

Secondly, regarding global warming, why do they have to compare it against natural gas? How about, depending on the location, wind, solar, geothermal or tidal power? (I oppose hydro-electric, though that isn't related.) If all of our power were generated with these sources, which is usually quite feasible if only the government were not in love with the private sector, there would be far fewer deaths. It also is a common mistake to ignore the gas emissions in the other processes of nuclear energy, such as uranium extraction. I don't know if they missed this in their study, but I figured I'd point it out any way.

Thirdly, we must not forget that the humans can also unleash radiation fury if they want. If Kim Jong-un were more creative (and insane), he can always bomb a nuclear plant in the US to destroy the nearby cities. There are many of those in the US's east coast, so that won't be hard. The consequences will be much nicer of he decided to bomb a natural gas plant instead.

Incidentally, I think the researchers already had fixed opinions in mind before conducting the research. Tallying up the death tolls for nuclear and natural gas seems a rather 'innovative' thing to do and I don't think they'd have thought it up if their initial opinion were neutral. With that said, this is not necessarily bad since all scientific investigations need to start with a hypothesis.

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 07:59 AM
reply to post by ShadeWolf

Still, we have an unsolved waste disposal problem.

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 08:33 AM
Something that everyone always misses. International trade.

How much energy are we wasting shipping goods back and forth across the oceans to save a few pennies on the price?

What is the true cost of nuclear? So high that we can do little when it goes wrong.

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 10:20 AM
Sounds like a headline to save face, brought to us by the Nuke corporations themselves.

Honestly, its 2013. By now we should have fusion, hydrogen, solar, wind all combined together to give us all we need. Nuke power is swiftly dying breed.

If there are those who think its so safe, let them go live near fukushima for a year. Or conceive a child on the West coast of the US where there are now reports coming out of children being born with high percentages of hypothyroidism. Not surprised by that, considering Government regulators in the US raise the safe/legal limit of air borne radiation in the country, right after Fukushima happened.

Just when I saw them raise those limits, is when I puked in my mouth a little and realized 100% the Gov lies lies lies ...all cover ups right before our very eyes
edit on 7-4-2013 by dominicus because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 12:14 PM
reply to post by diqiushiwojia

Thanks for your really good insight.

It does seem that the study was conducted with a set parameters that would
lead to a desired outcome, and kind of fishy that Hansen was also caught
editing studies on Fukushima prior.

Some aspects they seem to have left out altogether. Quality of life being one of them,
yes we are thankful that there have only been so many nuclear accidents, fewer
catatastropic events....however the study does not address anything less than death.

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 12:18 PM

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical

What is the true cost of nuclear? So high that we can do little when it goes wrong.

I agree 100%. The ending has not been written, not in several lifetimes,
all we need do is look at Chernobyl. Thanks for your thoughts.

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 12:20 PM
reply to post by dominicus

Good points on the data, and how they changed it as the Fukushima disaster was still
taking place. This also is an indication that they can manipulate the number of deaths
attributed by simply raising the bar, shame on them.

Thanks, and good insight.

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 01:12 PM
We all can agree that fossil fuels are messy or/and dangerous but using nuclear fuel has worse downsides and will be a bigger problem given time, I don't have much knowledge on nuclear fuel as a whole but I do know that the isotopes used in the past and also now have varied half-life's. I may be wrong but from what I have read in the bast it ranges from about 2000 years all the way up to 250,000+ years, this means it is going to be a problem when humans are probably no longer humans as we are today. In my opinion we should take most these dangerous isotopes we have refined and created (waste too) and launch it as far off into space we possibly can.


% in Uranium 0.0055
No of Protons 92
No of Nuetrons 142
Half life in years 245,000

Source for Isotope

Also in that link has some info on milling and mining of uranium and other facts.

I'm not saying we should not do research in nuclear energy along with other uses for it, what I would like though is a huge down-scaling of the use of it, it is just too dangerous to toy about with it on the scale we do today 400 plus nuclear plants worldwide
it's crazy when you contemplate just how much nuclear fuel and waste there really is here.

reply to post by peashooter

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.

Evidence has suggested that fracking causes earthquakes, it's something that has been mentioned and posted on here on ats quite a bit here is a link about it, it was on MSM recently here in the UK.

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?

I have read a lot about new ideas for solar energy recently again something that is thankfully posted on ats often, It's an industry that has a very bright future

As for hemp that stuff has plenty of viable uses some that are argued could be better than some of the products we use today, as for how to grow it sustainably that's easy infact here is an idea we can use to also give back lots of farmland back to nature :

Crops could soon be grown in greenhouses the size of skyscrapers in city centres across the country, it has been claimed.

Birds Eye and other food producers are investigating building ‘plantscrapers’, which could accommodate hundreds of storeys worth of crops, in a bid to make farming more economical, sustainable and meet increasing demand.

The ‘vertical farms’ would use an innovative feeding system which nourishes plants with enriched water, therefore cancelling out the need for soil – and the need for food to be grown and harvested in the countryside.

Source[/u rl]

[url=]Wiki on Vertical Farming

To add

I think the source is pointing out industry deaths relating to nuclear power, to claim it as a whole would be a bit dumb because as others have stated the effects are not always apparent so in reality who is to say what a causing factor in someone's cancer is

edit on 7-4-2013 by RAY1990 because: more to add

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 03:26 PM
reply to post by verschickter

No, we don't. As I said, the solution for nuclear waste is deep-earth entombment. A sealed concrete cask loaded into a repository built into the bedrock will not breach or cause any issue for anyone.

And you people really need to stop holding Chernobyl up as an example of what can go wrong with nuclear power. For one thing, Chernobyl was 100% human error. And the Exclusion Zone is now teeming with wildlife, despite being highly radioactive. The Ukrainian government has even declared it a wildlife sanctuary. Basically the only thing that isn't thriving there is humans.

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 03:32 PM
reply to post by ShadeWolf

Nuclear power, the way it is used today is dangerous. I tell you that as an Electronics engineer/technician. There are so many unsolved problems, especially about the waste problem. Its not about the used cores either. There comes a time, when we face big problems regarding the disposal of the reactor itself.

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 06:35 PM
reply to post by ShadeWolf

Nuclear fuel/waste is like a mistress when you think about it... When you wanted her you knew she'd be no good for you, once you got her she could potentially cause a s%*t storm at any given time and then most of all... Once she is gone buried in the past your hoping nobody will find out about her and burn you with it.

The way it's being done is just not a good way to live your life so to speak.

I'm interested in the wild life sanctuary around Chernobyl, are they testing the animals that are resident their? it would be an excellent place for testing and experimenting on just how much lingering radiation effects life, I agree with the fact that Chernobyl was fault of error it's been well reported in the past why it happened and tbh we were lucky when it happened since we came away with a lot of knowledge and relatively unscathed considering.
That is just it though we have been lucky so far, we have had nothing shutting these plants down that we cannot handle yet.Neither has there been a terrorist attack or a military strike on a active nuclear plant

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 11:48 PM
I can't believe so many people have problems with nuclear plants.
How else are we going to slowly mutate everyone and kill the earth? how else are we gonna blow everyone to kingdom come? I mean really we would not be living in a state of peace without having nuclear threats.

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in