Fukushima Lies (by mental environmentalists)

If nuclear energy is so bad, why do so many prominent in the anti-nuclear energy movement feel it necessary to resort to lies? www.youtube.com...

Nuclear between 1971-2009 saved about 1.8 million lives
www.youtube.com...

New Waste Disposal Methods Developed
www.youtube.com...

The best method is actually to use Fast Breeder reactors to dispose of it, since these reactors can transmute nuclear waste from moderated reactors (nearly all the worlds reactors) into nuclear fuel. They do it by adding neutrons to isotopes that are already radioactive, to the point that they become even more radioactive, so that they then give off useable heat.
Because energy cannot be created, the net effect of this process is take something with a half-life of millions of years and turn it into something that decay by half within decades or even seconds (depending on the isotope ultimately produced).

The trouble with Fast Breeder Reactors is most research was done with a view to cooling them with liquid sodium, cooled with pipes carrying cooling water.
The problem with that is liquid sodium is metal that spontaneously ignites under water, and produces hydrogen as it takes away the waters oxygen.

However Fast Breeder Reactors can be cooled with other metals, and probably by far the best that is coming close to being mainstream is the SSTAR reactor, which promises to use thorium once activated…
www.thorium.tv...

reply to post by Liberal1984


Let's turn off nuclear energy and switch to free energy to the whole planet. We do not need companies which are sucking our dollars when Tesla found a way to have all the energy we need without having to pay each and every month.




Thruthseek3r

If i had the chance to antiflag and antistar this is definitely a moment i would.

Humanity is doomed due to stupidity and madness.

So far aftet enourmous ireversible disasters and extinctions there has been no responce which has now started to validate my previous sentence claim.

bye bye

lights out

i am out

Liberal1984

Nuclear between 1971-2009 saved about 1.8 million lives
www.youtube.com...

Pot calling the kettle black! Those are phoney numbers!

We all want real facts about Fukushima and nuclear power but don't try to pass along some bogus number and expect a forum full of intelligent people to believe it.

The fact is we all can make our own house power if we want, through wind, solar, or perhaps some of Tesla's hidden inventions. The reality is electrical power generation has become an extremely powerful industry that lobbies to repress anything that threatens their industry.

Just playing "Devil's Advocate" here but this almost makes one think...
All those Doomsday Bunkers the elites built in the middle of remote deserts like utter "lunatics"...where there will be virtually zero radioactive rain fall from the irradiated oceans of the world...just exactly how far ahead of time did they see this coming again?

-Peace-

We do not need companies which are sucking our dollars when Tesla found a way to have all the energy we need

thats quite easy to say, why dont you explain to me teslas's free energy?

econuts are a special kind of stupid, its hard to hate them.

Rikku

We do not need companies which are sucking our dollars when Tesla found a way to have all the energy we need

thats quite easy to say, why dont you explain to me teslas's free energy?

econuts are a special kind of stupid, its hard to hate them.

Must be awesome to feel so superior.....

All they said, was wouldn't it be awesome if we actually explored the idea of free energy...rather than making it 100% geared towards old technology and tons of pollution just because of the greed of a select few....

There is NOTHING wrong or stupid about that. What's really a "special kind of stupid", is being so engrained mentally into the pattern of thinking that there is simply no way out...no way BUT what we are currently doing.....

thetruthseeker

Let's turn off nuclear energy and switch to free energy to the whole planet. We do not need companies which are sucking our dollars when Tesla found a way to have all the energy we need without having to pay each and every month.

If that’s the truth why haven’t either you personally (or at least someone you know of personally) built one of these devices?
Given 10,000 people is just 1% of one million, and given there are 62 million in the UK, (7 billion in the world) it must be awfully tragic that none of them have made Nikola Tesla’s idea work (and lived)?
Apparently most free energy machines (available online) can be built with little more than the bits found in a hairdryer, and a welder!)
Perhaps mind control waves (being broadcasted by e.g. Ancient Aliens from inside this planets hollow core) cause the Chief Executive’s of evil corporations to kill anybody who invents fee energy?

Whatever the case…
Nuclear energy is the only low carbon technology that is cheaper than renewable energy (at least in most environmental circumstances) that established business is willing to invest in, without requiring huge & inefficient government subsidy.
Whatever the case: This is a fact, and unfortunately it’s the facts anyone wishing to influencing public policy must go on.

GEORGETHEGEEK

Humanity is doomed due to stupidity and madness.

So far aftet enourmous ireversible disasters and extinctions there has been no responce which has now started to validate my previous sentence claim.

The future is in our hands as long as you move your own arms and legs. One man can change the world like the steam engine inventor James Watt or political leader Ghandi.

Look at machines in the past, and they are nearly always better today.
So whilst there’s been problems with nuclear, it’s noteworthy they have actually been small in comparison to the problems caused by coal (which is how most world electricity is generated today).

Presently fracking and nuclear are the only two alternatives that investors willingly build without requiring wasteful subsidies. Fracking is the one whose use is growing.
But fracking is much worse than coal!!! Perhaps not in terms of CO2 emissions (since gas power emits much less Co2 Kg’s, per unit of electricity generated) but gas fracking will contaminates your landscape with a gradually worsening problem i.e. fracking chemicals leaching into the fresh water table).

Whilst nuclear too produces long-lasting waste, it is waste that can nearly always be contained. It’s relatively tiny volume is already widely recycled again & again (by “Reprocessing”), and could even be permanently destroyed by certain kinds of reactor (whose prototypes exist, are coming into existence, with yet more improvements).

Consequently: If it’s fracking or nuclear my politician is considering, I’m not going to tell my politician to get murdered with secret-energy, or to destroy my environment! But to improve on today’s ongoing situation, by ditching fossil fuels in exchange for nuclear.

Currently our situation isn't improving because public money is being wasted on alternatives to nuclear that yield very little. You in the anti-nuclear lobby are inadvertedly give us fracking & wind-turbines!! You might not realise it, might not support either technologies, but unfortunately that’s what you do because that’s how politicians are (realistically) responding to public opinion.

jrod

Pot calling the kettle black! Those are phoney numbers!

Would you mind explaining why (rather than just coming up with some random thing out of thin air?)

reply to post by Liberal1984


Explain what? That number is essentially pulled from someone's backside. There is no evidence to back that number up.

Can you kindly explain where that number of how many lives 'saved' from nuclear energy comes from?

If jrod listened just 21 seconds into the video, they'd hear it’s published “by NASA in the Journal of Environmental Science and Technology”

It’s an authoritative journal…
Homepage: www.ijest.org...
Review: www.scialert.net...

Here are the findings in everyday language…

May 29, 2013 — Global use of nuclear power has prevented about 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and release of 64 billion tons of greenhouse gases that would have resulted from burning coal and other fossil fuels, a new study concludes. It appears in the ACS journal Environmental Science & Technology.
www.sciencedaily.com...

See Scientific American article here too…
blogs.scientificamerican.com... may-save-up-to-7-million-more/

reply to post by Liberal1984

NASA, the same people who thought a pressurized space capsule of pure O2 with people in it was a good idea? The same people who thought Challenger's SRB O-rings would be ready to go in sub-freezing temperatures? The same NASA who thought debris hitting the leading edge of Columbia's wing was not that big of a deal?


Those are biased studies. Those lives saved by nuclear power is a complete garbage number. I do not consider those guys scientists, there is nothing scientific about that study. If I have time sometime this week to pick apart the study, I'll do it.

Breeder reactors in their infancy stage are promising...but you missed the meat of this smelly sandwitch...us that are ringing the alarms are talking about this old and dangerous GE water stage reactors built in a known dangerous area with backup generators put in the most insane and sucidial place possible. These units are not safe even if you place the generators that keep it intact in a reasonable location. the three "lost" cores and teetering SFPs are basically uncontrolled and have done damage that anyone should see if they opened their eyes and ignore the lies...millions of tons of contaminated seawater returned to the pacific with a wink and smile. looking left, when the problem is on the right does not mean it will just go away. Spin this till you faint, but the old GE units have proven to be lethal and if you do not buy that...give it a few months and repost when the effects are no longer cloaked by BS......Not even a good try.....

Jrod

NASA, the same people who thought a pressurized space capsule of pure O2 with people in it was a good idea?

If you’re going to send a of total of 833 people into space, on long journeys, when this technology is still new & expensive, it’s lucky no more than 14 lives have been lost.
NASA still employs many of the world’s best scientist because that’s why America beat the Russians, and space technology is still moving forward. (Unlike Monsanto) it is independent of private finance, and empowers scientists to both criticise and advise government.

Those are biased studies. Those lives saved by nuclear power is a complete garbage number.

Garbage all because asserted so Mr… Scientist?

1.84 million number will be analytical, and therefore not definitive. However

Given in the UK 1600 lives are lost to coal every year…

Labour will this week urge MPs to vote for tougher controls on Britain'scoal-fired power stations forcing them to reduce their emissions andpollution, as new figures show the old-style plants are responsible for 1,600 premature deaths a year. A report from the Health and Environment Alliance has found air pollution from coal plants causes respiratory problems that have a big impact on public health.

In America it’s 13,000
www.huffingtonpost.com...

And in China it’s 750,000
www.telegraph.co.uk...

And worldwide it’s about 2 million lost to air pollution
www.theguardian.com...

It’s quite reasonable to think nuclear (that provides 12.3% of the worlds energy as of 2012) may have saved 1.84 million in total…
Here’s an extract the study: “In the aftermath of the March 2011 accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the future contribution of nuclear power to the global energy supply has become somewhat uncertain. Because nuclear power is an abundant, low-carbon source of base-load power, on balance it could make a large contribution to mitigation of global climate change and air pollution. Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented about 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes (Gt) CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. Based on global projection data that take into account the effects of Fukushima, we find that by midcentury, nuclear power could prevent an additional 420,000 to 7.04 million deaths and 80 to 240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels, depending on which fuel it replaces. By contrast, we assess that large-scale expansion of natural gas use would not mitigate the climate problem and would cause far more deaths than expansion of nuclear power.”

telsahowitzer

but you missed the meat of this smelly sandwitch...us that are ringing the alarms are talking about this old and dangerous GE water stage reactors built in a known dangerous area with backup generators

I did a thread here about the dangers of old reactors. However I’d rather (most) continued to operate, than see fracking or coal replace them.
I know many of these stations are less safe than when they were built, but given closing them down (today) entails more fracking or coal burning, it remains significantly better for all life (human or animal) (at least in statistical terms) that most remain operational. Unfortunately there is no safe fire, any more than there is safe electricity.

Vermount Yankee plant is closing mostly because shale gas (gas from fracking) is cheaper overall www.entergy.com... It's fairly worn so that's one positive of it closing (except it's going to be replaced with something worse).

Liberal1984
thetruthseeker

Let's turn off nuclear energy and switch to free energy to the whole planet. We do not need companies which are sucking our dollars when Tesla found a way to have all the energy we need without having to pay each and every month.

If that’s the truth why haven’t either you personally (or at least someone you know of personally) built one of these devices?
Given 10,000 people is just 1% of one million, and given there are 62 million in the UK, (7 billion in the world) it must be awfully tragic that none of them have made Nikola Tesla’s idea work (and lived)?
Apparently most free energy machines (available online) can be built with little more than the bits found in a hairdryer, and a welder!)
Perhaps mind control waves (being broadcasted by e.g. Ancient Aliens from inside this planets hollow core) cause the Chief Executive’s of evil corporations to kill anybody who invents fee energy?

Whatever the case…
Nuclear energy is the only low carbon technology that is cheaper than renewable energy (at least in most environmental circumstances) that established business is willing to invest in, without requiring huge & inefficient government subsidy.
Whatever the case: This is a fact, and unfortunately it’s the facts anyone wishing to influencing public policy must go on.

GEORGETHEGEEK

Humanity is doomed due to stupidity and madness.

So far aftet enourmous ireversible disasters and extinctions there has been no responce which has now started to validate my previous sentence claim.

The future is in our hands as long as you move your own arms and legs. One man can change the world like the steam engine inventor James Watt or political leader Ghandi.

Look at machines in the past, and they are nearly always better today.
So whilst there’s been problems with nuclear, it’s noteworthy they have actually been small in comparison to the problems caused by coal (which is how most world electricity is generated today).

Presently fracking and nuclear are the only two alternatives that investors willingly build without requiring wasteful subsidies. Fracking is the one whose use is growing.
But fracking is much worse than coal!!! Perhaps not in terms of CO2 emissions (since gas power emits much less Co2 Kg’s, per unit of electricity generated) but gas fracking will contaminates your landscape with a gradually worsening problem i.e. fracking chemicals leaching into the fresh water table).

Whilst nuclear too produces long-lasting waste, it is waste that can nearly always be contained. It’s relatively tiny volume is already widely recycled again & again (by “Reprocessing”), and could even be permanently destroyed by certain kinds of reactor (whose prototypes exist, are coming into existence, with yet more improvements).

Consequently: If it’s fracking or nuclear my politician is considering, I’m not going to tell my politician to get murdered with secret-energy, or to destroy my environment! But to improve on today’s ongoing situation, by ditching fossil fuels in exchange for nuclear.

Currently our situation isn't improving because public money is being wasted on alternatives to nuclear that yield very little. You in the anti-nuclear lobby are inadvertedly give us fracking & wind-turbines!! You might not realise it, might not support either technologies, but unfortunately that’s what you do because that’s how politicians are (realistically) responding to public opinion.

jrod

Pot calling the kettle black! Those are phoney numbers!

Would you mind explaining why (rather than just coming up with some random thing out of thin air?)

edit on 090705 by Liberal1984 because: (no reason given)

Time will come my friend, time will come and we will not need nuclear nor coal nor gas on this planet anymore. For now the corporate power seems to have the ball in their camps, but this might change sooner than you think brother .

Do not forget the ones in high echelon already knows about this energy, this is a matter of fact, but because they want more $$$ in their pocket which they already have plenty of it did not come out.

One must remember that the absence of proof is not a proof of absence !




Thruthseek3r

I pointed out the ridiculousness of using any label that infers environmentalists are mentally unstable, and the logic this statement derives from, in another thread, but will repeat here:

How many nuclear meltdowns have environmentalists been responsible for?

How many Bophals have environmentalists been responsible for?

How many Exxon Vadiz's been responsible for?

How many Gulf Oil spills have environmentalists been responsible for?

How many wars have environmentalists been responsible for?

How much cancer have environmentalists been responsible for?

How many animals deaths and how much animal suffering have environmentalists been responsible for?

How much third world hunger, disease, poverty and deaths have environmentalist been responsible for?

So OP, I don't know if we're talking about the same planet or not, but it seems to me plain as the nose on anyone's face that the corporations and the governments are the truly crazy/insane entities.

Environmentalists may be unorthodox at times, but being outfunded by corporations by about a million to one does that surprise you?

Our world needs a new system, it is obvious capitalism has only served a tiny minority of the earth's population.

I'm with the OP here. In fact we should build one in every state and every country everywhere!

In fact why not build two per city?...just in case.

It truly would be doing us all a favor. The sooner we destroy this planet the sooner we won't have to worry about it anymore. Great thread OP! I am awed by the awesomeness of it all. Maybe we can get this thread pinned to the home page indefinitely. Ignorance denied.

thetruthseeker: One must remember that the absence of proof is not a proof of absence!

Very true. But so long as free energy is absent, it remains an absent option. Maybe it’s only because everybody who comes up with it gets murdered?
But either way: That would just guarantee the alternatives to nuclear will carry on being coal, fracking and ridiculously inefficient, corrupt, government funded “renewable” schemes.
In which case: Nuclear is still the better option (out of all options realistically available).
I will for people to know that if they oppose nuclear, they should oppose coal & fracking lots more. Because the people of this world deserve to know which are the planets greatest threats so the first things voters choose to eliminate, are actually the biggest doers of harm.

PlanetXishere: I pointed out the ridiculousness of using any label that infers environmentalists are mentally unstable

Lying is a source of madness. In fact (in psychology) it’s one of the very first symptoms.
The moment an environmentalist starts to lie-deceive, they become the problem: I.e. the madness pursued by mankind.

How many nuclear meltdowns have environmentalists been responsible for?

None. But by causing scores of nuclear reactors to never leave the drawing board, environmentalists have (indirectly, but still very clearly) caused the next worst options to be pursued.

By opposing nuclear (more than the mainstream alternatives): You causing cancer because coal & fracking is used more, that well cause extra spills, and will certainly increase poverty (both here & abroad) by inflating global fossil fuel prices for all.
There’s billions of extra CO2 tons, and more fracking (because whilst the low cost of fracking causes new nuclear plants to be uneconomical to construct, it rarely causes them to be uneconomical to run).
Given environmentalists are supposed to be stopping environmental damage, whenever they worsen it (regardless of whether are mad or not) what you do is certainly completely mad.

Rosinitiate: It truly would be doing us all a favor. The sooner we destroy this planet the sooner we won't have to worry about it anymore.

I’ve always suspected many secret advocates of the oil-coal industry were masquerading as environmentalists.
But (as a fellow inhabitant of this small Earth) I’d rather delay Earth’s destruction indefinitely, whilst also simultaneously reducing the chances of real harm happening by advocating better reactor design (not no reactor design). That’s only because: Reality is not only do consumers & corporations exist, but they look more certain now to carry on existing than at probably any time before now.

I suppose: I can personally afford to buy all my energy from wind, but I’ll eat my hat if the third world gets more serious than us (and they are already the biggest pollution emitters, owing to population size). The Western world should be developing carbon free energy the third world will willingly deploy –rather than energy that will always be too expensive (per unit of electricity generated).

Nuclear power isn't safe. But it's safer than coal

www.scientificamerican.com...

www.livescience.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

See also:

theenergycollective.com...


I know what I've rather live near (and for the record, I did live for several years just a few miles from a nuclear power station in Essex. Glowing in the dark and having 3 legs continues to be an advantage when out hillwaking)

reply to post by Liberal1984


You seemed very concerned with lies, so here is a dose of truth.

Coal is not great, but with the emission technology available for it today, the worst we have to worry about is an tiny fractional incremental increase in global warming potential.

However, as seen with Chernobyl and Fukushima, Nuclear plant meltdowns and there ongoing release of toxic materials, which for Fukushima is most optimistically expected by Tepco to continue for another 40 years before they have it under control, make the downside to coal look like a picnic.

I don't think all the coal plants in the world have the potential to destroy the whole Pacific Ocean ecosystem as Fukushima is doing now and of which there is widespread evidence, even though it isn't being covered in the corporate media.

Thanks but I'll take global warming and a little air pollution any day over the nightmare that nuclear meltdowns cause.

The worst case scenario for nuclear power is unacceptable, even if the risks are tiny, they exist as evident with Fukushima and Chernobyl. Not worth it. I'd rather go back to an Agrarian society than see my kids contract horrible cancers and birth defects.

Nuclear power is the truly insane choice.

PlanetXishere: Coal is not great, but with the emission technology available for it today, the worst we have to worry about is an tiny fractional incremental increase in global warming potential.

1. Air pollution kills around 2 million every year www.theguardian.com... whilst most estimates from Chernobyl focus around the 20,000 mark (with just 64 deaths confirmed).
There is one study claiming 2 million death by Greenpeace, although that’s quite self-evidently propaganda. However even if that were true you are still advocating trading something that kills 2 million every 28 years (4 million every 28 years if we assume Fukushima is the same) for fossil fuels killing (in total) around 56 million over the same period.

2. Then consider that the deaths lost to fossil fuel are only those so far. If there’s anything in global warming (and there really does seem to be given certain sea creatures are losing their calcium shells due to increased C02 acidity in ocean water) it could be the deaths lost to air pollution are nothing compared with chaos to come.

3. Nobody is going to build a reactor that replicates either Fukushima or Chernobyl. This means when the number of nuclear power stations built doubles, the number of deaths lost to them will be less before. Nuclear has already shown itself to be less lethal for local inhabitants (at least in independently appraised, statistical terms) than the equivalent capacity coal plant. Therefore whilst it has not kept its 1950’s promise of being completely safe, it has at least shown itself to be a big improvement overall. But that’s only old nuclear. New nuclear has learnt a lot from plants lie Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island (all conceived long before Chernobyl went into meltdown). None of these meltdowns would have cost much to avoid, none of them made money for their utilities, they only happened because of teething problems and extremely bad nuclear planning in Japan (at least before Fukushima).

4. The average coal plant emits more radiation into the environment, than equivalent sized nuclear plant. www.scientificamerican.com... That’s because most coal has been deep underground long enough, for the ash to become naturally radioactive. In addition it’s also the reason why we should no longer eat many fish –at least frequently (that’s because coal some contains mercury, that falls into the sea either through rivers or by rainfall directly).
5. Going back to starts: It’s quite ridiculous to think 4 million lives have been lost to nuclear. But then I’m educated in matters of science. I go with conventional wisdom that the worst case is in the tens of thousands, which is obviously nothing to 56 million plus that will be lost to fossil on the current trajectory (plus because worldwide use of fossil fuel is rising, in large part because Western development of nuclear remains largely obstructed).

I don't think all the coal plants in the world have the potential to destroy the whole Pacific Ocean ecosystem as Fukushima is doing now

Methane Hydrate is already melting under the permafrost thanks warmer world temperatures.
theconversation.com...
But that’s nothing compared to methane on the sea floor. If this starts to bubble away too quickly, there will be runaway global warming, the entire sea will become unsuitable for most life, because it’s already happened in the distant past –as shown by the fossil record.

Realise How Thick & Ignorant You Guys Sound…
Being ignorant is highly excusable. Nobody on earth can know even 1% of everything, and (by definition) nobody knows most of what they don’t know.

But: Have you ever wondered why workers can stare all day at fuel rods under water that would kill him in a few seconds if lifted?
It’s because water is a better absorber of radiation than concrete. The shielding effects should be deducible by anyone with a brain.
This may come as news to you Fukushima Pacificers, but the Pacific is mostly water! In addition the few kilograms of particles that there are, are very heavy, and tend to be intensely radioactive precisely because they have short half-lives (a short half-life = high radioactivity, for a short amount of time).

I’m not saying animals aren’t being poisoned, but there’s toxic chemicals being dumped at sea by everyone with a pipeline, and because wind circulation means toxins (like mercury) readily build up in the Poles thanks to e.g. anyone who uses electricity powered from coal.

Nuclear power is the truly insane choice.

Yet cancer can be cured. I won’t be surprised if within several decades it’s almost instantly curable with an injection of modified white blood cells.
CO2 emissions (which are getting worse whether or not the Western World wipes itself out tomorrow) are not a risk, but a consequence of burning fossil fuels. Nor can much be done to reverse them once they leave the high concentrations found in smokestacks.

Up till recently: Mankind was probably doing more good than harm by releasing CO2. However it’s was primarily the work of 1 billion, out of Earth’s (then) 6 billion population.
Now India, China, and Africa have decided to stop dying of poverty and start watching TV… without wanting to pay for e.g. solar… the truth is nuclear is best alternative (they will consider) because runaway climate change is much worse. Likewise: In the US & Europe corporations already have their way. So next time they ponder over nuclear, coal, or fracking, tell them it's nuclear that beats their other considerations.