It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
donlashway
reply to post by Human0815
Think it is Tepco who is responsible,
will you see that Tepco is just the
Name of a Company but not the Root of all Evil!
The Humankind decided (without you and me) that it is Okay
to sacrifice Earthlings and Nature for the greater Benefit
of the Hive!
We kill each other in Wars and do not even care when Kids
die in our Neighborhood because of Thirst, we "harvest" Animals
and poison the Water and our Air and for the Society this is Okay!
edit on 23-1-2014 by Human0815 because: spell
Would it be ok to paraphrase your reply ?
raymundoko
reply to post by donlashway
You do know that Dam disasters are more common and cost more money right?
The Shimantan/Banqiao Dam cost 9 Billionish and 200,000 people died.
The Morvi Dam cost 2 Billionish and 2,000 people died.
In Comparison for example Chernobyl cost 6 billion and 4,000 people died.
Water and Coal disasters are far more common than Nuclear and have cost quite a bit more money in total.
Fukushima is estimated to cost around 80 billion with no deaths yet, but they estimate about 3200 people world wide will get cancer, 2500 of them in Japan.
So no, we don't agree. There have now been TWO major nuclear disasters. 2. Dos. 1989 and 2011.
There have been DOZENS of dam failures resulting in over a trillion dollars of repair.
There have also been dozens of coal plant disasters, which usually cost between 500 Million and 1 Billion to cleanup.
raymundoko
reply to post by BGTM90
Nuclear disaters also don't render land unlivable for centuries, and the area around Chernobyl proves that. I'm not sure what you are basing that claim on.
My estimates are: Nuclear weapon testing: 1, 138 million
Nuclear weapon production: 3.2 million (84% local or regional)
Nuclear power production: 21 million (76% local or regional)
Medical production and use: 4 million
Accidents: Military - 16 million Civilian - 15 million Total Military: 1,156 million
Total civilian electricity related: 36 million
Total medical: 4 million
GRAND TOTAL: 1,200 million
Of these amounts, about 31.4% are radiation induced cancers; 19.6% are genetic effects and 49% are teratogenetic effects in live born offspring.
I used official risk factors except for not introducing the dose rate effect which the nuclear people do to reduce the number of cancers.
My own research would say that the cancer estimates should be doubled, not divided by two.
In the paper I maintained a neutral position be not doing either.
Best wishes, Rosalie Bertell
1.3 Billion People Killed, Maimed, Sickened By Atmospheric Testing And Nuclear Plants "VICTIMS OF THE NUCLEAR AGE" Up to 1,300 million people have been killed, maimed or diseased by nuclear power since it's inception. The industry's figures massively underestimate the real cost of nuclear power, in an attempt to hide its victims from the world. Here, the author calculates the real number of victims of the nuclear age. by Dr. Rosalie Bertell
Another century of nuclear power, and this carnage would continue with more than 10 million victims a year. An industry which has the potential to kill, injure and maim that number of innocent people- and all in the name of 'benefitting' society - is surely wholly unacceptable. Rosalie Bertell, PhD, GNSH, is President of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health and Editor in Chief of International Perspectives in Public Health and Editor in Chief of International Perspectives in Public Health [IICPH]. Dr. Bertell can be reached via e-mail at: [email protected]
In your reply it looks like you listed all deaths resulting from the different energy production methods. So, I started looking for total death resulting from the nuclear industry.
This is how I think when you tell me the benefits of cheap nuclear power, do you see our difference ? And before the big debate about sources credentials ect I present this information only in an effort to help you understand how I see it.
or
Nuclear power production: 21 million (76% local or regional)
?
Total civilian electricity related: 36 million
raymundoko
reply to post by BGTM90
Nuclear disaters also don't render land unlivable for centuries, and the area around Chernobyl proves that. I'm not sure what you are basing that claim on.
raymundoko
reply to post by BGTM90
The issue I take is how much it is affecting the rest of the planet right now...it isn't.
raymundoko
reply to post by BGTM90
Nuclear disaters also don't render land unlivable for centuries, and the area around Chernobyl proves that. I'm not sure what you are basing that claim on.
Established by the USSR military soon after the 1986 disaster, it initially existed as an area of 30-kilometer radius from the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant designated for evacuation and placed under military control.[5][6] Its borders have since been altered to cover a larger area of Ukraine. The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone borders a separately administered area, the Polesie state radiation and ecological reserve, to the north, in Belarus. The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is managed by an agency of the State Emergency Service of Ukraine, while the power plant itself and its sarcophagus (and replacement) are administered separately. The Exclusion Zone covers an area of approximately 2,600 km2[7] in Ukraine immediately surrounding the Chernobyl nuclear power plant where radioactive contamination from fallout is highest and public access and inhabitation are restricted. Other areas of compulsory resettlement and voluntary relocation not part of the restricted exclusion zone exist in the surrounding areas and throughout Ukraine.[8]
A quarter century later, they still have not returned. The "exclusion zone," a 30-kilometre circle of land, formerly home to 200,000 people, surrounding the reactor town of Pripyat, now in Ukraine near the border of Belarus, remains empty and uninhabitable.Radiation levels around the plant remain so high that authorities do not expect the area to be inhabitable for between 180 and 320 years.
Most of the radiation is no longer on the surface, but has sunk to a depth of between 5cm and 10cm. The most important thing is not to eat contaminated food - in particular, mushrooms, berries, game animals or fish from contaminated areas.
The explosion at Chernobyl released a large amount of radioactivity from the reactor including Caesium-137 and Strontium-90 which both have physical half-lives of about 30 years, although there are also actinides (such as plutonium) which have half-lives of many thousands of years. The accident at Chernobyl was not a "nuclear explosion" it was actually a steam explosion caused by a rapid and excessive build-up of heat.
Contamination varies considerably throughout the 30 km exclusion zone. Some areas could probably be used now but in others radiation doses may remain above advised limits for some hundreds of years. Any return to the zone will require careful planning and the uses the land is put to will need to be controlled.
RickinVa
people are allowing themselves to get caught by efforts of others to change the subject.
Talking about dams vs nuclear power is pure thread drift.
Again, would anybody like to talk about the new high reading 0f 3,100,000 bq per liter of beta emitters taken at test well 1-16 on 1/20/14?
www.tepco.co.jp...
Anybody?
Doesn't matter what well the sample was taken from so don't go there.....I don't care if it came from the mens toilet in the control room, it's strictly about the new record level that was recorded and the fact that here we are almost 3 years later and they are still finding new record levels? That just doesn't make logical sense and doesn't make a very good case for "containment".
Please try to stick to the topic of Fukushima and radiation from it. Debating the virtues of nuclear power belongs in another forum altogether.