Government proposes release of Fukushima water to sea or air

What's questionable to me is that:
If dumping radioactive elements into the ocean is done all the time then why are they announcing this plan as if it were something unusual? I think it's because they know that it is a dangerous move to make at this time...my opinion.

a reply to: seeker1963

Coal is far cleaner and safer than our current nuclear plants.

All it takes is 1 major nuclear accident to cause thousands of years of contamination.

Don't let the gibberish concocted by these websites dissuade you from the hard physics in our textbooks. Fukushima caused a huge backlash of pro-nuke lies + tons of denialism.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: seeker1963

Coal is far cleaner and safer than our current nuclear plants.

All it takes is 1 major nuclear accident to cause thousands of years of contamination.

Not at all.

Using historical electricity production data and mortality and emission factors from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, we found that despite the three major nuclear accidents the world has experienced, nuclear power prevented an average of over 1.8 million net deaths worldwide between 1971-2009 (see Fig. 1). This amounts to at least hundreds and more likely thousands of times more deaths than it caused. An average of 76,000 deaths per year were avoided annually between 2000-2009 (see Fig. 2), with a range of 19,000-300,000 per year.

Less humans dying: check.

Likewise, we calculated that nuclear power prevented an average of 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) net GHG emissions globally between 1971-2009 (see Fig. 3). This is about 15 times more emissions than it caused. It is equivalent to the past 35 years of CO2 emissions from coal burning in the U.S. or 17 years in China (ref. 3) — i.e., historical nuclear energy production has prevented the building of hundreds of large coal-fired power plants.

Less CO2: check.

To compute potential future effects, we started with the projected nuclear energy supply for 2010-2050 from an assessment made by the UN International Atomic Energy Agency that takes into account the effects of the Fukushima accident (ref. 4). We assume that the projected nuclear energy is canceled and replaced entirely by energy from either coal or natural gas. We calculate that this nuclear phaseout scenario leads to an average of 420,000-7 million deaths and 80-240 GtCO2-eq emissions globally (the high-end values reflect the all coal case; see Figs. 1 and 3). This emissions range corresponds to 16-48% of the "allowable" cumulative CO2 emissions between 2012-2050 if the world chooses to aim for a target atmospheric CO2 concentration of 350 ppm by around the end of this century (ref. 5). In other words, projected nuclear power could reduce the CO2 mitigation burden for meeting this target by as much as 16-48%.

Replacing nuclear with coal a really bad idea: check.

and also

We conclude that nuclear energy — despite posing several challenges, as do all energy sources (ref. 7) — needs to be retained and significantly expanded in order to avoid or minimize the devastating impacts of unabated climate change and air pollution caused by fossil fuel burning.

Source: climate.nasa.gov...

a reply to: Oleandra88

Don't bother.
Nuclear is the boogieman...

a reply to: Bluntone22
I would like to have nuclear fission reactors replaced with something even better.

In the meantime, Thorium is looking promising, someone wrote it already and I agree.

originally posted by: Plotus
If the oceans die, were not far behind.... not far at all.

we were not created to live forever on this planet and it wasn't meant to be, we will all die and face judgement in the after life, so dont be afraid of whats going to happen, for it was meant to be

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: muzzleflash


Yet nuclear energy is promoted as cleaner and safer than coal...…...

It is, so long as you don't do a stupid thing like build one on the coast of an island in the ring of fire...

...and it's all just made to boil water into steam to run an electric turbine, like hydro dams use.

Solar is a given since the technology exists.

Boiling water probably extracts impurities that would otherwise float around our atmosphere anyway, huh?

Seems a good choice to me...

SPG

Thermal systems capture the Sun’s heat energy (infra red radiation) in some form of solar collector and use it to mostly to provide hot water or for space heating, but the heat can also used to generate electricity by heating the working fluid in heat engine which in turn drives a generator.

a reply to: lostbook

Sigh, im slowly losing faith in humanity at this point.
PS: where is Greta? You would think she would be speaking out against this. But I guess its not part of the narrative cause they only care about their agenda, and not real issues such as this.

people do realize that a lot of atomic detonations happened on Atolls and shallow pacific islands during the fifties and sixties, right?.....we have had radioactive isotopes circulating in our sea water for a long time.

originally posted by: jimmyx
people do realize that a lot of atomic detonations happened on Atolls and shallow pacific islands during the fifties and sixties, right?.....we have had radioactive isotopes circulating in our sea water for a long time.

True, but the half-life from a nuclear bomb is much shorter than from a reactor meltdown.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: HalWesten

Well, Cs137 from nuclear tests is still detectable, but not much to worry about.

The Pacific is wide, and deep. A whole hell of a lot of water compared to what's in the tanks at Fukushima. I won't be eating fish from the area, but I'll eat anything I manage to catch here.

Yes, but when they've already found radioactive fish and such on the West Coast, it seems a bit smaller, doesn't it?

a reply to: HalWesten

Yes, but when they've already found radioactive fish and such on the West Coast.

Fish have been "radioactive" on the west coast since nuclear testing was conducted in the Pacific. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

ourradioactiveocean.org...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: HalWesten

Yes, but when they've already found radioactive fish and such on the West Coast.

Fish have been "radioactive" on the west coast since nuclear testing was conducted in the Pacific. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

ourradioactiveocean.org...

Thanks for stopping by, Phage. What's your opinion on this thread?