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.
reply to post by Aim64C
Let alone the infinitesimal amount released by the Fukushima event.
That 'infinitesimal amount' shouldn't keep you from camping out for a few days next to the reactors at Fukushima, I suppose?
Might even be good for what ails you.
Let's not entertain scenarios constructed to be deliberately void of brain function.
Originally posted by Aim64C
Yeah... there's a special word we use to describe people like you.
Originally posted by Aim64C
Look, sunshine. Coal combustion releases Carbon-14, U-238 and 235, as well as radon gas and Thorium (and a host of other radioactive isotopes and compounds). More Uranium is released from coal combustion, the world over, than is used in nuclear reactors that same year (again, the world over). That's just Uranium. That doesn't begin to account for the other radioactive nonsense released freely into the atmosphere by coal combustion.
Originally posted by Aim64C
Far more - nearly double the amount of radioactive material is released into the atmosphere by burning coal than is used in nuclear power plants.
Originally posted by Aim64C
Let alone the infinitesimal amount released by the Fukushima event.
Originally posted by Aim64C
If the disaster was everything you kooks cracked it up to be, we would have killed ourselves off from radiation poisoning back in the 1800s.
We seem to be doing that right now, cancer kills over 500,000 people a year. Fortunately, cancer treatment is reducing that amount by 1-2% so death by cancer is in a slow decline thanks to better treatment. Still the numbers are staggering. Will be interesting to see the rate of cancer in 2021, 2031 since Fukushima.
I doubt it's infinitesimal. 3 Reactors melted down, tonnes of spent fuel ejected everywhere. Far more concentration of actual radioactive material than a coal stack could produce in a single area.
Let's not mislead with this statement, nuclear reactors produce far more dangerous nuclear isotopes than what are found in nature: Plutonium, curium, iodine-181, cesium-137 etc. Many of these are far more volatile. and dangerous to our health.
Originally posted by Aim64CPopulations of domestic rats have far higher cancer rates than those of wild rats. The human population is similar to domestic rats in their selection for longevity - which results in a systemic lengthening of telomeres that correlates to both longer cell-line life and higher rates of mutations becoming cancerous.
What am I saying? Far more to cancer than radiation.
Originally posted by Aim64C
Well, since we're getting technical, perhaps we should think about the ways in which material can be released. In a "melt down" - the rods fuse together. In extreme cases, they become a molten pool of metal that literally burns through much of what it touches.
What separates Chernobyl from other types of releases is the manner in which the core was exposed (and the complete lack of shielding on the damned thing - but let's not get into reactor design). When the idiots working with the KGB (or whoever) flushed the coolant onto the superheated rods, it created an explosion that blew the reactor containment chamber to hell and back - exposing the core to the atmosphere (if not scattering it across the compound).
Nothing comparably similar happened at Fukushima. The reactor cores were never exposed to the open atmosphere (able to look out upon a town of confused people, staring at Cerenkov radiation).
… The [confidential U.S.] document also suggests that fragments or particles of nuclear fuel from spent fuel pools above the reactors were blown “up to one mile from the units,” and that pieces of highly radioactive material fell between two units and had to be “bulldozed over,” presumably to protect workers at the site. The ejection of nuclear material, which may have occurred during one of the earlier hydrogen explosions, may indicate more extensive damage to the extremely radioactive pools than previously disclosed. …
Originally posted by Aim64C
In inconsequential amounts and concentrations, unless you are going to start chugging reactor coolant used to flush the rods.
Originally posted by m1991
Translation:
The truth about Fukushima radiation is bad for the economy, and thus we should tell people it's okay and have them die of cancer so our shares grow.
Imagine that. A radiation oncology specialist who has focused greatly on the Chernobyl incident claiming that "psychological damage" was the worst aspect of the accidental exposure to radiation..... Is it me? Or does that seem patently outrageous to state...
NARRATION
What's a safe level of radiation exposure? Back in the fifties, they must have thought it was high. They planned to use nukes for engineering.
Fifties TV presenter
Excavations of new harbours, big dams, canals, passes through rugged mountainous terrain. Nuclear explosives for large projects that are simply not feasible with conventional methods, created in seconds, with the tremendous energy of the peaceful atom.
NARRATION
Today, we know safe exposure levels are low. Question is, how low? After accidents like Fukushima, when's it safe to return? Were people exposed to dangerous levels of radiation, and what are acceptable levels of contamination in food? As radiation expert Rick Tinker shows, take a few measurements around your home, and you can see why safety is not an easy question to answer.
NARRATION
So back to that original question - what is a safe level?
Dr Peter Karamoskos
In 2006 a major landmark study deemed that there is actually no threshold below which radiation does not pose a longer-term risk of cancer.
NARRATION
And that's the problem with trying to decide a safe level of radiation exposure.
Dr Graham Phillips
Even nature's radiation which is always all around us, causes cancer. So any increase on that from artificial sources, causes more.
NARRATION
The answer is to keep radiation from both artificial and natural sources as low as you possibly can.
These fungi may one day help clean up radioactive waste, or even lead to the development of new cancer treatments. But if there's a nuclear accident in the meantime, don't panic right away - that mushroom cloud might not be what you think it is.
Stack filtration devices, such as electrostatic precipitators, baghouses, and scrubbers are routinely used to reduce the emission of fly ash to the atmosphere by at least 95 percent. A small fraction of the fly ash produced, typically 2-5 percent, is released into the air.
Coal ash is formed when coal is burned in boilers that generate steam for power generation and industrial applications. TENORM is generated when burning removes organic constituents, leaving minerals and concentrating trace quantities of naturally occurring radionuclides:
uranium
thorium
potassium
their radioactive decay products including radium. (The amount radium in coal can vary by more than two orders of magnitude depending upon the type of coal and where it was mined.)
In addition to TENORM, coal ash contains silicon, aluminum, iron, and calcium; these elements make up about 80 to 90 percent of all of the constituents of coal ash.
The average yearly generation of coal ash is about 61 million metric tons (MT). In 1990, the combustion of coal in utility and industrial boilers generated 61.6 million MT of coal ash and slags and 17.2 million MT of sludges.
Trace quantities of uranium in coal range from less than 1 part per million (ppm) in some samples to around 10 ppm in others. Generally, the amount of thorium contained in coal is about 2.5 times greater than the amount of uranium. For a large number of coal samples, according to Environmental Protection Agency figures released in 1984, average values of uranium and thorium content have been determined to be 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively. Using these values along with reported consumption and projected consumption of coal by utilities provides a means of calculating the amounts of potentially recoverable breedable and fissionable elements (see sidebar). The concentration of fissionable uranium-235 (the current fuel for nuclear power plants) has been established to be 0.71% of uranium content.
Wastes
Radiation Level [pCi/g]
low average high
Bottom Ash 1.6 3.5-4.6 7.7
Fly Ash 2 5.8 9.7
Originally posted by ararisq
Yay! I'm thinking like a big-government liberal!
Originally posted by Pervius
The US EPA sent monitors to the Marianas Islands, Hawaii, and the West Coast of the United States.
They were releasing all data to the public on what they were detecting....until the last week of March when they detected Tellurium 132...
It only has a half life of 100 hours. Pretty nasty stuff only found when nuclear reactors go critical.
After they detected Tellurium 132 on the Marianas Islands, Hawaii, and the West Coast......no more data from the EPA has been released to the public.
Presidential Order.....the data would stop commerce/tourism.