Merged: nuclear power safe?

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

I get the impression BD is out in the boonies and may feel he'd like to stay that way, with or without power- and I can understand that , too.

i live simply, with solar power, wood heat and cooking and haven't had running water for many years.
the best my water can do is walk from the spring to the house, in a bucket, at the end of my arm.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

i live simply, with solar power, wood heat and cooking and haven't had running water for many years.
the best my water can do is walk from the spring to the house, in a bucket, at the end of my arm.

I bet your ISP is "green" too.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

to think otherwise is prideful.

"Prideful"? Are you Amish as well as a Druid (and Luddite)? Personally, I'm proud of human achievement and technological advancement. Making the most of the opportunities provided by man's ingenuity beats hiding in the forest waiting for Armageddon.

[Nosi]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Deaths per TWh for all energy sources: Rooftop solar power is actually more dangerous than Chernobyl

That's a little mind blower. Need to go collect the brain cells...

[Nosi]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

1/5th of all reactors are in earthquake zones. Fear-mongering has set us back decades. I find it bizarre that a tsunami has killed thousands, may be tens of thousands and people are concerned about nuclear power.

You only need to look at Grade B Sci Fi to see why people are loosing their brown over the reactors. How many mutant monsters have been spawned by the wonder of the Atom gone wrong?

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by maxley

I'm never sure what statements like this mean.

We are a 100% natural species. We're not a problem, or a disease the Earth has somehow picked up. We're as much part of the planet as oceans or rocks or deserts.

OK, we use the Earth's resources. Yes we alter the face of the planet. But so do locust swarms. So do elephant herds. So does the weather. And seismic activity.

The argument seems to be that by having an impact on the planet, we're irreparably destroying it. Well apart from scale, it's no different than me 'irreparably destroying' my garden by getting out there with a spade.

On the whole I like what we've done to the planet. I suspect we've made a better job of it than, say, cats would have, if they'd developed opposable thumbs instead.

What I meant by the quote this was replying to, BTW, is that since raccoons seem to be a candidate for evolving into sentient species, once we have condemned ourselves due to stupidity, they will likely do a better job than we have.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Travis

I'd welcome a nuclear plant within twenty miles of me.

Hell, build one in the next block. I'll stay right here.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by lionking

"Prideful"? Are you Amish as well as a Druid (and Luddite)? Personally, I'm proud of human achievement and technological advancement. Making the most of the opportunities provided by man's ingenuity beats hiding in the forest waiting for Armageddon.

i was going to say anthropocentric, but thought prideful did the better job.
i am not amish, but i admire them.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

Fear-mongering has set us back decades. I find it bizarre that a tsunami has killed thousands, may be tens of thousands and people are concerned about nuclear power.

Some of the reporting has been outright disgusting. Our media initially reported a meltdown at the nuclear powerplant would "wipe Japan off the map". This morning the headline ran "More than 10,000 feared dead as nuclear meltdown looms".

That's just blatant disregard for reality. A deliberate attempt to link Tsunami deaths with the nuclear power situation.

Our media repeats the "above safe levels", "1000x normal" etc. for radiation in virtually every article, but never once have I seen them actually make reference to what those levels are and how they compare with, say, background levels. The reality is a little digging indicates the levels, even at the alarming "1000x normal" are well, well below dangerous levels, even with prolonged exposure.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by DGM

I bet your ISP is "green" too.

my only connection to the outside, other than the road, is an underground telephone cable which provides me with a verrrry slow dialup.
i dunno...is that green?

[Soapy Sam]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

i live simply, with solar power, wood heat and cooking and haven't had running water for many years.
the best my water can do is walk from the spring to the house, in a bucket, at the end of my arm.

It sounds like my idea of heaven , BD, but like I said, the numbers are against us. If all Americans lived as you do, how much forest would they burn each year? How much CO2 is that? There's a downside to every lifestyle.

Where did the energy to make your solar panels come from? I'm sure you have considered all this and I'm sure you don't think everyone could live as you are managing to do. Right now in Japan, people are going to suffer and die , not because of radiation, but because there is not enough electricity to keep them warm, to get them the drugs , food and clean water they need.

There are two answers to our energy problems- more efficient supply, or less energy demand per person. We need both.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by JWideman

Hydro requires having a nearby natural waterfall big enough and has a major environmental impact.

Actually hydropower is normally achieved by building a hydrodam which, aside from destroying the entire river ecosystem, poses a far, far greater risk than a nuclear meltdown in the event of a severe earthquake.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

It sounds like my idea of heaven , BD, but like I said, the numbers are against us. If all Americans lived as you do, how much forest would they burn each year? How much CO2 is that? There's a downside to every lifestyle.

Where did the energy to make your solar panels come from? I'm sure you have considered all this and I'm sure you don't think everyone could live as you are managing to do. Right now in Japan, people are going to suffer and die , not because of radiation, but because there is not enough electricity to keep them warm, to get them the drugs , food and clean water they need.

There are two answers to our energy problems- more efficient supply, or less energy demand per person. We need both.

fair enough.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

my only connection to the outside, other than the road, is an underground telephone cable which provides me with a verrrry slow dialup.
i dunno...is that green?

The link from your home to this page makes a lot of stops. All powered by something.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

i'm almost 60, so i might not be first, but i will be sooner than most.

So you're not really serious, then. Quelle suprise.

Quote:

i have no misconception that, as a species, we are any more valuable than the passenger pigeon or the dodo bird.
to think otherwise is prideful.

Valuable to whom? The human race is a hell of a lot more valuable to me than the dodo bird is. The dodo is more valuable to the dodo than humans are. There's no pride or misconception involved.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by DGM

The link from your home to this page makes a lot of stops. All powered by something.

true.
in alberta, too much of that is coal.
southern alberta has incredible wind potential, for example.
we have greater potential for hydro than we use.
even using natural gas would be cleaner than coal....and we have a lot of gas.
there are alternatives that do no need to include nuclear.

[Nosi]

Originally Posted by Par

The dark would rank as positively hazardous.

Not the dark. But things hide in the dark...to catch your toes and bump knees and shins into.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

So you're not really serious, then. Quelle suprise.

oh but i am....very serious.

Valuable to whom? The human race is a hell of a lot more valuable to me than the dodo bird is. The dodo is more valuable to the dodo than humans are. There's no pride or misconception involved.

valuable to the biosphere that nurtures us.
we continue to soil our own beds.

[Nosi]

Originally Posted by Debaser

I watched a TV program called the Politics Show on the BBC this lunchtime. The presenter posed the question what detrimental effect the events in Japan would have on the UK's plans to build several new nuclear power stations in the next decade(s).

My flippant (and obviously unheard) shouts at the screen were 'when did the UK become as seismically active as Japan', and 'why would we, in the C21st want to build Japanese/US designs from the 1960s/70s'?

As shaky as Japan? No. But you Brits are on sea level, and the sea is expected to rise.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

true.
in alberta, too much of that is coal.
southern alberta has incredible wind potential, for example.
we have greater potential for hydro than we use.
even using natural gas would be cleaner than coal....and we have a lot of gas.
there are alternatives that do no need to include nuclear.

Wind is intrusive on the land and not very cost effective. Should I post pictures from last years gas explosion in CA? I suspect most of those fires you saw after the earthquake were fuel (or started) by natural gas. I used to think nukes were bad, until I learned the truth.

BTW: I live not far from one.

[bikerdruid]

here's a timely news bit:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/world-europe-12724981
Tens of thousands of people have protested in Germany against the government's plans to extend the life of its nuclear reactors.

[Nosi]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

STUPID thing to say.

Nothing is safe.

A coal burning power plant murders several people every year on average from mining accidents, transportation accidents, toxic mine tailings, broken sludge dams, pollution in the form of Mercury and RADIOACTIVE emissions of Uranium, Radium and Thorium that people downwind breathe.

The worst we COULD have happen here will never rise to that level.

Turkey Point nuclear power station: A nuke plant in Florida that's a hideaway for American alligators.

[BobTheDonkey]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

true.
in alberta, too much of that is coal.
southern alberta has incredible wind potential, for example.
we have greater potential for hydro than we use.
even using natural gas would be cleaner than coal....and we have a lot of gas.
there are alternatives that do no need to include nuclear.

And the components that went into the computer you're using to access your incredibly slow dial up?
Ride a bike? What about the energy that went into producing the materials that went into producing your bicycle? And the energy that went into harvesting/mining the materials that went into producing the energy that went into mining the materials that went into producing your bicycle?

Henry David Thoreau you are not, try as you may.

[Nosi]

Originally Posted by lionking

There are over 400 nuclear power plants today. How many do you hear of?

Around the globe?

[Nosi]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Some of the reporting has been outright disgusting. Our media initially reported a meltdown at the nuclear powerplant would "wipe Japan off the map". This morning the headline ran "More than 10,000 feared dead as nuclear meltdown looms".

That's just blatant disregard for reality. A deliberate attempt to link Tsunami deaths with the nuclear power situation.

Our media repeats the "above safe levels", "1000x normal" etc. for radiation in virtually every article, but never once have I seen them actually make reference to what those levels are and how they compare with, say, background levels. The reality is a little digging indicates the levels, even at the alarming "1000x normal" are well, well below dangerous levels, even with prolonged exposure.

Is there a treatment or a tablet to take for radiation exposure over safe limits? What is the "danger zone out of treatment"?

[Soapy Sam]

Originally Posted by BobTheDonkey

Henry David Thoreau you are not, try as you may.

Actually, Thoreau was barely out of town and sent his laundry for washing.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

valuable to the biosphere that nurtures us.

The biosphere doesn't have values, and even if it did, I have no reason to share its values.

Quote:

we continue to soil our own beds.

Go join the voluntary human extinction movement if you want. But again, you first.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

here's a timely news bit:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/world-europe-12724981
Tens of thousands of people have protested in Germany against the government's plans to extend the life of its nuclear reactors.

Tens of thousands of Germans don't know what the hell they're talking about.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by BobTheDonkey

And the components that went into the computer you're using to access your incredibly slow dial up?
Ride a bike? What about the energy that went into producing the materials that went into producing your bicycle? And the energy that went into harvesting/mining the materials that went into producing the energy that went into mining the materials that went into producing your bicycle?

Henry David Thoreau you are not, try as you may.

ii ride an 35 year old soviet motorcycle that i maintain myself.
i drive a 30 year old toyota truck which i maintain myself.
i am not a very good consumer.

thoreau i have never tried to be, although i enjoy his works immensely.
however, i will not be moving back to town, as he did.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Nosi

Is there a treatment or a tablet to take for radiation exposure over safe limits?

Yes, there are various treatments one can use for radiation exposure. The treatment depends on the type of exposure. In a situation like this, the primary risk is not from direct radiation doses from the reactor, but from contamination with radioactive material. The primary line of defense is simply to wash yourself off and change into clean clothes. But there are also more sophisticated things you can do, including pills you can take. For example, radioactive iodine is one of the larger threats in such a scenario. If you take iodine tablets, the excess (meaning, more than your body needs) non-radioactive iodine in the pills will help flush the body of any radioactive iodine you might have absorbed.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Actually hydropower is normally achieved by building a hydrodam which, aside from destroying the entire river ecosystem, poses a far, far greater risk than a nuclear meltdown in the event of a severe earthquake.

And hydro dams can CAUSE earthquakes...

[Eddie Dane]

Newsflash:

In Germany, 60.000 eco-weenies are protesting against nuclear power.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

s of t is one of those.

No I'm not.

I would totally love a nuclear reactor in my back yard.

If a nuclear company rep came up to me and said "Hey, we have a hundred thousand dollars for you if you'd let us bury a ten ton cask of waste under your house" knowing what I know about radiation and nuclear waste, I'd totally go for that too.

Quote:

he strongly supports a proposed nuclear plant that bruce power wants to build in my back yard.

This is true. But not because I'm trying to keep it away from me. It's because I've actually spoken to engineers from Bruce Power and AECL and the Peace River area is the best place in Alberta to site a reactor. I didn't write the laws that govern physics and engineering, I just follow them.

Using it to get your goat is just gravy.

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

at least i'm not a nimby type.
i don't support nuclear power in anyone's backyard.

And this is so much better than being a petty fascist who wants to force people to live his way? Wealth is tied to energy production. Dollars, pounds, marks and yen go up and down, but kilowatts are the only currency that never changes in value. Generally speaking, the more watts you make, the more you have.

You've already said you hate humanity. Now you're saying you don't want them prosperous and well off. I guess this makes me the opposite of you. I don't hate people the way you do.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Nuclear energy is not only the safest for man, but it is also the safest for the environment.

Compare the environmental devastation between this:


And this:


The top picture is a disaster. Dozens of acres of fertile soil plowed up and paved over, turned into cold lifeless concrete, steel and silicon for what... a pitiful flow of electrons for a few hours a day (70 megawatts, to be exact)?

The second picture is from Brookhaven Technology Groups proposal for small portable nuclear reactors. The creators of the technowasteland above could have opted for a facility that would have produced the same amount of power both day and night even on cloudy days in a facility no larger than the maintenance yard in the lower right hand corner. And they could have used the rest to plant a fruit orchard or just a park.

Nuclear is actually greener than so called rewables.

EDIT: FYI, Bikerdruid, the smaller of the reactors pictured above literally would fit in my own backyard along with its support systems. And I would totally go for it.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Tens of thousands of Germans don't know what the hell they're talking about.

QFT

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Deaths per TWh for all energy sources: Rooftop solar power is actually more dangerous than Chernobyl

Really poorly written article.

It gets it's death rate by extrapolating from reported falling deaths of roofers and making an assumption about how many of them must have been working on solar panels.

That's a lot of assumption.

Not only that, but it uses the supposed danger of working on roofs against solar power, but doesn't include similar construction and maintenence risk with nuclear power. I assure you that construction of nuclear power plants involves risk.

The page looks like an SEO adserving effort more than any sort of authority.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Nosi

Is there a treatment or a tablet to take for radiation exposure over safe limits? What is the "danger zone out of treatment"?

Well, Iodine prevents Iodine-131 from finding a place in your body. It is quite effective at that.

[qarnos]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Some of the reporting has been outright disgusting.

Believe it or not, these two quotes come from the same article (all bolding mine):

Quote:

Authorities are fighting to avert a meltdown at stricken reactors at the Fukushima plant in the worst nuclear accident since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.

Quote:

Japan has rated the Fukushima accident at four on an international scale - meaning an accident with local consequences - against Chernobyl which was worst at seven on the 1-7 scale.

Three Mile Island rated a five.

Edit: Nevermind - turns out I don't know my history. TMI came first. Thanks, Ben!

[Soapy Sam]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

EDIT: FYI, Bikerdruid, the smaller of the reactors pictured above literally would fit in my own backyard along with its support systems. And I would totally go for it.

You might have the odd zoning problem.
And maybe the occasional terrorist difficulty.

But if you get one working, drop me a line.

[Soapy Sam]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

ii ride an 35 year old soviet motorcycle that i maintain myself

Dammit man, I can see why you wouldn't want piles!