• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged nuclear power safe?

Safe-Keeper said:
Hm. Didn't someone on the nuclear opposition side say something about how we should not consider energy sources that produce waste that cannot be safely stored?
Click to expand...

I don't know, but there is a big difference : those coron HAVE killed, and without maintenance they can kill again on the surface.

Nuclear waste storage in salt mine hasn't killed, and the msot danger I heard brought up is "what about our idiot ancestor in 10000 years after civilisation has gone the dodo ?" and the other objection is "what about earthquake or unstable zone used as waste area ?" (considering how vitrified the msot dangerous waste is, I am doubtless the risk is extremly low).

Note that those are RISK only, and from my perspective really low one, whereas coron kill TODAY as Rolfe showed for the USA already killed (I could probably dig up article on killing in the north of France or even other region).
 
a_unique_person said:
What is a safe dose of radiation?

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/03/31/3177889.htm
Click to expand...

The US advocacy group, Physicians for Social Responsiblity, recently criticised press reports implying there is a safe threshold for ionizing radiation exposure
Click to expand...

Firstly this is an advocacy group , so I take that with a grain of salt. Secondly, it all depends on the definition of safe. Sure cancer increase, but then so does FLYING, since it increase radiation, taking an X Ray , making A WALK in a nature park in a geologically granite besed mountain, 1 week in Limoge/France (lot of basement with radon I am speaking out of experience) and FFS , simply being next to any material known to have radioactive isotope, like, your significant other.

You would not care if something increased your cancer risk by 0.0001% , or you would not take a walk outside for fear of dying, but suddenly since it is NOOKLEAAAR , then there is no safe level.

Sorry. No. You cannot have it both way. There are level at which we consider them safe, because they correspond to the background radiation people take in some region of earth, and the cancer prevalence is not greater.
 
Aepervius said:
I don't know, but there is a big difference : those coron HAVE killed, and without maintenance they can kill again on the surface.

Nuclear waste storage in salt mine hasn't killed, and the msot danger I heard brought up is "what about our idiot ancestor in 10000 years after civilisation has gone the dodo ?" and the other objection is "what about earthquake or unstable zone used as waste area ?" (considering how vitrified the msot dangerous waste is, I am doubtless the risk is extremly low).

Note that those are RISK only, and from my perspective really low one, whereas coron kill TODAY as Rolfe showed for the USA already killed (I could probably dig up article on killing in the north of France or even other region).
Click to expand...

So you havent heard of the leaking barrels in Asse II? :rolleyes:
 
Aepervius said:
Firstly this is an advocacy group , so I take that with a grain of salt. Secondly, it all depends on the definition of safe. Sure cancer increase, but then so does FLYING, since it increase radiation, taking an X Ray , making A WALK in a nature park in a geologically granite besed mountain, 1 week in Limoge/France (lot of basement with radon I am speaking out of experience) and FFS , simply being next to any material known to have radioactive isotope, like, your significant other.

You would not care if something increased your cancer risk by 0.0001% , or you would not take a walk outside for fear of dying, but suddenly since it is NOOKLEAAAR , then there is no safe level.

Sorry. No. You cannot have it both way. There are level at which we consider them safe, because they correspond to the background radiation people take in some region of earth, and the cancer prevalence is not greater.
Click to expand...

the article makes it actually clear.... it exactly brings up the exsample of flying........

why the knee-jerk reaction?
 
Puppycow said:
The bloody radioactivity levels in the ocean keep rising. Last week they were thousands of times the legal limit, now millions.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/world/asia/06japan.xml

:(
Click to expand...

I am not too sure this is to be unexpected :
"The samples were collected Monday near the water intake of the No. 2 reactor of the Daiichi plant."

Still those are Cs 137 dose so yeah a bit worrying. What would be extremly worrying is such measurement, say, a few dozen metter away from the plant inland.

Still sucks to be a fisher/mollusk catcher for the region. They can probably forget it for a long time, if anything even if nothing is found as radiation, due to the fear thereof.
 
DC said:
So you havent heard of the leaking barrels in Asse II? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I have, and I have also heard of the british litteraly DUMPING barrel in the channel. Ha our ancestor those joking guy which handled security as if it was nothing. Dumping dioxyn in river. Having no filter on coal plant. Haha.

There is quite a difference in waste storage today , as compared to the 70th , just like nuclear plant generation from the 70th security and today.

But hey don't let that hit your attempt to paint the evil noooklear booman even darker.
 
DC said:
the article makes it actually clear.... it exactly brings up the exsample of flying........

why the knee-jerk reaction?
Click to expand...

Because it OVERSTATE the risk.

You have a greater chance of dying in an auto accident than dying because of a cancer due to a flight. Or even in a plane crash. But I still go with my bicycle on the road onto work.

Nothing is 100% safe. But at the risk level we are speaking it is considered safe enough. that is what is spoken of when people say lower radiation level are safe.

ETA: saying that all level are unsafe is actually implying that other activity have safe level. They haven't ! No activity except dying and being a corpse have a 100% safe level. That is not what we meant when we say "safe". Safe means "risk negligible enough".
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
Because it OVERSTATE the risk.

You have a greater chance of dying in an auto accident than dying because of a cancer due to a flight. Or even in a plane crash. But I still go with my bicycle on the road onto work.

Nothing is 100% safe. But at the risk level we are speaking it is considered safe enough. that is what is spoken of when people say lower radiation level are safe.

ETA: saying that all level are unsafe is actually implying that other activity have safe level. They haven't ! No activity except dying and being a corpse have a 100% safe level. That is not what we meant when we say "safe". Safe means "risk negligible enough".
Click to expand...

thats exactly what the article said.......

you just claim they overstate the risk because you have seen the article mentions a advocacy group..... :rolleyes:
 
Aepervius said:
I have, and I have also heard of the british litteraly DUMPING barrel in the channel. Ha our ancestor those joking guy which handled security as if it was nothing. Dumping dioxyn in river. Having no filter on coal plant. Haha.

There is quite a difference in waste storage today , as compared to the 70th , just like nuclear plant generation from the 70th security and today.

But hey don't let that hit your attempt to paint the evil noooklear booman even darker.
Click to expand...

im not painting anything darker, i just didnt buy your whitewash. :rolleyes:
 
Ahh, look who's here again!

Hey, DC, did you finally manage to copy & paste some of the stuff, that i directly quoted from one article, into Google and find the full article? Already placed some effort into finding some more articles that say basically the same, but more direct, as i have claimed?

You know, the stuff that you accused me of having made up on my own?

How's the apology coming along? Still working on the wording?

Greetings,

Chris
 
Christian Klippel said:
Ahh, look who's here again!

Hey, DC, did you finally manage to copy & paste some of the stuff, that i directly quoted from one article, into Google and find the full article? Already placed some effort into finding some more articles that say basically the same, but more direct, as i have claimed?

You know, the stuff that you accused me of having made up on my own?

How's the apology coming along? Still working on the wording?

Greetings,

Chris
Click to expand...
erm no i didnt see any links. but i didnt follow the thread lately. and in no way i will appology , it was you that refused to deliver a source, so i had to assume you made it up. i hope that didn cause you sleepless nights.... :rolleyes: on what page did you post it?
 
Christian Klippel said:
Thought so. Thanks for clearing that up. At least now everyone knows what to think of you. Making accusations is all nice and dandy for you, and you don't see the need to apologize for them if you were wrong with them. Got that.

Greetings,

Chris
Click to expand...

Oh cry me a river lol

I have often excused to other users. and have surely no problem with it. But when you refuse to provide a source for your claim, you dont have to wonder people assume you made it up.
let it be a lesson for you, when someone asks you to provide a source, you should do so instead of being an ***. :rolleyes:
 
Aepervius said:
Firstly this is an advocacy group , so I take that with a grain of salt. Secondly, it all depends on the definition of safe. Sure cancer increase, but then so does FLYING, since it increase radiation, taking an X Ray , making A WALK in a nature park in a geologically granite besed mountain, 1 week in Limoge/France (lot of basement with radon I am speaking out of experience) and FFS , simply being next to any material known to have radioactive isotope, like, your significant other.
Click to expand...


The irony to me is that cigarettes, which have been proven to cause caner, amongst other diseases, and contain all manner of toxins, are still nonetheless legal products which are sold and smoked in large numbers every day. And which kill thousands of people annually as a consequence.

Yet people are freaking out over the dangers of radiation...
 
Corsair 115 said:
The irony to me is that cigarettes, which have been proven to cause caner, amongst other diseases, and contain all manner of toxins, are still nonetheless legal products which are sold and smoked in large numbers every day. And which kill thousands of people annually as a consequence.

Yet people are freaking out over the dangers of radiation...
Click to expand...


Huh, interesting.

I had no idea cigarette smoke could seep into drinking water and agricultural soil.
 
Corsair 115 said:
The irony to me is that cigarettes, which have been proven to cause caner, amongst other diseases, and contain all manner of toxins, are still nonetheless legal products which are sold and smoked in large numbers every day. And which kill thousands of people annually as a consequence.

Yet people are freaking out over the dangers of radiation...
Click to expand...

And see; http://www.webspawner.com/users/radioactivethreat/
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
I have, and I have also heard of the british litteraly DUMPING barrel in the channel. Ha our ancestor those joking guy which handled security as if it was nothing. Dumping dioxyn in river. Having no filter on coal plant. Haha.

There is quite a difference in waste storage today , as compared to the 70th , just like nuclear plant generation from the 70th security and today.

But hey don't let that hit your attempt to paint the evil noooklear booman even darker.
Click to expand...

and coal is famous for this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_fire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania

I couldn't live to close to one.

glenn
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom