• 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?

bikerdruid said:
yes, i do know how the scale works.
however, i think it is foolish to think, in an area where small quakes or tremors are not uncommon,
that a larger one is not possible.

japan is earthquake prone, an tremors are very common.
but, even japan has never had a quake this large.
yet, here it is.
Click to expand...

A meteor fell a couple miles from here, so obviously we need to build all factories to withstand a dinosaur killer asteroid?
 
I just read that they are finding nuclear fallout from the explosions in the central valley, California.
 
bikerdruid said:
yes, i do know how the scale works.
however, i think it is foolish to think, in an area where small quakes or tremors are not uncommon,
that a larger one is not possible.

japan is earthquake prone, an tremors are very common.
but, even japan has never had a quake this large.
yet, here it is.
Click to expand...

By that logic we should never do anything because there will always be a bigger threat.

"Why should I bother getting out of bed ? Heat Death will render all of my actions meaningless in a few googolplex years."
 
r-j said:
I just read that they are finding nuclear fallout from the explosions in the central valley, California.
Click to expand...

Yes, wasn't it something like 1 trillionth of a sievert?

When they start detecting one microsievert then you can begin to wonder.
 
I'm not worried about personal exposure. I'm worried about my investments.
 
If people even think there is radioactive fall out in their food, they will buy from somebody else. Even if the food is 100% safe, people are irrational panicky beasts.
 
bikerdruid said:
a crushed factory will not likely endanger the millions that live in that entire area.
Click to expand...

If it is a factory that produces bricks, then yes, unless you have millions of people in that factory.

However, if it is a factory that produces highly toxic chemicals in large quantities, or an oil refinery, or, or, or, .... then no, it surely can endanger the people around it. And have a huge impact on the environment around it. You know, there are many, many ways to poison water and ground beside radioactive materials.

Greetings,

Chris
 
Java Man said:
Lets look at it from yet another way.
Click to expand...

Yes ! Let us ! The mining of coal is killing a lot of people every year something like 100 in OECD country, and there is at least a factor 10 to 20 when looking outside OECD countries. And that is the mining only. The burning itself are killing even more. Oil and gas are better by a factor of magnitude but it is still worst off than nuclear.

So *YOU* are saying "it is better to kill a few hundred to a few thousand people every year , than risk a potential killing of a few dozen in a nuclear incident". And that is the worst case scenario a repeat of a chernobyl.

That is downright irrational.

You can make nuclear instalation more secure. You can't for coal. Coal burning won't change much , and mining security has probably bottomed out in OECD. Same for GAs and oil (heck we are even increasing risk slightly with oil by using new extraction method).

People *made* nuclear a monster scarecrow 1000 feet high, ready to munch on their children while laughing maniacally. The truth is while nuclear is dangerous it is *actually* killing less people than other energy extraction method today. And the worst nuclear incident killed will kill LESS people in 70 years than coal mining in 3 years worldwide.
 
bikerdruid said:
yes, i do know how the scale works.
however, i think it is foolish to think, in an area where small quakes or tremors are not uncommon,
that a larger one is not possible.

japan is earthquake prone, an tremors are very common.
but, even japan has never had a quake this large.
yet, here it is.
Click to expand...

And yet the reactor was intact. What did Fukushima in was the follow up tsunami. So it is not only an earthquake but an exceptional earthquake combined with an exceptional tsunami. And a few precaution (which the japanese will take I can assrue you) will even avoid that much.

So what's your point ? Luddism maybe ?
 
r-j said:
I just read that they are finding nuclear fallout from the explosions in the central valley, California.
Click to expand...

Source?

It is likely that what "they" are finding, if anything, is just trace amounts of material. And by "trace" I mean "so small that you shouldn't even give it a second thought". In fact, you get more radiation from flying in a commercial jetliner (i.e. you are higher in the atmosphere and less shielded from cosmic rays) than this supposed "fallout" coming from Japan.

:rolleyes:
 
From a practical point of view, what do you think people will choose when shopping? Produce and milk with "a really really small amount of cesium in it", or produce and milk with none at all?

Think about it, from an economic point of view.
 
I mean, a lot of people already spend more for food, because it is 'pesticide free' and 'organic' or something. You think telling them "it's just a tiny amount of nuclear fall out" is going to make them buy it?
 
r-j said:
I mean, a lot of people already spend more for food, because it is 'pesticide free' and 'organic' or something. You think telling them "it's just a tiny amount of nuclear fall out" is going to make them buy it?
Click to expand...

No matter how much you try, there's going to be a few atoms worth of radioactive uranium in any kind of food you eat. Seriously. So the notion of attempting to get 100% radiation-free food is pretty silly.

But I understand the point you're attempting to make, and I agree it is a branding and PR problem for food-sellers. Of course, one reason why it is such a problem is because the vast majority of the media covering this story decided to cause a panic & sensationalize the hell out of it rather than properly educate people on the topic of radiation. In this sense, the media blew it, big time - but I'm to the point of cynically thinking that they don't really care, so long as it gives a juicy story.

Speaking of food & radiation, here's the latest from the World Nuclear News on exactly this topic...

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Food_samples_show_raised_radiation-1903114.html
Radiation levels exceeding the Japanese government-set level have been detected in samples of milk and spinach collected in the region of the Fukushima nuclear power plant. However, the levels measured are said to pose no immediate threat to health.

Higher than limit levels of radiation were detected in samples of milk by authorities yesterday evening, chief cabinet secretary Yukiyo Edano reported. The milk samples had been collected within Fukushima Prefecture at a location more than 30 kilometres from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi plant. ...

... The limits are based on the amount of food concerned assuming that these amounts would be consumed throughout one’s entire life, Edano said. He stressed that the radiation measured from the samples poses no immediate threat to health. In the case of the milk samples, even if consumed for one year, the radiation dose would be equivalent to that a person would receive in a single CT scan. The levels found in the spinach were much lower, equivalent to one-fifth of a single CT scan. ...
Click to expand...

(emphasis mine)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom