• 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?

Since when do we trust mr. everybody to determine something they are not qualified to determine ?
Click to expand...
People were terrified of cameras when they first came out, too. Something about them stealing your soul or some other completely baseless mumbo-jumbo. Then we invented computers and pop culture was filled with Terminator-style nightmare visions of robots rising up to conquer the earth. Then finally, nuclear power comes along, making one hell of an entrance by burning two cities to the ground, and surprise, surprise, that scares us, too.

We fear what we don't understand. That, at least, is nothing new.
 
I don't see what you mean. Would you rather they researched things we already understand? Or are you talking about people who build and run reactors?
 
I was pointing out that not everybody fears what they don't understand.

For example, I don't understand a lot of people that write ridiculous things here. But that doesn't make me fear them.
 
'The Battle of Chernobyl'

One and a half hour documentary that exposes the "scientifically proven" 4,000 casualty figure for the out-of-thin-air rubbish that it is.

Does anyone know of any research into the fate of the tens of thousands of "bio-robots"/"liquidators" sent in to try and clean up the horrific disaster?
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
'The Battle of Chernobyl'

Exposes the "scientifically proven" 4,000 casualty figure for the rubbish that it is.
Click to expand...

a second explosion, ten times more powerful than Hiroshima which would have wiped out more than half of Europe. This was kept secret for twenty years by the Soviets and the West alike.
Click to expand...

Huhu. I can recognize rubish when I see it, indeed...
 
Yeah... Europe (or even only "half of Europe") is a little bigger than ten times Hiroshima:rolleyes:...
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Yeah... Europe (or even only "half of Europe") is a little bigger than ten times Hiroshima:rolleyes:...
Click to expand...

Not even counting that I would like to see how they get a 10*13 kt TNT atom explosion from a chernobyl run away reactor , without concentrating the fuel in critical mass.
At the moment of the accident, there were 1,659 fuel assemblies in the reactor core, and each
assembly contained 0.1147 ton of uranium. The fresh fuel of the reactor RBMK-1000 before the accident
at Chernobyl NPP contained 2 % of uranium-235.
Click to expand...

Firstly the corium would probably have even dilluted the 2% even further, secondely if I read article on U 235 enrichment and weaponisation correctely, critical mass below 6% rise to be quasi infinite, therefore a 2% U235 enrichment would *NEVER* have led to a nuclear explosion.

So. Yeah. Total utter rubish.
 
Example:
Seti these nuclear reators are based upon really old submarine designs and were never meant to be upscaled.
Click to expand...
Your point? Today's spacecraft are based upon really old aeroplane designs which were never meant to go into space. Rockets were initially not intended to be fired across continents. Computers were originally not meant to be small enough to fit in peoples' pockets.

So?

Not my opinion but the director of the nuke sub program who implemented nuclear reactors in subs for the US.
Click to expand...
Again, so:confused:?

Its a cheap tech though so people who want to make money like it.
Click to expand...
Reactors cost a fortune to build:jaw-dropp.

But its dirty as hell with really no where to store the waste, which is a whole different subject of its own.
Click to expand...
90% of the tiny amounts of waste created is recycled, the rest is stored safely like all other toxic waste. I don't see the problem.

The truth is 95% of the stock in the US is owned by 5%. A 5% who very rarely IF ever truly feel the ramifications of decisions they make simply to attain or maintain wealth of an order that is ludicrous. So our planets gets trashed so a FEW rich people can get richer. And now the IMF and world bank get to own japan as they will never be able to pay back their loans they will be getting to repair their nation, unless of course they agree to privatize some of their resources for the benefit of that few again. It all BS brother. Solar panels on the homes in CA,AZ,NV,TX,NM could power half the US or more. Its no secret that the BP is the biggest supplier of solar panels. Are they trying to get them to the world cheaper as demand rises according to the economic principles the establishment eschews. Nope they fix the price and it will stay where they want it so solar stays dead. They can make money and sell them cheaper, they are subsidized by the US gov after all, but why do the right thing AND make money? Thats not in their creed. Just blind greed and a corporate media to play buffer between the truth and the lies. SO you are right in some regards but only because big money wants it that way. In 1945 35% of new millionaires were from poverty. Now it is about 2-3%. Things sure are getting more fair in the world. Free your mind and your ass will follow.
Click to expand...
See, here's the deal. Capitalists are bad like those in Norway, a kingdom in Europe, in which squirrels like to eat acorns. Therefore tulips and coffee as products are not sustainable, and Winnie the pooh can't paddle his canoeu up 2 mout rushmoor. Thus reactors r bad.

:boggled:
 
Last edited:
I don't care too much about the comment, my experience is that the commenta re usually a notch *lower* than the web page they are on (very rarely they shine).

What I would like to hear is JihadJane's take (or even admission) that the part on a nuclear explosion, with our knowledge of the fuel used in Chernobyl, is strictly *impossible* , be it 10 time or even 1/2 time hiroshima, and that it would certainly not take the europe out.

Since she (he?) felt it useful to link that article , I am pretty sure she will be able to give us her opinion on that.
:D
 
JihadJane said:
'The Battle of Chernobyl'

One and a half hour documentary that exposes the "scientifically proven" 4,000 casualty figure for the out-of-thin-air rubbish that it is.

Does anyone know of any research into the fate of the tens of thousands of "bio-robots"/"liquidators" sent in to try and clean up the horrific disaster?
Click to expand...

Yeah, the 4000 figure is too large by a factor of about 40X.
 
Aepervius said:
Huhu. I can recognize rubish when I see it, indeed...
Click to expand...

I saw a classical music show on television which explained a bit the situation and how the Japanese cope with it, with some pretty music by the Montréal Symphony Orchestra. Anyway, the first thing they mention is that, after the Earthquake and Tsunami, there is the nuclear power station that is "as dangerous as a nuclear bomb". That kinda loses me, right there. And these are serious journalists.

I hate the media.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
But its dirty as hell with really no where to store the waste, which is a whole different subject of its own.
Click to expand...

90% of the tiny amounts of waste created is recycled, the rest is stored safely like all other toxic waste. I don't see the problem.
Click to expand...

The problem is created by those opposing nuclear. Look at the wording.

"Dirty as hell" compared to what ? "No where [sic] to store the waste" except absolutely everywhere.
 
JihadJane said:
'The Battle of Chernobyl'

One and a half hour documentary that exposes the "scientifically proven" 4,000 casualty figure for the out-of-thin-air rubbish that it is.

Does anyone know of any research into the fate of the tens of thousands of "bio-robots"/"liquidators" sent in to try and clean up the horrific disaster?
Click to expand...

OK, Jane, then let's see your scientifically proven figures. If they happen to arise from a certain Greenpeace article I'm aware of, then we'll know something of the caliber of your science.

As a matter of fact, the IAEA and the Chernobyl Forum (a consortium of the USA, Russia, Ukraine, Beyelorus and other governments in the area say the official death tole is 56. That number is the number of official recorded deaths that were a direct result of the disaster. They go on to say that there has been no detectable "bump" in hard or soft cancers, nor in birth defects; the one exception is thyroid cancers, which are 98+% curable today.

That is not quite the same thing as saying that there were only 56 deaths in the accident; obviously there were probably more, but there is no official trace of them. Blame for that fact, in the face of a monumental accident and the Soviet need to secrecy, can be argued (and will be) far after we're long gone.

So they guess - they say, based on other public health statistics, that 4,000 sounds like a good number, but the real number may be a factor of ten either way from that, and no one will ever be able to prove it. You have the Greenpeace guess of 250,000, and other who guess that the proven 56 number sounds right. Unless, of course, Jane has something she's been hiding for 25 years.

Your video is just another polemic in the info war.
 
shadron said:
That is not quite the same thing as saying that there were only 56 deaths in the accident; obviously there were probably more, but there is no official trace of them. Blame for that fact, in the face of a monumental accident and the Soviet need to secrecy, can be argued (and will be) far after we're long gone.
Click to expand...

And the fact that, at such low-levels of exposure, there are no good statistics on the effects of radiation. Also, at which point do you consider an increase in deaths statistically relevant, here ?
 
JihadJane said:
'The Battle of Chernobyl'

One and a half hour documentary that exposes the "scientifically proven" 4,000 casualty figure for the out-of-thin-air rubbish that it is.

Does anyone know of any research into the fate of the tens of thousands of "bio-robots"/"liquidators" sent in to try and clean up the horrific disaster?
Click to expand...

A.) WRONG!

B.) How is a 150 kiloton ground burst supposed to wipe out half of Europe?

EDIT: Here's a handy-dandy web-based nuclear weapon effects calculator. Pick a city, pick a bomb and nuke it. I tested a series of bombs on downtown Edmonton and the blast wave and thermal effects didn't reach my house until I picked one that was ninety times the size of Hiroshima.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom