• 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?

Aepervius said:
Well, to be fair the necesserary material can be mined somewhere else, like the US and other places, there would be a gap of years until production is ramped up , and it would be very costly due to pollution clean up requirement in the western world, but it could be done if it is required. It's not as if China had a monopole on the ore, they actually have only a monopole on producing it cheaply by ignoring all pollution and dumping it in the environment.
Click to expand...

Well, yes and no. Thing is that it is said that China is sitting on 50% of the global reserves of that material. So yes, while other nations/countries can start mining and refining it, all the other together would have just as much combined as China has alone. So it's still a major player in that field, no matter what.

It would be nice to know where the other 50% are spread out, geographically. Depending on the country, the pollution problems and such thing could be as worse as in China, if they start mining it.

Greetings,

Chris
 
I think it's pretty clear that r-j is not interested in true facts. It's always the same. First he makes stupid, easy to refute claims. When the claims are refuted, he goes on and makes more stupid claims about the same thing. If all that is refuted again, and pointed out how stupid his posts are, he starts to scream "disgusting! lie!" etc. and runs away from the topic.

He simply does not want to hear the truth. Because it would put some decent scratches in his green-world-fantasy. And that can't happen in his world. Everything green is good, everything else is by definition bad.

I'm wondering, what would he say if he was told that there is no "CO2 balance" to skew around? That in fact all that CO2 that we release through burning fossil fuels was actually already in the atmosphere at one point? Not to say that it is a good thing to burn them, but just to show that nature simply does not care.

And what would he say if someone was telling him that coal could be considered stored solar energy? And that solar, wind, etc. are nuclear power sources, because without that big reactor that radiates us every day, we would have no solar and wind?

Greetings,

Chris

ETA: I mean, let's face it. The so called greens are not about saving the planet. Anyone who claims that is flat out lying. It's all about saving humans. Which in itself is a noble goal, but it still is a false pretense to sell that as "saving the planet". Because the planet doesn't care if we are here or not.
 
Last edited:
Sword_Of_Truth said:
R-J, can I ask how you feel about Germany switching away from tightly controlled and regulated nuclear power and increasing their reliance on the lowest and dirtiest grade of coal and subsequently dumping tens of thousands of pounds of radioactive waste into Germany's soil and waterways every year?
Click to expand...

Funny thing is that this is exactly what i have predicted. That when powering down the nukes, they will switch over to coal and gas to replace that. They laughed at me and told me that i'm a shill for the nuke industry, that renewables can already replace those nukes right now, etc, etc. They simply did not believe anyone who told them that this is what would happen.

Now, instead of admitting that they have been wrong and we have been right all along, they start to claim that no one ever denied that of course other types have to take over in the meantime, until more renewables are built all over the place.

Twisting the truth until it snaps...

Greetings,

Chris
 
PGH said:
I've always had an insane idea to increase our nuclear power and simply shoot the nuclear waste into space. I know it sounds crazy and dangerous. I'm sure many of you can point out things I haven't considered.
Click to expand...

Ignoring r-j's trolling and coming back to this, in addition to the points already covered about cost, energy, and so on, there's also the problem of simple danger. The simple fact is, rockets sometimes explode. Take the Ariane 5, for example. Ignoring the first two test flights, which both failed, it has had 54/56 launches successful. The most reliable rocket we have, and there's still a significant percentage that end up spreading their contents across the world. And while the point has been made that radiation isn't actually as scary as many people think, we still don't really want to start spraying it haphazardly across the landscape.

So it's not just a question of cost. In order for disposal into space to be viable, you'd need to have rockets be much more reliable so that the amount of radioactive material released in failures would be less than the amount released due to failed containment on Earth.
 
Cuddles said:
Ignoring r-j's trolling and coming back to this, in addition to the points already covered about cost, energy, and so on, there's also the problem of simple danger. The simple fact is, rockets sometimes explode. Take the Ariane 5, for example. Ignoring the first two test flights, which both failed, it has had 54/56 launches successful. The most reliable rocket we have, and there's still a significant percentage that end up spreading their contents across the world. And while the point has been made that radiation isn't actually as scary as many people think, we still don't really want to start spraying it haphazardly across the landscape.

So it's not just a question of cost. In order for disposal into space to be viable, you'd need to have rockets be much more reliable so that the amount of radioactive material released in failures would be less than the amount released due to failed containment on Earth.
Click to expand...

Not to mention there's no reason to get rid of it, other than political reasons.
 
Belz... said:
No news there. It's about preaching something they'll never have to implement.



Not to them.
Click to expand...

Well, "humans" here means mostly themselves and their lifestyle, somewhat followed by people who somehow agree with them. The rest? Not so much.

Dunno how the situation is in other countries, but here in Germany the most vocal "greenies" are from the upper-middle-class to upper-class. Of course they have no problem with paying 3 times the current price for energy etc, since they can easily afford that. They don't care at all about the others.

It's becoming more and more some kind of elite-ideology over here.

Greetings,

Chris
 
Last edited:
Cuddles said:
Ignoring r-j's trolling and coming back to this, in addition to the points already covered about cost, energy, and so on, there's also the problem of simple danger. The simple fact is, rockets sometimes explode. Take the Ariane 5, for example. Ignoring the first two test flights, which both failed, it has had 54/56 launches successful. The most reliable rocket we have, and there's still a significant percentage that end up spreading their contents across the world. And while the point has been made that radiation isn't actually as scary as many people think, we still don't really want to start spraying it haphazardly across the landscape.

So it's not just a question of cost. In order for disposal into space to be viable, you'd need to have rockets be much more reliable so that the amount of radioactive material released in failures would be less than the amount released due to failed containment on Earth.
Click to expand...

Which is why we need a space gun.

Belz... said:
Not to mention there's no reason to get rid of it, other than political reasons.
Click to expand...

Of course there is! Newton's Law! If we make enough of it (the waste), and shoot it from a large enough (or large enough number of) gun(s), we can actually use it as a rocket engine for the Earth!

;)
 
http://gunma.zamurai.jp/pub/2011/18juneJG.jpg

52,547 Bq/Kg Of Cesium Radiation Found In Soil Just Outside Tokyo – 135 Miles South Of Fukushima

I live in japan 135 miles / 220 Km south of Fukushima, in Kashiwa. I had the soil in Kashiwa professionally tested here are the official results for the levels of Cesium-137 and 134 and Iodine-131 only. No lab in Japan offers testing for any of the other dangerous radioactive elements like Plutonium / Strontium / Tellurium or Curium, all elements that were released in the explosion Use these results as you see fit, yes I know the results are nothing less than horrifying, what is even more terrifying is that the soil sample was taken from the side of the street where children walk everyday and not from where the elements could accumulate. This is the Cesium-137/134 and Iodine-131 levels of the soil in Kashiwa, that I had sent in and officially tested by a lab here in Japan.
Click to expand...
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/20...n-soil-tokyo-135-miles-south-fukushima-34691/
 
Huhum? What happened to "spread all over the world" and "japans motherland"? According to that graphic there seems to be, well, rather limited spread.

But then, not really surprising. And hey, let him drop links. After all, he never dropped an argument so far, so any links are better....

Greetings,

Chris

ETA: Oh, and did this guy just add up the numbers for Cs-134 and Cs-137? Why did he stop there, and forgot to add I-131 as well? Did anybody tell him that there is a reason that 134 and 137 are two different isotopes? Obviously not.

ETA 2: Forgot to mention that Cs-134 has a half-life of just a tad over 2 years, and Cs-137 a bit over 30 years. But of course "52,547" is a far bigger number, and thus way more suitable for fearmongering.
 
Last edited:
r-j said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/18/b...iler-sold-beef-contaminated-by-radiation.html
Click to expand...

And how many people died because of this? In comparison...

http://www.examiner.com/civil-right...esium-radiation-found-soil-just-outside-tokyo
Click to expand...

Um... you do realize that this link is simply a repeat from your earlier link of that truther Alexander Higgens, don't you? It's the exact same content, just hosted on a different page with different formatting. Did you not notice, or were you hoping nobody else would?
 
I have to agree. The nuclear agenda is pretty clear to see, just as you seem to be able to view valid concerns over real dangers as "an agenda". The nuclear apologist sees concerns over radiation, from normal people, as "an agenda", like they are somehow wrong for wanting to avoid something that can cause cancer. It's insane, but they can't see that at all.

While looking at articles about cesium in Japan, I found a beautiful example of this at work. Ironically titled Radioactive Iodine And Cesium In Japan: Just The Facts
Posted on March 27, 2011 by Trane Francks

Putting It All Into Perspective

As always, what all this means to us is a matter of context. First off, to alleviate the fears of folks in the U.S. and Canada: Unless you’re having a domestic nuclear crisis of your own, you don’t have anything to worry about with regard to the current state of affairs here in Japan. Current numbers point to the fact that 20,000 out of 100,000 (that’s 20%) are predicted to die of cancers from other causes in the U.S. Current numbers indicate that 0 out of 100,000 people are expected to die from cancer caused by fallout from Fukushima. That’s 0%.

For those of us in Japan, the numbers are only moderately different. We have a significant population within the 20km “ground zero” radius and a much larger population within a 100km radius. The reality is that people at ground zero have a small increased chance of dying of cancer compared to statistical averages. To put it into perspective, if you were at ground zero during the atomic bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, you had a 4% greater chance of dying of lung cancer. Compare that to the 400% greater chance of dying of lung cancer from smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for 20 years.
Click to expand...
http://www.living-intentionally.com/?p=548

His idea of "To put it into perspective" is to literally say "if you were at ground zero during the atomic bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, you had a 4% greater chance of dying of lung cancer"

Isn't that so rational and appealing to the normal person? Being at ground zero of an atomic bomb isn't really that bad at all! Not nearly as bad as smoking!

Problem over. The mind that can actually say that, and think it soothes the fears and concerns of normal people, I can't fathom that level of denial.
 
"As always, what all this means to us is a matter of context."
- Trane Francks

You see? Everything only has meaning in context. It's the clarion call of the propagandists. You got cancer from radiation? It only means anything in context. Because far worse things happen, you shouldn't be worried about cancer, or radiation even. Really, in the grand scheme of things it is nothing to worry about.
 
Belz... said:
Those turbines need a minimum wind speed to function. You also need to shut them down if there's too much wind. Useful, eh ?
Click to expand...
Fortunatetly there's always wind somewhere (like the Texas plains, constant wind nearly 365) for most wind conditions gearing and feathering keeps the turbines running in most conditions. Except for micro burts, tornados, etc. Anyhoos. Wind turbines are not meant to be a sole source of electrical power. It's just one part of a renewable whole.



They're also extremely noisy and dangerous to birds.
Click to expand...
Havent heard about the noise thing since they are usually outside of city limits and in open fields and pastures.

The bird thing is a bit over blown. the number of birds killed by wind turbines is very small compared to other sources of bird mortality.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm

There are studies being done to restrict the placement of turbines to areas outside of migratory paths.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom