Merged nuclear power safe?

[Safe-Keeper]

Because everybody already knows, nothing is as dangerous as an operating nuclear reactor.

Well, I would think nuclear weapons, or dams that burst and kill hundreds of thousands of people, or tsunamis, or...

 

[Christian Klippel]

First, the earthquake did relatively small damage compared to the tsunami, which was of course part of the earthquake.

The Fukushima reactors failed, at least one of them before the tsunami hit the plant. But even so, it is obvious now how wrong your claim was.

Very few people died from buildings and bridges collapsing, you can actually see this in the multiple videos of people filming the tsunamis. Very little damage before the waves hit.

Clearly the 'gamble' on reactors was an all in bet that was called by mother nature, and she had a royal flush.

People fixated on Fukushima, because unlike all the other disasters at the time, it was getting much worse, and rescue efforts were hampered by the radiation released. Even the US Navy had to move it's rescue operations to the other side of the country to avoid the radioactive fallout.

Well over three months later, the true horror of multiple meltdowns, explosions, fires and radioactivity is starting to become clear.

Unlike made up claims about what happened.

Ahh, yes, the "horrors". Like the predictions of things like "china syndrome" that never came true? Predictions of how the damaged reactors would result in a disaster worse than Chernobyl, while in reality they released much less radioactive material? The "horror" of many people dying because of that, which as well came not true?

What "horror" does become clear now? The horror of the workers there being able to prevent further disasters? The horror of them being able to get the reactors under control, step by step?

Let me guess: You mean the horror that nothing of what the greenies predicted and yelled about came true, because that has shown again how little they know. Yes, i can understand that this must be really horrifying: nothing to keep bashing on about to further the greenie agenda.

It can't be said often enough: Take some time to educate yourself about the things that you want to talk about. Right now you achieved to become the laughing stock in this thread. Much to our amusement.

 

[Belz...]

If I made a claim, and it turned out I was wrong, I would certainly admit it.

So you contend that NONE of your claims were proven wrong ?

I notice that a lot of people made claims early in the disaster at Fukushima, and they turned out to be wrong.

Name three such claims, since there are "a lot".

 

[Christian Klippel]

Sometimes having discussions on this forum feels like playing Monopoly, only you don't make money every time you're back at the beginning...

True. But then, it serves as a really good example of how these anti-nuke folks operate, how little they know, and that they are avoiding facts at all costs. We really have a prime example of that here, for everyone to see.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[shadron]

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


http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/20...n-soil-tokyo-135-miles-south-fukushima-34691/

As far as things go, 54 kBq is not very much radiation. It is 54,000 atoms disintegrating per second per kilogram of soil. Remember that a mole of soil contains 6.23e23 atoms/molecules, and a kg is somewhere in the hundreds of moles of soil, 54,000 disintegrations per second is not much. Put into more likely units, it is 1420 picoCuries/kg (1.4 nanoCuries). Well water from Finland contains 300 Bq/kg, as a comparison point. It is in the ball park of radiation measurements which would not have been measurable before the 1980s. It is about 8 bananas worth of K-40 radiation.

 

[r-j]

Lifetime dose from potassium in the human body 5400 Bq

That means every second 5400 beta decay events. For an average person,

A hundred kilos of contaminated soil would be emitting 5,400,000 decay events, but alpha beta and gamma, not just beta. So the same weight of soil is a thousand times more radioactive than the human body. No big deal. Especially since that is a ridiculous comparison.

 

[Belz...]

So you can't name even ONE claim made by us which was false ?

 

[shadron]

Lifetime dose from potassium in the human body 5400 Bq

That is a non-sequitur. A bequerel of radiation is a disintegration event (usually a beta plus gamma, or an alpha plus gamma if working with heavy metals) per second. If it's per second, then it's not per lifetime. The radiation intensity from a banana is 5400 Bq; the average human has a load of 4400 Bq throughout their lifetime. Also, gamma rays aren't emitted by themselves unless the plasma is heated very, very hot.

That means every second 5400 beta decay events. For an average person,

A hundred kilos of contaminated soil would be emitting 5,400,000 decay events, but alpha beta and gamma, not just beta. So the same weight of soil is a thousand times more radioactive than the human body. No big deal. Especially since that is a ridiculous comparison.

You know, when you try to parody someone's quote it helps if you understand what you are doing. Tell me why comparing a banana's radiation to that of a liter of this glow-in-the-dark dirt you report on is ridiculous. It is certainly well to know what the radiation content of the soil is, so that you KNOW it isn't especially harmful.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

In that regard, I remember when Israel bombed a nuclear reactor, before it even started up. Killed a few French engineers in the process. Nobody in the west really protested, much less cared, because it was bad people building the reactor. And bad people shouldn't have reactors. Why? Everybody knows the answer.

I don't even have to say it. Because everybody already knows, nothing is as dangerous as an operating nuclear reactor. They are so dangerous, people want to bomb them or prevent them from ever being built. Why are people nervous about North Korea having nuclear power? If it is so safe and harmless compared to coal? Nobody is complaining about North Korea having coal power.

Just nuclear power.

Oh good lord...

Congrats, R-J. You've just received your first Stundie Award nomination.

 

[Corsair 115]

In that regard, I remember when Israel bombed a nuclear reactor, before it even started up. Killed a few French engineers in the process. Nobody in the west really protested, much less cared, because it was bad people building the reactor.

Perhaps you should read the Wikipedia entry on the subject.

In regards to your claim that nobody cared, from the Wikipedia article's introductory paragraph:

The attack was strongly criticized around the world and Israel was rebuked by the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly in two separate resolutions.

Further down in the article an entire section is devoted to the international reaction to the attack.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Perhaps you should read the Wikipedia entry on the subject.

In regards to your claim that nobody cared, from the Wikipedia article's introductory paragraph:

Further down in the article an entire section is devoted to the international reaction to the attack.

You mean, like, you know, reading up on facts?

I'm sure he is not going to do that. After all that would be consistent with his behavior so far. And even if he would look at those facts, he will silently ignore them and move the goalpost way over there.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[uruk]

There, much closer to the truth, IMHO. At least over here the politicians bow to the pressure of these greenies. Start one project, greenies go havoc, and it gets stopped. Another solution/site is found, project started, greenies go havoc, it gets stopped. Rinse and repeat. And during all that the greenies have the balls to complain that there is no site/solution found yet. If anything, they have to point their fingers at themselves, because they are causing all the trouble that blocks people from getting things done.

Greetings,

Chris

Actually I saw a recent documentary on PBS (I think). according to the documentary Yucca Flats is a dead deal. Obama signed the official "No Go" this year. All commercial waste is being stored above ground at the power plant sites for the time being.

The next hope for underground burial is the military's salt mine facilities in New Mexico. The military has been burying thier radioactive material in a salt mine and is willing to allow all commercial waste to be buired there also.

The sticky wickets are the states who will have truckloads of nuclear waste passing through thier highways to the facilities. And New Mexico is split between the NIMBY's and and those looking for the new jobs that it will create.

Such is reality.

 

[uruk]

It doesn't have to, but those power sources can't cope with our needs currently.

Currently that is true for the present state of the technology

In exchange for depleting our copper and iron supplies and increasing rare earth waste.

So recycling doesn't figure into this? Does'nt the manufacturing of generators for nuclear power plants also use up copper, iron, and rare earth?

It doesn't "consume" it.

http://www.nei.org/keyissues/protec...tsheets/waterconsumptionatnuclearpowerplants/

Have to see how they define "consume"

 

[Christian Klippel]

Actually I saw a recent documentary on PBS (I think). according to the documentary Yucca Flats is a dead deal. Obama signed the official "No Go" this year. All commercial waste is being stored above ground at the power plant sites for the time being.

The next hope for underground burial is the military's salt mine facilities in New Mexico. The military has been burying thier radioactive material in a salt mine and is willing to allow all commercial waste to be buired there also.

The sticky wickets are the states who will have truckloads of nuclear waste passing through thier highways to the facilities. And New Mexico is split between the NIMBY's and and those looking for the new jobs that it will create.

Such is reality.

Here in Germany they had an underground storage, but it "leaked". So they were searching for new places. Every time a proposal came up, it was massively protested against and in turn discarded mainly due to these protests.

So it's a bit like ping-pong nowdays. "You nuclear folks don't have a solution for safe storage, you need to do something" - "Here we have that place ..." - "No, not there, because of [whatever reason]. So, you nuclear folks don't have a solution for safe storage, you need to do something" - ...

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Christian Klippel]

So recycling doesn't figure into this? Does'nt the manufacturing of generators for nuclear power plants also use up copper, iron, and rare earth?

The biggest problem is one of efficiency of using resources. Yes, regular generators for "normal" power plants use copper and iron. Rare earths not so much, because they use electromagnetic field generation instead of permanent magnets.

Thing is that these big generators, when used in regular plants, produce electricity almost always, except when down due to plant service cycles or such. Also, they usually operate at, or close to, their maximum performance.

With windmills, they operate only 20% of the time at all. Then, they don't always operate at full capacity. Add to that the fact that you need to install a multiple of windmills for a given power demand, since you need to handle storages etc. as well.

All that leads to a massive excess of material needed to build them, making them very, very inefficient in the use of resources. No amount of recycling can help you there, since you need to install a certain amount of windmills to begin with.

Oh, and of course the generators in the storages also need copper and iron. Plus the backup power plants you need to have in case thing go really south.

Let's put it this way: If you use your car to get from A to B, do you have two more cars in tow, just in case? Would you think that this would be a good use of resources, even if you can fully recycle the materials?

(Yes, i know, comparisons with cars suck, hehe...)

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

For those who have just tuned in:

31 people dead in one month from organic farming in Germany is apparently no reason to stop organic farming.

Three dozen deaths due to high speed rail use in China is no reason to abandon driving trains really fast.

A nuclear reactor that sustains an earthquake string enough to knock the planet off it's axis and yet does not result in a single radiation induced fatality means we need to shut off every reactor in the world yesterday or risk watching all of mankind explode in a giant flaming ball of death.



I know, I don't get it either.

 

[Belz...]

Currently that is true for the present state of the technology

Please don't try to make an argument from ignorance. We currently don't have better solar technologies and we can't make decisions based on the assumption that we one day will. We have to work with what we know.

So recycling doesn't figure into this? Does'nt the manufacturing of generators for nuclear power plants also use up copper, iron, and rare earth?

Not anywhere near the amount you need for all those windmills and solar panels. And who cares about recycling ? You can't recycle it while it's being used for electricity.

Have to see how they define "consume"

It doesn't "consume" it in the sense that the water is still there and still useable and drinkable after having been used.

 

[Belz...]

For those who have just tuned in:

31 people dead in one month from organic farming in Germany is apparently no reason to stop organic farming.

Three dozen deaths due to high speed rail use in China is no reason to abandon driving trains really fast.

A nuclear reactor that sustains an earthquake string enough to knock the planet off it's axis and yet does not result in a single radiation induced fatality means we need to shut off every reactor in the world yesterday or risk watching all of mankind explode in a giant flaming ball of death.



I know, I don't get it either.

But it's rrAaadiiooooaaactiiiiive !!!!

 

[Bill Thompson]

is power itself safe?

 

[bikerdruid]

is power itself safe?

no.
power corrupts.
absolute power corrupts, absolutely.