|
|
|
Hitchiker1
New Member
11 Posts |
 Posted - 07/02/2005 : 20:02:44
|
Come on folks ! Let's get serious here ! All this talk about how the president can't pronounce Nuclear AND NOT ONE WORD ABOUT HOW HE WANTS
TO BUILD ANOTHER 26 NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ?! HELLO ?! Is anybody
awake out there ? Does anybody remember Chernobyl!? Even the smallest amount of radioactivity affects cell growth. Why do you think those guys wear those white suits? Do you think that's a fashion statement? Does anybody realize that state of the art technology is no garantee against a melt-down ? The most up-to-date nuclear power plant in operation is in Civaux France built in 1998. It has had over 20 technical misshaps so far some serious enough to be listed on an international scale of nuclear incidents. They have had level one's ,level two's and level three's . Chernobyl was a level seven. It is time the government spent money on researching alternate methods of obtaining energy because we are running out of oil and the nuclear industry is just going to increase the cancer level. Has anybody seen
Paul Fusco's book ; Chernobyl Legacy ? There are at least 30 pages of
pictures of children deformed by the intense radiation level from that
disaster. Mutants are not just in comic books. One kid has a growth
bigger that a cantalope mellon. Hey - while people are smoking less and less and more and more cancer producing chemicals are taken off the market THE CANCER LEVEL IS STILL INCREASING. What do you think happens to the radioactive Tricium inside the decanting pools in a
nuclear power plant ? Well all nuclear power plants are built near a water source...because they need it for the cooling system. Guess where they get rid of the liquid radioactive Tricium ? Just don't
live downstream from a nuclear power plant! By the way there are 105
of them in the United States. AND YOU GUYS ARE UPSET THAT BUSH CAN'T
PRONOUNCE NUCLEAR ?! HEY HE DOESN'T EVEN REALIZE IT'S DANGEROUS.
[Moved to the Health folder - Dave W.]
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 07/02/2005 : 21:33:24 [Permalink]
|
Welcome to the Skeptic Friends Network, Hitchiker1.
Without looking, I would think that the cancer prevalence - at least in the U.S. - in increasing despite a drop in smoking levels because our population is aging. People are staying alive longer than they used to, on average, allowing for more time for any mutagen to do its work, including the Sun, tailpipe emissions and radon.
Many years ago, I read that the American Cancer Society put together a list of things which definitely do not cause cancer. The list had 12 items on it. Twelve. Everything else in the world could be considered potentially cancer-causing.
Even the smallest amount of radioactivity affects cell growth? Have you lined your house with lead, yet? Never mind the health problems that would cause, it's the only way to minimize your radiation exposure. Mutagenic rays come from outer space, forcryingoutloud, so you can't even get away from such threats by leaving the planet (in fact, doing so makes things worse).
Also, I would personally love to see evidence that nuclear power plants dump radioactive materials into the rivers they're built by. The cooling ponds, so far as I know, cool hot but non-radioactive water. It's the water that's been turned to steam, convectively, by the radioactive steam inside the plants. There's no mixing of the two. If there were, we'd have heard about it years ago from the anti-nuke environmentalists who regularly double-check everything the plant operators check.
Look, nuclear power isn't foolproof, by any means. Whether it is "safer" than coal-burning plants, or hydropower, or whatever else you'd care to name is an on-going debate, and any single person's opinion on the matter will be based on which environmental hazards they feel most strongly about.
So, I'm definitely not arguing that nuke plants are great things. I'm somewhat worried about them myself. What I'm trying to get across to you is that one should gets one's facts straight, especially if your goals are to help people. All-caps hysteria, combined with scary-sounding nonsense, doesn't help anyone. Instead, it'll get you ridiculed.
For example, nuclear plants don't produce "tricium," they produce tritium. Tritium decays through beta radiation, which cannot even penetrate human skin. Tritium has a half-life of only 12 years, as well, so it doesn't accumulate in the environment. Tritium is not a major threat from nuclear plants, even if it was being dumped in rivers.
Uranium and plutonium are the real things to worry about. But even then, here is a partial list of other radioactive elements, many of which get produced by muclear plants, too.
Heck, nukes make the americium used in smoke detectors, so they're not all bad. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2005 : 21:41:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So, I'm definitely not arguing that nuke plants are great things.
I'd rather see 100 new modern nuclear power plants over 10 new coal power plants.
New nuclear plants are impossible to melt down. They can't get hot enough even with all the cooling 100% offline.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2005 : 22:17:33 [Permalink]
|
I'm not even worried about melt-downs, Dude.
Q: How many nuclear-power engineers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Two. One to change the bulb, the other to figure out what to do with the old bulb for the next 15,000 years.
Seriously, I'd much prefer to see an entire line of wind turbines stretching the length of the Appalachian mountains, all powering localized electrolysis plants which would feed hydrogen to home fuel cells, than anything else. With the added bonus that the turbines would help mitigate some of the storms that crawl my way from the midwest. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2005 : 23:18:13 [Permalink]
|
Well, maybe they can get fusion going?
Also from a mainstream site. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2005 : 07:55:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hitchiker1
Is anybody awake out there ?
I think I am, but I could be dreaming.
quote:
Does anybody remember Chernobyl!?
Yes I do. And I clearly remember that the reactor in Chernobyl was of a completely different design than the ones in the Western hemisphere. And the accident was caused by intentionally disabeling some of the security systems on the reactor.
But what exploded was not the nuclear material in the reactor, but graphite and hydrogen/oxygen gas mixture produced by the intense heat of the run-away reaction.
quote:
Even the smallest amount of radioactivity affects cell growth.
I've been told the dammage on DNA caused by radiation is linear to the amount of radiation. This means that there is no threshold for levels of radiation under which no dammage at all occurs.
quote:
Does anybody realize that state of the art technology is no garantee against a melt-down?
It's not, and yes it actually is. That's why Sweden (before researching safe reactors became illegal in Sweden) had designed a reactor that uses natural laws for safe protocol. This means that if a reaction starts to go critical, the process will terminate itself without depending on electronical and mechanical safegurads or human intervention
quote:
The most up-to-date nuclear power plant in operation is in Civaux France built in 1998. It has had over 20 technical misshaps so far some serious enough to be listed on an international scale of nuclear incidents.
Source, please?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2005 : 08:13:52 [Permalink]
|
Yawn.
See, Brazil has a whooping two nuclear plants. When you've as many rivers as we do, it's more tempting than nuclear - even though nuclear is cheaper on the long run, but tell the idiots that.
Oh ya, these two plants never, ever, caused any problems whatsoever. Sometimes they've been down, but never exploded, melted, or anything of the sorts. There's never been a case of toxic waste contamination in the surrounding environment; in fact, the only such case here in Brazil that I'm aware of was of a badly disposed x-ray machine. All that, and we're talking about a 3rd world country that doesn't spend a lot in technology.
And if you really think radiation exposure is such an immediate threat... stay away from x-ray labs. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2005 : 12:53:28 [Permalink]
|
Disclaimer: I am employed in the nuclear power industry, and have been for over 20 years. I held a Senior Reactor Operator license (issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) for over 10 years. I was a Control Room Supervisor for several years and a Shift Manager (responsible for overall operation of the plant) for several more years. Although you can question my objectivity on the topic, I will tell you that if I did not believe it was safe, I would not be working there. I also feel I am technically qualified to respond to Hitchiker1's post.
quote:
Does anybody remember Chernobyl!?
Yes, quite a few people do, especially those operating US nuclear reactors. The Chernobyl design could not be licensed in the US and western Europe. It had no containment structure, and many other basic design flaws. Some of those design issues were compensated for by requiring operation within certain limits. It was operated outside of those limits prior to the accident. They put the reactor in an operating regime where an increase in the amount of steam voids in the coolant increased power, which then increases steam voids, increasing power, etc. This happened very rapidly resulting in a steam explosion which ruptured the fuel channels containing the fuel, and blew the lid off the reactor, ejecting a substantial amount of highly radioactive fission products. This is what killed the plant workers and firemen responding to the initial disaster. The radiation fields were fatal after only a short exposure. The hot fuel then set fire to the graphite moderator, leading to a prolonged release of fission products. This is what affected the surrounding population. The ingestion of the fission products is what led to the health effects that were seen. Chernobyl is a lesson that is still taught as an example of the consequences of operating outside prescribed limits and of non-conservative decision making.
quote:
Even the smallest amount of radioactivity affects cell growth.
As Dave pointed out, you live in a radiation field 24 hours a day. The exposure you get from a nuclear power plant is negligible compared to natural sources and other man-made sources. Also, the effects of low doses of radiation are not well understood. We assume a linear model, that all dose above zero has some affect, but it is difficult to measure the actual affect.
quote:
Why do you think those guys wear those white suits?
Protective clothing is to avoid becoming contaminated with and/or spreading radioactive material. It does nothing more than ordinary clothing to shield from radiation. Don't confuse radiation with contamination. Radiation is the energy, usually alpha, beta, gamma, or neutron, emitted from radioactive material. This is what can, in high doses, cause damage to cells. Contamination is radioactive material where you don't want it.
quote:
Does anybody realize that state of the art technology is no garantee against a melt-down ?
No, its not. The real goal however is to avoid a release of fission products to the public. While avoiding a meltdown (or any fuel damage) will prevent this, there is also containment. That is why the reactor vessels are several inch thick steel, and are inside containment buildings made of several feet thich reinforced post-tensioned concete with a steel liner.
quote:
The most up-to-date nuclear power plant in operation is in Civaux France built in 1998. It has had over 20 technical misshaps so far some serious enough to be listed on an international scale of nuclear incidents. They have had level one's ,level two's and level three's . Chernobyl was a level seven.
Relatively minor incidents are reported, and most such events at that level are anticipated in the design. We assume the plant may trip (automatically shutdown) every so often. The purpose is to develop a database of low level events across the industry to look for generic problems which can be fixed before they contribute to a larger problem. Many industries (such as airlines) do the same thing.
quote:
What do you think happens to the radioactive Tricium inside the decanting pools in a nuclear power plant
I'll guess that you are referring to spent fuel storage pools. The water used for cooling the spent fuel is circulated through heat exchangers for cooling and ion exchangers for cleanup, and returned to the pool. The ion exchange resin is eventually disposed of as low level waste. The water from the spent fuel pool is not released. Liquid effluents from other sources are allowed to be released within limits.
quote:
AND YOU GUYS ARE UPSET THAT BUSH CAN'T PRONOUNCE NUCLEAR ?! HEY HE DOESN'T EVEN REALIZE IT'S DANGEROUS.
Okay, so it is a little embarrassing when the class dunce takes your side. I honestly don't think Dubya knows nearly enough to make an informed decision, he is just mouthing what somebody else told him.
Dangerous, however, is a relative term. There is no competely benign source of electrical power generation. The largest source of US electrical power, coal, has its own problems. Coal dust explosions in mines and power plants have killed hundreds. In the US, not one worker death has been directly attributable to radiation in a commercial nuclear power plant. In fact, the overall safety record of US nuclear power plants is quite good.
Everyone needs to make a choice as to whether to support, oppose, or tolerate a lot of things. It should, however be an informed choice, not driven by hysteria fueled by a lack of knowledge. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2005 : 13:17:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Does anybody remember Chernobyl!?
Are you not old enough to remember the accident on Three Mile Island, Harrisburg?
I myself only have vague memories of that event since I wasn't a teenager yet, and not that knowledgable about Nuclear Powerplants and constructions.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2005 : 13:58:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse:
Are you not old enough to remember the accident on Three Mile Island, Harrisburg?
I myself only have vague memories of that event since I wasn't a teenager yet, and not that knowledgable about Nuclear Powerplants and constructions.
TMI had major fuel damage, but only minor releases off site, and those were mostly gaseous and of short lived isotopes. No damaged fuel was released from the plant. Economically it was a disaster. The unit was almost brand new, and never has and never will produce power again. The repercussions grossly inflated the costs of nuclear plants built after TMI. In the long run, though, there has probably been more good than harm from TMI. Increased emphasis on human factors (man-machine interface), operator training, and the importance of sharing information among plants (similar plants had previously had problems with the pressurizer power operated relief valve that contributed to the loss of coolant) have all been positive results of the accident. In fact, TMI showed that the design of the plant worked to contain the accident, despite the series of errors that resulting in melting fuel. And unlike most famous disasters, no deaths resulted from TMI. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2005 : 10:29:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hitchiker1
Come on folks ! Let's get serious here ! All this talk about how the president can't pronounce Nuclear AND NOT ONE WORD ABOUT HOW HE WANTS
TO BUILD ANOTHER 26 NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ?! HELLO ?! Is anybody
awake out there ? Does anybody remember Chernobyl!?
Soviet era reactors are notorious for lack of proper containment. You are comparing apples and oranges.
quote:
Even the smallest amount of radioactivity affects cell growth.
There are much larger sources of radioactivity to worry about. There are also different levels of radioactivity. Some are blocked by skin, some are blocked by clothes.
quote:
Why do you think those guys wear those white suits?
Because they want to prevent contamination, not shield the occupant from radioactivity.
quote:
Do you think that's a fashion statement? Does anybody realize that state of the art technology is no garantee against a melt-down ?
The safteys in place go great lengths to ensure containment. If someone wants to attack one, containment can be breached.
quote:
The most up-to-date nuclear power plant in operation is in Civaux France built in 1998. It has had over 20 technical misshaps so far some serious enough to be listed on an international scale of nuclear incidents. They have had level one's ,level two's and level three's .
Do you have a listing of these. One needs to examine what was involved in the incidents. I know some French reactors had severe problems with cooling during a drought, but containment was not breached or even threatened.
quote:
Chernobyl was a level seven. It is time the government spent money on researching alternate methods of obtaining energy because we are running out of oil and the nuclear industry is just going to increase the cancer level.
Your assertation is unsupported that increased number of reactors will increase cancer rates.
quote:
Has anybody seen Paul Fusco's book ; Chernobyl Legacy ? There are at least 30 pages of pictures of children deformed by the intense radiation level from that disaster. Mutants are not just in comic books. One kid has a growth bigger that a cantalope mellon. Hey - while people are smoking less and less and more and more cancer producing chemicals are taken off the market THE CANCER LEVEL IS STILL INCREASING. What do you think happens to the radioactive Tricium inside the decanting pools in a
nuclear power plant ? Well all nuclear power plants are built near a water source...because they need it for the cooling system. Guess where they get rid of the liquid radioactive Tricium ? Just don't
live downstream from a nuclear power plant! By the way there are 105
of them in the United States. AND YOU GUYS ARE UPSET THAT BUSH CAN'T
PRONOUNCE NUCLEAR ?! HEY HE DOESN'T EVEN REALIZE IT'S DANGEROUS.
[Moved to the Health folder - Dave W.]
Chernobyl was horrible. And also exacerbated by the Soviet government insisting on using milk produced in contaminated areas. It was mixed with uncontaminated milk. (Source: a Russian friend of mine who was a doctor before emigrating. He heard the scientific community argue against the Soviet government use of contaminated milk in the 90/10 mixture proposed.)
I've lived near a nuclear power plant. The real danger isn't from the heated water released from the plant even if it contains traces of tritium. It's from a release of radioactive steam. The good news is that the steam rises and doesn't hurt plant workers or a nearby town. The bad news is that it fumigates an area away from the plant. The saftey measures and physical upgrades put in place since Three Mile Island makes a release of this sort unlikely. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2005 : 10:32:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'm not even worried about melt-downs, Dude.
Q: How many nuclear-power engineers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Two. One to change the bulb, the other to figure out what to do with the old bulb for the next 15,000 years.
Seriously, I'd much prefer to see an entire line of wind turbines stretching the length of the Appalachian mountains, all powering localized electrolysis plants which would feed hydrogen to home fuel cells, than anything else. With the added bonus that the turbines would help mitigate some of the storms that crawl my way from the midwest.
How about tapping into a portion of Yellowstones geothermal energy? That has a more reliable source than wind and just as clean. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2005 : 11:42:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer...
How about tapping into a portion of Yellowstones geothermal energy? That has a more reliable source than wind and just as clean.
Good question. This is an area of energy production that is already being tapped in many areas and vigorously explored in others. About half of the world's geothermal energy production can be found in various parts of California, USA. There they produce about enough electricity to power 2 million homes. As with any source of energy there are pros and cons to the use of the earth's naturally available heat.
The areas of the world where geothermal energy is available, at least at currently practical levels, are fairly limited. The Yellowstone region of Wyoming, USA, some parts of New Zealand, and Russia's Kamchatka Peninsula are some of the few locations where this heat is close enough to the surface to use as an energy source.quote:
Is the earth's heat under Yellowstone National Park an energy resource that is ripe for harvesting? Or is it best to leave that resource unused and protect the world's largest collection of geysers? This is a complex issue with geologic, environmental, political and economic factors that must be considered.
An informative introduction to the subject of geothermal energy can be found here... Should geothermal energy resources around Yellowstone Park be developed?
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2005 : 11:59:05 [Permalink]
|
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4127211
The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER)
I say we just wait for God to provide unlimited energy, hes so cool. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2005 : 19:16:28 [Permalink]
|
Don't forget Iceland, GeeMack.
And while we're talking about unlimited energy, just extend my windmills a few hundred miles. Up. They can be solar windmills. Bwahahahahaha! |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
