|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
 Posted - 04/07/2013 : 16:08:58 [Permalink]
|
Ok, I need to get involved here. Nobody credible is insisting that nuclear power is safe, just that it’s better than the alternative. Every method of converting energy into a form usable for human use has exceedingly dangerous trade-offs: the question becomes “which ones are worth it?”
A common misconception is that radiation will always kill you. Obviously, enough radiation will kill you; however, small doses of radiation are not only unavoidable, they are necessary. Here are two excellent references to help people understand what is a dangerous level of radioactivity.
Wikipedia article on the radiation dose unit sievert
American Nuclear society interactive dose chart
Originally posted by sailingsoul
It sure is nice there hasn't been any other reported mishaps with any of the 438 reactors world wide, yet. Not that it would change anything if there had been. Especially seeing how this one is yet to be contained and is still leaking radioactivity into the ocean two years after the event. Get that? STILL! However People will still insist these thing are safe till the cows come home. |
This is a minor nitpick, but it annoys me every time news articles get it wrong: radiation and radioactivity can’t leak. Contamination, or radioactive materials, can. The radioactive particles emit radioactivity, which can deposit an ionizing dose of radiation in human tissue, potentially causing damage.| I thought I would post this recent (10 hours ago) Reuter's article on how well the safety systems are working with keeping all that radiation, that others here have claimed to be so short lived, in check. Apparently 2 years hasn't done that much to reduce the radioactive levels that, if I read right, should be all but gone by now. Hummm (scratching head). |
Who was claiming the Fukushima radioactivity is short lived? The reactors melted down! Of course there are long-lived particles! The Japanese government’s been estimating a 30-year clean-up for the last couple years, why are you surprised that it’s not done yet?| Comments like this below shows that anyone's ability to control what is going on is pretty limited and unfortunately pathetic. This is exactly why I believe these are time bombs are not worth the real dangers they can and have turned into. Would anyone care to suggest that the electrical power these plants produced way worth what they got now? And it even close to being over "Work to decommission the plant is projected to take decades to complete". Germany may very well have shown some real understanding of the potential risks and decided to stop playing Russian Roulette in their country by opting to shut theirs down. Which is no protection from all the other reactor all around them and there are quite a few. |
Unfortunately, with the amount of energy consumption in industrialized nations, it is unfeasible to just shut down all nuclear power plants without serious consequences. Would you rather we instead ramp up our use of coal, which kills more people and is more damaging to the environment?| The power company said on Friday said it lost the ability to cool radioactive fuel rods in one of the plant's reactors for about three hours. It was the second failure of the system to circulate seawater to cool spent fuel rods at the plant in the past three weeks. |
Yep! they got it under control all right.
What is never mentioned is how much, because they don't know, radiation is going into the ocean even now. No doubt there will always be people who will disagree and insist these thing are just fine and very safe. Oh well. They're doing the best they can, that's gotta count for something for some. |
I don’t believe anybody in his or her right mind will insist nuclear power is “just fine;” rather, it’s a question of relative safety. Coal is worse. So is nearly every other form of energy.
Here’s a recent article putting the amount of radiation from Fukoshima in perspective.
A video on the two year anniversary tells where it stands now. That was March 2013. |
I will have to address this video later. In just the first minute I have found several instances of unnecessarily biased rhetoric and un-sourced testimony.| Anyone up for some pacific sea food? |
Sure, why not? How about a banana? |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2013 : 07:34:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
Ok, I need to get involved here. Nobody credible is insisting that nuclear power is safe, just that it’s better than the alternative. Every method of converting energy into a form usable for human use has exceedingly dangerous trade-offs: the question becomes “which ones are worth it?”
A common misconception is that radiation will always kill you. Obviously, enough radiation will kill you; however, small doses of radiation are not only unavoidable, they are necessary. Here are two excellent references to help people understand what is a dangerous level of radioactivity.
Wikipedia article on the radiation dose unit sievert
American Nuclear society interactive dose chart
Originally posted by sailingsoul
It sure is nice there hasn't been any other reported mishaps with any of the 438 reactors world wide, yet. Not that it would change anything if there had been. Especially seeing how this one is yet to be contained and is still leaking radioactivity into the ocean two years after the event. Get that? STILL! However People will still insist these thing are safe till the cows come home. |
This is a minor nitpick, but it annoys me every time news articles get it wrong: radiation and radioactivity can’t leak. Contamination, or radioactive materials, can. The radioactive particles emit radioactivity, which can deposit an ionizing dose of radiation in human tissue, potentially causing damage.| I thought I would post this recent (10 hours ago) Reuter's article on how well the safety systems are working with keeping all that radiation, that others here have claimed to be so short lived, in check. Apparently 2 years hasn't done that much to reduce the radioactive levels that, if I read right, should be all but gone by now. Hummm (scratching head). |
Who was claiming the Fukushima radioactivity is short lived? The reactors melted down! Of course there are long-lived particles! The Japanese government’s been estimating a 30-year clean-up for the last couple years, why are you surprised that it’s not done yet?| Comments like this below shows that anyone's ability to control what is going on is pretty limited and unfortunately pathetic. This is exactly why I believe these are time bombs are not worth the real dangers they can and have turned into. Would anyone care to suggest that the electrical power these plants produced way worth what they got now? And it even close to being over "Work to decommission the plant is projected to take decades to complete". Germany may very well have shown some real understanding of the potential risks and decided to stop playing Russian Roulette in their country by opting to shut theirs down. Which is no protection from all the other reactor all around them and there are quite a few. |
Unfortunately, with the amount of energy consumption in industrialized nations, it is unfeasible to just shut down all nuclear power plants without serious consequences. Would you rather we instead ramp up our use of coal, which kills more people and is more damaging to the environment?| The power company said on Friday said it lost the ability to cool radioactive fuel rods in one of the plant's reactors for about three hours. It was the second failure of the system to circulate seawater to cool spent fuel rods at the plant in the past three weeks. |
Yep! they got it under control all right.
What is never mentioned is how much, because they don't know, radiation is going into the ocean even now. No doubt there will always be people who will disagree and insist these thing are just fine and very safe. Oh well. They're doing the best they can, that's gotta count for something for some. |
I don’t believe anybody in his or her right mind will insist nuclear power is “just fine;” rather, it’s a question of relative safety. Coal is worse. So is nearly every other form of energy.
Here’s a recent article putting the amount of radiation from Fukoshima in perspective.
A video on the two year anniversary tells where it stands now. That was March 2013. |
I will have to address this video later. In just the first minute I have found several instances of unnecessarily biased rhetoric and un-sourced testimony.| Anyone up for some pacific sea food? |
Sure, why not? How about a banana?
|
I'll also point out that the Thresher and Scorpion have been on the bottom of the Atlantic for 50 years (they continue to be monitored by the USN) and there has not been any appreciable leakage of radioactive contaminants.
Odd. None of the anti-nuke folks bring those two up. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2013 : 12:48:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
I'll also point out that the Thresher and Scorpion have been on the bottom of the Atlantic for 50 years (they continue to be monitored by the USN) and there has not been any appreciable leakage of radioactive contaminants.
Odd. None of the anti-nuke folks bring those two up. |
Keep in mind, though, it's a design issue. US nuclear plants (commercial and military) are "over-engineered" to ensure containment for nearly all contingencies. As you can see in this article, and this article, Russian nuclear plants were not designed with the same level of safety in mind.
From the first article, Pavlovsk Bay Russian Submarine base,
Radiation levels in the bay are elevated in two locations. The highest levels (over 0.6 mR/hour, with cesium levels three to 12 times ambient levels and cobalt levels seven to 15 times above ambient levels) are near a submarine that, in December 1985, suffered a serious accident in the core, causing coolant from the first circuit to leak into the reactor compartment, which resulted in releases of radiation into the environment for two weeks. Levels are also elevated near two other submarines with damaged reactors that are now also docked in Pavlovsk Bay: up to 1.4 mGy/hour near K-314, the SSN that caught fire and vented radiation in Chazhma Bay on 10 August 1985, and up to .005 mGy/hour near the other vessel, which suffered an accident in Pavlovsk Bay (date not reported). K-314 continues to be a source of cobalt-60 contamination, while the other submarine is still emitting cesium-137 and strontium-90. |
From the second article, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl: What Went Wrong and Why Today's Reactors Are Safe,
Comparing the technology of the nuclear reactor at Chernobyl to U.S. reactors is not fair. First, the graphite-moderated, water-cooled reactor at Chernobyl maintained a high positive void coefficient. While the scientific explanation of this characteristic is not important, its real-life application is. Essentially, it means that under certain conditions, coolant inefficiency can cause heightened reactivity. In other words, its reactivity can rapidly increase as its coolant heats (or is lost) resulting in more fissions, higher temperatures, and ultimately meltdown.
This is in direct contrast to the light-water reactors used in the United States, which would shut down under such conditions. U.S. reactors use water to both cool and moderate the reactor. The coolant keeps the temperature from rising too much, and the moderator is used to sustain the nuclear reaction. As the nuclear reaction occurs, the water heats up and becomes a less efficient moderator (cool water facilitates fission better than hot water), thus causing the reaction to slow down and the reactor to cool. This characteristic makes light water reactors inherently safe and is why a Chernobyl-like reactor could never be licensed in the U.S. |
|
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2013 : 07:00:50 [Permalink]
|
Perhaps someone could answer a few questions about what is going on. Specifically with what is likely going on in Japans, they're leaking cooling water pools, What is the nature of this water, where this going and what are the likely affects are? I would appreciate corrections and further details to have a fact based understanding of the material.
So the reactor fuel and any spent fuel must be kept cool with circulating water. Does this water then become radioactive and if so in what way?
If the water becomes radioactive who long does it stay that way?
For example if moved to a separate container w/o fuel how long will it be radioactive?
|
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2013 : 12:24:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Perhaps someone could answer a few questions about what is going on. Specifically with what is likely going on in Japans, they're leaking cooling water pools, What is the nature of this water, where this going and what are the likely affects are? I would appreciate corrections and further details to have a fact based understanding of the material.
So the reactor fuel and any spent fuel must be kept cool with circulating water. Does this water then become radioactive and if so in what way?
If the water becomes radioactive who long does it stay that way?
For example if moved to a separate container w/o fuel how long will it be radioactive?
|
From discussions I have had with nuclear scientists and people in the power generation business (I had to do a research paper.), the water does become slightly contaminated due to atomic fragments. Usually making Tritium (I believe). This breaks down pretty quickly and people can fish in the cooling ponds without any problems. (I did for the Drezden Nuclear Power Plant in Morris, IL.)
Should the amount get to be too high, the plan is to dilute the water with water from a river or stream (by discharging the water into the river or stream). It then rapidly dilutes and breaks down.
As for duration, I am not sure. The dilution usually handles the problem before decay into normal Hydrogen. I could look it up and stuff, but I believe it's a day max. (If that long.) |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2013 : 16:53:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Perhaps someone could answer a few questions about what is going on. Specifically with what is likely going on in Japans, they're leaking cooling water pools, What is the nature of this water, where this going and what are the likely affects are? I would appreciate corrections and further details to have a fact based understanding of the material. |
A good public release on nuclear power and radiation can be found on the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s website:
Reactors
radiation| So the reactor fuel and any spent fuel must be kept cool with circulating water. |
In this case, yes; however, the coolant doesn’t have to be water.
Also, after some time (it varies by reactor, but we can generalize and say about a year) the spent fuel can be cooled by ambient losses. | Does this water then become radioactive and if so in what way? |
To amplify Valiant Dancer’s explanation, coolant will get slightly contaminated from various sources:- Direct – radiation from the fuel interacts with the water, creating radioactive isotopes; tritium, for example.
- Cladding (the metal that holds fuel in place) – some of the cladding may become radioactive by a process similar to above, then small particulates from the cladding can enter the water through natural erosion.
- Fission Products – As the fuel fissions, some of the isotopes produced may have enough energy to pass through the cladding directly into the water. Not all fission products are unstable, and very few of them can make it into the water.
- The really bad one – fuel enters the water directly. This can be due to a “minor” problem, like a fuel element failure, where there is slight damage to the cladding and a little fuel escapes; or a major problem, like a meltdown. Please note that “minor” is in quotes, because any release of nuclear fuel into the coolant is considered a Very Bad Thing. Also note that “meltdown” is not a technically defined term; however, we may consider it to mean the fuel and/or cladding became hot enough to melt, and we now have a large amount of fuel in the coolant or environment.
In other words, there are very different ways (and very different results) for water to become radioactive.| If the water becomes radioactive who long does it stay that way? |
That’s a very good question, and it ties into the list above. The activity in coolant water is (and, more importantly, the most dangerous isotopes are) predominantly short-lived, which is a good thing: It only takes a month or two to make an area safe for people again. The far bigger concern is long-lived activity. Though most of these are so low level they can be safely ignored, they stick around for a very long time.
Keep in mind, too, that activity is inversely proportional to half-life; that is, the longer-lived it is, the less radioactive it is. This is a good thing. Also, the activity is proportional to the amount, which means that it never really goes away, it just gets so low that you won’t notice it anymore.
Of course, once we dilute all this with a river or the ocean, the relative amount becomes negligible. The real concern is the activity that builds up in vegetation, especially meaty fruits. There has been extensive research on the environmental impact of the nuclear tests on the Bikini Atoll showing that “Eating many [fruits] over a long period of time without having taken remedial measures, however, might result in radiation doses higher than internationally agreed safety levels."| For example if moved to a separate container w/o fuel how long will it be radioactive? |
That depends entirely on which reactor the water came from, and at what point you would consider it no longer radioactive. I know this seems like a cop-out, but you can see from my discussion above that it’s a rather complicated answer. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2013 : 17:21:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
From discussions I have had with nuclear scientists and people in the power generation business (I had to do a research paper.), the water does become slightly contaminated due to atomic fragments. Usually making Tritium (I believe). This breaks down pretty quickly and people can fish in the cooling ponds without any problems. (I did for the Drezden Nuclear Power Plant in Morris, IL.)
Should the amount get to be too high, the plan is to dilute the water with water from a river or stream (by discharging the water into the river or stream). It then rapidly dilutes and breaks down.
As for duration, I am not sure. The dilution usually handles the problem before decay into normal Hydrogen. I could look it up and stuff, but I believe it's a day max. (If that long.)
|
Thanks for the response Val. I not so sure. I suspect or am speculating that it's not so benign. The reason why I asked is there seems to be an issue with leaking of the cooling water storage tanks over in Japan and wondered why they needed to store it at all if it is benign or totally safe. Being on the ocean I would think if there is no radioactive elements to it why they needed to build holding tanks for storage at all. I getting conflicting information on the web, mostly minor.
It's important to note that or keep in mind, with at least one design of reactors there are two separate cooling water loops. There is a loop that gets up into the reactor and is turned into high pressure steam that drive the turbines that drive the generators then that discharge steam is condensed in a water to water heat exchanger. There is no mixing between the two loops and no transfer of radioactive components. That might be why you know that they allow fishing in the cooling ponds, as you mentioned. I trying to learn about the cooling water used to cool the fuel in the reactor and spent rods storage pools seeing how they get right up against the radioactive parts of the reactor and whether or not that water becomes contaminated with radioactive elements like Iodine 129 , cobalt 60, etc..
|
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2013 : 19:39:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
...
I trying to learn about the cooling water used to cool the fuel in the reactor and spent rods storage pools seeing how they get right up against the radioactive parts of the reactor and whether or not that water becomes contaminated with radioactive elements like Iodine 129 , cobalt 60, etc.. |
Yes, that coolant very probably contains those isotopes. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2013 : 20:59:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
Ok, I need to get involved here. Nobody credible is insisting that nuclear power is safe, just that it’s better than the alternative. Every method of converting energy into a form usable for human use has exceedingly dangerous trade-offs: the question becomes “which ones are worth it?” |
I'm surprised to read the above opinion. First with "just that it’s better than the alternative." In my opinion nuclear power plants are hands down the worse possible method of out of all the others with generating electricity. All the others. I can't imagine anything that is more dangerous it the environment than nuclear should there be a sufficient accident and fukushima comes close. It's not over by a long shot. Remember it's two years in and they really have gotten little done except keeping it from bing worse that had they not done what little they have achieved. It's not even "under control" YET! They got elementary school children who are able to play in their school's playground but can't play on the other side of the school yard fence because of the radioactive contamination on the ground. What is so dangerous with coal that renders hundreds of square miles a radioactive hot zone that is produces a no mans zone that can even produce food for 30 years or more?
Who was claiming the Fukushima radioactivity is short lived? |
Earlier in this thread, page 7, Dave posted this,,,Originally posted by Dave W.
According to this Wikipedia chart:
A bomb is much worse than Chernobyl for the first three years or so.
|
Maybe it wasn't his intention but I took this to show that with all the radioactive material released from a nuclear power plant accident and comparing that to a nuclear bomb that the bomb was more serious to the health of man and animals on the planet at leas the first three years and comparable after. If that was not his point that my bad but I don't think so.
You know? The more I look into this, over the internet, the more I am seeing that most people, including me, have no real knowledge as to the knowable dangers that are involved with an extreme reactor accident whether is was Chernobyl or this ON GOING Fukushema nightmare. It's beginning to appear to me there is very little understanding on the reality of what is going on. Take Dave's posting of that chart. If it was not to suggest or prove that Chernobyl was less damaging to the environment than an A bomb, I like to know what it was meant to convey. I mean really, from what I've been reading "A bombs" are NOTHING compared to the radioactive long term damage done to the environmental, like at Fukushima right now.
| The reactors melted down! Of course there are long-lived particles! The Japanese government’s been estimating a 30-year clean-up for the last couple years, why are you surprised that it’s not done yet? |
Radioactive materials have been and are being released now that is impossible to clean up. To believe that they are going to have this done even in thirty years is not correct, IMO. If you like I can go into why I say that.
| Unfortunately, with the amount of energy consumption in industrialized nations, it is unfeasible to just shut down all nuclear power plants without serious consequences. |
I agree we can't shut them down all at once but that is not the only approach and is missing a real alternative. Shutting the wore down immediately like Germany did 4 days after the tsunami hit Japan. Article link,,,
Germany has temporarily shut down seven of its nuclear reactors while it reconsiders its nuclear strategy.
Chancellor Angela Merkel said that all reactors operational before 1980 would be taken offline, and safety checks carried out on the remaining plants. |
AND,,, "Germany has decided to shut down all its nuclear reactors by 2022." Link.
The fact that coal fired plants don't have the smoke stack scrubbers that they fight tooth and nail to prevent mandating use of is what is kill people. Our governments taking their millions of dollars in campaign donations and lobby dollars so they won't legislate exhaust scrubbers or enforce our existing air quality standards is what kills people. Our corrupt and hijacked politicians who serve corporate profits ABOVE the health of all Americans is what's killing people from the use of coal. That needs to be fixed but I'm not holding my breath.
What's got me holding my breath is nuclear power plants having an accidents that spew radioactive material that will last 240,000 year to effectively disappear. Mankind with not survive and accident that does that.
For me this is worse than anything coal can do to the environment. Why would anybody think that there are people in japan that is immune to what is fucking up these insects?
I'm still going to looking into this more and I have to reconsider my position. It's possible I'm not seeing all angles and given the right reasons I could see it all differently. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2013 : 16:39:48 [Permalink]
|
Proof the promise of nuclear power safety is a lie. It's a gift that just keeps on giving. Fukushima is more out of control than ever and getting worse, NOVEMBER 2013. They can hide the facts from the public by ignoring it in the US News but eventually we will find out just how suicidial, on a global scale, nuclear power plants are. This is not going away and it's only going to get worse.
Does anyone think for a second the people who can't go home will ever be compensated for their loss of their property? There were 300,000 people evacuated after the earth quake March 2011. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2013 : 17:24:26 [Permalink]
|
If three core meltdowns that have been releasing radiation into the ocean for 2.5 years with no end in sight isn't a nuclear disaster, I don't know what is.
| In July 2013, TEPCO admitted to the world that an estimated 300 tons, or 71,895 gallons, of radioactive water is leaking daily into the ocean. |
Perhaps your right and I should move on and ignore this non disaster.
|
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2013 : 18:16:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
If three core meltdowns that have been releasing radiation into the ocean for 2.5 years with no end in sight isn't a nuclear disaster, I don't know what is.
| In July 2013, TEPCO admitted to the world that an estimated 300 tons, or 71,895 gallons, of radioactive water is leaking daily into the ocean. |
Perhaps your right and I should move on and ignore this non disaster. |
It's a matter of relative quantity, though. The amount of water leaking is irrelevant. The amount of contamination is what really matters. If 300 tons of water is leaking out but it has little to no radioactivity, it doesn't matter, does it?
A swimming pool contains about 2500 tons of water. We're emptying less than one swimming pool into the Pacific Ocean every week or so.
The Pacific Ocean has about 188,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons, or 752,000,000,000,000,000 tons. Our swimming pool each week is about 0.0000000000003% of the Pacific Ocean. We can safely say this is negligible.
As you'll recall from one of my earlier links, a banana has about 30 Bq/g.
If 300 GBq are released per day, it would take about 250 million years to make the Pacific Ocean as radioactive as a banana.
I am not saying you should ignore the events at Fukushima; just that you're focusing on the wrong problems.
The officials chose to hide the numbers and claim a greater response than they could achieve. This has aggravated public opinion, especially among those who don't have a clear understanding of radiation or nuclear engineering. That was, and continues to be, a problem.
The officials were woefully unprepared for a major tsunami on their coastline, and allowed the "non disaster" of the nuclear plant to drive their paranoid overreaction. That was a problem.
Greenpeace and other online sources have been circulating misinformation to raise public hysteria without checking the facts http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/fukushima.asp. This is a problem. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2013 : 06:48:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
If three core meltdowns that have been releasing radiation into the ocean for 2.5 years with no end in sight isn't a nuclear disaster, I don't know what is.
| In July 2013, TEPCO admitted to the world that an estimated 300 tons, or 71,895 gallons, of radioactive water is leaking daily into the ocean. |
Perhaps your right and I should move on and ignore this non disaster.
|
Well, you need to know how high the radiation from the water is and whether this exceeds dangerous levels after it has been released into the ocean. As Boron10 pointed out, in the entire ocean this is negligible. It might have some effects locally (the water needs time to diffuse, so will be more concentrated at the point of leakage), but even here you need to know how radioactive the leaked water is, how high the levels of radiation in the area are with the leakage and how high they would be without. And that is just to determine whether there has been an increase of radioactivity in the area in the first place. Then you would need to determine whether this increase is high enough to cause effects.
Just saying "x tons of water is leaking daily" is not enough. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2013 : 13:53:56 [Permalink]
|
For myself, I have no reason to give this article on this web site the slightest bit of creditability. How do you feel about global warming Boron10? Has the scientific community come to an over whelming conclusion that it is in fact occurring or just a bunch of crazy "hysteria". According to the web site you linked, it's all bullshit, left media, Obama Democratic lies. Nice!
Check out all their other articles on the subject, through the "Climate Depot" button, above the article. I wouldn't believe shit from "www cfact org". Unless it was backed up by real science elsewhere. Could you possibly find a more creditable website or article.Link
CFACT President David Rothbard and Executive Director Craig Rucker believe strongly that "the power of the free market, combined with the applications of safe technologies, can offer humanity practical solutions to many of the worlds pressing concerns.
Craig Rucker stated that mankind faces a threat "not from man-made global warming, but from man-made hysteria. |
That article was custom written and belongs only on this website.
Philosophically this site has their own truths and science that differs from the real world.
Edit:PS
I do appreciate you input here, as a regular member and do hope you can explain my concerns or enlighten me further.
PPS
Also, I would like to point out that the dilution into the pacific is not my concern. If it was that simple that would be fine. But as we all should know this radioactive material concentrates within the food chain as time passes and as it moves up. Starting with photo and zooplankton. Your assurances that it will simpley dilute out is not relevant to other hysterical people, as CFact see's us. ;) |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
| Edited by - sailingsoul on 11/07/2013 14:10:04 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Japan
