Fukushima declared an emergency...

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by b0son

CO2, may as well keep burning coal.



Same as wind/solar - infrequent.



Geographic limitations.



Geographic limitations.



Geographic limitations.



IOW, if we throw money at it, we might eventually make it viable but even then, there are major limitations on where it can be used.

If its simply a case of investment, why don't we make the investment in nuclear? Thorium comes to mind....

I'd personally take all those things combined over every form of matter on the planet being laced with isotopes.

You guys and your money lol I swear the unemployed and the unwell would be put into concentration camps if you could have it all the way.

[Mr G8]

Chernobyl disaster ring any bells?

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Mr G8

Chernobyl disaster ring any bells?

Snippets taken from page Page 35 of the ARPANSA document mentioned previously...........


Comparison with the Chernobyl NPP accident

The extent of radioactive releases and the potential health impacts from the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP
accident are very different to those of the 1986 Chernobyl NPP accident.
.........................................
radioactive contamination in other parts of Japan and in neighbouring countries is very low and is of negligible health consequence.
There were no worker deaths attributed to direct radiation exposures, nor any cases of acute radiation syndrome.

Estimates made by the Japanese authorities indicate that the release of radioactive iodine,
which in the early phase of the accident was a cause for major concern,
was approximately one-tenth of the radioactive iodine release from the Chernobyl NPP accident.

The quantity of radioactive caesium released was about one-fifth of the corresponding
release from the Chernobyl NPP accident.

[Mr G8]

Ahh yep... I suppose that's good in some way... I don't think the world needs another Chernobyl disaster....

Edit: Also, apologies for not flicking back a page

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by mik

Dunno if I'm as confident as you in the assessment... so we might agree to disagree.

My statement was not associated with the findings of the report I tabled, but a long held belief of mine.
There is a growing field of evidence and knowledge that is actually linking coal pollutants to birth defects. From a report on a study conducted over 10 years in china's coal-rich and coal-darkened Shanxi province the following quote:
'Depending on the level of pollution and the frequency of exposure, observed impacts range from a rise in severe congenital birth defects to a greater frequency of preterm births and low birth weights, correlated with increased risk for infant mortality and for diabetes and cardiovascular disease later in life...Specifically, the team was investigating the alarming frequency of congenital neural tube defects, in which portions of an infant’s brain, skull, or spine are missing or do not connect properly'

The report adds thet not every birth or person is affected but a rising trend has been identified amongst the study group.
Coal mining and the toxins associated with the processing have also been called into question regarding measured increases in birth defects and cancers amongst other health issues within localised communities and workers.

Justin

[fte50]

Yep its all safe - as safe as the gulf after BPs oil spill that BP and authorities have declared safe.
For those that missed 60minutes last week check it out here .. http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/videoindex.aspx Watch Crude Solution part 1&2

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by mik

Dunno if I'm as confident as you in the assessment... so we might agree to disagree.

My statement was not associated with the findings of the report I tabled, but a long held belief of mine.
There is a growing field of evidence and knowledge that is actually linking coal pollutants to birth defects. From a report on a study conducted over 10 years in china's coal-rich and coal-darkened Shanxi province the following quote:

'Depending on the level of pollution and the frequency of exposure, observed impacts range from a rise in severe congenital birth defects to a greater frequency of preterm births and low birth weights, correlated with increased risk for infant mortality and for diabetes and cardiovascular disease later in life...Specifically, the team was investigating the alarming frequency of congenital neural tube defects, in which portions of an infant’s brain, skull, or spine are missing or do not connect properly'

The report adds thet not every birth or person is affected but a rising trend has been identified amongst the study group.
Coal mining and the toxins associated with the processing have also been called into question regarding measured increases in birth defects and cancers amongst other health issues within localised communities and workers.

Justin

[mik]

I found a couple of good fact sheets about the hazards of uranium but the page wouldn't allow me to copy it, anyway , found another site that is very informative, and it still looks by far worse than coal to me, well worth a read imo,
this bloke also points out just how such a very small amount of this stuff can be real bad for you, give me coal anyday..
http://www.ccnr.org/salzburg.html#co

URANIUM:

Known Facts and Hidden Dangers

invited address by Dr. Gordon Edwards
at the World Uranium Hearings

Salzburg, Austria
September 14, 1992



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Uranium
Radioactivity
Decay Products
Radium
Radon
Radon Daughters
Nuclear Fission
Fission Products
Health Effects of Radioactive Materials
Uranium Tailings
Conclusion


Uranium

What do we know about uranium? Well, uranium is the heaviest naturally occurring element on earth. It is a metal, like all other metals, except that it had no commercial value before the mid-twentieth century. Until the last fifty years it was produced only as a byproduct. Thus the entire history of the mining of uranium has taken place during my lifetime. Moreover, a great deal of it has occurred in my homeland, Canada, which was the first country to produce and process uranium as such.

The first uranium processed by Canada was used to produce nuclear explosives for the atomic bombs dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Indeed, the beginning of the nuclear weapons program marked the beginning of the uranium industry. By 1956, uranium had become the fourth most important export from Canada, after pulp, lumber and wheat; and every ounce of it was used to produce A-bombs and H-bombs for the American -- and, to a lesser extent, the British -- nuclear weapons programs. It was the only use uranium had at that time.

Today, Canada remains the world's largest producer and exporter of uranium, ostensibly for peaceful purposes; that is, as fuel for civilian nuclear reactors. Canada is also one of the very few countries in the world in which uranium mining is currently expanding. In the province of Saskatchewan, there are environmental assessment hearings going on now, this year, having to do with the potential opening of five new uranium mines. This, despite the fact that the price of uranium is lower today than it has ever been. The price has been falling steadily for more than fifteen years, and is now at an all-time low.

I hope that those attending this conference will write to the Prime Minister of Canada (c/o House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0A6) and to the Premier of Saskatchewan (c/o Saskatchewan Legislature, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada) asking them not to continue the expansion of this industry. Why? Because uranium is the deadliest metal on earth. As you will see, the scientific evidence fully bears out this conclusion. I would now like to explain why.

Both the commercial value and the dangers of uranium are based on two extra-ordinary characteristics which it possesses. First of all, uranium is radioactive. Secondly, uranium is fissionable. These are two quite different properties, however, and they should not be confused.


Radioactivity

The phenomenon of radioactivity was accidentally discovered in 1896 when Henri Becquerel put a rock in a drawer. The rock contained uranium, and the drawer contained a photographic plate, which was well-wrapped and shielded from the light. Some weeks later, when Becquerel unwrapped and developed the plate, he found rays of light on the photograph emanating exactly from the point of contact where the rock had been resting on it. Being a scientist, he was astounded. He could think of no possible way in which an inert rock could spontaneously be releasing energy -- especially such a penetrating form of energy. Moreover, the energy release had taken place in total darkness, in the absence of any external stimulation -- there was no chemical reaction, no exposure to sunlight, nor anything else. Becquerel had discovered radioactivity.

Marie Curie decided to pursue the mystery further. She got some uranium ore from the Erz mountains, not very far from here. She chemically separated the uranium from the rest of the crushed rock (she had to crush the rock and dissolve it in acid to get the uranium out, which is what we still do today in mining uranium) and she found that even after the uranium had been removed, the crushed rock remained very radioactive -- much more so than the uranium itself. Here was a mystery indeed. Why is it that eighty-five percent of the radioactivity stays behind in the crushed rock?

Starting with many tons of rock, Madame Curie proceeded to separate out all the chemical elements she knew. It was painstaking work. Finally she was left with a small beaker of concentrated, highly radioactive liquid. By evaporating the water, she felt sure she would discover whatever was causing this intense radioactivity. But when the liquid was evaporated, the beaker was, apparently, completely empty. She was deeply disappointed. She couldn't fathom what had gone wrong. But when she returned to the laboratory late at night, she found the beaker glowing brightly in the dark, and she realized that it wasn't empty after all. In this way, Marie Curie discovered two new elements: radium and polonium. We now know these are inevitable byproducts of uranium.

By 1906, all the basic facts of radioactivity were known, except for the central mystery as to "why"; this we do not understand. Indeed, science doesn't really understand why anything is the way it is. All science can do is describe how things behave. Science tells us, for example, that all material things are made up of tiny atoms. The atoms found in most substances are remarkably stable, but in the case of radioactive materials, the atoms are unstable.

Consider the water in this glass. It is made up of stable atoms. Pure water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, and these atoms are, as far as science can determine, eternal and unchangeable. The very same atoms of hydrogen and oxygen that are in this glass of water were around, in some other combinations, in the days of the dinosaurs.

But radioactive substances have unstable atoms which can and will explode microscopically, and when they do, they give off a burst of energy. This process is called "radioactive disintegration" or "radioactive decay". When radioactive atoms explode, they give off highly energetic charged particles of two types: alpha and beta. These are particles, they're not invisible rays. They are like pieces of shrapnel from an explosion. And this microscopic shrapnel does great damage because of the high energy of the particles which are given off.


Decay Products

When a radioactive atom explodes, that atom is changed permanently into a new substance. And radium turns out to be one of the results of exploding uranium atoms. So wherever you find uranium on the earth, you will always find radium with it because it is one of about a dozen so-called "decay products" of uranium.

To be more precise, when uranium disintegrates it turns into a substance called protactinium, which is also radioactive. And when that disintegrates it turns into a substance named thorium, which is likewise radioactive. When thorium disintegrates it turns into radium; when radium disintegrates it turns into radon gas. And when radon gas atoms disintegrate, they turn into what are called the "radon daughters", or "radon progeny", of which there are about half a dozen radioactive materials, including polonium.

Finally, in this progression, you end up with a stable substance, which in itself is highly toxic: lead. But because the radioactivity of the other materials is so much more dangerous than this toxic heavy metal, people don't even talk about the lead at the end of the chain. They think that once all the radioactivity is gone, what's left is perfectly safe. It isn't -- but the lead that remains is just a whole lot less dangerous than the radioactive materials that produced it.

So all the radioactive decay products of uranium remain in the crushed rock when uranium is separated from the ore. That's why Marie Curie found most of the radioactivity left behind in the residues, including all the radium and all the polonium.


Radium

Well, how did the story of uranium progress? Because uranium was less radioactive than its daughter products, it was not valued commercially. But radium was. And radium began to be used principally for two purposes. One was to burn cancerous growths. I should tell you that both Henri Becquerel and Marie Curie suffered grievous burns which were very difficult to heal and which left permanent scars just as a result of handling radium. Other scientists got the idea that if they embedded a needle containing radium inside a cancerous tumor, it would burn the cancer -- and indeed it did. That was the beginning of cancer therapy using radiation, wherein the harmful effects of atomic radiation are directed against cancerous cells instead of healthy cells. Of course, atomic radiation does similar damage to healthy cells.

Now, the other main use for radium was as a luminous paint, because of the glow-in-the-dark phenomenon that Marie Curie had observed. Believe it or not, the price of uranium in the 1920s was $100,000 a gram -- and this is using dollars of the twenties! It was a very expensive commodity, but only very little was needed for any given purpose. Some of it was used to make luminous paint, with which they would paint dials so they could be read even in the dark.

Now the young women who painted these things began to get sick. This was first reported by an American dentist called Blum, who said that he had some very young women -- 19 years old, 18 years old, 20 years old -- coming into his dentistry office. Their teeth were falling out, their gums were badly infected and bleeding profusely, they were anemic, their bones were soft, and in some cases their jawbones had spontaneously fractured. Some of them died of severe anemia.

The only thing these women had in common was that they worked in a radium dial painting factory in New Jersey. Blum called this phenomenon "radium jaw". A few years later, the women who had recovered from these symptoms started developing problems in the rest of their skeleton. They suffered weakening of the bone, spontaneous fractures of the hip and of other bones, and growths -- tumors, some of which were cancerous -- in the bones themselves. Now, bone cancer is such an exceedingly rare disease, that there was little doubt that this cancer was caused by exposure to radium.

It was discovered that simply by wetting the tip of the brush in order to get a nice clean figure on the dials, these women were ingesting minute quantities of radium. And that was sufficient to cause all these symptoms. When autopsies were performed on the corpses of these women, doctors discovered that in their entire skeleton there were only a few micrograms of radium. This quantity was so small, that no conventional chemical analysis could detect it. Nevertheless, this tiny amount of radium had distributed itself so thoroughly through their skeleton, that you could take a picture of any one of their bones just by laying it on a photographic plate in a dark room, It is called an auto-radiograph -- that is, an x-ray picture with no x-ray machine.

So this was our first introduction to the harmful effects of even minute quantities of such substances. By the way, many of the women who survived this phase of the assault later on developed cancers of the head -- cancer of the sinuses, cancer of the soft palate, and other types of head cancers. We now know how these were caused. Remember, radium is radioactive -- even inside the body. As I told you earlier, when radium atoms disintegrate, they turn into radon gas. So radon gas was being produced inside the bodies of these women. In fact, one test for radium contamination is to check a person's exhaled breath and see if it has radon gas in it; if it does, that person must have radium in his or her body. In the case of the radium dial painters, the radon gas was being produced in the bones, dissolved in the blood, and pumped by the heart up to the head where it collected in the sinus and other cavities. And there it was irradiating the delicate living tissues and causing head cancers.


Radon

Now, it so happens that for hundreds of years, going back to the 15th century, there had been reports that miners working in the Erz mountains had been dying at a tremendous rate from some unknown lung diseases. We're talking here about 75 percent mortality in some cases. It wasn't until the late 19th century that the principal disease was diagnosed and found to be lung cancer. At that time, lung cancer was virtually unknown among the surrounding population; yet these miners were experiencing in some cases up to 50 percent lung cancer mortality. The other lung ailments were not lung cancer, but other types of debilitating lung damage.

By the 1930s it had been established that this epidemic of lung cancer and other lung diseases was caused by breathing radioactive materials in the atmosphere of the mine. In animal experiments, radon gas was identified as the main killer.

Uranium finally acquired commercial value in 1942, when we discovered that we could make atomic bombs with it. Only then did we start mining uranium for itself and not as a byproduct of something else. A few years earlier, in 1938, it was discovered that uranium is not only radioactive, it is also fissionable, which makes it unique among all naturally occurring radioactive materials. When uranium atoms undergo the fission process, large amounts of energy are released. Unlike the process of radioactive decay, which cannot be turned on and off, nuclear fission can be controlled. The energy release caused by fission can be speeded up, slowed down, started or stopped. It can be used to destroy cities in the form of nuclear weapons, or to boil water inside a nuclear reactor.

Suddenly, uranium was in demand. We sent miners into the mines in North America at a permissible level of radiation exposure which was comparable to the levels that those miners in the Erz mountains had been getting back in the 19th century. And of course, the results were entirely predictable: an epidemic of lung cancer and other lung diseases. One has to ask therefore: Why were these consequences not predicted and prevented?


Radon Daughters

The answer is, in part, that the scientists refused to believe that such a small amount of radon gas could cause such a huge increase in cancer. As it turns out, the scientists were wrong. One of the basic things they overlooked, is that if you take a sample of radon gas -- right now, if I filled a tube with radon gas in front of your eyes, and measured the radiation in that tube -- within three hours, the level of radioactivity would increase by a factor of about five. Why?

As the radon atoms disintegrate, they produce other radioactive substances. And so, in fact, you have a multiplication of new radioactive materials which weren't there to begin with. This is one of the things the scientists overlooked. So that when the miners go into a mine where the radon has been collecting for several hours, it's five times as radioactive as radon in the laboratory. And those other substances -- the radon daughters -- are extremely dangerous. The worst of the radon daughters, by the way, is a substance called polonium -- the same polonium that Marie Curie discovered so many years ago. Recent scientific evidence shows that polonium is, in many circumstances, at least as toxic as plutonium, and in some cases more toxic.


Nuclear Fission

Now, what is that property that made uranium commercially valuable? It's called fissionability. More precisely, uranium is called a "fissile" material. Let me explain what that means.

Yes, uranium atoms are radioactive, and so they will disintegrate if you just leave them alone; but what happens if you poke them? What happens if you bombard uranium atoms with tiny particles called neutrons? It turns out that in that case, you can force a much more violent disintegration of the atom, which is called fission. When fission occurs, the uranium atom doesn't just disintegrate, it actually breaks apart into two or three large chunks. In the process it gives off some extra neutrons, and it also gives off about 400 times as much energy as is produced by a radioactive disintegration event.

Now, the fact that fission is triggered by a neutron makes it quite different from normal radioactivity. Radioactivity is not triggered, and therefore science does not know how to control it. We have no mechanism for speeding up, slowing down, starting or stopping radioactivity. That's why radioactive wastes are such a problem. But with fission, we can start it, stop it, and control it, just by maintaining control over the extra neutrons that are produced at each stage. Starting with just one neutron, we can split one uranium atom, and the extra neutrons can go on to split two more uranium atoms, giving even more neutrons which can then split four atoms, which can then split eight atoms, and so on. In this way, forty quintillion uranium atoms can be split with only sixty generations of splittings, all triggered by a single neutron. [A quintillion is a billion billion, or a million million million.] This whole "chain reaction", as it is called, takes place in less than a thousandth of a second. That is really what constitutes the atomic bomb.


Fission Products

You may now realize that all of the radioactive materials which escape from an atomic bomb when it explodes, are basically the broken bits of uranium atoms. These are new radioactive materials, called "fission products", which are created by the splitting of uranium atoms. There are hundreds of them. They all have different names, and different chemical and biologically properties. Most of them did not exist in nature before the advent of nuclear technology.

You see, uranium travels in many disguises. In every sample of uranium ore, one finds radium -- but radium is, in a certain sense, just a transformation of uranium. Speaking loosely, one could say that it is a disguised form of uranium. It is just one of the many elements in the chain of decay. Similarly with polonium. Similarly with radon gas. These are all just different manifestations of uranium, so to speak, resulting from radioactive decay.

And similarly with the fallout from atomic bombs; all those radioactive materials which are released by nuclear explosions -- such as iodine-131, strontium-90, cesium-137, krypton-85, and all the rest -- they are all broken bits of uranium atoms. They are additional disguises for uranium, resulting from nuclear fission.

The radioactive poisons that were released from the Chernobyl reactor are also broken bits of uranium atoms. Incidentally, 80 percent of the total radiation dose delivered by the Chernobyl accident worldwide was caused by the escape of just a couple of kilograms of radioactive materials from the damaged nuclear plant. It doesn't take much.... To this day, the sheep in Wales are unsuitable for human consumption because of contamination by one particular by-product of the Chernobyl accident called cesium-137. But every atom of cesium-137 from Chernobyl started out as an atom of uranium.

These radioactive materials, which are called fission products -- the ones in the bomb fallout and which in nuclear reactors -- should not be confused with the other radioactive materials I told you about earlier, which are the decay products of uranium. The decay products of uranium are due to radioactive disintegration. They are about two dozen in number, and they occur in nature because uranium does. When you talk about fission products, however, you are dealing with completely different substances. They are created only inside nuclear weapons or nuclear reactors. They are the leftover pieces of uranium atoms which have been violently broken apart by the fission process. There are over 300 of them altogether, when you consider that -- being radioactive -- each of the fission products also has its own decay products!


Health Effects of Radioactive Materials

And so this one material, uranium, is responsible for introducing into the human environment a tremendously large range of radioactive materials which are all very inimical to biological organisms. These are not invisible rays, they are materials. They get into our water, our food, and the air we breathe. They're exactly like other materials except for the fact that they're radioactive.

Take, for instance, radioactive iodine. It behaves just like ordinary iodine, which is not radioactive. Why is there iodine in our table salt? Well, it's one of the few examples of preventative medicine we have. The iodine, when it's eaten in the table salt, goes to the thyroid gland, and there it helps to prevent a disease of the thyroid gland called "goiter". Radioactive iodine does exactly the same thing. If a child or an adult gets radioactive iodine in the diet, the radioactive iodine goes to the thyroid too, and it also helps to prevent goiter. But while it's there, the atoms explode, and the shrapnel rips through the cells of the body, and in the process breaks thousands of chemical bonds randomly.

It's like throwing a grenade into a computer. The probability of getting an improvement in a computer by throwing a grenade into it is very small, and similarly with radiation events and human cells. Now, the cells that die are really no problem, as long as not too many of them die. They can be replaced. The ones that are particularly dangerous are the ones that survive. Those damaged cells can develop into cancers. You can also have damage to germ cells -- eggs and sperm -- leading to genetically damaged children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren.

As Alice Stewart mentioned in her talk, there are two categories of human illness that everyone agrees can be caused by exposure to atomic radiation even at very low levels. They are (1) cancers of all kinds, and also (2) genetic mutations -- which can be caused right down to the lowest levels of radiation exposure. Most scientists believe that these harmful effects are linearly related to the dose, so that if the dose is doubled, the number of cancers and genetic defects will also be doubled, and if the dose is cut in half, only half as many cancers and genetic defects will be seen. It is important to realize that if a damaging dose is spread out among a very large population, so that each individual receives only a very small portion of the total dose, the number of cancers and genetic defects is in no way diminished. Thus, in the case of radioactive pollution, dilution is no solution at all.

However, there is one other effect of radiation at low levels which wasn't mentioned in the previous talk, and I would like to just mention it here. It has now been confirmed by the scientific community -- only in recent years, by the way -- that mental retardation is caused by radiation exposure in the womb. This type of biological damage also seems to be linear, that is, proportional to dose, right down to the lowest levels of exposure. There doesn't seem to be any cut-off point. And so we have now discovered yet a third category of documented and scientifically accepted harmful effects of radiation and that is mental retardation in children who were irradiated while still in the womb.


Uranium Tailings

Now, if I could just wrap up, I have to tell you something extremely important. The title of my talk was "Known facts and hidden dangers". I've told you a bit about the known facts. Now for at least one of the hidden dangers.

When we extract uranium from the ground, we dig up the rock, we crush it and we leave behind this finely pulverized material -- it's like flour. In Canada we have 200 million tons of this radioactive waste, called uranium tailings. As Marie Curie observed, 85 percent of the radioactivity in the ore remains behind in that crushed rock. How long will it be there? Well, it turns out that the effective half-life of this radioactivity is 80,000 years. That means in 80,000 years there will be half as much radioactivity in these tailings as there is today.

You know, that dwarfs the entire prehistory of the Salzburg region which goes way back to ancient, ancient times. Even archaeological remains date back no further than 80,000 years. We don't have any records of human existence going back that far. That's the half-life of this material.

And as these tailings are left on the surface of the earth, they are blown by the wind, they are washed by the rain into the water systems, and they inevitably spread. Once the mining companies close down, who is going to look after this material forever? How does anyone, in fact, guard 200 million tons of radioactive sand safely forever, and keep it out of the environment?

In addition, as the tailings are sitting there on the surface, they are continually generating radon gas. Radon is about eight times heavier than air, so it stays close to the ground. It'll travel 1,000 miles in just a few days in a light breeze. And as it drifts along, it deposits on the vegetation below the radon daughters, which are the radioactive byproducts that I told you about, including polonium. So that you actually get radon daughters in animals, fish and plants thousands of miles away from where the uranium mining is done. It's a mechanism for pumping radioactivity into the environment for millennia to come, and this is one of the hidden dangers.


Conclusion

All uranium ends up as either nuclear weapons or highly radioactive waste from nuclear reactors. That's the destiny of all the uranium that's mined. And in the process of mining the uranium we liberate these naturally occurring radioactive substances, which are among the most harmful materials known to science. Couple this with the thought that nuclear technology never was a solution to any human problem. Nuclear weapons do not bring about a sane world, and nuclear power is not a viable answer to our energy problems. We don't even need it for electricity. All you need for conventional electricity generation is to spin a wheel, and there's many ways of doing it: water power, wind power, geothermal power, etc. In addition, there are other methods for producing electricity directly: solar photovoltaics, fuel cells, and so on. What we have here, in the case of nuclear power, from the very beginning, is a technology in search of an application.

So, I think that we as a human community have to come to grips with this problem and say to ourselves and to others that enough is enough. We do not want to permanently increase our radiation levels on this planet. We have enough problems already.

Thank you.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by mik

give me coal anyday..

Nuclear disaster will kill you instantly if your next to it, coal will kill everything eventually wherever you are.

Dont need to convince me on the hazards of Nuclear disasters. But insted of poisonous coal, or uranium how about effectively non polluting wind, solar, wave, current, geothermal and hydroelectric power generation to name a few

Justin

[cheap]

Seems this thread has morphed into noting but an anti-nuke misinformation campaign, I'm not really surprised.

As for Fukushima, there are currently zero reported deaths directly related to the discharge of radioactive material from the crippled reactors. The people on the ground are working their best to minimize harm and with their diligent work hopefully no one will die - they really don't need a bunch of left wing keyboard warriors spreading nonsense, but I guess that's the hysterical and hypocritical nature of the anti-nuke people.

Of course no one mentions the inherent safe design of Fukushima and Three Mile Island reactors V's the inherently unsafe design of Chernobyl. The lack of a containment structure is part of the reason why Chernobyl became the issue it is. Never the less and despite the unsafe design, in relative terms not many people have died as a result of Chernobyl's radioactive materials being released. FYI, there is currently a massive engineering project underway at Chernobyl to build a huge containment structure for the ruined reactor.

I honestly think the anti-nuke crowd is disappointed that more people haven't died, such is their warped belief that they know best and want to impose their crazy ideology upon everyone.

[mik]

Originally Posted by cheap

Seems this thread has morphed into noting but an anti-nuke misinformation campaign, I'm not really surprised.

As for Fukushima, there are currently zero reported deaths directly related to the discharge of radioactive material from the crippled reactors. The people on the ground are working their best to minimize harm and with their diligent work hopefully no one will die - they really don't need a bunch of left wing keyboard warriors spreading nonsense, but I guess that's the hysterical and hypocritical nature of the anti-nuke people.

Of course no one mentions the inherent safe design of Fukushima and Three Mile Island reactors V's the inherently unsafe design of Chernobyl. The lack of a containment structure is part of the reason why Chernobyl became the issue it is. Never the less and despite the unsafe design, in relative terms not many people have died as a result of Chernobyl's radioactive materials being released. FYI, there is currently a massive engineering project underway at Chernobyl to build a huge containment structure for the ruined reactor.

I honestly think the anti-nuke crowd is disappointed that more people haven't died, such is their warped belief that they know best and want to impose their crazy ideology upon everyone.

Well bud , you may or may not be right, and you're entitled to your opinion, as am i, the inherently safe design of the fukushima plant they are still trying to deal with diligently as you put it , and may spend decades dealing with it, and for all the talk of safety records with reactors, 60 years is not a long time in the scheme of things and it only takes one bad accident to erase all those safety records, so i will stick with my keyboard warrior left wing warped ideology, no doubt that crack was aimed at me, because i still think there are better safer ways to turn a wheel than use uranium.
as for the last paragraph, mate i think that is a pretty foolish comment.

[DRU842]

Originally Posted by mik

Conclusion

All uranium ends up as either nuclear weapons or highly radioactive waste from nuclear reactors. That's the destiny of all the uranium that's mined. And in the process of mining the uranium we liberate these naturally occurring radioactive substances, which are among the most harmful materials known to science. Couple this with the thought that nuclear technology never was a solution to any human problem. Nuclear weapons do not bring about a sane world, and nuclear power is not a viable answer to our energy problems. We don't even need it for electricity. All you need for conventional electricity generation is to spin a wheel, and there's many ways of doing it: water power, wind power, geothermal power, etc. In addition, there are other methods for producing electricity directly: solar photovoltaics, fuel cells, and so on. What we have here, in the case of nuclear power, from the very beginning, is a technology in search of an application.

So, I think that we as a human community have to come to grips with this problem and say to ourselves and to others that enough is enough. We do not want to permanently increase our radiation levels on this planet. We have enough problems already.

Thank you.

Just to address some of the leaps made in the conclusion above:
* There are safe ways to address the waste by 'restoring' it to a synthetic form of the 'natural' feedstock: http://www.synrocansto.com/index.html for one
* I think people treated for health issues with nuclear medicine would dispute the 'never a solution to a human problem' claim.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by mik

Well bud , you may or may not be right, and you're entitled to your opinion, as am i, the inherently safe design of the fukushima plant they are still trying to deal with diligently as you put it , and may spend decades dealing with it, and for all the talk of safety records with reactors, 60 years is not a long time in the scheme of things and it only takes one bad accident to erase all those safety records, so i will stick with my keyboard warrior left wing warped ideology, no doubt that crack was aimed at me, because i still think there are better safer ways to turn a wheel than use uranium.
as for the last paragraph, mate i think that is a pretty foolish comment.

My comment wasn't made at anyone, but since you've outed yourself and your motivation behind your various responses, then my point is made.

This thread is nothing less than an attempt by the anti-nuke left wing political section of the forum to spread their garbage of misinformation - as such it should be closed/locked.

[GasoLane]

As long as personal jibes are kept out I see no reason to close it...........yet.

[jpblue1000]

Yet?
to date I see a discussion about a topical world issue that has given rise to a wider discussion about the merits of a technology, political and social system built up around power generation.
Emotive it might be, but that is the nature of something as complex and divisive as Nuclear power.
For the most part the discussion has been response and reply, offering opinion and facts, as best a car based internet forum can assemble from the plethora of opinion, fact and propoganda out there and some members experience. Far from turning to a closable topic.
However the recent arrival of our 'knight in shining armour', to aleviate us of our left wing ideological hippy and wrong ideas, has put the discussion in the limelight of moderators.
I always encourage discussion about these topics but ask or any participant to respect others ideas and rather than make blanket statments without evidence to fully consider a point and rebuke intelligently with knowledge rather than slander and insult.

JP

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

I honestly think the anti-nuke crowd is disappointed that more people haven't died, such is their warped belief that they know best and want to impose their crazy ideology upon everyone.

Death is not the only issue that must be dealt with in regards to a Nuclear incident. To date nobody has died, well the chief engineer behind the early days response has now died from cancer, did he have it already, was it exagerated by the radiation or as a result of th eradiation, we don't know, but what is expected is increases in thyroid cancers, abnormalities in newborns and a marked increase in stillborns to people of the prefecture.
news reports from the area indicate that about 15,000 people have been displaced by the radiation effect, unable to return to their homes, towns and villages in the 20 km radius exclusion zone, this exclusion may last for as long as 5-10 years, the economies and livelyhoods of those people lost. And would they likely return, with a 70 percent increasde likelyhood in developing radiation related cancers?
Clean up works have begun with massive removal of topsoils, plant matter and building works, rendering the cleaned site 'safe' but they arent and cant clean the entire exclusion zone. what will remain outside the cleaned areas is still deangerous. One report illustrates a childrens playground having been cleaned, yet the areas around the playground, beyond the town still remain radioactive.
Time will determine th etrue impact of the incident, on the human population, death doenst need to be instantaneous to be attributed to the incident. Time will also tell of the impact on the environment, the flora and fauna, the wider ecosystem and its impact gloablly.
Time will tell about the impact of the event on the economy of Japan and the economic reality of the cleanup and 'fallout' from the event. I am sure Tepco cannot afford the clean up, thus the Japaneese taxpayer will foot the substantial bill.

Justin

[pottery beige]

key words all you tree hugging hippies seem to forget......

base load..

hth

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

key words all you tree hugging hippies seem to forget......

base load..

hth

Please explain what YOU understand Base load to be, and I will illustrate how a renewables future can supply it.

JP

[pottery beige]

do you

is your fermented sea grass up for it

[jpblue1000]

I know what I believe 'base load' to be.
And I know the myth that is often touted as renewables not able to support 'base load'. There is so many 'definitions' to what 'base load' is as the concept is a simplistic attempt to undermine alternate energy arguments.

Thus I ask for your understanding so as to address theissues raised.

JP

[cheap]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Please explain what YOU understand Base load to be, and I will illustrate how a renewables future can supply it.

JP

Why don't YOU instead provide one example of a currently working renewable energy operation that generates the equivalent power as Liddell power station does.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Yet?
to date I see a discussion about a topical world issue that has given rise to a wider discussion about the merits of a technology, political and social system built up around power generation.
Emotive it might be, but that is the nature of something as complex and divisive as Nuclear power.
For the most part the discussion has been response and reply, offering opinion and facts, as best a car based internet forum can assemble from the plethora of opinion, fact and propoganda out there and some members experience. Far from turning to a closable topic.
However the recent arrival of our 'knight in shining armour', to aleviate us of our left wing ideological hippy and wrong ideas, has put the discussion in the limelight of moderators.
I always encourage discussion about these topics but ask or any participant to respect others ideas and rather than make blanket statments without evidence to fully consider a point and rebuke intelligently with knowledge rather than slander and insult.

JP

Recent arrival, I've been online here on the Forum since 2006. Could you use spell check on your future responses.

[poppa smurf]

the answer to "base load" is not and never will be one format, at the moment base load has been taken over by around 3 different technologies.

there are many technologies in the pipeline and under construction or consideration at the moment, any one of these has the potential to overtake coal as an "alternative" power source.

nuclear is not one of these.......nobody wants to touch it simply because of the difficulties involved.

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

key words all you tree hugging hippies seem to forget......

base load..

hth

The wonderful 70's are gone mate!

https://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/Files...Fact_Sheet.pdf

Why are you so against renewable energy? There's no logical reason to be against it unless you actually enjoy screwing up the planet.

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

key words all you tree hugging hippies seem to forget......

base load..

hth

The term ‘
base load power
’ refers to the amount of power that must be continually
generated to meet our minimum energy demands. Base load power differs to ‘
peak
load power
,’ which is supplied on top of base-load power at times of increased demand
(for example, in the late afternoon when most people arrive home from work or on a hot
summer day when the use of air conditioners increases). Currently, in mainland Australia,
most base-load power plants are coal or gas-fired.
Some people argue that renewable energy
is not reliable enough to supply all of
Australia’s base-load energy needs.
Fact:
Renewable energy
could
provide all of Australia’s base-load power needs, if:
•
The generation network is diverse in both
the types of renewable energy used for
base-load power (e.g. wind, solar, geothermal, bioenergy and hydro), as well as in
the geographical distribution of renewable ener
gy generation sites. This is essential to
reduce the uncertainty of some intermittent types of renewable energy. For example,
wind farms should be spread across variou
s locations to counter-balance poor wind
speeds in one region. Some forms of renewable energy, such as geothermal and
bioenergy, present opportunities for constant renewable energy generation.
•
Reducing energy demand through conser
vation and efficiency actions has the
opportunity to significantly decrease our energy needs.
•
A switch to increased renewable base-load supply needs to be staged in, with gas
powered fire stations (which are less greenhouse intensive than coal) playing an
important role during the transitional period.

Care to explain how an opinion 50yrs younger than yours, is infact according to you, wrong?

[Franco Cozzo]

If the government forced solar power on everyone you could probably relieve a lot of the strain on the power grid.

Everyone in Victoria remember like 5 years ago before solar became really popular? In summer people would turn on their A/C and we'd have brown outs because they couldn't handle the load, since solar power has become popular and people feeding back into the grid it hasn't happened for a while now.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

Recent arrival, I've been online here on the Forum since 2006. Could you use spell check on your future responses.

Gee terribly sorry that I miss-typed or spelt 3 words incorrectly. Propaganda, Alleviate and statements, however, none of my poor spelling would affect the intent, meaning or indeed reading of what I said.
I guess my spelling must be as a result of only being on this forum for a few months, give me a few more years and my spelling and punctuation and grammar will be tip top. Or perhaps as a result of being a left wing hippie I can’t spell or read or think for myself.
Or perhaps the reality is you have taken a dislike to my online persona and will use base discrediting of me rather than my argument. Either way please read or reread my earlier and extensive posts on this thread for an analysis of what and how I believe renewables can support our energy needs.

If you choose not to re-read, please let me know and I will re-write my statements specifically to alleviate any issues you may have with what you declare is propaganda.
Justin

[b0son]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

I'd personally take all those things combined over every form of matter on the planet being laced with isotopes.

You're full of isotopes, you're being bombarded with radioactivity every day, both from the environment and from what's already within you.

[cheap]

Poor spelling tends to the area where 13 years old play, and I'm certain with your whit and attention to detail you're not 13 (are you)?

Never the less, scroll back in the tread, there is a question awaiting your reply, so hop to it son, time to teach a bunch of old dogs how the new world really works, so fire away with your renewable energy solutions for the 21st Century.

Provide one example of a currently working renewable energy operation that generates the equivalent power as Liddell power station does?

Don't be shy, the forum awaits, this could be your moment of greatness...

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

Poor spelling tends to the area where 13 years old play, and I'm certain with your whit and attention to detail you're not 13 (are you)?

Never the less, scroll back in the tread, there is a question awaiting your reply, so hop to it son, time to teach a bunch of old dogs how the new world really works, so fire away with your renewable energy solutions for the 21st Century.

Provide one example of a currently working renewable energy operation that generates the equivalent power as Liddell power station does?

Don't be shy, the forum awaits, this could be your moment of greatness...

I will ignore your spelling mistakes and offer some facts...
Liddell power station in NSW is a coal-powered thermal power station with four 500 megawatts (670,000 hp) GEC (UK) steam driven turbo alternators for a combined capacity of 2,000 megawatts (MW)
Two renewable power generators that spring to mind are 1) The Three Gorges Dam in Hubei, China, which has the world's largest instantaneous generating capacity (22,500 MW) and 2) Itaipu Dam in Brazil/Paraguay with (14,000 MW)
Now as I’m only 13 I believe 22,500Mw is 11.5 times greater in capacity and 14,000MW is 7 times greater in capacity than Liddell...hmmm not equivalent. so how about Lijiaxia Dam which produces 2000MW but only ranks 56th in terms of size.

Justin