Discussion About Anti-Nuclear Energy/Arms Protest

Status
Not open for further replies.
marauder2048 said:
Kadija_Man said:
marauder2048 said:
marauder2048 said:
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
Or the nuclear market when the shale oil and gas runs out. B)

Much investment in the nuclear market? When was the last nuclear power plant in the US opened? ::)

Watts Bar Unit 2 is scheduled to start commercial operation in December.

How long has it taken for them to construct that reactor plant? 30 years? Not exactly overwhelmed with the need for the power from it... ::)


Summer 2 estimated completion in 2018

Summer 3 "" 2019

Vogtle 3 "" 2018

Vogtle 4 "" 2019

So that's 6 years average construction time if they hit the current projected schedule. For something with a 60 year design lifetime that's not bad.

Thats not what Wikipedia says about it:
[Source]

As construction actually started, according to that entry in 1973, we have a forty-five year construction project, to put into operation an out of date nuclear reactor and it's associated systems.

So, how much investment is there again in the nuclear industry in the USA? ::)

Nice of you to ignore the four 3rd generation reactors under construction (and their associated build times) to focus
on the statistical outlier. The five total reactors under construction represent ~ $50 billion investment.

Compare that to a nice, spanking, new Solar or Wind farm, which just rolled out of the factory which made it.

Full of toxic rare earths whose extraction and processing produces radioactive material by the ton.

The Greens don't care their god Gaia demands much sacrifice ;)
 
Hot Breath said:
So, when are you going to move to Fukashima or Chernabyl, if radiation is that safe? You excuse is, I take it that you've been living downwind from these reactors all your life?


Doesn't Sef. live in Utah? Pretty close to more nuclear explosions than either Fukashima or Chernobyl.


Besides this Ad Hominem argument gets pretty tired. If you're so worried about nuclear reactors why don't you move to Edinburgh of the Seven Seas so you can be as isolated from that hand of human agency as possible. Until you move there I refuse to take anything you say seriously!
 
marauder2048 said:
Full of toxic rare earths whose extraction and processing produces radioactive material by the ton.


Don't forget all the carbon released into the atmosphere to extract and process those materials. And that the life span of the cell is limited to 10-20 years no matter what requiring frequent replacement compared to other energy generators.


But the fuel is free man! That makes it *renewable* and the massive battery cell in my Prius was put their by Gaia cis-self and didn't cost the environment anything either.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Hot Breath said:
So, when are you going to move to Fukashima or Chernabyl, if radiation is that safe? You excuse is, I take it that you've been living downwind from these reactors all your life?


Doesn't Sef. live in Utah? Pretty close to more nuclear explosions than either Fukashima or Chernobyl.


Besides this Ad Hominem argument gets pretty tired. If you're so worried about nuclear reactors why don't you move to Edinburgh of the Seven Seas so you can be as isolated from that hand of human agency as possible. Until you move there I refuse to take anything you say seriously!

When you take time to actually observe the fossil fuel AND petro-chemical industries INCLUDING all the product off shoots they are so ubiquitous as to be invisible (as in everything and everywhere)

I remember reading an article about hydrogen power for transportation (this is really paraphrasing) that basically said "if there was discovered a way to replace gasoline/diesel tomorrow with hydrogen powered vehicles IT WOULD STILL take about 100+ years or so just to replace the gasoline/diesel fuel infrastructure.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Hot Breath said:
So, when are you going to move to Fukashima or Chernabyl, if radiation is that safe? You excuse is, I take it that you've been living downwind from these reactors all your life?


Doesn't Sef. live in Utah? Pretty close to more nuclear explosions than either Fukashima or Chernobyl.


Besides this Ad Hominem argument gets pretty tired. If you're so worried about nuclear reactors why don't you move to Edinburgh of the Seven Seas so you can be as isolated from that hand of human agency as possible. Until you move there I refuse to take anything you say seriously!

I'm still waiting for him to tell us when he's moving to a wind turbine farm. ;D
 
Hot Breath said:
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
If a nuclear plant has an accident, you potentially kill hundreds, if not tens of thousands or even millions of people and the effects last generations. A solar/wind farm goes belly up, you kill maybe a dozen people at most.

Wow. That the left-wing media / politicians have dumbed down the population this much almost makes me angry.

Wow, that the Right-wing media/politicians have dumbed you down this much makes me really sad.

You don't have facts on your side. Just a bunch of emotional pabulum left wingers have fed you. What's sad is the way you continue to demonstrate it and seem to be proud of it. It's like a window-licker on the short bus puffing his chest out in pride over the design he just made on the window with what he pulled out of his nose. Pitiful, yet impossible to educate.

Hot Breath said:
So, when are you going to move to Fukashima or Chernabyl, if radiation is that safe? You excuse is, I take it that you've been living downwind from these reactors all your life?

I notice you keep dodging the question of when you're going to move to a wind turbine farm. That really tells us all we need to know. And I'd be the first to sign a petition to get nuclear power in Utah. Unlike you, I understand statistics.
 
sferrin said:
Hot Breath said:
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
If a nuclear plant has an accident, you potentially kill hundreds, if not tens of thousands or even millions of people and the effects last generations. A solar/wind farm goes belly up, you kill maybe a dozen people at most.

Wow. That the left-wing media / politicians have dumbed down the population this much almost makes me angry.

Wow, that the Right-wing media/politicians have dumbed you down this much makes me really sad.

You don't have facts on your side. Just a bunch of emotional pabulum left wingers have fed you. What's sad is the way you continue to demonstrate it and seem to be proud of it. It's like a window-licker on the short bus puffing his chest out in pride over the design he just made on the window with what he pulled out of his nose. Pitiful, yet impossible to educate.

Hot Breath said:
So, when are you going to move to Fukashima or Chernabyl, if radiation is that safe? You excuse is, I take it that you've been living downwind from these reactors all your life?

I notice you keep dodging the question of when you're going to move to a wind turbine farm. That really tells us all we need to know. And I'd be the first to sign a petition to get nuclear power in Utah. Unlike you, I understand statistics.

I vote for a total isolation from anything powered by, transported by, manufactured with, made of ANY fossil fuel or petro-chemical derived product. He would have to immediately unplug/turn off his computer so a definite win for SPF.

Caveman.jpg
 
bobbymike said:


Don't besmirch our ancestors. Early man understood the benefit of releasing carbon into the atmosphere.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pcGGKtPpSE
 
sferrin said:
Hot Breath said:
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
If a nuclear plant has an accident, you potentially kill hundreds, if not tens of thousands or even millions of people and the effects last generations. A solar/wind farm goes belly up, you kill maybe a dozen people at most.

Wow. That the left-wing media / politicians have dumbed down the population this much almost makes me angry.

Wow, that the Right-wing media/politicians have dumbed you down this much makes me really sad.

You don't have facts on your side. Just a bunch of emotional pabulum left wingers have fed you. What's sad is the way you continue to demonstrate it and seem to be proud of it. It's like a window-licker on the short bus puffing his chest out in pride over the design he just made on the window with what he pulled out of his nose. Pitiful, yet impossible to educate.

::)

Hot Breath said:
So, when are you going to move to Fukashima or Chernabyl, if radiation is that safe? You excuse is, I take it that you've been living downwind from these reactors all your life?

I notice you keep dodging the question of when you're going to move to a wind turbine farm. That really tells us all we need to know. And I'd be the first to sign a petition to get nuclear power in Utah. Unlike you, I understand statistics.

Wind turbine farms exist about half an hour from where I live. You don't even have nuclear power in your state!
 
Hot Breath said:
Wind turbine farms exist about half an hour from where I live. You don't even have nuclear power in your state!


That told him. ::)
 
http://forumonenergy.com/2015/03/17/types-of-smrs/

Information on small reactor technology.
 
Hot Breath said:
Wind turbine farms exist about half an hour from where I live. You don't even have nuclear power in your state!

ROFL!!! I didn't ask if you had wind turbines in your state, I asked when you were moving to a wind turbine farm. (You know, since you demand nuclear proponents live next to nuclear power plants.) So when are you moving to a wind turbine farm?
 
sferrin said:
Hot Breath said:
Wind turbine farms exist about half an hour from where I live. You don't even have nuclear power in your state!

ROFL!!! I didn't ask if you had wind turbines in your state, I asked when you were moving to a wind turbine farm. (You know, since you demand nuclear proponents live next to nuclear power plants.) So when are you moving to a wind turbine farm?

I think the point your missing, with our deliberate obtuseness is that for him to be harmed by a failure of a Wind Farm would require him to live amongst the wind turbines. For you to be harmed by a the failure of a nuclear power plant you just have to live downwind from it and be within several hundred kilometres of it...
 
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Hot Breath said:
Wind turbine farms exist about half an hour from where I live. You don't even have nuclear power in your state!

ROFL!!! I didn't ask if you had wind turbines in your state, I asked when you were moving to a wind turbine farm. (You know, since you demand nuclear proponents live next to nuclear power plants.) So when are you moving to a wind turbine farm?

I think the point your missing, with our deliberate obtuseness is that for him to be harmed by a failure of a Wind Farm would require him to live amongst the wind turbines. For you to be harmed by a the failure of a nuclear power plant you just have to live downwind from it and be within several hundred kilometres of it...

I think the point you're missing is that he asked when I (and another person) were moving to a location next to a nuclear power plant. If he expects us to feel comfortable living next to a nuclear powerplant (I would) surely he'd be willing to move to the middle of a wind turbine farm. Right? So when is he moving?
 
Kadija_Man said:
I think the point your missing, with our deliberate obtuseness is that for him to be harmed by a failure of a Wind Farm would require him to live amongst the wind turbines. For you to be harmed by a the failure of a nuclear power plant you just have to live downwind from it and be within several hundred kilometres of it...

Regardless of the alleged obtuseness there is a fair amount of wilful ignorance, a K-Man speciality, in this response. The danger of wind turbines to humans is not that the blades or generator will fall of the pylon and onto your house but from their low frequency noise. This noise is produced all the time they are operating and is not a result of an accident. It is a well-documented and phenomena and quite significant for anyone living nearby such a facility. As for people being harmed by a nuclear power failure within several hundred kilometres downwind of it this has never actually happened. And far more than a failure is required to release radioactive substances in such a way that they could be harmful. Like being hit by a massive earthquake and a tsunami wave that by themselves killed 100,000 people. Even then there was no such harm caused.
 
16,000 casualties.
Getting your numbers (at least orders of magnitude) right, especially in this case, wouldn't have harmed the credibility of your whole reasoning.
But I'm afraid just the opposite happened. :'(
 
bipa said:
16,000 casualties.



You do know this is just a discussion forum not a journal of repute? The amount of people killed by the Tsunami isn't really relevant to the debate. I simply mentioned a death count (from the corners of memory) to illustrate how massive this earthquake and tidal wave were. Casualties that BTW at 16,000 are still several orders of magnitude more than the number of people killed by the nuclear cycle at Fukashima (still a total of 0 dead).


bipa said:
Getting your numbers (at least orders of magnitude) right, especially in this case, wouldn't have harmed the credibility of your whole reasoning.
But I'm afraid just the opposite happened. :'(


Actually the number of people killed by the Tsunami has NOTHING to do with my argument, nothing to do with its reasoning (and certainly not the whole of it). The argument is about the danger of wind turbines and radiation. Unless a significant number of people killed by the Tusnami were killed by wind turbines being washed along in the waves or by radiated wave water it does not have anything to do with it. And neither of those things happened.


My credibility may be questioned by nitpickers who insist on accurate body counts in the first draft of discussion but I can live with that. However far more damaging to someone's credibility is being unable to understand the lack of a relation between the Tsunami deathcount and the debate over nuclear safety. And further making a big deal out of the connection between the two when none exist. And BTW such a lack of credibility now applies to you Mr Bipa. So choke on your own tears.
 
I think exaggeration in your statements has everything to do with your credibility.
As a reader you think: what other part of his reasoning was exaggerated / overstated / underestimated / biased?

Back to topic: your are focussing too much on short-term aftermath from an unpredictable event and omitting long-term poisoning of vast areas and trauma for displaced populations from a predictable contamination due to avoidable vulnerability of containment measures. Just because you can be struck by unpredictable disasters is no excuse for messing with operating safety of such facilities. Quite the opposite of course!! Are you saying that the Fukushima power station accident was no big deal after all, and implying that everything is over now, perfectly under control and will be sorted out shortly? Now going back to Hot_Breath's original question: would you then move to live in such contaminated areas today? In 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? Too much low-frequency noise maybe?

One of the greatest issues with the credibility of nuclear power safety is overconfident people who underestimate its dangers and particularly (long-term consequences of accidents) x (size of affected regions). Seismic and tsunami risks were pretty well identified in this area of Japan, so obviously TEPCO's lack of protection and planning for such an event was yet another manifestation of this issue. How can people gain confidence in the operators of this technology when such misconducts surface in the worst circumstances? They should learn the lesson and clean their own closet, before worrying about low-frequency noise.
 
bipa said:
I think exaggeration in your statements has everything to do with your credibility.
As a reader you think: what other part of his reasoning was exaggerated / overstated / underestimated / biased?

and omitting long-term poisoning of vast areas and trauma for displaced populations from a predictable contamination due to avoidable vulnerability of containment measures.

Wow. And you say he exaggerates.
 
Arjen said:
Chernobyl.

And? Could you quantify that please, with real, verifiable numbers?

In the meantime, here are some numbers for you:

http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/

"Our 2004 study showed that power plant impacts exceeded 24,000 deaths a year, but by 2010 that had been reduced to roughly 13,000 deaths due to the impact that state and federal actions were beginning to have."

That's just the US. Every year.

And China. . ."The cost of China's dependence on coal - 670,000 deaths a year"

http://fortune.com/2014/11/05/the-cost-of-chinas-dependence-on-coal-670000-deaths-a-year/
 
YOU enlighten me in what way bipa was exaggerating.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Kadija_Man said:
I think the point your missing, with our deliberate obtuseness is that for him to be harmed by a failure of a Wind Farm would require him to live amongst the wind turbines. For you to be harmed by a the failure of a nuclear power plant you just have to live downwind from it and be within several hundred kilometres of it...

Regardless of the alleged obtuseness there is a fair amount of wilful ignorance, a K-Man speciality, in this response. The danger of wind turbines to humans is not that the blades or generator will fall of the pylon and onto your house but from their low frequency noise. This noise is produced all the time they are operating and is not a result of an accident. It is a well-documented and phenomena and quite significant for anyone living nearby such a facility. As for people being harmed by a nuclear power failure within several hundred kilometres downwind of it this has never actually happened. And far more than a failure is required to release radioactive substances in such a way that they could be harmful. Like being hit by a massive earthquake and a tsunami wave that by themselves killed 100,000 people. Even then there was no such harm caused.

You will of course be able to produce references in pear reviewed medical and biology journals about these supposed problems that Wind Farms sound causes to humans? I look forward to something other than hyperbole...

At the other end of reality, it appears that the number of people who have actually died because of their interaction with Wind Farms is surprisingly small. In the UK, Caithness Windfarm Information Forum 2015, reports that there have been, according their reliance on the unreliable MSM, about "142 UK accidents from 2006-2010". Since 2010, there have been an additional 644. Most were non-fatal with 114 deaths reported.
 
Hot Breath said:
You will of course be able to produce references in pear reviewed medical and biology journals about these supposed problems that Wind Farms sound causes to humans? I look forward to something other than hyperbole...

I'm not sure if pears do much reviewing. If they did I'm sure it would be more along the lines of best fruit growing soils and the like rather than sonic trauma. But as I said it is a well documented issue which is far from the meaning of the word hyperbole. So look it up yourself.


Hot Breath said:
At the other end of reality, it appears that the number of people who have actually died because of their interaction with Wind Farms is surprisingly small. In the UK, Caithness Windfarm Information Forum 2015, reports that there have been, according their reliance on the unreliable MSM, about "142 UK accidents from 2006-2010". Since 2010, there have been an additional 644. Most were non-fatal with 114 deaths reported.

114 deaths since 2010 in the UK alone. Which would appear to be 114 more deaths than those caused by nuclear power.

The defence rests your worship.
 
A very cursory search gives 33+ cancer deaths (UK government estimate) due to the Windscale fire.
 
Arjen said:
A very cursory search gives 33+ cancer deaths (UK government estimate) due to the Windscale fire.


Very cursory - the link has no reference to 33+ deaths, nor deaths being referenced in a UK govt. report. Indeed, it says the AEA stated there were no fatalities.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll#Windscale_fire
33+ cancer fatalities (estimated by UK government) – Windscale, United Kingdom, October 8, 1957. The Windscale fire resulted when uranium metal fuel ignited inside plutonium production piles; surrounding dairy farms were contaminated.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3309842/Windscale-fire-We-were-too-busy-to-panic.html
It is estimated that the accident caused an estimated 100 deaths in Britain. But it remains hard to link individual deaths to the fire.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/mar/11/sellafield-stories-book-nuclear-accident
The stories, edited by Hunter Davies, suggest that much of what happened then is inconceivable now. Management, profligate with money, was criminally careless with safety and ecology. It thought nothing of trying to block Wastwater lake to get more water or trying to mine the national park for a waste dump. It recklessly dumped contaminated water out to sea and filled old mines with radioactive waste.

It was useless with people, too. "I used to get very cross with their housing policy. The place was set up very much like a War Department settlement. If you lived on a certain street, you were of a certain status within the works. It was just bonkers," says Alan Postlethwaite, the truculent vicar of Seascale, who was accused of being a crypto-communist for even thinking the plant might be linked to cancers.

"What aroused my anxieties was within 12 or 18 months I conducted the funerals of thee children who died of leukaemia. And that put the frighteners on us because we had small children. When you asked, 'How many would you expect in a community of 2,000 people?' and were told, 'Perhaps one in 20 years' and you'd had three in a year... that's something to bother about. No, I am not anti-nuclear, but my goodness, I think they could have made a better fist of it if they'd tried harder," he says.

Seven rare cancers were found in the small Seascale community between 1955 and 1983, yet the authorities "proved" this was due to the natural movement of people. "I often think there will have been a Seascale cluster of leukaemia because that's where the fallout from the big chimneys was closest. These people have pontificated about bringing the stuff in from outside systems and that would give the kids leukaemia. Now I look back and think, no, we caused that," says McManus.
 
Well, I know quite well about the futility of such things, but for the sake of compliance
to our rules, I would like to appeal to some of the participants to check the compliance
to the rules of their posts, preferably before posting ! :mad:
What's going on here seems to be the start of a bar fight, maybe funny to look at from
the outside, but off limits nevertheless.
But maybe all arguments are exchanged and we can close this thread ?
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Hot Breath said:
You will of course be able to produce references in pear reviewed medical and biology journals about these supposed problems that Wind Farms sound causes to humans? I look forward to something other than hyperbole...

I'm not sure if pears do much reviewing. If they did I'm sure it would be more along the lines of best fruit growing soils and the like rather than sonic trauma. But as I said it is a well documented issue which is far from the meaning of the word hyperbole. So look it up yourself.

Oh, dear you really are reaching deep into your bag of tricks, aren't you? A spelling flame. Oh, dear. :eek:

So, that is you out of the debate if all you can do is flame me on my spelling?

Hot Breath said:
At the other end of reality, it appears that the number of people who have actually died because of their interaction with Wind Farms is surprisingly small. In the UK, Caithness Windfarm Information Forum 2015, reports that there have been, according their reliance on the unreliable MSM, about "142 UK accidents from 2006-2010". Since 2010, there have been an additional 644. Most were non-fatal with 114 deaths reported.

114 deaths since 2010 in the UK alone. Which would appear to be 114 more deaths than those caused by nuclear power.

The defence rests your worship.

Actually, its 114 deaths connected to renewable, wind powered sources, worldwide. Obviously you didn't even read the paper, did you? Oh, dear, you really are out of the debate now.

I'm sure you'll splutter and insult but I believe you've dealt yourself out. First a spelling flame and now incorrect information? Keep on dear boy, keep on, it's interesting reading your rubbish! ;D ;D ;D
 
Arjen said:
A very cursory search gives 33+ cancer deaths (UK government estimate) due to the Windscale fire.

Chernobyl disaster

4,000 fatalities[1][2] – Chernobyl disaster, Ukraine, April 26, 1986. 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers and nine children with thyroid cancer) and it is estimated that there were 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people.
[...]
Kyshtym disaster

The Kyshtym disaster, which occurred at Mayak in the Soviet Union, was rated as a level 6 on the International Nuclear Event Scale, the third most severe incident after Chernobyl and Fukushima. Because of the intense secrecy surrounding Mayak, it is difficult to estimate the death toll of Kyshtym. One book claims that "in 1992, a study conducted by the Institute of Biophysics at the former Soviet Health Ministry in Chelyabinsk found that 8,015 people had died within the preceding 32 years as a result of the accident."[11] By contrast, only 6,000 death certificates have been found for residents of the Tech riverside between 1950 and 1982 from all causes of death,[12] though perhaps the Soviet study considered a larger geographic area affected by the airborne plume. The most commonly quoted estimate is 200 deaths due to cancer, but the origin of this number is not clear. More recent epidemiological studies suggest that around 49 to 55 cancer deaths among riverside residents can be associated to radiation exposure.[12] This would include the effects of all radioactive releases into the river, 98% of which happened long before the 1957 accident, but it would not include the effects of the airborne plume that was carried north-east.[13] The area closest to the accident produced 66 diagnosed cases of chronic radiation syndrome, providing the bulk of the data about this condition.[14]
[...]
Windscale fire

33+ cancer fatalities (estimated by UK government)[15][16] – Windscale, United Kingdom, October 8, 1957. The Windscale fire resulted when uranium metal fuel ignited inside plutonium production piles; surrounding dairy farms were contaminated.[15][16]
Other accidents

17 fatalities – Instituto Oncologico Nacional of Panama, August 2000 – March 2001. Patients receiving treatment for prostate cancer and cancer of the cervix receive lethal doses of radiation.[17][18]
13 fatalities – Radiotherapy accident in Costa Rica, 1996. 114 patients received an overdose of radiation from a Cobalt-60 source that was being used for radiotherapy.[19]
11 fatalities – Radiotherapy accident in Zaragoza, Spain, December 1990. Cancer patients receiving radiotherapy; 27 patients were injured.[20]
10 fatalities – Soviet submarine K-431 reactor accident, August 10, 1985. 49 people suffered radiation injuries.[21]
10 fatalities – Columbus radiotherapy accident, 1974–1976, 88 injuries from Cobalt-60 source.[18][22]
9 fatalities – Soviet submarine K-27 reactor accident, 24 May 1968. 83 people were injured.[18]
8 fatalities – Soviet submarine K-19 reactor accident, July 4, 1961. More than 30 people were over-exposed to radiation.[20]
8 fatalities – Radiation accident in Morocco, March 1984.[23]
7 fatalities – Houston radiotherapy accident, 1980.[18][22]
5 fatalities – Lost radiation source, Baku, Azerbaijan, USSR, October 5, 1982. 13 injuries.[18]
4 fatalities – Mihama Nuclear Power Plant accident, August 9, 2004. Hot water and steam leaked from a broken pipe (not actually a radiation accident).[24]
4 fatalities – Goiânia accident, September 13, 1987. 249 people received serious radiation contamination from lost radiotherapy source.[25]
4 fatalities – Radiation accident in Mexico City, 1962.
3 fatalities – SL-1 accident (US Army) 1961.
3 fatalities – Samut Prakan radiation accident: Three deaths and ten injuries resulted when a radiation-therapy unit was dismantled, February 2000.[26]
2 fatalities – Tokaimura nuclear accident, nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. Japan, September 30, 1999.[27]
2 fatalities - Meet Halfa, Egypt, May 2000; two fatalities due to radiography accident.[28]
1 fatality – Mayapuri radiological accident, India, April 2010.[26]
1 fatality – Daigo Fukuryū Maru March 1, 1954
1 fatality – Louis Slotin May 21, 1946
1 fatality – Harry K. Daghlian, Jr., August 21, 1945 at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
1 fatality – Cecil Kelley criticality accident, December 30, 1958 at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.[29]
1 fatality - Operator error at Wood River Junction nuclear facility, 1964, Rhode Island, Robert Peabody dies 49 hours later
1 fatality – Malfunction INES level 4 at RA2 in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1983, operator Osvaldo Rogulich dies days later.
1 fatality - San Salvador, El Salvador, 1989; one fatality due to violation of safety rules at 60Co irradiation facility.[28]
1 fatality - Soreq, Israel, 1990; one fatality due to violation of safety rules at 60Co irradiation facility.[28]
1 fatality - Tammiku, Estonia, 1994; one fatality from disposed 137Cs source.[28]
1 fatality - Sarov, Russia, June 1997; one fatality due to violation of safety rules.[28]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll]

That list is incomplete as it does not include any cancer related deaths from Fukashima. Nor does it include mining deaths from mining Uranium. Nor does it include the deaths which governments have over the years concealed or misattributed to other causes.
 
[Note to Jemiba - I hope the scientific focus of this post complies with the forum rules. Please notify me if it needs to be altered]

Thank you for the extra information Arjen, and providing direct links but I have some concerns about it.

33+ cancer fatalities (estimated by UK government) – Windscale, United Kingdom, October 8, 1957. The Windscale fire resulted when uranium metal fuel ignited inside plutonium production piles; surrounding dairy farms were contaminated.

But when you check the references for this statement, you find an inaccessable TIME article, and a research paper by a social scientist on nuclear power in Asia - no UK Government report. So the reference is unsupported.

A book reporting on the Proceedings of a Conference on Medical Response to Effects of Ionizing Radiation, clearly states that at the low individual doses of the Windscale fire, the reality of the risks have to be questioned. The potential deaths are an upper limit, and the likely health effects would be lower, perhaps even zero.

Here is the link: https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=k53gpnxTRVwC&lpg=PA269&ots=9cqmT-eT6j&dq=%22The%20risks%20of%20leukaemia%20and%20other%20cancers%20in%20Seascale%22%2033&pg=PA108#v=onepage&q=the%20collective%20dose%20equivalent%20for%20the%20accident%20in%20the%20UK&f=false

It is estimated that the accident caused an estimated 100 deaths in Britain. But it remains hard to link individual deaths to the fire.

See above.

[quote author=Arjen] Seven rare cancers were found in the small Seascale community between 1955 and 1983, yet the authorities "proved" this was due to the natural movement of people. "I often think there will have been a Seascale cluster of leukaemia because that's where the fallout from the big chimneys was closest. These people have pontificated about bringing the stuff in from outside systems and that would give the kids leukaemia. Now I look back and think, no, we caused that," says McManus.[/quote]

It is worth pointing out that McManus is an ex-Commando and a Union Leader - not a scientist.


Laurier and Bard state in their paper Epidemiologic Studies of Leukemia among Persons under 25 Years of Age Living Near Nuclear Sites:

These studies show that an excess of leukemia exists near some nuclear sites (at least, for the reprocessing plants at Sellafield and Dounreay). Nonetheless, the results of the multisite studies do not support the hypothesis that the frequency of leukemia generally increases among young people living near nuclear sites. Furthermore, excesses of leukemia have also been shown far from any nuclear site and around potential sites, and studies of the geographic distribution of leukemia show that incident cases tend toward spatial clustering.


Simmonds et al conclude in the NRPB report Risks of leukemia and other cancers in Seascale from all sources of ionising radiation exposure:

In summary, the assessments of doses and risks around a number of sites indicate that radiation exposure from environmental sources cannot explain the observed incidence of leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in young persons. Other hypotheses have been advanced elsewhere, as indicated in reference 15.

COMARE have taken account of the most recent assessment for Seascale in their most recent report, in addition other factors, such as exposure to chemicals and infections, that may be involved in childhood leukaemia. On the basis of this assessment this committee have concluded that it is highly unlikely that radioactive discharges from Sellafield have been the sole cause of the excess Seascale cases (of leukaemia), which is in agreement with the view expressed above.
 
Hot Breath said:
That list is incomplete as it does not include any cancer related deaths from Fukashima. Nor does it include mining deaths from mining Uranium. Nor does it include the deaths which governments have over the years concealed or misattributed to other causes.

Oh dear. Those are some most unfortunate numbers. Let's see how they compare to fossil fuels shall we?

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kharecha_02/

Oh, whoops. You probably weren't looking for NASA's take on it.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053.600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power.html

Or New Scientist

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/science/earth/20fossil.html

NY Times?

http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclear-power-vs-coal/

http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/04/Nuclear-Power-Prevents-Deaths-Causes.html

Darn these pesky links keep leaping out from the first page of Google search results. I know, I know, you're looking for actual numbers and are much, much too busy to be bothered to follow links to a bunch of yellow journalism.

Oh dear. Ohhhhh dear. Just look what the "Clean Air Task Force" has to say about fossil fuel deaths.

http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/

13,000 in 2010 alone. In just the US. Hmmm, makes one wonder what things are like in China. . .670,000.

http://fortune.com/2014/11/05/the-cost-of-chinas-dependence-on-coal-670000-deaths-a-year/

Let's just do a rough tally and see how the horrors of nuclear power make fossil fuels fade to insiginficance. . .

Nuclear power (your numbers mind you), world wide, going. . .wow, all the way to 1945? Okay. . .12179, 99% of which are from 3 outliers.

Surely fossil fuel deaths will only be about. . .what, a hundred maybe?

Oh dear. I'll be generous and use the 2004 numbers in the US (though it's a certainty that all previous years were higher). 24,000

24,000 x (2015-1945) = 1,680,000 In the US alone.

China is ticking along a 670,000 a year, but it hasn't always been that high so let's just use a nice round 10,000,000. Seems fair (and is almost certainly low)

Looks like another 100,000 /yr in India. Call it 3,000,000, going back to 1945 remember.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/12/1701361/if-only-there-was-an-energy-source-that-wouldnt-kill-thousands-in-india-and-cost-billions/

1,680,000 + 10,000,000 + 3,000,000 = ~ 15 million. In three countries.

15,000,000 / 12179 = 1231. So fossil fuels are AT LEAST 1200 times as dangerous as nuclear power. Seems like the sensible, rational, right thing to do would be to swtich over to nuclear power wholesale, no?
 
I am unsure why you're attempting to compare nuclear deaths to fossil fuel deaths. I am not in favour of either nuclear power or fossil fuel power. Both should be eliminated and replaced with renewable energy sources as alternatives. So, how does nuclear compare to renewable energy sources? Badly. Very badly. Funny about that.
 
Hot Breath said:
I am unsure why you're attempting to compare nuclear deaths to fossil fuel deaths. I am not in favour of either nuclear power or fossil fuel power. Both should be eliminated and replaced with renewable energy sources as alternatives. So, how does nuclear compare to renewable energy sources? Badly. Very badly. Funny about that.

So stop using them and anything produced, transported by or supported in any way by fossil fuels you hypocrite.
 
Hot Breath said:
I am unsure why you're attempting to compare nuclear deaths to fossil fuel deaths. I am not in favour of either nuclear power or fossil fuel power. Both should be eliminated and replaced with renewable energy sources as alternatives. So, how does nuclear compare to renewable energy sources? Badly. Very badly. Funny about that.

I notice you didn't put up any numbers to support your assertion. Make sure you include wild life as well.

Here's one for ya:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2011/03/17/inconvenient-truth-wind-energy-has-killed-more-americans-nuclear

Here's another:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans/

Oh dear. That's what happens when you parrot the party line instead of actually doing 3 seconds of research.

It is telling though, that you would dismiss a form of power that is 1200 times safer than what we have just because your ideology won't allow you to acknowledge it. And let's get real. There isn't enough money in the world to go 100% renewables. Look at the billions Obama squandered on it, all for nothing, because it's not sustainable. Half a billion on Solendra alone. Now when are you moving to a wind turbine farm?


(Edit: Now I'm out.)
 
bobbymike said:
Hot Breath said:
I am unsure why you're attempting to compare nuclear deaths to fossil fuel deaths. I am not in favour of either nuclear power or fossil fuel power. Both should be eliminated and replaced with renewable energy sources as alternatives. So, how does nuclear compare to renewable energy sources? Badly. Very badly. Funny about that.

So stop using them and anything produced, transported by or supported in any way by fossil fuels you hypocrite.

Why? I am against their use in power generation, not plastics, etc. You seem unable to differentiate between those uses. Why?
 
Hot Breath said:
That list is incomplete as it does not include any cancer related deaths from Fukashima. Nor does it include mining deaths from mining Uranium. Nor does it include the deaths which governments have over the years concealed or misattributed to other causes.


Deaths by radiation caused by military, medical or other industrial exposures are not related to the production of energy so therefore irrelevant to any discussion about the harm of energy policy. One might as well claim that skin cancer is the responsibility of the nuclear energy industry. So surely anyone quoting such figures has "dealt themselves out of this debate", "oh dear".
 
sferrin said:
It is telling though, that you would dismiss a form of power that is 1200 times safer than what we have just because your ideology won't allow you to acknowledge it. And let's get real. There isn't enough money in the world to go 100% renewables. Look at the billions Obama squandered on it, all for nothing, because it's not sustainable. Half a billion on Solendra alone. Now when are you moving to a wind turbine farm?

I am not, as Wind Turbine farms in my state in Australia are located too far from where I work. As I have indicated, they are about half an hour's drive from my present house but I don't have or intend to have a car. I utilise either a pushbike or public transport.

As to the sustainability of renewables over fossile fuels there are more than sufficient literature on how the fossil fuel industry receives subsidies from government to enable it to drill and mine. If the market was an even playing field, without those subsidies, then renewables would be able to compete fairly.

As for the safety of nuclear power, as has been indicated, the power plants are only as safe as the weakest link in their management/safety/operations/etc. systems. You have an accident and everybody downwind for hundreds of kilometres are contaminated. Then there is the link between nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons proliferation. Something I note your government isn't in favour of (when it doesn't suit their geo-political ambitions). One only has to look at the deliberate contamination of your own citizens around the Hanford reactor(s). I note that it was missing from the list I posted earlier. I apologise.

(Edit: Now I'm out.)

Your choice. You appear rather intolerant of differing opinions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom