Nuclear disasters in progress...

Post Reply New Topic

Information like this needs to be spread. More people need to be aware of the disasters happening right now in our world..

http://pecangroup.org/archives/3170

Here is a link to the effects of the Chernobyl disaster, which as not nearly as devastating as what is going on currently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_ ... th_effects

First of all, this is why we shouldn't be using nuclear technology as a source of energy. Secondly, I just thought I'd show you this:
http://xkcd.com/radiation/

Nuclear Science hold real promise, problem with it comes down to one word - WASTE. Nuclear power is not safe

Neither of the sourves cited by the OP are trustworthy, wikipedia becuase it is not a traceable work and the pecan work was littered with errors. I would suggest if you want to read about the topic try www.iaea.org

This is panic propaganda spread by people who can't be bothered to take a few science courses.

Nuclear power when nothing goes wrong is the cleanest, most efficient source of power we have. When something does go wrong, it's still debatable whether the damage done is greater than the cumulative damage done by other sources of power generation over the years.

The fossil fuel industry produces thousands of tons of radioactive waste a year, and the burning of fossil fuels liberates numerous radioactive particles into the atmosphere, along with other carcinogenic compounds and heavy metals.

Solar cells aren't all that clean either. The silicon has to be mined or collected, refined, and doped. This uses a significant amount of energy as well as toxic chemicals.

Solar cells also aren't practical for large scale power generation in most areas of the world due to cost and environmental factors.

Nuclear power is the cheapest, cleanest power production method per kilowatt-hour of power and can theoretically be done safely.

My point is: This is the worst nuclear disaster in the history of the world, and we hear very little on it. I just find it odd, how these terrible disasters are going on around the world, and the main headlines (at least where I am) seem to contain mainly advertising or trivial matters.

What I am wondering is, in the coming years, are we going to see a rise in physical deformities like after Chernobyl? No particular reason, I'm just curious.

Cancer is not propaganda....theoretically it is the safest, but if you put something with the power of the sun....into a man-made machine (we all know how reliable those are) it is a recepie for disater. I am all for wind power!

what if you found that an incurable disease can make power...would you then put it in a man made machine to posibly unleash itself when the facility is poorly maintained or an uncalulated effects of a natrual disaster...or both like Japan.

if everything is perfect...it is clean and safe, but we live in an imperfect world with imperfect people and an unpredictable earth....it is just not safe under these conditions.

It is not the fault of the science itself but impecfect and unpredictable external factors

while I dont believe that it will take 3 years to get hiroshima under control, I do believe that if the wildfires reach the nuclear waste it will become atomsperic....which then can cause alot of illness for however long the wind carries. As for the flood, I read on verizon mobile news that the beam around the plant has been flooded....what if the plant gets flooded? will nuclear matter get into the ground water once it receeds.

These are not a pat on the head issues....these are real threats.

As I previously stated, fossil fuels release cancer causing compounds into the environment, and constantly, I might add. Nuclear power only does this when there is a breach. Nuclear reactors do not have "the power of the sun" in fact the reactions are quite different. Nuclear power is produced using fission reactions, in the sun, fusion reactions take place.

The problem with wind power is it requires wind to produce. Wind farms that are capable of powering entire cities would require hundreds, if not thousands of square miles of land over which the atmosphere was constantly, sufficiently windy. Each turbine would have to be serviced regularly and the system quickly becomes inefficient and cost prohibitive.



There are plenty of incurable diseases in the world. If one can make power then more power to it. As for putting it in a poorly maintained facility, no one ever says "Hey, let's use a poorly maintained facility!" At least not engineers. Intentional lapses in safety and upkeep are usually made by business people.




Yes we do live in an imperfect world with imperfect people but you are under the impression that nuclear power is inherently more dirty than fossil fuel generated power, and there is not evidence to support that being the case. Rather, nuclear contamination, when it happens, happens in an acute manner that catches the attention of the general public, while fossil fuels are constantly contaminating the environment on a regular basis and no one pays much heed to them except in the form of clean air acts. In reality, fossil fuels, their derivatives and byproducts are likely responsible for many deaths and illnesses per year.



The plant is in Fukushima, not Hiroshima (which is a bustling city once again). The plant was flooded and the containment facilities were breached. The area around the plant is contaminated. The concentrations of radioactive contaminants in the environment and how and when they dissipate, if at all, will varying significantly depending on many factors.

The wild fires are in New Mexico, not Japan, and they are enroaching on Los Alamos National Labs, Fukushima. The lab likely has a fire system in place to help ensure that a fire does not compromise the radioactive materials they use there.

what about the plant in the US that is about to be flooded??? will it be like Fukushima??
Being that it is landlocked, will that mean the underground water supply will be contaminated, possibly the river?

I would feel better about nuclear power if it wernt for buisness people who dont wanna pay for upkeep of these facilities....there has to be a better way than to place many lives in the hands of CEO's. I read in time maginizine that most CEO's and polititians have profiles of sociopaths. That does not make me feel warm and fuzzy about nuclear power facility upkeeps.
I understand that coal is some nasty sh*t for the enviroment and for the the people who mine it and work with it.

I think wind power could be harnessed useing much less expensive turbines. I dont understand why they make them so freakin big anyway...it is the motion not the mass x motion that creates energy ( I think) Ever see how fast those pinwheels move on a slight breeze compaired to those huge 3 story super heavy things. Ever been out the panhandles of texas and oklahoma? The wind blows 35 miles an hour with gusts up to 50 mph on any given day, plus there is so few people living out in most of it because it is so inhospitible...hell turn the whole panhandle into a windfarm for a good portion of the country. I dont know how to carry energy that far, but thats what green engineers are for. And use smaller, stronger, more nimble wind turbines. Several years ago, time maginzine had a desgn concept of a wind turbine that was shaped like a box, with vertical blades in it that flapped back and forth very quickly and could power a house off of 8 mph winds and production costs were less than 300 dollars.

The best idea that I have seen as far as energy goes is a water powered car...the car's engine seperated the oxigen and hydrogen, burnt the hydrogen and spit out the oxigen....well that was too good to pass up, the oil companies bought the patent for it. We'll never see that again.
However IF the oil compaines did not buy it...you could make hydrogen plants that spit out oxigen...and no body gets hurt at all, but d@mn big oil going to make sure that doesn't happen.

What I am saying is there are other options out there becides just the dirty 3, coal, oil, and nuclear.

If people stop selling their patents to the oil and coal companies, we may have a really clean win win win solution on the horizion for the energy crisis. The creativity and the mind power is there, but our biggest obsacle is the fact multi-national corperations practaly rule the freakin world and they are roadblocking any progress that does not benifit them.

The Sky is Falling!

ruveyn

The overall effect of living on this planet is, it kills you.

In London in 1700, coal was burned in every fireplace, and the smoke mixed with fog. It was truely Pea Soup. To deal with it they drank a quart of gin per day, per man woman and child, and lived to 42.

Parrot Fever has killed more people than Atomic Power. Take that you bird lovers!

We live longer, so we must be doing better.

It is interesting that the Inventor brings up the pea soup smog, the last nasty pea soup smog in London is likely to have killed more people than Chernobyl did (circa 4000) yet we never hear nearly as much about the evils of burning high sulphur coal as we hear about the Chernobyl accident.

I can think of plenty of lower profile industrial accidents which have killed off more people than the Chernobyl accident, the nylon factory in England at Flixborough killed almost as many workers (I am thinking of short term deaths), while the Hillsborough disaster killed off almost 100 people. Does it mean we should ban football ? (answer no).

The crush accident at the Victoria Hall killed about 200 children, as a result of the accident the UK did not ban children entertainment shows but instead they improved the safety of public halls partly through passing a series of laws, in the same way I would not ban nuclear power but try to make it safer using the results from the latest accident.

While I am not Don Quixote, I will say that windfarms are not all they are cracked up to be. To build a windmill you need to invest energy to melt and extract the metal. You need cement for the windmill and a series of other things. These energy and pollution investments are required before it makes a single joule of wind energy. It is important to consider the pollution and energy use over the whole lifetime of the product, based on this view wind energy is cleaner than coal but it can be worse than nuclear.

actually, with wind power there is the issue of low frequency vibrations driving people nuts and destroying their health.

and coal can be very clean if done right.

let's see, fukushima has 3 fully melted down reactors about 150 miles from a city with 30 million people in it. the radiation has leaked into the ground water, it has leaked into the ocean and therefore the food supply, it has leaked into the air and therefore the food supply, and it's still leaking and will for quite some time.

hrm, yeah, i can foresee more people dying from nuclear than any other type of energy. nuclear is not something that is reasonably easy to make safe. this has been proven twice now. people just don't take it seriously enough and a little neglect can cause big problems as is the case with these three reactors.

Nonsense. It is a way of boiling water without fouling up the atmosphere with gaseous pollutants.

Atomic fission is what keeps the earth's core hot and molten so it can generate a magnetic field to protect us. There is no reason why we shouldn't use fission to boil water.

ruveyn

I made a presentation about how nuclear power could be a good alternative to other energy sources like coal and fuel and guess what happened 4 days later?
A nuclear powerplant accident in Japan xD but we still got a good grade though
The teachers said we failed because we had lied but they were luckily only kidding >.<

Don't forget fusion power is also nuclear power and it's really safe energy.
It's only fission that you would call unsafe.