Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-10-2007, 11:50 PM   #26
HL1978
Dojo: Aunkai
Location: Fairfax, VA
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 429
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Christian Moses wrote: View Post
Not to discount the very real dangers of nuclear energy, but currently coal power plants release more radioactive particles into the environment than nuclear power plants. With a nuclear power plant, the dangers for contamination are from accidents and storage of spent fuel. Coal has radioactive particles embedded in it and these particles can be released into the environment as a micro-ash. These particles are then introduced into the food chain. Coal also introduces other nasties like mercury, which gets eaten by fish who then get eaten by people. Like you mention in a later post, for all the poo-pooing that conservation gets, it's actually the only thing that absolutely reduces environmental contaminants. That's not to say that we shouldn't strive for better technologies, but the idea that nuclear energy is the worst kind is a bit outdated IMHO. You have to get power from somewhere, and every method has real and significant drawbacks/dangers.
Exactly, though I am not fully certain to what extent coal gassification ameliorates radioactive particles, though I am fairly certain it reduces both NOx and SO.

I am not really aware of any technology which doesnt involve any signifigant costs (with the exception perhap of algae for biomass, methane conversion, or biodiesel), though most of the newer systems dont rely on simply using ponds. None the less, the pond or ocean approach would require a tremendous amount of space to utilize.

http://www.answers.com/topic/algaculture
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18138/

a link on that page suggests 5000-10000 gallons of fuel can be generated per acre via algae versus 18 gallons for corn.

If those statistics are true, then corn ethanol subsidies really have no place.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2007, 09:34 AM   #27
jennifer paige smith
 
jennifer paige smith's Avatar
Dojo: Confluence Aiki-Dojo / Santa Cruz Sword Club
Location: Santa Cruz
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,049
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Christian Moses wrote: View Post
Not to discount the very real dangers of nuclear energy, but currently coal power plants release more radioactive particles into the environment than nuclear power plants. With a nuclear power plant, the dangers for contamination are from accidents and storage of spent fuel. Coal has radioactive particles embedded in it and these particles can be released into the environment as a micro-ash. These particles are then introduced into the food chain. Coal also introduces other nasties like mercury, which gets eaten by fish who then get eaten by people. Like you mention in a later post, for all the poo-pooing that conservation gets, it's actually the only thing that absolutely reduces environmental contaminants. That's not to say that we shouldn't strive for better technologies, but the idea that nuclear energy is the worst kind is a bit outdated IMHO. You have to get power from somewhere, and every method has real and significant drawbacks/dangers.
I appreciate the thoughtfulness of this post.
I would like to travel on a side road in hippie land for just a second, as your points cover the main road very well.

"every method has real and significant drawbacks"
Every method that we are generally willing to consider.

There are ways of looking at your life that have deep impacts on power consumption ( and I don't mean replacing 'brown' consumerism with 'green' consumerism) We are habitually stuck in a way of looking at our relationship with this earth that is fragmented and destructive because we operate more in momentum than true intellience. We are using a tiny piece of information about power that we have gained through science, thus far, and it is fragmented and not understanding of the whole. Or worse, understanding and uncaring. Yet we wield it like god or like a child with a gun in it's hand( Or a Bjj'er with a year of aikido ( ).) Power is responsibility. How are we going to use it.

Anyways, I gotta get down. The soap box derby is about to start and I'm standing on my vehicle.

Last edited by jennifer paige smith : 07-11-2007 at 09:44 AM.

Jennifer Paige Smith
Confluence Aikido Systems
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2007, 09:42 AM   #28
jennifer paige smith
 
jennifer paige smith's Avatar
Dojo: Confluence Aiki-Dojo / Santa Cruz Sword Club
Location: Santa Cruz
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,049
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Hunter Lonsberry wrote: View Post
Exactly, though I am not fully certain to what extent coal gassification ameliorates radioactive particles, though I am fairly certain it reduces both NOx and SO.

I am not really aware of any technology which doesnt involve any signifigant costs (with the exception perhap of algae for biomass, methane conversion, or biodiesel), though most of the newer systems dont rely on simply using ponds. None the less, the pond or ocean approach would require a tremendous amount of space to utilize.

http://www.answers.com/topic/algaculture
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18138/

a link on that page suggests 5000-10000 gallons of fuel can be generated per acre via algae versus 18 gallons for corn.

If those statistics are true, then corn ethanol subsidies really have no place.
Corn ethanol subsidies have no place.

Jennifer Paige Smith
Confluence Aikido Systems
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2007, 11:08 AM   #29
James Davis
 
James Davis's Avatar
Dojo: Ft. Myers School of Aikido
Location: Ft. Myers, FL.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 716
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Jennifer Smith wrote: View Post
Corn ethanol subsidies have no place.
When the corn is planted, fertilized, harvested, broken down, taken to the eth processing plant, and then to the gas station, it requires the burning of more fuel. Ethanol can't be piped; it has to be trucked.
If ethanol becomes a popular fuel, the price of corn will go crazy. So will the price of poultry, beef, pork, and dairy, as corn is a source of food in all of these industries. Soft drinks, and anything else with corn syrup in it (not to mention corn), will have to be changed or just become more expensive.

All this to create a fuel that is inferior?

I'd never heard of the algae thing before, I'm gonna have to check that out!

"The only difference between Congress and drunken sailors is that drunken sailors spend their own money." -Tom Feeney, representative from Florida
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2007, 10:53 AM   #30
jennifer paige smith
 
jennifer paige smith's Avatar
Dojo: Confluence Aiki-Dojo / Santa Cruz Sword Club
Location: Santa Cruz
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,049
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote: View Post
When the corn is planted, fertilized, harvested, broken down, taken to the eth processing plant, and then to the gas station, it requires the burning of more fuel. Ethanol can't be piped; it has to be trucked.
If ethanol becomes a popular fuel, the price of corn will go crazy. So will the price of poultry, beef, pork, and dairy, as corn is a source of food in all of these industries. Soft drinks, and anything else with corn syrup in it (not to mention corn), will have to be changed or just become more expensive.

All this to create a fuel that is inferior?

I'd never heard of the algae thing before, I'm gonna have to check that out!
Already, crops in foreign (to the U.S.) countries are being bought and turned into corn fields for the production of ethanol to be used domestically. Not all, but many, were previoulsy diverse crops that fed the people in the country. Now they are mono-culture crops that strip the earth of it's fertility and are succeptible to extreme pestilence.
What is our priority as a privelidged people to choose between the two? What is our responsibility as the most finacially/militarily agressive country in the world (perhaps a mild exaggeration) to allow other people their right to eat and be?
We have the luxury of time to think and time to be, still. But it won't be long until our food is turned into long road trip summer vacations and excessive trips to the grocery store etc....
When do we accept that we are smarter than this?
Food for thought.
Jen Smith

Last edited by jennifer paige smith : 07-12-2007 at 10:56 AM.

Jennifer Paige Smith
Confluence Aikido Systems
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2007, 07:10 PM   #31
tarik
 
tarik's Avatar
Dojo: Iwae Dojo
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 538
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Mark Uttech wrote: View Post
I find this sort of reasoning totally absurd. I read an article in Turning Wheel ( a publication oif the Buddhist Peace Fellowship) that there is a lake in russia that is so radioactive, that if you went there and stood on its shore for 1/2 hour, you would be dead inside of a week. Radiation doesn't have a shelf life. It literally hangs around for a few thousand years. So the dosage you receive from something simple like a chest xray becomes double by the next chest xray, triple by the next, and so on, and so forth.
This violates my understanding of physics.

Radiation is not a poison like a chemical is a poison. Radiation is not contagious. You have to be directly exposed. Radiation is a transmission of energy, in exactly the same way that the sun transmits energy.

One does not get exposed to raditation and keep it in their body and become radioactive; that popular idea is a myth. All that an individual keeps from exposure to radiation is any damage the radiation causes, such as burns. What is so insidious is that certain forms of radiation can cause damage internally instead of merely the sunburn that we generally get from the sun.

You receive more radiation if you live in Denver than if you live near Three Mile Island. Radiation is to be respected, but fear of radiation is very overblown.

The power of a nuclear explosion is terribly awesome and horrible and I don't know many people in favor of such weapons and the effects of radiation and fallout should not be trivialized at all; but they also should not have been exaggerated into mythological proportions which they have in the last 60 years.

People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today and if you look at modern day pictures of ground zero, you might be surprised.

IMO, today's global warming, if it is human caused, can be attributed to the modern environmental movement which has actively prevented the growth and use of nuclear power in favor of burning coal and natural gas, which have significant environmental cost including the atomization of more uranium into the atmosphere each year than any nuclear power plant has ever exposed the environment to.

Now, you might imagine I'm a conservative Republican by reading this, but you'd be quite wrong. I am an advocate for factual science studied and practiced by scientists, rather than peace activists (nothing against them, just their lack of interest in real science when it occurs).

Regards,

Tarik Ghbeish
Jiyūshin-ryū AikiBudō - Iwae Dojo

MASAKATSU AGATSU -- "The true victory of self-mastery."
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2007, 05:26 AM   #32
Mark Uttech
Dojo: Yoshin-ji Aikido of Marshall
Location: Wisconsin
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,224
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Tarik, do you care to comment on Lake Karachay? I welcome this discussion, because I think it is an important educational discussion, or could become one.

In gassho,

Mark

- Right combination works wonders -
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2007, 11:44 PM   #33
tarik
 
tarik's Avatar
Dojo: Iwae Dojo
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 538
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Mark Uttech wrote: View Post
Tarik, do you care to comment on Lake Karachay? I welcome this discussion, because I think it is an important educational discussion, or could become one.
Mayak and Lake Karachay, as well as Chernobyl are terrible tragedies, especially because they were totally unnecessary.

The designs and practices used in those facilities were already known to be extremely dangerous and were abandoned in the US and UK in the 1940's and 1950's because of our understanding of the dangers of those designs.

The Soviet Union made some very poor choices with regards to their nuclear program, selecting designs that were already known to be fatally flawed. It was a price the leadership of the time was willing to pay in their rush to catch up during the Cold War.

My commentary was mainly focussed on the common misapprehension of radioactive poisoning. The danger is in the spreading of the radioactive materials, not people or creatures that were exposed to those materials, except perhaps if they've ingested the material.

Regards,

Tarik Ghbeish
Jiyūshin-ryū AikiBudō - Iwae Dojo

MASAKATSU AGATSU -- "The true victory of self-mastery."
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2007, 06:50 AM   #34
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
This violates my understanding of physics.

Radiation is not a poison like a chemical is a poison. Radiation is not contagious. You have to be directly exposed. Radiation is a transmission of energy, in exactly the same way that the sun transmits energy.

One does not get exposed to raditation and keep it in their body and become radioactive; that popular idea is a myth. All that an individual keeps from exposure to radiation is any damage the radiation causes, such as burns. What is so insidious is that certain forms of radiation can cause damage internally instead of merely the sunburn that we generally get from the sun.

You receive more radiation if you live in Denver than if you live near Three Mile Island. Radiation is to be respected, but fear of radiation is very overblown.

Regards,
I very much agree, Tarik. From my lessons in physics, there are three types of radiation: alpha and beta particles and gamma rays. For all you comic book types, gamma rays are what turned mild mannered Bruce Banner into the Hulk.

And exposure is a matter of how much particles and rays penetrate the body. Once that happens, it's a matter of how much damage has been caused by the particles and rays. You do not carry radioactivity within after being exposed.

Anyway, alpha particles are easily stopped by skin. Beta has a more penetrating depth, but not really that bad. I think certain fabrics or materials can stop them (not 100% sure on that).

What is the real killer is gamma rays. This is where lead comes into the picture because gamma rays are just that, waves of energy and not a particle. It's harder to stop and takes more substance to stop them. If something is giving off gamma rays, then it is also giving off alpha and beta particles.

All radioactive material has a half life. And I'm nowhere near a physicist level to describe the conditions that create "half life" in radioactive materials. If you want to know, the web, I'm sure, has tons of info.

Mark
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2007, 04:17 AM   #35
Mark Uttech
Dojo: Yoshin-ji Aikido of Marshall
Location: Wisconsin
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,224
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Thanks to Tarik and Mark Murray for your comments. I completely agree that fear of radiation is very much overblown, much like the early fears associated with AIDS. Is there a website you guys recommend where I can educate myself more as regards nuclear energy and its drawbacks? I have always considred it imperative that aikidoka continue their education to become ware of the world situation.

In gassho,

Mark

- Right combination works wonders -
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2007, 07:05 AM   #36
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Mark Uttech wrote: View Post
Thanks to Tarik and Mark Murray for your comments. I completely agree that fear of radiation is very much overblown, much like the early fears associated with AIDS. Is there a website you guys recommend where I can educate myself more as regards nuclear energy and its drawbacks? I have always considred it imperative that aikidoka continue their education to become ware of the world situation.

In gassho,

Mark
Hi Mark,

You're welcome. Glad they helped.

Most people have no idea how many nuclear power plants are up and running in the U.S. Check out this site for that information and more concerning each power plant:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear.../statesal.html

As for education? Too many sites out there and I haven't really looked into it for a long time. Hopefully someone else has kept up and can post some links.

Here's one that talks about nuclear power. Has some interesting opinions. As far as I can tell, the facts they use seem true.

http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/14/6/2

Hope that gets you started,
Mark
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2007, 12:18 PM   #37
tarik
 
tarik's Avatar
Dojo: Iwae Dojo
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 538
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Sorry for the delay in responding. Here's another article concerning coal burning. There's a lot of interesting articles on the Oak Ridge National Laboratory site.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/...t/colmain.html

Regards,

Tarik Ghbeish
Jiyūshin-ryū AikiBudō - Iwae Dojo

MASAKATSU AGATSU -- "The true victory of self-mastery."
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2007, 02:57 PM   #38
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Always, always, always...follow the money

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
This violates my understanding of physics.

Radiation is not a poison like a chemical is a poison. Radiation is not contagious. You have to be directly exposed. Radiation is a transmission of energy, in exactly the same way that the sun transmits energy.

One does not get exposed to raditation and keep it in their body and become radioactive; that popular idea is a myth. All that an individual keeps from exposure to radiation is any damage the radiation causes, such as burns. What is so insidious is that certain forms of radiation can cause damage internally instead of merely the sunburn that we generally get from the sun.

You receive more radiation if you live in Denver than if you live near Three Mile Island. Radiation is to be respected, but fear of radiation is very overblown.

The power of a nuclear explosion is terribly awesome and horrible and I don't know many people in favor of such weapons and the effects of radiation and fallout should not be trivialized at all; but they also should not have been exaggerated into mythological proportions which they have in the last 60 years.

People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today and if you look at modern day pictures of ground zero, you might be surprised.

IMO, today's global warming, if it is human caused, can be attributed to the modern environmental movement which has actively prevented the growth and use of nuclear power in favor of burning coal and natural gas, which have significant environmental cost including the atomization of more uranium into the atmosphere each year than any nuclear power plant has ever exposed the environment to.

Now, you might imagine I'm a conservative Republican by reading this, but you'd be quite wrong. I am an advocate for factual science studied and practiced by scientists, rather than peace activists (nothing against them, just their lack of interest in real science when it occurs).

Regards,
Great. All very good information about radiation. But something is missing from the picture.

Tarik is right: radiation, in and of itself, is nothing to be afraid of. As you are reading this, minute particles radiation from the monitor are invading your body. You will get far more radiation from the sun than from any other source in your life, most likely.

But...and, it is a big "but..."

When you consider nuclear power (just as when you consider ANY kind of technology), you have to also consider just who is running the show, who is manufacturing and storing the nuclear power, and the waste. Nuclear power is NOT run by people with your best interests in mind: they are interested in the bottom dollar.

Nuclear power has been around since the early part of the 20th Century...when was the last time you've heard of a scientific breakthrough in nuclear storage or in reducing the waste that we've already stored? All that waste, where's it going, and what guarantees do we have of its safe storage?

I used to live in Hunter's Point, in SF. In WW2 Hunter's Point had a major role in shipbuilding for the war-effort. It ALSO had a major role in nuclear storage (all in secret of course: you'll find little about it in the headlines of the times) and in dumping toxic chemicals of all kinds into the Bay. A lot of that waste is still around, some of it in leaky containers stashed around the grounds of the Point (some of it was dumped in the Bay).

This is how the nuclear industry deals with its waste...they store it (mostly, in containers that are not up to the job) and hope that ppl will forget about it, because they have no other way to safely get rid of it...even to this day. The term "half life" refers to half the time it takes for a radioactive substance to degrade and become un-radioactive. Plutonium has a half life of about 50,000 (meaning, literally forever, in human experience). Do you really feel safe entrusting an industry motivated primarily by profit in safely storing waste that will be safe after about 100,000+ years?

But you have to give the nuclear industry credit for sheer tenacity, in getting around their little problem. Failing to come up with some sort of technology, they tried making the waste "valuable" for other uses (ie, irradiating food, which is little more than selling nuclear waste to food processing companies, so that they don't have to store it), processing it into dU ammunition, which goes very far in preserving peace in the world I'm sure , or (their latest trick), simply hiring PR flacks to appear on talk shows and physics seminars about how nuclear power will be the next great fuel for the America, if not the world. It's clean power, they say. Safe, and will never run out.

Uh huh. Funny, but they said the exact, same thing, when nuclear power first came about, in the 20th Century. All this time, you'd think that they would have made some improvements (at least, in PR), by now.

But they won't, because the companies who run nuclear power do not have to research safety improvements. The NRC, the regulating body of the gov't that oversees nuclear power: has long been in that industry's pocket and so the companies have no need to invest in storage or removal technologies.

Far more cost effective to send out spokesmen and print up glossy and slick ads on how great nuclear power is. And then there's the connection btw nuclear power and nuclear weapons...

You see, one cannot seem to exist without the other. It's one reason why BushCo is so worked up about Iran acquiring nuclear power...they have long acknowledged that one often follows the other. And so, unless you think that nuclear weapons have played a positive role in international affairs, there really is only one solution, if you believe a world of peace is possible.

There was war before nuclear weapons, but in my 40+ years living, no one has yet conclusively shown me that nuclear weapons preserve peace, or that nuclear power does anything more than create more problems, than it solves.

Last edited by Neil Mick : 07-27-2007 at 03:10 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2007, 04:17 PM   #39
James Davis
 
James Davis's Avatar
Dojo: Ft. Myers School of Aikido
Location: Ft. Myers, FL.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 716
United_States
Offline
Re: Always, always, always...follow the money

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
The term "half life" refers to half the time it takes for a radioactive substance to degrade and become un-radioactive. Plutonium has a half life of about 50,000 (meaning, literally forever, in human experience). Do you really feel safe entrusting an industry motivated primarily by profit in safely storing waste that will be safe after about 100,000+ years?
Actually, it's worse than that. A half life is the amount of time it takes for half of the substance to decay. After 50,000 years, half of the Plutonium would still be radioactive. After 100,000 years a quarter of it would still be radioactive. Then an eighth, then a sixteenth, etc.

It never really goes away. Creepy.

"The only difference between Congress and drunken sailors is that drunken sailors spend their own money." -Tom Feeney, representative from Florida
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2007, 05:46 PM   #40
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Heh, all you nuclear physicists, hold your hand up. Well, go on, people. You know that you want to. You want to be that expert on Cyberspace who knows everything. Those of you who have worked at a nuclear power plant, hold your hand up. Those who have had dealings with the NRC, go ahead.

Now that there's nary a hand up, how about some research?
For basic, basic, basic info on How nuclear radiation works:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear.htm

Got done reading that?

Next, calculate the radioactive half life of the material used in nuclear power plants. Don't know where to start? Try here. It's not that advanced.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...r/halfli2.html

Now, how about the scientific half life of plutonium instead of some wild guess?

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionu.../plutonium.htm

Here's the pertinent part:
"Plutonium has at least 15 different isotopes, all of which are radioactive. The most common ones are Pu-238, Pu-239, and Pu-240. Pu-238 has a half-life of 87.7 years. Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,100, and Pu-240 has a half-life 6,560 years. The isotope Pu-238 gives off useable heat, because of its radioactivity. "

Oh, and just in case you really feel like researching, the half life of plutonium is a "best guess". Scientists don't even know for sure. Still, the longest guess is 24,100 years and wow, that's really close to the projected 50,000 years.

Now that I'm done ranting, Mark Uttech asked a good, valid question. Instead of trying to politicize everything, how about real answers with scientific research or facts?

Mark
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2007, 06:09 PM   #41
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Nuclear Physicists Never Lie...uh huh

Quote:
Mark Murray wrote: View Post
Heh, all you nuclear physicists, hold your hand up. Well, go on, people. You know that you want to. You want to be that expert on Cyberspace who knows everything.
Big difference btw "wanting to be an expert," and arming oneself with all the facts.

Quote:
Those of you who have worked at a nuclear power plant, hold your hand up. Those who have had dealings with the NRC, go ahead.
Gosh, I had no idea that the only ppl qualified to talk about nuclear energy and power are nuclear physicists. I suppose that they are the sole class of people who wouldn't be biased by who signs their checks, either...

Quote:
Oh, and just in case you really feel like researching, the half life of plutonium is a "best guess".

Scientists don't even know for sure. Still, the longest guess is 24,100 years and wow, that's really close to the projected 50,000 years.
Ah...6,500 years makes a LOT more difference than 50,000, or 100,000+ years (in terms of human lifespan), I'm sure. Remember how well Enron took care of its "valued customers (and yeah, Mark: I CAN speak as an "expert" on how well "The Smartest Guys in the Room" "took care" of us, as I was one of those lucky souls subject to their rolling-blackouts-for-profit)? Would you trust the care and safekeeping of nuclear material (fissable for 6500+ years) to an outfit like Enron??

Well, no worries, Mark: cause you already are...

Quote:
Instead of trying to politicize everything, how about real answers with scientific research or facts?

Mark
Some people just cringe when the "non-experts" have their say. To hear it from Mark, everyone BUT nuclear physicists have no right to consider the risks of nuclear power at all.

I suppose that Mark would pooh-pooh the good works of Helen Caldicott, founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility. After all, what could a physician POSSIBLY know, about the dangers of nuclear power??

But for the rest of us (who listen to MORE than just the so-called "experts"), this might make good reading.

www.helencaldicott.com

Fuel plan beset by fossilised thinking

Quote:
Helen Caldicott wrote:
Howard's answer to global warming is the expansion of Australian uranium mining, value-added enrichment of uranium, nuclear power for Australia and the possible storage on this continent of much of the world's radioactive waste. For his part, Beazley has announced plans to expand uranium mining. Never mind that the nuclear fuel cycle - encompassing uranium mining, milling, enrichment, reactor construction and decommissioning, and radioactive waste storage for 500,000 years - creates large quantities of global warming gases, including CO2 and CFC.

Do Howard and Beazley not know, or worse, are they choosing to ignore, that nuclear power will have grave public health consequences, bestowing, as it will, leaking, long-lived nuclear waste facilities to future generations, a legacy that will engender epidemics of genetic disease and malignancies? We need politicians with knowledge, energy and courage who will move beyond the fossil fuel and nuclear eras. Is it possible to make that leap with available technology? Yes.

A recent invention in solar power by Professor Vivian Alberts at the University of Johannesburg, which uses a micro-thin metallic film, has made solar electricity five times less expensive than solar photovoltaic cells. For the first time, solar electricity is economically feasible and cheaper than coal.

But in 2004, the Prime Minister, working with uranium and coal mining interests, devised a way to pull the rug from under the burgeoning Australian wind power industry. Some campaigners aiming to discredit wind power have links to well-known deniers of climate change.

British nuclear industry allies are also known to be connected to Australian anti-wind power groups.

Tidal power, geothermal energy, cogeneration and biomass combined with conservation are some of the resources yet to be explored by Australia. According to a Bostonian Synapse Energy Economics study, electricity conservation in the US could save 28 per cent in energy efficiency. Similar figures apply to Australia.

In other words, for the first time in human history, all electricity can be generated by a combination of renewable carbon-free and nuclear-free technologies. But the forces opposing these promising developments are very powerful and have the eye and ear of the PM and Labor leader.

We need, above all, politicians who are scientifically and medically knowledgeable, not just lawyers, business men and former humanities academics who seem not to comprehend the immensely dangerous problems threatening the survival of our children, descendants and 30,000 other species that cohabit this planet.

Last edited by Neil Mick : 07-27-2007 at 06:21 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2007, 06:53 PM   #42
tarik
 
tarik's Avatar
Dojo: Iwae Dojo
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 538
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Hi Neil,

I thought you weren't going to post?

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
Tarik is right: radiation, in and of itself, is nothing to be afraid of.
Actually, that's not quite what I said.

Quote:
But...and, it is a big "but..."
Come on now, let's not get personal. My wife likes my butt the way it is.

Quote:
Nuclear power has been around since the early part of the 20th Century...when was the last time you've heard of a scientific breakthrough in nuclear storage or in reducing the waste that we've already stored?
There are plenty of breakthroughs that have occurred if you care to search them out. Quoting from Wikipedia (and there are plenty of other great sources):

"It was recently found by a study done at MIT, that only 2 or 3 fusion reactors with parameters similar to that of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) could transmute the entire annual minor actinide production from all of the light water reactors presently operating in the United States fleet while simultaneously generating approximately 1 gigawatt of power from each reactor."

The interesting thing about nuclear waste is that it can be reprocessed to remove contaminants and most of it reused again and again. This is done in most of the rest of the world, but not currently allowed in the United States.

Do you have any idea how much nuclear waste would be generated by a typical family of four over 20 years using an existing normal plant (leaving out the more modern ones we haven't been able to build for more than 20 years.) About enough waste to fit into a show box.

Do you know how much would be left if we were allowed to reprocess it for reuse? About enough to fit into a shot glass.

Quote:
All that waste, where's it going, and what guarantees do we have of its safe storage?
The great paranoia has aided in solving that problem because it has driven people to work for years to address it. Of course, to some, there is no solution that is 'good enough'. The opposition to Yucca Mountain is a great example.

Quote:
I used to live in Hunter's Point, in SF. In WW2 Hunter's Point had a major role in shipbuilding for the war-effort. It ALSO had a major role in nuclear storage (all in secret of course: you'll find little about it in the headlines of the times) and in dumping toxic chemicals of all kinds into the Bay. A lot of that waste is still around, some of it in leaky containers stashed around the grounds of the Point (some of it was dumped in the Bay).
I think we can all agree that irresponsible behavior is undesirable and should be prevented and punished. Using examples from the very infancy of the industry when this stuff was significantly less understood and during wartime and also that everyone, including the nuclear industry, now agrees was irresponsible behavior seems a bit off track, even if you are a proponent of the profit motive being ultimately a purely irresponsbile one.

Quote:
This is how the nuclear industry deals with its waste...they store it (mostly, in containers that are not up to the job) and hope that ppl will forget about it, because they have no other way to safely get rid of it...even to this day.
Actually, they store it because the anti-nuclear lobby will not allow them to re-process it to make it safer or transport it to long term storage facilities. There are MANY approaches that have been considered and many of them actually are practical. Here's another one from Wikipedia:

"A more feasible approach termed Remix & Return [11] would blend high-level waste with uranium mine and mill tailings down to the level of the original radioactivity of the uranium ore, then replace it in empty uranium mines. This approach has the merits of totally eliminating the problem of high-level waste, of providing jobs for miners who would double as disposal staff, and of facilitating a cradle-to-grave cycle for all radioactive materials"

Quote:
But they won't, because the companies who run nuclear power do not have to research safety improvements. The NRC, the regulating body of the gov't that oversees nuclear power: has long been in that industry's pocket and so the companies have no need to invest in storage or removal technologies.
Perhaps you should visit the websites already offered and read about the ongoing research that has been taking place for many years. Most of the ones I posted were government run research facilities.

Quote:
...or that nuclear power does anything more than create more problems, than it solves.
I'm not a fan of nuclear weapons, certainly, but tell that last to Japan and France, both of whom are nearly 90% on nuclear power at this time.

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
Gosh, I had no idea that the only ppl qualified to talk about nuclear energy and power are nuclear physicists.
...
Some people just cringe when the "non-experts" have their say. To hear it from Mark, everyone BUT nuclear physicists have no right to consider the risks of nuclear power at all.
Facts about physics are available regardless of qualifications. I believe Mark's point was that they should be sought out, particularly when making such momentous decisions regarding human life and our ecology. Informed decisions are always best, are they not?

Quote:
I suppose that Mark would pooh-pooh the good works of Helen Caldicott, founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility.

www.helencaldicott.com
I would. I believe she is well intentioned, but her facts are simply faulty, founded in emotions and junk science, and I'm frankly disappointed that an MD, who should understand the scientific method doesn't apply it.

Here's a rebuttal from a physics student who deliberately leaves out supporting references from the nuclear industry in his critical analysis and commentary.

http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/%7Elweston/nuclear.pdf

I offer it so that everyone can read both points of view and make their own conclusions.

Regards,

Tarik Ghbeish
Jiyūshin-ryū AikiBudō - Iwae Dojo

MASAKATSU AGATSU -- "The true victory of self-mastery."
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2007, 12:03 PM   #43
PSM
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

First of all, Nuclear power plants are not as dangerous as you'd think. There are two types of uranium, a weapons grade type with a very short half life, and a non volitile type with a very long half life. The type used in power plants is, naturally, the non volitile type. The only thing that this type of uranium can do is make water steam. Thats it. It is also a common misconception that if someone tries to blow the plant, it will cause a radical volitile, explosion of deadly radiation that will kill everything on its path. At Cherynobl, the only people who died or were affected in a negative way were those inside the plant and those in the immidiate area. As a matter of fact, research shows that those were were out of the killzone actually benefitted. There is a theory called hormesis that is accepted by society and you may not even know it. Ever heard of drinking a small amount of wine can help you? Getting 15 minutes of sun a day will cause vitamin c to produce in your body, but if you get too much, you get a sunburn. The same is true with radiation. A certain amount helps you, a little more doesnt affect you at all, and too much harms you.

Which brings me to my next point. The people outside of the blast zone during Hiroshima, etc... have benefitted! they have longer life spans, healthier bodies, etc... Ever been to a radiation spa? They have a few all over the world, even in the USA. They are natural areas of extremely high amounts of radiation, easily 100 times over the amount for recommended exposure by the government. People have gone for treatment and have had disease and ailments removed at a rapid rate.

So, does this mean we should try to eradicate all radiation from the world? The funny thing is, our own bodies produce more radiation that that of the granite in Grand central Station.

So it all comes down to weapons grade vs non volitile. Nuclear bombs explode, Nuclear power plant simmer water, causing steam. Nuclear power plants create more energy for society, extremely lower amounts of waste per plant (compared to coal). In the USA right now, we currently have 101 Nuclear plants. they supply about 20% of our power. How many coal plants do we have? If we switched to nuclear power, we could spend less money on energy, have more, and, believe it or not, it would be better for the air and less maintenance.

So far, there have only been 2 Nuclear power plants around the world that have malfunctioned (exploded). Think about 2, vs the thousands of plants that affect people and cause more pollution, extra waste and less efficiancy.



As you can see, Nuclear Plants output the least amount or so called harmful materials, while providing the most power.

(But, just in case of an explosion, these plants should probably be placed a certain mileage away from society)

Switching to Nuclear power would supply political parties, citezens and the government with all of their needs, with more efficiancy and ease.

Last edited by PSM : 07-31-2007 at 12:06 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2007, 04:04 PM   #44
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Philippe St. Marseille wrote: View Post
Switching to Nuclear power would supply political parties, citezens and the government with all of their needs, with more efficiancy and ease.
You make some great points.......but why is ALL that land around Chernobyl uninhabitable now?

And you mention placing plants some miles away from population centers......about how many miles do you suggest? Where do we have enough uninhabited land (comparable to the Chernobyl waste zone) in the US to allow us to build a plant?

Anyway, they're already built in the population centers.

All it takes is ONE accident and we almost had ours in Three Mile Island.

And think of worst cases: if terrorists were to get their hands on the controls of some of our nuclear plants, what damage could they do?

Would it really be minor?

And look at the recent earthquake in Japan that damaged a nuclear reactor, releasing radioactive material into the environment.

Are we really that confident? I know some people are, but some people ride in cars without seatbelts while talking on their phones and eating donuts.

If nuclear power is so safe, we should build nuke plants in Iraq and really put an end to our inability to keep the electricity on.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2007, 06:27 PM   #45
PSM
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Many people seem to think that it is liable that if terrorists attacked a plant and caused a 'meltdown', that it would kill "As many as 518,000 long-term deaths from cancer." (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2004). This is simply either a lie or miscalculation, as this is 3 times the amount of deaths related to and caused at Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined.

So, why would terrorist even wan't to attack a target that might kill about 50 people and possibly harm a few others. When they can attack this...



or this...



or...
1: A busy street
2: Amuesement parks
3: The White house/ other important buildings.

And about Chernobyl, the explosion only killed about 50 people.
Some poeple complained about hasving thyroid cancer, but there is also an iodine deficiancy in Chernobyl, a risk factor for this cancer.



Photo of Chernobyl, from WCPeace.org

Does it look so unihabitable?
In addition to this, the present background level of radioactivity at Chernobyl is lower than the levels emmitted by the house I am in right now.

And about where we would put the plants, Not too sure, we could find a way, but until then lets debate about wether we should go nuclear or not. Agreed?
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 10:30 AM   #46
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Philippe St. Marseille wrote: View Post
Many people seem to think that it is liable that if terrorists attacked a plant and caused a 'meltdown', that it would kill "As many as 518,000 long-term deaths from cancer." (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2004). This is simply either a lie or miscalculation, as this is 3 times the amount of deaths related to and caused at Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined.
Why is that a problem? Hiroshima and Nagasaki were attacked with the two earliest nuclear weapons on earth. Look at a chart of sizes of blast yields today. Hiroshima/Nagasaki-sized blasts are little pinheads compared to the yields of bombs developed only twenty years later. If you managed to blow up a nuclear reactor??? I don't doubt that the toll would be thousands at the very least.

Quote:
Philippe St. Marseille wrote: View Post
So, why would terrorist even wan't to attack a target that might kill about 50 people and possibly harm a few others. When they can attack this...or this...
or...
1: A busy street
2: Amuesement parks
3: The White house/ other important buildings.
Melt down one nuke plant and you can get all of those.

Quote:
Philippe St. Marseille wrote: View Post
And about Chernobyl, the explosion only killed about 50 people.
I know you're not saying that only fifty people were killed by the accident at Chernobyl. You're not, are you?

Quote:
Philippe St. Marseille wrote: View Post
Does it look so unihabitable?
In addition to this, the present background level of radioactivity at Chernobyl is lower than the levels emmitted by the house I am in right now.
So you would have me believe you'd be safer living there than in the house you're in now? Would you go and live there? Why is the area closed????

My shoe is wet, you tell me it's raining....but something smells.

Quote:
Philippe St. Marseille wrote: View Post
And about where we would put the plants, Not too sure, we could find a way, but until then lets debate about wether we should go nuclear or not. Agreed?
Debate about what? Nuke plants are all over the map, already, and they're some of the places where the US Dept. of Homeland Security has the least concern. For the same amount of money, we could put solar collectors on every home, garage, public building, parking lot and office building in the United States and have a power supply that would be constant, free from then on, decentralized, impervious to terrorist shutdowns and non-explosive.

There's nothing to debate about, though, when sheer profit-minded moguls have already put these poisonous units all across the country, pumping out waste that can't be safely handled.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 11:29 AM   #47
tarik
 
tarik's Avatar
Dojo: Iwae Dojo
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 538
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
You make some great points.......but why is ALL that land around Chernobyl uninhabitable now?
I'm not so sure it's 'uninhabitable', personally, but let's say it is. How does the Chernobyl make a relevant example when it violated known safe designs and known safety procedures of the time, which were lower than today's standards?

The relevance to me is only that if you do something stupid, you can expect disastrous results. I'll certainly agree with you that if you don't build a nuclear power plant at all, you won't even have the possibility of such a disaster, but what alternative do you offer?

I like solar energy, but it isn't economically feasible on the scale required.

I like wind energy, but same same. And do you know how many birds wind farms apparently kill. Environmentalists are starting to get up in arms about that too.

Tidal energy is nice idea, but a joke unless you do it in ways that have significant environmental impact.

Geothermal is cool (hot?), but why is it ok to use nuclear energy when the planet provides it, but not when humans do? And it only works in a few locations.

Hydroelectric has lost favor because of the damage it does to river ecologies.

More coal and natural gas plants? They're part of the problem and could be considered gross polluters.

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
And you mention placing plants some miles away from population centers......about how many miles do you suggest? Where do we have enough uninhabited land (comparable to the Chernobyl waste zone) in the US to allow us to build a plant?

Anyway, they're already built in the population centers.
I would have no problem living near a plant, but there's so much uninhabited land in the US that this is hardly worth being entered into the argument one way or the other.

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
All it takes is ONE accident and we almost had ours in Three Mile Island.
I do agree, that another incident is inevitable. However, in 60+ years, the only incident of significance has occurred when people deliberately ignored known safety designs and protocols. And that incident has caused less damage and deaths than a lot of other natural and human caused disasters that I can think of that we are happy to allow and even defend in our lives.

In 2002, nearly 71,000 people were killed by automobile accidents in the US and the UK alone. Yet we don't consider banning cars even though every year they kill on a scale comparable to all the nuclear incidents in history (including the bombs) and certainly pollute more than all the nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs have done to date in history.

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
And think of worst cases: if terrorists were to get their hands on the controls of some of our nuclear plants, what damage could they do?

Would it really be minor?
This has been seriously considered, especially since 9/11. So let's assume that they get through all the background checks required to work at the controls of nuclear plant. I mean, anything is possible, right?

Let's also consider that the Three Mile Island incident was caused largely by human errors and that automatic safety equipment that they cannot disable is largely what prevented a disaster.

Let's also consider that lessons learned from that incident and other studies and incidents over time have caused numerous design changes and changes to safety procedures.

Go read some of the supplied references above about how a nuclear plant functions and the different kinds of accidents that can occur and what some of the safeguards there are and then you tell me, how much damage could they really do?

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
And look at the recent earthquake in Japan that damaged a nuclear reactor, releasing radioactive material into the environment.
Honestly, it sounds to me like an argument made based on fear rather than knowledge and an analysis of real risk factors, at least based the facts you offer as a counter point so far.

Let's look at some facts about this incident.

Quote:
An AP article on sfgate.com wrote:
About 315 gallons of slightly radioactive water apparently spilled from a tank at one of the plant's seven reactors and entered a pipe that flushed it into the sea, said Jun Oshima, an executive at Tokyo Electric Power Co. He said it was not clear whether the tank was damaged or the water simply spilled out.

Officials said there was no "significant change" in the seawater near the plant, which is about 160 miles northwest of Tokyo. "The radioactivity is one-billionth of the legal limit," Oshima said of the leaked water.
I love how the AP writer put "significant change" in quotes. Obviously they're not good with numbers. There are approximately 1,101 billion gallons of water in the Pacific Ocean alone.

315 gallons of water one-billionth (about 90,000 Bq) the legal limit flushed into the sea after a 6.9 quake? Let's also give Greenpace the benefit of the doubt and also assume that their unquoted sources are correct and raise that radioactivity by 50%. Ok.. one and a half-billionth (135,000 Bq) the legal limit.

FWIW, medical patients who receive high doses of radiation for treatment of various cancers receive doses in the MANY millions of Bq (around say 250 million). So even if it were concentrated, the spilled waste didn't have enough radiation to treat cancer.

I haven't done the research, but one can probably find seawater along ocean vents that is naturally more irradiated than this.

BTW, worse quakes several years ago in India didn't even cause enough vibration to shut down some of the high tech hardened plants there, much less cause a leak. They put the buildings on rollers.

Quote:
Are we really that confident? I know some people are, but some people ride in cars without seatbelts while talking on their phones and eating donuts.
I agree that one cannot account for all possible accidents, but I'd also say all current evidence suggests that the dangers are largely predictable and manageable, particularly compared to many of the alternatives.

But if you have alternatives to offer, I'm open to hearing them and lobbying for them.

I plan on adding solar panels to my house, but again, they don't work at night, aren't all that efficient, and placed in a desert or even at sea at the scale required (this is easily calculated) to meet societies needs would have a huge environmental impact that I believe is would be undesirable.

Quote:
If nuclear power is so safe, we should build nuke plants in Iraq and really put an end to our inability to keep the electricity on.
Sarcasm feels good, but isn't so useful in making a real factual point.

It's not a conspiracy that prevents cheap and easily renewable electricity from succeeding. If the economies of scale are there, it will radically change the energy industry, and the industry knows it and is actively researching many more sources of cheap and easily renewable energy because they know that if it can be found, they will make that huge profit that Neil mentioned and seems to find deplorable.

The pioneers that are using bio-diesel and other sources are admirable and far sighted and may be on the cutting edge of future energy sources, but today they pay far more than the average consumer for their energy and also refuse to acknowledge the environmental impacts of their sources which are negligible today largely because the scale is minuscule.

Regards,

Tarik Ghbeish
Jiyūshin-ryū AikiBudō - Iwae Dojo

MASAKATSU AGATSU -- "The true victory of self-mastery."
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 11:45 AM   #48
PSM
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

I'm not sure about what everyone here believes about global warming, but if you'll notice, nuclear plants make the least amount of emmisons, and waste, overall. You can look above in my first post and notice these measures. Or here, for solar vs nuclear

Nuclear vs Solar

Greenhouse gas emmisions (supposibly causing global warming)
-Nuclear= 2-59 30.5 (bold = 1/2 of range #'s)
-Solar = 12-731 371.5

SO2 emmisions (Sulfur Oxides)
-N=3-50 26.5
-S=24-490 257

NOx emmisions (nitrogen Oxide)
-N=2-100 51
-S=16-340 178

NMVOC (pollution)
-N=0 0
-S=70 70

Particle matter (also pollution)
-N=2 1
-S=12-190 101

Thats an overall average of (found by finding 1/2 of range #'s)

-N=109
-S=997.1


Here is the definition of 'particle matter' as given by the EPA

"Particulate matter," also known as particle pollution or PM, is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets. Particle pollution is made up of a number of components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles.

The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems. EPA is concerned about particles that are 10 micrometers in diameter or smaller because those are the particles that generally pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs. Once inhaled, these particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health effects.

If the whole point is to try and prevent health problems caused by radiation, by switching to these so called 'natural' sources, we will create more health problems. This can be expressed in the analogy of stopping smoking, but switching to chewing tabacco.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 02:31 PM   #49
tarik
 
tarik's Avatar
Dojo: Iwae Dojo
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 538
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
Why is that a problem? Hiroshima and Nagasaki were attacked with the two earliest nuclear weapons on earth. Look at a chart of sizes of blast yields today. Hiroshima/Nagasaki-sized blasts are little pinheads compared to the yields of bombs developed only twenty years later. If you managed to blow up a nuclear reactor??? I don't doubt that the toll would be thousands at the very least.

Melt down one nuke plant and you can get all of those.
David, now I know that you must be arguing from a position of ignorance about how a nuclear power plant functions.

Do you realize that a nuclear explosion cannot result from the materials used in a nuclear power plant?

A meltdown would be quite a disaster, but unless there was a containment breach, which is extremely unlikely, even if a plant was hit by airplanes similar to what hit the towers on 9/11, it would almost entirely mostly be an economic disaster for the company who owns the plant.

Even then, the scope of the disaster would be nothing remotely like a nuclear device set off in a populated region, which I personally think is the far more likely danger we face and need to address.

Quote:
There's nothing to debate about, though, when sheer profit-minded moguls have already put these poisonous units all across the country, pumping out waste that can't be safely handled.
Your 'fact' that the waste cannot be safely handled is based on what? The accidents that have occurred?

Regards,

Tarik Ghbeish
Jiyūshin-ryū AikiBudō - Iwae Dojo

MASAKATSU AGATSU -- "The true victory of self-mastery."
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 02:53 PM   #50
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
I'm not so sure it's 'uninhabitable', personally, but let's say it is. How does the Chernobyl make a relevant example when it violated known safe designs and known safety procedures of the time, which were lower than today's standards?
That just means the accident was easier. As time goes by, our super-safe plants will slack off. Think NASA after bunches of safe shuttle flights. Then comes the Challenger in 1986. Ooops. Tighten up for 17 years....until...was it Columbia? 2003? Ooops.

We nearly had our own meltdown at Three Mile Island. When will something worse happen? And it is not "if" but "when."

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
The relevance to me is only that if you do something stupid, you can expect disastrous results.
Exxon Valdez.....neglect of the levees in New Orleans....going into Iraq on the Prezzy's personal grudge.....

A nuclear event is just waiting to happen.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
I like solar energy, but it isn't economically feasible on the scale required.
That's a very common statement, but if they put a third of the money into solar that they're putting into nuclear, we would all be living on free energy now. But that's the problem, isn't it? That's the real problem: our nation's energy policy, courtesy of Cheney and ENRON, does not want us having free energy or even cheap energy. The powers that be want to enrich the already-rich at our own expense--we pay for their enrichment through tax dollars, then through utility bills. So no solar and yes nukes.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
I like wind energy, but same same.
Yes. Exactly the same.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
And do you know how many birds wind farms apparently kill. Environmentalists are starting to get up in arms about that too.
There are wind turbine designs that don't kill birds.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
I would have no problem living near a plant, but there's so much uninhabited land in the US that this is hardly worth being entered into the argument one way or the other.
But that's not where they put the plants, is it? No.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
I do agree, that another incident is inevitable.
Really? Where do you suppose it will be and how many people do you really think will die (both suddenly and through slow, painful illnesses)?

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
However, in 60+ years, the only incident of significance has occurred when people deliberately ignored known safety designs and protocols.
But we agree that it will happen again.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
...we don't consider banning cars even though every year they kill on a scale comparable to all the nuclear incidents in history (including the bombs) and certainly pollute more than all the nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs have done to date in history.
I don't agree with that. The existing nuclear waste simply hasn't gotten out yet. It will. It may take 100 or 200 years, but it's bound to get loose.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
This has been seriously considered, especially since 9/11. So let's assume that they get through all the background checks required to work at the controls of nuclear plant. I mean, anything is possible, right?
In this case, highly likely and almost inevitable, given the competence of our current government.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
Go read some of the supplied references above about how a nuclear plant functions and the different kinds of accidents that can occur and what some of the safeguards there are and then you tell me, how much damage could they really do?
Well, I was actually refering to terrorists commandeering a plant by force--not by infiltration. Or flying a jet into a plant, etc., etc.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
Honestly, it sounds to me like an argument made based on fear rather than knowledge and an analysis of real risk factors, at least based the facts you offer as a counter point so far.
It's based on the history of profit-minded people laying waste to any and all who stand between them and greater wealth. And you agree that another accident is inevitable, so....

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
Let's look at some facts about this incident. (Of the Japanese nuke plant damaged in the recent earthquake)

An AP article on sfgate.com wrote:
About 315 gallons of slightly radioactive water apparently spilled from a tank at one of the plant's seven reactors and entered a pipe that flushed it into the sea, said Jun Oshima, an executive at Tokyo Electric Power Co. He said it was not clear whether the tank was damaged or the water simply spilled out.

Officials said there was no "significant change" in the seawater near the plant, which is about 160 miles northwest of Tokyo. "The radioactivity is one-billionth of the legal limit," Oshima said of the leaked water.


I love how the AP writer put "significant change" in quotes. Obviously they're not good with numbers. There are approximately 1,101 billion gallons of water in the Pacific Ocean alone.

315 gallons of water one-billionth (about 90,000 Bq) the legal limit flushed into the sea after a 6.9 quake? Let's also give Greenpace the benefit of the doubt and also assume that their unquoted sources are correct and raise that radioactivity by 50%. Ok.. one and a half-billionth (135,000 Bq) the legal limit.
I don't know when the quote came from. At first they said there was no damage, then a small leak, then a release....and the Japanese have a long history of covering up disastrous things like this. We have no way of judging (from a "company" statement) how bad this really was or how close it came to being much, much worse.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
...if you have alternatives to offer, I'm open to hearing them and lobbying for them.
Yeah. Fork half the nuclear funds over to an all-out solarization of every possible building in the United States. Make every possible surface a solar collector. Provide tax credits to home owners. Create a completely decentralized solar energy system that cannot be disrupted by terrorists and which would produce virtually zero pollution (only what is involved in the original manufacture of cells that have lifespans proven to be greater than thirty years: no one knows how long they can ultimately go--whereas a nuclear plant is only good for about thirty years before it has to be permanently decommissioned). Get behind that.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
I plan on adding solar panels to my house, but again, they don't work at night, aren't all that efficient, and placed in a desert or even at sea at the scale required (this is easily calculated) to meet societies needs would have a huge environmental impact that I believe is would be undesirable.
Would you rather see the Chernobyl environs as they are or with the environmental impact of having solar collectors on every house, public building, industrial site and business in the region? Give me the solar cells.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
Sarcasm feels good, but isn't so useful in making a real factual point.
My point is that where there is a possibility of terrorism, nuclear plants are like holding a gun to your own head while someone else can fire it via cell phone. We can stay in Iraq fifty years and the danger of terrorism here will be as great as it is now because the terrorists aren't going to "follow us home" from iraq. They are already here.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
It's not a conspiracy that prevents cheap and easily renewable electricity from succeeding.
Then why aren't Americans, even CONGRESS, able to know who even attended the meetings where Lord Cheney determined our national energy policy? We know that Enron boys were among them. We know that Enron did engage in specific conspiracy to inflate energy prices around the country even while screwing their stockholders. Do you suppose there might be somethinge else that we don't yet know?

Yes. It is conspiracy.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
If the economies of scale are there, it will radically change the energy industry, and the industry knows it and is actively researching many more sources of cheap and easily renewable energy because they know that if it can be found, they will make that huge profit that Neil mentioned and seems to find deplorable.
Their best and cheapest profit is having a government that supports their plunder of the American citizens. What motive do they have to support a system that would allow each homeowner to have independent power production plus being able to charge the power company for the excess power they produce?

The economies of scale would be there if the US government put a fraction of the money on solar that they have contributed to the nuclear industry. They won't.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dead Zone aikidoc General 7 02-23-2003 07:24 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:35 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2016 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2016 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate