grafikfeast; you'r right, it is unfair to demean someone purely on appearance. However Einstein was/is a genius; and that is what would always shines through, irrespective of appearances. With respect, what I was rather ham-fistedly trying to say, if a person deliberately sets our to look like a plonker and then presents un-differentiated bits of information and personal opinion as fact, however genuine that person believes it to be true, he/she will still sadly sound like a plonker.
You have to wonder about the credibility of a man who, presumably willingly, grows such ridiculous looking hair on his face. Do a little more research on LFTR's you might well uncover some surprising facts.
@awakeamericanow... Again attacking someone over appearance leaves you w/ little credibility. WTF has that got to do w/ anything? Tell your hair comment to Einstein you fool.
Saul, what are you talking about? Nuclear plants produce all these wastes that are radioactive basically forever, and cause all kinds of cancers. It is not clean safe & certainly not healthy. Look at my last post about deaths from Chernobyl. Then know that studies are finding increased cancer rates around nuclear power plants, especially in children who are more vulnerable to the radionuclides mutating their DNA. That's what to fear. Plus the next accident and the leak like at Vermont nr u
nuclear energy is clean has no carbon emissions, does not effect the environment. it lasts for thousands of years so can be considered a renewable source of energy. the days of chernobyl are long gone, and the reactors are way more advanced. there is no danger to it, and those who oppose are ignorant of the facts
@saulwilliams56 You bought the dog, Saul W. Spouting like a radioactive mass media FOX geyser. Sounds good doesn't it? Know about the Vermont reactor leaking tritium into the Connecticut River? Indian Point in Westchester with its radioactive plume 300 feet from the Hudson River? Ova 500 radionuclides are produced in every nuclear reactor & are cancer causers. They make take 5 or 10 or 30 years to cause your lung or bone marrow cancer. Wind & solar are safe renewable resources nah nuclear
@conradmillermd thats no more radiation than what is produced by x-rays in a hospital. nuclear is safe, clean and healthy. this is the 21st century and reactors,governments regulate powerplants to make sure they are safe and are not leaking radiation. what is the fear?
@saulwilliams56 Look at the diagram of a boiling water reactor that make up about 35% of our nuclear plants. The cooling pond is like a bathtub up ABOVE the reactor core, only protected by a tin roof! There is a picture on my website in the nuclear power chapter I posted that you can read for free. Website is chapter is clickable on left side of homepage. Bright color diagram is at end of chapter page 73.
@saulwilliams56 Whoops! what about the 930,000 who have died prematurely as a result of the Chernobyl accident? Are you aware that just one microgram of plutonium can cause lung cancer, as discovered in the Hanford beagle studies? If you do the math, there are 454 micrograms in one pound so just one pound of plutonium can theoretically cause 454 million lung cancers if dispersed in small enough particles from an explosion or fire - as the graphite fire that burned for 10 days at Chernobyl.
@conradmillermd chernobyl will NEVER EVER EVER happen again. the reactor at chernobyl was supose to have 32 carbon rods in the heavy water, however they did an experiement to see it could have only 12 rods, they were wrong and the reactor overheated and collapsed in on itself allowing the radiation to leak. this was an experiment which will NEVER happen again because people know the circumstances. not to forget, that was the 1960s, the reactors have changed greatly, and are alot more safe
@saulwilliams56 so Saul, what do you think now? Jimmy Breslin said "It takes absolutely nothing to go against public opinion because public opinion is wrong to hold and insane to herald because it is made of a choir of crickets. The sameness of the sound tells you the amount of thought. Nobody stops to realize that something can happen five minutes from now and everybody instantly will think differently. [e.g., think: Fukushima and nuclear power]"
@conradmillermd ooh youre full crap, you cant look at fukushima and say there we cant use nuclear power after that! the obvious decision to make is move nuclear power plants to higher ground in case of another tsunami, and this was a thousand year event, aint gonna happen again in your life time. nuclear power is very clean it has no carbon emssions, would you rather we use fossil fuels? france gets most of its electricity from nuclear power, do they have problems? no.
@saulwilliams56 It's hard to believe you can think like this with Fukushima destroyed and venting radiation all around the planet. This radiation will probably kill millions, yes millions, of people, worse than Chernobyl. There are six wounded smoking radionuclide leaking plants involved here, most of the radiation coming from fuel pools, which have a much higher inventory than do the reactor cores. Do you understand that radiation can cause cancer and genetic mutations? Think, Saul.
@conrad i told you nuclear power is safe, which it is unless disater happen like the tsunami. but how many of them happen? it was a thousand year event. if a disater happens nothing can be done to help. the problem here isnt nuclear power, its the tsunami which caused it. in places where disater is unlikely to happen, nuclear power is safe. and what other power are we suposed to use? fossil fuels? which leaves us dependent on oil from the middle east? or gas which leaves us dependent on russia?
@saulwilliams56 Hi Saul, look at Fukushima. The problem basically is that nuclear power is NOT safe nor clean. These plants vent gases that deteriorate 2 strontium, which your body mistakes for calcium, & gets into kids bones & bone marrow, causing cancer & leukemia. That's one thing they're finding around nuclear plants, now that they're doing studies. Accidents- They occur. & these plants cannot handle them. If a plane crashes into the tin roof of a BWR reactor it'll hit the fuel pool!
@conradmillermd yes but planes dont normally crash into reactors on a daily basis do they? thats my point, the only thing that causes the nuclear power plants to leak radiation is if a disaster happened big enough to kill the people first, eg the tsunami which has killed more than the radiation leaked after.
@saulwilliams56 but Saul, this is what can happen. Are U aware that the ORIGINAL plan for 9/11 was to kamikaze those planes into nuclear power plants? They're such easy targets. Reason nuke plants are situated on water, like rivers, is they need so much water 2 cool the plants. They're not going to put them up in the mountains. For better understanding, check this video recorded March 5, 2011, 6 days before Fukushima, so you get a better picture: Karl Grossman videos interview w Dr. Sherman
@MarsMoonEuropa No Mars, nuclear plants are VERY vulnerable to jet planes crashing especially into their fuel pools. 35% of our reactors are like Fukushima Mark I made by GE where fuel pool is NOT covered by thick steel cover, but is elevated above the core under a thin metal shield. Original plan for 9/11 was to crash the 4 planes into nuclear plants, but then Al Qaeda decided this could get "out of hand" and did what they did instead. Fuel pools loaded with plutonium, 1 microgram fatal dose
@conradmillermd Well, at least the new ones are. And I could bet my life that even if the old ones aren't rated as being Jet plane proof, then even if a Boeing-747 crashed into it, it would be fine.
Fukushima is an excellent example of the safety of Nuclear Reactors. Fukushima is -- a Tonka Truck. An unassailable beastie almost impossible to knock down. It took a magnitude nine earthquake with a huge tsunami to cause some economic damage.
@MarsMoonEuropa How about some basic info MarsMoon? Do you comprehend that radiation can be harmful, that beams are emitted that strike DNA and can mutate it or kill the cells outright that are struck by the beams? Do you understand half life and what cancer is? Denial is beautiful and death is great? Pie in the sky, and Osama bin Laden under the sea. Do you believe Al Qaeda exists? Read a little about radiation before you post your next message please.
@conradmillermd LOL. Sorry Conrad, but thats almost as bad as saying your going be fried by the sun tomorrow just because it's hot and it's there! And just as bad as the Moon Landing Skeptics claiming that a bit of radiation makes it impossible to reach the moon! Just because radiation doesn't mean we can't solve the problem and send people to the moon!
@conradmillermd LOL Conrad, sorry but thats just as bad as saying the sun is going to fry us tomorrow because it is hot and dangerous, and the Moon Landing Skeptics that say that just because there is some radiation in space means that we couldn't land on the moon. Just because there is some harmful radiation in space does not mean we can't deal with it!
@conradmillermd Look here, there is deadly radiation and if your stupid enough to stand by it you will get killed. But, Conrad, this is where your theory falls onto it's head! Because we can deal with the radiation! As sure as petrol will kill you if you spill it over you and light it up, we set the radiation aside in safe places. Just like keeping the petrol in the car where it belongs.
If we check the facts we find that there is very little radioactive waste produced. Of the little waste produced we can store it safely for hundreds upon thousands of years without affecting humans and the environment. And the Nuclear Plants themselves are safe enough to stop radiation exposure.
Did you know that radiation occurs naturally in our environment?
@saulwilliams56 why all the nuclear supporters all seems so rude and always shouting? is it becoz that makes your points Sound more convincing? I can see @conradmillermd tried soo hard to bear your rude comments and keep calm to explain his point which are more reasonable than your shout out opinion. I'm really sad to see your comments like you wish AQ had attack the nuke plants in 911 and your heartless sense to fukushima.
@OrionWong1pfft, i just cant understand why people who arent educated on the matter, think they know everything about nuclear power saying that its dangerous because a tsunami caused one to leak. dont you get the message? it was a tsunami, doesnt happen everyday, and wont happen again in your life time. earthquakes are the probelm not nuclear power. what other alternative energy should we use?
@conradmillermd The problem is you have clearly not done the math personally. Chernobyl was a terrible incident, that cant be argued, but it was when the soviet was at its worst, with a reactor that was bad even at the standards of the day. 930,000 is a gross exaggeration. No plant built today would be anywhere close to being as dangerous as the Chernobyl plant.
@prophetnite Where is your math? What is Fukushima? A hula hoop contest? All these reactors may meltdown. Radiation spewing then all around the planet. 930,000 deaths is SO FAR prematurely caused by Chernobyl. Check other comments here: book by Alexei Yablokov published in English by NY Academy of Science. Look at videos from Chernobyl day for images of cover of the book. Fukushima is what can happen with any nuclear plant. We have 23 of same reactors right here in USA out of our 104.
@Groundonrage Should we expect nothing to change? Solar & wind could supply all the homes of America with electricity within a decade. Right now, wind power has the lead of these two forms of renewable energy. In fact, tho few know this the USA now leads the world in windpower megawattage with China & Germany behind us. Remember, one 2.5 megawatt Clipper can supply 675 homes w electricity. USA put up 10,000 megawatts of wind in 2009=3 nuclear plants no cancer/pollution Project 4 7 yrs.
nuclear energy is completely safe, clean and effective. Wind and Solar provide NO WHERE NEAR as much energy as nuclear and fossil fuels do. And their efficiency is horrible and highly expensive to produce and maintain. So when looking at the only real options we have. There is fossil fuel, nuclear, hydro, and soon to being a reality fusion. Which will hopefully replace them all.
@EpiDemic117 You know why solar and wind aren't as efficient yet... because there is more money in non-renewable dirty energy. How can you charge someone to use the sun?! We have the technology to embrace solar and wind, it's just not being used or allowed to be used. Nonrenewable energy receives MUCH more funding.
In order to make wind power cost effective it must be employeed in areas where there is constant wind! such as in the ocean or high up in the stratosphere!!
This gentleman is absolutely right. The waste is not the only prob,even under normal conditions the plants spread low radioavtivity into the environment. And a 100 % save storing place for the nuclear waste is impossible to find. (Who takes care of it in 10.000 years anyway?) Our german government passed a law to get out of nuclear energy in the long run. The USA is such a great nation and country and should maybe develop efficient wind energy plants and solar energy systems as well.
"Studies based on data pooled from areas around several nuclear plants, compared with pooled data from control areas, which are less likely to be affected by small area differences in the prevalence of exposure to other risk factors than those of studies based on single sites, did not in general show an increased risk for leukaemia in children living near nuclear installations either in the UK or in other jurisdictions. "
@AtheismandSkepticism Check who funded that study... bet it was the nuclear power plant. Keep in mind, companies will form their own laboratories or research companies disguised under another name.
Why don't you find out yourself instead of just throwing around wild speculations.
It's all the same with you guys. As soon as there is a study that contradicts your beliefs; instead of considering changing your mind, you shout "conspiracy" until people that oppose your views can't be bothered with you anymore.
@AtheismandSkepticism All I said was to research who funded that study because its results are a little shady and go against the norm. Sorry you couldn't handle that suggestion.
Why wouldn't a nuclear physicist know more about biology and the adverse effects of radiation on DNA and the cell and the production of cancer? Do nuclear physicists work in a vacuum? How many biology and genetics courses did you take, as an example, during your education at your various schools (after high school)? Do you think that all the materials in a nuclear plant are perfectly contained? What about the repeatedly denied tritium leaks @ Godley, Illinois & the Vermont Yankee plant?
You don't have to be a fucking doctor to know that excessive radiation exposure causes cancer, well done. but There is no statistical, peer reviewed evidence that living next to, or near a fission plant causes higher levels of cancer in the population.
And of course, disposal is perfect, but what peer reviewed studies do you have showing people have died from disposed uranium
Didn't they teach you this stuff, you know, critical thinking, in medical school?
Disposal is not perfect. As mentioned, the tritium leaks at Vermont Yankee and the Braidwood nuclear plant in Godley, Illinois, Barack Obama's home state. Then there are leaks at many old decrepit plants that only should operate 20-30 yrs and are being given extensions. Then there is the history of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, where large discharges of radiation resulted & were minimized by the powers that be. Over 300,000 prematurely dead from radioactive contamination from Chernobyl.
@conradmillermd "Then there is the history of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island," Three mile island resulted in no casualties for the record. And had a plant based from 70 and 60s era. Most of the older reactors have been retrofitted with more modern instruments, safer equipment. And tighter safety precautions. And ah yes Chernobyl. The most famous incident thanks to faulty soviet engineering and them override to many safety precautions. The damn reactor doesn't even have a concrete dome.
@EpiDemic117 Do some research, there were DOZENS of other incidents and partial meltdowns...
-Hanford site in Richland, WA where high-level radioactive waste leaked into the ground at a rate of 100 gallons per hour for 1/2 months. Since Hanford was established in 1944 it has leaked about 500,000 gallons of high-level waste into the earth.
-Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Simi Valley, CA caused the release of more than 458x the amount of radiation released by the Three Mile Island accident.
Fire consumes between one and four thousand pounds of plutonium, spreading radioactive contamination through several small towns, and into metropolitan Denver, 16 miles downwind of the plant. Over 300,000 cubic ft. of radioactive earth is shipped to a waste storage site in Idaho.
ETC ETC. These are NOT isolated incidents. I guarantee you can't find a single nuclear plant that hasn't leaked radioactive waste into a nearby community.
@conradmillermd Most modern western and European reactors have a concrete dome and containment area.and after the spent fuel is used. over 95% of it is recycled and reused. And now environmentalists are even becoming scared from the possibility of a plane hitting it..... Give me a break people, After 9/11 it aint gonna happen again. But westinghouse still made their wishes wit the new AP1000 to be plane proof to satisfy those yuppies.
There is MONEY in uranium. It's more dangerous than oil and just as profitable. Keep that in mind when pro-nuclear politicians or nuclear power plants tell you nuclear power is safe...
You are a very demanding fellow, and please refrain from profanity here or I will delete your comments. Source: Comment and analysis New Scientist, April 24, 2008 by Ian Fairlie >> excerpt: "KiKK studies (a German acronym for Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants), whose results were published this year in the International Journal of Cancer (vol 122, p 721) and the European Journal of Cancer (vol 44, p 275)." I will post a bit more in next comment...
@conradmillermd "Then there is the history of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island," Three mile island resulted in no casualties for the record. And had a plant based from the 60's. People think that Chernobyl had over 100,000 deaths when it melted down, but actually the only people that died immediately were the firefighters and there was only like 48 of them. The most in-famous incident for nuclear fission thanks to the Soviets and their not wanting to built it up to par. Know you facts first!!
published this year in the International Journal of Cancer (vol 122, p 721) and the
European Journal of Cancer (vol 44, p 275). These found higher incidences of cancers and a stronger association with nuclear installations than all previous reports. The main findings were a 60 % increase in solid cancers & a 117 per cent increase in leukaemia among young children living near all 16 large German nuclear facilities between 1980 & 2003."
Thanks for references, you are the first opponent of nuclear power that has actually responded with scientific papers when asked.
But reading the abstracts and papers doesn't give me much encouragement about your point. (Also, these studies are from 2008 (which isn't a bad thing, its just you said they were published this year)).
The correlation wasn't as strong as 60% and as stated in the abstracts "They contrast with the lack of an effect observed or expected from other studies due to low doses from routine nuclear power plant operation".
So there are as many, if not more stating a lack of correlation between proximity and cancers.
Also, they only found a correlation in 5yr olds, could it be a recent leak in German plants, and not a routine thing done by all plants around the world?
PS. So It may be these could be statistical anomalies, as they aren't consistently reproduced in other similar studies. but I would like to see any other papers you have regarding anything else you would consider harmful with regard to nuclear power plants.
I am currently doing an article on fission reactors and need some anti-nuclear arguments and you seem the most knowledgeable.
I am genuinely interested in these points, I'm hoping to be as objective as possible.
@AtheismandSkepticism Sadly studies don't mean shit as many are funded by pro-nuclear companies and politicians. "Scientific" results are so skewed and bias, it's not even worth quoting them. Common sense can tell you radiation, nuclear waste and spent fuel are known carcinogens. Why create and expose yourself to MORE known carcinogens?!
Simplified, but it is not that simple. Plutonium's half life > 24,000 yrs & hazardous life=10-20 times that about which we have to worry about it possibly causing cancer, esp. lung cancer, only one MILLIONTH of a gram possibly causing lung cancer. Nuclear plants leak, rot, yet now are being re-licensed to exist way beyond their theoretically 'safe' period of perhaps 20-30 years. Chernobyl & 3- Mile Island accidents released large amounts of radioactivity that will kill for many decades.
contaminants can cause lung cancer, and like i said what isn,t used for research is like lead and the amount released might be harmfull to travlers but life forms around will adjust to elevated backgroud radiation and develop dana repair and also those plants had melt downs which is rare and get rarer with new regulations. Oh!
Not to entertain your profane macho language, do you mean we should take nuclear power and its radiation dangers and possible cancers caused by it, like men?! Like, yeah, I'll eat this radioactively contaminated apple, or inhale that Chernobyl air like a tough hombre and LOVE it! The future I'll worry about when I'm old and decrepit. But....hmmm, what about my kids, and my wife, and my friend who got lung cancer and he didn't even smoke? wonder where his disease ever could have come from..?
Well... If you pour your nuclear waste in lakes it will kill you. You are right about that that nuclear waste is dangerous but when it is properly handled and disposed it won't kill anyone. For example coal mining kills more people in year than nuclear power have ever killed.
And what comes to your lung-cancer-friend it can strike anyone. Smoking just increases the risk.
Ahh, Chernobylcard! Chernobyl was just conceguence of stupidness and russian tehcnology.
Yeah, incinerate that plutonium and let some of it leak past the filters in that smokestack [that's what happens] and just a millionth of a gram is enough to cause lung cancer. Somebody is going to have to pay for this nuclear power. Is it going to be your lovely girlfriend? Or your poor mother? Burning plutonium is not a wise alternative to the way we create heat & steam to turn a turbine, while creating tons of radioactive waste, that NO we do not know how to isolate 4 thousands of years
No, had containment. All nuclear plants have the capability to meltdown, leak, vent dangerous radionuclides to prevent an explosion (what actually happened at Three Mile Island). My leaning is liberal conservative independent free thinking physician, every issue different so must be approached on an individual basis.
Chernobyl accident wasn't first try. It was a test that was going on that suddenly went out of control: power went from 4-7% of full power to 100 times 100% full power in less than one minute. Can happen at any nuclear reactor. Fires burned for 10 days. New reactor designs 'improved' but will always have similar risk of sudden powerful uncontrollable reaction causing disaster, meltdown, etc. and poisoning the environment surrounding the plant for tens of thousands of years. Imagine NYC.
Bull shit. Provide your evidence that Chernobyl had a containment dome and that all other reactors could have such a catastrophic meltdown as that. Also how is the environment poisoned for 'tens of thousands' of years when much of the original contamination zone around Chernobyl, an unrepeatable disaster has already been opened up.
Stated by Dr. Vladimir Chernousenko, in charge of clean up of the Chernobyl disaster. He later contracted cancer and passed away from it. Nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen has stated that a meltdown can occur at any nuclear plant. Check internet for videos in which he participates. Continued running of other Chernobyl units is a political decision and a desperate one in light of what happened. Old people want to live in their houses even if they are contaminated, perhaps not knowing dangers.
Not a good thing to call someone an 'idiot' publicly, especially when what you say isn't too smart. Denmark generates 25% of its electricity today from wind. Our Dept of Energy says the US could generate 2/3rds of its electricity just from the Dakotas' winds & the other third from Texas' winds. Nuclear is radioactive, waste, leaks, cancer, spontaneous abortions, 300,000 dead prematurely (so far) as result of Chernobyl disaster 1986. Breeder reactors have proven disastrous with sodium fires.
"Not a good thing to call someone an 'idiot' publicly"
I call it how I see it. France generates over 70% of its power from nuclear means.
Nuclear does not produce waste that can't be reprocessed in a breeder reactor. Windmills are a good idea if you don't mind killing endangered birds and distroying the environment or mind the high costs of maintenance.
Nuclear power plants do not cause health problems. That is a myth. They monitor radiation levels.
And where do they get the rest? Coal. And your 25% figure is very generous, their 2006 figures were running at about 7% wing generation where are you getting your figures from.
25% figure for generation of electricity via wind power in Denmark is from Union Of Concerned Scientists in Volume 10, No. 4, Fall 2008 issue of earthwise, page 2. Spain expects to get 30% of its electricity generated via renewables by 2010. Delta Sky magazine, March 2008, pages 70-71. Reported by John McLaughlin. Spain 'also pushing solar energy, requiring all new and renovated buildings to use solar power for part of their energy.'
Well I suppose that depends on how it is measured, overall Spain is currently at 11% renewable generation over a year, higher figures are made by looking at early morning demand percentages, with a record high of 40% achieved, but only at low demand timeperiods. I don't want you to think I'm against building any wind turbines but even with a high level of renewable you still need base load from somewhere, currently that's coal/gas. Nuclear is much preferable to that.
As a physician who knows the dangers of radiation and the reality of how just little episodes can cause major leaks and possibly catastrophes that are usually covered up [evidence: the lies that Three Mile Island caused NO problems. Google Arnie Gundersen's latest testimonies, he's a nuclear engineer], nuclear will never be preferable to any technology, Remember that just one millionth of a gram of plutonium can cause lung cancer. What else on Earth is so toxic?? That's only one radionuclide
So your now arguing that the evidence that these hundreds of thousands of people are dying is reliant on a conspiracy of silence by the entire scientific community. And you admit you are arguing in favour of coal/gas over nuclear based on your irrational fear of a repeat of Chernobyl.
How come you haven't heard about these figures? Or Mr. Gundersen? All we hear about is how wonderful nuclear power is these days, and no downside of health effects in the mainstream media. No, I am not in favor of coal or gas over wind or solar or hydropower. Anything is better than nuclear power, and the repeat of Chernobyl will occur one unfortunate day when it will be too late to say 'Of course we should never have relied on such a dangerous technology as nuclear power.'
Your joking right, nuclear gets nothing but bad press, in the UK we are building two reactors to replace eight that are closing, resulting in inevitable power outages because of uninformed hippies. And I doubt many have heard of Arnie Gundersen. But I don't see how he is that much evidence of anything except that badly run early reactors are dangerous and that some people will always try to cover up their mistakes.
Those so-called 'hippies' that are ?'uninformed' are probably better informed than you are. People know that nuclear power is foolish & dangerous & can kill them and their children. Just label them hippies and that implies they can't be practical and intelligent? There will always be mistakes. That is the problem with technology, but a nuclear power plant is not a spring loaded leapfrog. When that next accident occurs which can't be lied about, or covered up, it will be too late 2 be smart
except you are being dishonest about it, grossly overstating the probability of an accident and the consequences with your nonsense of every reactor being a potential Chernobyl. I presume you'll just be happy when we live with constant blackouts because everyone dithered over building anything but a few thousand wind turbines to replace all the coal/gas nuclear reactors that we must soon decommission.
So you admit your in favour of burning coal over nuclear power, its only practical clean alternative. I presume your going to ignore the millions that have been killed from the emissions of burning coal or the damage this does to the environment. I presume you have deluded yourself into believing 100% renewable is a practical solution.
Mankind to survive without poisoning ourselves and our planet and all the living things on it must not hurry to technologies that are poor choices, like nuclear power. Cal Tech physicist and ex-Vice Provost David Goodstein tells us that an area equivalent to 80 square miles in our SW desert(s) could provide ALL the electricity our homes need, & this could be accomplished within a decade. Similarly wind could do the same with a WWTwo type building effort of windmills. & Then there's hydropower
Have you any idea how long it would take, the cost of doing so, or the materials needed Let alone the fact that we need electricity at night, or when a dust storm has covered the panels. Same with wind, you propose bankrupting the world to build millions of turbines when much cheaper alternatives are available. I agree with you over hydro power however, but I don't think there are that many good sites left undeveloped and you always hit the environmentalists against flooding areas of wildlife.
its called waste recycling, the french do it, they take radioactive waste reprocess it into lower greade plutonim us it for power and the repeat the process untill they are left with lo radioactive lead
When adn where has the US ever been called "The Persian Gulf of Wind?" This is the first I've heard that term. And, to me, it doesn't sound like disposing of the waste is that much of a problem considering the waste disposal containers are ridiculously thick and the holes where they store these containers are so deep, it would be hundreds of thousands of year before they resurface and when they do resurface, the elements will be safe.
'The Persian Gulf of Wind' has been quoted in many many places including The Nation magazine. The Dept of Energy has stated that theoretically just the states of North and South Dakota could supply 2/3'rds of US electricity needs; Texas could supply the other third.
As for the thickness and holes, no material has been proved to safely isolate radioactive waste for more than 100 years. We're talking about radioactivity for hundreds of thousands of years, and then there are rivers and aquifers.
Oh and not to mention all the great jobs nuclear power creates... something the economies of today NEED.
Not to mention that nuclear power plants DON'T kill millions of migratory birds every year, and mess peoples heads up by emitting low frequency noise causing head aches. BTW where do you get 1000MW = a nuke plant? smallest one here is 3000MW.
What country are you from? Studies are showing that around nuclear plants there are higher incidences of cancers & spontaneous abortions (due to mutations, presumably from the radiation leaks & releases & ventings from the plants). Look at the whole picture. Why use the most toxic form of power to better our world? Nothing is more toxic than radioactive waste. Which we still do not know how to store perfectly for the hundreds of thousands of years necessary to do so...
And what reality are you from? At worst, studies show that communities surrounding Nukes have no difference in health or cancer rates, and at best, health is actually better.
Also, when this idiot talks about Pu being radioactive for 500,000 years, he also fails to say, "Hey, you could swallow a cup full of pure Pu-239 and you're more likely to die of heavy metal poison, but not because of radioactivity."
The longer the waste lasts, the less toxic it is. That is basic Nuclear Physics.
Excuse me with your word, idiot. Yes, you can hold plutonium in your hand, but the problem is the particle(s) that get into one's lung and causes lung cancer after 20-30 years. An unmarked unlabelled cancer. There are studies showing increased childhood cancers surrounding nuclear plants. Will quote you one in the next comment, Dear Respectful Sir.
Also did you know that some of the hazardous byproducts are beneficial to mankind? Like tritium for example. You speak of it like it is so very bad and nobody should ever come near it, but it does in fact have many uses. It is used in medical research and fission research. It can also be used to make lights which require no electricity at all.
Wonderful. And we have to further the production and usage of nuclear waste by embracing the use of tritium, which IS cancer-causing. Why not pass a little more time, do more research, and use something that is non-toxic and non-radioactive?
Then is remotely put into a container underwater. (container is 20 inches of concrete lined with steel) Then the top is remotely welded shut, then they release the water inside it through another hole, then fill it with helium, weld the hole shut then store in a building on site. Then from siting there for some time, it will be transported to a deep repository buried underground more than 600m in limestone rock then eventually sealed. Nobody will get any radiation poisoning, or exposed.
you are right that is how we currently store our waste, but it would be much more efficient to recycle the waste. the waste is simply sent through a filter which filters out the biproducts,(various heavy metals, carbon, boron, etc.) then it is reenriched and put back in the reactors. it is extremely efficient and the yield is extremely high. three uranium pellets can supply a family of 4 with enough energy for 20 years.
Isotope is still radioactive enough to cause, in the case of plutonium, lung cancer after thousands of years. Yes, you might be able to hold the plutonium in your hand without dying, but that is not the story. If the plutonium sits in your lung, son, it can cause lung cancer, tho it may take 30 years to do this. The plutonium is not 'the stuff' that dies off unfortunately, with its 240,000 to 480,000 year hazardous life. Yucca Mt has 33 earthquake faults and many earthquakes happening recent
Obviously, no person will be exposed to direct radioactive waste (I shall assume HLW or Spent Fuel), therefore you cant 'die' standing next to one. The irony of Germany is since they are closing their nuclear power plants they import electricity from France.
1GW from Wind requires 1000 turbines running at full capacity, in actuality is 30% capacity factor which would require 3000 turbines to match one reactor. A great challenge indeed.
FYI, all LLW sites are effectively closed in the US.
In the case of a breach of a cask at a plant or of high level radioactive waste (HLRW) during transport to say Nevada, yes, there could be exposure to unfortunate individuals. And this could result in death over 2 weeks via radiation sickness where one's immune system implodes and bleeding from every orifice could occur. 10 seconds of exposure of unshielded HLRW from 3 feet away could do this. If the waste is hot. If held for a year or more this still could occur over 3 minutes of exposure.
except the containers they transport nuclear waste in are huge concrete blocks that can survive a t-bone collision with a train going 70 MPH. So there goes that arguement.
Uranium is what is bombarded to produce its fission and heat, along unfortunately with over 500 radioactive radionuclides that can cause mutations, cancer, fetal abortions. ~80% of our uranium is imported.
"Its" radiation levels may be lower post fission but not its daughter products and other radionuclides produced.
Germany is not phasing out nuclear and moving to wind. They're phasing out nuclear, yes, basically for political reasons, but they're replacing it with coal. Germany is building coal fired power plants like crazy. Their building wind turbines too, spending billions and billions but wind doesn't provide enough reliable power and hence they are burning coal and spewing filth into the atmosphere.
"Old RBMK designs, however, did not use containments, which was one of many technical oversights of the Soviet Union that contributed to the Chernobyl accident in 1986." Wiki
Chernobyl did not have a containment dome. Atleast not a real one that was the reinforced type that is a requirement for all Nuclear Reactors in the United States. Chernobyl also didn't have a base. The design was made for weapons production, and it was a poor design at that to begin with. Chernobyl only killed around 50 people, and at most only a few thousand will die from it throughout the whole world over a 100 year time period. Get some facts straight.
As posted amidst these comments several times, over 300,000 people have died prematurely due to Chernobyl - so far. Perhaps in ten more years we will have the actual figure. Have you ever seen the design of a Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) (35-40% of US reactors are of this type)? Check spent fuel pool that sits up above the core. Much of the plutonium ends up there, that remains radioactive for up to 480,000 yrs. Just a plain sheet metal roof shields it.
Dr. Alexey Yablokov, President of the Center for Russian Environmental Policy. Stated in his 2007 book. Dr. John Gofman, who first isolated plutonium for our first atomic bomb, and then saw that nuclear power was not a good idea at all, predicted in 1986 that 400,000 would die, and double that figure, 800,000 would contract cancers.
Really, the World Health Organisation only attributes around 4,000 cancer deaths on top of the initial 56 deaths in 2008. The original fears of mass death in the years after the accident where to a large extent baseless.
Nuclear isn't green no, but it dosent matter. Fusion will soon overtake nuclear and then we'll never build another reactor again (cept to maybe power a satalitte thats too far from the sun to use solar) In the end, my point is, build them, its not going to be long before they replace them with fusion, and the plants can reuse the cooling towers.
Fusion is the silver bullet? Every technology has its problems, especially those that develop great magitudes of power. Tritium generation may be big polluting problem with fusion, much worse than in comparison to today's nuclear reactors. Tritium has same body intake thru skin as thru lungs, so you can get it into yourself when you shower or wash dishes, as the people in the tritium polluted town of Godley, Illinois have to deal with today. Exelon is supplying them with bottled H20...
Breeder reactors are notoriously unsafe. Have the extreme danger of sodium fires. As occurred in Japan. That is why so few exist, and no one wants them. Otherwise, you speak brainwashed talk: of course nuclear plants can cause health problems from the raditation produced that leaks and is vented or the accidents like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Dr. Vladimir Chernousenko clean-up supervisor for Chernobyl, stated that an area 375 miles in diameter will be contaminated for 100,000 years.
No their perfectly safe, its simply expensive to operate them safely. I love how often you hark on about Chernobyl. I didn't realise the Soviet Union still built half finished reactors and turned off all their safety protocols to run unplanned tests on them... oh wait you likely dont care about that. Nuclear = evil power mad scientists.
I agree, you can't 'not do something' for fear of it going wrong. 'Buy a big car so when you're in an accident you'd have a greater chance of survival. Don't drive to work, you could die in a crash - just stay at home'. You'd be far more likely to die in a car accident on your way to work than you would from radioactive poisoning from a nuclear reactor.
Perhaps, but when the next Chernobyl occurs, and it most likely will, that will be far worse than any car accident and will affect millions of people adversely. Chernobyl has essentially contaminated an entire area forever (in comparison to the time man has been on earth). The wise thing to do is realize that this 'miracle' technology is not the ideal form of energy production that will save us. Wind and solar can power the entire country (USA), plus hydro. That is the best way to go.
How many of you expect to be standing 3 ft. next to a ton of unshielded highly radioactive waste for more than 10 seconds? Or how many people plan to put their mouth on the pipe exhaust of their car and inhale deeply? It only makes sense to make reasonable comparisons of risk which this "scientist" does not.
It's not about 'expecting' to stand next to unshielded high level waste, it's the potency of it if a spill occurs if there are going to be 20,000 to 70,000 shipments of high level waste & the fact that the casks have not been tested adequately for over 30 minutes or more than 1475 degrees. Diesel fires can burn for days & they burn at 1800 degrees Fahrenheit. If we build more nuclear plants, that means generating more high level waste that we still do not know how to store safely. Have kids?
"Kids" are a poor attempt to change the nature of an argument from intellectual to emotional. The speculation of a massive crash/catastrophe is not a good reason to not proceed with the safer storage of such material. The casks have been torture tested to more than an adequate degree. If a spill should occur, it is solid waste and would not be the worst case scenario insofar as hazardous waste material spills.
The casks to carry these high level radioactive waste loads have not been tested properly. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has only required casks be tested to burn at 1475 degrees Fahrenheit for half an hour. But diesel fires burn often burn for days, at 1800 degrees Fahrenheit! See NIRS Nuclear Monitor #643 quote in following post please: "each truck cask on the highways would carry up to 40 times the long-lasting radioactivity released by the Hiroshima atomic bomb." More rest of quote.
Insufficiently tested casks from Nuclear Monitor NIRS #643: "each truck cask on the highways would carry up to 40 times the long-lasting radioactivity released by the Hiroshima atomic bomb. Rail & barge casks, six times larger, would carry over 200 times the long-lasting radiation released at Hiroshima. Release of even a fraction of this cargo would spell unprecedented radiological disaster." Your kids could be riding their bikes in Oklahoma when a spill occurs, friends. Nuclear not green.
These are worst case scenarios we are thinking of and will likely not happen. However, it would be safer if the NRC did not require the transport of waste to Yuca Mt, but left it where it is at current nuclear facilities. A large percentage of the radiation is lost after only 50 years of cooling.
What could be worse than spilling nuclear waste, whether on your child or on you? Emotional is good when it comes to reality. Abstract ideas are nice, but premature death and cancer is not, especially when it hits you and your family, and you realize your scientific projections and predictions were wrong, and that you ruined a whole region of a country, and the lives of all the people and plants involved.
You people keep bring up studies, but I found a study that stated that the area around Cherynobl only showed residents being exposed to 2 millirem of radiation, where as you get 6 from an x ray.
I don't have the url handy, but I'll find it and post it.
Sounds great. Wouldn't you want to live there? So far 300,000 people have died prematurely due to the radiation released from Chernobyl, according to Dr. Yablokov. But we must wait til ~2016 to see the final death toll. That study should be interesting tho, & who performed it? Remember, billions of curies were released from the explosion & fire that lasted 10 days in 1986. Cesium is the biggest by volume radionuclide released & its hazardous life is 300-600 yrs that it can cause cancer.
Any reactor can become a chernobyl 1986 and disperse radiation across whole USA states or regions contaminating these essentially forever. We have the capacity to supply all the electricity America needs with both wind and solar. No need to loose radioactive elements that will cause cancer on the American or any country's public. Remember, just one example: plutonium-239 only one microgram can cause lung cancer; 454 million micrograms in one pound plu239
(1) But the cost of producing that many wind turbines (to supply 100% of Americas power) is near incalculable - i.e. a stupid decision to make. With wind turbines - for their production cost they are too inefficient. Nuclear costs a lot to construct but is very efficient when compared to renewable energy. In the real world, the future of our power relies on both technologies. They complement each other...
Problem with nuclear power is health effects. Without govt subsidies, nuclear industry says they cannot afford to build reactors. What are your figures on cost of building en masse wind turbines? Why not subsidize the building with govt funds for a non-toxic non-poisoning non-cancer causing technology, instead of corporate welfare for an industry that would be dead without it? Wall street does not look favorably on nuclear power. Insurance industry won't insure homeowners 4 nuclear accident
Sounds totally logical, doesn't it? Except for the old toxicity cancer-causing spontaneous abortion-causing
mutation-causing effects of radiation resulting from the fission of uranium to produce heat. In the long run, pretend you are a human being concerned about your son or daughter's protoplasm and genes being mutated/sacrificed to produce energy. If the nuclear industry has to pay for all its medical and environmental 'externalities' the economics of nuclear power shan't look very good.
"Any reactor can become a Chernobyl" - NO. Very incorrect. Do some research on Chernobyl and you'll find out that it was poorly run and maintained. All modern Nuclear Reactors have an outer concrete 'shield' (for example) whose purpose is to stop radiation dispersing across the land. Chernobyl foolishly did not have this constructed, so your statement about any reactor potentially becoming a Chernobyl is extremely incorrect.
Chernobyl did have containment. But the point is that any reactor can have a reaction go off in millionths of seconds and cause an explosion or nuclear runaway. Chernobyl was just one example of a contained reactor that was being tested, down to 4-7% of power that suddenly shot up to 100X 100% of full power in less than one minute. This is apocalyptic and can happen in ANY reactor, no matter the type, breaching ANY containment!
I don't know what 'containment' you are referring to, but i assure you it did not have any concrete shielding around the reactor. "...full power in less than one minute" - It is a anti-terrorism safety feature that reactors can be shut down in 5 seconds. The thing is if the reactor is shielded from leaking radiation (as they are) then there's no chance that radiation can leak out.
Containment at Chernobyl was concrete but not as custom fitted as today's US new reactors. But steam explosion would have blown thru any containment. Are you referring to scram stopping fission reaction in 5 seconds? Which would stop 95% of heat being generated, but still are daughter products from uranium fissioning possibly causing a meltdown for other 5% [1000 megawatt reactor, 5% still 50 megawatts]. & if there is an explosion of course leaks or worse can occur. TMI leaked & lots 1979
Chernobyl made the fatal mistake of using its coolant as a reactor poison but not a moderator. That means a loss of coolant causes a runaway reaction. That is why Chernobyl exploded. That cannot happen in any American reactor, because our reactors are water moderated, not graphite moderated, so a loss of coolant will shut down the reaction, not send it skyward.
Chernobyl did have a concrete containment structure, but not as tightly constructed as new US reactors. However, a steam explosion can blow open containment structures, or caps atop the cores of reactors, just as it happened at Chernobyl.
Actually your both right about this one, CN didn't have a containment sheild. But even with a shield a decent steam explosion can fix that. Plus since CN weve found much better ways of stopping the uncontroled reaction. (Magnesium-oxide)
Plutonium fires would be some disaster. Only a millionth of a gram can cause lung cancer [may take up 20-30 yrs to develop], has a half life of 24,000 yrs plutonium-239 [hazardous life to worry about it 10-20 half lives=240,000 - 480,000 years. Difficult to comprehend such a measure of time?] Each nuclear plant produces 400-1000 lbs per year; USA has 104 nuclear plants today. Theoretically, if vaporized to small enough particles to get into lung sacs, 20 lbs could give lung ca to all humans.
Chernobyl did have a concrete containment, but not as tightly approximate as new reactors. US reactors tend to cool while Chernobyl variety tend to build up heat, so the former is better. However, even when a reactor scrams, only the fissioning stops of uranium. The daughter products continue producing heat and CAN produce a meltdown, which can cause a steam explosion when water meets hot melting down core with water beneath the core if pipes are breached, water spilled.
According to the danish science magazine "illusteret videnskab", living near a nuclear plant for 150 years is just as deadly as: a chest X-ray, a two day trip to New york,
smoking a 1.4 cigarette, drinking 30 0.5 litre bottles of coca-cola light, and riding a bicycle 15 kilometers.
Studies are always interesting. But when I went to college I took 3 statistics courses & all three used the small book entitled "How To Lie With Statistics." All depends how you frame your study, & make your measurements. You know that these plants vent gases that decay into radioactively toxic daughter products that can cause cancer & mutations. Then there is the activation product tritium which is absorbed equally via ingestion & thru the skin. I doubt the above numbers are faithful 4U.
nuclear technology is a double edged sword. nuclear energy can be green if used responsibly. technology needs to be perfected. the future is all about fusion energy (not cold fusion), cleaner fission like thorium.
300,000 died so far from Chernobyl. Nuclear physicist cleaning up accident - caused by human error, died of cancer & said "To construct a safe reactor is practically impossible either here or in Russia ...Because we are dealing with nuclear processes, with uncontrolled reactions, which occur within millionths of a second,& no matter what kind of protection mechanism you design, sooner or later the object must explode and they will." Fusion probably will produce mucho tritium, a wonderful killa
All of you people saying that Nuclear Energy is not green because of the waste and blah blah blah...you are CLEARLY uninformed on the policies for storing waste and preventing any type of contamination. And as someone else pointed out, it's also re-useable. You people are victims of fear-mongering anti-nuclear lobbyists.
How long is plutonium-239 radioactive? Hazardous life=10-20 half lives = 240,000 to 480,000 years. That is a major long time and the current technologies are still not proven to retain the waste for more than 50-100 years. Radioactivity causes cancer. I hope you do understand that. The 're-usable' waste you probably mean via re-processing, which creates more waste streams & is very dangerous & polluting. How can nuclear energy be 'green'? C'mon, what about something called common sense?
Common sense is with all the technology we have that we could contain the radioactivity, espcially if the disposal is in barrels, under multiple containment layers, buried deep in a mountain with stable conditions. Radioactivity causes cancer? That's a random statement, because I you can't really argue that people are going to be exposed to anything. And the waste stops being dangerous after 50 years (I don't remember the precise words). Everything is radioactive, it's a word with content.
I love how an MD is talking about nuclear power. We couldn't get an engineer?
alexxxxxxxx1555 3 months ago
grafikfeast; you'r right, it is unfair to demean someone purely on appearance. However Einstein was/is a genius; and that is what would always shines through, irrespective of appearances. With respect, what I was rather ham-fistedly trying to say, if a person deliberately sets our to look like a plonker and then presents un-differentiated bits of information and personal opinion as fact, however genuine that person believes it to be true, he/she will still sadly sound like a plonker.
awakeamericanow 10 months ago
You have to wonder about the credibility of a man who, presumably willingly, grows such ridiculous looking hair on his face. Do a little more research on LFTR's you might well uncover some surprising facts.
awakeamericanow 10 months ago
@awakeamericanow... Again attacking someone over appearance leaves you w/ little credibility. WTF has that got to do w/ anything? Tell your hair comment to Einstein you fool.
grafikfeat 10 months ago
Saul, what are you talking about? Nuclear plants produce all these wastes that are radioactive basically forever, and cause all kinds of cancers. It is not clean safe & certainly not healthy. Look at my last post about deaths from Chernobyl. Then know that studies are finding increased cancer rates around nuclear power plants, especially in children who are more vulnerable to the radionuclides mutating their DNA. That's what to fear. Plus the next accident and the leak like at Vermont nr u
conradmillermd 11 months ago
nuclear energy is clean has no carbon emissions, does not effect the environment. it lasts for thousands of years so can be considered a renewable source of energy. the days of chernobyl are long gone, and the reactors are way more advanced. there is no danger to it, and those who oppose are ignorant of the facts
saulwilliams56 11 months ago
@saulwilliams56 You bought the dog, Saul W. Spouting like a radioactive mass media FOX geyser. Sounds good doesn't it? Know about the Vermont reactor leaking tritium into the Connecticut River? Indian Point in Westchester with its radioactive plume 300 feet from the Hudson River? Ova 500 radionuclides are produced in every nuclear reactor & are cancer causers. They make take 5 or 10 or 30 years to cause your lung or bone marrow cancer. Wind & solar are safe renewable resources nah nuclear
conradmillermd 11 months ago
@conradmillermd thats no more radiation than what is produced by x-rays in a hospital. nuclear is safe, clean and healthy. this is the 21st century and reactors,governments regulate powerplants to make sure they are safe and are not leaking radiation. what is the fear?
saulwilliams56 11 months ago
nuclear waste is stored underground where not even the radiation from a supernova could penetrate.
saulwilliams56 11 months ago
@saulwilliams56 Look at the diagram of a boiling water reactor that make up about 35% of our nuclear plants. The cooling pond is like a bathtub up ABOVE the reactor core, only protected by a tin roof! There is a picture on my website in the nuclear power chapter I posted that you can read for free. Website is chapter is clickable on left side of homepage. Bright color diagram is at end of chapter page 73.
conradmillermd 11 months ago
nuclear power is safe, more people die from mining coal, rather than radiation
saulwilliams56 11 months ago
@saulwilliams56 Whoops! what about the 930,000 who have died prematurely as a result of the Chernobyl accident? Are you aware that just one microgram of plutonium can cause lung cancer, as discovered in the Hanford beagle studies? If you do the math, there are 454 micrograms in one pound so just one pound of plutonium can theoretically cause 454 million lung cancers if dispersed in small enough particles from an explosion or fire - as the graphite fire that burned for 10 days at Chernobyl.
conradmillermd 11 months ago
@conradmillermd chernobyl will NEVER EVER EVER happen again. the reactor at chernobyl was supose to have 32 carbon rods in the heavy water, however they did an experiement to see it could have only 12 rods, they were wrong and the reactor overheated and collapsed in on itself allowing the radiation to leak. this was an experiment which will NEVER happen again because people know the circumstances. not to forget, that was the 1960s, the reactors have changed greatly, and are alot more safe
saulwilliams56 11 months ago
@saulwilliams56 so Saul, what do you think now? Jimmy Breslin said "It takes absolutely nothing to go against public opinion because public opinion is wrong to hold and insane to herald because it is made of a choir of crickets. The sameness of the sound tells you the amount of thought. Nobody stops to realize that something can happen five minutes from now and everybody instantly will think differently. [e.g., think: Fukushima and nuclear power]"
conradmillermd 10 months ago
@conradmillermd ooh youre full crap, you cant look at fukushima and say there we cant use nuclear power after that! the obvious decision to make is move nuclear power plants to higher ground in case of another tsunami, and this was a thousand year event, aint gonna happen again in your life time. nuclear power is very clean it has no carbon emssions, would you rather we use fossil fuels? france gets most of its electricity from nuclear power, do they have problems? no.
saulwilliams56 10 months ago
@saulwilliams56 It's hard to believe you can think like this with Fukushima destroyed and venting radiation all around the planet. This radiation will probably kill millions, yes millions, of people, worse than Chernobyl. There are six wounded smoking radionuclide leaking plants involved here, most of the radiation coming from fuel pools, which have a much higher inventory than do the reactor cores. Do you understand that radiation can cause cancer and genetic mutations? Think, Saul.
conradmillermd 10 months ago
@conrad i told you nuclear power is safe, which it is unless disater happen like the tsunami. but how many of them happen? it was a thousand year event. if a disater happens nothing can be done to help. the problem here isnt nuclear power, its the tsunami which caused it. in places where disater is unlikely to happen, nuclear power is safe. and what other power are we suposed to use? fossil fuels? which leaves us dependent on oil from the middle east? or gas which leaves us dependent on russia?
saulwilliams56 10 months ago
@saulwilliams56 Hi Saul, look at Fukushima. The problem basically is that nuclear power is NOT safe nor clean. These plants vent gases that deteriorate 2 strontium, which your body mistakes for calcium, & gets into kids bones & bone marrow, causing cancer & leukemia. That's one thing they're finding around nuclear plants, now that they're doing studies. Accidents- They occur. & these plants cannot handle them. If a plane crashes into the tin roof of a BWR reactor it'll hit the fuel pool!
conradmillermd 10 months ago
@conradmillermd yes but planes dont normally crash into reactors on a daily basis do they? thats my point, the only thing that causes the nuclear power plants to leak radiation is if a disaster happened big enough to kill the people first, eg the tsunami which has killed more than the radiation leaked after.
saulwilliams56 10 months ago
@saulwilliams56 but Saul, this is what can happen. Are U aware that the ORIGINAL plan for 9/11 was to kamikaze those planes into nuclear power plants? They're such easy targets. Reason nuke plants are situated on water, like rivers, is they need so much water 2 cool the plants. They're not going to put them up in the mountains. For better understanding, check this video recorded March 5, 2011, 6 days before Fukushima, so you get a better picture: Karl Grossman videos interview w Dr. Sherman
conradmillermd 10 months ago
@conradmillermd Nuclear Power Plants are jet plane proof, so the terrorists would be wasting their time flying planes into it.
I wish they were as silly as most anti-nuclear advocates, so many lives would have been saved.
MarsMoonEuropa 9 months ago
@MarsMoonEuropa No Mars, nuclear plants are VERY vulnerable to jet planes crashing especially into their fuel pools. 35% of our reactors are like Fukushima Mark I made by GE where fuel pool is NOT covered by thick steel cover, but is elevated above the core under a thin metal shield. Original plan for 9/11 was to crash the 4 planes into nuclear plants, but then Al Qaeda decided this could get "out of hand" and did what they did instead. Fuel pools loaded with plutonium, 1 microgram fatal dose
conradmillermd 9 months ago
@conradmillermd Well, at least the new ones are. And I could bet my life that even if the old ones aren't rated as being Jet plane proof, then even if a Boeing-747 crashed into it, it would be fine.
Fukushima is an excellent example of the safety of Nuclear Reactors. Fukushima is -- a Tonka Truck. An unassailable beastie almost impossible to knock down. It took a magnitude nine earthquake with a huge tsunami to cause some economic damage.
MarsMoonEuropa 9 months ago
@conradmillermd
No one was harmed by Fukushima. No one will be harmed. It is just media spin playing on public paranoia.
God, I did wish Al Qaeda went for the Nuclear Power Plant. So few people would have died.
MarsMoonEuropa 9 months ago
@MarsMoonEuropa How about some basic info MarsMoon? Do you comprehend that radiation can be harmful, that beams are emitted that strike DNA and can mutate it or kill the cells outright that are struck by the beams? Do you understand half life and what cancer is? Denial is beautiful and death is great? Pie in the sky, and Osama bin Laden under the sea. Do you believe Al Qaeda exists? Read a little about radiation before you post your next message please.
conradmillermd 9 months ago
@conradmillermd LOL. Sorry Conrad, but thats almost as bad as saying your going be fried by the sun tomorrow just because it's hot and it's there! And just as bad as the Moon Landing Skeptics claiming that a bit of radiation makes it impossible to reach the moon! Just because radiation doesn't mean we can't solve the problem and send people to the moon!
MarsMoonEuropa 9 months ago
@conradmillermd LOL Conrad, sorry but thats just as bad as saying the sun is going to fry us tomorrow because it is hot and dangerous, and the Moon Landing Skeptics that say that just because there is some radiation in space means that we couldn't land on the moon. Just because there is some harmful radiation in space does not mean we can't deal with it!
MarsMoonEuropa 9 months ago
@conradmillermd Look here, there is deadly radiation and if your stupid enough to stand by it you will get killed. But, Conrad, this is where your theory falls onto it's head! Because we can deal with the radiation! As sure as petrol will kill you if you spill it over you and light it up, we set the radiation aside in safe places. Just like keeping the petrol in the car where it belongs.
MarsMoonEuropa 9 months ago
@conradmillermd
If we check the facts we find that there is very little radioactive waste produced. Of the little waste produced we can store it safely for hundreds upon thousands of years without affecting humans and the environment. And the Nuclear Plants themselves are safe enough to stop radiation exposure.
Did you know that radiation occurs naturally in our environment?
MarsMoonEuropa 9 months ago
@saulwilliams56 um... isn't that nuclear power also leaves US dependent on other country? for the uranium and the construction design?
OrionWong1 8 months ago
@saulwilliams56 why all the nuclear supporters all seems so rude and always shouting? is it becoz that makes your points Sound more convincing? I can see @conradmillermd tried soo hard to bear your rude comments and keep calm to explain his point which are more reasonable than your shout out opinion. I'm really sad to see your comments like you wish AQ had attack the nuke plants in 911 and your heartless sense to fukushima.
OrionWong1 8 months ago
@OrionWong1pfft, i just cant understand why people who arent educated on the matter, think they know everything about nuclear power saying that its dangerous because a tsunami caused one to leak. dont you get the message? it was a tsunami, doesnt happen everyday, and wont happen again in your life time. earthquakes are the probelm not nuclear power. what other alternative energy should we use?
saulwilliams56 8 months ago
@conradmillermd The problem is you have clearly not done the math personally. Chernobyl was a terrible incident, that cant be argued, but it was when the soviet was at its worst, with a reactor that was bad even at the standards of the day. 930,000 is a gross exaggeration. No plant built today would be anywhere close to being as dangerous as the Chernobyl plant.
prophetnite 10 months ago
@prophetnite Where is your math? What is Fukushima? A hula hoop contest? All these reactors may meltdown. Radiation spewing then all around the planet. 930,000 deaths is SO FAR prematurely caused by Chernobyl. Check other comments here: book by Alexei Yablokov published in English by NY Academy of Science. Look at videos from Chernobyl day for images of cover of the book. Fukushima is what can happen with any nuclear plant. We have 23 of same reactors right here in USA out of our 104.
conradmillermd 10 months ago
is this guy kidding me?
solar power!?!?
it doesn't even make 1% of total world energy power.
Groundonrage 1 year ago
@Groundonrage Should we expect nothing to change? Solar & wind could supply all the homes of America with electricity within a decade. Right now, wind power has the lead of these two forms of renewable energy. In fact, tho few know this the USA now leads the world in windpower megawattage with China & Germany behind us. Remember, one 2.5 megawatt Clipper can supply 675 homes w electricity. USA put up 10,000 megawatts of wind in 2009=3 nuclear plants no cancer/pollution Project 4 7 yrs.
conradmillermd 11 months ago
nuclear energy is completely safe, clean and effective. Wind and Solar provide NO WHERE NEAR as much energy as nuclear and fossil fuels do. And their efficiency is horrible and highly expensive to produce and maintain. So when looking at the only real options we have. There is fossil fuel, nuclear, hydro, and soon to being a reality fusion. Which will hopefully replace them all.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 You know why solar and wind aren't as efficient yet... because there is more money in non-renewable dirty energy. How can you charge someone to use the sun?! We have the technology to embrace solar and wind, it's just not being used or allowed to be used. Nonrenewable energy receives MUCH more funding.
jenaardell 1 year ago
In order to make wind power cost effective it must be employeed in areas where there is constant wind! such as in the ocean or high up in the stratosphere!!
GaunletofDestruction 1 year ago
This gentleman is absolutely right. The waste is not the only prob,even under normal conditions the plants spread low radioavtivity into the environment. And a 100 % save storing place for the nuclear waste is impossible to find. (Who takes care of it in 10.000 years anyway?) Our german government passed a law to get out of nuclear energy in the long run. The USA is such a great nation and country and should maybe develop efficient wind energy plants and solar energy systems as well.
TheAccelerated 1 year ago 2
If you read the Int. Journal article, it says:
"Studies based on data pooled from areas around several nuclear plants, compared with pooled data from control areas, which are less likely to be affected by small area differences in the prevalence of exposure to other risk factors than those of studies based on single sites, did not in general show an increased risk for leukaemia in children living near nuclear installations either in the UK or in other jurisdictions. "
AtheismandSkepticism 1 year ago
@AtheismandSkepticism Check who funded that study... bet it was the nuclear power plant. Keep in mind, companies will form their own laboratories or research companies disguised under another name.
jenaardell 1 year ago
@jenaardell
Why don't you find out yourself instead of just throwing around wild speculations.
It's all the same with you guys. As soon as there is a study that contradicts your beliefs; instead of considering changing your mind, you shout "conspiracy" until people that oppose your views can't be bothered with you anymore.
AtheismandSkepticism 1 year ago
@AtheismandSkepticism All I said was to research who funded that study because its results are a little shady and go against the norm. Sorry you couldn't handle that suggestion.
jenaardell 1 year ago
Why would anyone listen to a medical doctor about nuclear physics?
AtheismandSkepticism 1 year ago
Why wouldn't a nuclear physicist know more about biology and the adverse effects of radiation on DNA and the cell and the production of cancer? Do nuclear physicists work in a vacuum? How many biology and genetics courses did you take, as an example, during your education at your various schools (after high school)? Do you think that all the materials in a nuclear plant are perfectly contained? What about the repeatedly denied tritium leaks @ Godley, Illinois & the Vermont Yankee plant?
conradmillermd 1 year ago
What is with you medical doctors?!
You don't have to be a fucking doctor to know that excessive radiation exposure causes cancer, well done. but There is no statistical, peer reviewed evidence that living next to, or near a fission plant causes higher levels of cancer in the population.
And of course, disposal is perfect, but what peer reviewed studies do you have showing people have died from disposed uranium
Didn't they teach you this stuff, you know, critical thinking, in medical school?
AtheismandSkepticism 1 year ago
Disposal is not perfect. As mentioned, the tritium leaks at Vermont Yankee and the Braidwood nuclear plant in Godley, Illinois, Barack Obama's home state. Then there are leaks at many old decrepit plants that only should operate 20-30 yrs and are being given extensions. Then there is the history of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, where large discharges of radiation resulted & were minimized by the powers that be. Over 300,000 prematurely dead from radioactive contamination from Chernobyl.
conradmillermd 1 year ago
@conradmillermd "Then there is the history of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island," Three mile island resulted in no casualties for the record. And had a plant based from 70 and 60s era. Most of the older reactors have been retrofitted with more modern instruments, safer equipment. And tighter safety precautions. And ah yes Chernobyl. The most famous incident thanks to faulty soviet engineering and them override to many safety precautions. The damn reactor doesn't even have a concrete dome.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 Do some research, there were DOZENS of other incidents and partial meltdowns...
-Hanford site in Richland, WA where high-level radioactive waste leaked into the ground at a rate of 100 gallons per hour for 1/2 months. Since Hanford was established in 1944 it has leaked about 500,000 gallons of high-level waste into the earth.
-Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Simi Valley, CA caused the release of more than 458x the amount of radiation released by the Three Mile Island accident.
jenaardell 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117
-Rocky Flats N. Weapon Plant, Colorado
Fire consumes between one and four thousand pounds of plutonium, spreading radioactive contamination through several small towns, and into metropolitan Denver, 16 miles downwind of the plant. Over 300,000 cubic ft. of radioactive earth is shipped to a waste storage site in Idaho.
ETC ETC. These are NOT isolated incidents. I guarantee you can't find a single nuclear plant that hasn't leaked radioactive waste into a nearby community.
jenaardell 1 year ago
@conradmillermd Most modern western and European reactors have a concrete dome and containment area.and after the spent fuel is used. over 95% of it is recycled and reused. And now environmentalists are even becoming scared from the possibility of a plane hitting it..... Give me a break people, After 9/11 it aint gonna happen again. But westinghouse still made their wishes wit the new AP1000 to be plane proof to satisfy those yuppies.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
There is MONEY in uranium. It's more dangerous than oil and just as profitable. Keep that in mind when pro-nuclear politicians or nuclear power plants tell you nuclear power is safe...
jenaardell 1 year ago
And just stating "New German study shows increased incidence of cancer around nuclear plants. Is that 'green' ? "
in your description doesn't count as a reference, I want the source, name, dates, journals.
AtheismandSkepticism 1 year ago
You are a very demanding fellow, and please refrain from profanity here or I will delete your comments. Source: Comment and analysis New Scientist, April 24, 2008 by Ian Fairlie >> excerpt: "KiKK studies (a German acronym for Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants), whose results were published this year in the International Journal of Cancer (vol 122, p 721) and the European Journal of Cancer (vol 44, p 275)." I will post a bit more in next comment...
conradmillermd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@conradmillermd "Then there is the history of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island," Three mile island resulted in no casualties for the record. And had a plant based from the 60's. People think that Chernobyl had over 100,000 deaths when it melted down, but actually the only people that died immediately were the firefighters and there was only like 48 of them. The most in-famous incident for nuclear fission thanks to the Soviets and their not wanting to built it up to par. Know you facts first!!
visini14 1 year ago
More for you Atheismand:
KiKK studies whose results were
published this year in the International Journal of Cancer (vol 122, p 721) and the
European Journal of Cancer (vol 44, p 275). These found higher incidences of cancers and a stronger association with nuclear installations than all previous reports. The main findings were a 60 % increase in solid cancers & a 117 per cent increase in leukaemia among young children living near all 16 large German nuclear facilities between 1980 & 2003."
conradmillermd 1 year ago
Thanks for references, you are the first opponent of nuclear power that has actually responded with scientific papers when asked.
But reading the abstracts and papers doesn't give me much encouragement about your point. (Also, these studies are from 2008 (which isn't a bad thing, its just you said they were published this year)).
Cont...
AtheismandSkepticism 1 year ago
The correlation wasn't as strong as 60% and as stated in the abstracts "They contrast with the lack of an effect observed or expected from other studies due to low doses from routine nuclear power plant operation".
So there are as many, if not more stating a lack of correlation between proximity and cancers.
Also, they only found a correlation in 5yr olds, could it be a recent leak in German plants, and not a routine thing done by all plants around the world?
AtheismandSkepticism 1 year ago
PS. So It may be these could be statistical anomalies, as they aren't consistently reproduced in other similar studies. but I would like to see any other papers you have regarding anything else you would consider harmful with regard to nuclear power plants.
I am currently doing an article on fission reactors and need some anti-nuclear arguments and you seem the most knowledgeable.
I am genuinely interested in these points, I'm hoping to be as objective as possible.
AtheismandSkepticism 1 year ago
@AtheismandSkepticism Sadly studies don't mean shit as many are funded by pro-nuclear companies and politicians. "Scientific" results are so skewed and bias, it's not even worth quoting them. Common sense can tell you radiation, nuclear waste and spent fuel are known carcinogens. Why create and expose yourself to MORE known carcinogens?!
jenaardell 1 year ago
are retarded or more baked than burnt toast.
the radioactive wast is either depleted to the point that its like lead or used ferther as some sort of nuclerer fuel or research
ema576 2 years ago
Simplified, but it is not that simple. Plutonium's half life > 24,000 yrs & hazardous life=10-20 times that about which we have to worry about it possibly causing cancer, esp. lung cancer, only one MILLIONTH of a gram possibly causing lung cancer. Nuclear plants leak, rot, yet now are being re-licensed to exist way beyond their theoretically 'safe' period of perhaps 20-30 years. Chernobyl & 3- Mile Island accidents released large amounts of radioactivity that will kill for many decades.
conradmillermd 1 year ago
contaminants can cause lung cancer, and like i said what isn,t used for research is like lead and the amount released might be harmfull to travlers but life forms around will adjust to elevated backgroud radiation and develop dana repair and also those plants had melt downs which is rare and get rarer with new regulations. Oh!
ema576 1 year ago
As Penn said it "Grow a fucking dick!"
Thanks for wasting my time for this piece of shit.
Muroilijamies 2 years ago
Not to entertain your profane macho language, do you mean we should take nuclear power and its radiation dangers and possible cancers caused by it, like men?! Like, yeah, I'll eat this radioactively contaminated apple, or inhale that Chernobyl air like a tough hombre and LOVE it! The future I'll worry about when I'm old and decrepit. But....hmmm, what about my kids, and my wife, and my friend who got lung cancer and he didn't even smoke? wonder where his disease ever could have come from..?
conradmillermd 1 year ago
Well... If you pour your nuclear waste in lakes it will kill you. You are right about that that nuclear waste is dangerous but when it is properly handled and disposed it won't kill anyone. For example coal mining kills more people in year than nuclear power have ever killed.
And what comes to your lung-cancer-friend it can strike anyone. Smoking just increases the risk.
Ahh, Chernobylcard! Chernobyl was just conceguence of stupidness and russian tehcnology.
Ps. Whos that ekofaggot?
Muroilijamies 1 year ago
Your friend may have radon in is basement, that's the number 2 lung cancer cause, first is smoking.
badthoughs 1 year ago
nuclear power is racist.
rodge2001 2 years ago
They say that plutonium lasts 240 000 years, lol, we use it as a fuel, it won't even last 1000 years because we are going to burn it like hell.
badthoughs 2 years ago
Yeah, incinerate that plutonium and let some of it leak past the filters in that smokestack [that's what happens] and just a millionth of a gram is enough to cause lung cancer. Somebody is going to have to pay for this nuclear power. Is it going to be your lovely girlfriend? Or your poor mother? Burning plutonium is not a wise alternative to the way we create heat & steam to turn a turbine, while creating tons of radioactive waste, that NO we do not know how to isolate 4 thousands of years
conradmillermd 1 year ago
No, had containment. All nuclear plants have the capability to meltdown, leak, vent dangerous radionuclides to prevent an explosion (what actually happened at Three Mile Island). My leaning is liberal conservative independent free thinking physician, every issue different so must be approached on an individual basis.
conradmillermd 2 years ago
Chernobyl accident wasn't first try. It was a test that was going on that suddenly went out of control: power went from 4-7% of full power to 100 times 100% full power in less than one minute. Can happen at any nuclear reactor. Fires burned for 10 days. New reactor designs 'improved' but will always have similar risk of sudden powerful uncontrollable reaction causing disaster, meltdown, etc. and poisoning the environment surrounding the plant for tens of thousands of years. Imagine NYC.
conradmillermd 2 years ago
Bull shit. Provide your evidence that Chernobyl had a containment dome and that all other reactors could have such a catastrophic meltdown as that. Also how is the environment poisoned for 'tens of thousands' of years when much of the original contamination zone around Chernobyl, an unrepeatable disaster has already been opened up.
DarthTanner 2 years ago
Stated by Dr. Vladimir Chernousenko, in charge of clean up of the Chernobyl disaster. He later contracted cancer and passed away from it. Nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen has stated that a meltdown can occur at any nuclear plant. Check internet for videos in which he participates. Continued running of other Chernobyl units is a political decision and a desperate one in light of what happened. Old people want to live in their houses even if they are contaminated, perhaps not knowing dangers.
conradmillermd 2 years ago
This guy is a complete idiot. Wind can never replace nuclear. The most wind can ever get is about 5% to 10% of energy.
Nuclear is completely green. I guess this guy has never heard of a breeder reactor.
Nuclear power does not produce CO2 emissions. It will stop global warming caused by coal and gas power plants.
funnystuff123d3 2 years ago
Not a good thing to call someone an 'idiot' publicly, especially when what you say isn't too smart. Denmark generates 25% of its electricity today from wind. Our Dept of Energy says the US could generate 2/3rds of its electricity just from the Dakotas' winds & the other third from Texas' winds. Nuclear is radioactive, waste, leaks, cancer, spontaneous abortions, 300,000 dead prematurely (so far) as result of Chernobyl disaster 1986. Breeder reactors have proven disastrous with sodium fires.
conradmillermd 2 years ago
"Not a good thing to call someone an 'idiot' publicly"
I call it how I see it. France generates over 70% of its power from nuclear means.
Nuclear does not produce waste that can't be reprocessed in a breeder reactor. Windmills are a good idea if you don't mind killing endangered birds and distroying the environment or mind the high costs of maintenance.
Nuclear power plants do not cause health problems. That is a myth. They monitor radiation levels.
funnystuff123d3 2 years ago
And where do they get the rest? Coal. And your 25% figure is very generous, their 2006 figures were running at about 7% wing generation where are you getting your figures from.
DarthTanner 2 years ago
25% figure for generation of electricity via wind power in Denmark is from Union Of Concerned Scientists in Volume 10, No. 4, Fall 2008 issue of earthwise, page 2. Spain expects to get 30% of its electricity generated via renewables by 2010. Delta Sky magazine, March 2008, pages 70-71. Reported by John McLaughlin. Spain 'also pushing solar energy, requiring all new and renovated buildings to use solar power for part of their energy.'
We can do that here, including rooftop solar.
conradmillermd 2 years ago
Well I suppose that depends on how it is measured, overall Spain is currently at 11% renewable generation over a year, higher figures are made by looking at early morning demand percentages, with a record high of 40% achieved, but only at low demand timeperiods. I don't want you to think I'm against building any wind turbines but even with a high level of renewable you still need base load from somewhere, currently that's coal/gas. Nuclear is much preferable to that.
DarthTanner 2 years ago
As a physician who knows the dangers of radiation and the reality of how just little episodes can cause major leaks and possibly catastrophes that are usually covered up [evidence: the lies that Three Mile Island caused NO problems. Google Arnie Gundersen's latest testimonies, he's a nuclear engineer], nuclear will never be preferable to any technology, Remember that just one millionth of a gram of plutonium can cause lung cancer. What else on Earth is so toxic?? That's only one radionuclide
conradmillermd 2 years ago
So your now arguing that the evidence that these hundreds of thousands of people are dying is reliant on a conspiracy of silence by the entire scientific community. And you admit you are arguing in favour of coal/gas over nuclear based on your irrational fear of a repeat of Chernobyl.
DarthTanner 2 years ago
How come you haven't heard about these figures? Or Mr. Gundersen? All we hear about is how wonderful nuclear power is these days, and no downside of health effects in the mainstream media. No, I am not in favor of coal or gas over wind or solar or hydropower. Anything is better than nuclear power, and the repeat of Chernobyl will occur one unfortunate day when it will be too late to say 'Of course we should never have relied on such a dangerous technology as nuclear power.'
Next comment ...
conradmillermd 2 years ago
Your joking right, nuclear gets nothing but bad press, in the UK we are building two reactors to replace eight that are closing, resulting in inevitable power outages because of uninformed hippies. And I doubt many have heard of Arnie Gundersen. But I don't see how he is that much evidence of anything except that badly run early reactors are dangerous and that some people will always try to cover up their mistakes.
DarthTanner 2 years ago
Those so-called 'hippies' that are ?'uninformed' are probably better informed than you are. People know that nuclear power is foolish & dangerous & can kill them and their children. Just label them hippies and that implies they can't be practical and intelligent? There will always be mistakes. That is the problem with technology, but a nuclear power plant is not a spring loaded leapfrog. When that next accident occurs which can't be lied about, or covered up, it will be too late 2 be smart
conradmillermd 2 years ago
except you are being dishonest about it, grossly overstating the probability of an accident and the consequences with your nonsense of every reactor being a potential Chernobyl. I presume you'll just be happy when we live with constant blackouts because everyone dithered over building anything but a few thousand wind turbines to replace all the coal/gas nuclear reactors that we must soon decommission.
DarthTanner 2 years ago
So you admit your in favour of burning coal over nuclear power, its only practical clean alternative. I presume your going to ignore the millions that have been killed from the emissions of burning coal or the damage this does to the environment. I presume you have deluded yourself into believing 100% renewable is a practical solution.
DarthTanner 2 years ago
Mankind to survive without poisoning ourselves and our planet and all the living things on it must not hurry to technologies that are poor choices, like nuclear power. Cal Tech physicist and ex-Vice Provost David Goodstein tells us that an area equivalent to 80 square miles in our SW desert(s) could provide ALL the electricity our homes need, & this could be accomplished within a decade. Similarly wind could do the same with a WWTwo type building effort of windmills. & Then there's hydropower
conradmillermd 2 years ago
Have you any idea how long it would take, the cost of doing so, or the materials needed Let alone the fact that we need electricity at night, or when a dust storm has covered the panels. Same with wind, you propose bankrupting the world to build millions of turbines when much cheaper alternatives are available. I agree with you over hydro power however, but I don't think there are that many good sites left undeveloped and you always hit the environmentalists against flooding areas of wildlife.
DarthTanner 2 years ago
its called waste recycling, the french do it, they take radioactive waste reprocess it into lower greade plutonim us it for power and the repeat the process untill they are left with lo radioactive lead
kubaniski 2 years ago
When adn where has the US ever been called "The Persian Gulf of Wind?" This is the first I've heard that term. And, to me, it doesn't sound like disposing of the waste is that much of a problem considering the waste disposal containers are ridiculously thick and the holes where they store these containers are so deep, it would be hundreds of thousands of year before they resurface and when they do resurface, the elements will be safe.
Lark88 2 years ago
'The Persian Gulf of Wind' has been quoted in many many places including The Nation magazine. The Dept of Energy has stated that theoretically just the states of North and South Dakota could supply 2/3'rds of US electricity needs; Texas could supply the other third.
As for the thickness and holes, no material has been proved to safely isolate radioactive waste for more than 100 years. We're talking about radioactivity for hundreds of thousands of years, and then there are rivers and aquifers.
conradmillermd 2 years ago
Oh and not to mention all the great jobs nuclear power creates... something the economies of today NEED.
Not to mention that nuclear power plants DON'T kill millions of migratory birds every year, and mess peoples heads up by emitting low frequency noise causing head aches. BTW where do you get 1000MW = a nuke plant? smallest one here is 3000MW.
hinske11 2 years ago
What country are you from? Studies are showing that around nuclear plants there are higher incidences of cancers & spontaneous abortions (due to mutations, presumably from the radiation leaks & releases & ventings from the plants). Look at the whole picture. Why use the most toxic form of power to better our world? Nothing is more toxic than radioactive waste. Which we still do not know how to store perfectly for the hundreds of thousands of years necessary to do so...
conradmillermd 2 years ago
And what reality are you from? At worst, studies show that communities surrounding Nukes have no difference in health or cancer rates, and at best, health is actually better.
Also, when this idiot talks about Pu being radioactive for 500,000 years, he also fails to say, "Hey, you could swallow a cup full of pure Pu-239 and you're more likely to die of heavy metal poison, but not because of radioactivity."
The longer the waste lasts, the less toxic it is. That is basic Nuclear Physics.
UKRentor1605 2 years ago
Excuse me with your word, idiot. Yes, you can hold plutonium in your hand, but the problem is the particle(s) that get into one's lung and causes lung cancer after 20-30 years. An unmarked unlabelled cancer. There are studies showing increased childhood cancers surrounding nuclear plants. Will quote you one in the next comment, Dear Respectful Sir.
conradmillermd 2 years ago
Where is here?
conradmillermd 2 years ago
Also did you know that some of the hazardous byproducts are beneficial to mankind? Like tritium for example. You speak of it like it is so very bad and nobody should ever come near it, but it does in fact have many uses. It is used in medical research and fission research. It can also be used to make lights which require no electricity at all.
hinske11 2 years ago
Wonderful. And we have to further the production and usage of nuclear waste by embracing the use of tritium, which IS cancer-causing. Why not pass a little more time, do more research, and use something that is non-toxic and non-radioactive?
conradmillermd 2 years ago
Then is remotely put into a container underwater. (container is 20 inches of concrete lined with steel) Then the top is remotely welded shut, then they release the water inside it through another hole, then fill it with helium, weld the hole shut then store in a building on site. Then from siting there for some time, it will be transported to a deep repository buried underground more than 600m in limestone rock then eventually sealed. Nobody will get any radiation poisoning, or exposed.
hinske11 2 years ago
you are right that is how we currently store our waste, but it would be much more efficient to recycle the waste. the waste is simply sent through a filter which filters out the biproducts,(various heavy metals, carbon, boron, etc.) then it is reenriched and put back in the reactors. it is extremely efficient and the yield is extremely high. three uranium pellets can supply a family of 4 with enough energy for 20 years.
coverchenko 2 years ago
nuclear ftw
caraddict520 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
and how many have died in the last 5 years due to radiation sickness
iFLAGEDurVideo 3 years ago
from a nuclear power plant? 0
taftsearlobe 2 years ago
Isotope is still radioactive enough to cause, in the case of plutonium, lung cancer after thousands of years. Yes, you might be able to hold the plutonium in your hand without dying, but that is not the story. If the plutonium sits in your lung, son, it can cause lung cancer, tho it may take 30 years to do this. The plutonium is not 'the stuff' that dies off unfortunately, with its 240,000 to 480,000 year hazardous life. Yucca Mt has 33 earthquake faults and many earthquakes happening recent
conradmillermd 3 years ago
Obviously, no person will be exposed to direct radioactive waste (I shall assume HLW or Spent Fuel), therefore you cant 'die' standing next to one. The irony of Germany is since they are closing their nuclear power plants they import electricity from France.
1GW from Wind requires 1000 turbines running at full capacity, in actuality is 30% capacity factor which would require 3000 turbines to match one reactor. A great challenge indeed.
FYI, all LLW sites are effectively closed in the US.
hiraku0n 3 years ago
In the case of a breach of a cask at a plant or of high level radioactive waste (HLRW) during transport to say Nevada, yes, there could be exposure to unfortunate individuals. And this could result in death over 2 weeks via radiation sickness where one's immune system implodes and bleeding from every orifice could occur. 10 seconds of exposure of unshielded HLRW from 3 feet away could do this. If the waste is hot. If held for a year or more this still could occur over 3 minutes of exposure.
conradmillermd 3 years ago
except the containers they transport nuclear waste in are huge concrete blocks that can survive a t-bone collision with a train going 70 MPH. So there goes that arguement.
taftsearlobe 2 years ago
interesting except you know Uranium is radioactive before its used too you know. In fact after its used its radiation levels are much lower.
taftsearlobe 3 years ago
Uranium is what is bombarded to produce its fission and heat, along unfortunately with over 500 radioactive radionuclides that can cause mutations, cancer, fetal abortions. ~80% of our uranium is imported.
"Its" radiation levels may be lower post fission but not its daughter products and other radionuclides produced.
conradmillermd 3 years ago
Germany is not phasing out nuclear and moving to wind. They're phasing out nuclear, yes, basically for political reasons, but they're replacing it with coal. Germany is building coal fired power plants like crazy. Their building wind turbines too, spending billions and billions but wind doesn't provide enough reliable power and hence they are burning coal and spewing filth into the atmosphere.
DrBuzz0 3 years ago
Also amusingly they will simply import nuclear energy from France.
DarthTanner 2 years ago
"Old RBMK designs, however, did not use containments, which was one of many technical oversights of the Soviet Union that contributed to the Chernobyl accident in 1986." Wiki
FermentingMadness 3 years ago
In this case, Wiki is Wakki. The Chernobyl reactor that exploded and had graphite fires for 10 days, did indeed have containment.
conradmillermd 2 years ago
Chernobyl did not have a containment dome. Atleast not a real one that was the reinforced type that is a requirement for all Nuclear Reactors in the United States. Chernobyl also didn't have a base. The design was made for weapons production, and it was a poor design at that to begin with. Chernobyl only killed around 50 people, and at most only a few thousand will die from it throughout the whole world over a 100 year time period. Get some facts straight.
UKRentor1605 2 years ago
Hogwash greenwash baloney shlaboney.
As posted amidst these comments several times, over 300,000 people have died prematurely due to Chernobyl - so far. Perhaps in ten more years we will have the actual figure. Have you ever seen the design of a Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) (35-40% of US reactors are of this type)? Check spent fuel pool that sits up above the core. Much of the plutonium ends up there, that remains radioactive for up to 480,000 yrs. Just a plain sheet metal roof shields it.
conradmillermd 2 years ago
Your evidence of this wild 300,000 figure?
DarthTanner 2 years ago
Dr. Alexey Yablokov, President of the Center for Russian Environmental Policy. Stated in his 2007 book. Dr. John Gofman, who first isolated plutonium for our first atomic bomb, and then saw that nuclear power was not a good idea at all, predicted in 1986 that 400,000 would die, and double that figure, 800,000 would contract cancers.
conradmillermd 2 years ago
Really, the World Health Organisation only attributes around 4,000 cancer deaths on top of the initial 56 deaths in 2008. The original fears of mass death in the years after the accident where to a large extent baseless.
DarthTanner 2 years ago
Nuclear isn't green no, but it dosent matter. Fusion will soon overtake nuclear and then we'll never build another reactor again (cept to maybe power a satalitte thats too far from the sun to use solar) In the end, my point is, build them, its not going to be long before they replace them with fusion, and the plants can reuse the cooling towers.
pfifofast 3 years ago
Fusion is the silver bullet? Every technology has its problems, especially those that develop great magitudes of power. Tritium generation may be big polluting problem with fusion, much worse than in comparison to today's nuclear reactors. Tritium has same body intake thru skin as thru lungs, so you can get it into yourself when you shower or wash dishes, as the people in the tritium polluted town of Godley, Illinois have to deal with today. Exelon is supplying them with bottled H20...
conradmillermd 3 years ago
There's a lot of love and well researched information coming out of that moustache.
conradmillermd 3 years ago
There is nothing but fear mongering ignorance and lies coming out of that mustache backed by the desire to sell your stupid book.
jasbcor 2 years ago
Haven't you said this before? Do you consider nuclear power possibly being 'green?'
conradmillermd 2 years ago
Comment removed
jasbcor 2 years ago
PS Vote Obama '08
KingOrmond 3 years ago
1kWatt per hours:
Solar Cell = every update ages 100 years (cost about one time $2000 per person) safety rating: 10
Oil/gas = 200 years will be gone! (empty)
(cost about $2 per person per hours) safeyt rating: 3
Larger Wind = every update 15 years (cost about $10M = 10000 persons x $1000) safety rating: 9
Unclear Power = every update 50 years (cost about $10B = 1M persons x $10,000) safety rating: 1
I think abort unclear power AND oil/gas!
KingOrmond 3 years ago
This is most amusing. Especially your complete inability to put forward actual generation numbers instead of 'per person' per 1M persons'.
DarthTanner 2 years ago
Breeder reactors are notoriously unsafe. Have the extreme danger of sodium fires. As occurred in Japan. That is why so few exist, and no one wants them. Otherwise, you speak brainwashed talk: of course nuclear plants can cause health problems from the raditation produced that leaks and is vented or the accidents like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Dr. Vladimir Chernousenko clean-up supervisor for Chernobyl, stated that an area 375 miles in diameter will be contaminated for 100,000 years.
conradmillermd 2 years ago
No their perfectly safe, its simply expensive to operate them safely. I love how often you hark on about Chernobyl. I didn't realise the Soviet Union still built half finished reactors and turned off all their safety protocols to run unplanned tests on them... oh wait you likely dont care about that. Nuclear = evil power mad scientists.
DarthTanner 2 years ago
I agree, you can't 'not do something' for fear of it going wrong. 'Buy a big car so when you're in an accident you'd have a greater chance of survival. Don't drive to work, you could die in a crash - just stay at home'. You'd be far more likely to die in a car accident on your way to work than you would from radioactive poisoning from a nuclear reactor.
hrthrhs 3 years ago
Perhaps, but when the next Chernobyl occurs, and it most likely will, that will be far worse than any car accident and will affect millions of people adversely. Chernobyl has essentially contaminated an entire area forever (in comparison to the time man has been on earth). The wise thing to do is realize that this 'miracle' technology is not the ideal form of energy production that will save us. Wind and solar can power the entire country (USA), plus hydro. That is the best way to go.
conradmillermd 2 years ago
How many of you expect to be standing 3 ft. next to a ton of unshielded highly radioactive waste for more than 10 seconds? Or how many people plan to put their mouth on the pipe exhaust of their car and inhale deeply? It only makes sense to make reasonable comparisons of risk which this "scientist" does not.
jasbcor 3 years ago
It's not about 'expecting' to stand next to unshielded high level waste, it's the potency of it if a spill occurs if there are going to be 20,000 to 70,000 shipments of high level waste & the fact that the casks have not been tested adequately for over 30 minutes or more than 1475 degrees. Diesel fires can burn for days & they burn at 1800 degrees Fahrenheit. If we build more nuclear plants, that means generating more high level waste that we still do not know how to store safely. Have kids?
conradmillermd 3 years ago
"Kids" are a poor attempt to change the nature of an argument from intellectual to emotional. The speculation of a massive crash/catastrophe is not a good reason to not proceed with the safer storage of such material. The casks have been torture tested to more than an adequate degree. If a spill should occur, it is solid waste and would not be the worst case scenario insofar as hazardous waste material spills.
jasbcor 3 years ago
The casks to carry these high level radioactive waste loads have not been tested properly. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has only required casks be tested to burn at 1475 degrees Fahrenheit for half an hour. But diesel fires burn often burn for days, at 1800 degrees Fahrenheit! See NIRS Nuclear Monitor #643 quote in following post please: "each truck cask on the highways would carry up to 40 times the long-lasting radioactivity released by the Hiroshima atomic bomb." More rest of quote.
conradmillermd 3 years ago
Insufficiently tested casks from Nuclear Monitor NIRS #643: "each truck cask on the highways would carry up to 40 times the long-lasting radioactivity released by the Hiroshima atomic bomb. Rail & barge casks, six times larger, would carry over 200 times the long-lasting radiation released at Hiroshima. Release of even a fraction of this cargo would spell unprecedented radiological disaster." Your kids could be riding their bikes in Oklahoma when a spill occurs, friends. Nuclear not green.
conradmillermd 3 years ago
These are worst case scenarios we are thinking of and will likely not happen. However, it would be safer if the NRC did not require the transport of waste to Yuca Mt, but left it where it is at current nuclear facilities. A large percentage of the radiation is lost after only 50 years of cooling.
stonelined 3 years ago
What could be worse than spilling nuclear waste, whether on your child or on you? Emotional is good when it comes to reality. Abstract ideas are nice, but premature death and cancer is not, especially when it hits you and your family, and you realize your scientific projections and predictions were wrong, and that you ruined a whole region of a country, and the lives of all the people and plants involved.
conradmillermd 2 years ago
You people keep bring up studies, but I found a study that stated that the area around Cherynobl only showed residents being exposed to 2 millirem of radiation, where as you get 6 from an x ray.
I don't have the url handy, but I'll find it and post it.
Jazzguitar00 3 years ago 3
Sounds great. Wouldn't you want to live there? So far 300,000 people have died prematurely due to the radiation released from Chernobyl, according to Dr. Yablokov. But we must wait til ~2016 to see the final death toll. That study should be interesting tho, & who performed it? Remember, billions of curies were released from the explosion & fire that lasted 10 days in 1986. Cesium is the biggest by volume radionuclide released & its hazardous life is 300-600 yrs that it can cause cancer.
conradmillermd 3 years ago
Chernobyl was poorly run and in no way does it reflect on the safety of all the other 100's of nuclear plants in operation.
hrthrhs 3 years ago
Chernobyl still has reactors running.
Any reactor can become a chernobyl 1986 and disperse radiation across whole USA states or regions contaminating these essentially forever. We have the capacity to supply all the electricity America needs with both wind and solar. No need to loose radioactive elements that will cause cancer on the American or any country's public. Remember, just one example: plutonium-239 only one microgram can cause lung cancer; 454 million micrograms in one pound plu239
conradmillermd 3 years ago
(1) But the cost of producing that many wind turbines (to supply 100% of Americas power) is near incalculable - i.e. a stupid decision to make. With wind turbines - for their production cost they are too inefficient. Nuclear costs a lot to construct but is very efficient when compared to renewable energy. In the real world, the future of our power relies on both technologies. They complement each other...
hrthrhs 3 years ago
Problem with nuclear power is health effects. Without govt subsidies, nuclear industry says they cannot afford to build reactors. What are your figures on cost of building en masse wind turbines? Why not subsidize the building with govt funds for a non-toxic non-poisoning non-cancer causing technology, instead of corporate welfare for an industry that would be dead without it? Wall street does not look favorably on nuclear power. Insurance industry won't insure homeowners 4 nuclear accident
conradmillermd 3 years ago
Sounds totally logical, doesn't it? Except for the old toxicity cancer-causing spontaneous abortion-causing
mutation-causing effects of radiation resulting from the fission of uranium to produce heat. In the long run, pretend you are a human being concerned about your son or daughter's protoplasm and genes being mutated/sacrificed to produce energy. If the nuclear industry has to pay for all its medical and environmental 'externalities' the economics of nuclear power shan't look very good.
conradmillermd 2 years ago
"Any reactor can become a Chernobyl" - NO. Very incorrect. Do some research on Chernobyl and you'll find out that it was poorly run and maintained. All modern Nuclear Reactors have an outer concrete 'shield' (for example) whose purpose is to stop radiation dispersing across the land. Chernobyl foolishly did not have this constructed, so your statement about any reactor potentially becoming a Chernobyl is extremely incorrect.
hrthrhs 3 years ago
Chernobyl did have containment. But the point is that any reactor can have a reaction go off in millionths of seconds and cause an explosion or nuclear runaway. Chernobyl was just one example of a contained reactor that was being tested, down to 4-7% of power that suddenly shot up to 100X 100% of full power in less than one minute. This is apocalyptic and can happen in ANY reactor, no matter the type, breaching ANY containment!
conradmillermd 3 years ago
I don't know what 'containment' you are referring to, but i assure you it did not have any concrete shielding around the reactor. "...full power in less than one minute" - It is a anti-terrorism safety feature that reactors can be shut down in 5 seconds. The thing is if the reactor is shielded from leaking radiation (as they are) then there's no chance that radiation can leak out.
hrthrhs 3 years ago
Containment at Chernobyl was concrete but not as custom fitted as today's US new reactors. But steam explosion would have blown thru any containment. Are you referring to scram stopping fission reaction in 5 seconds? Which would stop 95% of heat being generated, but still are daughter products from uranium fissioning possibly causing a meltdown for other 5% [1000 megawatt reactor, 5% still 50 megawatts]. & if there is an explosion of course leaks or worse can occur. TMI leaked & lots 1979
conradmillermd 3 years ago
Chernobyl made the fatal mistake of using its coolant as a reactor poison but not a moderator. That means a loss of coolant causes a runaway reaction. That is why Chernobyl exploded. That cannot happen in any American reactor, because our reactors are water moderated, not graphite moderated, so a loss of coolant will shut down the reaction, not send it skyward.
ajpmathwiz 3 years ago 2
Chernobyl did have a concrete containment structure, but not as tightly constructed as new US reactors. However, a steam explosion can blow open containment structures, or caps atop the cores of reactors, just as it happened at Chernobyl.
conradmillermd 3 years ago
Wrong, CN is totally dismantled, your probbally thinking TMI. and there are 28.8 million ug in one pound.
pfifofast 3 years ago
Could you please further expain what is or are 28.8 million micrograms in one pound?
There are 454 grams in one pound. Or 454 Million micrograms.
conradmillermd 3 years ago
Actually your both right about this one, CN didn't have a containment sheild. But even with a shield a decent steam explosion can fix that. Plus since CN weve found much better ways of stopping the uncontroled reaction. (Magnesium-oxide)
pfifofast 3 years ago
What's magnesium oxide do?
hrthrhs 3 years ago
Its normally used to put out plutonium fires. (plutonium is flamable)
pfifofast 3 years ago
Plutonium fires would be some disaster. Only a millionth of a gram can cause lung cancer [may take up 20-30 yrs to develop], has a half life of 24,000 yrs plutonium-239 [hazardous life to worry about it 10-20 half lives=240,000 - 480,000 years. Difficult to comprehend such a measure of time?] Each nuclear plant produces 400-1000 lbs per year; USA has 104 nuclear plants today. Theoretically, if vaporized to small enough particles to get into lung sacs, 20 lbs could give lung ca to all humans.
conradmillermd 3 years ago
Chernobyl did have a concrete containment, but not as tightly approximate as new reactors. US reactors tend to cool while Chernobyl variety tend to build up heat, so the former is better. However, even when a reactor scrams, only the fissioning stops of uranium. The daughter products continue producing heat and CAN produce a meltdown, which can cause a steam explosion when water meets hot melting down core with water beneath the core if pipes are breached, water spilled.
conradmillermd 3 years ago
According to the danish science magazine "illusteret videnskab", living near a nuclear plant for 150 years is just as deadly as: a chest X-ray, a two day trip to New york,
smoking a 1.4 cigarette, drinking 30 0.5 litre bottles of coca-cola light, and riding a bicycle 15 kilometers.
"Who's Afraid of Nuclear Power?"
Stefnir94 3 years ago 2
Studies are always interesting. But when I went to college I took 3 statistics courses & all three used the small book entitled "How To Lie With Statistics." All depends how you frame your study, & make your measurements. You know that these plants vent gases that decay into radioactively toxic daughter products that can cause cancer & mutations. Then there is the activation product tritium which is absorbed equally via ingestion & thru the skin. I doubt the above numbers are faithful 4U.
conradmillermd 3 years ago
nuclear technology is a double edged sword. nuclear energy can be green if used responsibly. technology needs to be perfected. the future is all about fusion energy (not cold fusion), cleaner fission like thorium.
samann95014 3 years ago
300,000 died so far from Chernobyl. Nuclear physicist cleaning up accident - caused by human error, died of cancer & said "To construct a safe reactor is practically impossible either here or in Russia ...Because we are dealing with nuclear processes, with uncontrolled reactions, which occur within millionths of a second,& no matter what kind of protection mechanism you design, sooner or later the object must explode and they will." Fusion probably will produce mucho tritium, a wonderful killa
conradmillermd 3 years ago
All of you people saying that Nuclear Energy is not green because of the waste and blah blah blah...you are CLEARLY uninformed on the policies for storing waste and preventing any type of contamination. And as someone else pointed out, it's also re-useable. You people are victims of fear-mongering anti-nuclear lobbyists.
Jazzguitar00 3 years ago 3
How long is plutonium-239 radioactive? Hazardous life=10-20 half lives = 240,000 to 480,000 years. That is a major long time and the current technologies are still not proven to retain the waste for more than 50-100 years. Radioactivity causes cancer. I hope you do understand that. The 're-usable' waste you probably mean via re-processing, which creates more waste streams & is very dangerous & polluting. How can nuclear energy be 'green'? C'mon, what about something called common sense?
conradmillermd 3 years ago
Common sense is with all the technology we have that we could contain the radioactivity, espcially if the disposal is in barrels, under multiple containment layers, buried deep in a mountain with stable conditions. Radioactivity causes cancer? That's a random statement, because I you can't really argue that people are going to be exposed to anything. And the waste stops being dangerous after 50 years (I don't remember the precise words). Everything is radioactive, it's a word with content.
Jazzguitar00 3 years ago