Chernobyl

[anonymous1234]

[hide=Big quote]

 

I want to know where he got his sources from.

 

I'm sorry, but why the hell do you need everything spoon fed to you? Go find this stuff on your own. Ah well, I guess I'll find it for you:

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16809

 

Three Mile Myth

 

 

 

Any discussion of nuclear power safety inevitably turns to Three Mile Island, considered the worst--and only--nuclear power failure in the United States. Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) addressed Three Mile in his outstanding 2004 book, A Brighter Tomorrow: Fulfilling the Promise of Nuclear Energy:

 

 

 

"... few realize that even though 90 percent of the fuel rods ruptured, the accident was a non-event from a radiation standpoint. The maximum exposure to the nearest member of the public was little more than a third of the [Nuclear Regulatory Commission's] annual limit for the public. And no worker exceeded the commission's current annual limit for occupational exposure."

 

 

 

Domenici also recounts the amazing health record for sailors living on nuclear submarines during the past 50 years. "In the Navy's nuclear submarines, the sailors who live and work within yards of operating reactors receive less whole body radiation while underway than while at home and exposed to natural background radiation."

 

 

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502E7DD1330F937A2575BC0A962958260

 

 

 

The 110 nuclear-power plants on line in the United States today have never caused an injury to the public or released harmful quantities of radiation. Generation of nuclear electric power is the safest industry in the country. Electric utilities routinely report that nuclear facilities deliver the lowest cost of their mix of generation sources. Shoreham was a safe licensed nuclear-power plant ready to deliver power. The Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant upstate New York has been delivering low-cost electric power to Long Island for decades, and Shoreham, without the cost of obstruction, would have been a low-cost producer, too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ARE YOU CONVINCED YET? Nuclear power is the way to go. There is not one reason why not to other than that people are stubborn, old-fashioned, and cannot commit to any type of change.

[/hide]Hmm seems I've been using nuclear power all this time according to the myth. Now only if they will build those windmills on Jones Beach :-k

 

 

 

I think nuclear power has a lot of potential, but while people are still afraid of meltdowns, it won't happen. It's a shame really

[magekillr]

As far as the problems of disposal go, I completely understand what you're saying. I would suggest that we build up more non-combustion space planes and, breaking at least one international treaty, throw the used fuel into the sun. But that's just me being bat[cabbage] insane and I'm not exactly fond of violating treaties.

 

 

 

The more reasonable thing to say is this: just as we can build isotopes and [Caution: Jagex Rule Violation]tics that take hundreds of millenia to degrade, we can build wildly better storage materials than concrete. I think our next generation of high-performance materials--synthetic ceramics, buckyball plastics, and fluid cesium--would be strong, flexible, and tight enough to protect any hypothetical Yucca Mountain from earthquake and water erosion.

 

 

 

If you just dropped a brick of uranium into an aquifer, that in itself wouldn't do anything. First, water is a way to CONTAIN radiation. H2O is unique in that it doesn't become radioactive the neutrinos emitted by nuclear fuel. Second, uranium is a big, heavy metal, and it won't turn into a radioactive kool-aid just by splashing it with water.

 

 

 

That said, if there's a bunch of junk floating in the water, it can get irradiated. If that junk is put into the drinking water without a filter (an incredibly stupid move, by the way), then someone could swallow some radioactive bark or whatever. But you know what? That's not that bad, either. Ingestion is much, much better than inhalation or injection.Unless you're machining (cutting down, grinding) uranium or plutonium without a mask, you have nothing to worry about.

 

 

 

How much would need to get into an aquifer to kill everyone drinking from it? I'd say that no amount can do that. Even if you dump several tons of powderized high-enrichment urnanium, most of the people who drink that water would pass it out of their system before they increased their risk for cancer enough to notice...

[baalboy5]

Or we are worried about the nuclear waste, which IS a problem. To which the only current solution is to bury it.

 

 

 

Claiming that your opinion is right and everyone else is wrong is nothing short of blind arrogance. Yes, we get that the actual process is safe. But the aftereffect is deady. The reactors in America alone produce 20,000+ barrels of toxic waste that will be a danger for 25,000 years. Not to mention places like France which have more reactors.

 

 

 

What the hell do you plan to do with this waste when we have hundreds of reactors in the United States? The world? What will the 3rd World nations who don't have the money to use neutralization technology (that has not even been invented) do with their waste?

 

 

 

exactly what I'm thinking of and why I'm not convinced. Yes nuculear power is good but the effects of it are bad. America can't find places to just 'bury' waste, people will protest. The waste if my only real concern, Yes I understand it's safe to use nuculear plants but it's dumb to think of how to manage the waste

[Barihawk]

...

 

 

 

So you are saying that first we should just build better materials in order to do the same thing, burying it in the ground en masse. And second, who cares about a little radiation poisoning?

 

 

 

If I remember my estimates from high school science, one pound of plutonium would be enough to kill every human on earth from raw exposure. Also, radiation loves to stick to living tissue in animals and plants. Sure, humans might not get much exposure, but what about the wildlife we give that water to that drinks it daily and accumulates that radiation in time to be served as a juicy steak. Or the plants we water that end up in our salads?

 

 

 

Your reasoning in this entire thread has been entirely self-centered on American humans, with no thoughts to other dimensions of thinking or to those who do not live like we do.

 

 

 

Love Canal shut down because of a few microbes got into the soil. The poison that is in those barrels (of which the danger is much worse than radiation) would make Love Canal look like the Love Boat.

[anonymous1234]

:lol: Love Canal... Still makes me laugh :thumbsup:

 

 

 

One pound of plutonium killing every human from raw exposure? that's pretty crazy. And what wildlife are we giving the contaminated water to? I thought we just buried it.

[Barihawk]

:lol: Love Canal... Still makes me laugh :thumbsup:

 

 

 

One pound of plutonium killing every human from raw exposure? that's pretty crazy. And what wildlife are we giving the contaminated water to? I thought we just buried it.

 

 

 

It seeps through the barrels (which is a given), through the concrete, and gets into the water tables.

[Range_This11]

[hide=]quote Barihawk

...

 

 

 

So you are saying that first we should just build better materials in order to do the same thing, burying it in the ground en masse. And second, who cares about a little radiation poisoning?

 

 

 

If I remember my estimates from high school science, one pound of plutonium would be enough to kill every human on earth from raw exposure. Also, radiation loves to stick to living tissue in animals and plants. Sure, humans might not get much exposure, but what about the wildlife we give that water to that drinks it daily and accumulates that radiation in time to be served as a juicy steak. Or the plants we water that end up in our salads?

 

 

 

Your reasoning in this entire thread has been entirely self-centered on American humans, with no thoughts to other dimensions of thinking or to those who do not live like we do.

 

 

 

Love Canal shut down because of a few microbes got into the soil. The poison that is in those barrels (of which the danger is much worse than radiation) would make Love Canal look like the Love Boat.

[/hide]

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_nuclear_power

 

(Scroll to the part about "radioactive waste")

 

 

 

I completely understand where you're coming from, but you have to realize that there are hundreds of sanctions, laws, and restrictions regarding nuclear ANYTHING. The government is not going to let Nuclear Power Plants just dump their waste in the river without regard. There would be very serious repercussions to any unsanctioned dumping of radioactive material. Jesus christ, I live 30 miles from a nuclear power plant! Red Wing, MN. Look it up. THERE HAVE BEEN ZERO DEATHS OR SICKNESSES FROM THIS PLANT.

[Lenticular_J]

[hide=]quote Barihawk

...

 

 

 

So you are saying that first we should just build better materials in order to do the same thing' date=' burying it in the ground en masse. And second, who cares about a little radiation poisoning?

 

 

 

If I remember my estimates from high school science, one pound of plutonium would be enough to kill every human on earth from raw exposure. Also, radiation loves to stick to living tissue in animals and plants. Sure, humans might not get much exposure, but what about the wildlife we give that water to that drinks it daily and accumulates that radiation in time to be served as a juicy steak. Or the plants we water that end up in our salads?

 

 

 

Your reasoning in this entire thread has been entirely self-centered on American humans, with no thoughts to other dimensions of thinking or to those who do not live like we do.

 

 

 

Love Canal shut down because of a few microbes got into the soil. The poison that is in those barrels (of which the danger is much worse than radiation) would make Love Canal look like the Love Boat.[/quote'][/hide]

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_nuclear_power

 

(Scroll to the part about "radioactive waste")

 

 

 

I completely understand where you're coming from, but you have to realize that there are hundreds of sanctions, laws, and restrictions regarding nuclear ANYTHING. The government is not going to let Nuclear Power Plants just dump their waste in the river without regard. There would be very serious repercussions to any unsanctioned dumping of radioactive material. Jesus christ, I live 30 miles from a nuclear power plant! Red Wing, MN. Look it up. THERE HAVE BEEN ZERO DEATHS OR SICKNESSES FROM THIS PLANT.

 

Is that where they dump it? Apparently not.

 

 

 

By the way, sanctions, laws, and restrictions have been broken before.

[Lenin64]

Disposal is really he only problem, as has been said. Someone said put it in space, but what if we have another Challenger accident? Radioactive material would be flung everywhere, for a very large radius. Sure, it's a what-if, but still a very possible what-if.

[Range_This11]

 

Is that where they dump it? Apparently not.

 

 

 

By the way, sanctions, laws, and restrictions have been broken before.

 

 

 

What the hell kind of reasoning is that? Let's not do this because our laws on it will surely be broken...

 

 

 

I'm thinking people must be under the impression that super-humans are running these plants and obviously do not have any problems absorbing the massive amounts of radiation into their bodies. And they obviously don't live near the plants either, so why would they care if the radation was dumped into the local river or buried in a local field? :roll:

 

 

 

The reason for no one EVER getting sick or dying from nuclear plants is because they take the radiation so far away from human civilization that it would take thousands of years to seep through the ground to even have minimal effects on humans.

[baalboy5]

 

Is that where they dump it? Apparently not.

 

 

 

By the way, sanctions, laws, and restrictions have been broken before.

 

 

 

What the hell kind of reasoning is that? Let's not do this because our laws on it will surely be broken...

 

 

 

I'm thinking people must be under the impression that super-humans are running these plants and obviously do not have any problems absorbing the massive amounts of radiation into their bodies. And they obviously don't live near the plants either, so why would they care if the radation was dumped into the local river or buried in a local field? :roll:

 

 

 

The reason for no one EVER getting sick or dying from nuclear plants is because they take the radiation so far away from human civilization that it would take thousands of years to seep through the ground to even have minimal effects on humans.

 

 

 

The what about the animals? plants? the radiation exposes to them, then we kill them---> eat them----> get exposed.

[Barihawk]

Range, you are as educated in the subject as one of my students would be, absorbing any source.

 

 

 

They bury those barrels in special bunkers, which are not very special as much as they are a concrete hole in the ground. Of course they don't dispose of waste near the factories, they take it out into the middle of nowhere. While people don't live near the waste, water tables do, and they spread the poison.

 

 

 

Sure, no incident has happened yet, but government reports have shown pictures of these bunkers where heat and pressure have blown the lids off of containers while others have melted from the toxicity of their contents.

 

 

 

The threat is very real.

 

 

 

And I am against launching this material in space, because we can not guarantee it's safety up there, either.

[warren211]

The problem I see with nuclear power in the US is the terrorist danger.

 

 

 

At Niagara Falls, there is a power plant. It supplies a large sum of the East coast's electricity via hydroelectricity. During 9/11, this plant was shut down. It was a very high risk area because if it had been bombed, the entire East Coast would have to ration their electricity very strictly and many places would be completely out (and with the East coast being a major center for business and recreation, this would have been huge). Imagine if that location was a hybrid of hydroelectricity and nuclear power plant supplying so much of the US's power. It would have definitely been bombed killing thousands of tourists in the Niagara area, Niagara falls would have been poisoned with nuclear radiation, the East Coast would have strictly limited power, and the area would be a new Chernobyl. Killing what, 4 birds? with one stone.

[Range_This11]

Range, you are as educated in the subject as one of my students would be, absorbing any source.

 

 

 

They bury those barrels in special bunkers, which are not very special as much as they are a concrete hole in the ground. Of course they don't dispose of waste near the factories, they take it out into the middle of nowhere. While people don't live near the waste, water tables do, and they spread the poison.

 

 

 

Sure, no incident has happened yet, but government reports have shown pictures of these bunkers where heat and pressure have blown the lids off of containers while others have melted from the toxicity of their contents.

 

 

 

The threat is very real.

 

 

 

And I am against launching this material in space, because we can not guarantee it's safety up there, either.

 

 

 

See I don't mind debating with you whatsoever, it's just the people that really have not done any research or have not been educated formally on this topic at all that REALLY anger me. So I apologize if I seem caustic at times.

 

 

 

I posted the Wikipedia article earlier, and in it had a type of radioative waste that they dumped. Now this was very low-grade radioactive material; the type that normally comes from an average size nuclear power plant. This type of waste is not harmful even when exposed (such as your barrel exploding reference) to the water table. The amounts of hazardous material in this "radioactive waste" is actually very small. Check out the article if you haven't already.

[baalboy5]

The problem I see with nuclear power in the US is the terrorist danger.

 

 

 

At Niagara Falls, there is a power plant. It supplies a large sum of the East coast's electricity via hydroelectricity. During 9/11, this plant was shut down. It was a very high risk area because if it had been bombed, the entire East Coast would have to ration their electricity very strictly and many places would be completely out (and with the East coast being a major center for business and recreation, this would have been huge). Imagine if that location was a hybrid of hydroelectricity and nuclear power plant supplying so much of the US's power. It would have definitely been bombed killing thousands of tourists in the Niagara area, Niagara falls would have been poisoned with nuclear radiation, the East Coast would have strictly limited power, and the area would be a new Chernobyl. Killing what, 4 birds? with one stone.

 

 

 

Very good example, but our history of knowing how protected the place is less worries us while nuculear power stays the same.

 

So are you saying EVERY nulcular power plant is as protected as the falls?

[Barihawk]

Range, you are as educated in the subject as one of my students would be, absorbing any source.

 

 

 

They bury those barrels in special bunkers, which are not very special as much as they are a concrete hole in the ground. Of course they don't dispose of waste near the factories, they take it out into the middle of nowhere. While people don't live near the waste, water tables do, and they spread the poison.

 

 

 

Sure, no incident has happened yet, but government reports have shown pictures of these bunkers where heat and pressure have blown the lids off of containers while others have melted from the toxicity of their contents.

 

 

 

The threat is very real.

 

 

 

And I am against launching this material in space, because we can not guarantee it's safety up there, either.

 

 

 

See I don't mind debating with you whatsoever, it's just the people that really have not done any research or have not been educated formally on this topic at all that REALLY anger me. So I apologize if I seem caustic at times.

 

 

 

I posted the Wikipedia article earlier, and in it had a type of radioative waste that they dumped. Now this was very low-grade radioactive material; the type that normally comes from an average size nuclear power plant. This type of waste is not harmful even when exposed (such as your barrel exploding reference) to the water table. The amounts of hazardous material in this "radioactive waste" is actually very small. Check out the article if you haven't already.

 

 

 

I do mind arguing against you, because it's one sided.

 

 

 

Here's the wiki article on radioactive waste: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

 

 

 

Yeah, it's not harmful. :roll:

[magekillr]

...

 

 

 

So you are saying that first we should just build better materials in order to do the same thing, burying it in the ground en masse. And second, who cares about a little radiation poisoning?

 

 

 

When the radiation poisoning is so minimal that it doesn't affect the health, then yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

 

 

 

 

 

Your reasoning in this entire thread has been entirely self-centered on American humans, with no thoughts to other dimensions of thinking or to those who do not live like we do.

 

 

 

How am I being self-centered around American humans when Americans are paling in comparison to Canada, France, and Germany (soon, if not already, Japan) to their nuclear power use?

 

 

 

Why not allow Canada to sell plots of land far up north? Canada recycles a lot of its waste, and digs big holes up north, throws it in, and leaves it alone. Bastardized way of saying it, but it's basically what they do.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Shield

 

 

 

This absorbs all of the radiation that could possibly leak out of the containments made of concrete (or as I said, future materials which are taking off...) No chances of earth quakes, water can't seep into masses of bedrock of that capacity, and Canada receives some funds to invest in other alternative energies or other thing to help their citizens.

 

 

 

This doesn't solve the energy crisis, but Nuclear Power is going to have to be pressed until we find better alternatives...

[das1330]

Range, you are as educated in the subject as one of my students would be, absorbing any source.

 

 

 

They bury those barrels in special bunkers, which are not very special as much as they are a concrete hole in the ground. Of course they don't dispose of waste near the factories, they take it out into the middle of nowhere. While people don't live near the waste, water tables do, and they spread the poison.

 

 

 

Sure, no incident has happened yet, but government reports have shown pictures of these bunkers where heat and pressure have blown the lids off of containers while others have melted from the toxicity of their contents.

 

 

 

The threat is very real.

 

 

 

And I am against launching this material in space, because we can not guarantee it's safety up there, either.

 

 

 

 

 

They take the radioactive material out into the desert. The US government is trying to open http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_Repository the Yucca Mountain Repository, where it has already been determined that the water table is low enough that by the time it floods the caverns the waste is stored in there will be practically no radioactivity left. While nuclear power is potentially dangerous (like just about everything else), fossil fuel based power is much, much more dangerous in the long run.

[Lord_Omar_Iv]

apparently nuclear power is safe enough that US Military naval ships are powered by nuclear energy. so all the fuss about what happened in 1986 in the ex soviet union shouldnt really be something to be worried about

[warri0r45]

:lol: Love Canal... Still makes me laugh :thumbsup:

 

 

 

One pound of plutonium killing every human from raw exposure? that's pretty crazy. And what wildlife are we giving the contaminated water to? I thought we just buried it.

 

 

 

It seeps through the barrels (which is a given), through the concrete, and gets into the water tables.

 

 

 

Basic physics would dictate only gamma radiation would penetrate the barrels of spent fuel rods and possibly through any concrete barriers beyond (alpha and beta particles can be stopped easily by the metal barrel).

 

 

 

So the simple solution would be to seriously reinforce the fuel dumps to ensure that no radiation seeps through into the water tables.

 

 

 

Or maybe my physics is just too basic? Are there any cases of radiation from spent fuel seeping through sufficiently reinforced fuel dumps and into the ground water?

[Lenticular_J]

 

Is that where they dump it? Apparently not.

 

 

 

By the way, sanctions, laws, and restrictions have been broken before.

 

 

 

What the hell kind of reasoning is that? Let's not do this because our laws on it will surely be broken...

 

 

 

I'm thinking people must be under the impression that super-humans are running these plants and obviously do not have any problems absorbing the massive amounts of radiation into their bodies. And they obviously don't live near the plants either, so why would they care if the radation was dumped into the local river or buried in a local field? :roll:

 

 

 

The reason for no one EVER getting sick or dying from nuclear plants is because they take the radiation so far away from human civilization that it would take thousands of years to seep through the ground to even have minimal effects on humans.

 

Errr. What? Seriously, you just went from one side of the argument completely to the other one, then back to the other side again.

[Range_This11]

 

 

 

I do mind arguing against you, because it's one sided.

 

 

 

Here's the wiki article on radioactive waste: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

 

 

 

Yeah, it's not harmful. :roll:

 

Hooray for blanket satements. Radioactive waste is harmful. Nice ovservation there; way to take something completely out of context. You know I'm starting to think you don't really know what you're talking about. You cite no sources but your own personal knowledge, and you just make outlandish accusations that have already been proven false by tested research.

 

 

 

You're correct, it isn't harmful. AT ALL.

[Range_This11]

 

Errr. What? Seriously, you just went from one side of the argument completely to the other one, then back to the other side again.

 

Do I really need to put the "/sarcasm" in front of everything I say? I was arguing the other side of the point to prove it false, which it obviously is.

[baalboy5]

 

 

 

I do mind arguing against you, because it's one sided.

 

 

 

Here's the wiki article on radioactive waste: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

 

 

 

Yeah, it's not harmful. :roll:

 

Hooray for blanket satements. Radioactive waste is harmful. Nice ovservation there; way to take something completely out of context. You know I'm starting to think you don't really know what you're talking about. You cite no sources but your own personal knowledge, and you just make outlandish accusations that have already been proven false by tested research.

 

 

 

You're correct, it isn't harmful. AT ALL.

 

 

 

Note the :roll:

 

 

 

 

Errr. What? Seriously, you just went from one side of the argument completely to the other one, then back to the other side again.

 

Do I really need to put the "/sarcasm" in front of everything I say? I was arguing the other side of the point to prove it false, which it obviously is.

 

 

 

yeah the /sarcasm thing helps

[Barihawk]

 

 

 

I do mind arguing against you, because it's one sided.

 

 

 

Here's the wiki article on radioactive waste: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

 

 

 

Yeah, it's not harmful. :roll:

 

Hooray for blanket satements. Radioactive waste is harmful. Nice ovservation there; way to take something completely out of context. You know I'm starting to think you don't really know what you're talking about. You cite no sources but your own personal knowledge, and you just make outlandish accusations that have already been proven false by tested research.

 

 

 

You're correct, it isn't harmful. AT ALL.

 

 

 

...Are you just an idiot? What do you think the sarcastic smiley face is for. Unless you think that it is indeed not harmful, in which I ask that you have a nice tall glass of radioactive waste.

 

 

Do I really need to put the "/sarcasm" in front of everything I say?

 

 

 

I was thinking the same thing.