Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is nuclear power safe??
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


(1)
Message 14 of 57 (609312)
03-18-2011 10:36 AM


mini nuclear power plants
I proffered the excellent idea of mini nuclear power plants (and micro hydro-power plants) in the Japan thread. Sadly, no one remarked about that particular post:
Small Town Nukes 
National Geographic Magazine
Small reactors can't address all the problems standing in the way of more nuclear investment, but they can address the biggest barriersthe economic ones,
Besides costing less to build, some small reactors could be inherently SAFER, . . .

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by fearandloathing, posted 03-18-2011 10:50 AM dronestar has not replied
 Message 24 by Rahvin, posted 03-18-2011 12:21 PM dronestar has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 25 of 57 (609340)
03-18-2011 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Rahvin
03-18-2011 12:21 PM


Re: mini nuclear power plants
"Dam" interesting about Banqiao. Nope, I never heard about it even though I researched visiting Henan Province the previous year (visited Guizhou Province instead). Will google about, wiki doesn't seem to have any photos linked.
thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Rahvin, posted 03-18-2011 12:21 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Rahvin, posted 03-18-2011 1:03 PM dronestar has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 30 of 57 (614616)
05-05-2011 12:46 PM


The Grand Canyon Uranium Rush
For the past two years, the Grand Canyon has been protected from Uranium mining. But now, the temporary mining moratorium is set to expire . . .
quote:
Save the Grand Canyon from uranium mining
If mining companies are allowed to move ahead with their new claims, the damage to the local wildlands and habitat would be extreme. And with the huge risk that polluted water will run into the Colorado river -- which supplies water to cities including Las Vegas, Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix and Tucson -- this mining literally poses a risk to the health of nearly 30 million people.2
It's tragic that, as we observe the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster this week, and as the Fukushima disaster continues to unfold in Japan, the thirst for nuclear energy and power would now threaten one of our most precious places, and millions of people who depend on it.
http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/grand_canyon_mining/?...
quote:
The Grand Canyon Uranium Rush
Setting that land off-limits would protect the delicate ecosystem in and around the Grand Canyon. It would also eliminate the risk of radioactive materials, disturbed by mining, leaching into the aquifer and the Colorado River. That would affect the Havasupai Indians, who live in the canyon itself, and 27 million people who draw water from the river in Nevada and California.
Opinion | The Grand Canyon Uranium Rush - The New York Times
quote:
Uranium Mining 101
Though uranium is found naturally in the environment, it can be extremely toxic when mined and processed. When uranium is mined, other radioactive decay elements such as radium and thorium are released.
Exposure to these radioactive elements can cause lung cancer, skin cancer, bone cancer, leukemia, kidney damage and birth defects. Recent research has found an association between exposure to mine waste and autoimmune dysfunction, including diabetes.
Resources Archive - Earthworks
As long as the actual direct deaths per TWh are kept low, I suppose SOME people MIGHT think that uranium mining in the Grand Canyon is a GOOD policy.
I'd disagree.

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Rahvin, posted 05-05-2011 1:06 PM dronestar has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 32 of 57 (614622)
05-05-2011 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Rahvin
05-05-2011 1:06 PM


Re: The Grand Canyon Uranium Rush
Rahvin writes:
Do you suppose that supporters of nuclear power because it is the safest method of power generation
Still waiting for SOLID numbers that include cancer illnessES.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Rahvin, posted 05-05-2011 1:06 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Rahvin, posted 05-05-2011 1:34 PM dronestar has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 34 of 57 (614646)
05-05-2011 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Rahvin
05-05-2011 1:34 PM


Re: The Grand Canyon Uranium Rush
Rahvin writes:
If you want to dispute those numbers, provide your own source. Until and unless you can give an independently-sourced casualty number that records a higher death toll than what I found, you have no evidence to support your argument. End of fucking story.
Though your death toll numbers MAY be correct, I have not been debating the death tolls that you keep harping on. (I haven't seen such an unwavering and peremptory stance since Kenner Toys introduced GI Joe's Kung Fu Death Grip action doll.) However, I AM repeatedly harping on the cancer/radiation sickness tolls.
OK, here AGAIN are some cancer numbers I have submitted before.
quote:
A more recent, 2000, report, "Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation", by the United Nations' Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation increased to 1,800 the number of thyroid cancers in individuals exposed in childhood to releases from the Chernobyl accident.
http://www.magma.ca/~jalrober/Howbad.htm
The new data, based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predictsapproximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also concludes that on the basis of demographicdata, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000.
Archive-It Wayback Machine
To paraphrase your argument:
If you want to dispute these cancer numbers, provide your own source. Until and unless you can give an independently-sourced casualty number that records a LOWER CANCER toll than what I found, you have no evidence to support your argument. End of fucking story.
Incidentally, if all you have is a "general sense" that nuclear power generation causes insignificant cancer illness, and not any real numbers, that's rather strong evidence that you are currently holding a belief that is not based on any real-world evidence.
Edited by dronester, : clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Rahvin, posted 05-05-2011 1:34 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Rahvin, posted 05-05-2011 5:06 PM dronestar has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


(1)
Message 36 of 57 (614760)
05-06-2011 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Rahvin
05-05-2011 5:06 PM


Re: The Grand Canyon Uranium Rush
Hey Mister Rhavin,
It seems you’ve been giving my posts the short thrift. I am often needing to remind you of my previous posts or point out strategic words used. Dronester sad.
1. When you gave pro-nuclear stats from a questionable propaganda site, I called you on it. You replied unless I have my own stats, I should stay quiet, Fucking end of story. Ok, precedence was set.
2. So when I gave you SELF-ADMITTED DUBIOUS cancer numbers, instead of replying with your own stats as you have directed me, you dismissed ALL of my stats. Doesn’t seem fair.
3. You want to restrict the numbers to actual deaths because there can never be SOLID cancer illness numbers. This doesn’t sound like an accurate way to determine the safety of nuclear power.
4. You want to only use the death per TWh as indicative of nuclear power safety. I think this marginalizes too many other current serious problems with nuclear power. As Fukishima showed, nuclear power plants shouldn’t be built near populous zones. They are. Nuclear Powerplants shouldn’t be placed on fault zones. They are. Nuclear Powerplants shouldn’t be placed near tsunami risk-areas. They are. Nuclear Powerplants should be held to high safety regulations and strict monitoring. They aren’t. Nuclear Powerplants should have adequate safety backups. They don’t. Nuclear Powerplants should NOT be operated with known design flaws. They are. Nuclear Powerplants should not store spent fuel rods in non-reinforced, un-secure pools. They are. You may only want to use death tolls, but that wouldn’t accurately show the true on-going risk of nuclear power. Indeed, I am asserting, we’ve been lucky so far. Consider, if a highly technologically advanced nation like Japan could have so many glaring serious problems, what can we expect when a third world nation, banana-republic, wants to build /operate nuclear powerplants? I think future catastrophes are inevitable.
5. The costs of nuclear power plants is extraordinary. Why not spend the money towards alternate power sources. I mentioned hydro before. I am starting to conclude the real reason hydro power (ocean wave or mini-river) isn’t pushed is because it simply isn’t as profitable as nuclear.
6. I am not fully against all nuclear power. I have already stated I think the mini nuclear power plants a good idea. Unfortunately, industry wants massive sized nuclear power plants because of the huge profit margin and because the risk, if something catastrophic happens, is capped.
7. I am not fully against all nuclear power. But I do want the concerns addressed. Perhaps the shrill and hyper-vigilance of the anti-nuclear crowd will somewhat cause advances in safety. But if we simply leave it to industry and government, we are not being very good parents to our children or stewards of the earth
8. Lastly, just a plea towards a healthy earth. I am trying to contain the epidemic, and others seem to be driving the infected monkey to the airport. I love tuna, but health officials urge women and children to restrict their consumption because of the mercury poisoning we have poisoned our waters with. I love safe drinking water, but industry wants to increase pumping poisonous chemicals into the ground to release gas/oil. The government works against us by implementing standards that allow manufacturers to pollute the earth. Government reduces funding for regulations and monitoring and then the industry is not adequately policed or fined. And America is a first world nation. What about third world nations where industrial toxic sludge is directly pumped into rivers? You can say, currently, that nuclear power is the cleanest or safest, but really, is this the best we can do? Our standards continue to slip, indeed, do we really NEED to fight against mining in the GRAND CANYON? It’s amazing that this is even contemplated in the first place. Can you concede our national, and more pressing, global safety net is swinging haphazardly?
Rhavin, this is a somewhat rambling post. But in it, can you at least see my aggravation/frustration that the earth will be in a much worse condition than when I inherited it? Often, when an eco-system is once changed, there is never going back to replace it. I am urging everyone to re-think how best to maintain a fragile planet's health.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Rahvin, posted 05-05-2011 5:06 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Theodoric, posted 05-06-2011 1:00 PM dronestar has replied
 Message 39 by Rahvin, posted 05-06-2011 2:48 PM dronestar has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 38 of 57 (614783)
05-06-2011 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Theodoric
05-06-2011 1:00 PM


Re: Quick aside
Short SHRIFT.
Err, kinda explains the little attention or consideration my posts are getting.
Thanks Theo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Theodoric, posted 05-06-2011 1:00 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024