- Joined
- Aug 11, 2010
- defconwarningsystem
- DEFCONWSALERTS
- YOUTUBE
- DefconWarningSystem
Yeah, but does a pile of coal have the potential to release a thousand rads of radiation at once?
-
Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.
Re-Emergence of Nuclear Energy
- Thread starter Obreid
- Start date
- Status
Is that your reasoning? Really? You know how logical that sounds? You would rather choose something that will eventually make you sick for sure & emits literally billions of times more radiation over a fluke chance of a accident? More fluke than a meteor crashing into your house.
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2010
- defconwarningsystem
- DEFCONWSALERTS
- YOUTUBE
- DefconWarningSystem
I am not advocating anything. I'm merely making a point.
And the assertion that coal "literally billions of times more radiation" completely ignores the fact that this "billions of times more radiation" is spread across the planet while a nuclear accident is localized.
I am simply saying that a nuclear plant has the potential of being a much bigger radiological disaster than coal.
But I am not advocating one energy source over another.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2015
The first commercially operated sodium reactor was put in service in 1957 (as I thought it was) here's the link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_Reactor_Experiment
And, to answer your second part, meaning a nuclear accident in the west, although it was Fukushima, those reactors were Westinghouse reactors. Yep, USA reactors. Chernobyl reactors had an inherent design flaw, because of using graphite at the tips of the control rods, plus absolute mismanagement of the plant superintendent following orders. Think back some--Three Mile Island is an excellent example. I could give you several more incidences just with the Tennessee Valley Authority alone. Plus, I personally have a friend who worked refueling plants all over the USA. That guy has first hand experience and has told me some real bad stories and also to how close plants have come to serious situations. The only thing it takes for an American Fukushima is to have a power loss to the plant. Yes, the design at Japan was absolutely stupid having the backup generators in the basement, but even so, it's a very good example as to how much of a balancing act nuclear power really is.
And, to top off things, When Fukushima occurred, I immediately took background readings. The background was 6 microsieverts. A week later, when the wind patterns hit the SE US, my readings more than doubled in one week's time and it took well over three year's time for readings to go back down to 10 microsieverts. Now, 10 years later, the readings have dropped down to 8. Although 12-15 is not in an immediate medical hazard, you must remember the affects are cumulative.
I'll leave you with one question. If nuclear plants are so safe as you think they are, why does the Tennessee Valley Authority issue potassium iodine tablets to residences that live near the plants---Go Figure.
No its not. Coal radiation & lead released is localized too. It falls down all around the town or city its burning.
That is why communities with coal plants have ten fold increase in cancer and other diseases versus communities with nuclear station have lower cancer & other lower disease rate. Coal is also a localized polluter way worse than nuclear could ever do statistically.
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2010
- defconwarningsystem
- DEFCONWSALERTS
- YOUTUBE
- DefconWarningSystem
Not at the levels a nuclear plant would release. If I am wrong, can you provide data that shows otherwise?
Well of course, because nuclear power plants are closed off. Try exposing the core and see how those cancer rates are. This is like comparing a forest fire to a log burning in a fireplace.
Sure I can. But do I need too? How else does a population get more cancer and diseases with coal plants if it just "floats away and spreads out". Of course it falls down all around the towns how else are people getting more sick than average. Ever played SimCity and seen the air poliuon map near a coal plant?
What is your point? Nuclear reactors shouldn't be sealed up? They operate fine & safe. Communities with nuclear stations health and way of life prove it time over compared to communities with coal or gas stations.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2015
Well, with you having stocks with or related to nuclear says it all. Yep, the ole greenback dollar does the talking.Yes I do. But I do so as a supporter or advocate. Try to encourage nuclear power through investments. Also profitable in Euro/Asian markets. Most my nuclear energy shares or investments are in Euro/Asia. But I do own some in American market as my own individual way to encourage or support it in American markets. Thank you for seeing the facts accepting tested science & statistics with nuclear power in the West.
Yes do that and then go to a coal power plant and run your meter. Coal resales tons more radiation & lead into the world than nuclear has ever done in history.
Why Nuclear Power Must Be Part of the Energy Solution
Many environmentalists have opposed nuclear power, citing its dangers and the difficulty of disposing of its radioactive waste. But a Pulitzer Prize-winning author argues that nuclear is safer than most energy sources and is needed if the world hopes to radically decrease its carbon emissions.e360.yale.edu
Here is your proof @DEFCON Warning System
Individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly:
www.scientificamerican.com
Plenty of other articles from many different reputable sources all saying exactly the same thing.
Individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly:
Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste. By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation.
Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste
By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation
Plenty of other articles from many different reputable sources all saying exactly the same thing.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2015
I don't care about what a leftist college says. If you want the real truth (which you don't since you have stocks relating to nuclear) honestly take measurements for yourself and you will see that the article is a downright lie. That's the same type of colleges that says we all evolved from monkeys.Yes I do. But I do so as a supporter or advocate. Try to encourage nuclear power through investments. Also profitable in Euro/Asian markets. Most my nuclear energy shares or investments are in Euro/Asia. But I do own some in American market as my own individual way to encourage or support it in American markets. Thank you for seeing the facts accepting tested science & statistics with nuclear power in the West.
Yes do that and then go to a coal power plant and run your meter. Coal resales tons more radiation & lead into the world than nuclear has ever done in history.
Why Nuclear Power Must Be Part of the Energy Solution
Many environmentalists have opposed nuclear power, citing its dangers and the difficulty of disposing of its radioactive waste. But a Pulitzer Prize-winning author argues that nuclear is safer than most energy sources and is needed if the world hopes to radically decrease its carbon emissions.
But someone living near a nuclear plant gets:
If you lived within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant, you would receive an average radiation dose of about 0.01 millirem per year COMPARED TO 1.9 millirems living near a coal plant.
Last edited:
This site isn't for disinformation. Please post facts or don't post at all. Attack the argument not the person. Though pretty hard arguing facts, well established facts easy to find with a simple search.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2015
For your information, 1.9 millirems over a years time is less than 250 miliseverts per year, which is normal earth background radiation. The number is made to sound scary, and besides, that's why scrubbers in the chimneys were required by the EPA. It was to catch the ash. Let me guess, you don't burn wood in a fireplace either.Here is your proof @DEFCON Warning System
Individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly:
Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste. By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation.
Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste
By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation
Plenty of other articles from many different reputable sources all saying exactly the same thing.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2015
OH, and I"m not attacking anyone. I guess that 35 years+ of training and teaching experience doesn't account for anything. In fact, my father in law taught nuclear physics before he died.
Whats your point? That ash is way more toxic than anything people would normally burn or be exposed to in a regular environment. Its still 1.9 millirems more than people would be exposed too if they had nuclear/wind/solar energy in town instead. That exposure adds up over time too. Kids that grow up in that overtime will develop all sorts of stuff. Its PROVEN I will gladly show you.
I can sit here all night and throw factual sources.
Last edited:
Coal ash particles become lodged in the deepest part of your lungs, where they trigger asthma, inflammation and immunological reactions. Studies link these particulates to the four leading causes of death in the U.S; heart disease, cancer, respiratory diseases and stroke:
Ash in Lungs: How Breathing Coal Ash is Hazardous to Your Health
Coal ash dust causes asthma attacks, lung disease, even cancer.
earthjustice.org
You can't just spit out your feelings here and represent them as factual response to a argument. You need to back up what your saying with something man. I have been providing ample proof and sources disproving your views on nuclear power compared to other energy sources factually and statistically.
Last edited:
Guest
Guest
We just has a Cat 4 hurricane knock out power to a nuclear plant in Louisiana for quite sometime. Everything was fine & never was any danger. Not sure what your implying here.
I do agree that nuclear stations shouldn't be placed in disaster prone areas. But even then after Fukushima @RiffRaff has mentioned several times here that problem has been more than worked on & solved making nuclear plants in disaster prone areas incredibly safe.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2015
Estimated number of deaths from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster
Estimated total number of deaths as a result of the Chernobyl nuclear incident in Ukraine (1986), reported across a
range of published estimates. All estimates, with the exception of WHO (2005a) direct fatalities at the nuclear facility;
deaths in proximate areas who died as a result of high radiation exposure; and long-term deaths from low radiation
exposure. The estimate of WHO (2005a) does not include potential deaths from low-level exposure in populations
further from the nuclear site.
Source: Deaths from Chernobyl (Estimates) - WHO (2005), Fairlie & Sumner (2006), Cardis et al. (2006)
OurWorldInData.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima/
Since the table would not allow me to copy and paste, here are the figures, but if you go to the site, you'll discover that I'm telling the truth. The WHO had the lowest numbers placed at 4,000 dead Then in 2005, the numbers rose to 9,000 dead Cardis et al in 2006 placed the deaths at 16,000 Fairlie & Summer placed it on first run at 30,000 and then revised to 60,000
There's no more arguments here. Actually, the figures could be even higher from long term effects from radiation exposure.
Fukushima showed officially 50, but there was an almost immediate evacuation, even just after a tsunami.
I don't have feelings against nuclear energy, but knowing what I personally know, and had to experience? I don't want any part of it at all. OH, and the so called higher quality of life for areas that support nuclear plants??? Although it doesn't directly say on the payrolls, but it's called "Hazardous Duty Pay". Go figure. Besides, if nuclear energy was so "safe", why in the hell can't people live in Fukushima, even after 10 years?? and over in the Ukraine area after 35 years? Yea, it's real safe stuff. Here's a little food for thought. It's the current radiation map of Japan. The Futuba district just has a "little bit of a problem" with only 5,457 n/sieverts per hour. That will make you glow in the dark real good after a while.
Mankind will eventually destroy itself through stupidity at some point. And, the real problem is--stupidity has a habit of getting its way.
What is your point? YOU ARE just listing a very few well know disasters WHICH don't even come close to what coal does YEARLY. I have been saying in multiple posts that coal kills waaaay more people a YEAR compared to ENTIRE HUMAN NUCLEAR HISTORY. Nuclear power is the most safest energy option out there factually and statistically period, it doesn't matter how you feel about it, doesn't change well proven statistics.
New research finds 1M(+) deaths in 2017 attributable to fossil fuel combustion alone:
New research finds 1M deaths in 2017 attributable to fossil fuel combustion
An international team of researchers, including engineering faculty at Washington University in St. Louis, has determined what sources contribute to pollution and the health effects they have on global, regional and smaller scales.
source.wustl.edu
'Invisible killer': fossil fuels caused 8.7m deaths globally in 2018, research finds
Pollution from power plants, vehicles and other sources accounted for one in five of all deaths that year, more detailed analysis reveals
www.theguardian.com
Global deaths per energy source| Statista
The number of deaths per energy source is far greater for fossil fuels than renewables, with air pollution a key factor for this.
www.statista.com
Last edited:
We have learned from the very few mistakes so they may never happen again. A good example would be the Cat 4 hurricane that did some pretty decent damage to the nuclear plant in Louisiana, even lost power for sometime. It was well prepared and managed very well. Was no risk to the population at anytime due to the measures taken after Fukushima many years ago due to a unrepresented tsunami.
Even taking into account the Fukushima disaster. It killed only 573 people exactly. Not even .01% of what coal kills every year. Which most of the deaths that occurred at Fukushima where not even local residence but emergency crews and operators. The silent killer isn't nuclear power,... its fossil fuels/coal.
Last edited:
- Status