Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

France's Institute of Nuclear Safety says all national nuclear plants aren't secure!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Now we're back on reality, I'm back

    1.65microSv/hr equates to a yearly dose (when exposed to it for 24 hours per day 365 days per year) of 14.5 mSv.

    Less than the reportable level for a nuclear worker and certainly less than many people around the world get from normal background radiation.

    Because they are only in the vicinity of the cask for a short time (certainly only a few hours per day) then the total dose they will receive will be much less than the normal background dose they will get that year.

    And remember, the dose rate will fall off as a function of the square of the distance. So if you double the distance from the cask from 2 to 4m, the dose rate drops by a factor of 4.

    Anyone living by the railway won't have anything to worry about either, their dose rate will be measured in fractions of a microSv, if it can even be measured.

    Time, distance, shielding will all reduce the dose rate.

    Andy

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
      do you think this is healthy ?
      but these people prever to get more uSv/h.
      It's totally irrelevant.

      They are far more likely to stumble and accidentally break a neck than get a cancer from this kind of dose.

      i call it stupid.
      Duh. It takes one to know one.

      Comment


      • #18



        http://taz.de/Castor-Ticker-am-Donnerstag/!82479/

        new record 2000 school students protesting against the Castor.

        20 protesters are injured most of them because of the pepper spay and 1 woman do have hematoma and internal bleedings because of the Police action.



        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Cyberax View Post
          It's totally irrelevant.
          no its not irrelevant its proved unhealthy the tiniest dosage can cause cancer even the so called "save" dosage. German studies show this multiple time.

          Originally posted by Cyberax View Post
          They are far more likely to stumble and accidentally break a neck than get a cancer from this kind of dose.
          and the thousand of child's and babies die by blood chancer because of the nuclear power plants ? German Studies show this multiple time.

          nuclear-Elites pay with child blood good idea.

          Comment


          • #20
            I knew there was something bugging me about the 1.65microSV/hr dose rate. At 2m it should be less than 1. Either someone messed up their readings (uncalibrated detector) or the shielding calculations were incorrect.

            And there is no evidence that this dose causes cancer.

            Stand near some granite and the dose will approach this value.

            Go to Iran, Brazil, parts of Africa and the natural background radiation dose is higher than this with no measurable increase in the cancer rate.

            Thousands of children and babies killed around nuclear power plants? Yeah, right. PROVE IT or fuck off.

            Q, you seem very good at renewable energy, stick to what you know, not what you read in the gutter press.

            For someone who can sound quite intelligent at times, you do type some crap.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
              no its not irrelevant its proved unhealthy the tiniest dosage can cause cancer even the so called "save" dosage. German studies show this multiple time.
              There are NO such studies. People live in areas with MUCH higher natural background without any statistical difference in cancer incidence rates.

              Any study that claims to have found a link is thus lying.

              and the thousand of child's and babies die by blood chancer because of the nuclear power plants ? German Studies show this multiple time.
              nuclear-Elites pay with child blood good idea.
              I'm freaking mad at all these greenpeace people. I think the only way to deal with them is to tie them up and then ram pieces of coal into their mouths until the die. Then use their bodies to produce biodiesel.

              Greenpeace already has caused Germany to plan to build 23 MORE FREAKING COAL POWERPLANTS. Which KILL CHILDREN in reality, not in imagination of authors of 'German studies'.

              The plans to build coal powerplants shows just how Germany is expecting to meet the imposed CO2 reductions - it doesn't.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                you just have fun in killing babies and child's.

                shame on you.
                As much as you take LSD, you wont get smarter. In fact you are mentally ill, and seek immediate help.
                Most people are sheep like you, and they need a shepherd. I am sure if you ask the people who protest why they are protesting they will tell you "Because it is dangerous". Yes, indeed. Driving car is dangerous, having electricity at home is dangerous, swimming is dangerous, and so on. Nuclear is the cleanest energy humanity can control, and if it is taken with care ( not playing games like Chernobyl, thinking that there may be a tsunami after an earthquake like in Japan (WTF where thinking those japans?!?!)), there will be very few accidents. On the other side, if you see that in after 25 years, Chernobyl exclusion zone has been transformed to natural wildlife reserve. All kinds of birds, bears, foxes, etc. started appear after the humans are gone. The scientists are amazed. So there is a life after nuclear catastrophe, you sick fuck.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Cyberax View Post
                  I think the only way to deal with them is to tie them up and then ram pieces of coal into their mouths until the die. Then use their bodies to produce biodiesel.
                  Nope, the best way, and quicker, is to challenge them to eat as much caffeine as you do plutonium (note that Greenpeace repeatedly say that plutonium is the most toxic substance known to man). We'll see who dies first.

                  Hint, it won't be the person who ate the plutonium, who will go on to lead a normal life and will die of old age.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Man, I love this guy.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Shielder View Post
                      Nope, the best way, and quicker, is to challenge them to eat as much caffeine as you do plutonium (note that Greenpeace repeatedly say that plutonium is the most toxic substance known to man). We'll see who dies first.
                      To be fair, it's mostly a question of bioavailability. Ingesting a soluble salt of plutonium or metallic plutonium is a BAD move. While something insoluble like plutonium sulfate won't be much more dangerous than sand in small quantities.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        now its a war

                        now the activists fight back with Molotov cocktails and multiple Police cars burn down.







                        http://www.stern.de/politik/deutschl...i-1755082.html

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Cyberax View Post
                          There are NO such studies. People live in areas with MUCH higher natural background without any statistical difference in cancer incidence rates.

                          Any study that claims to have found a link is thus lying.
                          this links lie?

                          http://www.stern.de/politik/deutschl...t-1627922.html

                          http://www.krebsregister-niedersachs...2010_12_16.pdf

                          http://www.krebsregister-niedersachs...2010_12_16.pdf

                          http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schacht...en_an_der_Asse

                          http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0221-20100317939

                          http://doris.bfs.de/jspui/bitstream/...iKK-Studie.pdf

                          http://www.bfs.de/de/kerntechnik/kinderkrebs

                          ↑ Michaelis J, Krebserkrankungen im Kindesalter in der Umgebung westdeutscher kerntechnischer Anlagen., in Deutsches Ärzteblatt, 89/1992, S.C-1386-90

                          ↑ Kinlen LJ et.al., Childhood leukaemia and non-Hodgkin`s lymphoma near large rural construction sites, with a comparison with Sellafield nuclear site., in BMJ, 310/1995, S.763–7

                          http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkra...ernkraftwerken

                          in a matter of fact in Germany people die because of this shit!

                          "Any study that claims to have found a link is thus lying."

                          you are a full joke! its proved multiple times in Germany!


                          Originally posted by Cyberax View Post
                          I'm freaking mad at all these greenpeace people. I think the only way to deal with them is to tie them up and then ram pieces of coal into their mouths until the die. Then use their bodies to produce biodiesel.
                          Greenpeace already has caused Germany to plan to build 23 MORE FREAKING COAL POWERPLANTS. Which KILL CHILDREN in reality, not in imagination of authors of 'German studies'.
                          The plans to build coal powerplants shows just how Germany is expecting to meet the imposed CO2 reductions - it doesn't.
                          Bullshit the coal shit is not the greenpeace plan its the CDU/CSU/FDP NAZI people PLAN!
                          you are fucking stupid the greenpeace people are against coal power plans.

                          you are to stupid to make a difference between COAL-NAZIS "CDU/CSU/FDP" and the green greenpeace people.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by scottishduck View Post
                            Man, I love this guy.
                            Which one exactly?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Shielder View Post
                              Nope, the best way, and quicker, is to challenge them to eat as much caffeine as you do plutonium (note that Greenpeace repeatedly say that plutonium is the most toxic substance known to man). We'll see who dies first.

                              Hint, it won't be the person who ate the plutonium, who will go on to lead a normal life and will die of old age.
                              LOL you should really go into a madhouse because the one eating the plutonium also kill many other people because the radiation contaminating all the friends also and the unborn child become handicapped.

                              i call it Multi-Monster kill...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Shielder View Post
                                Thousands of children and babies killed around nuclear power plants? Yeah, right. PROVE IT or fuck off.
                                the point is i can prove it

                                http://www.stern.de/politik/deutschl...t-1627922.html

                                http://www.krebsregister-niedersachs...2010_12_16.pdf

                                http://www.krebsregister-niedersachs...2010_12_16.pdf

                                http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schacht...en_an_der_Asse

                                http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0221-20100317939

                                http://doris.bfs.de/jspui/bitstream/...iKK-Studie.pdf

                                http://www.bfs.de/de/kerntechnik/kinderkrebs

                                ↑ Michaelis J, Krebserkrankungen im Kindesalter in der Umgebung westdeutscher kerntechnischer Anlagen., in Deutsches Ärzteblatt, 89/1992, S.C-1386-90

                                ↑ Kinlen LJ et.al., Childhood leukaemia and non-Hodgkin`s lymphoma near large rural construction sites, with a comparison with Sellafield nuclear site., in BMJ, 310/1995, S.763–7

                                http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkra...ernkraftwerken


                                Originally posted by Shielder View Post
                                Q, you seem very good at renewable energy, stick to what you know, not what you read in the gutter press. For someone who can sound quite intelligent at times, you do type some crap.
                                you only think i type crap because you lag on information.
                                Intelligence is not knowledge my points are points of knowledge not intelligence.
                                and you think you can arguing against this knowledge with intelligence.
                                this will always fail because we are not in a virtual fantasy game.

                                I'm interested in renewable energy because i think this is the future.
                                an interesting news in this point is this: http://www.heise.de/tr/artikel/Angri...e-1382098.html you can now build 40% cheaper solar power plants because this kind of continuous silicon melt do not have a production cycle's this one is endless. with the same melt you do have 40% higher output.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X