Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Phoronix 2011 Chernobyl Nuclear Tour

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by DirtyHairy View Post
    You do know that the radiation damage caused by the decaying iodine persists and leads to cancer only long after all iodine has decayed away, do you?
    Even in children born after 1986? I somehow doubt it.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
      Excuse me, but which part of the Ukraine was not affected at all?
      Crimea, Bessarabia for example. They received no direct nuclear fallout from the Chernobyl plant at all.

      Anyway, low fertility rate in Ukraine has sociological, not medical explanations.

      Half of Europe was affected.
      So that's why fertility is so low, right?

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
        Tell that to the people in Fukushima. Why were they evacuated, if it's safe?
        Yes, it is.

        I think that everyone will agree that they are safe during operation, if things don't go wrong. The problem is that things do go wrong (on a regular basis), and there is also the issue of nuclear waste.
        This rate so far is 1 disaster every 20-25 years. Looks OK to me.

        And renewable energy is better still, so why not use that?
        Because it can't be used to replace nuclear AND fossil fuel power. Pure and simple.

        There are 5 countries in Europe who produce close to 50% of their power using renewable energy, and another few that are above 25%.
        This is the way.
        So? Norway and Switzerland have hydroenergy, Iceland is geothermal.

        This simply can't be scaled.

        Several countries (like Denmark) have pledged to reach 50% in the near future.
        Newsflash: Denmark is still going to generate more than 25% of power using dirty fossil fuels in conceivable future. Better?

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Cyberax View Post
          Even in children born after 1986? I somehow doubt it.
          I can't remember anyone here talking about thyroid cancer in children, did they? In addition, just to the record: radiation damage to the germ cells can very well cause diseases and cancer in children, although this is not the primary kind of damage caused by iodine.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
            Tell that to the people in Fukushima. Why were they evacuated, if it's safe?

            I think that everyone will agree that they are safe during operation, if things don't go wrong. The problem is that things do go wrong (on a regular basis), and there is also the issue of nuclear waste.

            Whenever people are in control, things go wrong, and whenever greedy corporations are in control, they go to hell.
            I wouldn't call something that has only happened 3 times in the last 60 years to be happening on a regular basis. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and now Japan. And of those, TMI was extremely minor, i.e. no significant radiation was released. With what's happening in Japan right now, it remains to be seen.

            And like I said, modern reactors are practically immune to meltdowns. Especially thorium molten salt reactors. They had an experimental one in the 60s where they could just shut it off on Friday, then start it back up Monday morning. This works by passive cooling. There's no need to pump water through it.

            Renewable energy still have their own problems. None of them work in all areas. You can't just put a wind farm wherever you want. That also applies to hydro, and solar. Hydro power destroys river ecosystems. The wind isn't always blowing, the sun isn't always shining. Wind turbines take up farm land. Solar is hugely expensive and inefficient.
            Sure, nuclear has some of it's own problems too. But given the choice between coal and nuclear, I'll go with nuclear any day. Renewable sources aren't a viable option to replace fossil fuels right now. Coal and gas are far more damaging than nuclear will ever be.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by yotambien View Post
              That's not a fact.
              OK, it's a projection but that's what's likley...

              But, you know, if you want to be sensationalist, go on... Imagine if people had acted 100 years ago as they are right now - we would not have airplanes nowdays because they would have been banned after a few crashes...

              Comment


              • #52
                Dude, Denmark produces so much less CO2 per capita than the US and Canada that it's not even funny. Even if they TRIED, they couldn't match it. It's a dumb argument. They are cleaner in terms of CO2 production (which mostly comes from fossil fuels) than almost any nuclear-using country. They are decomissioning coal plants and replacing them with clean energy, wtf are you talking about?

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO...er_country.png

                You are simply wrong. Austria: 80% renewable (target in 2010, in 2006 they were at over 60%). Portugal: 45% renewable. Spain: 35% renewable. Sweden: over 40% renewable. Latvia: over 30%. Yes, Norway and Iceland, over 40% renewable. Denmark: on the way to 50% renewable. Galicia is 100% renewable, and some other Spanish regions are aiming for the same goal in the near future.

                Every region has the possibility to use SOME type of natural energy source. In Iceland, it's geothermal, in sea countries it's wind and tidal, where there are mountains -- hydro, in southern Europe it's solar, there's always something.

                All of EU is aiming at over 20% renewable energy use in the near future. That's considerably more than the nuclear power. Arguing AGAINST green energy is just sick. You have problems.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by srg_13 View Post
                  But, you know, if you want to be sensationalist, go on... Imagine if people had acted 100 years ago as they are right now - we would not have airplanes nowdays because they would have been banned after a few crashes...
                  And if people had acted 50 years ago as they are acting now, we would be phasing out nuclear weapons, because they would have been banned after a few explo.... wait...

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                    And if people had acted 50 years ago as they are acting now, we would be phasing out nuclear weapons, because they would have been banned after a few explo.... wait...
                    Nuclear waepons were only used as a weapon in WWII, which stopped uhm... the entire fsking World War.

                    So difficult this rational thinking... -_-

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by pvtcupcakes View Post
                      I wouldn't call something that has only happened 3 times in the last 60 years to be happening on a regular basis.
                      That is because you are only counting total fubars that went out of control.

                      If you look at everything, then it does indeed happen on a regular basis: http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/...nob/rep02.html (some of those are a bit far-fetched, but still lots to go through).

                      For the bigger ones, see http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2715/1/

                      Renewable sources aren't a viable option to replace fossil fuels right now.
                      Of course they are. Austria is running on 80% renewable, some parts of Spain have hit 100%. Several European countries are running at around 50% renewable at the moment. Most of them have minimal, if any, nuclear capabilities.

                      It won't be an overnight thing. It's still the right direction.

                      Do you have ANY idea how much money would be needed to replace all the coal and oil and gas plants with nuclear ones? There's nowhere near enough uranium for that in the first place (cause it, just like fossil fuels, is not renewable). It's better to plan with future-proof technologies. Sun doesn't run out, neither do waves. And they are much less radioactive to boot. If a valve leaks some seawater, nothing happens.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
                        Nuclear waepons were only used as a weapon in WWII, which stopped uhm... the entire fsking World War.
                        That's why we all love them and want to have more

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                          That is because you are only counting total fubars that went out of control.

                          If you look at everything, then it does indeed happen on a regular basis: http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/...nob/rep02.html (some of those are a bit far-fetched, but still lots to go through).

                          For the bigger ones, see http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2715/1/


                          Of course they are. Austria is running on 80% renewable, some parts of Spain have hit 100%. Several European countries are running at around 50% renewable at the moment. Most of them have minimal, if any, nuclear capabilities.

                          It won't be an overnight thing. It's still the right direction.

                          Do you have ANY idea how much money would be needed to replace all the coal and oil and gas plants with nuclear ones? There's nowhere near enough uranium for that in the first place (cause it, just like fossil fuels, is not renewable). It's better to plan with future-proof technologies. Sun doesn't run out, neither do waves. And they are much less radioactive to boot. If a valve leaks some seawater, nothing happens.
                          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...r-thorium.html

                          "A mere fistful [of thorium] would light London for a week."

                          "Thorium burns the plutonium residue left by uranium reactors, acting as an eco-cleaner." This means you can take current nuclear waste, toss it into a modern reactor, and then produce energy from it.

                          "Once you start looking more closely, it blows your mind away. You can run civilisation on thorium for hundreds of thousands of years"

                          "Thorium-fluoride reactors can operate at atmospheric temperature. The plants would be much smaller and less expensive. You wouldn’t need those huge containment domes because there’s no pressurized water in the reactor. It’s close-fitting,"

                          Nuclear power could become routine and unthreatening. But first there is the barrier of establishment prejudice. "

                          Like the article said, the biggest problem nuclear has is that people associate nuclear bombs with nuclear power. You quoted Greenpeace, and they're a huge perpetrator of this false belief. They think that anything that is radioactive is automatically bad, and they don't seem to realize that the sun is radioactive. So minor leaks of radioactivity are really not dangerous. And they don't even consider the safety measures implemented on nuclear reactors. Their argument is pretty much "Nuclear reactors are going to explode, and kill your puppies."

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by pvtcupcakes View Post
                            Like the article said, the biggest problem nuclear has is that people associate nuclear bombs with nuclear power.
                            This is because nuclear power is a remnant of the weapons program.

                            They think that anything that is radioactive is automatically bad, and they don't seem to realize that the sun is radioactive.
                            Not everything is EQUALLY radioactive. Bananas are radioactive, but they did not evacuate a 60-km diameter because of a banana, or because of the sun.

                            Their argument is pretty much "Nuclear reactors are going to explode, and kill your puppies."
                            But... that's what's just happened.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Cyberax View Post
                              [...]

                              And this capacity will be replaced by coal and natural gas. Way to go, morons.
                              No that's wrong. Germany produces currently more energy than they actually need. And they also produce only about 15% of it's power consumption with nuclear power plants. They could easily shut down half of their nuclear reactors without risking electrical power outage.

                              The electrical peak load in Germany is at about 83 Gigawatt/year and in 2009 they produced about 140 Gigawatt.
                              (source)

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Davidovitch View Post
                                I agree that the media are passionate about sensationalism. But honestly, how can you say this is an unfortunate event? Do you even realise how serious the situation is? Can you even begin to imagine what the consequences already are? Or what could happen if it keeps going bad? Mind you, things are far from being under control! Shit happens yes, but there are viable alternatives to nuclear despite what the nuclear lobby would likes you to believe.
                                such as? Coal plants? Oil plants? I guess that's covering it pretty much. There are some powerplants driven by waterfalls...so you suggest to build waterfalls?

                                If you go for those windpower thingis, forget it, they're big, they aren't safe (everytime a bigger storm comes down, one of those things breaks) and they don't generate enough power. And those photovoltaic cells? You need rare earth elements for them and the complete IT technology relies on those aswell and even if we would turnover everything for the cells, it wouldn't be enough (not even close). [the biggest photovoltaik power plants deliver 40MW, a nuclear fission power plant delivers (such as the nuclear fission power plant "Biblis" in Germany, near Biblis delivers at least 1167 MW per reactor block)

                                So, at the end, there are 3 "real" power plant technologies: nuclear fission, nuclear fusion (which is not ready yet...I guess they need at least 20 years to build the first plant that really generates power) and geothermal energy.

                                So, there is no technology capable of handling our need for power.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X