its just visa versa that what you are write here about this tropic.
I'm so smart to not believe the "Official-Government" story but you are believe all shit they tell you even if there is "are not proper studies" and "if you trust everything you read " from the Government " you are not too smart."
And you are not so smart to get this from the Government: "Can we have some scientific papers with statistics etc?"
the clou is Germany only uses people from outside Germany because they don't wanna pay for them if there are ill.
this means: "people die from small doses" is truth
this means a nuclear power plant is more dangerous for normal people than xray usages in clinical use because normal people don't use xray.
we have the "schwarzwald" with natural uran radioactivity
nothing special here. but this makes nuclear power plants not save.
thats because the sun ray are not colliding with the ozone layer and the sunlight goes back into the universe.
this means we need to destroy even more ozone layer on South pole to cool the earth down.
also we need to burn more coal to get more reflection of solar radiation back into the universe *.
also plants grow faster if they get diffused light from aerosol from dirty air * and more CO2 also grow plants faster.
* ↑ Shindell, Drew T.; Schmidt, Gavin A. (2004): Southern Hemisphere climate response to ozone changes and greenhouse gas increases. In: Geophysical Research Letters, 31, L18209, doi:10.1029/2004GL020724
means for every tree you kill you save the planet!
for example human beings for every human you kill you save the planet.
humans pollute CO2!
in your logic you need to kill all humans.
its all about freedom of choices if someone give me a choice to stay near by a coal power plant instead of Neckarwestheim Nuclear Power Plant i surly choose the coal power plant.
we burn many coal in our home heating system in the past so we do not have any problem with that.
its all about efficiency if you use a woodgas-oven to burn the coal you have 90+ efficiency but a nuclear power plant only do have 2-4% efficiency means the nuclear power plant heat up the earth for 96% !
also the coal cool down the earth with CO2 because the plants grow faster also the coal cool down the earth because of the sulfur because the sulfur reflex air light back to the universe also the dirty air makes diffuse light because of the aerosol and this makes grow the plants 20% faster.
means you have 96% heating up the world with the nuclear power plant against all positive effects on the coal side.
the same logic forces us to ban xray for clinical usage if we ban nuclear power plans.
the same logic forces us to use radioactive smoke detectors instead of radioactive free alternatives.
its always the same to argue against Atomic fan-boys is like going into the kindergarten.
And what is when it explodes like it did 2 times till now? in between was only 20 years and the plants get always bigger. we will build in next years again 500 plants if nothing happens (worldwide) to the yet standing 500. So we will doulbe the risk, so if you calculate that, you have double the risk, so if you look into the past thats the only good numbers we have there is a good change that the next explosion is from now on all 10 years, can we live with that? Yes if we like a world out of some hollywood movies with massive mutations and much dieing people.
PS: So I've looked it up and the radiation at the Chernobyl site is mostly from the radio isotop Caesium-137, which has its first Half-Life of 30 years. However, the amount of that is so small, that when the UN formed a panel in 2006, containing 100 scientists, the report was that the radiation was already dropped by a stunning several-hundred-fold.
So yes, you can safely live there.
PS2: I can also tell you, that if you were to chillax in the burning sun on the beaches in Australia, without uv-skin-protection, you'd have a 1000% more chance of dying from skin-cancer, than you'd have from 'radiation-cancer' when living under some serious uv-radiation protecting clouds and trees at Chernobyl.
Last edited by V!NCENT; 09-30-2011 at 03:49 PM.
It is just nonsense to object about flying on a plane being more dangerous than a working nuclear power plant, because nobody ever said there are dangerous radiations outside working nuclear stations. So why are you saying that? Does it make a point in favor of nuclear power? The problem is all about the danger of a major failure (and of nuclear waste), your argument would have made sense if you said: - right now, in the area sorrounding Fukushima, there are less radiations than the ones you get on a plane, and also, people living in the area are exposed to them for just the same amount of time of a plane trip.- But this in not reality.Nonsense? Nobody would swim in the nuclear waste pool and live afterwards. But anyone can live safely after aeroplane flight or living years next to nuclear power plant.
Of course if accidents happens it will be serious. The danger comes when country have not enough funds to maintain reactors.
btw. last reactor of Chernobyl was shutdown in year 2000, 14 years after disaster.