Immeasurable because every credible study including the UN one you linked state repeatedly that it is practically impossible to track the entirety of exposure several countries with separate political agendas with any accuracy. All estimates are most likely ridiculously low. 7 million people were exposed to some level of increased radiation across northern Europe. A couple thousand were studied and estimates were calculated. Like a political poll. Hardly science. Immeasurable because they don't count until they're dead, and they're only suffering now.
so he's right on everything else, but not on solar installation? Fine. I'll even grant that. If you reduce his numbers by a factor of 10, it's still more dangerous than nuclear. Again, it comes down to this: you can't (or don't want to) understand why your bias against nuclear power is founded by nothing other than groupthink stemming probably from China Syndrome, lack of scientific education and principles and a distrust of those things you can't see. Nuclear power isn't dirty, it's safe, it's efficient, and it's something best left to people with the education and training to do it. And in no way, shape or form can the meltdowns occurring in Japan right now have anything close to the effect you posted in the OP and the title of the thread. Enjoy your evening, Maris. Here's a decent book on energy, physics, nuclear stuff and other science written for the Everyman who didn't take hard science classes. http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Futur...7111/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1300003988&sr=8-1
Can't teach without knowledge, Frenchie. It appears DHS is concerned, just not interested in sharing their knowledge.
Thyroid cancer cases can be (and are) tracked. That's why the World Health Organization lowered its estimate from 4000 predicted cancer cases in 30 years. If it's impossible to track, how do you know its 7 million? Just give it a rest. Read some of the links. Then read them again...they're tough to understand when talking about things like dose rates, cancer projections, survivability, etc. You've shown that your initial opinions don't follow with what the written matter is attempting to convey, so take your time with it. There's no danger to you from this, especially if you're expecting to stay in Beautiful Central Oregon.
How so? There's literally nothing in that article that talks about DHS's concern about Japan. Nothing. Nothing. You were saying, old man? Just ask the questions, I'm here for you. What you're afraid to admit is that i know more than newspaper editors and so-called nuclear consultants. Again, China Syndrome is a work of fiction. Cannot happen.
Well, that's my point basically, but Brian seems to think it might be a good thing as long as the eventual number of deaths appears to be less than what anti-nuclear experts say it is. Only 1,000 deaths at Chernobyl would be just fine with him. Good, clean energy. No matter the subject, he always tells me he's an expert and he's going to teach me, but it never checks out. He proudly worships a mythical super-being, so I'm really not expecting to be enlightened by anything he "teaches". But he brings enthusiasm to his posts, he's literate and well travelled, and I respect that. BTW, You out of harm's way yet or are you still marooned at the airport waiting to fall into the sea?
Right here: Needless to say, all eyes are on the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor including those of nuclear safety officials in the United States. Originally, the Homeland Security Act was enacted in November 2002, creating the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to improve homeland security following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. But within its mandate is DHS must also address other emergencies under its all-hazard doctrine. This includes protection and response to natural disasters (floods, earthquakes) or man-made disasters (terrorism, nuclear plant accidents). The 2002 act centralized the leadership of many homeland security activities under a single federal department and, accordingly, DHS has the dominant role in implementing this national strategy.
I think that death toll is almost irrelevant in terms of whether an energy policy should be contemplated. Orders of magnitude more people die with other sources, or they cause much greater harm to the environment, or whatever. The point of this thread was that the stuff in your OP could NEVER happen with any scenario dealing with the Japanese reactors. This wasn't a primer in coal vs. nuclear vs. solar...it was to point out that the OP wasn't even remotely feasible, and it's a bit tin-foilish to assume that there's something sinister at DHS or any other gov't service b/c you're not getting Emergency Broadcast Messages about what to do. I only attempt to educate on the things I know to be fact, which is different. When I'm not the expert, I ask questions or phrase in the form of an opinion. And in this case, my science checks out, so you don't have to worry about dying a slow, horrible, agonizing death...at least, not from Japanese nuclear reactors. Yeah, I'm home now. Falling into the sea was never a concern, just being crushed under 4 floors of the International Terminal or standing on the tarmac waiting for a 30' tsunami wave to roll up on us. But neither of those came to pass.
Never said it wasn't. But what can happen is a complete meltdown through the core, through the floor, and a couple meters into the Earth before heat disperses into the ground. Deep enough in it's poorly selected seaside site to contaminate the water table beyond use. What can happen is maybe 30,000,000 deaths if Japan doesn't get their populace out of there before it goes. What can happen is enough fallout to kill people in other countries, we'll leave the number in dispute. And so far everything keeps progressing in that direction. No success or progress has been made in slowing it down and they've admitted running out of options. It's pompous to keep that "everything is peachy" attitude. This is innocent people dying because their leaders made greedy choices and took bribes.
Excellent, then maybe you'll support my energy policy. I propose to generate power by burning humans. They are plentiful and renewable, and burning them is highly efficient since it not only generates energy, but also reduces demand for energy. barfo
No, a complete meltdown wouldn't go through the core, the floor, and the earth. In a light-water reactor, the fuel-coolant interface (where the slag would drop in a complete meltdown) would significantly cool the slag and will not substantially breach the primary pressure boundary, or lead to the gross structural failure of the primary system or RPV, and the corium will reach the lower plenum with the lower plenum remaining intact. This is what happened at 3MI, which again, was a higher category of accident than this one. As it is, since we're a couple of days past the scram event, almost all (though not all) of the highest-danger isotopes have already decayed away. That's where the heat originally was coming from, and why (I imagine) that they decided quickly to kill the fuel by dumping the seawater and boron in when the pumps failed. They took the side that they'd rather cause severely expensive damage to the fuel inside the core while keeping containment, rather than take their chances with a loss of containment early in the process when the higher-volatile isotopes would still be prevalent in the contaminants. I don't think taking bribes is right, or that "everything is peachy". A meltdown is going to significantly raise rates for energy, cause a lot of capital to be spent rebuilding and repairing the site, and cause a stigma among people that something really dangerous happened. It's just not true. Not that I think you're lying, but I haven't seen anyone publish a scenario where 30M people die from groundwater poisoning. Have you read that somewhere?
Burning humans isn't a efficient means of creating energy. You have a significant loss due to water vapor release, carbonization/caramelization rather that "clean" burning, and the problem of having to pay people to volunteer for it. Waste removal is also complicated. Maybe with some federal subsidies, we can re-invent some science that would make it worthwhile to get everyone on board with your plan, inefficient though it may be. And China's still using coal. On a serious note, when talking about energy and oil drilling, etc. I haven't heard anyone say "yeah, well what about the 25,000 miners who've died in the last 10 years or so from digging coal out of the ground?" I don't hear a lot of people sympathize with those who say that hydroelectric dams destroy fishing runs, flood acreage and habitats that shouldn't be flooded, and in general mess with nature to make cheap energy. Yet each time someone wants to talk about how clean nuclear energy is, how efficient it is, and how safe it is (clowns like me have been running nuclear reactors non-stop in the Navy for 50 years without incident) people bring up Chernobyl and 3MI, when in reality the 2 biggest disasters in history have amounted to 1,000 people (maybe?) being killed by it.
As for your UN report, which assumes 4000 deaths, it is disputed by most scientists and doctors actually living in these regions, and by a host of reputable organizations including oddly enough another department of the UN itself, which assumes 16,000 deaths. Some estimates are as high as 500,000. The truth is nobody is actually counting, or even studying on any great scale because of where it is. We'll never know the actual scope. But other reputable scientists researching the most radiation-contaminated areas of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine are not convinced. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, another UN agency, predicts 16,000 deaths from Chernobyl; an assessment by the Russian academy of sciences says there have been 60,000 deaths so far in Russia and an estimated 140,000 in Ukraine and Belarus. Meanwhile, the Belarus national academy of sciences estimates 93,000 deaths so far and 270,000 cancers, and the Ukrainian national commission for radiation protection calculates 500,000 deaths so far. The mismatches in figures arise because there have been no comprehensive, co-ordinated studies of the health consequences of the accident. This is in contrast to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, where official research showed that the main rise in most types of cancer and non-cancer diseases only became apparent years after the atomic bombs fell. With Chernobyl there have been difficulties in gathering reliable data from areas left in administrative chaos after the accident. Hundreds of thousands of people were moved away from the affected areas, and the break-up of the Soviet Union led to records being lost. Controversy rages over the agendas of the IAEA, which has promoted civil nuclear power over the past 30 years, and the WHO. The UN accepts only peer-reviewed scientific studies written in certain journals in English, a rule said to exclude dozens of other studies. Four years ago, an IAEA spokesman said he was confident the WHO figures were correct. And Michael Repacholi, director of the UN Chernobyl forum until 2006, has claimed that even 4,000 eventual deaths could be too high. The main negative health impacts of *Chernobyl were not caused by the *radiation but by the fear of it, he claimed. But today Linda Walker, of the UK Chernobyl Children's Project, which funds Belarus and Ukraine orphanages and holidays for affected children, called for a determined effort to learn about the effects of the disaster. "Parents are giving birth to babies with disabilities or genetic disorders … but, as far as we know, no research is being conducted." http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/10/chernobyl-nuclear-deaths-cancers-dispute
Of all of those, only Dace and Puffer were US Navy, and one was a shipyard error. You got me on Puffer, though. I guess my definition of "incident" was different, but I'll sustain the objection and re-state: ...Yet each time someone wants to talk about how clean nuclear energy is, how efficient it is, and how safe it is (clowns like me have been running nuclear reactors non-stop in the Navy for 50 years with one discharge of radioactive material 30 years ago.)
Who said anything about volunteers? That's another benefit, actually. Those that are burned will generally leave behind some wealth. That can be collected and used to pay for the construction or other costs. This is an energy source that more than pays for itself (you don't even need to charge the users for energy, since you are charging the fuel). It reduces demand for energy. It's 100% renewable. What more do you want? barfo
At least Oregon's State Government is on the ball keeping us informed. Always a step above the Feds in protecting the individual. http://www.statesmanjournal.com/art...l-Japan-radiation-release-not-detected-Oregon
