THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SAFE NUCLEAR POWER

[TimG]

It took them 6 months to admit that 3 reactors went into meltdown, how confident are you that they are going to release accurate number of deaths related to radiation?

It took them 3 months to get into the reactors and see what happened! You see conspiracies everywhere.

Fukushima had 3 reactors go into complete meltdown , all 6 were running full tilt.

Yes - and the radiation release was much much less than Chernobyl because the reactor design was a lot more robust.

[segnosaur]

Please give me a reference for any radiation-related (fatalities) that have occurred in Fukishima since the start of the disaster

It took them 6 months to admit that 3 reactors went into meltdown, how condifent are you that they are going to release accurate number of deaths related to radiation?

So, in other words, when you said that it was a "myth" that there were no fallout-deaths, you were basically making a claim based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

Good to see you have such a high threshold for "proof". By that measure, does Bigfoot and the Lochness monster exist?

There was a report from the UN that suggested an extra 6000 thyroid cancers (probably the most common with this type of radiation release) were attributed to Chernobyl. That's over about 20 years.

Fukishma released (I think) roughly 1/4 of the radiation that Chernobyl did. If deaths happen proportionally, that would mean 1500 deaths in the same time period.

1/4 ????? How does that math work out for you?

First all all, it wasn't math, I was going by memory, based on articles I had read comparing the 2 disasters.

Secondly, I was wrong... There was actually much less radiation released at Fukushima than I origionally claimed.

From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13050228

Fukushima: 370,000 terabecquerels

Chernobyl: 5.2 million terabecquerels

So the amount of radiation released at Fukushima was closer to 1/10th the radiation released at Chernobyl.

(I suspect the Fukushima number will go up a little, but since the reactor is shut down further releases will be small compared to the total.)

Chernobyl had 1 reactor running at less than 25% capacity when it blew.

Fukushima had 3 reactors go into complete meltdown , all 6 were running full tilt.

As others have pointed out to you... the Chernobyl design was very bad. (Not something we would have deployed in the West.) No containment dome.

I suspect the fact that Chernobyl used graphite control rods (which caught fire) probably also had something to do with that. Fukushima didn't use graphite.

Edited October 5, 2012 by segnosaur

[GostHacked]

It took them 3 months to get into the reactors and see what happened! You see conspiracies everywhere.

It is a fact that TEPCO and Japan took 6 months to admit that 3 reactors went into full meltdown, all while telling us there were no meltdowns. Nuclear scientists knew already that meltdowns happens. Guys like Gunderson had said that early on, in time he was proven correct.

Yes - and the radiation release was much much less than Chernobyl because the reactor design was a lot more robust.

You cannot convince me or any logical thinking sane person, that Fukushima is emitting less radiation than Chernobyl. The design of the reactors that Fukushima had are one of GE's first runs at it. The design is about 50-60 years old. You are forgetting the spent fuel rods scattered all over the place because they were stored on TOP of the reactors that blew up.

Then there is the little talked about reactor #4 which could blow and it's right next to another fuel pool storage building. And from some reports I am seeing, reactor #4 has been demolished.

[wyly]

Wow, congratulations... you looked at wikipedia.

Of course, I find it quite ironic that you complain about other people's references, but you don't give any of your own to back up your claims. But lets consider them, shall we?

wiki? hmmm no The International Atomic Energy Authority it was in a pdf form with numerous other incidents

listed from most recent first, I transferred one at a time it listing it by severity first and dropping the level 1 incidents...

it was intended for wildbills viewing as he implied accidents/incidents couldn't happen in the west and obviously they do...

Already dealt with. Reactor with design flaws that reactors in the western world don't have.

This was at a plant for dealing with weapons. Not civilian nuclear power. Try again.

Already dealt with.

Not a power generating reactor. (And given the fact that the Chalk River facility is used for making medical isotopes, for which there is no alternative, you might want to give this one a pass.

Another event that occured during weapons production, not civilian nuclear power.

An accident at which nobody died.

More people have died falling off their roofs installing solar panels in the past year than died at 3 mile island.

But I guess since we can't use the scarry word "meltdoooowwn" those deaths don't really matter.

No radiation release outside the site. (1980)

You know, I'm just going to go ahead and say it... you're full of crap.

Do you even know what the significance of each of the levels is? What they actually mean in terms of actual human and environmental damage?

I suspect not.

Anything classified at level 4 is designated:

Minor release of radioactive material unlikely to result in implementation of panned countermeasures other than local food control.

So all of those level 2,3 and 4s that you listed did not cause mass evacuations and huge areas left "unlivable".

eeew you must be really smart you apparently know more than the International Atomic Energy Authority :lol: oh and three mile island *severe damage to the core* it's not always about death count, it's also a measurement of potential, but that requires critical thinking ability to comprehend, you're excused

Edited to add: Forgot the reference. You know, the thing that wyly doen't provide because it would show how empty and vacuous his arguments are.

as I wrote earlier this was post was intended for wildbill I've already written you off as not worth debating....you're a cut'n paste wizard, a dullard, zero ability for critical thinking..

how can you show up here with no embarrassment after proclaiming the safety of nuclear power and as your definitive evidence posting a link to report done before Three Mile Island! daaa! how stupid are you???....with that post/link you you placed yourself among the infamous elite of forum idiots....

so run along and go find your alzheimer medicine before your mind warps back to a time before three mile island again...

Edited October 5, 2012 by wyly

[Wild Bill]

so run along and go find your alzheimer medicine before your mind warps back to a time before three mile island again...

Please Wyly, go easy on the alzheimer references!

I turned 60 yesterday!

I guess my brain hasn't totally gone. I still can't abide hiphop, Justin Bieber or Celine Dion!

[wyly]

wyly,

How do you think France should meet its energy needs?

How would you advise a country like India?

I don't know, that wasn't the point of the thread...france will do what ever they want...germany is closing all it's nuclear plants by 2022, the plants provide some 23% of the countries energy, they shut down 8 reactors following fukishima and do not intend to restart those...germany has made a strong move into green energy...apparently the Germans don't know as much as some of our forum members as they think the risk of a nuclear energy catastrophe is to high a price to pay...

[Smallc]

And other countries are switching TO nuclear power. Apparently, they don't know anything by your logic.

[wyly]

Please Wyly, go easy on the alzheimer references!

I turned 60 yesterday!

I guess my brain hasn't totally gone. I still can't abide hiphop, Justin Bieber or Celine Dion!

you're ahead of me only by a few months bill...

agree on your music assessment

[wyly]

And other countries are switching TO nuclear power. Apparently, they don't know anything by your logic.

they assess their needs and make their choices it has nothing to do with my logic...but I'm sure they're not doing risk assessment based on pre three mile island safety statistics

[TimG]

Nuclear scientists knew already that meltdowns happens.

BS. You had people making baseless speculation - they did not know - they guessed and had a 50% chance of being right. TEPCO for reasons that should be obvious wanted to get into the reactor and confirm a meltdown before making any claims.

You cannot convince me or any logical thinking sane person, that Fukushima is emitting less radiation than Chernobyl.

Sorry, you are not logical, thinking or sane if you insist that Fukushima emitted more radiation than Chernobyl without having any evidence to support the claim. Edited October 5, 2012 by TimG

[TimG]

apparently the Germans don't know as much as some of our forum members as they think the risk of a nuclear energy catastrophe is to high a price to pay.

Actually, it is a pretty silly exercise given the fact that Czechs and French have no intention of closing down reactors near the German border. Also, Germany and Japan are quietly abandoning their GHGs commitments because they know they cannot make up the difference without fossil fuels. Edited October 5, 2012 by TimG

[wyly]

Actually, it is a pretty silly exercise given the fact that Czechs and French have no intention of closing down reactors near the German border. Also, Germany and Japan are quietly abandoning their GHGs commitments because they know they cannot make up the difference without fossil fuels.

they have given themselves 10 yrs to find a replacement I don't doubt German's technological ability to find a solution...and if they do it their neighbours will follow suit....

[Smallc]

and if they do it their neighbours will follow suit....

Says who?

[segnosaur]

eeew you must be really smart...

The important thing is that I'm smarter than you.

you apparently know more than the International Atomic Energy Authority :lol: oh and three mile island *severe damage to the core* it's not always about death count, it's also a measurement of potential,

Yup, and nuclear power has the potential to produce huge amounts of power without people falling off their roofs and dying.

as I wrote earlier this was post was intended for wildbill I've already written you off as not worth debating....you're a cut'n paste wizard, a dullard, zero ability for critical thinking..

Actually, no I'm not.

I post references to articles and short segments (as per copyright restrictions) to highlight the point that I was making, but the vast majority of my posts have been in my own words.

how can you show up here with no embarrassment after proclaiming the safety of nuclear power and as your definitive evidence posting a link to report done before Three Mile Island! daaa!

Well, that's one more piece of evidence than you've provided.

Oh, and I've posted 2 more references since then that say the same thing. Both within the last 2 years. One gave actual statistics (showing solar power causes around 10 times the deaths of nuclear). Another (by the Federation of American Scientists, a group that includes multiple nobel laureates) makes the same claim (although they don't give actual figures.

So, where's your proof that people have magically developed the ability to fly should they fall off a roof when installing solar panels? Or that they'll magically heal when they've been injured building a solar panel?

The fact is, you're one step above a troll. You've had all your arguments debunked. (Rather simple, considering they were pretty vacuous to begin with.) That's why you're running away. You don't like to be proven wrong.

Oh, and we're still waiting to hear about your awesome educational background.

[segnosaur]

I don't know, that wasn't the point of the thread...france will do what ever they want...germany is closing all it's nuclear plants by 2022, the plants provide some 23% of the countries energy, they shut down 8 reactors following fukishima and do not intend to restart those...germany has made a strong move into green energy...apparently the Germans don't know as much as some of our forum members as they think the risk of a nuclear energy catastrophe is to high a price to pay...

Or they can be panicing over a non-issue because they think its a politically expedient thing to do.

Governments don't always act rationally. Take for example, their decision to remove thiomersal from many vaccines. Was it because there was evidence of harm? Nope, they just because it contains an element people think sounds dangerous.

They will take actions that look safe, even if there's no tangible benefit, or even if that action is actually harmfull in the long run.

[TimG]

they have given themselves 10 yrs to find a replacement I don't doubt German's technological ability to find a solution.

The have found a solution: more coal plants. They just don't advertise it. The fact is green energy is an expensive scam. It will never provide the majority of power and the Germans know this.

[segnosaur]

It is a fact that TEPCO and Japan took 6 months to admit that 3 reactors went into full meltdown, all while telling us there were no meltdowns. Nuclear scientists knew already that meltdowns happens. Guys like Gunderson had said that early on, in time he was proven correct.

As long as we're talking conspiricy theories with absolutely no evidence, how do you even know there was even an accident at Fukushima?

How do you know it wasn't all some carefully orchestrated plot by Greenpeace, in collaboration with the Solar Panel manufacturing industry (also known as "big solar") to discredit Nuclear energy by creating a fake nuclear disaster? All they had to do is bribe a few people in the Japanese government, release a few radioactive isotopes in the air, and poof! Nuclear looks like the bad guy!

Did I just blow your mind?

Seriously, its been months and months since the accident. Don't you think that if there were deaths immediately attributable to radiation following the accident, that someone would have come forward? Some mother of a plant worker saying "where's my son?" Some disgunteled employee saying "I had to carry the bodies out"? Anyone?

You cannot convince me or any logical thinking sane person, that Fukushima is emitting less radiation than Chernobyl.

Its been reported by multiple sources.

Are you suggesting there's some massive conspiracy, involving probably hundreds of scientists, to fudge their readings?

The design of the reactors that Fukushima had are one of GE's first runs at it. The design is about 50-60 years old.

All that shows is that Soviet-era technology was very poorly designed, and years/decades behind that of the west.

Seriously, you're talking about the communist system of government, which gave such technological gems as the Trabant (a car that sometimes was eaten by goats) and a rocket capsule that actually baked its occupants alive (see Laika, the first dog into space). Technical innovation and safety were not strong suits of eastern bloc countries at the time.

Once again:

Chernobyl: no containment dome, graphite (flammable) control rods

Fukushima: Containment, no graphite

You are forgetting the spent fuel rods scattered all over the place because they were stored on TOP of the reactors that blew up.

Why are we "forgetting" them? The numbers are the measured radiation levels.

Keep in mind that a spent fuel rod is not like a stick of dynamite. It probably won't explode or catch fire the same way a regular explosive would.

[GostHacked]

We can revisit the timelines in this thread.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18236&st=0

Most of my predictions and worries came true. I got a lot of pushback too from some people in this thread.

A year and a half later these 3 reactors are still spitting out radiation.

[TimG]

Most of my predictions and worries came true. I got a lot of pushback too from some people in this thread.

Only in your imagination. You claimed that the reactors would have to encased in concrete like Chernobyl. You were wrong. You said it was worse than Chernobyl. You were wrong. The only thing where you close to being right was your claim that a 'meltdown' occurred but a whether a meltdown occurred or not is purely a technicality. It makes no difference in terms of the radiation released.

[segnosaur]

The only thing where you close to being right was your claim that a 'meltdown' occurred but a whether a meltdown occurred or not is purely a technicality. It makes no difference in terms of the radiation released.

But you don't understand... he used the word "meltdown". According to Wyly, regardless of what you say, the word "meltdown" is magical and automatically trumps everything anyone ever posted, regardless of how well thought out.

Meeeeelltdooown!!!

[segnosaur]

There was a report from the UN that suggested an extra 6000 thyroid cancers (probably the most common with this type of radiation release) were attributed to Chernobyl. That's over about 20 years.

Fukishma released (I think) roughly 1/4 of the radiation that Chernobyl did. If deaths happen proportionally, that would mean 1500 deaths in the same time period.

Actually much lower as the prognosis for thyroid cancer is bettert than most cancers. Thyroid cancer has a 10-year survival rate of about 85%. If found at stage 1 or 2 it is almost 100%.

Ironically, there may actually be a couple of people who's lives get saved due to these disasters. After all, they're probably doing a lot more screening now than they would have before, and they'll probably be a few people who would have had cancer even without the nuclear accidents that get tested and treated that otherwise wouldn't.

Not that I'm suggesting nuclear accidents as a method to encourage better medical screening procedures.

[wyly]

The have found a solution: more coal plants. They just don't advertise it. The fact is green energy is an expensive scam. It will never provide the majority of power and the Germans know this.

the coal plants are not intended as a replacement for nuclear...new coal plants are more efficient than previous coal plants, the new plants are intended to fill shortfalls at peak hours if wind and solar options are not operating at full potential...

as green technology increases the intent is that Germany will be at 35% by 2022 and 80% green energy by 2050...the new coal plants which can be powered down and up very quickly covering energy shortfalls unlike older designs that were intended to power supply energy constantly...

Edited October 5, 2012 by wyly

[TimG]

as green technology increases the intent is that Germany will be at 35% by 2022 and 80% green energy by 2050

Won't happen. The German grid is already under huge stress because of the existing renewables plus the public is getting tired of artificially high energy prices. The climb down has already started:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/doubts-increasing-about-germany-s-switch-to-renewable-energy-a-844844.html

Economy Minister Philipp Rösler echoed Atmaier on Tuesday, telling Bild newspaper: "The timeframe and the goals of the energy revolution are intact. But we will have to make adjustments if jobs and our competitiveness should become endangered." He said it was a "top priority" that electricity should remain affordable for consumers and customers.

[wyly]

Won't happen. The German grid is already under huge stress because of the existing renewables plus the public is getting tired of artificially high energy prices. The climb down has already started:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/doubts-increasing-about-germany-s-switch-to-renewable-energy-a-844844.html

"The timeframe and the goals of the energy revolution are intact" do you have some sort of psychic power that allows you to come to a different conclusion than what was stated?... Edited October 5, 2012 by wyly

[TimG]

do you some sort of psychic power that allows you to come to a different conclusion than what was stated?...

ROTFL - One does not need psychic power to recognize a politician back peddling - notice he said that his "top priority" is affordable electricity.

Keep in mind that Canadian governments keep saying Canada was on track to meet its Kyoto commitments until it was no longer possible to pretend. Why would you believe these German politicians any more?

Edited October 5, 2012 by TimG