Two United States nuclear power plants are on alert!

reply to post by loam


Loam,

That says it all.....ya know its common sense and really makes me anxious to think people do not see what is in front of their eyes!

Hopefully it is not too late to turn things around but I personally do not see light at the end of this tunnel and I am a one to always look to the brighter side.

Is there a brighter side? I just don't know .....Im looking....

This needs to be added:
nation.com.pk... nt-report

This report from Russian inspector.

Originally posted by Nosred
...about zero people in Europe are killed every year as a result of nuclear accidents.

Maybe he doesn't know Chernobyl is in the Ukraine which is part of Eastern EUROPE. And yes radioactive fallout from Chernobyl reached the UK and everywhere in between. There is a lot of disinfo out there, when the Chernobyl fallout reached France for example, they denied any fallout and of course their cheese was safe to eat. All the cancer deaths may have other causes but then again maybe not. We KNOW radiation causes cancers, and if there are high radiation levels around, common sense should tell us that at least some of the cancers were caused by radiation exposure.

Chernobyl fallout map:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/534ed8276ed6.jpg[/atsimg]

Maybe the rabbit with no ears born 15 miles from the Fukushima Daiichi power plant was caused by a fluke random mutation, or maybe it was caused by the radiation from Fukushima. Which do think is more likely?

If US nuclear power plants are showing problems, they should be shut down, isn't that obvious by now?

Have you seen this from a Philadelphia Fox website?

A researcher says the death rate among babies is up 48 percent since Iodine-131 was found in Philadelphia’s drinking water [...]

[CDC data] shows an average of five infant deaths a week in the five weeks leading up to the fallout in Japan. Then, for the 10 weeks after Japan, there was an average of 7. 5. [...]

Source: enenews.com...

Interestingly enough, the original story is no longer available on the Fox site.

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by ototheb85

 

In the context of Chernobyl, it's a completely specious statement. There is sufficient credible evidence to indicate otherwise.

edit on 23-6-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)

Here is a 148 report on how the Chernobyl disaster could have been easily prevented if basic safety measures had been taken.

www-pub.iaea.org...

And here you can see that coal mining kills more miners every year than the initial blast at Chernobyl killed,

www-pub.iaea.org...

Originally posted by MamaJ
Ya know.....I am completely OK with living my life like my ancestors did to have a peaceful life and be able to raise my children with such.

If you want to abandon science and die when you're thirty or whenever you catch the common cold go right ahead.

Scientists, Mr. PHD, and so on do not necessarily have common sense.

And why not? They've gone to school for several years to become experts in this kind of stuff so I'm pretty sure they know a bit more what they're talking about than you do, someone who has no experience in the field of nuclear power, when they say that nuclear energy is safe.

It is common sense that Nuclear is not safe. Never will be....

No it is not "common sense". Fewer people have been killed and injured by nuclear power than are killed and injured by any other power source, so common sense would say that nuclear power is safer. The fear of nuclear power comes from the logical fallacy that since it's "not natural" it's not safe.

How can we make the most money is how our Big Money guys think not how can we live in a non toxic environment for the health and safety of our people.

All the greedy "Big Money" guys are in the fossil fuel industry, which if you don't remember has gotten us into several conflicts in the Middle Eastern countries. I don't know how you could call nuclear power supporters greedy yet still be happy to rely on fossil fuels. The only viable way to cut back on fossil fuel dependency is nuclear power, and I'll tell you that no wars have ever been waged over uranium shortages.

Originally posted by xizd1
This needs to be added:
nation.com.pk... nt-report

This report from Russian inspector.

Why would that need to be added? It was a hoax to create more fear in the sheep and is being picked up by news websites that are too lazy to check sources, see this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Edit: This is the website where the hoax originated.
www.whatdoesitmean.com...

Please stop with the scare-mongering. It's because of people who overreact like this that we have TSA molesting us in airports.

reply to post by Nosred


You are basing your debate on your own perception of truth.

I too surround myself with like minded individuals who are very well educated and have doctrines. With that said is my own opinion based in regards to what these people have told me and what I have read regarding the subject we speak of.

All knowledge is based on the idea of source being truth....and with saying that it does not make it so.

We have no idea what will happen in the long run....that remains to be seen.

They will not shut down a plant if there is nothing to worry about. There is a concern....all I would like to see happen is for these educated people to base their decisions on humanity instead of greed.

A Scientist or a Dr.'s facts of the day may not be a fact tomorrow. They are "practicing" all the time theories and medicine....which does not make them all knowing. Educated, yes....all knowing....no.

What i think is common sense may not be to you or vice versa. As soon as Mr. Scientist says he knows something to be a fact...I question it. As we all should. Don't believe everything you hear and see. Use your imagination a little and think of what these plants house and the dangers.

Its risky!

Originally posted by MamaJ
Ya know.....I am completely OK with living my life like my ancestors did to have a peaceful life and be able to raise my children with such.

Scientists, Mr. PHD, and so on do not necessarily have common sense.

Think for yourself, educate yourself, and realize we do not have all the answers.

It is common sense that Nuclear is not safe. Never will be....

How can we make the most money is how our Big Money guys think not how can we live in a non toxic environment for the health and safety of our people.

Come on ya'll! Work with me!

The part where you say Nuclear will never be safe is simply not true. We use Nuclear Fission right now. There is also Nuclear (Cold)Fusion. This is radioactive free nuclear power. THIS, is safe. This, may or may not, be achievable today.

The government is factually on record surpressing alternative energy. There has been huge controversy over cold fusion in the past, even into the present.

It IS possible. The question is, when can we do it?

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by Nosred

 

You are basing your debate on your own perception of truth.

No, I base it on nuclear engineer's perception's of truth. They know a bit more about the subject than I do.

As for the rest of your rant; if you want to abandon all science, go live in a cave, die when you're thirty or whenever you catch a cold, and fight off animals with your bare hands, then that's your right. Nobody's going to stop you if you think science is so bad.

I'm sure those scientists who built your computer didn't know what they were talking about, we should question them. We obviously know more about computer engineering than they do.

Originally posted by Laokin
The part where you say Nuclear will never be safe is simply not true. We use Nuclear Fission right now. There is also Nuclear (Cold)Fusion. This is radioactive free nuclear power. THIS, is safe. This, may or may not, be achievable today.

Hell, nuclear fission is already the most reliable and safest power source currently available. When nuclear fusion gets perfected all other power sources will be obsolete and look primitive by comparison.

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by Nosred

 

You are basing your debate on your own perception of truth.

No, I base it on nuclear engineer's perception's of truth. They know a bit more about the subject than I do.

As for the rest of your rant; if you want to abandon all science, go live in a cave, die when you're thirty or whenever you catch a cold, and fight off animals with your bare hands, then that's your right. Nobody's going to stop you if you think science is so bad.

There are nuclear physicists that disagree with those particular engineers. They are equally qualified if not more so....

You need to just stop now. YOU are cherry picking a SINGLE source (with vetted interests) and discrediting EVERY OTHER one just because they say otherwise.

Go away, fallout boy.

Nuclear Fission IS NOT the safest, it's only from your perspective. It may be the least prone to accident, this does not correlate to safety. Nuclear contamination is very serious business, this is a scientifically unanimous position. A Nuclear plant failure poses the highest potential threat for any competing energy source.

The only way they are safer, is in the regard that they don't fail as often. In any other context, nuclear energy is NOT safe... Nor is it clean. Nuclear waste is called waste for a reason. It's not clean.

reply to post by Laokin


I've provided numerous reliable sources on both this thread and another one that support my claims, can you link me a source of a nuclear physicist who says nuclear power isn't safe? I know the majority believe in its safety.

Edit: I have only discredited one source in this thread, because several scientific agencies found its research methods to be flawed.

Originally posted by Nosred
reply to post by Laokin

 

I've provided numerous reliable sources on both this thread and another one that support my claims, can you link me a source of a nuclear physicist who says nuclear power isn't safe? I know the majority believe in its safety.

Edit: I have only discredited one source in this thread, because several scientific agencies found its research methods to be flawed.

edit on 23-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)

What is wrong here, is your perception of what is "safe." Michio Kaku says very boldly that Fukashima is at minimum 3x worse than Chernobyl. He IS a Nuclear Physicist and DOES hold a Ph.D.

So he meets your criteria right?

I never said that most scientists think Nuclear energy isn't the way to go... I just said they all know it's the most lethal and biggest threat due to failure.... Newer systems have much more sophisticated safety measures... It's probably MUCH safer now than ever before, but again, only in new plants.

You cannot deny that a nuclear disaster is worse than a windmill disaster... they aren't even comparable. Only in terms of expected failure rate does Nuclear win.

Don't miscontrue the argument.

Originally posted by Laokin

What is wrong here, is your perception of what is "safe." Michio Kaku says very boldly that Fukashima is at minimum 3x worse than Chernobyl. He IS a Nuclear Physicist and DOES hold a Ph.D.

So he meets your criteria right?

He's not a nuclear physicist, he's a theoretical physicist. That's kind of a different ballpark. Also he didn't say it's worse than Chernobyl, he said it could become worse than Chernobyl, which is understandable since the reactors were older than Chernobyl's and since it was hit with a tsunami while Chernobyl wasn't. Please stop twisting the facts to suit your claims.

I never said that most scientists think Nuclear energy isn't the way to go... I just said they all know it's the most lethal and biggest threat due to failure.... Newer systems have much more sophisticated safety measures... It's probably MUCH safer now than ever before, but again, only in new plants.

Newer nuclear reactors are much safer than one's built back in the 60's and 70's such as Fukushima. Nuclear power is not the most lethal since accidents are far easier to prevent and much less common.

You cannot deny that a nuclear disaster is worse than a windmill disaster... they aren't even comparable. Only in terms of expected failure rate does Nuclear win.

First of all wind power provides nowhere near enough energy to sustain a society, now that we have that out of the way I don't think it matters which power plant causes worse disasters since wind turbine accidents are much more common and have injured far more people than nuclear accidents. Whichever source of energy hurts fewer people is the safer one in my book.

reply to post by Nosred


You assume wrong. I LOVE science...I just don't put all my faith in it, that is what I have been saying to you.

Don't be fooled....that is also what I am saying to you.

Do not assume what you read today as fact will not be de bunked tomorrow...that again is what I am saying to you.

I would like to think that our leaders are leading us in the right direction...but history shows us this is not the case.

Think for yourself and get the blinders off....is also what I am saying to you.

Again, I love science and all the mysteries surrounding our known Universe. I love it!!!!

I do not love it when people take others opinions and run with it without first thinking for themselves and educating themselves in regards to the subject and even when doing so... they seem to know ALL. Ha! Those people are not ones I put stock into.

The only way they are safer, is in the regard that they don't fail as often. In any other context, nuclear energy is NOT safe... Nor is it clean. Nuclear waste is called waste for a reason. It's not clean.

reply to post by Laokin


Now this right here is common sense. Ahhhhh...... lol......now we are cookin' with grease.

I can't believe I am even having this debate really.

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by Nosred

 

You assume wrong. I LOVE science...I just don't put all my faith in it

I'm sure that faith is what makes that computer of yours run.

Nuclear power is not some kind of theory that can be proven wrong, all opinions scientists form on its safety are based off cold hard facts that can be observed. Please do not tell me that scientist's opinions on something's safety can be proven wrong unless you are qualified to make those claims.

Edit: Normally in history when misconceptions arise about the safety of something, its the side that believes it's not safe that's wrong. Ex. Tomatoes, planes, medicine, etc.

reply to post by Nosred


Even good calculated estimates states that at least 20000 were killed by the Chernobyl accident. Some more realistic calculations state 50000-100000. Of cause you can still hold up those lies that nuclear power is safe and the initial explosion just killed a few people. Maybe you can tell the families of those other thousands that it's normal to die with cancer at an age of 20-40.

Whats next? Tell me that a person who shot someone into the stomach isn't a murderer as those person won't die at the moment of impact - hey, he just lost too much blood after that so it's his fault.

Originally posted by Laokin
The only way they are safer, is in the regard that they don't fail as often.

Which means less people hurt, which means they're safer.

Nor is it clean. Nuclear waste is called waste for a reason. It's not clean.

Do I seriously have to explain this again? All of the nuclear waste generated by all the nuclear power plants in the past 50 years would fill a football field to a depth of ten yards, and 96% percent of this "waste" can be recycled to create more power. Nuclear power generates the same amount of greenhouse gasses as renewable sources, and it does not contribute to air pollution like coal.

How exactly is this not cleaner than fossil fuels?

Originally posted by UnixFE
reply to post by Nosred

 

Even good calculated estimates states that at least 20000 were killed by the Chernobyl accident. Some more realistic calculations state 50000-100000.

And by more realistic you mean those that share your preconceptions not those that are actually more accurate.