Breaking: explosion at the Marcoule French Nuclear plant

reply to post by jamieastronaut


Only a fraction of what you're exposed to by coal plants.

Edit: Or by solar panels. "OMG THE SUN IS NUCULUR! BAN IT!"

Originally posted by Nosred
reply to post by jamieastronaut

 

Only a fraction of what you're exposed to by coal plants.

Edit: Or by solar panels. "OMG THE SUN IS NUCULUR! BAN IT!"

edit on 13-9-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)

The amount of radiation exposure from coal power pollution is .03mrem per year. That's less than .000034 uSv per hour. ( .0000034 mrem per hour).

According to many sources, the average background radiation rate is between .5 and .7 uSv per hour.

You do realize that .000034 uSv per hour is roughly 1 / 40,000th of the background reading ???

That is so minuscule I cannot believe you even bother mentioning it. The mercury pollution from coal plants is far far worse and serves as a much higher risk/danger.

Also, why won't you respond to this : Are knives safer than nuclear bombs? (Since knives have killed more people historically/statistically)?

reply to post by muzzleflash


>Ignoring my link

www.scientificamerican.com...

So why does coal waste appear so radioactive? It's a matter of comparison: The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plants—they're just somewhat higher for the coal ones. "You're talking about one chance in a billion for nuclear power plants," Christensen says. "And it's one in 10 million to one in a hundred million for coal plants."

Like I said, you can close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears all you want, it doesn't change the fact that nuclear power has killed less people than any other power source per TWh.

Originally posted by Nosred

Like I said, you can close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears all you want, it doesn't change the fact that nuclear power has killed less people than any other power source per TWh.

So you are saying that we should use nuclear weapons since historically /statistically they kill less people than knives or guns.

Ok. Let's follow your logic and fight all future wars with nukes since they are very safe and hardly lethal comparing the low death counts with the massive death counts caused by knives or guns.

You still refuse to address this. How can we take you seriously when your logic fails so immensely?

If you had been wiser you would have rescinded your mistake and corrected it. However you ignore it in the SAME MANNER you accuse other people of doing to you.

Due to the fact I have brought this paradox in your logic up 4 or 5 times in this thread, and you have not responded to it directly once, I would have to say it is you who has your fingers in your ears and your eyes closed. I will retract that remark only if and when you finally decide to fess up and admit you are not making any reasonable sense with your thought terminating cliches

A thought-terminating cliché is a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance. Though the phrase in and of itself may be valid in certain contexts, its application as a means of dismissing dissention or justifying fallacious logic is what makes it thought-terminating. Thought-terminating clichés are sometimes used during political discourse to enhance appeal or to shut down debate. In this setting, their usage can usually be classified as a logical fallacy.

You are so busted. The coffin is nailed shut.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Nosred

Like I said, you can close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears all you want, it doesn't change the fact that nuclear power has killed less people than any other power source per TWh.

So you are saying that we should use nuclear weapons since historically /statistically they kill less people than knives or guns.

That's a very poor analogy and a logical fallacy. Please tell me how comparing something specifically designed to kill people with something specifically designed to be as safe as possible makes sense.

Ok. Let's follow your logic and fight all future wars with nukes since they are very safe and hardly lethal comparing the low death counts with the massive death counts caused by knives or guns.

You still refuse to address this. How can we take you seriously when your logic fails so immensely?

Again, you're the one making a logical fallacy here. What you're saying here could easily be replaced with

"Antibiotics have killed fewer people than leeches, however knives have also killed more people than biological weaponry, therefore antibiotics are clearly just as dangerous as biological weaponry."

" I mean, antibiotics are made out of microorganisms just like biological weapons! Therefore they most both be equally deadly despite being designed for completely opposite purposes!"

See how this doesn't make sense?


Edit: Also no, using a cliche does not mean it's a "thought terminating cliche". I still made the very valid point that nuclear power has killed less people than any other power source.

reply to post by Nosred


I see exactly how it doesn't make sense.

My example was designed to reflect your logic when you say "Solar panels are more dangerous than nuclear power because more people died falling off roofs than from nuclear plant accidents".

I am emulating your failed logic perfectly by saying "Nuclear bombs are safer than knives because statistically knives have killed way way more people than nukes have".

When in reality WE ALL KNOW that a solar panel is far safer than a freaking nuclear reactor core. And we all know that a knife is safer than a nuclear bomb.

I created the logical fallacy to show you exactly how your logical fallacy operates.
Technically it's being used by you as a thought-terminating-cliche.

Originally posted by Nosred

" I mean, antibiotics are made out of microorganisms just like biological weapons! Therefore they most both be equally deadly despite being designed for completely opposite purposes!"

See how this doesn't make sense?

I see how it is factually incorrect.

Antibiotics are made out of the byproducts of microorganisms, not the organisms themselves.
types of antibiotics .com

So technically to improve your silly example, you should be equating antibiotics with Chemical weapons, not biological ones.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by Nosred

 

I see exactly how it doesn't make sense.

My example was designed to reflect your logic when you say "Solar panels are more dangerous than nuclear power because more people died falling off roofs than from nuclear plant accidents".

I am emulating your failed logic perfectly by saying "Nuclear bombs are safer than knives because statistically knives have killed way way more people than nukes have".

When in reality WE ALL KNOW that a solar panel is far safer than a freaking nuclear reactor core. And we all know that a knife is safer than a nuclear bomb.

Sorry but no, a better comparison between the two would be cars and airplanes. A plane crash might be worse for the people involved, but they very rarely happen and statistically you're a lot more likely to get hurt or killed in a car crash. More people are killed in car crashes because car crashes happen more frequently, even if they aren't as bad as plane crashes. Therefore cars are more dangerous than planes.

I don't care what kind of B.S. straw man arguments you bring up, the fact of the matter is that nuclear power has killed fewer people than any other power source, claiming it has more "potential" to kill people is just ignorant. Fossil fuels kill people as part of standard operation, wind and solar kill people as a result of accidents much more common than accidents with nuclear power.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I see how it is factually incorrect.

Antibiotics are made out of the byproducts of microorganisms, not the organisms themselves.
types of antibiotics .com

So technically to improve your silly example, you should be equating antibiotics with Chemical weapons, not biological ones.

No, my analogy was apt as nuclear reactors do not function the same way as nuclear warheads. Your straw man arguments are getting ridiculous.

Interesting fact:

For every person killed by nuclear power generation, 4,000 die due to coal, adjusted for the same amount of power produced... You might very well have excellent reasons to argue for one form over another. Not the point of this post. The question is: did you know about this chart? How does it resonate with you?

nextbigfuture.com...

Oh, but as long as it's not you or your family that's getting killed right?

You guys are a bunch of hypocrites, pretending to be worried about saving lives but in actuality only worrying about yourselves. F@*% those coal miners and the world's environment, something might happen to my precious little suburbia!


Edit: The price of your irrational sheepish fear,

www.nytimes.com...

Rescue workers began the precarious task Tuesday of removing explosive methane gas from the coal mine where at least 25 miners died the day before. The mine owner’s dismal safety record, along with several recent evacuations of the mine, left federal officials and miners suggesting that Monday’s explosion might have been preventable.

You are responsible for this.


Edit: And the death toll from that tragedy was higher than the death toll from Fukushima. Fukushima got hit by two unavoidable natural catastrophes and zero people died.

reply to post by Nosred


Well, how does falling off a roof equate to deaths from solar panels?

Shouldn't that go under deaths caused by falling off of roofs or deaths from misusing beer or liquor?

How significantly does this differentiation reduce the death counts of solar panels because people count falling off a roof as a death related to the panel itself?

Do your studies explain the difference between roof falls with drunk people vs sober people? Does it include ladder related accidents? Does it include a 60year old man having a natural heart attack caused by high cholesterol while he was installing that panel on the roof?

I am sorry but your example is flawed in the extreme. I really wish you could come up with something reasonable to debate against.

And you just said that even though a singular plane crash is far more severe than a singular car crash, you then claimed that cars are more dangerous which is not factual exactly, it's twisting the facts.

Cars are only more dangerous numerically because there are 10,000 cars per 1 airplane. This means that we should multiple the airplane factor by that increased value in order to see how deadly plane crashes are in the event they are used as commonly as cars are.

Realistically, would you think a car crashing into your house is more dangerous? Or an airplane crashing into your house?

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by Nosred

 

Well, how does falling off a roof equate to deaths from solar panels?

Shouldn't that go under deaths caused by falling off of roofs or deaths from misusing beer or liquor?

How significantly does this differentiation reduce the death counts of solar panels because people count falling off a roof as a death related to the panel itself?

Do your studies explain the difference between roof falls with drunk people vs sober people? Does it include ladder related accidents? Does it include a 60year old man having a natural heart attack caused by high cholesterol while he was installing that panel on the roof?

Sorry but you are severely misinformed and apparently entirely ignored my link. I'll quote it for you since you're apparently to lazy to click it,

Those who talk about PV solar power (millions of roofs) need to consider roof worker safety. About 1000 construction fatalities per year in the US alone. 33% from working at heights.

Falls are the leading cause of fatalities in the construction industry. An average of 362 fatal falls occurred each year from 1995 to 1999, with the trend on the increase. 269 deaths (combined falls from ladders and roofs in 2002). UPDATE: Based on a more detailed analysis of the fatal fall statistic reports I would now estimate the fatal falls that would match the solar panel roof installations as 100-150. Only 30-40 are classified as being a professional roofer but deaths for laborer or general construction worker or a private individual count as deaths.

Roofing is the 6th most dangerous job. Roofers had a fatality rate in 2002 of 37 per 100,000 workers.

In 2001, there were 107 million homes in the United States; of those, 73.7 million were single-family homes. Roughly 5 million new homes are built each year and old roofs need to significant work or replacement every 20 years. So 9-10 million roofing jobs in the US alone. In 2007, Solar power was at 12.4 GW or about 12.6 TWh. The 2006 figure for Germany PV was only 1TWh from about 1.5GW from $4 billion/yr. The German rate of solar power generation would mean 12.4GW would generate 8TWh. 2.8GW generates 2 TWh for Germany, assuming other places are 50% sunnier on average, then the 9.6GW would generate 10.6 TWh.

$4 billion is about the cost of one of the new 1.5 GW nuclear power plants, which would generate 12 TWh/year. Nuclear power plants (104) rated at a total 100GW generated 800 Twh in 2007.

The world total was from about 1.5 million solar roofed homes. 30% of the solar power was from roof installed units. 1/6th of the 9 million roofing job accidents would be about 50 deaths from installing 1.5 million roofs if other countries had similar to US safety. The amount of roof installations is increasing as a percentage. 4 TWh from roofs PV. So 12.5 deaths per TWh from solar roof installations. Assuming 15 years as the average functional life or time until major maintenance or upgrade is required. The average yearly deaths from rooftop solar is 0.83/TWh. Those who want a lower bound estimate can double the life of the solar panels (0.44deaths/TWh). This is worse than the occupational safety issues associated with coal and nuclear power. (see table below). 12 to 25 times less safe than the projected upper bound end effect of Chernobyl (from WHO figures). The fifty actual deaths from roof installation accidents for 1.5 million roof installations is equal to the actual deaths experienced so far from Chernobyl. If all 80 million residential roofs in the USA had solar power installed then one would expect 9 times the annual roofing deaths of 300 people or 2700 people (roofers to die). This would generate about 240 TWh of power each year. (30% of the power generated from nuclear power in the USA). 90 people per year over an optimistic life of 30 years for the panels not including maintenance or any electrical shock incidents.

I am sorry but your example is flawed in the extreme. I really wish you could come up with something reasonable to debate against.

Some responders online are in denial that people who work on a roof can fall off regardless of the reason they went up there. If I go up there to replace roofing tiles or go up there to install solar panels, the risk of falling is pretty much the same especially when the number of times being compared heads to large numbers like millions of times for each. As I noted in the comments, statistics show that 70% of fatal construction falls occur at height of 3 stories or less.

reply to post by Nosred


Im sorry man, but your logic is skewed. You're seeing things through a tunnel for the sake of an argument. Also the "coal ash" your source mentions doesnt get released into the atmosphere.

In the past, fly ash was generally released into the atmosphere, but pollution control equipment mandated in recent decades now require that it be captured prior to release. In the US, fly ash is generally stored at coal power plants or placed in landfills. About 43 percent is recycled,[3] often used to supplement Portland cement in

Now consider your "safe" plutonium mox fuelled power plants.



"If there is a serious accident involving
600 grams of plutonium (in the form of MOX),
how many civilian overdoses could, in principle, result?"


if NONE of the plute is safely contained there is a potential for six billion
civilian overdoses
 
if 90 percent of it is safely contained there is a potential for six hundred million
civilian overdoses
 
if 99.9 percent of it is safely contained there is a potential for six hundred thousand
civilian overdoses
 
if 99.999 percent of it is safely contained
there is a potential for six thousand
civilian overdoses
 

 
Link:www.ccnr.org...

EDIT: Are you seriously comparing all this to roofing????

Originally posted by muzzleflash
And you just said that even though a singular plane crash is far more severe than a singular car crash, you then claimed that cars are more dangerous which is not factual exactly, it's twisting the facts.

No, because car crashes happen alarmingly more often and kill more people. The point is that it doesn't matter if plane crashes are worse, because in the end cars still kill more people regardless of that fact. A nuclear meltdown has an even lower chance of happening than a plane crash, coal plants kill people as part of standard operation. You literally have a better chance of winning the lottery twice in a row than you have of getting killed by a nuclear power plant.

Fukushima got hit by not one but two natural disasters and still nobody got killed.

Cars are only more dangerous numerically because there are 10,000 cars per 1 airplane. This means that we should multiple the airplane factor by that increased value in order to see how deadly plane crashes are in the event they are used as commonly as cars are.

Doesn't matter, as we're not discussing cars and airplanes. The link I provided adjusts for the amount of power produced, so your concerns here are invalid. For every 1 death caused by a nuclear power plant 4000 are caused by coal.

Realistically, would you think a car crashing into your house is more dangerous? Or an airplane crashing into your house?

Realistically, a car has a much higher statistical chance of crashing into my house than an airplane does. I am more likely to get killed by a car in my lifetime than I am by an airplane, I am also more likely to get killed by wind power than I am to get killed by nuclear power. Your argument is invalid.

Also, forgot to add this,

Some have also claimed that someone who went up onto a roof to install a solar panel but then fell is not a death associated with solar power. Similarly then if someone is killed in a coal mine then that is not a coal power death because the coal was not in the power plant yet or they might have some other reason for being underground and would have been crushed anyway.

Originally posted by jamieastronaut
reply to post by Nosred

 

Im sorry man, but your logic is skewed. You're seeing things through a tunnel for the sake of an argument. Also the "coal ash" your source mentions doesnt get released into the atmosphere.

And radioactive waste isn't released into the atmosphere either, what's your point?

Edit: Hmm....

Various World Health Organization references are the main sources for the air pollution statistics.

A World Health Organization (WHO) report estimates that diseases triggered by indoor and outdoor air pollution kill 656,000 Chinese citizens each year, and polluted drinking water kills another 95,600.

Nah, I'm sure nuclear power is more dangerous.



Edit: Especially considering that two natural disasters couldn't cause a nuclear power plant to do this, coal plants kill this many people without having an accident in the first place. It's just standard operation for them.



Edit: Good luck sleeping tonight knowing that you're partially responsible for the deaths of over 700,000 people each year.

reply to post by Nosred


Read Plutonium facts. Add all coal plants on the planet, multiply over and over. Dude, 600 grams could kill everyone on the planet. Fact. Ever seen a coal plant meltdown and give 5 million people cancer? (Chernobyl, so far)
I hear what youre saying man, either way, energy production is fxcked. But when the SHTF, youre not going to want to be anywhere near a nuke plant. And i wouldnt want to be walking outside when that roofer falls on me. Or maybe i'd cushion his fall? I'd save a life.

Originally posted by Nosred

Edit: Good luck sleeping tonight knowing that you're partially responsible for the deaths of over 700,000 people each year.

edit on 13-9-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)

I guess we can call it over. You win.

You exposed me, I am a mass murderer. I kill 700,000 Chinese a year.

To think I underestimated you, and low and behold, you just torpedoed my ship!

Good game. Now I am moving onward to kill the next 700,000 Chinese citizens....mwhahaha.

reply to post by muzzleflash


France nuclear: Marcoule site explosion kills one
An injured person is evacuated by helicopter from the site in Marcoule, France (12 Sept 2011) One person was seriously injured in the explosion, reportedly suffering from burn

Continue reading the main story @ www.bbc.co.uk...



One person has been killed and four injured, one seriously, in a blast at the Marcoule nuclear site in France.

There was no risk of a radioactive leak after the blast, caused by a fire near a furnace in the Centraco radioactive waste storage site, said officials.

The owner of the southern French plant, national electricity provider EDF, said it had been "an industrial accident, not a nuclear accident".

Originally posted by awcgs

There was no risk of a radioactive leak after the blast, caused by a fire near a furnace in the Centraco radioactive waste storage site, said officials.

The owner of the southern French plant, national electricity provider EDF, said it had been "an industrial accident, not a nuclear accident".

They always say there is no risk even when there is one. Why? They will get sued by thousands or even millions of nearby residents. This is all about legalese and covering your butt so that you can hold your own in court.

Of course there are risks, we just don't know how risky it is or isn't because they do not give any legitimate information other than "Its safe, don't worry", which isn't information at all it's more like an opinion or a lie.

And aren't all nuclear accidents also classified as industrial accidents? What's up with this word twisting the nuclear agencies are always committing?

Michio Kaku claims that Fukushima meltdowns are "The grand daddy of all industrial accidents!" Why would one of the smartest physicists on Earth call Fukushima a "Industrial accident"? Oh because all nuclear accidents can be classified as 'industrial' since nuclear power is part of 'industry'. Isn't that quaint?

You cannot convince me things are safe by withholding all of the relevant specifics.

Examples of information we don't know for sure, but the EDF would know because they have records and are on site to take measurements.

1) What was in the furnace when it exploded?

2) How large was the explosion and how far were materials ejected?

3) Were the containment seals breached in any way ? (Hole in the roof , etc)

4) What are the radiation readings throughout the facility zone? Having a set of at least a few dozen measurements would be good. Also a few measurements of the epicenter of the blast would be very helpful (the furnace).

Without explaining in ultimate detail the specifics of the situation, I have no choice but to assume the worst because there has to be a reason they are not open and frank about all of this information.

By the time we find out what is really going on it will probably become apparent the incident was indeed a level 3 like I originally assumed. Pity...how long will it take to find out what really happened? 6 months?