Suspected explosives seized at nuclear plant in Sweden

reply to post by SyphonX


This was my concern all along.... I rarely make such a claim... and it may not be true in this case.. but it feels like a sensationalist false flag ...

Since the police decline to report the facts, I wonder what the point of it is... who benefits?

Originally posted by 0010110011101

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by EvanB

 

What power source would you prefer? Coal, that pumps out more radiation in a few years, than a nuclear power plant will in your lifetime? Solar, that would require massive fields to even begin to be efficient? Windmills, that would require huge fields of windmills?

Like it or not, nuclear is the safest, and cheapest form of power out there.

Apart from when it goes wrong. All good in practice, until there's an earthquake...........

Even then.

More people get killed in coal mines and oil rigs around the world in one year than in all the nuclear power plant accidents ever.

and every year hundreds of thousands of people worldwide get cancer and other sicknesses, and have their lives shorted though fossil-fuel pollution, plus it pumps out millions and millions of tons of CO2.

Safest when it's safe, hey?

just safest outright.

Also people seem to not know that Mercury is entering the environment from burning coal.

-From www.epa.gov...
"Exposures to mercury can affect the human nervous system and harm the brain, heart, kidneys, lungs, and immune system." " ...it has been demonstrated that high levels of methylmercury in the bloodstream of unborn babies and young children may harm the developing nervous system, making the child less able to think and learn."
"The most common way we are exposed to mercury is by eating fish or shellfish that are contaminated with mercury. "
"Mercury is found in many rocks including coal. When coal is burned, mercury is released into the environment. Coal-burning power plants are the largest human-caused source of mercury emissions to the air in the United States, accounting for over 50 percent of all domestic human-caused mercury emissions (Source: 2005 National Emissions Inventory). EPA has estimated that about one quarter of U.S. emissions from coal-burning power plants are deposited within the contiguous U.S. and the remainder enters the global cycle. "-

Makes nuclear look a lot more appealing to me. We can stand a bit of radiation. People at higher altitudes get larger doses of radiation from the Sun and space, yet studies of geographical rates of cancer show lower amounts of cancers per capita for those people living at higher altitudes.
Good luck to anyone living downwind from a coal fired power plant

Originally posted by Lucas73
Also people seem to not know that Mercury is entering the environment from burning coal.

Among other things - here is the list of emissions you can expect ANNUALLY from a "typical" (ie 500MW) coal fired powerplant:

Burning coal is a leading cause of smog, acid rain, global warming, and air toxics. In an average year, a typical coal plant generates: 3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary human cause of global warming--as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees.
-10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.
-500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility.
-10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness.
-720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease.
-220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.
-170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.
-225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.
-114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.

In addition the fly ash is more radioactive than most nuclear waste!

Maybe it's just a PR stunt to distract from ________.

MAYBE? G.E. likes the idea of all the bad publicity from Nuclear Energy?

And it scares the crap out of me.


Hmmmm : I wondor who has the most to gain from non-nuclear sources of energy?

www.ge-energy.com...
Yep, you got it... G.E. Obama's business development "czar."

Yes, I know Cheney owned a piece of the company that contracts for Halibuton too.
www.cbsnews.com...


The more things change, the more they stay the same.

This is good news that they found it, bad news that someone's tried.
if its terrorist related then it wouldn't suprise me what better way to wipe out alot of people in one go, although as someones already mentioned it wouldn't have damaged the reactor but .........its still not good.