Why do people fear nuclear power?

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Stokes Pennwalt, Feb 5, 2004.

  1. bradguth Banned Banned

    Messages:
    226
    Nuclear energy is good for lots of humanitarian benefits, and of lunar He3 or 3He as fusion energy is obviously even far better.

    Americans are simply too dumb and dumber, as in dumfounded and otherwise snookered to death, as such they fear a great deal, such as for being within most any tall building when some big aircraft loaded with other nice folks is crashing into said building,

    As Americans, we're so pathetically arrogant and as such stupid, that we even fear the most common of all elements, as H2 is simply too freaking spooky to deal with, and we don't want anyone other dealing with anything hydrogen. Nuclear anything has also been an absolute no-no, as in "not in my back yard" sort of example, though we seem to want the clean and reliable energy to utilize as we please, and for not more than a penny per kwhr at that.

    Christ almighty; as in without much exception, we even believe in absolutely everything our NASA, NSA/DoD and of those Apollo borgs have to say, thus we'll believe that the roasting of astronauts was unavoidable, and that never once were there any ulterior motives nor hidden agendas involved.

    Don't even ask me to go into the TWA flight-800 fiasco, or into the Boeing/TRW Phantom Works ABL, or that of the USS LIBERTY fiasco, as nearly all of that is indirectly tied us into the association that our resident warlord (and of a few before his time) has had with the likes of Bin Laden family, and perhaps far worse.

    Regards, Brad Guth (BBCI h2g2 U206251) http://guthvenus.tripod.com/update-242.htm
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Stokes Pennwalt Nuke them from orbit. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,503
    Not that this has anything to do with anything, but what are you talking about?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. AD1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    249
    Guth is a deranged crank. I don't think even he knows what he's talking about.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,231
    Kook is better, some people just like to pull are chains.
     
  8. paulsamuel Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    882
    because nuclear power plants are more dangerous.

    did you ever hear of chernobyl? how about three mile island?

    sheesh!
     
  9. Mr. Chips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    954
    Apparently, as far as I understand things, coal is a source of relatively long lived isotopes and does spread radioactive contaminants amongst others. I am opposed to burning coal. I am opposed to using nuclear reactions on the planet for a source of power. Why? Because I believe there are better means, also better means than oil and natural gas. I find that we already have had the technology to make our footprints smaller, our effect less disruptive of our biosphere using the real time energy income of the planet. Wind, biofuels, tides, possibly ocean thermal differential plants, solar voltaics, etc., all sources that do not add to the heat and green house gases of the planet.

    It is a common thing for established institutions to protect their very existence. We are plagued with businesses and armies and wealthy investors who are dependent on using sources of power that can be controlled, sequestered and handed out in a way that gives inordinate wealth to a few. Propaganda is rife to keep these institutions in control despite their allegiance to biosphere disruptive means. Just go back through this thread or look through other threads on subjects that call for a change to ever more efficient and atmosphere, biosphere and geosphere respectful life. For many, the law of the jungle prevails. Control of power decides what is right for these, even if it is wrong. You will see vehement bickering, misinformation, denial and denigration amonst these subjects.

    Old habits die hard? I do believe that for some bad habits, we either apply means to leave them or find that it is us who are dying. Big question. It is sociological in nature. Can we tame the information explosion to serve us or will we just destroy ourselves? We're gonna have to get real truthful with ourselves.
     
  10. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,231
    paulsamuel,

    Sorry but coal has kill more people then nuclear power has.
     
  11. AD1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    249
    What about Chernobyl? What about Three Mile Island?
     
  12. bradguth Banned Banned

    Messages:
    226
    Sorry about that Boeing/TRW topic, as that was just pertaining to the sorts of things folks are and/or should be afraid of, as compared to anything nuclear, the ABL as created and flown by Phantom Works is way more lethal, and untraceable at that.

    100 MW at .5 milliradian is good for whichever humanity it's not pointed at, yet there are a number of such ABL clones, with more on their way.

    Personally, I'd take a backyard nuclear plant any day over having that Boeing/TRW laser cannon airborne, especially if I were in some shuttle reentry mode.

    Otherwise an IR laser cannon from a few of those 100 GW units as stationed within 50,000 km of Earth (LSE-CM/ISS dipole element) would certainly accomplish terrific things, although there'd need to be a ring of energy receiving stations of not more than a few hours apart. Actually. there should be sufficient dipole energy as to power at least 5 of those 100 GW near-IR lasers, possibly 10 before we cancel out any significant portion of the lunar recession.

    WellCookedFetus;
    You're absolutely correct about the lethal aspects of coal, not to mention the megatonnes of artificial CO2 plus soot deposited upon various surfaces of Earth, such as upon ice and snow isn't exactly helping our global warming situation.

    There's a wee bit more on this energy topic; "Population control to conserve upon energy"
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=38275
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2004
  13. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    791
    Read what former UNSCEAR president, Zbigniew Jaworowski has to say about nuclear station safety and Chernobyl. http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles 2004/Spring2004/Jaworowski_on_Chernobyl.pdf

    Then you have at one mouse click away, data given by the latest UNSCEAR 2000 REPORT: on Annex J, related to Chernobyl. These 10 annexes present an in-depth review of the current state of research on radiation levels and effects, based on 5,400 scientific references. http://www.unscear.org/pdffiles/annexj.pdf

    Or this reprint from a Polish weekly about what they call “The Greatest Bluff in the 20th Century”. http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Nuke/BluffEng.html

    By the way, for those who don’t know about the UNSCEAR, it is the <b>United Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation</b>, a scientific body of 146 committee members of 21 national delegations to UNSCEAR, and of the organization's 15 scientific staff and consultants.

    I don’t think this people is being paid by the oil industry. Or maybe…
     
  14. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    791
  15. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    791
  16. Mr. Chips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    954
    This group believes that the studies done prior to 2002 used grossly inadequate estimates for the amount of radiation released from Chernobyl. Rather than 95% of the fuel remaining on site, it is now estimated that only a small fraction remained and a large majority of the reactor's fuel (some 20 tons at the time, contamination equivalent to 100 nuclear bombs) was released into the environment by the explosion and fires. This page of their site notes studies that contradict the 2001 UNSCEAR research concerning observed genetic mutations, beyond the claim of UNSCEAR that there are none. Though I found the text there to be small, the site seems to be very aggressive towards being accurate and heavily cites its claims and the researchers and organizations it draws upon. There is a lot of information there. Seems to be a high class operation. I am impressed.

    http://www.chernobyl.info/en/Facts/Health/GeneticDefects
     
  17. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    791
    Quoting from the link provided by Mr. Chips, the Chernobyl.info website:

    <i>“However, the consequences of radiation for human genes and the risk of abnormalities are hotly debated. A study by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) in 2001 concluded that “No radiation-induced genetic (= hereditary) diseases have so far been demonstrated in human populations exposed to ionizing radiation” (47.1). This conclusion is however contradicted by a number of studies that indicate an increase in abnormalities, or at least in genetic mutations, as a result of the accident. “</i>

    Of course they don’t mention the “number of studies” indicating an increase in abnormalities. As the UNSCEAR 2000 report was prepared by 146 scientists, from 21 nations, after studying more than 5400 studies on the issue, it seems there is a strong chance that these people are closer to the truth than the guys at the Chernobyl.info website.

    Hiroshima and Nagasaki are doubtless the most researched event on radiation effects in human history. And Chernobyl.info contention that there is <i>“an increase in abnormalities, or at least in genetic mutations, as a result of the accident.“</i> is <b>strongly opposed and contradicted by the overwhelming scientific literature on radiation effects</b>, that has proved beyond the flimsiest doubt, that the offspring of Japanese survivors <b>didn’t have genetic abnormalities, nor their descendants</b> (grandsons, and grand-grandsons). And there is no comparison with the huge amount of radiation received by the Hiroshima survivors and absorbed in a mater of milliseconds, with the amount of radiation liberated by Chernobyl – that only left a highly contaminated area of half a square kilometer (1/2 km2 = 1 km by 500 meters)

    I know they will make a twist to the theory (as the one that says warming will cool the Earth) and will claim now that huge radiation doses (sublethal) won’t cause genetic anomalies, but small doses will do it! LOL!

    You claim that: <i>“Rather than 95% of the fuel remaining on site, it is now estimated that only a small fraction remained and a large majority of the reactor's fuel (some 20 tons at the time, contamination equivalent to 100 nuclear bombs)…”</i> It is now estimated by whom? And how they have “estimated” something that was accurately measured then with scientific instruments?</i>

    If the contamination was equivalent to that of <b>100 Hiroshimas</b>, then we all people in the world would have suffered the consequences. Think again: <b>100 nuclear bombs? – 100 Hiroshimas?</b> Are your friends out of their minds? Or are they speaking to ignorant people that cannot tell right from left?

    The amount of fallout was perfectly determined, and from there accurate calculations were performed and the amount of radioactive material emitted by Chernoby was also determined. No rocket science here, simple physics, and a handheld calculator. The claim that 95% of the radioactive material was blown out of the nuclear site is pure propaganda – and scientifically, is sheer stupidity.
     
  18. Mr. Chips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    954
    Who says they are my friends? "speaking to ignorant people that cannot tell right from left?" Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee..... I think that is rude and crass of you, Edufer. If you wish to claim that they are mistaken or at the least, have a different opinion of you and UNSCEAR then by all means but to attack their integrity as human beings, is simply false and misleading, attacking character lessens the amount of integrity I can attribute to you or your sources. It makes you look quite emotionally attached to a specific viewpoint, not interested in fair appraisal.

    There are quite a few who apparently find that the amount of fallout was consistently under-reported and not given the resources for sufficient monitoring. In fact one method of analysis of the potential dangers has been basically outlawed, the analysis of internal concentrations of Cesium 137 as suggested in the second URL of this post.

    Here’s the page on that site that suggested the data I shared about how much was released:

    http://www.chernobyl.info/en/Facts/Contamination/AmountRadiation

    I find the following interesting, the transcript of a Swiss TV broadcast about how and who corrupts UN research into the health effects of Chernobyl. Within this find the allegation, by top members of the UN, that the number of victims numbers 9 million and will continue to grow for much time to come.

    http://www.comite-bandajevsky.org/zzz_angl/Whos who/script.doc

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Stokes Pennwalt Nuke them from orbit. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,503
    Somebody didn't read the thread before replying.

    We're back to this again? Back on the first few pages it was shown how none of those niche technologies have the yield or scalability to support an electrical infrastructure. The most they're good for is a little bit of contingency power here and there. Not a backbone.

    Your position seems to be based on a generalized anti-corporate/establishment agenda, rather than a pro-environment or pro-safety one. I can't help the way you feel. But let's be honest. You're basing your position on what feels good, not what works. I'm an engineer. I go by numbers and statistics, not what makes people feel good.
     
  20. Mr. Chips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    954
    Maybe it is true that in the first few pages, no decent alternatives were suggested (I doubt this) but I do know that numbers posted on this forum strongly signify that wind energy has far more developable potential than virtually any other power source on the planet with very low impact. Stokes, distributive power sources are not convenient to those who would be powerful. Once the cat is out of the bag as far as how to do it, others will gain in power and this is not what the powerful elite want. They want only a few to control the sources, the management, the apportioning of power, so that they can keep the proceeds, the inordinate liberties, control of power in their few hands. They want and need police states, secrecy of their efforts and invasion of privacy against those who differ in opinion for supposed national security issues, because the forces they wish to use are related to concentrated power (high dependence) , the stuff of WMDs. The powers involved take it right out of the realm of science, beyond the numbers, into politics. Politics has nothing to do with science and it can be argued that political systems fail eventually with an untenable mass denial of science.

    Nuclear power requires few plants for many people, that is dependence. We need more smaller sources of energy closer to the people benefiting from them with disclosure of all safety considerations, not suppression or hiding of the facts to supposedly protect us from dangers as nuclear energy requires all of the security safeguards you can muster. Did you happen to read that second URL I just posted? I am aghast at the difference of opinion expressed between research agencies within the UN leading to the head of the entire UN stating that 9 million people have suffered from Chernobyl and that its just beginning to take its toll. I was not aware of this discrepancy in findings. I see from other data presented on that page and other sources on the web that propaganda seems directly related to vested interests. When vested interests hold the reigns of the most funded and international organizations the propaganda becomes the main message and truth a minority opnion. Still in this age of the information explosion, more are able to sidestep the "company line" and find more data to consider in formulating their opinion.

    Listening to "My Oh MY" by David Gray.
     
  21. Mr. Chips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    954
    I suggested that from other sources on the web I find that vested interests are the major source of institutionized propaganda. This view of mine comes from much more than just the web. In 1975 I performed an analyis of the proposed California Nuclear Safeguard's Initiative which would of set up another state regulatory body akin to the AEC at the time. Within the wording of the initiative, the agency that would be formed would be unrestricted in its ability to receive "grants, contributions and appropriations" in short, it could be bought. I researched and found that the AEC was similarly subject to money. Many regulatory agencies have had and continue to have this same weakness. They are supposed to regulate those with big money and yet still be open to lobbying and potential coercion from those almighty dollars. Appears that the FDA, the EPA the NRC, ERDA, DOE etc often serve to regulate the people to serve big money rather than vice versa. Notice how the members of these agencies are often drawn from or gravitate to executive officer standing in the very industries they are supposedly regulating? Vested interest is really given quite a bit of liberty to dictate policy. I think it is just another symptom of the terminal illness of our current socializing experiments.
     
  22. paulsamuel Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    882
    that's bull crap!

    you don't know that! your guessing.

    more crap from the fetus. plain old lying!

    even if you were right, coal has been around a lot longer.

    stop spewing crap, give real statistics per time, per capita.

    jeez, people are still dying from Chernobyl, with birth defects and radiation poisoning.

    Sheesh, i hope people here have more sense than to listen to you, cause you're full of it, pal!
     
  23. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,231
    Maybe you should read some of the links here paulsamuel.
     

Share This Page