login info join!
Forums > Off-Topic Discussion > Fukushima: Massive contamination? Search   Reply
123last
Photographer
Visual Serotonin
Posts: 5,134
Los Angeles, California, US


Nuclear power... as clean and safe as ever smile

"Thousands of Japanese children from Fukushima and the nearby areas have been diagnosed with cysts and nodules on their thyroid glands. So far, 41.1 percent of 57,000 tested have shown these early warnings of potential thyroid cancer.

Even worse, four out of five Fukushima evacuees have been observed with developing thyroid abnormalities. It's not just iodide isotopes with their relatively short radioactive half-lives that can penetrate thyroid glands, cesium-37 isotopes with longer half-lives can too. Here's the shocking truth about radioactive half-life."

http://www.naturalnews.com/038185_Fukus … rders.html

Granted a bit of an off web site but in absence of the mass media being interested this seems a plausible issue...

Reactor 4 is especially dangerous, and there is no way for any human to get even close to the derelict power plant now spewing an endless stream of radiation into the ocean and atmosphere.

Some figures place the amount of radiation close to it at 85 times that of Chernobyl.

Good times.
Dec 03 12 03:23 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Managing Light
Posts: 1,840
Salem, Virginia, US


Not too much room to run in Japan, either.
Dec 03 12 01:07 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Gianantonio
Posts: 7,713
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US


Visual Serotonin wrote:
Nuclear power... as clean and safe as ever smile

"Thousands of Japanese children from Fukushima and the nearby areas have been diagnosed with cysts and nodules on their thyroid glands. So far, 41.1 percent of 57,000 tested have shown these early warnings of potential thyroid cancer.

Even worse, four out of five Fukushima evacuees have been observed with developing thyroid abnormalities. It's not just iodide isotopes with their relatively short radioactive half-lives that can penetrate thyroid glands, cesium-37 isotopes with longer half-lives can too. Here's the shocking truth about radioactive half-life."

http://www.naturalnews.com/038185_Fukus … rders.html

Granted a bit of an off web site but in absence of the mass media being interested this seems a plausible issue...

Reactor 4 is especially dangerous, and there is no way for any human to get even close to the derelict power plant now spewing an endless stream of radiation into the ocean and atmosphere.

Some figures place the amount of radiation close to it at 85 times that of Chernobyl.

Good times.

Wow--thanks for pointing out the dangers of nuclear power.  I wish someone had done this before that reactor was built!

Dec 03 12 01:09 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Andialu
Posts: 14,029
San Pedro, California, US


Visual Serotonin wrote:
Nuclear power... as clean and safe as ever smile

"Thousands of Japanese children from Fukushima and the nearby areas have been diagnosed with cysts and nodules on their thyroid glands. So far, 41.1 percent of 57,000 tested have shown these early warnings of potential thyroid cancer.

Even worse, four out of five Fukushima evacuees have been observed with developing thyroid abnormalities. It's not just iodide isotopes with their relatively short radioactive half-lives that can penetrate thyroid glands, cesium-37 isotopes with longer half-lives can too. Here's the shocking truth about radioactive half-life."

http://www.naturalnews.com/038185_Fukus … rders.html

Granted a bit of an off web site but in absence of the mass media being interested this seems a plausible issue...

Reactor 4 is especially dangerous, and there is no way for any human to get even close to the derelict power plant now spewing an endless stream of radiation into the ocean and atmosphere.

Some figures place the amount of radiation close to it at 85 times that of Chernobyl.

Good times.

Natural News. I love it. You can keep up on your tinfoil hat news and order supplements. Convenient. lol

Dec 03 12 01:09 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Top Level Studio
Posts: 3,232
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada


Managing Light wrote:
Not too much room to run in Japan, either.

Actually, Japan is a pretty long country from north to south.

Dec 03 12 01:12 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
pxspace
Posts: 1,046
Braşov, Braşov, Romania


I have a feeling the problems there are far greater than what is reported at the moment.. no real updates about the situation in mainstream media from what I can tell..
Dec 03 12 01:13 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Gianantonio
Posts: 7,713
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US


Top Level Studio wrote:

Actually, Japan is a pretty long country from north to south.

True, but:  Japan has less area than California (~146,000 sq.mi. vs. ~164,000) and over 3 times the population (~128,000,000 vs. ~38,000,000).  So not as much room to maneuver!  big_smile

Dec 03 12 01:21 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Wildcat Photography
Posts: 1,486
Valparaiso, Indiana, US


Fuk u shima I

Chernobyl II

Three Mile Island III
Dec 03 12 01:23 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Gabby57
Posts: 394
Coppell, Texas, US


There seems to be some disagreement:

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disast … 1211250051
Dec 03 12 01:52 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Michael Bots
Posts: 5,598
Kingston, Ontario, Canada


-- childhood cancer rates found to be near double near INTACT nuclear reactors

[U.S. National National Institutes of Health]
Childhood leukemia and cancers near German nuclear reactors: significance, context, and ramifications of recent studies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19650588
"There exist serious flaws and gaps in the knowledge on which accepted llamas for population exposure and radiation risk are based."
"study's ramifications add to the urgency for a public policy debate regarding the health impact of nuclear power generation"


childhood cancer near nuclear power stations
http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/43

"study in Germany reported a 1.6-fold increase in solid cancers and a 2.2-fold increase in leukemias among children living within 5 km of all German nuclear power stations."

Child leukaemia doubles near French nuclear plants-study
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/ … QY20120111


U.S. to study cancer risks near 6 nuclear plants
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/24 … r-20121024

"The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced plans Tuesday to launch a pilot epidemiological study of cancer risks near six nuclear power plants, including San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in north San Diego County.

The commission is acting out of growing concern that using uranium to produce electricity may be dangerous even without accidents at nuclear plants. In addition, recent epidemiological studies in Germany and France suggest that the children living near nuclear reactors are twice as likely to develop leukemia."


"Most people are focused on accidents at nuclear power plants," Johnson said. "They don't realize that they store tons of radioactive material and emit low levels of radioactive waste into the atmosphere."
Dec 03 12 02:09 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Raoul Isidro Images
Posts: 6,061
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia


"Has anybody ever contemplated running a Geiger Counter over their brand new lens and camera just in case?"

http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/images/un-radioactive_warning_sign.jpg

.
Dec 03 12 05:06 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
291
Posts: 11,911
SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK, California, US


i often wonder if the alarmists of human technology are sitting at their computer with a plastic bottle of water at their side.  from small things is where big problems occur as we humans advance.
Dec 03 12 08:05 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
291
Posts: 11,911
SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK, California, US


dp
Dec 03 12 08:05 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Visual Serotonin
Posts: 5,134
Los Angeles, California, US


Wildcat Photography wrote:
Fuk u shima I

Chernobyl II

Three Mile Island III

Three strikes you're out...

Dec 03 12 08:57 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SAND DIAL
Posts: 5,965
Santa Monica, California, US


VS..theres a blog called 'emsnews'.
She has been following it.

FKS = major danger.
Dec 03 12 09:02 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Ronin_LLC
Posts: 2,012
Louisville, Kentucky, US


Top Level Studio wrote:
Actually, Japan is a pretty long country from north to south.
Gianantonio wrote:
True, but:  Japan has less area than California (~146,000 sq.mi. vs. ~164,000) and over 3 times the population (~128,000,000 vs. ~38,000,000).  So not as much room to maneuver!  big_smile

Add on to that that a lot of the inland of Japan(73%) is mountains and in a lot of places people couldn't and still don't live. While the Japanese have mastered the art of cultivating some pretty impressive and seemly impossible places, there are a lot of places they can't, and until as recently as the 1900, unless you lived in a city or large town, you didn't want to live far from a food and water source like farms.

Not to mention in the deep mountain forests you have to deal with wild boars, bears, and dogs. Which are not easy to deal with in a country that doesn't allow gun ownership.


With all this radiation anyone else waiting for reports of Godzilla or teenagers throwing around DBZ power blasts?

Dec 03 12 09:16 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Top Level Studio
Posts: 3,232
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada


Ronin_LLC wrote:

Top Level Studio wrote:
Actually, Japan is a pretty long country from north to south.

Add on to that that a lot of the inland of Japan(73%) is mountains and in a lot of places people couldn't and still don't live. While the Japanese have mastered the art of cultivating some pretty impressive and seemly impossible places, there are a lot of places they can't, and until as recently as the 1900, unless you lived in a city or large town, you didn't want to live far from a food and water source like farms.

Not to mention in the deep mountain forests you have to deal with wild boars, bears, and dogs. Which are not easy to deal with in a country that doesn't allow gun ownership.


With all this radiation anyone else waiting for reports of Godzilla or teenagers throwing around DBZ power blasts?

A number of people moved from Tokyo to Osaka, or ever further south, during the peak of the radiation scare.

Also, there is gun ownership in Japan, but apparently no wild animal control agencies like we have in the US and Canada.  When a Japanese bear wanders into a town, the police call the local hunting club, who come out and shoot the unlucky bear.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xfrf8b … alert_news

That clip was from 2010, but it still happens a few times a year.

Dec 03 12 09:27 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Model
Sha-Lynne
Posts: 22,681
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Visual Serotonin wrote:
Some figures place the amount of radiation close to it at 85 times that of Chernobyl.

Good times.

Actually, it was 1/10th as much radiation.  Granted, they only measured the radiation in the air, not the ground and ocean...but I don't think that those numbers would raise it to 85 times.  Also, unlike Chernobyl, there were no immediate deaths with the exception of some workers killed in explosions.

They estimate from 0-100 future deaths from cancer.  (Studies by "non-peer review").  I found nothing about there being a current issue.  There are 6 workers that have met/exceeded their lifetime legal limits of radiation.

This was a freak accident.  The earthquake caused it to shut down automatically and then the flooding from the tsunami that followed caused the back-up generators that were regulating the temperature to shut down. (The coolant needs to flow for several days after being shut down or the reactor will overheat and have a "meltdown").

At that point, the meltdown still could have been prevented...but they were greedy.  Instead of flooding the reactor with saltwater, they waited because that would have ruined the reactors (it would have stopped the meltdown but rendered them unusable).  The gov't eventually stepped in and ordered the flooding but it was too late.

Tepco openly admitted that they could have taken more precautions but were afraid of creating a commotion (protesters, etc)

This was caused by freak accidents of nature and human greed and stupidity.  It all could have been prevented.  The location was also pretty stupid...

ETA:  I'm still stuck on the 85 times Chernobyl...seriously?  I'm pretty sure we'd all be effed if that were the case.

Dec 03 12 10:43 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MF productions
Posts: 2,017
San Jose, California, US


I wonder whose the genius who decided it was a good idea to build a nuclear plant next to the ocean in a seismically unstable region is.
Dec 03 12 11:20 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Model
Sha-Lynne
Posts: 22,681
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


MF productions wrote:
I wonder whose the genius who decided it was a good idea to build a nuclear plant next to the ocean in a seismically unstable region is.

Right!?!?  Stupid greedy bastards...

Dec 03 12 11:32 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Top Level Studio
Posts: 3,232
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada


MF productions wrote:
I wonder whose the genius who decided it was a good idea to build a nuclear plant next to the ocean in a seismically unstable region is.

Power plants always need to be located near a body of water (river, lake or ocean) to have an adequate supply of cooling water.

As well, pretty much all of Japan is a seismically unstable region.

However, Japan has no coal or oil, and does not like being totally dependent on imported energy supplies.

Dec 04 12 01:16 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Michael Bots
Posts: 5,598
Kingston, Ontario, Canada


Sha-Lynne wrote:
I'm still stuck on the 85 times Chernobyl...seriously?  I'm pretty sure we'd all be effed if that were the case.

Still can be ---
About 1 or 2 Chernobyl's worth of isotopes have leaked out of the complex and spread already. It is still leaking into the Pacific. The public numbers list what landed on Japan - not the ocean.

Western Canada / NW US got more fallout at the beginning than most of western Japan.

http://www.ki4u.com/japan-airflow.gif


The Units 1 2 and 3 cores have melted out the bottom of those reactors and are thought to be 50 to 200 feet into the ground (below sea level) and hot enough to cause steam explosions. The #2 building still has radiation levels inside that are lethal in hours and little has been done with that one.

The melted reactors suffered 3 different failure modes - each of which was advertised as impossible. There are about 2 dozen almost identical systems operating in the US.

85 times Chernobyl ---
That is about the current contents of the reactor 4 spent fuel pool and nearby storage pools which would ignite and burn uncontrollably if the water drained out of a crack or the whole thing fell over. Could still happen. Fuel removal from that is scheduled to start in 2013.

[Think swimming pool on stilts in a 5 story building with a collapsing foundation.]


TEPCO speeds up removal of spent nuclear fuel rods in Fukushima Unit 4  (2014)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYOYocnqfxY


TEPCO shows Fukushima footage leading to tainted water release  (ocean dumping)
http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2012/12/196820.html


Tepco moves up nuclear salvage schedule for Fukushima fuel rods to 2014
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20121204a4.html

"concern the remaining structure might collapse in another big quake and dump the pool and its rods onto the ground."
"The fuel rods, exposed to the air, might then burn up and release massive amounts of radiation into the atmosphere."
"Nevertheless, the issue at unit 4 caused enough concern to have the structure holding up the pool reinforced and a lid put on it."

Dec 04 12 01:22 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Michael Bots
Posts: 5,598
Kingston, Ontario, Canada


Nuclear power... as clean and safe as ever smile


San Onofre Nuclear Generator Being Hauled By SoCal Edison On 21-Day Trip To Utah Dump   (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/0 … 77732.html


"A 400-foot-long vehicle (longer than a football field) hauled a 700,000-pound generator from the San Onofre nuclear plant onto Interstate 5 Sunday night, Patch reports. To put it in perspective, a 747-100B jumbo jet weighs 735,000 pounds at takeoff.

For security reasons, the nuclear generator will travel at night, accompanied by Caltrans and CHP, and its route has not been disclosed, CBS reports. However, Southern California Edison did say it would pass through San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino and Las Vegas on its way to Clive, Utah, about 35 miles west of Salt Lake City."
Dec 04 12 01:58 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Model
Sha-Lynne
Posts: 22,681
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Michael Bots wrote:
Still can be ---
About 1 or 2 Chernobyl's worth of isotopes have leaked out of the complex and spread already. It is still leaking into the Pacific. The public numbers list what landed on Japan - not the ocean.





Western Canada / NW US got more fallout at the beginning than most of western Japan.

http://www.ki4u.com/japan-airflow.gif


The Units 1 2 and 3 cores have melted out the bottom of those reactors and are thought to be 50 to 200 feet into the ground (below sea level) and hot enough to cause steam explosions. The #2 building still has radiation levels inside that are lethal in hours and little has been done with that one.

The melted reactors suffered 3 different failure modes - each of which was advertised as impossible. There are about 2 dozen almost identical systems operating in the US.

85 times Chernobyl ---
That is about the current contents of the reactor 4 spent fuel pool and nearby storage pools which would ignite and burn uncontrollably if the water drained out of a crack or the whole thing fell over. Could still happen. Fuel removal from that is scheduled to start in 2013.

[Think swimming pool on stilts in a 5 story building with a collapsing foundation.]


TEPCO speeds up removal of spent nuclear fuel rods in Fukushima Unit 4  (2014)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYOYocnqfxY


TEPCO shows Fukushima footage leading to tainted water release  (ocean dumping)
http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2012/12/196820.html


Tepco moves up nuclear salvage schedule for Fukushima fuel rods to 2014
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20121204a4.html

"concern the remaining structure might collapse in another big quake and dump the pool and its rods onto the ground."
"The fuel rods, exposed to the air, might then burn up and release massive amounts of radiation into the atmosphere."
"Nevertheless, the issue at unit 4 caused enough concern to have the structure holding up the pool reinforced and a lid put on it."

Unless I'm misreading, he didn't say that it could one day end up being 85 times Chernobyl...he said that it is currently.  Which it very much isn't.

The reactors currently considered to be stable and are deactivated.  Yes, it does take a crazy long time for all of that energy to dissipate but it is happening at or close to the intended rate now.  Your point about the weakened structures is valid and if there is another earthquake they'd likely be boned.  As it stands now, I have found the following data:

Fukushima has released 900,000 terabecquerels of the Iodine-131 and Cesium-137 while Chernobyl was at over 5 million tbq.  The highest amount of radiation detected in Fukushima was 72,900 mSv/h inside of the reactor.  Chernobyl had readings at 200,000 mSv.

The area affected was 40-60km while for Chernobyl it was 500km.  Chernobyl literally exploded so it was just an instantaneous, massive burst of radioactive output that spread out.  Chernobyl also didn't have a containment structure so the release rate was a lot higher.  About 30 people died within 2 weeks from radiation poisoning.  So far the radiation poisoning death toll at Fukushima is zero.  Fukushima also warned people not to have contaminated food, etc...Chernobyl didn't.

Yes, a lot more was released into the sea...but that's because they were actually dumping it there...Chernobyl didn't do that so of course the amount in the sea is going to be more.  However, compared to the total output, it's a small percentage of what was released.  Plus, that's actually a good thing.  That radiation has been virtually removed from civilization, it is much safer to have it in the ocean than in the air with the currents the way they were/are.

The amount of nuclear fuel in the reactors at Fukushima was 1,600 tons, Chernobyl had 180 tons.  So it's not even possible for it to be 85 times what Chernobyl was.

I'm not trying to downplay what happened.  Nor can I guarantee the accuracy of this data, it's just what I found online on various sites.  All I'm saying is that, compared to Chernobyl, it is much less destructive, I haven't found any conclusive data saying otherwise.  It just seems like people are freaking out more than they need to.

Dec 04 12 02:19 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Model
Sha-Lynne
Posts: 22,681
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Michael Bots wrote:
Nuclear power... as clean and safe as ever smile


San Onofre Nuclear Generator Being Hauled By SoCal Edison On 21-Day Trip To Utah Dump   (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/0 … 77732.html


"A 400-foot-long vehicle (longer than a football field) hauled a 700,000-pound generator from the San Onofre nuclear plant onto Interstate 5 Sunday night, Patch reports. To put it in perspective, a 747-100B jumbo jet weighs 735,000 pounds at takeoff.

For security reasons, the nuclear generator will travel at night, accompanied by Caltrans and CHP, and its route has not been disclosed, CBS reports. However, Southern California Edison did say it would pass through San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino and Las Vegas on its way to Clive, Utah, about 35 miles west of Salt Lake City."

"Authorities say the waste's radiation level is not harmful. "There is a slight bit of radioactivity to it. But if you stood next to it for an hour, you'd get about the same amount of radioactivity you do when you get a dental X-ray," said Scott Andresen with Southern California Edison told ABC."

Dec 04 12 02:21 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Tony-S
Posts: 1,343
Fort Collins, Colorado, US


Far more people have died from burning coal to produce electricity than nuclear. It's not even close. And it will only get worse. Sometimes we have to choose the lesser of two evils and in this case nuclear is much safer than coal.
Dec 04 12 06:53 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Michael Bots
Posts: 5,598
Kingston, Ontario, Canada


Michael Bots wrote:
Nuclear power... as clean and safe as ever smile


San Onofre Nuclear Generator Being Hauled By SoCal Edison On 21-Day Trip To Utah Dump   (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/0 … 77732.html


"A 400-foot-long vehicle (longer than a football field) hauled a 700,000-pound generator from the San Onofre nuclear plant onto Interstate 5 Sunday night, Patch reports. To put it in perspective, a 747-100B jumbo jet weighs 735,000 pounds at takeoff.

For security reasons, the nuclear generator will travel at night, accompanied by Caltrans and CHP, and its route has not been disclosed, CBS reports. However, Southern California Edison did say it would pass through San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino and Las Vegas on its way to Clive, Utah, about 35 miles west of Salt Lake City."
Sha-Lynne wrote:
"Authorities say the waste's radiation level is not harmful. "There is a slight bit of radioactivity to it. But if you stood next to it for an hour, you'd get about the same amount of radioactivity you do when you get a dental X-ray," said Scott Andresen with Southern California Edison told ABC."

The steam generator failures were "unexpected".  Don't expect San Onofre to ever run again.

Dec 04 12 07:51 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Photo PLUS
Posts: 5,503
Lorton, Virginia, US


The source OP uses is crap. Tin foil hat people.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews
Dec 04 12 08:04 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Bluefire
Posts: 10,847
Tawas City, Michigan, US


Tony-S wrote:
Far more people have died from burning coal to produce electricity than nuclear. It's not even close. And it will only get worse. Sometimes we have to choose the lesser of two evils and in this case nuclear is much safer than coal.
Digital Photo PLUS wrote:
The source OP uses is crap. Tin foil hat people.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews

I wonder if either of you remember the 9/11 of 1957? A nuclear 'event' in Colorado.

Here's a ton load of information:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&scli … _qf.&cad=b

If the link doesn't work just google 'rocky flats contamination area.'

Tony, I'm seeing that you think choosing the lesser of two evils works. When you research the fallout area in Colorado, you're living about 60 minutes north of the radio-active fallout area, so no worries. Although I'm reminded of the upsloping winds that occur with the weather there. How much particulate matter has been transfer to your neighborhood from the fallout area with weather patterns (over the past 5+ decades)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Flats_Plant

A quote from the above link - "The final contamination levels of Rocky Flats itself as measured by the U.S. government after the Superfund cleanup, and those reported to an impanelled grand jury, are sealed records and have not been reported to the public." (Can you come up with a reason why public officials using their free-will would seal radiation level records/statistics???)

The irony of the Rocky Flats fire is, I guess, that in happened on September 11th - 9/11 - during 1957.

I'm sure, in your mind, that coal is more dangerous for your neighborhood, so no worries, right? The people at Fukushima should be more concerned with coal plant emissions, right?

Dec 04 12 08:31 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Model
Sha-Lynne
Posts: 22,681
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Michael Bots wrote:

Michael Bots wrote:
Nuclear power... as clean and safe as ever smile


San Onofre Nuclear Generator Being Hauled By SoCal Edison On 21-Day Trip To Utah Dump   (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/0 … 77732.html


"A 400-foot-long vehicle (longer than a football field) hauled a 700,000-pound generator from the San Onofre nuclear plant onto Interstate 5 Sunday night, Patch reports. To put it in perspective, a 747-100B jumbo jet weighs 735,000 pounds at takeoff.

For security reasons, the nuclear generator will travel at night, accompanied by Caltrans and CHP, and its route has not been disclosed, CBS reports. However, Southern California Edison did say it would pass through San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino and Las Vegas on its way to Clive, Utah, about 35 miles west of Salt Lake City."

The steam generator failures were "unexpected".  Don't expect San Onofre to ever run again.

No idea, didn't look into the actual plant.  I just posted that from the article because you only posted the alarmist parts and this seemed like an important chunk of info missing from your summary.

Dec 04 12 08:38 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Michael Bots
Posts: 5,598
Kingston, Ontario, Canada


So who has heard about the Fermi 1 meltdown outside Detroit ?

http://www.beyondnuclear.org/new-reacto … about.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Fer … ng_Station



Who has heard about the Rocketdyne meltdown outside L.A. ?   (1959)
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?secti … id=8018106
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Susa … Laboratory
http://www.enviroreporter.com/2012/03/r … ocketdyne/

"It remains the worst in U.S. history for the radiation that was released."

"more than half a century since several partial meltdowns at the former Rocketdyne complex above Chatsworth and Simi Valley astronomical amounts of radiation are still being unearthed at the site according to a new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Powerpoint dated February 22 2012."

Atomic Meltdown U.S.A. part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPk9kEaSyAY
Dec 04 12 09:11 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Tony-S
Posts: 1,343
Fort Collins, Colorado, US


Bluefire wrote:
I wonder if either of you remember the 9/11 of 1957? A nuclear 'event' in Colorado.

Of course I know about Rocky Flats. It's irrelevant. The fact is, nuclear energy is far safer than burning coal. Those are the only two options for energy supply on an industrial scale.

Dec 04 12 10:04 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Bluefire
Posts: 10,847
Tawas City, Michigan, US


Tony-S wrote:
Of course I know about Rocky Flats. It's irrelevant. The fact is, nuclear energy is far safer than burning coal. Those are the only two options for energy supply on an industrial scale.

The owners/share holders of those types of energy companies love you. wink

Dec 04 12 10:07 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Michael Bots
Posts: 5,598
Kingston, Ontario, Canada


Nuclear power in Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany

"On 30 May 2011, Germany formally announced plans to abandon nuclear energy completely within 11 years. The plan included the immediate permanent closure of six nuclear power plants that had been temporarily shut down for testing in March 2011, and two more that have been offline a few years with technical problems. The remaining nine plants will be shut down between now and 2022."



The End of the Atomic Dream: One Year After Fukushima, the Shortfalls of Nuclear Energy Are Clearer Than Ever
http://blogs.worldwatch.org/revolt/fukushima/


The costs of failure: A preliminary assessment of major energy accidents, 1907–2007
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar … 1508000529

see [Fig. 1. Energy accident fatalities by source, 1907–2007.]
Dec 04 12 10:10 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
rfordphotos
Posts: 4,629
Antioch, California, US


Tony-S wrote:
Far more people have died from burning coal to produce electricity than nuclear. It's not even close. And it will only get worse. Sometimes we have to choose the lesser of two evils and in this case nuclear is much safer than coal.

I dont know how old you are, but I am 60.

In my lifetime, nuclear power started with the promise of electricity "so cheap, it wont be worth metering". It didnt quite live up to that promise.

Since the beginning, the big problem with nuclear power, apart from the absolutely cataclysmic issues like Chernobyl or Fukushima, has been the accumulation of highly toxic, highly radioactive waste.

There has never been technology to deal with that waste, other than to dig a deep hole and bury it hoping that future generations could deal with it. 50+ years, and still no way to safely deal with the long term waste. Nuclear waste disposal technology is pretty much exactly where it was 50 years ago.

In that same 50 years, we have gotten considerably better at burning fossil fuels, with ever cleaner means of combustion being developed, with better and better methods and management of the waste streams, the smoke and fumes, the excess heat, all of it. Not anywhere near perfect, still not as clean as it needs to be, but soooo much better than it was, and a steady, measurable improvement in handling the problems in OUR time, not our children's future.

You seem to feel it is preferable to hide problems we cant solve underground, for our kids to deal with, and I see that as a very short term view.

If we have energy problems, we need to solve them in our lifetime, not shove them off on our kids.

Nuclear power is NOT a safe technology. Hiding toxic waste underground is simply postponing the death and injury it will cause. How many future deaths will those thousands of tons of poison cause?

No new nuke plants have come on line for a reason. The folks that operate them know the real costs. Decommissioning costs on plants like Ranch Seco, which operated from 76 to 89 have topped a half BILLION dollars---and it still has a long term waste storage facility which is STILL running up the costs. That half billion dollars was paid by the ratepayers---not for power, but for cleaning up a mess, added to the cost of their power.

You see nuclear power as the "lesser of two evils" and I dont. So far, good science has triumphed over good PR. No new plants are licensed. Nuclear power is NOT safe, and it is definitely not the lesser evil. Not if you look at it long term.

Dec 04 12 10:30 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Kent Art Photography
Posts: 2,695
Ashford, England, United Kingdom


Tony-S wrote:

Of course I know about Rocky Flats. It's irrelevant. The fact is, nuclear energy is far safer than burning coal. Those are the only two options for energy supply on an industrial scale.

This.  I live near a nuclear power station, I have friends who work there.  It is safe.

Well, it's safe provided you don't build in tsunami/earthquake areas (why did they do that????), or you don't run unauthorised 'tests.'

I asked a doctor friend about the cancer thing, and he told me the figures are high because everyone is looking for it.  Further afield, people don't bother.  People who don't get tested don't know if they've got cancer, and many people with cancer often die of something which might or might not be related to their cancer but it doesn't get put on their death certificates and it doesn't get added to any figures.

Charities like big disasters, especially if they can claim there are lots of child victims.  Disasters are cash cows for charities, so you might be able to forgive them for doing a bit of bigging up.

The WHO, on the other hand, tends to stick to the facts, and the facts are not as interesting as the myths.

Dec 04 12 10:33 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Photo PLUS
Posts: 5,503
Lorton, Virginia, US


Michael Bots wrote:
U.S. to study cancer risks near 6 nuclear plants
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/24 … r-20121024

Study of 6 plants doesn't produce a good picture. Let's wait for this:

"The U.S. study will be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences, which will also help the commission determine whether to extend the study to all 65 U.S. nuclear power plants and certain nuclear fuel sites."

Childhood cancer death rates are about 3-4 per 100,000 of general population per year. A chance variation of several cases could skew the result if the sample is only 6 nuclear plants.

Dec 04 12 10:51 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Bluefire
Posts: 10,847
Tawas City, Michigan, US


Interestingly, the standards/guidelines for testing for radiation leaks have changed over the years. They aren't as strict as they were in the 70's.
Dec 04 12 10:57 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Ronin_LLC
Posts: 2,012
Louisville, Kentucky, US


Top Level Studio wrote:

A number of people moved from Tokyo to Osaka, or ever further south, during the peak of the radiation scare.

Also, there is gun ownership in Japan, but apparently no wild animal control agencies like we have in the US and Canada.  When a Japanese bear wanders into a town, the police call the local hunting club, who come out and shoot the unlucky bear.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xfrf8b … alert_news

That clip was from 2010, but it still happens a few times a year.

Japan has some of the most stringent gun laws in the world and almost no gun crime.

The only gun permitted for Japanese citizens to own is a 20 gauge two shot shotgun designated for hunting(designated animals only which do not include boar or bear) or trap shooting. And only then after applying for a license which is near impossible to get. With out that license you can't even hold a gun.

When there is an animal problem they do NOT call the hunting club. The call wildlife experts and sorte them with a team from NPA, if no local police forces are equipped to deal with it.
You will notice in the video the two guys in blue fatigues with the orange vests, those were cops.

Dec 04 12 12:48 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Tony-S
Posts: 1,343
Fort Collins, Colorado, US


rfordphotos wrote:
In my lifetime, nuclear power started with the promise of electricity "so cheap, it wont be worth metering". It didnt quite live up to that promise.

That may be, but regardless, burning coal is far worse in terms of human health and climate change.

Since the beginning, the big problem with nuclear power, apart from the absolutely cataclysmic issues like Chernobyl or Fukushima, has been the accumulation of highly toxic, highly radioactive waste.

We can control toxic wastes produced by nuclear energy. We cannot control toxic wastes from burning coal.

There has never been technology to deal with that waste, other than to dig a deep hole and bury it hoping that future generations could deal with it. 50+ years, and still no way to safely deal with the long term waste. Nuclear waste disposal technology is pretty much exactly where it was 50 years ago.

And it's still good enough.

In that same 50 years, we have gotten considerably better at burning fossil fuels, with ever cleaner means of combustion being developed, with better and better methods and management of the waste streams, the smoke and fumes, the excess heat, all of it. Not anywhere near perfect, still not as clean as it needs to be, but soooo much better than it was, and a steady, measurable improvement in handling the problems in OUR time, not our children's future.

And at this point, it's still far more dangerous than nuclear energy.

You seem to feel it is preferable to hide problems we cant solve underground, for our kids to deal with, and I see that as a very short term view.

I'm not hiding anything. Bury it deep in stable places and you're done with it. It's a lot less risky than the liberation of CO2, methane, mercury, sulfur dioxide and a host of other atmospheric pollutants.

If we have energy problems, we need to solve them in our lifetime, not shove them off on our kids.

You're talking thousands or tens of thousands of years before it's a "problem". By then humans will have come up with a better solution. But right now, burning coal kills thousands of people each year and is pushing our planet into the climatic abyss. That's a real and proximal problem for our children and grandchildren.

Nuclear power is NOT a safe technology.

It is safer than burning coal or fracking.

Hiding toxic waste underground is simply postponing the death and injury it will cause. How many future deaths will those thousands of tons of poison cause?

While I'm sure there will be some deaths from nuclear energy, I'm equally sure they will be a tiny fraction of the number of deaths caused by burning coal.

No new nuke plants have come on line for a reason.

Yes, because they're very expensive to build and the government no longer subsidizes their manufacture.

The folks that operate them know the real costs. Decommissioning costs on plants like Ranch Seco, which operated from 76 to 89 have topped a half BILLION dollars---and it still has a long term waste storage facility which is STILL running up the costs. That half billion dollars was paid by the ratepayers---not for power, but for cleaning up a mess, added to the cost of their power.

Nuclear reactors have come along way since that place was built.

You see nuclear power as the "lesser of two evils" and I dont. So far, good science has triumphed over good PR. No new plants are licensed. Nuclear power is NOT safe, and it is definitely not the lesser evil. Not if you look at it long term.

What I see is that coal is killing thousands of people each year and destroying our planet right now. Nuclear, on the other hand, kills a lot fewer people and is less damaging to our planet. That's the lesser of two evils.

Dec 05 12 08:18 am  Link  Quote 
123last   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers