er, um. How come nobody has died, or even gotten sick??

[Saboburns]

We're six weeks into this now at Fukushima. I've read hundreds of threads right here saying that this disaster is at least as bad as the one at Chernobyl. But I haven't read of anybody, or anything, having any sort of radiation related illness.

Seems if this is as bad as I read about here at DU, there would be scores of dead people from radiation poisoning. Or at the very least somebody somewhere should at least be feeling sick by now.

Maybe I've missed these reports, but I haven't been able to find one single person suffering from any kind of radiation problems. Not even minor ones.

What gives??

[LiberalLoner]

1. OK, my hubby is an expert on this stuff, says that it's been classified

as bad as Chernobyl not because people are dying but because like Chernobyl it will require very long term management. In other words it's gonna be a problem for...ummm..I don't know how long, forever or something like that.

Anyway that's how my husband explained it to me.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

2. where did you read this?

Where did you read, on Democratic Underground, that scores of people should already be dead now, at this stage? What radius was mentioned as being lethal for radiation, and over what period of time? I read a lot of DU, and I've never heard anything along the lines suggested in your vaguely-worded accusation.

What gives?

[Saboburns]

3. You're kidding right??

You've never read any comparisons on here about this current disaster and Chernobyl?? You've not seen the posts that warn us that Fukshima is as bad as Chernobyl??

[DisgustipatedinCA]

7. Yes, I've seen a lot of comparisons like that. However, that's not what I asked.

I asked you where you had read that there should be scores of dead at/near Fukushima in this timeframe. I haven't seen anyone making that claim, so I thought I'd ask you where it came from. It kind of sounds like this is the conclusion you came to after reading many threads on DU. If so, I disagree with your conclusion. I think the release of radiation will kill thousands before their time. I think it's still extremely possible for one or more reactors to explode (conventionally), spreading much more radiation far and wide. You, on the other hand, are pushing something that never existed here, and it'd be nice if you explained where you arrived at your conclusions.

[Sonoman]

10. Nice, DCA...

But we're all gonna die.

Got any argument with that?

We're all gonna die.

We'll see you on Friday.

Sonoman

[DisgustipatedinCA]

18. No argument from me. We're all going to die

The only thing sure in life is that you're going to die. What do you intend to do about it.
I don't remember where I read the line above, but I like it.
See you Friday.

[Saboburns]

12. I'm not pushing anything

I'm not the one comparing the severity of the two nuclear disasters, I am pointing out that there are numerous posts, by numerous posters, claiming that the two disasters are near equal in severity, yet no one, thank goodness, has shown any signs of radiation sickness. I am interested in why.

I have a couple of theories. One is that the area contaminated in Japan is much, much smaller due to lack of explosion and resulting fire. Mercifull no graphite present to spread the problem. Seems most of the radiation has been limited to less than a couple km outside the plant.

Another is that when we read the amount of radiation released, the amount usually pales in importance to the type of isotope. That is, much of the radiation released has a half life of minutes, or even seconds. Not all of it of course, Cesium and Plutonium re examples of looooooooong time problems. What we need is the amount of each type isotope that has been released, and we are not getting that info.

I wish we had more data. And I wish the data were more clearly defined. I find it maddening that we can not get more information.

It's just not right.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

20. thanks for your reply

I appreciate you taking the time to explain where you were coming from. I can't say I've read the same threads you've read, but the threads I've read seemed more concerned with problems that would manifest long-term. I do see that the poster below mentioned the immediate deaths that happened at Chernobyl, and that's a valid point too. For myself, and from my relative layman's point of view (nuclear power school 20 long years ago), this doesn't yet seem as bad as Chernobyl, but that may change, depending on what happens. Regardless, it's still a very serious event, and I do believe there will be long-term health problems for a good number of people.

Thanks.

[madokie]

34. The reason you're not getting that information is because the nuke boys aren't putting it out

If you read much you'll know to take whatever the nuke industry says with a grain of salt and to learn to read between the lines. Best I remember the deaths come much later not sooner as you suggest.
In other words your op is TRASH, got that, TRASH, and should be deleted by the mods.

[FBaggins]

35. Facts that are inconvenient for your position... are nevertheless facts.

Wishing them away doesn't help.

Yes, deaths from radiation can take some time but:

1) Deaths from really high levels can come quickly. Many such deaths occured at Chernobyl, zero such deaths have occured at Fukushima. There were also scores and scores of acute radiation sickness within a couple weeks of Chernobyl... none to date at Fukushima. The difference isn't blind luck, there's simply less radiation that people are being exposed to. LOTS less.

2) Deaths many years later still require some level of radiation exposure. Workers at Chernobyl had dosimeters too, and scores of them were pegged out in the early days. Thousands of people received dosed higher than the highest reported dose at Fukushima.

3) Deaths and cancers years in the future come from exposure to (or consumption of) radioactive elements. The measurements (from several sources) of those elements from Fukushima don't hold a candle to the similar measurements from Chernobyl with the single exception of the highly radioactive water leaking into the ocean.

Denial doesn't change reality. Fukushima is bad.... really bad. But it isn't in the same league as Chernobyl.

[Nederland]

14. The comparison to Chernobyl implies immediate deaths

The Chernobyl accident caused the immediate death (meaning they immediately got sick and died within a month) of 30 people, all but three of those were from radiation exposure. I think the poster is asking if Fukushima accident is really as bad as Chernobyl, why have there been no deaths yet?

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. So it is not a L-7 accident... I see

the AIEA and NISA disagree, but I guess they are liber'ul Alarmist posting on DU.

WHO KNEW?

[FBaggins]

48. If this were 100 times worse than Chernobyl... it would still be an L-7

Would you accept a BS claim that they were really the same because their score on this scale was the same?

Of course not... it would be ridiculous.

As is the position presented by your current post.

[SpoonFed]

66. Yet again...

you step in to downplay the fact that by everyone's analysis this has reached INES 7 and somehow manage to rationalize going from a position of...

a) this can't possibly get worse (for a fanciful period of about 4 weeks) to...
b) this could get so much worse that it's not fair to mention it has reached INES level 7

Seems like some mystical PR doublethink to me. The contortions you put yourself through are not just here for my amusement, are they?

[jwirr]

17. I'm pretty sure that if you are not killed almost immediately from

radiation poisoning then it is a slow death. Also they had time to evacuate many. The workers who are in there now are already showing signs of getting sick from what I have read here on DU. Isn't that enough?

[nonperson]

4. Here's another good explanation

I saw this somewhere. Might have been here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo-l36-ALjk&feature=feed...

Nearly 1 million human deaths attributed to Chernobyl thus far. Approximately 200 new elements formed some lasting millions and billions of years.

Clean, safe nuclear power. Right.

[Confusious]

30. geez caldicot.

"Approximately 200 new elements formed some lasting millions and billions of years."

take a first year college chemistry class and you'll find out why that's bullshit.


WHO, up to 4000 deaths, 40 so far.

[nonperson]

33. Looks like all you first year chemists are doing a great job so far at Fukushima

As you did at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, etc.

When the entire planet is uninhabitable will you ROFL then?

[Confusious]

39. obviously, another person with no science background

Thats why you gobble up the bullshit.

[nonperson]

55. Obviously, another person in the nuclear energy (i.e. certain death) industry

[Nederland]

56. Dude give it up

Anyone who has ever looked at a periodic table even once knows the claim is bullshit...

[nonperson]

58. So I'm supposed to believe some anonymous DU member and ignore this guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-3Kf4JakWI

He appears to be someone who has seen a periodic table more than once.

[Nederland]

63. You are not suppose to believe ANYONE

Do you get it? Open up and book and learn this stuff for yourself. In cases like this its easy to find two different people with Phds after their names that are saying completely different things. How can you possibly decide who to believe if you can't be bothered to take the time to understand even the most basic concepts in physics? We are not suggesting you need to get a Phd, merely learn physics 101. Enough to call bullshit when you see it. For example, if you bothered to even Google the words "periodic table" you'd find this:



See how the numbers stop at 118? Thats because element 118, Ununoctium, is the heaviest element ever observed. Another Google search would quickly tell you that it was just recently created by a Russian group (in 2002) after years of theory and research, and four months of laboratory preparations. If you read up on what was involved, (a good description is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununoctium ) you realize pretty quickly that discovering (or more accurately, creating) a new element is a complicated process that requires a great deal of time and effort, not to mention an expensive properly equipped laboratory. Furthermore, it is a rather big deal. Anyone discovering how to create just one new element immediately has their name all over the news--in the world of physics at least.

Now, none of this information is particularly hard to find, nor does it take long to learn. And what does learning these few things tell us? It tells us that the claim that "approximately 200 new elements formed" is complete and utter bullshit. Given that up until now physicists have only observed the first 118 elements in the periodic table, that would imply that at least approximately 82 new and previously unknown elements have suddenly been miraculously created by accident without even trying to. The very idea is preposterous.

[nonperson]

67. Including YOU, Wikileaks, and the Periodic Table?

What do all those little numbers above the letters mean?

I seem to remember that elements can have several of those little numbers that follow them -- Iodine 131 for example. There are 37 known isotopes of Iodine alone. How many isotopes of all elements are there? Two-hundred? MORE?

Why don't you Google that for me and get back to me with that number. Meanwhile I'll take the word of those people with the letters p-h-d following their names.

[Confusious]

92. My name is Confusious, PHD

Those "little numbers" are the number of protons.

So do you believe me now?

[Nederland]

103. Yup

Go to the library and pick up your own source if you'd like. The point is to get to a point where you can make a more reasonable judgement regarding what the various experts are saying, because right now its pretty clear that you lack even the most basic understanding of physics.

[nonperson]

71. List of elements by stability of isotopes

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

"About 339 nuclides are found in nature, on Earth. These comprise 255 stable isotopes, and with the addition of the 33 long-lived radioisotopes with half lives longer than 80 million years, a total of 288 primordial nuclides, as noted above. The nuclides found naturally comprise not only the 288 primordials, but also include about 51 more short-lived isotopes (defined as half life less than 80 million years, too short to have survived from the formation of the Earth) that are daughters of primordial isotopes (such as radium from uranium); or else are made by energetic natural processes, such as carbon-14 made from atmospheric nitrogen by bombardment from cosmic rays."

[wtmusic]

76. Different isotopes are not different elements

The atomic number, or number of protons in an atom, identifies each element.

Nederland is correct, looking up some basic terms in Wikipedia would be beneficial.

[Confusious]

94. Any respectable scientist would use the correct term

I would have failed my first year chemistry courses if I put down "new element" in place of "isotope"

[Confusious]

93. Busby... oh brother

The scientific community thinks he's a joke. Couldn't get his papers published in respected journals so he opened his own.

[nonperson]

36. Here's another first year chemist on Fukushima

It's on top of the home page. I'm sure you've seen it. Or maybe not. You obviously didn't watch the first video that I paraphrased the first quote from.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-3Kf4JakWI

[Confusious]

40. No, i saw caldicot and knew it was bullshit

That's the benefit of a science background.



and I'm sure, if you're quoting them, they have no science background. So why bother with bullshit?

[nonperson]

49. Because failing to respond to bullshit

Guaranties a proliferation of more bullshit.

[Confusious]

52. yep. and that is what I was doing

responding to bullshit to prevent it's proliferation

[nonperson]

54. Yet you fail to respond to the learned opinions of the doctor and

the radiation expert I posted.

If you're looking for the bullshit it's easy to find. Just find a mirror.

[Confusious]

90. Learned? would they be like caldicott?

If you posted her, I doubt you have the judgement to know who is "learned" and just bullshiting.


The shuttle will destroy the ozone layer learned?

[PamW]

119. Sounds like something Caldicott would say...

"Approximately 200 new elements formed some lasting millions and billions of years."
=====================

That sounds like something Helen Caldicott would say.

She was on one of our local radio talk shows a while back and claimed that a single
kilogram of Plutonium if let loose into the environment would exterminate all life on Earth.

Although the precise amount is classified, the US Dept of Energy has confirmed that the
amount of Plutonium in the environment due to nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere is
measured in metric tons or thousands of kilograms.

So the amount of Plutonium that is ACTUALLY in the environment is THOUSANDS
of times greater than what Caldicott claims will wipe out all life on the planet.

Why anyone believes the fear-monger is beyond me. I guess they don't know any better.

PamW

[kristopher]

127. Are you asserting that you are fairly and honestly characterizing Caldicott's statement?

Perhaps you'd like to refresh your memory? Consider it a chance to demonstrate your commitment to truth and accuracy.

[PamW]

129. YES!!!

Are you asserting that you are fairly and honestly characterizing Caldicott's statement?
====================

Yes - Caldicott says it all the time.

"Plutonium is so radiotoxic that if a single kilogram escapes into the environment,
it will wipe out all life on Earth."

Our local ABC-owned talk show radio station makes the MP3 versions of their shows
available on their website.

I downloaded that particular show so I can provide a VERBATIM QUOTE
of Caldicott's statement above.

Read it and weep.

PamW

[kristopher]

131. What about the part that follows where she says "if adequately distributed"?

You don't think that is relevant to her meaning given the specific defense you offered?

[PamW]

133. I gave you a VERBATIM QUOTE !!!

What about the part that follows where she says "if adequately distributed"?
====================================

I gave you a verbatim quote. I saved that quotation just for the
gullible little anti-nukes that that uncritically accept any flotsam and jetsam
spoken by Caldicott.

Evidently you feel the need to "fix-up" the quote by Caldicott after the fact.
You have a job in Washington waiting for you to clean up after politicians mis-speak.

Why don't you give me a definition of "if adequately distributed".

Burying a lump a kilogram of Pu-239 in the ground is not "adequate distribution"

However, the Plutonium from the nuclear weapons tests were blown up into the
stratosphere and atmospheric diffusion did the rest. After decades of diffusion,
the plutonium is well distributed in the environment.

PamW

[kristopher]

136. Let's look at the written record

It is on page 110 from the book "If You Love This Planet: A Plan to Save the Earth" By Helen Caldicott

"Plutonium remains radioactive and poisonous for half a million years, and just one pound (about half a kilogram) of plutonium could induce lung cancer in every human lung on Earth if adequately distributed."

http://books.google.com/books?id=P0Wm7zdiCnUC&pg=PA110&...

This is a discussion about evaluation of the risks of low level radiation and it is far broader than Caldicott. That you elect to attack her through misrepresentation of the argument is unfortunate. You may or may not have found an instance when, in a verbal interview the entire thought didn't make it out; but the statement is so widely known it is hard to believe you stumbled on that instance (if it occurred) by chance. It has the distinct aroma of being part of a packaged smear campaign known to be employed by the massive and totally amoral fission industry against its critics.

[PamW]

139. Since when is a verbatim quote an "attack"

This is a discussion about evaluation of the risks of low level radiation and it is far broader than Caldicott. That you elect to attack her through misrepresentation of the argument is unfortunate.
========================

What is "adequately distributed"??

This reminds me of December 1982 when I was working at Argonne National Lab.

Argonne National Lab grew out of the group headed by Enrico Fermi at University of Chicago
that made the first man-made reactor ( Mother Nature made a few of her own ).

December 1982 was the 40th anniversary of Enrico Fermi's first reactor.

The Laboratory held a series of seminars in honor of the occasion. One of the speakers
was an expert in ethics. She was also a Roman Catholic nun.

At one point, she dismissed the arguments that Caldicott and her ilk make. She said it
was like saying that one man could impregnate every woman on the planet.

However, she said it was vacuous and stupid to make that argument even if one man produces
a number of sperm that matches or exceeds the number of women on the planet. In her words,
"The delivery system is not up to it!

Perhaps one could take lung tissue from every person on the planet, and expose it to the
kilogram of plutonium and its alpha radiation, and when you have finally engendered the
formation of a cancer, you can then replant that tissue back into its host body.

But absent doing something as STUPID as that, Caldicott is just plain wrong because
"the delivery system is not up to it".

Scientists like myself exist and do science in the real world and not some fantasy world
that Caldicott cooks up where people do idiotic things.

The Plutonium from the nuclear tests - THOUSANDS of times more than what Caldicott hypothesizes
is already uniformly distributed across the planet to a high order of uniformity.

Plutonium diffuses in the environment, and there is no mechanism for it to preferentially seek
out lung tissue. So where does that leave Caldicott? It leaves her with nowhere to hang her hat.

You're one of her unquestioning followers, perhaps you can tell me how Caldicott supposes that
all this Plutonium in the environment, thousands of times what she says will exterminate life;
is going to get "adequately distributed".

Even if and that's a big if, there was enough Plutonium, how is this
"adequate distribution" going to happen? Because it sure isn't happening now with
thousands of times the amount that Caldicott postulates.

So it all comes down to the fact that Caldicott just threw away the Physics texts and
things are going to happen in her fantasy world that are inconsistent with the Laws of Physics.

Since that is the case, I don't worry about anything that the likes of Caldicott says.

PamW

[FBaggins]

141. When it's inconvenient to kris' position of course.

It's really a very simple system once you come to understand it.

If a person agrees with kris, he's one of the top experts in the field (regardless of whether (s)he makes money shilling his position or lacks appropriate crentials or experience). If the person disagrees then they don't know anything about the subject and are bought and sold by the nuclear industry... again regardless of credentials or experience. Even hard reported facts from his own sources can/will be ignored if they contradict his own fantasies... and anyone else pointing them out is not to be trusted.

So it all comes down to the fact that Caldicott just threw away the Physics texts and things are going to happen in her fantasy world that are inconsistent with the Laws of Physics

And she did it again today in the NYT. Expect to see it cited here as authoritative several times in coming days (likely starting in 15 seconds). Quite a few laughers in there.

[PamW]

156. Kris suffers from "situational accuracy"

If a person agrees with kris, he's one of the top experts in the field (regardless of whether (s)he makes money shilling his position or lacks appropriate crentials or experience). If the person disagrees then they don't know anything about the subject and are bought and sold by the nuclear industry... again regardless of credentials or experience.
=============================================================

Remember the concept of "situational ethics". That is the concept that right and wrong
depend on the situation. It's the same as "unethical". It's a system where you can engage
in unethical conduct, but you can excuse it by claiming the situation made it ethical.

Kris believes in "situational accuracy". Just as you state above, if Kris agrees with some
statement, it must be truth; even if all of science says it is wrong.

If Kris disagrees with a statement, then it must be false; even if all of science says it is
true.

"Situational accuracy" the ultimate in self-serving philosophy; no self-righteous person
should be without it.

PamW

[kristopher]

142. If the message of the one pound example were related to distribution you might have a point

But since it isn't, you don't.

The clear meaning of the illustration is that plutonium ingestion is dangerous in even microscopic amounts. It is a necessary counter to the disingenuous claims of the nuclear fission industry that cumulative dumping of their toxins into OUR environment is nothing to be concerned about.

[FBaggins]

143. So lying is ok as long as your heart is in the right place?

That explains your holding onto your error re: China a week or two ago.

[kristopher]

144. She isn't lying.

But you do so routinely.

[FBaggins]

146. She's either lying of ignorant

There is no third possibility.

You seemed to be saying that extreme hyperbole (to be charitable) is ok as long as the purpose behind the untruth was good enough.

I prefer the truth. Which is probably why I make you so uncomfortable.

[PamW]

148. FBaggins - here I have to disagree with you.

She's either lying or ignorant
There is no third possibility.
================================

Here I have to disagree with you. There is a third possibility.

Caldicott could be lying AND ignorant.

My money is on possibility number 3.

PamW

[PamW]

147. If that's the meaning - then explain why we are all not dead!!

The clear meaning of the illustration is that plutonium ingestion is dangerous in even microscopic amounts.
=============================

Evidently the pertinent point has gone over your head once again.

There isn't Caldicott's "half-pound" or "one kilogram" in the environment.

There are metric tonnes of Plutonium in the environment.

If it's so dangerous that one kilogram will kill us all, then why haven't the
thousands of kilograms in the environment killed us?

The only thing Caldicott and her ilk had to hang their hat on was that
it wasn't "adequately distributed".

Now Kris tells us that it's not due to the distribution.

So Kris, you have some explaining to do - if you are up to it ( probably not );
Why aren't we all dead?

PamW

[kristopher]

151. Her words are clear, I don't need to interpret them.

For a person of normal intelligence, that is. But apparently that is too high a bar for you.

The assertion she makes is that one pound "adequately distributed" is enough to cause cancer in all the people of the world. She posits no mechanism for such distribution because her point relates to the amount - one pound - in relation to global human population. It is a complicated (for you) way of saying that there are billions of doses sufficient to cause cancer in one pound of plutonium. For purposes of that illustration the "adequate distribution" is a way of saying equally divided among the referenced population.

[PamW]

154. Clear - clear as mud.

Her words are clear, I don't need to interpret them.
==================================

GEEZ - you still miss the point.

She posits no mechanism for "adequate distribution" because
there is no mechanism for "adequate distribution"

If there is no mechanism to "adequately distribute" the plutonium so as to
make it a danger to humans, then why worry about it. It's like saying there
are enough alpha particles in the solar wind to really fry a person to death
if they all impinged on that person. However, there's no mechanism for all
those alpha particles to go after one person - so you need not worry about
being fried by the solar wind.

GEEZ - this is like pulling teeth.

OK - so if there are a billion lethal doses in one kilogram of plutonium, and
since there are thousands of kilogram of plutonium in the environment,
then that means that there are TRILLIONS of lethal dose of plutonium
already in the environment.

If there are TRILLIONS of lethal doses of plutonium in the environment,
why are we not all dead? The current poplulation of the Earth is about 7 Billion.
That means there are over 140 lethal doses of plutonium for EACH man, woman,
and child, already in the environment.

If one accepts Caldicott's hypothesis, there are 140 lethal doses for EACH of
us already in the environment. The environment already contains enough plutonium,
according to Caldicott, to kill EACH and every one of us, 140 times over.

So I get back to the question you still can't answer: "Why are we all not dead?"

PamW

[kristopher]

161. Typcial attempt to dishonestly divert the discussion.

When the MOX fuel in Fukushima reactors is discussed, the plutonium content is at issue. The standard response those trained in fission industry propaganda is to claim that the percentage of plutomium is only a few percent, so it is of no concern.

In those situations there is a dispersal mechanism present. The percentage claims are a proxy for dosing, it is a way of saying "don't worry there isn't enough to cause concern. That, in turn, engenders an illustrative response of the type used by Caldicott; which precisely addresses the attempt by the fission industry to minimize the legitimate concerns of affected populations.

[PamW]

165. That's not what I say; or any real nuclear professionals.

When the MOX fuel in Fukushima reactors is discussed, the plutonium content is at issue. The standard response those trained in fission industry propaganda is to claim that the percentage of plutomium is only a few percent, so it is of no concern.
-------------------------------------------------

That's not what I say or any real nuclear professionals.

What I say is that MOX doesn't matter. If the reactor has been operating for a
significant length of time since reload; you've got plenty of plutonium regardless
of whether you fueled with MOX or not. Reactors make plutonium.

Sure there is a potential dispersal mechanism. The Plutonium that is already in the
environment at levels thousands of times greater than what Caldicott postulates
also had a dispersal mechanism. A nuclear bomb is an EXCELLENT dispersal mechanism.
It is the BEST dispersal mechanism that mankind has yet invented - it even beats
a reactor.

So we have a dispersal mechanism that is even better than a reactor. We have
thousands of times more Plutonium than what Caldicott hypothesizes being
dispersed by the atmospheric nuclear explosions.

So Plutonium dispersal by the atmospheric nuclear explosives testing has Fukushima
beat 16 ways from Sunday. We have more plutonium, and better dispersal.

You still can't answer the question at the heart of it all:

Why aren't we all dead?

I've given you a number of chances to answer the question and you've dodged it
every time.

PamW

[FBaggins]

158. Yes... It's clear. And clearly wrong.

One seven billionth of a pound of plutonium is not likely to kill you or give you lung cancer.

It's seriously dangerous stuff... But not THAT dangerous.

[kristopher]

162. Then you would be ok with it embedded in your lungs.

I'm not.

[FBaggins]

170. Par for your course

Ridiculous as usual.

[txlibdem]

172. Uh-oh, here come some pesky facts that anti-nuclear-power nuts don't want you to know

Here's what "the GubMint" says about Plutonium:
"Residual plutonium from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing is dispersed widely in the environment. As a result, virtually everyone comes into contact with extremely small amounts of plutonium."

Virtually everyone comes into contact with plutonium. OMG! Run Kris Forest. Run!

/edit to add the link to the above quote. Whoops!
http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/radionuclides/plutonium.htm...

[Confusious]

41. Here's another of caldicotts greatest hits

Caldicott's investigative writings were chosen as Project Censored's #2 story in 1990. Citing the research of Soviet scientists Valery Burdakov and Vyacheslav Filin, Caldicott argued that NASA's Space Shuttle program was destroying the Earth’s ozone and that 300 total shuttle flights would be enough to "completely destroy the Earth's protective ozone shield," although there is no scientific evidence to back up this claim.

we've only had 150 shuttle flights, so shouldn't it be half destroyed by now?

[SpoonFed]

68. uh, exponential?

we've only had 150 shuttle flights, so shouldn't it be half destroyed by now?

Hmm. You need to take a basic math class. If the effect is exponential and not linear, it could quite possibly be true, but don't get up off the floor on my account.

I haven't been following the ozone issue lately, but I don't think it's in good shape, oh wise one.

[Confusious]

91. She never said whether it was either linear or exponential

Still, if you think that's true, since you're defending the bullshit, it's not I who should be taking classes, it's you.

The ozone is in better shape then it would be with 300 shuttle flights.

On edit: it would be linear, if you look at this article:

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/1487

Kooks

[SpoonFed]

120. Yeah

Since I'm pointing out trivial errors in your argument, I must be supporting some other argument. Another trivial error on your part, but not surprising. You pro nuke pundits have trouble arguing out of a paper bag. Go back to school.

[PamW]

130. There's no reason for it to be exponential

Hmm. You need to take a basic math class. If the effect is exponential and not linear, it could quite possibly be true, but don't get up off the floor on my account.
=========================================

You also need a basic course in differential equations.

You get an exponential solution when the first derivative or temporal rate of
a quantity changing is proportional to the quantity itself.

However, there's no reason why the rate of ozone depletion by shuttle exhaust
should be proportional to the amount of ozone.

It's proportional to the amount of shuttle exhaust - not to the amount of ozone.

Therefore, there's no basis for an exponential solution.

PamW

[SpoonFed]

173. As usual, you really miss the point.

There "could" be some exponential relationship between shuttle launches and ozone level decreases. I wasn't positing that there "is" but that simply there "could" be an relationship that was not linear. Hand waving bull to the effect there should be 1/2 as much ozone because there has been 1/2 of the magic number of shuttle launches therefore doesn't cut it as it is not the only possible explanation.

You on the other hand come again in like the arrogant donkey's ass and miss the point and make your own proclamations as to what is true and correct, missing the inherent flaw in the statements being presented. You can't see trivial flaws in your own logical when pointed out to you either, so I'm not surprised.

So in summary, oh wise one, the most casual observer does not need to comprehend differential calculus, nor believe your almighty proclamations as to the veracity of a proposition which claims a causal relationship between shuttle launches and the depletion of the ozone layer; they just have to recognize the trivial mistakes and flustered bluster which comes from you and other posters that believe they are operating on a level so much above the rest of us mere mortals. It's the belief that is the amusing part to me.

[wtmusic]

43. When I want an expert's take on radiation I always turn to pediatricians.

[FBaggins]

44. Yeah... because those health physicists are idiots.

What do they know?

[wtmusic]

46. "Physicist", "Physician"...I think they're pretty much the same thing. nt

[w4rma]

5. Just how quickly do you think cancer kills people? There are thousands of walking dead, right now,

because of this. Some will die in a few months and some will die in a few years. Thousands will die before their time because of this. The Japanese have done a great job of protecting workers from large dosages of radiation that kills in hours by cycling people in and out.

[LiberalLoner]

6. But again apparently the classification is not based on how many will die or get sick, it's

based on how long-term the problem will be and how severe, etc. When I heard it was classified the same as Chernoybl I thought immediately, as many deaths as Chernobyl has caused and I asked my husband about it. He said no, even if not even one person died (unfortunately people will die as the posters here say) it would still be classified as bad as Chernobyl based on how long-term the problem is.

[Saboburns]

9. I agree with you that there are many walking wounded as of today

I understand that it will take more time to see the health problems manifest themselves. But still, if radiation levels at Fukushima are anywhere near those at Chernobyl then people would be getting sick and signs of radiation sickness would be visible by now.

[LiberalLoner]

11. I've been sick and haven't followed this issue as closely as I should have but

my (perhaps wrong) understanding is that the Japanese evacuated the areas that were in immediate danger at each stage. I watched some film about Chernobyl and I think the evacuation did not happen until after the population was already in great danger from the exposure. Again, I apologize if my understanding/memory is wrong on this but if I'm correct that would make a big difference in the initial death figures I would imagine. It is my fervent hope that the death and injury toll will not be as high as with Chernobyl.

[Nederland]

24. Radiation can kill in a few weeks or even less

In the case of Chernobyl it did precisely that. Over a dozen people died within three weeks:

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

If Fukushima is really as bad as Chernobyl, it is sensible to ask why no one has died yet.

[w4rma]

26. No. It's not sensible. (nt)

[Nederland]

27. Why not? (nt)

[FBaggins]

32. Not just "kills in hours"...

They've done a great job of keeping the dose below the "slightly higher chance of cancer in 20 years" level as well.

Only a couple dozen have even hit the 100 mSv level that is the normal cutoff for "no discernible health impact".

Yes, the Japanese have done a great job compared to the Soviet, but there's also less "there" there. Virtually every measure of activity is much lower than any Chernobyl comparison.

[elleng]

8. Sorry that no one dead yet.

Just starving.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[kestrel91316]

13. LOL. Nuclear industry shilling FAIL.

[Nederland]

15. Yup we're all shills for the nuke industry

In fact, I'm still waiting for this month's check to come in the mail...

[txlibdem]

22. What? You get a check? All I get is a small baggy of radioactive material...

That I get to store in my attic. I got ripped off!

[Saboburns]

21. Sad we can't have a semi rational, calm discussion

without getting called a shill for the nuclear industry. That kind of behavior cheapens this place.

I'd like to think DU is above that kind of stuff.

And it appears to me, my humble opinion only, that there exists a company line around here regarding nuclear power. It seems that if one does not condemn all nuclear power and demand all nukes be shut down forever forthwith one is called a shill for the industry.

And that's just not right.

What there is, is a dearth of information regarding the amount, and type, of radiation coming from Fukushima. I kind of hoped that DU would be a great place to discuss this disaster. So I thought I'd simply ask a question. I'm not shilling for anyone dammit.

How come no one has gotten ill and shown signs of radiation sickness??

[wtmusic]

42. Rational thought goes out the window when it comes to nuclear power.

If you (correctly) point out that nuclear is the safest, most practical form of energy on the planet - Fukushima notwithstanding - you are a shill sent by devious corporateers to divert influential deskchair sleuths at DU, who are in the process of uncovering a massive conspiracy to dispose of deadly caches of plutonium by force-feeding it to baby harp seals.

Get used to it.

[FBaggins]

45. Some people are afraid to fly.

If they need to get from NY to San Francisco, they'll think of taking a train, or renting a car, or riding a bus... but they won't fly.

Even though there is no safer way for them to get there than to take a commercial flight.

But hey! I saw a plane crash on the news once. Those airline industry shills will never again be able to claim that flying is safe!

[madrchsod]

16. i could be dead because of all the above ground atomic bomb testing

but as far as i can tell i`m still alive.

[caraher]

19. False premise...

... that deaths from acute radiation sickness are the best metric of severity.

There are lots of ways to critique Chernobyl comparisons, but this is not a strong one.

My take is this... on one hand, there's some potential for this to be worse than Chernobyl because there are at least 4 reactors with problems that collectively may contain more hazardous material. There may also be differences in population density that make a given release potential affect more people in Japan.

But the circumstances of the accidents are very different and in particular, the Fukushima releases haven't been as dramatic as the Chernobyl plant's. They've apparently been smaller to date. We'll see what happens over time, but my guess would be that it's unlikely that this will equal Chernobyl when all is said and done. But it's certainly "Chernobyl-class" in terms of affecting a significant area and it will certainly lead to a significant number (thousands) of cancer deaths over the years.

As for "I haven't been able to find one single person suffering from any kind of radiation problems. Not even minor ones," you obviously haven't read about the workers who got burns on their legs from working in radioactive water. Try the Google.

[txlibdem]

23. OK. That's 2 workers who got burns on their legs, not fatalities.

Speaking as a bona-fide NOOK-yoo-LUR shill, I'd say that still counts as zero fatalities.

[Saboburns]

25. Actually I did read about those burned workers.

The burns were minor and they returned to work shortly after getting treatment. Initially I thought that these injuries would be typical of large dose radiation, but they were very minor. Therefore I have to wonder just how deadly the amount and type of radiation released. The gadgets used to measure radiation are incredibly accurate and sensitive. Incredibly so. But still we are left in the dark about so many things.

I agree with your premise that Fukushima could end up being the worst nuclear catastrophe. Things there could still go very, very bad. It's chilling to think what could still happen there. The reactors and cooling pools are far from stable, matter of fact some of the things being considered by the engineers seem shaky at best. I have yet to figure out if these guys are real smart, ignorant, lucky or cursed. Because there is so much we do not know about what is going on inside the plants.

Not to mention the clean up and containment if and when stability is attained. Years, decades, from now we will still be dealing with Fukushima.

What we're not getting is information, and that's criminal.

[SpoonFed]

28. I whole heartly agree...

it's a terribly weak argument. And essentially framing the debate in a pro-nuke industry light by suggesting the correct metric to determine the severity of the accident is on immediate number of radiation sickness and death and not from some more encompassing determination including

the quantity of poisonous filth released,
the amount of land rendered unfit for human habitation for at least hundreds of years,
the long term deaths from cancer and related illnesses,
the reduction of the quality of life,
the damage to food production and safety,
the psychological ramifications for Japan and the rest of the world,
the cost to Japan's economy,

the list goes on and on, the numbers for the above are not yet known.

Simply trying to reduce the argument to "number N of immediate deaths" when there has been little credible information coming out in a timely manner seems foolish and naive or indicative of a pro-nuke industry talking point which might get you labelled incorrectly, whether you like it or not.

[txlibdem]

38. Your post is equally true if you substitute "coal" for "nuclear"

Excellent job of posting the truth about coal pollution, the uncontrolled radiation and toxic metals that coal plants spew out.

Coal filth is right. Long term cancer, 2,800 heart attack deaths each year, 1 million deaths worldwide each year.

You and I agree that coal needs to be stopped - ASAP.

[Someguyinjapan]

29. The answer is simple

It's because when you die from radiation poisoning, it's always so fast it's like getting shot in the head.

[Nederland]

31. Not that fast

I sense the sarcasm, but perhaps you are unaware that the first Chernobyl victim to die of radiation sickness died a mere 11 days after the accident. Dying that quickly can only happen when you are exposed to massive amounts of radiation, which is why comparisons to Chernobyl are total BS.

[Someguyinjapan]

37. You sensed correctly

I know it doesn't travel well over the internet, but I wasn't sure how to make it any more heavy-handed.

[flamingdem]

50. I love how the pro-nukesters avoid discussing the radioactive water getting into the ocean

and groundwater.

Chernobyl didn't destroy a fishing industry and did you know that fish swim around?
Wait until someone in the Pacific Northeast admits that there is cesium in the fish there.

You know this is going to happen.

One of the most beautiful parts of Japan with a culture going back 1,000 is destroyed
and the pro-nukesters are still pumping their toxic babies while unworried about the
birth defects in Japanese babies.

[FBaggins]

51. I love how your imagined reality makes you think anyone "avoided" it.

We've been discussing it for weeks.

Chernobyl didn't destroy a fishing industry

Neither has Fukushima. The tsunami did far more damage.

and did you know that fish swim around?

Yes... did you know that the ocean has currents?

[flamingdem]

53. The cesium in fish hundreds of miles away is killing their fish industry

only the ignorant are eating imported fish from Japan right now.
Sadly, the Japanese will have to play roulette with what they
are served or buy

[FBaggins]

60. That's strange... I must have missed that report.

Can you link to the fish hundreds of miles away that have been reported with high cesium levels?

There will be certain species of fish (probably those that live on the bottom) that won't be fished for a long time in the vicinity of the reactors and others that may be avoided for a couple (fish) generations... but that's just in the areas close to Fukushima. They're still selling fish from one prefecture south of there and Fukushima is hardly the only fishing area around Japan.

You always seem to allow your imagination to run away with you. They're going to evacuate Tokyo. Hundreds of thousands are already dead but just don't know it yet. Japan will never fish again.

[flamingdem]

64. This is what I found not spending much time cesium in fish in Iabaraki

I had read it was 100 miles from the plant

High level of cesium detected in sand lances
Apr 052011
http://www.japan.org/tags/fukushima

Small fish caught in waters off the coast of Ibaraki have been found to contain radioactive cesium above the legal limit.

Ibaraki is south of Fukushima prefecture, where the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is located. Ibaraki Prefecture says 526 becquerels of radioactive cesium was detected in one kilogram of sand lances.

The acceptable limit is 500 becquerels. It is the first time that higher-than-permitted levels of radioactive cesium have been found in fish.

All local fishery cooperatives in the prefecture have agreed to suspend sand lance fishing at the request of the prefectural government

[FBaggins]

65. Perhaps you should have spent a little more time.

Japanese fishermen resumed fishing off the Ibaraki coast in Japan on April 15 and shipped their products to Tsukiji’s fish market in central Tokyo. The products sold at nearly market prices

...snip...

According to Japan’s Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), many types of fish, including flounder and conger eel, passed an inspection and were safe.

http://www.majiroxnews.com/2011/04/16/fishing-resumes-b... /

And no... the Ibaraki fishing area is not "hundreds of miles" from Fukushima. They're adjacent to each other. It was, in fact, the one I refered to in the post above (" They're still selling fish from one prefecture south of there").

As I've said more than once, the tsunami did FAR more damage to the Japanese fishing industry (already in severe decline) than the reactors ever will.

[nonperson]

72. The tsunami is over

The nuclear catastrophe at Fukushima is ongoing and will be for generations.

How long do you think it will last? What's the half-life of the radioactive isotopes being released uncontrollably into the atmosphere and ocean?

PS The nuclear industry will LIE about anything and everything to survive. See: Chernobyl, Three Mile Island.

[FBaggins]

78. The damage to Japan's fishing industry from the tsunami is NOT over.

It will take years to recover.

How long do you think it will last? What's the half-life of the radioactive isotopes being released uncontrollably into the atmosphere and ocean?


Depends on what you mean by "last". If you mean "how long will they be unable to eat fish from the sea off the NE coast of Japan"... the answer is "not very long".

[nonperson]

96. Now you're just being obtuse

The tsunami is definitely over. The debris field remains but the water has subsided.

The nuclear catastrophe is ongoing and will be ongoing for generations.

[FBaggins]

98. We're discussing the Japanese fishing industry. Do try to pay attention.

Roughly 90% of the almost 30,000 fishing vessels in the three hardest-hit prefectures (Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima) were destroyed or are otherwise unusuable. Entire fishing ports are gone even if there were boats to bring the fish in.

[nonperson]

99. Boats can be rebuilt

Fishing can resume.

Radiation exposure from multiple exploded nuclear reactors, not so much.

Get it now?

[FBaggins]

100. What I "get" is that you don't.

Radiation exposure from multiple exploded nuclear reactors, not so much.

Yeah... but we have yet to see anyone with a dose that can be associated with significant health risks. Heck... there are only a score or so with even the 100mSv level associated with the tiniest assignable health risk.

And yes... radiation goes away over time as well. Most of what was released (primarily iodine) is already gone.

The damage to Japan's economy (fishing or otherwise) from the earthquake and tsunami is significantly greater than that from the radiation.

[nonperson]

101. Oh, thanks, I get it now

The nuclear radiation (some from elements that have half-lives in the millions of years) is going to disappear like the BP oil in the Gulf of Mexico.

Thanks for making that clear. No health risks from exploded nuke reactors or millions of gallons of crude oil in the Gulf. Got it. Great. OK. Thanks.

[SpoonFed]

121. Citation required

I don't, as usual, see any factual information in your post, particularly with rewards to conclusive proof that no one has received dangerous doeses of exposure, but like almost everything you posit you're trying to prove a negative with no data, good luck with that, it's an ongoing source of amusement

[FBaggins]

123. Yes... and yours is lacking.

Awfully hard to prove a negative, but it should be easy to DISprove. All you have to do is cite a reported absorbed dose that's above that level.

[SpoonFed]

135. Please see recent reports that

The plant internal dose checkers were offline due to lack of power and then when they came back online they were ineffective due to high levels.
Please add +1 to your skyrocketting bagginsfail total.
So last time I checked, not taking measurements does not equal no measurements worth taking. Spin that. Ha.
I think we solved the mystery of TEPCO not having bad data to release about worker exposure.

[FBaggins]

140. You always seem to apply a great deal of imagination to what you read.

The plant internal dose checkers were offline due to lack of power and then when they came back online they were ineffective due to high levels.


Which doesn't change the fact that the personal dosimeters worked just fine. Unless one of the workers has pica and they just didn't know about it, this isn't an issue. Internal dose is necessarily lower than the external dose (usually substantially so) in this kind of environment so they already knew that there wasn't anyone in great danger of a significant internal dose when the higher EXTERNAL dose was so small (accounting for the situation). These two are the guys who exposed their feet to radioactive water. Since they were wearning breathing gear and the exposure was water on the surface of their feet... there wouldn't generally be a concern that they had an internal dose of great severity (and, of course, they didn't).

If you read the relevant article, you would have seen that the individuals with the highest reported dose saw their total dose increased by what... 15-20% or so? They had already been removed from working at the site anyway.

Please add +1 to your skyrocketting bagginsfail total

Nope. The number of errors you've documented so far remains at zero. The statement "we have yet to see anyone with a dose that can be associated with significant health risks. Heck... there are only a score or so with even the 100mSv level associated with the tiniest assignable health risk." remains 100% accurate. Roughly a score have topped the 100 mSv level and the highest reported dose remains in that 200-250 mSv range. If 100 plant workers received such a dose, a health physicist would expect a couple of them to get cancer from the event a few decades down the road.

So last time I checked, not taking measurements does not equal no measurements worth taking.Spin that. Ha.

No need to "spin"... just to educate you. Somehow you seem to have come away from that article assuming that measurements weren't being taken. That's simply wrong.

[meow mix]

57. half the fuel still exposed.. and your pulling this thread stunt?

the nukers get more disgusting by the day.. absolutely tasteless

[FBaggins]

59. "Exposed"?

To what? The inside of a steel container?

Not exactly the most dangerous situation.

"Exposed" (as in "out of the water") is a much bigger deal in the first day or two after a reactor shuts down. More than a month later it's not nearly as serious unless they cease to spay water on it.

[nonperson]

73. You know very well that the spent fuel rods are EXPOSED to the atmosphere

And there is massive radiation leaking into the sea from the compromised containment buildings that were destroyed by hydrogen gas explosions and now reportedly one explosion caused by uncontrolled fission.

The spent fuel rod cooling pools were not contained other than by the buildings that had their roofs blown off. That means the nuclear rods were exposed to AIR OUTSIDE THE REACTOR VESSEL. This is irrefutable fact. Photos of the destroyed containment buildings clearly showed the spent fuel rod pools empty and the fuel rods exposed.

[FBaggins]

79. Actually no... I don't know that.

There isn't any reason to believe that the spent fuel rods are in air. In case you didn't catch it... Gundersen was wrong about that too.

And there is massive radiation leaking into the sea from the compromised containment buildings that were destroyed by hydrogen gas explosions and now reportedly one explosion caused by uncontrolled fission.


Massive but declining.. and no, there was no "explosion caused by uncontrolled fission" and there have been no "reports" of same. There have been ravings from the UFO crowd that THEY think it happened... but they're as disconnected from reality as ever.

The spent fuel rod cooling pools were not contained other than by the buildings that had their roofs blown off

The buildings were not a "containment" of the fuel... they just kept the weather out. The only containment used (or needed) for the spent fuel is water... and they have plenty of that.

That means the nuclear rods were exposed to AIR OUTSIDE THE REACTOR VESSEL

Nope... it doesn't.

Photos of the destroyed containment buildings clearly showed the spent fuel rod pools empty and the fuel rods exposed.

You have an active imagination. We (including myself) speculated that some portion of the fuel rods were exposed at one point... and the damage estimated to them would seem to imply it... but there isn't any reason to believe that's true now. Nor is it the danger that an exposed core would be.

[nonperson]

75. Something I just saw on the DU home page:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-27/tokyo-water-ra...

Radiation Readings in Fukushima Reactor Rise to Highest Since Crisis Began

What part of exposed don't you understand?

[FBaggins]

80. Strangely missing from that report

is any claim that something is "exposed".

The title is awful. They didn't measure ANYTHING "rising". They measured activity levels where they hadn't gotten to previously (because radiation levels were too high) and found (gasp!) that the levels WERE high.

There was no prior reading for that spot to compare it to in order to claim "rising" or "falling".

[nonperson]

84. Here is something that's strangely PRESENT

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367524/Japanes...

Exposed: Nuclear fuel rods inside wrecked reactor as experts predict radioactive plume will reach Britain in two weeks

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/tens-of-thousands-dead-...

Fuel rods exposed at Fukushima nuclear plant


You must have missed those myriad reports on those exposed fuel rods.

Are you kidding me? Not exposed?

What will it take to change your mind? Will a planet with a checkerboard of uninhabitable areas convince you? We have at least two such areas now at Chernobyl and soon to be at Fukushima. Two and counting thanks to clean, efficient, safe nuclear power.

[FBaggins]

85. So you admit that you don't read what you reply to?

Try #59 again.

One of your links demostrates that "exposed" DID mean "to the inside of the reactor vessel".

The other link has long been disproved. Pool #4 did no, in fact, "boil dry".

Nor... frankly... would demonstrating that something was exposed a month ago do anything for your BS claim that half of the fuel was still exposed.

[nonperson]

95. You can believe whatever you like

I'll believe the photos and the news reports (few that there are) and the eminent scientists who all agree.

Roof of reactor blown off by hydrogen gas explosion (and probably one explosion due to runaway fission due to exposed fuel rods) from exposed zirconium coating on exposed fuel rods in exposed spent fuel rod pool.

BTW, reactor cores are damaged as well. Reactor vessels damaged too. High radiation levels detected in sea water because melted fuel is leaking into ground and sea as well as air.

It's all in the photos and the reports.

Open your eyes.

You nuclear nuts are really getting ridiculous now. You're starting to remind me of birthers.

[AtheistCrusader]

112. Keep counting.

Windscale Fire.
Chelyabinsk
etc.

You would think someone in your position would know these things.

[SpoonFed]

69. Come on, we're supposed to believe...

that it's just an innocent question. Not some lame attempted a pro-nukers at downplaying the health affects of this catastrophe.

[pscot]

61. This is just flame bait.

And stupid flame bait at that.

[txlibdem]

62. Fukushima is going to be a human tragedy, there is no doubt about it

What sickens me are the hundreds of posts made by the usual gang of anti-nuke posters just to push their own agenda. We should all be hoping for zero casualties but the anti-nuke crowd is practically salivating at the possibility of thousands more deaths -- so they can use that to further their belief system that nookz iz bad.

[SpoonFed]

70. way off base as per usual

the anti-nuke crowd is practically salivating at the possibility of thousands more deaths

I think you're confusing salivating with the complaints from the rational, common sense crowd about having to eat this piping hot shit sandwich the nuclear industry has cooked up for Japan and the rest of the world.

[txlibdem]

82. So rational -- hundreds of scare mongering posts while there are still thousands dead and missing

in Japan.

Oh, yeah. You anti-nukers are rational and loaded down with common sense. Or is that loaded down with an agenda and rationalizing your usual load of BS...

[flamingdem]

86. + 1000 shit sandwich with cesium seasoning

[nonperson]

74. As many as 1.4 million people died due to Chernobyl

Anti-nuke posters had nothing to do with that. Pro-nuke maniacs had everything to do with it.

Chernobyl - 1 reactor
Fukushima - 6 reactors

You do the math.

Claiming the "anti-nuke crowd" is "practically salivating at the possibility of thousands of more deaths" is absolutely despicable on your part. Especially when it's the pro-nuke crowd and the entire nuclear energy industry whose lies and greed created the conditions for these ongoing and uncontrollable catastrophes in the first place.

[wtmusic]

77. As few as 60 died due to Chernobyl.

This is fun.

[SpoonFed]

81. Pro-nukes continue to downplay Chornobyl...

WTMUSIC wrote:

This is fun.

Actually it's disgusting.

From WHO, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/...

Approximately 1000 on-site reactor staff and emergency workers were heavily exposed to high-level radiation on the first day of the accident; among the more than 200 000 emergency and recovery operation workers exposed during the period from 1986-1987, an estimated 2200 radiation-caused deaths can be expected during their lifetime.

I'm not sure what is worse, walking dead or surviving thyroid cancer:

About 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children and adolescents at the time of the accident, have resulted from the accident’s contamination and at least nine children died of thyroid cancer; however the survival rate among such cancer victims, judging from experience in Belarus, has been almost 99%

Your credibility in my eyes was already zero, it's too bad you can't have negative credibility.

[flamingdem]

87. Agree that some here are unable to absorb the facts

even when we're at INES 7 they push their nuke fantasies and attempt to bully their viewpoints that deserve zero credibility.

Instead of offering information they offer scorn. The MO is so similar, one time here I caught one of them posting under two different handles to me within a few minutes.. maybe there really aren't that many just seems that way

[nonperson]

97. If you're serious about your statement that "this is fun"

Then all I have to say is, you have a very sick idea of what fun is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-3Kf4JakWI

[wtmusic]

102. Aww.

What's fun is watching you lap up Greenpeace hysteria like it's gospel.

[nonperson]

104. Wow

I thought DU was "progressive" (aka liberal). I remember reading something along those lines when I joined DU a few days ago.

I never expected Greenpeace would be viewed as "hysterical" here. But I've been surprised by the amount of support for the nuclear industry here too. Liberals (aka progressives) used to be pro-Earth, anti-pollution (including nuclear radiation). Has that changed? Has the "left" embraced nuclear and abandoned Greenpeace?

Some people obviously value their jobs over life on Earth.

[wtmusic]

109. Greenpeace founder: I was wrong about nuclear power

"In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands.

Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change."

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2006/04/greenpea...

There are some who are open-minded enough to change their position when the real risks of nuclear vs. coal, vs. oil, vs. any other practical form of power generation become evident.

[kristopher]

115. Moore is a paid spokeman for the fission industry.

He has been selling his past association with Greenpeace for 30 years now. He doesn't do research or actually participate in any effort to make a transition happen, he just takes money to say any given industry is "green".

He is a "paid spokesman".

[txlibdem]

83. I share your concern about radiation, and deaths due to power plants

I just find it strange that you want to zealously fight to the death to end nuclear when coal power plants kill dozens to hundreds as many people.

Here is my post in response to your post #28:
"Excellent job of posting the truth about coal pollution, the uncontrolled radiation and toxic metals that coal plants spew out.

Coal filth is right. Long term cancer, 2,800 heart attack deaths each year, 1 million deaths worldwide each year.

You and I agree that coal needs to be stopped - ASAP."

Your opposition to nuclear is understandable --it is your religion, your agenda-- but truth will win out in the end: COAL KILLS by its normal operation, nuclear only kills when an extraordinary event happens. And even then coal kills far more people under any case.

The anti-nuke posts have stated that Chernobyl will kill 1.4 million people. That's terrible. Such a huge number of deaths is sickening to me. What is even more sickening is in that same time frame Coal will kill 25 million people at the very least.

Coal kills 25 million people
Nuclear kills 1.4 million people

Solution: Let's get rid of nuclear.

[flamingdem]

88. Your argument is from the past and all pro-nukers use it

so give it up. There are new solutions, spend your time pushing that and you might get credibility

[txlibdem]

89. You've got your wires crossed there flamer

You anti-nukers keep bringing up Chernobyl, which occurred in 1986. I am simply using your ridiculously high estimates of deaths from Chernobyl and comparing those horrendous figures with the number of people coal power plants kill each and every year AS PART OF THEIR NORMAL OPERATION.

See the difference: nuclear only kills from an extraordinary sequence of events, coal kills each and every day, day in and day out, by its very nature.

Go look up all the dozens (if not hundreds) of OPs since the tsunami in Japan and you will see a high percentage of them that mention Chernobyl. So who is it that is using arguments from the past???

"There are new solutions." New solutions for coal? Yes, it's called solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and wave power.

[nonperson]

105. Stop using coal

And the planet will recover. The atmosphere will clear itself of the by-products of burning coal.

Now tell me truthfully, if we were to decommission every nuke plant right now, today, how long will it take for the spent fuel to become safe? How long will it take for the areas around Chernobyl and Fukushima to be inhabitable?

What's the half life of coal?

What's the half life of nuclear?

[txlibdem]

106. Are you a global climate change denier?

"The planet will recover. The atmosphere will clear itself."
Not fast enough to avoid catastrophic changes that will cause droughts and violent weather where people are least prepared to survive it. You could learn a little bit more about climate change and its consequences. The death toll from coal's CO2 pollution alone will be thousands of times higher than even the most outlandish claims for Chernobyl + Fukushima.

"What's the half life of coal?"
You could try to read the posts of people you respond to. I highly recommend it. Coal contains Uranium. Coal contains Thorium, Coal contains Cesium. Coal also contains many toxic pollutants like Mercury, Arsenic, Boron, Cobalt, etc., that are deadly in high concentrations -- like coal puts out.

So, to answer your question, the "half life" of the poisons in coal is infinity and the Uranium, Thorium and other radioactive material in coal has exactly the same half life as those in a nuclear power plant. The only difference? Coal gets to dump all of these toxic and radioactive toxins in open pits and "ash" ponds, nuclear has to keep its relatively tiny amounts of dangerous substances under tight control with government oversight and regular inspections.

[nonperson]

107. We're past the point of no return on climate change

But humans shouldn't be so arrogant as to think Mother Earth won't recover once She has rid herself of us (or we have done it for her).

Your answer on the half life of coal is the best argument against nuclear I've seen recently.

[wtmusic]

111. Mother Earth would recover a lot faster

even if I was to accept the preposterous notion that nuclear power will kill us all.

The graph below shows that radiation at Chernobyl has declined to 1/100 of what it was after the accident 25 years later (blue line).



Most climatologists agree that once global tipping points of atmospheric CO2 concentration are reached, the Earth's climate won't recover for thousands of years.

Educate yourself. Please.

[nonperson]

108. BTW

Those "tiny amounts" of dangerous nuclear substances could wipe out humankind many times over.

[wtmusic]

110. I don't know what you've been reading or listening to

but your ignorance about nuclear physics and technology is obvious.

What you say is simply not true, and I don't hold much hope for enlightening you when you come out with ridiculous statements like that. An aware 8th-grader knows better.

[nonperson]

113. I'm so ignorant of nuclear physics and technology

That unlike you I refuse to believe using a method of boiling water that produces radiation and radioactive waste products that are so dangerous they have to be stored literally forever in cooling pools or buried under mountains to prevent them wiping out life as we know it.

And please don't give me that pro-nuke bullshit about uranium being present already in the environment. You may consider me ignorant but both of us know we are talking about highly enriched uranium in nuke facilities and highly radioactive spent fuel rods that will NEVER be safe.

[wtmusic]

114. Why hasn't Chernobyl wiped out life as we know it?

You should be experiencing some cognitive dissonance about now.

[nonperson]

116. Have you heard of the exclusion zone?

Create too many exclusion zones and what do you have?

[wtmusic]

118. Funny you mention, I live in one.

I and about 2.5 million other people live in California's San Fernando Valley. At the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, about 20 miles windward from my house, the worst nuclear accident in US history took place in 1959 (partial core meltdown). It's estimated that it released 500x as much radiation as Three Mile Island - but most people in the valley have never even heard of it, and are living normal, healthy lives.

At the time there were probably similar levels as in the vicinity of Fukushima, and if that meltdown had happened in 2011 there would mass hysteria and everyone would have been evacuated.

Just goes to show, a lot of it is in your noggin.

[PamW]

126. The Santa Susana accident is familiar to scientists in the field...

At the time there were probably similar levels as in the vicinity of Fukushima, and if that meltdown had happened in 2011 there would mass hysteria and everyone would have been evacuated.
===========================================

Yes - people didn't over-react like they do now. The scare stories in the media have
conditioned people to over-react. There is also a manifest degree of ignorance about
radioactivity and radiation. People now don't know that radioactivity is a part of the
natural world.

The Japanese people rebuilt Hiroshima and Nagasaki after those cities were hit by two
nuclear weapons. They didn't carve out an "exclusion zone".

The following paper by Dr. Yanch of MIT puts it in perspective:

http://web.mit.edu/nse/pdfs/Yanch_radiation.pdf

PamW

[PamW]

125. Yes - and they only exclude people..

Have you heard of the exclusion zone
====================================

Yes - but only people are excluded from the exclusion zone and not animals.

The animals that live in the Chernobyl exclusion zone are doing quite well.

http://bigcatrescue.blogspot.com/2009/03/lynx-other-wil...

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/hazmat/articles/...

Within three years of the accident, the trees had regained their reproductive functions. The forests have begun to thrive. Areas within the heart of the exclusion zone have the largest density of animals as well as the greatest diversity.


PamW

[SpoonFed]

134. Selective cherry picking statistics

Nice historical revisionism. How well are the animals that were put down by the liquidator units at and soon after the disaster?
You and the animals there now are still full of it, for two different values of it.

[Karenina]

171. Welcome to DU, nonperson!

Has anyone told you about a function on this site called "Ignore?"

Anyway, I thought this 11 min. bit would interest you.

http://www.linktv.org/video/6528/chernobyl-the-real-sto...

It reiterated what I heard from 2 women speakers I met at an exhibition, one of whom had been evacuated from a village in Belarus, the other from Ukraine. Both of their husbands had died from exposure and all of their children are ill. I also got to speak to an oncologist who has been working there over a decade. He is the one from whom I first heard the figure 20% applied to the number of healthy children in Belarus.

Again, WELCOME!

Tante K.

[SpoonFed]

181. Thanks for posting...

That's a really great link. The parts with the interview with Yablokov really resonants with me. You can see the emotional burden he carries just trying to make a reasonable argument about the health effects from Chornobyl, in his face. He sure looks like an "anti-nuke zealot" making a fallacious argument against nuclear power!

The book is available on books.google.com and I read in an Amazon review of the book that its authors have allowed for free distribution, and I've located a PDF copy here: http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book... (Edit: woops, there is a wikipedia page and a link to the book at the bottom, also).

[PamW]

124. You prove it in your own words....

I'm so ignorant of nuclear physics and technology

That unlike you I refuse to believe using a method of boiling water that produces radiation and radioactive waste products that are so dangerous they have to be stored literally forever in cooling pools or buried under mountains to prevent them wiping out life as we know it.
================================================================

You prove you don't understand the science with your own words above.

It doesn't have to be that way. The USA was forced into a "once-through" fuel cycle
by the actions of Congress acting on the behest of the anti-nukes.

We don't have to have nuclear waste that lasts for thousands of years if the USA were
permitted to reprocess and recycle spent nuclear fuel as was originally planned by the
scientists and engineers.

Read this interview with nuclear physicist Dr. Charles Till of Argonne National Lab
courtesy of PBS's Frontline:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/...

Q: And you repeat the process.

A: Eventually, what happens is that you wind up with only fission products, that the waste is only fission products that have, most have lives of hours, days, months, some a few tens of years. There are a few very long-lived ones that are not very radioactive.


The USA could also be converting spent fuel to short-lived wastes as described by Dr. Till
above. This is what other nations like France are doing.

PamW

[kristopher]

128. No, that is what a POLLUTING INDUSTRY claims France is doing with their waste

This is what it looks like in reality:

Research Report No. 4 International Panel on Fissile Materials
Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing in France
Mycle Schneider and Yves Marignac www.fissilematerials.org April 2008

Summary
France initiated a spent nuclear fuel reprocessing program to provide plutonium for its nuclear weapons program in Marcoule in 1958. Later, the vision of the rapid introduction of plutonium- fuelled fast-neutron breeder reactors drove the large-scale separation of plutonium for civilian purposes, starting with the opening of the La Hague plant in 1966, financed under the military and civilian budgets of the Atomic Energy Commission (Commissariat à l’Énergie Atomique, CEA). This effort initially was supported broadly by neighboring European countries who contributed to the French fast breeder project and, along with Japan, signed up for French reprocessing services in the 1970s.
Military plutonium separation by France produced an estimated total of about 6 tons of weapon grade plutonium and ceased in 1993. But civilian reprocessing continues. Virtually all other European countries, apart from the United Kingdom, have abandoned reprocessing and the U.K. plans to end its reprocessing within the next decade. France’s last foreign reprocessing customer for commercial fuel is the Netherlands, which has only a single small 34-year-old power-reactor, and Italy, which ceased generating nuclear electricity after the 1986 Chernobyl reactor accident in the Ukraine.
This report looks at the reprocessing experience at France’s Marcoule and La Hague sites. Since commercial reprocessing ended at the Marcoule site in 1997 and its operational history of reprocessing gas-graphite reactor fuel is not very relevant to today’s commercial light water reactor (LWR) reprocessing, the report focuses primarily on the La Hague site.
Since its inception, France’s reprocessing industry has benefited from strong financial, technical and political support. The French experience therefore constitutes a case of reprocessing under optimal conditions. Since reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel does not “close the nuclear fuel cycle”, as is often claimed, but involves at each stage the production of significant waste streams, we treat it as an open “fuel chain” and assess the record of French reprocessing in terms of waste management, radioactive discharges, radiological and health impacts as well as cost.

PDF link: http://www.fissilematerials.org/ipfm/site_down/rr04.pdf

Also see: IPFM Research Report #5: The Legacy of Reprocessing in the United Kingdom, by Martin Forwood
http://www.fissilematerials.org/ipfm/site_down/rr05.pdf

Link to library of pubs by International Panel on Fissile Materials
http://www.fissilematerials.org/ipfm/pages_us_en/docume...

[PamW]

132. Whatever....

Why not address what Dr. Till stated.

Perhaps France is diverting some of the plutonium for nuclear weapons.
That doesn't means that HAS to be done.

The USA shutdown its plutonium production reactors at Hanford and Savannah River
decades ago. The USA just flat out doesn't need any more plutonium for its
weapons program. The scientists at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore found that
they can meet the USA's nuclear weapons needs with the plutonium the USA already
has stockpiled.

Therefore, there is no need for the USA to divert plutonium to the weapons program,
and 100% of the plutonium in used reactor fuel can be recycled back to fuel reactors.

Evidently you believe that just because something can be done, that it must
be done.

PamW

[kristopher]

137. You cited France. Nothing to do with weapons, French recyling is a hidden ecological nightmare.

That was the third chance I gave you today for honest discussion. 3 for 3 you chose to be dishonest.

[PamW]

138. FORGET IT! I don't want any chances to discuss anything with you!

Nothing to do with weapons, French recyling is a hidden ecological nightmare.
That was the third chance I gave you today for honest discussion. 3 for 3 you chose to be dishonest.
======================

FORGET IT!! I don't want any "chances" for a discussion with the likes of you.

You are so steeped in anti-nuclear BS - and you don't know the science.

So why oh WHY??? do you think I want to have a discussion with you.

You are all about distortion of facts for your own parochial motives.

PamW

[kristopher]

145. You made yet another false claim

The IPFM is a well respected group. And they show that your claims are typical nuclear industry propaganda. So now, you are having a temper tantrum.

[PamW]

149. I'm not having a tantrum. I just don't want to discuss BS with you.

So now, you are having a temper tantrum.
=========================================

I'm not having a tantrum. I just think it is pointless to discuss
anything with someone who practices "situational accuracy".

That is if you agree with what someone or some group says, they are correct.
If you disagree with what someone or some group says, they are wrong.

That tosses truth out the window, and doesn't leave any room for discussion,
so why discuss it?

PamW

[kristopher]

153. If you don't want to discuss BS then stop spouting it.

[PamW]

155. YOU are the one spouting the BS

If you don't want to discuss BS then stop spouting it.
========================

YOU are the one spouting the BS.

This is my field. NOT yours.

You just have that hang-up with "situational accuracy".

PamW

[kristopher]

157. The International Panel on Fissile Materials shows you are making false claims

That is the field of specialization you have demonstrated you are most intent on pursuing.

[PamW]

160. This is why it is hard to discuss - no specifics - just generalities.

The International Panel on Fissile Materials shows you are making false claims
=========================

Kris for once in your damned life could you dispense with the generalized indictment
and make a specific claim?

What have I said that the IPFM disagrees with?

This is why I can't discuss thing with you.

You just make broad sweeping generalizations, with no content; so one can't
refute it.

Most of the time it all comes down to the fact that you don't understand
what I'm saying or you have some other misconception.


PamW

[kristopher]

163. You made a specific set of claims that were false.

If you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't make those types of vacuous assertions.

[PamW]

166. But you can't NAME one!!!

You made a specific set of claims that were false.
=====================================

Kris, you incapable of citing specifics? Is there an area of your
brain that says "NO, I can't do that" whenever you are asked to cite
something specific?

It's nothing but childish to make broad generalizations without
any specifics.

I think the readers here are smart enough to know why you won't / can't
cite specifics - you don't want to "own" them.

You are AFRAID, just like the schoolyard bully that talks big
but won't fight because he knows he'll get the snot knocked out of him.

PamW

[SpoonFed]

174. Bah

This is my field

Another appeal to authority. Bleck. This is not an argument.
Fail.

[txlibdem]

175. But "Bah" is a valid argument?

Another junk post from the "fact-averse" anti-nuke crowd. Bring some facts and maybe you'll be able to contribute to the discussion some day.

[SpoonFed]

176. Man you just don't know when to quit...

Bah is just an honest reaction to PamW employing her favourite logical fallacy of appealing to authority. But I think that's probably over your head, in water on the SS floating cities project, yourself. It was pointed out quite succinctly by a number of us.

Consider it similar to an Hah, to your ongoing counter-factual view of reality. It's been document and doesn't need further discussion. Get it?

*This message still does not constitute an endorsement of coal.

[FBaggins]

177. Lol!

Bah is just an honest reaction to PamW employing her favourite logical fallacy of appealing to authority.

Says the guy who wants to pretend that Busby (etc) are credible? Buddy... you're entire existence here on E/E is one massive "appeal to authority" falacy. The only difference is that you aren't even appealing to people who ARE authorities on the subject.

I suppose "Appeal to lunatic frunge" doesn't have quite the same ring... but it's closer.

*This message still does not constitute an endorsement of coal.

Hey... I like that! Two points for SF.

[txlibdem]

178. You jumped in to a discussion but your posts have zero content

If Pam asking another poster to back up their false claim that she is posting false information. Pam asked what in her posts is false but got nothing but crickets in response.

Then you chime in and throw out "appeal to authority" charges while also failing to show why her posts are not 100% truth.

Win or lose based on the facts and be Man/Woman enough to know when to admit defeat. I look forward to that day.

[SpoonFed]

179. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to understanding...

what is considered appropriate citation of sources at an academic level, (despite this being DU E/E, I'm going to pretend that FBags and PamW and many of the others are worthy of such an elevation for the sake of argument).

"Me" is not credible and it is what I'll call the FBaggins method of citation. PamW said the equivalent in the slightly more cloaked form that you'd expect from a posturing pseudo-intellectual technical automaton; "This is my field". It's still BS.

Do a quick Goog search and try to find a simple explanation for some of the more common logical fallacies so I don't have to explain them to you like a child. It's not nearly as satisfying as you might think.

[txlibdem]

180. Yet another post with zero data, zero factual basis

You're just name calling with these recent posts. Can't you use that lump of goo on top of your shoulders? I've read some very intelligent and well thought-out posts from you. Why is it that this topic has you so brain drained that you cannot show a single quote, a single fact that proves what you say is correct.

Just piling insult on top of insult does not increase the validity of your original claim -- which you have yet to back up. Please tell us all here on DU exactly what did Baggins and PamW write that was incorrect.

Attack the data, not the person. That is science 101. Your posts are nothing but junior high school debate class 101. Please join the grown ups and contribute some of that magnificent mind you've got rattling around between your ears. And please stop the personal attacks.

[PamW]

150. OK - I'll address the specifics.

Virtually all other European countries, apart from the United Kingdom, have abandoned reprocessing and the U.K. plans to end its reprocessing within the next decade. France’s last foreign reprocessing customer for commercial fuel is the Netherlands, which has only a single small 34-year-old power-reactor, and Italy, which ceased generating nuclear electricity after the 1986 Chernobyl reactor accident in the Ukraine.
===================================================

The first sentence seems to imply that reprocessing was quite popular in Europe. Truth is, the
only countries that made the investment in reprocessing plants were Great Britain and
France. So with the UK discontinuing reprocessing, that means one of the two stopped.

France did have another big reprocessing customer - Japan.

However, Japan no longer uses France's reprocessing facilities.

It's not that Japan has stopped reprocessing. They like reprocessing so much
that they built their OWN reprocessing plant. They originally built
a small plant at Tokai, but their current full-scale plant is located at
Rokkasho:

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

Even though France lost foreign customers because those customers found it was
more profitable to reprocess spent nuclear fuel for themselves rather than to
pay France to do it; that doesn't mean that reprocessing is all for naught.

Reprocessing not only serves to produce more fuel, it is also a spent fuel disposal
technique. Since all the long-lived actinides are recycled, reprocessing leaves one
with a waste stream consisting of only short-lived fission products.

Remember when I told you to read the interview PBS's Frontline did with nuclear physicist
Dr. Charles Till of Argonne National Laboratory:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/...

Q: And you repeat the process.

A: Eventually, what happens is that you wind up with only fission products,
that the waste is only fission products that have, most have lives of hours,
days, months, some a few tens of years. There are a few very long-lived ones
that are not very radioactive


So much for the "multi-thousand year half-life" problem the anti-nukes like to
blather about. Gone!

PamW

[kristopher]

152. You are again resorting to a hypothetical that is contradicted by reality.

The IPFM paper is extremely clear and I urge others to read it and compare it with the claims you make.

[PamW]

164. FORGET France and FORGET the IPFM - deal with the issue.

You are again resorting to a hypothetical that is contradicted by reality.
==============================

What France is or is not doing and what the IPFM says or doesn't say about it
is immaterial to the real issue at hand.

We have the statement from PBS's Frontline as to how a closed nuclear fuel cycle
like that described by Dr. Till can be used to eliminate the long-term nuclear waste
problem:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/...

Q: And you repeat the process.

A: Eventually, what happens is that you wind up with only fission products,
that the waste is only fission products that have, most have lives
of hours, days, months, some a few tens of years. There are a few very
long-lived ones that are not very radioactive.


Dr. Till describes a process in which the long-lived waste is recycled back to
the reactor to be burned down to fission products. The only materials that are
in the waste stream are short-lived fission products.

This process is NOT hypothetical, or theoretical. Argonne actually operated
a prototype Integral Fast Reactor ( described in the interview ) by converting the
old EBR-II prototype.

Argonne also demonstrated the "pyro-reprocessing" technique that it had developed by
using the facilities of the Hot Fuel Examination Facility-North and Hot Fuel Examination
Facility-South at Argonne-West campus on the grounds of the Idaho National Laboratory.

The description and results of these operation are well documented in the scientific
literature, and nobody, not even the IPFM can claim that they don't work; they do!!!

So get out from beneath the skirts of the IPFM and discuss it.

Argonne DEMONSTRATED a closed nuclear fuel cycle that only produces short-lived waste.

PamW

[kristopher]

167. In the real world of multipolar power structures and profit motives it is a pipe dream.

All you have is a rationalization; a typical pie-in-the-sky "if we'd only do this nuclear would save us" claim.

We really don't have time for that bullshit. You act as if the magical god Uranus were able to grant you control over the global energy infrastructure and force everyone to behave in a way that permits your lovechild to be "The Chosen".

It doesn't work that way. Proliferation, competition among different fuel cycles, cost competition among all energy technologies (including several within nuclear) and cussed human nature all PROVE that your claims are a naught but a fantasy. The results are chronicled in the IPFM paper about the reality of the practice in France.

See also http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... for a similar example of the same type of profit motivated self-serving special-interest-fission-is-great-science.

[PamW]

168. I knew it.. I knew it...I knew it... I KNEW IT!!!

Kris,

I positively KNEW you were going to wimp out and digress to
some non-sequitur.

I said in my previous post to forget France and just deal with the technical
issue raised by Dr. Till.

Argonne actually operated an "inherently safe" Integral Fast Reactor and actually
demonstrated the "pyro-processing" method of nuclear fuel recycling for the IFR.

I asked you to address the technical issue that Dr. Till raises which is that
we don't have to have a long-term nuclear waste disposal problem. We have the
technology to convert all our nuclear waste to short-lived fission products.

I asked you to address that - but NOOOOO - you have to respond with what
is essentially "politics".

See why I can't have a discussion with you. You are incapable of staying
ON TOPIC.

It's that "situational accuracy syndrome" again. You can't venture into the
world of science and technical discussions, because in science, we have RIGHT
and WRONG!!! Mother Nature tells us who is right.

You can't operate in that world. You can only operate in the FUZZY world
of politics where you can slither away with your "situational accuracy syndrome".

I knew it. I knew it. I knew it.

Thanks for playing and proving me right for the umpteenth and final time.

COWARD!!

PamW

[kristopher]

169. You knew that your claim was false when you made it, you mean.

You cited France as Till's theory being employed in the real world. The IPFM paper PROVES your claim about Till's theory is false.

YOU said France was "doing it". When in fact the political and profit motive had, in FRANCE, made a mockery of what Till proposed as technically possible. When you said France was doing what Till proposed were you deliberately trying to deceive or were you ignorant of what you claim to be an expert in. Either way, calling me names isn't going to shift the focus from your latest obvious lapse.

[SpoonFed]

122. What you seem to fail to grasp is that

Kookienukie and coal are two battles of he same war except you are fighting on two opposite sides, pro nuke anti coal, which seems untenable position to most of us, despite how much scorn and ridicule you pile on anti nukes for your delusion they are pro coal

[nonperson]

117. The pro-nuke industry is beginning to remind me of the tobacco industry

"You can't prove our product caused your cancer."

[DeSwiss]

159. Cover. Up. - n/t