You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #100: Of course it can't be nuclear weapons because that wouldn't support your agenda. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-04-09 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #91
100. Of course it can't be nuclear weapons because that wouldn't support your agenda.
Edited on Fri Dec-04-09 09:47 AM by Statistical
Sr-90 is man made so there are essentially only two major sources
a) nuclear weapons tests
b) nuclear power generation

So lets look at this logically.

Nuclear weapon produces a massive amount of Sr-90 and we detonated them in the atmosphere. No containment what so ever. Thousands upon thousands of bombs each producing massive amounts of Sr-90 and it all went directly into the environment.

On the other hand nuclear reactor produces much less Sr-90 and it is contained. Even in a leak the release is a tiny amount of total production.

Nuclear weapons: massive amount of Sr-90 + thousands of tests + 0% containment
Nuclear power: moderate amount of Sr-90 (about 5% of spent fuel) + hundreds of reactors (magnitude less than weapons) + 99.9999% containment

So if you didn't have an agenda you would realize it makes perfect logical sense that the overwhelming amount of Sr-90 comes from weapons testing.

Another damning pieces of evidence is Sr-90 has half life of 28.8 years. So given the amount of Sr-90 in 1962 (peak contamination) we should see a predictable drop due to half life decay. Guess what? We have. If nuclear power was a significant source of radiation the rise in nuclear power in 1970s & 1980s would have shown an increase in the chart.

Sr-90 levels in atmosphere today are roughly 37% compared to 1962 (level are lower in milk because overtime Sr-90 becomes deeply buried and less likely to enter foodchain). Despite building hundreds MORE nuclear reactors Sr-90 levels have fallen by 2/3rd. What could cause that? I know maybe just maybe it had to do with the almost complete stop (occasional bomb from China, India, Iran aside) in nuclear weapons testing.

If nuclear reactors were a significant source of Sr-90 we would expect to see Sr-90 levels RISE not fall over the last 3 decades.
In about 100 years (assuming no nuclear war). Sr-90 levels will be about 10% of what they are today, or about 3% from peak in 1962.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC