'Historically safest energy': UK need...

'Historically safest energy': UK needs nuclear plants to reduce...

There are 88 comments on the Russia Taday story from Oct 21, 2013, titled 'Historically safest energy': UK needs nuclear plants to reduce.... In it, Russia Taday reports that:

RT: It seems the UK is rather bucking the trend compared to the rest of the world, particularly Germany, when it comes to nuclear power.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Russia Taday.

SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#21 Oct 25, 2013
The map above comes from the Nuclear Emergency Tracking Center. It shows that radiation levels at radiation monitoring stations all over the country are elevated. As you will notice, this is particularly true along the west coast of the United States. Every single day, 300 tons of radioactive water from Fukushima enters the Pacific Ocean. That means that the total amouont of radioactive material released from Fukushima is constantly increasing, and it is steadily building up in our food chain. Ultimately, all of this nuclear radiation will outlive all of us by a very wide margin. They are saying that it could take up to 40 years to clean up the Fukushima disaster, and meanwhile countless innocent people will develop cancer and other health problems as a result of exposure to high levels of nuclear radiation. We are talking about a nuclear disaster that is absolutely unprecedented, and it is constantly getting worse. The following are 28 signs that the west coast of North America is being absolutely fried with nuclear radiation from Fukushima…

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/28-signs-tha...

P.S. My post #20 had the same source.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#22 Oct 25, 2013
BDV

Atlanta, GA

#23 Oct 25, 2013
Well at Lac Megantic it wasn't "countless innocent people" that will theoretically die.
.
It was forty seven people that actually were killed in a huge blaze of fire. It took one error, not the seventh largest earthquake in recorded history to bring it about.
.
How is that "superior" or "preferable" to what transpired at Fukushima Dai Ichi beffudles me.
BDV

Decatur, GA

#24 Oct 25, 2013
1.
nothing to do with the nuclear accident at Fukushima.

2.
nothing to do with the nuclear accident at Fukushima.

3.
nothing to do with the nuclear accident at Fukushima.

4.
nothing to do with the nuclear accident at Fukushima.

5.
The radioactivity of that water is lower than that of an average mountain stream. Not a healthcare concern.

6.
Still well below anything remortely dangerous, by a factor of 100, if not 1000.

7.
Still well below anything remortely dangerous, by a factor of 100, if not 1000.

8.
Still well below anything remortely dangerous, by a factor of 100, if not 1000. One can wishes such stringent safety measures would be applied to oil/soot contamination.

9.
Still well below anything remortely dangerous, by a factor of 100, if not 1000. One can wish such stringent safety measures would be applied to oil/soot contamination.

10.
Still well below anything remortely dangerous, by a factor of 100, if not 1000. One can wish such stringent safety measures would be applied to oil/soot contamination.

11.
These "experts" are wrong.

12.
The efforts of London based propaganda outlets (BBC and Reuters) in protecting the financial interests of British Petroleum and AngloShell Oil are laudable.

13.
Informative

14.
Basic atmospheric physics.

15.
Still well below anything remortely dangerous, by a factor of 1,000,000, if not 1,000,000,000. One can wish such stringent safety measures would be applied to oil/soot contamination.

16.
One could only wish it was so. I'm afraid that's incorrect.

17.
Informative

18.
One could only wish it was so. I'm afraid that's incorrect.

19.
Well, obviously.

20.
Still well below anything remortely dangerous, by a factor of 100, if not 1000. One can wish such stringent safety measures would be applied to oil/soot contamination.

21.
Still well below anything remortely dangerous, by a factor of 1000, if not 10,000. One can wish such stringent safety measures would be applied to oil/soot contamination.

22.
Still well below anything remortely dangerous, by a factor of 10,000, if not 100,000. One can wish such stringent safety measures would be applied to oil/soot contamination.

23.
Details?

24.
No.(unfortunately if you subscribe to the hormesis hypothesis)

25.
Nothing to do with Fukushima.

26.
No.(unfortunately if you subscribe to the hormesis hypothesis)

27.
Well, obviously. A strong reason not to engage in shady dealings and substandard construction in the future.

28.
No.(unfortunately if you subscribe to the hormesis hypothesis)
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#25 Oct 25, 2013
Japanese earthquake rocks coast with 7.3 magnitude tremor: Tsunami warning issued

An earthquake of magnitude 7.3 struck Saturday morning off Japan's east coast, the U.S. Geological Survey said.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#26 Oct 25, 2013
BDV wrote:
1.
nothing to do with the nuclear accident at Fukushima.
2.
nothing to do with the nuclear accident at Fukushima.
3.
nothing to do with the nuclear accident at Fukushima.
4.
nothing to do with the nuclear accident at Fukushima.
5.
The radioactivity of that water is lower than that of an average mountain stream. Not a healthcare concern.
6.
Still well below anything remortely dangerous, by a factor of 100, if not 1000.
7.
Still well below anything remortely dangerous, by a factor of 100, if not 1000.
8.
Still well below anything remortely dangerous, by a factor of 100, if not 1000. One can wishes such stringent safety measures would be applied to oil/soot contamination.
9.
Still well below anything remortely dangerous, by a factor of 100, if not 1000. One can wish such stringent safety measures would be applied to oil/soot contamination.
10.
Still well below anything remortely dangerous, by a factor of 100, if not 1000. One can wish such stringent safety measures would be applied to oil/soot contamination.
11.
These "experts" are wrong.
12.
The efforts of London based propaganda outlets (BBC and Reuters) in protecting the financial interests of British Petroleum and AngloShell Oil are laudable.
13.
Informative
14.
Basic atmospheric physics.
15.
Still well below anything remortely dangerous, by a factor of 1,000,000, if not 1,000,000,000. One can wish such stringent safety measures would be applied to oil/soot contamination.
16.
One could only wish it was so. I'm afraid that's incorrect.
17.
Informative
18.
One could only wish it was so. I'm afraid that's incorrect.
19.
Well, obviously.
20.
Still well below anything remortely dangerous, by a factor of 100, if not 1000. One can wish such stringent safety measures would be applied to oil/soot contamination.
21.
Still well below anything remortely dangerous, by a factor of 1000, if not 10,000. One can wish such stringent safety measures would be applied to oil/soot contamination.
22.
Still well below anything remortely dangerous, by a factor of 10,000, if not 100,000. One can wish such stringent safety measures would be applied to oil/soot contamination.
23.
Details?
24.
No.(unfortunately if you subscribe to the hormesis hypothesis)
25.
Nothing to do with Fukushima.
26.
No.(unfortunately if you subscribe to the hormesis hypothesis)
27.
Well, obviously. A strong reason not to engage in shady dealings and substandard construction in the future.
28.
No.(unfortunately if you subscribe to the hormesis hypothesis)
blah blah you are wrong.

<You incorrectly take yourself too seriously.>
BDV

Decatur, GA

#27 Oct 25, 2013
In other words:
Shut up and pay at the pump!-sez guy from Oilcity USA.
.
Can't make this stuff up
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#28 Oct 26, 2013
Nuclear fission (or fusion) energy remain as promises-undelivered..

So will nuclear fission energy survive? People are equally finding it useful to reduce carbon emissions but also frighten the living daylights out of them. It seems to always reduce down to price, so the sooner renewable energies develop the best possible technologies, the sooner we can forget fossil fuels and fossilise the power stations that have on several occasions threatened to fossilise us.- See more at: http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/nuclear-dese...
Read more at http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/nuclear-dese...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#29 Oct 26, 2013
Nuclear fission (or fusion) energy remains as promise-undelivered..
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#30 Oct 26, 2013
BDV wrote:
Well at Lac Megantic it wasn't "countless innocent people" that will theoretically die.
.
It was forty seven people that actually were killed in a huge blaze of fire. It took one error, not the seventh largest earthquake in recorded history to bring it about.
.
How is that "superior" or "preferable" to what transpired at Fukushima Dai Ichi beffudles me.
That was over but:

Fukushima workers evacuated as small tsunami hits Japan

TOKYO: Workers at the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant were evacuated when a small tsunami hit Japan after a powerful undersea quake Saturday, highlighting the continued threat to the area devastated by the 2011 quake-tsunami.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#31 Oct 26, 2013
Japan's meteorological agency issued a 3-foot tsunami advisory for a long stretch of Japan's northeastern coast. It put the quake's magnitude at 7.1, while the U.S. Geological Survey recorded a magnitude of 7.3. The U.S. Pacific Tsunami Warning Center did not post warnings for the rest of the Pacific.

The meteorological agency reported tsunamis of 40 centimeters in Kuji city in Iwate prefecture and Soma city in Fukushima, as well as a 20-centimeter tsunami at Ofunato city in Iwate and a 30-centimeter tsunami at Ishinomaki in Miyagi prefecture.

All of Japan's 50 nuclear reactors remain offline as the government decides whether they meet more stringent requirement enacted after the 2011 quake, which triggered multiple meltdowns and massive radiation leaks at the Fukushima plant about 160 miles northeast of Tokyo.

A string of mishaps this year at the Fukushima plant has raised international concerns about the operator's ability to tackle the continuing crisis.

Nuclear Regulation Authority Chairman Shinichi Tanaka has scheduled a Monday meeting with Tokyo Electric's president to seek solutions to what he says appear to be fundamental problems.
BDV

Decatur, GA

#32 Oct 27, 2013
When did the last tsunami hit Wales coast?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33 Oct 27, 2013
In listing civilian nuclear accidents, the following criteria have been followed:
1.There must be well-attested and substantial health damage, property damage or contamination.
2.The damage must be related directly to radioactive material, not merely (for example) at a nuclear power plant.
3.To qualify as "civilian", the nuclear operation/material must be principally for non-military purposes.
4.The event should involve fissile material or a reactor.

<Search in the wikipedia and the web>
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#34 Oct 27, 2013
A nuclear and radiation accident is defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency as "an event that has led to significant consequences to people, the environment or the facility." Examples include lethal effects to individuals, large radioactivity release to the environment, or reactor core melt."[3] The prime example of a "major nuclear accident" is one in which a reactor core is damaged and significant amounts of radioactivity are released, such as in the Chernobyl Disaster in 1986.

The impact of nuclear accidents has been a topic of debate practically since the first nuclear reactors were constructed. It has also been a key factor in public concern about nuclear facilities.[4] Some technical measures to reduce the risk of accidents or to minimize the amount of radioactivity released to the environment have been adopted. Despite the use of such measures, "there have been many accidents with varying impacts as well near misses and incidents".[4][5]

Benjamin K. Sovacool has reported that worldwide there have been 99 accidents at nuclear power plants.[6] Fifty-seven accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster, and 57%(56 out of 99) of all nuclear-related accidents have occurred in the USA.[6] Serious nuclear power plant accidents include the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (2011), Chernobyl disaster (1986), Three Mile Island accident (1979), and the SL-1 accident (1961).[7] Nuclear advocate Stuart Arm maintains that, "apart from Chernobyl, no nuclear workers or members of the public have ever died as a result of exposure to radiation due to a commercial nuclear reactor incident."[8]

Nuclear-powered submarine mishaps include the K-19 reactor accident (1961),[9] the K-27 reactor accident (1968),[10] and the K-431 reactor accident (1985).[7] Serious radiation accidents include the Kyshtym disaster, Windscale fire, radiotherapy accident in Costa Rica,[11] radiotherapy accident in Zaragoza,[12] radiation accident in Morocco,[13] Goiania accident,[14] radiation accident in Mexico City, radiotherapy unit accident in Thailand,[15] and the Mayapuri radiological accident in India.[15]

The International Atomic Energy Agency maintains a website reporting recent accidents.[16][wikipedia]
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#35 Oct 27, 2013
Until 2010, the Conservatives said new nuclear should only be built as a "last resort". That changed when David Cameron said the party would fast-track it for climate and energy security reasons. The Lib Dems switched to a pro-nuclear stance last month when energy secretary, Ed Davey, said climate change was "too important to ignore" and that the party would look "reckless" if they ruled out nuclear. Others suggested the Lib Dems switched when it became certain that Cameron would do a deal with the French and Chinese.[the guardian]
BDV

Douglasville, GA

#36 Oct 27, 2013
Yet the toll of all nuclear power accidents of all time and of the whole world is less than that of the last two large oil-related accidents in North America alone.
The British opinion stands out as correct.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#37 Oct 27, 2013
BDV wrote:
Yet the toll of all nuclear power accidents of all time and of the whole world is less than that of the last two large oil-related accidents in North America alone.
The British opinion stands out as correct.
blah blah you are such a lite force for nukey.

And your judgeits are losers.
BDV

Decatur, GA

#38 Oct 27, 2013
Finally. If the pro-oil shill ain't insulting me, I'm doing it wrong.
Still, the Brits are right safEST. Not safe to some petrol-agitateur's pseudo- standards, which non-"nukular" energy sources fail anyway.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39 Oct 27, 2013
BDV wrote:
Finally. If the pro-oil shill ain't insulting me, I'm doing it wrong.
Still, the Brits are right safEST. Not safe to some petrol-agitateur's pseudo- standards, which non-"nukular" energy sources fail anyway.
Insults are your trade.

You can't hold a science discussion but would attack like a loser.
BDV

Decatur, GA

#40 Oct 27, 2013
SafEST. Not "infinitely safe". The Brits are right.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Nuclear Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plan for high-level radioactive waste in Texas ... Jun 25 BDV 2
News Nuclear-power plant planned for Piketon (Jun '09) Jun 23 Memories 2
News Could Great Lakes tsunami hit Ontario nuclear p... (Mar '11) Jun 22 Tsunami 9
News Take a magnificent look at the sun through a te... Jun 19 ApePeeD 1
News Feds to hold meetings on nuclear dump certifica... Jun 17 JWhitmore 1
News Hope For A Nuclear-free Taiwan Jun 15 TW_sugar_daddio 1
News Proposal for waste storage site advances Jun 11 Local CaveMan 1
More from around the web