Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 83

Thread: Phoronix 2011 Chernobyl Nuclear Tour

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    416

    Default

    Wow, whats up with all the nuclear hate?
    Uranium based nuclear power is safe. On average, an nuclear plants emits less radiation than a coal plant.

    Secondly, why does nobody know about using thorium as a nuclear fuel? Seriously, look it up. It solves every problem uranium has. Thorium reactors can't melt down; it's impossible. You can make more energy with less thorium, you can't make weapons out of it, creates less waste, and on and on.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium...a_nuclear_fuel

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    416

    Default

    Everyone's perceptions of nuclear energy seems to be tainted by all the 40 year old reactors we have. Modern reactors are millions of times better. The CANDU reactors in Canada are really cool, despite not being thorium based.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Würzburg, Germany
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberax View Post
    All the radioactive iodine causing thyroid cancer was gone in 1 year after the disaster. Its half-life is just 8 days.
    You do know that the radiation damage caused by the decaying iodine persists and leads to cancer only long after all iodine has decayed away, do you?

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pvtcupcakes View Post
    Uranium based nuclear power is safe.
    Tell that to the people in Fukushima. Why were they evacuated, if it's safe?

    I think that everyone will agree that they are safe during operation, if things don't go wrong. The problem is that things do go wrong (on a regular basis), and there is also the issue of nuclear waste.

    Whenever people are in control, things go wrong, and whenever greedy corporations are in control, they go to hell.

    Everyone's perceptions of nuclear energy seems to be tainted by all the 40 year old reactors we have. Modern reactors are millions of times better.
    And renewable energy is better still, so why not use that?

    There are 5 countries in Europe who produce close to 50% of their power using renewable energy, and another few that are above 25%. Several countries (like Denmark) have pledged to reach 50% in the near future.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eu...wables-new.svg

    This is the way.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberax View Post
    And certainly, the hypothesis that radiation is responsible for low fertility rate is falsified by the fact that fertility is low throughout the whole Ukraine, even the parts which were not affected at all.
    Excuse me, but which part of the Ukraine was not affected at all?

    Half of Europe was affected.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DirtyHairy View Post
    You do know that the radiation damage caused by the decaying iodine persists and leads to cancer only long after all iodine has decayed away, do you?
    Even in children born after 1986? I somehow doubt it.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    Excuse me, but which part of the Ukraine was not affected at all?
    Crimea, Bessarabia for example. They received no direct nuclear fallout from the Chernobyl plant at all.

    Anyway, low fertility rate in Ukraine has sociological, not medical explanations.

    Half of Europe was affected.
    So that's why fertility is so low, right?

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    Tell that to the people in Fukushima. Why were they evacuated, if it's safe?
    Yes, it is.

    I think that everyone will agree that they are safe during operation, if things don't go wrong. The problem is that things do go wrong (on a regular basis), and there is also the issue of nuclear waste.
    This rate so far is 1 disaster every 20-25 years. Looks OK to me.

    And renewable energy is better still, so why not use that?
    Because it can't be used to replace nuclear AND fossil fuel power. Pure and simple.

    There are 5 countries in Europe who produce close to 50% of their power using renewable energy, and another few that are above 25%.
    This is the way.
    So? Norway and Switzerland have hydroenergy, Iceland is geothermal.

    This simply can't be scaled.

    Several countries (like Denmark) have pledged to reach 50% in the near future.
    Newsflash: Denmark is still going to generate more than 25% of power using dirty fossil fuels in conceivable future. Better?

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Würzburg, Germany
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberax View Post
    Even in children born after 1986? I somehow doubt it.
    I can't remember anyone here talking about thyroid cancer in children, did they? In addition, just to the record: radiation damage to the germ cells can very well cause diseases and cancer in children, although this is not the primary kind of damage caused by iodine.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    Tell that to the people in Fukushima. Why were they evacuated, if it's safe?

    I think that everyone will agree that they are safe during operation, if things don't go wrong. The problem is that things do go wrong (on a regular basis), and there is also the issue of nuclear waste.

    Whenever people are in control, things go wrong, and whenever greedy corporations are in control, they go to hell.
    I wouldn't call something that has only happened 3 times in the last 60 years to be happening on a regular basis. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and now Japan. And of those, TMI was extremely minor, i.e. no significant radiation was released. With what's happening in Japan right now, it remains to be seen.

    And like I said, modern reactors are practically immune to meltdowns. Especially thorium molten salt reactors. They had an experimental one in the 60s where they could just shut it off on Friday, then start it back up Monday morning. This works by passive cooling. There's no need to pump water through it.

    Renewable energy still have their own problems. None of them work in all areas. You can't just put a wind farm wherever you want. That also applies to hydro, and solar. Hydro power destroys river ecosystems. The wind isn't always blowing, the sun isn't always shining. Wind turbines take up farm land. Solar is hugely expensive and inefficient.
    Sure, nuclear has some of it's own problems too. But given the choice between coal and nuclear, I'll go with nuclear any day. Renewable sources aren't a viable option to replace fossil fuels right now. Coal and gas are far more damaging than nuclear will ever be.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •