This links are not proper studies, just some news - if you trust everything you read in newspapers and saw on TV - you are not too smart.
Can we have some scientific papers with statistics etc? And I don't understand german, sorry.
But your initial claim was that people die from small doses... there is your small doeses - I did xray few times so far and I often relax in the sun, yet I'm alive.
If the power plant is operating at normal conditions - it is safer than getting xray once in a year.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-nuclear-waste (another newspaper, but you seem to accept them as a proof)
Also burning coil leads to global warming, which leads to ozone layer shrinking and it is the thing that protects earth from solar radiation, ironic, isn't it?
Afaik radioactive smoke detectors containing americium-241 are banned in Germany and France although they are permitted in other EU Member States, such as the Netherlands, where they are sold in DIY shops.smoke detectors with radioactive materials are against the law in germany and its against the law in the hole europe.
only the very very very (ironic part here) smart USA people do use radioactive materials in smoke detectors.
Again, I can't read german and wiki article says station was closed due to maintenance costs.in german we have very hard and multiple retested clinical studies that child's get blood cancer if they life 30km in a radius to an nuclear power plant.
now you make your joke again?
i hope your child will grow up near by a nuclear power plant and i hope your child get cancer just because you are a nuclear power fan boy.
the germans prove you wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300
the german build your modern (ironic)"SAVE" -thorium high-temperature nuclear reactor-
and they prove it wrong in "safety"
now whats up ? your modern super save thorium-high-temperature-nuclear-reactor isn't save..
so you are a liar.
I fail to understand how living near nuclear reactor where radiation levels are not higher than anywhere else and lower than in xray room where doctors actually work whole day can be a harm.
Ecology = your health either way.i don't care about ecology if it comes to human healthy like nuclear power plants.
Consumer solar panels can't really power a big factory, and solar power plants with power output compareable to a modern nuclear plant will be quite big - you need to cut down some trees to put there a solar plant.liar my own 10,5 kwp solar-electric-power plants use ZERO space.
and most of the german solar power stations are ZERO SPACE ones.
Also solar panel production is not a cleanest technology in the world: "Making solar panels, which are in many ways directly descended from semiconductors, also produces toxic byproducts that could sicken living beings, warns the SVTC. Among these are caustic liquids like silicon tetrachloride, dusts and nanoparticles like kerf (a remnant from cutting silicon ingots), and potent greenhouse gases like sulfur hexafluoride."
And studies show that more people get hit by cars vs dead from radiation exposure - not an argument. And my point was green energy is in fact not that "green".LOL--- not really studies show that cars kill 10000 times more birds.
and you can build wind plants in places without any birds and you can build wind mills without any bird effect
for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savonius_wind_turbine
Besides this ones you linked can't produce much power, otherwise we'd built those, not normal ones.
The amount of people, and other effects the continued use of coal especially (as well as gas) on medical, ie respiratory illness from soot has caused far more injuries and death than nuclear power.
Coal is also alot dirtier than nuclear power. Nuclear power can and still si advancing. Coal isnt.
We are NOT going to replace our current main power sources of Coal/Other fossil fuels with a high output and reliable renewable energy source, within the next 10 or 50 or 100 years at our current development.
We CAN do that with Nuclear pwoer, in sync with other green power sources. Nuclear pwoer is way cleaner than many currently used power sources, and efficient for large scale uses.
OC 100% renewable and green power is ideal, but it cannot happen with the way humans are in any reasonable amount of time.
This must be the worst bullshit I've ever read in phoronix. Chernbyl area is being partly repopulated because of Ukraine goverment claiming its safety. Does it mean ANYTHING? No. Because:if you actually go to a Chernobyl zone you would see a plenty of animals there nowadays and some humans too, therefore you claims is a pure bullshit.
a) Goverments wait until the fobia is over to make this kind of announcements, followed by no real data or measurements, because NO goverment would tolerate that a 100sq Km area in their country is gone FOREVER because of an error they did. Radioactivity will stay forever (hundreds of years), but why waiting when you can persuade people to go and live there once the fobia is over?
b) Birds are the happiest animals with radioctivity, they are almost the only kind of animal surviving without any problem in the Cernobyl area. That's reassuring, isn't it?
c) Radioctivity after a nuclear station failure will stay in the area forever (with forever, I mean longer than you, your sons and the sons of your sons can ever live). Hope someone builds a nuclear station 20kms from your house so you see how it feels. Would you still be worried by coal pullution? Will coal pollution ever destroy (forever) a 100sq Km area in your country? EVER.
There is ionizing radiation all around us and has always been. Cosmic radiation from supernovae, ultraviolet radiation from sun, radiation from naturally occurring radioactive elements - its all been there throughout the evolution of life and humans. We evolved with ionizing radiation and our cells are adapted to it. As a matter of fact it is likely that too little radiation is also harmful.
Another thread by Qaridarium that gives me a sore face and palm!
You obviously read too much into the media. For the very few nuclear accidents that have happened.... ever, there have been very few actual deaths caused. A lot more people are, and have been, affected by the coal industry that will take over in Germany now.
Coal burning actually releases more radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere than nuclear power. As an example uranium-235 is usually found in coal mines and it gets mined, burnt, and vaporised into the atmosphere for you to inhale! Nice!
Qaridarium, just please tighten up that strap on your tinfoil hat!
Of consequences lasting for a thousand years.. yes, just like with coal mines.For the very few nuclear accidents that have happened....
Yes, but is coal burning known for contaminations of huge areas that can never EVER be sanitized again? NO.Coal burning actually releases more radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere than nuclear power. As an example uranium-235 is usually found in coal mines and it gets mined, burnt, and vaporised into the atmosphere for you to inhale! Nice!
Also, are coal mines releasing more radioactive isotopes into atmosphere than a failed nuclear station? No. Than a working one? Maybe (I believe you). But do they produce a nuclear waste that is unclearly handled by mafias all over the world and trown nobody knows where? No.
Anyway, coal burning, like nuclear power, is not the way to go, but people talk about solar and wind energy like something doomed to NEVER be able to satisfy a nation's power needs, probably assuming that scientific research and improvements are only happening in the nuclear world. But this doesn't make any sense.
You got more radiation sitting in aeroplane over 10km than living next to nuclear powerplant.