Germany export 4MWh E-Energy although 8 Nuclear-Power-Stations turned off

[Qaridarium]

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.

the links are about the tropic that no Studies covers the safety of the nuclear traveler workers.
its just visa versa that what you are write here about this tropic.
I'm so smart to not believe the "Official-Government" story but you are believe all shit they tell you even if there is "are not proper studies" and "if you trust everything you read " from the Government " you are not too smart."
And you are not so smart to get this from the Government: "Can we have some scientific papers with statistics etc?"
the clou is Germany only uses people from outside Germany because they don't wanna pay for them if there are ill.

Atmosphere does indeed saves us from most of solar radiation and X-rays is also radiation...
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.

the Cancer statistic and studies cover me 100% "I often Relax in the sun" is a source of getting cancer .
this means: "people die from small doses" is truth

If the power plant is operating at normal conditions - it is safer than getting xray once in a year.

this is also just a rhetorical trick because i don't get any xray because there is not clinical use for me.
this means a nuclear power plant is more dangerous for normal people than xray usages in clinical use because normal people don't use xray.

Also burning coil leads to global warming,

this is not true studies show that china's burning coil cool down the global warming because of the sulfur and sulfur-acid in the smoke. thats because sulfur aerosol do an reflection of sun light back into the sky.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-nuclear-waste (another newspaper, but you seem to accept them as a proof)

I'm a man with brain means i know that there are natural sources of radioactive.
we have the "schwarzwald" with natural uran radioactivity
nothing special here. but this makes nuclear power plants not save.

which leads to ozone layer shrinking and it is the thing that protects earth from solar radiation, ironic, isn't it?

its a matter of fact that the FCKW gases that destroy the ozone layer cool down the earth on South Pole.*[3]
thats because the sun ray are not colliding with the ozone layer and the sunlight goes back into the universe.
this means we need to destroy even more ozone layer on South pole to cool the earth down.
also we need to burn more coal to get more reflection of solar radiation back into the universe *[2].
also plants grow faster if they get diffused light from aerosol from dirty air *[1] and more CO2 also grow plants faster.

*[1] http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/n...620705,00.html
*[2] http://www.zeit.de/wissen/umwelt/201...chwefel-wetter
*[3] ↑ Shindell, Drew T.; Schmidt, Gavin A. (2004): Southern Hemisphere climate response to ozone changes and greenhouse gas increases. In: Geophysical Research Letters, 31, L18209, doi:10.1029/2004GL020724

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.

france + germany are the most people and biggest economy it doesn't matter that you can buy it in the Netherlands.

Again, I can't read german and wiki article says station was closed due to maintenance costs.

and i can't read english so whats the point?(i also use google translator to help me understand thinks) in the german article there are much more advance about this nuclear power plant. and the costs are only so high because of nuclear accidents and the general problem with the safety

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.

right now no one understand this. the multiple studies only make this a matter of fact but they do not deliver why this is so.

Ecology = your health either way.

its just the point that burn your health directly is more stupid that burn it indirectly.

Consumer solar panels can't really power a big factory,

the germans do have 11GWpH solar panels and a big part of them are consumer solar panels.

and solar power plants with power output compareable to a modern nuclear plant will be quite big -

the germans allready do have 11GWpH solar power plants but nuclear power plants are only 0,5-1GW big...

you need to cut down some trees to put there a solar plant.

trees do have 1% efficiency but modern solar power plants do have up to 45% efficiency
means for every tree you kill you save the planet!

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."

sure! if this is an problem you need to go for the updraft tower.

And studies show that more people get hit by cars vs dead from radiation exposure

sure thats a valid point lets start to ban cars to!

- not an argument. And my point was green energy is in fact not that "green".
Besides this ones you linked can't produce much power, otherwise we'd built those, not normal ones.

try to be green and the real matters are truly different.

for example human beings for every human you kill you save the planet.
humans pollute CO2!

in your logic you need to kill all humans.

[Qaridarium]

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:

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.

LOL 1+

hey we handle nuclear power fan-boys here at Phoronix and Michael Larabel himself is a Nuclear power fanboy.

but ok i'm fine with that. i only like to beat them

[Qaridarium]

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!

do you life near by a nuclear reactor ? i life near by a nuclear reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neckarw...ar_Power_Plant
its all about freedom of choices if someone give me a choice to stay near by a coal power plant instead of Neckarwestheim Nuclear Power Plant i surly choose the coal power plant.
we burn many coal in our home heating system in the past so we do not have any problem with that.
its all about efficiency if you use a woodgas-oven to burn the coal you have 90+ efficiency but a nuclear power plant only do have 2-4% efficiency means the nuclear power plant heat up the earth for 96% !
also the coal cool down the earth with CO2 because the plants grow faster also the coal cool down the earth because of the sulfur because the sulfur reflex air light back to the universe also the dirty air makes diffuse light because of the aerosol and this makes grow the plants 20% faster.

means you have 96% heating up the world with the nuclear power plant against all positive effects on the coal side.

[vervelover]

You got more radiation sitting in aeroplane over 10km than living next to nuclear powerplant.

This is nonsense. Of course you do. Do you get more radiation in a plane or swimming in a pool of nuclear waste? This a nonsense objection too, but uses the same kind of logic of your argument.

[Qaridarium]

This is nonsense. Of course you do. Do you get more radiation in a plane or swimming in a pool of nuclear waste? This a nonsense objection too, but uses the same kind of logic of your argument.

the same logic forces us to kill humans to save CO2 pollution.

the same logic forces us to ban xray for clinical usage if we ban nuclear power plans.

the same logic forces us to use radioactive smoke detectors instead of radioactive free alternatives.

its always the same to argue against Atomic fan-boys is like going into the kindergarten.

[tuke81]

This is nonsense. Of course you do. Do you get more radiation in a plane or swimming in a pool of nuclear waste? This a nonsense objection too, but uses the same kind of logic of your argument.

Nonsense? Nobody would swim in the nuclear waste pool and live afterwards. But anyone can live safely after aeroplane flight or living years next to nuclear power plant.

[blackiwid]

Nonsense? Nobody would swim in the nuclear waste pool and live afterwards. But anyone can live safely after aeroplane flight or living years next to nuclear power plant.

You are funny so you fly 360 Days of the year full time? So thats bullshit ^^

And what is when it explodes like it did 2 times till now? in between was only 20 years and the plants get always bigger. we will build in next years again 500 plants if nothing happens (worldwide) to the yet standing 500. So we will doulbe the risk, so if you calculate that, you have double the risk, so if you look into the past thats the only good numbers we have there is a good change that the next explosion is from now on all 10 years, can we live with that? Yes if we like a world out of some hollywood movies with massive mutations and much dieing people.

[V!NCENT]

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:

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.

*Cough*Half-Life*Couch*
http://web.princeton.edu/sites/ehs/o....htm#Half-Life

PS: So I've looked it up and the radiation at the Chernobyl site is mostly from the radio isotop Caesium-137, which has its first Half-Life of 30 years. However, the amount of that is so small, that when the UN formed a panel in 2006, containing 100 scientists, the report was that the radiation was already dropped by a stunning several-hundred-fold.

So yes, you can safely live there.

PS2: I can also tell you, that if you were to chillax in the burning sun on the beaches in Australia, without uv-skin-protection, you'd have a 1000% more chance of dying from skin-cancer, than you'd have from 'radiation-cancer' when living under some serious uv-radiation protecting clouds and trees at Chernobyl.

[vervelover]

Nonsense? Nobody would swim in the nuclear waste pool and live afterwards. But anyone can live safely after aeroplane flight or living years next to nuclear power plant.

It is just nonsense to object about flying on a plane being more dangerous than a working nuclear power plant, because nobody ever said there are dangerous radiations outside working nuclear stations. So why are you saying that? Does it make a point in favor of nuclear power? The problem is all about the danger of a major failure (and of nuclear waste), your argument would have made sense if you said: - right now, in the area sorrounding Fukushima, there are less radiations than the ones you get on a plane, and also, people living in the area are exposed to them for just the same amount of time of a plane trip.- But this in not reality.

[tuke81]

You are funny so you fly 360 Days of the year full time? So thats bullshit ^^

Did I said so? Radiation of nuclear plant has almost zero affect to normal background radiation(cosmic, ground etc.). But one flight to i.e. Helsinki to New York has much higher single effect(the more you flight per year the more you get radiation).

Of course if accidents happens it will be serious. The danger comes when country have not enough funds to maintain reactors.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html

btw. last reactor of Chernobyl was shutdown in year 2000, 14 years after disaster.