Page 4 of 36 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 356

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

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vervelover View Post
    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.
    The regulations for nuclear plants is so tight, that you'll recieve less radiation from working inside a nuclear power plant, then outside in the sun. So you'd have more chance of dying from nuclear radiation inside an airplane, higher up the (thinner) atmosphere, than working at a nuclear power plant.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    773

    Default

    but they build a sarkopharg around it, but it will break in a few years if they not build around a monstres very expensive sarkovarg around it, and in our world of corruption and the poor country they will not be able to build that fast enough so its a big risk that the next gau happens soon. Not to talk about russias old atom-weapons or americans that especialy the russian ones are a big risk because they get pretty much not maintained. And America as example stands also on a financial gau, so we can not be shure that america will be so rich to maintain this tons over tons of nuclear weapons, too.

    And even if the plants dont explode and no terror or accidents happen with the weapons, we have still the waste and we want them lay down under ground für next million years, we saw in germany massiv corruption in decition making where we plant that, and to manage how much we did in which place. we got a storage for time which is waste there that was not allowed there and there is water in there what was not the plan. Its horrific as it is, and with each additional plant it gets worse. At least lets make a no new-atom-plant deal or somethihng, like we tried to make with atomic weapons so we can only destroy our world 8 or 20 times? and not 1000 times.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackiwid View Post
    we have still the waste and we want them lay down under ground für next million years
    Plutonium-239, yes, but if you just use Iodine-131 then we're dealing with a Half-Life of a stunning...


    ... 8 days, lol...

    PS: And when you get cancer, you can use it to treat yourself with radiation therapy :P
    Last edited by V!NCENT; 09-30-2011 at 04:17 PM.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    *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, 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.
    It is safe to say it's safe for other people to go and live there. But would you? Do you trust UN data enough to say you'd live there? According to this:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4946456.stm

    Nicholas Beresford, Centre for Hydrology and Ecology: Contamination varies considerably throughout the 30 km exclusion zone. Some areas could probably be used now but in others radiation doses may remain above advised limits for some hundreds of years. Any return to the zone will require careful planning and the uses the land is put to will need to be controlled.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    The regulations for nuclear plants is so tight, that you'll recieve less radiation from working inside a nuclear power plant, then outside in the sun. So you'd have more chance of dying from nuclear radiation inside an airplane, higher up the (thinner) atmosphere, than working at a nuclear power plant.
    Yes, who ever said the contrary? Please read before posting, hate to quote it all over again:

    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.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Arctic circle, Finland
    Posts
    282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    The regulations for nuclear plants is so tight, that you'll recieve less radiation from working inside a nuclear power plant, then outside in the sun. So you'd have more chance of dying from nuclear radiation inside an airplane, higher up the (thinner) atmosphere, than working at a nuclear power plant.
    Yep http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeRadiation

    Nuclear waste is of course big problem. In Finland we will dig them deep underground(Finland has pretty stable bedrock, but this is still a problem which should face better solution):
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluo...ste_repository

  7. #37
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tuke81 View Post
    (Finland has pretty stable bedrock, but this is still a problem which should face better solution)
    Bury it in the Taliban's cave hideouts.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vervelover View Post
    It is safe to say it's safe for other people to go and live there. But would you?
    No, because it's a shithole. I'd rather live in sunny Australia, chilling at the beach whenever I please (when I'm off of work).

    Also: I smoke. I'll cross the bridge of death when I get to it.

    Do you trust UN data enough to say you'd live there? According to this:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4946456.stm
    Ofcourse I trust a UN science panel of 100 scientist and experts over the author of a Chernobyl book. If I were to sell such a book and I'd tell my potential buyers that Chernobyl is safe; nobody would buy it.
    Last edited by V!NCENT; 09-30-2011 at 04:35 PM.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Bury it in the Taliban's cave hideouts.
    ROFL!

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    21

    Default

    No, because it's a shithole. I'd rather live in sunny Australia, chilling at the beach whenever I please (when I'm off of work).
    Funny, but on a different level than my argument.

    Ofcourse I trust a UN science panel of 100 scientist and experts over the author of a Chernobyl book. If I were to sell such a book and I'd tell my buyers that Chernobyl is safe; nobody would buy it.
    Yes, UN is certainly a source which you can trust, they'd never say bullshit, would they?

Posting Permissions

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