Nuke power in the news again!

Onceler said:
And even an idiot like you should know it takes longer than a few days.

And why just focus on "death"? Radiation is insidious. It travels with the rain & the wind; gets into the groundwater; contaminates food. Birth defects & illness show up years after initial contamination.

On yet another scientific topic, it's clear that you're in way over your head....
Click to expand...

Oh okay... so basically, there have been NO deaths, and only a handful have reported any sickness, but because you don't have the alarming statistics to back your over-hyped rhetoric about this subject, you are going to "CLAIM" a bunch of deaths that haven't happened, and of which we will never have a way to determine what caused them? Mightly convenient!!
 
tom prendergast said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Exactly how many times do I have to school you, my Dixie Dunce?


At least 15 Japanese hospitalized with radiation poisoning

http://en.rian.ru/world/20110313/162978555.html
Click to expand...


You must be insanely happy now, you are opposed to deep water drilling, coal and nuclear energy. So your solution is to put all your trust in windmills.
Click to expand...

As I've not expressed any joy in this tragedy on any level....you're statement here speaks volumes as to YOUR particular take on this event, Tom. To you, its some sort of ideological tug of war.....forget about the documented cases of environmental damage, economic, managerial or mechanical malfeasance, or cases of cancer spikes in areas containing nuke plants....it's all about proving your faith in technology, and everything/everyone else be damned.

And that, Thomas, is just plain fucked up on your part.

Windmills, geo-thermal, hydro-electrical, reuseable/recycable IN CONJUNCTION with natural gas, oil and standard electrical power plants would give us a world not wholly dependent on fossil fuels, and damned sight healthier and more ecologically sound.

Until someone can demonstrate a sound, safe way to DECONTAMINATE THE WASTE of nuclear plants, and a quick and effective shut down/decontamination procedures in the event of accidents and emergencies...the ramifications of nuke plants "accidents" are not something one can take lightly (unless it's NOT in your backyard). Small, experimental systems suit me....YOU may not think so, but then unlike you, I actually have some feeling for other people's lives.
 
Dixie said:
Oh okay... so basically, there have been NO deaths, and only a handful have reported any sickness, but because you don't have the alarming statistics to back your over-hyped rhetoric about this subject, you are going to "CLAIM" a bunch of deaths that haven't happened, and of which we will never have a way to determine what caused them? Mightly convenient!!
Click to expand...

Could you sound any more ignorant?
 
As I've not expressed any joy in this tragedy on any level....
Click to expand...

Oh, but you HAVE pinhead! You joyfully and gleefully exploited this tragedy just as soon as you had the time to come here and start flooding the board with left-wing propaganda, and you haven't stopped! Let's use this crisis to advocate against nuclear power! Let's start pushing the left-wing agenda on this, even before we find out if the people are okay, or what is actually happening over there! You don't really give a monkey shit if the people are dead or alive... in fact, you'd RATHER they be dead, to lend even more sensationalism to your breathlessly urgent rhetoric!
 
OnzieDoodles said:
Could you sound any more ignorant?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know... when I recite what your argument is back to you, it does indeed sound ignorant. Nevertheless, it IS what you are claiming! As stupid as it sounds, you want to claim deaths that haven't yet happened, but possibly could happen, but we won't really have any way of knowing about, in the distant future. I guess if you can use that sort of criteria, you could make a case against almost anything! Stop eating ice cream! People die from exposure all the time... if your blood temps fall below a certain point, you can die... no telling how many people will die from 'brain freeze' because they ate their ice cream too fast... it could happen... so we must ban ice cream immediately!!!

Yep... really does sound ignorant, you are correct!
 
Dixie said:
As I've not expressed any joy in this tragedy on any level....
Click to expand...

Oh, but you HAVE pinhead! You joyfully and gleefully exploited this tragedy just as soon as you had the time to come here and start flooding the board with left-wing propaganda, and you haven't stopped! Let's use this crisis to advocate against nuclear power! Let's start pushing the left-wing agenda on this, even before we find out if the people are okay, or what is actually happening over there! You don't really give a monkey shit if the people are dead or alive... in fact, you'd RATHER they be dead, to lend even more sensationalism to your breathlessly urgent rhetoric!
Click to expand...

And beyond your idiotic fantasy, can you produce any quotes or refer to any posts I've made that do EXACTLY what you assert here IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS? Because given your insipidly stubborn and proud ignorance displayed on the subject, my Dixie Dunce, your "opinion" isn't worth a damn. Put up or shut up!
 
Dixie said:
Even an idiot like you should know it doesn't take 20 years to die from radiation poisoning.
Click to expand...


The Dixie Dunce strikes again! I'll make yet another attempt to educated our Dixie Dummy:

Radiation and cancer

Most experts agree even small doses of ionising radiation - as low as 100 millisieverts - can increase the risk of cancer, but by a very small amount.

In general, the risk of cancer increases as the dose of radiation increases. Exposure to one sievert of radiation is estimated to increase the lifetime risk of fatal cancer by around 5%.

The thyroid gland and bone marrow are particularly sensitive to ionising radiation.

Leukemia, a type of cancer that arises in the bone marrow, is the most common radiation-induced cancer. Leukemias may appear as early as a few years after radiation exposure.

Other cancer can also result from exposure to radiation, but may not develop for at least a decade. These include cancers of the lung, skin, thyroid, breast and stomach.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12722435
 
Chicklet said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12722435
Click to expand...

From your very own link!! (I LOVE DOING THIS!)

Professor Gerry Thomas, who has studied the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster, said: "It is very unlikely that this will turn into anything that resembles Chernobyl.

"In Chernobyl you had a steam explosion which exposed the reactor core, which meant you had a lot of radiation shooting up into the atmosphere."

Prof Thomas said although the Chernobyl disaster had led to a rise in thyroid cancer cases, the only people affected were those living in the immediate area of the explosion and who were young at the time.
 
Dixie said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
So Again, YOU display want an incredible Dixie Dunce you are.

You should have read the link I gave regarding the Three Mile Island incident here in America, that and the additional information will give you a clue as to what's going on. And if you're still a stubborn Dixie Dunce about the whole thing:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12722435
Click to expand...


How many people died at Three Mile Island???
Click to expand...

First I had to school our Dixie Dunce on the effects of radiation poisoning and how it works with regards to the recent horror in Japan. But rather than have the brains or the maturity to admit he was wrong, our Dixie Dunce desperately tries to find a justification for his ignorant statements. For instance, to date NO ONE has officially explained the spike in infant and fetal mortality in the 10 mile radius of 3 mile island AFTER the accident

http://www.radiation.org/press/tmi1105.html

But hope springs eternal for our Dixie Dunce....here's a little background as to why the previous information is important

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1594/is_3_13/ai_86048342/
 
Taichiliberal said:
First I had to school our Dixie Dunce on the effects of radiation poisoning and how it works with regards to the recent horror in Japan. But rather than have the brains or the maturity to admit he was wrong, our Dixie Dunce desperately tries to find a justification for his ignorant statements. For instance, to date NO ONE has officially explained the spike in infant and fetal mortality in the 10 mile radius of 3 mile island AFTER the accident

http://www.radiation.org/press/tmi1105.html

But hope springs eternal for our Dixie Dunce....here's a little background as to why the previous information is important

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1594/is_3_13/ai_86048342/
Click to expand...

So.... because something can't be explained, we must assume that it was because of what you claim? That doesn't even make logical sense for a pinhead, does it? You can cite as many links as you wish, the fact remains, no one died at Three Mile Island, and no one had died in Japan, as a result of radioactive poisoning. You can speculate that an increase in cancer rates might be attributable to excess radiation in the area, but that is not 'proven' or established as fact...it is SPECULATION!
 
Dixie said:
From your very own link!! (I LOVE DOING THIS!)

Professor Gerry Thomas, who has studied the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster, said: "It is very unlikely that this will turn into anything that resembles Chernobyl.

"In Chernobyl you had a steam explosion which exposed the reactor core, which meant you had a lot of radiation shooting up into the atmosphere."

Prof Thomas said although the Chernobyl disaster had led to a rise in thyroid cancer cases, the only people affected were those living in the immediate area of the explosion and who were young at the time.
Click to expand...

:palm: You love being a Dixie Dunce, and proving what a limited and dishonest mind you have. From the SAME source:

What risk does Fukushima pose currently?

The Japanese authorities have recorded a radiation level of up 400 millisieverts per hour at the nuclear plant itself.

A sievert is essentially equivalent to a gray, but tends to be used to measure lower levels of radiation, and for assessing long-term risk, rather than the short-term acute impact of exposure.

Professor Richard Wakeford, an expert in radiation exposure at the University of Manchester, said exposure to a dose of 400 millisieverts was unlikely to cause radiation sickness - that would require a dose of around twice that level (one sievert/one gray).

However, it could start to depress the production of blood cells in the bone marrow, and was likely to raise the lifetime risk of fatal cancer by 2-4%. Typically, a Japanese person has a lifetime risk of fatal cancer of 20-25%.

Prof Wakeford stressed only emergency workers at the plant were at risk of exposure to such a dose - but it was likely that they would only be exposed for short periods of time to minimise their risk.

The level of exposure for the general population, even those living close to the plant, was unlikely to be anywhere near as high.[/I]

Unfortunately, Prof. Wakeford seems to want to ignore the following:

Most experts agree even small doses of ionising radiation - as low as 100 millisieverts - can increase the risk of cancer, but by a very small amount.

In general, the risk of cancer increases as the dose of radiation increases. Exposure to one sievert of radiation is estimated to increase the lifetime risk of fatal cancer by around 5%.

The thyroid gland and bone marrow are particularly sensitive to ionising radiation.

Leukemia, a type of cancer that arises in the bone marrow, is the most common radiation-induced cancer. Leukemias may appear as early as a few years after radiation exposure.

Other cancer can also result from exposure to radiation, but may not develop for at least a decade. These include cancers of the lung, skin, thyroid, breast and stomach.

Unfortunately, the radiation is STILL coming from the plant...and no one has begun to estimate the levels of contaminant in the explosion clouds released over the area. This is BAD, my Dixie Dunce, and trying to minimize it to make you and the nuke industry in America feel better isn't doing a damned bit of good.
 
Dixie said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
First I had to school our Dixie Dunce on the effects of radiation poisoning and how it works with regards to the recent horror in Japan. But rather than have the brains or the maturity to admit he was wrong, our Dixie Dunce desperately tries to find a justification for his ignorant statements. For instance, to date NO ONE has officially explained the spike in infant and fetal mortality in the 10 mile radius of 3 mile island AFTER the accident

http://www.radiation.org/press/tmi1105.html

But hope springs eternal for our Dixie Dunce....here's a little background as to why the previous information is important

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...3/ai_86048342/
Click to expand...

So.... because something can't be explained, we must assume that it was because of what you claim? That doesn't even make logical sense for a pinhead, does it? You can cite as many links as you wish, the fact remains, no one died at Three Mile Island, and no one had died in Japan, as a result of radioactive poisoning. You can speculate that an increase in cancer rates might be attributable to excess radiation in the area, but that is not 'proven' or established as fact...it is SPECULATION!
Click to expand...


So, after a release of radioactivity into the region you have a spate of infant and child deaths, a sudden spike in cancers, and we're suppose to IGNORE the coincidence?


I'd like to see Dixie or his family get exposed to the same levels of radiation, and then turn around and say the same company line when cancers develop or kids die of people previously healthy and with no history of such problems.

Any doctor worth his salt will tell you that when groups of people start developing particular cancers in specific areas, there is a common cause. Since it wasn't shared genetics, and it wasn't water or food, then what?

Case in point:

http://www.radiation.org/press/tmi1105.html

http://www.unplugsalem.org/radioactive_strontium.htm

http://www.radiation.org/spotlight/sr90concentrations.html


But hey, all is well, Japan is just a fluke, and by God, someone will eventually lick that waste storage problem, right Dixie? :palm:
 
Taichiliberal said:
So, after a release of radioactivity into the region you have a spate of infant and child deaths, a sudden spike in cancers, and we're suppose to IGNORE the coincidence?
Click to expand...

no....we're supposed to pretend it's the result of the Three Mile Island incident......at least that's the apparent conclusion of your argument.....
 
I think it would be wise to expand our nuclear use......I would suggest, however, we don't build one on the San Andreas faultline.....
 
Taichiliberal said:
Okay, so once again a nuclear plant disaster will put the questions to the American people (if not the international community)…..how safe are these things? Do we have a contingency plan that’s reasonable in the face of an emergency?

Now the first thing that the NRC (nuclear regulatory commission) will tell you is that the worst nuclear plant disaster that happened in the USA resulted in NO loss of life or property (Three Mile Island back in 1979) with no negative side effects or problems years later….which is not entirely true

http://pittsburgh.about.com/cs/history/a/tmi.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/mile-isla...atory-commission-investigate/story?id=9152035

I’m sure that all the industrial countries around the world that have had nuclear power plants operating for decades without any major incidents will look at Japan and call it an unfortunate and unforeseen phenomena, just as Chernobyl was in Russia …. as no one could predict an earthquake and tsunami in Japan affecting the power plants, and no (American) plant has the design of the old Chernobyl plant. They’ll point to the clean efficiency of nuclear power.

What they WON’T discuss is the following nagging little details…..like the fact that nuclear power plants have NOT delivered the promise of “cheap electricity” in many parts of this country as well as the rest of the world …. like the fact that any changes to surrounding environments due to occasional venting (gas or liquid) is only looked at as non-harmful in the present….or that all the well managed procedures for storage of the deadly waste is just a TEMPORARY procedure that future generations will have to deal with.

Here’s my point: with hydro, geo-thermal, wind, solar, oil, gas energy sources, even if you have a disaster like a natural gas explosion or oil plant explosion, it is contained within a specific radius, and can in a relative short time be cleaned up and repaired. That is NOT the case when nuclear power is involved. Also, people exposed to cancer causing radiation levels may not show symptoms for decades.

People should look to Japan as a wake up call and to force their leadership and industry to RE-THINK the devotion to nuclear power in it’s present form.
Click to expand...

usually i agree with your posts, but not this time

the mistake that the japanese made is not factoring in a tsunami that could knock out their backup system
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top