James Lovelock: Why are we so afraid of nuclear power?

At least T.A. is trying to argue the issue. It's w/ very limited success, but it's much more than "you're emotionally overwrought!" and "you're a fool!"
 
moon said:
That's the problem;

Haw, haw.....................haw.
Click to expand...

So? US Navy aircraft carriers--they're nuclear powered--do that regularly. The amount they're releasing doesn't even amount to a drop in a five-gallon bucket. Aside from that, if the water has been treated it likely doesn't contain enough radiation to make any difference whatsoever compared to the natural radiation from isotopes in seawater. Yes, seawater has natural radioactivity in it.
So, a couple of 'tards that work for Bloomberg News get an article in the WaPo? It's clear that their Progressive leanings taint their work.

Objectively, the release is totally meaningless and routine. Nothing to see here, move along.

Here's the math: There are about 710,000,000 cubic kilometers of water in the Pacific Ocean. Water mixes freely so any released would be increasingly diluted. 1 million cubic meters of water is 1/1000 of a cubic kilometer (1x 10^9 cubic meters in a cubic kilometer). That means the amount released in relation to the amount of water in the Pacific Ocean is so infinitesimal as to be totally ignored.

giphy.gif
 
BartenderElite said:
At least T.A. is trying to argue the issue. It's w/ very limited success, but it's much more than "you're emotionally overwrought!" and "you're a fool!"
Click to expand...

Discussing anything with you is like talking to a pigeon: ‘You can tell it that you are right and it is wrong but it’s still going to shit in your hair regardless.’
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Your ignorance of things nuclear is showing and showing badly.

First, ALL Plutonium is man made. Plutonium doesn't occur naturally except in so miniscule an amount--as a result of natural fast fission of uranium--that you might as well ignore that. Plutonium is toxic as a metal not because it is radioactive. The radioactivity given off is alpha or beta (harmless to humans unless ingested) and gamma. Only Pu 242 is particularly long-lived at 3.73x 10^5 years. It is the one created in a breeder reactor. There are trace amounts of several others that are long-lived but they can ignored on their rarity.
Pu 239 and Pu 241 are trace elements at best.

The Fukushima accident killed no one directly as a result of the reactor meltdowns there. Population in some areas were moved out of an abundance of caution. Outside of the immediate plant environ, the levels of detectable radiation from the accident are so low as to present a very minor health hazard at most. Your photo by the way has nothing--NOTHING--to do with the Fukushima nuclear plant accident so I don't understand why you posted it.

This photo is often used on radical Leftist environmental sites as depicting the Fukushima nuclear plant accident:

Fukushima-Daiichi-Nuclear-Plant.jpg

https://sites.suffolk.edu/jstraka/2015/10/30/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-disaster/
http://www.opensourceinvestigations.com/japan/declassified-the-aftermath-of-the-fukushima-disaster/


That is a straight up lie! That photo is of an unrelated chemical fire and has nothing to do with the Fukushima accident. It is one of many outright, bald-faced, and total lies the environmental Left has pushed about Fukushima.

Fukushima will be cleaned up just like any other industrial accident has been. Three Mile Island was cleaned up and at less than half the cost of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig accident. But you don't see people demanding an end to oil use because of that accident...

As for Chernobyl... Chernobyl is the result of an unaccountable Leftist government building an unsafe reactor design and then operating that reactor in a deliberately unsafe way. Chernobyl was a graphite moderated, fast fission reactor. That design is not used commercially anywhere else in the world outside the Soviet Union. The only ones that existed were exclusively for the production of plutonium for nuclear weapons. That's one of the drawbacks of that design, it produces plutonium as a byproduct of operation. That was seen as a bonus in the Soviet Union though.
The design is unsafe for a number of technical reasons, and the worst drawback is probably that graphite is used as the moderator. Imaging building a nuclear reactor inside a giant charcoal brickette. That's Chernobyl.

So, it's an extremely poor example of nuclear power for commercial use. You are trying to compare apples to pineapples.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind but the fool says that her son worked in the nuclear industry, make of that what you will.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Your ignorance of things nuclear is showing and showing badly.
Click to expand...

Fascinating. My father was a chemist who worked on a small part of the Manhattan project. His grandson, my oldest son, was a nuclear plant engineer for the baton Rouge Entergy nuke plant. I suspect that they knew/know a lot more about the down side of nuclear energy than you do. My dad opposed it as long ago as the 60s. My son has grave concerns.

I'll listen to actual experts, not copy-n-paste political partisan dumbshits.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Fascinating. My father was a chemist who worked on a small part of the Manhattan project. His grandson, my oldest son, was a nuclear plant engineer for the baton Rouge Entergy nuke plant. I suspect that they knew/know a lot more about the down side of nuclear energy than you do. My dad opposed it as long ago as the 60s. My son has grave concerns.

I'll listen to actual experts, not copy-n-paste political partisan dumbshits.
Click to expand...

By all means, invite them into this discussion. I'll be happy to debate them.
 
Japan ' We're going to dump a million cubic meters of radioactive water into the world's seas. '

T.A. Gardner ' So ? '
Click to expand...


Can anybody wonder why the nuclear lobby is reviled.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Even then, they are virtually safe, assuming they are typical reactor types in use like BWR or PWR reactors. Shutdown is a matter of simply scramming the reactor (dropping rods). Once done, the reactor stops producing power. It takes anywhere from say, a day to a couple of weeks to cooldown completely depending on size mostly. Once that occurs, only a small amount of residual heat is generated due to decay of unstable isotopes. This becomes steady state within a few weeks to a couple of months. After that, the rate of heat generation is pretty much constant.

At that point, assuming there is a secondary containment like all US and French (as two examples) reactors have, manned or unmanned, things are safe.

I'd say a large chemical plant could present a greater hazard than a shutdown, fueled, reactor in a proper containment would.
Click to expand...

All new gen. 3+ and gen. 4 reactors have passive shutdown without any human intervention, in the event of a reactor over heating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top