Register to reply

The Nuclear Power Thread

by russ_watters
Tags: nuclear, power
Share this thread:
chroot
#37
Nov20-03, 04:59 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
chroot's Avatar
P: 10,428
Uh right... my cell phone is making my nuts sick? This is retarded. Where do you find this crap?

- Warren
theroyprocess
#38
Nov20-03, 05:21 PM
P: 141
FYI

MANIFESTO FOR PR. BANDAZHEVSKY'S RELEASE AND
FREEDOM OF RESEARCH

Pr. Yury Bandazhevsky is currently imprisoned
in Minsk, Belarus since
June 2001. As a Doctor and an Expert on radiation
exposure caused by the
Chernobyl accident he was appointed in 1990 as
Rector of the Gomel Medical
institute. Gomel has been the hardest hit area by
nuclear releases. From
1990 to 1999, along with his wife Galina, also a
Doctor, Pr. Bandazhevsky
studied damages caused by Caesium 137: heart
diseases, cataracts, early
aging, etc.. He has discovered a measurable
relationship between nuclear
doses and various symptoms. In 1999, he published
his results at a time
when many people wanted to turn a blind eye to the
problems and wish to send
Belarus inhabitants back to the lands that are
still contaminated. Before his
arrest in July 1999 he had written a report
critical of the Belarus Government
official research conducted with international
funds regarding Chernobyl
after effects. Pr. Bandazhevsky was arrested
shortly after the issuance of
this report on the basis of a Presidential Decree
" for the Combat of
terrorism."

In 2001, he stood accused of having received
money from students
seeking admission to Gomel Medical Institute.
After a trial held before a
Military Tribunal he was sentenced to eight years
imprisonment. Expert
witnesses who attended the trial have noted at
least 8 infringements of the
Belarussian Criminal Code and the main prosecution
witness had retracted his
statement against Pr. Bandazhevsky. Pr.
Bandazhevsky is currently jailed in
a penal colony with harsh conditions tantamount to
a Gulag.

But we think that the right to a fair trial
is not the only one to have
been thwarted. Beside people's opinions about
things nuclear, what is at stake is
the RIGHT TO KNOW THE TRUTH, the right to conduct
research and the scientist's
right to communicate data. Also the right for
people to know it without
interference that is politically or economically
motivated.

THE INDEPENDENCE OF ALL RESEARCH in the
services of Humanity is as
important a principle as the independence of
Justice. Pr. Bandazhevsky's
imprisonment flouts both these principles.
Therefore, we, the undersigned,
ask for the immediate and unconditional release
of Pr. Bandazhevsky in
order that he can carry on his research without
interference at his
Institute.

We suggest that all scientists, researchers,
scholars and citizens
stand for these principles:

- Sign this manifesto for freedom of research
and Pr. Bandazhevsky's
unconditional and immediate release.
- But also to have Pr. Bandazhevsky appointed as
a Best Man (or Honourable
Citizen) of their cities, such as Paris and
Clermont-Ferrand (France)
- Or have him appointed as Doctor Honoris
Causa in their universities

We wish to publish this Manifesto in a large
newspaper and send it to the
Belarus Government. Please sign it and pass it
to all parties interested in justice, freedom of
speech, freedom to conduct objective research and
human rights asking them to sign it, too. Your
help is greatly appreciated and will go a long way
in helping to free Dr. Bandazhevsky and promote
accurate research and publication of the radiation
induced effects of Chernobyl on humanity.
theroyprocess
#39
Nov20-03, 05:37 PM
P: 141
RF radiation health threat news story from Scotland.

http://www.sundayherald.com/print32689
theroyprocess
#40
Nov20-03, 05:48 PM
P: 141
NewScientist.com


Sea birds drop radioactivity on land


19:00 02 January 03
Andy Coghlan


Droppings from seabirds could be introducing radioactive isotopes into the food chain. That is the conclusion of researchers who found high levels of radioactivity in droppings and plants on an island close to the Arctic.

If tests confirm that the guano is bringing radioactivity ashore, it will need to be factored into pollution assessments that gauge radiation risks to human health and ecosystems. The risk is probably low at temperate latitudes, but could be much greater in the fragile wastes of the Arctic. There, guano is a major source of nutrients for plants, which are then eaten by animals.

Radioactive material gets into the oceans from natural geological processes on the sea floor, but radioactive isotopes from human nuclear activity can add to this. In the Arctic, radioactive material has been dumped in the Kara Sea to the east of the Barents Sea.

And radioactive material from nuclear accidents such as the 1986 Chernobyl disaster has reached the seas, along with particles from atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons.


Vast piles


The evidence that bird droppings are bringing radioactivity ashore comes from Mark Dowdall and his team at the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority in Tromsø. They spent two years between 2000 and 2002 collecting soil, vegetation and guano samples from a remote coastal inlet called Kongsfjord on the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard, about halfway between the northern tip of Norway and the North Pole.

The samples of bird droppings were from vast piles produced by two colonies of seabirds supporting kittiwakes, puffins and fulmars. Tests showed the guano contained 10 times the concentration of radioactive isotopes found at other sites on the island.

The researchers found unusually high concentrations of the natural radioisotopes uranium-238 and radium-226, which decay to form more hazardous isotopes. But they also found high concentrations of the isotope caesium-137, which does not occur naturally. Dowdall suspects this is from the fallout of atmospheric nuclear tests carried out decades ago.

Tests on vegetation growing near the guano also revealed high concentrations of radioactive material. "It means that low levels in the Arctic environment don't stay low, they become concentrated," he says.


Fish and crustaceans


Dowdall believes the birds eat contaminated fish and crustaceans, and the radioactive material is then concentrated in their faeces. The extra nutrients the droppings provide encourage plants to grow, and the plants take up and concentrate the radioactive material.

This poses a problem, because plants make up the bulk of the diet of many animals, especially that of indigenous reindeer. "We're talking about a very vulnerable environment, and when reindeer eat the [contaminated] vegetation, it's in the food chain," says Dowdall.

Environmental researchers are intrigued by the finding. "I don't think people have looked at this particular pathway before," says Scott Fowler at the International Atomic Energy Authority's Marine Environmental Lab in Monaco.

However, in 1999, pigeons roosting in contaminated buildings on the site of British Nuclear Fuels' Sellafield reprocessing complex in Cumbria were found to contain 40 times the European Union's safe limit of caesium-137.


19:00 02 January 03
russ_watters
#41
Nov20-03, 08:49 PM
Mentor
P: 22,248
Ok theoryprocess, enough with the flooding. It isn't helping you any. And why don't you read your own link - the one titled "Chernobyl: Ten Years On Radiological and Health Impact." It confirms what I said about the [LACK OF] severetiy of the accident. 38 deaths from acute (immediate) radiation sickness (several other people died in the accident, but they were killed by the fire) and a statistically significant increase in only ONE type of cancer in the immediate area of the accident (several hundred cases of a curable form of thyroid cancer).

Now: could you PLEASE tell me how you can think that is worse than the 70,000 people who are killed by air pollution in the US EVERY YEAR.

With the radio tower thing, I'm also getting a much clearer picture of where you are coming from - you're a "dark ages" environmentalist. Someone who is anti-technology in general. Well, my friend, the first place to start is always with yourself - you posted all those floods with a computer. And [gasp] it uses electricity. There are several "dark ages" environmentalists who I have heard of who have gotten rid of all of their technology and gone to live in national parks. Those at least I respect - they aren't hypocrites.
enigma
#42
Nov20-03, 10:42 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
enigma's Avatar
P: 1,817
Originally posted by russ_watters
Now: could you PLEASE tell me how you can think that is worse than the 70,000 people who are killed by air pollution in the US EVERY YEAR.
I'll second that. This is not your personal soapbox. Unless and until you can answer that question, anymore of your "articles" will be deleted.

This thread did have a point before you took it upon yourself to derail it.
theroyprocess
#43
Nov20-03, 11:23 PM
P: 141
Causing premature involuntary death is homicide whether
its some 200,000 a year from routine care in hospitals
Ralph Nader cites....or any other cause. But to say
Chernobyl only killed 38 people and to minimize the
worst industrial catastrophe in human history is like
saying the Holocaust never happened ! One Chernobyl
should have been enough.

http://www.mothersalert.org/victims.html
enigma
#44
Nov21-03, 12:00 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
enigma's Avatar
P: 1,817
But there has only been one Chernobyl, and 70,000 die each year from hacking death due to coal plants. Chernobyl happened once, killing far less than 70K per year. Which is the greater evil?!?
russ_watters
#45
Nov21-03, 12:10 AM
Mentor
P: 22,248
Originally posted by theroyprocess
Causing premature involuntary death is homicide whether
its some 200,000 a year from routine care in hospitals
Ralph Nader cites....or any other cause. But to say
Chernobyl only killed 38 people and to minimize the
worst industrial catastrophe in human history is like
saying the Holocaust never happened ! One Chernobyl
should have been enough.
On rereading the article YOU PROVIDED, I must correct myself - the number is 31, not 38. And that includes those who burned to death (ie died from causes other than radiation).

In any case, your answer is insufficient. Feel free to explain yourself and answer the question I posed, but further rants will be deleted.

And congratulations - in the two months I have been a mentor, your post was the first I have felt the need to edit.

Also, the last article you posted sounds complicated and technical enough to fool people who don't read it closely enough (thats probably why it is made to sound so complicated and technical), but it contains glaring errors in the assumptions and calculations. I would hope though that most lay people picked up on the fact that the title doesn't match the later statements - 1.2 vs 1.3 billion (overall casualties).

Also using the rate of 10 million and doing a reality check on how it relates to the 1.2 billion number brings up a glaring mismatch, seeing as how nuclear power/weapons have only been around for about 50 years. If the injury/death rate scaled linearly (it wouldn't - it would scale geometrically, reducing the total further) and the earth's population doubled since 1950, that would equal a total of 125 million casualties. Her own calculations don't match each other by an order of magnitude.

Further, such numbers are so high we would see them - clustered around nuclear power plants. The assumption of a uniform exposure of the entire earths population besides being preposterous allows her to ignore the fact that there is no statistically relevant increase in cancers in the vicinity of nuclear power plants.
theroyprocess
#46
Nov21-03, 09:06 AM
P: 141
Not technical enough...or too technical...here is a
good source of material that the layman can understand
but no doubt you will find some reason to dismiss it.
It is very rare for scientists to get enough funding to
do proper 'independent' studies.


EDITED by enigma


*flooding deleted*

I wasn't kidding. No more links, no more articles. Not until you answer this:

Now: could you PLEASE tell me how you can think that is worse than the 70,000 people who are killed by air pollution in the US EVERY YEAR.
The remote chance to kill a few hundred people and the chance to increase the probability of getting cancer by a fraction of a percent for a few hundred people

vs.

A guaranteed mortality rate of 70,000 per year plus a dramatic increase in asthma and other breathing related illnesses.

How is the first one worse?
theroyprocess
#47
Nov21-03, 12:49 PM
P: 141
I hope this answers your question. I think death by radiation
is worse [BECAUSE RADIATION IS INVISABLE, ODERLESS AND HAPPENS
WITHOUT INITIAL SENSATION] by the time a victim gets cancer 20
years more or less...it is impossible to prove a direct cause
and effect. It may take hundreds of years of studies to show
good evidence...by that time mankind will be extinct.
russ_watters
#48
Nov21-03, 02:54 PM
Mentor
P: 22,248
Originally posted by theroyprocess
I hope this answers your question. I think death by radiation
is worse [BECAUSE RADIATION IS INVISABLE, ODERLESS AND HAPPENS
WITHOUT INITIAL SENSATION] by the time a victim gets cancer 20
years more or less...it is impossible to prove a direct cause
and effect. It may take hundreds of years of studies to show
good evidence...by that time mankind will be extinct.
That is illogical, but I thank you for finally providing your opinion.
HAVOC451
#49
Nov21-03, 03:36 PM
P: 51
While it's comendable to be concerned about the terribly high rate of respiratoy disease due to air pollution in the U.S., I'm not sure beating theroyprocess up over it is quite fair. It's illogical to say that to be anti-nuke is to be pro athsma. Were you guys equally insenced when the Bush administration gutted the Clean Air Act? Are you just as concerned with the problems many native american peoples are having with uranium mining ?
russ_watters
#50
Nov21-03, 03:57 PM
Mentor
P: 22,248
Originally posted by HAVOC451
While it's comendable to be concerned about the terribly high rate of respiratoy disease due to air pollution in the U.S., I'm not sure beating theroyprocess up over it is quite fair. It's illogical to say that to be anti-nuke is to be pro athsma. Were you guys equally insenced when the Bush administration gutted the Clean Air Act? Are you just as concerned with the problems many native american peoples are having with uranium mining ?
The part of this issue that has me most upset is the 50% of the electricity in the US that comes from COAL. This is the leading cause of air pollution and the leading cause of those 70,000 deaths, not to mention global warming and all the other effects of air pollution.

As far as the Clean Air Act goes, we should immediately do some more sweeping things such as require MASSIVE reductions in emissions by coal plants. Such things are possible, but expensive. And I think expensive is good - it will help the general public see the issue in terms they care more about since clearly people don't care enough about air pollution alone. The same goes for blackouts - blackouts are good because they show people the importance of making sound energy policy decisions.

The US is a "squeaky wheel" democracy. People only care about the issues that they percieve to be doing them immediate harm. Coal power isn't even on the radar for most people.
RuiMonteiro
#51
Nov21-03, 04:01 PM
P: 30
Originally posted by russ_watters
True. And assuming your 20% number is right (sounds about right) it would require about 150 more nuclear plants to replace our existing coal plants.
So, there would be around 250 nuclear plants. So the quantities of radioactive elements released to the environment would increase a lot (and this only considering the quantities released officially, not counting accidents, like happened on norway (i think itīs norway) where a nuclear usine over there released, illegaly, to the environment radioactive elements during nine years directy to the environment, and at the end of this time, they said it was an 'accident'), and if there are more nuclear plants there is a need for more enriched uranium, and as i already said, the process to enrich uranium releases great amounts of green house gases, plus all the unnecessary elements.


Given the political climate, you are probably right - it won't be a realistic possibility any time soon. You never know though - if New York style blackouts start happening every week ten years from now (a real possibility), that just might change the political climate.
The difference between what I propose and what the "environmentalists" propose however is that my solution is real, would work, would reduce pollution, would not require massive changes in our energy usage, and would save lives. Environmentalist's plans don't even get to the "would work" stage.
The New York blackout happened due to bad managment on the energetic network. The US does not have a good energetic network and a simple failure in a power plant is enought to put milions in the dark.

There are several countrys with a very good energetic network like France or the country i live - Portugal - and our energetic resources are quite different, where France energetic resources are around 80% supplied by nuclear plants, while Portugal doesnīt have a nuclear plant, my point with this is that just because blackouts happen that doesnīt implie that the solution is to increase nuclear powers, an investment in the energetic network supply would do the work in the US (and this has nothing to do with the energetic needs of each country, itīs just a matter of organisation on the network supply).
Iīm not saying the political climate would never change, but having in mind that itīs all about money, itīs very hard to happen, at least serious investments and dramatic changes would not happen, and considering this facts on how the New York blackout could have been prevented is just to say there isnīt a linear relation between the energetic production and the blackouts.



Rui.
enigma
#53
Nov21-03, 04:23 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
enigma's Avatar
P: 1,817
Originally posted by HAVOC451
While it's comendable to be concerned about the terribly high rate of respiratoy disease due to air pollution in the U.S., I'm not sure beating theroyprocess up over it is quite fair.
I'm angry with theroyprocess not because of his beliefs, but because instead of stating his points, he's cutting and pasting pages and pages from all over the web to make his points for him without addressing any points made by the alternate viewpoint.

It's illogical to say that to be anti-nuke is to be pro athsma. Were you guys equally insenced when the Bush administration gutted the Clean Air Act?
Yes. I'm furious with Bush, and the Clean Air Act is one of the many reasons why.

Are you just as concerned with the problems many native american peoples are having with uranium mining ?
I didn't know about that issue, but there are major issues with the health of coal miners as well.

However, anecdotal evidence does not prove a case. No data, no case. My mother had breast cancer as well, and she's never been anywhere near a Uranium mine.
theroyprocess
#54
Nov21-03, 04:30 PM
P: 141
If this isn't premeditated murder...I don't know what is !

More to my point that the "invisibility" of radiation makes
the control and strict regulation of radiation a priority
above all else.

http://www.nirs.org/radrecycle/recycleupdate31303.htm


Register to reply

Related Discussions
How do I become a Nuclear Engineer? (Split from Canadian Engineering Thread) Nuclear Engineering 16
What is the link between nuclear weapons and nuclear power stations? Nuclear Engineering 19
Oil,nuclear power General Discussion 21
Law against nuclear power? Nuclear Engineering 47
Nuclear engineers thread Nuclear Engineering 15