News Global Warming and the stupidity of (wo)man

[SixNein]

That's a huge exaggeration. A little research into the facts instead of the propaganda will show that.

Truth is that the average human is exposed to ~200 mrem/yr from radon alone, about 360 mrem/yr average from all natural sources. A single medical xray averages about 50 mrem, dental xray about 18 mrem. Average exposure from nuclear weapons testing is about 0.5 mrem/yr. From nuclear power plant waste, <0.5 mrem/yr. And that's from 50 year old technology plants.

Saying the health risks are significant is an exaggeration, astronomical is just too absurd to even think about. Wild, ridiculous, and absurd claims won't solve the problem.

And the amount of radioactive waste that would need to be buried is likewise small in comparison to the naturally occurring radioactive material already in the ground with no safeguards whatsoever. Anyone who thinks that buried radioactive waste from power plants even compares to the radon seeping up out of the ground into peoples' houses are seriously misinformed.

The only significant risk is to the workers who actually handle the waste, and even that is very small compared to common everyday risks in life. As an example, a lot of medical tests cause radiation workers to be banned from entering radioactive waste sites because they will set off radiation alarms just from the residual radioactive material left in their bodies.

Why are you trying to downplay the risk of nuclear waste? Your trying to compare high end radioactive waste to a microwave. We are talking about nuclear production on a higher scale, with higher waste output. You have to store this output for thousands of years. If it was to get into the water supply, people would have a large problem.

Lets say that they made advances to completely reprocess the entire fuel. Nuclear power would still not be a viable solution to global warming. You would have to allow every single country to have nukes... it's unthinkable.

 

[Borek]

May I suggest that we remove "Global Warming" part of the subject?

 

[neu]

I'm really annoyed that everyone seems to only react to my statement that global warming hasn't been conclusively shown to be caused by humanity. Thats not the point, whether it is or it is not.

You shouldn't have said it then.

 

[Andre]

It appears that both "global warming" and nuclear power could be number one and two on the list of suitable moral panic subjects. As long as moral panic is a central part of our society, there is little chance for objective trouble shooting.

 

[mheslep]

Nuclear power is not a solution. We would produce LAKES of radioactive waste if we powered the world in this fashion.

Not necessarily so. Try the nuke power thread.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1544286&postcount=103

 

[mheslep]

...For instance in 1988 Hansen predicted a temperature rise of about one degree celsius by now.

and http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

See the averages of the last few years:
2006 - 0.422
2007 - 0.405
2008 - 0.324

And 0.370 for January 2009.

Note that scenario A is predicted by Hansen's model given his preconditions:
A: "the assumed annual growth averages about 1.5% of current emissions, so the net greenhouse forcing increases exponentially". Emissions have increased by that and more, so A is his predicted model.

 

[Evo]

This forum is only for discussion of the politics and current news about issues, not for scientific discussion. Thread locked.