Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 07 May 2017, 10:43:39

Sooo, first KJ reacts to a position no one had put forth (is he hearing voices?).

And now he's making up his own version of history: "The movie The China Syndrome probably did more damage than all the "B" movies, because of the coincidental circumstances that it was being publicized while the Chernobyl disaster was happening."

China Syndrome movie: 1979
Chernobyl: 1986

What's the use even trying to interact with such a delusional creature?
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sun 07 May 2017, 11:06:13

All right, it was the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, not Chernobyl. That WAS why the movie succeeded, even though it was pure foolishness.

Those that oppose the safest form of power generation are truly delusional.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dissident » Sun 07 May 2017, 12:32:36

Tanada wrote:
Hawkcreek wrote:
KaiserJeep wrote:The conclusion remains the same. Nuclear energy is the safest form of power generation by far. If Ibon built a dam for his Hydropower (not always necessary in the mountains) then he has a fairly dangerous power plant. But even my rooftop solar is 4400X more deadly than commercial nuclear power.

Some might be more concerned about the potential for harm, rather than the historical record of harm. Your rooftop solar probably has a limited potential to harm anyone, whereas a nuke, given the right circumstances (natural calamity, terrorism, etc) , can harm many. You can't always make decisions based only on what happened in the past.


That sounds nice as far as it goes, but Chernobyl was about as bad as a nuclear power accident can get and it killed under a hundred people. Coal and Natural Gas and Diesel pollute the air in a way that kills many asthmatic people every year, and can even induce asthma in people who have not had the condition from an early age.


Actually the main health impact is on metabological syndrome diseases such as heart disease. Impact on asthmatics is secondary. Fine mode aerosol (less than 100 nm) readily generated by diesel and gasoline exhaust (specifically insoluble soot particles which act as vectors for all sorts of nasty chemicals) penetrate easily through the lungs into the blood stream. Studies on rats have shown a dramatic effect of aerosol (and NOx) pollution on arterial plaques. Poor diet and lack of exercise explain only part of the plaque formation and it takes pollution to explain the observed levels of clogging. This pollution effect is clear from the heart disease intensity in residential areas close to major highway interchanges.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4112067/

https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/arti ... -and?rss=1
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dissident » Sun 07 May 2017, 12:41:07

The China Syndrome was a variant of The Blob plot. The corium was treated as a coherent malign entity and not as an actual physical material. The reason that the corium has a hard time burrowing "to the other side of the planet" is that it mixes with the material that it encounters (concrete, soil, rock, etc.). Any neutron activity quickly attenuates due to the rapid drop in the neutron-active heavy isotope density. The original fuel bundles are created to enable a controlled neutron cascade and lots of energy is expended in purifying U-235 or extracting Pu-239 to achieve this. Once all sorts of other materials are added to the melted (after cooling failure) fuel bundles the neutron cascade is killed off quickly. Any burrowing is extremely self-limiting.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Mon 08 May 2017, 15:41:59

Yet due to fortuitous timing, the movie The China Syndrome was in it's theatrical run during the Three Mile Island incident. TMI predated both Chernobyl and Fukushima, and was the worst nuclear accident to have happened up until that time. The reactor core did melt at TMI, if you look online you will see pictures taken by robots inside the reactor vessel.

Because the emergency cooling system was functional, the adverse impact of TMI was limited to the venting of a modest amount of Tritium gas from the top of the reactor vessel. The vessel itself was never breached, and even had it done so, the containment structure was intact.

The Chernobyl implementation of emergency cooling was almost nonexistent, and once the fission reaction had blown open the graphite pile and exposed the hot carbon to air, it combusted and spread radioactivity without any containment whatsoever. In Fukushima, once the poorly designed emergency cooling was submerged in sea water by the Tsunami, there was no cooling whatsoever - yet containment succeeded, the only radioactivity spread was contaminated cooling water.

While it is true that nuclear energy generates some nasty high level wastes, there is so much power produced per unit of fuel that it hardly matters. Compare a nuclear plant to a coal plant of like power capacity:

Nuclear - during a 50 year life, will fill a cube 25 feet in size with spent fuel and one contaminated reactor core. With recycling of fuel, just the reactor core itself. If properly managed, zero radioactivity is released into the environment.

Coal - during a 50 year life will generate enough coal fly ash to bury five square miles to a depth of 25 feet - more than 44,600 times the amount of waste produced by the nuclear plant. Depending upon the source and mix of coal burned, the radioactives released by the combustion will exceed the radioactives (contained and not released) by the nuclear plant by a factor of 17X to 220X. Also present in coal stack effluents are heavy metals such as mercury and cadmium, and carcinogens in the partially burned hydrocarbons.

The carbon dioxide released by the nuclear plant is about 15% that of the coal plant. The nuclear plant doesn't release any in operation, but the fossil energy of plant fabrication, plus the fossil fuels used to mine and refine uranium, and to transport ore and fuel and spent fuel, accounts for the 15%.

To me, it seems a no-brainer. We should ban coal and build more nukes. We should recycle nuclear fuel, which will reduce the high level wastes to the reactor structure itself. We should strive to reduce overall energy consumption, and re-implement residential, industrial, and transportation infrastructure towards that same end.

But then, I am an engineer, and I do the math and believe the numbers. Other folks are afraid of Godzilla.
Image
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 05 Aug 2017, 09:29:13

Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17048
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Cog » Sat 05 Aug 2017, 10:21:38

There are a bunch of "Green" people who have opposed nuclear power generation since its inception. They must love coal, oil, and gas since they hate the one thing that does not contribute to global warming and is relatively safe, all things considered.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13416
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dissident » Sat 05 Aug 2017, 10:31:28

Cog wrote:There are a bunch of "Green" people who have opposed nuclear power generation since its inception. They must love coal, oil, and gas since they hate the one thing that does not contribute to global warming and is relatively safe, all things considered.


These specimens are irrational thinkers living in fear of nuclear and engaged in magical thinking. They are not making any rational evaluation such as the one you are pointing to. Magical thinkers are dangerous and given a chance would start burning "witches" at the stake.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 05 Aug 2017, 11:17:41

Ah, nothing like name calling and false equivalence to make a point...how very convincing. :)
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Mon 07 Aug 2017, 04:02:29

dohboi wrote:Ah, nothing like name calling and false equivalence to make a point...how very convincing. :)

I think you protest too much. "Green" is an identifying label, not an insult. "Magical thinking" is an opinion about a thought process that isn't thorough. It can be used for many subjects.

If you don't like the argument, how about a convincing counter-argument with good references, etc?
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 10142
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
Location: Central KY

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 07 Aug 2017, 14:58:54

OS, I haven't seen a coherent argument to counter yet. Ya got one on hand? :-D
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Sun 20 Aug 2017, 16:28:11

Nuclear energy is all fine, but doesn't do any good for Japanese.
First 1945, then Fukushima, now (possibly) Kim.
Everything looks very well until something goes pop!
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7342
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby dissident » Sun 20 Aug 2017, 21:40:12

EnergyUnlimited wrote:Nuclear energy is all fine, but doesn't do any good for Japanese.
First 1945, then Fukushima, now (possibly) Kim.
Everything looks very well until something goes pop!


And burning coal is more insane. Since without the pops, thousands of people die from the fallout of coal burning every month. Then there is the coup de grace waiting humanity in the near future as all the fossil fuel CO2 induced warming does in agriculture and general livability for mammals on the planet.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Mon 21 Aug 2017, 04:15:54

Not much went pop! by now.
One in Ukraine, 3 in Japan and one pop! was mostly contained in US.
It seems that odds for any given nuke reactor to go pop! is about 1% as globally about 500 are working.
That is during time of prosperity.
I suspect that during more difficult times which are coming right now about 5% will go pop! due to lack of resources for proper maintenance.
And if we engage in nuke war, what looks more and more likely, most of them will go pop!
On the top of it waste storage sites will go splash!
Regarding CO2, I agree.
But you see, our entire civilization is bound to go pop!
If not because of nukes then because of GW and if not because of GW then because of overshoot and resource depletion and if not because of resource depletion then because of progress of medicine and associate genetic degeneration compounded by superbugs and other nicieties alike.
Ever wondered about Fermi paradox?
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7342
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby jupiters_release » Wed 23 Aug 2017, 20:22:17

EnergyUnlimited wrote:Not much went pop! by now.
One in Ukraine, 3 in Japan and one pop! was mostly contained in US.
It seems that odds for any given nuke reactor to go pop! is about 1% as globally about 500 are working.
That is during time of prosperity.
I suspect that during more difficult times which are coming right now about 5% will go pop! due to lack of resources for proper maintenance.
And if we engage in nuke war, what looks more and more likely, most of them will go pop!
On the top of it waste storage sites will go splash!
Regarding CO2, I agree.
But you see, our entire civilization is bound to go pop!
If not because of nukes then because of GW and if not because of GW then because of overshoot and resource depletion and if not because of resource depletion then because of progress of medicine and associate genetic degeneration compounded by superbugs and other nicieties alike.
Ever wondered about Fermi paradox?


Maybe my memory's getting fuzzy but thought you used to be a cornucopie?
Do not seek the truth, only cease to cherish opinions.
jupiters_release
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Mon 10 Oct 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Fri 25 Aug 2017, 12:26:52

jupiters_release wrote:Maybe my memory's getting fuzzy but thought you used to be a cornucopie?

Not full cornucopian but I was holding middlegrounds.
Cornucopians were peoples like lorenzo or carlhole/rune.
I believed that many things are fixable with some efforts and orderly powerdown is possible.
After these 10 years I concluded that most of approaches taken by now have failure designed in.
It seems that our policy makers are rather unintelligent and Western societies are going to succumb to chaos.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7342
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby AdamB » Fri 10 Nov 2017, 22:40:00



Don’t mind the cloud of radioactive pollution floating over Europe – it’s harmless, the French nuclear safety institute IRSN said Thursday. Officials in Europe said they began detecting unusually high levels of ruthenium 106, a radioactive atom that does not occur naturally, near France in the last week of September. The IRSN immediately “mobilized all its means of radiological monitoring of the atmosphere and conducted regular analysis of the filters from its monitoring stations,” the agency said in a press release. IRSN director Jean-Marc Peres told Reuters that the leak likely came from a nuclear fuel treatment site or center for radioactive medicine in Russia or Kazakhstan, not a nuclear reactor. The radioactive cloud poses only an “extremely low” risk of contaminating mushrooms and other foodstuffs that are imported into France, the IRSN said in a statement. “The potential health risk associated with this scenario


Radioactive Cloud Floating Over Europe Is Nothing to Worry About, Experts Say
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9290
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Subjectivist » Sat 11 Nov 2017, 20:41:02

People have got to get over this insane quaking fear every time some media gnat uses the word radiation or radioactivity.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Subjectivist
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4700
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests