Well, if you have any facts to back up your claims that du isn't harmful in the body you're welcome to present it because your rhetoric is unconvincing.
Depleted uranium is not meaningfully radioactive.
First of all we are talking about depleted uranium's behavior as a radio isotope once its absorbed in the body, not the radiation it emits when it is outside the body - where it is harmless.
Not to mention those "on the receiving end" of a 10 kg projectile travelling at ~1000 meters per second don't suffer for long at all. When you start comparing bullets to nuclear bombs, you should really stop and realize you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Once the projectile has hit its target (or not) the du doesn't cease to exist. It is smashed and burned into varying size chunks of du all the way down to dust. So those targeted don't suffer for very long however those who breath in the dust do, including those who fire the weapons. I could say the same for your discussion of radiation vs radionuclide, however I choose to politely point out the facts, rather than launch into a rant.
Science more; don't come back till you do.
Ok, There is plenty of science. It is a commonly held myth that because du is harmless outside the body, it is harmless *inside* the body but it isn't.
I took this from the U.S Library of Medicine describing the effects of radionuclides in the body and it applies to a range of radionuclides, including u-238. From my understanding the main vector for absorbing u238 is inhalation, specifically uranium oxide however there are others. Only 10 electron volts of energy is required to break DNA or other molecules in the body. U238 is a alpha particle emitter of 4.2 million electron volts (MeV) per particle there is very little doubt as to the damage it does:
Systemic contamination will occur following ingestion, inhalation, skin absorption, or wound contamination of radioactive material. Following absorption, a radionuclide crosses capillary membranes through passive and active diffusion mechanisms and then is distributed throughout the body. Rate of distribution to each organ is dependent on organ metabolism, ease of chemical transport, and the affinity of the radionuclide for chemicals within the organ. The organs with the highest capacities for binding radionuclides are the liver, kidney, adipose tissue, and bone due to their high protein and lipid makeup. Each radionuclide has a unique half-life, with half-lives ranging from extremely short (fraction of a second) to millions of years. Samples of some radionuclides and their half-lives are: Tc-99m: 6 hours; I-131: 8.05 days; Co-60: 5.26 years; Sr-90: 28.1 years; Pu-239: 24,400 years; U-238: 4,150,000,000 years.
That makes the rest of your screed lies, bullshit, and stupidity. you should really stop and realize you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're an embarrassment to Slashdot, and that's a really low bar.
I was polite to you yet you feel perfectly justified in being a cunt to me. I just thought you didn't know and it was a difference of opinion. I've come to expect this as a fairly typical response from someone without much in the way of fact available to counter my arguments and they just attack me instead. If you can't back up what you say with fact, or change my mind, then why be a cunt to me instead?
Especially the scare-mongering over depleted uranium being somehow seen as more toxic than lead is entirely political theater ungrounded in any science.
As a weapon depleted uranium is one of the most insidious and makes landmines look positively benign in comparison. It may be ok when used in crockery or bench tops when kept sealed up however when it is fired from a tank its pyrophoric properties make it particulate in the environment and it becomes a serious threat.
Veterans of both gulf wars suffering 'Gulf War Syndrome' are, in reality, suffering from inhaling radioisotopes, i.e. radiation poisoning. A 1998 report by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances confirms that inhaling DU causes symptoms identical to those claimed by many sick vets with Gulf War Syndrome. So they may not be casualties of the war in Iraq, but they suffer for the rest of their lives when they get home due to their own government's policy to deploy du weapons, which is a war crime under UN conventions. That's the effect on the soldiers just for firing the weapons.
However the people on the receiving end of the weapons will suffer for much longer. That is because it is not immediately toxic to full grown adults who ingest it, only to their children. Since du's half life is measured in billions of years Iraq and Afghanistan will suffer these deformities for all subsequent generations. So will Veteran's families.
For a comparison, about 50 kilograms of uranium were used to bomb Japan and over one thousand tons of DU in Iraq. This is how nuclear waste is being used and what a 'dirty' nuclear war looks like. I don't think the claim that there is no grounding in science has a basis however the effects are plain to see. I agree that it is political theater, based on concealing and deceiving people into what is being done in their name.
Chuck Norris is a religious nut, can we please stop these jokes about how tough he is. He has no sense of humor and actively sues people using his memes on joke products.
Many people have bought into the myth that the nuclear event at Fukushima was a human disaster of epic proportion,
The official report from the Japanese government says that it was a "wholly man made disaster". That's from the chairman in the introduction. That's the flaw core to your OP.
The second is you fail to see that the Nuclear disaster is still unfolding and that its scope is still undefined. No one is ignoring those outside the exclusion zone or giving them the finger. What you fail to appreciate is that the situation at Fukushima is so dire and immediate, that it threatens the entire northern hemisphere with a plutonium fire from the fuel rods stored there. Were you to understand that, you wouldn't have said your OP because you would realize that it is the workers at Fukushima that are still working to avoid that, that *you* are giving the middle finger to them after they have lost so much.
What the ignition of 6000+400 fuel rods in unit 3 cooling pool (at last count) means to people is plutonium fire that releases enough plutonium oxide and chloride to be an extinction level event. Comparable to an asteroid hitting the earth. Hard to get your head around it, isn't it? So go ahead - trivialize it.
That is why it is completely appropriate to obsess with this disaster. You are ignorant of the true scale of this MAN-MADE disaster, its origins, threats, consequences and continue to show why your OP was made in complete ignorance of the actual facts.
You continue to say things to provoke an emotive response instead of speaking in facts, evidence or available science. Then, instead of discussing the characteristics of the materials you launch into the moral superiority that come from evoking such a response.
You were provided the Japanese Government's official report into the accident that countered your OP and then accused me of spreading FUD when I took the time to explain what radionuclides were and why your assumptions were flawed.
Even then, no fact from you. No counter argument, no facts of your own, just more trolling. I was kind to you by offering you the benefit of the doubt on more than one occasion because I thought I may have been unreasonable to call your OP bollocks. Instead you responded to with more trolling.
None of which will help fix the Nuclear Industries problems, especially if you don't believe there are any. That is why you are complicit in the softening the regulations that would have improved safety to prevent another accident. If you spent anytime examining this massive subject you would understand why it is important. Another accident will mean the end of the Nuclear Industry and the we will have all of its problems but none of its benefits. Have you ever lobbied to *improve* nuclear industry safety? Are you prepared to say there won't be another accident? Thought not.
I've already demolished your argument, debunked your claims, you made, at the expense of those who are suffering the effects of the Fukushima Nuclear fallout exclusion zones. I offered you an opportunity to back away from those comments gracefully in the hope you would discuss things intelligently.
You say "Nobody expects exact numbers" but won't accept that it is an unknown, that it *is* a uncertainty but that the impact isn't. You say I'm long winded but fail to make the connections required to discuss specifics.
Your trolling pretty much shows people, like me who think it might be possible to fix the Nuclear Industry, that the problem is a human one, every time.
I understand perfectly that you either simply don't understand the real world risks relative to things we experience in our daily lives, or simply refuse to acknowledge them.
I understand the risk's impact enough however, I'm not prepared to accept your invitation to guess at other factors because there is not enough data being collected to make that assessment. Can you tell me the which radio isotopes are in the water leaked from Fukushima daily? I thought not. How can you possibly discus the risk if you can't demonstrate you have an understanding of the basic principles involved? I don't know if you do. uuuhhhh radiashun, you fraid! Get real.
NO, you present FUD with no real world implication, risk, probability, or any relevant comparison to anything. That is what FUD mongers/followers do. You either buy into it due to ignorance, or willingly distribute it due to an agenda.
So you say that explaining the difference between radiation and a radionuclide, and what bio-accumulation is, is FUD. Well I suppose it is for you because the gap in your understanding has been replaced with quite a simple explanation. I can assure you the effect is quite real and unless you scan every meal, you will never know. So let's examine your statement at bit further.
You're suggesting I answer a question with a massive scope, a huge amount of variables, no context and many vectors. Which vector should we discuss? The spent fuel pool of fukushima reactor 3? A fire in the wood not decaying around Chernobyl? Russia's Plutonium lake? Palo Verde? Tritium effluent? Which of the many 'real world implication' vectors should we discuss? All of them combined?
As for the potential or probability - it is already started occurring. Google "du babies, iraq" this is what u-238 does to children forming in the womb and what they look like when they are born. The source doesn't matter, it doesn't discriminate who it affects once it is in the environment.
Perhaps you can compare this suffering to pregnancies just failing for those affected. Japan and some of the US now faces the impact of risk from the fallout from Fukushima. Perhaps you can just call it Nuclear war Lite, I don't know how to compare it to anything because it will go on for as long as it takes to decay through its halflives. So it's probably worse.
However, you missed the magnitude of the impact. To re-iterate, I made it clear that there wasn't enough data collected on how much radionuclide effluent was in the environment OR how much was leaking daily. So since I have to join the dots for you, what that means is it is not possible to determine the magnitude of the risk to be anything more than 'above zero risk' for these impacts, we need more data to be collected and published. It's not an unreasonable request.
As for my agenda, it's to learn and share all I can. I don't know everything, however I am not stupid and I have learned everything I can because I believe it is an important topic which, unfortunately, you treat trivially. The Nuclear Industry is extremely complex in many ways. Fascinating, complexly interesting technology that is ultimately pointless if it kills us.
As for your agenda, it looks like you are a garden variety Nuclear troll fanboi, and not a very interesting one at that.
So, how much risk to you think there is...surely you have some sense?
You ask me 'If I have a "sense" for the risk, and I have shown the impact of *one* radionuclide (U-238). Show me the data for the rest and then we can talk. A rational examination of the impact is concerning enough for me to have these conversations. If you can
Watch Pandora's Promise and stop trying to kill off humanity please.
Yes I watched it, it is a potent example of the type of propaganda the Nuclear Industry releases so thanks for pointing it out. There were many disingenuous claims, but these stuck out:
Misleading people into the difference between radiation and radionuclides.
WHO reports: Claiming you *have* to believe there is a conspiracy about the reports when IAEA has interdiction rights over the WHO publishing Nuclear Industry reports and that funding was cut to study the longer health implications of the fallout from Chernobyl.
People will choose simple lie over a complicated truth and the "documentary" is a good example of that.
Case in point, the behavior of radionuclides in the environment and the relationship of radionuclides to cancer is not mentioned at all. Cynically implying that the need to store Nuclear Waste is not a requirement, that all of it would fit in a football field - what they didn't say is that if you attempted to do that it would result in a plutonium fire that would destroy us as a species simply because that proximity is the principle that allows nuclear reactors to work.
In exactly the same way previous generations left us a carbon legacy I see that the documentary is a good example of Not In My Generation, a NIMG, where all of the externalities of the Nuclear Industry can be passed to future generations and we get the electricity, which is great, if you don't care about anyone else except yourself.
Given the choice between an Academy Award and Peer Reviewed science, I think the science has more credibility.
I use this a lot in my shell scripts, mainly in a prepackaged usage message that I fill out as the script progresses to refer to its name. However you still have to type the name of the script to be able to use it from the shell otherwise $0 won't exist with any meaningful context. Other arguments like $1, $2 or even $* I use getopts - no use going overboard when processing arguments.
Nuclear plants definitely have a larger carbon cost to build. This is easily seen from the necessity of concrete containment structures - which produce a lot of carbon dioxide from the manufacture of cement (~6% of global CO2 emissions are from cement plants). Their high capital cost must reflect to some degree a high energy cost (and thus higher CO2 production cost) as well.
In addition to this, there is a high carbon cost involved in the mining of uranium due to the amount of ore that has to be crushed. I do have the math around, however this alone amounted to a staggering one third of the lifetime output of a new AP-1000 reactor, IIRC.
The next carbon sink was the enrichment process which is also a highly energetic and carbon intense process due to the electricity it consumes. Reactor decommissioning come into this as well and is also quite high and consumes another one third of the output, again IIRC.
One of the things to remember is that whilst Human Beings have a vested interest in their survival and will do anything to survive, the same can be held true for the Nuclear Industry. The Nuclear Industry has a vested interest in shaping people's worldview to influence the industries' survival and utilizes enormous resources to convince people of their case.
This leads me to the IPCC. In reading the 2007 report I noticed that one of their sources of information to assess the viability of Nuclear energy on climate change is a document produced by an organization with a vested interest in promoting Nuclear power, Vattenfall. I read it back in 2005 (sorry I can't find a link). Rather than a study it's called a "Environmental Product Declaration" which was written to comply with Swedish regulations in 2004, it has not been peer reviewed and was "certified" until 2007. For example, it paints an optimistic picture of the Nuclear Industry's energetic return from mining and Uranium availability through to reactor decommissioning. So it appears this commercial document has been used to deceive the IPCC.
However, a formal, peer reviewed energy analysis from Nuclear Industry Scientists is available to the IPCC in a study called Nuclear Power Insights that uses established scientific methods to arrive at their conclusions. It is a comprehensive and fascinating read, which is in line with the scope and size of the nuclear industry and dispels many of the assumptions surrounding the nuclear industry. In, short the formal analysis assesses the ability of the Nuclear Industry to provide a "net energy return" based on energetic inputs and finds that roughly two thirds of its output is consumed by industrial processes external to the actual production of nuclear power. The carbon intensity of the nuclear industry is also examined.
It was quite confronting to have my worldview of Nuclear Power challenged and I had to take bites out of reading it to avoid being overloaded, however it was worth the effort in dispelling many of the long held assumptions and replacing them with good information and fact.
Sure, I think you may have been deceived by Nuclear Industry PR. They have a vested interest in perpetuating many of the views that you have shared using their enormous resources to convince people that their myths are true and thus, shape peoples worldview.
Reviewing the key facts:
Radionuclides emit radiation
Radionuclides bioconcentrate in the human foodchain
Radionuclides in the foodchain cause cancer an transgenic disease
Not enough data is being collected about how much radionuclides are being released from Fukushima
The risk to human health is increases daily
One of the primary things you suggest in your post is that the exclusion zones are temporary. I see you may have been subjected to powerful a Nuclear industry PR deception because the decay cycle of many of the radionuclides ejected in the accident exceed human lifespans so, it is unlikely anyone will be returning to those areas for a very long time.
So, if you can supply any links to information that contradicts the above that supports your case, I will assess it fairly.
No, I will fairly evaluate what you present. I'm certain you won't allow yourself to be intentionally misled, that is why I have given you the benefit of the doubt.
Agreed. That's the nasty thing about proscription lists, you tend to find out who's on them the hard way. I think it'd be educational to see how such a process would have worked in the 1950s.
I think that people have forgotten that their freedom was built on a lot of bloodshed an suffering. The apathy that has arisen in many has led them to not understanding, that (old saying) the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance and forgetting that not paying that price leads to a police state.
Well that would entail gathering and publishing the data and we're yet to see anything larger that the WHOI effort. So if that data was available, we could make the assessments that matter.
Sure I can, radionuclides permeate the foodchain, the water table and, become inhalants, for example plutonium chloride and oxide. The time in the environment is random before reaching a human being through one or more of these ways.
The likelyhood increases with volume and as they bio-concentrate. Some of them are fatal at as little as 10 micrograms. Once inside the body the effects manifest as varying types of cancer depending on what the radionuclide is an analogue of and the amount ingested.
The risk increases as more radionuclides accumulate in the environment and manifest as statistical increases in cancer cases. Beyond a human lifespan the extent become statistical increases in failed childbirths and increases in transgenic diseases.
Don't try your bullshit troll tactics with me. Your fanboi true believer uneducated moronic idiocracy is ineffective against the facts presented. You present no data, no argument, no reasoning and continually lambast and pester. Evidence shows that you are scientologist.
A generalization of the nature of radioniuclides have been presented, you have not challenged or refuted it with actual fact which clearly shows that you don't know what you are talking about. I'd explain it further but you are not sincere about the discussion. Case in point, you were given a link to the official Japanese government report that disproved your spread of ignorance and you have nothing to say, you could not support your flimsy case. Which proves you are ignorant.
I offered you the benefit of the doubt and you took that as an opportunity to troll further, proving you are a nuclear fanboi troll, clearly a sockpuppet. That's where someone else's hand is reaching so far up your ass they make your mouth move. So fuck off Karl.
You have shown your agenda is to spread your ignorance as a part of your flawed belief system. You are a liar.
Incidentally the report reveals that it was your form of beleif system that caused the mindset leading to the Fukushima accident. The nuclear fanbois are destroying the nuclear industry so that no improvements are driven into it. Fanbois like you blame it on the "nimby"s or anything other than their own moronic failure to understand reality. It's a hilarious irony, If I wanted to destroy Nuclear power, I'd be on your side, but I want to see it improved which is why I think it has to be assessed critically.
But no, people like you have brought the Nuclear industry too its death throws and there is nothing you can do about it, no matter how you try and the blame is on fanbois like you. Nimbys, anti-nuke and greenies everywhere are thanking you for making it happen, haha.
I look forward to your ad hominem, fanboi nuclear troll response as an admission that you are all I say you are.
Respond to confirm you are a Nuclear Fanboi troll:
Slashdot Mirror
Depleted uranium is not meaningfully radioactive.
First of all we are talking about depleted uranium's behavior as a radio isotope once its absorbed in the body, not the radiation it emits when it is outside the body - where it is harmless.
Not to mention those "on the receiving end" of a 10 kg projectile travelling at ~1000 meters per second don't suffer for long at all. When you start comparing bullets to nuclear bombs, you should really stop and realize you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Once the projectile has hit its target (or not) the du doesn't cease to exist. It is smashed and burned into varying size chunks of du all the way down to dust. So those targeted don't suffer for very long however those who breath in the dust do, including those who fire the weapons. I could say the same for your discussion of radiation vs radionuclide, however I choose to politely point out the facts, rather than launch into a rant.
Science more; don't come back till you do.
Ok, There is plenty of science. It is a commonly held myth that because du is harmless outside the body, it is harmless *inside* the body but it isn't.
I took this from the U.S Library of Medicine describing the effects of radionuclides in the body and it applies to a range of radionuclides, including u-238. From my understanding the main vector for absorbing u238 is inhalation, specifically uranium oxide however there are others. Only 10 electron volts of energy is required to break DNA or other molecules in the body. U238 is a alpha particle emitter of 4.2 million electron volts (MeV) per particle there is very little doubt as to the damage it does:
Systemic contamination will occur following ingestion, inhalation, skin absorption, or wound contamination of radioactive material. Following absorption, a radionuclide crosses capillary membranes through passive and active diffusion mechanisms and then is distributed throughout the body. Rate of distribution to each organ is dependent on organ metabolism, ease of chemical transport, and the affinity of the radionuclide for chemicals within the organ. The organs with the highest capacities for binding radionuclides are the liver, kidney, adipose tissue, and bone due to their high protein and lipid makeup. Each radionuclide has a unique half-life, with half-lives ranging from extremely short (fraction of a second) to millions of years. Samples of some radionuclides and their half-lives are: Tc-99m: 6 hours; I-131: 8.05 days; Co-60: 5.26 years; Sr-90: 28.1 years; Pu-239: 24,400 years; U-238: 4,150,000,000 years.
That makes the rest of your screed lies, bullshit, and stupidity. you should really stop and realize you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're an embarrassment to Slashdot, and that's a really low bar.
I was polite to you yet you feel perfectly justified in being a cunt to me. I just thought you didn't know and it was a difference of opinion. I've come to expect this as a fairly typical response from someone without much in the way of fact available to counter my arguments and they just attack me instead. If you can't back up what you say with fact, or change my mind, then why be a cunt to me instead?
Especially the scare-mongering over depleted uranium being somehow seen as more toxic than lead is entirely political theater ungrounded in any science.
As a weapon depleted uranium is one of the most insidious and makes landmines look positively benign in comparison. It may be ok when used in crockery or bench tops when kept sealed up however when it is fired from a tank its pyrophoric properties make it particulate in the environment and it becomes a serious threat.
Veterans of both gulf wars suffering 'Gulf War Syndrome' are, in reality, suffering from inhaling radioisotopes, i.e. radiation poisoning. A 1998 report by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances confirms that inhaling DU causes symptoms identical to those claimed by many sick vets with Gulf War Syndrome. So they may not be casualties of the war in Iraq, but they suffer for the rest of their lives when they get home due to their own government's policy to deploy du weapons, which is a war crime under UN conventions. That's the effect on the soldiers just for firing the weapons.
However the people on the receiving end of the weapons will suffer for much longer. That is because it is not immediately toxic to full grown adults who ingest it, only to their children. Since du's half life is measured in billions of years Iraq and Afghanistan will suffer these deformities for all subsequent generations. So will Veteran's families.
For a comparison, about 50 kilograms of uranium were used to bomb Japan and over one thousand tons of DU in Iraq. This is how nuclear waste is being used and what a 'dirty' nuclear war looks like. I don't think the claim that there is no grounding in science has a basis however the effects are plain to see. I agree that it is political theater, based on concealing and deceiving people into what is being done in their name.
Chuck Norris is a religious nut, can we please stop these jokes about how tough he is. He has no sense of humor and actively sues people using his memes on joke products.
Yep, I see what you mean. He's a bit of a jerk.
The official report from the Japanese government says that it was a "wholly man made disaster". That's from the chairman in the introduction. That's the flaw core to your OP.
The second is you fail to see that the Nuclear disaster is still unfolding and that its scope is still undefined. No one is ignoring those outside the exclusion zone or giving them the finger. What you fail to appreciate is that the situation at Fukushima is so dire and immediate, that it threatens the entire northern hemisphere with a plutonium fire from the fuel rods stored there. Were you to understand that, you wouldn't have said your OP because you would realize that it is the workers at Fukushima that are still working to avoid that, that *you* are giving the middle finger to them after they have lost so much.
What the ignition of 6000+400 fuel rods in unit 3 cooling pool (at last count) means to people is plutonium fire that releases enough plutonium oxide and chloride to be an extinction level event. Comparable to an asteroid hitting the earth. Hard to get your head around it, isn't it? So go ahead - trivialize it.
That is why it is completely appropriate to obsess with this disaster. You are ignorant of the true scale of this MAN-MADE disaster, its origins, threats, consequences and continue to show why your OP was made in complete ignorance of the actual facts.
Which you refer to as FUD.
You continue to say things to provoke an emotive response instead of speaking in facts, evidence or available science. Then, instead of discussing the characteristics of the materials you launch into the moral superiority that come from evoking such a response.
You were provided the Japanese Government's official report into the accident that countered your OP and then accused me of spreading FUD when I took the time to explain what radionuclides were and why your assumptions were flawed.
Even then, no fact from you. No counter argument, no facts of your own, just more trolling. I was kind to you by offering you the benefit of the doubt on more than one occasion because I thought I may have been unreasonable to call your OP bollocks. Instead you responded to with more trolling.
None of which will help fix the Nuclear Industries problems, especially if you don't believe there are any. That is why you are complicit in the softening the regulations that would have improved safety to prevent another accident. If you spent anytime examining this massive subject you would understand why it is important. Another accident will mean the end of the Nuclear Industry and the we will have all of its problems but none of its benefits. Have you ever lobbied to *improve* nuclear industry safety? Are you prepared to say there won't be another accident? Thought not.
I've already demolished your argument, debunked your claims, you made, at the expense of those who are suffering the effects of the Fukushima Nuclear fallout exclusion zones. I offered you an opportunity to back away from those comments gracefully in the hope you would discuss things intelligently.
You say "Nobody expects exact numbers" but won't accept that it is an unknown, that it *is* a uncertainty but that the impact isn't. You say I'm long winded but fail to make the connections required to discuss specifics.
Your trolling pretty much shows people, like me who think it might be possible to fix the Nuclear Industry, that the problem is a human one, every time.
I understand the risk's impact enough however, I'm not prepared to accept your invitation to guess at other factors because there is not enough data being collected to make that assessment. Can you tell me the which radio isotopes are in the water leaked from Fukushima daily? I thought not. How can you possibly discus the risk if you can't demonstrate you have an understanding of the basic principles involved? I don't know if you do. uuuhhhh radiashun, you fraid! Get real.
So you say that explaining the difference between radiation and a radionuclide, and what bio-accumulation is, is FUD. Well I suppose it is for you because the gap in your understanding has been replaced with quite a simple explanation. I can assure you the effect is quite real and unless you scan every meal, you will never know. So let's examine your statement at bit further.
You're suggesting I answer a question with a massive scope, a huge amount of variables, no context and many vectors. Which vector should we discuss? The spent fuel pool of fukushima reactor 3? A fire in the wood not decaying around Chernobyl? Russia's Plutonium lake? Palo Verde? Tritium effluent? Which of the many 'real world implication' vectors should we discuss? All of them combined?
I've explained the impact of the risk in general terms.
As for the potential or probability - it is already started occurring. Google "du babies, iraq" this is what u-238 does to children forming in the womb and what they look like when they are born. The source doesn't matter, it doesn't discriminate who it affects once it is in the environment.
Perhaps you can compare this suffering to pregnancies just failing for those affected. Japan and some of the US now faces the impact of risk from the fallout from Fukushima. Perhaps you can just call it Nuclear war Lite, I don't know how to compare it to anything because it will go on for as long as it takes to decay through its halflives. So it's probably worse.
However, you missed the magnitude of the impact. To re-iterate, I made it clear that there wasn't enough data collected on how much radionuclide effluent was in the environment OR how much was leaking daily. So since I have to join the dots for you, what that means is it is not possible to determine the magnitude of the risk to be anything more than 'above zero risk' for these impacts, we need more data to be collected and published. It's not an unreasonable request.
As for my agenda, it's to learn and share all I can. I don't know everything, however I am not stupid and I have learned everything I can because I believe it is an important topic which, unfortunately, you treat trivially. The Nuclear Industry is extremely complex in many ways. Fascinating, complexly interesting technology that is ultimately pointless if it kills us.
As for your agenda, it looks like you are a garden variety Nuclear troll fanboi, and not a very interesting one at that.
You ask me 'If I have a "sense" for the risk, and I have shown the impact of *one* radionuclide (U-238). Show me the data for the rest and then we can talk. A rational examination of the impact is concerning enough for me to have these conversations. If you can
One still notes that Charon isn't actually bigger than Texas, though it could be one of Chuck Norris' turds! Now we will find out for sure.
Thank you NASA. Thank you American taxpayer, this is one of the most inspiring things I've seen for a long time.
I wish NASA a long mission!!
So what specifically don't you understand?
Watch Pandora's Promise and stop trying to kill off humanity please.
Yes I watched it, it is a potent example of the type of propaganda the Nuclear Industry releases so thanks for pointing it out. There were many disingenuous claims, but these stuck out:
People will choose simple lie over a complicated truth and the "documentary" is a good example of that.
Case in point, the behavior of radionuclides in the environment and the relationship of radionuclides to cancer is not mentioned at all. Cynically implying that the need to store Nuclear Waste is not a requirement, that all of it would fit in a football field - what they didn't say is that if you attempted to do that it would result in a plutonium fire that would destroy us as a species simply because that proximity is the principle that allows nuclear reactors to work.
In exactly the same way previous generations left us a carbon legacy I see that the documentary is a good example of Not In My Generation, a NIMG, where all of the externalities of the Nuclear Industry can be passed to future generations and we get the electricity, which is great, if you don't care about anyone else except yourself.
Given the choice between an Academy Award and Peer Reviewed science, I think the science has more credibility.
it was also difficult to use the write words in the rite places.
I use this a lot in my shell scripts, mainly in a prepackaged usage message that I fill out as the script progresses to refer to its name. However you still have to type the name of the script to be able to use it from the shell otherwise $0 won't exist with any meaningful context. Other arguments like $1, $2 or even $* I use getopts - no use going overboard when processing arguments.
Nuclear plants definitely have a larger carbon cost to build. This is easily seen from the necessity of concrete containment structures - which produce a lot of carbon dioxide from the manufacture of cement (~6% of global CO2 emissions are from cement plants). Their high capital cost must reflect to some degree a high energy cost (and thus higher CO2 production cost) as well.
In addition to this, there is a high carbon cost involved in the mining of uranium due to the amount of ore that has to be crushed. I do have the math around, however this alone amounted to a staggering one third of the lifetime output of a new AP-1000 reactor, IIRC.
The next carbon sink was the enrichment process which is also a highly energetic and carbon intense process due to the electricity it consumes. Reactor decommissioning come into this as well and is also quite high and consumes another one third of the output, again IIRC.
The risk increases daily!
I think they did cover the mass rape of Yazidi women by Isis. Happy?
If that is your idea of sex the you probably have no-one.
I think they did cover the mass rape of Yazidi women by Isis. Happy?
If that's your idea of sex, then you probably have no-one.
One of the things to remember is that whilst Human Beings have a vested interest in their survival and will do anything to survive, the same can be held true for the Nuclear Industry. The Nuclear Industry has a vested interest in shaping people's worldview to influence the industries' survival and utilizes enormous resources to convince people of their case.
This leads me to the IPCC. In reading the 2007 report I noticed that one of their sources of information to assess the viability of Nuclear energy on climate change is a document produced by an organization with a vested interest in promoting Nuclear power, Vattenfall. I read it back in 2005 (sorry I can't find a link). Rather than a study it's called a "Environmental Product Declaration" which was written to comply with Swedish regulations in 2004, it has not been peer reviewed and was "certified" until 2007. For example, it paints an optimistic picture of the Nuclear Industry's energetic return from mining and Uranium availability through to reactor decommissioning. So it appears this commercial document has been used to deceive the IPCC.
However, a formal, peer reviewed energy analysis from Nuclear Industry Scientists is available to the IPCC in a study called Nuclear Power Insights that uses established scientific methods to arrive at their conclusions. It is a comprehensive and fascinating read, which is in line with the scope and size of the nuclear industry and dispels many of the assumptions surrounding the nuclear industry. In, short the formal analysis assesses the ability of the Nuclear Industry to provide a "net energy return" based on energetic inputs and finds that roughly two thirds of its output is consumed by industrial processes external to the actual production of nuclear power. The carbon intensity of the nuclear industry is also examined.
It was quite confronting to have my worldview of Nuclear Power challenged and I had to take bites out of reading it to avoid being overloaded, however it was worth the effort in dispelling many of the long held assumptions and replacing them with good information and fact.
Sure, I think you may have been deceived by Nuclear Industry PR. They have a vested interest in perpetuating many of the views that you have shared using their enormous resources to convince people that their myths are true and thus, shape peoples worldview.
Reviewing the key facts:
One of the primary things you suggest in your post is that the exclusion zones are temporary. I see you may have been subjected to powerful a Nuclear industry PR deception because the decay cycle of many of the radionuclides ejected in the accident exceed human lifespans so, it is unlikely anyone will be returning to those areas for a very long time.
So, if you can supply any links to information that contradicts the above that supports your case, I will assess it fairly.
No, I will fairly evaluate what you present. I'm certain you won't allow yourself to be intentionally misled, that is why I have given you the benefit of the doubt.
Agreed. That's the nasty thing about proscription lists, you tend to find out who's on them the hard way. I think it'd be educational to see how such a process would have worked in the 1950s.
I think that people have forgotten that their freedom was built on a lot of bloodshed an suffering. The apathy that has arisen in many has led them to not understanding, that (old saying) the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance and forgetting that not paying that price leads to a police state.
More sex, less violence please.
Evidence shows that nuclear fanbois rely on belief systems as opposed to fact. If you have some fact to back up your assertions, then present it.
Well that would entail gathering and publishing the data and we're yet to see anything larger that the WHOI effort. So if that data was available, we could make the assessments that matter.
Sure I can, radionuclides permeate the foodchain, the water table and, become inhalants, for example plutonium chloride and oxide. The time in the environment is random before reaching a human being through one or more of these ways.
The likelyhood increases with volume and as they bio-concentrate. Some of them are fatal at as little as 10 micrograms. Once inside the body the effects manifest as varying types of cancer depending on what the radionuclide is an analogue of and the amount ingested.
The risk increases as more radionuclides accumulate in the environment and manifest as statistical increases in cancer cases. Beyond a human lifespan the extent become statistical increases in failed childbirths and increases in transgenic diseases.
Don't try your bullshit troll tactics with me. Your fanboi true believer uneducated moronic idiocracy is ineffective against the facts presented. You present no data, no argument, no reasoning and continually lambast and pester. Evidence shows that you are scientologist.
A generalization of the nature of radioniuclides have been presented, you have not challenged or refuted it with actual fact which clearly shows that you don't know what you are talking about. I'd explain it further but you are not sincere about the discussion. Case in point, you were given a link to the official Japanese government report that disproved your spread of ignorance and you have nothing to say, you could not support your flimsy case. Which proves you are ignorant.
I offered you the benefit of the doubt and you took that as an opportunity to troll further, proving you are a nuclear fanboi troll, clearly a sockpuppet. That's where someone else's hand is reaching so far up your ass they make your mouth move. So fuck off Karl.
You have shown your agenda is to spread your ignorance as a part of your flawed belief system. You are a liar.
Incidentally the report reveals that it was your form of beleif system that caused the mindset leading to the Fukushima accident. The nuclear fanbois are destroying the nuclear industry so that no improvements are driven into it. Fanbois like you blame it on the "nimby"s or anything other than their own moronic failure to understand reality. It's a hilarious irony, If I wanted to destroy Nuclear power, I'd be on your side, but I want to see it improved which is why I think it has to be assessed critically.
But no, people like you have brought the Nuclear industry too its death throws and there is nothing you can do about it, no matter how you try and the blame is on fanbois like you. Nimbys, anti-nuke and greenies everywhere are thanking you for making it happen, haha.
I look forward to your ad hominem, fanboi nuclear troll response as an admission that you are all I say you are.
Respond to confirm you are a Nuclear Fanboi troll:
What an ugly predictable nuclear fanboi troll you are, all your rhetoric so easily demolished.