What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Meltdown in Japan's Reactors (1 Viewer)

Apparently there was an 'expert' on CNN that was speaking about the pattern of earthquakes...Chile, N.Z, Japan, and said that is 3 of the 4 corners of the Ring of fire, so the last corner is North America. He also said that this is the same pattern that resulted in the 1906 earthquake in San Fran.

Can anyone else confirm this 1906 patter?

So, honest question: I recently moved to the West Coast of Canada (Victoria) and have never had to worry about the potential of earthquakes. JUST TO BE SAFE, I am thinking about putting to together a little emergency kit in the event of one. What should I include in this kit?

I'll hang up and listen.

 
So, honest question: I recently moved to the West Coast of Canada (Victoria) and have never had to worry about the potential of earthquakes. JUST TO BE SAFE, I am thinking about putting to together a little emergency kit in the event of one. What should I include in this kit?
Tin foil, lots.
 
Apparently there was an 'expert' on CNN that was speaking about the pattern of earthquakes...Chile, N.Z, Japan, and said that is 3 of the 4 corners of the Ring of fire, so the last corner is North America. He also said that this is the same pattern that resulted in the 1906 earthquake in San Fran. Can anyone else confirm this 1906 patter?So, honest question: I recently moved to the West Coast of Canada (Victoria) and have never had to worry about the potential of earthquakes. JUST TO BE SAFE, I am thinking about putting to together a little emergency kit in the event of one. What should I include in this kit?I'll hang up and listen.
This is the nuclear reactor thread.
 
The data are incomplete. NYT is missing something somewhere, would have to read the article.
:rolleyes: are/is/whatever

the link has been updated since the time I opened it.

http://www.nytimes.c...pagewanted=1
Here is the wiki breakdown. Note that it is in Sieverts, not millisieverts, which is what is being reported in the press. So multiply the press numbers by 1000 to measure the effect of daily dosage.Effects to humans of acute radiation (within one day):

[*]0–0.25 Sv: None

[*]0.25–1 Sv: Some people feel nausea and loss of appetite; bone marrow, lymph nodes, spleen damaged.

[*]1–3 Sv: Mild to severe nausea, loss of appetite, infection; more severe bone marrow, lymph node, spleen damage; recovery probable, not assured.

[*]3–6 Sv: Severe nausea, loss of appetite; hemorrhaging, infection, diarrhea, skin peels, sterility; death if untreated.

[*]6–10 Sv: Above symptoms plus central nervous system impairment; death expected.

[*]Above 10 Sv: Incapacitation and death.

 
People keep bringing up Chernobyl as the worst case scenario. But according to Wiki, regarding Chernobyl:

In the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness, of whom 31 died within the first three months.[61][62] Most of these were fire and rescue workers trying to bring the accident under control, who were not fully aware of how dangerous exposure to the radiation in the smoke was. Whereas, the World Health Organization's report 2006 Report of the Chernobyl Forum Expert Group from the 237 emergency workers who were diagnosed with ARS, ARS was identified as the cause of death for 28 of these people within the first few months after the disaster. There were no further deaths identified, in the general population affected by the disaster, as being caused by ARS. Of the 72,000 Russian Emergency Workers being studied, 216 non-cancer deaths are attributed to the disaster, between 1991 and 1998. The latency period for solid cancers caused by excess radiation exposure is 10 or more years; thus at the time of the WHO report being undertaken, the rates of solid cancer deaths were no greater than the general population.

Now for the 216 people who died, that's terrible, but 216 people is hardly the apocalypse that some people around here are trying to paint. In Japan, it would represent a statistically insignifcant number compared to those who have been killed by the earthquake and tsunami, and also compared to those who die every year of cancer. So what are we all panicking about? The reaction by some to nuclear energy seems completely irrational to me.

 
The mess is deadly serious. The problem is that there are MANY people who over-react to anything Nuclear, who have very limited understanding of the facts, and rely solely on a media which is itself personally ignorant and often biased.
You said it was "Deadly serious". How can anything "deadly serious" be overblown by the media? So now it's all thier fault trying to sell stories to us, eh? The media isn't as ignorant as you think. There are a lot of unresolved items and lack of data. Of course they are going to draw some worst case conclusions. I don't fault them for that. Anything less is digging your head in the sand. All this defense of all things nuclear is peculiar in its timing. I have argued repeatedly for it, but it is no panacea. It is not easily dismissed as being less destructive than coal. Consider that coal does not potentially render wide swaths of the earth useless for a thousand years. The tin-foil hat brigade aren't all off the deep end here. They have valid questions and concerns and until they are resolved, their voice should be heard. And they also need to know that those so deeply representing nuclear have personal interests involved.
As someone who lived through Katrina and the subsequent years of stories about the storm, the media clearly will latch onto a single, sensational narrative and stick to it. Then they'll validate their narrative by essentially quoting each other. Since most people are too lazy to dig into a story, this narrative creates perception. In my opinion, there is a lot of that going on with the nuclear situation because it's more sensational than the more mundane aspects of the disaster that aren't being covered as aggressively.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Apparently there was an 'expert' on CNN that was speaking about the pattern of earthquakes...Chile, N.Z, Japan, and said that is 3 of the 4 corners of the Ring of fire, so the last corner is North America. He also said that this is the same pattern that resulted in the 1906 earthquake in San Fran. Can anyone else confirm this 1906 patter?So, honest question: I recently moved to the West Coast of Canada (Victoria) and have never had to worry about the potential of earthquakes. JUST TO BE SAFE, I am thinking about putting to together a little emergency kit in the event of one. What should I include in this kit?I'll hang up and listen.
http://artofmanliness.com/2011/03/07/how-to-make-a-bug-out-bag-your-72-hour-emergency-evacuation-survival-kit/
 
Last year, 48 US coal miners were killed and 11 oilfield workers were killed on that BP rig. Compared to who has died and is likely to die as a result of this nuclear incident and factoring in the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels, coal and oil is certainly more dangerous.
Hold on, here. This is not the first time I've read this sentiment in this thread and it doesn't exactly seem like a fair comparison.You guys know the difference in volume between our fossil fuel energy production and nuclear production, right? It is hardly even comparable. How can the safety issues be comparable, then? Wait, you mean the source that has provided about 100,000 times more energy has caused many more deaths and environmental problems? You don't say!If you want to do an analysis of injuries or deaths or environmental problems per unit of energy produced, then you could actually draw some conclusions, but to say the nuclear is safer than fossil fuels because of the current aggragate totals is not a very good argument.
People who have died in the US as a result of a nuclear accident: 0. Do the math.
This is what you are going with, or is this just :fishing: ?
Let's say a source has provided 100,000 times as much energy as nuclear (that would be true - likely closer to 10, but we'll go with your numbers). 48/100,000 = ).00048. 0/1 = 0. The aggregate argument or the absolute number argument still favors nuclear energy as a safer option.
Yes, I'm aware that 0/1 is always better than anything >0. :rolleyes: There are still so many obvious arguments against you, I don't even know where to begin.Sample size is the first. I could easily pick out the 3 times the number of coal plants as there are nuclear plants and show 0 fatalaties. Until there are at least relative numbers of coal to nuclear plants, it is tough to argue any stats.And then there are the differences in government and corporate precautions between the two energy sources. I don't think just anyone can get near a nuclear plant and there are a lot of safety measures in place for a nuclear plant. Compare that to the coal plant down the road or an oil rig and you'd see that nuclear is handled with a ton more care and thus should be safer.Also, how exactly can nuclear be used to meet the same needs as fossil fuels? What would the environmental impact be of all of that nuclear waste if it was used on the same wide scale as fossil fuels? I'm not saying fossil fuels are better than nuclear, I'm just saying the comparison isn't obvious and is really an impossible one to make with what information we have available.
 
Apparently there was an 'expert' on CNN that was speaking about the pattern of earthquakes...Chile, N.Z, Japan, and said that is 3 of the 4 corners of the Ring of fire, so the last corner is North America. He also said that this is the same pattern that resulted in the 1906 earthquake in San Fran. Can anyone else confirm this 1906 patter?So, honest question: I recently moved to the West Coast of Canada (Victoria) and have never had to worry about the potential of earthquakes. JUST TO BE SAFE, I am thinking about putting to together a little emergency kit in the event of one. What should I include in this kit?I'll hang up and listen.
Send Hamwhip a PM, Nancy.
 
Here is a clear cut example of how the news is distorting this story and spreading fear: I was just listening to the radio, national network news on the hour. The announcer says, "Coming up, more American servicemen have been subjected to radiation from the nuclear power plant". This was the top headline. There was a commercial. Then it was announced that "Reporting from Japan: some American servicemen may have been subjected to very low levels of radiation, says so and so expert. However, these levels are no greater than, and probably less than getting an x-ray", etc.

Such a non-story that follows such a threatening headline: Americans have been subjected! OMG! Run for the hills!

This whole thing is becoming so ridiculous...

 
Touching on the argument about the dangers of coal generated power vs. nuclear generated power I figured I would throw out some random numbers for easy reference.

Source

In 2005, the Energy Information Administration's inventory of coal plants - which includes virtually all coal plants over 5 MW, and many below that size - listed 614 coal-fired power plants in the U.S. These coal plants had a total of 1,522 coal-fired generating units (many plants have multiple units), and a total of 335,831 MW (Megawatts) of production capacity.
Source
Nuclear energy provides 20 percent of the United States' electricity and is its No. 1 source of emission-free electricity.

Number of operating reactors: 104 (35 boiling water reactors, 69 pressurized water reactors)

14 BWR plants have one reactor; nine have two reactors; one has three reactors

15 PWR plants have one reactor; 24 have two reactors; two have three reactors
Source
TRussia built 248 nuclear submarines and five naval surface vessels powered by 468 nuclear reactors between 1950 and 2003, and was then operating about 60.

Towards the end of the Cold War, in 1989, there were over 400 nuclear-powered submarines operational or being built. At least 300 of these submarines have now been scrapped, and some on order cancelled, due to weapons reduction programs. Russia and the US had over one hundred each in service, while the UK and France had less than twenty each, and China only six. The total number in service today is understood to be about 120, including new ones commissioned.

The US Navy has the most nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (11), and both the US and Russia have had nuclear-powered cruisers (USA: 9, Russia: 4). Russia also has seven nuclear icebreakers and a nuclear freighter in service.

The US Navy has accumulated about 6000 reactor years of accident-free experience, and operates more than 80 nuclear-powered ships (with 103 reactors as of early 2005). Russia has logged 6000 nautical reactor years.
Schlzm

 
Here is a clear cut example of how the news is distorting this story and spreading fear: I was just listening to the radio, national network news on the hour. The announcer says, "Coming up, more American servicemen have been subjected to radiation from the nuclear power plant". This was the top headline. There was a commercial. Then it was announced that "Reporting from Japan: some American servicemen may have been subjected to very low levels of radiation, says so and so expert. However, these levels are no greater than, and probably less than getting an x-ray", etc.Such a non-story that follows such a threatening headline: Americans have been subjected! OMG! Run for the hills!This whole thing is becoming so ridiculous...
Please keep us updated, guy.
 
People who have died in the US as a result of a nuclear accident: 0. Do the math.
The family of Robert Peabody might be surprised to learn of this.
See also Harry K. Daghlian, Jr., Louis Slotin, and Cecil Kelley. All died due to acute radiation poisoning from a criticality accident. The first two died when handling the exact same piece of plutonium (aka the Demon Core).So that makes 4 deaths in the US due to fission accidents.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
People keep bringing up Chernobyl as the worst case scenario. But according to Wiki, regarding Chernobyl:

In the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness, of whom 31 died within the first three months.[61][62] Most of these were fire and rescue workers trying to bring the accident under control, who were not fully aware of how dangerous exposure to the radiation in the smoke was. Whereas, the World Health Organization's report 2006 Report of the Chernobyl Forum Expert Group from the 237 emergency workers who were diagnosed with ARS, ARS was identified as the cause of death for 28 of these people within the first few months after the disaster. There were no further deaths identified, in the general population affected by the disaster, as being caused by ARS. Of the 72,000 Russian Emergency Workers being studied, 216 non-cancer deaths are attributed to the disaster, between 1991 and 1998. The latency period for solid cancers caused by excess radiation exposure is 10 or more years; thus at the time of the WHO report being undertaken, the rates of solid cancer deaths were no greater than the general population.

Now for the 216 people who died, that's terrible, but 216 people is hardly the apocalypse that some people around here are trying to paint. In Japan, it would represent a statistically insignifcant number compared to those who have been killed by the earthquake and tsunami, and also compared to those who die every year of cancer. So what are we all panicking about? The reaction by some to nuclear energy seems completely irrational to me.
Yes and no. I've heard numbers as high as 6000, including miscarriages, etc., including deaths indirectly attributed to Chernobyl (whatever that means), etc. The pro-industry crowd minimizes, the GreenPeace types maximize.
 
See also Harry K. Daghlian, Jr., Louis Slotin, and Cecil Kelley. All died due to acute radiation poisoning from a criticality accident. The first two died when handling the exact same piece of plutonium (aka the Demon Core).So that makes 4 deaths in the US due to fission accidents.
Add Alvin C. Graves, who contracted severe radiation poisoning from the Slotin incident and died of leukemia a few years later.
 
People who have died in the US as a result of a nuclear accident: 0. Do the math.
The family of Robert Peabody might be surprised to learn of this.
If you followed that argument from the beginning, you would have seen that I was referring to deaths last year. If we go back to the dawn of nuclear power and used Jayrod's same weighted averaging, nuclear would still win the safety argument.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
People keep bringing up Chernobyl as the worst case scenario. But according to Wiki, regarding Chernobyl:

In the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness, of whom 31 died within the first three months.[61][62] Most of these were fire and rescue workers trying to bring the accident under control, who were not fully aware of how dangerous exposure to the radiation in the smoke was. Whereas, the World Health Organization's report 2006 Report of the Chernobyl Forum Expert Group from the 237 emergency workers who were diagnosed with ARS, ARS was identified as the cause of death for 28 of these people within the first few months after the disaster. There were no further deaths identified, in the general population affected by the disaster, as being caused by ARS. Of the 72,000 Russian Emergency Workers being studied, 216 non-cancer deaths are attributed to the disaster, between 1991 and 1998. The latency period for solid cancers caused by excess radiation exposure is 10 or more years; thus at the time of the WHO report being undertaken, the rates of solid cancer deaths were no greater than the general population.

Now for the 216 people who died, that's terrible, but 216 people is hardly the apocalypse that some people around here are trying to paint. In Japan, it would represent a statistically insignifcant number compared to those who have been killed by the earthquake and tsunami, and also compared to those who die every year of cancer. So what are we all panicking about? The reaction by some to nuclear energy seems completely irrational to me.
Yes and no. I've heard numbers as high as 6000, including miscarriages, etc., including deaths indirectly attributed to Chernobyl (whatever that means), etc. The pro-industry crowd minimizes, the GreenPeace types maximize.
Bueno, let's say it was as high as 6,000. That's still statistically insignificant. In America alone, 500,000 people die of cancer EVERY year. And yet we're behaving like this accident is the end of the world.
 
People keep bringing up Chernobyl as the worst case scenario. But according to Wiki, regarding Chernobyl:

In the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness, of whom 31 died within the first three months.[61][62] Most of these were fire and rescue workers trying to bring the accident under control, who were not fully aware of how dangerous exposure to the radiation in the smoke was. Whereas, the World Health Organization's report 2006 Report of the Chernobyl Forum Expert Group from the 237 emergency workers who were diagnosed with ARS, ARS was identified as the cause of death for 28 of these people within the first few months after the disaster. There were no further deaths identified, in the general population affected by the disaster, as being caused by ARS. Of the 72,000 Russian Emergency Workers being studied, 216 non-cancer deaths are attributed to the disaster, between 1991 and 1998. The latency period for solid cancers caused by excess radiation exposure is 10 or more years; thus at the time of the WHO report being undertaken, the rates of solid cancer deaths were no greater than the general population.

Now for the 216 people who died, that's terrible, but 216 people is hardly the apocalypse that some people around here are trying to paint. In Japan, it would represent a statistically insignifcant number compared to those who have been killed by the earthquake and tsunami, and also compared to those who die every year of cancer. So what are we all panicking about? The reaction by some to nuclear energy seems completely irrational to me.
I agree. The bad part about Chernobyl is that it rendered a large area unlivable. But in comparison to other disasters, it hardly ranks on the scale. Probably, tens of thousands have died already from the tsunami and THAT is the story. Also the economic consequences for Japan are devastating. THAT is a huge story. Economically, how Japan will rebound and if they will have to sell a bunch of US bonds to rebound...THAT is big.

But the nuclear event? Probably won't amount to a whole lot in comparison unless some sort of awful calamity allows a ton of radiation to head towards Tokyo.

 
Jesus Tim, how long can you keep this up...this thread is at 15 pages and there has to be at least one negative comment from you per page.

No one is behaving like it is the end of the world. Some are behaving like we are underestimating its impact (which opinion I agree with), pretty much all agree media is sensationalizing it, some are saying the impact is overstated...but none are saying it is the end of the world. If you want to call 6,000 deaths a drop in the bucket, go for it. You ever see anyone die of cancer? It sucks. It doesn't just suck for them either, it sucks for everyone around them, everyone that cares for them. Maybe you don't care about this disaster, but you certainly care about letting others know how much you don't care about it

 
People keep bringing up Chernobyl as the worst case scenario. But according to Wiki, regarding Chernobyl:

In the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness, of whom 31 died within the first three months.[61][62] Most of these were fire and rescue workers trying to bring the accident under control, who were not fully aware of how dangerous exposure to the radiation in the smoke was. Whereas, the World Health Organization's report 2006 Report of the Chernobyl Forum Expert Group from the 237 emergency workers who were diagnosed with ARS, ARS was identified as the cause of death for 28 of these people within the first few months after the disaster. There were no further deaths identified, in the general population affected by the disaster, as being caused by ARS. Of the 72,000 Russian Emergency Workers being studied, 216 non-cancer deaths are attributed to the disaster, between 1991 and 1998. The latency period for solid cancers caused by excess radiation exposure is 10 or more years; thus at the time of the WHO report being undertaken, the rates of solid cancer deaths were no greater than the general population.

Now for the 216 people who died, that's terrible, but 216 people is hardly the apocalypse that some people around here are trying to paint. In Japan, it would represent a statistically insignifcant number compared to those who have been killed by the earthquake and tsunami, and also compared to those who die every year of cancer. So what are we all panicking about? The reaction by some to nuclear energy seems completely irrational to me.
I agree. The bad part about Chernobyl is that it rendered a large area unlivable. But in comparison to other disasters, it hardly ranks on the scale. Probably, tens of thousands have died already from the tsunami and THAT is the story. Also the economic consequences for Japan are devastating. THAT is a huge story. Economically, how Japan will rebound and if they will have to sell a bunch of US bonds to rebound...THAT is big.

But the nuclear event? Probably won't amount to a whole lot in comparison unless some sort of awful calamity allows a ton of radiation to head towards Tokyo.
The future affect that each will have is important. Japan is a strong economy and has industrious people. They will rebuild.

If they sell our bonds, bond prices will take a short-term hit, but it is not as significant as what Bernake is doing in terms of destroying the value of our currency.

The nuclear event could destroy the future of nuclear power.

All three are big stories. I do agree though that the nuclear story is getting more play than it should given how destroyed the rest of Japan is.

 
Bueno, it's not the death toll, its the destruction of the environment. I think that's why a nuclear catastrophe is so poignant for humans. It's the biological destruction a portion of the earth for 10s of thousands of year solely due to our own folly. Sure there are other situations that are similar, but none that takes an "invisible" toll on the biology of the area.
10s of thousands of years? Even at Chernobyl the environment is recovering and wildlife is re-inhabiting the area:
Nearly completely unperturbed by man — some 350 "self-settlers" still live inside the zone, but this mainly elderly group generally keeps to its eight villages — the flora and fauna here have developed with virtually no human interference.

In one day, a lucky first-time visitor may see elk, foxes, otters, beavers, wild boars, gray cranes and endangered great spotted eagles. Regular visitors say bears have also been spotted in the area.

With so few people, the zone is the perfect habitat for endangered species. The Chernobyl International Radioecology Laboratory has so far recorded the presence there of more than 400 animal species, including 280 kinds of birds and 50 endangered species.

And despite apocalyptic predictions at the time of the Chernobyl disaster, the animal species living inside the forbidden zone are not strange, disproportioned mutants.

"The mutants never resembled the monsters described in the media and all died out quickly," said Sergei Gashak, an ornithologist at the Chernobyl lab.

The ecosystem surrounding Chernobyl has passed through several stages since the accident, said Rudolph Alexakhin, director of the Agricultural Radiology Institute in Moscow.

During the first year-long phase, plants and animals that were most affected by the radiation died. Some areas were so soaked with radioactivity that they had to be completely razed, such as a pine forest that became known as the "Red Forest" for the levels of radiation registered there.

Over the next six years, nature slowly licked its wounds following the disaster, he said.

Today it is coming back with a vengeance.
http://animal.discovery.com/news/afp/20060417/chernobyl.htmlThey are opening the area to tourists this year:

KIEV, Ukraine — Want a better understanding of the world's worst nuclear disaster? Come tour the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Beginning next year, Ukraine plans to open up the sealed zone around the Chernobyl reactor to visitors who wish to learn more about the tragedy that occurred nearly a quarter of a century ago, the Emergency Situations Ministry said Monday.

Chernobyl's reactor No. 4 exploded on April 26, 1986, spewing radiation over a large swath of northern Europe. Hundreds of thousands of people were resettled from areas contaminated with radiation fallout in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. Related health problems still persist.

The so-called exclusion zone, a highly contaminated area within a 30-mile (48-kilometer) radius of the exploded reactor, was evacuated and sealed off in the aftermath of the explosion. All visits were prohibited.

Today, about 2,500 employees maintain the remains of the now-closed nuclear plant, working in shifts to minimize their exposure to radiation. Several hundred evacuees have returned to their villages in the area despite a government ban. A few firms now offer tours to the restricted area, but the government says those tours are illegal and their safety is not guaranteed.

Emergency Situations Ministry spokeswoman Yulia Yershova said experts are developing travel routes that will be both medically safe and informative for Ukrainians as well as foreign visitors. She did not give an exact date when the tours were expected to begin.

"There are things to see there if one follows the official route and doesn't stray away from the group," Yershova told The Associated Press. "Though it is a very sad story."

The United Nations Development Program chief Helen Clark toured the Chernobyl plant together with Baloha on Sunday and said she supported the plan because it could help raise money and tell an important lesson about nuclear safety.

"Personally I think there is an opportunity to tell a story here and of course the process of telling a story, even a sad story, is something that is positive in economic terms and positive in conveying very important messages," said Clark, according to her office.

The ministry also said Monday it hopes to finish building a new safer shell for the exploded reactor by 2015. The new shelter will cover the original iron-and-concrete structure hastily built over the reactor that has been leaking radiation, cracking and threatening to collapse.

Story continues below

Advertisement

The new shell is 345 feet (105 meters) tall, 853 feet (260 meters) wide and 490 feet (150 meters) long. It weighs 20,000 tons and will be slid over the old shelter using rail tracks. The new structure will be big enough to house the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris or the Statue of Liberty in New York.

The overall cost of project, financed by international donors, has risen from $505 million (euro380 million) to $1.15 billion (euro870 million) because of stricter safety requirements, according to Ukrainian officials.

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which manages the project, said a final estimate of the project's cost will be released after the French-led consortium Novarka finalizes a construction plan in the next few months.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/13/chernobyl-tourism-2011_n_795688.htmlThe World Health Organization is reporting that the effect on health isn't nearly as bad as was expected and the environment is rebounding well:

Repacholi concludes that “the health effects of the accident were potentially horrific, but when you add them up using validated conclusions from good science, the public health effects were not nearly as substantial as had at first been feared.”

The report’s estimate for the eventual number of deaths is far lower than earlier, well-publicized speculations that radiation exposure would claim tens of thousands of lives. But the 4000 figure is not far different from estimates made in 1986 by Soviet scientists, according to Dr Mikhail Balonov, a radiation expert with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, who was a scientist in the former Soviet Union at the time of the accident.

As for environmental impact, the reports are also reassuring, for the scientific assessments show that, except for the still closed, highly contaminated 30 kilometer area surrounding the reactor, and some closed lakes and restricted forests, radiation levels have mostly returned to acceptable levels. “In most areas the problems are economic and psychological, not health or environmental,” reports Balonov, the scientific secretary of the Chernobyl Forum effort who has been involved with Chernobyl recovery since the disaster occurred.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html
 
Bueno, it's not the death toll, its the destruction of the environment. I think that's why a nuclear catastrophe is so poignant for humans. It's the biological destruction a portion of the earth for 10s of thousands of year solely due to our own folly. Sure there are other situations that are similar, but none that takes an "invisible" toll on the biology of the area.
10s of thousands of years? Even at Chernobyl the environment is recovering and wildlife is re-inhabiting the area
10s of thousands of years, 10s of years - tomato, tomatoe
 
Jesus Tim, how long can you keep this up...this thread is at 15 pages and there has to be at least one negative comment from you per page. No one is behaving like it is the end of the world. Some are behaving like we are underestimating its impact (which opinion I agree with), pretty much all agree media is sensationalizing it, some are saying the impact is overstated...but none are saying it is the end of the world. If you want to call 6,000 deaths a drop in the bucket, go for it. You ever see anyone die of cancer? It sucks. It doesn't just suck for them either, it sucks for everyone around them, everyone that cares for them. Maybe you don't care about this disaster, but you certainly care about letting others know how much you don't care about it
Of course I care about this disaster. And I care about cancer. I've had both family and friends die of cancer, and it tore into me greatly. I don't really appreciate you assigning emotions (or lack of them to me). I care so much about this current disaster that I have contributed hundreds of dollars towards helping, and if I can do more I will.When I call 6,000 deaths statistically irrelevant, that is ONLY in terms of making policy decisions regarding nuclear energy, which is one of the subjects being discussed in this thread. I think it's an important issue to discuss, because I don't want to see us allow our fears to take precedence over rational thinking. If you think it's easy for me to write about these subjects and attempt to avoid emotion when discussing them, you're very wrong. I need to take a break from this thread, and perhaps from this forum as well. I don't mind argument or criticism, but I really don't need people telling me I don't care about those who die of cancer. Think what you want, I guess.
 
I need to take a break from this thread, and perhaps from this forum as well. I don't mind argument or criticism, but I really don't need people telling me I don't care about those who die of cancer. Think what you want, I guess.
[Kanye]Tim Schochet doesn't care about sick people.*[/Kanye]* The opinions of Kanye do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this author, the forum as a whole, or any person chosen at random and asked the question.
 
Jesus Tim, how long can you keep this up...this thread is at 15 pages and there has to be at least one negative comment from you per page. No one is behaving like it is the end of the world. Some are behaving like we are underestimating its impact (which opinion I agree with), pretty much all agree media is sensationalizing it, some are saying the impact is overstated...but none are saying it is the end of the world. If you want to call 6,000 deaths a drop in the bucket, go for it. You ever see anyone die of cancer? It sucks. It doesn't just suck for them either, it sucks for everyone around them, everyone that cares for them. Maybe you don't care about this disaster, but you certainly care about letting others know how much you don't care about it
...and here's where you get 6 paragraphs about how he really DOES care and apologizes if it comes off as such... but it just sickens him to see the media sensationalize everything and he's just here to set the record straight...and how he's really sorry and he'll pipe down (again).:popcorn:ETA: damn.. it was only 3 paragraphs :lmao:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jesus Tim, how long can you keep this up...this thread is at 15 pages and there has to be at least one negative comment from you per page. No one is behaving like it is the end of the world. Some are behaving like we are underestimating its impact (which opinion I agree with), pretty much all agree media is sensationalizing it, some are saying the impact is overstated...but none are saying it is the end of the world. If you want to call 6,000 deaths a drop in the bucket, go for it. You ever see anyone die of cancer? It sucks. It doesn't just suck for them either, it sucks for everyone around them, everyone that cares for them. Maybe you don't care about this disaster, but you certainly care about letting others know how much you don't care about it
...and here's where you get 6 paragraphs about how he really DOES care and apologizes if it comes off as such... but it just sickens him to see the media sensationalize everything and he's just here to set the record straight...and how he's really sorry and he'll pipe down (again).:popcorn:ETA: damn.. it was only 3 paragraphs :lmao:
Yeah, except that I'm not sorry for anything that I've written in this thread.
 
I said that the price of uranium and uranium stocks are likely to fall, while oil is likely to rise. It means I sell uranium stock (assuming I own any at the moment) and buy oil stock. Hardly a vested interest - it could affect my stock trades but nothing more. If I was going to short uranium stocks do you think I would be exagerating the potential dangers? Do you really think that? :rolleyes:
You know I really don't care what you do with your money. I appreciate your knowledge on the subject and that's all good and well. I don't have the capatilistic savvy that you have, and am just an average Gov't worker and won't ever be rich and I am fine with that. I certainly didn't think about my portfolio and if I had one I still wouldn't mention it after this kind of calamity.
I didn't mention portfolios until you implied that I had a vested interest in minimizing the danger. The original post I made was in response to someone wondering how energy policy would be affected. The response was that uranium would drop while oil prices would rise. You took that as me having a vested interest where one didn't exist. Bottom line is I don't have a vested interest in minimizing the danger, because if I chose to, I could make money either way. Not that what I say on a message board would affect that markets anyway - Dodds portfolio ain't that big! I am however, mildly insulted that you implied I was using my specific knowledge of nuclear science (dated as it may be) for personal gain here.
It's not dated. It's incomplete.
 
I said that the price of uranium and uranium stocks are likely to fall, while oil is likely to rise. It means I sell uranium stock (assuming I own any at the moment) and buy oil stock. Hardly a vested interest - it could affect my stock trades but nothing more. If I was going to short uranium stocks do you think I would be exagerating the potential dangers? Do you really think that? :rolleyes:
You know I really don't care what you do with your money. I appreciate your knowledge on the subject and that's all good and well. I don't have the capatilistic savvy that you have, and am just an average Gov't worker and won't ever be rich and I am fine with that. I certainly didn't think about my portfolio and if I had one I still wouldn't mention it after this kind of calamity.
I didn't mention portfolios until you implied that I had a vested interest in minimizing the danger. The original post I made was in response to someone wondering how energy policy would be affected. The response was that uranium would drop while oil prices would rise. You took that as me having a vested interest where one didn't exist. Bottom line is I don't have a vested interest in minimizing the danger, because if I chose to, I could make money either way. Not that what I say on a message board would affect that markets anyway - Dodds portfolio ain't that big! I am however, mildly insulted that you implied I was using my specific knowledge of nuclear science (dated as it may be) for personal gain here.
It's not dated. It's incomplete.
Can't know everything.
 
Should know the basics to comment; not rehash what you can Google in two minutes and claim it as your expertise.
Believe what you wish - I don't really care (what you think that is).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last year, 48 US coal miners were killed and 11 oilfield workers were killed on that BP rig. Compared to who has died and is likely to die as a result of this nuclear incident and factoring in the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels, coal and oil is certainly more dangerous.
Hold on, here. This is not the first time I've read this sentiment in this thread and it doesn't exactly seem like a fair comparison.You guys know the difference in volume between our fossil fuel energy production and nuclear production, right? It is hardly even comparable. How can the safety issues be comparable, then? Wait, you mean the source that has provided about 100,000 times more energy has caused many more deaths and environmental problems? You don't say!If you want to do an analysis of injuries or deaths or environmental problems per unit of energy produced, then you could actually draw some conclusions, but to say the nuclear is safer than fossil fuels because of the current aggragate totals is not a very good argument.
People who have died in the US as a result of a nuclear accident: 0. Do the math.
This is what you are going with, or is this just :fishing: ?
Bueno has to be fishing. Isn't Nuclear power subsidized to build the plants? Who should pay to rebuild these plants as it seems a given Japan lost at least 6 of them? I heard replacement costs are about 5-7Billion a piece. What is this disaster costing Japan in terms of their stock market? Or do you credit all of the drop to the earthquake and Tsunami? I don't remember reading a coal report crashing the stock market.Will GE, TEPCO, etc all pay the damages to the people, lost land, rebuilding the reactors, etc or is that a government burden?So when people say nuclear cost is the cheapest, does it factor in all of these other costs (the subsidies, the billions/trillions associated with lost land, meltdowns, etc)?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last year, 48 US coal miners were killed and 11 oilfield workers were killed on that BP rig. Compared to who has died and is likely to die as a result of this nuclear incident and factoring in the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels, coal and oil is certainly more dangerous.
Hold on, here. This is not the first time I've read this sentiment in this thread and it doesn't exactly seem like a fair comparison.You guys know the difference in volume between our fossil fuel energy production and nuclear production, right? It is hardly even comparable. How can the safety issues be comparable, then? Wait, you mean the source that has provided about 100,000 times more energy has caused many more deaths and environmental problems? You don't say!If you want to do an analysis of injuries or deaths or environmental problems per unit of energy produced, then you could actually draw some conclusions, but to say the nuclear is safer than fossil fuels because of the current aggragate totals is not a very good argument.
People who have died in the US as a result of a nuclear accident: 0. Do the math.
This is what you are going with, or is this just :fishing: ?
Bueno has to be fishing. Isn't Nuclear power subsidized to build the plants? Who should pay to rebuild these plants as it seems a given Japan lost at least 6 of them? I heard replacement costs are about 5-7Billion a piece. What is this disaster costing Japan in terms of their stock market? Or do you credit all of the drop to the earthquake and Tsunami? I don't remember reading a coal report crashing the stock market.Will GE, TEPCO, etc all pay the damages to the people, lost land, rebuilding the reactors, etc or is that a government burden?So when people say nuclear cost is the cheapest, does it factor in all of these other costs (the subsidies, the billions/trillions associated with lost land, meltdowns, etc)?
Wow, talk about fishing.
 
Isn't the real cost of Nuclear power the impacts that come with the very countries we don't want having nuclear weapons. When the Irans of the world all want nuclear power, might there not be a secondary objective? Or are we actively promoting this great technology in Iran, Iraq, Saudi, Egypt, etc? I mean what could go wrong when they learn to enrich uranium.

 
I dont understand this. Are you saying the destruction of the carbon based plants as part of the quake/flood is worse than the nuclear issue?
No...I'm saying carbon based power plants kill more people and put more dangerous contaminants in the air every year than Nuclear power has in it's entire history. The environmental footprint of nuclear power, even with accidents, does not remotely approach the footprint of coal plants.Kind of like the danger of driving a car vs. riding in a plane. The first is more deadly, even if the second is more spectacular.
 
not minimize, but those who have died from nuclear power pales in comparison to the number killed mining coal in terms of accdents and cancers.

 
To answer your first question the swine flu comes to mind. As for everything else Renesauz is pretty on point with how badly this is being overblown. Local news last night talking about a MELTDOWN!!!!! as if this thing is going to to explode all over the place and kill everything. There is a run on iodine pills in Finland to drive this point home. Also for everyone freaking out about the dangers of nuclear power, the entire US Naval fleet is nuclear powered so keep that in mind. Also these facilities just got their ### kicked by a m9.0 earthquake followed by a very angry and destructive wall of water, it is a miracle of their engineering they are still standing at all!

Schlzm
The swine flu media overhype is a good one, if you were arguing from the getgo that it was not serious. If you thought it wasn't serious, took a stand and said so, then I have no problem with it, really either way. But If you think it is deadly serious in one sentence and then say it's all media hype, it's a contradition don't ya think?
I am looking at it from the standpoint that it is deadly serious in that it is a very intense situation that needs to be handled quickly to avoid greater localized problems. The media/anti-nuke power groups are taking the approach that it is deadly serious as in a potentially lethal situation for entire pacific rim, which is way overblown. Schlzm
:goodposting: Pretty much what I meant too. It's a big deal that deserves attention and all...but the idea that hundreds of lives are threatened, let alone thousands or millions, is ridiculous.
 
I dont understand this. Are you saying the destruction of the carbon based plants as part of the quake/flood is worse than the nuclear issue?
No...I'm saying carbon based power plants kill more people and put more dangerous contaminants in the air every year than Nuclear power has in it's entire history. The environmental footprint of nuclear power, even with accidents, does not remotely approach the footprint of coal plants.Kind of like the danger of driving a car vs. riding in a plane. The first is more deadly, even if the second is more spectacular.
:goodposting: I like this guy!I am with you 100%. To sustain the power we need in North America, Nuclear is basically the ONLY way to go.
 
Touching on the argument about the dangers of coal generated power vs. nuclear generated power I figured I would throw out some random numbers for easy reference.

Source

In 2005, the Energy Information Administration's inventory of coal plants - which includes virtually all coal plants over 5 MW, and many below that size - listed 614 coal-fired power plants in the U.S. These coal plants had a total of 1,522 coal-fired generating units (many plants have multiple units), and a total of 335,831 MW (Megawatts) of production capacity.
Source
Nuclear energy provides 20 percent of the United States' electricity and is its No. 1 source of emission-free electricity.

Number of operating reactors: 104 (35 boiling water reactors, 69 pressurized water reactors)

14 BWR plants have one reactor; nine have two reactors; one has three reactors

15 PWR plants have one reactor; 24 have two reactors; two have three reactors
Source
TRussia built 248 nuclear submarines and five naval surface vessels powered by 468 nuclear reactors between 1950 and 2003, and was then operating about 60.

Towards the end of the Cold War, in 1989, there were over 400 nuclear-powered submarines operational or being built. At least 300 of these submarines have now been scrapped, and some on order cancelled, due to weapons reduction programs. Russia and the US had over one hundred each in service, while the UK and France had less than twenty each, and China only six. The total number in service today is understood to be about 120, including new ones commissioned.

The US Navy has the most nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (11), and both the US and Russia have had nuclear-powered cruisers (USA: 9, Russia: 4). Russia also has seven nuclear icebreakers and a nuclear freighter in service.

The US Navy has accumulated about 6000 reactor years of accident-free experience, and operates more than 80 nuclear-powered ships (with 103 reactors as of early 2005). Russia has logged 6000 nautical reactor years.
Schlzm
Thanks. I would suggest that if it provides 20% of our power....it's probably pretty fair to start making those comparisons. No matter how you slice it...Nuclear is WAAAAAAAAY ahead of fossil fuels on the safety record.
 
People who have died in the US as a result of a nuclear accident: 0. Do the math.
The family of Robert Peabody might be surprised to learn of this.
I'm sure bueno will come back with a technicality.
I don't know about this guy specifically, but there have been at least a few deaths in nuclear power in the US. The military had a pretty serious accident in the early days of experimentation that killed several men. Of course...that was like 50 years ago in a tiny experimental plant in the middle of a desert. Not what I'd call relevent to this debate.
 
Isn't the real cost of Nuclear power the impacts that come with the very countries we don't want having nuclear weapons. When the Irans of the world all want nuclear power, might there not be a secondary objective? Or are we actively promoting this great technology in Iran, Iraq, Saudi, Egypt, etc? I mean what could go wrong when they learn to enrich uranium.
This is part of the problem. While nuclear reactors and atomic bombs are very differant beasts, much of the same technology is needed for both. Uranium enrichment procedures can provide weapons grade fuel just as easily as the much lower grade power stuff.This technology is closely gaurded, even in the civilian power plants, and that secrecy is a big part of the reason why it is not taught and explained more thoroughly to the public....also leading to public misconceptions and confusions, and ensuring a backlash against anything the nuclear power proponents try to push through.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top