211–217 of 217 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those reactors will be much safer then the street in front of your house.
Prove it. And thus the reason for all this regulation.
In fact, nuclear reactor to be built have a higher barrier of 'prove of safety' then almost anything else.
In fact, nobody in the US ever died because of civilian nuclear reactor research or at least not in the last 40+ years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you are right that it's dangerous only when ingested Not really. Tritium is Hydrogen. It cannot bioaccumulate. Each atom of Tritium will spread out to become one among the quadrillions of atoms of Hydrogen in our body. Most will get out of the body in a matter of days, long before they've had a chance to decay. Even when they decay, they undergo beta decay, which is not very damaging. But even if it were damaging,…
> Not really.... But even if it were damaging, the damage would be very localized, it would affect at most one cell, and the immune system is easily able to handle that. you could not be more wrong about this. Alpha and Beta are fairly safe OUTSIDE the body. In the case of Alpha it is not able to penetrate the layer of dead skin on your hands. Internal, it is VERY damaging because there is no "dead skin" to protect t…
Tritium is very different. It is chemically just Hydrogen, which is present everywhere in the body. It just can't bioaccumulate.
In any case, if you don't believe me, here's a statement from the FDA regarding the tritiated water released by Fukushima:
Tritium presents an extremely low human and animal health risk if consumed and any health risk would be further minimized with the dilution effects of discharge into the ocean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And you fell for the fossil fuels propaganda claiming nuclear is too expensive to without subsidies. Seriously.. new nuclear is on the drawing board with huge investments in the UK, France and Sweden. Nuclear will be cheap when the industry grows and reactor designs are standardized. It's really simply the superior technology any way you look at it and the "nuclear is too expensive" is just a tired and arguably false…
In reality there is a lot of research pointing to nuclear power certainly not being anywhere near as cheap as "too cheap to meter". Claiming this is all "fossil fuel propaganda" is stupid and lazy. So far, there has rarely ever been a nuclear power plant built on budget and on time. Most run way over. And often the costs for cleanup and decommissioning are not priced in properly or even at all. Most industries have t…
Sorry i meant all those countries are planning to invest billions of euros into building new reactors now that the EU has deemed nuclear power green. You are talking like other power generation like wind, solar etc is not subsidized ? Hope is the unique to nuclear? Nuclear is subsidized and tightly controlled/regulated for obvious reasons and honestly imho all energy infrastructure should be tightly tied to government as is the case in most of Europe.
Even if Russia was too hot the nuclear power plant in Ukraine with a cruise missile the damage and contamination would be fairly local and I'd imagine hitting a coal or gas power plant with a cruise missile would be just as bad. Besides that hitting a nuclear power plant with cruise missile would be considered firing a nuke and don't think Russia is ready to do that yet. Taking about dirty bombs is just plain stupid, why the hell would you through all that trouble when there's much much cheaper and simpler ways to do damage?
Yes it requires some new infrastructure but in many cases you can switch coal, gas and oil plants almost 1:1 with nuclear. What's wrong with having lots of highly educated people working with supplying the world with energy ? And how is it different from solar, wind etc? France has problems because they still have a huge anti nuclear movement making it very hard to invest properly in maintenance and new plants, besides that France's shortage is because Germany suddenly requires allot more electricity because of stupid investments.
It's never too late.. sure we can also build what is the fastest solution but nuclear is the best bet long term.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In reality there is a lot of research pointing to nuclear power certainly not being anywhere near as cheap as "too cheap to meter". Claiming this is all "fossil fuel propaganda" is stupid and lazy. So far, there has rarely ever been a nuclear power plant built on budget and on time. Most run way over. And often the costs for cleanup and decommissioning are not priced in properly or even at all. Most industries have t…
I wasn't saying that nuclear IS "too cheap to meter" I'm saying it could be. And my statement about fossil fuels propaganda was merely a jab back at your snarky comment. Your absolutely right that most of the new reactors that have been built in the west has been delayed and exceeded budget and all I'm saying is that this wouldn't have been the case of the industry had kept growing and evolving back in the 80s. Japan…
Most of your arguments are entire bullshit and I really don't have the time to waste. No, if one of the nuclear plants in Ukraine blows up, the effects are not "very local" and I suspect the locals do care. So should you when a nuclear plant near where you live goes online. Also the biggest nuclear plant in Europe is hurting Ukraine's defense just by sitting there and doing its job perfectly: The Russians discovered that they can shoot artillery from there without anyone shooting back. Nuclear plants are defensive weak points under any circumstance.
A dirty bomb is a viable terror weapon. You can spread radioactive material quite far with an amount of explosives that wouldn't be able to cause near as much death and terror. Good deal, especially when you got the Plutonium and what not for free...
People like you are lying through your teeth by saying the only alternative to nuclear is fossil fuels. I don't even know anyone who believes this.
And no, we can't wait for nuclear power. A world full of nuclear power plants is unsafe. Maybe in Norway or Finland with the most honest and least corrupt governments (at presents) and no immediate threats from the outside it seems safe. But really, betting on nuclear power means betting on a perfect world during the next few decades at least.
You just continue to profess to a profound ignorance on how radiation exposure work, what happened and is happening right now in Tschernobyl and Fukushima, and make hand wavy arguments "Such accidents are never going to happen and aren't actually that bad, for real this time, pinky promise with cherry on top".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wasn't saying that nuclear IS "too cheap to meter" I'm saying it could be. And my statement about fossil fuels propaganda was merely a jab back at your snarky comment. Your absolutely right that most of the new reactors that have been built in the west has been delayed and exceeded budget and all I'm saying is that this wouldn't have been the case of the industry had kept growing and evolving back in the 80s. Japan…
Ah yes, "it could be". An unrefutable and unprovable statement without proof. It's purely wishful thinking that nuclear power will become any easier in the future. Japan is not "overreacting", it has to clean up the damn mess not just to one day use that area again, but also to avoid spreading the contamination. Just because nobody dies immediately from the exposure doesn't mean the ground is safe to handle or live o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, "it could be". An unrefutable and unprovable statement without proof. It's purely wishful thinking that nuclear power will become any easier in the future. Japan is not "overreacting", it has to clean up the damn mess not just to one day use that area again, but also to avoid spreading the contamination. Just because nobody dies immediately from the exposure doesn't mean the ground is safe to handle or live o…
And you can just continue fear mongering trying to hold the world back further. The world is going nuclear wether you like it or not, America's biggest enemies Russia and China already have it big time and there's a very big limit to what countries America can hold back line they've tried to do with Iran. If anyone is had bullshit arguments it's you; you clearly haven't done any research into Tjernobyl and Fukushima…
You know who cares about dirty bombs? Every intelligence agency and counter terrorism unit in the world. So far it hasn't happened, but if nuclear power is scaled up, this stuff will be way more accessible. A lot like the gun violence problem in the US, but I guess the denialism around those topics is similar.
I personally care most about the closest nuclear facilities, not so much those in China. And in reality, neither Tschernobyl nor Fukushima have been cleaned up yet and continue to be a problem to be felt financially at the very least. I know quite a bit about it, but some people apparently think it's only bad if you die instantly... But it certainly makes some weak arguments easier, doesn't it? Who cares about people losing decades of their life...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prove it. And thus the reason for all this regulation.
We have prove how unsafe the streets are and yet ... In fact, nuclear reactor to be built have a higher barrier of 'prove of safety' then almost anything else. In fact, nobody in the US ever died because of civilian nuclear reactor research or at least not in the last 40+ years.
Additionally, the public is relatively unaware of how nuclear plants fail. If people at nuclear reactor research labs suddenly stop showing up to work - what happens? People kind of assume it will explode, or become a radiation hot-zone rendering the local area unusable for a hundred+ years.
And considering the experimental reactors being discussed need parts replacement due to corrosion, what happens if those replacements dont happen?
The dangers of human inaction seem much higher for nuclear than other things. With standard fuel sources, if people stop showing up to work then power simply stops being made - that's pretty much it. And while they are at work, the process is pretty simple and robust (compared to nuclear) with a lot of room for error.
I know I've been surprised (in a good way) to learn about some of the safety mechanisms existing within nuclear reactors, but I still only sort of understand what anything means that I read - and the safety mechanisms that gave me some sense of relief is based on a lot of assumptions I had to make about the way nuclear works as a lay person.
how about nuclear scientist stop saying "trust me bro" and more aggressively educate people on nuclear fail-safes? People have trouble voting for things they do not understand. And educating the public on something they are either uninterested in or incapable of understanding is an unfair burden to put on nuclear scientists, but they are the only ones qualified to do so.
the ball will move a lot faster once lay people can exchange stories about nuclear safety that go beyond "we barely use nuclear, and no one has died yet, it's actually really safe because ... reasons? scientists said so?"