Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?
ok, no more worries for the stupid thing.
I think that nuclear power (nuclear fission plants) is a bad option, but it is worse in some countries than in other. Safety is not the main problem as the political and the economic concerns are more important, for instance in my country. Our government chose to spend the most of the resources for new nuclear plants, so we'll eventually see just a long-term result, but actually at a very high cost; while the same money, or part of it, could be invested in both renewable sources research and plants. So Italy has less reason for the nuclear option than other countries.
Apart from this, you don't need to be e nuclear engineer to realize how crucial is the nuclear waste problem. In terms of cost, non only safety. Technology didn't find a solution for the disposal of the waste so far. Its cost is simply procrastined to the next generation, but it still exists.
Moreover we must face the problem from a safety and health point of view, from an environmental point of view, but i don't expect that nuclear fans ever worry about it.
At least until someone unfortunately happens to live in a radiation area, and in that case it will be the worst thing in his life, and i call this very very stupid.
I think that nuclear power (nuclear fission plants) is a bad option, but it is worse in some countries than in other. Safety is not the main problem as the political and the economic concerns are more important, for instance in my country. Our government chose to spend the most of the resources for new nuclear plants, so we'll eventually see just a long-term result, but actually at a very high cost; while the same money, or part of it, could be invested in both renewable sources research and plants. So Italy has less reason for the nuclear option than other countries.
Apart from this, you don't need to be e nuclear engineer to realize how crucial is the nuclear waste problem. In terms of cost, non only safety. Technology didn't find a solution for the disposal of the waste so far. Its cost is simply procrastined to the next generation, but it still exists.
Moreover we must face the problem from a safety and health point of view, from an environmental point of view, but i don't expect that nuclear fans ever worry about it.
At least until someone unfortunately happens to live in a radiation area, and in that case it will be the worst thing in his life, and i call this very very stupid.
evacuation is normal, small risk there is always, but that news from media that "there is a high radiation" is as I suppose not so clear/true... have somebody numbers of that "high" radiation ?
I really don't know what news you watch and read .... :P It seems you're currently on another planet or something like that.
Use Google if you want more info :) Look here for example ..
(edited)
Use Google if you want more info :) Look here for example ..
(edited)
It's obviously high enough that they need the workers there to retreat because it's too dangerous for them.
I agree with you here. Especially that the wealthiest countries of the world should worry less about being cost effective but rather more responsible to the environment and the future generations. This means that they should invest largely in research and development of alternative options.
I am not sure whether nuclear waste causes more problems than externalities from thermal or hydro power plants. It seems unfair to pass nuclear waste on to future generations but on the other hand whenever I read about the quantities of this waste, they don't seem scary. Also, I believe that the with further development new and better solutions will be found for this problem as well.
I am not sure whether nuclear waste causes more problems than externalities from thermal or hydro power plants. It seems unfair to pass nuclear waste on to future generations but on the other hand whenever I read about the quantities of this waste, they don't seem scary. Also, I believe that the with further development new and better solutions will be found for this problem as well.
Also, I believe that the with further development new and better solutions will be found for this problem as well.
This is unfortunatly only speculations and you can't count on it in any way.
This is unfortunatly only speculations and you can't count on it in any way.
High radiation level detected 30km from nuke plant
ok, that was media headline...and now more:
(same article)
Japan's science ministry says radiation levels of up to 0.17 millisieverts per hour have been detected about 30 kilometers northwest of the quake-damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
Experts say exposure to those levels for 6 hours would result in absorption of the maximum level considered safe for 1 year. *** Ok, it is too much, but it is not so much that people will die because of this, it is that they will get maybe 1 -2 year of maximum for safe level.[/i]
The government has instructed residents living within a 20 to 30 kilometer radius of the plant to stay indoors.
The ministry gauged radiation from 9:20 AM to 3:00 PM on Thursday at 28 spots, in areas 20 to 60 kilometers from the plant.
The ministry also observed radiation levels of 0.0183 to 0.0011 millisieverts per hour at most of the observation points. ***[i] this is much less.. this is no threat !
It says these levels are higher than normal but pose no immediate threat to health.
Thursday, March 17, 2011 21:20 +0900 (JST)
========================
Why I am from another planet ? Because when you see "high radiation" you think "oh, so much people will die or they will die because of cancer for sure" and that is maybe not true ?
and I see in same case/article just "6 hours = 1 year radiation in maximum of safe lever, so maybe they will get 1-2 year of radiation till wind will solve this and also at hospital they can make it bit lower by medicines and so (sorry of my english)... and that it is very low behind 30km so no threat... ??
I want just find out how much and I find this... no word "high" but numbers of levels.
ok, that was media headline...and now more:
(same article)
Japan's science ministry says radiation levels of up to 0.17 millisieverts per hour have been detected about 30 kilometers northwest of the quake-damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
Experts say exposure to those levels for 6 hours would result in absorption of the maximum level considered safe for 1 year. *** Ok, it is too much, but it is not so much that people will die because of this, it is that they will get maybe 1 -2 year of maximum for safe level.[/i]
The government has instructed residents living within a 20 to 30 kilometer radius of the plant to stay indoors.
The ministry gauged radiation from 9:20 AM to 3:00 PM on Thursday at 28 spots, in areas 20 to 60 kilometers from the plant.
The ministry also observed radiation levels of 0.0183 to 0.0011 millisieverts per hour at most of the observation points. ***[i] this is much less.. this is no threat !
It says these levels are higher than normal but pose no immediate threat to health.
Thursday, March 17, 2011 21:20 +0900 (JST)
========================
Why I am from another planet ? Because when you see "high radiation" you think "oh, so much people will die or they will die because of cancer for sure" and that is maybe not true ?
and I see in same case/article just "6 hours = 1 year radiation in maximum of safe lever, so maybe they will get 1-2 year of radiation till wind will solve this and also at hospital they can make it bit lower by medicines and so (sorry of my english)... and that it is very low behind 30km so no threat... ??
I want just find out how much and I find this... no word "high" but numbers of levels.
You talk about this if ít's really nothing, if this people has to watch out not to get the flu or some inconvenient STD. I wonder how your reaction would be if this was next door to you :) How 'safe' do you really think you would be .... People already get sick near normal functioning nuclear powerstations ...
Think about what you write there:
They get the maximum dose for a year(!) in only 6h. Statistically speaking they would need to stay away from any other radiation for a whole year. Now tell me how you would do this?
It's simply impossible. There's natural radiation that already accounts up to 0.5-2 mSv a year. The higher above the sea level you live the more.
Assuming that they keep on living in Japan or even near Fukushima they would definately absorb more of it because the higher radiation will not just go away in a few days.
In Germany the maximum dose for people that are exposed to radiation due to their work is 20mSv a year. That would be reached in only 5 days (which we already passed since the start of the desaster ).
They get the maximum dose for a year(!) in only 6h. Statistically speaking they would need to stay away from any other radiation for a whole year. Now tell me how you would do this?
It's simply impossible. There's natural radiation that already accounts up to 0.5-2 mSv a year. The higher above the sea level you live the more.
Assuming that they keep on living in Japan or even near Fukushima they would definately absorb more of it because the higher radiation will not just go away in a few days.
In Germany the maximum dose for people that are exposed to radiation due to their work is 20mSv a year. That would be reached in only 5 days (which we already passed since the start of the desaster ).
As I told .. you all just dont read !!!!
Think about what you write there:
They get the maximum dose for a year(!) in only 6h. Statistically speaking they would need to stay away from any other radiation for a whole year. Now tell me how you would do this?
It is just for less than 30km... nobody is now there !!!!!
Assuming that they keep on living in Japan or even near Fukushima they would definately absorb more of it because the higher radiation will not just go away in a few days.
Not true again.. there is now nothing around 30km of Fukushima, so nobody will live there !!!
Think about what you write there:
They get the maximum dose for a year(!) in only 6h. Statistically speaking they would need to stay away from any other radiation for a whole year. Now tell me how you would do this?
It is just for less than 30km... nobody is now there !!!!!
Assuming that they keep on living in Japan or even near Fukushima they would definately absorb more of it because the higher radiation will not just go away in a few days.
Not true again.. there is now nothing around 30km of Fukushima, so nobody will live there !!!
What about the workers in the plant? The fire fighters and military? The helicopter pilots?
And after about 30 kms everythings totally fine? Do you really believe that?
If so, wow!
And after about 30 kms everythings totally fine? Do you really believe that?
If so, wow!
and this is the problem.....
FACTs and opinions of people are too much different.... but the most important are facts not opinions.
Yes, I really would not like have nuclear PP next to my door !!! but if they tell us, that "high" radiation is around 30KM... and there is most of buildings destroyed now and also there is just nothing now, no life .... why you want to tell us that all Japanese and also maybe people in Tokyo will suffer high radiation.. ???
Today, some slovaks arrived home from Tokyo, they have "dozimeter" and no radiation.
So, just read facts please and dont tell me, that if there is radiation around 30km of Fukusima (6hours, year amount), that all Japan is in nuclear waste or what.. !! :-(
FACTs and opinions of people are too much different.... but the most important are facts not opinions.
Yes, I really would not like have nuclear PP next to my door !!! but if they tell us, that "high" radiation is around 30KM... and there is most of buildings destroyed now and also there is just nothing now, no life .... why you want to tell us that all Japanese and also maybe people in Tokyo will suffer high radiation.. ???
Today, some slovaks arrived home from Tokyo, they have "dozimeter" and no radiation.
So, just read facts please and dont tell me, that if there is radiation around 30km of Fukusima (6hours, year amount), that all Japan is in nuclear waste or what.. !! :-(
I am not talking about maybe 100 people,, but you want tell me that thousands of Japan suffer from radioactivity ?? no bullshit !
this situation is very bad and I am sad of it... but dont take opinions like it is facts... people in Japan, 95% are safe, and maybe 100-500 people suffer by 1-2-3 year amount of radiation.
The much worse is that Tsunami and consequences and that destroyed country :-( too sad :-(
But radiation is much smaller problem.
or show me facts please !
The much worse is that Tsunami and consequences and that destroyed country :-( too sad :-(
But radiation is much smaller problem.
or show me facts please !