if somebody have time.... try to find

invest cost of nuclear PP and for same amount of electricity wind or solar or geo plants

then operation year cost (and supplying cost - like uran/coal/fuel, wind is cheaper :-))

and than lifetime of such a PP (how long till upgrades are needed or repair)

and than we can discuss the major - the economic advance of nuclear PP.
But we need numbers ! (but I am at work, i dont have so much time, sorry)

Local problems with nuclear powerstations is level 4, at the moment is level 5 or 6 out of max level 7. (level 1 is problems, level 7 is a complete disaster, only chernobyl is level 7).

for you... who have time to read it and give us short brief :-DD

Power Plants:Characteristics and Costs

read more about why was Černobyl bad.... I read so I will not compare it ....

read more about why was Černobyl bad.... I read so I will not compare it ....

Local problems with nuclear powerstations is level 4, at the moment Fukushima I is level 5 or 6 out of max level 7. (level 1 is problems, level 7 is a complete disaster, only Chernobyl is level 7).

This has nothing to do with Chernobyl, only with the level of disaster. Please read.

EDIT: I can't open PDF files at the moment, if you can post website so I can read this :)
(edited)

i can open it...

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34746.pdf

WORST DISASTER SINCE CHERNOBYL!!!11!

As posted elsewhere, after this is over there will still be people insisting that:

1) First, they will say that the accident ‘could have been much worse’. That consequences far worse that were experienced *could* have happened, if only things had gone differently, if we had been less lucky etc.

2) After the WHO and other health officials have come to a conclusion on the radiological fatalities as a result of the release (this may be zero), the anti-nukes will all come out and say there was some kind of ‘conspiracy’ or ‘cover-up’. They will say that the true scale off the accident was covered up, not to give their supposed nuclear pay masters a bad name.

3) Despite the lack of immediate casualties the number of long term deaths from cancer won’t be known for decades and could number in the [insert large number category here].

etc.

I dont think so... but for mainstream media and plebs is this really hot news...

Your 3 point is a real problem, no 1 knows how many will die in the future. And ofcourse no 1 should trust the info from a goverment when they are having serious problems.

Actually we begin to have some pretty solid evidence from the Chernobyl-accident, which by all means was far, far worse than Fukushima. It's been 25 years since the disaster, and WHO has made several grand studies in later years.

For example noone has yet experienced symptoms og radiation-sicknees at Fukushima. At Chernobyl acute radiation-sickness killed several firefighters and other first-responders. The average radiation dose was extremely much larger than experienced so far af Fukushima. Here's some perspective: http://xkcd.com/radiation

So far the official death-toll for Chernobyl stays at 56 first responders, who were killed by the immideate blast or died in the following days from high level radiation. Except from those very few has died. Thousands got thyroid cancer, but the survival rate is very high if spotted early. So as far as I know 'only' 9 children died from it in the following years.

It hasn't been possible to verify any numbr of increase in other types of cancer, even though a spike was expected among the most affected from the accident. But compared to any other population you just can't tell. In fact the biggest impact on public health seems today to be the stress an sence of fatalism caused by the mass evacuation of several hundred thousands of people. Many have ended up in alchoholism and/or unemployment.

And of course you should trust your government. They have the best data and the most experts available to assess the situation - while others has to rely on assumptions and guesses. If they ever want to be reelected, they'd better not put their own publics health in danger. Say what you want about Japan and conservative traditions, but it's not the Soviet Union. And actually there's been a very factbased stream of information all along. We've just lacked proper journalists to interpret those facts and information.

Great posts. Thanx. Especially for the link to the graphics explaining basic relations in radiation quantity from various possible sources. There were posts here claiming that there is much higher incidence of diseases for people living near nuclear power plants. I advise these posts' authors and believers to find and compare on this chart radiation levels a person receives per year by living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant.
(edited)

I agree :-)

Great to have numbers, last week radiation levels peaked 400 millisieverts per hour. Look in that list how sick these workers must have become working in and near this reactor. On Dutch news they told workers already suffered of radiation sickness, strange you here different things. Also the radiation levels at 30 km away are that high, if you have to live there for a few years it's seriously more risky. And more of these things you don't want to hear. Maybe our news is lying, could be ...

But I have problems with your claim about the death toll of Chernobyl. It happened in the USSR, no 1 knows the whole story ;), days after the explosion Sweden noticed high radiation levels and came with the news. greenpeace.org - Chernobyl death toll grossly underestimated, this are different numbers. (don't forget to look at 'The real face of the nuclear industry')

And these are also articles that tell you the other truth of nuclear powerstations, Google - child leukemia nuclear stations

What you say about cancer .... well, I hope you are a doctor to make that claim!

And you may trust governments in problems, I don't :) Cover Ups are well known. I don't think other countries are blaming Japan for nothing ...
Wikileaks Blames The Nuke Crisis On Japan's Government

EDIT: water in the area is showing radiation pollution, can't be used anymore. Really save and healthy to live their the comming years ;)
(edited)

OF COURSE I DONT WANT!
Because nowadays, in Turkey, there is a nuclear power plant topic. Turkish government wants to start to build this plant in Mersin. Mersin is a city where is close to Cyprus. This city is in Mediterranean Coast of Turkey. And I'm living in ADANA! Adana and Mersin are neighbour cities so we have the biggest risk!
Whatever, I dont have many information about this topic coz im not a phsycist. But I really know that;

A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DAMAGES NATURAL BALANCE AND HAS BIG RISKS!

More information;
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/akkuyu/


(edited)

EDIT: water in the area is showing radiation pollution, can't be used anymore. Really save and healthy to live their the comming years ;)


cant be used anymore ? how do you know it... there is water with radioactivity in some area, but how do you know that it is not just some water "reserves" and it is all water at region...

I dont want discuss about this now, I HAVE JUST TECHNICAL question... about how are so sure, and if you dont just change world news to your personal news :-)

really, just technical question about how correct is your information...