Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?

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...

In an large area only bottle water can be use now. Just watch the news :) Oh, vegetables and milk are also becoming a problem, Google - radiation water food Fukushima.

You really have to start watching the news ;) Or open newssites.

You do yourself no favours by linking to google. Provide information from reputable sources if you have them, otherwise it's all conjecture and hearsay.

Now he can see it's not something I make up, and he can read the article he likes :) I see it on the news, love to link that but it's in Dutch ;)

EDIT: I recommand CNN, Reuters or something like that.
(edited)

that is the point, I watched news :-)

1. Radiation is there but Japan government tell to people that it is not dangerous much, level are very low, but yes there is small radiation so they recommended to clean vegetables.

(you tell it like all food is poisoned... do you think that Japan gov is liying to people, why ??? )

2, water... I am wonder if water is still with radiation after one two week, if not, this is just local accident.. ok, news must have cool news, I understand :-)



I dont know where is exactly true, but you should just read and listen to facts and not opinions :-)

If somebody say... there is A problem why you are telling us that there is A problem and also B problem, this is not fact, just opinion and media speculation...

as I said, just technical question :-)
(I knew what will be you answer sooner than I asked you that question :-DDD)

it is like we have two news... just example.

First: there is a fire at the city Toronto !!!
Second: Stats info of Toronto for 100 years says.. 1000 building was destroyed by fire.

and you will come and say us this: "There is big, really big fire in Toronto, 1000 building was destroyed there by fire"

Yes, you will have true, but in one sentence it is just funny, not objective :-)
do you understand my previous technical question now ?

I rather believe the experts on tv and newspapers then your personal opinion. I show you articles, long term consequences, even show examples high levels are already reached, and your answer is I would say a 1000 buildings are burned ... Show me I'm wrong with info please, no strange examples that aren't even true.

I didnt tell you nothing / no my opinion !!! :-D

I was just asking you how sure you are about it, if facts from Japan says just A and media A+B.

But I told you noting about this, I am just asking you :-)

The 400 mSv/hr was a one time measurement. Measure right between two reactors. The radiation level fell quickly, as it has done for every spike. The reason is, that almost all radioactive isotopes released so far are short lived with a half life of seconds or minutes. That's why you see sudden spikes, for example during controlled venting of the reactors to keep the pressure down. IAEA hasn't had any reports of radiation sicknees yet, and I believe IAEA much more than Dutch television. If Dutch TV is comparable to Danish the coverage has been awful - full of speculation and rumours and with a big lack of facts and even a basic understanding of how a reactor works, what radiationis or what a meltdown constitutes.

WHO knows the story about Chernobyl. The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, in case you've forgot, and numerous studies has been made. Noone has been able to proove statistically, that anyone beside the first responders and people struck with thyroid cancer has died. And the thyroid cancers (about 3000 cases with a total of 9 deaths) was in the immediate aftermath from the accident.

The rest of the stuff you're posting is just cherrypicking. I really don't want to spend the rest of the evening xplaining you why it's irresponsible to do that.

So I'll just end by saying, that radioation levels above normal in certain foods are expected. Radiation has been emitted - noone claims otherwise. But it's all about perspective, and none of the food samples has shown any levels of contanimation dangerous in any way to human beeings. But just to be over the top safe it would be best to throw the samples in the garbage and buy nottled water for a few days or weeks, until the levels are normal.
(edited)

You really have to start watching the news ;) Or open newssites.

You really need to stop watching the news and get your knowledge from sites not contaminated with a bad combination of fear, lack of knowledge and sensationalism.

Monty explained it very well.. I must totally agree ...

Another excellent graph that puts some perspective to the radioation levels measured. From Wikipedia: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fd/Fukushima_map.png

It takes a short while to figure it out, but when you've got it, it's actually very helpful.

Actually Wikipedia is not the worst source to use to keep in touch. This article is constantly beeing updated by people who clearly knows what they're doing. It's all very factbased: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents

It takes a bit of background knowledge to get the full picture, but you can get a decent layman's picture as well - stripped from fear and speculation.
(edited)

Ok, 54 official dead (if we can believe that), and what about this, all made up? greenpeace.org - Chernobyl death toll grossly underestimated.

And we can also ignore this, Google - cancer nuclear power. That's how save nuclear power stations are ... This isn't 1 example in 1 country.

And level 5 in a nuclear disaster isn't just a small problem, if Japan is honest and it wasn't a level 6 as France was suggesting.

And my point still is, we don't need more of these things in the world. Invest in other sollutions, we are smart enough to make it work. NASA flew to the moon with less computerpower as a modern watch ;)

I don't want to waste my time reading up on your links. From what I know of the Greenpeace study, it's actually just a speculative developement of the WHO study. The WHO study claims, that until the year 2040-something a numbers of extra cancers might be expected among the most affected populations. So far none of these have materialized, but it's still a concern that it might happen over time. But it's very unsure and based on estimates and guesses, since no event in human history compares to the Chernobyl accident. Greenpeace's criticism is in short, that the WHO study takes a too small population into consideration when making the guesses. That's how Greenpeace gets a bigger number. So in short it's a wild guess based on another wild guess.

The Google-search just doesn't make any sence. Just to make a brief example number two hit is this one. It reads:

Power stations 'no cancer risk' - The research is the largest to date. There is categorically no evidence that living near nuclear power stations increases the rate of childhood cancers, says a report...

And why would you give France more credit than those who have first hand access to all information available? You can touch up your knowledge about the INES-rating system here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale

And my point is, that we absolutely need more of "these things" in the world. Unless we don't care about basing our lives on fossil fuels.

A whise man once said: Choose your battles wisely. I suspect I'm wasting my knowledge here. So my only hope is that others can benefit from it.

(edited)

One final point:

The radiation around a coal fueled power plant is significantly higher than around a nuclear power plant. This is because smoke contains radioactive isotopes - even uranium. The byproduct spred into nature by a nuclear power plant is steam. And it's actually not possible to detect any level of radiation above background radiation. Unless the power plant is in some kind of trouble.