The Long Shadow of Chernobyl

Viewing 33 posts - 441 through 473 (of 473 total)
  • The Long Shadow of Chernobyl
  • emsz
    Member

    Interestingly (debatable) LOL the relationship between half life and the decay constant mean that substances that decay over thousands (or more years) are in fact less radioactive than than fast decaying materials. Give me a minute, I’ll dig out the equations if you want.

    So TJ if you’re worried about nuclear waste, the longer it takes to decay the better…

    (sara Mrs emsz) 😀

    Premier Icon boriselbrus
    Subscriber

    Oh God, he’s back…

    Anyway TJ, the answer is back there on the thread. You vitrify it and bury it in a geologically stable area.

    You might not like that answer, but that was the answer given, and that is what is done.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Member

    I was resisting, but since the great unshakeable opinion is back…

    I shall leave you pro anti nuclear evangelists to your ridiculous. unscientific, illogical position

    FTFY

    rainmaker8
    Member

    TJ – The comparison of hot water was an analogy for the LNT model and nothing more, don’t try making into something that it wasn’t (unless you are referring to something else). You’re taking a lot of things out of context.

    I don’t remember reading the sources of total killed at Chernobyl on this thread (it is very long now) but I can guess it was the New York Academy of Sciences report?

    If so then the New York Academy of Sciences report was initiated and effectively edited by Greenpeace. Chernobyl is probably the most investigated industrial accident in history but the NYAS report dismisses all other reports from the Red Cross, IAEA, UNSCEAR, and the World Health Organisation, claiming they are in a conspiracy with the nuclear industry but provide no supporting evidence.

    Douglas Braaten, the Director and Executive Editor (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences), stated “In no sense did Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences or the New York Academy of Sciences commission this work; nor by its publication do we intend to independently validate the claims made in the translation or in the original publications cited in the work. The translated volume has not been peer-reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences, or by anyone else.”

    And there is a solution for the small amount of nuclear waste produced which is geological disposal (see Gabon in Africa). What is going to happen to the expired batteries which will be required to make renewable feasible and as pointed out will most likely be much more than nuclear waste? Unlike coal, nuclear provides tiny amounts of waste for the power it generates and can be contained. Every new reactor reduces the waste produced.

    “A traveling wave reactor is an ingenious idea that would use depleted uranium as fuel. It is designed by a firm called TerraPower, in Seattle and has the financial backing from Bill Gates of Microsoft.

    Scientists have a design for a reactor that needs only a small amount of enriched fuel. The core in a traveling-wave reactor converts nonfissile material into the fuel it needs. These reactors could possibly run for 200 years without refueling and will run on nuclear waste.”

    zokes
    Member

    You’re taking a lot of things out of context.

    This is his raison detre…

    I think we should now all use the jpeg I borrowed the other day when attempting a discussion with TJ on this topic. It would save an awful lot of bother:

    Else there’s always

    TandemJeremy – Member

    TandemJeremy said something stupid.

    😉

    konabunny
    Member

    Tfft, this thread was a bit low on dodgy links with no context or narrative.

    zokes
    Member

    Y’see, Macavity does have some advantages over TJ – at least he realises he has nothing intelligent to say and leaves us with a link that’s pretty easy to ignore.

    rainmaker8
    Member

    I remember reading an article regarding terrorists using dirty bombs but the result and intent wouldn’t be massive deaths but massive chaos.

    The example was given of an incident that occurred in 1987 in Goiania, Brazil. Scavengers pried open a canister from a discarded radiation therapy machine that contained powdered cesium-137, a hard gamma emitter. It glowed in the dark. They took it home and people played with it, rubbed iton their bodies, ate sandwiches with the powder on their hands and shared the blue, luminous substance with others.

    It caused 4 deaths and contaminated 250 other people who were treated with a drug that reduces the internal dose of cesium. The amount of people that showed up to hospital because of panic : 130,000.

    I remember it also said that if the goal of terrorists was to cause mass death they wouldn’t use nuclear by-products, it is easier, cheaper and more efficient to go to the local hardware store and you can get all you need.

    Sorry, didn’t mean to change the subject but since it is almost the same thing 🙂

    konabunny
    Member

    Mass death is bloody hard – if terrorists could achieve it, they probably wouldn’t be terrorists to start th – theyd fight conventional wars.

    Kit
    Member

    FAO Edukator

    Re: our discussion about energy use and efficiency, sacking of lectures, etc., see the following examples in the literature:

    Lorna A. Greening, David L. Greene, Carmen Difiglio, Energy efficiency and consumption — the rebound effect — a survey, Energy Policy, Volume 28, Issues 6–7, June 2000, Pages 389-401, ISSN 0301-4215, 10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00021-5.
    (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421500000215)
    Keywords: Energy; Conservation; Rebound; Energy; demand

    Potential carbon reductions resulting from technological improvements in the consumption of energy may be reduced by the “rebound” effect (Wigley, 1997). The “take-back” or “rebound” effect refers to an increase in the supply of energy services with a corresponding decrease in the effective price, the size of which depends upon the underlying cost structure. This in turn may result in an increase in demand in response to these price decreases. Therefore, increased demand for the service, without an offsetting increase in fuel price, can erode technological efficiency gains. Although this premise is undeniably rooted in neoclassical economic theory, the real controversy lies in the identification of sources and size of the rebound. Depending on the definition used for the rebound, the size of this effect can be either insignificant or can result in an increase in fuel consumption (Grubb et al., 1995; Grubb, 1996; [Brookes, 1990], [Brookes, 1992] and [Brookes, 1993]).

    Steve Sorrell, John Dimitropoulos, The rebound effect: Microeconomic definitions, limitations and extensions, Ecological Economics, Volume 65, Issue 3, 15 April 2008, Pages 636-649, ISSN 0921-8009, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.013.
    (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800907004405)
    Keywords: Rebound effect; Energy efficiency; Energy demand

    Numerous empirical studies, principally from the US, suggest that these rebound effects are real and can be significant (Greening et al., 2000). However, while their basic mechanisms are widely accepted, their magnitude and importance are disputed. Some analysts argue that rebound effects are of minor importance for most energy services (Schipper and Grubb, 2000), while others argue that the economy-wide effects can be sufficiently important to completely offset the energy savings from improved energy efficiency ( [Brookes, 1990] and [Saunders, 1992]). The policy implication is that non-price regulations to improve energy efficiency may neither reduce energy demand nor help to mitigate climate change.

    I made the mistake of asserting that energy efficiency does not reduce consumption, when I should have said that energy efficiency MAY not reduce consumption.

    Pigface
    Member

    Y’see, Macavity does have some advantages over TJ – at least he realises he has nothing intelligent to say and leaves us with a link that’s pretty easy to ignore.

    Herr zokes again proving what a c@ck he is.

    zokes
    Member

    Pigface said something stupid.

    🙄

    Edukator
    Member

    I’ve just read my meters for March, Kit:

    Consumption: 164W

    Production: 381W

    We’re not on gas and used a few sticks of wood as it was a mild month.

    Since I bought the house lighting the kitchen has gone from 9 X 40W = 360W to 36W. Lighting the bathroom from 2 X 100W spots + 3 x 40W to 3X 4W LEDs + 36W. The new oven consumes 2200W, the old one 3500W. The flat screen TV significantly less than the cathode ray. The washing machine uses solar-heated hot water so the only electrical consumtion is an efficient motor.

    If you apply all the energy savin new technology to a house the savings are enormous and far outweigh any gagets added in the last ten years (I’m limiting my analysis to Europe as taken globaaly the rise in population is eleiminating the benefit of any savings). Germany per capita elergy use is decreasing and has been for years – thanks to energy saving measures outstripping the consumption of new gadgets.

    Junkyard
    Member

    when are you going to make meaningful answer to ” what are you going to do with the waste?”

    can you define what you eman by meaningful I don’t see what it means in this context it has been answered – what exactky di you want to make it meaningful – something you agree with?

    I shall leave you pro nuclear evangelists to your ridiculous. unscientific, illogical position. Some of the pro nuclear nonsense espoused on here by folk who really should know better is astounding

    Jesus wept TJ and the muse of knowledge shudders

    The god of hyperbole and pig headed ill placed arrogance cheers hallelujah and offers you a thousand blessings

    There is no pro nuke fanatic as for scientifc and illogical you are a nurse arguing with someone who works in this area…have a think about this.

    radiation is safe, I know this because my bosses gave me a safe limit”

    This is not what was said it was said there is a safe limit of radiation exposure [ xray for example] – the fact there is a safe limit suggests there is a dangerous level – no one has claimed it was safe – go on copy and paste where someone claims it is safe rather then there is a safe limit 🙄 [ – if you try can you copy in the post URL [ click on hash tag and it goes to the top of the page and you can copy that link to go straight to the entire post]

    “Radiation risk is the same as hot water”

    Again this is not what was said if you really think this then you are not folowin the argument and not as bright and logical as you think you are.

    Edukator
    Member

    You’re lousy at insult, JY.

    Pigface
    Member

    Herr zokes I am in your league now then.

    Junkyard
    Member

    I was not trying to insult him.
    I dont understand why he uses hyperbole like that then claims to be the logical scientific one…it is like me moaning at people’s typos and saying I type well.

    Good effort on your energy stuff…you have shamed me into action for my own house. I was very good when I lived an alternative lifestyle in woods etc and really quite rubbish now.

    Just as it all went silent, along comes a fire at a Nuke site in France

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17630358

    Interesting stat on that link is that France gets 75% of it’s electricity from nuclear generation. I’m sure the fire (it’s out, don’t panic!) and the statistic will create some sort of reaction

    Edukator
    Member

    Nothing to worry about, if it goes bang the radioactive cloud will be blown safely out to sea. 😉

    I’m sure the fire (it’s out, don’t panic!) and the statistic will create some sort of reaction

    Well I can’t see it doing Melenchon any harm as he’s being backed by the Greens. So it’s probably the last thing Hollande needed as he’s seen support for Melenchon double in the last couple of weeks or so. Obviously Hollande will beat Melenchon but he might have make even more concessions to avoid humiliation. He best brush up his Green credentials.

    Edukator
    Member

    As I’ll be away on vote day I’ve given my procuration to a lady on Bayrou’s campaign team; I’m pretty sure he’ll get my vote. Madame has my procuration for the second round so that’s two anti-Hollande votes..

    Madame has my procuration for the second round so that’s two anti-Hollande votes..

    Are you sure a proxy vote passed to Bayrou’s campaign team will automatically lead to an anti-Hollande vote in the second round ? Likely I know, but apparently Sarkozy has not yet definitely secured Bayrou support for the second round :

    A well-placed source argued to me a few days ago that the election winner will depend on Bayrou. His case went like this:

    “On the evening of the first round, if Bayrou thinks Sarkozy will win, he’ll demand a high price. But if Bayrou thinks that Sarkozy will lose, he’ll swing behind Hollande and Sarkozy will indeed lose”.

    The disappearing third man

    Edukator
    Member

    By “Madame” I mean my wife and she has an allergic reaction to Hollande. Strange that the most popular candidate never scores well in the elections. Bayrou is regarded as honest, trust worthy and with the best programme for the most people, and he’ll get nowhere as usual.

    Ah, right, I’d assumed that Madame was the “lady on Bayrou’s campaign team”.

    Strange that the most popular candidate never scores well in the elections

    Yup. Could it be because of this : François Bayrou: stuck in the middle and mind-blowingly boring ?

    “Indecisive, characterless, insipid, monotonous, platitudinous, unexciting – these are just some of the qualities that will ensure the centrist candidate François Bayrou does not break through … again”

    Edukator
    Member

    On th eother hand you could say that elections are like STW political threads, highly polarised. The voices of reason are drowned by the extremes insulting and yelling at each other.

    Yeah, I suppose so – I hadn’t really thought about it, but I guess you could be right.

    I mean about STW political threads being highly polarised and the voices of reason being drowned by the extremists insulting and yelling at each other.

    Doesn’t bother me though – I just let them get on with it.

    zokes
    Member

    where the reactor was shut down after the alarm was raised at 12:20 (11:20 GMT).

    Now then, what’s that problem that’s happening in the North Sea? Is it a nuclear rig that’s leaking flammable and polluting gas? Nah, didn’t think so….

    Kit
    Member

    I think Kraftwerk have something to say on the matter:

    [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17fTsU2wYpA&feature=relmfu[/video]

    rainmaker8
    Member

    Big article in todays newspaper here in Italy (Il Giornale). Their solar power costs €70 billion and produces the same electricity as €2 billion worth of nuclear.

Viewing 33 posts - 441 through 473 (of 473 total)

The topic ‘The Long Shadow of Chernobyl’ is closed to new replies.