I'm no greenie but this is phuct! Surely they made, its their problem. They can't just dump it into the ocean which affects everyone?? Really not cool. Send it into space, dump it on the moon for all I care, I just don't want to eat three-eyed fish. But as always it will come down to money and pouring it into the ocean will be alot cheaper than sending it to the moon.
Idiots!!
www.swellnet.com/news/swellnet-dispatch/2019/09/12/****ushima-japan-may-have-dump-radioactive-water-sea
The solution to pollution is dilution.
I don't care it shouldn't go in the ocean, that's this generation, next generation they dump the same oh it only goes up 1% , ten generations from now we set the precedent and the **** goes in the fish and shellfish we eat it.
im sick of people on this planet, I'm going back to the other one
We should be thanking them, it's actually good for us.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis
Select to expand quoteIan K said..."
This line follows the increase in popularity of Kitesurfing. Therefore I can only conclude...
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..
We should be thanking them, it's actually good for us.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis
People get so uptight about radiation because they don't understand it. Our planet is already radioactive, and we bask in radioactivity every day. By all means get upset if something happens that elevates it above our normal exposure and what our bodies can handle (which is actually a lot), but this proposal wont effect anyone or increase the background radiation by any measurable amount.
It's like fire. Sit around a campfire and it warms you. Toast your marshmellows, heat your house, cook your food or whatever. It's all good and everyone loves it and has no issues.
Turn that campfire into a blast furnace and you aren't going to do so well sitting next to it. No need to panic every time you see a fire though, just avoid the ones that are going to hit you with more than you can handle. Radiation is the same, you just can't sense it like a fire.
If you want to get upset about something look at the plastic **** in the ocean. That has a massive impact, compared to no impact at all in this case.
A good friend of mine is a nuclear scientist and after chatting to him many years ago I'm all for nuclear provided no short cuts are taken.
Select to expand quotesaltiest1 said..
A good friend of mine is a nuclear scientist and after chatting to him many years ago I'm all for nuclear provided no short cuts are taken.
yup, id rather a nuclear plant in my neighbourhood than just about any other large scale power source, renewable's included.
I've long said that if Australia had any sense we would develop an industry that controls nuclear fuel from mining to disposal. Effectively lease it for use in power stations and then take it back and dispose of it. Once established no one would buy from any other source and we could set our price. The injection into the economy would be massive.
One persons power needs for their entire life can be taken from a C size battery of material.
The hysteria around nuclear is incredible.
Select to expand quoteBy our calculations, even if levels increase to 10 Bq/m3, swimming eight hours every day for an entire year, would only increase one's annual dose by an amount, 1000 times less than a single dental X-ray.
Is this correct?
If it is, then eating a banana is about 200 times more dangerous than swimming in the ocean. I get that there is a precedent, but people have to realise how prevalent radiation is. Just sleeping next to someone is 100 times more dangerous than swimming in the ocean.
As far I can tell the values are so low as to be less than negligible.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Exposure_chart-XKCD.svg
Select to expand quoteParadox said..saltiest1 said..
A good friend of mine is a nuclear scientist and after chatting to him many years ago I'm all for nuclear provided no short cuts are taken.
yup, id rather a nuclear plant in my neighbourhood than just about any other large scale power source, renewable's included.
I've long said that if Australia had any sense we would develop an industry that controls nuclear fuel from mining to disposal. Effectively lease it for use in power stations and then take it back and dispose of it. Once established no one would buy from any other source and we could set our price. The injection into the economy would be massive.
One persons power needs for their entire life can be taken from a C size battery of material.
The hysteria around nuclear is incredible.
There's a drone video over Chernobyl on another post here,
Perhaps events like that fuel the "hysteria" mentioned?
Better in your neighbourhood than mine.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..
People get so uptight about radiation because they don't understand it. Our planet is already radioactive, and we bask in radioactivity every day. By all means get upset if something happens that elevates it above our normal exposure and what our bodies can handle (which is actually a lot), but this proposal wont effect anyone or increase the background radiation by any measurable amount.
It's like fire. Sit around a campfire and it warms you. Toast your marshmellows, heat your house, cook your food or whatever. It's all good and everyone loves it and has no issues.
Turn that campfire into a blast furnace and you aren't going to do so well sitting next to it. No need to panic every time you see a fire though, just avoid the ones that are going to hit you with more than you can handle. Radiation is the same, you just can't sense it like a fire.
If you want to get upset about something look at the plastic **** in the ocean. That has a massive impact, compared to no impact at all in this case.
And what happened t ****ushima was actually a good thing for the planet after all yes
Select to expand quotequikdrawMcgraw said..
And what happened t ****ushima was actually a good thing for the planet after all yes
Of course not. But It is no where near as bad as the impact the petroleum and coal industry does on a daily basis. One tanker spill does many orders magnitude more damage to the environment. Coal burning kills 3000 people a year due to lung disease.
When I ask people what they think the radiation death toll was from the ****ishima nuclear incident I mostly get answers from 100's to 1000's and people giving birth to mutants for generations.....seriously I do ask people and that's what they say.
I then ask about the tsunami. People have forgotten about that "side" event that happened at the time that killed 16,000 people.
The answer is that ****ishima has an official exposure death toll of..... one! And that one was just recently because a smoker who worked at the plant died of lung cancer....they listed him because they couldn't be sure.....
Studies by the World Health Organisation and Tokyo University have shown that NO discernible increase in the rate of cancer deaths is expected. But studies are showing that people are dying of stress and mental illness related to their perception of risk at the site.
So we have a nuclear incident that is burned into everyone's brain as one of the biggest disasters this planet has seen....and no one died from radiation and no one is expected to be overly effected by radiation.
Now Japan has mothballed all its Nuclear Plants because of public pressure and is going to coal....
This is my point. The hysteria and sensationalist media around nuclear is masking the true facts and people are making dumb decisions because of it.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..quikdrawMcgraw said..
And what happened t ****ushima was actually a good thing for the planet after all yes
Of course not. But It is no where near as bad as the impact the petroleum and coal industry does on a daily basis. One tanker spill does many orders magnitude more damage to the environment. Coal burning kills 3000 people a year due to lung disease.
When I ask people what they think the radiation death toll was from the ****ishima nuclear incident I mostly get answers from 100's to 1000's and people giving birth to mutants for generations.....seriously I do ask people and that's what they say.
I then ask about the tsunami. People have forgotten about that "side" event that happened at the time that killed 16,000 people.
The answer is that ****ishima has an official exposure death toll of..... one! And that one was just recently because a smoker who worked at the plant died of lung cancer....they listed him because they couldn't be sure.....
Studies by the World Health Organisation and Tokyo University have shown that NO discernible increase in the rate of cancer deaths is expected. But studies are showing that people are dying of stress and mental illness related to their perception of risk at the site.
So we have a nuclear incident that is burned into everyone's brain as one of the biggest disasters this planet has seen....and no one died from radiation and no one is expected to be overly effected by radiation.
Now Japan has mothballed all its Nuclear Plants because of public pressure and is going to coal....
This is my point. The hysteria and sensationalist media around nuclear is masking the true facts and people are making dumb decisions because of it.
the one and only response to nuclear power arguments is located here: goo.gl/maps/N3mS6TnytQmwcC9CA
Select to expand quoteJuddy said..
the one and only response to nuclear power arguments is located here: goo.gl/maps/N3mS6TnytQmwcC9CA
I would say that's the one and only response to whether a communist regime prioritises lives and safety over economy. That was a systemic accident, not a technical one. They had to really try to get that reactor to blow. Still, it wasn't without some serious impact.
Like 9-11, which killed way more people with aircraft on one incident than nuclear accidents ever have..... and we just simply stopped people flying and no one ever got hurt in or by an aeroplane again right? oh wait....no, we changed our systems to reduce the risk of it occurring again.
But yeah, it was an impressive ****-up, and obviously any future plant will just do the same, so lets all keep burning coal, oil and gas for the next 100years.... or maybe we can all just sit in the dark whenever its cloudy, because without nuclear those are the only options.
because without nuclear those are the only options......ummmm. No.
We have this thing called "the sun" and "wind" and this stuff called "hydro power" and these big things called "batteries".
If you put them together, we're not sitting in the dark.
Burning coal & gas are on the way out the door, granted, but if you're happy to live next to a nuclear reactor, please, feel free, but I'd hazard a guess that most Australians don't want to be within cooee of a nuclear reactor.
Select to expand quoteJuddy said..
because without nuclear those are the only options......ummmm. No.
We have this thing called "the sun" and "wind" and this stuff called "hydro power" and these big things called "batteries".
If you put them together, we're not sitting in the dark.
Wonderful in theory, but we don't have the technology to make those options work on any sort of scale as yet. Between 40% and 50% renewable is the best we can do.
In the meantime the rest has to come from stable energy sources, and that means coal, gas or nuclear, take your pick but wanting something to work is not the same as actually making it work.
I notice that you have not yet indicated that you are prepared to live next door to or on the vicinity of a nuclear power station
Please advise?
Select to expand quoteJuddy said..
I notice that you have not yet indicated that you are prepared to live next door to or on the vicinity of a nuclear power station
Please advise?
For the record I would no worries. Possibly a cheap purchase and more than likely close to work. Of course it'd need to be close to the ocean and have a view too.
Select to expand quoteJuddy said..
I notice that you have not yet indicated that you are prepared to live next door to or on the vicinity of a nuclear power station
Please advise?
I would have no issue whatsoever. I know the tech and am well versed in what the actual risks are versus what hysterical media tells us. I would much rather be in the vicinity of a modern nuclear plant than either a coal or gas plant. There are 450 of them operating continuously around the world.
For that matter I would rather be in the vicinity of a nuclear plant than a wind farm as well. A 1000MW nuclear facility might take up 2 sqkm. A comparable wind farm would need about 400sq km.... fark that.
Large scale PV solar farms are a blight on the earth IMO and would need about 100km sq to match it. Thats 100sq km of shaded unusable land. And we haven't even addressed the issue of storage and load balancing when its cloudy.
Again, 100% renewables sounds great, but no one actual thinks about what the reality would look like.
If you are serious about wanting to get rid of carbon burning, the reality is that you have to go a mix of renewable's and nuclear.
But yes, I do agree with you that people are scared of nuclear and we will end up with coal and gas plants to provide the base load. Unfortunately that is a poor outcome for the planet.
Select to expand quotesaltiest1 said..Juddy said..
I notice that you have not yet indicated that you are prepared to live next door to or on the vicinity of a nuclear power station
Please advise?
For the record I would no worries. Possibly a cheap purchase and more than likely close to work. Of course it'd need to be close to the ocean and have a view too.
I'd rather live next to a nuclear power station than endure the neighbourly tensions associated with ocean views.
Select to expand quoteJuddy said..
I notice that you have not yet indicated that you are prepared to live next door to or on the vicinity of a nuclear power station
Please advise?
Ummmm, We ALL live a mere 8.3 minutes from a massive nuclear power station...
Just existing in this country, we get an average dose of 1.5 mSv per year.
We don't live underground or wear lead lined suits to go outside for fear of being irradiated.
www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/radiation-sources/more-radiation-sources/ionising-radiation-and-health
Thankyou IanK and Paradox for the truth
Trouble is the fear is started early and people just don't get it.
Kumbayaaahhhh and solar/ wind power will save us all.
^^ You disagreeing with the science or just Mark (again) as you have nothing better to do ?
You said it so it must be right, and anyone who thinks slightly different is a ****tard , so I wont bother trying to explain it to a closed mind. No need to reply as you are correct.
NO I said that Ian and Paradox posted scientific stuff not just opinions
As usual, any chance to have a crack at Mark. Grow the fark up.
Most people know the basics that nuclear is better for the environment when humans don't fuq it up problem is we all know that humans always fuq it up one way or another
