(01-31-2017, 02:18 PM)DaJavoo Wrote: Your argument for coal is outdated. Clean coal technology has been around for two generations and gets better all the time. Fly ash is precipitated out of the smokestacks and collected 24 hours a day at coal burning facilities. It costs a fortune, which is why U.S. electricity rates are sky high.I try and look over the numbers again, but you might be right (or that I at least believe you are right that coal is a little cleaner than before) since the statistical data I believe I based it upon was from a study done in the UK sometime in the 80s or 90s. Still at least the coal industry doesn't have to capture 99.9999% of the waste involved in the generation of power.
(01-31-2017, 02:18 PM)DaJavoo Wrote: As for nuclear:I don't know where you get your information from but I was at a conference (or more like a conference/diner meeting) with the head of the US agency in charge of the effort to help Japan and clean up Fukushima after the incident at their reactor. The reactor itself was based off an old 50s or 60s design that was built in the early 70s and was at the end of it's maintenance cycle and about to be replaced. It only fail because over a half a dozen things went wrong (such as the flooding knocking out back up generators and the earth quack damaging destroying other systems) causing the equivalent of something like an overall total system failure.
I, too, used to think it was a good deal. (30 yrs in military & power utility industry) Safe to say Chernobyl and Fukushima, which continues to shït in our collective messkit in the Pacific, pretty much argue against it. Waste can be dealt with ~ but major fukups without the possibility of a do-over are forever.
And the head of agency said the was 'zero' risk (as in zero fatalities due to the accident and overall zero anticipated long term fatalities due to radiation) to the local population. Where there was any risk to people helping in the cleanup I don't remember anything specific about that but I'm pretty sure that it is unlikely to be any worse than Chernobyl.
(01-31-2017, 02:18 PM)DaJavoo Wrote: Your argument that radiation poison can be survived is also a bit on the freakin' bogus side.I hate to tell you, but you are wrong and the fact that you said that means you probably know next to nothing about the radiation safety or the dangers of radiation; which in all honesty can be a bit complicated. Do us a little bit of a favor and do a little due diligence on this topic. For example , Albert Stevens has been given the title of "surviving the highest known radiation dose in any human" after getting injected with radioactive plutonium. According to Wiki:
"Stevens died of heart disease some 20 years later, having accumulated an effective radiation dose of 64 Sv (6400 rem) over that period. The current annual permitted dose for a radiation worker in the United States is 0.05 Sv (or 5 rem)."
To put it this way, Steven's was able to survive an overall dose that was FIFTY times higher than the dose that people at Chernobyl got, passed out, and died when they came too because their flesh started rotting off of their bodies. The main difference is Steven's is an overall dose, and that he likely got better medical help than some of those at Chernobyl did. While there are circumstance where someone gets a immediate one time dose that can be lethal, it is probably at lot rarer than you think.
(01-31-2017, 02:18 PM)DaJavoo Wrote: I mean, really? Why the hell should innocent peeps have no say whatsoever in a fatal or non-fatal dose of that shït? I think it should be a fundamental human right that life be pursued without the fear of glowing in the dark.Actually it is not because there are no kids being killed by radiation poisoning, or at least known that is known by the data collected by the WHO organization, where as kids die nearly every day from things like snake and spider bites as well as lightening strikes.
Your argument is akin to giving a child a box of rattlesnakes to play with because they are entertaining and very pretty (the benefit) and if the child gets bitten, yeah there may be a horrendous amount of swelling, limb-loss or death but it will probably be survivable if the kid's only bitten by one of the snakes and the antivenin is close at hand. (the cleanup)
Nearly 1.3 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day and about 30,000 of those deaths are in the US alone. You want to know how many people die from radiation poisoning due to the nuclear power industry? The number according to every respectable source I know is near zero.
(01-31-2017, 02:18 PM)DaJavoo Wrote: The earth has enough fossil fuels to keep life as we know it going until advancements in alt-energy catch up with demand ~ and, we have the technology to keep it clean ~ it's done every day at coal fired power plants in Europe & the U.S..Well, if you have anything to back up your arguments then show it, every study by the WHO or any other organization shows that it is as safe or safe than other other industries.
imo, it's beyond time to phase out nukes.