|
Post by adamselene on Sept 3, 2014 18:25:51 GMT -5
I was having a "discussion" with a pro-nuker yesterday, annd what I said to him amused me so much I thought I would share it. Just random things I've heard (and we have heard) from the pro-nuke crowd. As follows: I do find it amusing in a completely shocking way that anyone tries to claim nukes are safe after the meltdowns and explosions we've seen. Yeah, it blew up, but it's safe. All those meltdowns? Those were safe too. Pulverized MOX fuel blew out of that reactor? That's ok, it didn't go anywhere, we aren't all breathing it. Oh, we are? Well, a banana is more dangerous. Walking in the sunshine is more dangerous. You'll get more radiation from licking your iphone charger. It is no different than natural radiation. We closed down WIPP because a truck caught fire. 400 tons a day of plutonium tainted water is flowing into the Pacific, but guess what kids? THAT is safe too! The phytoplankton is gone? They went on vacation! It's all safe. Nobody has ever died because of a nuclear accident. No greenhouse gasses folks. The NRC will protect us. Nuke is cheap. Nuke is green. The crazy part is people actually say all of these things. Pro-nukers say some really, REALLY stupid crap. Peace, Hounds.
|
|
|
Post by adamselene on Sept 3, 2014 22:21:29 GMT -5
I just heard from the same guy again, asking why I can't agree with him. I told him that as long as he defends , promotes and makes excuses for Ecocide, he cannot possibly expect me to agree with him. I swear (like a sailor I do!) I have no clue what these cowards can be thinking.
|
|
|
Post by adamselene on Sept 3, 2014 23:38:30 GMT -5
And this guy:
David Davison Yesterday 11:53 PM +Adam Selene Plants are not releasing everyday. They also release at activity levels that are in accordance with the law and checked and verified by the NRC. Your automobile also releases, hopefully at a level in accordance with the law. Put yourself in your garage, turn on the car, I'll lock myself in my garage, direct plant vent stack releases into the garage, and let's see who dies first. Provided I have food and water, I'll live till I'm 80, you'll be dead in an hour; and there are millions of cars on the road. I also find it hard to believe you could just call up the plant and they would elaborate on their radioactive discharges. Maybe they do things different there--but I doubt it.
Adam Selene 12:07 AM +David Davison So this "law" somehow makes nuclear isotopes safe? Yes, that's right, cancer is often a slow process, while CO is quick, but you won't live to 80; depending on the release, you might not live a day. I agree that it was surprising to have Yankee outright disclose their releases; I doubt any plant does that anymore, now that so many people are aware of the issue. If those gasses are SO safe, why put it up a vent stack in the first place? Stacks cost money; they don't spend it for no reason. Consider also that the FDA raised the "allowable" levels of cesium in drinking water enormously after Fuku cracked; they don't DO that when they don't know the levels will rise.
|
|
|
Post by adamselene on Jan 7, 2015 12:03:13 GMT -5
In response to "Sarthor" on YouTube: Precautions? Some sirens in the local area and free KI tablets for the locals? Those are not precautions. When those sirens go off it is already too late; you're dosed, and if you are downwind from a nuclear "power station", you are constantly dosed with low level radiation all the time. Seabrook Station is not far from here, and the childhood leukemia rates near that plant are *much* higher than they were before that plant was operating. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are indivisible; the esoteric isotopes created in fission reactors (especially those running MOX fuel) are undeniably necessary for the newer DEW (Directed Energy Weapons) technology. If you are not familiar with this, think "terawatt laser" and you'll have the basic idea. These lasers require an average of 1000 watts input for 1 watt of output, and to be used as a weapon, they need *enormous* output to be effective. From the construction of these weapons (doping of lasants with certain isotopes) to the powering of said weapons, those isotopes are currently necessary. Can you separate nuclear "power" from nuclear weapons? No; they are sister industries. Given the enormous cost and danger of nuclear power generation, what could better justify the continued operation of power plants beyond their design life (an incredibly dangerous practice)? "National security", period (a misnomer at best LOL). Low level radiation effects are hard to nail down, but we are doing that now, because we need to explain the cause of all these cancers showing up where a few decades ago they were almost unheard of. Obviously, there are other factors in these deadly diseases, but the primary factor is manmade ionizing radiation. In the 40s childhood leukemia was so rare as to be almost non-existent, while *now* it is common. Go ahead, tell me it is unrelated to nuke tech, tell me that the higher rates of these cancers near power stations are coincidence. Am I wrong? If I am, what damage does that cause? NONE. If I am right, what damage is caused? Life is cheap, until it is *your* child dying of horribly painful cancers, and they DO. Aside from weapons technology, fission reactors serve no necessary purpose, because electricity is available from a wide range of sources, many of them proven harmless and reliable for ages, while those esoteric fission products are available from *one source only*. Why do you suppose NO insurance company will underwrite ANY nuclear power station? It is because they crunch the numbers (called cost/benefit analysis), and the numbers always indicate that *one* nuclear "accident" would bankrupt any of these enormously wealthy insurance companies. If it isn't worth it to them, it certainly isn't worth it to *us*, and that's just the money aspect, nevermind the pain and suffering. I'll tell you something else; *I* would rather be doing almost *anything* but fighting the most powerful industry on the planet. It isn't fun, it isn't profitable, and it is dangerous; these people *kill* their opponents any time they think the blowback will be minimal. But I have a 10 year old child, and while I would not do this for my old carcass, I have no moral choice but to do it for her. *Anyone* supporting and defending this ecocidal industry is the enemy of life itself, whether mistakenly duped into thinking it is safe and fine, or actively being paid to mislead people, it is simply wholly immoral. Am I wrong about the nuclear industry? I would love to be, and sincerely hope that I am. If I am *not* wrong, we are all dead, along with all life on this planet. Given those stakes, there is NO choice, and who could possibly choose otherwise? Just something to think about.
|
|
|
Post by Ysalys (Kate) on Jan 8, 2015 14:49:29 GMT -5
In response to "Sarthor" on YouTube: Precautions? Some sirens in the local area and free KI tablets for the locals? Those are not precautions. When those sirens go off it is already too late; you're dosed, and if you are downwind from a nuclear "power station", you are constantly dosed with low level radiation all the time. Seabrook Station is not far from here, and the childhood leukemia rates near that plant are *much* higher than they were before that plant was operating. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are indivisible; the esoteric isotopes created in fission reactors (especially those running MOX fuel) are undeniably necessary for the newer DEW (Directed Energy Weapons) technology. If you are not familiar with this, think "terawatt laser" and you'll have the basic idea. These lasers require an average of 1000 watts input for 1 watt of output, and to be used as a weapon, they need *enormous* output to be effective. From the construction of these weapons (doping of lasants with certain isotopes) to the powering of said weapons, those isotopes are currently necessary. Can you separate nuclear "power" from nuclear weapons? No; they are sister industries. Given the enormous cost and danger of nuclear power generation, what could better justify the continued operation of power plants beyond their design life (an incredibly dangerous practice)? "National security", period (a misnomer at best LOL). Low level radiation effects are hard to nail down, but we are doing that now, because we need to explain the cause of all these cancers showing up where a few decades ago they were almost unheard of. Obviously, there are other factors in these deadly diseases, but the primary factor is manmade ionizing radiation. In the 40s childhood leukemia was so rare as to be almost non-existent, while *now* it is common. Go ahead, tell me it is unrelated to nuke tech, tell me that the higher rates of these cancers near power stations are coincidence. Am I wrong? If I am, what damage does that cause? NONE. If I am right, what damage is caused? Life is cheap, until it is *your* child dying of horribly painful cancers, and they DO. Aside from weapons technology, fission reactors serve no necessary purpose, because electricity is available from a wide range of sources, many of them proven harmless and reliable for ages, while those esoteric fission products are available from *one source only*. Why do you suppose NO insurance company will underwrite ANY nuclear power station? It is because they crunch the numbers (called cost/benefit analysis), and the numbers always indicate that *one* nuclear "accident" would bankrupt any of these enormously wealthy insurance companies. If it isn't worth it to them, it certainly isn't worth it to *us*, and that's just the money aspect, nevermind the pain and suffering. I'll tell you something else; *I* would rather be doing almost *anything* but fighting the most powerful industry on the planet. It isn't fun, it isn't profitable, and it is dangerous; these people *kill* their opponents any time they think the blowback will be minimal. But I have a 10 year old child, and while I would not do this for my old carcass, I have no moral choice but to do it for her. *Anyone* supporting and defending this ecocidal industry is the enemy of life itself, whether mistakenly duped into thinking it is safe and fine, or actively being paid to mislead people, it is simply wholly immoral. Am I wrong about the nuclear industry? I would love to be, and sincerely hope that I am. If I am *not* wrong, we are all dead, along with all life on this planet. Given those stakes, there is NO choice, and who could possibly choose otherwise? Just something to think about. Adam! This is a wonderful response; albeit very sad, and I don't believe there is anyone who could possibly begin to argue your response here! All of your input here makes me so proud to be a part of this incredibly dangerous undertaking we are on, and I have to say I am honored just to know you, and every hound here. I am humbled by all of our reactions, replies, and actions against this heinous industry.
Thank you for being you, Kate {{HUGS}} xx
|
|
|
Post by adamselene on Jan 8, 2015 18:55:47 GMT -5
Oh jeez Kate. LOL Gonna' make me blush with such high praise for my insensate babblings. However, this mission we are on is a superb and noble one, though somewhat hair-pullingly frustrating at times. Nobody with 1/2 a clue could argue, but they have and they do, probably paid to do so; they trade their very souls for money. My favorite is when they call me names; "retard, faggot, idiot, moron, etc", and assume that it doesn't entirely negate anything of value they might actually have to say (not that there is EVER any value to what the pronuke scum say). Can't help being me, Sister from another mister, female version of me (you poor thing). LOL
|
|
|
Post by adamselene on Jan 9, 2015 1:26:29 GMT -5
It seems I spend so much time responding to the nukers, that I might as well share some of it here, since I doubt it does anyone any good *there*. LOL So, here is another installment. This guy was saying that we need LFTR to make nitrogen fertilizers in order to continue to feed the world's population, so I responded: +William Waugh Actually, I am not entirely anti-LFTR. If that thing can really destroy the waste from fission reactors there may be some use to them. There is certainly an astounding amount of horrifyingly awful waste sitting around irradiating everything, and we do need to get rid of it. In order to use this technology, should it evolve into practical waste-disposal reactors, it would need to be overseen by responsible people, which categorically leaves out the NRC and the IAEA. I would also be concerned that these reactors could be (certainly would be) used as an excuse to continue to use fission reactors, and that is not an option. A state of high risk for extinction is here, I agree with that entirely. In fact, if we do not find a way to remove manufactured radioisotopes from the environment, it is a certainty now. This is new territory, so there is no accurate way to predict how long we have to develop and implement the needed technology, but as far as I know, nobody has yet come up with any reliable way to do it on a large scale. I do not argue that the resources are available to support the now living because there are SO many that nobody knows the answer, which only time will tell. If I am not convinced, I cannot state an opinion as fact; first I have to know, and I do not know this as a certainty. My opinion is the we can sustain the current population using natural methods, though, but it takes more work, you can't just spray a dead field and grow on it, you have to care for the land and use more manual methods in most cases, which isn't a bad thing either, since people need work, and this mechanized culture has ruined the market of actual jobs, real jobs, beneficial jobs. America in particular, has become a nation of paper-pushers, managers; a few here and there is fine, probably necessary, but someone has to do the actual work of producing products, and China is not the answer, nor can we sustain having China make all our products, often inferior ones at that. The fact is that we must transition to natural methods of food production, for we cannot afford to ruin all the soil by using artificial methods any more than we already have. Something that I will state as fact, since I know it from personal experience, is that such massive power density is not necessary, and not only is it unnecessary, but it goes against the very nature of power. Power itself is everywhere, but it is by nature diffuse, requiring less dense methods to collect it (I refer to current technology, of course). Will it be expensive to transition to? Yes, and re-purposing the massive subsidies currently pumped into the nuclear industry can cover most of it on a consistent basis, until we are past the initial cost. After the initial cost, all that remains is maintenance and a much smaller cost of increasing production as power consumption rises. Germany is doing it already; we can do this. All that remains is to make the decision to do it, probably requiring also deposing the money-junkies that influence such things with their corrupt, uncaring, greedy and destructive policies. We have only two choices: Continue as we are and die, taking all other life on the planet with us, or decide to be responsible and live a better life, realize the potential inherent in our species. I don't even see a *real* choice; the path is clear and bright, but we have work to do. I did make a few assumptions here, such as the capability of developing a way to clean up the rads; perhaps more of a hope than an assumption. Cheers Hounds; stay strong.
|
|
|
Post by adamselene on Jan 9, 2015 14:28:43 GMT -5
Continued. LOL Yeah, I do run on at the mouth to these people. +Adam Selene Thank you for the more nuanced statement of your position. +William Waugh Oh, my pleasure. I like people to know my position, but I am so used to talking with people that already hold the same position, I forget that others may not understand what I'm getting at, or that I am not simply anti-nuke because I dislike it for some nebulous reason. Nor do I claim that nuclear can not, theoretically be used with "reasonable" safety, rather that as we have all seen, nuclear has never been handled with the respect it deserves. The number of "accidents", tiny, small, large and Fukushima, is astounding. The number of problems caused by deliberate negligence is huge. Any lightweight web search will provide hours of unpleasant reading. Another concern I have is temperature. Molten salts are physically hot as well as more abrasive than some other liquids, and any time we have to contain something that hot there is an added danger of equipment degradation; corrosion, abrasion, heat, moisture and motion are all hard on equipment. When the the equipment is also being irradiated the entire time, it sees accelerated decrepitude; fatigue, embrittlement. Right now there are fission plants, lots of them, operating beyond their design life. This is horribly dangerous. A brand new containment cannot contain a detonation, but one that is past its design life is magnitudes weaker than the new one and can shatter like glass with enough of a pressure spike. Anything causing a pressure wave is going to open an old containment to atmosphere, the same way that water hammer can destroy piping when it contains harmless water. I do not know what working fluids are currently being proposed for LFTR. I remember they tried Sodium, which of course did not go well. I think a good rule for LFTR, if I can't talk people out of nuclear power generation altogether, is to require it not use working fluids that burn or explode if they should happen to leak. My only interest in LFTR is that it might be used to decrease the gargantuan amount of waste that has been produced by the obscenely irresponsible process of fission. LFTR or no LFTR, we need to focus on ways of producing electricity that are safe, inexpensive, and distributed; it is inherently more robust and resilient, as well as less expensive over time, in a economic sense, as well as in quality of life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2015 20:10:46 GMT -5
Great Responses Adam! I agree with you all the way and I too have a girl child who just turned 10!
Peace((((Hugs)))Love, Laurie
|
|
|
Post by adamselene on Mar 1, 2015 3:57:37 GMT -5
Ok! Time for another installment of What Do You Say To Pronukers. Yeeha! {Howl} Arnold 2:21 AM +Adam Selene Except thats wrong you f^*king idiot. Take some basic science courses and come back to the points you made. Unnatural isotopes? Believe it or not, cesium is found naturally in our oceans. Not to mention a variety of other isotopes that release FAR MORE radiation. It has nothing to do with natural or unnatural, it has to do with ACTUALLY MEASURING the radiation in our oceans. Do you honestly think background levels are static? Radiation levels fluctuate more when you step outside your house onto a beach or a plane then ANYTHING close to what its like between pre and post fukushima diferences anywhere in the us or in the Pacific. And what are you talking about raising the acceptable level after Fukushima? I gave you the recorded level that the EPA uses to judge how safe drinking water is. Go check it out for yourself. Small changes in radiation levels (in this case unnoticable levels) does not lead to destruction of the entire ocean and you have not brought a single piece of evidence to prove this. So of course I responded with: Drop your rote dogma and look around you. This has never happened before; NOBODY knows exactly what it is going to do, and science is great, but it is by nature an evolving process, constantly making an educated guess. The process is not beyond error, as we have seen many times. Even without the pressure from the nuke cartel to smooth this over, with collusion in the media and governments (the "EPA" is guilty as hell so many times over, citing them is garbage), there can be errors, wrong assumptions. I say the threshold model is wrong, and that ANY manmade isotopes are extremely dangerous at ANY level. We are talking about *internal* emitters; that is *very* different from a single dose; it is constant, and this crap is very hard to flush from the body. Many many people that are NOT pressured and bribed agree with this, and I assure you, there is NO profit in being anti-nuclear; it isn't even fun. Then there is all the attempted distraction, nor are you the only one guilty of it. Cesium, K40, tritium, americium, iodine-131, etc; NO. We are talking about *plutonium*, we are talking about *uranium*, we are talking about the daughter isotopes created in the reaction. That MOX core didn't just pulverize, eject, blow up into the jet streams and vanish; that gunk blew around and rained out all over the northern hemisphere. The US government stopped releasing RadNet data until the primary particulate plume had time to settle and rain out. The EPA raised the "safe levels" for potable water posted on its website after Fuku blew up by hundreds to thousands of times more rads in disasters than the agency had previously allowed, depending on the isotope in question; give me a logical explanation for that one. It sure would be a coincidence if some wonderful new information was learned to cause that, but we know that wasn't the case. According to the EPA's *own data*, the new PAGs will result in exponentially higher radiation-induced *fatal* cancers, on the order of several out of ten, one in eight, one in six, even as low as one in 1.7, depending on what isotope we examine. The *EPA* said this, in public, on their web site, and you're CITING them while saying NO danger? You're either really awful at doing research or you're lying deliberately (if you're lying, I sure hope they're paying you well, because you are guilty of a crime against life itself). "Except thats wrong you f^*king idiot." Uh oh, someone is getting frustrated. I would be too; you cannot avoid what is happening all around us and TO us. Not easy knowledge to live with, I know, but this is the current situation. Quit shilling for the black hats and join us in doing the *right* thing; all we want is hope for our children. I see nothing idiotic in that; if you do, then you are truly lost, beyond hope. ******************************************************************************************** Once in a while I can rub two synapses together and rip off a scathing friendly polite response, sometimes they are so much fun I have to share them here. Happy Hounding Y'all.
|
|
|
Post by adamselene on Mar 1, 2015 4:59:41 GMT -5
Can't sleep, clowns will eat me. So I joust with the poor, unarmed shills instead. I would almost feel guilty if these shills weren't such lowlife scum. LOL
Givemeafinname 2:22 AM +Adam Selene Very sorry to learn of your reading comprehension problem but what can I expect that thinks Dana is telling the truth. What I said was iampms IS Dana..Do you understand now? What proof have you got that these mussels are gone? You live in Corbin, Kentucky, that's a long way from the pacific coast of British Columbia. I don't need to prove the truth because I already know what the truth is, and it isn't what Dana is selling. Millions of others would know that Dana is full of shit if they ever head him open his mouth. Remember people live here and are near the ocean everyday, some people even make their living on the ocean out here. If there was all this radiation killing everything, everyone would be talking about it. You would have to be incredibly slow witted to believe anything Dana says...
Google this "New baby orca is third born in recent months to endangered southern resident population"
And I said:
Adam Selene 4:56 AM +Givemeafinname LOL That's priceless! You think Dana is posting to YouTube under a second account while living on a boat with no internet connection? That's very imaginative, although obviously absurd. Dana is out there doing a man's work while you're whining about it. I truly cannot imagine why anyone would have an issue with a guy taking pictures on the BC coastline, unless they have skin in the nuke game. I live in Kentucky? I hope it is nice there, because it is damned COLD here. Yes, that's right, everyone is talking about it; people in the fishing and diving industries, tourism, marine suppliers, and very very few people are covering it. All over the western coasts of the US and Canada people are seeing this firsthand. I'm on the east coast, but I have lots of brothers in CA and WA telling me it is immensely saddening to witness all the sea creatures sick, dead, mutated or otherwise in distress. Seaweed is disappearing, seabirds are very sparse, coastal rocks with 1/10th their typical flora and even none at all. Entire species simply absent. If you think this is normal, you don't know the ocean. Here on the Atlantic coast we are beginning to see some odd things as well. The oceans being all connected, we knew this would happen, and thankfully, it isn't very obvious here yet, but as the nuke gunk mixes in it will be; no way around it. Dana is selling something? I hope it is Tshirts; I want one. So it comes down to this; we know we're in trouble, we know we don't know how to fix it, we know nobody is even trying to do the first damned thing about it. Meanwhile the release continues, from a site that once contained enough radioactive material to sterilize the planet many times over. Did the Tepco scumbags manage to save ANY of that material? Perhaps a few fuel bundles, but the entire site is essentially out of containment, and we're not even sure unit 3 was the only one running MOX, although it is the only one that experienced a prompt criticality, which is sparse comfort at best, and has no effect on the inevitable outcome.
All this we have to live with, deal with, and most likely die from. Meanwhile, you're complaining about a guy taking pictures. Man, that's really sad. That energy would be much better directed towards something positive; for example spreading the word so more people can attempt to avoid the worst of this poison we all got doused in.
Yep, this is killing us, but I plan to go with positive Karma. Pronukers that refuse to stop shilling for the dark side have an unpayable Karmic debt. I sure wouldn't want that on my head, but I have a hard time mustering any sympathy for those that support an industry that gives cancer to children without remorse. Most people are simply unaware, because the TV hasn't told them, but those that do know, and still defend the nuke cartel are either extremely dim, on the take, or just plain BAD people with no morals or remorse; my guess would be all of the above, combined with severe mental illness and an inability control their cowardice. I am absolutely ashamed for these scumbags because they are incapable of feeling such a human emotion themselves.
********************************************************************************* A nukepuke slapped each day keeps the doctor away. Yeehaa!
|
|
|
Post by adamselene on Mar 1, 2015 6:42:31 GMT -5
Aw hell, I'll sleep next week. LOL This guy just won't stop trying every ploy in the book, but he isn't a truly worthy opponent. Of course a pronuker *cannot* be a worthy opponent, since they have no data that supports their nonsense. Arnold 4:35 AM +Adam Selene Let's also take a look at the facts instead of your "feelings" on the subject: Study by Kanisch and Aust of the Thünen Institute of Fisheries Ecology in Hamburg. "[...] the investigators report that Cs-137 levels in tuna harvested in 2011 off Japan and off California [...] analyzed by Kanisch and Aust [...] contained 0.2 to 8.2 Bq per kilogram wet weight from the presence of Cs-137. In the case of the highest Cs-137 fish collected in the Baltic Sea in the North Atlantic 2% of the Cs-137 is the result of release from Fukushima while the rest reflects release from atmospheric nuclear tests and the Chernobyl disaster." The VAST majority of radiation comes from events decades ago, unrelated to Fukushima. How exactly is the 2% increase or so going to suddenly kill all the species in the ocean? Oh wait... It wont. Please, tell me how much Uranium and Plutonium is in the oceans? Me: Adam Selene 6:39 AM +Arnold If I say it, it is fact; I certainly would not say something I was unsure of, and if I miss something or make a mistake, I appreciate people pointing it out. No worries, I am not accusing you of having done that. Ok, Cesium 137. If that has increased only 2%, and for the sake of simplicity, let's assume that figure is correct. Also, I agree entirely that the Cs-137 isn't going to cause the massive dieoffs we are witnessing. Now, given a 2% rise in Cesium 137 only, I would expect the damage to be comparatively slight to what we are seeing, but as we all know, Cs-137 is only one isotope. Along with that Cs-137 came Cs-134, I-131, Xe-133, Te-132, Pu-239, Pu-240, Pu-242, Sr-90, Am-241, U-234, and probably some others that I can't call up out of my head at 6am. If it was just the Cs-137, it would be a minor issue in comparison to what we actually have, which is a dying ocean. I do not, from memory, know the typical Cs-137 ratios to these other isotopes, but some of them come in 10:1 ratio or higher to Cs-137, so the cesium-only numbers look pretty attractive, but the total sum of the various isotopes, at just 2% Cs-137 increase would be some very unsettling numbers, and some of these are X emitters, just to sweeten the pot. Since you like the 2% figure (I do also, but it is deceptive, leaving out all the rest and their daughters), how much increase in total radioactivity would that be? 20%? 30%? 40%? More? I don't claim to be able to make an accurate guess, but it is certainly magnitudes greater than 2%, with the accompanying magnitudes greater damage. Even using the threshold model, that spells disaster, and I am 100% convinced that the threshold model is incorrect. You see now, perhaps, why this is a problem of an enormity that is being downplayed, ignored, suppressed, lied about. If people understood that it is 1/10th as bad as it is, they would freak out. The SOP seems to be that if they are going to die anyhow, don't inform them so they don't make trouble before they go. How much U and P are in the oceans? Given that nobody seems to be measuring those isotopes, how would I (or anyone else) know? The only way to make a decent guess would be to extrapolate the ratios in relation to what is measured, which could give us a ballpark quantity, but it would not be a certainty. One thing about this is certain, however; there's a whole lotta' dyin' comin'. ************************************************************************************** Just too damned easy. Yawn.
|
|
|
Post by adamselene on Mar 2, 2015 2:26:32 GMT -5
And this guy is back too. He's fun. LOL
David Davison 1:27 AM
+Adam Selene Most of my friends lost their jobs but I'm still working. As to shutting down, blame that on the tin-foil hat crowd and madame Boxer who supported their crack pot views. The Unit 2 steam generators were fixed, we were ready and able to come on line but again, thanks to the above, the state lost 2300 MWs of clean, safe, GHG free electricity. Old NG units were fired up to replace this power as well as importing power from out of state. About 1200 people lost their jobs many of whom went on unemployment, the nearby cities lost the business these families brought in, the state's electric grid was less stable but at least the local activists had their paranoia assuaged for a short while. Now they mislead the public on used fuel storage...they're like a leg hound that never lets go. Nobody pays or asks me to write. In fact I've asked my peers if they would like to contribute but they just shake their heads and mumble that they're not interested in arguing with idiots. That is literally what they say. Obviously, I don't agree as here I am. I also don't agree that everybody in the anti-nuke camp is an idiot...some are worse. Educated, well qualified deceivers like Christopher Busby and Arni Gundersen. Let me leave you with an admonition from George Monbiot:
Those who oppose nuclear power often maintain that they have a moral duty to do so. But it seems to me that moral duties cut both ways.
We have a moral duty not to spread unnecessary and unfounded fears. If we persuade people that they or their children are likely to suffer from horrible and dangerous health problems, and if these fears are baseless, we cause great distress and anxiety, needlessly damaging the quality of people’s lives.
We have a moral duty not to use these unfounded fears as a means of extracting money from frightened and vulnerable people, whatever that money might be used for.
We have a moral duty not to divert good, determined campaigners away from fighting real threats, and into campaigns against imaginary threats. Dedicated and effective activists are a scarce resource. Wasting their lives by encouraging them to chase unicorns is a disservice to them and a disservice to everyone else.
We have a moral duty to assess threats as clearly and rationally as we can, so that we do not lobby to replace a lesser threat with a greater one. If, as is already happening in Germany, shutting down nuclear power results in an increase in the burning of fossil fuels, especially coal, far more people will suffer and die as a result of both climate change and local pollution. If, as now seems likely, we wildly miss our carbon targets and commit the world to runaway warming, partly as a result of the nuclear shutdown, history will judge the people who demanded it harshly.
So this article is a plea for people to try to step back from their entrenched positions and see the bigger picture. It asks you to be as sceptical about the claims you like as you are about the claims you dislike. It asks you to subject everyone who makes claims about important and contentious subjects to the same standards of enquiry and proof.
I know that’s a tough call, but it’s not as tough as wasting our lives inadvertently campaigning, on the basis of misinformation, to make the world a worse place.
So I had to say:
Adam Selene 2:21 AM +David Davison If I recall correctly, you said those steam generators were leaking 75 gallons a minute, but the NRC would allow twice that. These things should not leak at all. When they redesigned those damned things they didn't even go through the standard procedure; they just altered the design, built and installed them, then the resonance prematurely wore into the tubes. I don't see anything even remotely safe about that. If the nuke industry wants to run these plants, they have to take every possible precaution. Still, there is no necessity for "nuclear power". I know, the baseload argument, and the energy density. The energy density is a benefit in applications with limited space, for example, marine motive power; nothing we have right now will replace that. However, on land, where there is space, that energy density is not necessary, and in fact, it is the problem with these plants. When these plants lose their ultimate heat sink, there is only one outcome, as we have seen with Fukushima, as well as other installations. At a bare minimum, these things need to have the ability to be passively cooled when something happens and they lose the grid, and no, I do NOT refer to that AP1000 joke that has no secondary containment and vents directly to atmosphere. Yes, I know, they all vent to atmosphere, even if not directly, but nothing we can do will strip that venting of all the dangerous isotopes. The basic premise is that nukes are fine because there is a threshold under which radiation is harmless; that model is FALSE. Every decay that passes through living tissue (flora or fauna) causes damage, DNA mutation. There is NO safe level of manmade ionizing radiation, and this is becoming more and more apparent as we see the damage the Pacific is suffering from just one plant blowing up, melting down and burning. Yes, that is the worst case scenario, but it happens obviously. The Pacific is dying at an alarming rate, cancer rates (even in children) are rising exponentially. That one plant has already killed thousands of humans, nevermind all the sea life, and remember, all oceans are connected, it is not going to be just the Pacific that is ruined. Cancer rates around these plants are significantly higher than the averages. Aside from all of that, the fact is we have the technology to produce electricity without burning anything, even nuclear fuel, so why are we still burning coal, oil, nuke, when it is cheaper, safer and more reliable to use clean sources? The answer is very simple, and here it is: Because clean power sources do not provide the esoteric isotopes created in a fission reactor that are necessary for directed energy weapons. That's it; that's the only reason we have such opposition to clean energy.
******************************************************************************
Is it wrong to enjoy this? Hell NO! LOL
|
|
|
Post by pasha on Mar 8, 2015 15:13:45 GMT -5
Awww Adz, you speak with integrity every time. Awesome. No, its sooooooo not wrong to enjoy the engagement of people who mistake your feelings for facts hahahaha
|
|
|
Post by adamselene on Mar 18, 2015 0:06:46 GMT -5
Yarr Ashe,
I do try. The nukers always use the same old nonsense based on their.... older nonsense, based on their black hearts and no facts, so they are easy to slap down, like shootin' fish in a barrel, only more fun. I never could figure out why anyone would shoot fish in a barrel, messes up the barrel and you end up with a busted barrel covered in fish guts. Nukers' "facts" are hilarious. They always tell me science doesn't support my position, and I always tell them that my EYES do not support their bought "science", nor does the Pacific or the wildlife, or the skyrocketing cancer and coronary rates, or anyone in Japan besides the nukers themselves. Fish in a barrel. LOL
|
|
|
Post by adamselene on Mar 20, 2015 7:38:55 GMT -5
Ok, this is off-topic, but the subject "global warming" does get tossed around nuker circles when they try to claim that nukes are safe, clean and emit no carbon, so I'm putting it here, because I ripped off a pretty good response to this guy. I don't think he is a shill, but he tried the "cites, prove it" thing, which is a shill time-wasting tactic, and he tried the "tin foil" stuff too. Then he got me chuckling; he called me a "climate denier", to which I could only say that it is 14 degrees here right now, so I have no choice to believe in climate, because it is freezing me as we speak. He was using some "uncouth" language, so I won't quote him.
I told him this:
I don't think you understand the issue here; as with most suppressed truth, nobody can simply just tell you and have you believe it, nor will a few web links do you any good. These are things that require research. I can bring up the question, I can plant the seed, then if someone has a real interest in the subject they can look into it. I've been at this for a *long* time. I can tell you that almost everything you are told is for unstated purposes, but I can't cause you to *know* it for yourself. I don't have a list of where I found what information. I don't have a bunch of links to send people to prove what I say, and it would not be useful if I did. I came to my conclusions by an enormous amount of scouring all the networks; usenet, kadnet, bulletin boards back before the internet was available, and probably 1/2 a million web sites over the years. It would take me hours to sift through the net and find links for you. I don't have the time to do it. I do this while my network is busy processing work, which gives me 10 or 20 minutes of idle time to kill; that's enough time to type a couple responses or run an errand or get the kid off to school. It is not enough time to duplicate research that I have already done. However, I will say this; if you do enough looking into these issues, at some point you will be amazed that you ever believed any of the nonsense that the talking heads are endlessly repeating. The carbon scam is just *one* of literally hundreds of things we are lied to about constantly. It is the same old story; problem, reaction, solution. Create a ficticious problem (or use a real one), wait for people to react, then offer them the solution to the problem, whether it existed or not. Pump and dump. Create bubble, burst bubble, cash in. That's how it works. This carbon thing is exactly the same; if these talking heads really gave half a *damn* about carbon, there are real-world things they could be doing that would actually make a difference, but it would not be profitable, since everything they are invested in (oil, foreign trade, nuclear power, automotive industry, to name a few) causes huge carbon emissions, as well as actual pollution, even radioactive pollution.
Consider this: What if we started doing our own manufacturing again and stopped getting all our goods from China? The first thing it would do is idle around 1000 container ships which spew approximately *66 times* more carbon and pollutants than all the automobiles on the planet combined. The second thing it would do is provide employment for everyone that needs it. The third thing it would do is allow people to spend more money on product, creating increased demand and more work still. In a healthy working economy, employers can afford to pay employees more. This single thing would solve SO many issues and jumpstart our failed economy. People could once again have *dignity*, prosperity, hope. Then if we find that carbon is actually a problem, take some of that renewed prosperity and plant trees, or even capture that carbon and put it back in the ground where it came from in the first place. Consider also that *taxing* carbon makes it even harder for industry to survive here, harder for average people to make ends meet, further crippling this country and only serving to make some very wealthy people more wealthy, while literally putting *more* families out on the street. This single thing provides a *real* solution to a lot more than just carbon emissions. 40 years ago, 1/2 the people in the country would be demanding that we do exactly what I am proposing, and most of them would have thought of it without me having to say it. Just basic sensible economical solutions.
Do you see why I'm saying the whole thing is a scam? This is simple stuff, and something we can do *now*, if we can only focus on positive action instead of the useless, destructive *crap* that is always, always, *always* the political "solution". Haven't these gibbering parasite politicians proved exhaustively that they never solve problems, they just complicate the whole boiling and profit in so doing, to *our* detriment?
This was a bit different, because I actually gave this fellow the solution; try that with a nuker and the debate dies right there, since to those scumbags any solution *has* to be nuclear.
|
|
|
Post by adamselene on Dec 19, 2015 16:00:14 GMT -5
I won't bother to quote the idiot I was talking at, but my response was this:
The body is very good at flushing and filtering, regenerating. The key is to stay below the level of toxic load it can handle, which is tougher now than it was a few decades ago. Elements the body evolved with are easy to flush and filter, along with some chemicals, but products of fission are foreign to the body, since they have only existed since the 50s, and here is the problem: The body sees radioactive elements as being almost identical to normal plant or animal minerals such as magnesium, potassium, iodine or iron, so it just absorbs them and tries to use them. However, man made radioactive elements are poisonous heavy metals and they are radioactive, acting like tiny machine guns firing in all directions inside the body, destroying and damaging DNA plus cells, thus causing cancers and diseases. Radioactive cesium mimics potassium, which goes to the muscles and specifically the heart. Radioactive uranium mimics magnesium. Radioactive iodine mimics ordinary iodine, which goes to the thyroid gland. Radioactive plutonium mimics iron, which goes to the bones, liver and blood cells. Radioactive strontium mimics calcium, which goes to the bones and teeth. This makes ionizing radiation very hard for the body to protect itself against, and these substances have an electrical charge, so they "stick" to the body very effectively, both internally and externally; internal contamination being much much worse. Hundreds of other radioactive elements act in the same way, each one damaging a different part of the body. There are over 1,000 toxic poisonous and radioactive man made elements that come out of a nuclear reactor that is fissioning. Even normally operating nuclear reactors, mines, processing facilities and reprocessing facilities plus nuclear waste storage facilities emit these poisons and radioactive elements. The USA is downwind of the Fukushima mega nuclear accident. The US received low doses of radiation all across the nation, and that radiation settled into water, land, and all living things. There are also radioactive 'hot' spots scattered all across the nation, where radioactive rain came down and concentrated the radiation even more in an irregular patchwork quilt sort of pattern. If this gunk was not so hard for the body to get rid of it would not be such a big deal, but instead, it bio-accumulates. When, unlike chemical poisons, a *single* molecule will cause a cancer, this stuff is a nightmare. We may not develop a cancer this year, or the next, or even the next, but given enough time it is almost guaranteed.
I understand that anyone unaware of the way this gunk works will not be concerned, especially when the various agencies charged with protecting the population (at one time they actually did, somewhat) constantly tell us there is no issue. Those agencies are using the "threshold model", which assumes a certain amount of contamination is harmless. That model is incorrect, and those that know it are misleading us. I gain nothing by saying any of this, and in fact I hate saying it; *I* shouldn't have to say it, but it is the truth and people deserve the truth. What anyone does with the truth is up to the end user Those that have done this need to be held accountable for what they have done to us, our children, our entire world population, every species, flora and fauna. I've been attacked and called every name in the book over this information for 25 years; it isn't something anyone does for profit or enjoyment, because neither one is ever forthcoming. It is simply the right thing to do Don't take my word for it; look into it.
|
|
|
Post by shawnanagins775 on Dec 28, 2015 8:01:41 GMT -5
Thank you for a great post, Adam. I didn't realize you have been at it for so long. All the details can be so overwhelming, but, even without knowing them all, it isn't difficult to understand that we are all in very deep trouble. Nearly everyday, I see just how scared people are to face the facts.
|
|
|
Post by adamselene on Dec 30, 2015 9:14:42 GMT -5
Thanks Elaine. I try to share those rare times when I'm firing on all 8 cylinders, in hopes that it will help others to refine their own responses to the opposition. I certainly owe a lot to the innumerable great souls that I have learned from over the years. It is rare now that I glean any new info from anyone, but new approaches are always great. That's one of Dana's strengths; the distilling it all down to something he can say in an hour. His streams are approaching the level of a thesis, which is something I should work on, writing it all into a compact form and touching on everything I have learned, but the task seems, most days beyond my energy level. I should write it backwards on my forehead "write the thesis, lazy bastard!" or something like that. LOL I've been anti-nuke since I first found out about nuke. Many have only come to it since Japan blew up their plants, because after that happened it became so much more urgent, but it is never too late and we need everyone willing involved. Don't turn back now. It's a long...... and rugged road. Sometimes it hurts, but the truth must be told. Yarr.
|
|
|
Post by shawnanagins775 on Dec 30, 2015 21:20:36 GMT -5
That's funny, Adam, but, you're no 'lazy bastard'! I wish I could say the same about taking a stance against nuclear a long time ago. I feel terrible that all those years of living in CA, I had never given it much thought. Even later, after leaving CA and working for 'power generation' companies. It wasn't until Fukushima that I started to get it and quickly went to the health food store to try to get the seaweed, the miso, the iodide and wondered why so few people seemed concerned. Five months later, I moved from the west coast and focused mainly on finding work again. Even then, the visible chemtrails were now bothering me more than anything, because with those, you could actually see and I was trying to make people aware of that first. You'd think that something you could actually SEE would be the first thing to get people to OBSERVE!! Helloooo! The sky is no longer that nice blue color we used to know and love. When Dana mentioned a couple of times that I have been at this a long time, it could be because I told him I was aware of a lot of things going on in the world, prior to Fukushima, that the MSM and the 'system' has kept from us. Yes, it is a long and rugged road...and it's those damned bumps that keep jarring me from going back to sleep.
|
|
|
Post by adamselene on Dec 31, 2015 11:21:00 GMT -5
I don't know, right now I'd like to just hibernate until spring, but time is too short to waste it these days. That's the trick of it; we have been told all our lives that nuke is fine, and a lot of people, *even now* still believe it. It takes active effort to find out just how horrible this gunk is, and some fortitude to accept that those that have done it simply don't care who dies (including, apparently, themselves). Crazy stuff! We are attacked from every available angle; nuke, chemicals, geoengineering, toxic food-like stuff, poisoned water, pharma, poisoned *information*; all of it. It is difficult for people to wake up at all, especially when it changes us so drastically to do so, but after a while, it becomes "ok" again, after going through the process. As I always say, the red pill sucks, but the blue pill is a lie and I'll take sucky truth over a comfy lie every single time. Yarr.
|
|
|
Post by adamselene on Jan 2, 2016 5:14:09 GMT -5
Ok, this isn't specifically about nuke. I was talking with some "global warming" shill, but since he demanded "peer-reviewed" evidence, much as the nuke shills do, I thought I would post this here, since the same applies to both cases: Rewarp sudo make install 1:07 AM 35 comments later, and Mr Selene still fails to provide even one citation from a peer-reviewed publication. Adam Selene 5:02 AM We are being told by global warming alarmists that peer review is the definition of science. It means the worthies decide for everyone else. Science has the purpose of ending that fraud, not promoting it. Science is defined by verifiable, measured evidence, not some scam scheme. Part of the problem is the assumption that truth is decreed by authority rather than something that evolves through rationality. Authority over reality is not compatible with truth. Incompetents and corrupters mix decision making authority with evaluation authority, not being aware of the difference. Climate alarmists have been insisting that if it isn't peer reviewed it isn't science, and science must not be diluted addressing criticisms outside peer reviewed science. Many journalists accept that claim. Where did Al Gore publish his peer reviewed science? He is teaching the kids in the schools that their carbon dioxide is killing the polar bears, while he has never studied an iota of science in his life. We are told that 97% of the scientists agree that humans are creating global warming by putting carbon dioxide into the air. How can the other 3% be peer reviewed and wrong? If they are not peer reviewed, what relevance is their opinion? We are told in leaked emails by Phil Jones, the chief climatologist who evaluates temperature changes, that they prevent opponents from publishing through the peer review process. If a journal publishes the material of an opponent, they get rid of the publisher. So ignoramuses can promote any fraud as being peer reviewed, while no criticism in science is allowed, because criticism is never peer reviewed. Peer review is often described as a validating process. There is no such thing as validating science. A validating process is in conflict with an evaluation process. Peer review takes the form of censorship, which is tyranny over the mind. Censorship does not purify; it corrupts. If peer review were open and accountable, there might be a small chance of correcting some of the corruptions through truth and criticism; but the process is cloaked in the darkness of anonymity. There is no place for secrecy in science after the research is done. A laboratory needs some protection from interference while it is working through the challenges, but the evaluation process cannot produce truth through secrecy and unaccountability. Ultimately, there has to be external accountability for corruptions. In science, the public needs to be creating accountability through criticism. There is an assumption that peer review improves publications. Supposedly, deficiencies are corrected, and wording is clarified. It's a pipe dream. Purifying is how complex results are destroyed. It's like redesigning an elm tree or improving the Edsel. It isn't an elm tree or Edsel afterwards. Having two or three experts modify someone else's work assumes that research should be perfected before being presented to everyone else. Scientists should all be capable of doing their own evaluating. Scientists need to see the deficiencies as well as the value in research. There is no constructive form that peer review could take. Science publications should use their professional staff, which they already have, to evaluate basic standards only. All of the rest of the limitations need to be visible to everyone. Peer review is being portrayed in the media as the definition and determining criterion for science. Actually, it's a recent phenomenon. Only a few decades ago, editors started sending manuscripts out for assistance, as complexities increased. As the practice became common during the sixties and seventies, the names of reviewers were openly stated. During the eighties anonymity was added. This practice started somewhat innocently and transformed into a corruption being exploited for control. To assume there is something good about it, requires total ignorance of what scientists do. Scientists build upon the work of each other making small steps, gradually improving clarity through methodology. None of it is at any end point. Peer review assumes it is all end-point fact rather than a process to be built upon. Science is more about improving procedures than drawing conclusions. These shill are so much fun.
|
|
|
Post by joepa51 on Jan 3, 2016 14:14:13 GMT -5
Thanks Elaine. I try to share those rare times when I'm firing on all 8 cylinders, in hopes that it will help others to refine their own responses to the opposition. I certainly owe a lot to the innumerable great souls that I have learned from over the years. It is rare now that I glean any new info from anyone, but new approaches are always great. That's one of Dana's strengths; the distilling it all down to something he can say in an hour. His streams are approaching the level of a thesis, which is something I should work on, writing it all into a compact form and touching on everything I have learned, but the task seems, most days beyond my energy level. I should write it backwards on my forehead "write the thesis, lazy bastard!" or something like that. LOL I've been anti-nuke since I first found out about nuke. Many have only come to it since Japan blew up their plants, because after that happened it became so much more urgent, but it is never too late and we need everyone willing involved. Don't turn back now. It's a long...... and rugged road. Sometimes it hurts, but the truth must be told. Yarr. I was going to, give a presentation at my day program on Fukushima for the members and the faculty. That was before I knew the enormity of the situation and also when I first came across Dana's earlier videos. This was more than 2 yrs ago. The more I started researching . The more I started digging the harder it was to find a good . starting point. I was a victim of analysis paralysis. I ended up not giving it because I didn't feel I could do the topic the justice it deservesd. I also no longer attend that program. Anyway that was when I came across Dana's earlier videos when we still believed that the fuel pool was intact. Around that time I came across a you tuber that goes by the handle Hatrick Penry and realized the situation was much more grave then was being reported. He was one of the first ones to report that the fuel pools and the reactors where gone through FOIA documents he got a hold of. At first I didn't want to believe it. I wanted to believe that removing the spent fuel rods was going to be like removing bent cigarettes from a crushed cigarette pack. Sometime after that lie dana started showing the pictures from the Fukushima 50 that show that the worst case scenario happened that they lost 100% of there inventory. I believe that we are all living on borrowed time. I have nothing but love and respect for all of the work Mr. Durnford has done to push this issue into the public. I forget my initial intention of this post so I am going to stop now.
|
|
|
Post by adamselene on Feb 14, 2016 6:12:24 GMT -5
Here it is, 6am and 4 degrees out, and time for another installment of What Do YOU Say To Pro-Nukers? This one has tried to snipe my posts many times, so I finally took the time to actually say something to her (assuming this is actually a human LOL). She said: Cassi O 12:43 AM +Adam Selene I looked back at some fuel inventory articles, and just discovered a link to this study. www2.ans.org/misc/ans-technical-brief-mox-fukushima.pdf For all the talk of MOX and how terrible it's supposed to be, in fact there were only 32 MOX out of 548 fuel assemblies in the Unit 3 reactor. Technically, I heard there's enough plutonium used to power one of the Voyager spacecraft to kill everyone on the planet, but for that to happen everyone on the planet would have to ingest or inhale a lethal dose. Naturally occurring Polonium-210 is just as deadly inside our bodies, and it's found everywhere in the environment. Thanks to nuclear weapons test, the entire world has been exposed to Pu, much of it falling out in the Pacific, and this didn't cause an extinction event. Outside the body, Pu isn't as hazardous. The plutonium used in the first atomic bomb test was carried in a briefcase by train from Hanford to Los Alamos. If plutonium killed the ocean, do you have a credible source showing ANY marine life that had a lethal dose of Pu? So I said: Adam Selene 5:40 AM +Cassi O Yes, plutonium is an alpha emitter, so outside the body it is far less dangerous. Of course there are tons of uranium in that release as well, but the worst of it is the "spent fuel". Once the fuel has been in the reactor it has produced thousands of different isotopes, each with specific affinities to parts and systems in the body. That only unit 3 had a prompt criticality is a fact (as nearly as we can figure), but consider that in detonating and ejecting the core, unit 3 pulverized much that fuel load and shot it up into the jet stream, which carried it all over the northern hemisphere to settle and rain out in varying amounts. Some of those particles are extremely small, and it only takes a single molecule to produce a cancer at a future date once it is ingested. We have all inhaled and ingested some of that fuel and it has been through the reaction, which makes it enormously more dangerous than fresh, unreacted fuel. Ok, so that's unit 3. Units 1 and 2 melted down and melted out into the ground below the plant and the groundwater has been carrying that radioactivity to the sea ever since. While this alone would be a horrible situation, it does not end there; the fuel pools all drained and the fuel in them burned off into the atmosphere, including the huge "common" fuel pool. We have to assume that every bit of that fuel is now out of containment (which Tepco claimed was approximately 8.4 million pounds). With the pools all burned up, that fuel is atomized and in the air, rained and snowed out all over the planet. Again, this is reacted fuel with all the daughter isotopes produced by the reaction. We would have fared better if that fuel all exploded in a prompt criticality (the range in which nuclear weapons operate), because it releases most of its energy in one massive explosion. Instead it got distributed with most of its energy intact and will be releasing that energy in close proximity to all of us for, in the case of some isotopes, 1/4 million years. Every model we have seen is based on the release during the first day of Fukushima's catastrophic failure, not including the fuel pools at all, and that is why the models are useless, entirely incorrect, and underste the enormity of this catastrophe by literally many many thousands of times. If all we had to be concerned about was the detonation of unit 3 and the runoff into the Pacific from the meltouts, the nuker PR firms would be close to correct that it isn't as bad as some of us are saying. Remember also that the airborne stuff has been raining into that ocean, so all the life in that ocean is constantly exposed to this energy at much higher levels than the models suggest. You can swim in the Pacific for a while and probably be alright, but to live in it would be deadly. That is why the Pacific is dead, or to be more accurate I should say unstoppably dying and soon to be completely dead. The first thing this radiation killed was the basis of the food chain, which is Phytoplankton, so the next creatures up the food chain began to starve, and what they could find to eat (not much) had radiation in it, so it bioaccumulated up the food chain, exposing the higher life forms to ever-increasing radiation internally. The fish that are still caught in parts of that ocean, many of them are full of tumors and deformities. Anyone eating pacific products is taking an extreme risk, and will almost surely develop a cancer of some sort within some timespan that we can only guess at. Here in the US, at my location, we had counts of 40-80 CPM routinely before Fukushima blew up, some from bomb tests, some was natural, some from nuke plants. Now, after almost 5 years of this ongoing release we have levels all the time over 1000-1200+ CPM; that's 30 times more than we had previously and it keeps slowly increasing. The instance of cancer is rising markedly, along with heart, thyroid, skin and muscle damage, immune disorders, all sorts of ailments that were rising much more slowly before. When I say that this is an ELE; that this is the ELE, it is not because I don't like nuke (obviously, I do not like it), nor it is fear or hysteria, it is exactly what I am seeing, right here, at home, my home, your home, it is everywhere. Nothing can stand that constant bombardment without being damaged, especially living creatures. Plants uptake this pollution, animals ingest it, then we ingest them. Our food supply is contaminated; the entire food chain on this planet is contaminated with some amount of it, the ground water has some in it, and we drink it. So we are constantly accumulating this in our bodies. We cannot avoid all of it, but we can minimize the more risky activities, such as buying Japanese products, eating ocean fish, going out in the rain, the snow, wearing outdoor shoes in the house. There is a lot that we can do if we are aware. No, I cannot produce any peer-reviewed studies, I cannot find a single nuclear physicist that will sign off on the danger. This is being squashed, hidden, downplayed and outright lied about. In Japan they will actually throw you in prison for speaking the truth about this. My issue with people that minimize this mess is that it causes people to not avoid the worst of it. I see that as a terrible thing to do, and I say it. I never pull the punch. I flat out say it: Nuke is death. The nuke cartel and their PR puppets are murdering us, our children, our pets, our ecosystem, our only planet and it is deliberate. It is criminal, an atrocity. All I ask is that you consider what I have said, for it is not my opinion, it is just the truth, which is not always an easy thing to swallow. Peace.
|
|
|
Post by adamselene on Oct 30, 2016 16:26:39 GMT -5
Nuke is not carbon free, not even close. The entire lifecycle emissions of nuclear power are as high as 15.42 tons per GWh. But how does that compare to other electricity sources? A typical nuclear power plant is around 1 GW. Assuming 100% uptime (nuclear power plants do go offline for maintenence), a 1 GW power plant, running 8760 hours per year, will produce 8760 gigawatt-hours, or 8.76 billion kilowatt-hours per year. The average US household uses 11,232 kWh per year, so the average nuclear power plant services 780,000 households. Now, 15.42 tons per GWh translates into 15.42 kg per megawatt-hour (MWh). For comparison, California's mixture of electricity sources, including nuclear, creates 328.4 kg of CO2 per MWh and Kansas tops out the nation at 889.5 kg per MWh. The lifecycle emissions of wind power are around 10 kg per MWh. Also, if "global warming" is the supposed issue, consider that the average nuke reactor boils a *million* gallons of water per minute. As of May 2016, 30 countries worldwide are operating 444 nuclear reactors for electricity generation and 63 new nuclear plants are under construction in 15 countries. 444 reactors boil around 40 *billion* gallons per day and over 14 *trillion* gallons per year.. every day. Nuke is just a huge, enormously expensive heater that makes a small amout of power as a byproduct of process of creating fancy isotopes for technology, usually military, usually resulting in suffering. Every plant also releases noble gasses on a regular basis, so if you happen to be downwind, you are getting irradiated. Not only is nuke not the answer to carbon emissions, it cuts out the rifraff and directly adds astronomical amounts of heat to the atmosphere. They also are known to explode and melt down from time to time (the average is 7 years between total loss "accidents") causing global damage at the cellular level in every living thing, plant and animal. The nearly 200 *billion* dollar per year subsidy to nuke power in the USA alone, is enough money to upgrade, update and harden our power grid *100 times*. That is more than enough to replace every single watt that nuke currently makes with truly efficient and extremely low carbon energy production. The money is there, the jobs we need, it is a win-win plan any way you look at it. Nuke is TAKING that money *by force* and keeping it. Let's stop giving it to them. We can't afford the cost and we can't afford the damage. The free market would choose the path to the most cost effective and cleanest sources of energy which already include wind, solar, small-scale hydro, geothermal, energy efficiency, tidal, and certainly not nuclear or "clean coal."
The nuclear industry, and their sister industry, the cancer industry; the people at the top are entirely aware of all of this.
|
|
rattusnor
New Hound
All these things have me thinking that there will simply be no after party.
Posts: 7
|
Post by rattusnor on Dec 1, 2016 16:34:33 GMT -5
When in discussion about Fukushima with someone, I usually use an analogy. Something along the lines of 'Have you ever heard of a car that never broke down?' They answer no, I haven't.
I then say how would you fix the car, if the parts were so deadly that even to approach them would result in death?
That is when I bring up whats going on at Fukushima. Fukushima, after all is a complex machine, housed in a building.
To expect that Fukushima (or any nuclear plant) would be able to operate indefinitely with out problems, is to me, idiotic.
|
|