Nuclear Power is not going away.......or is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

And what will Switzerland do to get it's power? My guess is that it will probably import it, from the French nuclear power stations.

---

See, this is what people who don't want to face reality do. Deny that they approve of something, and then buy from someone who does approve of the idea.

We did the same here in Ontario. The idiot running the show here decided he didn't like coal being used for electricity, but since he dithered and green tech isn't of course doing more than producing a mouse's fart of power; we now import power at peak time from the US. Ohio to be precise...where they use LARGE amounts of good ole West Virginia Coal....and all the crap in the air that comes from this blows in the summer over Lake Erie into.....ONTARIO! so now we PAY for the juice AND get the fall out of crap!!!

My silver lining on the Swiss stance is that it will not be a 5-10 year transition - they are initially saying a 30 year transition, more than 1/2 of my lifetime - hopefully enough time to come up with a safer and abundant source of energy that can benefit all and not continue to pollute this planet of ours.

. . . just saying . . . .


:s mokin:

Nuclear Fusion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

Nuclear Fusion?

---

The Chinese think so . . .

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2...uclear-fusion/

Ahhhh . . .here comes race with some more doomsday nuclear crap . . . as some would say . . .

I just saw this and even though some will question the source, i still feel that the nuclear disaster fallout is one of the "elephant in the room" topics that doesn't want to be talked about.

Is this true? I don't know. could it be true? I don't know either but I give it a strong possibility.

Study: US Deaths Tied to Fukushima Disaster Fallout

Quote:

---

Impact seen as roughly comparable to radiation-related deaths after Chernobyl; infants are hardest hit, with continuing research showing even higher possible death count.

---

Study: US Deaths Tied to Fukushima Disaster Fallout

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by race aficionado

Ahhhh . . .here comes race with some more doomsday nuclear crap . . . as some would say . . .

I just saw this and even though some will question the source, i still feel that the nuclear disaster fallout is one of the "elephant in the room" topics that doesn't want to be talked about.

Is this true? I don't know. could it be true? I don't know either but I give it a strong possibility.

Study: US Deaths Tied to Fukushima Disaster Fallout



Study: US Deaths Tied to Fukushima Disaster Fallout

---

Blimey, I pop into this forum after work and all I get is... more work...

Race, you might find this link more interesting, this is the original article published on the website of one of the authors:

http://janettesherman.com/wp-content...icle_42-1F.pdf

It pains me to see such poorly written articles frankly.

Its an incredibly crude paper comparing deaths across US cities in a period before and after the Fukushima reactor meltdown. There is no attempt to identify cause of increased deaths, in fact causality is something the paper is very careful to avoid.

The paper demonstrates that for infants mortality increased the further away the city was from Fukushima, with the east and southern coasts demonstrating the biggest increase. Overall mortality including adults was also worse the further away from Fukushima the city was, with LA being the sole exception. In other words, the closer you were to Fukushima the lower the increased death rate, not what one would expect if Fukushima was indeed the cause.

The paper also carefully avoids discussing what we know about radiation related health problems which are death or tissue injury following exposure to massive doses of radiation (something which not even workers inside the reactors have suffered) or increased risk of cancer which follows years after exposure. Neither are relevant in this case.

Given the location of most of the increased deaths which are along the Eastern seaboard of the US I would wonder if there was poor weather there in the spring of 2011 compared to 2010 as that is almost certainly the cause.

As for the contamination from dispersed material from the nuclear reactors there is not even an attempt to provide figures for maximum allowable levels, something that triggers alarm bells in my head as it is highly relevant in identifying whether fallout in the US could be linked to health issues. Its omission suggests to me that the paper was written with an agenda. From what I know the fallout levels in the US never came close to approaching maximum allowable levels.

At least the paper is honest in stating clearly that the US authorities failed to find even detectable levels of isotopes in the majority of samples, not surprising since the leak of material was in fact very low and mainly confined to the immediate seawater around the plant.

Sorry race but there's a reason why this paper hasn't sent shockwaves around the planet (which it would if it were true), its because its too poorly written to be taken seriously.

14000 extra deaths due to comparably low levels of radiation in the US in only a few weeks... how many million Japanese would they expect to be similarly affected?

Looks like false correlations or scaremongering bollocks to me :)

[edit]like malbec[/edit]

See, I told you so, there goes race....

But I still believe that there is much we don't know about the damage done by the radioactivity that was released.

Thanks for the info Donks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by race aficionado

Thanks for the info Donks.

---

you mean malbec :)

Exactly. I just came home and was ready to try to save face . . . again.

Thanks malbec :)

Donks, and stop typing while you are working! :dozey: