Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Capsules   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10  [ show all ]
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: MelloRed]
    #14211832 - 03/30/11 08:28 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

MelloRed said:
Quote:

EdgeChaos said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but last I checked no one had suffered a lethal dose of radiation from the Fukushima plant. Also, The radiation that is measurable in the states is negligible in comparison to the amount of radiation we receive from the sun and microwaves every day.




No one's had a lethal dose and doubt anyone will.





How do you figure?

To my knowledge, the figures thrown about discuss radiation dosage and death in terms of a single exposure over a short period of time and the associated acute sickness resulting in death of healthy people.  To say that if the doses recieved over a relatively small time frame are less than the threshold for acute illness resulting in death of normal people is not to say that the doses are not lethal.  This is an important distinction in the statistics being cited that are often glossed over and give a spurious impression.



BTW:  Does anyone know why the plant released figures orders of magnitude too low?  I know after Chernobyl the soviet officials were using tools that could not measure levels anywhere near the magnitude present, and erroneously reported the figures indicated by their equipment as accurate.  This would seem to be a pretty negligent and idiotic mistake: its basic procedure to ensure the tool your using can measure what your trying to measure, and if your results are at or near the limit of the device's sensitivity, you should not trust the readings.

Did the Japanese company's officials repeat this historic blunder?  It would seem this is the easiest answer for how they could be off by so many orders of magnitude, but its a bit difficult to understand how they could be that dumb- especially given how notorious the Chernobyl response was with all its mistakes.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: johnm214]
    #14212821 - 03/31/11 12:33 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

> Does anyone know why the plant released figures orders of magnitude too low?

Hard to know for certain.  My guess is that it was a mistake in translation from the people working to the people reporting with too many "men in the middle".  It is an easy mistake for somebody to state milli-xyz and somebody else to repeat micro-xyz, especially if the somebody else is not a scientist or engineer.

I also believe there is an element that does not want to admit that it is as bad as it is.  This seems to be a general failing within the nuclear community as a whole.  Perhaps it is related to constantly fighting the anti-nuclear people, but in my experience with the industry, the insiders always embrace a best case scenario while refusing to acknowledge the worst case possible.  As I said in an earlier post, it is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.  They keep talking about the iodine-134, which has a short half-life of under an hour, but it is the cesium-137 I want to know about, with a half-life of over 30 years.  Where there is one, there is usually the other.  That they haven't mentioned cesium, given that they like to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that nothing is wrong, has me very concerned.  Hopefully I am wrong.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMelloRed
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/09/11
Posts: 186
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: johnm214]
    #14215251 - 03/31/11 02:47 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

MelloRed said:
Quote:

EdgeChaos said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but last I checked no one had suffered a lethal dose of radiation from the Fukushima plant. Also, The radiation that is measurable in the states is negligible in comparison to the amount of radiation we receive from the sun and microwaves every day.




No one's had a lethal dose and doubt anyone will.





How do you figure?

To my knowledge, the figures thrown about discuss radiation dosage and death in terms of a single exposure over a short period of time and the associated acute sickness resulting in death of healthy people.  To say that if the doses recieved over a relatively small time frame are less than the threshold for acute illness resulting in death of normal people is not to say that the doses are not lethal.  This is an important distinction in the statistics being cited that are often glossed over and give a spurious impression.




I'm not following...how is something that won't cause death be lethal?  Here's a list of dosages within one day and effects:

    0 – 0.25 Sv (0 – 250 mSv): None
    0.25 – 1 Sv (250 – 1000 mSv): Some people feel nausea and loss of appetite; bone marrow, lymph nodes, spleen damaged.
    1 – 3 Sv (1000 – 3000 mSv): Mild to severe nausea, loss of appetite, infection; more severe bone marrow, lymph node, spleen damage; recovery probable, not assured.
    3 – 6 Sv (3000 – 6000 mSv): Severe nausea, loss of appetite; hemorrhaging, infection, diarrhea, peeling of skin, sterility; death if untreated.
    6 – 10 Sv (6000 – 10000 mSv): Above symptoms plus central nervous system impairment; death expected.
    Above 10 Sv (10000 mSv): Incapacitation and death.

The highest reading I've heard of is the water leaking out which was measured at 1 Sv/hr.  Quite serious, but no one except plant workers are anywhere near it.  The workers are being limited to a total accumulated dose of 250 milli-Sv.  That plus people being evacuated around the plant almost ensure no one will die from this directly.

Quote:

johnm214 said:
BTW:  Does anyone know why the plant released figures orders of magnitude too low?  I know after Chernobyl the soviet officials were using tools that could not measure levels anywhere near the magnitude present, and erroneously reported the figures indicated by their equipment as accurate.  This would seem to be a pretty negligent and idiotic mistake: its basic procedure to ensure the tool your using can measure what your trying to measure, and if your results are at or near the limit of the device's sensitivity, you should not trust the readings.

Did the Japanese company's officials repeat this historic blunder?  It would seem this is the easiest answer for how they could be off by so many orders of magnitude, but its a bit difficult to understand how they could be that dumb- especially given how notorious the Chernobyl response was with all its mistakes.




I remember in the early days of this they reported a few figures 1000x times too high (milli-Sv instead of micro-Sv), but I haven't heard of them under-reporting levels.  I'd be curious if that's been confirmed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: MelloRed]
    #14216217 - 03/31/11 05:55 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

> I'm not following...how is something that won't cause death be lethal?

There are two forms of death... "immediate" death from radiation poisoning and "long term" death from cancer caused by exposure to abnormal amounts of radiation.  The first form is easy to quantify, but the second is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify.  Take the cesium-137 that is spilling into the ocean as an example.  It has a 30 year half-life which means it is going to stick around much longer than you or I will live.  Plankton will absorb the cesium, concentrating it.  Small fish will eat the plankton, concentrating the cesium even more.  Bigger fish eat the smaller fish, etc, etc.  Eventually humans eat the bigger fish, dosing ourselves with a larger than normal amount of a very nasty carcinogen.  Before, we had to worry about mercury and other heavy metals in our fish.  Now we have to worry about radioactive carcinogens as well.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: MelloRed]
    #14219458 - 04/01/11 08:03 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Outside of Chernobyl (which was gross negligence), Mayak (also some pretty irresponsible Soviet management), and possibly the Japanese problems (which required a once a millenium type natural disaster), the other problems have had almost no impact on the general public.  If this is the worst I can expect, build them down the road from me please.

    Quote:
    Seuss said:
    It is the ones that have problems that I am worried about... along with the long term repercussions of those problems... along with the long term repercussions of dealing with the waste from those hundreds of nuclear plants.



Balance those considerations with concerns about global warming and concerns about people if cheap, plentiful power is not available.  I would argue that unless we magic fussion or some other power source quickly, nuclear power is the best out of a number of non-optimal alternatives.




That is the key consideration in my mind.  And no anti-nuke ever does that - put things into perspective.  To the question of "where will all the electricity come from?" is the sound of wind blowing through the trees.

The media only has a vested interest in selling fear to the public.  The fact that over 10,000 people were killed because of the earthquake takes the back burner.

As I said before, it's too early to know what the specific environmental/societal impacts of this accident will be as all the information is not known yet and because the crisis is not yet over.  But I do know that it will result in a thorough review of safety procedures by the entire nuclear industry, just as TMI changed the face of the industry in the decade after.

But the vendors aren't stupid, and they weren't waiting for this event to start thinking outside the box... they've been very proactive.  Westinghouse, for example, has already implemented passive safety features into their AP1000 design.  This means that core cooling can be accomplished without the use of external or on-site diesel power.  Twelve of these reactors have already been ordered and are under construction in China.  The design is based off of their previous AP600 design, approved over a decade ago by NRC in 1999, which took 1,400 man-years to design.  No other power technology goes through such a thorough, scrutinized design process.  Other vendors are no different. The goal is to develop the safest, most economical design to sell to the utilities.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: pothead_bob]
    #14219870 - 04/01/11 10:08 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

> To the question of "where will all the electricity come from?" is the sound of wind blowing through the trees.

How about "use less electricity"... The earth cannot support the current population boom of mankind.  Where the electricity comes from is the least of our problems.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: Seuss]
    #14219973 - 04/01/11 10:36 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

How about "use less electricity"... The earth cannot support the current population boom of mankind.  Where the electricity comes from is the least of our problems.




It's hardly the least of our problems.  Unless you can reduce the electricity we use by about 80%, you will still need to be heavily dependent on fossil-fuels if you don't get power from nuclear. This number is, of course, completely unreasonable to expect considering that the world population keeps growing and that emerging nations desire a lifestyle commensurate to those of first-world countries.  A society's standard of living is well correlated with their availability of cheap, abundant electricity that provides essential tasks ranging from powering hospitals to providing clean drinking water.  Telling third-world countries they aren't allowed those luxuries is a bit tyrannical, don't you think?  I'd just rather they power them with a clean, safe energy as opposed to a dirty, polluting one.

When I was asking "where will the electricity come from?", I was looking for a practical answer.  Besides, this thread is about the validity of nuclear power as an energy source.  Whether the earth is overpopulated or not isn't really relevant.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: Seuss]
    #14220147 - 04/01/11 11:11 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

A wholesale decrease in energy usage will cause vast and pervasive misery.  Everything we have is a result of harnessing external energy sources.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEdgeChaos
Still a stranger

Registered: 08/04/06
Posts: 2,071
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: Seuss]
    #14220305 - 04/01/11 11:40 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
> To the question of "where will all the electricity come from?" is the sound of wind blowing through the trees.

How about "use less electricity"... The earth cannot support the  Where the electricity comes from is the least of our problems.





This is the worst possible solution. Electricity is directly proportional to human kinds ability to survive. The only way we will make it through the "current population boom of mankind" is to harness every possible energy resource we have, including nuclear power, to produce enough to support life. If at the same time we want to stop using oil and coal then we are only left with one real choice because we all know the "alternative" sources don't supply us with enough.

Just think, if we had enough energy we could grow food under lights in buildings. Food crisis solved.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: Seuss]
    #14220556 - 04/01/11 12:30 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

That's something I've been increasingly entertaining as well Seuss.  Looking at the numbers: it doesn't seem like there's going to be the kinds of answers to where our food, energy, material goods, and so forth will come from that we've traditionally relied upon.  Additionally, the environmental problems are almost all proportional to population, with some not even being a factor without a large population.

Unfortunately, the use of third party enforcement mechanisms is a bit totalitarian, and has a sordid history evoking memories of eugenics and authoritarian states.

The more I think about it though, the more I think reducing population might be a worthwhile goal for national security and standard of living concerns.

One thing I wonder, however, is how the economy would be hurt by this.  I suppose as a national movement it would have somewhat of a blunted impact as it will almost certainly not be a realistic possibility in much of the world.

There's also the problem of the entitlement ponzi schemes the US and other countries continue to have.  Some jerkoff congressman was recently giving an interview where he spoke of his eight children as "doing his part" to ensure social security's solvency.  These kinds of programs that use one class's money to pay for another's could be highly problematic.


Quote:

EdgeChaos said:
Quote:

Seuss said:
> To the question of "where will all the electricity come from?" is the sound of wind blowing through the trees.

How about "use less electricity"... The earth cannot support the  Where the electricity comes from is the least of our problems.





This is the worst possible solution. Electricity is directly proportional to human kinds ability to survive. The only way we will make it through the "current population boom of mankind" is to harness every possible energy resource we have, including nuclear power, to produce enough to support life. If at the same time we want to stop using oil and coal then we are only left with one real choice because we all know the "alternative" sources don't supply us with enough.

Just think, if we had enough energy we could grow food under lights in buildings. Food crisis solved.




What about reducing population?  Then the energy and material needs aren't so problematic.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: johnm214]
    #14221100 - 04/01/11 01:54 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

What about reducing population?  Then the energy and material needs aren't so problematic.




It's a valid point, but that scenario (as a means to reduce energy consumption) is an idealized one.  The practicality is a major issue.  Furthermore, it's a problem that would take generations to solve, whereas we need electricity right now.  It's also not in keeping with the topic of this thread.  However, just for shits and giggles, even if we did reduce population (and how much is reasonable here? by 15%), our electricity consumption would still be at something like 80%.  Considering that the world's 2007 total energy consumption was 18.8 trillion kwh, even if you cut consumption in half (an unreasonable number), you'd still need to produce over 9 trillion kwh per year. 

A 1000 MWe plant proudces 1 000 000 kw * 365 day/year * 24 hr/day = 7.9 billion kwh/year, assuming 90% availability.  9 trillion / 7.9 billion = 1,142 1000 MWe power plants to supply that amount of electricity.  That's still a shitload of coal plants if you're going to get that power from coal.  It's an unreasonably large amount of power to get from renewables.  Hydroelectric is the only renewable power source that you can get cheap, abundant, effective electricity from and that has it's own issues.  My point is that even in such an idealized scenario is still one that you'd want nuclear power involved in.

edit:  To better put wind power into perspective, a big, 1 MW windmill with a capacity factor of 35% (the wind isn't always blowing) will produce 3.07 million kwh a year.  9 trillion / 3.07 million = 2.9 billion windmills!  Dear lord, save the birds.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.

Edited by pothead_bob (04/01/11 02:15 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesmokin427
 User Gallery


Registered: 07/27/09
Posts: 603
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: EdgeChaos]
    #14221566 - 04/01/11 03:11 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

EdgeChaos said:
:rofl: At anyone who thinks nuclear power is bad.




im glad this was the first response, thanks


--------------------
I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you're here. You're here because you know something. What you know you can't explain, but you feel it. You've felt it your entire life, that there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I'm talking about?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: johnm214]
    #14222388 - 04/01/11 05:54 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

> What about reducing population?  Then the energy and material needs aren't so problematic.

It will happen one way or another.  Mass extinction is a bitch, but doesn't really matter if nobody is around to see it happen.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,416
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: Seuss]
    #14243235 - 04/05/11 05:49 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

i think we have more nuclear power plants than any other country on the planet. i suppose the nwo has been hard at work for awhile.


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Capsules   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Russia delays start-up of Iran nuclear power plant by one ye wingnutx 713 1 10/13/03 07:08 PM
by lysergic
* Nuclear revival
( 1 2 3 4 all )
JesusChrist 5,226 63 04/01/05 01:50 PM
by Baby_Hitler
* Going Nuclear Again
( 1 2 all )
lonestar2004 1,875 33 11/15/04 01:25 PM
by BleaK
* Iran Will Allow U.N. Inspections of Nuclear Sites Zahid 719 3 10/22/03 11:50 PM
by Zahid
* UN Pre-action to anticipated US action towards North Koreas nuclear stance SoopaX 845 1 02/24/05 03:39 AM
by tak
* New US Nuclear Plan. 7 Countries Named Targets. Ellis Dee 1,957 17 03/12/02 11:06 PM
by Jammer
* Worldwide Power Outages
( 1 2 3 all )
catalyst777 1,958 40 10/02/03 03:11 PM
by wingnutx
* Israel Ready to Strike Iranian Nuclear Sites Zahid 1,185 13 10/13/03 08:18 PM
by trendal

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
13,640 topic views. 3 members, 4 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.021 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 12 queries.