|
JohnnyConverse
Stranger

Registered: 04/10/09
Posts: 268
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: Seuss]
#14174247 - 03/24/11 05:23 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
my point was kind of that if you're inhaling big amounts of powdered DU you're not going to live to get cancer, it's like worrying about carcinoma from a forest fire, or MRSA from the lethal injection needle
-------------------- I wasn't an activist until I got put in jail. I sat there in jail seeing what was really going on in America and something changed. Now when people say, "Tommy what was jail like?" I say "You'll see" -- Tommy Chong
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: ScavengerType]
#14175118 - 03/24/11 10:59 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said: This is actually false power lines consume a lot of power particularly over long distances. I already outlined this earlier in the thread.
Define "a lot of power". I consider them to be rather efficient compared to the other losses in the system. Currently, power lines are used to transport electricity hundreds of miles in installations all over the world.
Quote:
In the example of a line with a bulk power transmission need of 6 gigawatts (GW), about 5 percent of the electricity will be lost over a distance of 1,500 kilometers when using an 800 kilovolt (kV) DC line. The losses climb to 6 percent with a 500 kV DC link and about 7 percent with conventional 800 kV AC lines.
http://www.abb.com/cawp/db0003db002698/62a91b7a9983836ec12571f10040e2cf.aspx
|
jebustrist
Stranger


Registered: 07/08/09
Posts: 79
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: ChuangTzu]
#14175253 - 03/24/11 11:26 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
They consume enough power that many groups all over the world are working to design more efficient delivery systems, your uninformed opinion on the matter is really of no consequence.
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: jebustrist]
#14175283 - 03/24/11 11:34 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
jebustrist said: They consume enough power that many groups all over the world are working to design more efficient delivery systems, your uninformed opinion on the matter is really of no consequence.
No shit, increasing efficiency is always a good thing and is always a goal. But the fact still remains, cities like San Francisco do not need to have a power plant in their city. They can, and do, get power from distant locations which can be safer to build on. It can also be cheaper even considering the power losses for a number of reasons. I never mentioned my opinion, but thanks for your opinion on it.
|
ScavengerType


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: ChuangTzu]
#14176056 - 03/24/11 02:10 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
re DU:
Iraqi doctors demand cancer probe
Quote:
Cancer rates in the province of Babil have risen almost tenfold in just three years.
In 2004, 500 cases of cancer were diagnosed there. That figure rose to almost 1,000 two years later. By 2008, the number of cases had increased sevenfold to 7,000.
OR see what else it is capible of.
I know that there is a possibility that coal cancer rates are higher because of it's long use but given all the places the US has used DU it's worth considdering that in fact my claim is correct.
--------- Re power lines: Maybe you miss what I am saying, I am not saying that people should put nuclear plants in city centres. But they will have to be near them, and near San Francisco is relatively as bad as being in it. Frankly I don't think we should be building any fucking nuke plants in the pacific ring. It has shown to generate massive nearly 10pt earthquakes (Chile was 9.5) and is not suited for nuke plants for this reason.
Also HVDC is not as easy as you make it sound, as the article you linked to says they must be under-water or under-ground. This is by no means commonly used.
Edited by ScavengerType (03/24/11 02:18 PM)
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 43 minutes
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: Seuss]
#14176543 - 03/24/11 03:25 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > DU isn't giving people cancer in warzones. ... you might get a significant dose off of it but significant DU emissions are confined to the alpha band
I'd be careful making such a claim. Depleted uranium is relatively safe, but there are still health issues associated with it, especially when used in war zones. You are correct, it is an alpha emitter, which means it is safe unless inhaled or ingested. Unfortunately, uranium is pyrophoric and vaporizes when used as an armor piercing munition. Inhaled or ingested alpha emitters are very nasty and are a serious cancer concern. Additionally, depleted uranium decays into thorium-234 and protactinium-234, both of which are beta emitters. A "real world sample" of DU will emit small amounts of gamma, and both beta and alpha at approximately the same rate.
> That's part of what makes it "D"
D means "depleted" and refers to the removal of the 235 isotope. It does not mean safe.
where does this guy get the idea that depleted uranium doesn't give people cancer in war zones? it's used in tank shells and in body armor, and you better believe people who've been around where those tank shells explode, and even the soldiers wearing the body armor, have experienced health problems from radiation. where did you get the idea they didn't? that shit is toxic
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 43 minutes
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: ScavengerType]
#14176606 - 03/24/11 03:34 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
yes exactly
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: ScavengerType]
#14176609 - 03/24/11 03:34 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said: Also HVDC is not as easy as you make it sound, as the article you linked to says they must be under-water or under-ground. This is by no means commonly used.
No, but the quote also contained efficiencies for other types of power lines which are in common use, and do transmit power over distances of hundreds of miles. Even a 7% loss, if you're 1000 miles away from the power plant, isn't that much of a loss when you consider that the AC adapter your laptop is being powered with is dumping about 10-20% of the energy that it consumes to heat.
The point is that power plants can be, and often are, built at locations remote to the people consuming the power they produce. There is nothing radical about this.
Edit: and the article only says that a particular version of HVDC power transmission lines, called HVDC Lite, are underwater or underground. And the current prevalence is moot when discussing the building of a future power plant since the power lines connecting it to the grid will be built along with the plant.
Edited by ChuangTzu (03/24/11 03:44 PM)
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: imachavel]
#14176719 - 03/24/11 03:53 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said:
Quote:
ChuangTzu said:
Quote:
imachavel said: so where are you supposed to put it? i mean there are hundreds of major cities built across fault lines across the world, such as in california, you have san diego, l.a., san fransisco. where are they supposed to draw their power from? new mexico?
cmon dude, think first.......... 
Luckily power lines can and do efficiently transmit energy over long distances so the power plant that serves San Francisco doesn't need to be in the middle of San Francisco. California gets lots of their power from Mexico...
This is actually false power lines consume a lot of power particularly over long distances. I already outlined this earlier in the thread.
sounds like you loose
100's of km with less than 10% E drop /100km?
(note: what does whether power lines consume "a lot" of power have to do with anything anyways?)+Quote:
imachavel said:
Quote:
Seuss said: > DU isn't giving people cancer in warzones. ... you might get a significant dose off of it but significant DU emissions are confined to the alpha band
I'd be careful making such a claim. Depleted uranium is relatively safe, but there are still health issues associated with it, especially when used in war zones. You are correct, it is an alpha emitter, which means it is safe unless inhaled or ingested. Unfortunately, uranium is pyrophoric and vaporizes when used as an armor piercing munition. Inhaled or ingested alpha emitters are very nasty and are a serious cancer concern. Additionally, depleted uranium decays into thorium-234 and protactinium-234, both of which are beta emitters. A "real world sample" of DU will emit small amounts of gamma, and both beta and alpha at approximately the same rate.
> That's part of what makes it "D"
D means "depleted" and refers to the removal of the 235 isotope. It does not mean safe.
where does this guy get the idea that depleted uranium doesn't give people cancer in war zones? it's used in tank shells and in body armor, and you better believe people who've been around where those tank shells explode, and even the soldiers wearing the body armor, have experienced health problems from radiation. where did you get the idea they didn't? that shit is toxic
Why do you have to beleive that? Okay, its used in war zones and in body armor, as alleged. What does that have to do with whether it causes health problems in those people?
You invest in the same failed thinking and conclusions the other person did, begging the question.
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist




Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,660
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 7 hours, 44 minutes
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: johnm214]
#14177217 - 03/24/11 05:11 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I'll just put this here.
-------------------- This space for rent
|
JohnnyConverse
Stranger

Registered: 04/10/09
Posts: 268
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: imachavel]
#14180434 - 03/25/11 04:50 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
ScavengerType said:
Quote:
ChuangTzu said:
Quote:
imachavel said: so where are you supposed to put it? i mean there are hundreds of major cities built across fault lines across the world, such as in california, you have san diego, l.a., san fransisco. where are they supposed to draw their power from? new mexico?
cmon dude, think first.......... 
Luckily power lines can and do efficiently transmit energy over long distances so the power plant that serves San Francisco doesn't need to be in the middle of San Francisco. California gets lots of their power from Mexico...
This is actually false power lines consume a lot of power particularly over long distances. I already outlined this earlier in the thread.
sounds like you loose
100's of km with less than 10% E drop /100km?
(note: what does whether power lines consume "a lot" of power have to do with anything anyways?)+Quote:
imachavel said:
Quote:
Seuss said: > DU isn't giving people cancer in warzones. ... you might get a significant dose off of it but significant DU emissions are confined to the alpha band
I'd be careful making such a claim. Depleted uranium is relatively safe, but there are still health issues associated with it, especially when used in war zones. You are correct, it is an alpha emitter, which means it is safe unless inhaled or ingested. Unfortunately, uranium is pyrophoric and vaporizes when used as an armor piercing munition. Inhaled or ingested alpha emitters are very nasty and are a serious cancer concern. Additionally, depleted uranium decays into thorium-234 and protactinium-234, both of which are beta emitters. A "real world sample" of DU will emit small amounts of gamma, and both beta and alpha at approximately the same rate.
> That's part of what makes it "D"
D means "depleted" and refers to the removal of the 235 isotope. It does not mean safe.
where does this guy get the idea that depleted uranium doesn't give people cancer in war zones? it's used in tank shells and in body armor, and you better believe people who've been around where those tank shells explode, and even the soldiers wearing the body armor, have experienced health problems from radiation. where did you get the idea they didn't? that shit is toxic
Why do you have to beleive that? Okay, its used in war zones and in body armor, as alleged. What does that have to do with whether it causes health problems in those people?
You invest in the same failed thinking and conclusions the other person did, begging the question.
haha what nation's rocking DU body armor?
Quote:
imachavel said:
Quote:
Seuss said: > DU isn't giving people cancer in warzones. ... you might get a significant dose off of it but significant DU emissions are confined to the alpha band
I'd be careful making such a claim. Depleted uranium is relatively safe, but there are still health issues associated with it, especially when used in war zones. You are correct, it is an alpha emitter, which means it is safe unless inhaled or ingested. Unfortunately, uranium is pyrophoric and vaporizes when used as an armor piercing munition. Inhaled or ingested alpha emitters are very nasty and are a serious cancer concern. Additionally, depleted uranium decays into thorium-234 and protactinium-234, both of which are beta emitters. A "real world sample" of DU will emit small amounts of gamma, and both beta and alpha at approximately the same rate.
> That's part of what makes it "D"
D means "depleted" and refers to the removal of the 235 isotope. It does not mean safe.
where does this guy get the idea that depleted uranium doesn't give people cancer in war zones? it's used in tank shells and in body armor, and you better believe people who've been around where those tank shells explode, and even the soldiers wearing the body armor, have experienced health problems from radiation. where did you get the idea they didn't? that shit is toxic
First off, you don't ever get the idea that something doesn't do something...that's not how facts work... The person that thinks the thing does cause the other thing needs to demonstrate that it's so.
war zones are full of toxic chemicals. As well as explosions, the enemy, etc. They are problematic environments for the human animal. It's a good supposition that du causes health problems, but if you are so dead certain it is the sole definite cause of a definite case or set of cases of cancer, please type up a paper on it and drop that shit in the mail to some journal
ps
What nation is rocking DU body armor? Cause those fuckers are hardcore. Like KISS ARMY level hardcore.
-------------------- I wasn't an activist until I got put in jail. I sat there in jail seeing what was really going on in America and something changed. Now when people say, "Tommy what was jail like?" I say "You'll see" -- Tommy Chong
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
JohnnyConverse said: First off, you don't ever get the idea that something doesn't do something...that's not how facts work... The person that thinks the thing does cause the other thing needs to demonstrate that it's so.

|
JohnnyConverse
Stranger

Registered: 04/10/09
Posts: 268
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: ChuangTzu]
#14182959 - 03/25/11 06:06 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
He asked where i got the idea du doesn't cause cancer.
It's incumbent on him to prove a positive hypothetical by substantiating it its not my duty to disprove each hypothetical proactively
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
|
> He asked where i got the idea du doesn't cause cancer. > It's incumbent on him to prove a positive hypothetical by substantiating
Uh... if he asked you for a source, then he isn't trying to prove a hypothetical nor does he have anything to substantiate. Also, punctuational would make it a lot easier to understand you.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
JohnnyConverse
Stranger

Registered: 04/10/09
Posts: 268
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: Seuss]
#14185111 - 03/26/11 01:14 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I was on my phone. I just thought it was a funny turn of a phrase, ok? I like to think of things in terms of cause and effect, not not-cause and not-effect. Since it's not proven DU IS causing cancer in warzones, why should I have to prove it doesn't?
There's been about half a dozen studies on it. I'm sure they're all from warmongers that want to keep shooting stuff (and I respect their energy if not its direction) but they ARE out there.
http://www.onk.ns.ac.rs/Archive/Vol9/PDFVol9/V9n4p251.pdf
http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2005/def-nonprolif-sec/snl-dusand.pdf
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/du/faq_depleted_uranium.shtml
-------------------- I wasn't an activist until I got put in jail. I sat there in jail seeing what was really going on in America and something changed. Now when people say, "Tommy what was jail like?" I say "You'll see" -- Tommy Chong
|
iluvfungi



Registered: 06/17/09
Posts: 1,488
Loc: Oakland, CA USA
Last seen: 13 years, 6 days
|
|
Seems like the Whole World was engineered to kill people. But who knows, perhaps blasting power to the atmosphere would have had more health effects; since we could have powered the World without power plugs, if we would have gone with Tesla wave theory a hundred years ago.
|
|