THE CONSEQUENCES OF CHERNOBYL
Ask ten scientists to describe the consequences of Chernobyl, and you'll likely get twelve different opinions.
That there is little agreement over Chernobyl's consequences so far isn't terribly surprising, given the paucity of pre-accident data to work with and the controversial nature of the issue itself. What is more stunning are the vast differences in estimates of health effects.
The U.N.'s World Health Organization (WHO) estimates, for example, that so far only about 50 people have died as a direct result of Chernobyl, and a few hundred cases of cancer--mostly thyroid--likely will lead to additional deaths.
But the WHO's estimates are so much lower than every other estimate that it is difficult to take them seriously. It appears that the WHO has only accepted deaths which can provably be laid to Chernobyl radiation.
But radiation doesn't carry a silver bullet: when someone dies of cancer or, as they call it in Ukraine, Chernobyl AIDS--a weakness and general suppression of the immune system--there is no banner which rises up and says "Chernobyl killed me."
On the high end, a Ukrainian victims group claims 150,000 already dead, the Ukrainian Ministry of Public Health in April 1995 said 125,000 already dead. Both estimates seem high, and indeed, include deaths of elderly persons who might reasonably have been expected to die over the past ten years in any event. [However, contrary to nuclear industry propaganda, these numbers do not include everyone who died in Ukraine from 1986-95 from any cause, including car accidents. If so, Ukraine would probably have the lowest death rate in the industrialized world. Instead, it has one of the highest. Indeed, Belarus and Ukraine may be the only two nations on the planet whose death rate exceeds the birth rate].
Other estimates range from several thousand, mostly "liquidators" who have died, to an estimate by Greenpeace Ukraine of 32,000 now dead. Greenpeace derived their figure by examining death rates from illnesses before and after the accident. Their research was solid enough that Yuri Shcherbak, the Ukraine Ambassador to the United States, accepts that estimate in the April 1996 issue of Scientific American.
The economic cost to Belarus, Ukraine and Russia has been even greater--more on that in a moment. But often overlooked as a Chernobyl consequence is the effect diversion of huge portions of these countries' budgets has had on public health and mortality. Ukraine, for example, has been spending 5-7% of its annual budget on Chernobyl-related activities; Belarus has been spending 20% and more. Had that funding been available instead for public health and welfare improvements, it is unquestionable that both countries would be much better off, and very likely that the mortality rates would be far lower.
Economically, the consequences have been staggering. Even conservative estimates, counting direct costs, interdicted land, health costs, and related losses, are at $300 Billion and more.
First, consider that Chernobyl was in a very remote area, 80 miles from Kiev to the south and 80 miles from Gomel to the north. Then consider that Indian Point is only 35 miles from Manhattan; Limerick a similar distance from Philadelphia; Zion even closer to Chicago; Wolf Creek and Callaway in the center of our nation's agricultural heartland. According to the 1982 Sandia National Laboratories CRAC-II report (Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences), we could expect as much as $300 billion from a meltdown at Indian Point, and far less at most other locations. Fat chance. A meltdown at nearly any U.S. reactor, and at most European ones as well, clearly would reach the Trillion-Dollar range
Much has been written this tenth anniversary about the "psychic damage" attributed to Chernobyl. Many articles have implied that this is the major, perhaps only real damage from the accident.
Make no mistake, the psychic damage is real. People in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia are scared. They are afraid to have children, afraid of dying young, afraid of another Chernobyl. Western scientists, especially those affiliated with the nuclear industry, dismiss this as "radiophobia." In fact, it is an entirely rational response to the enormous consequences that do exist and to a government that lied unforgivably to them once and may do so again.
The people of Eastern Europe do not like living in polluted environments any more than we do. But to call them "phobic" because they react humanly to those environments is the ultimate insult. The stakes are very real and high and, as usual, the people know best.
Of course Canada is the worlds top uranium exporter so by the same reasoning you lump on others, it's really no more unreasonable to expect that your pro nuke position is just as biased because you live in Canda is it?
What's fair for the goose is good for the gander after all.
Of course the fly in the ointment in your typical flawed and fabricated argument is that Oz is also a leading world exporter of Uranium so if ones bias was soley because of exports, ( as if people here have a direct personal benefit from them) then would not the same bias also lead one to champion nuke energy if that were the only motivation as you claim?
Fair Dinkum Galt, The holes in your rubbish arguments and statements are so big you could drive a semi through them.... Sideways.
Yeah you keep saying that but have proven time and time again that you will twist, contort and outright tell lies in order to win any argument you want to champion.
Perhaps you could find some CREDITABLE figures to support this which explain exactly what sort of Radiation you are talking about?
There is a whole broad spectrum of radiation, some relatively harmless like gamma rays that have no residual life and other extremely lethal nucleides that hang around for thousands of years posioning everything they touch like plutonium, ceasium and a deadly cocktail of others. Show us what " Injourous and deadly" amounts of emissions have come from coal fired powerplants and back that up with some figures of those injurys and supposedly deaths you are talking about.
What is the specific life of this radiation you speak of from coal burning and how does it accumulate in the food chain etc?
Just to alleviate any doubt as to the credibility of your argument or the fact you are twisting things around ( again) how about you put up some facts to support your statements?
I really enjoyed the last link you supplied that said a person has 3-4 times more chance of suffering ill health by getting struck by lightning than polloution from a Coal fired powerstation so lets see if you can come up with something more laughable than that to support your claims.
Yeah, you keep on spouting that like a broken record but so far the only thing you have tendered to support your rantings really proved quite the opposite.
Given the way the Nuclear industry also contorts, twist and hides the truth like it is well known to do ( sounds like someone else we know) and has it's finger up the backside of political puppetts, I'm sure they could conjure up a study to show spent nuclear fuel is perfect for growing daisy's in.
Time to back up your unreliable grandstanding with some facts or change the broken record.
Originally posted by john galt
"As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage."Temporary Storage of Fuel Rods:
Fuel Rod Storage Pool
Picture of a Temporary Fuel Rod Storage Pool
Photo Used With Permission of Joseph Gonyeau. Original Source: Virtual Nuclear Tourist
The spent fuel rods from a nuclear reactor are the most radioactive of all nuclear wastes. When all the radiation given off by nuclear waste is tallied, the fuel rods give off 99% of it, in spite of having relatively small volume. There is, as of now, no permanent storage site of spent fuel rods. Temporary storage is being used while a permanent site is searched for and prepared.
When the spent fuel rods are removed from the reactor core, they are extremely hot and must be cooled down. Most nuclear power plants have a temporary storage pool next to the reactor. The spent rods are placed in the pool, where they can cool down. The pool is not filled with ordinary water but with boric acid, which helps to absorb some of the radiation given off by the radioactive nuclei inside the spent rods. The spent fuel rods are supposed to stay in the pool for only about 6 months, but, because there is no permanent storage site, they often stay there for years. Many power plants have had to enlarge their pools to make room for more rods. As pools fill, there are major problems. If the rods are placed too close together, the remaining nuclear fuel could go critical, starting a nuclear chain reaction. Thus, the rods must be monitored and it is very important that the pools do not become too crowded. Also, as an additional safety measure, neutron-absorbing materials similar to those used in control rods are placed amongst the fuel rods. Permanent disposal of the spent fuel is becoming more important as the pools become more and more crowded.
Dry Cask Storage Containers
Picture of a Dry Cask
Used with Permission of NSP
Another method of temporary storage is now used because of the overcrowding of pools. This is called dry storage (as opposed to "wet" storage which we outlined above). Basically, this entails taking the waste and putting it in reinforced casks or entombing it in concrete bunkers. This is after the waste has already spent about 5 years cooling in a pool. The casks are also usually located close to the reactor site.
jg's alarmist article tells us that the coal ash released into the atmosphere delivers more radiation than spent fuel in approved, intact storage systems.
Posted June 02, 2011 12:37 AM Hide Post
Originally posted by SUB
"JG- your perfect misrepresentation of the Canadian election is inexcusable.
It gets tiring having outright BS thrown into what should be a serious discussion, and being as you have quoted John, please show me where I have done so-
Listened to a program on free speech; one philosopher thinks that it must include the right to spread untruths to provide a heresy to battle.
What think ye?"
OK I'll answer. When people repeatedly post "information" that is unquestionably false, I think that after a warning they should get the boot as they waste time and energy-
though you discredit self and ilk with your antics........
"One can always tell when a troll is backed into a corner: the strident personal attacks increase and the factual evidence to support their unfounded opinions drops to insignificance."
Some trolls are really tough and take a lot of cooking-
better to just nuke'em
In looking into the allegation of coal ash being radioactive, I noted that uses of it are as road base and use in cement as well as for construction backfill.
Wonder how spent Nuclear fuel would go in that application???
Maybe one of the Canadian Reactors would like to give Galt enough of their spent nuclear fuel to redo his driveway with?
Seeing he champions nuke power as so safe, I'm sure he'd be happy to prove the point as long as there was no coal ash in it.
I can see that there would be certain benefits to galt having a spent nuclear fuel Driveway....
He'd save money on security lighting by virtue of his driveway glowing green at night, it would never need the snow shoveled off it due to decay heat keeping it clear and best of all, as galt seems to like his solitude, they would probably be happy to throw a 100 mile exclusion zone around his house and make sure no one disturbed him there for at least the next 10,000 years!
A champion of the nuke cause would have to be happy with that!
So far the trolls have only presented unfounded opinions that coal combustion effluent is somehow harmless to humans and the environment. I've presented numerous links to studies that clearly refute the troll's personal opinions. A quick Google search can find lots more. The unfounded opinions are not surprising since some of the most prolific trolls live in countries that depend on coal for their own energy and coal exports for their country's economy.
I rest my case that the trolls are only looking for excuses for personal attacks against forum members who don't agree with their personal belief system. If the forum owner and his pet moderator support those unfounded beliefs we can expect the personal attacks to continue, regardless if they are contrary to the terms of service. The forum owner's double standard is his right, it's not a democracy it's a dictatorship, and pet trolls are always a dictator's best friends.
The personal messages and e-mails I get support my conclusions, and that's all that's really important. It's the readers who never contribute that are the biggest forum audience. These discussions are for them, certainly not to change the little minds of ignorant trolls.
- Which troll claimed coal was harmless, john galt?
I've spent enough time/energy reviewing your "info", as you present and interpret it. Occasionally we are in accordance, though often your tirades are so far off base they are extra terrestrial.
In quoting the bible: "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"- you failed to post an instance where any one of the named had posted outright lies, as you irrefutably have -
Indeed you could learn from another of the simple parables-
"As ye sow, so shall ye reap" as it is generally you, john galt, who instigates the obnoxiousness.
It seems, for you, this site is a bad habit. Do you sleep?
Again, I advocate that you be put out of your misery.
Character Euthanisation is clearly indicated.
Start your own soapbox forum- or go on air with Rush Limbaugh- You'd do well there.
Well lets see...
You posted a link where a person in the report said that there was 3-4 times more risk to a persons health of being hit by lightning that from coal fired power plants, You posted another that was about deaths in china that failed to show any link between coal and those deaths and when rebutted on a technical glitch in your argument you failed to address it and changed the subject to US coal plants and made some unsubstantiated statements to further your position.
From there you made some derogatory remarks about Pommies and lord knows how you associated them with all this, You accused Australians of being biased towards coal because they export it even though Canada, where you live, is the worlds biggest uranium exporter which made your argument just as hypocritical as what you accused others of and threw in derogatory comments at every opportunity while failing to address any points made that refute the errors in your accusations or what you rely on as some sort of proof of your opinion. Somehow you maintain that your own biased ( by your own parameters) opinion is right and a person that has a different one is at troll.
All here for everyone to follow.
As a finale, you have made allegations about people saying things they never have and now just for good measure your calling the forum owner whom has not said a word in this discussion names and complain about the way he runs his forum that you so frequently use.
That's quite an achievement in just a 2 page thread!
You have linked to NOTHING that supports YOUR personal opinion and have maintained the flawed couple of links you have posted are irrefutable which clearly they are far from.
You have also bemoaned others for the exact same behavior and actions as you your self and been responsible for as if when you do it thats fine but if anyone else should return the favour, it's a crime. Perhaps your concern is with plagiarism more so than what is actually said?
I have a question for you I'm sure people would be interested to hear a civil reply to. You or anyone else can look up the details to verify the validity of what I am asking.
Coal, gas, oil, solar, hydro and any other electrical power generation facility does not have to have Emergency evacuation plans for a 10 mile radius around the plant or facility.
ALL nuclear power plants in the US (and I believe other place's) are required by law to have a 10 mile radius evacuation plan written, submitted and on record for the surrounding population.
IF nuclear power plants are so safe, why are they required by law to have emergency evacuation plans for the surrounding area when no other power generation facility, coal included, has to do so?
Quoted for archive purposes in case of later editing and denial.
Well said SUB and Ttommy.
JG, yawn... your twisting of the words and facts is tiresome... I see no point in continuing this nonsense or debunking your latest volley of BS, anyone, with any sense, sees through your BS and propaganda as its highlighted here and in other threads, now that you lost the ability to edit your BS, your words stand for themselves...
HAHAHA! How noble of you to provide your BS, so unselfishly, to the bigger forum audience! You should consider some psychotherapy to shrink that little head of yours!! Like a true narcissist you assume that only you get PM's eh? lol Don't forget the likes of Charles Manson, GW Bush, Hitler, hell even that nudnic Sarah Palin has a fan club of supporters... In other words, dont let it go to your head...
Simple schematic for a pump and heater control with a high limit
Sensor for the biodiesel/glycerin layer
That above piece is a great bit of non fictional prose!
Thanks for your T&E
Sounds like your OK with it continuing, even when it hits your own shores-?
-I've read accounts of aquifers being contaminated with toluene and stuff by fracking-
A friend returning north says the water table is way down as it gets pumped down deep-
Alberta woman files lawsuit over flaming water
Does it? What are we talking about here? Are you suggesting that war over oil is bad, but war for other resouceses is good? That's just sick. I pray every day that they will bring back our boys quickly. Too many good boys go over there only to come back less than whole.This message has been edited. Last edited by: RickDaTech,
Do you mean you think it is sick to think that wars over oil is bad?
While resource motivated geopolitical adventures benefit some sectors, mostly weapons and military contractors, they do so at taxpayer's expense and are a large hidden cost. -Also cause toxic pollution, habitat destruction, human misery and ill will.
Most people accept that evolution is real- human affairs are also subject to evolution.
CON #2 FOSSIL RESERVES ARE FINITE
As easily extracted supplies dwindle and demand increases, new techniques are employed to get at marginal reserves and unconventional energy intensive reserves like tar sands exploited.
The US embassy cables
WikiLeaks cables: Saudi Arabia cannot pump enough oil to keep a lid on prices
US diplomat convinced by Saudi expert that reserves of world's biggest oil exporter have been overstated by nearly 40%
* John Vidal, environment editor
* guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 8 February 2011 22.00 GMT
Saudi oil refinery. WikiLeaks cables suggest the amount of oil that can be retrieved has been overestimated. Photograph: George Steinmetz/Corbis
The US fears that Saudi Arabia, the world's largest crude oil exporter, may not have enough reserves to prevent oil prices escalating, confidential cables from its embassy in Riyadh show.
The cables, released by WikiLeaks, urge Washington to take seriously a warning from a senior Saudi government oil executive that the kingdom's crude oil reserves may have been overstated by as much as 300bn barrels – nearly 40%.
The revelation comes as the oil price has soared in recent weeks to more than $100 a barrel on global demand and tensions in the Middle East. Many analysts expect that the Saudis and their Opec cartel partners would pump more oil if rising prices threatened to choke off demand.
However, Sadad al-Husseini, a geologist and former head of exploration at the Saudi oil monopoly Aramco, met the US consul general in Riyadh in November 2007 and told the US diplomat that Aramco's 12.5m barrel-a-day capacity needed to keep a lid on prices could not be reached.
According to the cables, which date between 2007-09, Husseini said Saudi Arabia might reach an output of 12m barrels a day in 10 years but before then – possibly as early as 2012 – global oil production would have hit its highest point. This crunch point is known as "peak oil".
Husseini said that at that point Aramco would not be able to stop the rise of global oil prices because the Saudi energy industry had overstated its recoverable reserves to spur foreign investment. He argued that Aramco had badly underestimated the time needed to bring new oil on tap.
One cable said: "According to al-Husseini, the crux of the issue is twofold. First, it is possible that Saudi reserves are not as bountiful as sometimes described, and the timeline for their production not as unrestrained as Aramco and energy optimists would like to portray."
It went on: "In a presentation, Abdallah al-Saif, current Aramco senior vice-president for exploration, reported that Aramco has 716bn barrels of total reserves, of which 51% are recoverable, and that in 20 years Aramco will have 900bn barrels of reserves.
"Al-Husseini disagrees with this analysis, believing Aramco's reserves are overstated by as much as 300bn barrels. In his view once 50% of original proven reserves has been reached … a steady output in decline will ensue and no amount of effort will be able to stop it. He believes that what will result is a plateau in total output that will last approximately 15 years followed by decreasing output."
The US consul then told Washington: "While al-Husseini fundamentally contradicts the Aramco company line, he is no doomsday theorist. His pedigree, experience and outlook demand that his predictions be thoughtfully considered."
Seven months later, the US embassy in Riyadh went further in two more cables. "Our mission now questions how much the Saudis can now substantively influence the crude markets over the long term. Clearly they can drive prices up, but we question whether they any longer have the power to drive prices down for a prolonged period."
A fourth cable, in October 2009, claimed that escalating electricity demand by Saudi Arabia may further constrain Saudi oil exports. "Demand [for electricity] is expected to grow 10% a year over the next decade as a result of population and economic growth. As a result it will need to double its generation capacity to 68,000MW in 2018," it said.
It also reported major project delays and accidents as "evidence that the Saudi Aramco is having to run harder to stay in place – to replace the decline in existing production." While fears of premature "peak oil" and Saudi production problems had been expressed before, no US official has come close to saying this in public.
In the last two years, other senior energy analysts have backed Husseini. Fatih Birol, chief economist to the International Energy Agency, told the Guardian last year that conventional crude output could plateau in 2020, a development that was "not good news" for a world still heavily dependent on petroleum.
Jeremy Leggett, convenor of the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security, said: "We are asleep at the wheel here: choosing to ignore a threat to the global economy that is quite as bad as the credit crunch, quite possibly worse."
Al Husseini changes story:
Work in progress
"He told them that the kingdom had 716 billion barrels of oil –- a figure that would rise to 900 billion in about 20 years."
If they produce 10 million barrels/day, in 20 years they will have pulled seventy three thousand million barrels- An apparent logic gap to have more oil after pumping so much.
"Saudi Arabia tells us that they have lots of oil, but if we look at graphs of their historical production, there is nothing that looks like an upward trend. In fact, recent production is lower than it was in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This is a graph of Saudi oil production, consumption, and amount of net exports, from Energy Exports Databrowser.
Exports, in green, are down because Saudi Arabia is consuming more and more of its own oil, so there is less available for others. This graph doesn't fit well with what we have been told.
The rest of the Middle East claims huge reserves, too, but looking at the Mideast in total doesn't give a much more favorable picture. While production is a bit higher in total now, exports (in green) are down from the 1970s because of rising consumption.
It is almost certain that the Saudis are overstating their capabilities. The reserves for Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East are not audited, nor are their supposed "spare production capacities." They may have some spare capacity, but not the amount stated. When oil prices spiked to $147 barrel in July 2008, Saudi Arabia and others in the Middle East increased their production a bit, did not really come through with a huge surge in production, the way one would expect from their suppose spare capacity.
World oil supply has been roughly flat since 2005. Many are concerned that oil production will actually begin to fall in the next year or two "
http://www.informationclearing...nfo/article18106.htmThis message has been edited. Last edited by: SUB,
Fossil Fuel production and use are responsible for massive Habitat Destruction and Toxic Pollution.
The Canadian tar sands boast the largest strip mining operations in the world; cubic kilometers of water are diverted, polluted, injected underground in various O&G operations: the gulf: Goldstream:
Anthropogenic carbonic acidification of fresh and salt waters is so serious, it fully warrants a separate thread on this forum.This message has been edited. Last edited by: SUB,
Simply sign up to receive the FREE Energy and Capital e-Letter to get our latest report Peak Oil is Past Tense... Absolutely FREE:
The Era of Cheap Oil is Over
Your e-mail address:
(Must be valid, will be verified)
June 23rd, 2011
According to Exxon's official spokesman:
All the easy oil and gas in the world has pretty much been found. Now comes the harder work in finding and producing oil from more challenging environments and work areas.
That's the Exxon — the $383 billion market cap, world's most profitable company Exxon.
Shell executives say the same...
The former Chairman says, “It is pretty clear that there is not much chance of finding any significant quantity of new cheap oil. Any new or unconventional oil is going to be expensive.”
The former CEO says $5 gas and $150 oil will be here next year.
Notice how these guys can only say this stuff after they leave their post.
But it gets better:
Sadad Al-Husseini, former VP of Aramco (that's the Saudi national oil company) says:
World reserves are confused and in fact inflated. Many of the so-called reserves are in fact resources. They're not delineated, they're not accessible, they’re not available for production.
And the International Energy Agency claims crude oil output peaked in 2006.
All this adds up to extremely expensive oil and gas prices.
But there's an upside for who invest accordingly.
Q: Can anyone prove that proven reserve figures are accurate?
In The News
You are here: In The News › OPEC Outrage at IEA’s Release of Oil Reserves
OPEC Outrage at IEA’s Release of Oil Reserves
29 June 2011
A war of words could erupt between oil-consuming nations and oil producers, after the IEA (International Energy Agency) – representing 28 oil-consuming countries – announced last Thursday that it would release about 2 million barrels of oil per day from its emergency stocks over the next month in order to boost supply and drive down prices.
“I hope this practice will be stopped and stopped immediately,” said OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) Secretary General Abdallah El-Badri after a meeting between OPEC and EU officials in Vienna on Monday. “We don't see a good reason to release this quantity, and I hope the IEA will refrain from using this practice.”
IEA’s decision came after OPEC nations failed to come to an agreement to increase its oil outputs in talks held earlier this month.
This is only the third time in its 37-year history that the IEA has released emergency stocks into the market. The first incident was during the 1991 Gulf War and was followed fourteen years later after Hurricane Katrina affected US production of oil.
IEA's executive director Nobuo Tanaka declared its decision as a “pre-emptive” move designed to temporarily fill a gap in supply caused by the Libyan crisis.
“It's a pre-emptive use, in that way this is a new mechanism," Tanaka said. "We decided pre-emptively to move toward seeking a soft landing for the global energy market.”
However, OPEC are upset; particularly after Saudi Arabia had earlier pledged to increase its own oil production to meet international demands.
Although IEA appear to be confident in Saudi Arabia’s ability to produce more oil, Tanaka said on Tuesday that, “we (the IEA) think it may take some time so we are filling the gap in the meantime.”
OPEC remains unconvinced. "The market is under normal conditions. Supply and demand are desirable. There is no additional need for supply in the market," said OPEC President Mohammad Aliabadi.
He proceeded to slam the US and the EU for not sticking to their own free-market principles.
"Why they are not abiding by those principles is really a big question for us. We believe that prices should be set by the market itself.”
Some analysts have already expressed concerns over a possible retaliation by OPEC.
“If this release is not coordinated with Saudi Arabia, the Saudis will cut production to neutralize the effect of the release,” said Anas Alhajji, chief economist at Irving, Texas-based NGP Energy Capital Management, in an interview with Bloomberg news.
BP chief economist Christof Reuhl told Reuters that, “the single biggest risk up is that there is a war of attrition between OPEC and the IEA which goes on for a long time and leads nowhere.”
However he added that this was merely a “theoretical extreme” and “for the medium term we will see a settlement in between the peaks the oil price had recently and what seems to have been OK with major consumer companies about a year ago."
Story from Oil and Gas Journal
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2 3 4|