BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS





Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Nuclear Energy- No Cause For Alarm-
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Nuclear Energy- No Cause For Alarm-
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted Hide Post
i dont mind.

i dont understand how being an eagle scout has anything to do with my mis-recollection of over-embellished news and possibly false reports on fukishima or my abillities as a nuclear operator? im not seeing the link here. i was talking about moral fortitude in that i will not knowingly be apart of any organization that is harming humanity. over 8 years of being a nuclear operator for the navy has shown me no evidence that nuclear power is negatively impacting the human race or the environment...accidents aside. and nuclear accidents, if you understand the data collected, really arent that serious. fallout is really heavy dirt so it stays fairly local and returns to the ground where it came from in the first place. yes, the immediate area needs to be evacuated. yes, some operators may die. there is still a very small chance of cancer in people that have inhaled or ingested long lived particulates (which do not glow) and the only way for mutated offspring to occur is if a male and a female, both, were to get hit with a high energy nuetron field right in the dna of their respective half of a zygote and then have that sperm and that egg for a zygote. and there is a one in four chance that zygote will produce mutated daughter cells. you pretty much have to be having sex on a critical nuclear reactor, and good luck staying alive to have that baby, because your organs would be torn apart by the nuetron field and would liquify.

dont believe me? there is a documentary on the thriving wolf population near chernobyl.

Admiral Rickover, the father of Naval Nuclear Power, drank primary coolant infront of congress at the beginning of his career to show them that it is indeed safe. primary coolant is water (in this case) that comes in direct contact with the uranium feul to remove heat and reflect nuetrons back in to continue the self sustaining reaction that is a critical reactor.

about competent operators. usually there are checks and balances in place that prevent mishaps. if there arent...there needs to be. i know we triple check pretty much everything. tools, procedures, maintainence schedules, safety, system cleanliness controls, certified material controls, and most importantly radiological controls. we tract every bit of radioactive material from the time it comes out of the ground to the day it goes back in the ground.

sometimes there are mistakes and sometimes there is negligence. we catch it when its a small problem and hold the people accountable before they cause a big problem.
 
Location: south georgia | Registered: January 13, 2015Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Being the nuclear hero you are. I would expect a person of such education and knowledge could string more coherent replies together. Your work must entail a lot of report writing with detail and specifics yet your replies here are less than I'd expect from a mid level high school student.

Typically, you gloss the reality over with a shine so deep it looks like foot thick glass.

One of my favourite lines of horsehit from the nuke industry is how safe the present day reactors are and always when there is an accident, It couldn't happen with the new reactors. All well and good.... If you took every other 20, 30, 40 whatever reactor off line but they don't. THey run the things past their design limits well having come to realise the potential dangers.

There is also the thing of the waste. The stuff that is more deadly than anything else that there is nothing to do with other than bury it in a mountain or somewhere and hope to hell they come up with a way to properly treat the stuff they are hoarding away in drums with maybe a 40yr life before they start leaking or deterioating.

I do agree with one thing though, the problem is people not the machinery.
Of course that being the case and with insurmountable proof that people nor machines are infallible, Why in the hell would anyone make machines that people could not be trusted to operate or design safely that have such catastrophic consequences if they go wrong.

Your bread an butter is put on the table by the nuke industry. No one is surprised you sing their praises and take the one sided view you do with the very obvious tunnel vision.
I'll bet while you ignore those that don't work in the nuke industry or have suitable qualifications that have a differenting POV to your own. You readily accept and agree with the like minded even if what they say is incorrect.

The greatest and most powerful asset of the nuke industry is spinn doctoring. That alone would make it the pet favourite of some resident champion spin doctors here.

ANd don't bother trying to refute anything I have said. It would only make me more suspicious and non believing of what you are trying to convince everyone of and sell them on.
 
Registered: July 30, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Hi mazostek,
quote:
Originally posted by mszostek:
Admiral Rickover, the father of Naval Nuclear Power, drank primary coolant infront of congress at the beginning of his career to show them that it is indeed safe.
No he didn't.

quote:
...primary coolant is water (in this case) that comes in direct contact with the uranium feul...
No it doesn't.
The uranium fuel is sealed in metal tubes. Water does not come into direct contact with the uranium fuel.


Hi Jim,
quote:
Originally posted by JimKohler:
Mszostek would you mind if I quote you.
I am sure he won't mind if you quote him.
Be sure to tell people about his claim that Navy Nuclear reactor operators are virtually immune from all forms of cancer with only 0.04% contracting cancer in their lifetime.

Also, he hates nuclear power and is so dissatisfied with his job because he is the unsung hero providing us with affordable electricity. I was not aware the US Navy provides electricity to the civilian power grid so that is something people will find interesting.

And cooling towers do not have radiation spewing out of them polluting the earth.

Don't forget about the possible dangers of having sex on top of a nuclear reactor. Best to be avoided.


quote:
I live in Cape Town South Africa where we have our one and only reactor, scares me silly, not because of the reactor, but because of the operators.
If our self proclaimed nuclear reactor expert is an indication of the people operating nuclear reactors, you should be very afraid.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tilly,






 
Location: ลึก ประเทศอินเดีย | Registered: March 03, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Ttommy,

We were talking about NUCLEAR power, not grammar. I unapologetically don't care about my writing skills. nobody ever has to guess what Im talking about and that's all that matters.

the dangerous part of the waste is only the activated heavy particulates. its literally dirt so it can be filtered by...filters and mountains. if a bag full of it exploded in your home you could Swiffer it and put in in the trash. obviously you would have to throw out any open food but washable food items like apples would still be very ok (if you wash them). again...it is literally dirt. like what accumulates on floors.

on the deadliness of it....NO...its not. it may possibly give you cancer if you ingest it and that would only occur if you ingested long lived activated particulates. (see barium treatments at hospitals). find one account were one person died as result of direct contact with waste from a nuclear reactor due to radiological destruction of the his or her body. you wont. cigarettes are about ten times worse.

our greatest asset is science and knowledge of it...unlike yourself.

tilly,

...yes he did and so have a lot of people I know. they are all still healthy and kicking. Rickover died of being an old hateful bastard.

and

...yes it does. an elderly lady (not kidding, saw the photos) paints the fuel on metal sticks. the metal sticks get welded together to create channels and then water flows through those channels.

im sorry, are you google-ing or did you actually work in the field? because everything on the internet is true so I must be wrong.

we actually can provide you power. we haven't yet, but what we do provide is highly trained and experienced nuclear operators to the field. you think they all come out of college...nope. those guys don't have on the job training and are considered second rate. those people who started by serving your country are serving your country once again by providing you power.

if people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about are trying to make their ignorant notions into law governing humanity...they should acknowledge that they have NOOOOOOOOOOO idea what they are talking about and shut up when the science people are talking.

quote:
I am sure he won't mind if you quote him.
Be sure to tell people about his claim that Navy Nuclear reactor operators are virtually immune from all forms of cancer with only 0.04% contracting cancer in their lifetime.

Also, he hates nuclear power and is so dissatisfied with his job because he is the unsung hero providing us with affordable electricity. I was not aware the US Navy provides electricity to the civilian power grid so that is something people will find interesting.

And cooling towers do not have radiation spewing out of them polluting the earth.

Don't forget about the possible dangers of having sex on top of a nuclear reactor. Best to be avoided.


yes, please do.

also (and this will make your head explode...hopefully) we and any other nuclear navy vessels have been discharging our waste primary coolant water straight to the ocean since the nautilus went to sea. NO MUTATED FISH! weird. BAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
Location: south georgia | Registered: January 13, 2015Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
the dangerous part of the waste is only the activated heavy particulates. its literally dirt so it can be filtered by...filters and mountains. if a bag full of it exploded in your home you could Swiffer it and put in in the trash. obviously you would have to throw out any open food but washable food items like apples would still be very ok (if you wash them). again...it is literally dirt. like what accumulates on floors.


because it gives off beta and gama radiation. beta particles are relatively low energy and have a relatively higher mass so they can be stopped by clothing, dead layer of skin, thin sheets of plastic. gama particles have higher energy kinetic energy and very low mass but are non ionizing (as in they have no charge) so they cannot mess with your DNA.

the bodily tissue inside your body are much softer and easier to penetrate by radiation. so in say your lungs or your GI tract long exposure to beta radiation from this contamination of which we speak CAN/MAY produce cancerous cells. this is why you should wash the food first.

CAN/MAY does not = ALWAYS

alpha particles given off by tobacco react this way in your lungs. which is why you shouldn't smoke. that and chemical inflammatory agents. yes, tobacco is "radioactive", because of the soil it grows in.
 
Location: south georgia | Registered: January 13, 2015Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
and there are metabolic rates for this stuff too. depending on the specific isotope. which means it does eventually leave your body.

and you have to consider the half life of the isotope. is it short or long lived. most radioactive things we come in contact with are short lived.
 
Location: south georgia | Registered: January 13, 2015Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Hi mszostek,

quote:
Originally posted by mszostek:
tilly,
...yes he did...
I have looked very hard to find reliable confirmation of your claim that Rickover drank primary coolant water from a nuclear reactor and could find note. The closest I came to was that Rickover offered to drink primary coolant water. That is not the same think as actually doing it.
If you can provide a reliable source for your claim please post the URL.


quote:
...and so have a lot of people I know. they are all still healthy and kicking.
I do not doubt that there are genuinely dumb people in the US Navy.
I am surprised to hear that you have kept in touch with them all and know their current health status.


quote:
...yes it does. an elderly lady (not kidding, saw the photos) paints the fuel on metal sticks. the metal sticks get welded together to create channels and then water flows through those channels.
This is the scary part. You tell everyone you are a nuclear reactor expert and do not even know how fuel rods are made.



quote:
im sorry, are you google-ing or did you actually work in the field?
Yes


quote:
because everything on the internet is true so I must be wrong.
No, Yes



quote:
we actually can provide you power. we haven't yet, but what we do provide is highly trained and experienced nuclear operators to the field. you think they all come out of college...nope. those guys don't have on the job training and are considered second rate. those people who started by serving your country are serving your country once again by providing you power.
Jim, you should be very afraid.



quote:
also (and this will make your head explode...hopefully) we and any other nuclear navy vessels have been discharging our waste primary coolant water straight to the ocean since the nautilus went to sea. NO MUTATED FISH! weird. BAHAHAHAHAHAHA








 
Location: ลึก ประเทศอินเดีย | Registered: March 03, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by mszostek:
... an elderly lady (not kidding, saw the photos) paints the fuel on metal sticks. the metal sticks get welded together to create channels and then water flows through those channels....



quote:
The vast majority of all nuclear power reactors require 'enriched' uranium fuel in which the proportion of the uranium-235 isotope has been raised from the natural level of 0.7% to about 3.5% to 5%. The enrichment process needs to have the uranium in gaseous form, so on the way from the mine it goes through a conversion plant which turns the uranium oxide into uranium hexafluoride (UF6)....

Enriched UF6 is transported to a fuel fabrication plant where it is converted to uranium dioxide (UO2) powder. This powder is then pressed to form small fuel pellets, which are then heated to make a hard ceramic material. The pellets are then inserted into thin tubes to form fuel rods. These fuel rods are then grouped together to form fuel assemblies, which are several meters long.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/n...-into-nuclear-fuel-/



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
there is no possible way you worked in the nuclear field and now rally against it mongering fear. you already said that you were in the Air Force. they don't have a nuclear power program...because why. if you did work in the nuclear field you would know and understand nuclear power and therefore not be afraid of it. the only other reason would be that you are intentionally scaring people in which case you are in fact a terrorist.

so you either have no clue what you are talking about and are just google-ing words that I say to sound smart or you are actually an attention seeking pathetic terrorist.

I bet you can find pictures of mutated house cats too. must be our fault as well.

this is getting to be like running in the special Olympics.

I started posting on this thread so there would be a difference in perspective besides your unfounded fear mongering and to maybe clear up some questions. I am done. you can go back to your one sided hippy banter now. I may be leaving but youre still a moron.
 
Location: south georgia | Registered: January 13, 2015Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by mszostek:
Ttommy,

We were talking about NUCLEAR power, not grammar. I unapologetically don't care about my writing skills. nobody ever has to guess what Im talking about and that's all that matters.


Unfortunately you can't fake intelligence and your overall writing skills and more so attitude are the giveaway. Not to mention the numerous errors you make in your claims which a qualified person would never do.
You are about as much of a Nuke Scientist as I am an astronaut. I have seen your type before on the net many times. I don't understand the affliction you have but I can read your tactics like a Book.

You have come here out of the unknown making claims of your superiour knowledge and infallible word.
You'll ( have) stir up a load of crap, only ever spend your short time on this forum screaming about the one singel subject then you'll dissappear just as fast as you came back to your mind tripping again when they put you on another medication trying to bring you back to reality.
You are a fraud, a liar and general weirdo.

Prove me wrong with something we can verify your bona Fides with or go back to the 4th grade and stay there.

quote:
the dangerous part of the waste is only the activated heavy particulates. its literally dirt so it can be filtered by...filters and mountains. if a bag full of it exploded in your home you could Swiffer it and put in in the trash. obviously you would have to throw out any open food but washable food items like apples would still be very ok (if you wash them). again...it is literally dirt. like what accumulates on floors.

on the deadliness of it....NO...its not. it may possibly give you cancer if you ingest it and that would only occur if you ingested long lived activated particulates. (see barium treatments at hospitals). find one account were one person died as result of direct contact with waste from a nuclear reactor due to radiological destruction of the his or her body. you wont. cigarettes are about ten times worse.

our greatest asset is science and knowledge of it...unlike yourself.


Tell me, are you on drugs or should you be?
 
Registered: July 30, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Fresh leak at Fukushima nuclear plant sees 70-fold radiation spike
http://rt.com/news/234547-fukushima-new-leak-nuclear/
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Seaborne radiation from Japan's Fukushima nuclear disaster has reached North America.

Scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution detected small amounts of cesium-134 and cesium-137 in a sample of seawater taken in February from a dock on Vancouver Island, British Columbia.

The Vancouver Island sample was taken Feb. 19 from a dock in Ucluelet, a working harbor community in Pacific Rim National Park Reserve.

It contained 1.5 becquerels per cubic meter (Bq/m3) of cesium-134, the Fukushima fingerprint, and 5 Bq/m3 of cesium-137.

It's the first time radioactivity from the March 2011 triple meltdown has been identified on West Coast shores.

Woods Hole chemical oceanographer Ken Buesseler emphasized that the radiation is at very low levels that aren't expected to harm human health or the environment.

"Even if the levels were twice as high, you could still swim in the ocean for six hours every day for a year and receive a dose more than a thousand times less than a single dental X-ray," Buesseler said. "While that's not zero, that's a very low risk."

http://www.statesmanjournal.co...can-shores/25322871/


The level of radon inside a home typically ranges from between 30 and 100 Bq/m3. The normal concentration of radon outdoors is about 10 Bq/m3. While indoor radon levels are higher than outdoor levels, most homes can be kept below 75 Bq/m3 – much lower than the new recommended maximum level of 200 Bq/m3. According to the best estimate available from Health Canada, about 175,000 homes across Canada have radon concentrations above 200 Bq/m3.

http://www.crea.ca/sites/default/files/Radon.pdf



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post



member
posted Hide Post
Saw this in Today's Fukishima News;

http://www.westernjournalism.c...to-spill-into-ocean/

Pumps Fail Causing Unknown Amount Of Highly Radioactive Fukushima Water To Spill Into Ocean

Frown
 
Location: Southern WI, USA | Registered: May 18, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Fortunately, the radiation leaking from the Fukishima power plant is said to be a special type of benign radiation that is not harmful.
Ask John Galt for further clarification on this point.






 
Location: ลึก ประเทศอินเดีย | Registered: March 03, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ryan P.:

Pumps Fail Causing Unknown Amount Of Highly Radioactive Fukushima Water To Spill Into Ocean

Frown


What we do know is the volume of the North Pacific Ocean is 331,000,000 cubic kilometers.

The toxic pollution from burning the coal exported by Australia, is an environmental problem orders of magnitude greater than the small amount of radiation released at Fukushima.

The polluters from Oz are always trying to distract the world's attention from their toxic contribution to the planet's atmosphere. Only ignorant people would fall for that.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Jesus Christ!!
What sheer incompetence...
I really feel sad for the Japanese people, they have had enough radiation concerns there since WW2, this is the last thing anybody wants...
Jon
 
Location: Wellington County, Ontario Canada | Registered: February 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
They are hobbled by a rigid 'yes-man, face-saving' business culture that doesn't react well to abnormal situations. This entire incident could have been avoided if the back-up power generators had been relocated to higher ground as a precaution to known seismic activity and projected tsunami coverage. All along the coastline there are century's old stone monuments carved with Japanese glyphs that say "Do not build below here, water will come and sweep it way". People knew but they wouldn't confront the entrenched bureaucracy that runs the nuclear power systems.

This incident is a clear case of human error by people who knew better but chose to be willfully ignorant. Nuclear power is not a toy for the incompetent. The problems are not technical, the US Navy, as well as the North American and Western European nuclear power people can make it work safely. The Japanese problem isn't lack of technical competence, rather it's the unwillingness of the bureaucratic rulers to listen to the engineers instead of the 'bean counters'.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Heron:
Jesus Christ!!
What sheer incompetence...
I really feel sad for the Japanese people, they have had enough radiation concerns there since WW2, this is the last thing anybody wants...
Jon


It's very Naieve to assume this is just a Japanese problem.
The consequences of this are poisoning and changing the world already. There is NO answer to this problem and the way the world is letting the japs handle it on their own because no one else wants the financial burden is pathetic.

The UN or an international alliance ought to go in there and supervise the cleanup properly and do whatever can be done instead of leaving it to the incompetence the japs just keep repeating.
If they can't do it properly themselves, then the rest of the world needs to go and do it for them and if that constitutes some sort of Illegal invasion, Tough.

What are they going to do, make war with the rest of the world?
Not like anyone would be out to over throw them, just save everyone else from their ineptitude.

Radical situations call for radical action and solutions.
 
Registered: July 30, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Radiation from the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents may not have been as harmful to wildlife as previously thought.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.../10/151005132553.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.../04/120411084107.htm
New research by Professor Jim Smith, of the University of Portsmouth, and colleagues from the University of the West of England has cast doubt on earlier studies on the impact on birds of the catastrophic nuclear accident at Chernobyl in April 1986.

Their findings, published in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters, are likely to also apply to wildlife at Fukushima in Japan following its nuclear disaster in 2011 and represent an important step forward in clarifying the debate on the biological effects of radiation.

Professor Smith, an environmental physicist at the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, said: "I wasn't really surprised by these findings -- there have been many high profile findings on the radiation damage to wildlife at Chernobyl but it's very difficult to see significant damage and we are not convinced by some of the claims.

"We can't rule out some effect on wildlife of the radiation, but wildlife populations in the exclusion zone around Chernobyl have recovered and are actually doing well and even better than before because the human population has been removed."



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 5 6  
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Nuclear Energy- No Cause For Alarm-

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014