Man Eats Uranium, Drinks and Swims In Reactor Water, Ignites Plutonium In His Bare Hand
by Michael Suede • June 27, 2012
Apparently radioactive material isn’t as dangerous as the EPA has made it out to be.
Galen Winsor is a nuclear physicist of renown who worked at, and helped design, nuclear power plants in Hanford, WA; Oak Ridge, TN; Morris, IL, San Jose, CA; Wimington, NJ. Among his positions of expertise he was in charge of measuring and controlling the nuclear fuel inventory and storage.
Galen Winsor has traveled and lectured all over America, spoken on national talk radio, and made several videos exposing the misunderstood issues of nuclear radiation. He shows that fear of radiation has been exaggerated to scare people … so a few powerful people can maintain total control of the world’s most valuable power resource.
I don't get the point of this article.
So he did these things.
I can jump off a building and say I'm fine all the way down till I hit the ground.
Is this guy still alive? If not what age did he live to and what was his cause of death?
If he died at 52 of cancer, I'd say the real story is right there.
If the guy is 90 and still going strong, then I'd say his beliefs on radiation might be substantiated.
Of course the estimated 100K people that died cleaning up chernoybl and the resulting birth deformities that are off the scale for the average of the country might suggest something very different. I believe the birth defect rate in japan has gone very north as well.
Believe Tilly is being facetious- as was I when I named this thread~
Not having a go at Tilly, rather questioning the whole point of the article and what the author was trying to achieve when he wrote it???
It may be pure satire-
Whatever author's intention, it's a good piece to make the pro nuke lobby look like idiots//
I doubt anyone tried igniting plutonium in their bare hands:
The curious tale of a normally subcritical lump of plutonium:
Fukushima disaster turns 5!
We're About to Witness a Major Development in Safe Nuclear Power
By Kelly Dickerson
March 23, 2016
The next generation of clean nuclear power is coming. And as the world struggles to curb the devastating effects of climate change and end its reliance on fossil fuels, it can't come soon enough.
Renewable energy like solar power might seem like the most sustainable option, but progress in renewable energy is moving at a snail's pace. Last year, wind supplied just 4.13% of power in the United States and solar provided only 0.23%, according to Test Tube. Right now, renewables simply can't meet growing energy demand. We'd need many more power plants and better ways to store back up power for nighttime or when it's not windy.
Last year nuclear power supplied 19% of U.S. energy — much more than other renewable sources. But in its current form, nuclear power is inefficient, dangerous and produces waste that stays radioactive for thousands of years.
Enter nuclear power. Nuclear power can reduce emissions too.
According to NASA, nuclear power prevented about 64 gigatons of carbon from being released into the atmosphere between 1971 and 2009. In other words, nuclear power cut about 15 times more emissions than it created in that time frame, according to the report.
The problem? We're still using the same nuclear power technology we used in the 1950s. A typical nuclear reactor in the U.S. only uses about 5% of its fuel, according to Test Tube. Tons of energy is wasted on keeping water inside the reactor pressurized.
Engineers have a way to change that.
A solution: U.S. Department of Energy engineers propose replacing water inside the reactor with molten salt, which doesn't need to be pressurized. The new and improved design would be much safer and more efficient.
Waste from a molten salt reactor would decay to safe radioactive levels in just 10 years, according to Test Tube. And molten salt reactors that use Thorium as their fuel source would use almost 100% of that fuel. They'd even be able to generate more thorium in the process. In fact, engineers have designed a way for these reactors to be self-regulating and meltdown-proof.
China is already building one, and it hopes the technology will be commercially available worldwide within the next five years.
It won't be easy. It will be difficult to convince people that nuclear power is safe. Disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima captured international attention, and for good reason. But in reality, nuclear power is already much safer than it seems. It's arguably safer than fossil fuels when you consider air-pollution-related deaths caused by emissions, according to NASA.
"We found that despite the three major nuclear accidents the world has experienced, nuclear power prevented an average of over 1.8 million net deaths worldwide between 1971-2009," the report reads. "This amounts to at least hundreds and more likely thousands of times more deaths than it caused."
With a meltdown-proof reactor, the choice between nuclear power and fossil fuels seems like a no-brainer.
Official Fukushima Report Blames Japanese Culture, Not Nuclear Power
"nuclear incident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant was a "profoundly man-made disaster." The "enormous amount of radioactive material" that was emitted into the environment, the study found, was the result of human negligence, rather than a natural disaster ... The Commission ...finding that the nuclear meltdown was avoidable. "This was a disaster 'Made in Japan,'" the report states. "Its fundamental causes are to be found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture: our reflexive obedience; our reluctance to question authority; our devotion to 'sticking with the program'; our groupism; and our insularity."
This spring, four years after the nuclear accident at Fukushima, a small group of scientists met in Tokyo to evaluate the deadly aftermath.
No one has been killed or sickened by the radiation — a point confirmed last month by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even among Fukushima workers, the number of additional cancer cases in coming years is expected to be so low as to be undetectable, a blip impossible to discern against the statistical background noise.
But about 1,600 people died from the stress of the evacuation — one that some scientists believe was not justified by the relatively moderate radiation levels at the Japanese nuclear plant.
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2 3 4 5 6|