Forgotten Hope Public Forum
Off-Topic => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Mayhemic.MAD on 26-04-2010, 17:04:34
-
Today, 24 years ago, on the 26.4.1986, the worst nuclear accident so far happened as the power plant in chernobyl had a meltdown. Large doses of radiation were set free, poisoning the environment of large parts of russia and europe to this day. Numbers for casualties range widely, from 50 direct death and 4000 later dead from cancer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster)) to more than 200.000 dead from cancer (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/chernobyl-deaths-180406 (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/chernobyl-deaths-180406))
More than 300.000 people were resettled. Even here in Germany, 1700km away, it still is not recommended to eat too much flesh from wild boars, as they eat roots and shrooms that accumulate much of the radioactive isotopes that fell on southern Germany as well.
Let´s hope that mankind's greed for energy won´t lead to such dramatic consequences ever again.
But maybe it does all the time, see the mexican gulf oil disaster the last days.. :(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjCxJ8ErpYg&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjCxJ8ErpYg&feature=related)
-
And as we speak, the sarcophagus built around the reactor is slowly collapsing. But the world leaders do not want to fund the new shelter which was planned to be built few years ago, supposedly to complete 2011. If the sarcophagus collapses, the radioactive dust spread from it have been estimated to spread world wide and it has been said to be more dangerous doze of radiation that will spread all across the globe.
Thats why Im going to stack up on rations, anti-radiation medicines, gasmasks, protective raincoats, ammunition and guns. Lets go S.T.A.L.K.E.R some artifacts, yo!
-
I have an s10 gas mask + radiation survival booklet, can i tag along?
-
Very bad catastrophe, doesnt anybody know, when the radiation there will get to normal size again? I heard about 100 or 150 years.
-
It has been said that Pripyat wont be clean for another 500-1000 years.
-
Fallout 4 anyone?
-
Mh, seems like my issued ABC protective mask and the rubber rain coat we got as protection coat will come handy. Time to organise some rations, too.
Anyway, Chernobyl was a big mess, my parents said that it was impossible to eat anything that grew outside because of the radioactive fallout. The collapsing sarcophagus is a big worry, too...too bad there is other stuff our politicians care about..
-
Yeah my parents and grandparents once told me that they were told to have iodine whenever eating something that had been raised outside.
Problem with the sarcophagus is that it crumbles all the time, day by day it grows weaker because it was so hastly built in the first place. Some scientists say that it doesnt require much for it to crash down on the reactor and that it is only matter of time. Originally the idea was to build a new dome shelter and move it around the reactor. Inside the dome the crane system would systematically remove the old sarcophagus and stop it from collapsing. But the project is currently halted as theres no money. Like I said before, it was supposed to be finished 2011 if I remember correct.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvEDVuGOJ6Y
-
Cool, we can all go together, i aswell have a full NBC kit and i have enough working gas masks for like 15 people. Only have 2 decontamination sets and radiation detectors tough :s
Terrible tragidy tough, but i wonder, is it that much worse as those 2000 nukes that have exploded over the past 60 years?
Also, we still get a lot of radiation from space anyway, i was toying around with a gamma detector last year and i had over 100k hits a second on a 60cm circle, and that thing only detected what was coming straight at it.
and accidents and nuclear bombs only give us about 2% of annual radiation, with the sun at number one with well over 50% (unless you get like a CT scan, those things are bitches on radiation)
-
Terrible tragidy tough, but i wonder, is it that much worse as those 2000 nukes that have exploded over the past 60 years?
Much worse (radiation wise). The isotopes from a meltdown are far longer lived than those from a nuclear explosion.
-
Yeah my parents and grandparents once told me that they were told to have iodine whenever eating something that had been raised outside.
Problem with the sarcophagus is that it crumbles all the time, day by day it grows weaker because it was so hastly built in the first place. Some scientists say that it doesnt require much for it to crash down on the reactor and that it is only matter of time. Originally the idea was to build a new dome shelter and move it around the reactor. Inside the dome the crane system would systematically remove the old sarcophagus and stop it from collapsing. But the project is currently halted as theres no money. Like I said before, it was supposed to be finished 2011 if I remember correct.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvEDVuGOJ6Y
You do not really need a new sarcophagus. When the reactor exploded, 97% of the radiactive material escaped into our athmosphere. Only about 3% stayed inside. Officially it was vice versa. Russians state that 97% is still inside while only 3% escaped into the athmosphere. But that was a lie. You can see from actual fotage that the sarcophagus is empty. There is barely any radiactive material left. People are walking around inside the sarcophagus without the need for proper protection.
If that current sarcophagus collapses, you'll have a new cloud of radioactive material polluting the zone. But that area will be very small. The contamination will be due to the dust of the building. But there is no chance of a new cloud escaping into the athmosphere, polluting large areas or able to threat western europe. That is the reason why we give no money. We gave already so much money and it all vanished with corrupt ukrainian politicians.
-
Yeah my parents and grandparents once told me that they were told to have iodine whenever eating something that had been raised outside.
Problem with the sarcophagus is that it crumbles all the time, day by day it grows weaker because it was so hastly built in the first place. Some scientists say that it doesnt require much for it to crash down on the reactor and that it is only matter of time. Originally the idea was to build a new dome shelter and move it around the reactor. Inside the dome the crane system would systematically remove the old sarcophagus and stop it from collapsing. But the project is currently halted as theres no money. Like I said before, it was supposed to be finished 2011 if I remember correct.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvEDVuGOJ6Y
You do not really need a new sarcophagus. When the reactor exploded, 97% of the radiactive material escaped into our athmosphere. Only about 3% stayed inside. Officially it was vice versa. Russians state that 97% is still inside while only 3% escaped into the athmosphere. But that was a lie. You can see from actual fotage that the sarcophagus is empty. There is barely any radiactive material left. People are walking around inside the sarcophagus without the need for proper protection.
If that current sarcophagus collapses, you'll have a new cloud of radioactive material polluting the zone. But that area will be very small. The contamination will be due to the dust of the building. But there is no chance of a new cloud escaping into the athmosphere, polluting large areas or able to threat western europe. That is the reason why we give no money. We gave already so much money and it all vanished with corrupt ukrainian politicians.
i saw a docu about that a few years ago...im not worried about the sarcophagus colapse
-
There is barely any radiactive material left.
Are you reallly sure about that ?
As far as I Know, most of the nuclear fuel is still inside the reactor because it melted and solidified, like lava. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pictureofchernobyllavaflow.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pictureofchernobyllavaflow.jpg) or read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corium_(nuclear_reactor) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corium_(nuclear_reactor))
I watched a docu where they said that over time the lava or glass like solidified material is going to corrode and turn into dust. That way the radioactive material can easily escape with the wind or into the ground water.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2825657852636100497# (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2825657852636100497#) or http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2010-04/tschernobyl-schutzhuelle (http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2010-04/tschernobyl-schutzhuelle)
(sorry, german)
The current Sarcophagus already has large holes and is corroding more and more as well. The new movable hull is going to be the largest man made movable object. And its now delayed for years. I´m not sure if they will ever build it.
Anyway, just heard in the news today that the sinking of the "Deepwater Horizon" might turn as large as the Exxon Valdez nature massacre in Alaska some years ago, so screw it anyway. :'(
-
Probably the biggest enviromental whoopise ever. Frankly we're lucky another situation hasnt happened on that scale (theve been a couple of close ones tho).
-
Yay for Nuclear free NZ ;D
Too bad we are still paying the price for denying United States Nuclear Naval vessels in our ports >:(
-
What price is that may I ask?
-
Yes, this is a nice picture.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/65/Pictureofchernobyllavaflow.jpg)
That doesn't look like hundreds of tons of radiactive lava. Do you know how other countries store their atomic waste? By far not much better. It is an unsolved problem. Just think about it: How dangerous can it be, if somebody went there to take this picture? He would not have went there, if he would not have survived. The remainders of atomic waste melted together with lead buried in the depth of this construction is a danger of local dimensions compared to the nuclear explosion 25 years ago.
-
That doesn't look like hundreds of tons of radiactive lava. Do you know how other countries store their atomic waste? By far not much better. It is an unsolved problem. Just think about it: How dangerous can it be, if somebody went there to take this picture? He would not have went there, if he would not have survived. The remainders of atomic waste melted together with lead buried in the depth of this construction is a danger of local dimensions compared to the nuclear explosion 25 years ago.
It was not a nuclear explosion ;)
It was a steam explosion caused by a reactor meltdown. And there is an aweful lot of that lava under the building.
People can enter the place, but they have only a few minutes - may be half an hour at most in there depending on where they go, and there are many local hotspots and places that you just can't go near and expect to come back fine.
-
The reactor overheated. At first it might have started to melt inside the reactor. But then there was not enough water to cool the fuel elements. Thus there was only steam left. The steam lifted the cover of the reactor and pushed the cover through the roof. Together with the cover the melting fuel elements were blown up in the sky above the reactor. And this is where it blew up entirely.
The steam carried elements of the melting core into higher air layers that allowed them to reach even japan. The remainders fell back into the reactor and kept melting there. But most of the radioactive material spread with the steam and the second explosion above the reactor. Accordingly it is a myth that 97% of the melted fuel elements are still inside the sarcophagus. The sarcophagus itself and the debris are contamined, but we all faced most of the radiation already in 1986 when the clouds went around the globe.
And that was the lie of 1986. It was said that only 3% of the radiation evased while in fact 97% evased due to the incident. That kept people calm all over the world. Otherwise it would have been an acturial disaster.
-
You can't tell me that nearly 200 tons of fuel and fission products escaped into the air. Not without someone noticing and eventually telling others. And trust me, someone would have noticed. That much radiation in the air would have not have passed unnoticed.
The undertook a pretty extensive search for the missing fuel in the years afterwards because they were afraid of a secondary chain reaction. They estimate that about half of the fuel is contained in the lava flows.
Of the stuff that escaped: all of the gaseous and over half of the solid fission products, probably a considerable amount of fuel too.
And anyway, for all of the fuel to have left the reactor vessel upwards would require the lid to have been completely removed - as it is it still sits in the mouth at a 75 degree angle. There would have been a lot of wreakage (pipes, control rods etc.) in the way. This assumption also requires almost all of the graphite to have been blown out too, while it was mostly what remained as the fuel source of the fire.
And lastly, fuel rods arn't exactly the most fragile things. What you suggest would require up to (but most probably less) 1661 fuel assemblies being ruptured and then most of the fuel rods being opened and the pellets being reduced to dust.
-
Going with EU here. I don't know where you get your informations Dukat. Would be nice if you could quote some sites/books. I'm an avid reader on atomic energy and this would help.
Anyhow, here is what European countries do with their nuclear waste, which is quite frigthening:
Part 1 of 10 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY-ieuIvnnk
It is in German, but there is a French version out there as well, since it was made by ARTE.
-
a wee while ago I read that one of the aparant reasons for piracy off the coast of Somalia was the dumping of nuclear waste by the french in the sea causing effects to the civilians.
Frankly, I wouldnt be suprised, the French have a dirty history when it comes to their Nuclear programs. e.g., France sent spies to New Zealand and fataly bombed greanpeace ship killing a man. Initialy, france denied all involvement. For the spies, this crime was punishible by execution but they recieved prison sentences instead.
France then threatened an economic embargo of New Zealand's exports to the European Economic Community if the pair were not released. Such an action would have crippled the New Zealand economy, which was dependent on agricultural exports to Britain.
When the spies were released back in France they were treated as national heros and decorated for the murder of an inocent civilian.
A bit off topic, but thought some of you might be interested ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior
-
When discussing Chernobyl, it's good to remember that it was a reactor type more suited to making weapons-grade plutonium than producing energy - reactors of that type are not even in use in countries who are not into bomb-making. Also, the steam explosion was not the result of normal operations, but a result of an unsuccesful test that was conducted without necessary precautions, not to mention the warning signals were ignored until it was too late to shutdown.
So we have an intentionally caused meltdown that was responsible for maybe a few thousand premature deaths - some of which are yet to occur, 24 years later. Every year, in EU alone, tens of thousands of people die due to smoke particles from fossil fuels. You can't avoid those particles if you burn wood or biowaste. As for other energy sources, solar power only has a negligible EROI north of the tropic of Cancer (or south of the tropic of Capricorn) and would be most efficient in Earth orbit anyway. Wind power is avaiable only in certain geographical areas (mind the EROI: even if you can put up a windmill anywhere, will it provide more power than its construction and disposal will take?), and even then only if the wind is blowing: for example, in the coldest winter days when most power is required, it is usually quite calm. Water power has a good EROI but can only be built in certain rivers, but at least that CAN be regulated with the use of reservoirs. Tidal powerplants have also good EROI, but are really able to be constructed on ocean shores. Geothermal energy requires either volcanic activity a la Iceland or would require extensive mining into bedrock in non-volcanic areas.
Unless you come up with working fusion plant, nuclear fission is the ONLY realistic large-scale alternative energy source for replacing fossil fuels. "Renewing energy" can and should be used to supplement it, but it has several limitations. Nuclear powerplants can operate independent of the climate, geological and geographical conditions.
As for nuclear waste, when properly closed inside the terminal storage capsule, it will be possible to stand next to the capsule in a hundred years or so without risk. In a thousand years, the material inside will radiate about the same amount as background radiation (so even a crack in the capsule won't be a radiation hazard - heavy metals in groundwater will be the only real hazard from then on). Yes, it will probably be radioactive for the often-mentioned "hundred thousand years", but natural uranium deposits will stay radioactive for BILLIONS of years (otherwise there wouldn't be any U-238 to be found at all). Anti-nuclear people often make the mistake of not learning what half-life means and thus don't realize that nuclear material is either highly radioactive, OR stays radioactive for a long time. These things are mutually exclusive.
Also, the entire nuclear waste problem is acute only we stay ignorant and do not start using fast breeder reactors (which will happily consume the current "waste" as well as non-enriched uranium). Also, what's the scare with the "terminal storage"? Right now, nuclear waste that's still highly radioactive (but will be much less so after a few decades) is kept in "cooling tanks" which could be compared to keeping it in an concrete-covered swimming pool. How on earth is this a more safe storage method than burying them in bedrock, under the groundwater?
If you really assume that our current civilization won't last even a thousand years - that we would forget what "radiation hazard" means and would think of it as silly superstition - then maybe we really should let it collapse.
BTW, that "nuclear waste dumping off Somalia" justification for the rampant piracy is either a blatant lie or an urban legend or a combination thereof. A UN commission was even set up to examine the matter and they found no evidence - not even radiation - whatsoever supporting the claim. The biggest reason for local piracy is that Somalia being the Mad Max LARP it is today, piracy is just too easy and too lucrative.
-
I see you had a bit of pro 'atom' lobbying in Finnland lately, ey Kemola? ;)
While I do agree that Nuclear Energy is the only alternative atm when you want to cover massive amounts of energy without polluting the climate, it is not viable until a true solution has been found of what to do with the waste. (Not to mention that we might run out of Nuclear Fuel as well in almost no time should the demand increase)
-
If there has been, then it's finally some lobbying that actually makes sense (as opposed to agricultural compensation for Arctic areas).
Overall, pro-nuclear lobbying has been IMHO very low-key in comparison to the anti-nuclear lobby's desperate efforts of keeping the fossil fuels burning (because some energy source that can be used everywhere and all the time will be needed). All I see in the "NO NUCULAR POWAH!" lobbying is a thinly veiled disapproval of Western society in general - they're mostly the same crowd that's rioting in G7/20 meetings, spreading 9/11 conspiracy theories, and participating in house squatting. Their tear-inducing emotionally loaded fairytales sound a bit like Arec Bardwin's worthress speech at the end of Team America: despite the arguments, just scream "No! No! Global Warming! Corporate America!". Keep ignoring the facts and present your fears, wishes and opinions as the Real Facts which the Elite wants to keep secret from the People. Who cares if the suggestions don't make any sense, just as long as they are opposed to OMG EEVUL CAPITALISTS!!11
Yes, fission power is only a temporary solution on the way to fusion, but it just happens to be the most flexible and effective solution available. And while researching fusion, running out of fissible materials is not likely. At the moment, it is not even profitable to seek out new uranium deposits - part of the reason is of course that the companies who build powerplants are often the same also prospecting for uranium ore (eg. Areva). So any kind of scenario "if we move to fission power, the we will have peak uranium in a few decades" are based on the assumptions that there would not be any new sources in addition to current ones. Which is higly unlikely, as uranium is one of the most common minerals in Earth's crust, and there's even more dissolved in seawater.
Also, if one is worried about the availability of nuclear fuel, then not developing and using fast breeder reactors is silly, because they could use even the non-fissile U-235 isotope (of which 99% of natural uranium is), and they could aso use thorium instead of uranium. As said, FBR's would also cut the amount of nuclear waste to a minuscule level.
-
According to a study made by the OECD in 2007 all our fissionable resources will last for approx. 250 years. (if we use every source and breeder reactors)
So wait, you are saying that all anti-nuclear protesters are pro fossil fuel? Comparing them with 9/11 spooks as well? That's good. And not really helpful to your argument. Like the numbers you quoted on the 'few' casualties of the Chernobyl accident. You just counted the civilian deaths, but I miss all those helpless workers (heroically called Liquidators) that had to clean up the shit and are till now slowly dying.
Anyway comparing deaths isn't a valid argument in my book, since then you would have to prove that those 'tens of thousands' specifically died due to the smoke from fossil energy plants and no other cause. I mean look at numbers, there are (according to a study of the cancer society) about 6 million smokers that die every year through their addiction.
There is an inherent danger in nuclear energy production and put your hand to your heart, would you want to life next to an reactor or above a nuclear waste deposit? Cause someone will have to and most of those people aren't pro-atomic energy. Sure it is due to a large part of uneducated fear, but let's face it, even fusion won't be the clean 'I can do it all' perpetuum mobile that we wish for with our energy hunger.
-
A large number of Belgian citizens live over large natural Radium deposits, a highly radioactive substance. When it degrades it becomes radioactive radon gas making basements and mines dangerous because the gas can have high concentrations there. Yet, are we all glowing mutants? I don't think so.
-
A large number of Belgian citizens live over large natural Radium deposits, a highly radioactive substance. When it degrades it becomes radioactive radon gas making basements and mines dangerous because the gas can have high concentrations there. Yet, are we all glowing mutants? I don't think so.
Way to make a point siben. I wanted to specifically know if you would like to keep the waste containers in your basement. I mean if you say Belgium is radiated anyway you won't mind the few extra thousand tonnes? :)
-
No, I just saying that large parts of the world are radioactive and that radiation is a natural thing and not that dangerous as people make you believe. Hell, it has been statisticly proven that people that work in the nuclear medicine part of a hospital have less chance of getting cancer then people with regular jobs. And they don't even were lead aprons there while working day in day out materials like I 131, Tc 99m, Mo 99,...
-
No, I just saying that large parts of the world are radioactive and that radiation is a natural thing and not that dangerous as people make you believe.
I work with radioactivity quite a lot and have taken a few courses about it.
Radioactivity is everywhere - all around us and even inside us, almost everything is slightly radioactive. But natural levels of radiation are quite low and thus not that dangerous (but still dangerous enough and may and do cause cancer, just not too often).
But the higher the levels of radiation we are exposed to, the higher the chance of bad health effects. Dumping nuclear waste in large amounts and in ways that significantly increase the background radiation levels is definitely not a good idea.
Hell, it has been statisticly proven that people that work in the nuclear medicine part of a hospital have less chance of getting cancer then people with regular jobs. And they don't even were lead aprons there while working day in day out materials like I 131, Tc 99m, Mo 99,...
What is the source of that study? I would like to read it...
-
It is in IRCP publication 60. But i cut it out for you to make it more easy.
(http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/549/knipsel2k.jpg)
Link:
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/bookdescription.cws_home/29083/description#description
Also, the chances of death (per million) for receiving an average dose of radiation (1mSv, you all get this just from walking around. Taking a plane (From london to New york) gives you about the same amount of radiation as a chest X ray (0,05 mSv), or high exposure to sun can increase it) is about 50. When you cycle to school it is 38,5. When you take the car it is 175, when you smoke 1 package of cigarettes it is 5000.
-
Zie sprechen deutsch?
http://forum1.onlinewelten.com/showthread.php?p=4753642
-
Zie sprechen deutsch?
http://forum1.onlinewelten.com/showthread.php?p=4753642
All of those reports in the links are negative towards atomic energy and concern the problems of nuclear waste dukat. :)
-
Zie sprechen deutsch?
http://forum1.onlinewelten.com/showthread.php?p=4753642
All of those reports in the links are negative towards atomic energy and concern the problems of nuclear waste dukat. :)
I don't get the point. All these reports deal with the incident of Chernobyl. They show what happened from different aspects. The reports are not really pro atomic energy, but they do neither oppose atomic energy in general. That isn't the subject at all. So what are you trying to tell me?
Edit:// And I really wonder: Are there any pro-atomic-energy-reports dealing the incident of Chernobyl? I'd like to see one.
-
I do not know of any, but then again one could argue that if one had just operated the plant like it should be operated normally the disaster would have never happened and therefore was not the fault of the reactor itself, but of the inexperienced crew. The energy is still safe.
-
I do not know of any, but then again one could argue that if one had just operated the plant like it should be operated normally the disaster would have never happened and therefore was not the fault of the reactor itself, but of the inexperienced crew. The energy is still safe.
Definitely the only argument I have seen.^^
-
I don't get the point. All these reports deal with the incident of Chernobyl. They show what happened from different aspects. The reports are not really pro atomic energy, but they do neither oppose atomic energy in general. That isn't the subject at all. So what are you trying to tell me?
Edit:// And I really wonder: Are there any pro-atomic-energy-reports dealing the incident of Chernobyl? I'd like to see one.
Sorry Dukat, I meant to say that I was waiting for a reference to the sources with the things, which you stated in your previous posts. That forum didn't contain any (for me) obvious references that you spoke of. Thank you nevertheless for the link to that forum, I've seen a few of the reports, but there are new and interesting ones for me there as well.
-
I saw a docu on Chernobyl. It showed how nature was taking hold of the Chernobyl area.
It was amazing to see how animals, plants and tree could live and prosper in a hazardous place like that.
Also the desolated houses make such an eerie scenery.
-
For the people saying we might run out of uranium, Canada has a couple million tonnes alone, and we are only the 5th largest supply or something. By the time we could possibly use it all up we will have fusion reactors or something.
For comparison a very large reactor will only use around 80 tonnes of fuel every 8-10 years. This means that Canada alone could fuel over 12500 reactors for ten years on know reserves only. There are 437 reactors including research and expirimental types operating world wide with 55 in construction. Im guessing some are soon to be decomisioned as well.
Also some of these rectors are old non-efficiant types. For example India produces 4000Mw with 18 reactors while Germany produces 20000Mw with only 17.
-
They are exposed to constant low level radiation, they thrive just as well as we would. The problem is the chance of a genetical mutation in the early stages of development of a baby can have terrible results.
I am currently reading my schoolbooks about the effects of long term exposure to low level radiation so i am no expert on it yet, will take till September for that, but i can say that EVERYONE OF YOU has a cancer at this moment. People get it millions of times in there life. The thing is the body is prepared for it and kills the cancer cells before they become a problem in 99,9999% of the cases, sometimes you get it but it is absolutely no threat ( that small red spots on your skin, thick nose on older people, a small piece of skin growing upwards,...) All can be seen as cancer. But sometimes they turn bad and then you have a problem (that red spot turns into a melanoom, aka skincancer) Now, when you put radiation an a body cel (low level, not the instand death level) NOTHING happens to it, thats right, radiation does no damage to your bodycells when there are in working order. The problem is that cells have to split once and a while, in order for someone to grow or heal (that is why radiation on a younger person is a lot more dangerous then on an older person, the younger you are, the more cells split) and when that happens the body cell is vulnerable to a copy error if it gets hit by gamma radiation.
Now, this also explains some of the symptoms af radiation poisoning, the part if the body that has to renew itself the most often is your intestens, thyroïd and eyelens. This is the reason you feel sick and start throwing up when poisoned, your guts are just very badly damaged, thyroïd you feel less but it is the reason you have to take iodine tablets and the eye exposure will make you blind, nothing more. The brain can take something like 25 times the dose of radiation the intestence can so they are no worry, your already a walking corps when you hit those doses of radiation.
will stop here, going off topic a bit lol, just saying radiation isn't that bad, sure, less is better, but we evolved true mutations, who says those mutations that made life possible in the first place weren't caused by radiation?
-
will stop here, going off topic a bit lol, just saying radiation isn't that bad, sure, less is better, but we evolved true mutations, who says those mutations that made life possible in the first place weren't caused by radiation?
No one here I hope. But it's a non sequitur to say that radiation isn't that bad, because of this. ^^
-
Also some of these rectors are old non-efficiant types. For example India produces 4000Mw with 18 reactors while Germany produces 20000Mw with only 17.
Not really correct way to think, why put a huge reactor when you don't need that much power, sometimes it is better to make many small reactors then just one big reactor, hell, russia made nuclear reactors that fit in a truck to be used in remote city's
(http://englishrussia.com/images/mobile_nuclear_plant/1.jpg)
Also i heard that the us was making small concrete reactors to put in remote places and that would make a constant power source for a long time without any need for personnel or maintenance.
-
Radioactivity is no fun !
25 years later, the effects are still present: Radioactive Boar on the Rise in Germany (http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,709345,00.html)
.. any animals showing contamination levels higher than 600 becquerel per kilogram must be disposed of. But in some areas of Germany, particularly in the south, wild boar routinely show much higher levels of contamination. According to the Environment Ministry, the average contamination for boar shot in Bayerischer Wald, a forested region on the Bavarian border with the Czech Republic, was 7,000 becquerel per kilogram. Other regions in southern Germany aren't much better.