Nuclear polution on FT86.

[Kevstra]

Originally Posted by fatoni

im pretty sure 235 is the kind you find most abundant in reactors.

i work with radiation on a daily basis and i often leave my detection badge in my car and my radiation accumulation numbers are consistent of the numbers before i had the car so i dont think you have to worry about anything.

While you're sort of right that Uranium is "enriched" with higher levels of the 235 isotope than what naturally occur for use in nuclear reactors, the enrichment level is like 3%. So, hardly the kind that is most abundant.

Not that it matters since the OP's car will be irradiated for a looooooooooong time regardless.

[Kevstra]

Originally Posted by HunterGreene

Actually, that was just at the reactor that had not melted down yet. The two other reactors that did are going to take years, even decades to completely decommission. In the meantime, what radiation that does leak will not present any more danger than the dose we get normally every day.

Amen. David Suzuki and other activists that think the earth's energy needs can be met RIGHT NOW with alternate energy, are effing high as kites. You cannot fathom the amount of energy the human race uses. Nuclear is the only way right now to get abundant, cheap, CO2 FREE energy.

This madness over radiation is so over hyped. The radiation levels next to the stockpiles of waste a nuclear plant produces (tiny piles by the way) are lower than what you get flying in an airplane, or sitting on your granite counter top. But noooooo it's too scaaaary, we should cover every hectare of the earth with bird-slaying wind turbines. That's how we'll get our power.

[HunterGreene]

Originally Posted by Kevstra

But noooooo it's too scaaaary, we should cover every hectare of the earth with bird-slaying wind turbines. That's how we'll get our power.

You had me until this point. I hope you're being tongue-in-cheek here, because there have been studies (including one done here in Cleveland) that show the birds are not affected by the turbines, and most can avoid them. Yes, there will be the occasional bird strike, but its not like these things are covered in birdseed and drawing birds to their doom.

[DylanFRS]

I like this article because it actually presents facts and number rather than things that are already totally inconsistent, like the number of barnacles on a hull:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...89270444059332

People love to be scared of things they don't understand.

[RFB]

Originally Posted by DylanFRS

I like this article because it actually presents facts and number rather than things that are already totally inconsistent, like the number of barnacles on a hull:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...89270444059332

People love to be scared of things they don't understand.

Absolutely agree about human fear.

Environmental activists are rabid fear mongerers many for hire, with hidden agendas.

In Canada we have activists protesting Canadian oil development who are paid by American oil companies, and we even have environmental activists paid by the Saudis (the corporate pigs don't want the competition).

Our left wing media ignores that fact. Only a tiny few expose the scam.

Still wouldn't want to live near a nuke though -


CERBERUS

[HunterGreene]

Originally Posted by RFB

Still wouldn't want to live near a nuke though -

Actually, its just as safe as living anywhere else. Its been shown that people that live near a nuke plant don't feel any less safe, due to the fact that the power companies go out and educate people about the process and plant and the safety measures in place.

As was stated earlier, humans fear what we don't understand. Educate the masses, and its business as usual, except for that giant plume of steam that you see every so often.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by shiumai

it's true. also, it'd be best if you sit inside your BRZ in the garage so it protects you from the radiation pollution for those months. you're breathing it all in right now inside your house and whenever you go outside.

And never fly.

[Kevstra]

Originally Posted by HunterGreene

You had me until this point. I hope you're being tongue-in-cheek here, because there have been studies (including one done here in Cleveland) that show the birds are not affected by the turbines, and most can avoid them. Yes, there will be the occasional bird strike, but its not like these things are covered in birdseed and drawing birds to their doom.

Certainly with a bit of tongue in cheek. My point was less about the birds and much more about the quantity of land required. However, I concede the point that I didn't know about the bird issue being smaller than it's made out to be.

I think wind turbines are a pretty bad eyesore, are noisy, and maybe kill some birds. They certainly have their place in some applications, and hopefully fill a greater role in our energy production in the future. I don't think striving to build a society based largely on it would be good or even viable.

I think when you consider the immense amount of energy in nuclear, for the small footprint and zero CO2 emissions, it's a clear winner - once you get over the over-hyped and irrational fear of it. It's also economically competitive and it's a technology we have now. Unlike fusion, or space-based solar panels.

This getting off-topic, but the topic we're on is so interesting.

[RFB]

Originally Posted by HunterGreene

Actually, its just as safe as living anywhere else. Its been shown that people that live near a nuke plant don't feel any less safe, due to the fact that the power companies go out and educate people about the process and plant and the safety measures in place.

As was stated earlier, humans fear what we don't understand. Educate the masses, and its business as usual, except for that giant plume of steam that you see every so often.

Yeah - but earthquakes do happen, and nuke plants are prime targets for terrorists. And wasn't the nuke plant that blew in Russia an accident ?

The farther I am away from a potential bomb the happier I am (unless the property next door had a nice mansion at a trailer park price)!


CERBERUS

[daiheadjai]

Originally Posted by HunterGreene

You had me until this point. I hope you're being tongue-in-cheek here, because there have been studies (including one done here in Cleveland) that show the birds are not affected by the turbines, and most can avoid them. Yes, there will be the occasional bird strike, but its not like these things are covered in birdseed and drawing birds to their doom.

Actually the Obama administration is allowing wind farms to kill Bald Eagles.
So far, haven't heard much outcry about it (meanwhile in Canada, a few hundred ducks land in an oil sands tailing pond because of an accidental noise generator malfunction, and everyone's head explodes).

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-injure-eagles

The tips of the turbines are very fast (over 200mph IIRC), and eagles and many other birds fly with their heads down scanning for food.

[daiheadjai]

Originally Posted by RFB

Absolutely agree about human fear.

Environmental activists are rabid fear mongerers many for hire, with hidden agendas.

In Canada we have activists protesting Canadian oil development who are paid by American oil companies, and we even have environmental activists paid by the Saudis (the corporate pigs don't want the competition).

Our left wing media ignores that fact. Only a tiny few expose the scam.

Still wouldn't want to live near a nuke though -


CERBERUS

More troubling are the amount of Saudi petrodollars that find their way into the hands of people who want to kill us.

By comparison, Hugo Chavez's Venezuela looked tame.

Back on topic, there are definitely alternatives out there - Natural Gas is plentiful, and relatively clean (esp. compared to "dirty coal" - although even coal can be done clean nowadays). But there is a segment of the population who want us to instantaneously jump 100% to "renewable energy" - which, sadly, is relatively unstable/unreliable (with the possible exceptions of geothermal and hydroelectric).
Tell them that wind tends to drop off on the days when demand is highest (i.e. hot and humid summer days) and you'll be accused of being a corporate shill who wants to destroy the planet.

[synchromesh]

Originally Posted by RFB

Yeah - but earthquakes do happen, and nuke plants are prime targets for terrorists. And wasn't the nuke plant that blew in Russia an accident ?

The farther I am away from a potential bomb the happier I am (unless the property next door had a nice mansion at a trailer park price)!


CERBERUS

Yes Chernobyl was an accident. Can recall eons ago reading an interesting article linking wind path and autism rates immediately after meltdown.

[synchromesh]

Originally Posted by DylanFRS

I like this article because it actually presents facts and number rather than things that are already totally inconsistent, like the number of barnacles on a hull:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...89270444059332

People love to be scared of things they don't understand.

I generally trust WSJ as they have been around as far as I know since the Bancrofts relinquished ownership. Nevertheless, its probably in the overall best interests to downplay the whole thing.

[The359]

Wait a second, Doc. Are you telling me that this sucker's nuclear?!