Minn. has a nuke plant event

http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index.php?smp=&lang=eng


Small amounts of a radioactive isotope have been detected in a new monitoring well at Xcel Energy's Monticello nuclear power plant. But the levels of tritium, a mildly radioactive type of hydrogen, are within federal guidelines and don't represent a threat to the public, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokeswoman said. "It's well below (Environmental Protection Agency) drinking-water limits ... and it's contained on-site,'' Prema Chandrathil said. Xcel said it confirmed the discovery earlier this week and notified the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Department of Emergency Management on Thursday that the amounts exceeded the plant's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. It also filed a report Thursday with the NRC. Xcel said the samples came from a recently dug monitoring well near the reactor building. It said no elevated levels were found in other monitoring wells at the plant, located along the Mississippi River about 40 miles northwest of the Twin Cities, and there are no indications the release goes beyond the site. The utility said it is looking for the source of the tritium. "The concentration of tritium is below any radiological reporting levels established in station procedures,'' Xcel said in its report to the NRC. Tritium, which occurs naturally and is produced in nuclear reactors, also can be found in self-luminescent devices, such as exit signs in buildings, aircraft dials, gauges, luminous paints and wristwatches. The NRC said water containing tritium and other radioactive substances is normally released from nuclear plants under controlled conditions. Operations at the Monticello plant were not interrupted.
----------------------------------------

pills in MN to residents surrounding a nuke plant?

not good.

:(

If it's safe he shouldn't have any problem with camping there and drinking the groundwater.

...

:rofl:

Exit sign! That's beautiful :hi:

Sid

nt

WTF?

I mean, I know we have a few paid shills of the nuke industry here, but really... unrecommended?

nt

News flash: you're not. These posts are so dumb I unrec them for nothing.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Tritium is an element used in such highly toxin items as luminous paint for watches! If you have a watch with a luminous fascia in your home then that's probably more dangerous than this "event".

All spills of radioactive material have to be reported, but not all spills are really that toxic. There's a very good article about a similar "event" in Scotland here

pills to the residents of the area just a few days ago, and we were assured that it was only a precaution in case of FUTURE issues, just being prepared, ya know.

Because it's all perfectly safe.

:sarcasm:

Pardon me while I :puke:

Upthread you "think" someone said that the NRC was handing out pills, now it is a fact?

through the DU search engine.

So, since I can't reference it, I typed "think".

But I'm sure of what I read.

As to what actually happened to the residents there, I have to take the word of the DUer that posted it.

But I have no reason to disbelieve it.

Why do YOU insist on questioning it??

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Why would I make up something that I read here?

But hey, Joe Wilson can call the President a liar, I suppose you can too. Doesn't make it true, however.

If you want to make the claim then back it up with some evidence.

... living in 5 (could be 10) mile radius' of nuclear power plants for a long time. Nothing new or news worthy

Where did you get your information? I got mine from someone who actually lives there and they aren't worried at all.

The pills are for a massive casualty that releases Iodine. Keep vomiting - maybe the stupid will go away on its own.

of what they do (and don't do).

However, there IS the placebo effect. I.E. the powers that be hand out these pills just in front of announcing a release of radiation just to placate the public.

By the way, I'm not against nukes, nor am I for them. I think they won't make economic sense to build anymore (too high of an upfront cost, not easily to respond to step increases in demand, etc). But that's simply my belief.

And I have run into more than a few DUers who REFLEXIVELY and ARDENTLY anti-solar, anti-wind, anti-geothermal, and pro-nuke.

Anyone who is that dogmatic is either paid for their trouble or not terribly thoughtful, and yet they seem to be fairly intelligent and well-informed (at least on the capabilities of nuclear power, they are ALWAYS quoting out of date material on the other options.

No government pill handout news link?

No DU thread?

Anything?

and you are an unmitigated asshole.

I don't jump in to any thread and start calling people liars.

I just pointed out you were making crap up.

Close, but you're the name caller here. :hi:

link is in my post 46

http://www.michnews.org/2009/09/mdch-makes-available-potassium-iodide-pills-to-those-near-nuclear-power-plants/


But it was in Michigan, not Minnesota.

Only a few hundred mies away though.

According to this article many states have provisions to distribute pills in the event of unusual leaks and accidents. I think we should all be taking them BEFORE we get exposed to more and more and the accidents and leaks happen. In fact they leak ALL the time. Legally. So we should be taking these all the time already.

and there was a post about it here on DU.

Of course there's a big difference between making pills available in case of an accident and handing them out because of one.

It didn't (as I recall) say HOW (mailed, door to door, handed out at a clinic or an announcement was made). It simply said "handed out". And... I never said otherwise.

you talked out your ass and are now covering it

I just think that the OP's "nuclear event" and "nuclear plant event" posts are bullshit alarmist tripe.

Sid

And I didn't accuse anyone in particular of being a paid shill.

However, I *do* think there is at least one paid shill (if not, then he or she is simply an uncritical thinker or not very smart... and yet he or she demonstrates that they are, in fact, intelligent).

Think Ben Stein. Very smart guy, but has a huge blind spot on evolution.

Tiny levels of radiation, below safety guidelines, are detected. In other news, a car stopped just in front of a red light outside my house, and there was a light rainshower but nobody drowned in the resulting puddles. Ensho just posts every single report about nuclear safety anywhere regardless of whether it's significant or not. You don't have to be a shill for or have shares in any nuclear companies to think this is useless hyperbole. It's only a nuclear event when guidelines are breached and something goes wrong.

Summary of conclusions of the European Study on Radiation Risk (2004):


10. The committee concludes that the present cancer epidemic is a consequence of exposures to global atmospheric weapons fallout in the period 1959-63 and that more recent releases of radioisotopes to the environment from the operation of the nuclear fuel cycle will result in significant increases in cancer and other types of ill health.

11. Using both the ECRR's new model and that of the ICRP the committee calculates the total number of deaths resulting from the nuclear project since 1945.
....
The ECRR model predicts 61,600,000 deaths from cancer, 1,600,000 infant deaths and 1,900,000 foetal deaths. In addition, the ECRR predict a 10% loss of life quality integrated over all diseases and conditions in those who were exposed over the period of global weapons fallout.


More at link:

http://www.euradcom.org/2003/execsumm.htm

10. The committee concludes that the present cancer epidemic is a consequence of exposures to global atmospheric weapons fallout in the period 1959-63 and that more recent releases of radioisotopes to the environment from the operation of the nuclear fuel cycle will result in significant increases in cancer and other types of ill health.

There projections are for BOTH atmospheric fallout from weapons tests AND the nuclear fuel cycle.

Remember that dose amounts are CUMULATIVE so that adding radiation from nuke plants ADDS to that which we got from nuclear testing (BTW underground testing also releases radiation into the atmosphere, but mre is absorbed locally and enters the environment in the groundwater and soil and rock. But the gases leak out and blow globally just as the radiation from Chernobyl did. Europe got it worst, and so did the arctic, but we got chernobyl rain in the United States too.

The group claims that new nukes will increase the deaths in the future, so the numbers you claim cannot be from current nukes. Thanks for playing.

they conclude the deaths projected from BOTH sources of man made radiation from what they call the "nuclear project" since 1945.

The magnitude of radioactive material released from thousands of uncontrolled nuclear detonations far outweighs the effects of control nuclear power generation.

NRC, Nasa, and EPA all cite an annual exposure of 0.05mrems for the nuclear power generation (0.09 for those within 50 miles). Nuclear weapons testing contributes about 1mrem (about the same as watching TV from tube TV).

0.05 vs 1.00. Nuclear weapons testing is larger by a factor of 20x.

So if nuclear power is SOOOOOOOOOOO bad why would they include another factor 20x as large in the study?

It is obvious without including the much larger nuclear weapons testing numbers the outcome wouldn't be alarming. It would actually indicate how safe nuclear power is. The larger (20x larger) effect of nuclear weapons is necessary to "pad the stats".

However in the grand scheme of things exposure from past nuclear testing is relatively small.
Natural radiation is about 300mrems and most can't be avoided. Nuclear weapons testing fallout adds another 1mrem and nuclear reactors add another 0.05mrems (about the same as using a glow in the dark watch).

it wouldn't come up so often.

But what bullshit are you referring to: nuke leaks or people opposing nuke plants with facts and evidence proving they are killing/hrming people (and other living things)?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This story is really disturbing. Congress ordered the distribution to people at risk (downwind/downstream from nuke plants) and Bush killed the distribution to protect the nuclear power industry.
This is why this issue pisses me off so much. They fucking WANT us to die or be at risk so they can make more and more unGodly profits from their death machinery and poison spewing radioactive monsters.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-01-28-nuclear-pills_N.htm

:eyes:

useless eaters, unemployed mouths, the sickly (who die first).

Most of us will live on and spend millions in medical care for our cancers or ill children (so the industry makes money there too - Never heard of "radiation therapy"?)

And interlocking corporate directorships of insurance, pharmaceutical and nuclear corporate boards make it a huge clusterfuck of profit. They even control a hell of a lot of the death industry, nursing homes, and funeral businesses (remember the Bush Texas fiascos?) Media plays its
Like Auschwitz, it is population control, controlled death and slavery from cradle to grave.

While we live, we slave and they act like hedonistic necrophiles, revelling in the murder and death and riches and the intoxication of it all.

:shrug:

:tinfoilhat:

:crazy:

it says the NRC recommended against distribution of potassium iodide to people living between 10 and 20 miles of nuclear power plants, because there are more effective ways of protecting them.

In fact, in your post upthread, you linked to the article which confirms that the NRC, through state agencies, is distributing KI pills to those within 10 miles of nuclear generating facilities. That post kind of contradicts your take on this one, doesn't it?

Do you even read what you post? Or is it that you hope others won't read what you post, and take your word for what you claim it says.

Sid

Edit: fixed grammar

because the incidents aren't what LA thinks they are, I'd say it's the latter.

Unrecommended for: inaccurate alarmist claptrap

The NRC also has expressed concern that pill distribution could undermine public confidence in the safety of the nation's nuclear plants.

In 2002, Congress ordered the Bush administration to stockpile the over-the-counter pills, but it left a legal loophole allowing the White House to scrap the distribution requirement if officials determined there was a better way to prevent cancer.

After a six-month study, Marburger invoked that loophole Monday. He said evacuation and distribution of uncontaminated food would be more effective and warned that pill distribution could distract people during a crisis.

This was a loophole invoked by the Bush NRC.. They CLAIM the loophole applies. It is really a cover for the REAL story that iodine pill distribution or availability HURTS the nuclear industry image and raises fears. It fucking well SHOULD raise fears. Nukes KILL.

The NEW distribution is under Obama. i do not know WHEN the change came about. Yet.

I stand by my story. I guess you didn't read the article I posted very closely either

Sid

Obama, I am sure, has or will change that policy.

But Bush would deny the life saving pills to those outside the 10 mile radius but still exposed.

You better hope your address isn't just over the line because of course radiation does not float beyond the 10 mile circle of death.

The article is accurate: Bush used a loophole to deny pill distribution to those exposed if they live beyond a ten mile radius of a nuclear leak or accident or meltdown. The rationale is NOT safety but to protect the industry IMAGE from being recognized as dangerous and deadly.

Of course not because you only rely on emotion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

Radiation exposure doesn't decrease linearly it decreases by the square of the distance.

There is no need for pills beyond 10 miles.

If distance from source doubles the exposure isn't half it is 1/4th
If distance from source is 10x the exposure isn't 10% it is 1%.
If distance from the source is 100x the exposure isn't 1% it is 1/00th of 1%.

Due to inverse square law there is little good in giving people Potassium Iodide at extreme ranges.

like smoke.

After 9-11 I could SMELL the towers burning over 100 miles away. Wafts of smokey particulates could be seen too, I could smell the chemical burnt odor.

You cannot see or smell radiation when it blows in your face or fills your sky..

As a whistleblower told me: they calculate an even distribution by volume when in fact it plumes and setle and swirls and lands in clusters and clumps. Like dropping ht wax into cold water, it will not disperse and dissolve but will float where gravity and motion take it ,

The idea that a plume of radiation blowing in one direction will dissolve equally and disperse into the atmosphere (like smoke, right?) in all directions is ludicrous but is what you are arguing.

If the wind is blowing a plume of radioactive partivulates towards you it really doesn't matter if you are ten miles away or fifty if the wind is blowing just right, you will inhale it, or it will accumulate in a cloud and come down in the rain or snow. (I suppose water doesn't form into clouds either; it wouldn't under your theory.

Your numbers are gobbledygook obfuscation.

But nice try

Stop being an apologist for the machine.

Do you have kids?

Chernobyl has plumes of radiation.

US nuclear reactors are INSIDE A CONTAINMENT BUILDING. 25feet thick concrete wall that can survive a stirke by 747. There are no plumes.

Every wonder if reactors are as dangerous as you claim.....

Why would anyone work there? Exposure would be much higher in a reactor?
Most workers live a few miles from plants with their families. Why would they expose their families?
NRC inspectors are required to live within 2 miles of their plant. Why would they lie and expose themselves and their families to lethal radiation?

All these people willing to kill THEMSELVES and their FAMILIES to keep this super secret hidden.

Makes the birthers look rational.

that is what the NRC regulations I posted were all about.
But you know that already.
Hey, and I wrked in the industry as did most of my friends at one time or another.

Denial and a paycheck and no other jobs goes a long way to supporting denial of the dangers.

Especialy if we have our 30 packs and our dvds and our SUV's and our MTV. Or something mo' better to make us forget.

Many of the most dangerous jobs use floaters who migrate from plant to plant and they do not usually have families nearby. But those who live by are blasted with the same bogs proagada and hye from the industry that is spewed here at DU about how safe it is.

Then they start in about coal.
Ten they start repeating the pronuclear mantra.

Then they get cancer or have a stroke - and then they die (a close friend and mentor of mine died in the reactor room of a stroke - he was 52 - see, radiation also damages the heart tissues)

And their kids get leukemia or cancer or are born with defective organs and die.

THEN they wonder what the f*ck they did to themselves and their families. And then they try to put it out of their minds as it is too painful.

Any reasonable plan (other than shutting the plants down totally) would INCLUDE distribution of thyroid protecting iodine pills AND other safety procedures.

This was a huge Bush and industry LIE!

I quoted the article: Bush scrapped a plan to distribute plans to downwinders ORDERED BY CONGRESS.

The article makes it clear that Bush used a loophole in the law to avoid it by "proclaiming" he had a "safer alternative". It is bogus and the real reason is also expressed BY THE NRC: It undermines confidence in the nuclear industry and the safety of nuclear plants.

The story is very clear that those downwind and exposed will not GET the pills (even if exposed).

THAT is murderous.

that the NRC is giving out KI pills to people living within 10 miles of the nuclear plant in Michigan, so obviously people "downwind and exposed" are getting KI.

Sid

Edit: fixed post number. It was #42 when you first posted the article about Michigan, but is now #32, after your offensive comparisons to holocaust deniers were deleted

Apparently it has been revived under Obama.

But the reality is ....


wha..deleted.

Fuck - it IS a holocaust.

why the fuck did you post about it? Are you trying to convince us all that Bush was a bad guy? Hell, I've been here since 2002. I know that Bush was an asshole.

Sid

It is a good example of who people are supporting when they support this industry. Bush/nuke industry policies would and will get people dead.

But I found that article while looking for the article on distribution of pills which was being claimed as a lie upthread.
It was NOT a lie - but these pills are NOW being disributed under the Obama administration.

One more reason to be glad Obama is in Office.

I live three miles from a nuclear plant in Michigan and it was just announced we will all be getting our pills.

Like the actual measured quantities of radiation and radionuclides that are released. These numbers are ALWAYS made public as soon as the NRC confirms the event. But numbers don't sell the news. Most people are sadly "innumerate".

The press nearly always reports "there is no threat to the public" (because it's nearly always true), but in that stark, foreboding way we have heard on dozens of sci-fi thrillers right before the Nuclear Reactor of Mass Human Death turns all the townfolk into stiff-armed zombies.

And it's funny -- the exposure numbers are never mentioned, but by the time the next news day comes around, there will be someone on TV telling us how a million nuns and orphans were exposed to radioactive mouse farts in 1957 and now they all have cancer of the anterior frammis nodule and their wives have given birth to an abnormally large number of insurance salesmen.

Reporting on toxic waste of all kinds is woefully bad -- a combination of ignorance and panic. Not a good pairing by any means.

--d!

and, fwiw, it really was radiation that turned the townfolk into zombies in Romero's Night of the Living Dead :)

Sid

see my response:

the numbers show up in the baby teeth. The industry and NRC do not tell us the real number and may have NO CLUE how much they leak in such incidents.

The NRC is basically there to promote nuclear corporate interests. Unless Obama changes that it will continue to do so.

But when such events happen the industry covers up the seriousness of the releases and it has its standard "no danger or risk to the public" PR meme xeroxed and ready for press release ready for emails and faxing.

he reason we do not get numbers is because they do not want these numbers to be known and they probably have little or no clue HOW MUCH radiation they leaked becase their monitoring and efficency of monitoring is totally insufficient.

How do you measure particulate in a breeze that can blow them in a million dfferent directions.

You test the BABY teeth of those exposed and years later get SOME clue. Bt that is really the only numbers we seem to get: (absobed stronium 90 mimics calcium and gets locked into the enamel of baby teeth and hence can be measured when the teeth are subjected to testing under sophisticated and expensive methods by radiochemists.)

The TRUE numbers show up in our babies' mouths years AFTER such events: (or in the cancer or mutations they get:

www.radiation.org

The amount was less than EPA limit for safe drinking water = 20,000 picoCuries/Liter.

Drinking only from that well (2 L per day) for a year would yield an exposure of 4mrems.

You are well aware that background radiation is 300+ mrems per year.

This raises background radiation by ~1% if you drank exclusively from that well.

Given radiation exposure decreases at distance squared drinking from a well even a few miles away would be an exposure <1/0th or 1/100th of 1% over background radiation.

Just because they said it in this case means nothing.

We almost NEVER see the numbers.

and if we do how can we trust them?

Why would you trust these numbers.

Would you trust the cigaret industry to give you cancer research numbers?

Onsite monitoring and inspection are done by an NRC inspector who lives within 2 miles of the plant and many have families.

So yes I trust the numbers just like I would trust the EPA on dangers of smoking if they had inspectors smoking to get the numbers.

that is obfuscation.
The regs I posted say the operators monitor and report themselves.
THAT makes sense. not.

Yes there is NRC oversight but to think the NRC is collecting the data is a mistake (plus they are mostly industry hacks anyway - and can be as bad as say, meat insectors, in getting the job done.

I am sure there are many good ones. Don't get me wrong. But i sincerely doubt you have ANY evidence that they monitor off site emissions and effluents (except haphazardly MAYBE)

If you have regulatory links, show 'em.

Reactor inspections are conducted primarily by resident and region-based inspectors. Under a program initiated in 1977, resident inspectors are stationed at each nuclear power plant. There are at least two resident inspectors assigned to each site. Resident inspectors provide first-hand, independent assessment of plant conditions and performance.

Resident inspectors live in the area of the nuclear power plant and maintain offices at the plant during regular business hours. In addition, resident inspectors spend a portion of their time at the plant during weekends and evenings. Resident inspectors significantly increase the agency's onsite monitoring of the plants and reduce the time to respond to events at the plant.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/oversight.html

If reactors are as dangerous as you claim any inspector would be essentially singing their death warrant and one for their family to spend a whole lifetime working around and living next to the plants.

Why would they all (there are thousands of them) of them lie and kill themselves and their families to protect nuclear power companies.

Maybe the logical answer is there is no danger. They report on violations (99.9% of which are non dangerous) and act as a safeguard for an industry which is already regulated by 3 different govt agencies (DOE, NRC, EPA).

Nope they along with entire DOE, the NRC, the EPA, the thousands of plant workers they all are in on this vast conspiracy to hide the danger. Hell in the last 60 years that has to be hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. Yup they all are hiding the truth and willing to die and kill their families. Only you know the truth. <cue xfiles music>.

I got a buddy I went to school with at Va Tech and he works at the Surry Nuclear Generation plant. I guess despite him having a master in physics he is either too stupid to realize the danger he is in or just willing to let his 3 daughters and wife be exposed to lethal radiation every day.

I lived and worked in a community which has tens of thousands of people who work in the industry.

I know people across the spectrum who knew the dangers and yet liked the paychecks. For them, on balance, it was a risk but that they figured "it won't hapen to me".

Read John Gofman's account I have posted here a few times. he worked in the industry and grew to understand the dangers which are largely kept from most professionas: it is professional indoctrination just like the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry: everyone knows there are major problems and lies and corruption but everybody needs the paychecks.
Only very brav souls buck those systems.

Because Congress is an institution which does not have the time or energy to really wrap its head round these probles it falls to industry hacks and appointees in the NRC who simply promote the commercial and profit aspects for the industry and assist by making the industry possible with subsidies and propaganda supporting it (PR if you want).

It is a well oiled machine greased by the blood of the workers and people like your friend who may well suffer disease and cancer as may hs children. But even if they GETR cancer or other diseases they il not be likely to blame the industry because the propaganda is so effective at persuading people that it is no more dangerous than "living in Denver" or "flying across the country" (which are total lies).


Money plays a key role in people denying that they or thir families are at risk AND I would add that IF one has enough income one can eat a diet which wil in fact help prevent some or a lot of the damage (seafood and calciu, for example can cause strontium 90 and radio-Iodine to pass through the body when ingested without being as absorbed by the tissues which absorb iodine and calcium)

I have long believed that the powers that foist this tehnology on us have the means and use them to protect themselves (by diet and supplements) which will protect them at all times.
I would ask your friend if he keeps iodine pils availabe and has them at hs job and whether he gives them or would to his children if there is a leak.

But these employees may or may not even nderstand or knw the ful risk because it is generally NOT taught and the PR battle to promote nuclear as "clean energy". the BIG LIE, is so effective.


Who hoestly wants to believe that whn they walk their kids out to the bus stop that they are themselves exposing their children to deadly radionucldes that may kl them.

Denial and psychic numbing thus kick in and pople put it out of their minds.

Helen Caldicott wrote about this extensively.

I orked in the industry. I know how it works. I was in denial about these issues for years...

until my children got sick

and my spouse

and me.

So until oneself or loved ones actually get ill, it often does not hit home.

While we don't know the exact amount we do know it was < 20,000 picoCuries per Liter which is the EPA limit for drinking water.

Even at the limit (amount was less) a years worth of drinking the water would be 4mrems worth of exposure. A single xray is 40mrem. Lethal doses are measured in rems not mrems. For example 200rems has a 10% fatality rate. 200 rems is 200,000 mrems (or 50,000 years of drinking water from this well :) ).

For more detailed scenario see post #82.

what is wrong with that.

It was an event at a nuke plant where radiation was leaked.

Nothing happening here? Move on you say?

How in the f*ck do YOU know that it is unimportant?

It is just an alert that such an event occurred. I, for one, am grateful for that site and for the OP.

Only someone who believes that such events are unimportant to be informed about (or worse, harmful somehow) would object to it or to this thread.

I've read your bullshit posts before. I know that you are fairly educated on this topic. Which means that you aren't just an idiot. You are intentionally manipulating the information to accomplish some pathetic goal of yours.

There are a number of anti-nuclear nutcases on here. And they all lie, in such obvious ways, in order to scare people. It's disgusting.

Nuclear event


"In accordance with the definition of the Atomic Energy Act, any event causing damage when the event or damage is due to the radioactive properties or a connection of radioactive properties with toxic, explosive or other hazardous properties of nuclear fuels or radioactive products or waste, or to ionizing radiation emitted from another radiation source within the nuclear plant."

http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclearevent.htm

"Event" may mean something different to the owners of the website, but it seems if there is ionizing radiation being emitted in ways that it is not supposed to under normal operating conditions, thenit qualifies as "an event".

You can diagree with that definition and it seems the website linked uses "events" to mean incidents which have the potential for harm and not actual harm. The REASON for alerting people via the website is because the POTENTIAL for harm has resulted from some "event" in the usual sense of the word nd not necessrily the atomic enrgy act definition (s the website alos tracks swine flu, weather, earthwuakes, and other "events" etc.

But even still this may well qualify as an event under the Atomic energy act which is probably why reporting it publicly is mandated (so we can fucking be prepared in the event it gets worse and we need to run for our lives and swallow little pills to keep from dying.

On edit: the term "damage" is a little vague here but IF it applies to damage to property (i.e. it irradiates property which thereby becomes hazardous and must be "fixed" or remediated or cleaned) then this term WOULD make it an "event" within the legal definition if it leaked in areas it was not supposed to (even of it did not leak into the public). Presumably those who clean it up will probably be irradiated. Since ALL exposure to such radiation (Tritium) increases risk of harm, then this too would make it qualify as a nuclear "event".

The OP didn't use "nuclear event". It said "Nuke event".

"Nuke" is a commonly used term when referring to nuclear weapons or nuclear explosions.

As in "Let's nuke the motherfuckers" or "We dropped a nuke on Hiroshima".

It's a loaded term and you know it.

So don't feed me your usual bullshit. It's not going to work. Go try your scam on some poor feeble-minded soul.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musicians_United_for_Safe_Energy


Musicians United for Safe Energy, or MUSE, was an activist group founded in 1979 by Jackson Browne, Graham Nash, Bonnie Raitt, and John Hall of Orleans. The group advocated against the use of nuclear energy, forming shortly after the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in March 1979. MUSE organized a series of five No Nukes concerts held at Madison Square Garden in New York in September 1979. On September 23, 1979, almost 200,000 people attended a large rally staged by MUSE on the then-empty north end of the Battery Park City landfill in New York.<1>
Other musicians performing at the concerts included Crosby, Stills, and Nash, Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band, James Taylor, Carly Simon, Chaka Khan, The Doobie Brothers, Jesse Colin Young, Gil Scott-Heron, Tom Petty, Poco and others. The album No Nukes, and a film, also titled No Nukes, were both released in 1980 to document the performances. A full No Nukes concert featuring Browne and Crosby, Stills & Nash was also filmed near the beach in Ventura, California, at the Ventura County Fairgrounds, but none of that footage made it into the final cut.

Thanks for proving my point.

We all know that.

We are trying to stop it.

THEY wre trying to stop it.

Nothing exaggerated then or now.

Nukes Kill. The more rads we get exposed to the more cancer and death and dead children we get.

At least "hyperbolic" is gender neutral.

But nice try. You keep trying and I keep laughing.

The late Physicist John Gofman wrote:


Licensing a nuclear power plant is in my view, licensing random premeditated murder. First of all, when you license a plant, you know what you're doing--so it's premeditated. You can't say, "I didn't know." Second, the evidence on radiation-producing cancer is beyond doubt. I've worked fifteen years on it, and so have many others. It is not a question any more: radiation produces cancer, and the evidence is good all the way down to the lowest doses. The only way you could license nuclear power plants and not have murder is if you could guarantee perfect containment. But they admit that they're not going to contain it perfectly. They allow workers to get irradiated, and they have an allowable dose for the population.<28> So in essence I can figure out from their allowable amounts how many they are willing to kill per year.

I view this as a disgrace, as a public health disgrace. The idea of anyone saying that it's all right to murder so many in exchange for profits from electricity--or what they call "benefits" from electricity--the idea that it's all right to do that is a new advance in depravity, particularly since it will affect future generations.

You must decide what your views are on this: is it all right to murder people knowingly? If so, why do you worry about homicide? But if you say, "The number won't be too large. We might only kill fifty thousand--and that's like automobiles"--is that all right? . . .

People like myself and a lot of the atomic energy scientists in the late fifties deserve Nuremberg trials. At Nuremberg we said those who participate in human experimentation are committing a crime. Scientists like myself who said in 1957, "Maybe Linus Pauling is right about radiation causing cancer, but we don't really know, and therefore we shouldn't stop progress," were saying in essence that it's all right to experiment. Since we don't know, let's go ahead. So we were experimenting on humans, weren't we? But once you know that your nuclear power plants are going to release radioactivity and kill a certain number of people, you are no longer committing the crime of experimentation--you are committing a higher crime. Scientists who support these nuclear plants--knowing the effects of radiation--don't deserve trials for experimentation; they deserve trials for murder. . . .

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/nwJWG.html

A European Committee on Radiation Risk Study published in 2003 concluded the following death will result from nuclear projects (including atmospheric testing AND nuclear power plant emissions)


10. The committee concludes that the present cancer epidemic is a consequence of exposures to global atmospheric weapons fallout in the period 1959-63 and that more recent releases of radioisotopes to the environment from the operation of the nuclear fuel cycle will result in significant increases in cancer and other types of ill health.

11. Using both the ECRR's new model and that of the ICRP the committee calculates the total number of deaths resulting from the nuclear project since 1945.
....
The ECRR model predicts 61,600,000 deaths from cancer, 1,600,000 infant deaths and 1,900,000 foetal deaths. In addition, the ECRR predict a 10% loss of life quality integrated over all diseases and conditions in those who were exposed over the period of global weapons fallout.



http://www.euradcom.org/2003/execsumm.htm

not one. the numbers are a joke, you are a joke. Your position is a joke. There is no other way to generate power than controlled nuclear reactions. Thankfully most here are not stupid enough to fall for this.

The life expectancy has continued to rise since the first nuclear reactor was brought online.

Sid

But I urge people to read John Gofman's book for the real facts.

all you will get from the pronukers here is toxic industry swill, just like what they give us all the time.

...that even after the EPA got the 'air quality issue' so wrong at "ground zero", that Americans would still trust the official pronouncements about public health and safety.

Environmental toxins have accumulated to cause memory loss....is my guess.

.

NO DANGER at ground zero from particulates.

No danger form radiation leaks at nuke plants.

No danger from constant exposure to radioactive effluents and emissions from nuclear power plants or coal plants.

No danger from genetically modified crops.

Keep consuming. Keep eating. Keep taking your cancer treatments. keep dying.

Try to remember this: we would never lie to you. We will not harm you.

We are here to SERVE you.

(Actually one of the chief side effects of thyroid damage is brain fog and memory problems - and radioiodine causes this as well as many other toxic chemicals we are exposed to every day and consume in our air and water and food. So your point is well taken and your support is appreciated)

Sadly, They discovered that horrible secret first.

.

Frankly i know that whenever a thread threatening to the nuclear industry pops up that it will be unrecc'd and the facts relentlessly tag teamed by the resident DUers who support the nuclear establishment (which by the way includes Bush and Cheney as Halliburton has HUGE nuclear involvement as do other right wing weapons and media giants like GE and Westinghouse)

I also have come to realize that it is a war of attrition.

There are so many proNuke posters here that tag team ANY post on the subject 24-7 (and unrec anything which MIGHT be detrimental to the industry) that getting any reasonable consideration of views opposed to nuclear power and getting any DUers who are either misinformed or underinformed or uninformed good information requires a mighty ability to carry on against the very vocal minority here who seem to patrol for these subjects.

I do in fact realize that some people who do not have sufficient info will believe the nuke industry PR and lies (just as some believe the healthcare PR and lies or the pharmaceutical industry PR and lies) BUt they are all of the same cloth and generally of the same corporate rolodex and interlocking corporate directorates.

There is unlimited wealth to carry on PR battles here an abroad (China is building more and more of these deadly beasts which will kill millions there and will send radioactive effluents and emissions here in the air, water and food and products from China)

The shrill cries of industry supporters are deafening.

So the only way to win on this subject is to be relentless. To keep battling on the ramparts of the mind without fail or falter.

Nuclear subsidies are IN the current ENERGY BILL.

If we are NOT heard on this issue more death and destruction will be spewed into our children's bodies (and ours too).

So I could use a little help on these threads.

It is a war of attrition. The more they beat it down, the more we have to persist.

And of nuclear subsidies stay in the energy bill, we will be sicker and proceeding further and further away from truly clean and renewable energy in our lifetimes and our kids lifetimes.

So don't be shy when these threads get swamped with industry promotion.

Speak out. Often.

there is NOTHING not bird choppers or solar pipe dreams that can generate the gigawatts required to power the tristate area.

In the meantime I have lived near them for 40 years and work in an area that is pulling jobs from socal because we can keep our lights on.

that is pulled down by that region. The technology you speak of does not exist in any form that could cover 1/1000 th of that demand now or in the next 10 years.

So I'm not understanding your argument.

I'm not necessarily anti-nuclear. But I understand the drawbacks of nuclear power.

or it would be in use. Solar can not even cover a constant 1500MW output nor can wind. I am just a realist, we make the best reactors in the world, and ship them to china.

ENVIRONMENT-EUROPE: The Light Could Go All Green by 2050
By Julio Godoy

BERLIN, Jun 9 (IPS) - The EU could meet all its electricity demands from renewable energy sources such as wind and the sun by 2050 if governments take the right decisions now, leading environment and energy experts say.

Governments must stop authorising the building of traditional generators such as coal-fired power plants, accelerate the phasing out of nuclear power, and instead support investment in efficient use of renewable sources, the experts say.

Olav Hohmeyer, professor of the economics of energy at the university of Flensburg, some 400 kilometres west of Berlin, and member of the German Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU, after its German name), told IPS that another fundamental requirement is modernisation of national grids. Modernisation of accumulators is also needed to compensate for the oscillations in the amount of electricity generated by unstable sources such as wind and the sun, Hohmeyer added.

Hohmeyer, co-author of a report presented to the German government in May on switching to full reliance on renewable energy by 2050, told IPS that with the increasing energy supply from renewable facilities, nuclear and coal- fired power plants are becoming superfluous.


(link downthread)

Even the author of the article doesn't believe renewable can replace 100% of power needs today.

So to generate massive baseline energy today you can burn coal or use safe, clean nuclear power.

People like you pushed us towards coal for too long (tons of coal burned in this country has increased every decade since 1910). The tide is shifting back towards nuclear power.

Nothing is cheaper than coal not even nuclear but with carbon tax, or cap & trade nuclear can reach parity with coal.

Natural gas is a magnitude more expensive than nuclear and coal and if you have a variable source like solar, wind, or tidal it needs to be backed up by natural gas generators.

Until we figure out a way to store terrawatts worth of power at low loss, as needed, and at low cost variable sources will always need to be backed up by peaking sources (that means burning natural gas).

I hope we triple our solar capacity over next decade but even doing so requires something to handle the 24/7/365 baseline requirements and solar isn't even in the right magnitude in terms of cost per kwh to do that.

Total Cost-Benefit Accounting for Electric Energy
Wind and Solar Are More Economical Than Coal and Nuclear

"Support for coal and nuclear power retards the growth of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. The costs of
misguided energy decisions have been calculated and it they are substantial. Continued reliance on outdated, polluting
facilities such as coal-fired and nuclear power plants has real costs borne by all citizens. Any true cost-benefit analyses of
electric power must include environmental effects on forests, agriculture and species diversity, climate change including
global warming, direct and indirect government subsidies, impacts on jobs and the economy, and adverse health impacts
from pollution. Ratepayers and taxpayers should insist on policies which promote the accelerated growth of wind and
solar power. Renewable energy production can and should reach a minimum of 20% of the total U.S. electric supply by
2020."

I found this at the UN website: http://unjobs.org/authors/olav-hohmeyer

full article here:

http://www.bredl.org/pdf/RPS041117.pdf



Yeah - I saw the 2050. Obviously TRANSITION is required. Gas is transitional where needed and nuke plants can be adapted to natural gas use readily and inexpensively (no need for NEW plants)

But i do NOT support Coal either.

Frankly we are in a catastrophe environmentally, economically and physically and we need to act like it. Massive reduction in consumption is required as is massive efforts in employment and construction to rebuild these grids and infrastructures to make renewables by 2050 possible.

Because nuclear emissions cause MASSIVE amounts of cancer and death and consequent costs to everyone, the economic factod make subsidies for Nuclear energy SUICIDE as are subsidies for coal (altho I would support research fro clean coal while not subsidizing dirty coal)

NOTHING can make nuclear clean and it is a WASTE of resources trying to. We spend SIXTY YEARS trying to make nukes work and the radiation killed MILLIONS (even by conservative estimates - tens of millions by progressive scientific estimates)

Nuclear IS a WASTE and takes money from efforts to implement a SANE environmental energy goal of 100% renewables as quickly as we can do it (and maybe in our lifetimes). As we INCREASE renewable production we phase out coal, gas, oil, gasoline wherever it is unclean and unsafe and we CAN CLOSE ALL NUKE PLANTS IMMEDIATELY. THEY ARE KILLERS AND NEED TO BE CLOSED. EVERY DAY THEY OPERATE MORE PEOPLE WILL GET CANCER OR GENETIC DEFECTS OR HAVE MISCARRIAGES.

It is an industry which kills. Renewables will be an act of love for the earth and humanity, unlike the cruel murderous reality of nukes and coal.

You convinced me to write a letter to Obama thanking him for supporting clean, renewable energy from nuclear power plants.

Nuclear plants add a negligible amount (0.05 mrems, 0.09 for those within 50 miles) of radiation to background radiation 300+ mrems annually.

Hell living in a brick house exposes you to far more radiation (about 7 mrems).

If you are worried about radiation then a brick house nowhere near a nuclear plant is more dangerous than one with vinyl siding right down the block from a reactor (1/70th the exposure).

Of course I am sure you avoid flying (1mrem/1000 miles), slab floors or basements (100rems/year from increased radon exposure), xrays (40mrems ea), food grown from earth (40mrems/year), cosmic rays (26mrems), sleeping in same bed as another person (1mrem/year humans contain about 100,000 picoCuries of Potasium-40), TV (1mrem/year), luminescent watches (0.1 mrems /year) because ALL of those things expose you to more radiation than a nuclear power plant.

from wiki:
"The Luddites were a social movement of British textile artisans in the early nineteenth century who protested—often by destroying mechanized looms—against the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution, which they felt were leaving them without work and changing their entire way of life"

.
This English historical movement should be seen in the context of the era's harsh economic climate due to the Napoleonic Wars, and the degrading working conditions in the new textile factories. Since then, however, the term Luddite has been used derisively to describe anyone opposed to technological progress and technological change."

So the term is capitalist propaganda to deride those who oppose dehumanzation by technology and industry and to smear labor activists.


I am no Luddite. I oppose death machines like nuclear power plans that spew death and disease-causing effluents.

I LOVE technology that is sfe and frankly i avoid xrays and other excess radiaition. But your claim that they cayse less exposure is bullshit and without foundation AND they are differnt radioactive elements involved so the analogy is bullshit. Some are ingested and mimic minerals we absorb, some bounce off of us. Some go right through us.

These are common PR myths

A rem is a measure of radiation. Radiaiton is energy. You can't ingest radiation any more than you ingest light or radio waves.

curies is a measure of radioactive MATERIAL. MATERIAL you can ingest or absorb.

Radioactive MATERIAL is not the same thing as RADIATION (which is energy).

Radioactive MATERIAL is contained by the containment structure. Even in a core breach the radiactive material (millions of curies of radioactive potential) are still inside the containment structure.

Some radiation (pure energy) passes through the walls of the reactor and exposes people living nearby.
However this amount is negligible 0.09mrems compared to the amount of radiation (energy) that we are exposed to every year from background sources 300+ mrems (about 3000x as much a living within 50 miles of a reactor).

Seriously when you get an xray what did you think happens? The xray machine shoots a bunch radioactive material at you? No the radioactive material is in an airtight shielded compartment. When the xray is taken a door is opened for a second which allows radiation (which is energy) to stream out like light and strike you.

The fact that you don't even know/realize the difference between radioactive material and radiation explains your incoherence on the subject.

BTW before changing to computer science I majored in physics. For some classes I worked around radioactive material and as a precaution I wore a dosimeter. I accumulated 390 rems beyond background radiation. That is the equivalent of living 50 miles from a nuclear reactor for 430 years. However in the grand scheme of things it is nothing.

Background and made made sources alone put my lifetime dose at around 12,600 mrems (12.6 rems). Far below the amount of radiation necessary for lethal dose.

if you swallow it or breathe it you are getting radiation internally from the radioactive materials.

If you consume water with radioactive iodine in it you are exposed to the radiation as it decays.

Your blatant attempt to discredit me with insults is pretty telling and might fool an uninformed person.

REMs are the dose measurements for ABSORBED radiation.

When plants operate the release radioactive substances in the effluents and smoke stacks or ground or groundwater. These radioactive substances emit radiation. So when you ingest them you are consuming radioactive materials and ingesting the radiation that emits from them as they go through radioactive decay.

Some get absorbed into the tissues and bones and continue to irradiate the body internally (like mini xrays but INSIDE your testilces or uterus or ovaries or bones and blood and brain or ALL of the above (especially when it gets in the bone marrow and the blood and FLOWS to every cell in the body).

So if you swallow a glowing ball of luminescence you are not INGESTING that luminescence? Absurdity.

You might fool some people

but this is really off the mark for you

If you eat something that is radioactive you are ingesting radiation. It is either absorbed by the body or passes through. On the way or staying it decays releasing more radiation which mutates your internal organs causing cancers and death most of the time.

Your words:

But your claim that they cayse less exposure is bullshit and without foundation AND they are differnt radioactive elements involved so the analogy is bullshit. Some are ingested and mimic minerals we absorb, some bounce off of us. Some go right through us.

So how do elements bounce off of us? How to elements go right through us?
How is radiation ingested? How is radiation absorbed?

Radiation can bounce off us (alpha)
Radiation can go right through us (gamma)
Elements can be ingested or absorbed.

Your combining the two into the same sentence is very telling.

None of this changes the fact that the EPA limit for powerplant exposure is 25mrems which is a tiny fraction of what we are exposed to EVERY SINGLE YEAR by nature.

Even still 25mrems is the LIMIT. Average plant exposure per the EPA is 0.05mrems and 0.09mrems for those within 50 miles of a plant. Negligble.

If it was more it would be easy to prove. Hell any university has the equipment.

Why wouldn't a single university study make it a project. Set up detectors and confirm reactors put out radiation and radioactive material that exceed the limits set by EPA. Nobody has. 50 years of commercial nuclear power, hundreds of reactors, millions of university students. Not a single one has shown reactors exceed limits set by EPA.

Kidna telling.

individual academics have done studies but do not have the funds for this monitoring. Maybe secret government studies are done (I know of some secret industry studies on mutations in sea fauna).

I have worked with physicists on studies in humans and sea creatures (test results are scary high)

I guess I AM using terms of art and common uses interchangeably which is why you can pick on me here. I s radiation an "element"? I think it can be in a generic sense but maybe not so much in a technical sense so SORRY!!! (not really)

What I meant is that radiation is present in different elements (forms and substances) and does itself have differing properties as you point out. My sentence was not as clear as it should have been. Big deal.

The fact is that external radiation, depending on the type may or may not be absorbed. Radionuclides is what i mean generally which is a substance which gives off radiation. The radiation itself is emitted from the radionuclide but the radionuclide itself is radioactive and gives off radiation. That is what I meant. When you INGEST a radioactive substance you are INGESTING the radiation that goes with it or comes from it.

But you are parsing my words to try to show that I do not know what i am talking about.

The fact is that the 25 mrem LIMIT you claim is NOT the current standard but an OLD limit (I posted the link to the NRC regs already twice today) Your numbers are wrong. The current number frm the NRC website is 100mrems for the public off site.


Ifor the record: in the abovve sentence you quote I should have used the terms "different radioactive substances and types" rathet than the term "elements"

Really: your efforts to discredit me with crap like this is feeble.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/part020-1301.html

NRC regulations. Read down to section e. Here it is if you are lazy.

(e) In addition to the requirements of this part, a licensee subject to the provisions of EPA's generally applicable environmental radiation standards in 40 CFR part 190 shall comply with those standards.

So NRC sets limit at 100mrems..... however all licensee are subject to EPA regulation 40 CFR part 190.

So where is 40 CFR part 190? Wow here it is.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=f6dae31a0b5262952bf0805177c41848&rgn=div5&view=text&node=40:24.0.1.1.1&idno=40#40:24.0.1.1.1.2.1.1

Operations covered by this subpart shall be conducted in such a manner as to provide reasonable assurance that:

(a) The annual dose equivalent does not exceed 25 millirems to the whole body, 75 millirems to the thyroid, and 25 millirems to any other organ of any member of the public as the result of exposures to planned discharges of radioactive materials, radon and its daughters excepted, to the general environment from uranium fuel cycle operations and to radiation from these operations.

While it was written in 1971 I guess you missed this (in red & bold kinda hard to miss unless you need to "believe")
e-CFR Data is current as of September 10, 2009

The EPA exposure limit for all nuclear plants from 1971 till today in 25mrems.

So since a reactor must be compliant w/ both NRC and EPA regulations the max exposure under the law is 25mrem.

See two independent govt agencies both regulating nuclear reactors (how many industries have that).

Of course even 25mrem overstates the "danger" because that is the LIMIT that isn't what plants put out on average. The EPA findings are that average exposure is 0.09mrems annually from nuclear plants.

http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understand/calculate.html

Of course I already explain all this in the other thread but strangely it got quiet once your "NUCLEAR PLANTS DOUBLE RADIATION EXPOSURE!!!!!!!!!! OH NOES OH NOES" got rebutted.

anti-nukers don't really like fact.

To be nice I won't analyze your belief that all universities are "owned by nuclear industry" (just like EPA, NRC, and DOE obviously are) and the comments about "secret govt tests" I mean you are getting close to "black helicopter" territory now.

After reviewing the info this regulation applies to PLANNED releases. Meaning the PLANNED releases are permitted up to 25 mrems to the whole body but generally they must operate so as not to exceed 100 mrems under the NRC regs.

And on TOP of that Variances can be granted and are permitted under the regs you cite so that they CAN expose us to more if they ask nicely as part of REGULAR OPERATIONS.

In other words they must demonstrate that they are only releasing 1/4 of the natural solar/cosmic background radiation per year. GREAT! They NORMAALY expose us to ONLY an annual INCREASE of 25% of what we get from the sun and space PER YEAR.

The Problem is that the man made nuclear effluents and emissions are CUMULATIVE in our bodies and they are NOT LIKE solar radiation which is in rays and not particulates.

ALSO-

Under the EPA regulations you cite:

The thyroid can get 75 millirems of exposure too (which you conveniently fail to state) so we are talking here about INTERNAL doses to organs.)

HOW they calculate exposure is also tricky (is it ABSORBED dose or simple external dose?)

These are technical questions which I doubt you are qualified to begin to answer.

But the fact is that they are ALLOWING INTERNAL ORGAN DOSING with mutagenic and carcinogenic radionuclides at EVERY PLANT and you can get HIGHER doses whenever the and industry along with the NRC wants you to.

And they didn't even ASK if they could expose it. They just passed a regulation that says they can do it:
Even if it kills us.

and it probably will.

PART 190--ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR NUCLEAR POWER OPERATIONS--Table of Contents

Subpart B--Environmental Standards for the Uranium Fuel Cycle

Sec. 190.11 Variances for unusual operations.

The standards specified in Sec. 190.10 may be exceeded if:
(a) The regulatory agency has granted a variance based upon its
determination that a temporary and unusual operating condition exists
and continued operation is in the public interest,...

The technology exists with renewables.

With changes in consumption, design, retrofitting, light rail using hydrogen for mass transit and shipping on heavy rail it is certainly possible within our lifteimes to impkement total clean energy without any nukes or burning of dirty coal.

Retrofitting nuke plants to natural gas can work too as an interim solution.

You know I have posted lnks to the sudies that show that this can be done.

But if we subsidize nukes, oil and coal via legislation and failure to legislate (mission standards etc) and we spend massive amounts on dangerous and econoically futlie and damaging technologies like nuclear, we will not have the resoruces to develop and build the renewable components of the energy ystems.

Localized grids are needed as well in suburbs and rural areas (solar/wind/ geothermal).

Producing energy does NOT require nuclear power OR coal.

Producing ENOUGH means putting our resources and planning into that as a goal.

These are NOT pipe dreams, at all.

They are reality.

Hydrogen? Do you know how hard it is to store and use that? and where are we suppose to get the power to make it?

Solar panels at MOST 7% efficient.

How would you retrofit a nuclear plant to use natural gas? They are two COMPLETELY different ways of generating power. It would like me wanting to put a boiler in my car so I could run on steam power. I might as well buy a new car.

As far as nuclear, there have been interesting developments, where even the waste can be used to generate power, leaving less then 3% of the original.

Your renewables are not pipe dreams, but except for wind, not ready for prime time either.

GE or Westinghouse as ammunition, no matter how relentless you are.

"If we are NOT heard on this issue..." I have news for you. You ARE being heard on the issue. The problem you're having is that more than a few people here at DU and in other places (read: amongst elected officials with a (D) behind their name) disagree with you. To be "heard" doesn't mean that you dictate the actions of those who would listen to you.

I couldn't dictate my way out of a paer bag here at DU, friend.

Being heard means being listened to and that people actually HEAR the facts and the evidence.

The chorus of pronuke "Hallelujahs" here is like a teabagger rally on the Jordan river.

Hard to be heard.

Some pretty vicious too.

But I'm pretty tough.

If you ARE a Cherokee then you must know about the deaths of Native people on the reservations that have uranium mines and tailings exposure.

I suppose this part of the industry is okay with you as well?

and not be offended by it. Google the Dawes Rolls, and look for Toolie Catron and Hester Flute. They are my Great Grandparents. Their son who was my Grandfather (May the Great Spirit Rest ALL Their Souls) was born on the reservation in Tahlequah, OK.

I didn't see a SINGLE "hallelujah" on this thread, equating me to a teabagger for supporting the use of nuclear energy is beyond offensive. Not only that, it's even less likely to convince me that you're right than equating me to Bush, Cheney, or Halliburton.

You have to ask yourself which is worse, chopping off the tops of mountains to get coal, or mining ore to get uranium. BOTH are bad for the environment.

Tell me what you know about the "deaths of Native people on the reservations". I'm curious to know what your knowledge about Native American mortality rates and their causes are.

not worth getting into again.

Sid

Poverty is the main cause of death, Suicide, alcohol and drugs are huge too.

I worked on a reservation for a tribe for many years. I know about that tribe and surrounding tribes but not stats on all tribes.

i know they are offensive to the human conscience that such abysmal conditions exist in this land.

I do NOT support coal either. I support renewables.

Both coal and uraniu are deadly to Natives as well as everyone else. But Natives have gotten a lot of the worst of the uranium deaths in this country.

Just as they have gotten the worst of a LOT of this country.

But as you say you are Native I will respect that.

I don't equate YOU to Bush Cheney or Halliburton - bt they are the industry's ;eaers and standard bearers and promoters so if you suport nuclear uyou are supporting them.
As for the Hallelujah chorus comment, that is what it feel like to get shouted down on every post by a squad of pronukers who rail like teabggers and "death panelists" and "birthers"

Like Obama I here cried from the peanut gallery of "You Lie!" over and over.

My interest is in my children and future generations.

Nukes will KILL them if we keep supporting them (and may well kill them anyway - my kids were exposed, dosed and diagnosed with radiation induced illnesses as we are downstream and downwind of a nuke plant that has a terrible leak record and high cancer rates nearby).

If you identify with the teabagger comment I am sorry. It is not directed at any individual. But that is what the defense of this industry here at DU sounds like to me: right wing propaganda.

The report doesn't say how much tritium was found but it does say it was below EPA limit for drinking water.

EPA limit is 20,000 picoCuries per liter.
A picoCurie is a trillionth, or 0.000000000001, of a Curie.

To put it into perspective the human body has about 100,000 picoCuries of Potasium-40 (naturally occurring isotope). Yes humans are naturally slightly radioactibe.

If you drank 2 liters of water per day from that well for a year you would be exposed to about 4 mrems of radiation. To put that into perspective a single xray is about 40mrems. So 10 years of drinking water from this well is about equal to a single xray.

The average person is exposed to about 300 mrems of radiation per year from natural sources which is 75X the amount from drinking a years worth of water from this well.

Average total exposure (human & manmade is about 360 mrems).

Of course that would be at the EPA limit and the article indicates it was BELOW the EPA limit. So it is possible the amount of radioactive material was 1/4th, 1/10th, or even 1/100th the amount in my example.

ENVIRONMENT-EUROPE: The Light Could Go All Green by 2050
By Julio Godoy

BERLIN, Jun 9 (IPS) - The EU could meet all its electricity demands from renewable energy sources such as wind and the sun by 2050 if governments take the right decisions now, leading environment and energy experts say.

Governments must stop authorising the building of traditional generators such as coal-fired power plants, accelerate the phasing out of nuclear power, and instead support investment in efficient use of renewable sources, the experts say.

Olav Hohmeyer, professor of the economics of energy at the university of Flensburg, some 400 kilometres west of Berlin, and member of the German Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU, after its German name), told IPS that another fundamental requirement is modernisation of national grids. Modernisation of accumulators is also needed to compensate for the oscillations in the amount of electricity generated by unstable sources such as wind and the sun, Hohmeyer added.

Hohmeyer, co-author of a report presented to the German government in May on switching to full reliance on renewable energy by 2050, told IPS that with the increasing energy supply from renewable facilities, nuclear and coal- fired power plants are becoming superfluous.


http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47144


Those who claim nukes are the only realistiv option for global warming are full of hot air (probably radioactive air at that)

If the EU can do it we can too.

Technology doesn't exist today to run 100% of power on variable sources. We have no cost effective way to store the terrawatts worth of power necessary to balance variable power needs with variable power sources.

Maybe we will in 40 years but not today.

and am as off the grid as I can be right now.

That equals WON'T.

not in time to do enough good for the current crop of human beings and babies born today (many of whom will die as a result of this failure)

Being willing to consider nuclear power as a partial solution to our energy requirements does not mean I'm not in favor of renewable resources like solar, tidal, wind and geothermal.

I'm probably more pro nuclear because of when and where I grew up, Pasadena Texas in the 70s. Right on the Houston ship channel which is lined with refineries. Every summer there would be a KaWHump then the windows would rattle in the frames because something else blew up. There were days when I couldn't go outside and play because the air had been declared "unacceptable". I thought the sky changed color depending on where you were because when we left Pasadena it lost that greenish tinge. There was a lot of fear that the water was going to catch on fire. Looking back on it now, with the clean Pacific breeze blowing past, it was utterly horrible. You could taste the air.

I don't want anyone else to have to live in a place like that. Barring a breakthrough in fusion we are going to have to have something to augment the renewables for the foreseeable future, as others on this thread have pointed out there are problems with the variable nature of their energy supply. Recycling steel for one is massively energy intensive, arc furnaces need crazy amounts of power. They melt steel with lightning, sounds crazy but it allows for the production of 100% recycled product. No new material is needed.

So, we're left with a problem, renewables cant do it all so they have to be augmented. The choices we have are coal or nuclear. From what I've seen nuclear is less deadly given the tons of pollutants coal mining and burning produces. Nuclear fission isn't something I like, it's just better than the alternative.

See, I grew up being exposed to man made radiation every day of my life due to the nuclear industry in my community. Like you, I have seen the consequences forshand. The birth dfects nd mutant children; the deaths of babies in utero, the cancer deaths of close friends and family, the studies that show both radiation in our water and land and in our babies teeth.

Renewables CAN do it all. Coal and oil can be phased out as the primary sources of energy in industry and transportation and nuclear can be shut down forever.

Nukes will NEVER be better than the alternatives because the effluets mutate our children's genes and dna FOREVER and the stuf STAYS in the environment for aeons continuing to accumulate in our teeth and bones and organd and causing cancer. Yes coal also has dangerous effluents/emissions, but they do not generally cause the kind of mutations that man made radionuclides cause and for indeterminate amounts of time. They need to be phased out quickly as well.

RENEWABLES CAN provide 100% of our energy needs. The research is solid and the possibility is that it can be achieved in our lifetime if we apply our resoruces to that goal and NOT to coal and cnuclear and internal combustion engines and gas/oil.

We can supplement with oil, gas, natural gas etc with cleaner technologies as they develop --- but they are unecessary and will be forever soon if we make that our goal.
Are you with me on that?

it is constantly bombarding you with radiation. Your local power plant, not so much. Improve nuclear technology, it is obviously the foundation of the solar system. If it can power the sun, it can power the US.

if we get too much exposure without protection.

Cosmic and solar radiation causes cancer and mutations.

So do nukes.

But you know that already.

The NRC's regulations provide that we can get MORE radiation from EACH PLANT OPERATING every day than what we receive from the sun. And sometimes multiple times that, especially if you work in or visit a plant or live downwind of two plants nearby as many people do.

I LOVE the sun. Bt I do not fool myself into pretending that it can't dehydrate me or urn me to death or cause melanoma or other cancers as YOU do with Nuclear emissions.

Only a fool would deny the dangers. Or worse.