Why do people fear nuclear power?

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Stokes Pennwalt, Feb 5, 2004.

  1. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    OK fellers, let's cut the crap. PaulCurly claims he exposed me as a liar. Good for him, but if you read carefully what I said in the last four or five pages of this thread and compare it with what follows, you'll see that poor paulie has been shooting his foot everytime he has pressed the enter key for posting here his idiocies. And let us finish with the UNSCEAR story. I am getting tired of repeating the same thing once and again, and again.

    <B><FONT face=verdana color=#ff0000 size=5>The Thyroid Cancer Fraud</FONT></B>
    (With a little help from Z. Jaworowski)

    In its final conclusions on the health effects of Chernobyl's accident, the UNSCEAR Report states the following:

    "The number of thryoid cancers [about 1800, but really 1791] in individuals exposed during their childhood. in particular in severely contaminated areas in the three affected countries, is considerably larger than the one would expect based on previous knowledge. <b>This high incidence with such a short latency period is quite unusual.</b> Other factors might be influencing the risks."

    One of those factors are the so called <b><font color=#a7474f>"thyroid occult cancers"</font></b>, those detected in authopsies and hystological studies, and that casue no clinic disturbances during a person's lifetime. This "hidden" thyroid cancers <b><font color=#a7474f>ocurr massively</font></b> all over the world. For instance, in Canada their incidence is 6000 over 100,000 persons; in Poland is 9000 over 1000,000; in the USA 13,000; and in Finland is 35,000. The largest thyroid cancer incidence found in Russia, before Chernobyl accident, was 26.6 over 100,000; in Belarus, 17.9; in Ukraine, 4.9. That way, the potential for discovering the <b><font color=#a7474f>"excess"</font></b> in thyroid cancers, after the intense screening performed after the accident, is immense.

    According to UNSCEAR data, the increase in thyroid cancers diagnosed in children less than 15 years old, began to be seen by 1987 in Russia, and 1990 in Belarus - that is, <b>only one year and four years after the accident.</b> However, the latency period in solid cancers induced by radiation, as the thyroid cancer, <b><font color=#a7474f>is about 10 years.</font></b> According to data presented in the UNSCEAR 2000 report, there is no relationship (or worse, <font color=#ff0000><b>an inverse relationship</b></font>) between the incidence shown in thyroid cancers in children and radiation doses received at the thyroid gland among the population in contaminated areas.

    <center><IMG height=291 alt="Tasas de incidencia de cáncer de tiroides" src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-8/tyroid.jpg" width=450 border=0>


    <FONT face=verdana size=2>Shown here is the maximum incidence rate in thyroid cancer in children in highly contaminated regions in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, under 15 years of age at the moment of diagnosis, compared with average radiation doses at the thyroid. As it can be seen, the area with the <b>lowest radiation dose</b> has the <b>greatest incidence</b> in thyroid cancer.</FONT>

    Thyroid cancer are 90% curable. Until this year, only ONE of these children has died.</font>

    <FONT face=verdana size=1>Source: Adapted from <I>UNSCEAR 2000,</I> Annex J, Tables 40 and 57</FONT>

    <B><FONT face=verdana size=4 color=#ff0000>No Increase in Cancers</FONT></B>

    Finally, the UNSCEAR concludes: "Besides the increase in thyroid cancers after the exposure in children, there has not been any increase observed in the incidence of cancers in general or in mortality, that could be attributed to ionizing radiation. The risk of leukemia, one of the biggest concerns (leukemia is one of the first cancers to show up after a strong radiation exposure, due to its short latency period of 2 to 10 years), appears not to be elevated, even among the workers in charge of recuperation. Also, there is no proof of any other non-malignant health disorder related to ionizing radiation. However, there was a widespread psychological reaction to the accident, due to the fear of radiation - not the real radiation doses."</FONT>

    Now go hug some trees and pandas, yes?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. paulsamuel Registered Senior Member

    Shut up you liar!

    I kicked your ass, like the dog you are.

    The very UN group you've been quoting (UNSCEAR) said this;

    pg. 504, " There can be no doubt about the relationship between
    the radioactive materials released from the Chernobyl
    accident and the unusually high number of thyroid cancers
    observed in the contaminated areas during the past 14 years.

    So shut up and take it like a dog, you shill.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Mr. Chips,

    ah this thread is 17 pages long I did post a lot of information, look back.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Mr. Chips Banned Banned

    UNSCEAR appears as an enigma, top level officials of the company appear to make claims not supported by the research of the organization. Sure seems like it is corrupted. But then if you know what the truth is one shouldn't let the evidence get in the way. BTW, that URL http://ecolu-info.unige.ch/colloques/Chernobyl/actes97/MS-DOS-Word.doc/16commeq.doc is actually for three papers. The last one seems most applicable to seeing how and why UNSCEAR is corrupt.
  8. paulsamuel Registered Senior Member

    goodbye mr. chips

    we'll miss you.
  9. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Speak for yourself, paulie. Unfortunately, we'll be hearing from him in sciforums.

    Those "three articles in one document" are quite biased, and politically driven, of course, and their authors (as Bella Belbéoch, Secretary of the group of <i>Scientists for Information on Nuclear Energy</i>, in Paris) have strong ties with organizations (they form a club that sign joint petitions, pleads, denounces, alarms, etc) as "Les Amis de la Terre" (the French charter of Friends of the Earth), <b>Amnesty International</b> (what’s AI doing in earth sciences and ecology?), and other highly political organizations. Particularly, I don’t find that wrong, but it is important to note where everyone is stepping here.

    In the same way Mr. Chips and other likewise thinkers reject any statement, study, claim, research, etc, coming from the dissenting side of the spectrum (those damned “skeptics”, paid liars, shills for the industry, etc), normal people should have doubts about what people recommended by Mr. Chips say, especially when they form a very politicized (geopolitical agenda) and an extremely powerful lobby having an almost total control on the world's finances, most European governments, and most of UN organizations (as the UNESCO, IPCC, WHO, WMO, UN Environmental Program, IAEA, IARC, Roll Back Malaria, etc).

    Corruption in those agencies is widespread – but much more is the incompetence shown by many officials in high positions. Political positions, of course, that ought to be occupied by technicians or scientists, not by politicians and their friends. I had my own experience by seen first hand the ineptness of many officials in the UN Program for Development, whose various agencies in South America were headed (in different countries and different dates) by my close cousin Magdalena Moyano Cocke (still in the organization, but now in the UN building at New York, after 25 years of service), and I had the chance to know personally people working in other UN bodies and organizations that participated with some projects in which my cousin was involved. And I was frightened to see the ineptness and sheer ignorance of most officials in charge of quite important matters and projects.

    My cousin said she was tired of reporting the incompetence of many officials in her and other organizations, without any success. Politics is the rule there, the “protégé” status is sacred. And if you start to browse deeply in some matters (strange, odd business) then you can kiss you job goodbye!. The Golden Rule: <b>“Don’t step on your neighbor fireman’s hose”.</b> I have an extremely low opinion of UN - and on most governmental organizations too, BTW, because I had to deal with them. And, of course, they won, because trying to fight them is like trying to tear down Jerico’s walls with your forehead.

    On the other hand, there are valuable and honest people in most UN organizations, but they must swim down with the current - or look for another job.
  10. philocrazy Banned Banned

    because my humble friend
    ask yourself ......
    .... and i dont fear you

    the greatest Philosopher
  11. bradguth Banned Banned

    Why do people fear nuclear power?

    It's still about education, or rather a lack thereof that causes most folks to go ballistic whenever they hear the word "nuclear". This is defiantly one place where the GW Bush "high standards and accountability", Texas style of snookering your way along, simply isn't going to cut it.

    It also doesn't help matters that our energy power corporations and of their supposedly trustworthy "ENRON" energy brokers can't seem to stay honest long enough to matter, much less accomplish anything unless it's the absolute biggest and preferably the most "one-of-a-kind" power plant on the face of Earth.

    Just perhaps, we might need to focus upon the smaller and duplicate formula of community power plants that are nuclear, of perhaps just those offering a few MW class instead of those multi terawatt monsters that'll create far more distribution complications, as well as greater environmental impact plus exposure to whatever comes along, than of having 500 of them relatively compact 100 MW plants. Such as those nice and well demonstrated French reactors that might offer a 4:1 improvement over what our all-or-nothing approach delivers.

    Thus our power grid wouldn't become such an easy target, as even if a dozen of these are taken off-line by natural or other causes (friendly fire for example), the loss would only amount to 2.4%, easily picked up at full load by the remaining units.

    No power generation is free from all risk, nor free from impacting the environment. Even living off the land creates the potential of far too much global-warming flatulence.

    Sure, it would be nice having that LSE-CM/ISS on-line, along with the tether dipole element and those massive counter-rotating flywheels storing 10, 20 or even 100+terawatt hours worth of energy, plus having the lunar He3 or 3He easily and safely exported to Earth for that supposed fusion energy extraction, but that's not likely to happen until them Apollo cows come home, and what's the freaking chance of that happening?

    Thus in the mean time, we'll need to create a surplus of energy, so that if an investor or some international group of investors come along with notions of creating a new aluminum or steel alloy processing plant, or even a silica and/or basalt fiber/composite sort of processing and fabrication opportunity, as such we'd have the necessary clean energy by which to power that sort of infrastructure, instead of our having to inform whomever multi-billionaire(s) as to taking their money and essentially shoving it somewhere other than here.

    Fortunately for America, we have way more than our fair share of weapons grade stockpiles that can be diluted for creating nuclear reactor fuel, whereas most other nations can't accomplish that feat.

    BTW; radiation is a fact of life, in that life as we know it couldn't possibly exist or coexist without it. Many folks receive 5 millirems/day weather they want it or not, and that was long before the first nuclear bomb. Today those same folks are not receiving hardly anything extra unless you're living down-wind of Chernobyl. If you're going to worry about radiation, worry about the down-sizing of Earth's magnitosphere that'll offer at least a 100 fold increase in our daily TBI dosage (dependent upon your physical location upon Earth), of which today we only obtain a small percentage of the background (perhaps 10%) as cosmic influx, thus as little as 0.1 millirem/day may become 10 millirem/day, although .5 millirem/day becomes 50 millirems/day, and now that's something to worry about.

    So far, I still seem to have my "Population control to conserve upon energy" topic open for business; http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=38275

    though perhaps not for long before some scifourms moderator decides to lock it down because it's too far outside of the mainstream box.

    Thus if you have something other to share, for that perhaps you'll do best by e-mailing (ieisbradguth@yahoo.com), or going into my update link in order to catch the rest of the story.

    Regards, Brad Guth (BBCI h2g2 U206251) http://guthvenus.tripod.com/update-242.htm
  12. Dr.Love Registered Member

    This is right

    why should nuclear power be told off when the pther powers are useless and cost way to much way to reck the economy people.
  13. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Because they've been getting a little cocky lately, and someone needs to bring them down off their high horse.

    Which economy people will it (w)reck? The accountants or the bankers?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Sorry..couldn't resist.
  14. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Simply take a look at Spain's economy, where wind and solar energies have increased electricity prices by more than 30%, where prices were already high. This made heavy steel industry to move to other countries with more lower energy costs, as nearby France and, of course, China.

    Heavy subsidies to wind energy and solar farms (they are building the biggest in the world, now --at least before government stopped subsidies) became a source of corruption. Several mayors were jailed because dirty business with licensing areas for wind farms.

    Not just special industries moving out of Spain, but a recent report by Spanish foundation Juan de Mariana, (report now being under study by the US Senate Commision on Energy and Transport) showed that "green energies" destroyed 2.6 jobs in the national market for every job produced in the "green energy" field. Spain's unenployment rate is bordering 24% and the country is about to follow Greece going down the drain.

    If that's not wrecking everybody's economy, what is?

    BTW, bankers in Spain aren't doing too well, as you know Santander is broke, and will go down soon. So bankers too seem to have been damaged by the whole alternate energy scheme. And accountants are never damaged by aything: they always have lots of work filling other people's tax forms -for a forever increasing tax system.

    I am sorry too, but I couldn't resist :shrug:
  15. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Sorry..I was just making fun of the wording of Dr. Love's post...not really trying to make a point about nuclear energy.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. X-Man2 We're under no illusions. Registered Senior Member

  17. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

  18. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    It's interesting how you have blamed the entire matter on conservatives and big business

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Recall, it was the Obama administration and Harry Reid who got the recent Yucca Mountain waste facility killed, leaving tons of nuclear waste stored in ``temporary'' storage facilities around the world. And it's liberal organizations like Greenpeace that continue to spread propaganda about nuclear power pushing for (currently) untenable goals for solar and wind power.

    So, in assigning blame, perhaps we'd better lay our political affiliations aside pro tem, as there is enough to go around.
  19. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    I would not say solar and wind and untenable, certainly the can and are economically in position to represent a minority of the market as high as 30% in some areas, but won't be able to replace more until grid storage becomes cheap enough was well. As of today the technology is available for solar and other intermittent "green" energy sources to be competitive in many parts of the world at peak operation, but we are still many decades away before the combination of intermittent "green" energy sources and grid storage are cheap enough by combination of technology and production of scale to represent the majority of the worlds electric power.

    In the mean time nuclear could be made competitive and still safer then coal now if regulations were to be modified to be fair to the nuclear industry. France has the cheapest energy in Europe for a reason: 30 years of investment in nuclear power paid off, certainly the US could does same it would take over a decade but if done intensively we could do so in less then 30 years. Of course this would be very very VERY unlikely as the far left wing would (like their far right wing counterparts over healthcare) likely have a tea bagging style hissyfit if that was to be even suggested.

    Technologically we could "destroy" 99% of nuclear was into power via fast neutron reactors, or even more interesting fusion assisted sub-critical reactors which would take existing fusion technology apply it to nuclear waste and produce and energy positive reactor thats turn on-off capable, meltdown physically impossible and runs on nuclear waste, converting waste that would be dangerous for millennia to waste that would be dangerous for only decades.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    But again the far left most likely don't want to even hear of such ideas because it involves the "N" word and invariably the "R" word, fuck we can't even call MRIs by their full name because of hysterical fear of the "N" word. We have people who don't want to be near magnetic fields and cell phones because of the mindless fear of the "R" word, with no regard to the physical limitations of what non-ionizing R... can do.
  20. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    I DID say that the goals pushed by people like Greenpeace are untenable, not that the idea of getting some amount of our power from renewables was untenable. So much of the problem is with the grid---for example, they want to build huge wind farms in West Texas and in the Panhandle, which is great, but how can you get the electricity from, say, Lubbock to Dallas if there's no high voltage lines?

    I think I agree with your assessment, but would point out that the burning of nuclear waste is (as far as I understand it) a bit preliminary.

    This is certainly how I see it. As I recall, McCain and Hillary had a very forward position on nuclear power, which I discussed with my adviser. It was one of the reasons that he was hesitant to vote for Obama, and volunteered on Hillary's campaign. Obama has the most backwards view of nuclear power, as evidenced by the killing of the Yucca Mountain proposal.

    Anyway, this is an issue which will be faced soon, as I see oil prices rising and staying high for the foreseeable future. The strain on the electric grid will be increased as electric cars run into production, and America meeting its obligations under the Copenhagen agreement will require either a decrease in the standard of living, or a reliance on things like nuclear power. How many California limousine liberals will still be against nuclear power when their electricity bills triple?
  21. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Maybe with fusion assistance, but has been physically done for some time now with fast neutron reactors so no, its not preliminary, of course fast neutron reactors are less safe, more expensive (usually molten metal cooled) and great for breeding plutonium for weapons. Even mere reprocessing could reduce nuclear waste by 90%, which the US forgo since the 70's thanks to the far left... fucking assholes.

    Lets give him the credit of at least being pragmatic, but of course the voices he limits his compromises to are not all the kind of voices we would want him listening to. I don't see Yucca Mountain as a loss, with a restructure nuclear industry that "waste" will benefit use as heat and electricity rather then siting inside a mountain forever.

    I agree and hope our share stance is true. Worse case: like the tea baggers they could just get more crazy rather then agree to reason.
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Nuclear power is the most expensive, dangerous, and impermanent of the major alternatives to fossil fuels.

    Efficiency improvements are the cheapest stopgaps, and an an economic depression is a fine time to make them.

    It would be far cheaper to build thermal solar and wind plants, together with whatever high voltage lines prove necessary, than deal with the known and ineradicable problems with nukes. And the technological upside with these comparatively neglected technologies is much greater than the thoroughly financed and investigated and yet underperforming nuclear field.

    Take Iran, for example. Just for starters.
  23. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Nuclear power is, amongst other things, a tax on future generations. We assume they will pay for security and otherwise dealing with the waste and out of use facilities. It is irresponsible, if for nothing else - though others here will, I hope make the case about other problems - because it shifts our burdens to others. Of course to some degree other technologies do this to, but not to this degree.

    Underlying systematic use of nuclear energy is that someone will come along with solutions to the problems it creates. This is immature thinking.

Share This Page