Would this have happened if Japan had been using subcritical reactors with thorium fuel?
On 19/02/2014, ghib...@gmail.com <ghib...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, February 13, 2014 3:01:26 PM UTC, cdemorsella wrote: >> >> Ground water contamination levels at the sampled well site of 54,000Bq/ >> liter >> >> NHK <http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20140213_22.html>, Feb. >> 13, 2014: *Record cesium level in Fukushima plant groundwater* -- [Tepco] >> says water samples taken from a newly-dug well contained the highest >> levels >> of radioactive cesium detected so far in groundwater at the site [...] the >> >> record levels suggest that the leakage point could be near the well. [...] >> >> 600 times the government standard for radioactive wastewater that can be >> released into the sea. It is more than 30,000 times the level of cesium >> 137 >> found in water samples taken from another observation well to the north >> last week. [...] [Tepco has] yet to determine where the leak originates. >> > In general the dangers arsing from nuclear fission power are grossly > exaggerated. It's far and away the best answer to greenhouse emissions, > that is also realistic. If we'd been building nuclear power stations the > fracking locomotive wouldn't be the unstoppable force that it has become. > on > Many ways the dangers are blown out of proportion.. Even catastrophic > meltdown that blow the roof off and spread the love like Chernobyl, do not > result in a tiny fraction of the disasters that the standard models > predict. Ten's of thousands were predicted to die. In the end, just 40 > deaths from Chernobyl, and most of those the people sent in to get control > in the aftermath. > > There have been revolutions in station design since plants like fukishima > were built, and that disaster isn't shaping up to the dire predictions > either. > > What most of all this derives out of, are long standing questions about the > > level of risk associated with exposure to radiation at low doses up to > somewhere below the 200 mark. There's no firm evidence of substantial risk. > > There's plenty of evidence for genetic protection. There's a whole plethora > > of statistics we could reasonably expect if low dose exposure was anything > like the risk that still sits there in the model. Airline cabin crew should > > have higher frequency cancer for all that time so near space for one > example. They don't. > > Conversely there are some major natural radiation hotspots in the world. > You'd expect those areas to produce more cancer and radiation poisoning > related disease. But the opposite is true. People exposed to dramatically > higher doses of radiation (inside the low dosage spectrum), actually become > > lower risks. There seems to be a triggerable genetic response when levels > increase. > > I'm over-compensating in the other direction a bit here. Not because I love > > the bomb, but if you only knew the power of the dark side. > > > > >> >> >> >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
