On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:45:19 PM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote: > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] <javascript:> [mailto: > [email protected] <javascript:>] *On Behalf Of > *[email protected]<javascript:> > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 18, 2014 2:02 PM > *To:* [email protected] <javascript:> > *Subject:* Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating > > > > > 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. > > > > Dude – even the Report of > 2005<http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/chernobyl/pdfs/pr.pdf>(by the IAEA, > WHO, and UNDP, agencies that cannot by any stretch of the > imagination be described as hostile to the advancement of nuclear power) > put the Chernobyl ultimate death toll at 4000 – a figure that is one > hundred times bigger than the 40 deaths you believe are attributable to > this atomic disaster. The 4000 figure has been challenged and criticized as > being far too low and that over the decades the extra cancer deaths > ultimately caused by this disaster have been far higher. For example: > “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment” > published by the New York Academy of sciences; authored by Russian > biologist Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to the Russian > president; Dr. Alexey Nesterenko, a biologist and ecologist in Belarus; and > Dr.Vassili Nesterenko, a physicist and at the time of the accident director > of the Institute of Nuclear Energy of the National Academy of Sciences of > Belarus; put the extra cancer deaths attributable to the Chernobyl disaster > at almost one million – a figure that is 25,000 times greater than the 40 > deaths you seem to believe caps the death toll for Chernobyl. I believe you > are ignoring many thousands of horrible cancer deaths that were triggered > by this disaster; and even the IAEA agrees that many thousands of people > died from radiation induced cancers. > > To claim that only 40 people died as a result of the Chernobyl disaster is > an act of spreading propaganda; it is un-scientific. >
There's also the problems of uranium mining, milling, transportation, and waste storage. http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/files/uranium-mining-report.pdf "ISL uranium mining, alone and in concert with other resource extraction activities, contaminates groundwater. ISL operations in the United States have repeatedly failed to restore aquifers to a pre-mining state, often leaving them unusable for any alternative future use." > > > > 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 [email protected] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
