See Dire Warnings and related posts on the www.aesopinstitute.org website. Mark ____________________ From: Wm. Scott Smith [scott...@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 10:04 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:What about fuel trucks and generators?
Do you have any solid assessment info on: What about trains, trucks, cars, fuel trucks and emergency generators and emp? What about loss of sensor and control systems for n power plants? > From: mgol...@chavaenergy.com > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; uniqueprodu...@comcast.net > Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:32:05 -0500 > Subject: RE: [Vo]:EMP & all of the planets N Reactors > > Scott, > > You are on target. See 400 Chernobyls? at www.aesopinstitute.org > > The death toll from Chernobyl is now estimated at close to 1 million. This is > from a relatively recent study that includes extensive papers in Eastern > European languages little taken into account previously. The study has met > the same reaction from the nuclear community that cold fusion has experienced > from the physicists. > > Mark > > > ________________________________________ > From: Wm. Scott Smith [scott...@hotmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 3:38 PM > To: uniqueprodu...@comcast.net; vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: [Vo]:EMP & Standard N Reactors > > I am not opposed to nuclear power: I am opposed to building anything that > does not have an acceptable failure mode--a failure mode that is acceptable > despite any remotely conceivable human error or sabotage. > > If a Solar Flare Induced enough of a surge to burn telegraph wires in 1859, > that does not bode well for have a power system at all for many months, > probably years when history finally repeats itself. > > The US Nuclear Regulatory commission issued a report right after Fukushima; > it said that all of our nuclear power plants are fine in a power failure, as > long as outside power is restored to them within a day. This assumes that the > diesel generators function. ---But will any instrumentation or control > circuits be left? Have these plants and all critical components been hardened > against emp? We all "know" that they "must be prepared!" but then . . . the > Japanese thought they knew that their reactors could withstand all possible > earthquakes and tsunamis. > > Visualize every nuclear reactor on Earth "Going Fuku" at the same time!!! > > Scott > > ________________________________ > From: uniqueprodu...@comcast.net > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: FW: [Vo]:Putting the nuclear debate into perspective > Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 15:09:15 -0600 > > Agree. It is these unjustified upper limits on radiation and chemical toxins > that put huge undue costs on society. Cancer risks are lower with hormetic > levels of radiation, optimized at no less than 100 mSv/yr. 100 to 1000 mSv > spread over the year's time stimulates the immune and DNA repair mechanisms, > reduces neoplasms. Higher radon levels in house reduces (!) lung cancer > incidences. > http://www.radpro.com/641luckey.pdf > http://radiationhormesis.vpinf.com/ has links > > Whether LENR turns out to be more economic than fission plants will be seen. > The small modular buried fission plants coming up are more costly per KWh > than traditional large fission plants, but can be located close to the load > in each city. These may have an important interim future (misguided greens > and reluctant regulators notwithstanding.) > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Alain Sepeda<mailto:alain.sep...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 1:03 PM > Subject: Re: FW: [Vo]:Putting the nuclear debate into perspective > > where did you get that numbers. > probably bad usage of the false no threshold linear law, that green abuse > despite it is proved false since long. > > the estimated death toll, taking into account > - the fast response > - the facts that even the worst evacuated zone don't cause more tha > 30mSv/year and that small long term effect start from 200mSv fast dose for > adult, and 100mSv fast dose for kids > - the fact that only few workers get less than 1Sv (level where short terme > effet appears, better cured today that in the 50s), about 600mSv > - the fact that in tchernobyl the main health problem where family violence, > alcoolism, suicide, caused by stress of moving, and fear or radiation, with a > rate of 1000 suicide, plus violences... > - the fact that the main radiation death were 10-20% of the few hundred > suicide firemen that receive many Sv, yet survive (if you survive after 2 > month, the only risk then are cancer, but about 15%more cancer per sievert) > - then few of the thousands of kids with 131iode inudced thyroid cancer > (amplified by late evacuation, and malnutrition ) > is > 0 in the population because of radiation (no effect, even hormesis to be > expected) > 0.1 in the workers because of the cancer induced (1Sv induce 5% death by > cancer, 600mSv much less, few workers concerned) > many thousands of suicide because of traumatic syndrome, linked to tsunami, > death of all their family (28000 dead because of living near the sea. we > should shutdown the sea), forced evacuation and moving,loss of their jobs and > family history ans possesions... > many more thousands dead because alcoholism and family violence. > > maybe the death toll, of fukushima but much even more of the tsunami, could > be reduced by cleaning the zone, occupying the victims in that big heroic > mission, and then letting them settle back when they feel safe. > it seems to be what they are doing, cleaning , measuring dose, even thinking > about robotized farming in the tsunami washed zone. > when numbers will be published people will understand that the fear is over... > > anyway nuke will be dead, because lenr is cheaper. > > sorry to be rough, but here we can talk of scientific data rejected by the > media, yet validated by peer review. > > > 2012/1/28 Mark Goldes > <mgol...@chavaenergy.com<mailto:mgol...@chavaenergy.com>> > > ________________________________________ > From: Mark Goldes > Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 9:55 AM > To: Yamali Yamali > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Putting the nuclear debate into perspective > > The eventual death toll from Fukushima is estimated to reach as high as one > million. The Northern Lights are particularly beautiful lately for a little > recognized reason. Here are some comments from the nuclear scientist who > publishes pissinontheroses.com<http://pissinontheroses.com> > > "The recent solar event will interact with high atomic weight fallout (both > radioactive and NON-radioactive) in the upper atmosphere and produce a > witches' brew of new radioactive fallout via nuclear spallation processes.” > > "Experts" are starting to get a glimpse into how little they know about the > witches' brew coming out of Fukushima. Today's revelation is that > FukushimaUranium is forming Bucky Balls via the action of salt water. > > So what is so bad about Radioactive Uranium Bucky balls? Well, picture some > one throwing very fine, non caking, radioactive "talcum powder" into the air; > that in essence is the outcome of this finding. > > But it gets worse, imagine that radioactive "talcum powder" behaving and > dispersing the exact same way when thrown into the water. > > But it gets worse, notice in the picture above that the Buck Ball is actually > a cage, now picture plutonium atoms trapped inside that cage. > > But it gets worse, now picture how much greater a target these Bucky Balls > are for spallation in the upper atmosphere. > > What this finding means is that ALL the dispersion models are wrong, and NOT > in the good way. It also means that the internal impact and damage from > inhaling or consuming these particles is far greater than would otherwise be > expected. However, don't expect the "it's safe" mantra to change. > > If you want to even begin to have an idea how bad this situation is, Google > the medical effects of Nano Particles(and remember they are discussing > NON-Radioactive nano-particles) > > Mark > > ______________________________________ > From: Yamali Yamali [yamaliyam...@yahoo.de<mailto:yamaliyam...@yahoo.de>] > Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 2:47 AM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Putting the nuclear debate into perspective > > Sorry - answered to the wrong mail at first. > > > the standby diesel generators depend upon the grid > > They don't. The whole point about diesel backup power is that the grid might > be unavailable. Fukujima happened because the diesels were damaged (strange > idea, in hindsight, to place them so close and relatively unprotected to the > waterline) and they shut down the nuclear reactors rather than leaving them > running to provide power for continuous operation. But I see Jed's point > about feasability in general. Human error will always happen and can never be > ruled out - so sooner or later something like this is bound to happen again. > It'll be slightly different, of course, and the lessons learned will be > different, but eventually it'll happen. > > The thing I don't like about the nuclear discussion is that its often totally > out of perspective. People talk about Fukujima (which, afaik, didn't cause > any deaths) and forget the earthquake itself. I got in a discussion about > nuclear energy recently with somebody who's major argument was that "20.000 > dead people in Japan are enough". She seriously thought they were caused by > radiation rather than water or fallen ceilings. > > Our government ordered a "stress test" on all our plants (in Germany they're > all along streams rather than the coast) in the aftermath of Fukujima. One of > the scenarios was the simulation of a quake causing a broken dam upstream > from a plant. They did fairly well in the simulation - but the point is that > the worst case scenario would still have caused more than a million deaths. > All from the tidal wave washing downstream through narrow, densly populated > valleys - none from radiation. Yet the conclusion was to get rid of nukes as > fast as possible and (counter intuitively) subsidize alternatives like > building more nice green and politically correct dams and large pump hydro > storage plants... oh well. > >
