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 [[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 3:38 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] 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: [email protected] To: [email protected] 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:[email protected]> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> ________________________________________ 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 [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 2:47 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 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.
