Dreams-Visions said:Let nuclear war never touch this world.
Again you mean?
Dreams-Visions said:Let nuclear war never touch this world.
As far as I'm aware, nuclear power is very safe now, and even safer because of Chernobyl and further advancements in technology, best practices and regulation. We should be scientifically sure that this wouldn't happen again for us to keep using it.FStop7 said:An expression of arrogance like this is often what immediately proceeds a complete fucking disaster that is later described as having been "unforeseen".
That's a good point and I can't find any scientific studies with all the methods laid out that measure the malaria rates in sri lanka 50 years ago but I can find several news articles on malaria that mention the malaria rates going from 2.5 million annually in the 1950's to the low double digits in 1961-62 when it was at the record low in ceylon (sri lanka now). According to those same articles, when they banned it in 1964, it went back up to 2.5 million cases a year by 1969.CrunchyFrog said:I will admit to not knowing 100% about this subject, but if you're gonna go through the trouble of making a lengthy in-depth post and use "statistics," back them up please. Do you have a link to/written source for these numbers? Who conducted this survey, is the testing entity a credible one? 2.5 million cases over what period before? 31 cases over what period afterward? Did these statistics control for cyclic epidemics, mosquito breeding/migration patterns, mosquito population, weather conditions, other environmental/behavioral contributing factors? And what about anthropological factors/behaviors? Going on these numbers alone it's a classic case of correlation being mistakenly interpreted as causation, and likely out of proportion. Don't take it personally, I just hate when people throw out numbers all willy-nilly without providing some scientific context or background.
MNC said:This thread piqued my interest and I went on to look for more things Chernobyl
http://todayspictures.slate.com/inmotion/essay_chernobyl/
It depressed me quite a bit; though I recommend going through it in full. It's a slideshow with commentary about chernobyl and its consequences.
Kurtofan said:Shit like that won't happen with our regulations.
No it shouldn't, but unfortunately when people use fear, distrust or conspiracies to campaign against a subject, it's a steep hill to recover if a person falls for it. Case in point, the loons against vaccines.Pseudo_Sam said:It was a terrible accident, but it shouldn't deter people from using nuclear power.
Yep, it might have ruined some. Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but you can see the effects of the radiation on the film by the white bands at the bottom of the first photo in the OP.TheSeks said:Better question is: Wouldn't the radiation have killed the film?
My disagreement (and I guess many others share the same line of thought) is not about if it is dangerous or not, if it is the definitive energy solution or not. It's about using fear as an argument to not pursue, understand and improve our knowledge/use about something.Keio said:I do understand the techno-utopian vision of a green nuclear society, but right now the reality is problematic in many ways.
Just looking at this list and the clusterfuck that is the Finnish Olkiluoto 3 project - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world's_most_expensive_single_objects - costing billions, still very much behind schedule due to manufacturing errors and mismanagement. A great read about it is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html
Now mining for uranium and the problem of nuclear waste show that it's not the end-all solution for our energy woes that will intensify.
Chernobyl is a good reminder that the human fallibility is always there. The Deepwater Horizon was never meant to burn & sink either, but what happened? I think that's a very valid comparison.
Yep. On the Discovery Channel documentary it is shown that the radiation affected the film.PistolPete said:Yep, it might have ruined some. Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but you can see the effects of the radiation on the film by the white bands at the bottom of the first photo in the OP.
Poor guys on the roof. They probably had no idea they were going to die.
I would hope so. Still, the failures made with the concrete, with the welding, with pretty much everything don't instill much confidence in the project.FlashFlooder said:Olkiluoto 3 is the very first build of a completely new design. It's just like manufacturing, where the prototype always costs billions. It is not surprising that it would be over budget and over schedule. They take all the lessons they learn while building this one to improve on the process.
Here I completely agree. The "think of Chernobyl" arguments are not constructive, but then again not are the techno-utopias painted by the nuclear lobbyists. Chernobyl exists as a good reminder of what happens in a text book "everything fails" scenario, but it is a highly improbable event to repeat.Youta Mottenai said:My disagreement (and I guess many others share the same line of thought) is not about if it is dangerous or not, if it is the definitive energy solution or not. It's about using fear as an argument to not pursue, understand and improve our knowledge/use about something.
I would hope so. Still, the failures made with the concrete, with the welding, with pretty much everything don't instill much confidence in the project.
And damn, safety systems are great but with people like this, you never know: Technician Mike Williams told the panel that the alarm system was turned on to monitor for fire, explosive gas and toxic gas but that its sound and light alarms had been disabled. Williams testified that he had asked before about the settings and was told the company didn't want a false alarm waking people at night.
FlashFlooder said:^here in the US, nuclear waste is encased in lead and concrete plugs. You can basically wrap your arms around one and not get any radiation. That looks..... sketchy at best.
SteelAttack said:My knowledge in this subject is almost non existent. Has there been any recent advancement in regards to a safer disposal of nuclear waste?
Wazzim said:There is a reactor 100km from my place and I hope they close it down as soon as there is a better solution for energy.
was it not for the actions of the men in this video, things would have been much worse. They stopped some of the radiation from spreading. Most died shortly after or later on from related illnesses. My hat goes off to those brave men. r.i.p.
None, it has actually provided energy for the region.LaserBuddha said:Neat, what problems has it caused you?
Wazzim said:None, it has actually provided energy for the region.
You missed that the comment was the punchline to the story that the area is being opened up for tourism. I don't expect that anyone in their right mind would tour the area, much less people touched directly.Diablos said:No, he's someone whose family nearly stared a nuclear event right in the face. He is well aware of the risks, but quite frankly the facts speak for themselves and you shouldn't have to have a personal connection to a nuclear meltdown to understand the severe risk involved.
No, I meant what I said how I said it. When I say "nuclear war", I mean a conflict where nuclear weapons are exchanged on both sides of a battle. Not one side dropping 2. When I say Nuclear War, I think most people rightly imagine ICBM's from waring parties crossing in the air on their way to obliterate life at their respective destinations for years to come.zoukka said:Again you mean?
I couldn't help but feel sorry for them. Most of the helicopter pilots died and their efforts had no effect at all. As for the volunteers, they weren't even told what was going to happen to them, though it was well known to people in power.Kinyou said:Wanted to say something but this youtube comment took the words right out of my mouth:
And this is why we made Yucca mountain in North America. I am sure if Nuclear plants ever catch on again, the US government is going to go out of its way to get nations in South America to store its waste in Yucca mountain, someone in Washington is going to paranoid over the waste "falling into the wrong hands" or such.PjotrStroganov said:
PjotrStroganov said:
Deep in an abandoned German salt mine, barrels of nuclear waste lie in a jumbled heapuntouched since the 1970s, when this picture was taken.
MNC said:This thread piqued my interest and I went on to look for more things Chernobyl
http://todayspictures.slate.com/inmotion/essay_chernobyl/
It depressed me quite a bit; though I recommend going through it in full. It's a slideshow with commentary about chernobyl and its consequences.
Exactly. Make decisions based on scientific evidence and technical data, even monetary costs/benefits data when reasonable.Keio said:Here I completely agree. The "think of Chernobyl" arguments are not constructive, but then again not are the techno-utopias painted by the nuclear lobbyists. Chernobyl exists as a good reminder of what happens in a text book "everything fails" scenario, but it is a highly improbable event to repeat.
However, the costs of nuclear power are an interesting question. If investing the similar amount to solar/wind/hydroelectricity would bring better results etc. are relevant points to be considered.
Well, it is toxic.FlashFlooder said:I love how they put a yellow/green tinge on that picture to increase the fear factor. OMG TOXIC!
I don't believe any of them knew what they were doing or the personal consequences of their actions.shuri said:Those men sacrified their lives to stop the radiations, hoping to save the town, but frying themselves in the process. Truely tragic heroes.
No, I had an environmental science a teacher of mine who actually was able to get a tour there a few years back. Simple put, the radiation is still very high in some parts while in others it has dissipated. He said they simply walked with a Geiger counter in areas that had been deemed safe for short term exposure, and was able to see the town. I think he described the areas they could walk in as similar to the Radiation you would get while taking an international flight.Darklord said:I don't understand how you can have tours of Chernobyl these days. Surely the radiation is still way too high?
I feel so sorry for the men in that video.