Japanese earthquake / tsunami discussion

andrew · 25-04-2011 06:17PM

Coles wrote: »

YOU don't think it really matters? Some anonomous contributor on Boards.ie called 'Andrew' says ingesting radionuclides into the body 'doesn't really matter'. Perhaps you would/could/should provide a link?

Right. Lets take a look at the article which started this off shall we? "36.3 becquerels of radioactive iodine per kg" were found in the breast milk. Now, what effects does radioactive Iodine have?" Well, as you can read yourself, Iodine can accumulate in the Thyroid and cause Thyroid cancer. Oh noes! Well, it's a good thing that a simple dose of non Radioactive Iodine can pretty much prevent that problem. Whew. But wait! What if the worst case scenario happens, and the babies develop Thyroid cancer? Luckily, Thyroid cancer has once of the best prognosis' of all cancers. So, the absolute worst case scenario here is that a Baby gets Thyroid cancer because of the Breast milk, and even then, chances are it'll survive. But hey, no one likes to get the Big C, right? Well it's a good thing, then, that 33 Beq isn't enough to be dangerous. How do I know this?

Well, lets do a bit of critical reading, a bit of basic reading comprehension from the article. "The breast milk readings were below the safety limit of 100 becquerels per kg of tap water consumption by infants under one year of age." This would seem to indicate that the levels of Iodine are harmless. Why? Well, as link explains, when determining how much of something is safe to eat, a "a large safety margin" is incorporated into what is deemed acceptable doses. Now I know that this is an EU site, but unless the Japanese have their own wacky food safety ways, it's not much of an assumption to make that the Japanese safety limits are the same.

But of course, as you mentioned, perhaps that safety limit is a bit off. Heck, for all we know the Japanese are complete spas and are completely wrong. So lets do some calculations. According to this factsheet, upon ingestion, exposure to the thyroid from ingesting Iodine-131 is 0.000000476 Sv/Bq. Multiply this by 36.3 and you get 0.00001727 Sv, or 17.27 μSv . So, if the babies were to drink a Kilo of breast milk, they would be exposed to 17.27 μSv of Radiation. It's difficult to find data on the exact treshold at which Iodine-131 causes Thyroid cancer in children. Given there are so many factors at play, there probably isn't even a set threshold. However, according to this, "there is a significant increase in the incidence of cancer among atomic bomb survivors exposed to doses between 5 and 150 mSv (mean dose, 40 mSv).... a recent study of 400,000 radiation workers in the nuclear industry who were chronically exposed to an average dose of 19.4 mSv showed a significant association between radiation dose and all cancer... there were only 17 thyroid cancer cases, and only lung cancer (1447 cases) showed a dose-response relationship." Since 17.27 μSv is significantly lower than 5 mSv we can finally conclude that the 17.27 μSv accruing to the child's Thyroid from exposure to 36.3 Beq of Iodine-131 in a kilo of it's mother's breast milk, is harmless. Whew.

'Nuclear choirboy'? That suggests virtue. No... I prefer the Kool-Aid reference. It more accurately reflects the inherent dangers of 'accepting an argument or philosophy wholeheartedly or blindly without critical examination'. WikiLink

It more accurately sounds retarded. And to assume I accept an argument or philosophy wholeheartedly or blindly without critical examination is a silly assumption to make. I've come to the conclusion that nuclear power is pretty safe through learning as much as I can about it.

No. I want links. I want to see the quality of the information sources the Kool-Aid gang relies on. I've already done the research.

If you have, how about you show your sources then.

Statistician · 25-04-2011 07:29PM

I've read every page of this thread since it was started. I've registered to specifically post this.

Breast milk is at the top of the food chain, so it's no surprise that this is where the contamination is concentrating. The higher up the food chain, the more that these chemicals accumulate (bio-accumulation)

With breast milk, there are the following issues:
- It's the sole food of many babies.
- These toxins gradually accumulate in the baby.
- Babies may breast feed for many months.
- This is the recorded level now. Fukushima is still sending out contamination, so expect this level to rise.

With regards 'safe level', well this is an arbitrary figure that indicates cut off point (or level of significance). For example, what is the 'safe level' of cigarette smoke? One puff is unlikely to kill you, but it does cause damage.
It's notorious difficult to design experiments to determine such levels. This is because of ethical issues (who are we going to expose), practical issues (how do we measure dosage), and confounding factors (was it the radiation or something else). This is why cigarette companies were able to continue promoting their products the way they did for so long.

So in summary, this is just a starting point. Expect this to get worse.
If you are a nursing mother, it might make sense to use UHT milk for a while. This is because it's a simple precaution, and we are not being told everything.

Coles · 25-04-2011 09:14PM

andrew wrote: »

Right. Lets take a look at the article which started this off shall we? "36.3 becquerels of radioactive iodine per kg" were found in the breast milk. Now, what effects does radioactive Iodine have?" Well, as you can read yourself, Iodine can accumulate in the Thyroid and cause Thyroid cancer. Oh noes! Well, it's a good thing that a simple dose of non Radioactive Iodine can pretty much prevent that problem. Whew. But wait! What if the worst case scenario happens, and the babies develop Thyroid cancer? Luckily, Thyroid cancer has once of the best prognosis' of all cancers. So, the absolute worst case scenario here is that a Baby gets Thyroid cancer because of the Breast milk, and even then, chances are it'll survive.

Wow! Where to start. The nuclear crisis began 6 weeks ago. The amount of radiation released was massively understated and it's too late now to take potassium iodide. And babies can't be given potassium iodide anyway. It seriously increases the risk of hyperthyroidism and brain damage for babies under 1 month of age. For that reason babies should have been immediately evacuated. Instead we've had weeks and weeks of bull**** from the nuclear industry and their Kool Aid gang of groupies saying 'there's no radiation', then 'there's a bit of radiation but it's good for you', then 'there's a fair bit of radiation but it's not bad for you', then 'ok, there's a lot of radiation but cancer can be cured!'. Your next message will be 'wow! that was a lot of radiation, but what can you do about it now?'

Andrew wrote:

But hey, no one likes to get the Big C, right? Well it's a good thing, then, that 33 Beq isn't enough to be dangerous. How do I know this?

Well, lets do a bit of critical reading, a bit of basic reading comprehension from the article. "The breast milk readings were below the safety limit of 100 becquerels per kg of tap water consumption by infants under one year of age." This would seem to indicate that the levels of Iodine are harmless. Why? Well, as link explains, when determining how much of something is safe to eat, a "a large safety margin" is incorporated into what is deemed acceptable doses. So lets do some calculations. According to this factsheet, upon ingestion, exposure to the thyroid from ingesting Iodine-131 is 0.000000476 Sv/Bq. Multiply this by 36.3 and you get 0.00001727 Sv, or 17.27 μSv . So, if the babies were to drink a Kilo of breast milk, they would be exposed to 17.27 μSv of Radiation. It's difficult to find data on the exact treshold at which Iodine-131 causes Thyroid cancer in children. Given there are so many factors at play, there probably isn't even a set threshold. However, according to this, "there is a significant increase in the incidence of cancer among atomic bomb survivors exposed to doses between 5 and 150 mSv (mean dose, 40 mSv).... a recent study of 400,000 radiation workers in the nuclear industry who were chronically exposed to an average dose of 19.4 mSv showed a significant association between radiation dose and all cancer... there were only 17 thyroid cancer cases, and only lung cancer (1447 cases) showed a dose-response relationship." Since 17.27 μSv is significantly lower than 5 mSv we can finally conclude that the 17.27 μSv accruing to the child's Thyroid from exposure to 36.3 Beq of Iodine-131 in a kilo of it's mother's breast milk, is harmless. Whew.

So given that a babies ingests almost a litre (or kilo) of breast milk per day, the baby is receiving an equivalent dose of 17.27 μSv, or .017mSv per day, right? The equivalent of 3.5 dental x-rays per day. Every day. But that's ok because we can cure cancer? And we're talking about newborn babies here. Your tissue dosage numbers are based on adults, not on newborn babies. That is utterly absurd.

And 0.017mSv per day is 6.2mSv per year. A similar dose to the adult Atomic Bomb survivors and nuclear industry 'radiation workers'.

Andrew wrote:

Now I know that this is an EU site, but unless the Japanese have their own wacky food safety ways, it's not much of an assumption to make that the Japanese safety limits are the same.

But of course, as you mentioned, perhaps that safety limit is a bit off. Heck, for all we know the Japanese are complete spas and are completely wrong.

The language you use suggests that life has yet to leave it's impression on you. That's nice. I wish I still had the innocence of youth too.

The nuclear industry is crucial to Japan, and while no doubt they wish to protect their citizens, they will also protect the nuclear industry.

On April 19th, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) notified the Board of Education and related institutions in Fukushima Prefecture the level of 20 milli-sievert per year (mSv/y) as a Radiation Safety Standard for schools in Fukushima Prefecture. This is the standard to be used for school grounds and buildings. The Government has indicated that 20 mSv/y is equivalent to 3.8 micro-sievert per hour (μSv/h) measured outdoors.

3.8 μSv/h is roughly 6 times the standard for “Radiation Controlled Areas” (0.6 μSv/h or more). The Labour Standards Act prohibits those under the age of 18 from working under these conditions. Forcing children to be exposed to such radiation doses is an exceedingly inhumane decision. Therefore, we condemn this in the strongest terms.

20 mSv/y is comparable to the [legally] recognized dose for inducing leukemia in nuclear power plant workers. It is also comparable to the maximum dose allowed for nuclear power plant workers in Germany.

In addition, this 20 mSv standard [for Japanese children] does not take into account the fact children have higher sensitivity to radiation than adults, nor does it take into account any internal radiation exposure.

Link

Andrew wrote:

I've come to the conclusion that nuclear power is pretty safe through learning as much as I can about it.

Your brain is full? You've reached your intellectual limit? :P

Coles · 25-04-2011 09:33PM

Statistician wrote: »

So in summary, this is just a starting point. Expect this to get worse.
If you are a nursing mother, it might make sense to use UHT milk for a while. This is because it's a simple precaution, and we are not being told everything.

Couple of points.

It's not a problem in Ireland so nobody here should worry. I-131 is unlikely to become a problem here because of the short half life and vast distance between us and Japan.

I-131 is not a problem for breastfeeding mothers in Japan if they are made aware of the issue. Expressing breast milk and freezing it for a few weeks will eliminate 75-80% of any contamination.

Breast milk is essential for newborn babies and greater harm would likely be done by not breast feeding.

andrew · 25-04-2011 09:45PM

Coles wrote: »

Wow! Where to start. The nuclear crisis began 6 weeks ago. The amount of radiation released was massively understated and it's too late now to take potassium iodide.

Source/link?

And babies can't be given potassium iodide anyway. It seriously increases the risk of hyperthyroidism and brain damage for babies under 1 month of age.

That's just babies under 1 month. The rest can then I presume? Also, Link? According to this, "Neonates (babies under one month) ideally should receive the lowest dose (16 mg) of KI," so it would appear that babies can take Iodine. Remember too that, so far, less than 50% of women tested had these radiation levels in their milk.

For that reason babies should have been immediately evacuated. Instead we've had weeks and weeks of bull**** from the nuclear industry and their Kool Aid gang of groupies saying 'there's no radiation', then 'there's a bit of radiation but it's good for you', then 'there's a fair bit of radiation but it's not bad for you', then 'ok, there's a lot of radiation but cancer can be cured!'. Your next message will be 'wow! that was a lot of radiation, but what can you do about it now?'

Links showing when each of these things were said? As far as I can tell, the only thing that has been said is that there's a bit of radiation, but it's not bad for you. And I didn't say 'it's ok cos we can cure it,' I was saying that even in the worst case scenario, it's not as bad as it seems. Two completely different things.

So given that a babies ingests almost a litre (or kilo) of breast milk per day, the baby is receiving an equivalent dose of 17.27 μSv, or .017mSv per day, right? The equivalent of 3.5 dental x-rays per day. Every day. But that's ok because we can cure cancer? And we're talking about newborn babies here. Your tissue dosage numbers are based on adults, not on newborn babies. That is utterly absurd.

Clearly, I didn't say that 'its ok because we can cure cancer,' see above. So, at worst, at absolute worst, if the baby's feeding at maximum capacity, they'll get that dose. I know that babies are more susceptible to radiation; if you can show that 0.017 mSv is harmless in adults but suddenly very harmful in babies, please do; if you can show that my calculation is 'utterly absurd,' please do.

And 0.017mSv per day is 6.2mSv per year. A similar dose to the adult Atomic Bomb survivors and nuclear industry 'radiation workers'.

That assumes the baby is consuming this breast milk every day for a year, which is very unlikely. Also, according to this, radiation workers have a limit of 20 mSv per year.

Coles · 25-04-2011 10:25PM

andrew wrote: »

That assumes the baby is consuming this breast milk every day for a year, which is very unlikely.

Is it? TEPCO are admitting that it could be the new year before they even get control on the reactors, so it's just as likely to get worse.

And some babies feed on breast milk for well more than year.

Some for way longer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q3Dd0F36v4
Harvey and Jane Meet the Parents - Little Britain

Rob A. Bank · 26-04-2011 05:06AM

They only tested for radioactive I-131 in breast milk... who knows what other radioactive alphabet soup is there also.

But thats all ok... according to the cancer loving misanthropes who appear to be prepared to sacrifice even the most vulnerable in society on the altar of nuclear power.

:mad:

Rob A. Bank · 26-04-2011 05:16AM

The World Health Organisation Gagged.

The World Health Organisation makes some very useful contributions to human health… except when it comes to the dangers of radiation.

This is what they said about radiation in the 1950s…

“The genetic patrimony is the most precious possession of mankind. It determines the life of our descendants, the healthy and harmonious development of future generations. In our capacity as experts we affirm that the health of future generations is threatened by the growing development of the atomic industry and by the sources of radiation…We hold that the new mutations that will appear in human beings will be ominous for them and for their descendants."

In 1959 the IAEA managed to make the WHO sign an agreement (law WHA12.40 of 05-28-1959) in which the silence concerning the effects of radiation on human health was extended worldwide. In practice the agreement prevents the WHO from publishing data or studies that could damage the image of the IAEA.

More info here on how the IAEA has effectively gagged the WHO from telling the truth about the health risks of radiation…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/28/who-nuclear-power-chernobyl

Statistician · 26-04-2011 01:31PM

Couple of points.

It's not a problem in Ireland so nobody here should worry. I-131 is unlikely to become a problem here because of the short half life and vast distance between us and Japan.

I-131 is not a problem for breastfeeding mothers in Japan if they are made aware of the issue. Expressing breast milk and freezing it for a few weeks will eliminate 75-80% of any contamination.

Freezing the breast milk is an interesting solution. However, breast milk is dynamic, and the composition changes with the baby's needs. For I-131, you'd need to freeze it for 80 days. What does the baby drink in the meantime?

I-131 is just one radionuclide being released. I would also be worried about Cs-137. This has a half-life of 30 years. You'd have to freeze the milk for 300 years to be on the safe side.

The big problem here is that we are not being told the full story. With Chernobyl, land was contaminated in patches, depending on rainfall. So areas of Scotland and Wales were contaminated, but much closer areas were okay.

It's easier for nursing mothers to try to avoid contamination in the first place by drinking UHT milk, made before Fukushima happened.

drdeadlift · 26-04-2011 02:10PM

Statistician wrote: »

Freezing the breast milk is an interesting solution. However, breast milk is dynamic, and the composition changes with the baby's needs. For I-131, you'd need to freeze it for 80 days. What does the baby drink in the meantime?

I-131 is just one radionuclide being released. I would also be worried about Cs-137. This has a half-life of 30 years. You'd have to freeze the milk for 300 years to be on the safe side.

The big problem here is that we are not being told the full story. With Chernobyl, land was contaminated in patches, depending on rainfall. So areas of Scotland and Wales were contaminated, but much closer areas were okay.

It's easier for nursing mothers to try to avoid contamination in the first place by drinking UHT milk, made before Fukushima happened.

Well at least milk isnt a necessity.
Is the half life of sc137 30 or 300years?

Rob A. Bank · 26-04-2011 02:48PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60CWf_ECR6Q

A sobering assessment of Fukushima after six weeks of the disaster from Fairewinds Associates.

.

Rob A. Bank · 26-04-2011 03:28PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_O_EvxAIk

Advice to Fukushima parents on the 25th anniversary of Chernobyl..

Playgrounds Limited To 1 Hour Use Per Day... Wash Hands & Gargle After Leaving !

:eek:

geetar · 26-04-2011 03:43PM

Statistician wrote: »

Freezing the breast milk is an interesting solution. However, breast milk is dynamic, and the composition changes with the baby's needs. For I-131, you'd need to freeze it for 80 days. What does the baby drink in the meantime?

I-131 is just one radionuclide being released. I would also be worried about Cs-137. This has a half-life of 30 years. You'd have to freeze the milk for 300 years to be on the safe side.

The big problem here is that we are not being told the full story. With Chernobyl, land was contaminated in patches, depending on rainfall. So areas of Scotland and Wales were contaminated, but much closer areas were okay.

It's easier for nursing mothers to try to avoid contamination in the first place by drinking UHT milk, made before Fukushima happened.

the report specifically stated that no caesium trace was found.

the only source of radiation was iodine, which isnt that serious especially when its a low dosage like this.

also, id like to address a point that doesnt seem to have been pointed out.
how do you suppose the radiation got in the mothers breast milk in the first place? i assume your all familiar with the concept of mothers and children. they pretty much live in the exact same enviornment and experience the same things. if those babies had babies to breast feed, their milk would be contaminated too. the radiation is already in the infants.

this arguement is ridiculous, the article clearly stated the levels were below the safety limits.

the anti-nuclear crew are having a field day exploiting the fact that the word "radiation" and "baby" are in the same sentance. stop scaremongering and accept nuclear power for what it is, one of the few viable solutions to this worlds energy problem. fact.

Statistician · 26-04-2011 04:21PM

the report specifically stated that no caesium trace was found.

the only source of radiation was iodine, which isnt that serious especially when its a low dosage like this.

No Caesium has been found in breast milk, yet. This thing is due to go on for months, so I would not discount the possibility that Caesium will be found over the next few months.

It's up to each individual to draw their own conclusions about this. I would rather not feed a baby radioactive iodine in any quantity.

You believe this isn't a serious development, whereas I do.
There is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer here. Different people are willing to take different levels of risk.

Coles · 26-04-2011 05:01PM

geetar wrote: »

accept nuclear power for what it is, one of the few viable solutions to this worlds energy problem. fact.

It's not viable. It never was. It's economic insanity. Leave aside the emotive issues involving the environmental devastation it causes and look at the numbers. It doesn't add up. It can't even be insured. It can't deal with it's waste. It requires massive subsidies to operate and with the construction to new distributed generation and new storage technologies, coupled with a Smart Grid, it's a Dodo.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

geetar · 26-04-2011 06:12PM

Coles wrote: »

It's not viable. It never was. It's economic insanity. Leave aside the emotive issues involving the environmental devastation it causes and look at the numbers. It doesn't add up. It can't even be insured. It can't deal with it's waste. It requires massive subsidies to operate and with the construction to new distributed generation and new storage technologies, coupled with a Smart Grid, it's a Dodo.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

not true actually. its improving all the time. its not perfect and i wont pretend it is. but seriously, what the hell will we do when oil runs out? we couldnt build a wind farm big enough. nuclear has to be a sizeable chunk of our energy, mixed with others. theres no point excluding it because it gets unjust bad press. people dont understand it, and they fear it because of that (im not saying you dont).

and god forbid ireland has to improve its infrastructure to accomodate a "modern" source of power :rolleyes:. we'll just keep burning peat, well no we cant the EU wont let us in two years time. so we'll just import more oil...

uranium will eventually run out too, but it needs to be used and events like these set it back, yet statistically its much safer the any of your other fossil fuels.

anyway there was a thread about this before, we're driffting off topic, lets get back to baby milk...no wait... japan!

andrew · 26-04-2011 06:15PM

geetar wrote: »

anyway there was a thread about this before, we're driffting off topic, lets get back to baby milk...no wait... japan!

This thread is now about: breastfeeding.

Overheal · 26-04-2011 06:15PM

mufcboy1999 wrote: »

is japan actually sinking lads? is there a possibility it could completely disappear...

That was a serious question wasnt it............

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7m6aewquco

andrew · 26-04-2011 07:13PM

An Article in Livescience: Nuclear Danger Still Dwarfed by Coal

Coles · 26-04-2011 08:55PM

geetar wrote: »

not true actually. its improving all the time. its not perfect and i wont pretend it is. but seriously, what the hell will we do when oil runs out? we couldnt build a wind farm big enough. nuclear has to be a sizeable chunk of our energy, mixed with others. theres no point excluding it because it gets unjust bad press. people dont understand it, and they fear it because of that (im not saying you dont).

and god forbid ireland has to improve its infrastructure to accomodate a "modern" source of power :rolleyes:. we'll just keep burning peat, well no we cant the EU wont let us in two years time. so we'll just import more oil...

uranium will eventually run out too, but it needs to be used and events like these set it back, yet statistically its much safer the any of your other fossil fuels.

Good God!!? So that's why the Kool-Aid gang are in favour of nuclear energy?! I never realised it was that simple! You guys don't understand how the entire electricity distribution grid is going to change. You actually think nuclear is necessary!

Just watch this video and you'll start to get the picture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGk13U_kgGM&feature=player_detailpage

It's a presentation on the Smart Grid that shows how the new system will revolutionise the way in which energy is generated, distributed, stored and consumed. There are amazing opportunities for Ireland to become a world leader in the technology to achieve this , particularly on the IT end, but also by developing our off-shore wind and tidal resources. We are going to have a massive market for clean renewable energy.

Do you seriously think we should build a nuclear power station when we are surrounded by the best renewable energy resources in the world? Why the f*ck would we? A completely insane idea. Luckily it will never happen because our policy makers have finally gone to the trouble of educating themselves about a better energy future. The creation of the Smart Grid is part of the program for government, and it will become government policy.

Have a look at what is happening across Europe. (A PDF well worth looking at). The entire continent (and North Africa, and the Near East) is going to become one massive electricity grid. This will allow Wind Energy to be connected in far greater amounts because of the geographical distribution. In effect, wind energy can become the baseload for other wind energy. It will allow tidal energy to be fed in right around the Atlantic coast. It will allow Solar Power (whether PV or Solar steam turbines) to be connected in right across the Med, including North Africa. It will allow the Hydro resources of Scandinavia to be fed in. Gas powered power plants too. It will allow micro generation to be fed in on a local level and for consumption to be controlled through the Smart Grid. Of course Nuclear will play a part too, and coal, but the proportion of electricity coming from those sources will decline. Nuclear is a Dodo.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

geetar · 26-04-2011 10:58PM

Coles wrote: »

Good God!!? So that's why the Kool-Aid gang are in favour of nuclear energy?! I never realised it was that simple! You guys don't understand how the entire electricity distribution grid is going to change. You actually think nuclear is necessary!

Just watch this video and you'll start to get the picture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGk13U_kgGM&feature=player_detailpage

It's a presentation on the Smart Grid that shows how the new system will revolutionise the way in which energy is generated, distributed, stored and consumed. There are amazing opportunities for Ireland to become a world leader in the technology to achieve this , particularly on the IT end, but also by developing our off-shore wind and tidal resources. We are going to have a massive market for clean renewable energy.

Do you seriously think we should build a nuclear power station when we are surrounded by the best renewable energy resources in the world? Why the f*ck would we? A completely insane idea. Luckily it will never happen because our policy makers have finally gone to the trouble of educating themselves about a better energy future. The creation of the Smart Grid is part of the program for government, and it will become government policy.

Have a look at what is happening across Europe. (A PDF well worth looking at). The entire continent (and North Africa, and the Near East) is going to become one massive electricity grid. This will allow Wind Energy to be connected in far greater amounts because of the geographical distribution. In effect, wind energy can become the baseload for other wind energy. It will allow tidal energy to be fed in right around the Atlantic coast. It will allow Solar Power (whether PV or Solar steam turbines) to be connected in right across the Med, including North Africa. It will allow the Hydro resources of Scandinavia to be fed in. Gas powered power plants too. It will allow micro generation to be fed in on a local level and for consumption to be controlled through the Smart Grid. Of course Nuclear will play a part too, and coal, but the proportion of electricity coming from those sources will decline. Nuclear is a Dodo.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

your sir are insane.

edit: forgot to finish

i live in the 21st century. you live in la la land. if you think that grid is going up in europe anytime soon your absolutely insane. thats not the solution to our problems. that thing will never emerge. its an interesting pipe dream.

if you read what i said earlier you would see that i dont think nuclear energy should be our sole energy supply, but it should be one of our main ones. we do have excellent resources as far as renewable energy is concerned, but we cant supply our country entirely on wind and tidal. tidal only works in very few places in the world, ireland doesnt have many suitable areas. wind turbines need alot of space, planning etc.. but could give us a sizeable amount in the future. solar energy is seriously not suitable for this country at all.

we need a steady, reliable, cheap energy. and nuclear gives us that. yes tap into mother nature blah blah blah, i agree its their to be used. but we cant harness enough, and anyone who says otherwise is living in a dream land.

vibe666 · 26-04-2011 11:14PM

what the hell happened to the thread?

i go on holiday for a while and rob.a.bank & run_to_da_hills have a love child whilst i'm gone and leave him to run amok? :eek:

My name is URL · 26-04-2011 11:22PM

vibe666 wrote: »

what the hell happened to the thread?

i go on holiday for a while and rob.a.bank & run_to_da_hills have a love child whilst i'm gone and leave him to run amok? :eek:

You should write a sitcom about it.. more people would give a shit

Coles · 26-04-2011 11:34PM

The latest Fairewinds presentation.

Fuel Pool at Reactor 3 may have experienced a 'Prompt Criticality' (a nuclear explosion) that launched the fuel pool rods of plutonium into the atmosphere. Not a 'hydrogen explosion'. The more that is revealed about this disaster the more unbelievably serious it is.

Coles · 26-04-2011 11:39PM

@Geetar, I appreciate your posts but you're not even wrong. If you had a clue about this subject you would be. You're just mistaken.

geetar · 27-04-2011 12:05AM

Coles wrote: »

@Geetar, I appreciate your posts but you're not even wrong. If you had a clue about this subject you would be. You're just mistaken.

no id actually prefer if you said i was wrong, considering i do have a clue. quite a big clue actually

you can be dismissive all you like, and pretend that all us crazy nuclear lovin people are crazy and narrow minded, when in reality its the other way around.

do you even know how nuclear power works? do you know how any power generator works? and i mean now, not after you go to wikipedia and youtube like youve done before you posted all of your earlier posts. do you know the practicality and viability of any of these renewables?

i for one do know, and im sorry if you dont. your both wrong and mistaken.

no super grid is going to be built.
and renewable energy is going to have to make way for nuclear when the time comes.

get out of your al gore hollywood ideal movie land.

europe is financially crippled, so is ireland.

Welcome to the 21st century.

Rob A. Bank · 27-04-2011 04:45AM

"The city of Koriyama, 50 km west of the nuclear plant in Fukushima Prefecture plans to remove radiation-tainted topsoil from school grounds to allow children to resume outdoor activities."

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/26_19.html

Rob A. Bank · 27-04-2011 04:49AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxUZbnlzSv0

A Japanese guy monitors radiation in Fukushema City (pop. ~300,000) on the 24th April, over 60km from the nuclear plant !

:eek:

Rob A. Bank · 27-04-2011 04:52AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmKBppL2heU

Chernobyl's wake of horrors

Photojournalist Paul Fusco documents Chernobyl’s forgotten devastation.

AskMyChocolate · 27-04-2011 05:50AM

vibe666 wrote: »

what the hell happened to the thread?

i go on holiday for a while and rob.a.bank & run_to_da_hills have a love child whilst i'm gone and leave him to run amok? :eek:

I was out having a drink the other day with a Mod of this forum, and I brought up the fact that I had found this an incredibly informative thread. I was saying how you got good scientific information from both sides of the argument.I still wasn't sure as to what was going on, as I would be sceptical of a number of news sources, and I wasn't sure if I understood it well enough.
His reply was that, he was pleasantly surprised, at how few bannings or infractions any of the Mods had to hand out. That nearly everyone that posted was genuinely concerned and didn't see this thread as a shallow one.

I went to Boardstock and donated a few quid towards the survivors of the tsunami, and had a good night into the bargain.

Japanese earthquake / tsunami discussion

Comments