OT (in some groups): The Death of Nuclear Fission Energy?

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Hunter

unread,
Mar 12, 2011, 5:41:31 AM3/12/11
to
I think we have just seen the death of nuclear fission power
unfortunately, and I thought that before the explosion at Fukushima.
Unfortunate because we need it to help ween us off fossil fuels. Now
there will be tremendous pressure to close down nuclear plants in most
places that have them if not every place they have them. Ironically this
will increase our dependence of fossil fuels and intern step up global
warming.

Three Mile Island put the break on the industry.

Chernobyl set it back even further

Fukushima I believe will end the industry.

I guess depending if no real radiation release the nuke industry can say
nature did its worst and the plants held up pretty well considering but
I think it will be just spitting in the wind.

For those reading this in rec.arts.tv expect a lot of new Science
Channel, NatGeo Channel and maybe History Channel programing within the
month.
--
----->Hunter

"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."

-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

Bubba

unread,
Mar 12, 2011, 5:24:01 PM3/12/11
to
On Sat, 12 Mar 2011, Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>I think we have just seen the death of nuclear fission power
>unfortunately, and I thought that before the explosion at Fukushima.
>Unfortunate because we need it to help ween us off fossil fuels. Now
>there will be tremendous pressure to close down nuclear plants in most
>places that have them if not every place they have them. Ironically this
>will increase our dependence of fossil fuels and intern step up global
>warming.
>
>Three Mile Island put the break on the industry.
>
>Chernobyl set it back even further
>
>Fukushima I believe will end the industry.
>
>I guess depending if no real radiation release the nuke industry can say
>nature did its worst and the plants held up pretty well considering but
>I think it will be just spitting in the wind.
>
>For those reading this in rec.arts.tv expect a lot of new Science
>Channel, NatGeo Channel and maybe History Channel programing within the
>month.

Maybe, but Peak Oil, escalating tensions in the Middle East, Africa,
Europe, the US, and elsewhere, plus the collapsing western "Prole"
economies, could altogether be a mitigating factor that keeps nuclear
power plants up and running.

--
Bub

Rick

unread,
Mar 12, 2011, 5:33:48 PM3/12/11
to

"Hunter" <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.27e517d67...@news.optonline.net...


> I think we have just seen the death of nuclear fission power
> unfortunately, and I thought that before the explosion at Fukushima.
> Unfortunate because we need it to help ween us off fossil fuels. Now
> there will be tremendous pressure to close down nuclear plants in most
> places that have them if not every place they have them. Ironically this
> will increase our dependence of fossil fuels and intern step up global
> warming.
>
> Three Mile Island put the break on the industry.
>
> Chernobyl set it back even further
>
> Fukushima I believe will end the industry.
>
> I guess depending if no real radiation release the nuke industry can say
> nature did its worst and the plants held up pretty well considering but
> I think it will be just spitting in the wind.
>
> For those reading this in rec.arts.tv expect a lot of new Science
> Channel, NatGeo Channel and maybe History Channel programing within the
> month.
> --
>

If a Jumbo jet falls out of the sky onto a densely populated urban area
causing major devastation and 1500 deaths, do you honestly believe that it
will stop people from using jumbo jets? somehow I think not.


RichA

unread,
Mar 12, 2011, 7:30:44 PM3/12/11
to

There IS no nuclear fusion, you brainless moron. FISSION is what
powers current atomic plants. Fusion may very well be a pipe-dream,
we'll know later this year when they fire up the NIF's lasers at full
power.

robertva

unread,
Mar 12, 2011, 8:04:33 PM3/12/11
to
YOU are the first to mention fUsion in this thread. I've read the OP
several times and can't find fUsion anywhere in the article OR title,
but if you are still seeing it, please point out the exact position in
the original post.

BTW fossil fuels are the remnants of ancient vegetation, which generated
sugars, starches and fibers with energy from the fUsion powered
sunlight. Of course solar power panels and the atmospheric motions
commonly referred to as "wind" derive most of their energy from the same
fUsion powered sunlight. Recent theory also atributes heavy elements
like Uranium to fUsion processes in even more ancient supernovas.

Graystar

unread,
Mar 13, 2011, 10:21:33 AM3/13/11
to

"Bubba" <Bub@ba> wrote in message
news:EAC3GSXJ4061...@reece.net.au...

I don't believe it will "end the industry" at all.
The "explosion" was deliberate. It was DESIGNED to seperate the core so that
it did not go into critical meltdown.
Well designed plants have meltdown structures that do the seperation less
<um> explosively.
That plant apparently was not built that way.
Also, most of their plants have been running for some time. Design
parameters have changed.

--
Graystar

--
So, since Japan is so close to China, would they call their meltdown a
"South America Syndrome"?
[antipodes: http://www.peakbagger.com/pbgeog/worldrev.aspx]
Must have been too hard for Jane to say "Indian Ocean Syndrome" and it
wouldn't have evoked sympathy that she had for bloody communists.

http://www.USENETHOST.com 100% Uncensored , 100% Anonymous, 5$/month Only!

Hunter

unread,
Mar 13, 2011, 7:02:11 PM3/13/11
to

-----
Oh I know that just like the Three Mile Island accident released
almost no radiation. Butt the publicity for Fukushima is bad, very
bad. An explosion at a Nuclear Reactor? On TV? All the fears,
irrational and rational will be highlighted in bright neon.

It will probably be like the Hindenburg disaster. No one was rational
and realized that the problem wasn't with the air ships it was using
hydrogen as a lifting gas that was wrong. They comparatively safe with
helium as a lifting gas (in coparison to the passenger airline planes
of the time). Regardless it was the image of a burning Hindenburg
crashing at Lakehurst, NJ destroyed the Zeppelin industry. The same
with the Space Shuttle blowing up in 1986 almost killed man space
flight.

Now we have a Nuclear Power plant blowing up on TV. Yes for now not
much radiation was released but such is the power of images.

Oh to be clear I am for nuclear fission power and hope we solve the
nuclear fusion problem soon but I am taking into account the politics
here and I don't think Now maybe there won't be a mass shutdown of
plants (except maybe in Germany, this is raw meat on a platter for
their anti nuke Protesters) but there will be tremendous pressure for
that in places deemed to dangerous for it. I can see the Californian
anti nuke people making it an issue over there and pointing to the 8.9
quake in Japan. In any case I think you can forget about new fission
plants, ever.

------>Hunter

David Johnston

unread,
Mar 13, 2011, 8:23:29 PM3/13/11
to
On Mar 13, 5:02 pm, Hunter <buffhun...@my-deja.com> (Hunter) wrote:

> It will probably be like the Hindenburg disaster. No one was rational
> and realized that the problem wasn't with the air ships it was using
> hydrogen as a lifting gas that was wrong.

Air ships wouldn't have been abandoned if they hadn't had so many
other disadvantages by comparison with planes.

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com

unread,
Mar 13, 2011, 11:42:41 PM3/13/11
to
On Mar 13, 7:02 pm, Hunter <buffhun...@my-deja.com> (Hunter) wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 08:21:33 -0600, "Graystar"
>
>
>
>
>
> <grays...@gradatimferociter.org> wrote:
>
> >"Bubba" <Bub@ba> wrote in message
> >news:EAC3GSXJ4061...@reece.net.au...
>            Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com

unread,
Mar 13, 2011, 11:42:59 PM3/13/11
to
On Mar 13, 7:02 pm, Hunter <buffhun...@my-deja.com> (Hunter) wrote:
> Butt the publicity for Fukushima is bad, very
> bad. An explosion at a Nuclear Reactor? On TV? All the fears,
> irrational and rational will be highlighted in bright neon.

No, the publicity about the nuclear plant is NOT "very bad".

What is "bad" is the news about the earthquake and tsuanmi
devastation, which both were some of the worst in recorded history.
ABC News reported tonight that all those piled up cars had dead bodies
in them. That's pretty horrific.

ABC News also reminded viewers that the earthquake rating scale is
logarithmic, and this quake was many times more powerful that other
quakes.

300 atomic bombs. _300_! That's "very bad".

ABC News has done a good job reporting on this tragedy.


> The same
> with the Space Shuttle blowing up in 1986 almost killed man space
> flight.

That's an interesting point.

The space shuttle blowing up did NOT end manned space flight. Nor did
it even end use of the space shuttle.

The Space Shuttle blowing up a _second time_ did NMOT end manned space
flight. Nor did it even end use of the space shuttle, which will
continue for a few more missions.

Likewise, coal mine disasters did not stop the mining of coal.

As another poster noted, airplane crashes have not stopped people from
flying.

Nor has earthquakes stopped people from living in earthquake zones.

As to publicity, the film, The Wizzard of Oz, didn't make living in a
tornado belt very attractive yet people still do.

We have had war on TV and it hadn't stop war.

Hunter

unread,
Mar 14, 2011, 12:34:48 AM3/14/11
to

-----
Crashing Jumbo jets don't frighten people. Radiation does. Chernobyl
does. Not being able use swathes of land for thousands of years does.
Having radiation carried for thousand of miles over other areas and
spawning cancers and birth defects does.

Again, I am actually for nuclear power, but you know the politics and
fear, rational and irrational, that it creates.

Nuke plants blowing up for any reason scare the sh*t out of people.

------>Hunter

Hunter

unread,
Mar 14, 2011, 4:04:27 AM3/14/11
to
On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 16:30:44 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mar 12, 5:41=A0am, Hunter <buffhun...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> I think we have just seen the death of nuclear fission power
>> unfortunately, and I thought that before the explosion at Fukushima.
>> Unfortunate because we need it to help ween us off fossil fuels. Now
>> there will be tremendous pressure to close down nuclear plants in most
>> places that have them if not every place they have them. Ironically this
>> will increase our dependence of fossil fuels and intern step up global
>> warming.
>>
>> Three Mile Island put the break on the industry.
>>
>> Chernobyl set it back even further
>>
>> Fukushima I believe will end the industry.
>>
>> I guess depending if no real radiation release the nuke industry can say
>> nature did its worst and the plants held up pretty well considering but
>> I think it will be just spitting in the wind.
>>
>> For those reading this in rec.arts.tv expect a lot of new Science
>> Channel, NatGeo Channel and maybe History Channel programing within the
>> month.
>> --
>> ----->Hunter
>>
>> "No man in the wrong can stand up against

>> =A0a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0-----William J. McDonald
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907


>
>There IS no nuclear fusion, you brainless moron. FISSION is what
>powers current atomic plants. Fusion may very well be a pipe-dream,
>we'll know later this year when they fire up the NIF's lasers at full
>power.

------
I said fission.

------>Hunter

Graystar

unread,
Mar 14, 2011, 1:37:51 PM3/14/11
to

<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:9bb15762-f1d1-4703...@b8g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...

Quite right on all counts.
We don't stop driving cars because car accidents happen <even horrific ones>
in spite of Algore's claims.

However, I would consider not using *mass transit* as just a sane move.
<grin>

particularly since that is what terrorists tend to target.

Graystar

unread,
Mar 14, 2011, 1:39:14 PM3/14/11
to

"Hunter (Hunter)" <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:4d7d3584...@news.optonline.net...

I would agree with you had it happened spontaneously by itself.
I think the Tsunami will damage will overshadow the event.
Also that fact that the plant was old, poorly positioned factor in the
issue.

Japan really has no choice but to use nuclear reactors
due to its size and consumption of electricity.
There are too many plants for protestors to ever win with civil
disobedience.
If they did win? the resulting chaos would destroy their culture forever.
Likely such activity will do the same wherever electricity is used.

Windmills and cow farts <ahem> just don't *cut* it. <g>

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com

unread,
Mar 14, 2011, 2:27:38 PM3/14/11
to
On Mar 14, 12:34 am, Hunter <buffhun...@my-deja.com> (Hunter) wrote:

> Crashing Jumbo jets don't frighten people.

This headline, of a crash 50 years ago, suggests otherwise:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/a/airplane_accidents_and_incidents/uaflight_826_twaflight_266/index.html?scp=9&sq=plane%20crash%20&st=cse

Note the links to numerous other articles about the crash. Something
50 years ago has left scars that still hasn't healed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/27/nyregion/healing-gash-among-brownstones-park-slope-struggles-crowd-ghosts-1960-disaster.html?ref=uaflight826twaflight266

> Radiation does. Chernobyl
> does. Not being able use swathes of land for thousands of years does.

As of this writing Japan is not Chernobyl nor is likely to get that
far.

> Having radiation carried for thousand of miles over other areas and
> spawning cancers and birth defects does.

Hasn't happened.

Bill Steele

unread,
Mar 14, 2011, 3:14:43 PM3/14/11
to
In article
<ed233275-a716-4617...@v31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

If Ronald Reagan hadn't killed all the rnewal energy initiatives
launched by the Carter administration we wouldn't even be having this
discussion.

Dano

unread,
Mar 14, 2011, 3:29:35 PM3/14/11
to
wrote in message
news:13700d81-57a5-4e2f...@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/a/airplane_accidents_and_incidents/uaflight_826_twaflight_266/index.html?scp=9&sq=plane%20crash%20&st=cse

Hasn't happened.

=======================================
I'm glad you're so certain. I don't think anyone really knows (and wouldn't
admit to it in many cases if they did) how far out the damage might appear
and in what forms. Currently the reports have THREE nuke plants in danger
of meltdown. I'm no physicist, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and
guess these circumstances are fairly unprecedented.


Rick

unread,
Mar 14, 2011, 4:27:24 PM3/14/11
to

"Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:illqao$cd1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...

I read today that it was stupid to put four reactors so close together, as
apparently if one of the damaged pressure vessels 'let's go' then it means
that the plant will have to be abandoned and the other three reactors left
to their own devices.

Dano

unread,
Mar 14, 2011, 3:29:35 PM3/14/11
to
wrote in message
news:13700d81-57a5-4e2f...@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

On Mar 14, 12:34 am, Hunter <buffhun...@my-deja.com> (Hunter) wrote:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/a/airplane_accidents_and_incidents/uaflight_826_twaflight_266/index.html?scp=9&sq=plane%20crash%20&st=cse

Hasn't happened.

=======================================

Bubba

unread,
Mar 14, 2011, 8:48:22 PM3/14/11
to

I don't remember for sure, but wasn't one of Reagan's first acts as
president to kill government assistance or tax breaks on solar panels,
passive solar, and solar power research & development?

--
Bub


hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com

unread,
Mar 14, 2011, 9:29:53 PM3/14/11
to
On Mar 14, 3:29 pm, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I'm glad you're so certain.  I don't think anyone really knows (and wouldn't
> admit to it in many cases if they did) how far out the damage might appear
> and in what forms.   Currently the reports have THREE nuke plants in danger
> of meltdown.  I'm no physicist, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and
> guess these circumstances are fairly unprecedented.

There is a HUGE difference between being "at risk" and "actually
happened". "Hunter" and others are treating this as if it actually
happened.

Brad Guth

unread,
Mar 15, 2011, 2:22:53 AM3/15/11
to

But there's really nothing wrong or lacking failsafe about a thorium
fueled reactor.

With the latest reactor failure and its exposed core of plutonium
doing its self-destruct thing, chances are that the conditions and
consequences are only going to get a whole lot worse before they get
better.

In theory, a 100% plutonium fueled reactor is technically doable.
However, should anything go the least bit wrong (such as their control
logic being infected with Stuxnet), it’s not going to end well
(especially if there’s not a 9+ seismic and tsunami bullet-proof
backup cooling system).

That MOX/plutonium fueled reactor (No.3) could become seriously
problematic, even if it were only 7% plutonium is representing an
impressive tonnage that could be a whole lot worse than Chernobyl. I
bet the locals had no real idea that a source of potentially weapons
grade plutonium was so nearby. If they were not educated before,
obviously now they know first hand what additional risks this kind of
extra potent nuclear fuel represents, and especially when the backup
systems are exposed and otherwise so easily taken out by a tsunami.

So why hasn't the public been officially notified by Japan and our DoD
that had to know the worse threat was yet to come? (“spent MOX fuel,
as it is much more radioactive and generates twice the heat of spent
uranium fuel”, so you can just imagine how extra super-hot the good
stuff is)

With any significant amount of overheated plutonium in the reactor
core that has lost it’s original fuel-rod containment integrity, all
the seawater on Earth is not going to put that kind of molten nuclear
fire out, because its heat is coming from within.

I mean to say that recycled unclear fuel is certainly a good thing
(even if it’s spendy as hell), however what exactly is Japan doing
with a fast breeder reactor that’s specifically capable of providing
or certainly capable of loosing track of potentially weapons grade
plutonium?

http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2009/04/06/Japan_pursues_plutonium-based_fuel/1602/
“After uranium is burned in a typical reactor, the spent nuclear fuel
still holds 50 percent of its potential power – 20 percent as uranium
and 30 percent as plutonium.”

“Storage and transport of the fuel also requires more care and cost to
prevent its handlers’ exposure to radiation. Another difficulty is the
handling of spent MOX fuel, as it is much more radioactive and
generates twice the heat of spent uranium fuel.”

Of course running a reactor on thorium fuel kinda eliminates any
chance of creating plutonium or need for involving plutonium, though
not that plutonium isn’t one of several methods for controlling the
heat/energy density that can be safely extracted from thorium.

By now it seems fairly obvious, having a fully reliable and failsafe
backup for control power and cooling system(s) is really more
critically important engineering than the reactor itself, because no
amount of robust reactor vessel can insure our safety without
controlled cooling, and especially if it’s running on MOX fuel and fly-
by-wire controlled.

Perhaps the French EPR reactors or ones like their Civaux Super Phenix
would offer better failsafe options.
http://hubrismachine.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/nuclear-reactor-instructions.jpg

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

Brian Lenihan

unread,
Mar 15, 2011, 8:18:33 AM3/15/11
to

He was paying back the people who got him elected.
Energy, defense and financial services industries.

--
"I don't have to practice what I preach, because I'm not preaching to ME!"

Brian Lenihan

unread,
Mar 15, 2011, 8:21:10 AM3/15/11
to

RichA will tell you what you said. He's always right. Just ask him.
He's also a well-known dick in the astronomy groups.
A nutter.

Hunter

unread,
Mar 15, 2011, 9:05:27 AM3/15/11
to

On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 20:42:59 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>On Mar 13, 7:02 pm, Hunter <buffhun...@my-deja.com> (Hunter) wrote:
>> Butt the publicity for Fukushima is bad, very
>> bad. An explosion at a Nuclear Reactor? On TV? All the fears,
>> irrational and rational will be highlighted in bright neon.
>
>No, the publicity about the nuclear plant is NOT "very bad".
>
>What is "bad" is the news about the earthquake and tsuanmi
>devastation, which both were some of the worst in recorded history.
>ABC News reported tonight that all those piled up cars had dead bodies
>in them. That's pretty horrific.
>
>ABC News also reminded viewers that the earthquake rating scale is
>logarithmic, and this quake was many times more powerful that other
>quakes.
>
>300 atomic bombs. _300_! That's "very bad".
>
>ABC News has done a good job reporting on this tragedy.

------
Well, I wasn't disputing any of that, just confining my arguments to
the sub-subject of the nuclear power plants, which are in trouble
because of the quake and tsunami. It is the over riding fear of
nuclear contamination that scares people. No other industry has that.
Only perhaps the chemical industry comes pretty close with Love Canal.

>
>> The same
>> with the Space Shuttle blowing up in 1986 almost killed man space
>> flight.
>
>That's an interesting point.
>
>The space shuttle blowing up did NOT end manned space flight. Nor did
>it even end use of the space shuttle.

-----
There was talk about it at the time. Why not just go back to unmanned
expendable and possibly cheaper rockets to deploy satellites was the
argument. The shuttle hadn't yet demonstrated its utility yet.

>
>The Space Shuttle blowing up a _second time_ did NMOT end manned space
>flight. Nor did it even end use of the space shuttle, which will
>continue for a few more missions.

----
By then the Space Shuttle demonstrated advantages that no disposable
rocket can do like return a satellite to Earth or deploy very large
payloads like the Hubble telescope and then send a repair missions to
it multiple times Also by 2003 we had other commitments like the
International Space station in delivering large components including
entire modules, supplies and crews to it. We perceived a need for it
far more in early 2003 that we did in early 1986. And yes with the
deaths of the Challenger crew we became more accepting that these
things can happen. There wasn't that psychological acceptance in 1986
when it was still relatively new system (only four years old at the
time) and its utility hadn't been so dramatically demonstrated. It was
so by the time Columbia broke apart in flight, but even then there
were some calls to end the program immediately if only because it was
old technology.


>
>Likewise, coal mine disasters did not stop the mining of coal.

------
We are more familiar with coal mining it having been around for over
200 years as an industry with all the deaths and accidents for all
that time with it; but again, it is the radiation factor of nuclear
power that people are afraid of. That is why no new reactors have been
built in the United States for over thirty years. And of course
nuclear waste which again is tide to radiation. There wasn't that
feeling with coal mines because the immediate consequences aren't that
great in comparison.

>
>As another poster noted, airplane crashes have not stopped people from
>flying.

-----
Again something we are more familiar with it and again the radiation
factor. A plane kills a lot of people one time. There is no fear of
radiation leaks rendering the surrounding landscape uninhabitable for
thousands of years or producing birth defects.

>
>Nor has earthquakes stopped people from living in earthquake zones.

------
See above about radiation. That is the fear.

>
>As to publicity, the film, The Wizzard of Oz, didn't make living in a
>tornado belt very attractive yet people still do.

------
Again, you are missing the fear factor of radiation. That has people
scared, If this was a coal or oil fired plant there would be such a
fuss with the possible exception of an oil spill but even the Gulf Oil
spill of almost a year ago didn't produce the fear a damaged blowing
up nuclear reactor does.

>
>We have had war on TV and it hadn't stop war.

------
Again you are missing the point of the fear of radiation. I keep
bringing that up because that is the central nightmare people have. If
the worse happens you wont' be able to occupy the area around
Fukushima for hundreds and maybe thousands of years to come, just like
large areas around Chernobyl including entire towns like Pripyat. That
is what people are scared off. Even if say a refinery blows up the
destruction is a very limited area even if it is does kill a lot of
people. You can clean up and go back and use the area again. In the
worse case scenario with the present crises Tokyo could probably have
to be evacuated and depending how bad not occupied again for
generations.

Once again don't get me wrong I am for nuclear fission power but those
are the fears. Even in this era of global warming people aren't
pushing for the closure of coal fired power plants but they are for
nuclear power plants, most obviously in Germany and it is the fear of
radiation. Now Fukushima has blown up three times with three
different reactors and one spent fuel rod house catching on fire as I
have written this and there is a fear of significant radiation leakage
with the site around the plant being evacated for 20 miles around.
Already Germany has gone back a bit and authorized the shut down seven
of its 17 nuclear reactors perhaps permamently. Sweden has suspended
their programs with other nations including Russia reassessing.
Rightly or wrongly the concern is going to grow.

Michael Black

unread,
Mar 15, 2011, 10:22:16 AM3/15/11
to

But wait. Wasn't "The Fusion Energy Foundation" a front for Lyndon
LaRouche? Thirty years ago, someone I knew fell for their table.

That might explain things, in respect to RichA mentioning "Fusion"
here.

Michael

Hunter

unread,
Mar 15, 2011, 11:21:37 AM3/15/11
to
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:27:38 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>On Mar 14, 12:34=A0am, Hunter <buffhun...@my-deja.com> (Hunter) wrote:
>
>> Crashing Jumbo jets don't frighten people.
>
>This headline, of a crash 50 years ago, suggests otherwise:
>

>http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/a/airplane_acc=
>idents_and_incidents/uaflight_826_twaflight_266/index.html?scp=3D9&sq=3Dpla=
>ne%20crash%20&st=3Dcse


>
>Note the links to numerous other articles about the crash. Something
>50 years ago has left scars that still hasn't healed.

>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/27/nyregion/healing-gash-among-brownstones-p=
>ark-slope-struggles-crowd-ghosts-1960-disaster.html?ref=3Duaflight826twafli=
>ght266
-----
You are missing the point No one suggested shutting down civil
aviation, just making it safer. Nuclear radiation does. 50 years after
the first jet airliners flew no one says stop it but over 50 years
after the first civilian nuclear power plants came on line there are
serious movements to shut them down. Once again why? The fear of
radiation and they have the big example of Chernobyl to stoke it, now

>
>> Radiation does. Chernobyl
>> does. Not being able use swathes of land for thousands of years does.
>
>As of this writing Japan is not Chernobyl nor is likely to get that
>far.

------
We hope. Three explosions already with hightened radiation levels
(they have lowered again so far)


>
>> Having radiation carried for thousand of miles over other areas and
>> spawning cancers and birth defects does.
>
>Hasn't happened.

----
The fact that the area around Chernobyl including entire towns are
uninhabitable is a fact. On the other hand the heath affects are
inconclusive at best. Hopefully the greatest fears won't be realized.

trigonometry1972@gmail.com |

unread,
Mar 15, 2011, 6:15:11 PM3/15/11
to
On Mar 15, 8:21 am, Hunter <buffhun...@my-deja.com> (Hunter) wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:27:38 -0700 (PDT), hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> >On Mar 14, 12:34=A0am, Hunter <buffhun...@my-deja.com> (Hunter) wrote:
>
> >> Crashing Jumbo jets don't frighten people.
>
> >This headline, of a crash 50 years ago, suggests otherwise:
>
> >http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/a/airpla...
> >idents_and_incidents/uaflight_826_twaflight_266/index.html?scp=3D9&sq=3Dpl a=

> >ne%20crash%20&st=3Dcse
>
> >Note the links to numerous other articles about the crash.  Something
> >50 years ago has left scars that still hasn't healed.
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/27/nyregion/healing-gash-among-brownst...
> >ark-slope-struggles-crowd-ghosts-1960-disaster.html?ref=3Duaflight826twafl i=

Don't forget the problem is the southern Urals due to
failed Soviet era disposal of radioactive waste. Given
what is happening with the rod storage pools of
five of these reactors, there is chance it may get pretty
bad. I am not saying it will but I worry. Perhaps Japan
will have a "hot" nature reserve? Perhaps the size of
city park or perhaps the size of a county here in the States?

With new denizens being small brained beasts due
to radiation damage...........................................Trig

Graystar

unread,
Mar 15, 2011, 9:05:40 PM3/15/11
to

"Bill Steele" <ws...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:ws21-052E05.1...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...

Right.

We all would be bankrupt and were we even still alive...
we would all be slaves.

No Body

unread,
Mar 16, 2011, 5:42:03 AM3/16/11
to

[snip]

> Again something we are more familiar with it and again the radiation
> factor. A plane kills a lot of people one time. There is no fear of
> radiation leaks rendering the surrounding landscape uninhabitable for
> thousands of years or producing birth defects.
[snip]

Fear is an interesting thing.. we will accept near lethal doses of
radation in cancer treatment, we will accept significant doses in
CT scans.. and yet some rabble rouser can come along with unfounded
fear mongering and whip people in a frenzy of irrational thought.

And they will ignore the "slow" threats like lung disease from particulates,
famine, flood and weather disasters from global warming, and the tons of
radioactive waste from coal plants, without a second thought.

Public opinion is a terrible way to do science and engineering.

Hunter

unread,
Mar 21, 2011, 4:30:37 AM3/21/11
to
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 10:22:16 -0400, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca>
wrote:

---
Nah, he just misread what I typed. We all do it from time to tme. It
is just make you look bad to insult someone like that when it is you
that made the mistake LOL!

Anyway the guy is a racist and anti-semite. That says it all.

------>Hunter

"No man in the wrong can stand up against

a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."

-----William J. McDonald

Laurie

unread,
Aug 1, 2011, 10:31:47 AM8/1/11
to
> Fear is an interesting thing.. we will accept near lethal
> doses of radiation in cancer treatment, we will accept
? significant doses in CT scans.. and yet some rabble

> rouser can come along with unfounded fear mongering and
> whip people in a frenzy of irrational thought.
Speaking of irrationality, "radiation" take three forms which are VERY,
VERY different!

Alpha, which are Helium nuclei particles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_radiation
"In general, external alpha radiation is not harmful since alpha
particles are effectively shielded by a few centimeters of air, a piece
of paper, or the thin layer of dead skin".

Beta, which is electromagnetic radiation: i.e. radio waves (AM, FM,
short wave), TV, cell phone, microwaves; ham, police, industrial, and
CB radios. Light is also electromagnet radiation, without which there
be NO life on any planet!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_radiation
"Beta particles are able to penetrate living matter to a certain extent
and can change the structure of struck molecules. In most cases such
change can be considered as damage with results possibly as severe as
cancer and death. If the struck molecule is DNA it can show a
spontaneous mutation."
"The beta particles emitted are a form of ionizing radiation also known
as beta rays". "Beta sources can be used in radiation therapy to kill
cancer cells."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation

Gamma: HIGH energy electromagnetic radiation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_radiation
"All ionizing radiation causes similar damage at a cellular level, but
because rays of alpha particles and beta particles are relatively
non-penetrating, external exposure to them causes only localized damage,
e.g. radiation burns to the skin. Gamma rays and neutrons are more
penetrating, causing diffuse damage throughout the body (e.g. radiation
sickness), increasing incidence of cancer rather than burns. External
radiation exposure should also be distinguished from internal exposure,
due to ingested or inhaled radioactive substances, which, depending on
the substance's chemical nature, can produce both diffuse and localized
internal damage. The most biological damaging forms of gamma radiation
occur in the gamma ray window, between 3 and 10 MeV, with higher energy
gamma rays being less harmful because the body is relatively transparent
to them. See cobalt-60."

Laurie

--

scientifically-credible vegan information:
www.ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science



Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages