well the media is probably mostly to blame since they have been sensationalizing the hell out of this disaster to begin with for instance only showing the video of the worst damaged areas. and talking about the deadly deadly radiation...that no one has died from. And hell people live around Chernobyl with no ill effects and wasn't that supposed to be uninhabitable for 10000 years or something like that.
why do people suddenly fear nuclear power plants?
- Thread starter Wintermoot
- Start date
Recommended Videos
SSSHHHHH.... don't let the hippies know they'll blow up all of our power plants.Snowalker said:
Actually, I'm trying to make 2 arguments. Probably why my posts are confusing.keinechance said:
My first argument is that correlation does not imply causation. Just because the cancers are occurring around the reactors does not mean the reactors are the cause. It could any number of reasons for the increased cancer rate. The fact that many of the German reactors (and thus, the samples used for the study) are built near major industrial centers, for instance.
My second argument is, if leukemia IS caused by your proximity to a reactor, then there either has to be some reason other than radiation, as it has been proven time and time again that the rad dosage you'd get from standing next to a typical reactor for a year is less than what you get from eating bananas, or that the reactors in Germany are leaking unsafe levels radiation that somehow noone managed to notice.
Even if it's extreme scenarios, the simple fact that extreme scenarios do happen and a meltdown adds radioactive disaster to catastrophic injury is reason for pause. Add the additional details that we have no idea how to properly dispose of nuclear waste and there is already a lot of nuclear material unaccounted for due to the arms race of the 20th century, you'd see why people who aren't fans of losing their hair and ability to reproduce are nervous.
The problem with nuclear power is that yes, it probably will be an obligatory action as our fossil fuel reserves dwindle and the people in charge of alternate energy sources get fucked because the country that controls most of the wealth isn't on board no one focuses on how to deal with the problem. Until we come up with an effective method to dispose of nuclear waste, i'm not giving full support to the fucking system. High risk/high reward is a concept i'm familiar with, and not one i'll go through with when people seem to completely ignore why it's high risk.
The problem with nuclear power is that yes, it probably will be an obligatory action as our fossil fuel reserves dwindle and the people in charge of alternate energy sources get fucked because the country that controls most of the wealth isn't on board no one focuses on how to deal with the problem. Until we come up with an effective method to dispose of nuclear waste, i'm not giving full support to the fucking system. High risk/high reward is a concept i'm familiar with, and not one i'll go through with when people seem to completely ignore why it's high risk.
Then I can think of no more arguments.SilentHunter7 said:
If NPP's are not the cause, although the studys seems to imply it, then I guess we have to find another cause.
Well, beacuse a nuclear power plant exploding is a more extreme situation than an earhtquake.henritje said:
Then I guess the only way to make the world a better place is to turn it into a radioactive wasteland.Snowalker said:
Seriously though, I don't think you can use this example so easily.
The animals that move through the area, or only stay there for a limited time, have a lower exposure, but even they are contaminated to a degree. And they will continue to increase this contamination as they live of the contaminated lands, and eat other contaminated animals. Now the question is, how this will turn out in the long run. Are they able to live with the radiation? Yes they can, but so can humans, like the people of hiroshima and nagasaki. Are they "healty" while doing so? I doubt it.
What the hell do you consider the long run? How is 20 years short term. Yeah, they mentioned that in the article that the ones that move in and out have lower exposure, but you failed to mention the fact that the cows living there, not moving in and out, are actually doing quite well. And the rats that took a major beating are also starting to come back. What more proof do you need? Yeah, the shrubs are kinda fucked up, but considering, they should be dead.keinechance said:
P.S. I'm not actually saying we should blow up the reactors, I'm just saying the effect aren't as profound as people believe.
If people "had" to live there, living in and of that contaminated zone, I think the effects would be quite profound.Snowalker said:
At your comment seems realistic, but solar power is barely profitable as it is without government "encouragement". Hydroelectric, Coal (for now), and Nuclear are the only ones competitive enough (cost per kilowatt hour) to survive in the long haul.theultimateend said:
...Then there would have been a series of colossal explosions and massive toxic fires from the giant banks of batteries used to store power for use at night.GonzoGamer said:
And for the other option, tidal, how many people do you think an offshore tidal battery would kill when a tsunami threw it inland?
I did not know that. I knew that the increase of the richter scale is geometric, so the increase from 3-4 is less than from 6-7, but exactly what that equals I had no idea. Guess your right, if that ever happens we will have bigger problems:sRAKtheUndead said: