Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

More nucelar power, please!

regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2009 12:12:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
It's time to start re-appraising nuclear power, and build more nuclear power plants. The worst nuclear accident in history, Chernobyl, killed 56 people. It also needed evacuation of a large area, but that was likely pointless as they were evacuated already when they had gotten most of the dose, and only 9 people have died of cancer attributable to the accident (included in the 56 above). And that evacuation wouldn't have been necessary if it, like western power plants, had a containment building.

To this we can compare the recent accident in a Russian hydro-electric power station, which killed 75, and as all hydro-electric power stations of course devastated the nature even before it was built.

It's time to recognize that power plants can be dangerous, but that nuclear power plants are not necessarily much more dangerous than other power plants. However, Nuclear power, unlike other effective power plants, does not ruin nature during normal operations. If we want to save the planet, we need more nuclear power.
So prove me wrong, then.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2009 12:17:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/30/2009 12:12:35 PM, regebro wrote:
It's time to start re-appraising nuclear power, and build more nuclear power plants. The worst nuclear accident in history, Chernobyl, killed 56 people. It also needed evacuation of a large area, but that was likely pointless as they were evacuated already when they had gotten most of the dose, and only 9 people have died of cancer attributable to the accident (included in the 56 above). And that evacuation wouldn't have been necessary if it, like western power plants, had a containment building.

To this we can compare the recent accident in a Russian hydro-electric power station, which killed 75, and as all hydro-electric power stations of course devastated the nature even before it was built.

Chernobyl caused severe genetic mutations. The malfunction of a hydro electric plant doesn't cause an area to become un-viable for hundreds of years.


It's time to recognize that power plants can be dangerous, but that nuclear power plants are not necessarily much more dangerous than other power plants. However, Nuclear power, unlike other effective power plants, does not ruin nature during normal operations. If we want to save the planet, we need more nuclear power.

I agree that we need nuclear power now, not later. And they should be on the moon!
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2009 1:07:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/30/2009 12:17:18 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Chernobyl caused severe genetic mutations.

[citation needed]

The thorough UN report done on this didn't find this. It found that 56 died. That's it.

The malfunction of a hydro electric plant doesn't cause an area to become un-viable for hundreds of years.

Neither did Chernobyl. In fact, the reason people aren't moving back any time soon is because it's now a wildlife reserve, since wildlife flourished so greatly after all the people left.

Obviously radiation had a significant effect on wildlife in the beginning, and one area of a forest, now known as the red forest, died, as an example. But radiation levels were 2006, 20 years after the accident, down to about 10-100 times average background radiation. That means 30-300 mSi per year, which can be compared to the Ramsar area in Iran, which has a natural background radiation of up to 260mSv per year, with no apparent detrimental effects to the population. [1]

The reports of horrible effects, massive cancer epidemics etc have all been speculation. What people feared or thought would happen. It turned out not to happen. It seems that small doses of radiation (100 mSv or lower) is much less dangerous that previously believed.

I agree that we need nuclear power now, not later. And they should be on the moon!

That would be rather useless.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
So prove me wrong, then.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2009 1:17:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/30/2009 1:07:55 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/30/2009 12:17:18 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Chernobyl caused severe genetic mutations.

[citation needed]


Citation - http://www.blisstree.com...
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2009 4:09:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
While I agree that nuclear power is definitely needed, you're definitely understating the effects of the Chernobyl incident. There has been many, many genetic mutations in the region, especially concerning newborns. There was this video I saw awhile ago that illustrated this perfectly; the images haunt me to this day. I'll see if I can find it somewhere, in the meantime, this link shows some of the effects that have been noted -> http://www.sciencedirect.com...

Now, that being said, there is nothing wrong with nuclear power. Despite the inherent risk, the fact that there has only been this incident at one generating station out of the thousands that dot the world is a very, very good indication of the effectiveness of the safety systems. These systems have also improved tenfold since the Chernobyl incident which happened in the late 1980's. It is a clean energy which is a godsend in areas where hydro-electric dams and other forms of power generation aren't feasible. I say on with the nuclear energy!
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2009 6:41:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
No one seems to understand that our nuclear technology has come so far since Chernobyl and that there are so many safeguards keeping something like that from happening.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2009 11:48:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/30/2009 1:17:55 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/30/2009 1:07:55 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/30/2009 12:17:18 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Chernobyl caused severe genetic mutations.

[citation needed]


Citation - http://www.blisstree.com...

A blog post that both says that 25.000 people have dies, and admits that in fact, the UN report says that 56 people have died. She claims that the hospitals are overwhelmed by genetic mutations. Yet UN didn't find any overwhelmed hospitals. It seems to be a myth.

It's true that there was many thyroid cancers, but as mentioned only 9 have died from those. And they don't know how many of those found was caused by radiation, becuase what they did was screen everybody, and nobody has ever screened everybody in a general population for thyroid cancers. But anyway, all 9 thyroid cancer deaths have been counted into the death count of 56.

And yet again: All this could have been stopped by the simple addition of a containment building. Something all western power plants have. No democratic society is so respect-less towards it's citizens to not have a containment building today. (Early western experimental plants didn't but they learnt that lesson through lesser accidents well before Chernobyl was ever built).

If you look at the causes for the accident, you realize what an amazing amount of things was done wrong, things that all was necessary for the accident to happen in the first place.

1. The reactor design is inherently unstable. It's basically an nuclear bomb that is held back by control rods.

2. The control rods was tipped by graphite. Graphite is a moderator, and will INCREASE energy output, This means that if the reactor is increasing the output and you need to insert control rods to cool it down, you will actually first *increase* output before the control rods become effective.

3. Even worse, it has a positive void coefficient. It uses graphite for moderation (something that makes reaction happens quicker), and water for cooling. The water also absorbs neutrons and hence holds back the reaction somewhat. If the water gets so hot it starts to boil, steam bubbles are formed. Steam contains less water than liquid water and do NOT absorb neutrons very easily. This increases the effect of the power plant, making it hotter, creating more steam, increasing the effect, etc. This process will cause the reactor to go what is called "prompt critical", i.e. it can no longer be controlled.

4. The people who ran the powerplant did not know these things. They were not fully aware of the inherent design flaws.

5. Even though this design was so inherently unstable, it had safety mechanisms to stop this happening. However, the operators had disabled all the safety mechanisms in order to run a test. To see how long the reactor could be cooled if there was a total loss of power. During that test, with all safety mechanisms on, the reactor output went up. Possibly without the operators knowing. When they then shut the reactor down by inserting the control rods, the power spiked enough to create steam bubbles, causing the reactor to go prompt critical, which generated so much steam that the whole thing blew apart in a huge explosion, killing two operators.

6. And if they had a containment building, that would have been it. But they didn't.

What you learn from this is that is:

1. It's impossible to build a nuclear plant that does not fail, because human stupidity is endless. But you can make nuclear plants with a negative void coefficient. And most western plants do, because they use water not only to absorb but also moderate neutrons. That means that when bubbles form, output will SINK, not rise. The reactor can still go prompt critical, but when it does this, steam will form, and the rector will stop being prompt critical within a couple of milliseconds. This happened in December 1960 in a military plant called SL-1. The three operators died. Although there was no containment building there either, the radioactivity release was relatively small, largely because there was no damage to the building, so the reactor room contained most of the radioactivity released. Chernobyl by contrast was likely prompt critical for 13 seconds before the steam pressure got high enough to cause an explosion and blow the plant apart.

2. And, since even negative void coefficient reactors can go prompt critical, you have a containment building to stop radioactivity to get outside. And then you are in business.

3. And even if you do NONE of these things. Even if you more or less build a bomb with control rods and then put uneducated crazy people to run it, and you get the worst nuclear power plant accident in the world, even then, it's not worse than other power plant accidents.

And of course, this is even without mentioning Bhopal. After all, that wasn't a power plant.
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2009 11:57:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/30/2009 4:09:15 PM, Volkov wrote:
While I agree that nuclear power is definitely needed, you're definitely understating the effects of the Chernobyl incident. There has been many, many genetic mutations in the region, especially concerning newborns.

The serious research done on the issue claims that there are no increase in horrible mutations in the area. This may partly be because the government pressured those who was pregnant at the time into abortions, but those who refused did not have mutant babies.

There was this video I saw awhile ago that illustrated this perfectly; the images haunt me to this day. I'll see if I can find it somewhere, in the meantime, this link shows some of the effects that have been noted

Yes, Thyroid cancers. Again: This is accounted for. Nine people have died from thyroid cancers, and those are included in the 56.

These systems have also improved tenfold since the Chernobyl incident

Actually, no they haven't. They improved well before in the west, and there are several RBMK reactors in the east still running, so they haven't really improved a lot there. :-) The remaining RBMK reactors should be shut down of course.

But you are right in that Chernobyl shows how many thing you need to do wrong before something bad happens. But it also shows that no matter how many things needs to go wrong, they will. But a containment building would have stopped the radioactivity, and even without it, the disaster turned out to be much smaller than thought. Radioactivity in small doses simply isn't as dangerous as expected.
So prove me wrong, then.
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 6:06:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/30/2009 12:12:35 PM, regebro wrote:
It's time to start re-appraising nuclear power, and build more nuclear power plants. The worst nuclear accident in history, Chernobyl, killed 56 people. It also needed evacuation of a large area, but that was likely pointless as they were evacuated already when they had gotten most of the dose, and only 9 people have died of cancer attributable to the accident (included in the 56 above). And that evacuation wouldn't have been necessary if it, like western power plants, had a containment building.

That is terribly insensitive and ignorant of you to play down Chernobyl such that it was a minor accident of no serious consequence. Regardless of your views on nuclear power, it is important that we recognize that Human tragedy for what it was.

First of all, I can promise you that, directly or indirectly, Chernobyl has contributed to more than 56 deaths. It caused massive amounts of radiation which polluted areas all over Europe. Furthermore, it is leaving many important things out to just list a casualty number. Many people were injured or harmed rather than actually killed. Also, thousands of people were displaced as a result of the event.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 6:08:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 6:06:59 PM, Harlan wrote:
At 8/30/2009 12:12:35 PM, regebro wrote:
It's time to start re-appraising nuclear power, and build more nuclear power plants. The worst nuclear accident in history, Chernobyl, killed 56 people. It also needed evacuation of a large area, but that was likely pointless as they were evacuated already when they had gotten most of the dose, and only 9 people have died of cancer attributable to the accident (included in the 56 above). And that evacuation wouldn't have been necessary if it, like western power plants, had a containment building.

That is terribly insensitive and ignorant of you to play down Chernobyl such that it was a minor accident of no serious consequence. Regardless of your views on nuclear power, it is important that we recognize that Human tragedy for what it was.

First of all, I can promise you that, directly or indirectly, Chernobyl has contributed to more than 56 deaths. It caused massive amounts of radiation which polluted areas all over Europe. Furthermore, it is leaving many important things out to just list a casualty number. Many people were injured or harmed rather than actually killed. Also, thousands of people were displaced as a result of the event.

If they were smart they would have done an Indiana Jones and hidden in a lead fridge. That, like, protects you from anything.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 6:14:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/30/2009 1:07:55 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/30/2009 12:17:18 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Chernobyl caused severe genetic mutations.

[citation needed]

The thorough UN report done on this didn't find this. It found that 56 died. That's it.

A f-cking citation?! Do you really know anything about Chernobyl, man?

http://todayspictures.slate.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 6:32:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 6:08:56 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 8/31/2009 6:06:59 PM, Harlan wrote:
At 8/30/2009 12:12:35 PM, regebro wrote:
It's time to start re-appraising nuclear power, and build more nuclear power plants. The worst nuclear accident in history, Chernobyl, killed 56 people. It also needed evacuation of a large area, but that was likely pointless as they were evacuated already when they had gotten most of the dose, and only 9 people have died of cancer attributable to the accident (included in the 56 above). And that evacuation wouldn't have been necessary if it, like western power plants, had a containment building.

That is terribly insensitive and ignorant of you to play down Chernobyl such that it was a minor accident of no serious consequence. Regardless of your views on nuclear power, it is important that we recognize that Human tragedy for what it was.

First of all, I can promise you that, directly or indirectly, Chernobyl has contributed to more than 56 deaths. It caused massive amounts of radiation which polluted areas all over Europe. Furthermore, it is leaving many important things out to just list a casualty number. Many people were injured or harmed rather than actually killed. Also, thousands of people were displaced as a result of the event.

If they were smart they would have done an Indiana Jones and hidden in a lead fridge. That, like, protects you from anything.

Except lead poisoning maybe.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 6:32:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
And in the off chance anyone's serious about the moon, remember the power line issue. lol.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 11:03:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 6:06:59 PM, Harlan wrote:
First of all, I can promise you that, directly or indirectly, Chernobyl has contributed to more than 56 deaths. It caused massive amounts of radiation which polluted areas all over Europe. Furthermore, it is leaving many important things out to just list a casualty number. Many people were injured or harmed rather than actually killed. Also, thousands of people were displaced as a result of the event.

I have already answered all these points above.
So prove me wrong, then.
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2009 4:02:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The reports of horrible effects, massive cancer epidemics etc have all been speculation. What people feared or thought would happen. It turned out not to happen. It seems that small doses of radiation (100 mSv or lower) is much less dangerous that previously believed.

No, if you do the slightest amount of research you will find that mutations did occur. The link I previously provided shows numerous pictures of such mutations. It is one thing for you to play-down this catastrophe, but it is another for you to flat-out deny it's terrible consequences.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2009 4:23:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/1/2009 4:02:31 PM, Harlan wrote:
The reports of horrible effects, massive cancer epidemics etc have all been speculation. What people feared or thought would happen. It turned out not to happen. It seems that small doses of radiation (100 mSv or lower) is much less dangerous that previously believed.

No, if you do the slightest amount of research you will find that mutations did occur. The link I previously provided shows numerous pictures of such mutations. It is one thing for you to play-down this catastrophe, but it is another for you to flat-out deny it's terrible consequences.

No, it's up to you to prove that those consequences exist. The UNs research tried, but failed. Now it's your turn. A video of a random set of mutations is not proof. Mutations occur without nuclear disasters you know.

I do not play down or deny anything. But this is a question of facts, and hence the burden of proof is on you. And stop playing the "boo-hoo" emotional card, it just makes you a dick.
So prove me wrong, then.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2009 4:38:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I can't find the movie online itself, but a documentary called Chernobyl Heart (http://www.imdb.com...) shows the huge rate of mutation within the Belarusian city of Gomel, which is one of the main cities that was really affected by the incident. I would recommend watching it, if you can find it somewhere.

To be honest regebro, despite what the UN has stated (you may have done this earlier, but can you link that UN report?) in its research, there has been huge mutation rates; and these aren't the isolated cases that would be normally found. They're above-average, located in one specific area, and occurring after the incident itself. I think it is clear that Chernobyl has had a very big effect.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2009 5:28:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/1/2009 4:23:52 PM, regebro wrote:
At 9/1/2009 4:02:31 PM, Harlan wrote:
The reports of horrible effects, massive cancer epidemics etc have all been speculation. What people feared or thought would happen. It turned out not to happen. It seems that small doses of radiation (100 mSv or lower) is much less dangerous that previously believed.

No, if you do the slightest amount of research you will find that mutations did occur. The link I previously provided shows numerous pictures of such mutations. It is one thing for you to play-down this catastrophe, but it is another for you to flat-out deny it's terrible consequences.

No, it's up to you to prove that those consequences exist. The UNs research tried, but failed. Now it's your turn. A video of a random set of mutations is not proof. Mutations occur without nuclear disasters you know.

I do not play down or deny anything. But this is a question of facts, and hence the burden of proof is on you. And stop playing the "boo-hoo" emotional card, it just makes you a dick.

Yeah.. don't show you actually CARE about little kids being born deformed an all. how dare you!
The Cross.. the Cross.
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2009 5:28:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
No, it's up to you to prove that those consequences exist. The UNs research tried, but failed. Now it's your turn. A video of a random set of mutations is not proof. Mutations occur without nuclear disasters you know.

I do not play down or deny anything. But this is a question of facts, and hence the burden of proof is on you. And stop playing the "boo-hoo" emotional card, it just makes you a dick.

I posted a link to an informational presentation about chernobyl, which speaks of mutations and displays many images of said mutations. I don't have any reason to doubt this presentation. You are making the assertion that it should not be trusted, so make an argument for that, fine.

And don't try to backpaddle by saying that you "do not play down or deny anything" when you clearly stated "[the mutations] turned out not to happen."

Even though I have already cited sufficient information, I will humor you by listing others.

http://www.encyclopedia.com...

http://www.chernobyl.info...

http://www.chernobyl.info...

http://www.chi-athenaeum.org...
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2009 11:48:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/1/2009 4:38:36 PM, Volkov wrote:
I can't find the movie online itself, but a documentary called Chernobyl Heart (http://www.imdb.com...) shows the huge rate of mutation within the Belarusian city of Gomel, which is one of the main cities that was really affected by the incident. I would recommend watching it, if you can find it somewhere.

A documentary does not show this, you need to actually do research and show that mutations are higher there. And preferably explain why the UN research did not know about this, which seems highly unlikely.

I started looking at the documentary. It starts with claiming that 13.000 of the liquidators dies, which is not true and that the population has an exposure to radiation 90 times higher than Hiroshima, which also is not true. And I stopped when it says "None was more effected than the children". You need to watch some classic South Park, like South Park the Movie, and the episode "Child Abduction Is Not Funny". "Won't anybody think of the Childreeeeeen!" is a cheap trick to make all those who argue that you are wrong look like bastards, used only by those who know they are wrong.

To be honest regebro, despite what the UN has stated (you may have done this earlier, but can you link that UN report?) in its research,

Press release with summary:
http://www.iaea.org...

The 55 page digest: http://www.iaea.org...

I can't find the full 600 page report online.

there has been huge mutation rates; and these aren't the isolated cases that would be normally found. They're above-average, located in one specific area, and occurring after the incident itself. I think it is clear that Chernobyl has had a very big effect.

And if this is the case, why does the UN researchers not know about this?
I think this quote is very relevant here:

"However, widespread expectations of ill health and a tendency to attribute all health problems to exposure to radiation have led local residents to assume that Chernobyl-related fatalities were much higher."

People in Ukraine have a tendency to blame every health problem on Chernobyl. This is normal and expected behaviour. This does not mean it's Chernobyls fault.

It's also quite clear that you base your position on a sensationalist movie that simply isn't reliable.
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2009 11:57:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/1/2009 5:28:29 PM, Harlan wrote:
I posted a link to an informational presentation about chernobyl, which speaks of mutations and displays many images of said mutations. I don't have any reason to doubt this presentation.

Yes you do. The fact that actual formal research don't find any increased rate in mutations. And sad images of mutations is not scientific evidence, it's emotional terrorism.

And don't try to backpaddle by saying that you "do not play down or deny anything" when you clearly stated "[the mutations] turned out not to happen."

Yes. So show that they did. By reliable scientific sources.

http://www.encyclopedia.com...

"Genetic mutations" here is likely to refer to mutations of inactive genetic material. Such mutations has indeed increased, but there is no indications that this actually has any health effects.

http://www.chernobyl.info...
http://www.chernobyl.info...

That site claims mutations and still births rose in GERMANY. This although areas who has much higher fallouts did not record anything like that. That seems highly unlikely.

http://www.chi-athenaeum.org...

Childrens art. Yeah, THAT is a reliable source of scientific information.
So prove me wrong, then.