DescentBB

Greenpeace would have you believe that Chernobyl has killed over 100,000 people, and that vast tracts of land remain utterly poisonous, and dangerous for humans. Anti-Nuclear campaigners would have you believe that these vast tracts of land will remain useless for thousands of years, and that tens of thousands of children suffer from serious burth defects as a result of the reactor #4 meltdown.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

56 people confirmed dead as a direct result of exposure to radiation, and every single one of them was on the clean up crews.

Yet more reasons to start building nuclear power stations again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/51

\"404 - Page Not Found\"

Wonder why..

Edit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5173310.stm

Edit2: Article lacks mentioning impact on the environment and secondary death toll. Here's a good start: http://www.kiddofspeed.com/

Nice post, Mobius (and you didn't even have to invoke William of Ockham.) Makes you wonder what the environmentalists' agenda really is.

Speaking of energy, what ever happened to those solar powered wind towers that roid rhapsodized about?

\"Tobacco smoking will cause several thousand times more cancers in the same population.\" BTW, Mobius, have you ever considered giving up smoking?

I'm not surprised at the exaggerated Greenpeace figures. They were built on anti-nuclear campaigns, why should they stop that now? Just because Science may be turning against them? What environmentalist group needs that?

Ya.. not suprising. They'll do whatever it takes to get what they want, but yes, to a point.

I researched these claims about 6 months ago, and determined that both sides were exaggerating the impacts of Chernobyl. No surprise there; the truth always lies somewhere in the middle. Note that there's a lot more damage from Chernobyl than just deaths, e.g., wounded and deformed people.

I learned during my years in enviro consulting that perceived risk has little to do with actual risk (e.g., most people are more scared of flying than driving). About 10 years ago, A friend told me about an old book \"The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear\" by Peter Beckman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petr_Beckmann) which demonstrated how nuclear power is not only one of the cleanest and affordable sources of power, but concerns over safety and waste storage are greatly exaggerated. While I was earning my Engineering Geology master's, the department head used to fondly recall the nuke power boom days during which EG's commanded huge salaries due to the extensive geologic studies required by the NRC when siting a plant, and cryptically added \"but they will make a comeback.\" Now it looks like even environmentalists are catching on to this: a co-founder of Greenpeace recently wrote an excellent little article in the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01209.html

Note that the although the author is a former Greenpeacer, he is now an energy industry lobbyist. Funny he didn't mention that in the article. But I still think he makes good points.

Mobius wrote:Greenpeace would have you believe that Chernobyl has killed over 100,000 people, and that vast tracts of land remain utterly poisonous, and dangerous for humans. Anti-Nuclear campaigners would have you believe that these vast tracts of land will remain useless for thousands of years, and that tens of thousands of children suffer from serious burth defects as a result of the reactor #4 meltdown.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

56 people confirmed dead as a direct result of exposure to radiation, and every single one of them was on the clean up crews.

Yet more reasons to start building nuclear power stations again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/51

I knew a family who came here from Ukraine, until several years ago they lived in a city 470kms from Chernobyl. They moved away from there because so many people around their city were getting sick etc. They all suspected it was from their soil in which they grow stuff in their backyards being rained on by Chernobyl's fallout - the isotopes being subsequently injested via the vegetable gardens they kept in their backyards.

(but i guess i don't really know how much of that is true and how much is just urban myth mixed with general population unhealthiness possibly caused by something OTHER than fallout.)

I have also seen documentarys documenting the impressively LARGE and amount of cases of childhood cancer (iirc thyroid cancers and leukemia) and odd as yet undiagnosed conditions in the fallout areas. Direct accounts, not predictions.

(but i guess that was a few years ago now i may have misremembered it, as i've had no reason to disbelieve the accounts before.)

btw, just for the "cool" factor: my grandfather was part of the occupying force of either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. I have pictures of him and his men playing football on the blast zone. They had strange stories like when they fell over playing footy their cuts didn't heal.

Anyway every single one of those men* died before their time from larynx cancer. GO AMERICA! USA! USA! USA!

* yet strangely, my grandfather still lives cancer free.

De Rigueur wrote:Speaking of energy, what ever happened to those solar powered wind towers that roid rhapsodized about?

building starts next year. Unfortunately they have been subsequently able to further develop the technology to an extent that the tower no longer needs to be so ... erectile.
it's only gonna be 400meters high now

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnviroMission

roid wrote:...Anyway every single one of those men* died before their time from larynx cancer. GO AMERICA! USA! USA! USA!...

You know america could have resisted using the nukes to end the war quickly and instead sent many hundreds times more men to their death fighting Japan using only conventional means. So I'm sorry those men died from cancer but should we have sacrificed many many more just so you wouldn't be able to irrationally complain about america?

I posted on this a few weeks back with pics... on the 20th anniversary.

The place pretty much abandonded to me. If green peace is exaggerating it isn't by a whole lot. Chernobyl was a worse case senario and certainly not a realistic possiblity in every reactor. Most of our reactors are not like that with the exeption of breeder reactors. My main concern about Nuke power is that spent fuel is stored safely. Putting spent reactor fuel in standard 50 gal drums and then burying it 30 feet under ground or in an abandonded salt mine is hardly appropriate or safe.

In Washington state at Hanford, there are LARGE underground tanks where fuel and waist were \"stored\". the stuff is er.. bubbling like crazy. the stuff is so \"hot\" that they are afraid to do anything with it. There are cameras monitoring what's going on in the tanks, but that's little concilation if they should blow or worse, split open and leak into the soil. The reservation sit on the banks of the Columbia river... about 120 miles up stream from me.

For those who don't know, Hanford is where the first A-bombs were developed and assembled and is near Walla-walla. You know.. the onion place.

Will Robinson wrote:

roid wrote:...Anyway every single one of those men* died before their time from larynx cancer. GO AMERICA! USA! USA! USA!...

You know america could have resisted using the nukes to end the war quickly and instead sent many hundreds times more men to their death fighting Japan using only conventional means. So I'm sorry those men died from cancer but should we have sacrificed many many more just so you wouldn't be able to irrationally complain about america?

But i wasn't complaining about america. I said:
GO AMERICA! USA! USA! USA!

★■◆● YEAH!

roid wrote:But i wasn't complaining about america. I said:
GO AMERICA! USA! USA! USA!

**** YEAH!

Riiight....and I never saw Team America World Police and don't recognize that catch phrase either....

The problem isn't with constructing nuclear power plants and preparing the fuel rods for use.. it's when the plant has a meltdown.

I wonder if they've developed new emergencey measures in case the plant self-destructs.

Ferno wrote:The problem isn't with constructing nuclear power plants and preparing the fuel rods for use.. it's when the plant has a meltdown.

I wonder if they've developed new emergencey measures in case the plant self-destructs.

They have the concrete barriers, which nicely inhibit the radiation in the event of a meltdown.

Ferno wrote:The problem isn't with constructing nuclear power plants and preparing the fuel rods for use.. it's when the plant has a meltdown.

I wonder if they've developed new emergencey measures in case the plant self-destructs.

Chernobyl WAS contained. The material was SO hot that it ate THROUGH the concreat.

With Chernobyl the problem WAS construction as a pump failed and it wasn't attended to soon enough.

Duper wrote:Chernobyl WAS contained. The material was SO hot that it ate THROUGH the concreat.

With Chernobyl the problem WAS construction as a pump failed and it wasn't attended to soon enough.

Did you read through the explanation of the accident on the BBC site? Apparently the meltdown was caused by a dangerous experiment with removing the fuel rods.

Mobius wrote:burth defects

Ah. That explains it.

Duper wrote:
Chernobyl WAS contained. The material was SO hot that it ate THROUGH the concreat.

yea. the "elephant's foot" is indicitave of that.

big slab of molten concrete, metal and radioactive material that settled on the floor somewhere. to this day no one can even go near it.

Shadowfury333 wrote:

Duper wrote:Chernobyl WAS contained. The material was SO hot that it ate THROUGH the concreat.

With Chernobyl the problem WAS construction as a pump failed and it wasn't attended to soon enough.

Did you read through the explanation of the accident on the BBC site? Apparently the meltdown was caused by a dangerous experiment with removing the fuel rods.

Not really, it was caused because every failsafe that was put in place was shut off. They were doing a routine test.