Ok, so you didn't instantly die. That's probably a good thing as according to official figures only 56 people died and the WHO estimates that up to 4000 may die as a result of the incident. http://wikitravel.org/en/Chernobyl
Of course the fact the the WHO can ONLY report in AGREEMENT with the IAEA wouldn't affect their independance in any way, YEAH RIGHT !!!
"the collusive agreement between the IAEA and the World Health Organization in which the WHO is precluded from publishing any research on radiation effects without consultation with the IAEA." WHO, the public health arm of the UN, has supported the IAEA's claim that 4,000 will die as a result of the accident. http://www.globalresearch.ca/i ... ?context=va&aid=23745
So, the World Health Organisation has a longstanding agreement to only report information that the Nuclear Industry agrees with.
That certainly makes them impartial.................
And how long exactly does a nuclear accident last ?, the half life ( thats half, not gone ) of plutonium is 24000 years.
How many generations are going to experience this ?
Shit happens. Nearly 4,000 people die each year in Britain from road accidents alone, so I suppose we should all stop driving too.
Nuclear is good and clean, answers EVERY SINGLE TICKBOX for the next millenium in terms of power production and environmental factors, it's a safe form of energy as and yet people are still all "no plz no nuclear i grow extra legs and my left ball will turn pink "
So making huge areas dead zones if/when there is an accident is completely acceptable, and making these dead areas for thousands of years is also fine.
Love to be your kids ............
If YOU die in an accident then that only affects you and your group of friends. That doesn't affect people 24 000 years from now.
Do make a vague effort to be aware of what we create for the future.
There won't be a future without nuclear power. Do make a vague effort yadder yadder...
The chances of having these "HUGE DEAD ZONES" as you describe it are like a 0.000002 chance. That is, a complete nuclear breakdown. It's so nice that you seem to only focus on the points which make it seem like we're all going to die. 24,000 years..maybe. Try more like a few centuries in most cases.
I'll teach my kids not to fear things you don't want to embrace. And the good and the negative sides of various subjects and allow them to make their own mind. I'll teach them to be open minded and instil the fact that sometimes for the good of the world and the planet a bit of extra "risk" may be involved..
I won't force them into a way of thinking. God bless your little nippers... wouldn't be surprised if their first words were "car", "map" and "passport". Blatantly a McIntyre joke but oh well.
If I die in an accident no-one will notice as I have no friends.
As I've said I would happily have an nuclear power plant across the street and have no worries about it. Chernobyl was operator error and serious flaws in the system. 24,000 years to an inhabitable state I think not.
As for Japan..it was a NATURAL DISASTER causing a radiological spill. It was not a NUCLEAR REACTOR MELTDOWN or FAILURE or BLAHLABFHLEBFHKBSEHKVBErhkvwerhkv sr..............
And when it comes to the meltdowns, Professor Matsumoto paints a picture of cover-ups, incompetence and communication breakdown.
He confirms that the operator of Fukushima - TEPCO - wanted to abandon the stricken plant and that the prime minister at the time - Naoto Kan - contemplated evacuating tens of millions of people from in and around Tokyo.
Professor Matsumoto also accuses the Japanese leadership of knowing months ago that areas around the nuclear plant would not be habitable for decades. ( me: or 24 000 years PLUS ) http://www.abc.net.au/news/201 ... kyo/3026548?section=world
But your completely right, it's perfectly safe and there's no need to be at all concerned. Radiation is FUN ..............
By the way, the following information 'may' not have made the mainstream media yet. Nor, do I expect it to, as the possibility of the people bringing criminal charges against these countries is remote. But, if your children ( and their children ) want to know why this 'accident' is as bad as it is then this may be of help.
The actual cause of the blasts, according to intelligence sources in Washington, was nuclear fission of warhead cores illegally taken from America's sole nuclear-weapons assembly facility. Evaporation in the cooling pools used for spent fuel rods led to the detonation of stored weapons-grade plutonium and uranium. http://originaldialogue.blogsp ... eal-behind-fukushima.html
Nuclear power in its current form is terrible. IF they can get thorium going it might be the answer, till then wind is a viable sustainable solution for many counties. It's not like there's even enough uranium to last that much longer than oil anyway...
As for Chernobyl and the corrupt IAEA, a report called TORCH gives an estimate of 30,000 to 60,000 excess cancer deaths resulting from Chernobyl.(1)
About 15,000 people were killed and 50,000 left handicapped in the emergency clean-up alone, according to a group representing those who worked in the relief operations, as reported by the BBC.(2)
The book, Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, gives an estimate of 985,000 excess cancer deaths resulting from Chernobyl. The authors reviewed around 5000 scientific papers which the IAEA overlooked. Of these deaths they estimate nearly 170,000 of them occurred in North America.(3)
The main objective of the IAEA as stated in its statue, is that: The agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy throughout the world. They are biased and as Racer X NZ pointed out, have an agreement with the WHO to ensure official statistics allow for public acceptance of nuclear energy.
That is only just scratching the surface of Chernobyl. The true extent of Three Mile Island and Fukushima are also downplayed by officials and mainstream media, but I would be harping on for far too long.
Sources: (1). Fairlie, Ian and Sumner, David. 2006. The Other Report on Chernobyl (TORCH). (2). BBC News. Saturday, 22 April, 2000. Deadly toll of Chernobyl. (3). Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko. 2007. Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment.
24 000 years? Now from which ass did you pull this number from? Or did you just say it because 24 100 years is the half-life of 239Pu? Plutonium is particularly dangerous when ingested, its gamma radiation emissions are rather weak so as long as you make sure there's no food or drinking water produced on the contaminated area, you don't have to declare it a desert.
In fact, the Chernobyl power plant remained operational until 2001 and it wasn't run by a bunch of six headed aliens.
Now seriously, I don't think that even you believe that. You're also mixing up a few things here.
The explosions I heard of were caused by hydrogen. Hydrogen can be generated by hydrolysis of water which can take place on hot zirkonium casings of the fuel cassettes. Scientifically it's a perfectly valid and reasonable explanation, the rods were hot, the water was hot, 2H2O -> 2H2 + O2... boom!
Also, nuclear FISSION? Seriously, FISSION? Are you trying to make us believe that the Japanese stole thermonuclear warheads (those that make helium out of hydrogen to create energy) for which they have no use in a nuclear power plant, stored them there and rather than moving them somewhere safe at the first sign of problems they just let them explode?
Doesn't these largely different numbers indicate the we don't really have an idea what was the real death toll of Chernobyl? 4000, 6000, 30k - 60k, almost a million (all right, that last estimate looks like an awesome bullshit). Should we believe these studies more just because they come out all grim? It should also be noted that the TORCH study was ordered by a German member of the Green party in the European Parliament.
And when you've got plutonium in your food and drinking water, as well as in the marine life, not to mention over most of the northern hemisphere?
Remember that even officially your dealing with MOX fuel here, which was not present at Chernobyl.
How many people will/may/might die from Chernobyl, does it really matter if your kid draws the short straw for birth defects, when tumors and cancers ar more and more common.?
And it's the WHO who've chosen to suppress any findings that may upset the nuclear industry, great science there............
The effects of radiation are fairly well proven, how much whitewash that's applied to keep people believing that there's no problem and everything is fine is what really matters, sadly enough.
Are the reports correct regarding US nuclear warheads, well the US admits it's misplaced large quantities but I'd be all in favor of an open investigation that proves me wrong.
Out of 100,000 people who survived the Hiroshima bombings only 400 Cancers were caused directly from the radiation. You can read that in the link I posted in a previous...post..
Discussions with Racer X would be fun if he wasn't inclined to come up with rubbish, which he comes up with to try and make his point have more clout, but just ends up giving it less actual effectiveness because it's so preposterous.
Yes, radiation is very powerful however like MadCatX says it''s very much dependant on many factors......a radioactive leak does not equal a wasteland.
I agree that if plutonium isn't involved then the effects are not as long lasting but I'm talking about weapon grade plutonium, check the half life of that and DU weaponry that some people seem to want to spread around the planet.
Oh geez, did you even bother to check some actual scientific facts instead of the anti-nuclear propaganda? MOX = Mixed Oxide = both uranium and plutonium dioxide are present in fuel cassettes. This optimizes the reaction. However, every reactor used in power plants produces some amount of plutonium 293, but I agree that running on MOX increases the overall amount of plutonium that might leak. What's more interesting is that the RBMK 1000 type reactor (the Chernobyl one) PRODUCED fair amount of plutonium as a by-product and Soviets have very likely used that in their weapons, in fact, the RBMK class reactors were originally designed to produce both electricity and and bombs.
Nevertheless, we're getting away from the issue here. Nobody disputes the possibly cataclysmic effect of a nuclear power plant accident, but it's not like they're the only source of danger. How much damage to the sea life did the latest BP oil-platform disaster cause? How many tankers crash every year releasing hundreds of tons of oil? How many chemical factories can leak even more toxic substance in case of an accident? Nuclear power plants as usually ran by highly skilled and trained personnel, the security is very tight and everything is closely monitored. Personally I'm more worried about a lot of chemical facilities which are nowhere near as safe because the public doesn't care that much about them. We have built our civilization upon messing with danger and we can either return to caves or learn how produce the things we need as safe as possible. I'm suggesting the latter, how about you?
It is impossible to achieve an exact death toll, therefore we look at all available credible data from a range of research (including from the WHO) and from there we have a reasonably likely ballpark. I agree that the study with the largest estimate is probably significantly on the high side, but I also believe the tiny estimate the WHO released (with the permission of the IAEA) is likely significantly underestimating the actual death toll.
IMO that there is such large variance between different studies shows that there is so much with regards to radiation and cancer that we still don't know. Radiation from Fukushima was/is in US drinking water and milk at levels hundreds of times above acceptable limits. If people develop cancer in 20 years as a result of this and die, it is unlikely these deaths will be added to most Fukushima death toll estimates (especially any made by the IAEA/WHO partnership!).
Speaking of acceptable radiation limits. Isn't it a bit lolz that Fukushima happened, then authorities significantly raised acceptable limits as a result of new political considerations rather than new scientific findings?
Simple fact : No, give us something that would pollute more.
Why the hell would you want anything like this in a COMPUTER GAME?!?!?!!!
To me this all makes super-mario all sence. Get a grip people.
Since 1957 the annual dosage limit in US is 5000 millirems = 50 milliSieverts. (MIT).
NUC laboratories at Berkeley university monitored activity of 131-I, 131-I 134-Cs, 137-Cs, 132-Te and 7-Be over the course of 3 months (from 13th March to 28th June 2011). At 19th April the activities of all monitored isotopes except 7-Be dropped below MDA and remained there until the end of the experiment. There is a quite apparent spike of 131-I whose activity exceeded MDA almost 200 times on March of 23rd, but that's pretty much a single occurrence of such high concentration of this isotope in the whole file. And even then, according to Berkeley you'd have to drink about 140 litres of water containing 131-I of that concentration to receive a dosage of 0.05 mSv - a dosage you'd receive by flying to Washington D.C from SFO and back!
131-I has a half-life of about 8 days, so it won't stay in soil or water for a long time.
(Data measured by Berkeley).
The other thing to remember about radiation is that it's cumulative, so in Japan ( as well as the areas that are in the plume ) all the food, air, and water you ingest is increasing your dosage.
But for those of you who believe it's safe and fun, thats great. Please take an extended holiday there or offer to help cleaning it up as it won't affect YOU !
I suggest people read the bit about a Nuclear Powerplant melt-down of 3 cores, in fact melt through, when your using weapons grade plutonium as a part of your fuel.
Not to mention whats officially stored for future use.
Yes. The Japanese government's task force to tackle nuclear accidents instructed municipal governments to ease conditions under which they require people to undergo decontamination. A radiation level of 100,000 counts per minute was introduced as the new standard for decontamination, up from 6,000 counts per minute.
According to a 2006 First Responders Handbook published by the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, people contaminated to levels greater than 100,000 counts per minute are likely to have internal contamination and should be identified as a priority for follow-up for internal decontamination. This requires treatment by a nuclear medicine physician at a hospital, yet in Japan people with say 95,000 counts per minute didn't even meet the threshold for external decontamination. Greenpeace had confirmed radiation levels of up to 2,000,000 bequerels per square meter in a non-evacuated village 40 kilometers northwest of the Fukushima plant. (At Chernobyl the exclusion zone was 500,000 bequerels/square meter.)
New Scientist magazine obtained data showing caesium levels of 6.4 million bequerels per square meter at a particular site 35 km from the plant (outside of exclusion zone). After Chernobyl the most highly contaminated areas were defined as those with caesium levels greater than 1.49 million bequerels per square meter.
Still long enough to come out of drinking water taps at 181 times higher than acceptable levels.
Beat me to it, I was about to say this thread seems to have been hijacked by "Nuke Experts"
As for electric cars?
Erm, this is a computer simulation, computers run on electrical currents zooming all over the circuitry, therefor, in that respect "ALL" cars in LFS are already electric.
"
