|
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Originally Posted by Vegemite Kids
(Post 9245162)
Some fun radiation statistics
(sources: www.epa.gov, www.nrc.gov, www.nejm.org & UI Health dept) Eating one banana = Single dose of 0.0001 millisieverts (mSv) Dental radiography = Single dose of 0.005 mSv Mammogram = Single dose of 3 mSv Living near (within 50 miles of) a nuclear power station = 0.00009 mSv/year Living near a coal power station = 0.003 mSv/year Air Travel = 0.01 mSv per 1000 miles Porcelain teeth or crowns = 0.2 mSv/year (Note: This is because Uranium is often added to increase whiteness and florescence) Cosmic radiation at sea level = 0.24 mSv/year Terrestrial radiation = 0.28 mSv/year Typical individual's natural background radiation = 2 mSv/year; (1.5 mSv/year for Australians, 2.5 mSv/year for British, 3 mSv/year for Amerians; Background radiation in parts of Iran, India and Europe = 50 mSv/year) Smoking 1.5 packs/day = 13 mSv/year And finally from HERE Radiation levels in parts of the US Capitol building are about 55 times higher than levels standing at the fence line of a US nuclear plant. Oh and did you know that Brazil nuts are the world’s most radioactive food? (Source) I always thought the most radioactive food was that coloured popcorn you can buy. |
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Originally Posted by Vegemite Kids
(Post 9245162)
....
Oh and did you know that Brazil nuts are the world’s most radioactive food? (Source) (Not that you can rely on them all the time.) |
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Originally Posted by Swerv-o
(Post 9245005)
It's not just domestic energy generation that is the problem. Though there is lots of it needed, you would be unlikely to be able to power an aluminium smelting works using batches of cyclists. For this sort of heavy industrial application, you need a reliable baseload supply.
S Lots of them. |
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Originally Posted by Bob
(Post 9245006)
You shit on a dam and you'll definitely kill more people...most nuke plants are designed to take a direct strike from a fully fuelled 747 4 times before breaking.
|
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Originally Posted by deb68
(Post 9244988)
Why not have eco friendly cycle farms or stations, we all get on at some stage throughout the day do 20 minutes each and add to the national grids power input, simple:D
The only explotion then would probably be from the pro nuclear camp about how much land would be taken up by such a venture;)
Originally Posted by Swerv-o
(Post 9245005)
It's not just domestic energy generation that is the problem. Though there is lots of it needed, you would be unlikely to be able to power an aluminium smelting works using batches of cyclists. For this sort of heavy industrial application, you need a reliable baseload supply.
|
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Originally Posted by GarryP
(Post 9245577)
You'll probably appreciate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C93cL_zDVIM
|
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
I haven't read the whole thread :o but here are some statistics
Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh) Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity) Coal – China 278 Coal – USA 15 Oil 36 (36% of world energy) Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy) Biofuel/Biomass 12 Peat 12 Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy) Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy) Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy) Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead) Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy) Source http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/low...t-hour-for.htm And But what about Chernobyl ? The World Health Organization study in 2005 indicated that 50 people died to that point as a direct result of Chernobyl. 4000 people may eventually die earlier as a result of Chernobyl, but those deaths would be more than 20 years after the fact and the cause and effect becomes more tenuous. He explains that there have been 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children, but that except for nine deaths, all of them have recovered. "Otherwise, the team of international experts found no evidence for any increases in the incidence of leukemia and cancer among affected residents." Averaging about 2100 TWh from 1985-2005 or a total of 42,000 TWh. So those 50 deaths would be 0.0012 deaths/TWh. If those possible 4000 deaths occur over the next 25 years, then with 2800 TWh being assumed average for 2005 through 2030, then it would be 4000 deaths over 112,000 TWh generated over 45 years or 0.037 deaths/TWh. There are no reactors in existence that are as unsafe as the Chernobyl reactor was. Even the eight of that type that exist have containment domes and operate with lower void co-efficients. Source http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/dea...gy-source.html |
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Originally Posted by lesleys
(Post 9245786)
I haven't read the whole thread :o but here are some statistics
Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh) Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity) Coal – China 278 Coal – USA 15 Oil 36 (36% of world energy) Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy) Biofuel/Biomass 12 Peat 12 Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy) Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy) Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy) Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead) Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy) Source http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/low...t-hour-for.htm And But what about Chernobyl ? The World Health Organization study in 2005 indicated that 50 people died to that point as a direct result of Chernobyl. 4000 people may eventually die earlier as a result of Chernobyl, but those deaths would be more than 20 years after the fact and the cause and effect becomes more tenuous. He explains that there have been 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children, but that except for nine deaths, all of them have recovered. "Otherwise, the team of international experts found no evidence for any increases in the incidence of leukemia and cancer among affected residents." Averaging about 2100 TWh from 1985-2005 or a total of 42,000 TWh. So those 50 deaths would be 0.0012 deaths/TWh. If those possible 4000 deaths occur over the next 25 years, then with 2800 TWh being assumed average for 2005 through 2030, then it would be 4000 deaths over 112,000 TWh generated over 45 years or 0.037 deaths/TWh. There are no reactors in existence that are as unsafe as the Chernobyl reactor was. Even the eight of that type that exist have containment domes and operate with lower void co-efficients. Source http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/dea...gy-source.html Just to clarify for those that dont know: TWh = terawatt hour. It corresponds to 1,000,000,000,000 Watts per hour. It is the amount of energy that would be produced by a 1,000,000 MW generator over a period of one hour, or a 114 MW generator over a period of approximately one year. (If you knew this already then just ignore it please). |
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Did I mention just how stupid nuclear energy is?
|
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Originally Posted by brissybee
(Post 9245891)
Did I mention just how stupid nuclear energy is?
No actually, I dont think you did! ;):D Is that all nuclear energy that you feel that way about? or only some types? how do you feel about the current research into thorium reactors? |
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Originally Posted by brissybee
(Post 9245891)
Did I mention just how stupid nuclear energy is?
|
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Originally Posted by JustBecause
(Post 9245929)
I really don't know how you can say that in the face of the facts & figs presented above - do enlighten us please.
|
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Just thinking about the poor souls who are getting up close to the reacters to try and prevent a full scale meltdown. They are surely sacrificing their lives by doing this to help others :(
|
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Originally Posted by paulry
(Post 9245965)
Just thinking about the poor souls who are getting up close to the reacters to try and prevent a full scale meltdown. They are surely sacrificing their lives by doing this to help others :(
|
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Originally Posted by paulry
(Post 9245965)
Just thinking about the poor souls who are getting up close to the reacters to try and prevent a full scale meltdown. They are surely sacrificing their lives by doing this to help others :(
I wonder if the Japanese Govt will set up a fund to take care of them and their families after all this is over? I hope so. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 11:57 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.