Hey, there! Log in / Register

Some people in the Milford area just have such a glow about them


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

. . . from everything I have been hearing lately about radiation in the media- it is never really that harmful and can even be good for you.

up
Voting closed 0

Anne Coulter is not a scientist, and hormesis is an extremely controversial theory with little more to it than homeopathy has going for it.

up
Voting closed 0

. . . re-assured by the constant "it is not harmful" to everything that happens at Fukushima. Nothing is harmful apparently about nuclear energy.

up
Voting closed 0

Earthquakes never happen in our area, so the less fortified twin of the burning wreckage in Japan will never be a problem and should get its license extension.

up
Voting closed 0

. . . creating a 1200 mile square "exclusion zone" somewhere on the globe every 25 years is just a "price we have to pay" for our "lifestyle".

up
Voting closed 0

Coal/Oil kills more than 1,000,000 people a year from it's byproducts.

How many have died from nuclear?

It's one of those situations where it's more visible, but ultimately safer. People unfoundedly think of mushroom cloud explosions after all.

It's like being afraid to fly, so regulating yourself to driving everywhere in a car. A pretty bad choice if you;re really concerned about mortality.

up
Voting closed 0

. . . the 1200 mile exclusion zone that will last generations around a blown up coal plant or smoldering mine or oil refinery fire.

up
Voting closed 0

See: Centralia, Pennsylvania. A mine fire has been burning since '62.

up
Voting closed 0

That's nice. Does that mine fire render 1200 square miles toxic no go wastelands for 10,000 years?

Does that coal fire or any coal fire anywhere in the world require 850,000 "liquidators" to clean up- like those that were used after Chernobyl- most of whom are now dead of cancer 25 years later - though not counted in the "official stats"? Go read about the mounds of dead animals they had to burn- how they had to kill every animal they encountered so they wouldn't genetically screw up their populations. Go read about the youth culture of hedonistic nihilism that has grown up around "the zone" of Chernobyl and the "programs" created to teach these kids how they are not human garbage just because they are poor and can't leave the vicinity of the zone. Coal fire do that? Then, after reading that hair raising stuff- go read about how Chernobyl is 200 ton ticking time bomb of molten radioactive soup to this day- with a thin layer of concrete over it- and how replacement dome they are building- that costs billions by the way- will have its own weather system inside it- it will rain inside this thing- when it is built.

Show me any ten oil or coal disasters that reach those proportions.

up
Voting closed 0

Coal kills more people per watt generated than nuclear.

Also, coal has a ton of detrimental effects. In fact, more radiation is released per watt by coal in its ash from uranium and other minerals mixed in with the coal that's dug up than from nuclear plants.

Chernobyl will never happen again and shouldn't have happened in the first place. The USSR built a faulty design and were experimenting on the active reactor when the explosion occurred without having appropriate failsafe procedures and mechanisms in place.

So, you don't get one big "coal disaster". Coal itself IS a disaster. More people have died from consequences due to coal than Chernobyl could ever hope to have effected.

up
Voting closed 0

. . . trying to convince with that mess of nonsense? Me or yourself?

up
Voting closed 0

That's not nonsense. You are hysterical.

up
Voting closed 0

has no place in a discussion of data and logic.

up
Voting closed 0

Robotron. OF course - humanity has no place in such discussions.

up
Voting closed 0

Your acquaintances in Tokyo dealing with the Fukushima problems resulting from the aftermath of the biggest earthquake in Japanese history combined with a 30 foot wall of water immediately afterwards are a very specific example that you're trying to use as false generalization of all nuclear power plants. Proof by example ("this apple is red, therefore all apples are red") is a logical fallacy.

In fact, how much do you even hear about the Fukushima Dai-ni reactors? They are only SEVEN miles from the Dai-ichi reactors that are currently broken. Dai-ni was hit with all of the same conditions BUT they're 10 years more modern (fired up in the 1980's, whereas Dai-ichi was fired up in the 70's). They even had their diesel generator back-up circulators shut down (same as Dai-ichi) BUT they have never even had to release pressure to the atmosphere! To say that we shouldn't build even NEWER reactors with even more modern technology and use Dai-ichi and your troubled relatives as the reason why is an appeal to emotion (another logical fallacy).

However, ALL coal power plants combined with all of the requisite coal mining associated with coal power DO suffer from the lists of very real and regular problems I linked to. Also, don't get boxed in with a false choice fallacy. It's not "nuclear or coal". The ability to power the entire US electrical grid by turning an area equivalent to about 3% of the state of Arizona into solar panels is better than both of those options.

up
Voting closed 0

. . . I don't care about coal. Does it suck too? Maybe? Has it fucked up West Virginia? Maybe? I don't know- and truthfully- I don't really care. Like you don't. You just use that as a bludgeon to defend the indefensible.

Look- I'm not pretending to be a power expert. I'm not holding forth on the great big global issue of power consumption. That's BS- out of my league. I'm talking about here. I'm talking about Massachusetts. Where I live. Where I have always lived. Where my parents lived. Where my grandparents lived. Where my great grandparents lived. It is who I am. And coal isn't going to destroy it and render it a ecological, societal, and culture nightmare in one fell swoop like a nuke plant has the potential to do. It is insane! Period.

So babble on about coal and wind and whatever! Don't care. I don't want to see everything I am destroyed. I don't want to risk it.

up
Voting closed 0

It's a little wacky to compare number of deaths/acres of destroyed land/whatever indicator between one energy source that has been in use for a couple hundred years and is now all over the globe and one that has been in use for 50 or so years and is sparsely scattered about select countries of the world. It's like comparing horse manure to burning coal in the early 1800s. At that point in time I'd hazard to guess that dealing with horse shit was a bigger hassle for folks than that weird-ass smoke stack that just went up.

Coal extraction and burning is definitely a nasty thing even when done right. Extracting the necessary fuel for and then running a nuclear power plant is also pretty damn nasty when done right, but can also be utterly horrific when something goes wrong.

Unfortunately at some point we are going to have to recognize that our way of life/standard of living is just not something that will stay the same or get "better" just because we don't want to deal with the reality of consequences. Things will eventually have to change if we want to survive. It's just a question of when we actually start putting the effort into figuring out ways to keep as much of our lifestyle in a way that doesn't end up with us shitting in our own mouths.

up
Voting closed 0

We have a choice between spending government money to prop up an economically failed mode of generation of power and using that money to develop, promote, and deploy newer energy sources.

up
Voting closed 0

. . . . friends in Japan do you? Be sure to alert them to your facts.

up
Voting closed 0

As a matter of fact, I do have friends in Japan, who have said that the media is over-hyping things to sell a story. Look, nobody denies that there are people in danger from the plant. Will 10,000 die there? Probably not, but if they do? Yes, that's tragic, but it is still a significantly lower loss of life than the annual coal death toll. So, you are saying that a once in a generation disaster with a casualty rate 1/3 the annual casualty rate from coal related dangers is nevertheless more significant? To borrow a phrase, go spread the word in America's coal towns. See what they think.

up
Voting closed 0

. . . you don't get. You don't get it. I'm not arguing with anyone about this.

up
Voting closed 0

That's right, you aren't arguing. You are blindly lashing out.

up
Voting closed 0

. . . to pass along that information to the people I know in Japan. 10,000 people are not that many to you? Interesting. Never mind that figure is a complete lie as any in depth perusal of Chernobyl's subsequent history would reveal. 850,000 Russian "liquidators" as they were called were sent in to "clean up" that mess. Quite a few more than 10,000 are dead today. And it is still killing people. And know this- Chernobyl is still a huge threat. It is 200 tons of molten radioactive soup- covered in a thin concrete shell- it is leaking- and the dome they haven't built yet to cover it? For thousands of years? Will have its own weather system inside it. It is going to rain inside the structure they build over this thing it will be so massive. Cost? I don't know? How do you measure that? Real estate value?

up
Voting closed 0

You didn't read what I wrote. You are purposefully ignoring any facts that might conflict with your hysterical world-view.

up
Voting closed 0

. . . "world view." I live here- that's what I care about.

up
Voting closed 0

Then presumably you have some care for the victims of coal pollution?

Or do deaths only count when they're from nuclear power-sourced radiation?

up
Voting closed 0

10,000 in 30 years if traceable to a single moment in time is apparently of greater magnitude than 900,000 over the same time period when spread out evenly. That's what I'm taking away from this discussion.

up
Voting closed 0

See- I don't give a shit about coal and what it does in this circumstance. All I know- is that it doesn't destroy entire regions in one fell swoop- entire communities- entire cultures even- entire areas of the earth- render them uninhabitable for generations. And if you can't see the difference- if you don't get it? Then we have nothing to talk about.

up
Voting closed 0

Coal kills on the order of a million people worldwide every year. If that does not count in your book, you are a sick individual.

Nuclear power plants do not have the risk of wiping out entire regions or cultures. Chernobyl didn't do that, and it was driven to destruction on purpose. Atomic weapons didn't do that in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I can tell you one power source which does wipe out communities and regions: hydro-power. Even leaving aside dam collapse, the construction of a large hydro-power station requires flooding a large portion of terrain that in many cases had been occupied for thousands of years.

And, perhaps when the Sun dies, you can claim that "Solar power" has destroyed our planet?

up
Voting closed 0

Telling Buffalo Creek they must have overreacted because coal doesn't destroy entire regions or communities in one fell swoop.

I guess I should head to Martin County, KY, after that, too, and let them know that 5 feet of coal sludge covering their yards was just fertilizer, and in a completely unrelated coincidence, every living thing in Wolf Creek committed suicide at the same time as the spill.

Going to be a busy weekend.

up
Voting closed 0

Flights from KY to WV are probably expensive last minute. You'll need to go there next to deal with everything going on up there.

up
Voting closed 0

. . . Look- again- we are talking apples and oranges and if you nuke nuts- you cultists- want to pretend that any sane person who lives near one of these things is going to be convinced by your idiotic indecent sophistry and moronic comparisons to coal- you are weird. Straight up. It's weird and says more about you than anything else.

up
Voting closed 0

Nice. Ad hominem AND red herring.

up
Voting closed 0

Seriously? Wow, just wow. You have some real problems.

up
Voting closed 0

I don't view my home as a stat on an actuarial table and I have a big problem with people who do. Where are you from? How deep your roots here "Kaz"? I can't bug out if something happens here and what is more- I wouldn't want to. Cause this patch of Earth- this land- its peoples- its history- its who I am. I'm not talking about your idiotic global policies that I have no hand in and no voice in. I'm talking about here.

up
Voting closed 0

. . . is New England not becoming Chernobyl or Fukushima.

up
Voting closed 0

Half of what people are trying to tell you is that your fears are unfounded.

up
Voting closed 0

Ok.

up
Voting closed 0

Where are you getting this information? Can you share some URLs?

up
Voting closed 0

A quick look at Wikipedia will document a number of studies with estimates that vary from as few as 5,000 "extra deaths" to as many as 965,000. Obviously, we don't have a solid way to figure this out. The 5,000 comes from a study commissioned by the WHO and IAEA and the 965,000 comes from a study published by the New York Academy of Sciences. Both are reputable sources, yet completely different results.

up
Voting closed 0

that there is no basis to believe a similar accident is even possible in the United States when you consider plant design and operational safety practices. There just is nothing analogous.

up
Voting closed 0

The twin of the first Japanese reactor to blow, sans any provision for siesmic events, is sitting a few dozen miles south of us - with a triple-packed fuel pool, 2-4 hours of battery time, and 40 years on the clock.

up
Voting closed 0

...is sitting 7 miles south of the first set of reactors, was started only 10 years later, suffered the same intense earthquake and wall of water, lost power to its diesel generators too, but didn't even fart out a single whiff of radiated steam.

Of course, that bit of luck/modernity/non-story doesn't really sell TV commercials, so you're not likely to hear about it as much as Dai-ichi on our news any time soon.

up
Voting closed 0

. . . it is indicator of just how biased against the nuke industry the media is- that they are not reporting on the reactor that didn't fail as the most productive agricultural region of the country is reduced to a wasteland by the one that did fail.

Why don't you tell us how it didn't fail completely and wasn't a total meltdown! That is what they should be trumpeting! Good lord.

up
Voting closed 0

. . . and the technology today is so much safer too! Why do I suspect I could pull the tape of some Russian apparatchik saying that exact same thing in a Ukrainian newspaper when that thing was built?

Do you think the "authorities" in Russia said it was as safe as fluffy pillows when it was built? The modernist of modern marvels?

I love that. "Chernobyl doesn't count because they built it wrong and the design wasn't right and this and that . . ."

Oh - Ok. Glad to know that "we have the technology" now.

up
Voting closed 0

That's not a Harry Potter spell, it's what you just used as your argument.

Just because a liar (Soviet apparatchik) stated a false conclusion based on lies once doesn't mean that any future identical conclusion predicated on new truthful precepts is automatically just as false.

up
Voting closed 0

I don't want to rest the future of this region upon the word of anyone- because people lie. Not just "Soviet Apparatchiks". People lie. The nuclear industry- lies. Politicians- lie. Get it? This can't be trusted to any human organization.

And especially these days- with our government viciously prosecuting whistle blowers and truth tellers- throwing them in jails to be maltreated?

Nah. Don't want it here. There is no argument you can make to me about this.

up
Voting closed 0

Strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

up
Voting closed 0

I'd piss on a sparkplug if I thought it'd do any good!

up
Voting closed 0

I can't tell which comment you are responding to in this thread soup, but here's a link with a lot of info that was originally compiled in 2008 but updated with recent events

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by...

up
Voting closed 0

The threading on this one has gotten a bit murky.

I was asking specifically where Chris Dowd is getting his data from.

up
Voting closed 0

. . . google.

up
Voting closed 0

Tells me all I need to know (and confirmed all I suspected).

up
Voting closed 0

http://allthingsnuclear.org

The nuke blog from the Union of Concerned Scientists, which has reactor scientists on staff.

up
Voting closed 0

Just FYI: Their position is nuanced and well-phrased but it is not anti-nuclear.

up
Voting closed 0

...That my sarcasm filter is out of whack here...

(Could be, given how violently I roll my eyes when ever a UCS wonk starts pontification on...well, just about anything.)

up
Voting closed 0

Nuanced yes, but not particularly pro-nuclear. Point #5: "An expansion of nuclear power under effective regulations and an appropriate level of oversight should be considered as a longer-term option if other climate-neutral means for producing electricity prove inadequate. (emphasis added) Nuclear energy research and development (R&D) should therefore continue, with a focus on enhancing safety, security, and waste disposal."

From an engineering or science perspective it's reasonable to think that "we've addressed so many of the concerns of the past, these are just way safer - nothing will ever happen." But from a people perspective, like someone here said, "people lie." They also look to make a buck as easily as possible, get lazy, make honest mistakes, get filled with insane hate and hijack planes, etc. And in terms of risk analysis you balance the analysis of the likelihood of something happening with the vulnerability of populations and the what the costs of the potential results could be. At some point you have to think, "it's not worth it." Some folks on this thread seem to balance it out differently. Some go to Vegas, some buy certificates of deposit.

up
Voting closed 0

Of course, a full risk analysis needs to be done on all types of power generation in order to accurately and fairly compare them. Not just whatever form the press has currently discovered they can use to drive ratings.

Wanna know what's scary? Fracking! (Go ahead and google that!)

See? no form of power generation is without its risks. If we stoped using something every time a bad accident happed, it would be a toss-up on what killed us first; freezing to death or starving, because guess what; the simplest form of power generation is probably the most dangerous. How many people a year are killed in fires, I wonder?

up
Voting closed 0

Seriously? Are you mentally ill? Fires? A mishap with this technology- destroys entire areas- entire areas. Thousand year old villages- survived mongols, serfdom, communists, nazis- didn't survive Chernobyl though. Those people are gone. Their way of life? gone. Their communities? gone. Their histories- gone. Their graveyards- unvisitable. But maybe if you live above any one place? don't' have roots. Just view the world as a 'Risk analysis" you can entertain and afford to accept such horrors. You don't care about any one place do you? Everyone is just a "Human Resource" huh and we are all just a "cost/benefit" analysis on a GE balance sheet? Creepy. Indecent.

up
Voting closed 0

Nuanced yes, but not particularly pro-nuclear.

My answer was also nuanced. I didn't say they were pro-nuclear. However, it's also in their best interest to advocate for perfection (in safety, waste handling, etc.) before accepting something as plausible. If they put out a position that we should absolutely build more nuclear right this second and we did and something unlikely but foreseeable did happen, where's their wiggle room to maintain that they were right in the face of the adversity? As you say, it definitely comes down to risk vs. reward and they fall more on the too much risk for the reward (and you could easily say it's justifiably so). However, one of my reasons for posting their actual position is to say that they are not of the "not nuclear, not never!" position-takers that Chris Dowd seems to be advocating for.

up
Voting closed 0

I also must confess, Kaz, that I mis-read your original post as saying "not particularly anti-nuclear." My apologies.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm not against nuclear power. I'm against nuclear power here. Period. France wants to dot their country with nuke plants- let them. Hell- California? Sure- if that is what they want. But not here. Tear em down now.

As far as I am concerned- the only place "safe" for nuke power- is a place like Bouvet island.

But I'm not out to destroy the "Nuke industry". Just destroy it here. I'm sure you guys can find a group of poor rubes somewhere- eager for "jobs" and "growth" and you can build your indecent inhuman nuclear nightmares there- where they don't know any better. But I hope New Englanders do know better and I think we do.

up
Voting closed 0

I can't say I support Chris Dowd's position that it's too dangerous for the places I love but if other people want it, go ahead.

My problem with the nuclear power industry is that within the context of a corporate/capitalist system the urge to cut corners, make money, move your career forward results in priorities getting buggered. Within the context of a state-controlled system things just go to pot because people are generally lazy assholes (which is sort of the root cause of the first system's problems to a degree).

People screw up. I just don't trust them, given what the result is. Like Chris has brought up, this isn't like a tsunami -- wipe out all signs of human habitation and layer mud over the destroyed debris, but then go in and rebuild -- this is render this little patch of earth completely uninhabitable for life-spans of time. If we bump up the number of nuclear power generating facilities around the earth to the level of coal-fired plants (hypothetical), the chances are pretty good that some of these things are going to have 'bad' days, and we start creating more off-limits patches on the earth. Between these locales and the places where we choose to place all the waste, you know damn well that the people who will get stuck with it are the poor, the weak, the flim-flammed, etc.

My opinion is that it isn't worth the risk. On this sort of thing I don't trust people.

(That being said, there have been some remarkable stories about the responses of the nuclear engineers in Japan. Some people are dedicated to their jobs, regardless of pay, fame or short-term interests.)

up
Voting closed 0

Strip mining does horrific things to the area so mined, also leaving the area uninhabitable. And this is done intentionally; there is nothing accidental about the damage.

I suppose it boils down to what are the options? None of them are great. The dangers of fossil fuels are not theoretical, incidental, or sporadic; they are happening right now, every day, and injuring thousands of people. Solar and wind are cleaner during the actual generation process, but the manufacturing process is not nearly so "green", and those industries are not mature enough to support our current (much less future) needs.

Electricity is a necessary evil of our society, and unfortunately there have to be risks taken to get it. That is our cold, harsh reality.

up
Voting closed 0

. . . it is their jobs they are dedicated to in fighting this thing? One of these guy's wives told him to go to work and be a "savior for Japan." These guys are giving up their lives for the future of that country. Its friggin future. Dedicated to their job? I just hope we would have enough New Englanders who would lay down their lives for us in such a circumstance. Cause you know who wouldn't? A corporate carpet bagger who would view the accident as just "oh well- a cost of business- risk vs reward etc. . . Honey? What's the cost of a condo in Portland these days?"

up
Voting closed 0

(Time to migrate this one back to the right side of the frame before our posts are reduced to one word per line).

Yes, I'm serious about the hazards of fire. After a quick google (Chris Dowd's favorite research tool) search;

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778688.html

Though, you might be wrong about the Mongols. If by Mongols, you mean tour-guides;

http://www.tourkiev.com/chernobyltour/

up
Voting closed 0

- you don't understand the difference between fires and nuke accidents is precisely why I'm not posting to you again- and not reading your posts. You are a nut. Bye.

up
Voting closed 0

You think that nuclear power is so horrifically dangerous that you don't want it anywhere near you, but you have no problem if Germany and France are reduced to glowing embers?

You seem to be of the opinion that nuclear power caused genocide in the Ukraine, but are not bothered by communities destoryed by dams, including right here in New England?

You're terribly upset by the mere possibility of someone being injured or killed by nuclear power here in New England, but you could care less by those injured or killed by fossil fuels, even those here in New England.

And I'm the nut job? Well, I guess it's good to know where I stand.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm not under the illusion that my views are going to shape the world. I care about France as much as France cares about New England- not much. I care about where I live and what I can actually maybe have a chance of changing. I hope the French do what is best for them. I'm not some deluded ideologue who thinks in "global terms". I think about here- and the people and things I care about and value. And when you compare the effects of dams breaking or fires to nuke power accidents you are insulting me. So I will say this to you- Fuck Off!

Nut.

up
Voting closed 0

Without commenting on the particulars of the nukes pro/com issue, I just have to say that I find the level of insult and abusive language by some folks in this thread disappointing and juvenile. I know, it's not like we haven't had people on UH get nasty at each other in the past. But there's been more and more of this sort of thing lately (mostly - but obviously not always - by anon c's).

No one was ever convinced they were wrong by being called an idiot (or worse). I understand how passionately people feel about issues like this, but personal insults just end up making one's views seem less legitimate.

Emotion is a human trait, but so are reason, logic and empathy. Disregard any of these and you are unlikely to change many minds worth changing.

up
Voting closed 0

- I live here. My name is on this. And when you come at me and tell me a forest fire is the same as a nuke accident? I'm gonna tell you- fuck you to your face. That's an insult to me. It's indecent. You can go check my posts. I not sure if I have sweared yet on this board. But on this? Yeah. I'm not gonna be polite to people casually talking about whole areas getting wiped out as "necessary evils." That's disgusting. Its' grossly offensive to me and I have matched it in kind. It is personally offensive to me. Its an affront.

up
Voting closed 0

You are still conveniently ignoring the example of Hiroshima, where the worst happened, and yet it is a thriving city nowadays.

Comparing Chernobyl to other nuclear accidents is on the same level with comparing nuclear accidents to forest fires. Chernobyl is in a class by itself.

Your criticisms are based on hysteria, not fact. The fact is that coal power kills New Englanders every year, while nuclear power has not. The overall statistical picture shows that coal power in the United States is 10,000 times more deadly than nuclear power in the United States.

This is the same irrationality which haunts people who are afraid of flying. Air travel is orders of magnitude safer than driving. People who choose to drive instead of fly put themselves at greater risk. They are impervious to the facts.

Nothing is perfectly safe in this world. The choice is not between perfect safety and failure. That is impossible and unachievable.

Ask yourself: do you want electrical power? If the answer is Yes, then you have an array of choices with different safety factors. None of those factors have zero deaths per terawatt. The lowest number of deaths per terawatt is generated by nuclear power plants.

up
Voting closed 0

Your sociopath like failure to distinguish between airplane accidents and the spread out effects of coal and oil to nuke accidents that wipe out regions and cultures is simply pathetic. Sad really.

I won't even go into your disgusting dismissal of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you believe in ghosts? Because if you do- that is all that exists of the vibrant thriving Japanese Christian community that used to exist, ironically enough, before Nagasaki was reduced to a cinder.

up
Voting closed 0

"no, you haven't."
......
"Oh look, this isn't an argument!"(Monty Python)
but seriously, is this going to be a collective "F off" or are you going to respond this way to every one who differs from you? If so, I have to tell my kids to skip Uhub for a while. We read Uhub as a news source and in general I think the lively give and take is healthy and even educational. We usually manage to discuss hot button topics without this degree of vitriol.

up
Voting closed 0

You should avoid this thread then- because yeah- I will tell people who compare forest fires, aiplane accidents, dams breaking, and coal and oil effects on health to a nuke power accident that renders half of New England unusable- to eff off. ANd I'll do it to their face.

up
Voting closed 0

Even if you want to keep mapping Chernobyl as your guide point for the wasteland that would happen if you planted a modern nuclear plant in New England, you're just distorting reality again.

Chernobyl has a 30km exclusion radius. That's about 1100 sq miles. New England is about 70,000 sq miles big. It would take about 30 Chernobyls to render half of New England unusable. To give you another reference point, Rhode Island is about 1100 sq miles big. Rhode Island is not half of New England.

up
Voting closed 0

From the IAEA site (which is more than likely an underestimate as it is a nuclear industry organization).

6. How large an area was affected by the radioactive fallout?

Some 150,000 square kilometres in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine are contaminated and stretch northward of the plant site as far as 500 kilometres. An area spanning 30 kilometres around the plant is considered the “exclusion zone” and is essentially uninhabited. Radioactive fallout scattered over much of the northern hemisphere via wind and storm patterns, but the amounts dispersed were in many instances insignificant.

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/chernobyl-...

up
Voting closed 0

You just don't choose to read (or don't understand, I'm not sure which) what you are posting.

"Contamination" isn't amount-specific; it simple means "more than background". Most of the original 150,000 sq miles is inhabitable, inhabited, and was unharmed by the radiation immediately after the blast.

The 30 km exclusion zone contained all of the radiation hot-spots. It was initially kept uninhabited...but some people even refused to move and others moved back in already. These days you can even take day tours of the area because the radiation has returned to a level that the human body can tolerate (with the exception of the remaining higher than average hot spots). A 10 km radius zone still remains by permission only, requires donning a protective suit to enter, and has a guard post on the road.

The 150k sq mile number isn't relevant to your gripes about "unusable" holes in New England if a reactor here even were to explode like Chernobyl (which is well-established that they wouldn't).

up
Voting closed 0

. . .you go live in the not so contaminated areas then- I'm sure it is safe. Have you read about the "programs" they have to teach kids they are not human trash and that they shouldn't embrace nihilism and do drugs and have unprotected sex just because they were born in a "contaminated area"? Why don't you show them your nuke industry propaganda stats on why they have nothing to fear? You people are priceless.

up
Voting closed 0

So, here's a helpful chart to figure out the relative amounts of radiation from natural sources and some of the nuclear accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima.

By the way, you're getting 3-4x more radiation by being within 50 miles of the Norton coal power plant in Worcester than you are from Seabrook right...this...very...second. Go get "your enemy". They're attacking you.

up
Voting closed 0

Neat way to present the data -- scale can be hard to get across to people -- some more than others. And now you've got this song stuck in my head -- thanks a lot.

up
Voting closed 0

Scale is hard to get across to people who imagine themselves at The Master's Table and in on "the plan" for the WORLD. You gotta bat em over the head to see their neighbors.

up
Voting closed 0

....having Rhode Island be an exclusion zone for 50-100 years would be a real bummer -- no Lupo's, no Newport tours, no coffee milk, no PawSox games, no Lovecraft tours...?

I don't understand the argument that currently rages on this thread (why so much coal discussion?), but I just don't like it when you say things like a reactor in the U.S. could not explode like Chernobyl. That seems like something the hubris-filled scientist says in the movie right before something explodes resulting in unleashing all sorts of giant insects or something on the world.

So I disagree with you, but don't feel the need to get nasty about it.

up
Voting closed 0