Nuclear power emissions

[Merlyn]

I guess I have to include doomsday fear in the collection of things which are "nuclear emissions".
Any one nuclear power plant going off it's carefully monitored agenda will cause massive radiation and death. Who needs bombs?

And to think our great world powers want to build more! This is their answer to global warming eh?
Meanwhile we all have the option, and none take it. In a world dominated by technology, going green is a challenge.
Just think, that cell phone can locate you at any time. Within 50 feet. Creepy it is.

But yes, the fear factor is definitely a fall-out emission of nuclear power. Seeing as transmission of electric power is feeble at best, we must always be near a power plant to get electric power.

This is being changed, but requires a whole new grid to do.

Merlyn

[oaklight]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could utilize those recourses that we now use for defense, toward something more pleasant?

Lets start now.

What would you guys recommend?

[Merlyn]

What do I recommend?
First;
Awaken the media to the cause. But of course this is against the lobby agenda and will be difficult to do with the media. After all the puppet media we have is controlled by those bent on reaping the uranium from Africa before anyone else does.

Second;
Realize that being self-aware isn't enough. (perhaps that should have been first)
To be the change we have to actually do something. That is a matter of many levels of community involvement.

Third;
Be aware that while we sit and point at things we cannot control, our brothers in arms must step up and do that work.
If we do not like that idea, then back to the second point above.

Forth;
Become effective with the ability we do have, after all we do have the World wide web staring in our face as we read this.
Those like; Osama Bin Laden, Sarah Palin and a long list of others are effective in causing chaos.
Can we do better?

Fifth;
Make positive steps to eliminate the need for nuclear power. That goes back to all points and forward to self empowerment.

Awareness begins with commitment.
Nuclear power isn't free of emissions, serious land destruction, unknown affects on the environment, slave labor, resource grabbing, continuing the staus quo.

Merlyn

[Corwen]

What would you guys recommend?

Well, lets decommission existing reactors ASAP. Not build any more. Put serious effort into negotiating disarmament, which will do everyone a favour economically. Lets have an international agreement not to build more, or modernise existing weapons, and then try to negotiate what's left down to single figures per state.

Regarding power, lets make it illegal to sell appliances less economical than the current best on the market. Lets make insulation free paid for by the state with all the money we saved on those nukes. Lets make burning wood to get rid of it a crime, all wood felled by tree surgeons over a certain diameter has to be taken to depots where people can get it for firewood at a nominal charge. Lets pump more of that tax we saved into wind, willow, tidal, micro hydro, solar, combined heat and power etc, and on an education programme to teach adults and kids where power comes from. Ration flying, one return flight per person per year. Encourage neighbourhoods to get together and plant up wasteland with veg, share seeds, compost, and know how. Encourage city farms and box schemes. All this will reduce CO2 from unnecessary food miles. Lets scale back the military hugely and instead make all public transport free, redeploy the soldiers to run the public transport as they are efficient at organising logistics until their contracts expire.

There's a few ideas for starters.

On another note regarding nuclear power, whatreally scares me is the fact that should a natural disaster, pandemic, civil disturbance or zombie attack (just kidding) make it impossible for the staff to get to work, every nuclear reactor in the country will go critical after a couple of weeks and anyone who survived said disaster/zombie attack (just kidding) will have nuclear fallout to deal with as well. I have this on good authority from a friend who programmed nuclear power station computer systems.

[Merlyn]

every nuclear reactor in the country will go critical after a couple of weeks

this is very true, and by comparison, a hydro-electric plant will go on for years with no problem at all.

As for decriminalization of pot, that I can support. It is idiotic to make a weed criminal yet allow tobacco to be legal.
Both need to be given some thought.

But to the ideals of generating less emissions, the nuclear issue is dangerous to others, not the ones who will die from a failed plant as much as CERTAIN danger will come to those who live where uranium is mined. We can say what if, to many things. But we cannot to the destruction of Africa for the sake of our failed efforts to stop nuclear emissions.

I should really say "no effort" and in fact a very dangerous media campaign of "global warming" to justify nuclear power grab.
This takes connecting the dots, but guess where the whole thing is headed... nuclear power. This effectively stops our own efforts to get off the grid, and puts more and more of us in danger.

Another fall-out from nuclear power is dependence. Just like oil.
Where is the "change"? I can tell you where, the African people and desert!
It may stop mining of coal and put millions out of work, and then put all of that power into the pockets of government.

This all at the expense of a country who is so very poor. And it was those people who were protesting, and ignored by the media.
And of our future generations who will have to deal with such a greedy and poor choice.
Of the unchecked emissions, this one has some very severe consequence.

In light of this and nuclear power, some ideas;
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/02/12/bill ... l?hpt=Sbin

Gates spent a significant portion of his speech highlighting nuclear technology that would turn spent uranium -- the 99 percent of uranium rods that aren't burned in current nuclear power plants -- into electricity. That technology could power the world indefinitely; spent uranium supplies in the U.S. alone could power the country for 100 years, he said.
A "traveling wave reactor" would burn uranium waste slowly, meaning a 60-year supply could be added to a reactor at once and then not touched for decades, he said.

Merlyn

[Merlyn]

Imagine the affect of radiation, and how that shortens our life.
We do not get to stop it like quitting cigarettes.

Nuclear emissions is a very real danger we cannot see, touch or know is happening until it is too late.
I once had a civil defence radiation meter, and these were easy to get at the time.
That was 40 years ago.

Not sure if we can get such a thing now.
Might be interesting to check out over the internet..
http://www.radmeters4u.com/
http://www.ki4u.com/products1.php
http://www.geigerboy.com/page3.htm
Well what do you know? You can still get them..
Merlyn

[Merlyn]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8547436.stm
And so the raping of India begins...

In Madban and other villages on the proposed site of the plant, local people refuse to believe that land officially acquired last month has suddenly ceased to be theirs.

Milind Desai, a local medical practitioner, says: "There is not even a hypothetical possibility of us leaving the village. We know the plant is not coming here."

Campaigner Mr Gavhankar owned 150 acres of land until last month.

The government acquired his land - along with land belonging to 2,400 other farmers - in four villages.

On it, the Nuclear Power Corporation of India is to start work on the project next year - along with Areva.

[Aylyn]

I should have thought that Chernobyl would have been warning enough, it is astonishing how fast people forget. OTOH - it is by now probably the best protected natural area in the whole world.

The Exclusion Zone around the Chernobyl nuclear power station is reportedly a haven for wildlife.[130][131] As humans were evacuated from the area just over 23 years ago, existing animal populations multiplied and rare species not seen for centuries have returned or have been reintroduced, for example lynx, wild boar, wolf, Eurasian brown bear, European bison, Przewalski's horse, and eagle owl.[130][131] Birds even nest inside the cracked concrete sarcophagus shielding in the shattered remains of reactor number 4.[132] The Exclusion Zone is so lush with wildlife and greenery that in 2007 the Ukrainian government designated it a wildlife sanctuary, "Chernobyl Special";[133] and at 488.7 km2 it is one of the largest wildlife sanctuaries in Europe.[131]

According to a 2005 U.N. report, wildlife has returned despite radiation levels that are presently 10 to 100 times higher than normal background radiation. Although they were significantly higher soon after the accident, the levels have fallen because of radioactive decay.[132]

Some researchers claim that by halting the destruction of habitat, the Chernobyl disaster helped wildlife flourish. Biologist Robert J. Baker of Texas Tech University was one of the first to report that Chernobyl had become a wildlife haven and that many rodents he has studied at Chernobyl since the early 1990s have shown remarkable tolerance for elevated radiation levels.

For the sake of our wildlife, let's build more of them

OTOH - it is a fallacy to think that we can safely handle nuclear waste. It will outlive us by a large number of generations, and who can say that our or a higher technology will be around for that long. It might be that we regress to a lower level of technology, where all memories of radioactivity and how to treat it will be lost, and the remnants of our nuclear power plants and their waste disposal areas will be lost. Do we really want to expose our great-great-grandchildren to that?

[Merlyn]

Hi Aylyn,
Disposal of nuclear waste should be reexamined.
The degradation of nuclear material goes through several stages as I understand it.
Some have advocated use of degraded material rather than disposal of it.

This is a science I do not understand well enough to advocate or know the solutions to, but it would make sense to "recycle" the material if at all possible.
As we have discussed, taking uranium from the ground to making it an energy source takes energy to do, so though it may not create a local pollution hazard in the area it is consumed, it does cause a problem to the environment where it is made.

How this is managed is a study in it's own right, and at this point we are seeing governments advocate more of this.
I am not at all in favor of destroying another country's desert for what is called "clean energy" here in the US.

The water use alone for mining , refining and using this kind of energy can damage and divert needed water from local sources and contaminate it.