The nuclear industry is calling in all it's chits on CNN

[annabanana]

right now. There is no problem. In the end there will be more better plants. Minor radiation.. nothing to worry about... no real damage to people or anything else.

[madmax]

1. Are they ever! nt

[NV Whino]

2. I'm really sick of this

You can't outbuild Mother Nature.

[WhiteTara]

3. meanwhile there was an explosion

and another is melting down. No problem though. Move along and don't mind that mushroom cloud.

[closeupready]

54. I know this isn't a funny topic, but I snarfed at your last sentence.

How far we've gone from "we don't want to wake up one morning with a mushroom cloud hanging over our heads" to "move along, it's just a mushroom could." :rofl:

[WhiteTara]

68. pretty fucking weird, isn't it?

we are in a very new normal!

[spanone]

4. just had a guy on m$nbc who dismissed all fears....

[godai]

5. 8000 coal miners die each year. Should we ban coal mining?

I'm hardly a fan of the nuclear industry but the reality is, we need nuclear power for the near term. We need better international regulation of the reactors. Those in charge in Japan seem amateurish. If you want to talk deaths related to various power sources, coal probably ranks #1. That being said, I hope the reactors in Japan are brought under control.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-17/putin-asserts-control-over-mining-after-coal-deaths-update2-.html

[spanone]

6. does coal have a couple of hundred thousand years of killing potential?

[godai]

7. So, what's you answer to the question? 8000 deaths every year! n/t

[KittyWampus]

64. using waste to energy technologies would be better than coal AND nuclear.

[katnapped]

8. Come on...nothing to see here

Koch Electric will make sure that the safety of American citizens is PARAMOUNT in the construction and operation of it's nuclear power plants!

[rdking647]

23. how many people has nuclear power killed in the US?

[fatbuckel]

43. Anyone want to answer this? HOW MANY PEOPLE HAS NUKE NERGY KILLED?

[rdking647]

44. they wont

because then they will be exposed for the hysterical luddites at a lot of teh anti nuke people are

[fatbuckel]

46. Some answers.

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

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 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)


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."

[kristopher]

56. The nuclear industry can be counted on to lie - that blog is part of their network of nuclear blogs

For example, the number of fatalities associated strictly with the nuclear fuel chain (excludes major accidents) is 0.69/TWh (See: The Meaning Of Results: Comparative Risk Assessments OF Energy Options). http://www.informaworld.com/index/02X48X98DVPW7U96.pdf

The 0.69 deaths/TWh represents 0.04/TWh in OCCUPATIONAL fatalities AND 0.65/TWh in PUBLIC fatalities.

Paul Gipe, a leading authority on wind energy, (2006, 2009) finds that the number derived from considering ALL KNOWN FATALITIES ASSOCIATED WITH WIND (including incidents that strain credulity to attribute them to the technology) as of 2009 is 0.07/TWh.

Also, there is a very strong case to be made for the position that this already low number hugely exaggerates the actual risks associated with the wind industry. Please take a moment to review the short original article: http://www.wind-works.org/articles/BreathLife.html

(Now please take another moment to reread post 46 by fatbuckel.)


One of the most significant issues, however, is the typical glossing over of what deaths are attributable to nuclear. This is typical of the way that omission is dealt with by nuclear proponents (it is an actual quote from a blog posted on DU in support of nuclear energy). "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."

Compare to this 2009 peer reviewed study issued by the Russian Academy of Sciences and published by the New York Academy of sciences:

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181 Issue Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Pages 31 - 220

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health

Alexey B. Nesterenko a , Vassily B. Nesterenko a ,† and Alexey V. Yablokov b
a
Institute of Radiation Safety (BELRAD), Minsk, Belarus b Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Address for correspondence: Alexey V. Yablokov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, Office 319, 119071 Moscow,
Russia. Voice: [phone]; fax: [phone]. [e-mail]
†Deceased


ABSTRACT

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

In all cases when comparing the territories heavily contaminated by Chernobyl's radionuclides with less contaminated areas that are characterized by a similar economy, demography, and environment, there is a marked increase in general morbidity in the former. Increased numbers of sick and weak newborns were found in the heavily contaminated territories in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia.

<snip>

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations. Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination. Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups. From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.

The nuclear industry has cultivated a very extensive network of bloggers to spread misinformation designed to gain public support for nuclear industry. The information you've shared is a deliberate propaganda product, not a mistake or bad scholarship.

[Better Believe It]

63. So who is behind your source "Next Big Future"? Who funds it?

Is it a front for the nuclear energy industry?

And who wrote the article and conducted the study?

I'm listening.

[hunter]

67. Yes.

The most toxic stuff in coal lasts forever.

[NV Whino]

10. "Those in charge in Japan seem amateurish."

If one were to believe the "experts," Japan is the forefront of nuclear safety. So, amateurs, or forefront?

Personally, I believe they are at the forefront. However, you can't outbuild Mother Nature. The repercussions of a nuclear accident are far reaching and long lasting. It is long past time to take nuclear dollars and put them into clean energy, phasing out coal on the way as well.

[godai]

15. The steps taken at Fukushima seem amatuerish.

Apparently, the diesel generators were located where the tsunami could get to them. Waterproof, concrete buildings were needed. It didn't take a genius to imagine a tsunami hitting that coast. It's ahppened before. TEPCO is detested in Japan. Their news conferences have been a joke, with rambling answers by tired looking personnel. There seems to be no leadership at all.

[kristopher]

58. The area where the plants are located is not identified as a tsunami zone.

North of Sendai is, but the area below Sendai is not. That is the problem, small errors are magnified by the severity of the consequences of failure.

[rdking647]

29. we need more nukes

they are safe as designed no madder what the luddite anti nuke fols say.
the japanese plants survived one of the largest earthquakes in history as well as a tsunami and STILL didnt have a large scale radiation release

[kristopher]

59. There are far better alternatives no matter what reason is used to justify nuclear support

There is no valid reasoning that supports building new nuclear except the financial well being of individual stakeholders that will profit from building and operating them.

[KittyWampus]

65. Your chart totally misses waste to energy.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

12. Yes.

As soon as technologically possible.

[godai]

17. OK, 30000 gun deaths in the US each year. Ban guns?

How about 35000 car deaths each year? My point is, none of these are going to be banned. I believe that the answer is better regulation in each case.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

52. Do guns and cars= coal?

Don't put the cart in front of the horse.

[FBaggins]

33. I agree.

Before or after nuclear?

[meow mix]

13. why are you using tradgedy to promote your white whale.

sick

[godai]

20. Nice attempt at spinning. I didn't start the fire. n/t

[Zoeisright]

48. You're trying to keep it burning.

Instead of trying to put it out. Accept responsibility for that at least. Or aren't you capable of that?

[godai]

50. You're still trying to spin...not working. You seem to agree that the OP started the fire. n/t

[FBaggins]

38. Isn't that exactly what this thread is about?

Using tragedy to promote their own agenda?

I know that the experts on TV seem like they're painting a rosey picture, but there's a very real chance that they're correct.

Having said that, There are at least three reactors that are testing the last line of defense against significant radiation release. We don't know yet whether they will pass the test.

If they do... it could actually be a strong statement for the safety of nuclear power. Even in a worst-case natural disaster and with multiple-decades-old designs... they still protected the public from catastrophe. We can also some of the major fail points (the backup generators for one) and know that current designs don't have the same weakness.

If they don't... we have an entirely new conversation.

[MadHound]

14. Actually no, we don't

<http:///www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf>

Not to mention that nuclear is more expensive than green renewables and has become a mature industry with minimal government subsidy, unlike the nuclear industry.

There is no need to set up this false either/or bipolar dichotomy of nuclear or fossil fuels. There is a third, better option. Granted, it won't profit either the nuclear industry or fossil fuel corporations, which is why there is such an entrenched opposition, but who gives a damn?

[Atman]

28. +10,000 (years)

What's the half-life of a DU post?

[DCKit]

16. Honestly, I have to agree. Coal is at least as bad and far more insidious, since we're used to it.

There is no lake, stream, river of pond in the US that's not contaminated with mercury from burning coal.

We need to do a lot of things differently is we want to live on this planet for much longer. After all, not ALL of us are going to be raptured. (and why don't they just leave, already?)

[madokie]

39. I'm not so sure we do need nuclear power

I'm not sure that with manufacturing as it is in America and with some belt tightening since we only get 20 percent of our electrical energy from nuclear that we couldn't do without a single one of the nuke plants

Oh and we have no idea as to how many of the deaths in America can't be traced back to exposure to radiation from nuclear power plants as cancers sometimes takes years to manifest. The nuclear power industry as a whole can be trusted about as far as I can throw an elephant.

[Zoeisright]

47. I've yet to see anyone babbling about "we need nuclear power for the near term"

or "solar energy isn't feasible" provide any actual proof from a NON BIASED source for those insane statements.

But no, let's just keep on poisoning ourselves. Christ on a stick.

[Bluebear]

55. Yes.

[malaise]

9. They must have heard about those massive demonstrations

in Germany and France. Meanwhile the Swiss have canceled their orders.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12724981

http://nuclear-news.net/2011/03/14/nuclear-plants-likely-to-be-shut-in-germany-cancelled-in-switzerland/

[annabanana]

11. Thank you for the links. You always bring the goods. . n/t

[malaise]

30. Good Morning Annabanana

:hi:

[snooper2]

18. It should be a call for 100x the money in research in nuclear fusion

That's where we need to get to..

Fusion reactors will be bad ass...

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

19. Let's have all these experts get on the next jet to Japan & have them picnic outside of the plants.

[Atman]

21. I heard that..."This will make the nuclear industry SAFER."

I wish I could say I was stunned, but I'm not. This is all being portrayed as just a hiccup, no worries. It will make us SAFER. It's disgusting.

[Junkdrawer]

22. Posts like this make the people of Japan cry....

Shame on you!
































:sarcasm:

[annabanana]

25. whew

That sarcasm tag was way down in the post.. You really had me sweating.

[Renew Deal]

24. The problem with nuclear isn't that it's "unsafe" day to day, it's that it's beyond catastrophic

when things go wrong. It's a gamble. Fairly efficient energy producer that's an alternative to coal and oil, but if something goes wrong, it's worse than a total loss.

[rdking647]

27. like what

3 mile island.. massive failure,no large scale radiation release.
Japan. 9.0 quake,one of the largest in history,tsunami and still no large scale release of radiation

[Renew Deal]

31. You think anyone is going near that plant without a contamination suit in the near future?

"No large scale release of radiation" is a joke. Only a small amount is troublesome. And we're not done with this plant, sadly. Like I said, it's a risk. Kind of like living next to an apparently dormant volcano.

[FBaggins]

40. Probably not...

...is that really that big a deal?

We're supposed to make energy policy around the possibility that in a worst-case scenario some people might have to wear protective gear to go to a plant?

Right not there are tens of thousands of rescue workers who need protective gear to go into what were once streets of an advances nation.

Only a small amount is troublesome.

Of course it is. That's why nuclear power plants have safety standards that require them to report the tiniest radiation leak (even if the amount is less than you get by walking into your basement).

But let's have a little perspective here. There are FAR more troublesome things going on in Japan.

Kind of like living next to an apparently dormant volcano.

That's an excellent example. But we do that every day all around the world. Don't we?

[Renew Deal]

45. You have to take it all into account.

Risk/reward, feasibility, etc for the various choices. People are deathly afraid of a chernobyl or japanese style nuclear accident. Is it an unreasonable fear? I don't think so. I know the "worst case scenario" is unlikely, but the worst case scenario with nuclear energy is much worse than other choices (coal, hydro, wind, etc.).

[FBaggins]

49. Let's assume that's true.

but the worst case scenario with nuclear energy is much worse than other choices (coal, hydro, wind, etc.).

But the "everything but the worst case" scenario is nowhere near as bad (ignoring "wind" and some of the smaller etc's)

And the worst case scenario for hydro is nothing to sneeze at. You should google what the worst dam failures in history have done. Makes nuclear look positively friendly. I've heard reports that at least one failed in Japan this week, almost certainly resulting in more deaths than these reactors will cause.

[KittyWampus]

66. You totally ignore the COSTS and inefficiency of extracting uranium, transporting it

refining it, storing it, using it and then disposing of it.

It is completely inefficient and part of a broken paradigm.

The stubborn stupidity of BOTH sides of this conversation is mind numbing.

Those that want to shill for nuclear even though it's an outdated energy paradigm and those who object to to nuclear for incomplete reasons by citing only it's safety.

[Atman]

36. Bullshit.

Are you getting your information from the talking head on CNN this morning, who said TMI had "absolutely no negative health effects?" Seriously? Do some research. There are large clusters of cancers and other illnesses around TMI. Complete and utter bullshit.

[rdking647]

26. the anti nuke people

are like luddites.. head firmly buried in the sand. they remind me of the people wanting to ban cell phones because they cause cancer..
The FACT remains that japan suffered a 9.0 earthquake. and a tsunami. and still their has been no large scale release of radiation. that seems like a pretty strong vote in favor of nukes. if they can withstand a 9.0 quake,hydrogen explosions and what all and still not bust the containment that IMHO means they have done a damn good job building them

[Renew Deal]

32. Although I appreciate the pro-nuke people on DU,

I don't think the containment system has really been tested yet. Also, the backup systems for the plant have almost all failed. We'll see how the containment system works if the plant melts down.

[FBaggins]

41. Oh it's definitely been "tested".

The test could get worse... but it's being tested all right.

The "good" news is that every hour that goes by reduces the danger. Even the waste heat in a nuclear core reduces fairly rapidly over the first few days after a shutdown. They seem to have less and less cooling ability at a couple of these plants, but there's also less and less to cool.

They're melting down (my guess), but it's starting to look (to me) as if these cores will look a lot like the one at TMI's #2 unit. Mostly melting and solidifying within the core, without too much spilling out of it and endangering the containment.

[NV Whino]

53. It seems to me it's the pro nuke people who have their head buried

They (include yourself if you wish) never address the spent fuel issue. Maybe someone can build the safest plant in the world, but what do you do with the waste? Waste that keeps increasing, by the way. It's time to take the nuke dollars and invest in renewable energy.

[ehrnst]

34. If we put the money into solar, wind and geothermal that we do into nuclear

We'd all be safer.

[FBaggins]

42. Yep. We'd also learn to live without 24/7 electricity.

Some people would be willing to make that sacrifice.

[kristopher]

57. You know that is false. Do you need to do that to support nuclear energy?

If the only way you can argue for support of nuclear power is by knowingly making false statements about the competition, why would you support it?

[eShirl]

60. Why is that?

[ehrnst]

69. Why?

[ehrnst]

35. If we put the money into solar, wind and geothermal that we do into nuclear

We'd all be safer.

[Iggo]

37. On DU, too.

;)

[LanternWaste]

51. I absorbed quite a bit of minor radiation...

I absorbed quite a bit of minor radiation over the course of five years when I worked at an Outpatient Cancer Treatment Center.



Never did begin to glow in the dark. Quite disappointed...

[Cleita]

62. Because that kind of poisoning is slow. This is why

the industry gets away with calling it safe.

[Cleita]

61. Time to shut off CNN.

Really, as long as you tune in they will continue to be a tool of corporate America. You can get enough information on the internet. So you don't need them.

[Whisp]

70. CNN is useless, and more dangerous than informative

hate those fuckers with a passion - corporate ass licking stooges.

I hope one day they realize how they contributed badly instead of making the world just a little bit better of a place = by telling truths instead of sucking corporate dick

[Shagbark Hickory]

71. CNN= nonsense. They ought to go back to covering the oscars and playing non stop commercials.