"Scientists and Doctors Demand Moratorium on 5G"

[Cyberdragon]

"Conpumtion of margarine" is written twice in the last pic, but I couldn't find "conpumption" in the dictionary. Yet, "conpumtion" appears in many texts indexed by Google.

Is "conpumption" a legit English word, or is it just a frequent typo for "consumption"?

That graph is a joke probably thrown together in five minutes or less, and they didn't bother checking spelling.

[tooki]

"Conpumtion of margarine" is written twice in the last pic, but I couldn't find "conpumption" in the dictionary. Yet, "conpumtion" appears in many texts indexed by Google.

Is "conpumption" a legit English word, or is it just a frequent typo for "consumption"?

It’s just a boring old typo. I certainly wouldn’t call it frequent. Neither here nor there to the topic at hand.

[james_s]

What makes you think that those 180 scientists and and doctors do not understand the subject? Also this is subject only accessible to those who want to understand it because tech and biology are not taught together in meaningful manner.
Now for more science based approach there are tons of research around incl relatively non-biased from former CCCP (little to no commercial factor).

I know a lot of people with degrees in medicine or pharmacology who belive on homeopathy. So, nothing new.

Intelligence and belief seem to have surprisingly little interaction. I've known some otherwise very intelligent people who also held what I consider to be rather bizarre beliefs. Beliefs are built on emotion rather than rational thought so it's impossible to use rational thought in a debate around belief.

[paulca]

Couple of interesting takes on population:
  (about 14:00) in he presents two lists; things the encourage population growth, things that discourage population growth.  He points out that if we don't pick from the discourage list (which has some horrid things on it), then nature will.

My vote is on world war.  Probably started by the USA.

There is also the HIGHLY controversial suggestion that in overly densely populated colonies of rats, homosexuality rate increases rapidly.

And this from the United nations population division, where they tell us "Don't panic" and suggest it will top out at 10 billion or so.


Anyone buying this?

[Buriedcode]

I guess I'm late to the party - what does population have to do with any potential/speculated dangers of 5G?

Hans Rosling is a gem.  Highly recommended.

A quick skim over the posts shows the thread has gone as sort of expected - those who go in believing that there may be a danger, and others coming from a standpoint that all non-ionizing radiation is completely safe and does zero harm.  Also the C-word thrown about for emotive effect (by both sides).  I like to think I'm 'neutral' but of course, there is no such thing, we all have our biases and assumptions.

Just because a large number of "Scientists" talk openly about fears of EM (specifically radio and microwave) radiation and potential "negative health effects" doesn't really mean much without knowing who these Scientists are, their field, their qualifications, and their background.  But similarly, just because we all live in a sea of man-made radio and microwaves, without all "dropping over" doesn't mean that there aren't any mild long term effects (be they negative, neutral or even positive).  It just shows that any long term effects that exist must be subtle, or perhaps masked by other things like diet/lifestyle.

Also, once one starts to think in terms of secondary and tertiary effects, it becomes even more difficult to prove any causal links, but also much easier to speculate about them.  For example, I could kick out some wild speculation about how areas of greater EM "pollution" cause an increase in headaches, which increases the consumption of paracetamol, which causes a small uptick in liver disease, that could only be found if one looks for it.  - there are a hell of a lot of assumptions there, especially just saying 'EM causes headaches' without any kind of proof, but it is also rather difficult to completely disprove.

And that is why there will always be fears around any kind of "radiation" regardless of peoples education, "class" and even by those who study in that field.  Those on the other side who immediately call "woo" on it (as tempted as I am to do), are only serving to re-enforce the fears by patronizing and immediately dismissing peoples fears - that's why we live in this so-called 'post-truth' era.  It's all well and good being smug, and claiming you are 'more educated' but in fact its that attitude that is harming science and education.

[cdev]

Germany had to stop using nuclear power generation because of Chernobyl having already made livestock raised in certain parts of Germany dangerous to eat. One more accident would mean a really impossible situation would exist for them there. Since land can't be replaced and the half life of certain radioisotopes is very long, also, as the radiation around Chernobyl is not decaying as the model predicts it should,

(See https://www.wired.com/2009/12/chernobyl-soil/ )

they really didn't have any choice.

And why Germany is phasing our nuclear. (And since it’s impossible to make up the energy shortfall with renewables in the short term, the shortfall will be made up with dirty brown coal, at least for a while.)

If it were up to me, we’d build a bunch more nuclear plants (to the highest standards, and with zero compromises on maintenance) at Chernobyl and other already-polluted places (ok, not at Fukushima) so we can phase out fossil fuels ASAP.

Fukushima has created a similar situation. Its not safe to live there. Its not safe to eat meat from animals raised there, and its still not clear when or if it will be, within our lifetimes, or not.

Its easy for people to pontificate about things from far away but if you had had a home there and your life was now pretty much ruined, your home unoccupied, in the exclusion zone, with no compensation, (the fine print in insurance policies excludes risks from radiation, toxic chemicals, acts of war, etc.) how would you feel?

[tooki]

I live in a place close enough to a nuclear reactor that the Swiss government distributes iodine tablets to keep on hand just in case.

Besides, Chernobyl happened because of incredibly poor operation of a non-fail-safe design. And moreover, it's not why Germans decided to get rid of nuclear power. They did it because they don't want to deal with nuclear waste. (I've had many an argument with rabidly anti-nuclear Germans…)

So yeah, sorry, but I remain unmoved.

[Gromitt]

Hans Rosling is a gem.  Highly recommended.

He was a gem.
Regrettably he died in February 2017.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Rosling

[cdev]

Its my understanding that all boiling water reactors have a very significant safety weakness when it comes to loss of power for cooling both the reactor cores and spent fuel storage - which is described technically as "loss of the ultimate heat sink".

Which is what occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi I power plant's reactors 1,2 and 3.

Authoritative analyses of what happened at Fukushima:

http://fukushima.ans.org/report/accident-analysis

https://www.nap.edu/read/21874/chapter/5

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_(Unit_1_Reactor)

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/AdditionalVolumes/P1710/Pub1710-TV1-Web.pdf


Additionally, the mechanics of post-accident radiation level science remain largely unknown, as shown by the persistent levels of very high radiation at both Chernobyl and Fukushima.

https://www.wired.com/2009/12/chernobyl-soil/

citing "Long-Term Dynamics of Radionuclides Vertical Migration in Soils of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Exclusion Zone" by Yu.A. Ivanov, V.A. Kashparov, S.E. Levchuk, Yu.V. Khomutinin, M.D. Bondarkov, A.M. Maximenko, E.B. Farfan, G.T. Jannik, and J.C. Marra. AGU 2009 poster session.

also
Radiation Level at Fukushima Dwarfs the Highest Peak at Chernobyl  (2017)

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/02/03/national/fukushima-radiation-level-highest-since-march-11/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/03/fukushima-daiichi-radiation-levels-highest-since-2011-meltdown

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/28302792729.pdf  (see maps re: Switzerland deposition of radioisotopes due to rainfall)

I live in a place close enough to a nuclear reactor that the Swiss government distributes iodine tablets to keep on hand just in case.

Besides, Chernobyl happened because of incredibly poor operation of a non-fail-safe design. And moreover, it's not why Germans decided to get rid of nuclear power. They did it because they don't want to deal with nuclear waste. (I've had many an argument with rabidly anti-nuclear Germans…)

So yeah, sorry, but I remain unmoved.

Tooki, 
Your government may know something you don't. Listen to them.

Don't just brush off the danger presented by radiation. It appears that Switzerland, because of its mountains, catches a lot of radiation from the clouds, because of the rain that falls there.

[james_s]

I live in a place close enough to a nuclear reactor that the Swiss government distributes iodine tablets to keep on hand just in case.

Besides, Chernobyl happened because of incredibly poor operation of a non-fail-safe design. And moreover, it's not why Germans decided to get rid of nuclear power. They did it because they don't want to deal with nuclear waste. (I've had many an argument with rabidly anti-nuclear Germans…)

So yeah, sorry, but I remain unmoved.

Ironically the anti-nuke lobby has had the unintended side effect of keeping large numbers of aging Fukushima-era nuclear plants operating beyond their design life by preventing the construction of newer, much safer and much more efficient nuclear plants that are both less likely to suffer an accident and produce less waste by using less fuel.

Now I'm not rabidly pro or anti nuclear, I recognize that it is not without risks but neither is any other form of energy production and I don't see many people willing to take the drastic lifestyle steps necessary to stop harming the environment through energy production. Much of the world's power comes from burning coal and other non-renewable fossil fuels which spew pollution including large amounts of mercury in the case of coal into the environment and release huge quantities of CO2. Even "green" sources are not without impact, solar panels are dirty to produce, wind turbines kill birds, hydro dams kill fish and flood habitat when the dams are built. I'm not against using these methods of production either but all impacts must be weighed. Nuclear power is overall one of the cleanest and there are thousands of nuclear reactors that have been running for decades without incident. The disasters that have taken place have been caused largely by gross negligence.

[Buriedcode]

Fukushima has created a similar situation. Its not safe to live there. Its not safe to eat meat from animals raised there, and its still not clear when or if it will be, within our lifetimes, or not.

Could you link your source to this?  From the few articles I have read - admittedly not exactly reputable sources - like New Scientist, the actual radiation levels and contamination in the surrounding area were barely above limits, and for the most part, well below.  It was often the case with Chernobyl as well, whilst many areas had very high radiation levels, the dangers were overstated.

Another article: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/fukushima-residents-exposed-far-less-radiation-thought

I am not suggesting either disaster wasn't a disaster, its just I'm often amazed at how the media assumes something, and runs with it - and any kind of scare stories (radiation, terrorism, "hidden poisons" in food etc..) are rarely checked.  Anyone who questions the dangers are seen as government puppets, or "pro-nuclear".  It is far easier to err on the side of caution but that could mean ones spends their life in fear of something that simply isn't true, and it only gets worse as we age - I'm starting to get more paranoid about things, and it takes real effort to counter it. 

[Buriedcode]

Hans Rosling is a gem.  Highly recommended.

He was a gem.
Regrettably he died in February 2017.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Rosling

Ahh I will miss his enthusiastic lectures. The world needs more people like him, using data and statistics not to scare, but to provide hope.  In a world of negativity or blind faith, it was rare to see someone who tried to show that positive changes can be made, using actual data to back it up (rather than skewing data in studies as seems to be the norm these days.. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2149844-most-science-papers-turn-out-to-be-wrong-its-time-to-fix-that/)

[cdev]

Where is this conclusion?

Could you show me an authoritative source that tells me conclusively that this new power plant design you are describing doesn't have the same problem with need to take extreme care with the nuclear waste, to prevent problems like "loss of the ultimate heatsink"?

I'm not saying that it cannot happen but to my knowledge, nobody has discovered a safe fission process yet that offers enough benefits over the broken ones we have now to justify building new nuclear power plants.

We should decommission some first, until we do more of that successfully, we still don't know the real cost to society of nuclear fission reactors.

Have nuclear power plants ever really been fully decommissioned?

maybe some have, do you know of any?

As far as I have seen, despite the fact that some now seem to be virtually abandoned, none really are as they all remain fenced off and unusable, with large areas off limits, why? Because they still have water filled ponds with highly radioactive nuclear waste in them. Those ponds need to be supplied continuously with fresh water or they will evaporate away and once the water is gone then they rapidly go into a thermal crisis mode, loss of the ultimate heat sink, the process of melting downward.

Ironically the anti-nuke lobby has had the unintended side effect of keeping large numbers of aging Fukushima-era nuclear plants operating beyond their design life by preventing the construction of newer, much safer and much more efficient nuclear plants that are both less likely to suffer an accident and produce less waste by using less fuel.

Now I'm not rabidly pro or anti nuclear,

However, you are, as shown by your bias against reputable science

I recognize that it is not without risks but neither is any other form of energy production and I don't see many people willing to take the drastic lifestyle steps necessary to stop harming the environment through energy production. Much of the world's power comes from burning coal and other non-renewable fossil fuels which spew pollution including large amounts of mercury in the case of coal into the environment and release huge quantities of CO2. Even "green" sources are not without impact, solar panels are dirty to produce, wind turbines kill birds, hydro dams kill fish and flood habitat when the dams are built. I'm not against using these methods of production either but all impacts must be weighed. Nuclear power is overall one of the cleanest and there are thousands of nuclear reactors that have been running for decades without incident. The disasters that have taken place have been caused largely by gross negligence.

Here is a study on birth defects in the area around Chernobyl:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/4/e836

Another study on birth defects by the Chernobyl Forum, a group of several international organizations.

https://web.archive.org/web/20060808041241/https://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf .

[cdev]

Follow some of the links I linked above.

If it was safe to live there, people would be living there. Some areas have been deemed safe to live in, but the exclusion zones remain. Spending a tiny bit of time in a place as a tourist, being careful not to breathe in dust, is a lot different than living there, breathing in dust there, growing food there, having children there.

Despite the efforts of an aggressive campaign to trivialize the risks the fact remains that it will likely be a long time, a very long time before those areas are likely to be safe to live in again.

And no, we shouldn't declare darkness to be the new standard.

Fukushima has created a similar situation. Its not safe to live there. Its not safe to eat meat from animals raised there, and its still not clear when or if it will be, within our lifetimes, or not.

Could you link your source to this?  From the few articles I have read - admittedly not exactly reputable sources - like New Scientist, the actual radiation levels and contamination in the surrounding area were barely above limits, and for the most part, well below.  It was often the case with Chernobyl as well, whilst many areas had very high radiation levels, the dangers were overstated.

Here is the Fukushima governments page on the size of the exclusion zone today. Are they saying its safe to live there? No. They are trying to put a positive face on t but its not a good situation because the inside of the reactor is so hot now that there may be additional releases of radiation.

Fukushima: http://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/site/portal-english/en03-08.html

Radiation causes stunted head size and mental retardation.
All in all, the combination of all these different forms of pollution, combined with governmental abdication of their responsibilities to help people cope with their failures, has the potential to be a burden so costly to societies that they might cease to function as civilizations after some kinds of disasters.

Consider the possible effects of an 1859 ("Carrington event") scale solar storm. That could cause mutiple nuclear meltdowns all around the world in its aftermath (if the power grid was disasbled for an extended period of time and cooling of spent fuel was not possible, its quite possible. Look at how multiple separate cores seprately melted down at Fukushima when the power went out.

That kind of additional burden to people would literally make society fall apart.


Chernobyl:

[helius]

Have nuclear power plants ever really been fully decommissioned?

Do you have some allergy to doing simple research to answer questions like this?
Four commercial power plants have been completely leveled, nothing left but dirt. They were formerly located in Shippingport, PA; Rowe, MA; Wiscasset, ME; and Haddam Neck, CT. There are no barriers to enter the land and do whatever you want there.

[cdev]

I didn't know that. That is good news.

[helius]

You're welcome!
Maybe I was uncharitable, because the information is not as accessible as could be hoped. Also, just because the plant sites are considered to be "greenfield" and usable without restrictions, there are radioactive waste depositories on nearby sites. So a 300 acre power plant may leave behind a 5 acre dry storage facility. They are dry casks and do not require any cooling power to prevent the release of isotopes, but nobody really knows if they will remain secure for the thousands of years required before the materials are no longer a danger to life. There still isn't a "permanent" national waste facility that would require no maintenance or security whatsoever.

See also https://www.eia.gov/nuclear/reactors/shutdown/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#United_States

[cdev]

The thing I many scientists worry the most about is a huge solar flare like the Carrington event in 1859. 

That would pop transformers all around the world, knocking out the grid, and then, we would likely get the Fukushima scenario at multiple nuclear sites, due to loss of the ultimate heat sink.

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12507/severe-space-weather-events-understanding-societal-and-economic-impacts-a

http://www.businessinsider.com/massive-1859-solar-storm-telegraph-scientists-2016-9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859

http://peakoil.com/enviroment/worldwide-nuclear-meltdown

Double whammy.

[Buriedcode]

You're deluding yourself, my friend.
..

Fukushima: http://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/site/portal-english/en03-08.html

Firstly the youtube video was from the NYtimes - a source that isn't exactly reliable. But I wasn't claiming there wasn't any negative effects from the disaster, just that often they were overstated.  If anything, lack of human activity in the area has *helped* wildlife more than nuclear waste has hindered it.

As for the fukushima link, I couldn't find any data about radiation levels outside of the reactor site, except :

Result of the estimation of external exposure doses - [Entire prefecture] Proportion of the values from 0 to 2 mSv: 93.8% (Except for those engaged in radiation-related work)

Where 1msv is apparently the average dose one gets a year from natural sources.  Although actual recommended limits, and data to back it up are lacking.  That link is mostly about communication to the public what the government is planning to do, checking water sources for contamination, the evacuation status of zones, and any mass screenings (such as thyroid screening).  It should be noted that mass screenings almost always show an increase in a disease, and historically is has been hard to link low-level radiation exposure to individual cases, as its mostly a statistics game.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2129988-fukushima-accident-gave-everyone-an-x-rays-worth-of-radiation/

I am not arguing that there is no danger, just that I would like some sources of information as to the level of contamination, radiation levels, estimation of contamination of livestock etc..  I realize for the latter there are no hard and fast answers, only what governments put out, which are often driven by a real need to quench public fear.  Just because a site has been evacuated doesn't indicate what levels there are there.  Public fear could be far more dangerous, and I commend the authorities for their efforts in ensuring public safety.  This doesn't not however, tell us much.   In what way am I deluding myself?

[helius]

Firstly the youtube video was from the NYtimes - a source that isn't exactly reliable.

I was going to quibble that the NYT is the "newspaper of record" and so on, but on this subject they really are bad. Check the headline of this story:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/world/asia/radioactive-boars-in-fukushima-thwart-residents-plans-to-return-home.html

It wants you to think the wildlife is a horrible mutant breed of X-Beast, dripping plutonium from their fangs. It's just execrable.

[cdev]

Wild boars are really dangerous..

By the way I am sorry to have used that phrase "deluded"  I have deleted it and replaced it with a better explanation of what I see as the problem. Serious irresponsibility in high places.

We cannot count on our corporate-controlled governments any more than the Russians , Ukrainians and Belorussians could count on what was then the USSR.

Suppose one day we wake up and its a gorgeous day but suddenly all our electronics goes haywire and then the power just blinks out, not to return - forever.. because - a solar storm - a "coronal mass Ejection" event like the 1859 Carrington event

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859

is going on-
See link: Here's why a massive 1859 solar storm still terrifies scientists - Business Insider: http://www.businessinsider.com/massive-1859-solar-storm-telegraph-scientists-2016-9


then - in a few days, or hours in some cases, (like in Fukushima) the fission based (boiling water) nuclear power plants all around the world start going critical and melting down.. all at the same time..  in a chain of events thats described as 'loss of the ultimate heat sink'  leading to huge radiation releases and large scale death and disaster.. all because we - like idiots, didn't look at Fukushima and say - wow its weird that all three reactors would all pop at the same time.. Hmmm..


There is an urgent need to either have reactors that do not produce hot nuclear waste, (fission) or rely on constant flows of fresh water, or depend on the grid being functional. In other words, we need reactors that can be turned off.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/06may_carringtonflare/

http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/flare-up_how_the_sun_could_put_an_end_to_nuclear_power/


What happened there?   

Up - a few posts - above I posted links to a half dozen official analyses of what happened.. they are worth reading.

[paulca]

So "we the people",

don't want nuclear power as it produces waste and massive pollution if there is an accident.

don't want wind power as it doesn't work when calm, spoils the scenery, are noisy, interfere with wildlife, particularly birds.

don't want solar because it's looks horrible on the landscape, interferes with wild life, produces toxic waste once past it's service life.

don't want coal or oil because "fossil fuel"

don't want hydro power or tidal power because of the huge investments and interference with wildlife... flooding valleys.

don't want geo-thermo because ... well not everywhere in the world is close enough to the kind of heat Iceland has on tap.

But, "We the people" do want all our gadgets, all our cars, all our expensive lighting and we want to have 3 children.

Energy demand is (apparently) rising faster than the population in developed and developing nations.  The uptake of "renewables" is almost completely offset by the increase is energy demand.  The UK was reporting it may get into winter brown out territory in a few years, even before Hinkley point et. al is built.

Fusion is still far off, always 10 years away.  Even then I'm sure the scaremongers will campaign for it to be banned because "reasons".

That really only leaves nuclear.  As the only clean (under normal operating conditions) power source.  It's the "under normal operating conditons" clause that is the issue. 

I always wondered why other reactor types have not been properly trialed on industrial scale.  Molten sodium et. al.  As I understand it most of our reactors are based on the Rickover model developed for the US Navy back in the 40s/50s.  The incentive there was that they produced weapons grade plutonium as a by product which got them favoured by the millitary which wanted a lot of weapons grade plutonium to play their little stock piling game with Russia.  The design works and is cheap to build, but, being a Navy invention for ships focuses cooling from water.

On nuclear accidents and on ship/sub based reactors.  How many undocumented accidents have there been?  How many sub reactors have be flooded and scuttled at sea due to accidents or just general decommissioning?

[cdev]

"What could possibly go wrong"?

The objections you list are widely different magnitude issues . My objection to the kind of grid we have and nuclear power as delivered today - is very real and is shared by others . We could end up with a catastrophe that would alter life on this planet for a very very long time.

See "Severe Space Weather--Social and Economic Impacts" here

the consequences of not fixing this before another Carrington-class solar storm hits will be catastrophic.

Its not rocket science. Even current reactors can likely be retrofitted with multiple redundant cooling systems.

While we get the alternatives - local power generation - and other new sources - and hopefully also redesign our power systems to not be as vulnerable to solar storms.

We can and must get that worked out.

 The important thing is that we do it, soon.

The thing to do is prioritize.. Which outcomes are the most catastrophic and/or the most likely to occur? 

(Also, most other civilized people in the world use a LOT less energy than Americans and Europeans and Australians.
They have decent lives and in many cases are healthier. We in the countries that use the most have a lot of room for savings.)

I personally think that this issue with loss of the ultimate heatsink and also loss of the power grid due to a solar flare is a really major risk we absolutely must prioritize and deal with now.

Because if we don't, we could wake up tomorrow to a real mess which we would not be able to fix. 

We had a wake up call a few years ago July 23, 2012 - when it turned out that the Sun - our own Sun- had had a major CME event which missed Earth but which was picked up by the STEREO-A satellite at one of the Lagrangian points. 

The CME was large enough to have wiped out most power systems on Earth had we just been a week farther along in our orbit than we were on that day.



What that tells us is that the frequency of these massive solar storms is higher than we thought.

So "we the people",

don't want nuclear power as it produces waste and massive pollution if there is an accident.

don't want wind power as it doesn't work when calm, spoils the scenery, are noisy, interfere with wildlife, particularly birds.

don't want solar because it's looks horrible on the landscape, interferes with wild life, produces toxic waste once past it's service life.

don't want coal or oil because "fossil fuel"

don't want hydro power or tidal power because of the huge investments and interference with wildlife... flooding valleys.

don't want geo-thermo because ... well not everywhere in the world is close enough to the kind of heat Iceland has on tap.

But, "We the people" do want all our gadgets, all our cars, all our expensive lighting and we want to have 3 children.

Energy demand is (apparently) rising faster than the population in developed and developing nations.  The uptake of "renewables" is almost completely offset by the increase is energy demand.  The UK was reporting it may get into winter brown out territory in a few years, even before Hinkley point et. al is built.

Fusion is still far off, always 10 years away.  Even then I'm sure the scaremongers will campaign for it to be banned because "reasons".

That really only leaves nuclear.  As the only clean (under normal operating conditions) power source.  It's the "under normal operating conditons" clause that is the issue. 

I always wondered why other reactor types have not been properly trialed on industrial scale.  Molten sodium et. al.  As I understand it most of our reactors are based on the Rickover model developed for the US Navy back in the 40s/50s.  The incentive there was that they produced weapons grade plutonium as a by product which got them favoured by the millitary which wanted a lot of weapons grade plutonium to play their little stock piling game with Russia.  The design works and is cheap to build, but, being a Navy invention for ships focuses cooling from water.

On nuclear accidents and on ship/sub based reactors.  How many undocumented accidents have there been?  How many sub reactors have be flooded and scuttled at sea due to accidents or just general decommissioning?

Well we know that in 2011 we had three meltdowns side by side in the same facility when the power went out.

[cdev]

@paulca, FYI I am pro fusion energy and anti-fission. My objections to fission are with the waste problem. Its impossible to deal with all the waste we're creating safely.

Thats why this problem is so difficult to solve.

People need to be put ahead of profits. We need to figure out ways that people can get what they need, even if its not what corporations want. I think we should try to transition to using less energy, with more of it being solar. I think we should attempt to figure out as many different ways of solving our various problems as we can, and encourage resiliency and diversity in solutions. Sure, people dont want to live next to a huge wind turbine, would you? On the other hand, there are many places that are ideal for them where almost nobody lives.

Fracking was never a good idea, because it pollutes the environment. Hydropower is better than many other kinds of energy, some rivers should be dammed and the power harvested, as long as some are not, to preserve habitat. At some point we will no longer need them and then their habitats can be restored, given that the species still survive.

[tooki]

Crikey, cdev, you sure must have a lot of free time on your hands to write such diatribes! (I’ll admit, I skimmed right over them.)

Anyhow, as someone who is pro-nuclear because IMHO the alternatives are even worse, I often feel as though people with my point of view have little say at the table, being dismissed as either industry shills or as being willfully ignorant on the dangers, when neither is true.

The fact is, while nuclear’s track record isn’t perfect, it’s still actually really good. (Nearly every problem so far has been directly related to awful management decisions, not inherent problems in the technology.) Consider the environmental devastation caused by hilltop removal coal mining, or strip mining. The amounts of nuclear waste produced in the end are also not that big. People forget how much heavy-metal-laden ash there is to deal with from coal plants. Not to mention CO2 emissions from any fossil fuel...

I’m in no way opposed to renewables, obviously, but people often ignore their downsides, too. Like how most hydro plants kill fish, and the reservoirs cause damage, too. Or how some kinds of solar plants set birds on fire as they fly. Or how windmills also kill birds. And of course, renewables’ big downside is that other than hydro, they’re pretty much all incapable of providing base load power, since their output varies depending on daytime and/or environmental conditions for solar, and environmental conditions for wind.

As such, I really think that nuclear deserves a bigger seat at the table.