I was giving statistics for the USA. The fear of nuclear energy is irrational. Given a near-worst case scenario like in Japan, no one dies from radiation and a very limited geographic area is made unusable and access is easily restricted. For the life of me I can't understand why people continue to be willing to fill the atmosphere with CO2, and other pollutants, while such a clean alternative is readily available. An individual's lifetime energy consumption footprint is less than a baseball size piece of nuclear waste. Bury it a mile deep in the desert and it will remain there for a million years.
>> ^Fletch:

>> ^snoozedoctor:
Number killed by radiation from nuclear power generation in the last 40 years, about zero.

Chernobyl?
But you are right. Perspective needed. I think nuclear power will be one of very few options for large and consistent amounts of power generation in the future, assuming wind and solar don't become vastly more efficient and take off in a MUCH bigger way. We are on the downward slope of the bell curve of available oil and fusion has been 30 years away for the last 40 years. There are safer, cleaner, more inherently stable nuclear options out there that could win over those opposed to nuclear power, although I think most opposition today is based on ignorance and unwarranted fear.

>> ^snoozedoctor:

Number killed by radiation from nuclear power generation in the last 40 years, about zero.


Chernobyl?

But you are right. Perspective needed. I think nuclear power will be one of very few options for large and consistent amounts of power generation in the future, assuming wind and solar don't become vastly more efficient and take off in a MUCH bigger way. We are on the downward slope of the bell curve of available oil and fusion has been 30 years away for the last 40 years. There are safer, cleaner, more inherently stable nuclear options out there that could win over those opposed to nuclear power, although I think most opposition today is based on ignorance and unwarranted fear.

>> ^w1ndex:

I was 4 years old, me and my brother were watching it on his t.v. in his room. It is one of the most vivid memories that I have from my youth.


My only vivid memory from that year was being barefoot in a sandbox and remembering that my mother said to put my shoes back on since chernobyl had just exploded.

I want a dyson sphere. Get some people on that, could ya?
>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^gwiz665:
Nuclear is not perfect, but it's the best we have right now. Coal and Oil are much worse. Wind, Solar and Geothermal are better, but not nearly the same scale as Nuclear.

There are several issues with nuclear and Chernobyl/Fukushima style disasters are frankly the least of them.
Leaving aside the obviously thorny issue of waste management, the other issue arises when you amortise the cost over the total lifetime of the nuclear plant. It's just not that cheap in terms of energy or money to build, run and then decommission.
As for renewable energy, it's nowhere close to providing the energy levels we need yet. Also there are other environmental issues with some renewable energy generation methods as well. Hydro requires large dams (concrete is an eco-nightmare) and can destroy habitats. Geothermal can affect the landscape (subsidence and sapping geysers are two common effects). Lots of people complain about wind turbines as visually unappealing (personally I find the aesthetically pleasing). I'm not saying renewable technologies are bad, merely that there are still issues with them.
In real terms, fusion is where it's at.

>> ^gwiz665:

Nuclear is not perfect, but it's the best we have right now. Coal and Oil are much worse. Wind, Solar and Geothermal are better, but not nearly the same scale as Nuclear.


There are several issues with nuclear and Chernobyl/Fukushima style disasters are frankly the least of them.

Leaving aside the obviously thorny issue of waste management, the other issue arises when you amortise the cost over the total lifetime of the nuclear plant. It's just not that cheap in terms of energy or money to build, run and then decommission.

As for renewable energy, it's nowhere close to providing the energy levels we need yet. Also there are other environmental issues with some renewable energy generation methods as well. Hydro requires large dams (concrete is an eco-nightmare) and can destroy habitats. Geothermal can affect the landscape (subsidence and sapping geysers are two common effects). Lots of people complain about wind turbines as visually unappealing (personally I find the aesthetically pleasing). I'm not saying renewable technologies are bad, merely that there are still issues with them.

In real terms, fusion is where it's at.

living near Chernobyl changes your DNA too... people should maybe rethink religion

Expert: Despite Japanese Gov’t Claims of Decreasing Radiation, Fukushima a "Ticking Time Bomb"
13 April 2011

DR. MICHIO KAKU: Well, Tokyo Electric has been in denial, trying to downplay the full impact of this nuclear accident. However, there’s a formula, a mathematical formula, by which you can determine what level this accident is. This accident has already released something on the order of 50,000 trillion becquerels of radiation. You do the math. That puts it right smack in the middle of a level 7 nuclear accident. Still, less than Chernobyl. However, radiation is continuing to leak out of the reactors. The situation is not stable at all. So, you’re looking at basically a ticking time bomb. It appears stable, but the slightest disturbance—a secondary earthquake, a pipe break, evacuation of the crew at Fukushima—could set off a full-scale meltdown at three nuclear power stations, far beyond what we saw at Chernobyl.

...

So, when the utility says that things are stable, it’s only stable in the sense that you’re dangling from a cliff hanging by your fingernails. And as the time goes by, each fingernail starts to crack. That’s the situation now.

I like how when the reported asked if the reactor was like a nuclear bomb the "expert" failed to address that you don't get a nuclear explosion in a meltdown. Pretty much the worst case scenario is that the fuel rods melt, pool on the bottom and bore their way through containment, through the concrete and into the earth. That would certainly cause very long term environmental damage.

There has clearly been some escape of radioactive material. I mean, the rods were being cooled by pumping water onto them, and god knows where that water went afterwards. The rods were also exposed for some time, radioactive gases will also have escaped, but to compare that to chernobyl is just stupid. Chernobyl reactor core was blown clean open while the reactor was running. The nuclear reaction actually continued after containment was broken. The fuel was exposed to the air and caught fire pumping radioactive gases and ash high into the atmosphere. Pripyat was evacuated too late. I have a hard time seeing how Fukashima is worse than Chernobyl...

Long story short, this interview is a joke.

>> ^MaxWilder:

Note this video is from Mar 16, 2011.
While still a terrible disaster, it is being ranked behind Chernobyl in terms of magnitude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents


I've been seeing posts on reddit about meltdowns in 3 or 4 of the cores. A full on china syndrome in the 1st reactor. There's radioactive sludge in a city outside of the 20km exclusion zone. http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/hebf2/fukushima_nuclear_core_meltdown_confirmed/

At this point there's so much bullshit here that I have to put on my fucking hazmat suit.

At this point, just arguing about how it is or is not like Chernobyl is a bunch of bullshit. It just muddies the fucking waters so much that no one knows what the fucking truth is.

People are saying it melted right after the quake, people are saying it melted sometime after the quake, people are saying it could be in a runaway state right now.

In short, I wouldn't trust jack shit the government of Japan says, or TEPCO (They have a monetary interest in making things sound less dangerous).

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/2011/prn201106.html

Note this video is from Mar 16, 2011.

While still a terrible disaster, it is being ranked behind Chernobyl in terms of magnitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents

By many magnitudes worse than Chernobyl? Good... fucking lord.

Fukishima turns into Pripyat?

Your video, Encasing the Unsafe Chernobyl Reactor in a Huge New Arch, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

1,000,000μSv = 1000mSv = 1Sv

250mSV is about when you start to get symptons of radiation sickness. Its also the maximum allowed dose for workers at the Fukushima powerplant. To get that kind of dose from the radiation they were exposed to at the end of the clip they'd need to stand there for some 2500 hours.

So yeah, while its definitely not healthy to be there its not chernobyl either. I don't think it'll be 50 years before enough material has decayed to allow rehabitation either.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Animation, kids, mutant, eyes, legs, conjoined, camera, mothers day, wtf' to 'kids, mutant, eyes, legs, conjoined, mothers day, chernobyl, reactor, radiation, nuclear' - edited by calvados

She's a satirist first, no doubt, and the target this time was hysteria generated by the drive-by media over threats--both real and imagined--posed by radiation.


>> ^longde:

QM, there is a division of physics, called "health physics" that deals with using different types of radiation to treat disease, and the effects of different types of radiation on the human body.
So, technically speaking, what Ann is saying is true. Exposure to radiation can be helpful as well as harmful.
The flaw in her reasoning (and I don't for a second think she is making a sincere argument) is that "radiation" can be a million different things, across the EM spectrum, and also the emissions of ions and atoms. "Helpful" radiation only describes very specific types, used at very specific intensity, used for very specific durations, etc.
Bill O's geriatric, uneducated audience can't grasp that nuance, and will undoubtedly think that standing in front of Chernobyl will get rid of arthritis.

>> ^quantumushroom:
From the actual column: "Although it is hardly a settled scientific fact that excess radiation is a health benefit, there's certainly evidence that it decreases the risk of some cancers -- and there are plenty of scientists willing to say so."
Not exactly announcing THE DEBATE IS OVER like the hoaxers pushing man-made global warming hysteria.