/sci/ - Science & Math

shhh, let the luddites sleep

it's all because of greenpeace
pick any pseudoscience report about a remotely environmental issue and some of the authors are from greenpeace
they sent a letterbomb to a nuclear industry office in switzerland a few days ago
anti-government retards advocating direct action

Blame the fear mongering media.

What about polluted water and food and inhaling radioactive particles? A few microgram of plutonium will give you cancer with a 100% chance.

>>2813632
My worries revolve around the potential complications that can arise.
Kyodo reported 2 hours ago that they are considering pumping nitrogen into the reactor core to prevent another hydrogen explosion.
The last hydrogen explosions occurred outside of the reactor where this one has the potential of coming from within. Mix that with the MOX fuel, (as low as it may be), and you have the potential for a massive radiation release into the upper atmosphere.
It's incredibly difficult. They loose 1 reactor, they will loose all 3 simply because they will have to fall back for prolonged periods of time. Yes, The radiation is not a threat right now but the risk of a full scale nuclear disaster has grown to an uncomfortable height.

tldr; Hydrogen explosion in reactor core will cause me to worry. Radiation in the upper atmosphere is what bothers me.

>A few microgram of plutonium will give you cancer with a 100% chance.
Se, the thread is exactly about you.
No amount of any radioactive material can give you 100% chance of cancer.
Ask all the guys at Chernobyl who nearly died of radiation sickness and never got cancer

>>2813632
It's not the reactor itself. It's the accidents that happen due to negligence and money greed of people who run power plants that makes the technology so dangerous.

>>2813715
You forgot that .01% chance of superpowers, bro.

>>2813735
Chernobyl didn't run on Plutonium, unlike Fukushima. Reactor 3 used Plutonium elements and those will give you cancer 100%.

>>2813742
I agree. The safety at the plant lapsed. That being said, the plant has held up extraordinarily well considering what actually hit it. I do not worry about nuclear reactors as much, (I live within 30 miles of 1), but it's the problems at Fukushima that is worrisome.
No clear end seems to be in sight, and problems seem to compound. The hydrogen explosion in the reactor is the only thing that bothers me.

>>2813748
Yeah, you could turn into deadpool.

>>2813715
Trolololo

>Plutonium elements and those will give you cancer 100%.
Yeah, that's still stupid bullshit until you provide a source.
Why should Plutonium by any different from other incorporated radioactive materials?

>Chernobyl didn't run on Plutonium
Expect all reactors produce Plutonium while running, including Chernobyl

>>2813632
Yes and most people have a higher chance of being hit by a meteor than dying of second hand smoke exposure but the way they've stacked the odds for so many years make it seem that you could develop CRD in a question of minutes.

People are sheep.

Fuck you Nuclear Power Internet Defense Force.
You shit up slashdot, reddit, /sci/ by mocking the knee-jerk strawman.
Fuck you, you elitist prick.
You rage against ignorance yet you do nothing to help.
People try to educate other with compassion and understanding, and you shit up their efforts by insulting people they're trying to help
Assholes.

>>2813761
I don't know how much plutonium they had in Fukushima, but since they have several tons of fuel in each reactor, it must be a lot more than in Chernobyl.

Read up on Plutonium yourself.

What bothers me are the economical consequences. The land in a 50km radius will be inhabitable and if the ground water gets polluted, it could mean drastic measures for Tokyo.

>>2813755

but i didn't

>>2813773
Benzene and Zylene from oil/petroleum plants/refineries already made the groundwater useless because they are even more vulnerable to tsunami's

>>2813773
>Read up on Plutonium yourself.
Ah, thanks for admitting you just said bullshit

Posting Kingston Fossil plant spill (which no one knows about and actually did poison the earth) in a FUD thread.

>These studies generally do not show especially high plutonium toxicity or plutonium-induced cancer results.[89] "There were about 25 workers from Los Alamos National Laboratory who inhaled a considerable amount of plutonium dust during the 1940's; according to the hot-particle theory, each of them has a 99.5% chance of being dead from lung cancer by now, but there has not been a single lung cancer among them."[95][96]

>>2813787
nice

>>2813784
I heard gamma radiation can turn you into a hulk.

For some reason, all american sources always downplay the dangers or nuclear radiation. I remember when your government used your soldiers for tests close to nuclear blastoffs.
Here's a german source on plutonium:

http://uwa.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/1583.html#_3.5.2.2

>>2813632
>doesn't even read xkcd
GTFO my /sci/

>>2813808
Not a single mention of the 100% bullshit
also >>2813796

>>2813808
You want America to become like Germany?

Russian petrol chemical and Russian nat gas companies pretty much control the destiny of Germany.

I know Bill Kaulitz is hot, but Putin owns that punk ass bitch and every German in that country. Germany could have gone the French route of sustainability... but nooo

TS BECAUSE THE OIL COMPANIES DONT WANT YOU TO USE NUCLEAR ENERGY AND PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS.

WAKE UP SHEEPLE
.

>>2813808
nuclear explosions or detonations

If you're going to be wrong, at least be wrong with the correct language. If you don't people will just assume you're being retarded and ignore you.

>>2813808
thank you I can't read it

>>2813815
pfff- bullshit.
Germany PRODUCES more energy than it consumes.

>>2813815
Guess where America gets its oil and gas? - Canada.
You're Canada's bitch.

That aside, nuclear energy has nothing to do with oil and gas.
Gas is used for heating houses and oil is used for chemical purposes and fueling cars.
You can't fuel your car with nuclear energy.

>>2813839
>You can't fuel your car with nuclear energy.
Well, you totally should be able too
Also, electric cars, Hydrogen made from nuclear power, etc, etc

>>2813839
in during refineries run on hopes and dreams
in during there are no natural gas or oil powerplants

I'd think you were trolling but this is really dumb.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/actual-expert-too-boring-for-tv,1764/

>>2813839
Yes you can.

>>2813835
Suck it, US, you couldn't live without us.

>>2813842
Oil is not used for creating electricity. Coal and natural gas are.

Refineries are complexes that crack down crude oil into other usable substances like gasoline or diesel or kerosin.

>>2813841

well, electric cars are problematic. The batteries we have are a) shit and b) lithium is so far not available in big quantities. There's also the problem of supplying a fleet of electrical cars with energy. Imagine 50 million cars need to be powered with electricity: the grid would have to be much much larger than it is today. Enormous costs.

Hydrogen powered cars is a good idea. Problem is the tank, since 1) hydrogen is not very energy dense and 2) it evades easily. We could create hydrogen from renewable sources, instead of nuclear plants. Would cost the same in the end, without having to care for nuclear waste.

>>2813831
yeah, it produces energy by buying russian gas

>>2813863
Germany doesn't use gas in large volumes to produce electricity. Since germany is very rich in brown coal, they have mostly coal plants.
Natural gas is used for heating houses.

>>2813856
>>2813835
>implying Canada would be able to stop selling it to the USA even if they tried

>mfw when annex

>>2813862
>"renewable"
It all isn't very effecient or takes to much space.

>>2813862
>Oil is not used for creating electricity

nope.tiff

Sage for willfully ignorant and obviously trolling.

>>2813862
The Brilliance of Hydrogen Cars:
>make electricity from some source
>use electricity electrolyze water
>put hydrogen in car
>when you could have saved so much by just using a battery

>>2813868
that post isn't even funny, it's just stupid. try again.

Note that Nord Stream is being built as we speak and first gas deliveries will be late this year.

>>2813871
oil is much too expensive to fire power plants with it.
We use coal for that.

>>2813872
Yes, but batteries are heavy, don't have a long lifespan and their range is shit. A hydrogen tank could be much easier and cheaper. Lithium is a problem.

>>2813869
Offshore windmills are highly efficient.

>>2813876
Nord Stream was built to troll the Polish and Ukrainians. A direct connection between germany and russia, without them demanding royalties or bitching about.

>>2813883
germany doesn't actually want that gas, big russia is just wasting billions to make eastern europe scared, amirite?

>>2813892
Sure we want that gas. We heat our houses with it.

Germany has been buying gas from the SOVIET UNION for about 50 years in large quantities, without any problem whatsoever. Why should we have a problem with russia now?

>>2813883
http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/environment/chapter-2-environmental-impacts/impacts-on-benth
os-and-fish.html

>>2813898
because you are sending all your money to them instead of producing power domestically
nuclear is rather good for district heating you know

>>2813901
oh come on, this is just ridiculous. The poor fish! The pro-nuke activists are grasping at every straw now.

>>2813911
no it is not, because germany doesn't have the electrical grid to power all houses with electrical energy. And we have a good grid.

There's also the question of where to obtain Uranium for the nuke plants. We could buy that in russia or so.

>>2813912
Not who you're replying to but grasping as every possible straw sounds a lot like solar and wind advocates.

ITT: one tripfag shitting up /sci/ and trolling by sheer ignorance

>>2813917
it sounds like the voice of reason. If someone told me that windmill parks will have ecological effects (in comparison to nuke plants, who have none whatsoever) I would laugh in their face.

>>2813917
The guy you're replying to is a troll.

Surprised he isn't banned yet. Anyways, just ignore everything he says.

>>2813928
there wouldn't be much of a thread without me providing facts, now would there?

>>2813915
I don't think we agree on what district heating means, it has nothing to do with the electrical grid. It is a very green technology though.

Uranium ore is dirt cheap and available across the world and from within the EU. Processing is the bottle neck, but you get to choose betwees the UK, France and Russia. Fuel costs are negligible in comparison to the total cost of nuclear energy. Most of the construction costs of the plant will go to local sub-contractors instead of the foreign designer.

sage

>>2813632

People are stupid and are zombies to Faux News.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-march-23-2011/moment-of-zen---from-your-mouth-to-god-s-ear

>>2813947
Oh I see what you mean with district heating. Well, you can't transport the heat over long distances, so you would have to build a lot of local nuke plants close to cities. I don't like that idea. Geothermal energy plants could be built instead.

>>2813947
Prices for uranium would rise quickly if the demand rose. It's also a finite resource (unless you build breeder reactors/ reprocessing plants).

anyway, the arguement was that german is dependent on russian gas. If we switched to nuclear power, we would just be dependent on russian uranium instead.

induring fap keeps the troll train rolling all by himself

>>2813715
[citation needed]

>>2814020
welcome to an hour ago

nice fucking bump

>>2813999
There are enough uranium for thousands of years of energy need. Uranium prices may rise but as said they are NEGLIGIBLE TO THE TOTAL COST. It's cheap to mine and has a huge energy density, and NOBODY HAS AN EFFECTIVE MONOPOLY ON IT, UNLIKE RUSSIA HAS ON GAS, so capitalism ensures that the prices remain negligible. Seawater has 1000x the uranium land has, and it is possible to extract it at less that 10x the current market cost. Nuclear power is capable of solving the energy problem for thousands of years. By then we should have FUSION.

>>2814043
> There are enough uranium for thousands of years of energy need
i cant even shorten that

You don't have to shut down every nuclear power plant in the world, that would be stupid. If they took better care in planning them, say, not putting one directly adjacent to an active fault line...

>>2813854
>>2813854
>>2813854
>>2813854
>>2813854
>>2813854
>>2813854

oh god i fucking LAUGHED

>>2813868
You actually think that your country is still the world superpower, don't you? Sad little American... no clue what's going on in the world around him. You just keep watching TV and thinking you're on top of the world, you poor ignorant bastard.

So if nuclear power is so good and safe, why are there such problems with nuclear power plants in Iran? They want just ordinary power plants (as for electrical power supply) - Iran's purchased type of reactors are not the a good choice for warfare manufacturing. Or are there double standards for us and for them?

it's hippies
hippies are trying to close down nuclear power plants
hippies want us to go back to the windmill
dirty, stinky hippies
god I hate them so much

>>2814123
u jelly

>>2814125
HERP DERP IRAN IS PEACEFUL

>>2813999
>>2813999

First of all, the price of uranium would not rise. The supply is so gigantic that it would be like saying the world wanted more air the price would price.

Now, even if it did rise, we could always go for thorium and fast reactors. If we did that we'd be able to light the cities like London and Paris for decades using only a truck of fuel.

The only reason why we never built those kinds of reactors was because the superpowers wanted the plutonium waste to make atomic bombs.

>>2814125

Because the nuclear waste from their planned reactors could potentially be used to create atomic bombs. Like someone pointed out, there are reactors which leave waste which simply isn't possible to use in bombs. If Iran was going for those kinds instead, there wouldn't be any issue at all.

>How stupid do you have to be, to be so mindlessly scared of something you know nothing about that you want to close down all nuclear plants?
Didn't they teach you evolution in high-school? Fear of the unknown is the smartest fear there is. How can it be stupid? Are you retarded?

>>2814125

>>2814151

>smartest fear

>>2814170
>I don't have an argument
>reaction.jpg
>that'll show them

>>2814173

My point was that you referred to a certain fear as the smartest kind. Maybe you meant the most rational?

>>2814128

It's physically impossible to produce a nuclear weapon from nuclear fuel. Uranium bombs need to be highly enriched (hundreds of times more so than fuel rods), while plutonium bombs (nuclear warheads) need neutron reflectors and loads of other complicated engineering before they can be miniaturized enough to pose any danger to the rest of the world. So far there isn't any evidence that Iran is doing anything besides building nuclear reactors, as opposed to breeder reactors.

>>2814181
No, I meant the least stupid. Rationality is a different dimensional quality. And yes, fear of radiation is irrational. But not stupid.

>>2814189
your statement is irrational and stupid

in my country (eastern europe) they want to build a nuclear reactor

Its actually near where I live

I'm actively campaigning against it, gathering signatures for a petition and we have strong support in our local politicians

Don't let yourselves get fooled, toying with nuclear energy is like playing with the devil, it cannot have a good outcome

I will not rest until this hideous plan is laid to rest

>>2814189

You were talking about the fear of the unknown. Is that rational or smart?

>>2814194
Russia will be glad to import you some nuclear energy.

>>2814194
haha, nuclear power is great, until they build the plant in your backyard.

Everyone who is pro-nuclear power should also be forced to sign a contract, which states that in case of meltdown, they will volunteer for liquidation work.

I don't have audio right now. Some crazy people think
http://vimeo.com/21789121
is a big deal. What's it saying?

>>2814194
Hope Putin will shut you pathetic bitches down in your own blood.

>>2814185
HERP DERP IRAN CAN NO HAS OLD SOVIET NUKES

you just went full retard there, boy

>>2814194
Why are you against the construction of a nuclear plant near you?

Unkown? I know a lot of things about radiation. That's why I fear it. Actually, the more you educate yourself about the topic, the more you realize what a foolish way it is.

The profits made from nuclear energy go directly into the pockets of the energy companies, while the costs of waste disposal and storage are paid by the taxpayer. If that's not a scam, I haven't seen one yet.

Bananas are more dangerous than living within 50km of a nuclear power plant (Thanks XKCD, now we know! And knowing is half the battle!)

>>2814207
Property values tend to fall where plants are built, so you want to move to where there already is some.

>>2814221

Well, that hardly seems fair.

>>2814212

He was asking about the nuclear power program, not speculating if they already have weapons. From the evidence available to the public it would seem that they do not. If Iran had nukes, I have a feeling we would know. Iraq physically possessing unprocessed ore was a big enough deal, but Iran being able to build a reactor without foreign intervention, where before Israel bombed the shit out of any reactor in the ME, seems to suggest that there is nothing amiss. They are adhering to the NPT, until new information is revealed we have to asume that their nuclear program is peaceful.

>>2814221
> implying you are not talking out of your ass
you live in some oppressive dictatorship?

>>2814209
he's saying that the fuel rods of that reactor are completely exposed to air (they should be stored in a pool of water), which 1) makes work at the site extremely unhealthy and 2) could lead to a distribution of radioactive particles in the area/air/ground.

Power plant operator:
>Hey guys. I know you are not scientists, so let me tell you that the scientists I employ assure me that it's not dangerous for you.

People:
>Well, I'd be an idiot if I didn't have my reservations about this.

OP:
>Lol fear of the unknown is stupid.

Myself:
>No, it's not. It's useful.

OP and his samefag personae in this thread:
>OMG YOU'RE FUCKING STUPID

You're creating a new religion using the authority of a scientific degree as your dogma. You guys are the stupidest, most gullible motherfuckers society has to offer. 700 years ago you'd be cleaning horse shit for your lord crusader because Jehovah asked you to.

>>2814256
Well, depends how you see it. I live in germany. Who pays for nuclear waste storage in the USA?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-does-the-us-do-with-nuclear-waste

Interesting read. So the USA do not store their nuclear waste anywhere, but keep it in the plants.
Who's gonna pay for transport of fuel rods and building of a central storage site?

>>2814269
> be german
> NUCLEAR BAD
> a lucrative business and a cheap source of electricity disappears
> nuclear waste still has to be dealt with

>>2813854
>>2813854
i almost threw my laptop out the window
FUCK EVERYTHING

>>2814287

The federal government was going to build a repository at Yucca Mountain, NV, but Obama cancelled it for no real reason. I think they managed to bore a few tunnels, but the site was never finished.

http://infobeautiful2.s3.amazonaws.com/radiation_chart_3.png

made me lol because i stumbled upon this

>>2814294
it is not lucrative, nor is it cheap, if the energy corps had to pay for waste disposal too.

Investing in renewables will create a fuckton of cashflow and jobs. All sustainable.

>>2814313
What did Obama say as reason for stopping the construction?

>>2814319
NOPE.jpg, investing in renewables RESEARCH would
as situation stands right now in Germany the taxpayers' money is being scammed
secondly is fuckhugely lucrative despite being cheap and you are in denial

>>2814287
There is no need for a large central storage site. Most of that waste can be reused in other reactors. That which remains can be buried in a stable location.

>>2814287

If/when we overcome the misguided environmental lobby and we switch to breeder reactors we won't have to worry about that question. The biggest problem with nuclear power as it is today is the opposition to the implementation of the safe, new technology. People are right to bitch about some of the reactors as they are now, but dismissing the technology in its entirety is absolute foolishness.

Solar and wind are far more costly and are unable to handle our energy demands. Coals is dirty and dangerous. Environmentalists make themselves difficult to support by being so militantly opposed to improved technology.

>>2813854
couldn't finish reading; far too angry

nuclear "waste": can be recycled
why don't they want it to be recycled
they are retards

the public is like a fucking cartoon character, they only ever try anything once

>>2814309
>>2814348

You do realize the Onion is satire, right?

>Algebras, sclude

>>2814334
I don't see how the german taxpayer is scammed by funding of renewables. Germany is already running a nice percentage of it's energy demand with renewables and this will increase every year.
In the 2050 at the latest, we will not need coal/gas/nuclear for electricity generation AT ALL. I don't pull that out of my ass, that is the prediction of the german government!

>>2814173
I have epilepsy

>>2814365
And we all know government predictions are inherently reliable.

>>2814354
because recycling fuelrods causes
1) radiated fumes and water, which have to be cleaned and
2) you have to transport fuel rods all over the country to and from a couple dozen nuclear plants.

Breeder plants are even "hotter" than the usual nuclear plant. They don't go uncritical like a "normal" plant, and are therefore more inherently dangerous.

>>2814209
makes sense actually

Even if there's no chance of acute radiation poisoning, long term low level exposure significantly increases the risk of cancer.

>>2814365
Renewables are getting heavy funding for no returns. Sure you can generate a "lot" of power if you throw a lot of money at it, but throwing money at building inefficient stuff is in the interest of the builder, not the taxpayer. That you don't see this goes to show you are an idiot and should be banned from your mommy and daddy's modem.

>>2814411
How significantly? Chernobyl was supposed to KILL MILLIONS but none of that has materialized.

>>2814414
The interest of the german taxpayer is independence from nuclear energy. NO NUCLEAR WASTE. And that is worth all the money if you ask me and the majority of germans.

>>2814419
How would you know? We cannot quantify how many people in Europe got cancer from this incident.
The mushrooms in my backyard are still glowing green though.
Chernobyl costs the Ukraine dearly still in terms of money.

>>2814424
but YOU ALREADY HAVE NUCLEAR WASTE
SO YOUR BEING SCAMMED PRETTY HARD

>>2814435
that is true. Thanks to Adenauer, who decided that the taxpayer should pay for the waste disposal, germans are not burdened with this task.

>>2814441
now I mean, not not.

>>2814431
UN reports state that there has been 50 fatalities and 6,800 cases of thyroid cancer (none of which have died yet and projections are %95 won't) as well cataracts in some of the 300 most exposed liquidators
that gives nuclear a better safety track record / GWh than hydro, photovoltaics, or wind

It's now widely known Germany prefers nuclear reactors over human lives. When Merkel realized after that a tsunami might hit Germany any moment, her first reaction was to ensure the safety of the coastal nuclear plants. She showed no sympathy to the millions living there.

>>2814419
As a matter of fact nuclear power initially wasn't the cheapest either! Well initially it wasn't even meant to be a power source, just after pumping billions of dollars into warfare there were sufficient technologies to utilize nuclear power in a relatively cheap way.

Same with renewable, first you need to develop it just after that it becomes cheap and powerful. It's with almost everything new this way.
After all renewable E doesn't need fuel (fuel is usually the sun be it in radiation, rainfalls-rivers, wind...). So you can't say it is expensive by definition (say because of the fuel). In general as technologies progress life expectancy of renewable E will increase, so will the price decrease (or profits jump). It is cumulative and if appropriately designed with small side effects (much smaller than current ordinary power plants).
Also in building these renewables you could employ YOUR companies and boos YOUR HDP, not someone else's.

>>2813854
Holy fuck I hate the media:

>I told him to address the fears that the average citizen might have about nuclear power, but he still utterly failed to mention meltdowns, radiation, or mushroom clouds."

>>2814450
That WHO report is obviously bullshit.

>>2814483
Yes it was. Wind power is not going to make a breakthrough. Solar power might or might not.
With nuclear you first needed a major advancement in nuclear physics (the realization that fission is possible), and then you needed to realize that holyshit we can get a lot of heat out of this, and it was very much like ordinary power generation with a lot of safety added on top. Fusion is the power source of the future, not photovoltaics. PV doesn't even work when you take it out of the sun, you need to solve the storage problem on top of everything.

>>2814535
You are obviously a supporter of pseudoscience, so when you say that it means it might be true.

>>2814365
10% is a ''nice percentage''?

>>2814554

There have been several hundred thousand liquidators at chernobyl and the WHO tries to tell me that only 50 died? plz.
There are no official data, because they are kept secret by the Ukraine. I wonder where the WHO got those numbers. Did they roll dice?

Actually I was not even thinking about the liquidators in the first place.
The radioactive cloud spread all over Europe and dropped radioactive particles.
I was not kidding when I said that my mushrooms glow green in the dark (well a bit, but I wouldn't eat wild shrooms).
It would be quite interesting to be able to quantify how many cancer cases all over Europe have been caused by Chernoby.

>>2814558
yes.

You have to see the growth rates too.

>>2814570
50 died of radiation related reasons, there was little stochastic effect on cancer rates
yeah you weren't kidding just lying

>>2814546
It might seem like a troublesome area because renewable will work more effectively if applied in a decentralized form. And of course there are biological alternatives, say a plants that are genetically modified to harness as much energy as possible and extracting it into e.g. fruits with lot's of energy (sugar, oil, whatever). And then just burn it instead of a coal.
I am personally avoiding nuclear (be it fission or fusion), since there is neutrino production. Which carries part of the energy so there is a fixed restriction for efficiency (without any possibility of even theoretical recovery of that energy) - I know it's not important now but from pure perfectionalist engineering point of view it is annoying.

>>2814570
Less than 7 thousand cases of thyroid cancer in the kids that got a high dose of iodine from food. It was completely avoidable. No increase in other cancer rates except some is projected in the liquidators but none has realized yet. Max 4,000 cases are estimated. The latent period of leukemia is already over by more than a decade. There has been no increase in cancer rates related to Chernobyl in Europe outside of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. The the worst fallout was within their borders.

>>2814570
Don't worry about the glowing mushrooms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxfire_(bioluminescence)

>>2814620

>this thread again
>this guy again

>pull random numbers out of your ass
>doesn't work
>play the 'THEY'RE LYING TO US' wild card
>it's super effective

>>2814629
can't run from the truth you fuck

>>2814570

>this thread again
>this guy again

>pull random numbers out of your ass
>doesn't work
>play the 'THEY'RE LYING TO US' wild card
>it's super effective

>>2814637

quoted the wrong guy, sorry mate

>>2814570
The green glow is bioluminescence. Radiation does not make things glow green.

>>2814647
Well radiation could make thing glow at least due to Cherenkov radiaition, but that'll need to be a hell of a radioactive - also there are materials which are radioactive and part of their radiation actually goes to visible light (used in old clocks and as light sources for aiming for handheld weapons... - but that thing is too rare, so if spilled into a river, it will be far insufficient to cause nearly any glow at all)

Ha, ha, this thread is basically about the prosperity-minded nuclear defenders claiming that radiation leaks or plutonium is not really all that harmful to the environment. It's the usual "the environment can take care of itself since man cannot change it" logic. Some plutonium leak is not all that harmful and global warming was not caused by man. Now, with that resolved, let's all go and be prosperous because the acquisition of money is the root of happiness.

It's strange that so many americans claim that environmentalism is bad, yet they decline to drink tap water and either filter it or buy bottled water instead.

>>2814254
HERP DERP I HAS TO ASSUME IRAN IS PEACEFUL

full. retard.

lordfap whats a dangerous ammount of radiation?

>>2814684


>ohh no iran might hurt the jews

>>2814669
> implying nuclear is not greener and a saner basis for an energy policy than the current renewables
fusion is the energy source

>>2814667
Cherenkov radiation is not green. Its visible component is blue. You're right, though, I should have been more specific.

>>2814699
>implying they'd stop there

>>2814695

look at :
>>2814314

"Dangerous" is relative, since every dose of radiation can be harmful. Don't get x-rayed too often at the dentist...
Several hundred millisievert per hour (around fukushima plant) would be enough to cream my pants.

>>2814702
fusion is a nice idea. They'll never pull it off economically. Even if they miraculously managed to get a reactor running economically in 50 years, it'd be much too late.

>>2814754
Too late for what?
Also, look at small scale fusion projects, things like ITER is just a waste of money, what will suceed is the pulsed smallscale reactors.

Oh, and did someone say cherenkov radiation? It's beautiful!!

>>2814741

>since every dose of radiation can be harmful
>no studies that prove any cause below 100-200mSv
>on the contrary:

"Although there is not yet solid epidemiological information, most local physicians in Ramsar report anecdotally that there is no increase in the incidence rates of cancer or leukemia in their area. There are no data to indicate a significant increase of cancer incidence in other high background radiation areas (HBRAs). Furthermore, several studies show a significant decrease of cancer death rates in areas with high backgrounds. It can be concluded that prolonged exposure to high levels of natural radiation possibly triggers processes such as the production of antioxidants and repair enzymes, which decreases the frequency of chromosome aberrations and the cancer incidence rate."

"Inhabitants of Ramsar, a city in northern Iran, are exposed to levels of natural radiation as high as 55–200 times higher than the average global dose rate. Furthermore, radon levels in some regions of Ramsar are up to 3700 Bq m−3. To assess the association between the radon concentration and frequency of lung cancer, lung cancer patients recorded over the past 2 years in eight districts of Ramsar with different levels of radon were studied. Data from the Ramsar Health Network show that both crude lung cancer rate and adjusted lung cancer rate in one district with the highest recorded levels of external radiation and radon concentration are lower than those of the other seven districts. It can be concluded that lung cancer rate may show a negative correlation with natural radon concentration."

>>2814754
We have uranium for much longer than fifty years. If that's not enough we have more thorium.

Guys, stop entertaining this fucking tripfag. He's a delusional, paranoid idiot. Doesn't even have a microwave for fear of the radiation.

>>2814384

>"uncritical"
>niggayoujustwentfullretard.tiff

I would go through each one of your posts and tell you how much you're full of shit, but that would take far too long. That one particular post takes the cake though.

This message is brought to you by a nuclear engineer.

>>2814803
Indeed. Uranium and thorium are virtually unlimited.

A typical ton of topsoil contains enough of these elements to provide more energy than a ton of coal. A typical ton of ordinary granite contains enough to provide more energy than three hundred tons of coal.

The advantages of fusion power are imaginary. The fuel is not more available, it isn't actually cleaner, and it doesn't pose any less risk of making nuclear weapons more available. The most practical fusion reaction produces most of its energy as neutrons (which are inevitably going to turn all sorts of stuff around the reactor into radioactive waste), far more neutrons than you get from fission, and sustainable fuel cycles would have to use those neutrons to breed tritium from lithium. It would be child's play to breed weapons-grade material with any fusion power plant.

Fusion power may become relevant in the distant future, but for now it's just an excuse to not pursue more practical nuclear technology.

I CANT MAKE THE REACTOR GO UNCRITICAL
WE'RE ALL FUCKING DOOMED I TELL YOU
DOOMED!

>>2815034
>>2814875
http://www.yourdictionary.com/subcritical

yeah, sue me. subcritical instead of uncritical. On the other hand, fuck you, I am still right and you are full of shit. You claiming to be a nuclear engineer and not knowing what going below critical means scares me all the more.

>>2815361
Lord Faggot status: butt-decimated

>>2815361
LOL, I know what subcritical means. The thing is, I don't even think you know what the concept of criticality is in the first place. Not only could I define it in words, I will give you the equation that describes it.

Hell, I will derive the entire neutron transport equation to prove I AM a nuclear engineer and that you're trolling. Though my emphasis is in heat transfer, I'm pretty well versed in the area of neutron transport.