Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Nuclear Power Is Extremely Safe -- That's the Truth About What We Learned From Japan
FoxNews ^ | July 23, 2011 | Alex Epstein

Posted on 07/23/2011 9:59:36 PM PDT by hamboy

In the midst of a still struggling and fragile global economy, Germany has announced that it will shut down seven nuclear plants by the end of the year--which means that Germans will be left to run their factories, heat their homes, and power their economy with 10% less electrical generating capacity. Nine more plants will be shut down over the next decade and tens of billions of dollars in investment will be lost.

The grounds for this move, and similar proposals in Switzerland, Italy, and other countries, is safety. As the Swiss energy minister put it, “Fukushima showed that the risk of nuclear power is too high.”

In fact, Fukushima showed just the opposite. How’s that? Well for starters, ask yourself what the death toll was at Fukushima. 100? 200? 10? Not true. Try zero.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; History; Politics; Science
KEYWORDS: atomic; fukishima; fukushima; nuclear; radiation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 next last
To: Spaulding

“It’s coal replacement has caused many more deaths, about 200/year, than the two killed and 16 to 20 who contracted leukemia over the next two years from the Chernobyl meltdown”

I support nuclear power but it is patently false that the meltdown and ensuing events only killed two people. Even the Soviets don’t use that number.


21 posted on 07/24/2011 4:55:36 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Nuclear is artificially expensive due to the amount of people it takes to operate and guard a plant. It’s estimated that to get a permit to build a new one will be close to $100 million and to actually build one will be close to $20 billion.

In contrast, a coal plant is around $1 billion. There are companies that are developing portable nuclear generation capable of powering 20,000 homes for 10 years.


22 posted on 07/24/2011 6:00:45 AM PDT by Mean Daddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mean Daddy

I call them the dark earthers because they aren’t happy with any source of power or use. They want us back in the caves.


23 posted on 07/24/2011 6:44:34 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Storage of nuclear waste is always overlooked by pro nuke people, it’s like it never happens or is needed. In the long run nukes are not worth it but you can let future generations worry about that as background radiation levels continue to increase. (selfish)

Fukushima was a wake up call, you just hit the snooze button to rollover, going back to sleep, to dream about your wonderful lifestyle.


24 posted on 07/24/2011 10:37:26 AM PDT by Razzz42
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

Yes, it’s the LFTR (Liquid Floride Thorium Reactor) design. And it is potentially revolutionary. We could have this thing producing commercial energy within a decade or so. And with the abundance of cheap, clean energy, we could start producing methanol or hydrogen from coal and/or natural gas. That could be used in cars to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. Think about it.


25 posted on 07/24/2011 11:10:59 AM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RussP
Oh, I think it's an awesome idea. I would love for us to be able to tell the Saudis and all the other Middle Eastern suppliers that they can eat their oil; we don't need it.

Our son is the one who told us about LFTR. He's majoring in Computer Sci. right now, but we suggested to him that he think about Nuclear Science. He believes, and probably rightly so, that university studies and research are still stuck in the big reactor rut, and not putting any funds into research into other technologies, like LFTR.

He's also waiting to find out more about Rossi's eCat. He wants to see some genuine impartial research done on it.

26 posted on 07/24/2011 11:16:44 AM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

200 deaths per year due to coal-fired power? Way off. It’s more like 10,000 - 50,000 in the US alone.


27 posted on 07/24/2011 11:57:20 AM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: hamboy

Exactly. We need more nukes, not less. Safest form of mass production of energy (by man) in history.


28 posted on 07/24/2011 12:00:51 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

In ten years, we’ll know.

Meantime, we need to build nuclear generation facilities. We’re not waiting ten years, then another ten years, then another ten years, etc. That’s what the envirocommienazis have done to the U.S. for the past 40 years, and we are the worse for it.


29 posted on 07/24/2011 12:03:25 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Razzz42

I agree. You should not receive any benefits from nuclear. You should get all your own energy from a bicycle-powered generator.


30 posted on 07/24/2011 12:06:32 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Razzz42

Contrary to the anti-nuclear propaganda, waste disposal is actually a major *ADVANTAGE* of nuclear power. See

http://RussP.us/nucpower.htm

Why? Because there is about a million times less of it than there is from any other large-scale source of energy. And that includes solar, by the way. The notion that solar is clean is a myth. The quantity of materials needed for it are huge, and some of those materials are toxic.


31 posted on 07/24/2011 1:18:47 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

If this Thorium thing is half as good as it looks to me, I’d say nuclear science and engineering could soon see a renaisance.


32 posted on 07/24/2011 1:44:17 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
Driftdriver, you are correct. My writing has always needed more editing than I usually give it. Those leukemia casualties are assumed to have died, although I do not recall the exact morbidity. Not at all expert on leukemia, I know that survival rates for some varieties have increased, but leukemia is bad regardless. The two deaths were immediate, within about 60 hours, from very high radiation levels. One and perhaps both deaths were to control room personnel. I have worked at University Lab reactors with better protection, and thoe were tiny kilowatt-sized research reactors.

There have been all sorts numbers reported, including a claim of 60 leukemia cases, all but three of whom recovered completely. Those recovery percentages don't correlate with radiation induced leukemia, and, the incidence of leukemia was actually below the average for similar population areas in Ukraine.

I also failed to mention the name of the phenomenon wherein radiation exposure enormously reduces cancer, where one data set came from 10,000 residents of apartments built with Cobalt 60. It is called hormesis, and should be thoroughly explored for everyone’s sake, but won't be because of our antinuclear Luddites and anti-capitalist traitors.

33 posted on 07/24/2011 3:16:10 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RussP
200 deaths per year due to coal-fired power? Way off. It’s more like 10,000 - 50,000 in the US alone.

RussP, it has been decades since I read that estimate published by our EPA. To what are the additional deaths attributed? I'm being lazy, and have not scoured the EPA site for many years.

It is hard not to become entangled with minutia when the important fact, no radiation affects, are so dominant, and the total absence of emissions is so critical to human health, as the Bejing Olympics so dramatically showed the world. Long distance athletes knew, but most didn't connect the air pollution with coal burning. China's rulers know, most of them having come from the scientific community, and are doing what our captive mandarins are not, protecting the future, the health, both economic and physical, of their citizens.

34 posted on 07/24/2011 3:41:27 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

There were many deaths from radiation exposure. Troops hauled in to fight the fires, firefighters, heck one helicopter lifting sand in hit a crane and went down in the reactor area.

The reactor personnel were largely protected because of where they worked. The townspeople were exposed to extremely high radiation levels for several days before they were even told of the accident.

In reality there is no way to know the death toll because the radiation covered such a large geographic area. Some deaths probably haven’t happened yet and wont until the cancer develops and kills the person.

Downplaying Chernobyl of all events is hardly the way to dispel fears of the reality. Chernobyl is a great example of poorly designed, maintained, trained, and managed reactors aren’t a good idea.


35 posted on 07/24/2011 3:43:52 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido

The most dangerous byproducts from nuclear energy are completely man made and don’t exist in nature and are dangerous for tens of hundreds of years of course it is not your problem because you won’t live long enough to see the end result of your instant pleasures.

As soon as you can control earthquakes, floods and wars, let me know.


36 posted on 07/24/2011 3:48:14 PM PDT by Razzz42
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RussP

the 200 deaths isn’t my number


37 posted on 07/24/2011 3:56:35 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Razzz42

so you’re irrational about things other than nuclear power as well.


38 posted on 07/24/2011 3:58:09 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Razzz42

When someone starts talking about nuclear waste being dangerous “for thousands of years,” you can be pretty sure they are clueless. Chemical waste from coal burning is dangerous FOREVER, of course. And that includes mercury, asbestos, and many other dangerous chemicals — in far, far larger quantities than any nuclear waste.

Here’s an interesting little factoid. If we go completely nuclear for the next 10,000 years, the amount of land that would be needed for waste disposal is roughly the same as what will be needed for the next TWO WEEKS worth of coal-ash disposal.

And with Thorium based nuclear power (see my earlier post on this thread), the nuclear waste is reduced yet another factor of 100.


39 posted on 07/24/2011 4:23:04 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: hamboy
Q - How many people died at Three Mile Island?

A - One less than died in Ted Kennedy's Oldsmobile.

40 posted on 07/24/2011 4:26:45 PM PDT by Kickass Conservative (Would you rather live in Obamaville or Palintown?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson