Author Topic: For our Russian friends  (Read 1000 times)

Offline qts

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 782
      • None yet
For our Russian friends
« Reply #15 on: July 15, 2001, 05:42:00 AM »
Best place for nuclear waste? Dump it in an underwater subduction zone or an active volcano with free-flowing lava so it gets buried.

Offline Animal

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5027
For our Russian friends
« Reply #16 on: July 15, 2001, 06:40:00 AM »
just dump it on the ocean

Offline AKDejaVu

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5049
      • http://www.dbstaines.com
For our Russian friends
« Reply #17 on: July 15, 2001, 02:28:00 PM »
Quote
Nuclear powerplants produce 100 times less radioactive pollution then ordinary coal powerstations. Look at France - more then 60% of electricity there is produced by nuclear powerplants.

That's a twisted figure.  Everything has some level of residual radiation.  Coal will generate particulates when burning, this will give off some level of radiation.  Since water is the only medium for a nuclear powerplant, it really gives off very little radio active particulates... only steam.

Of course, the spent plutonium rods from 1 power plant contain more radioactivity than all emmisions from all coal plants combined... exponentially.

The problem isn't what happens under normal operation... its what happens either after it or when something goes wrong.  Nuclear power generates much more toxic waste (the rods being the waste.. not the emissions) than coal plants.

AKDejaVu

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
For our Russian friends
« Reply #18 on: July 15, 2001, 03:03:00 PM »
Quote
Of course, the spent plutonium rods from 1 power plant contain more radioactivity than all emmisions from all coal plants combined... exponentially.

The problem isn't what happens under normal operation... its what happens either after it or when something goes wrong. Nuclear power generates much more toxic waste (the rods being the waste.. not the emissions) than coal plants.
I am pretty sure the coal plant liberates more radioactivity into the atmosphere than passes through a nuclear plant, even counting the uranium/plutonium. The nuclear plants concentrate it, the coal plants just spread it around everywhere.
That's without the dangers from particulates, greenhouse gases and sulphur dioxide that coal puts out.

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
For our Russian friends
« Reply #19 on: July 15, 2001, 03:07:00 PM »
Oh, and regarding the safety of nuclear plants, they have killed far less people than coal plants.
Coal causes respetory diseases, cancer deaths etc in far greater numbers than nuclear ever has, even when you include Chernobyl.

Offline Tuomio

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 523
For our Russian friends
« Reply #20 on: July 15, 2001, 05:08:00 PM »
Chernobyl radiation was lethal only to the guys, that were putting the pieces of plants core in garbagecans. They all died in 30-60 minutes after they got exposed (they were exposed to EXTREME radiation)

Fallout radiation has only minimal health effects, if you arent exposed to it for long times (talking about weeks). Most common exposion is EATING the fallen dust with vegetables. The radiation which comes out from the dust is weak, but hazardous when eaten, since you get it very near your system by that way. Btw there isnt any good evidence, that the people of chernobyl had somekind of booming cancer stats, after all, they all evacuated in days.

I saw a study, that studied the fallout effects of Russian nuclear plant, that is located 100km from Helsinki(Finland). They came out with 5000 men having radiation ilnesses (not necessary lethal), if EVERYTHING went by the worst scenario.
Worst scenario:

1.The nuclear plant would emit same kind fallout cloud, that chernobyl did.
2.They used the most optimal weather registered from the past 10 years.
3.EVERYONE in Helsinki would stay out 2 DAYS, without any cover.
4.No pills or other medical methods would be used to clean the toxic out from human body.

They noted, that if the normal safety procedures would be used, it would be very possible, that only few would have somesort long term effects by the fallout.

All this nuclear plant blowing up and killing everyone on earth is just mass-psychosis and hype.
When nuclear plant blows up, it isnt same thing, as nuclear BOMB blowing up. The explosion is caused by big steampipes, which get overloaded by extreme temperatures (too much pressure). Its the steam, that makes the fallout cloud and its, like said before, hazardous only to its immediate surroundings.

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
For our Russian friends
« Reply #21 on: July 15, 2001, 05:36:00 PM »
Tuomio, thebest post in this thread so far!

First: less then 10 firemen died immediately after Chernobyl blew up, all of them worked without any equipment, extingishing the initial fire, literaly with their boots over the nuclear fuel tablets snd radioactive graphite from the "fuel columns"...

Even some of that heroes survived... My hat off for that heroic firemen, some of them being a conscripted soldiers...

Later, when minimal deactivation measures were taken, like showers, and personal dosimeters were used - ray-desease took only about 30 victims total, all of them died in Moscow radiological center...

The department in Biochemical Physics institute where I worked before we were separated into a special IT branch workes on "small dozes of radiation". Sometimes small radiation is not only dangerous - but good for health and extends life...

That's why I speak about "radiophobia", as a desease induced by illiterate journalists.

As for dumping nuclear wastes into the ocean or active volcanoes, let's better leave this problem to specialists, who will never suggest decisions that will later cover our cities with radioactive ash or make our water supplies "hot".

And please remember that any presious bit of active materials is a source of energy that humanity will definetly need in nearest 50-100 years. Wasting it is almost as stupid as burning unrecoverable resources like oil in 4-liter car engines to bring your bellybutton to work and back.

Chernobyl-type RBMK reactors are no longer operational in Russia, they were replaced by much safer (and expencive) VVER type.

I guess you calculated possible damage from Leningrad nuclear powerplant explosion?

Another thought: People still live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that suffered the most dirty primitive bombs.

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
For our Russian friends
« Reply #22 on: July 15, 2001, 05:48:00 PM »
One more thought:

The worst ecological danger for all Baltic countries is not Soviet nuclear poverplants.

In 1945-47 allied countries sank thousands of tons of nazi chemical weapons in Baltic sea. "Allies" simple wasted chemical shells and bombs overboard in Baltic straits, and USSR loaded whole ships and sank them opening the sinking valwes.

Now, after 55 years, all this deadly waste rusted down and will probably start leaking massively in a matter of years.

If you'll look at the news - you'll see that fishermen's nets lift shells or bombs with some toejam like mustard gas every year, and many sailors get poisoned...