Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: batdog on July 13, 2001, 07:33:00 AM
-
WHY in the heck is your country allowing the world to send its nuclear waste to you...?
xBAT
-
For the same reason your country keeps producing it - profit.
miko
-
Actualy Nuclear Power isnt real big in the U.S. It could be much bigger. If we ever get a grip on Fusion I expect to see it get ALOT bigger.
Oh...and it wasnt ment as a "flame". Just a question.
Anthor question since I have your attention... how is the economic situation is Russia now? What is the actual political climate... ? Is "democracy" going to survive?
xBAT
-
batdog, Fusion? lol dream on ;) if the Humans really found a way for a working Fusion Reactor then there would not be nuclear waste anymore.
[ 07-13-2001: Message edited by: Gh0stFT ]
-
Which is exactly why we keep trying. Expect practical fusion in about 40-50 years.
- Yoj
-
Hey! We already have confusion here in the US. Why just read the posts in the O'Club ... oh ... you said "fusion" ... sorreee ...
-
Well, "radiophobia" is aninternational problem for uneducated people.
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.
As for me I - just look outside my window at work and see a bunker with one of the first nuclear reactors in the world. It's shut down now, and there is absolutely no danger.
All that "nuclear waste" hype is arised by journalists (most of whom barely can write) and politicians who want cheap publicity.
70 percent of Russia is not populated, and will not be populated in the future.
At Novaya Zemlya there are hundreeds of former nuclear test sites, each one resulting in a cavern 300-500m from the surface, that is absolutely insulated by a million-degrees fire that melted the earth into the glass condition. Millions of cubic meters of perfect containers for any toxic or radioactive waste, that can be sealed for at least million years.
Russia has the most powerfull nuclear industry in the world. Simply let it work, and feed people who are now almost starving because of pro-Western "ecologists" who get their envelops with dollars from American nuclear enterprises.
Miko is right - it's profit. And I hope this profit will be spent on further nuclear research.
BTW, 10-15 years ago at least 4 large projects of fusion reactors were started: Tokamak-15 in Dubna, European thorus in CERN, Japanese and American reactors. Since the start of this "democratisation" crap and the fall of USSR I didn't hear anything about them. Tokamak-15 had to be ready for tests in 1991-92, but I think that even if it was completed - Russian science didn't have any funds for experiments.
Maybe all that projects were "bought" by oil companies and states like Saudi Arabia? In this case I think that Soviet science had a great advantage over the Western world: the progressive research directions couldn't be closed by capitalist "marketing decisions"...
-
Send the spent rods to the moon... heh.. problem solved
-
Yes 10bears but what if the moon crashes into the earth?
Y
-
Send it to the sun. :D
-
It's stupid to send the energy-containing materials to Moon or Sun.
More nuclear stations, in current terms, save oil, as the precious material for chemical industry.
-
I used to be supporting nuclear power `till a friend of mine pointed out the problem to me.They might be designed safe,but there`s always the human factor.Shit happens,and when it does ,nuclear powerplants can ruin a lot of people`s life,for a long time to come.
Hell,I lived actually about 2000 miles from Chernobil when it blew up.They told us everything was cool,but we all know how governments deal with such things.Just keep `em calm ,even if they`re dying.
-
I just started reading a book called "RED ATOM - Russia's Nuclear Power Program from Stalin to Today" which covers the Soviet nuclear power program. The porlogue suggests the program was a combination "reactors for peace" race against the capitalist opponents (the SU was the first to field a civilian power reactor)and the general consideration of nuclear technology as just another industiral tool requiring no deeper concern(from a safety and environmental perspective) than a steel mill or coal-fired power plant. It sould be an interesting read.
Charon
-
i work in the power industry and used to suport nukes, right up to the point where i worked in one. now i refuse any nuke construction jobs, i'll only do de-com work on them now. mistakes are made and more effort seemed to be spent on avoiding blame for mistakes than actually preventing them.
also every year they seem to learn more about nukes, and it's always the same thing they learned last year 'what we thought we knew was wrong' when i was in grade school they still thought kneeling under our desks with our hands behind our neck would protect us from 'the bomb'.
-
Hell,I lived actually about 2000 miles from Chernobil when it blew up
Hmmm..... I was within 95 miles when Chernobil poped in 1986.... and if it would as you said "blew up" I wouldnt have the pleasure to be at this BBS now :eek:
[ 07-14-2001: Message edited by: Dmitry ]
-
Best place for nuclear waste? Dump it in an underwater subduction zone or an active volcano with free-flowing lava so it gets buried.
-
just dump it on the ocean
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...