In this transit period radiation cancer deaths will multiply into the 100k yearly for humanity. See these links:
#Over Time, Nuclear power Would Kill Fewer People Than Petroleumusing nuclear power for energy instead of coal has prevented almost 2 million pollution-related deaths around the world
The paper argues that policymakers should increase nuclear power rather than continuing dependence on fossil fuels. The 2011 disaster at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant should not deter governments from expanding nuclear power according to Hansen
and its lead author Pushker A. Kharecha of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
and Columbia University Earth Institute On the contrary nuclear power will prevent further deaths from air pollution they argue.
Even taking the disaster at Fukushima into account they calculate that global nuclear power has prevented about 1. 84 million air pollution-related deaths
which fuel nuclear power will be replacing.)Nuclear power has prevented already 64 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions and would prevent the equivalent of another 80 to 240 gigatons again depending on
which fuel it replaces. The paper does acknowledge the serious health and environmental concerns related to storage of nuclear waste.
But the main point is that nuclear power is cleaner and greener than sources that belch carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
and he has rankled environmental groups with his support for nuclear power. With his departure from NASA the climate research community loses one of its most vocal members
The same holds for nuclear power vs. other energy sources. The*real*risk of a nuclear power disaster is far less than the*(mis) perceived*risk.
If nuclear power was safe we would not need the Priceã¢Â#Ânderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act.@
@Anyclon I have seen never a better comparison. Those occurrences get blown out of proportion because people do not realize the big picture
--and that includes Anyclon who refuses to believe that nuclear power is less risky than most other sources of energy.
I read somewhere that coal fire power plants release more radiation (in the form of radioactive impurities being vaporized) into the atmosphere every year than all nuclear power plants ever (including meltdowns.
but we're at such a point in our'advancement'that our diluted pollutants are reaching toxic levels. 1. Nuclear power plants emit dangerous radiation into the air and water during their DAILY operations.
Cancer-causing radiation such as Iodine-131 Cesium-137 Tritium Krypton Strontium...2. A NEW Gallup Poll says over 70%of Americans want more WIND
and Ecological Consequences of Fukushima in which the amount of cancers caused by radiation in our food
and in our environment from nuclear meltdowns and nuclear power plants was discussed. The total amounts of deaths birth defects miscarriages heart attacks cancers etc. due to nuclear radiation is in the millions upon millions;
far surpassing any deaths that could be caused by any other energy. That is why nuclear energy is rightly known as the most dangerous energy in the world.
/id=hcf@Listenup 1. Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste http://www. scientificamerican. com/article. cfm?
id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste2. I do agree we shall go for clean renewable energy
I think nuclear fission energy will be suitable as a transitional substitution mean while. 3. Let's hope we can have feasible nuclear fusion energy soon.
Why can't they take nuclear fuel rods into space and drop them to burn up in reentry to atmosphere?
You don't seem to realize that there are only TWO events in all of history that actually spread any significant amount of radioactive particles into the atmosphere from nuclear reactors-Chernobyl
and Fukushima. 3 mile island caused less extra radiation than you'd get from a cross-country flight.
By contrast coal-fired power plants release higher quantities of radioactive isotopes directly into the atmosphere than even the oldest nuclear reactors ever did.
Just Google radioactive coal ash (without quotes) and you'll learn the truth about coal.
They won't become any less radioactive just by getting a little hot. The nuclear dream is fading fast.
Fukushima is expected by Dr. Helen Caldicott M d. to cause at least 1 million deaths by cancer due to radioactivity already released.
If a Magnitude 8 earthquake strikes Japan before a fuel pool dangling 100 feet in the air is secured the resulting radioactivity is expected to be at least 40 times that of Chernobyl causing untold millions of cancers across the Northern hemisphere.
Markwhen environmentalists sue nuclear power plants and stop them from proceeding we should sue the environmentalists for killing us.
The newest generations of nuclear power plants are some of the most well design and safest power plants in the world.
Nuclear power is a very good thing. However given his penchant for wildly distorting numbers in his computer models the estimated number of lives saved 1. 84 million should be treated with the same credence as virtually every other ridiculous claim he has made ever.
and about as mature as your avatar. 1. A quick trip to wikipedia shows many many nuclear meltdowns and accidents such as Santa Susana in California and the Urals in Russia which spewed tons of radiation
over unsuspecting populations. 2. Comparing radiation received from an airplane flight to exposure to nuclear radiation
which is inhaled/ingested is a hugely false comparison (so is comparing it to bananas or radiation from watching TV etc.)
These comparisons are made by pro-nuclear propagandists to try to minimize the dangers of nuclear radiation. 3. Nuclear radiation is highly dangerous
and there is NO SAFE DOSE of nuclear radiation. Dr. Romeo F. Quijano said this about nuclear radiation:
The small amount of radiation claimed to be safe by authorities added to our increasingly fragile environment will cause serious harm to the health of human beings and other living organisms all over the world.
Radioactive particles especially Plutonium Strontium and Cesium are bioaccumulative extremely persistent and highly toxic. They travel long distances
and will contaminate all regions on earth. www. abs-cbnnews. com/insights/04/01/11/nuclear-radiation-there-no-safe-dose4.
Dr. Yablokov found ONE MILLION deaths due to Chernobyl. 5. Dr. Wing found that lung cancers rose dramatically in people exposed to the Three Mile Island radiation plume. 6. Dr. Gould
and Dr. Sternglass found a statistically significant increase of ONE MILLION deaths after Three Mile Island.
coast. 9. Dr. Gofman did studies on the increases of breast cancer due to nuclear radiation. 10.
and predicts a 70%increase thyroid cancer risk in females exposed to Fukushima radiation as infants. 11.
It's not just cancers and death that nuclear radiation causes. Dr. Wertelecki found teratomos conjoined twins mocrophthalmia NTD microcephaly horrible birth defects and a decrease in cognitive skills due to Chernobyl.
and health effects caused by nuclear radiation. Again I highly recommend everyone watch the speakers at the Fukushima Symposium to learn more. www. totalwebcasting. com/view/?
/id=hcfthe doctors at the Symposium have spent decades studying the effects of nuclear radiation and their grim analysis is in their presentations.
And nuclear radiation is not just affecting humans. Animals are showing signs of radiation exposure.
Fish have been caught with radiation. An entire species of nails is extinct due to Fukushima. Radiation is being in found in seaweed zooplankton and sea life in the oceans.
Animal and plant mutations are being found everywhere. There is no doubt about it. Man-made nuclear radiation is wreaking havoc on human genetics human health and our environment.
NEW Gallup Poll: Americans Want More Energy From Wind Solar Gasno fewer than two in three Americans want the U s. to put more emphasis on producing domestic energy using solar power (76%)wind (71%)and natural gas (65%.
%Far fewer want to emphasize the production of oil (46%)and the use of nuclear power (37%.
%Least favored is coal with about one in three Americans wanting to prioritize its domestic production. www. gallup. com/poll/161519/americans-emphasis-solar-wind-natural-gas. aspxlistenup regardless of the tone
of Onihikage's comments he's exactly right about there being only two nuclear power plant incidents in history that resulted in significant radiation release
since the first nuclear power plant went online in 1954. There have been 68 fatalities in 59 years 57
Interestingly no one died from radiation released in the Fukushima Daiichi accident. That averages out to a little over 1 fatality a year.
Here's a list of all nuclear power plant accidents: http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Nuclear and radiation accidentsthe*4000 cancer number associated with Chernobyl is the number of cancers--not deaths--attributed to Chernobyl.
%This UN Scientific Committee Report on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) published in 2008 says there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure two decades after the accident.
That's from the WORST nuclear power plant accident in history. See UNSCEAR report (2008) on Chernobyl here:
and Dr. Sternglass claiming a million deaths due to the radiation release from Three Mile Island. What you're missing in your extremely narrow
and warped view on nuclear radiation is balance and perspective. Onihikage was right to call you out on your radiation junk science.
Do you know how much radiation was released from Three Mile Island? I'll tell you. The radiation released resulted in an average dose of 1. 4 mrem to the two million people near the plant.
The report compared this with the additional 80 mrem per year received from living in a high altitude city such as Denver.
As further comparison you receive 3. 2 mrem from a chest X-ray âÂ#Âmore than twice the average dose of those received near the plant. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Three mile island accidentdo
you seriously think a million people die from receiving a chest X-ray? If that were true chest X-rays would have been abolished long ago by the FDA.
Your claim 3. Nuclear radiation is highly dangerous and there is NO SAFE DOSE of nuclear radiation is also rubbish.
Nuclear radiation is used daily to irradiate foods to prevent spoilage with no adverse health effect whatsoever.
In fact it saves lives by preventing deadly bacteria from forming. Nuclear radiation is used safely countless times every day in numerous ways in medical and diagnostic procedures on humans;
all of which results in the prolonging of life and improving the quality of life for millions of people each year.
The effects of nuclear radiation have been studied carefully for over 60 years and extremely conservative dosage limits set in place to protect the safety of people who work in environments where radiation exposure is commonplace.
The U s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission says Although radiation may cause cancer at high doses and high dose rates public health data do not absolutely establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates âÂ#Âbelow about 10000 mrem (100 msv).
Studies of occupational workers who are exposed chronically to low levels of radiation above normal background have shown no adverse biological effects. http://www. nrc. gov/about-nrc/radiation/health-effects/rad
-exposure-cancer. htmlhere's a graphic comparison of different levels of radiation dosages: http://xkcd. com/radiation/And here's an MIT study from 2012 which suggests that the established long-term radiation dosage limits may be 10 times too conservative due to the way the cancerous effects are measured;
not from actual experiments of long-term radiation but from EXTRAPOLATING the effects from single high-dosage events like the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima or the exposion at Chernobyl:
http://web. mit. edu/newsoffice/2012/prolonged-radiation-exposure-0515. htmlto sum up do as Onihikage suggests
and read up on the remarkable safety of nuclear power and get some perspective on the vast array of other things that pose much greater health risks than nuclear power.
As for the Gallup poll Listenup it says nothing about what forms of energy Americans want to prioritize.
It simply shows that Americans want the country to produce more energy from all of the sources named.
If you add up the same emphasis as now or more emphasis results it looks like this:
Solar power: 88%Wind: 87%Natural gas: 89%Oil: 67%Nuclear power: 65%Coal: 56%In other words generally speaking Americans want to become energy independent through ALL THE resources at our disposal. http://www. gallup. com/file/poll/161525/Energy sources 130327. pdfthis is absolutely true
and it kills far less people anually then coal. If you leave your solar panel running in your garage no one will die.
Second of all although most of the facts previously stated about radiation and nuclear energy are true you do realize that most of that info is talking about decades old nuclear technology?
That's only a DECADE after the FIRST nuclear fission in human history! The nuclear plants finished recently (within the past decade) were built with technology developed in the seventies and eighties.
Nuclear fission and fusion and combination of the two have yet to reach the potentials and can be so much better than fossil fuels in both safety and efficiency (with A LOT OF help).
and negative sources of non-iodizing radiation (the correct term to use) which include transmission towers (cellular and digital television broadcasting) fluorescent lighting Wi-fi Power lines and certain appliances.
and mapping their frequencies and power outputs one is able to see a correlation within a set radius of bee populations affected by theses sources of non-iodizing radiation.
or none RF radiation would be places of high bee population. I wonder if this has been looked at to give validity to the above theory.
or that there isn't radioactive waste in the groundwater near your home or there aren't chemtrail distributed weather modification chemicals in rainwater.@
or that there isn't radioactive waste in the groundwater near your home or there aren't chemtrail distributed weather modification chemicals in rainwater.
but genetically modified food doesn't contain cyanide there isn't radioactive waste in the groudwater near my home
Where is Scythelord's proof that their is no radioactive contamination in groundwater near where they live?
and make fuel for the future from dirty water. any water. hydrogen can be made from any source of water. even nuclear power plant water. useing high voltage
#A Huge Burst Of Gamma rays Hit Earth--And No one Noticedlast year Japanese scientists found evidence that in 775 AD Earth was hit with a sudden blast of high-intensity radiation--a blast
instead in the amount of radioactive carbon trapped in the annual growth rings of some of the world's oldest trees.
Carbon's key radioactive isotope carbon-14 forms when energetic particles enter Earth's atmosphere
So what could have caused the massive burst of radiation and the high influx of energetic particles that led to the elevated levels of carbon-14 in the atmosphere?
The radiation either came from an especially intense solar flare or the explosion of a nearby star.
Second--and perhaps more importantly--such flares would also have destroyed the Earth's ozone layer exposing all of life to harsh radiation
A nearby supernova would have sent gamma rays flying in all directions. Those rays would have created high-energy particles in our atmosphere
which could then go on to form the carbon-14 present in such abundance in the Japanese cedars.
But in order to send out enough gamma rays to do the trick the supernova would have had to be bigger and brighter than other historical bright spots that were documented in fact.
a short-duration gamma ray burst produced by the collision of two nearby neutron stars. Though immensely powerful (we're talking two 10-mile wide boulders each with the mass of our sun) the collision would only have been visible from Earth for about a day
So the formation of radioactive isotopes isn't a steady process? This could cause us to change our assumptions about dating methods.
In all of these colonize Mars discussions of late nobody brings up radiation protection. Mars has no magnetic field so that means no protection from solar radiation.
i propose temporary housing units that can move on six to eight legs. 6-10 of lead in the walls for protection from radiation.
#German Boars Are Too Radioactive To Eatin Germany boar meat is considered a delicacy consumed in various forms such as salami and boar leg.
According to the Telegraph recent testing in the state of Saxony has revealed that more than one-in-three wild boar in Germany are so radioactive that they're considered unfit for human consumption.
Boar carcasses are supposed not to exceed radiation levels of 600 becquerels per kilogram but in the past year 297 out of 752 boar tested in Saxony have su this safe amount.
The illuminating trend is thought to be a lingering effect of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster one of the worst nuclear power plant accidents in history.
More than 28 years ago a reactor exploded at the Chernobyl Nuclear power Plant in Soviet-run Ukraine releasing radioactive particles into the atmosphere.
but various weather conditions helped the radioactive particles spread far into Western europe contaminating much of the ground soil.
which are known to store radiation. Apparently researchers have been cataloguing this pattern of boar radioactivity for some time
and they don t believe it ll go away any time soon. Experts predict it may be another 50 years before boar radiation levels return to normal the Telegraph notes.
In the meantime Germans should keep an eye out for any boars exhibiting super powers e
#How The World Wastes Food Infographic Every year the planet loses nearly a third of its food staggering 1. 4 billion tons.
Researchers have used also radiation to increase random mutations. But the difference between these lab-grown mutants and their Hollywood counterparts comes down to luck.
or radiation mortally fraying their DNA. They won again and again packing on good traits dodging bad ones
Radiation exposure transforms The Metal Man of Jack Williamson s eponymous 1928 short story into the progenitor of today s fictional mutants.
According to VTT the X-ray scanning of timber could increase yield volume by 5 per cent equivalent to extra annual sales revenue of AUD 70 million for large sawmills.
But large proteins like molecular motors or signaling proteins have multiple functional conformations some of them too short-lived to be captured by X-ray crystallography.
because trees in warmer maritime forests radiate heat in the form of long-wave radiation to a greater degree than the sky does.
Nondestructive imaging of ancient fossilsby integrating high-resolution X-ray imaging (termed microct) 3d image segmentation and computer animation a new study conducted by Carole Gee at the University of Bonn Germany demonstrates the visualization of fossils without destroying the material.
Using this technique X-ray images similar to those used in the medical field are captured providing virtual cross-sections of the specimen without ever cutting into the sample.
Monotremes (platypuses and echidnas) are the last remnant of an ancient radiation of mammals unique to the southern continents.
Using CSIRO's Maia detector for x-ray elemental imaging at the Australian Synchrotron the research team was able to locate
Our advanced x-ray imaging enabled the researchers to examine the leaves and produce clear images of the traces of gold and other metals nestled within their structure principal scientist at the Australian Synchrotron Dr David Paterson said.
#Compound derived from vegetables shields rodents from lethal radiation dosesgeorgetown University Medical center researchers say a compound derived from cruciferous vegetable such as cabbage cauliflower and broccoli protected rats and mice from lethal doses of radiation.
and prevent or mitigate sickness caused by radiation exposure. The compound known as DIM (33'-diindolylmethane) previously has been found to have cancer preventive properties.
but this is the first indication that DIM can also act as a radiation protector says the study's corresponding author Eliot Rosen MD Phd of Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center.
For the study the researchers irradiated rats with lethal doses of gamma ray radiation. The animals were treated then with a daily injection of DIM for two weeks starting 10 minutes after the radiation exposure.
The result was stunning says Rosen a professor of oncology biochemistry and cell & molecular biology and radiation medicine.
All of the untreated rats died but well over half of the DIM-treated animals remained alive 30 days after the radiation exposure.
Rosen adds that DIM also provided protection whether the first injection was administered 24 hours before or up to 24 hours after radiation exposure.
We also showed that DIM protects the survival of lethally irradiated mice Rosen says. In addition irradiated mice treated with DIM had less reduction in red blood cells white blood cells
and platelets--side effects often seen in patients undergoing radiation treatment for cancer. Rosen says this study points to two potential uses of the compound.
which describes how irregular grains can be aligned by their interaction with magnetic fields and stellar radiation.
I simulate scattered radiation fluxes. Based on the flux densities Dr. Fayock's model maps out the heliosphere and its features like where the heliopause area is expected to be.
When the interaction of metals was analyzed by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy it revealed the creation of a more supportive substrate for the forests to root in.
#X-ray science taps bug biology to design better materials and reduce pollutionbug spray citronella candles mosquito netting--most people will do anything they can to stay away from insects during the warmer months.
Researchers using the cutting-edge X-ray technology at the U s. Department of energy's Advanced Photon Source (APS) were able to take an inside look at several insects gathering results that go beyond learning about insect physiology and biology.
and nature of our sun's heliosphere--the gigantic bubble that surrounds our solar system and helps shield us from dangerous incoming galactic radiation.
#Bismuth-carrying nanotubes show promise for CT scansscientists at Rice university have trapped bismuth in a nanotube cage to tag stem cells for X-ray tracking.
That lets us take an X-ray image of the cell. The capsules are made from a chemical process that cuts
By measuring the vibrations between atoms using femtosecond-long laser pulses the Rice lab of chemist Junrong Zheng is able to discern the positions of atoms within molecules without the restrictions imposed by X-ray diffraction (XRD) and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) imaging.
In the new study Huang and Rice graduate student Tzu-Lin Sun partnered with colleagues Ming-Tao Lee at the National Synchrotron Radiation Research center (NSRRC) in Hsinchu Taiwan
The molecular level data came from a series of X-ray diffraction experiments performed by Lee at NSRRC.
Revisiting this classic planetary science scenario with new computer modeling the astronomers found a lower thermal radiation threshold for the runaway greenhouse process meaning that stage may be easier to initiate than had been thought previously.
The evidence which scientists have been seeking for 25 years matches predictions made using the Standard model of Particle physics.
So the theoretical particle physics community has been interested extremely to see what the two-muon decay rate is for this type of meson Padley said.
Unfortunately the results keep telling us the Standard model of Particle physics works phenomenally well and what we're seeing now is another stunning success of that model.
and radiation and show promise for stacking in three-dimensional arrays. Rudimentary silicon memories made in the Tour lab are now aboard the International Space station where they are being tested for their ability to hold a pattern
when exposed to radiation. The diodes eliminate crosstalk inherent in crossbar structures by keeping the electronic state on a cell from leaking into adjacent cells Tour said.
In contrast to X-ray methods FLASH 2--like all other MRI techniques--is harmless to the organism under examination.
#Nuke test radiation can fight poachers who kill elephants, rhinos, hipposuniversity of Utah researchers developed a new weapon to fight poachers who kill elephants hippos rhinos and other wildlife.
By measuring radioactive carbon-14 deposited in tusks and teeth by open-air nuclear bomb tests the method reveals the year an animal died
Like greenhouse gases volcanic aerosols perturb the Earth's radiation balance. This supports the idea that the unusually high ENSO activity in the late 20th century is a footprint of global warming explains lead author Jinbao Li.
but the intense radiation this produces also seems to be blowing the material away. It is still unclear how these two processes work together
They are direct evidence that dust is being pushed out by the intense radiation. Models of how the dust is distributed
At ALS beamlines 5. 3. 2. 1 and 5. 3. 2. 2 x-ray spectroscopy showed that the specific way the aluminum substitutes for silicon in the C-a-S-H
High-pressure x-ray diffraction experiments at ALS beamline 12.2.2 measured its mechanical properties and for the first time clarified the role of aluminum in its crystal lattice.
The greenhouse gases were measured as carbon dioxide equivalents and included methane refrigerants and other gases that trap radiation.
and analyzed the experimental data obtained at the X-ray synchrotron at Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago.
#Despite safety and other concerns, nuclear power saves lives, greenhouse gas emissions, experts sayglobal use of nuclear power has prevented about 1. 84 million air pollution-related deaths
Pushker A. Kharecha and James E. Hansen state that nuclear power has the potential to help control both global climate change
That potential exists they say despite serious questions about safety disposal of radioactive waste and diversion of nuclear material for weapons.
Concerned that the Fukushima accident in Japan could overshadow the benefits of nuclear energy they performed an analysis of nuclear power's benefits in reducing carbon dioxide emissions and air pollution deaths.
The study concluded that nuclear power already has had a major beneficial impact based upon calculations of prevented mortality
Nuclear power could prevent from 420000 to 7 million additional deaths by mid-century and prevent emission of 80-240 billion tons of the greenhouse gases linked to global warming the study found.
and would cause far more deaths than the expansion of nuclear power it notes. If the role of nuclear power declines significantly in the next 20-30 years Kharecha added the International Energy Agency predicts that achieving the major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are required to mitigate climate change would require heroic achievements in the use
of emerging low-carbon technologies which have yet to be proven. Story Source: The above story is provided based on materials by American Chemical Society.
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011