About Global Warming is real, but not primarily man-made Page 2
|October 30th, 2010||#11|
| || |
The way nuclear power plants are constructed and operate it is impossible to achieve the conditions needed for a nuclear explosion.
|October 31st, 2010||#13|
| || |
However I agree US nuclear power plants are by far the safest of those available, but I would also dispute the argument that it is impossible for nuclear power plants to explode and since you didn't quantify the nationality of the power plant I draw your attention to 1:24am of the Chernobyl incident...
Being pedantic can be fun sometimes.
We are more often treacherous through weakness than through calculation. ~Francois De La Rochefoucauld
|October 31st, 2010||#14|
| || |
|October 31st, 2010||#15|
| || |
Never said it. I said, "it is impossible to get a nuclear explosion".
You can play lawyer all you want and try to steer the statement away from NUCLEAR EXPLOSION, but it does not change or disprove the facts.
Nuclear power plant reactors have never been fueled with weapons grade nuclear fuel capable of resulting in a NUCLEAR EXPLOSION.
As to your first link, it is obvious you did not actually read very far into it. This source lists a lot of "accidents" but lack sources to verify them. Also under the power plant section it lists accidents with deaths, but the locations were not power plants and are not verified.
I never said that a boiler in a Nuclear Power plant could not fail, I only stated you could not get a nuclear explosion. General accidents that could happen at any steam driven power plant was not what was being discussed.
You really don't make a very good Perry Mason(Old TV Lawyer).
Here is a neutral site that gives a very through and in depth analysis of the Chernobyl Disaster.
Here is the short wikipedia version of the UN study of Chernobyl deaths due to radiation exposure:
"An international assessment of the health effects of the Chernobyl accident is contained in a series of reports by the United Nations Scientific Committee of the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). UNSCEAR was set up as a collaboration between various UN bodies, including the World Health Organisation, after the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to assess the long-term effects of radiation on human health.
UNSCEAR has conducted 20 years of detailed scientific and epidemiological research on the effects of the Chernobyl accident. Apart from the 57 direct deaths in the accident itself, UNSCEAR originally predicted up to 4,000 additional cancer cases due to the accident. However, the latest UNSCEAR reports suggest that these estimates were overstated. In addition, the IAEA states that there has been no increase in the rate of birth defects or abnormalities, or solid cancers (such as lung cancer) corroborating UNSCEAR's assessments.
Precisely, UNSCEAR states:
Among the residents of Belaruss 09, the Russian Federation and Ukraine there had been, up to 2002, about 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer reported in children and adolescents who were exposed at the time of the accident, and more cases are to be expected during the next decades. Notwithstanding problems associated with screening, many of those cancers were most likely caused by radiation exposures shortly after the accident. Apart from this increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 20 years after the accident. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure. The risk of leukaemia in the general population, one of the main concerns owing to its short latency time, does not appear to be elevated. Although those most highly exposed individuals are at an increased risk of radiation-associated effects, the great majority of the population is not likely to experience serious health consequences as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl accident. Many other health problems have been noted in the populations that are not related to radiation exposure.Thyroid cancer is generally treatable. With proper treatment, the five-year survival rate of thyroid cancer is 96%, and 92% after 30 years"
In looking up this data for you I was surprised at the health risks associated with fear:
"It also concluded that a greater risk than the long-term effects of radiation exposure is the risk to mental health of exaggerated fears about the effects of radiation."
"Me and my friends have figured out I think it was 2 or 3." quote Yin 717
"You and your friends", does not constitute a credible source.
I live in LA and have worked in the movie industry. We appreciate that you watch disaster films, just don't take them to seriously.
|November 2nd, 2010||#16|
| || |
ZOMG it was hilarious though.
Last edited by A Can of Man; November 2nd, 2010 at 00:56..
|November 2nd, 2010||#17|
| || |
As to your comments on the current effects seen from Chernobyl that is very interesting and I thankyou for sharing it with me. However, as the report states, this is over a time period of 20 years. The radioactive material, depending what type has landed in the area, can last for 1000's of years. It is possible that the effects aren't being felt now.
As to your comments on nuclear explosions, yes we were trying to steer it away from that because I made the wrong comment. It was not really a nuclear explosion, as I was corrected, but a nuclear meltdown. Just something I've have learnt on my way through life. People have corrected that for me, such as yourself, and we were trying to point out that while a nuclear explosion is, to your evidence, not possible the effects of a nuclear meltdown, which we know are possible, can be serious.
Last edited by Yin717; November 2nd, 2010 at 17:12..
|February 27th, 2011||#18|
| || |
1. You're sources are, for the most part, outdated and wrong, the concensus of all respected scientists is, as of 2011, that global warming is not natural, and quite a bit deal.
2. The sun is currently going through a LOW spot in terms of solar flares and such, and while there are natural changes in climate, we've noticed that things are fluctuatiing VASTLY more than they would naturally, the only people who deny this are kooks on the fringe of the scientific community and republican politicians.
3. The way to stop this is simple. First is nuclear power, clean, much safer than coal, and efficient as the day is long. As a stop gap, at least, until advances in solar can be shifted primarily into solar, as a stopgap to fusion power, using plentiful deuterium fuel to privide quite a bit of power cleanly.
|April 6th, 2011||#19|
| || |
The geological record indicates that we have had an ice age on our planet every 200.000 years or so. Each ice age has been preceeded by global warming, it is a necessary precursor. The warming takes place gradually over centuries--just as it is now--until enough fresh water from polar melting alters the salinity of the great oceans and shuts down the salt driven currents that warm the continents. Then, Ice Age. This is going to happen, even if we all go back to living in caves and drawing on the walls. Man-made? Then how do we account for the ice ages that preceeded the evolution of man? Many people throughout history have labored under the delusion that man can affect the weather or climate. They have been generally labelled as crackpots. The current green movement? Follow the money. Oh yes, the last great ice age? Almost 200,000 years ago. Man's contribution to the process? It might only take 199,990 years this time.
Last edited by RealNavy; April 6th, 2011 at 03:39..
|April 6th, 2011||#20|
| || |
Not quite 200,000 years ago, the last ice age was 110,000 to 10,000 years ago with the last expansion being 18,000-21,000 years ago.
The last four significant ice ages were, about 2 million years ago to the present, 350 to 250 million years ago, 800 to 600 million years ago and 2400 to 2100 million years ago.
It gets a bit sketchy after that.