Tragic - and still contained within the facility.
There has never been a radiation leak from a facility into a community.
Why is the left afraid of nuclear energy?
- Thread starter Tinkerpeach
- Start date
Tragic - and still contained within the facility.
There has never been a radiation leak from a facility into a community.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
There have been, "leaks" and radioactives released from accidents. Those have been cleaned up. It isn't as if you can't clean up what amounts to radioactive dust. Virtually all of those accidents released alpha and beta emitters which are really only hazardous if you breathe or eat them.
Here's one of the typical hyperventilating scares about radioactive material that occurred a few years ago
Huge Open Buckets of Uranium Ore Found at Grand Canyon? Totally Fine, Experts Say.
https://www.livescience.com/64824-grand-canyon-uranium-probably-fine.html
Huge? It was three of these with raw uranium ore in them:
The buckets had lids so the alpha emitting uranium was for all intents harmless unless you opened the bucket and ate the ore, or stood by them for a few centuries absorbing the little bit of gamma radiation given off by decay.
Greenpeace is a discredited terrorist group.
When you murder Tuna fisherman the way these terrorists do - you have no say in anything.
Come back with a legitimate source - not Al Qaeda, Greenpeace, or Hamas
Or a terrorist group like Greenpeace told them to. Leftists love and respect terrorists.
Yes, really
[FONT="]“Nuclear waste can have drastically bad effects on life, causing cancerous growths, for instance, or causing genetic problems for many generations of animal and plants.”
https://earth.stanford.edu/news/steep-costs-nuclear-waste-us
[/FONT]
https://www.conserve-energy-future.com › ...
[h=3]Dangers and Effects of Nuclear Waste Disposal - Conserve Energy Future[/h]
[FONT="]“Nuclear waste is accumulating at sites across the country. Nuclear security expert Rodney C. Ewing discusses how the United States' failure to implement a permanent solution for nuclear waste storage and disposal is costing Americans billions of dollars per year.“
[/FONT]
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
From your source.
Conclusion: Prolonged exposure to radiation increased the risk of leukemia other than CLL among NPP workers. There was little evidence for a radiation association for all solid cancers, lung cancer or ischemic heart disease. Increased precision will be forthcoming as the different cohorts within the MPS are combined, such as industrial radiographers and medical radiation workers who were assembled and evaluated in like manner.
It also shows only a very small increase in that risk 0.15 or about 1.5% over the general population. That is likely statistically insignificant, and with more study likely to be found to be so.
Zero.
Leftists cannot prove even one death of any human or animal to climate change.
Nuclear energy is the best power source we have at this time - which is why the fascist left opposes it.
The slight change to temperature that the fascists scream about is a consistent trend that has gone on since the end of the little ice age. The slight warming that has occured over the last 250 years has in fact increased the yield of food production, benefitting both humans and wildlife with more plentiful food sources.
GlowBull Warming is a fraud - always has been. This is why the cultists and their fascist allies have rebranded to "climate change." The climate has been in a state of change for 4.7 billion years, so that one is pretty safe to use.
The overwhelming majority of the fascist left opposes nuclear energy. The official stance of the Nazi democrat party is in opposition to nuclear energy.
Why do you make a protestation over recognition of the policy of your party? Out of partisan ignorance? Yeah, no doubt.
What types of cancer and disease are associated with living near a facility?
There is a century of data - what do the facts say? Not the demagogues of your party - but the facts?
I know, you don't deal in facts.
Projection! Smoochie whoochie
It's more economical because the fuel source has an extremely long useful life. Fossil fuel based plants consume fuel at a rapid rate to produce energy. At less than 2% of energy production, solar and raptor choppers are simply irrelevant - not a meaningful source of energy.
Nuclear and Hydroelectric are the most economical and cleanest sources for electricity. Hydroelectric is relatively dangerous and often has adverse impact on the environment due to large damns altering ecosystems.
Nuclear is by far the least impactful source of energy.
Hardly.
This is probably the first post you've made to me in 10 years. Most of the time you post talking points from DailyKOS and run away.
Even here, you ducked the subject.
What types of cancer and disease are associated with living near a facility?
There is a century of data - what do the facts say?
No, I’ve made others, but you’re right, I mostly ignore your trolling.
I’ve posted articles on the matter, you failed to read them.
I don't troll.
I present views that oppose the democrat Reich.
However, you still avoided the subject;
What types of cancer and disease are associated with living near a facility?
There is a century of data - what do the facts say?
You’ve just moved to the “no longer merits any responses” list. Congrats. That’s reserved for the stupidest of the ignorant.
Of course, nailing you on your hypocrisy stings, and you have no rational response.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Actually, I do. Let's look at the numbers:
Solar Star I and II, currently the largest solar arrays in the US
Nameplate capacity (it's full rated capacity): 579 MW
Capacity factor 32.8% This is a measure of its average daily output over 24 hours.
Annual average output 1663 GW
Cost in 2023 dollars to build $3.125 billion
Vogtle Nuclear, the latest nuclear plant to come online.
Name plate: 3450 MW
Capacity factor: 95%
Average annual output: 19,786 GW
Cost to build 2023 dollars $30.34 billion
You need 12 Solar Star plants to match the annual output of Vogtle (19786 / 1663). That would require spending $37.5 billion to build or $7.5 billion more than building a single nuclear plant.
But because solar is intermittent and nuclear isn't, we'll need a means to store energy for when the sun isn't shining. Let's assume just 20 hours of storage to give a cushion in case of poor weather and for differences in the length of daylight over the year. This would require we install about 68,000 MW of battery storage (3400 x 20). Commercial battery storage, installed, runs about $225 a kilowatt right now. That works out to 68,000,000 kw x 225 for another $15.3 billion tacked on for the batteries, or $52.8 billion for our solar array to replace the nuke plant.
We also have to consider that the array will eat up about 50,000 acres of land to built it on (about 80 square miles of land) compared to about 3500 acres for the nuke plant.
Thus, solar is far more expensive, less environmentally friendly (land use, urban heat island effect, ozone production, ground water use, etc.) and would be expected to last only about 50% as long in service as the nuke plant. Then you have to consider solar will still require back up by natural gas or another form of reliable, on demand, electrical generation because it will still be unpredictable.
That makes solar an economic disaster compared to nuclear.
Into the Night
Verified User
You are just describing yourself again.
No, it isn't.
Not luck.
Fukushima was destroyed by a massive tidal wave the hit all of eastern Japan wiping out whole villages and towns. Three reactors melted down due to loss of power and water. The area affected by radiation is very localized, since much of the damage is underwater.
Fishing is normal, and robots are currently dismantling what's left of the reactors. One person was killed, not by radiation. By tidal wave.