+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 119

Thread: Future/Alternative Energy Sources

  1. #21

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    I love you Tag, but you don't know what you're talking about.

    First off, radioactive waste is more harmful to all living things. I can't believe that I actually have to defend this statement, so I won't anymore.

    Second, when did I deny our impact on the climate? All I said was that we cannot be sure of just how much of an impact we've had on carbon levels in the atmosphere. I personally do think that we're contributing significantly, but I'm not going to say that we're the only reason the carbon levels are fluctuating. Maybe you should go back to the graph I posted on the previous page (copypasta'd for your convenience):



    Please tell me that I'm not the only one who notices just how much those blue dots and error bars are fluctuating. Now, for comparison, let's look at just the last few hundred thousand years:



    Notice how the last one is only on a scale of like 400 parts per million, and how the first one is on a scale of 8000 parts per million? What does this tell you? It tells me that the Earth has seen a heck of a lot of carbon in its atmosphere before, and that whatever we're doing to the planet right now might not be ideal, but it's a lot better than risking the increased radiation of our children and their children's children's children's children's children.

    Get the picture?

    Radioactive waste isn't widespread? What do you see here?



    Those are the ground level Cesium concentrations almost a month after the Fukushima incident.



    And this shows the total cesium deposition in that area over a similar time span.

    That's Fukushima's aftermath, and that's just what's in the atmosphere.

    Here's something to show how the wreckage in the water is getting carried around the Pacific:



    Maybe you haven't noticed, but there haven't been a whole lot of nuclear bombs going off lately. Instead, we've been building lots of fission power plants, all ripe for the next stupid human error or environmental disaster to cause the next big fission accident. And all that Uranium that we're burning, well, it's making more and more radioactive waste that we're "safely" disposing of underground. Well, guys, why don't you tell me what's going to happen when all of these underground nuclear waste dumps start leeching into the surrounding water supply? When they start elevating the background radiation levels in the very soil in which we are planting our food? If you think that this sort of thing isn't an inevitability in the long run, then you're deluding yourself.

    I'm not talking about fission with any hyperboles, Tag. You're the one who said that I was, so I'd like for you to please find where I was making some sort of exaggerated statement about the dangers of fission. Everything that I've said so far is true as far as I'm aware, and I've learned a whole lot about the subject. Believe me, I'm still paying for the student loans.

    Anyway, it's stupid to say that we should stop investing in alternative energy because it's not going to stop the developing nations from using fossil fuels in the meantime. I never said that, and it's stupid for you to assume that that's what I meant. What I meant is that there's nothing that you or I can do or say in this moment or in the next couple decades that is really going to have any major impact on how humans are influencing the environment or producing our energy. Sure, we should keep researching what we can, figuring out as much as possible about new energy sources, but we shouldn't think that any drastic changes in our environmental/energy policies are going to occur any time soon.

    What's going to drive energy policy change is when the next big thing comes along, sort of like when coal power and steam engines were discovered. That's what fusion is going to be like, and that's why I keep harping on and on about it's benefits.

    --- Update From New Post Merge ---

    Quote Originally Posted by Supernova122 View Post
    Are you sure you understand the relative impacts of these forms of pollution?
    I shall dispense with the subtext and tell you that I think you don't.
    And I'll go ahead and say that you're full of horse shit because this is precisely what I've been studying for the last fucking decade.

    Because it would be dumb not to contain it.
    Very funny, but you know that's not what I was asking, right? Why do you think that it's better to irradiate the planet than to do what we can to find other ways to diminish carbon emissions? That's what I'm asking you.

    You're saying that we are already doing a great job of containing our nuclear waste. I've pointed out to you over and over again how that's just a blatant fallacy. Tell me why you think that what we are doing right now is sufficient. Please.

    Certainly for general ionising radiation, fission by-products, nuclear disasters (even Chernobyl) and weapon tests together pale in comparison to natural sources, particularly naturally occurring radon ...

    In terms of impact on humans exclusively, we get on average far more radiation from X-rays (as in for imaging purposes) than we do from the above mentioned fission sources.

    Nobody's going to argue fission's a great eternal solution, especially with the way we deal with nuclear waste now, but it is not really tenable to argue against fission power in the medium term based on the impact of fission waste products.

    Also, I'm definitely going to call bullshit on the radiation "effectively lasting forever." It will become negligible well before the doom of humanity. Unless you're expecting an apocalypse pretty soon.
    Yes, there are lots of sources of radiation that we already have to contend with, already plaguing the species with more cancer than we'd ever want to have to manage. Now, you're telling me that you think it's a good idea to exacerbate that problem?

    I'm going to assume that you know what a half-life is. But, did you know that there are lots of fission byproducts that have half lives over a quarter million years long? Do you understand that that's a lot longer than the human race has even existed?

    Maybe if you understand all of that, then you'll begin to understand why I think our fission waste is likely to outlast even us.

    This is such a non-point though. Nobody here (or anywhere??) is arguing to the contrary.

    I say Problem X is better than Problem Y.

    You say Problem X is worse than Problem Z.

    Do you now see what I mean about you missing the point?
    You say that irradiation of the planet by nuclear waste and the risk of fission power plant meltdowns is a better alternative than continuing to burn fossil fuels in the way that we have been. So what? Making more fission power plants is not going to significantly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels any time soon. You think that developing nations are going to actually try to make fission power plants and other alternative energy sources?

    I'm way more comfortable with them building more coal plants and getting it right than taking their chances with fission power plants and inevitably getting it really wrong. We've all seen just what can happen when a rushed, developing nation tries to build something that's a little beyond their understanding/ability (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, etc.).
    Last edited by benjamminbrown; June 1st, 2014 at 06:43 PM.

  2. #22

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Keep it civil, you three. This is the best discussion on the particular topic I've seen in a long, long time anywhere, so don't bog it down by throwing in too many personal affronts. It'd be a shame to lose it to discourse problems.
    In Loving Memory of Toraish, Rex Avium: http://apforums.net/showthread.php?t=40786 | 3DS Friend Code: 3196-4274-7836

  3. #23

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Well, damn, Dryish. And I was just starting to build up a nice, healthy temper.

    *sigh* OK.

  4. #24
    Banned Rank: Failed Mutineer
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    removed again

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    You can't post pictures like that and ignore the context of them. If the only thing you're gleaning from that is that there has been a lot of carbon on the planet before then you're not looking at the whole picture. Those images tell a story much larger than the one you're trying to narrow it down to and it ignores the state and changes that the planet was going through during those time periods. You can't just go "See, there's been lots of carbon all the time no big deal" That's not the story of those pictures. You can stop posting them because you clearly don't know what the peaks and valleys mean. If you did you wouldn't be posting them to support your argument. I don't have the time or energy to discuss the geological and ecological history of the planet but that's the story of those pictures and they have literally fuck all to do with the last bit of both graphs which is the part that matters.

    Fukushima is not radioactive waste. It was a nuclear meltdown caused by shitty engineering. You can't argue that we don't know how to deal with fission power waste products by citing Fukushima because THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Not only that but that picture you posted is lovely if you're ignorant and you don't know the levels of the radiation that are actually being represented. It's a great scare tactic. Yes if every nuclear plant on the planet melted down it would be awful but that's not going to happen. Fukushima is not the fate of all nuclear energy, it's an isolated incident. What it is is a case for raising the standards of japanese nuclear power plants, not getting rid of all of them like they're doing. The testimony from the engineers who built that plant and others have shown that this was a problem that started with politics. Stop trying to use it as a case for all plants current and ever after.

    And how can you go from talking about radiation damage that will last forever but completely ignore it when it comes to the 2000+ bombs that have literally gone off in our atmosphere and instead attribute all that increase in radiation to power plants. That's absurd.That makes no physical or mathematical sense. It's false. It's untrue. It's a lie. It's calling a square a triangle.

    For all your talk about the ground and water contamination that's heading our way how much contamination has actually been found in anywhere that was caused by the storage of nuclear waste. You say it's inevitable but it hasn't happened and it's not going to happen. We know how to deal with this stuff. The same science that's going to make your fusion power possible is the science that tells us how to safely manage this material.


    You like fusion and fusion will be great if we get there. We get it. But that's the only thing you've got right this entire time.

  5. #25

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Chernobyl and Fukushima are pretty bad examples where arguing that nuclear power is unsafe is concerned.

    The former was pretty much a disaster from the get-go thanks to Soviet era gross incompetence; the reactor design was bad and horrendously unsafe, they knew it was bad, and they pressed on with it anyway, they skimped on safety protocol, and didn't postpone the safety test that caused the explosion when they knew that the system wasn't running the way it was supposed to. After that, they didn't evacuate people like they should have in Pripyat and didn't even announce it for several days after the explosion.

    Fukushima was basically a testimony to TEPCO incompetence and corruption since they set up a commission to study the possibility of just such an event as the tsunami that damaged the facility several years before and promptly ignored that commission's recommendations since it would cost more than they wanted to spend.

  6. #26
    The Nice Guy Outerspec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Home away from home.

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    I think Benjamin's point is that accidents can happen whether they be human error or natural and the risks are too great, but that point can be argued against anything. Including fusion power?

    Edit: Nvm, looked up fusion and it's just about perfect in every way. It's a matter of getting the technology.
    Last edited by Outerspec; June 1st, 2014 at 05:17 PM.
    Everything's Eventual...


  7. #27

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by Taggerung View Post
    You can't post pictures like that and ignore the context of them. If the only thing you're gleaning from that is that there has been a lot of carbon on the planet before then you're not looking at the whole picture. Those images tell a story much larger than the one you're trying to narrow it down to and it ignores the state and changes that the planet was going through during those time periods. You can't just go "See, there's been lots of carbon all the time no big deal" That's not the story of those pictures. You can stop posting them because you clearly don't know what the peaks and valleys mean. If you did you wouldn't be posting them to support your argument. I don't have the time or energy to discuss the geological and ecological history of the planet but that's the story of those pictures and they have literally fuck all to do with the last bit of both graphs which is the part that matters.
    What context am I ignoring, Tag? I know exactly what the graphs that I've posted mean, and I'm not afraid to admit it.

    I don't think that it would be helpful for us to go into a long winded discussion about what all the sources for carbon fluctuations in the atmosphere are. What's important, here, is that carbon is extremely prevalent on Earth, and basically always has been. Let's not concern ourselves too, too much with how well the environment is going to bounce back from this latest human screw up called the industrial revolution, is all I'm saying. The environment can take it. Clearly.

    It's beside the point, though, since it won't matter if we developed nations start switching to all fission, anyway. As I've said, developing nations are definitely going to be building mostly coal power plants, and they're going to keep our carbon emissions up for quite a while now. Do you think that there really is any denying this?

    Fukushima is not radioactive waste.
    Alright, if there's anything that you've said that makes you really look like you don't know what you're talking about, it's this. What do you think radioactive waste actually is, Tag? I'm interested.

    It was a nuclear meltdown caused by shitty engineering. You can't argue that we don't know how to deal with fission power waste products by citing Fukushima because THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Not only that but that picture you posted is lovely if you're ignorant and you don't know the levels of the radiation that are actually being represented. It's a great scare tactic. Yes if every nuclear plant on the planet melted down it would be awful but that's not going to happen. Fukushima is not the fate of all nuclear energy, it's an isolated incident. What it is is a casing for raising the standards of japanese nuclear power plants, not getting rid of all of them like they're doing. The testimony from the engineers who built that plant and others have shown that this was a problem that started with politics. Stop trying to use it as a case for all plants current and ever after.
    And now you're making Supernova's same mistake, telling me that we shouldn't count Fukushima as a reason people can't be trusted with fission energy.

    Don't you know that the same exact fission byproducts are made during a meltdown as are made during normal operation? They're just made in extremely higher quantities at a much faster rate. It's called a meltdown because the fission process is proceeding so quickly that it even melts the Uranium bars that you're fueling it with...

    About the plot: You were saying that fission waste isn't widespread. I proved to you that it was. So what if they scaled the colors of the graph so that you could see just how widespread it is?

    I'm not saying that every fission plant is bound to pull a Fukushima. What I'm saying is that certainly some of them are, so why are we even taking the risk in the first place? It really makes me sad to think you all believe that fission power accidents aren't ever going to happen again. Haven't we learned anything, people?

    And how can you go from talking about radiation damage that will last forever but completely ignore it when it comes to the 2000+ bombs that have literally gone off in our atmosphere and instead attribute all that increase in radiation to power plants. That's absurd. It's beyond stupid.
    I haven't attributed all of the planet's existing radiation levels to any one thing in particular, but I definitely have been implying that fission plants have contributed to the background radiation levels of the environment. And they have, it's undeniable. So what if most of the radiation that we currently get is from the cosmos, natural Earth elements, medical visits, etc.? It just doesn't make sense to take the risk of increasing those radiation levels. Not when we have other alternative energy sources that we should be investing in instead.

    For all your talk about the ground and water contamination that's heading our way how much contamination has actually been found in anywhere that was caused by the storage of nuclear waste. You say it's inevitable but it hasn't happened and it's not going to happen. We know how to deal with this stuff. The same science that's going to make your fusion power possible is the science that tells us how to safely manage this material.
    Wrong.

    Fusion is possible because of our understanding of plasma physics in addition to nuclear physics. Fission is only about nuclear physics.

    So, tell me, are you going to personally go around and make sure our fission waste dump sites are in tip top shape for the next 10 million years? Good luck with that. You know that they're going to get old, that the waste is going to start leeching out. That it's probably already started leeching out of a bunch of the old 20th century Soviet and American dump sites that the public doesn't even know about.

    I'd really like for you to tell me just how you think we're going to keep our radioactive dump sites leak proof for hundreds of years, much less the millions that we'd really have to do it in order to be perfectly safe.

    --- Update From New Post Merge ---

    Quote Originally Posted by Ubiq View Post
    Chernobyl and Fukushima are pretty bad examples where arguing that nuclear power is unsafe is concerned.

    The former was pretty much a disaster from the get-go thanks to Soviet era gross incompetence; the reactor design was bad and horrendously unsafe, they knew it was bad, and they pressed on with it anyway, they skimped on safety protocol, and didn't postpone the safety test that caused the explosion when they knew that the system wasn't running the way it was supposed to. After that, they didn't evacuate people like they should have in Pripyat and didn't even announce it for several days after the explosion.

    Fukushima was basically a testimony to TEPCO incompetence and corruption since they set up a commission to study the possibility of just such an event as the tsunami that damaged the facility several years before and promptly ignored that commission's recommendations since it would cost more than they wanted to spend.
    See Outerspec's comment:

    Quote Originally Posted by Outerspec View Post
    I think Benjamin's point is that accidents can happen whether they be human error or natural and the risks are too great, but that point can be argued against anything. Including fusion power?

    Edit: Nvm, looked up fusion and it's just about perfect in every way. It's a matter of getting the technology.
    Yes, thank you, Outerspec! This is precisely my point. HALLELUJAH

    Please, let's just stop taking the friggin' risk, especially when it's not even going to help us that much! I say let's just quit building fission plants, dump all of that money into fusion research instead, and be done with the whole damned debate.

    But that's just me.
    Last edited by benjamminbrown; June 1st, 2014 at 10:03 PM.

  8. #28

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    How about a bit of a compromise between us all? Fusion development could be a game changer in the coming years, but realistically, it will not replace all energy producing needs in the foreseeable future. At least not within half a century, do I see commercial fusion being a significant presence in the energy market.

    Current fission plants are inefficient and produce disproportionately large amounts of wastes. These current pressured water plants do not meet the needs for the future either. Instead, the future in my opinion, will be a mixture of sources and not nearly as homogenized as today's current market.

    Next generation fission, like molten salt reactors, pebble bed reactors, and some breeder reactors could alleviate multiple problems with current pressurized reactors and produce significantly less waste. Storage would be much easier with lesser amounts of waste and with reprocessing, a portion of current spent nuclear fuel from current could be consumed as well. These reactors could then help produce some of the tritium fuel for fusion reactors as well as the higher temperature molten salt reactors could then drive traditionally fossil fuel burning industrial processes like Born-Haber ammonia plants, lime cycle cement plants, and even coastal desalinization plants. As I said before, useful isotopes can be isolated from molten salt reactors for industrial sell off to help offset operating costs. Yes, waste is still produced, but I am confident that with proper precautions, the risks will not be nearly as horrible as you make them out to be.

    Yes, more development needs to be done in both fields of fusion and fission. Yes, light water and pressured reactors are not the best of ideas, but you can thank that to the late Admiral Hyman Rickover who really plotted the course of reactor development during its developing years. That said, the US nuclear fleet has operated successful without incidence since its inception and implementation. Chernobyl was bad, but what do you expect from a reactor built without any containment structure. Fukishima was bad, but what do you expect when you build a reactor that was not designed to withstand high magnitude tsunamis and earthquakes in a highly geologically active region. Three Mile Island wasn't nearly as bad as it could have been, but was mostly publicized due to a film by the name of "The China Syndrome" coming out about two weeks before accident further driving fear of nuclear accidents.

  9. #29

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    I had no idea that the future energies biz was so territorial

  10. #30
    The Nice Guy Outerspec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Home away from home.

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by benjamminbrown View Post
    Yes, thank you, Outerspec! This is precisely my point. HALLELUJAH

    Please, let's just stop taking the friggin' risk, especially when it's not even going to help us that much! I say let's just quit building fission plants, dump all of that money into fusion research instead, and be done with the whole damned debate.

    But that's just me.
    I agree that there are risks but I don't think we should just stop. While it is pretty evident fusion power would be excellent and preferable to fission, it is also evident that these fission plants are pretty much safe. No, you're right, they're not 100% safe but what is? This is ultimately the question of are the risks worth it? My answer to that is, I don't know, but there will be always be risks in everything we do no matter what the technology, so yeah. Some risks are greater than others but let's not be too hasty in not taking them altogether.

    I know there's a difference between unnecessary risk and necessary risk, but I don't see fission as unnecessary. It provides energy, puts less carbons in the environment, and it is for the most part safe.

    Like you, and like everyone else here I suspect. I do wish for commercialized fusion energy as fast as possible though.
    Everything's Eventual...


  11. #31

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by Blagtastic88 View Post
    How about a bit of a compromise between us all? Fusion development could be a game changer in the coming years, but realistically, it will not replace all energy producing needs in the foreseeable future. At least not within half a century, do I see commercial fusion being a significant presence in the energy market.
    It's definitely at least several decades from being a really viable alternative, but we're getting there. I agree that it's not something that we should count on, at least not until it's completely figured out.

    Current fission plants are inefficient and produce disproportionately large amounts of wastes. These current pressured water plants do not meet the needs for the future either. Instead, the future in my opinion, will be a mixture of sources and not nearly as homogenized as today's current market.

    Next generation fission, like molten salt reactors, pebble bed reactors, and some breeder reactors could alleviate multiple problems with current pressurized reactors and produce significantly less waste. Storage would be much easier with lesser amounts of waste and with reprocessing, a portion of current spent nuclear fuel from current could be consumed as well. These reactors could then help produce some of the tritium fuel for fusion reactors as well as the higher temperature molten salt reactors could then drive traditionally fossil fuel burning industrial processes like Born-Haber ammonia plants, lime cycle cement plants, and even coastal desalinization plants. As I said before, useful isotopes can be isolated from molten salt reactors for industrial sell off to help offset operating costs. Yes, waste is still produced, but I am confident that with proper precautions, the risks will not be nearly as horrible as you make them out to be.
    I don't think you'll ever be able to convince me that next gen fission reactor schemes are 100% meltdown proof, but I like the way that you're describing them in comparison to what we've currently got. Unfortunately, we're never going to have a completely clean fission reactor, either, since we'll never be able to completely mitigate the production of unwanted byproducts.

    Yes, more development needs to be done in both fields of fusion and fission. Yes, light water and pressured reactors are not the best of ideas, but you can thank that to the late Admiral Hyman Rickover who really plotted the course of reactor development during its developing years. That said, the US nuclear fleet has operated successful without incidence since its inception and implementation.
    Ahem...

    Chernobyl was bad, but what do you expect from a reactor built without any containment structure. Fukishima was bad, but what do you expect when you build a reactor that was not designed to withstand high magnitude tsunamis and earthquakes in a highly geologically active region. Three Mile Island wasn't nearly as bad as it could have been, but was mostly publicized due to a film by the name of "The China Syndrome" coming out about two weeks before accident further driving fear of nuclear accidents.
    So you agree that fission accidents are bad and should be prevented at reasonable cost, then?

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
    I had no idea that the future energies biz was so territorial
    Better wear the right colors when you're in the fission boys' neighborhood. They'll shank ya just for appreciating the God Fusion given sunlight.

    --- Update From New Post Merge ---

    Quote Originally Posted by Outerspec View Post
    I agree that there are risks but I don't think we should just stop. While it is pretty evident fusion power would be excellent and preferable to fission, it is also evident that these fission plants are pretty much safe. No, you're right, they're not 100% safe but what is? This is ultimately the question of are the risks worth it? My answer to that is, I don't know, but there will be always be risks in everything we do no matter what the technology, so yeah. Some risks are greater than others but let's not be too hasty in not taking them altogether.

    I know there's a difference between unnecessary risk and necessary risk, but I don't see fission as unnecessary. It provides energy, puts less carbons in the environment, and it is for the most part safe.

    Like you, and like everyone else here I suspect. I do wish for commercialized fusion energy as fast as possible though.
    I don't think I've ever heard someone use the expression "let's not be too hasty" when arguing for risky behavior. Interesting tactic, there, it totally threw me off.

    Let's hope that we don't have too many more fission accidents before ITER starts burning hotter than the surface of the sun.

  12. #32

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by benjamminbrown View Post
    Get the picture?

    Radioactive waste isn't widespread? What do you see here?

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7God35mVSv...ma+fallout.jpg

    That's Fukushima's aftermath, and that's just what's in the water.
    Nope, that's just the water.

    That image represents the wave height of the tsunami that hit Japan just prior to the Fukushima incident. Unless you think radiation is measured in centimetres.

    I'll give you credit, it is a very scary looking picture.
    Last edited by tarrin4ever; June 1st, 2014 at 06:16 PM.


    LOVE AND PEACE

  13. #33
    The Nice Guy Outerspec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Home away from home.

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by benjamminbrown View Post
    I don't think I've ever heard someone use the expression "let's not be too hasty" when arguing for risky behavior. Interesting tactic, there, it totally threw me off.

    Let's hope that we don't have too many more fission accidents before ITER starts burning hotter than the surface of the sun.
    You want us to stop building fission power plants and throw all of that money into fusion research right? Instead of fission power plants you would rather have the current CO2 producing energy sources built in the meantime to continue providing our energy supply, correct? That and a smattering of clean alternative energy sources but mainly CO2 producing energy sources like coal power plants for instance until we get fusion. Even with the scientific evidence on global warming which you say "we're contributing significantly" to.

    Isn't that a risk you're willing to take?
    Everything's Eventual...


  14. #34

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by tarrin4ever View Post
    Nope, that's just the water.

    That image represents the wave height of the tsunami that hit Japan just prior to the Fukushima incident. Unless you think radiation is measured in centimetres.

    I'll give you credit, it is a very scary looking picture.
    Wow, I'm super embarrassed that I posted that. I'll edit my post with two three more plots that make much more sense. Doesn't change my message at all, though...

    --- Update From New Post Merge ---

    Quote Originally Posted by Outerspec View Post
    You want us to stop building fission power plants and throw all of that money into fusion research right? Instead of fission power plants you would rather have the current CO2 producing energy sources built in the meantime to continue providing our energy supply, correct? That and a smattering of clean alternative energy sources but mainly CO2 producing energy sources like coal power plants for instance until we get fusion. Even with the scientific evidence on global warming which you say "we're contributing significantly" to.

    Isn't that a risk you're willing to take?
    Yup, but do I really need to explain for the 100th time why I am positive that nuclear waste is more dangerous than carbon emissions?
    Last edited by benjamminbrown; June 1st, 2014 at 06:44 PM.

  15. #35
    The Nice Guy Outerspec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Home away from home.

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    No need, I'm not trying to sway your position. Simply pointing out that you are arguing for risks too. It's the fuel of progression and sustainability.
    Everything's Eventual...


  16. #36

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Well, alright, you don't have to put all of the fission money into fusion research. You can spend some of it on super efficient cars and hydrocarbon plants, too. There's really a whole lot more ways for us to reduce our carbon emissions than just jumping on the fission bandwagon.

  17. #37
    The Nice Guy Outerspec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Home away from home.

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Screw bandwagons, unless alcohol is a problem because you're supposed to be on that wagon.

    I'm more in line with Blagtastic's thoughts where in the future it'll be a mix of energy sources. There's no one thing beats all solution.
    Everything's Eventual...


  18. #38

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Way to take the wind out of my sails, OS. I thought that I'd made a fusion supporter out of ya.

    Seriously, why are there not more fusion lovers in this crowd? I just don't get it.



    Fu~~~~~sio~~~~~~n!

  19. #39
    The Nice Guy Outerspec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Home away from home.

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by Outerspec
    it is pretty evident fusion power would be excellent and preferable to fission
    Remember, I said this. I am a fusion supporter and I think everyone else is too. We just don't have the technology yet. Go ahead and fund the research, get the grants, and spread the support. I'm all for that but in the meantime...
    Everything's Eventual...


  20. #40

    Default Re: Random News Article Discussion II

    Quote Originally Posted by benjamminbrown View Post
    Wow, I'm super embarrassed that I posted that. I'll edit my post with two three more plots that make much more sense. Doesn't change my message at all, though...
    In your defense, you probably found the image from a source implying that it was related to the radiation dispersion. When it comes to topics that get heavily sensationalized in today's media, ya really gotta look closely at what they're using as proofs.

    But I'm shit for listening to my own advice, so allow me to potentially make that mistake myself in regards to how much humanity adds to the background radiation on the planet. If anything below turns out to be a gross misrepresentation of real data, I'd be more than interested in seeing the actual data and eager to correct myself.

    Tucked inside a spoiler cut for those who'd rather look at Random News Articles

    Spoiler:
    Ok, is it just us nerds here? Cool. Lemmie take a crack at this.


    This is a representation of average sources of background radiations found throughout the world.

    From this, we can undeniably see that mankind does in fact contribute to background radiation. However, as clearly indicated on the graph, the majority of our overall background radiation sources all come from it's medical appliations.... DOWN WITH DOCTORS, THEY'VE DOOMED US ALL!!!


    Of course, this would be a moot point when one is standing within the epicenter of a major fallout. You will most certainly have a larger percentage of man made background radiation cooking your insides when you're at ground zero of a major nuclear reaction. And that's definitely man made. But death comes from radiation overwhelming the cell (radiation poisoning) as opposed to a long term potential to develop cancer.

    Here is a representation of the background radiation left behind after the Fukushima incident:

    Spoiler:
    Now lets compare this to other sources of background radiation. I've been told that avg earth background is about 0.2 uSv/h

    Background radiation in Japan before fukushima incident: 0.4x earth average background radiation
    Background radiation in areas around the fukushima exclusion zone (red): 40x average
    Background radiation the average person experiences on an airplane: 15-30x average
    Background radiation in areas around Brazil, on a beach that had zero nuclear tests or meltdowns: 100x average

    This isn't me trying to marginalize Fukushima, this is just for comparative purposes. I'm a pretty paranoid person at times so I don't think I'll be visiting that beach any time soon.


    It's true, living in areas of higher concentrations of background radiation will increase your chance of getting cancer by a proportional amount. But the chance of developing cancer solely from background radiation is extremely slim. Like really, really slim. You're risking your life every time you leave your house and drive a car, maybe even more so than living in an area of higher than average background radiation. I wager exposure to massive air pollution is doing the world a lot more harm on the cancer front than hanging out in the few places on earth that'll give you enough background radiation to get cancer.


    I wonder what background radiation looks like in areas where large amounts of waste material is stored. Does anyone know if such a map exists, and how it compares to natural background radiation hot spots around the world?


    LOVE AND PEACE

+ Reply to Thread

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts