Signed,

The scores of bulldozers that were fucked when building the Chernobyl sarcophagus.
[Reply]

Don't take my word for it, look up any credible scientific research on the subject.

The absolute, absolute max max exposure measured anywhere was 400 mSv/hr. Mind you, that is 400 mSv per freaking hour. This isn't that indiana jones scene where your face just instantaneously melts off.

There were a few dozen verified death from chernobyl, the worst nuclear disaster in history, where workers who died spent days on the site, and where that kind of disaster is almost literally impossible today and absolutely not present right now. The worst that can happen from hovering for 5 minutes is a half percent or a full percent increased risk of cancer over the next few years. If you disagree with that, then you disagree out of simple-minded stupid ignorance.
[Reply]

You are talking out of your ass. At least I have the weight of scientific research and careful study behind me, you basically have unproven hysteria.
[Reply]

The IAEA, hardly an anti-nuclear group, attributed 4,000 deaths directly due to the radiation from the Chernobyl disaster.

Studies done by Belarus point to a combined cancer death rate (and this is just cancer) of 140,000 between Belarus and the Ukraine in the first 15 years after the accident, with another 60,000 deaths in Russia.

This is also ignoring the spike in Down's syndrome and numerous other birth defects that happened in the three years immediately after Chernobyl.

400mSV an hour.

We'll take that at face value. That's 22 CT scans per hour.
[Reply]

Alnorth, have you ever worked around high levels of contamination or high levels of dose?
You do know there is a difference between dose and contamination don't you?

I currently work at a facility that used to manufacture plutonium and the very fucking last thing I want to do is ingest that shit.
[Reply]

al,

I have published scholarship on the effects of nuclear weapons, enrichment and nuclear disasters.

Kindly, shut the fuck up.

Again, I have mentioned the following people in this thread, please, refute them.

Karl Z. Morgan. He's so hysterical that he was the chief of Health Physics in the Manhattan Project

Thomas Mancuso, a man chosen by the DOE to run a 300,000 person study on the long term effects of radiation exposure.

Dr. Alice Stewart, who did the Oxford Childood survey that determined that if a pregnant woman received an X-Ray, her child's risk of cancer increased 500%.

If you'd like, I can provide you with the testimony of William Lawless, who was in charge of waste cleanup at the Savannah River plant.

These are not cooks with blogs, these are preeminent physicists, physicians and experts in the field.
[Reply]

The cute thing about science is the results change down the road. I'd hate to be one of those people who spent time around the radiation only to get some kind of horrible cancer and an apology from some scientist saying "whoops we fucked up".
[Reply]

Hey Hamas they are currently giving tours of the B reactor if you like that kind of stuff.
[Reply]

Just to be clear, because some of you think I want to build nuclear reactors on every block.

If I were emperor of america, I would shut down every single nuclear reactor and build nothing but gas and coal-fired plants. You want to build nuclear? Fine, good luck to you, but I'm giving you no tax breaks. Go ahead and try to compete with my cheap coal power, you'll probably fail.

I would shut down every single nuclear power plant in our country if I could, and spew out tons and tons of carbon into our atmosphere without limit.

Wait, what? After everything I posted defending nuclear power? How does that make sense? I have little patience for stupidity. Really, thats it. I don't like an argument that is ostensibly on "my side" but is stupid. I'd rather denounce a retarded argument even if that hurts my position, than put up with a stupid ally.

Being panicked when it is not warranted over the danger of nuclear, when coal plants put more radiation into the atmosphere and expose nearby inhabitants to more radiation (yes its true, freaking look it up) is stupid. Damning nuclear for safety issues while giving coal a free pass on safety is stupid.

But, preferring coal because of economics, and saying "nuclear power is nice, but I cant afford it, give me coal", that gets my attention.

I'm not concerned about this so-called global warming situation we allegedly have. I'm not overly concerned about dead coal miners, since they chose that dangerous profession. I'm not overly concerned about air pollution. I prefer cheap power, and I'm willing to accept slight environmental damage for cheap power, so go right ahead and close down every nuclear reactor and start burning dirty radioactive polluting coal, because my electric bill will be cheaper!

That is my motive, I have an inherent bias AGAINST nuclear power. I'd rather we not build nuclear plants. But I also have no patience for stupid unfounded chicken little fears, and I believe in science. If you want to oppose nuclear, do it for the right reasons. Do it because you don't buy into the environmental damage fear-mongering. Do it (like me) because it is cheaper. But do NOT oppose nuclear because you think its safer than coal, because you'd be dead wrong.

Coal is not safer than nuclear, it is more dangerous and adversely impacts our health more. More safety comes at a price that I'd rather not pay.
[Reply]

If you split one gram of Pu-239 into 3.5 billion pieces, it would be detrimental enough to give each person who ingested that the maximum allowable dose that nuclear workers are allowed to receive for the rest of their lives.
[Reply]

Worded "Helicopter Plan" really does not inspire confidence
[Reply]

That would be interesting, along with going to SRP, Oak Ridge, and Rocky Flats.

Of course, those in the KC area could visit the Bendix Plant, now known as the Kansas City Plant, operated by Honeywell.

It produced all non-nuclear parts of the bomb, including the Permissive Action Link security system.
[Reply]

I'm sure you know theres a lot of controversy about that whole area.
[Reply]

The Japanese government's radiation report for the country's 47 prefectures Wednesday had a notable omission — Fukushima, ground zero in Japan's nuclear crisis. Measurements from Ibaraki, just south of Fukushima, were also blanked out.

Radiation experts in the USA say that the lack of information about radioactivity released from the smoldering reactors makes it impossible to gauge the current danger, project how bad a potential meltdown might be or calculate how much fallout might reach the USA.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...ate17_ST_N.htm

[Reply]

Just so we have a handle on how "non-serious" this is, according to alnorth.

Our nuclear workers were limited by the EPA a maximum exposure of 5,000 millirems per year

A millirem is equivalent to 10 micro sieverts

There are 100,000 millirems in a single sievert.

400 millisieverts per hour is equivalent to 40,000 millirems. 40,000.

Eight times yearly allowable exposure in one hour. Eight.

Now, this information does not mention the fact that many within the field of Health Physics believe that even this threshold is orders of magnitude too high.
[Reply]