Apr 4, 2012 -- 9:46AM, teilhard wrote:

Yes ... "Carbon Dioxide" is insidious and is VERY difficult to contain ... And it has a VERY  VERY  long "half-life" ...

Personally, I tend to worry a bit more about toxic heavy metals released by burning coal.

Apr 4, 2012 -- 5:43PM, d_p_m wrote:

Actually, MM, I am totally serious. Sources at the bottom....

I'm not naive enough to fall for the false, and irrelevant, comparison. Because what you claim are "nuclear reactors" are natural or not is no reason to support nuclear power generation.

Apr 4, 2012 -- 8:16PM, d_p_m wrote:

But the demonstrated immobility of radionucleides in the water table totally demolishes one of the scenarios held up as a reason to fear nuclear power.

No, it has not. Radionucleides, immobile or not, in the water table is not the only valid reason to oppose costly, environmentally destructive, and potentially destructive, nuclear power generation.

Apr 4, 2012 -- 10:24PM, d_p_m wrote:

Nuclear power is probably less disruptive of the environment than any other form of generally deployable base load generation, at equal power levels.

Of course it is if you ignore the environmental destruction and toxic waste that it takes to make the fuel and if you ignore the environmental hazards of disposing of the waste fuel. Just those two alone make it the most destructive type of energy production we have. Then you add in the fact that disposing of the facility itself is an environmental nightmare, then add in the proven potential to lay huge chunks of land uninhabitable, and nuclear makes no sense at all.

Wind and solar are not suitable for base load power, hydroelectric, unless geography is cooperative can be tremendously disruptive. The Aswan dam, for example, had all sorts of health and environmental effects, some quite bad.

Not as bad as spreading toxic unclear waste across the land. Not as destructive as ripping up large chunks of the Earth, making huge piles of toxic mine tailings, to get the fuel. I'd rather have a dam than a toxic debris flow from poorly engineered mine tailings.

As far as I know, no one has yet looked at the ecological effects of large scale tidal systems. Geothermal is good but geographically limited. Fusion is decades off, as are solar power satellites, burning hydrocarbons is wasteful at best.

Neither would compare, in scale, to the destruction caused by nuclear.

Intermittent power sources need either alternate power systems....

That's why you employ several different kinds.

If you ignore many problems that nuclear power generation creates, then it's fine. The problem is that I cannot ignore them. Nuclear makes no sense.

Apr 4, 2012 -- 3:54PM, mountain_man wrote:

Apr 4, 2012 -- 3:49PM, mindis1 wrote:

Obviously what I asked for is the evidence showing what is “well established” about the “serious harm” to people caused by “even very low levels of ionizing radiation from [nuclear power] plants”. ...

I gave you some.

The reason you (and Solfeggio) are unable to provide any evidence showing “serious harm” to people caused by “even very low levels of ionizing radiation from [nuclear power] plants” is because there is no evidence of such harm.

People who work at nuclear power plants are exposed to about twice the amount of radiation that all people in the US are exposed to from all sources over a year’s time (the “background dose”). This doubling of radiation “background dose” results in an estimated life expectancy loss to these workers of 15 days, according to the committee for Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation V (BEIR V). The estimated life expectancy loss that results from working in manufacturing jobs is three times that amount: 40 days.  www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/risk.htm

The primary risk associated with radiation exposure is an increased risk of cancer. The degree of risk depends on the amount of radiation dose received, the time period in which the dose is received, and the body parts that receive the radiation dose. Although scientists assume that low-level radiation doses increase one’s risk of cancer, studies have not demonstrated any adverse health effects in individuals who are chronically exposed to small radiation doses over a period of many years (e.g., a total of up to 10,000 mrem above the average background dose).

The increased risk of cancer from occupational radiation exposure is small when compared to the normal cancer rate in today’s society. For example, the current risk of dying from all types of cancer in the United States is approximately 25 percent -- while a person who receives a whole-body radiation dose of 25,000 mrem over his or her lifetime has a risk of dying from cancer of 26 percent -- a one percent increase.  www.nucsafe.com/cms/Radiation+Risks/41.h...

Below 10 rem (which includes occupational and environmental exposures) risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are non-existent.  www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/hprisk.htm

So, your answer to my question is that you are not able or willing to take in information about nuclear energy/power plants? I must admit that my impression from our previous exchanges is that you are at least unwilling to take in information that is contrary to some belief you have already adopted. ...

I got the exact same from you. 

I have never known you substantiate any facts that are contrary to anything I have ever said. You are welcomed to do so; I have asked you to do so many times. Unlike you, I am able to learn. Until I began learning about nuclear power, I was very opposed to it, because, in my ignorance, I erroneously believed, like you and Solfeggio believe, that nuclear power is inherently unsafe. I also erroneously believed that there are safe and affordable non-nuclear alternatives to fossil fuel energy sources that could provide adequate energy for the world. I now know this to be untrue also.