Still not quite 'renewables' though are they?
I mean, it doesn't hurt too much or for too long if a wind turbine or solar panel fall over? (so they have that going for them at least). ;-)
Cheers, T i m
It doesn't seem to hurt to much if a nuke falls over, either, does it:
Three Mile Island: number killed: 0, number injured: 0 Fukushima: number killed: 0, number injured: 0 Chernobyl: number killed: about 75, number injured unknown.
At Chernobyl, possibility of up to 4000 extra thyroid cancers due to refusal of local communist politicians to allow import of iodine packs.
By contrast, number killed due to hydro-dam failure at the Banqiao dam disaster: 170,000 (see article in Winky and elsewhere).
Note that wildlife is flourishing in the abandoned area around Chernobyl. So much for any twaddle about two-headed monsters and the like. And even at Chernobyl, the operators had to work bloody hard to make it fail.
And contrary to further twaddle about "remains radioactive for millions of years" it is worth noting that the substance that would have caused the possible 4000 cancers mentioned above (iodine-131) will all have decayed long since. Even at Fukushima, the most recent - not a single atom left.
A much easier problem to solve than dealing with billions of starving people. After all, look at the problems caused by the "immigrant crisis", and there aren't that many of them.
So for how many years does it have to decrease in order to "show a trend"
You don't need to renew them for 60 years - longer life than a solar panel and the waste is less toxic and doesn't end up in landfill.
Ok, so you would be ok sitting on a freshly broken nuke? Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with nukes, just that they *are* more of a potential liability (to as many people) than a solar panel or windmill. ;-)
Yup ... have solar panels or windmills ever killed that many? ;-)
I'm not all of it was at the beginning?
Quite ... dead or contaminated fish possibly.
;-)
Question then, what IS all the fuss about re Nukes? Why aren't they being built all over the place, including at the back of your place? After all, you wouldn't be a NIMBY eh? ;-)
Cheers, T i m
That's a good thing.
Also a good thing.
Hmmm ...
Where does the radioactive remains of the structure go then?
Cheers, T i m
Unfortunately I think that one will solve itself.
Yes, I'm sure that if you move any large groups of people it will take time for the system to balance itself out but in most cases that is what happens. Until we run out of resources on a wider scale of course.
What was that film / program where they sterilised a specific percentage of the population to force a reduction in the numbers?
Cheers, T i m
Per joule - yes. Lots more. This was the first hit on Google for "death rate kilowatt hour" (no quotes)
AKA
Solar (rooftop) 440 Wind 150 Nuclear ? global average 90
And nuclear works on a cold, calm winter's night...
Andy
Just the usual stupidity from those too stupid to even notice that nukes add a lot less radioactive material to the atmosphere than coal fired power stations do and fools like Harry that are too stupid to even work out that putting the waste back in the ground after its been thru the nuke is no worse than the situation when the nuclear material was taken from the ground in the first place to use in nukes.
See above.
For the same reason that coal fired power stations aren't.
what radioactive remains>?
What ignorant drivel. In the first place nuclear waste is laregely stuuf that doesn't exist naturally. It's not possible to just dig a hole and bury stuff and expect it to remain there. They have tried and failed. The holes they dig elsewhere get deeper more elaborate and costly. If it were simple we would be doing it and we aren't. We are hanging back watching what happens elsewhere. Hoping for a solution. Success rate so far has been zero.
You are the living proof that everything is simple to the simple minded.
To be pedantic, it seems Fukushima may no longer be zero
Well if he died from less radiation than you get from a Cat scan, or living on Dartmoor for a year, I should be dead ten times over.
Except it occupies a much smaller volume so it's considerably more concentrated?
In article , Chris B writes
On the other hand it may still be zero.
Nope, "Utopia".
I thought I remembered that part of the plot was that they were sneaking drugs into the general population that affected the vast majority to make them sterile / infertile (or just killed them) (and hence reduce the population massively).
Cheers, T i m
So they were probably installers?
They could be anyone, installers or local residents?
Of course ...
Cheers, T i m
I was thinking of the structure itself, pressure vessels and all that? Surely it has to be more radioactive than the general surroundings or say a std demolished house (and not one made of granite). ;-)
Cheers, T i m
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.