DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Nuke Puke
*****************************************************
#Post#: 160--------------------------------------------------
What A Nuclear Power Plant REALLY IS
By: AGelbert Date: October 25, 2013, 8:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"I Want You to Know What a Nuclear Power Plant Is"
by Yasuo Akai
About 5 years ago, I was giving a lecture in Hokkaido. When I
said we must keep cooling down the waste for 50 years, and then
monitoring it for 300 years, a junior high school girl
interrupted me and cried, “who will do it? You say it will take
50 or 300 years. You adults cannot do it. It’s our generation
and the next generations who will do it. But we don’t want to do
it!” Which of us adults can find an answer for her?
Moreover, it is not just about 50, or 300 years. So long as
nuclear power plants are in operation,those years may never
come.
Nearby residents are exposed to radiation and discriminated
against.
The government and the industry have kept lying to us for
decades, saying that no radioactive materials have ever been
leaked by Japan’s nuclear power plants. They can no longer doso.
Radioactive materials are disgorged from the tall cooling towers
intentionally. Radioactive materials are spewed constantly, so
those nearby residents are constantly exposed to radiation.
A 23-year-old woman wrote to me, her letter appeared to be
smudged by tears. It went like this, “I began my career and met
a man in Tokyo. We were engaged, and our families met and
exchanged engagement gifts. But this man has suddenly broken our
engagement. He says that nothing is wrong with me and he wanted
to marry me, but his parents were worried because Ihad lived in
Tsuruga City for more than 10 years. As children near the
nuclear power plant tend to be born with leukemia, they were
afraid that they would have a grandchild with leukemia. His
parents do not agree with him. What’s wrong with me?” Of course,
there is nothing wrong with her. I sometimes hear these kinds of
stories.
This happened in Tokyo, but not in some of the areas near the
plants. Frankly, are you happy if your daughter marries a
nuclear power plant worker? Or, would you want to marry such a
worker? I know that it is insensitive to say this, that it is
discrimination. But I argue that we must talk about these kinds
of stories. Those standing opposed to nuclear power plants
should say that they are not only protesting because horrible
accidents can occur, but also because it causes discrimination.
These nuclear power plants are also destroying our minds.
Can I have a baby? I don’t care about electricity. I hate the
nuclear power plant.
I am going to talk about a story about what happened during my
lecture hosted by the Teachers Union in Kyowa Town, which was
located near the Tomari Nuclear Power Plant in Hokkaido. I ask
that you remember this sometime; you can forget the rest.
The meeting took place in the evening. Half of the audience were
parents, and the other half was made up of teachers, but some
high school and junior high school students also showed up. They
did not take a view such that nuclear power plants were only an
adult problem, butrather their problem as well.Finishing my
talk, I took some questions. An 8 grade girl, crying, spoke to
us, “you adults are liars, hypocrites. I came here to face you
all. I wanted to know who you are. You say you are against
pesticides, golf courses, and nuclear power plants. You say you
do so for your children. I’m sure you’re just pretending to act
against all this.
I live in Kyowa Town, near the Tomari nuclear power plant, and
I’ve been exposed to radiation. The ratio of babies with
leukemia is higher around nuclear facilities in Sellafield,
England, than in other places. I know this because I read a
book. I’m a girl, and I will probably marry someday. Is it ok
for me to have a baby?” No one had an answer for her.
“If a nuclear power plant is that horrible, why didn’t you all
go against it more seriously when they started building it? You
even allowed them to build a No. 2 reactor. I don’t care about
electricity. I hate the nuclear power plant.” The No. 2 reactor
of the Tomari Nuclear Power Planthad just been put into
operational testing.“For what reason are you meeting here? If I
was an adult and I had a baby, I’d use violence to stop it. I
wouldn’t hesitate to risk my own life.
“The radiation I’m exposed to is now doubled because of this
second reactor, but I won’t leave Hokkaido.”
I asked her if she had ever talked about her anxiety to her
mother or teacher. “My mother andteacher are here now, but I’ve
never brought this up before,” she said. “We girls always talk
about this. We can’t marry. We can’t have a baby.”
I was told that their teachers did not know that they thought
this way. An evacuation drill for residents living within 8 or
10-kilometer radius will not solve this anxiety. People 50, or
100 kilometres away from a nuclear power plant are also anxious.
You should know that adolescents react to this anxiety vividly.
As long as there are nuclear power plants, we do not feel safe.
Now you know what nuclear power plant is.
You might have heard of the horror of the Chernobyl Accident and
felt a little anxious. Yet, you may still think we still need
those nuclear power plants, that without them we would have
anelectricity shortage. It is especially those who live in
cities, distanced from these plants, whomight still view them as
a necessary evil.
However, that is because you were always told by the government
and the electric power companies about the “peaceful use of
nuclear power,” that it is “absolutely safe,” and that “Japan
has no natural resources.”
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif<br
/>They spend huge amount of money for this propaganda.
They hide, for example, the Monju Accident.
The nuclear power plants generate electricity, but the thing is
that they cannot work without exposing plant workers to
radiation. That is what I have seen and experienced for 20
years. Moreover, nuclear power plants destroy local communities.
When one is built, it divides the residents into two camps, and
when it is put into operation, it exposes those residents to
radiation and opens innocent people up to discrimination.
You may know that a nuclear power plant can cause a horrible
accident and still think that it is really safe, that everything
will be fine. You may agree with the possibility of peaceful
uses for nuclear power. But think about this: the workers are
dying of exposure and the residents are suffering—you cannot
call this peaceful use.
Even if it was safe, you could not feel safe. You can never feel
safe as long as it exists. Moreover at this moment, nuclear
power plants appear to generate electricity. However, in order
to manage radioactive waste for tens of thousands of years, it
needs much more electricity and oil. The energy needed to manage
that waste must be higher than the energy that the plants have
been generating. Additionally, it will be our children and
grandchildren who manage thewaste and the closed reactors.
How can you say that this is peaceful use of nuclear power? I
repeat. There is never a peaceful use.
Therefore I ask you; please look at the face of your children
and grandchildren every morning and ask yourself, why. Why is
only Japan still building nuclear power plants? There are
accidents, and earthquakes. If we do not act now, irreversible
damage will be done, you must see this.
So I am acting against these nuclear power plants. I am
absolutely against building new ones,and I argue that those
plants in operation must be stopped.
As long as those nuclear power plants exist, there is no peace.
A peaceful planet for children
[move][I]Translator’s note:The original text (in Japanese) is
here:
HTML http://www.iam-t.jp/HIR
AI/pageall.html This site says the
author Norio Hirai was an engineer specializing in plant
pipeline, and died in January, 1997. Translated by Yasuo Akai --
revised by Jayda Fogel [/I][/move]
HTML http://www.academia.edu/667416/Norio_Hirai_I_Want_You_to_Know_What_a_Nuclear_Power_Plant_Is_
#Post#: 203--------------------------------------------------
Re: What A Nuclear Power Plant REALLY IS
By: AGelbert Date: October 29, 2013, 10:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote] More Mutations in Fukushima Butterflies
Researchers have found an increase in butterflies with unusual
wing shapes, legs, and antennae than before the nuclear
disaster.[/quote]
Source: International Science Times
[quote] Butterflies collected from sites near Fukushima 2 months
after the power plant leaked radiation into the environment
showed more than double the mutation rates of butterflies
collected from other sites in Japan. The researchers, who hail
from University of the Ryukyus, Okinawa, reported their findings
last week (August 9) in Scientific Reports.
Indeed, each subsequent generation arising from the first
radiation-affected butterflies had more severe physical
abnormalities than its parent generation. Part of this can be
explained by the passing down of damaged genes, but an
additional factor, the researchers say, was that butterflies ate
contaminated food in the area, which can be more damaging than
external exposure.
“It has been believed that insects are very resistant to
radiation,” lead researcher Joji Otaki from the University of
the Ryukyus, Okinawa, told BBC News. “In that sense, our results
were unexpected.”[/quote]
HTML http://the-scientist.com/2012/08/15/more-mutations-in-fukushima-butterflies/
Right! The negative stuff is ALWAYS "unexpected". Sure. NOT!
It's true that mammals are more affected because they have more
easily disrupted DNA but insects are considered just as
susceptible as mamals to increased mutations from generation to
generation. This has been conclusively proven for more than 70
YEARS! Drosphila melanogastor (the fruit fly) is one of
science's pet torture specimens.
HTML http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Drosophila_melanogaster_-_side_(aka).jpg/220px-Drosophila_melanogaster_-_side_(aka).jpg
Drosophila melanogaster
They breed rapidly and genetic effects can be studied for
several generations in a brief time period. Scientists love to
experment with them. They are cheap and its easy to keep a
control group and monitor statistically valid populations for
peer review publication requirements.
[quote]For purposes of assessing the risks of environmental
exposure to radionuclide emissions, the genetic effects and in
utero developmental effects are the only health hazards other
than cancer that are addressed in this Background Information
Document (BID) ,
6.5.1 Types of Genetic Harm and Duration of Expression
Genetic harm (or the genetic effects) of radiation exposure is
defined as stable, heritable changes induced in the germ cells
(eggs or sperm) of exposed individuals, which are transmitted to
and expressed only in their progeny and in future
generations,[/quote]
[quote][size=12pt]Chromosomal damage and mutations have been
demonstrated in cells in culture, in plants, in insects, and in
mammals (UNSCEAR72,77,82), and in peripheral blood lymphocytes
sf persons exposed to radiation (UNSCEAR82, Ev79, Po78)
,[/quote]
[quote]Early experiimental studies showed that x-radiation is
mutagenic, In 1927, R.J, Muller reported radiation-induced
genetic changes in animals, and in 1928, L-J. Stadler reported
such changes in piants (Ki62j.
Although genetic studies were carried out in the 1930s, mostly
in plants and fruit flies (Drosophila), the studies on mammals
started after the use of nuclear weapons in World War II
(UNSCEAR58).[/quote]
Gamma radiation is more powerful than x-rays so it was a
nobrainer even BEFORE the bomb that radionuclides would be
multigenerationally mutagenic.
I hate it when scientists play dumb. >:(
[quote]In 1927, H.J. Muller described x-rayinduced mutations in
animals (in the insect, Drosophila), and in 1928, L.J, Stadler
reported a similar finding in plants (Ki62).
At about the same time, radiation effects on the developing
human embryo were observed. Case reports in 1929 showed a high
rate of microcephaly (small head size) and central nervous
system disturbance and one case of skeletal defects in children
irradiated in utero (UNSCEAR69).
These effects, at unrecorded but high exposures and at generally
unrecorded gestational ages, appeared to produce central nervous
system and eye defects similar to those reported in rats as
early as 1922 (Xu50)-[/quote]
HTML http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/docs/neshaps/subpart-w/historical-rulemakings/risk-assessments-methodology-eis-neshaps-for-radionuclides.pdf
HTML http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/docs/neshaps/subpart-w/historical-rulemakings/risk-assessments-methodology-eis-neshaps-for-radionuclides.pdf
[font=verdana]Unexpected? ???[I] NO WAY!
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif
[/I][/font]
#Post#: 289--------------------------------------------------
Nuclear Energy Verdict: Ridiculously Expensive
By: AGelbert Date: November 9, 2013, 1:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear Energy Verdict: Very Disappointing :P
by Giles Parkinson
The story we published on Friday comparing the costs of new
nuclear, now that they have been defined by contract signed by
the UK Government for the construction of the $24 billion
Hinkley C facility – with clean energy alternatives such as wind
and solar, certainly generated a lot of interest, and comment.
Since then, we have received an analysis from Deutsche Bank,
which makes some other observations about the cost of nuclear,
the comparisons with gas, the price of abatement, and the cost
of upkeep for France’s existing fleet.
The first point made by Deutsche is that this deal underlines
the fact that nuclear is not cheap, but really, really expensive
– a point that should not be forgotten in Australia, where there
is still a push for nuclear in some quarters despite the
abundant alternatives (in particular solar) that are not
available to the UK.
As we have noted in the other article, the £92.50/MWh strike
price is nearly double the current average cost of generation in
the UK. Deutsche takes issue with the UK government’s claim that
the contract is “competitive with other large-scale clean energy
and with gas’. It notes that this contract would only be
cheaper than gas generation if the crude oil price (to which UK
gas is linked) averages more than $150 barrel in real terms over
the next 40 years. This, says Deutsche Bank, is around 3 times
the average oil price over the last 40 years, and a 50 per cent
premium to the average oil price over the last 5 years.
“Such comparisons do not show that this nuclear contract will be
more expensive than gas generation (in 40 years), since
conditions in the future may be very different from those of the
past,” the Deutsche analysts write. “ However it does
demonstrate that signing the proposed nuclear contract would
commit the UK to buying electricity which would be expensive by
historic standards.” It later describes the 35 year contract as
“a poor trade for reducing risk.”
Then Deutsche Bank looks at the carbon cost of nuclear. It
calculates that if the oil price were to remain at the current
level of $100/barrel (in real terms), the cost of gas generation
would be around £68/MWh (before paying for carbon emissions).
Taking into account the amount of carbon emissions saved and the
extra generation costs of nuclear, the nuclear generation comes
at an implied cost of £65/tonne of carbon dioxide saved.
It notes that this carbon cost is more than ten times higher
than the current traded price of carbon emissions in the EU ETS,
is roughly twice the targeted level of the UK carbon price floor
in 2020 set out by the Treasury in December 2011 (£30/tonne in
2009 prices), although it is less than the £70/tonne price
floor envisaged in 2030.
It says that nuclear is only justified in the UK if the
government is serious about largely decarbonising the
electricity grid by 2030, as has been canvassed by the UK’s
Climate Change Council – the UK equivalent of the Climate Change
Authority that Tony Abbott wants to disband. Deutsche notes that
it does not meet UK’s short term needs to meet its 2020, which
likely be met with more wind and biomass.
The CCC envisaged several scenarios to cut the UK’s carbon
emissions to 50g/CO2-eMWh by 2030. The first scenario, see graph
below, envisages 18GW of new nuclear. Deutsche Bank says this
would require 5 more new nuclear facilities the size of Hinkley
to be built within 16 years – not only is such a target “hugely
ambitious”, Deutsche says it would still be “not be nearly
enough in itself to meet such a decarbonisation target.”
The UK would need at least as much wind generation as nuclear,
and some low-carbon flexible generation. Deutsche also notes
that CCS is highly ambitious, as the technology is not proven,
which leaves the most likely scenarios as being high renewables,
or high energy efficiency, both of which leave wind and other
renewables providing more than 50 per cent of the UK’s
generation by 2030.
And just in case anyone feels like arguing that it is just
new-build and new generation nuclear that is costly, this graph
below ([color=purple]at article link) should blow a few
misconceptions.[/color]
It’s another from the Deutsche Bank team, and it shows the
estimated capital expenditure requirement for the EdF fleet of
nuclear reactors in France. Note that it is significantly higher
than the original cost of the reactors in the 1970s and 1980s.
Deutsche Bank says consumer electricity prices are being jacked
up to meet some of that cost, but it estimates that EdF will
need to spend €55 billion ($79 billion), a situation that will
leave it in a cash-flow negative situation (It already has an
€85 billion debt :P).
As Deutche Bank noted, any investment in new reactors would need
to be funded on top of the refurbishment budget. Given that it
is already cash-flow negative and has such a huge debt, few
people have any clue how that could possibly be done. Which is
why EdF’s major shareholder, the French government, is looking
to reduce the share of nuclear in France’s generation to around
50 per cent from more than 70 per cent, and intends to fill that
hole with (cheaper) renewables.
Still, Deutsche Bank notes that EdF has effectively handballed
the risk of new nuclear to consumer and the UK government. The
consumer is picking up the tab through higher electricity bills,
and the UK government is using taxpayers money to guarantee 65
per cent of the project cost. With the involvement of Chinese
nuclear interests, that leaves EdF with an exposure of just £3.5
billion
Giles Parkinson is the founding editor of RenewEconomy.com.au,
an Australian-based website that provides news and analysis on
cleantech, carbon, and climate issues. Giles is based in Sydney
and is watching the (slow, but quickening) transformation of
Australia's energy grid with great interest.[/I]
HTML http://cleantechnica.com/2013/11/09/nuclear-energy-verdict-disappointing/#BLX88YGc4LUmjLsp.99
[i]Agelbert NOTE:[I]The really weird thing abut nuclear power
plants is that the MORE YOU PAY to build and run these poison
energy factories, the more CANCER CLUSTERS you have. No wonder
the big cancer research centers just love NUCLEAR MEDICINE!
Nuclear power plants assure a continued stream of costumers for
RADIATION THERAPY. It's a conscience free predator's dream
"business" model (they get the money and you get the "business"
😈).
#Post#: 427--------------------------------------------------
THIS is what a human MUTATION Caused by Chernobyl cesium-137 loo
ks like.
By: AGelbert Date: November 22, 2013, 11:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-231113002820.png[/img][/center]
[move][I]And Fukushima will bring MORE and MORE because it takes
about 300 YEARS for ALL the cesium-137 to spread all over the
planet since they started the atomic explosions to "HELP EVOLVE"
our species.[/I][/move]
[center] [img
width=640]
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/2/3-190819152039.png[/img][/center]
#Post#: 435--------------------------------------------------
Deleterious effects of Nuclear power on the biosphere.
By: AGelbert Date: November 24, 2013, 5:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I am engaged in a small dust up in regard to the deleterious
effects of Nuclear power on the planet in general and our
species in particular. Here's an update of the give and take.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418202144.gif
[center]Poland Builds Electronic Wall To Keep Out German
Renewables[/center]
[center][img
width=60]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/2/3-020320122222.png[/img][/center]
HTML http://cleantechnica.com/2013/11/22/poland-builds-electronic-wall-keep-german-renewables/#DQlksfx5MxkhX3xG.99
Guest
Poland should really consider nuclear energy, now that time is
running out. Building solar panels is a joke in sun scarce
Poland, and wind alone isn't going to fill the gap.
1 △ 3 ▽
Agelbert>Guest
Here's what nuclear energy has done to "accelerate" the
"evolution" of Humans thanks to the 300 year "gift" that
Pandora's Nuclear Box just keeps [I]giving and giving.[/I]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/nuke-puke/what-a-nuclear-power-plant-really-is/msg427/#msg427
RobertPPruitt > agelbert
Just so you know, coal power plants release 100 times more
radioactive material into the air
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif<br
/> when burned(mostly uranium thorium and polonium . This settle
s
into all our water and soil, and coal has been burning a LOT
longer and there are LOT more of them than Nuclear plants.
A few releases of radiation from nuclear accidents is no match
for the amount of radiation we have pumped into our food, water
supply, and our bodies from coal for all these many
decades....not by a long shot.
But most modern plants do catch most of it now, but the damage
has been done.
Oh, and don't forget the radon gas that is almost completely
released into the air....good stuff
Agelbert>RobertPPruitt
Just so [I] you know![/I], There has never been a case of a
severely muted human baby from people that live in coal country.
And coal is a false comparison anyway! Was that in your
propaganda 101 course to always try say "coal " is worse as if
we have either coal or nuclear?
Don't you ever get tired of repeating the same low IQ propaganda
lies? Do you understand how Cesium-137 is immediately taken up
in all the muscle tissue of mammals because our biochemistry
believes it is the much needed nutrient called Potassium?
I guess not. You will reap what you have sown. Count on it. Have
a nice day.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/nuke-puke/what-a-nuclear-power-plant-really-is/
RobertPPruitt > agelbert
Oh I know exactly how bad it is. [img
width=40]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-250718202127.gif[/img]<br
/>I also know that the CDC and WHO traveled the world examining
bodies and came up with somewhere in the neighborhood of 3
MILLION people die in the world EVERY year from the affects of
pollution. Of which a very large percentage comes from coal.
I don't care if the Japanese packed up and walked away from
Fukushima today and never went back it would never reach the
yearly death toll that coal has. Coal just isn't considered as
dangerous because it doesn't cause the visible affects that
radiation can. Does not make it safer, not by a long shot.
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
If 3 million are dying yearly, just imagine what it is doing to
EVERY human it doesn't kill. Also before coal was in widespread
use for home heating cancer was actually pretty rare in the
world. And chimney sweeps(coal not wood) were the first to
develop occupational cancer, (of the scrotum no less) in the
mid-late 1700's. After that cancer began a steady rise. I know
of no study that links a rise in world wide cancers to nuclear
plants coming online, or even enough of a local rise where
nuclear accidents have happened to even panic over when compared
to the overall cancer rates.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-030815183114.gif<br
/>
In 2006 Greenpeace(and we know what they're full of)
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
released a report
from 52 "respected" scientists on the affects of Chernobyl and
even they found that less than 200,000 extra deaths could be
attributed to Chernobyl in what? 15 or so years? Way over 7
MILLION people die every year from cancer. Even that retarded
organizations inflated numbers(always about everything) barely
amount to a statistical anomaly. Fukushima is going to have to
be MUCH more deadly to have any kind of real impact on cancer
rates. But we know for a fact that coal has killed many many
millions of people around the world.
But yes, we would do well to get rid of both nuclear and coal.
But based on the science and deaths, coal needs to be gotten rid
of first, and the sooner the better, since it's affects will
likely last for many generations to come.
Agelbert>RobertPPruitt
"But yes, we[s] would do well to [/s] [I]must[/I] get rid of
both nuclear and coal."
Agreed. [img
width=100]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/2/3-010519192158-2201430.jpeg[/img]
But you fail to recognize the nuclear corruption rabbit hole in
regard to the [I]Agreement [/I] the WHO has with the IAEA to
[I]not publish any epidemiological study of cancer clusters
around nuclear power plants, [/i]internal organ damaging
radionuclide dosage differences in DNA destruction far below the
IAEA "safe" dosage levels for radionuclides in food, and much
more that has contributed to the deaths of over 8 million human
beings since Chernobyl [I]alone![/I]
WHO has been hamstrung by the IAEA for over half a century! Do
the math. If the "horror" of coal was so much worse than
nuclear, [I]why[/I] has the WHO been gagged by the IAEA but not
by king coal?
Take just 8 minutes of your time and watch this French video
with English subtitles. Learn the truth. Then look at this map
of Cesium-137 deposition in the USA <b>before</b> Fukushima.
HTML http://ieer.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2002/02/csdepglo.pdf
It's much worse now and cesium-137 does not exist in nature. Do
you think our cancer rate went from one in ten in the 1950s to
one in three now because of coal? Coal is much more "profitable"
than nuclear power but only the nuke pukes could muzzle the WHO.
[I] Why?[/I] Because if the truth was known, all nuclear power
plants would be forced to close, period. You stated that "WAY
over 7 million people die a year of cancer". Well, guess what?
The [I] increase in cancer rate on the planet is directly
proportional to the amount of Cesium-137 (and some other
radionuclides poison deposition) and inversely proportional to
the distance from nuclear power plants![/I]
It was never about cheap electricity. It was always about making
plutonium for bombs off the public dime and to hell with the DNA
destruction of children and population cancer clusters. The
nuclear industry, like the fossil fuel industry, externalized
the health costs that have degraded human DNA in order to make
bombs and some money. You do not get more low down than that!
You have no idea whatsoever about the massive damage already
baked into our DNA from this nuclear monstrosity. Both fossil
fuel burning and nuclear fission must be ended if we are to
survive on this planet. The more immediate danger is nuclear.
Watch the video and do the research on the cruel, conscience
free "agreement" between the WHO and IAEA that has done
uncountable damage to Homo sapiens for the sake of nuclear
profits.
[center]
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auy-rMIIHQ8&feature=player_embedded<br
/>[/center]
Out of about 8,000 people at the WHO, [b]two were assigned to
work on radionuclide effects and safe dosages! That's criminal
insanity!
Chernobyl and Fukushima Cesium-137 deposition maps.
HTML http://cerea.enpc.fr/fr/fukushima.html
[url=
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/index.php]Renewable<br
/>Revolution
HTML http://dl3.glitter-graphics.net/pub/465/465823jzy0y15obs.gif
#Post#: 437--------------------------------------------------
How Much of Worldwide Disease Is Preventable?
By: AGelbert Date: November 24, 2013, 9:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
How Much of Worldwide Disease Is Preventable?
About one-fourth of all instances of disease are preventable and
caused by environmental factors that could be changed, health
experts say. Children are even more affected by diseases caused
by environmental factors, with about one-third of all instances
of disease being preventable in children younger than 5 years
old.
It is estimated that about 13 million lives could be saved every
year if precautions were taken to better manage environments.
The main preventable worldwide diseases are diarrhea, malaria,
lower respiratory infections and accidental injuries. These
could be reduced by improved hygiene with water storage and
handling of toxic substances, cleaner fuel usage and improved
building safety.
More about preventable diseases:
The leading factors of diseases in the US are poor diet, lack of
exercise, tobacco use and excessive alcohol consumption.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif
More than 90% of diarrhea-related conditions could be prevented
by improving unsafe water supplies.
Nearly 3 million deaths each year are from cardiovascular
diseases, which can be prevented in certain cases. This is
nearly twice the amount of deaths from cancer.
Agelbert comment (I am Gelbert46 on WiseGeek):
The article is incorrect. Nearly 7 million people die each year
of cancer. One in 10 humans were expected to get cancer in the
1950s. Thanks to nuclear power plant and atomic explosion
Cesium-137 deposition throughout the globe, one in THREE people
will get cancer.
The corrected sentence in the article, if the WHO (world Health
Organization) wasn't prevented from telling the truth about
radionuclide caused cancers by the IAEA, would be this:
[move]The main preventable worldwide deadly diseases are all
types of cancers. The rapid increase in the global cancer
epidemic (one in three will get cancer in their lifetime) is
caused by Cesium-137 planetary deposition from nuclear
explosions and nuclear power plant radionuclide environmental
contamination. >:([/move].
HTML http://www.wisegeek.com/how-much-of-worldwide-disease-is-preventable.htm#discussions
[img width=640
height=580]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241113210504.png[/img]
And about that "background radiation" that we are all supposed
to have "evolved" to live under...
Most “Background Radiation” Didn’t Exist Before Nuclear Weapons
Testing and Nuclear Reactors
Nuke pukes claim that we get a higher exposure from background
radiation (when we fly, for example) or x-rays then we get from
nuclear accidents.
News flash! [img
width=70]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418202709.png[/img]<br
/>
[color=blue]There was exactly zero background radioactive
cesium or iodine before above-ground nuclear testing and nuclear
accidents started.
Cesium-137 is unique in that it is totally anthropogenic. Unlike
most other radioisotopes, cesium-137 is not produced from its
non-radioactive isotope, but from uranium. It did not occur in
nature before nuclear weapons testing began.
Fukushima has spewed much more radioactive cesium and iodine
than Chernobyl. The amount of radioactive cesium released by
Fukushima was some 20-30 times higher than initially admitted.
And the cesium levels hitting the west coast of North America
will keep increasing for several years. Fukushima is spewing
more and more radiation into the environment, and the amount of
radioactive fuel at Fukushima dwarfs Chernobyl.
As such, the concept of “background radiation” is largely Nuke
Puke disinformation Bull****. :P Most of the radiation we
encounter today, especially the most dangerous types, did not
even exist in nature before we started tinkering with nuclear
weapons and reactors.
We have been lied to big time. Pass it on.
We all know that radionuclides cause genetic mutations and
severe birth defects.
But most people are unaware of the fact that, due to the
UBIQUITY of Cesium-137 in our environment, MOST of the cancers
today and much of the cardiovascular disease as well as ANY soft
tissue muscle related diseases are also caused by radionuclides
that destroy both smooth and striated muscles. That means, the
heart, the blood vessels, the intestines, the stomach lining,
the lungs and every muscle in your body.
Cesium-137 goes EVERYWERE because your body thinks it is
Potassium. Lodged in the heart muscle it begins to atrophy it.
It happens more or less according to muscle mass location and
activity. A doctor in Russia in the 1990s discovered Cesium-137
caused heart abnormalities in small animals, then in human
children. He was put in prison for publishing his study. ???
Neither the government of Russia or out Government CARES what
radionuclides are doing to most humans. We have to MAKE THEM
CLOSE THE NCLEAR POWER PLANTS by letting everyone know what is
really happening out there. And if you think the elite aren't
making sure THEIR food isn't contaminated, you are kidding
yourself!
We have to kill nuclear power or it will kill us. As it is many
of us are already doomed because we have been exposed to too
much Cesium-137 in our food or because we have lived too near a
nuclear power plant. >:( Pass it on.
#Post#: 16805--------------------------------------------------
"Spent" Nuclear Fuel Pools
By: AGelbert Date: July 29, 2021, 3:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Spent [img
width=30]
HTML http://www.emofaces.com/en/emoticons/n/nuclear-emoticon.gif[/img]<br
/>Nuclear Fuel ☠️ Pools[/center]
Jul 29, 2021
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/HdTlItSvv9s[/center]
Facing Future
20.2K subscribers
We have no good solution to the problem of storing nuclear
waste. It must be cooled in spent fuel pools for 5-10 years
before it can be moved to dry cask storage. During that time,
it is still dangerous. #PaulBlanch investigated what can happen
in various scenarios, and warns of inadequate protection of this
potentially explosive 💣 material.
This conversation recorded in April 2021.
*****************************************************