i've been obsessively following the unfolding events in japan since 3/11, here on this public message board and other message boards. sadly the MSM doesn't want to cover this story.
before i only had a passing interest in nuclear power (i live in NYC so i've been following IP, Vermont Yankee and am old enough to remember shorehaven). it's pretty darn cool, splitting atoms that is. and i admire the macho-ness of nuke workers. you guys are like fireman and navy pilots. but, not every one can fly (and land) off of aircraft carriers or get launched into space.
Yet, i find it astonishing that you folks continue to downplay obfuscate the unfolding events. Yes, it is super technical and complex.
Please don't tell me about the earthquake and tsunami victims or that coal is indeed very bad. stick to the subject at hand, which is the 6 nuclear reactors and their SFPs.
Nothing ever invented by man is as deadly as nuclear power and their offspring nuclear weapons. We are still learning the effects of radiation and increasingly experts (that is medical doctors, not physicists) are learning that even low levels of radiation are not safe. in fact there is no safe level of radiation.
Plutone is asking some very good questions, a direct answer would be appreciated by this reader as well.
just so you guys know, i am a in xray school (almost all medical nuclear medicine technologist are xray certified techs and this is a field that i am strongly considering training in), so i know a little bit about ionizing radiation. Go ahead jump down my throat. call me a tree hugger. after all, this is a public internet message board.
Sorry, but that is just plain wrong on two levels.
First, everything is deadly. Breathing is deadly. Water is deadly. In fact, water is responsible for far more deaths each month than all the deaths nuclear power has caused in its history. Saying nothing invented by man is more deadly than nuclear power shows so a lot of ignorance. There are substances that man has invented that would require less than a teaspoonful to kill every human on the planet. Making unsubstantiated (and just plain false) claims like that puts the rest of your post into the 'who cares' category, but it gets worse.
Nuclear power did not beget nuclear bombs. Calling bombs the offspring of nuclear power shows even more ignorance. Like most other inventions, the military found a use for nuclear reactions first. If anything you could call the power plants the offspring of the bomb, but even that is such a stretch as to be laughable.
On top of all that, you need to learn some things about risk. Everything you do involves risks. Getting out of bed in the morning involves risks. Not getting up involves risks, too. Nothing in the world is pure good or pure evil. The only thing we can hope to do to make decisions for ourselves is to evaluate risk vs. reward and make choices about what risks we are willing to take to get what we want. Having nuclear power plants involves risks. Not having nuclear plants involves risks, too. In fact, even with the Japanese accident and the Chernobyl accident and the TMI accident, nuclear power plants have effectively REDUCED the amount of radioactive materials released into the environment over the time period the have been in use. Why? Because they have replaced a more significant source. Sorry you don't want to hear it, but there it is. Coal plants release more radioactive materials into the environment than nuclear plants, by orders of magnitude. You can't have a discussion about risk without including relative risk and risk/reward... it just makes no sense.
Dr. Bernard Cohen Professor Emeritus of Physics, at the University of Pittsburgh published a paper in the 1980s where he calculated that if we replaced all coal plants with nuclear plants and completely meted one down EVERY YEAR we would still have a net reduction in radioactive materials released to the environment. We have a long way to go before we get to that level.
Dr. Cohen would also disagree about the 'no level is safe' argument, but that is another matter.
I am sure you are very impressed with your credentials (in 'x-ray school,' whatever that is) but I think you are right in saying you know a little about it. There are a lot of people on this site that know much more than a little about it. I have taught radiation protection, including biological effects, for years and there are a lot of folks here that know far more than I do. The simple fact of the matter is that you really don't know what you are talking about.
Another point of disagreement is that Plutone is asking good questions. Good questions do not have built-in bias. Good questions do not guide the answer toward the outcome that the poser (yes, that has two meanings there) is looking for. Good questions are open to discussion and are not phrased to start arguments or put the respondent on the defensive. The questions he asked were negative, leading and indicated that he already knew what answer he was going to get and was ready to argue the point.
Not good questions, not good science, not good facts. Not worthy of a serious answer until those obstacle can be overcome.
