IAEA Chief: Interest in Nuclear Power up Despite Fukushima
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/iaea-chief-interest-nuclear-power-fukushima-35619095
"Despite the Fukushima nuclear disaster that devastated northeastern Japan in 2011"
No, that would be the EPIC earthquake and the resulting EPIC tsunami that devastated northeastern Japan in 2011.
Earthquake + Tsunami = 20,000 people killed
Fukushima + Radiation = 0 people killed.
"If nuclear materials fall into the hands of terrorists, that can be used for dirty bombs," he said. "If it happens in a big city, that can cause a panic."
What does this have to do with Commercial Nuclear Power? If terrorists really want to set off a "dirty bomb" I'm sure they could obtain the sources for them A LOT easier from a hospital or food irradiator plant.
Quote from: Bonds 25 on Dec 09, 2015, 10:26
"Despite the Fukushima nuclear disaster that devastated northeastern Japan in 2011"
No, that would be the EPIC earthquake and the resulting EPIC tsunami that devastated northeastern Japan in 2011.
Earthquake + Tsunami = 20,000 people killed
Fukushima + Radiation = 0 people killed.
"If nuclear materials fall into the hands of terrorists, that can be used for dirty bombs," he said. "If it happens in a big city, that can cause a panic."
What does this have to do with Commercial Nuclear Power? If terrorists really want to set off a "dirty bomb" I'm sure they could obtain the sources for them A LOT easier from a hospital or food irradiator plant.
Public opinion is the issue as they are the Stakeholders in the construction of any nuclear plant. In one sense Fukishima was a dirty bomb.
Japan warns nuclear disaster area could be uninhabitable for 20 yearshttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2030883/Japan-warns-nuclear-disaster-area-uninhabitable-20-years.html
I actually feel sorry for the people who are so uneducated and drink the fear mongering, anti-Nuke Kool Aid. I mean, just read the comments.........
The fact is, the areas outside of Fukushima's fences are habitable RIGHT NOW!! There are many areas around the world with background dose rates that are higher. All they need to do is rebuild all the damaged structures.......from the tsunami. Over conservative evacuation measures are the issue, and this has claimed more lives than any radiation from Fukushima could have possibly caused.
Quote from: Bonds 25 on Dec 10, 2015, 09:42
I actually feel sorry for the people who are so uneducated and drink the fear mongering, anti-Nuke Kool Aid. I mean, just read the comments.........
True but our industry has done a poor job of public education.
Quote from: Bonds 25 on Dec 10, 2015, 09:42
The fact is, the areas outside of Fukushima's fences are habitable RIGHT NOW!! There are many areas around the world with background dose rates that are higher. All they need to do is rebuild all the damaged structures.......from the tsunami. Over conservative evacuation measures are the issue, and this has claimed more lives than any radiation from Fukushima could have possibly caused.
True we have discussed the stress related deaths vs the zero impact of radiation on some of these threads before. Many basements are much higher dose from radon than the exposure in most of the restricted land but not all. The risk of radiation exposure comes from the models used, if a non threshold model is used risk is shown were none exists according to HPS:
"The Health Physics Society recommends that assessments of radiogenic health risks be limited to dose estimates near and above 100 mSv. Below this level, only dose is credible and statements of associated risks are more speculative than credible.
Thus, compliance with regulations to achieve very low levels of exposure result in enormous expenditures of money with no demonstrable public health benefits."
So very true.....I actually watched a, I believe it was an Exxon Mobil commercial that stated burning natural gas is helping Exxon lower carbon emission in the USA. What?!?! Why in the world have I never seen a Nuclear Power commercial on prime time TV? Maybe it could help wake the public up to the fact Nuclear Power currently produces ~65% of the USA's clean energy.
Quote from: Marlin on Dec 10, 2015, 09:58
True but our industry has done a poor job of public education.
Quote from: Marlin on Dec 10, 2015, 09:58
1. True but our industry has done a poor job of public education.
2. Many basements are much higher dose from radon than the exposure in most of the restricted land but not all.
1. Most of the 'lack of public education' stems from the 50's - 70's (and even now) equation of nuclear power to nuclear weapons, i.e., one and the same. Even in the early days the 'Admiral' didn't want a whole lot said because of the equation, a practice still followed in the industry today.
2. Many public buildings, particularly in DC, built from stone, have higher dose from a typical work day than a lot of nuclear facilities!
In the early 80's we had a particularly anti-nuke reporter, where I lived. The utility took the opportunity to send him to a class in OR (at the expense of the utility). He became a supporter and very pro-nuke in responding to anti statements and publications. Unfortunately, we as an industry, didn't take an active 'public education' role years ago!