Please share far and wide!

Monday, September 14, 2015

How Many Items Would Have to Line Up all TRUE to Get Us to Say--Yes More Nuclear

  1. IF "climate change" is something we can affect and not just a natural cycle that we cannot effect
    and
  2. IF CO2 at levels around 400 still functions as a greenhouse gas, and not as shown by studies that at a certain level it becomes warming neutral and
  3. If we believed that nuclear was "low carbon" throughout its whole cycle and 
  4. IF nuclear could be built fast enough to make a difference and 
  5. IF we could afford the extra costs that new nuclear now requires, as opposed to using money in better ways for solar research and implementation and the like

If all of these were true, and we could solve climate change with nuclear, wouldn't we still be totally bat shite crazy to accept nuclear if it could kill countries and destroy the human genome.

If even one of those 5 is not fully true, then the argument never even gets started.

But the conclusion is still the same in all cases.

 Nuclear is too dangerous for humans.

----------------------------------------------------
Potassium

k40


  • I have been highly productive while ignoring the K40 debate (debacle)
    Let me sum up some facts:
    There has always been a lot of K40 in the ocean, it comes from rocks, 11,800 Bq/m3, or 11.8 Bq/Liter
    There is nearly zero "man made" K40, like .0000000000000000000000000001 percent from nuclear reactions or bombs. When atoms go into fission, they break apart in known percentages but roughly the same size and this can be easily visualized by the double hump chart. K40 is not an option, although once in a great rare while, crazy stuff does happen and every element under the sun could be a result BUT to .000000000000000000000000000001 percent. See the chart here:
    http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2015/09/radiation-education-how-fission-works.html
    So man made radioactive K40 is almost nothing.
    True that in a neutron bombardment, some K40 might be created but only when K is present, so not in a reactor, but only in case of bombs. And just because a neutron occurs and K is nearby, does not mean that the neutron will be captured and a K40 will result. Regardless, I expect this amount to be quite small in relation to all the K in the world.
    Finally, lets not call this "man made" but man released, K40 from burning coal. Maybe something like 40 Bq/kG released from coal….as if we need another reason to hate coal.
    PPS If I had to make a snap decision, say Codeshutdown had a magical K40 removing frequency generator, and offered to remove all…


    Report comment

    • I would have to turn down the offer, unless I was given time to do some serious research. I have not seen any links which address any type of test like this.
      OK and one more. This silliness about biological half life of Potassium…..it is several hours for the body to rid itself of excess K of any type.
      Not weeks. Weeks would represent the Bio HL of any particular specific set of atoms of K40, but for the K40 as a group, its just hours.
      OK back to productive work LOL
      •   CodeShutdown
        excellent, thanks stock
        I never meant the subject to explode like it did


        GOM
        Code
        I'm starting to see a bigger picture here..
          • CodeShutdown
            GOM, OMG! GOM is GMO MOG! (Ministry of Oil and Gas, Mobile Olefin to Gas)
            Beginning to see the bigger picture eh? Dont let the light in all at once

        • PavewayIII PavewayIII
          Not so fast, you guys. I have 65 posts with many irrelevant links planned that will attempt (but fail) prove some peripheral fact that has nothing to with the point you're trying to make. Don't try to stop me, you pro-nuke shills!

          • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
            PavewayIII, glad youre still around. I was going to ask you what happens, if anything, to the other potassium isotopes when the beta (and or gamma) from k-40 is absorbed? The self absorption phenomena. I guess most of the radiation is absorbed in a few millimeters meaning the measurement of this radiation from a body would depend on the volume to surface ratio. Also, is water with potassium in it better at absorbing K-40 radiation than pure water?

            -------------------------------------
Here are some comments from "BasM" who has been effectively slapping back at pro nuke trolls and not letting them slide in their easy lies on various discussion boards.

A remarkable lack of vision: Only the past can determine the future.
No progress if that would have been the guidance of our ancestors!
You even forgot that those early NPP's were very unsafe.
The policy change of Sweden and France, away from nuclear, shows that both countries realized that they were on the wrong path with nuclear:
- Sweden decided for a ban on new nuclear and to expand renewable.
Not strange considering the damaging effects of NPP's on the genes of our next generations: http://www.helmholtz-muenchen....

- France installed recently a law to implement a reduction of the nuclear share in its electricity supply from ~75% toward <50% within 10years!
Replacing it with more renewable. http://oilprice.com/Alternativ...
 
A much faster demolition of nuclear than the German Energiewende scenario!
Also motivated since it is shown that such nuclear waste storages damage the genes of newborn within a radius of ~50km in their surrounding: http://www.helmholtz-muenchen.....

Recent French governmental scenario study concluded that migrating towards 80% renewable in 2050 would be cheapest! Such result could be predicted considering earlier publications such as: http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...

. . . . ',|;-,.¸ .¸¸ . . ¸,.,¸.
. . . . ¸,' ¸,. . ¸ `-,"~-~',¸,.¹-~-._¸,
. . . . ) . '"¨ . .):. .`-,;:.`,';;'¸,.¹¯¸¸,.-
. . .,-' , , , , ,-';:.. . .`-¸;:.`,'–~'`,¯-.,¸_,
. . ( ,•¸,-~'¨|;;;::.. .. . "-,;:/,`,-~-~¬¯. . . . . . .¸,..,¸ . . . . .¸,.-~–.¸_
. . . ¨`" . . . |;;;:::.. . .. . ¯¯`*¬~—¬¬"“~-,;:;;`"~–~":;;::,-"''“¯¨`
. . . . . . . . . ;;;::… . … , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ¨`-,;;:;;::;;::;:;:`¬~-.¸
…'“““ /;;;:;::… ,, ..:;, . . . . . . . . . . ., ¸ . . . .`,;;:;:::;:;:;;-~"`¨¨`¬~
, . . . . . . . |;;::;:.. .:; .:;;¸ . . . . . . . . . ..:' . . . . . |;;::;;:;:;;"-~¬~-.,¸.-~'
. . . . . . . . . ;;::.. . “ .:;;;, . . . . . . . . . .::: . . . . . ,'`"~-,;;:;:;;.¸.,~–"`¨
. . . . . .¸.-~¬"`,-';:. . ..:;;::… .. .. . .. … ..:;;. . . . .,' . . . .`"*"`¯
. . . . l':,~-¬`;;:¸.-~¬"“`"¬~–~¬, ..:;;¸-'¨¯`;:.. ./
. … . . |`|/`",-'¯ . . . . . . . . . . . . .`,.::;; . . . `,;:.
. . . . . .l,/`/,.¸ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ).::;; . . . .`¸;:`,
. . . . . ./ (-.¸ ) . . . . . . . . . . . . .¸.-".:,-"' . . . . . ;:./
. . . . . |-~ . ¨ . . . . . . . . . . .¸-' ¸.-`' . . . . . . . . | /
. . . . . '-"¨ . . . . . . . . . . . . ./¨`/` . . . . . . . . . . / |


No comments:

Post a Comment

Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments