Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Less than 100 deaths have been directly attributed to the Chernobyl disaster - several orders of magnitude less than the amount of deaths due to pollution from coal plants and exhaust fumes.

But we all know the site is still super dangerous:

There has been an ongoing scientific debate about the extent that flora and fauna of the zone were affected ...[text shortened]... reat of spreading polluted silt during spring floods. They are systematically secured by dikes.

You failed to mention that all these critters have webbed feet and three heads, including the trees.

GRANNY.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Less than 100 deaths have been directly attributed to the Chernobyl disaster - several orders of magnitude less than the amount of deaths due to pollution from coal plants and exhaust fumes.

But we all know the site is still super dangerous:

There has been an ongoing scientific debate about the extent that flora and fauna of the zone were affected ...[text shortened]... reat of spreading polluted silt during spring floods. They are systematically secured by dikes.

I don't know if trying to make lemonade from the Chernobyl disaster is a winning strategy. I'd rather just argue that Chernobyl was occurred because of avoidable incompetence in meltdown prevention strategies and that another Chernobyl is not a real threat as long as the plants are managed properly.

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
You will know that they were close, when Israel whacks them. You'll see it on the news everywhere.

At least the Nuc plants here will employe the best welders in the country,, lots of dough welding on nuc plants. :-)

Don't be silly.
Israel whacking them will have nothing to do with any nuclear reality at all.

Originally posted by sh76
I don't know if trying to make lemonade from the Chernobyl disaster is a winning strategy. I'd rather just argue that Chernobyl was occurred because of avoidable incompetence in meltdown prevention strategies and that another Chernobyl is not a real threat as long as the plants are managed properly.

Yes, that just adds to the silliness of this whole nuclear power hysteria. Modern nuclear plants don't even use the same technology as the Chernobyl plant, and even poorly maintaned (of course, they should be better maintained) nuclear plants in Eastern Europe and Russia are still working fine without major accidents.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The people around Chernobyl are big fans of this "clean and cheap" way to boil water.

What people in Chernobyl? Are they still there? Glowing like candles in a nice greenish shade?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Finally! Let this be an example to other industrialized nations so we can make the most of this clean and cheap source of electric power.

Why not utilise cleaner, cheaper and on top of that, renewable sources of energy?

Sunlight, wind, tidal waves, rain or geothermal heat.

Originally posted by Jigtie
Why not utilise cleaner, cheaper and on top of that, renewable sources of energy?

Sunlight, wind, tidal waves, rain or geothermal heat.

Because they're not efficient enough to produce the lion's share of the World's demand for energy; though, of course they should be used to the extent that they are efficient.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
What people in Chernobyl? Are they still there? Glowing like candles in a nice greenish shade?

When I was in high school, we had a foreign exchange student in my class who was from Kiev. He had suffered radiation poisoning, likely due to the Chernobyl incident and he was partially paralyzed on his left side. He seemed to function normally, but he told me he'd never be able to safely operate an automobile.

There are plenty of people living with the aftereffects of Chernobyl.

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
You will know that they were close, when Israel whacks them. You'll see it on the news everywhere.

At least the Nuc plants here will employe the best welders in the country,, lots of dough welding on nuc plants. :-)

😵

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Less than 100 deaths have been directly attributed to the Chernobyl disaster - several orders of magnitude less than the amount of deaths due to pollution from coal plants and exhaust fumes.

But we all know the site is still super dangerous:

There has been an ongoing scientific debate about the extent that flora and fauna of the zone were affected ...[text shortened]... reat of spreading polluted silt during spring floods. They are systematically secured by dikes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects#Long-term_health_effects

Long-term health effects
[edit] Science and politics: the problem of epidemiological studies
An abandoned village near Prypiat, close to Chernobyl

The issue of long-term effects of the Chernobyl disaster on civilians is very controversial. The number of people whose lives were affected by the disaster is enormous. Over 300,000 people were resettled because of the disaster; millions lived and continue to live in the contaminated area. On the other hand, most of those affected received relatively low doses of radiation; there is little evidence of increased mortality, cancers or birth defects among them; and when such evidence is present, existence of a causal link to radioactive contamination is uncertain.

An increased incidence of thyroid cancer among children in areas of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia affected by the Chernobyl disaster has been firmly established as a result of screening programs and, in the case of Belarus, an established cancer registry. The findings of most epidemiological studies must be considered interim, say experts, as analysis of the health effects of the disaster is an ongoing process.

Epidemiological studies have been hampered in the former Soviet Union by a lack of funds, an infrastructure with little or no experience in chronic disease epidemiology, poor communication facilities and an immediate public health problem with many dimensions. Emphasis has been placed on screening rather than on well-designed epidemiological studies. International efforts to organize epidemiological studies have been slowed by some of the same factors, especially the lack of a suitable scientific infrastructure. Furthermore, the political nature of nuclear energy may have affected scientific studies. In Belarus, Yury Bandazhevsky, a scientist who questioned the official estimates of Chernobyl's consequences and the relevancy of the official maximum limit of 1,000 Bq/kg, was imprisoned from 2001 to 2005. Bandazhevsky and some human rights groups allege his imprisonment was a reprisal for his publication of reports critical of the official research being conducted into the Chernobyl incident.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects#Long-term_health_effects

Long-term health effects
[edit] Science and politics: the problem of epidemiological studies
An abandoned village near Prypiat, close to Chernobyl

The issue of long-term effects of the Chernobyl disaster on civilians is very controversial. The number of people whose li ...[text shortened]... ation of reports critical of the official research being conducted into the Chernobyl incident.

I have to love this guy..

Originally posted by sh76
Because they're not efficient enough to produce the lion's share of the World's demand for energy; though, of course they should be used to the extent that they are efficient.

Yet you hear opponents of unsustainable power plants stating over and over that we do have the
technology to support all the energy demands in the world through wind, solar, tidal and geothermal
means only.

How do I know which one is right? Where are the actual figures to support your statement that the
"lion's share of the World's demand for energy" cannot be met with renewable energy only?

It seems to me, logically, that all the forces of nature will just keep on producing without unnatural
side-effects and we should therefore be able to quite efficiently use that energy to meet everyone's
needs.

Originally posted by Jigtie
It seems to me, logically, that all the forces of nature will just keep on producing without unnatural side-effects and we should therefore be able to quite efficiently use that energy to meet everyone's needs.

On what logical steps do you base this conclusion?

Originally posted by sh76
On what logical steps do you base this conclusion?

The use of the word "unnatural" and logical reasoning seldom go together.

Originally posted by sh76
On what logical steps do you base this conclusion?

By "no unnatural side effects" (poor choice of words, I guess) I meant: "no waste products that can
kill any naturally occurring life form indirectly sprung from mother earth herself", or just: "no waste
products".

Now, do you have the reference I asked you for above? I would be interested to know how natural
forces that's been at work for millions of years (and is more than unlikely to end any time soon) can
not provide us with all our energy needs right now (without waste products)?

(Especially since I keep reading the opposite.)

Don't make me go dig up the information myself, or I'll be real cranky.