@metal-brain said
The human cost of one meltdown lasts far longer than 30 years. I suggest you read Helen's statements and try to prove them wrong. You are hopelessly biased and don't want to be confused with facts.

To refute one of her points regarding health concerns for people living outside of Japan, this is an article warning about cesium levels in the ocean, noting:

Fukushima radiation was minute. The level of cesium-137, a byproduct of nuclear fission, in seawater was just four-tenths as high as traces of the isotope naturally found in the Pacific Ocean.

Those levels are far too low to pose a health concern, an important point for people living on the Bering Sea coast who subsist on food caught in the ocean, Sheffield said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alaska-fukushima/fukushima-contaminants-found-as-far-north-as-alaskas-bering-strait-idUSKCN1R90BV

@wildgrass said
To refute one of her points regarding health concerns for people living outside of Japan, this is an article warning about cesium levels in the ocean, noting:

[quote] Fukushima radiation was minute. The level of cesium-137, a byproduct of nuclear fission, in seawater was just four-tenths as high as traces of the isotope naturally found in the Pacific Ocean.

Those leve ...[text shortened]... us-alaska-fukushima/fukushima-contaminants-found-as-far-north-as-alaskas-bering-strait-idUSKCN1R90BV

From the link below:

"Well there are ongoing emissions into the air consistently, number one. Number two, a huge amount of water is being stored –over a million gallons in tanks at the site. That water is being siphoned off from the reactor cores, the damaged melted cores. Water is pumped consistently every day, every hour, to keep the cores cool in case they have another melt. And that water, of course, is extremely contaminated.

Now they say they’ve filtered out the contaminants except for the tritium which is part of the water molecule, but they haven’t. There’s strontium, cesium, and many other elements in that water – it’s highly radioactive – and because there isn’t enough room to build more tanks, they’re talking about emptying all that water into the Pacific Ocean and the fishermen are very, very upset. The fish already being caught off Fukushima, some are obviously contaminated. But this will be a disaster.

Water comes down from the mountains behind the reactors, flows underneath the reactors into the sea and always has. And when the reactors were in good shape, the water was fine, didn’t get contaminated. But now the three molten cores in contact with that water flowing under the reactors and so the water flowing into the Pacific is very radioactive and that’s a separate thing from the million gallons or more in those tanks.

They put up a refrigerated wall of frozen dirt around the reactors to prevent that water from the mountains flowing underneath the reactors, which has cut down the amount of water flowing per day from 500 tons to about a hundred and fifty. But of course, if they lose electricity, that refrigeration system is going to fail, and it’s a transient thing anyway so it’s ridiculous. In terms… So over time the Pacific is going to become more and more radioactive."

https://www.globalresearch.ca/fukushima-an-ongoing-global-radiological-catastrophe-a-huge-coverup-dr-helen-caldicott/5672265

I am not going to make an assessment based on only levels at the Bering Straits. What about the sea of Japan? Is that too close for you to consider? Would that ruin your biased position?

@metal-brain said
From the link below:

"Well there are ongoing emissions into the air consistently, number one. Number two, a huge amount of water is being stored –over a million gallons in tanks at the site. That water is being siphoned off from the reactor cores, the damaged melted cores. Water is pumped consistently every day, every hour, to keep the cores cool in case they have ano ...[text shortened]... about the sea of Japan? Is that too close for you to consider? Would that ruin your biased position?

No that would not ruin my position. How is it biased? I have no stake in the nuclear industry, just concern about the environment.

@metal-brain said
Nuclear should not be one of them. I'm fine with continuing the operation of existing plants, just not building new plants except in rare cases that justify it.

Here is a bit about pro's and con's of thorium reactors:

https://vittana.org/16-big-thorium-reactor-pros-and-cons

Apparently some designs can make fuel that can be used for nuclear weapons. I didn't know that. So there are definite con's to thorium.

@wildgrass said
No that would not ruin my position. How is it biased? I have no stake in the nuclear industry, just concern about the environment.

Because you have taken a position that you have a tendency to support because of the competitiveness of the debate. I see it all the time on the debate forum. It is nothing new.

If you really cared about the environment you would be against nuclear. Radiation is destructive to life. How would you like to get cancer 35 years after being exposed along with your neighbors and hear some idiot saying nuclear is safe just because he took a debate position and stuck with it?

@metal-brain said
If you really cared about the environment you would be against nuclear.

If he really cared about the environment he would be far more against fossil fuels than nuclear. The numbers of people that have died already from pollution from fossil fuels and mining coal/oil (not by pollution but in accidents) vastly out number those from nuclear and renewable energy combined;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents
"...In the US alone, more than 100,000 coal miners have been killed in accidents over the past century
...
by far the greatest energy fatalities that result from energy generation by humanity, is the creation of air pollution. The most lethal of which, particulate matter, which is primarily generated from the burning of fossil fuels and biomass is (counting outdoor air pollution effects only) estimated to cause 2.1 million deaths annually..."

And then if you look in the table of values in the "Fatalities" table you clearly see this;

Energy source | Mortality rate(in deaths/PWh)
Nuclear (global) 90
Wind 150
Solar – rooftop 440
Hydro (global) 1,400
Natural Gas 4,000
Coal (US) 10,000
Biofuel/biomass 24,000
Oil(total energy) 36,000
Coal (global) 100,000
(I cannot get the the space characters to work well in the above)

The figures above speak for themselves.

@humy said
If he really cared about the environment he would be far more against fossil fuels than nuclear. The numbers of people that have died already from pollution from fossil fuels and mining coal/oil (not by pollution but in accidents) vastly out number those from nuclear and renewable energy combined;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents
"...In the US alone, more than ...[text shortened]... t get the the space characters to work well in the above)

The figures above speak for themselves.

90 people died from nuclear? Bullcrap!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/04/25/chernobyl-30-year-anniversary/83220302/

https://www.naturalnews.com/049277_Fukushima_disaster_radiation_deaths_thyroid_cancer.html

You have been duped. Lay off wikicrap.

@metal-brain said
90 people died from nuclear?

NO you complete moron. That CLEARLY isn't what it said. Can't you read? which part of "Mortality rate(in deaths/PWh) " do you not understand?

Here it is that part again;

Energy source | Mortality rate(in deaths/PWh)
Nuclear (global) 90
(...rest of the table as before...)

So that figure 90 above is NOT total number of people killed but mortality RATE and specifically mortality rate in terms of number of deaths PER PWh of energy generated by nuclear.
Compare that with, say, coal (global) and that RATE is 100,000 PER PWh of energy generated by coal (and NOT total number of deaths from coal because total number of deaths from coal is more than that figure).
Thus the death rate from coal is MANY times that from nuclear (and also solar and wind etc) showing it makes a more hazardous source of energy. If we went all nuclear (which I would NOT recommend for economic rather than environmental reasons) then clearly there would likely be significantly less deaths as a result.

@humy said
NO you complete moron. That CLEARLY isn't what it said. Can't you read? which part of "Mortality rate(in deaths/PWh) " do you not understand?

Here it is that part again;

Energy source | Mortality rate(in deaths/PWh)
Nuclear (global) 90
(...rest of the table as before...)

So that figure 90 above is NOT total number of people killed but mortality RATE and specifically ...[text shortened]... han environmental reasons) then clearly there would likely be significantly less deaths as a result.

Irrelevant.

Nuclear is a relatively new technology. It cannot fairly be compared to coal which has been mined for centuries before strip mining. Nuclear is not safe. It causes damage to the environment and kills a lot of people by cancer many years after the meltdowns.

Look up France's nuclear power accident record. Too much can go wrong.

@metal-brain said
Irrelevant.

Nuclear is a relatively new technology. Nuclear is not safe.

Whether it is "relatively new" technology is irrelevant to whether it is safe.
You cannot equate 'new' with 'unsafe' else, according to your logic, natural gas power is less safe than coal power because the latter is less new; and yet the statistics show the contrary.
I have given you the statistics that clearly show nuclear ( + renewables in general ) to be safer than fossil fuels.

Here it is yet again;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents

Energy source | Mortality rate(in deaths/PWh)
Nuclear (global) 90
Wind 150
Solar – rooftop 440
Hydro (global) 1,400
Natural Gas 4,000
Coal (US) 10,000
Biofuel/biomass 24,000
Oil(total energy) 36,000
Coal (global) 100,000

The figures above speak for themselves.
100,000 deaths/PWh from coal is wildly by far more than the 90 deaths/PWh from nuclear.

You have yet to show any evidence or links that indicates those statistics are wrong or explained any reason why we should think they are wrong.

@humy said
Whether it is "relatively new" technology is irrelevant to whether it is safe.
You cannot equate 'new' with 'unsafe' else, according to your logic, natural gas power is less safe than coal power because the latter is less new; and yet the statistics show the contrary.
I have given you the statistics that clearly show nuclear ( + renewables in general ) to be safer than fossil ...[text shortened]... hat indicates those statistics are wrong or explained any reason why we should think they are wrong.

Look up France's nuclear power accident record. Too much can go wrong.

@metal-brain said
Because you have taken a position that you have a tendency to support because of the competitiveness of the debate. I see it all the time on the debate forum. It is nothing new.

If you really cared about the environment you would be against nuclear. Radiation is destructive to life. How would you like to get cancer 35 years after being exposed along with your neighbors ...[text shortened]... and hear some idiot saying nuclear is safe just because he took a debate position and stuck with it?

I don't understand , you brought up the sea of japan, not my neighbors.

What is your point? Radiation is everywhere. It's in bananas. It's slightly increased in the ocean due to Fukushima, but outside of Japan there is no evidence I've seen that it's dangerous.

@metal-brain said
Look up France's nuclear power accident record. Too much can go wrong.

Look up, say, coal power accident record. Too much can go wrong and it has caused far more deaths than nuclear power ever did. Why dismiss all those greater number of deaths from, say, coal, but not the lesser number of deaths from nuclear? You make no point. And, contrary to your claim, nuclear being more 'new' has nothing to do with it.

@wildgrass said
I don't understand , you brought up the sea of japan, not my neighbors.

What is your point? Radiation is everywhere. It's in bananas. It's slightly increased in the ocean due to Fukushima, but outside of Japan there is no evidence I've seen that it's dangerous.

What are they going to do with all of that radioactive water? They are talking about dumping it in the ocean. The worst has yet to happen. Why are you ignoring that fact?

@metal-brain said
What are they going to do with all of that radioactive water? They are talking about dumping it in the ocean. The worst has yet to happen. Why are you ignoring that fact?

Again, you are implying that the negative impacts of the worst nuclear disaster in history is worse than other energy sources. This is a fallacy. It is not accurate to compare a single worst case scenario to what is happening on a daily basis from other energy-producing industries.

Radioactivity is everywhere, the concern has always been about the dose. Releasing it slowly into the ocean (probably) won't affect anything. Hospitals release concentrated radioactive iodine (used for imaging) into rivers and lakes, but since they release it slowly it does not change the overall concentrations. Radiation-emitting uranium, thorium, radon and radium is in well water, naturally released from rocks, and perfectly safe at low doses.

Are you aware that natural gas extraction releases gobs of radioactivity from rock beds, at high doses, and the energy companies dispose of it in local streams and lakes? Certainly, they are testing the well water in areas like northern Pennsylvania et al. for levels that exceed EPA recommendations, but this radioactivity is being released consistently all the time by the energy industry. They don't know exactly how much is being released, but based on the sheer quantity of oil and gas extraction operations some estimates say this radioactive release overall exceeds that of Fukushima. In addition to this, oil and gas refinery waste released into the environment contains a high concentration of radioactivity as well, happening every single day, and lacks the level of oversight that is paid to nuclear.

226Ra levels in stream sediments (544−8759 Bq/kg) at the point of dischargewere∼200 times greater than upstream and background sediments (22−44 Bq/kg) and above radioactive waste disposalthreshold regulations, posing potential environmental risks of radium bioaccumulation in localized areas of shale gas wastewaterdisposal.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es402165b
https://www.fractracker.org/2017/03/oil-gas-wastes-radioactive-regulation/