That are more people killed from windpower worldwide than from nuclear.
In total a bit more than 40 persons have been killed by nuclear while in one single year 166 persons were killed worldwide.
In oceans there is potassium-40 with a radiation level of 15 million PBq (PentaBequarel) and Tritium from Fukushima do have the radiation level of 30 PBq. Their you see the difference so the wast water will do a extremely low impact of the natural radiation in the sea.
For to do a correct decision the relatively risk have to be considered based on fact and nothing else.
Earlier ordinary man was scared by explosions in the car engine. Don´t look at the nuclear as a gost.
-4 ( +0 / -4 )
There are risks for radiation from Tritium but we have to look at the relatively risk. As example Potassum-40 då have 15 000 000 pBq per unit while Fukushima do have 30 pBq so even all the wast water do impact the water guality do a relatively low degree.
First you have to inform youself by real fact and not see the gost as soon as speaking of nuclear. As you can see the radiation is much more higher in connection with nuclear weapon and this was what happened in the Nevada desert when US did testing of above ground of atomic weapon,
Pity it´s not possible to import the document in question. I may see if I can got other solutions for that.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
In Sweden they have shooten rain deer before the Chernobyl disaster with higher radiation than recommended.
In the 60th the background radiation were higher as effect of overground explosion of nuclear weapon in the Nevada desert in US. After that the world background radiation have decreased.
You may also at the positive side or radiation as it is used for treatment of cancers worldwide. Low level radiation may also have a vaccination effect. More studies about that ought to be performed,
The higheast background radiation in Sweden quite more than in Fukushima have also the higheast life length.
So the reality is more complex than only to avoid radiation. Yourself have an internal radiation which means that a group of four persons do have as heavy radiation level as the Harrisburg.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
If the radiation is lower than the normal background radiation I don´t see why this would be so dangerous. Normally they dump the water from nuclear plants so why not now. The radioactive dose from Fukushima is yeardoses of 120 mSv which increase the risk for lungcancer with one percent while smoking do increase it with 1 500 percent. 200 mSv yeardose was earlier allowed for workers in nuclear plant. This is the natural exposure from crowded area in India. Never visit countries aboard before accurate detection of each contries normal background radiation. Even at flight the radiation is indicated with Geigermessuring device. With no detection on several places within a nuclear plant,
The dangereness in connection with nuclear have to be considered in a realistic way.
You are radioactive yourself so the exhaust from Harrisburg correspond to the exposure of four persons. What are you afraid of. Everything alive is radioactive and probably low dose radiation have an vaccination effect.
Areas in Sweden with higheast background radiation have also the longeast life length and treating cancer you do it with radiation. More people will be alive as effect of radiation than them that will be killed.
-3 ( +5 / -8 )
Really do hope that the Chuo-Shinkansen for a shorter distance can come inte operation to a bit release the traffic jam.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Zichi thank you
I found an article that compare the radiation from coal versus nuclear.
The committee said that while exposure levels are very low, the coal cycle contributed more than half of the total radiation dose to the global population from electricity generation. The nuclear fuel cycle, it said, contributed less than one-fifth of this. The collective dose for coal generating technologies is 670-1400 man Sieverts, depending on the age of the power plant, while that of nuclear is 130 man Sv. This is followed by geothermal at 5-160 man SV, natural gas at 55 man Sv and oil at 0.03 man Sv.
UNSCEAR also evaluated radiation exposure per unit of electricity generated, using 2010 as a reference year for comparison. The committee concluded that the values for coal and nuclear are about the same in the short term: 0.7-1.4 man Sv per GWe for coal and 0.43 man Sv/GWe for nuclear.
Zichi I have also an article in Swedish re the exposure of an astronaut following the Mars-Lander. The yeardose there will be 220 - 350 mSv increasing the risk for lungcancer with 3 percent while smoking do increase the risk with 1 500 percent. I´m not sure if I can copy the article in question. Are you able to translate to english.
A coal power plant of 2 500 MW do have the same radiation exhaust during normal condition equal to Harrisburg after the accident. This radiation is equal to a group of four persons. Yourselfe do have an internal radiation to 1/4 of the radiation from Harrisburg.
The common sence is that we are very afraid of radiation from nuclear but not from coal.
The radiation level in deer shoten before the Chernobyl disaster do have higher radiation value than the recalculated limits.
Every industrial activity do have risks but if nuclear can improve the airquality that will be a good result.
If we can electrify the whole transport sector cars, buses, trucks, lorries, ships, aeroplane and convert blast furnace from coal to hydrogen and this by using nuclear we will reduce energy consumption with two third.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
A worker in a nuclear plant was earlier allowed for a yeardose of 200 mSv but the limit were reduced to 20 mSv. May Wechselmann and Gösta Elmquist measured the radiation level at the worst exposed areas in Fukushima and registrated that the radiation were five to six times the new radiation limit. That is 120 mSv.
The background radiation in crowded area in India is also 200 mSv.
The evacuation of areas around Fukushima were a result of the Tsunami and earth quake. Like the British experts no evacuation were needed as effect of the radiation.
The explosion were caused by the hydrogen exhaust. More modern reactors have filter for that to avoid explosion and why therefor discussing hydrogen cars at all.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
The radiation from Fukushima yeardoses of 120 mSv do increase the risk for lungcancer with 1 percent while smoking do increase it with 1 500 percent. British experts do questionised the evacaution at all.
In India crowded areas do have yeardoses of 200 mSv and if you do a flight a Geiger-measuring device do react continouesly while inside a nuclear plant no reaction in many cases. If you are afraid of radiation then do not flight ever.
Like Harrisburg the outdoor radiation were equal to a group of four persons as every single person do have an inside radiation.
An astronaut following the Mars-lander will be affected by a yearly radiation dose of 350 mSv which according to the University in Kiev that developed the measuring device which followed the Mars-lander. According to them the risk for lungcancer will increase to 3 percent.
What I mean is that we have to look at the nuclear risk in a sensible way comparing with the risks we have in combination with other industrial processes.
By get rid of coal burning plants for electric generation the health effect will be even better than to not use nuclear for civil production. Instead try to mimize nuclear weapon production which is quite more unnecessary.
To reduce nuclear weapon with 1 percent the result will be more effective than to remove all civil nuclear production.
-14 ( +1 / -15 )
Replay to Zichi. 8 to 10 mikroSievert pro day gives 3.65 mSv pro year while the limit value is 20 mSv. Prior a nuclear worker were admitted for 200 mSv and this is the actual background value in highly populated areas in India.
The radiation level onboard a flight is higher than indoor the nuclear plant in most cases. A geiger measuring device don´t registrate anything while xontinously on a flight
1 ( +2 / -1 )
The risk for lung cancer is 1 to 2 percent while smoking increase the risk to 1 500 percent.
The yeardose is 120 mSv that can be compared to crowded populated areas in India with a background radiation level of 200 mSv. British experts do recognise the radiation level in Fukushima not needable for evacuation. People that were evacuated were affected by higher psycical stress than if they haven´t been evacuated. Tearing up with their rots for to start a completely new life in another area plus the scare for radiation from other surrounding people were not fare to them.
In Sweden deers were shoten before the Chernobyl accident with increased radiation values and the background radiation where higher in the sixties as effect of above ground atomic vapen research in the Nevada desert in US.
The radiation from Harrisburgh after the accident were comparable with a group of people of four to five persons.
As you probable know all human activity do mean radioactivity. You self have a radiation of 20 mRem or 7 000 Bequarel and the Harrisburg do have 80 mRem. A doctor handling with Tomographi do have a yearly dose of
5 000 mRem and a person smoking 20 cigarettes a day 35 000 mRmem. Everything according to hospital physiker in Eskilstuna.
We must have a realistic view of the dangerousness of radioactivity so we can compare it with the risks in other areas.
Windpower do killed 166 persons in just one single year while the civil nuclear plants have killed 50 persons in total and mainly that from the Chernobyl which were a military plant. All security were disconnected and when they tried to reconnect it it was not possible. Mostly of civil plants do reduce the effect while risk of overheating while the Chernobyl were the opposite.
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
The wanted to build a quite higher wall according to the plans but that were not allowed when the got the building allowence.
This was of cource an accident which also resulting in damage of a water power station with 10 000 killings. But this is not much speaking of. The buildings that were destroyed as effect of the Tsunami so the people have to be evacuated. Why wasn´t the buildings stable enough to withstand the Tsunami.
Everything in the society were hardly destroyed but why would just the nuclear plant have to be built to withstand the Tsunami when nothing else is.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Open minded Yes I read this article too. I think they have a hidden agenda which they not speak of. Al the time they speak about the nuclear disaster and now they try to even sat the evacuation as a result of that. The earth quake and tsunami that destroy a lot of houses with result that the inhabitants have to evacuate. This has nothing to do with the radiation at all. Brittish specialists investigate the disaster and based on the radiation noone have to be evacuated. Noone was killed.
That means Tepco wasn´t responsible for the damaging of the houses and the radiation level still will give lower lungcancerrisk than smoking and even passiv suchone do result in lungcancer.
That 10 000 people was killed as effect of damaging of a water power station isn´t hardly mentioned. What can we read out between the row. Still as I see it an antinuclear propaganda.
If the Fukushima has had hydrogenfilter like Swedish plants no explosion have been the result. Why in that case implement hydrogen gas driven cars.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Without nuclear we can´t handle the future energy requirement. Renewable is a very expensive way for electrical production. Wind power do kill more people than nuclear ever has and never will do.
In Tjernobyl 28 was killed immediately while further 3 persons within seven days plus 10 children in Leukemi and 1 000 can live be lifelong medicination. Harrisburg and Fukushima noone killed. Compare that to 166 persons killed worldwide in Wind Power accidents. Even the requirement for raw material is higher re renewable plus that you never can estimate the energy production from wind power. One thing is the highly dependence on the speed of the wind. By 12 m/s a 3 MW plant do produce close to 3 MW but by 5 m/s just about 220 kW.
The radioactivity from Fukushima yeardoses of 120 mSv do increase the risk for lungcancer with 1 -2 percent while smoking increase it to 1 500 percent. You have areas in high density populated areas in India with a background radioactivity of 200 mSv quite more than Fukushima. Brittish expert have defined the evacuation unnessecary and the evacuated people was exposed for higher mental stress than if they haven´t been evacuated.
Af course that is risk with nuclear but it ought to be handled in a sensible way like IPCC says that this is a risk we can handle.
Coal do kill enormues amount of humans and the health risk is quite high.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
Perhaps the solar power is effective in the private case but nothing for a country´s main electrical production. In Sweden they install in the final end 10 MW solar power and speaking about replacing nuclear. This 10 MW installed effect although giving just a fortune real effect to the net represents just one promille of the installed nuclear power. Where is the overview from the solar bransch. Do they really beleave that solar power could replace nuclear if so they haven´t any overview at all.
Like the solar bransch investigation and development is also ongoing in the nuclear bransch. Sofar build gen III+ avvaiting for gen IV and Thorium-reactors. This have an ability to save our climate while solar power
The radiation from Fukushima is lower than the natural radiation in Norway. The risk for lungcancer will increase to between one and two percent while an astronaut following the Mars Lander is exposed for a radiation level increasing the lungcancerrisk to three percent. Smoking do increase with 1 500 percent.
Summary. The air quality by means of nuclear and electric cars can become improved much more and giving less unhealthy effect than as it is today.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Nuclear is the best electric energy distribution method. As IPCC says nuclear do have it´s risk but that is risk we can live with. I base it at two fundamental reasons.
Evacuated Norwegian persons from Fukushima with direct flight landed in higher radiation level in Norway. Should we evacuate Norway too? The radiation level in Tokyo shopping center is higher than in Fukushima. Should we evacuate there?
An astronaut following the Mars Lander will be exposed for a radiation level during one year of about two to three times that of Fukushima (yeardose). According to the University in Kiev that developed the measuring device said the risk for lungcancer will increase to 2-3 percent. The Fukushima radiation increase the risk for lungcancer based on this statement to 1-2 percent.
Active smooking do increase the risk to 1 500 percent and even passive smooking is not healthy.
As well as other risks it has to be meat at a senseable level.
With this as a background can you tolerate the nuclears relatively danger or not. Wind Power worldwide do kill more people yearly than the nuclear do have during its all lifelength.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
The real truth about the Fukushima disaster was that the Norwegian that was evacuated from Fukushima by extra flight do landed in higher radiation in Norway.
If you want less Japanese people killed than the Wind Power is not actual as quite more are killed every year worldwide than the nuclear has so far since the start of operation.
Just one single year the Wind Power killed 166 persons worldwide during one single year and the nuclear has killed 40 - 50 persons totally.
Try to lift your mind and find out that nuclear is much secure than Wind Power ever. Why not install SMR-reactors Small Modular Reactors of about 300 MW each.
The radiation from Fukushima represents an increased lungcancerrisk of 1 to 2 percent while smoking do increase it with 1 500 percent.
If you install nuclear than you reach to ability to electrify the whole transport sector and thereby reach a quite higher quality and less polution towards the air. And newer nuclear plants are more secure than the existing although just the Chernobyl a military plant do result in death with no death out of civil plants.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Norwegean were evacuated from Fukushima with direct flight to Norway. One of the main problem was that the radiation level in Norway were higher. Shall we evacuate the whole Norway? What do you suggest. Even the radiation level in the city of Tokyos Shopping center is higher. The same their should we evacuate Tokyo?
4 ( +6 / -2 )
Albaleo The Swedish Svenska Kraftnät with the effective useable windpower as effect of installed rate effect is 6 percent in summer and 11 percent in winter. That means a lot of ineffectiveness with windpower. As the windpower also do need backup-power that will also be unsatifactured circumstances.
That´s ok to be engaged in wind- and sunpower but I think we have much more possibilities to force the development of gen IV and Thorium reactors for the future. During the meantime we can built gen III+.
In the end if you have 5 000 MW nuclear you must have 45 500 MW installed windpower to get the same result in winter. In summer it´s even worse. Do correct me if I am wrong.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Albaleo. The electric production from renewable specially sun power is very minimal. A guy in Sweden have mounted sunpower on every existing roofs of his Ranch and get an income of €120 pro month.
To replace a normal nuclear plant of 1 000 MW it´s needed 600 000 such solar plants.
That means even stooring of sun power will give a minimum of supply to the total effect in the country net. Even though it can impact the momental balance between production and consumption which at every single time have to be equal and of cource a stooring can effect. But the stooring amount will not have much capacity. Sorry.
Normally sunpower gives an income of say €8 pro month with installation costs of €4 500. That means not very economically for your private economy.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
Marcelito The nuclear energy is predictable what the renewables not are. We have tto have a realistic view of the dangerousity with nuclear. People from Norway which were evacuated by specifik extra flights as effect of the Fukushima disaster were evacuated to areas with higher radiation than in Fukushima. British experts have said the evacuation of Japanese people wasn´t needed at all.
The actual radiation level with yeardoses of 120 milliSievert do increase the risk for lungcancer with one percent while smoking do increase the risk to 1 500 percent.
The car traffic is more risky for the health than nuclear is.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
Answer to mmwkdw.
What´s the difference enviromentally betwen electric cycles, eScooters and electrical motorcycles.
Electrifying of cars for example from fossil fuels do go from in Sweden 30 TWh fossil fuel to 10 TWh electric consumption. That means you spare 2/3 of the energy demand but increase the electric demand ut at the same time the reaction of exhaust will give fewer amount of demens illness.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Why only speek of renewable energy as nuclear power is fossil free and ought to do the task even better than renewable do.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
As the prices from nuclear plant are lower than LNG
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
That protective suit would be useful in the center of Tokyo too, then as the radiation value is equally high as in Fukushima. Miss of sence. Why scaring people re nuclear plant as according to British experts now evaquation were needed.
Nuclear is the best to generate electric power. Less killed than from wind power. Less resources needed re civil nuclear than both wind power and sun power.
A nuclear plant of 3 300 MW like ringhals 4 in Sweden corresponds to two million sun power plant if a rather huge plant have an monthly income of €120.
If you have 207 GW nuclear power that corresponds to 126 million sun power plants. That is the complete population in Japan. If we divided it by three it will be 69 GW which demand one huge sun power plant on every household in Japan. I suppose that is close to wath you do have had. Am I right.
Just to get a figure of the effeciency of the sun power. Ridicoulus low as this example show.
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
Sorry but the radiation is even worse in Tokyo central shopping center than at Fukushima and their it doesn´t need any radiation protection at all. As we everyone have an internal radiation meaning that for instance four people together generate more radiation than Harrisburg. Coal power plants do generate during normal operation higher degree of radiation than nuclear plant generate after disaster. What I mean is that we should have a realistic view in all cases. Why not speak about 10 000 killed in water power accident in connection with the tsunami and the earth quake.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
zichi on google crome I search for "Financial times Fukushima disaster" and get the result above from March 2018.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
zichi I found this article from Financial Times dated 2018 that will give some overview according to the disaster.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Hideomi Kuze The nuclear disaster was generated by a Tsunami combined with an earth quake.
A water power station resulted in 10 000 killed but that is not frequently written.
The evacuation was an effect of the Tsunami that destroyed of lot of houses. British experts said the evacuation as effect of the radioactive wasn´t needed. Why put the costs for evacuation on the nuclear bill?
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
We do need nuclear as effect of the overgoing to electric feeded systems like the complete transport sector with cars, busses, trucks, lorries etc. That means all systems that do have wheels and furthermore ship, aeroplane etc. Not planning possible production from renewable is a disaster. Cost much and do make hugh impact on the CO2 exhaust. Germany increased renewable with 100 percent and reduced CO2 with just 2 percent. What´s the meaning with that? High costs, high requirement of resources compared to nuclear.
Why not build Thoriumreactors which use Thorium with an annual growth in the oceans.
That is a renewable planning possible electric source.
-4 ( +0 / -4 )
The risk for lungcancer is 1 500 percent and even passive smoking do represent a higher level for lungcancer.
We can make a comparance. The risk for lungcancer is 1 percent as effect of exposure to the radioactive radiation from Fukushima.
Of cource there is an increased risk but put that in relation to smoking which have a much more healthy risk.
0 ( +3 / -3 )