Pony Talk > Off Topic

I just listened to an interview about the Fukushima meltdown health effects...

(1/3) > >>

A lot of people I've talked to were not aware that the Fukushima nuclear power plant mess from the earthquake/tsunami last year is still not under control and that surprised me.... but then I listened to this video:
It is very long, but if you have the time and need something to do- WOW that was a lot to think about.  :drunk:
What do you guys think about it?  :blink:

Yeah, the reactor is stable now, but still estimated that it's going to take another few decades or so to finish decontamination and decommissioning  of the plant. Radiation sure sticks around a while :\ It's just an absolute tragedy... I'm thankful it wasn't as bad as Chernobyl and all, but still. It's not exactly a relief. They're going to be dealing with the effects of that there for a good while -__- I wonder how effective it really is to consume a high amount of iodine in order to counter the radiation poisoning.... I have in-laws in Japan, and I worry about them being there. It was a very interesting listen, thanks for sharing!


I just listened to the interview.

Nuclear disasters are scary.  They're deadly.  They have a lot of really bad effects, some of them long term.  What happened in Japan is absolutely a tragedy.

But, still, fewer people are killed/given health issues by nuclear power than coal, oil, biomass, hydro, etc., even considering disasters such as Chernobyl. (from  http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html):

Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)Coal – world average161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)Coal – China278Coal – USA15Oil36  (36% of world energy)Natural Gas 4  (21% of world energy) Biofuel/Biomass 12 Peat 12 Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy) Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy) Hydro 0.10 (Europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy) Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead) Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
Nuclear energy currently cleaner (as far as carbon emissions) than almost anything else we have, including solar (due to manufacture of the solar cell and such).  See http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/iea-comparison-of-sources-of.html for a summary of IEA tables or Life-Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Systems and Applications for Climate Change Policy Analysis by Paul Meier, particularly table 6, for more information on CO2 emissions.  Waste storage is, in my opinion, the biggest issue with nuclear.  Nuclear is also fairly efficient.  While I don't think that nuclear power is the final answer, I think it would be a good transition from what we're using now to renewable, sustainable sources as they become efficient and cheap enough for general use.  Unfortunately, with our grid and energy demands, solar, wind and other renewable sources are just not efficient enough.  They work well as additional sources, but are not efficient enough for the whole population to switch entirely to them.  Hopefully someday they'll be able to be used in a wide-spread sort of way, but more significantly research needs to go into their development first.  It is definitely something we have to try to make safer, but from the table above, clearly it's already one of the least deadly ways to generate energy.

Additionally, having looked up the speaker online, it seems his big “claim to fame” is that baking soda cures cancer, so I’m not sure how strongly I buy his other opinions.

But either way, it was interesting and thought provoking.  Thanks for posting it!

Ill have to take an in depth listen a bit later on.  Its unfortunate that it happened to begin with :(


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version