Understanding nuclear: reactions, radioactivity, waste

[pb2488]

Addrelyn: ditto, that's all that abject and ignorant manipulators can inspire me.

I repeat myself, it is, just, not of your opinion ...

[Obamot]

How many times will it be necessary to repeat, that here:
- it is not like in a "journalistic model" where the same speaking time would be given: as much to those with borderline criminal behavior as their victims. No, no way to put the journalists in his pocket ... or to hover the threat that they would be fired if the comments made did not please the government or Areva / Tepco (as happens in Japan) nan, no way... ;-)
- so we can't say anything "In the name of pluralism", without being pulled up the suspenders ^^.
- the victims are therefore 'naturally' taken into account (without denial and without victimization).
- we just take care of them because they exist and we could well be among the next on the list ...
- we deal with it because the danger is real and that in order to do early prevention, we still need to understand. It is still necessary to know where this prevention should apply. This is what does not happen in nuclear power, or the fact of not having your eyes in front of the holes ends up making you blind. So the denial ...
- we have known for a while that nuclear energy, which has been sold to the population as the supposedly safest industry - if not the most expensive - is swimming in the "experimental";
- we have known for a while that nobody knows exactly what to do in the event of a major accident or how far it will go, for example how many people will be killed in Asia because of the contamination? ...

... then with your sly little denial, very badly "calculated", you make very sad rascals indecrottable.

addrelyn, paid by the nuclear lobby, to denigrate, only looks at mechanical appearances: we multiply by 400, which make people laugh, but not the numerous biological and epidemiological studies referenced at the base, which he does not analyze for a second does having never read them !!
Denial at this stage is an insult to the dead and a danger to society in general and to democracy in particular.

It does not explain errors precisely, it disparages !!
It is not Busby but an armada of specific studies in many countries, on specific facts, unrelated to Busby, which are deceived in a misleading manner.

Perfectly Dedelco, and we note unfortunately that during this time the denial does not prevent people from dying:

[...] Belgian children have been infected [...]

Chernobyl has caused cancer in Belgium, announces an endocrine gland specialist at the Mont-Godinne hospital, Doctor Luc Michel.

http://www.rtbf.be/info/societe/detail_ ... id=5973493

And in the tip of the iceberg we find "our 6%" in adults (cancers) and even 33% in children for the same pathology. And I said 1000 cases per country, or for the only 'small' Belgium. it's 1700 cases! There it's simple, just deduct the "Normal risk of death, especially from cancer" to be fixed on the final result relating to the specific case (very low for this type of affection, except smokers ...) no need to veil the face gentlemen denigrators.

After all we say whatever we want, alas the victims are there

[pb2488]

- so we can't say anything "In the name of pluralism", without being pulled up the suspenders ^^.

Getting the straps up, why not. But what good are all these insults ???

... then with your sly little denial, very badly "calculated", you make very sad rascals indecrottable.

- the victims are therefore 'naturally' taken into account (without denial and without victimization).

Without victimization ???

- (...) we may well be among the next on the list ...

Because impute on 70 years 120 million cancer exclusively in Chernobyl, sorry before knowing more, I would not follow you on this path ...

[Obamot]

Because instrumentalizing the death of victims - as you do de facto - by not recognizing the merits of their past suffering, or of the causes thereof, is not one of the most heinous insults there is ?

Ok, sorry Mr wire ripper, I correct by the factual:

- with your perpetual sly and very badly "evaluated" denials, you make pitiful indecrottable polemists.

[dedeleco]

You come out of peremptory assertions and certainties, while these are measurable facts in epidemiological studies which after precise analyzes, scientifically become certainties, like tobacco kills, asbestos kills, etc ... and low doses kill far more than is currently accepted, even the children of the irradiated, and as in the past very underestimated, as for tobacco and asbestos, and many others.
You did not read anything (no reaction and total silence) of the links that I put and the extracts that I put, while the discussion should be on these precise facts, and also on the studies referenced on the pdf of 258 pages put previously and not on appearances or insults !!
And not on feelings, but on facts, more deaths exist, in the form of a lot of diseases, growing cancers, and also for our descendants with their damaged DNA!

[pb2488]

A nuclear sanctuary designed to last 1000 centuries:

Onkalo ("hiding place" in Finnish) is located in Olkiluoto in Finland, about 300 km north-west of Helsinki. This is the world's first attempt to build a permanent, rock-cut storage facility that must operate for 100.000 years because that is the time required to render this type of waste harmless.

http://www.enerzine.com/2/12034+un-sanc ... cles+.html

[sen-no-sen]

Burying waste, thinking that it will protect against the ravages of time is an intellectual scam.
If the nuclear industry wants to take up a challenge, then it has to make its waste safe.
This requires working on cutting-edge research, but apparently this is not part of the priority objectives.
As usual the choices retained remain those of the economy ...

[pb2488]

If the nuclear industry wants to take up a challenge, then it has to make its waste safe.

She also works there

[sen-no-sen]

There is still a lot of effort to be made ... starting by moving towards other types of nuclear reactor, which does not confirm the current "orientations" ...

[Obamot]

A nuclear sanctuary designed to last 1000 centuries:

Onkalo ("hiding place" in Finnish) is located in Olkiluoto in Finland, about 300 km north-west of Helsinki. This is the world's first attempt to build a permanent, rock-cut storage facility which must work for 100.000 years because it is the time necessary to make this type of waste harmless.

http://www.enerzine.com/2/12034+un-sanc ... cles+.html

So offensive for 100 years... We told you so ! The nuke: it is the safest energy in the world ...

... it's harmless ... long after! When everyone is dead

Notice, it's not even true! 100 years is just the half-life of the half-life ...

The metal in the reactor vessels has a lifespan of less than a century ... so 100 years ... what materials will the drums make them from? Poured into glass, we know ... but after?

How much will it cost to rent these storage areas, maintain them, and pay the amount of surveillance personnel? His sanitary control? Maintenance of infrastructure and their regular dismantling? Are these costs included in the price per kW / h over ... 100 years ...? Why did the Russians (who know nuclear power) decided that the safest way to store this was to do it on the surface?

In short, all that is always pipo, to be able to say "you see that it is possible ... we deal with it" ... In the meantime the Germans wish to dismantle their underground storage, which did not hold in a few decades ... then 100 years ... how stupid to pretend that it will be "safe" ... With us we know all that with our road and rail tunnels: push of 000mm per year, collapses frequent which must be repaired regularly, water infiltration which must be evacuated, sudden rise in water on certain sections which are infiltrated, fires (remember the Mt Blanc tunnel) and Last but not least... how to dismantle and what to do when it burns?

All these questions and many others that remain mostly unanswered to date ...

If the nuclear industry wants to take up a challenge, then it has to make its waste safe.

She also works there

What is your goal? Nuclear promotion? Do you work there?