Will we have to tighten our belts next winter?

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
User avatar
Rabbit
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 823
Registration: 22/07/05, 23:50
x 2

Will we have to tighten our belts next winter?




by Rabbit » 01/05/11, 22:14

I have been the radioactive cloud of Fukushima for some time:
http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/weather/ ... a?VAR=zamg

And I'm starting to wonder if the Chinese grain (rice ..) and
the grain of north america (corn, wheat, soybeans etc.) will not be too
contaminates to be consumable. Same question about
fish or fish, meat and vegetables produced in
these regions.

Maybe I have an unjustified anxiety attack as much as
nobody has raised the subject.
Milk appears to be slightly iodine contaminated.
http://lci.tf1.fr/monde/asie/2011-03/fu ... 39049.html
But what about cesium and other radioactive substances?
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 01/05/11, 22:27

Anorexia will be very trendy ...
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 02/05/11, 02:06

A tenth of Chernobyl, much closer to us and therefore ten times smaller except close enough !!
The nuclear tests of the 50s to 70s contaminated more and killed more on a global scale without being talked about !!
So calculate the number of additional deaths with 1/10000 cancer and other deaths on all the inhabitants of the earth !!
But it is not measurable and much less than junk food and pollution.
Make calorie restriction and eat pectin and fruits preventively !!
Except close around Fukushima or Chernobyl by bad luck plates or particles in the body of the microgram inhaled or ingested.
0 x
Addrelyn
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 166
Registration: 16/07/10, 11:28




by Addrelyn » 02/05/11, 08:44

: Lol:

So there it is true, I forgot the dead by starvation because they are too afraid to eat because food may be radioactive ...

: Mrgreen: : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen:

More than 30 km from the power plant, nothing is dangerous ... But do as you wish.
By this winter, there will be no more iodine (or something like 10 times less)
2 ^ 6 * 30/8
Last edited by Addrelyn the 02 / 05 / 11, 10: 24, 1 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 02/05/11, 09:33

And hop, we did not have to wait long for some to swim right in the slurry :x

Addrelyn, a “burned out” nuclear industry sales associate, wrote:: Lol:

So there it is true, I forgot the morts by famine because hes are too afraid to eat because food mayent to be radioactives... : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen:


Indecency and unconsciousness are back ...

https://www.econologie.com/forums/post201180.html#201180

Addrelyn, a “burned out” nuclear industry sales associate, wrote:More than 30 km from the power plant, nothing is dangerous... but do as you wish.
By this winter, there will be no more iodine (or something like 10 times less)
2 ^ 6 * 30/8


tssss, in Fukushima too, radioactivity is docile and stops at borders ...! N'importenawak.

Go live there, or move to Tokyo to get some fresh air.
0 x
Addrelyn
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 166
Registration: 16/07/10, 11:28




by Addrelyn » 02/05/11, 10:29

Please correct my Obamot faults, I will be more careful ...

The cloud does not stop, it dissolves. Anyway I will not convince you then ...
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79115
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 02/05/11, 10:36

Uh, I'm going to side with the nuclear defenders.

On the health side: the only people who risk being hungry are the Japanese from the "zone" who ate their vegetable garden or who lost their businesses / jobs and the paranos of the whole world ...

On the economic side, on the other hand, this effectively risks raising prices ... as biofuels did indirectly in 2007 ... and therefore that the poorest could be hungry.

All excuses are good for these psychopaths of traders to raise prices and do not give a damn ... : Evil:
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 02/05/11, 10:50

Exactly!

We don't really see why we should be either nuclear engineerEither anti-nuclear. It is as if we were asked to be for or against collective suicide.

There are really only those who defend the interests of the nuclear lobby to oppose each other!

I am neither for one system nor for the other but for the best systems after weighing the real interest in the planet and living species. And relating to the needs of their use ...

Once man has intervened in the genetic chain through his technophile delusions, and he has noticed the damage, I think it is high time to stop ...

As soon as Ramundo reminded us, all the alternatives are known, profitable and operational ... Any pragmatic mind, endowed with a functioning brain, will conclude without any primary anti-nuclear activity that we have to get out of this place as soon as possible.

And as Christophe says, there will always be some to take advantage of the misfortunes of others ...
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 02/05/11, 11:08

Addrelyn, pro-nuclear who mocks defending the interests of a technologically outdated industry wrote:The cloud does not stop, it dissolves. Either way I won't to convince so...


It is not about "to convince", or even to conquer, but to understand!

It is not about "conviction", but skills, which does not seem to be a strong point after having made such remarks ... whose absurdity is only equaled by the stupidity with which they are defended (the correction of faults is sometimes a good indicator ...)

It is not about "conviction", but pragmatism, nuclear, we were very happy to have it for a while ... even if we forced our hand ... And especially that we were deceived about its "safety" !!! With immeasurable hypocrisy, since insurance companies only cover minimal damage. Any policy, in any industrial sector offers better coverage! Again, all of this should be left to the courts.

It would be high time to recognize that it was a monumental error of the industry which needed a source of continuous and reliable supply by pure oportunism ... failing to be economic in the very long term... To satisfy the siren of "exclusive" economic needs in the short and medium term ...

However the situation has changed with the awareness of the limits of what can give "the unlimited exploitation of finite and limited resources" ... All the waste that we do now, will pay immensely expensive later ... It is time to stop, as soon as possible ...

It has only been a short time since we developed heat storage in the ground, which was the weak point of solar energy (see that of thermal solar, which stores very well in molten sand or salt or even massive concrete blocks the size of a house ... for almost ten hours).

Therefore, there is really no point in worrying:
- supply since with a belt of power stations in the deserts, the latter would be continuous ...
- cost, since apart from the maintenance of the installations, the source is "free".
- gray energy in desert areas for buildings, it's peanut ...
- power plants could be dedicated to electrolysis or something ... In order to build fuel cells ...

All that is discussed, as well as the choice of society that we want ... But the exit from nuclear power cannot be discussed. Because it makes no sense to continue, even if we are still made promises ...
0 x
pb2488
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 837
Registration: 17/08/09, 13:04




by pb2488 » 02/05/11, 11:20

Obamot wrote:We don't really see why we should be either nuclear engineerEither anti-nuclear. It is as if we were asked to be for or against collective suicide.

Neither for nor against in a post ... and in the following:
Obamot wrote:
Addrelyn, pro-nuclear who mocks defending the interests of a technologically outdated industry wrote:(...)
Obamot wrote:All that is discussed, as well as the choice of society that we want ... But the exit from nuclear power cannot be discussed. Because it makes no sense to continue, even if we are still made promises ...
:?: :?: :?:


Obamot wrote:There are really only those who defend the interests of the nuclear lobby to oppose each other!
I think there are others unfortunately ... :| :|
0 x
"The truth can not be defined as the majority opinion:
The truth is what follows from the observation of facts. "

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 297 guests