+- +-


Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.

Login with your social network

Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 48
Latest: watcher
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 16867
Total Topics: 271
Most Online Today: 22
Most Online Ever: 1208
(March 28, 2024, 07:28:27 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 7
Total: 7

Forum > Nuke Puke

What A Nuclear Power Plant REALLY IS

(1/2) > >>

"I Want You to Know What a Nuclear Power Plant Is"

by Yasuo Akai

About 5 years ago, I was giving a lecture in Hokkaido. When I said we must keep cooling down the waste for 50 years, and then monitoring it for 300 years, a junior high school girl interrupted me and cried, “who will do it? You say it will take 50 or 300 years. You adults cannot do it. It’s our generation and the next generations who will do it. But we don’t want to do it!” Which of us adults can find an answer for her?

Moreover, it is not just about 50, or 300 years. So long as nuclear power plants are in operation,those years may never come.

Nearby residents are exposed to radiation and discriminated against.

The government and the industry have kept lying to us for decades, saying that no radioactive materials have ever been leaked by Japan’s nuclear power plants. They can no longer doso. Radioactive materials are disgorged from the tall cooling towers intentionally. Radioactive materials are spewed constantly, so those nearby residents are constantly exposed to radiation.

A 23-year-old woman wrote to me, her letter appeared to be smudged by tears. It went like this, “I began my career and met a man in Tokyo. We were engaged, and our families met and exchanged engagement gifts. But this man has suddenly broken our engagement. He says that nothing is wrong with me and he wanted to marry me, but his parents were worried because Ihad lived in Tsuruga City for more than 10 years. As children near the nuclear power plant tend to be born with leukemia, they were afraid that they would have a grandchild with leukemia. His parents do not agree with him. What’s wrong with me?” Of course, there is nothing wrong with her. I sometimes hear these kinds of stories.

This happened in Tokyo, but not in some of the areas near the plants. Frankly, are you happy if your daughter marries a nuclear power plant worker? Or, would you want to marry such a worker? I know that it is insensitive to say this, that it is discrimination. But I argue that we must talk about these kinds of stories. Those standing opposed to nuclear power plants should say that they are not only protesting because horrible accidents can occur, but also because it causes discrimination. These nuclear power plants are also destroying our minds.

Can I have a baby? I don’t care about electricity. I hate the nuclear power plant.

I am going to talk about a story about what happened during my lecture hosted by the Teachers Union in Kyowa Town, which was located near the Tomari Nuclear Power Plant in Hokkaido. I ask that you remember this sometime; you can forget the rest.

The meeting took place in the evening. Half of the audience were parents, and the other half was made up of teachers, but some high school and junior high school students also showed up. They did not take a view such that nuclear power plants were only an adult problem, butrather their problem as well.Finishing my talk, I took some questions. An 8 grade girl, crying, spoke to us, “you adults are liars, hypocrites. I came here to face you all. I wanted to know who you are. You say you are against pesticides, golf courses, and nuclear power plants. You say you do so for your children. I’m sure you’re just pretending to act against all this.

I live in Kyowa Town, near the Tomari nuclear power plant, and I’ve been exposed to radiation. The ratio of babies with leukemia is higher around nuclear facilities in Sellafield, England, than in other places. I know this because I read a book. I’m a girl, and I will probably marry someday. Is it ok for me to have a baby?” No one had an answer for her.

“If a nuclear power plant is that horrible, why didn’t you all go against it more seriously when they started building it? You even allowed them to build a No. 2 reactor. I don’t care about electricity. I hate the nuclear power plant.” The No. 2 reactor of the Tomari Nuclear Power Planthad just been put into operational testing.“For what reason are you meeting here? If I was an adult and I had a baby, I’d use violence to stop it. I wouldn’t hesitate to risk my own life.

“The radiation I’m exposed to is now doubled because of this second reactor, but I won’t leave Hokkaido.”

I asked her if she had ever talked about her anxiety to her mother or teacher. “My mother andteacher are here now, but I’ve never brought this up before,” she said. “We girls always talk about this. We can’t marry. We can’t have a baby.”

I was told that their teachers did not know that they thought this way. An evacuation drill for residents living within 8 or 10-kilometer radius will not solve this anxiety. People 50, or 100 kilometres away from a nuclear power plant are also anxious. You should know that adolescents react to this anxiety vividly.

As long as there are nuclear power plants, we do not feel safe.

Now you know what nuclear power plant is.

You might have heard of the horror of the Chernobyl Accident and felt a little anxious. Yet, you may still think we still need those nuclear power plants, that without them we would have anelectricity shortage. It is especially those who live in cities, distanced from these plants, whomight still view them as a necessary evil.

However, that is because you were always told by the government and the electric power companies about the “peaceful use of nuclear power,” that it is “absolutely safe,” and that “Japan has no natural resources.”   They spend huge amount of money for this propaganda.

They hide, for example, the Monju Accident.

The nuclear power plants generate electricity, but the thing is that they cannot work without exposing plant workers to radiation. That is what I have seen and experienced for 20 years. Moreover, nuclear power plants destroy local communities. When one is built, it divides the residents into two camps, and when it is put into operation, it exposes those residents to radiation and opens innocent people up to discrimination.

You may know that a nuclear power plant can cause a horrible accident and still think that it is really safe, that everything will be fine. You may agree with the possibility of peaceful uses for nuclear power. But think about this: the workers are dying of exposure and the residents are suffering—you cannot call this peaceful use.

Even if it was safe, you could not feel safe. You can never feel safe as long as it exists. Moreover at this moment, nuclear power plants appear to generate electricity. However, in order to manage radioactive waste for tens of thousands of years, it needs much more electricity and oil. The energy needed to manage that waste must be higher than the energy that the plants have been generating. Additionally, it will be our children and grandchildren who manage thewaste and the closed reactors.

How can you say that this is peaceful use of nuclear power? I repeat. There is never a peaceful use.
Therefore I ask you; please look at the face of your children and grandchildren every morning and ask yourself, why. Why is only Japan still building nuclear power plants? There are accidents, and earthquakes. If we do not act now, irreversible damage will be done, you must see this.

So I am acting against these nuclear power plants. I am absolutely against building new ones,and I argue that those plants in operation must be stopped.

As long as those nuclear power plants exist, there is no peace.

A peaceful planet for children

Translator’s note:The original text (in Japanese) is here:http://www.iam-t.jp/HIR AI/pageall.html This site says the author Norio Hirai was an engineer specializing in plant pipeline, and died in January, 1997. Translated by Yasuo Akai -- revised by Jayda Fogel


--- Quote --- More Mutations in Fukushima Butterflies
Researchers have found an increase in butterflies with unusual wing shapes, legs, and antennae than before the nuclear disaster.
--- End quote ---
Source: International Science Times                                   

--- Quote --- Butterflies collected from sites near Fukushima 2 months after the power plant leaked radiation into the environment showed more than double the mutation rates of butterflies collected from other sites in Japan. The researchers, who hail from University of the Ryukyus, Okinawa, reported their findings last week (August 9) in Scientific Reports.

Indeed, each subsequent generation arising from the first radiation-affected butterflies had more severe physical abnormalities than its parent generation. Part of this can be explained by the passing down of damaged genes, but an additional factor, the researchers say, was that butterflies ate contaminated food in the area, which can be more damaging than external exposure.
“It has been believed that insects are very resistant to radiation,” lead researcher Joji Otaki from the University of the Ryukyus, Okinawa, told BBC News. “In that sense, our results were unexpected.”
--- End quote ---


Right! The negative stuff is ALWAYS "unexpected". Sure. NOT! It's true that mammals are more affected because they have more easily disrupted DNA but insects are considered just as susceptible as mamals to increased mutations from generation to generation. This has been conclusively proven for more than 70 YEARS! Drosphila melanogastor (the fruit fly) is one of science's pet torture specimens.

Drosophila melanogaster

They breed rapidly and genetic effects can be studied for several generations in a brief time period. Scientists love to experment with them. They are cheap and its easy to keep a control group and monitor statistically valid populations for peer review publication requirements.

--- Quote ---For purposes of assessing the risks of environmental exposure to radionuclide emissions, the genetic effects and in utero developmental effects are the only health hazards other than cancer that are addressed in this Background Information Document (BID) ,

6.5.1 Types of Genetic Harm and Duration of Expression

Genetic harm (or the genetic effects) of radiation exposure is defined as stable, heritable changes induced in the germ cells (eggs or sperm) of exposed individuals, which are transmitted to and expressed only in their progeny and in future generations,
--- End quote ---

--- Quote ---Chromosomal damage and mutations have been demonstrated in cells in culture, in plants, in insects, and in mammals (UNSCEAR72,77,82), and in peripheral blood lymphocytes sf persons exposed to radiation (UNSCEAR82, Ev79, Po78) ,
--- End quote ---

--- Quote ---Early experiimental studies showed that x-radiation is mutagenic, In 1927, R.J, Muller reported radiation-induced genetic changes in animals, and in 1928, L-J. Stadler reported such changes in piants (Ki62j.

Although genetic studies were carried out in the 1930s, mostly in plants and fruit flies (Drosophila), the studies on mammals started after the use of nuclear weapons in World War II (UNSCEAR58).
--- End quote ---

Gamma radiation is more powerful than x-rays so it was a nobrainer even BEFORE the bomb that radionuclides would be multigenerationally mutagenic.

I hate it when scientists play dumb. >:(

--- Quote ---In 1927, H.J. Muller described x-rayinduced mutations in animals (in the insect, Drosophila), and in 1928, L.J, Stadler reported a similar finding in plants (Ki62).

At about the same time, radiation effects on the developing human embryo were observed. Case reports in 1929 showed a high rate of microcephaly (small head size) and central nervous system disturbance and one case of skeletal defects in children irradiated in utero (UNSCEAR69).

These effects, at unrecorded but high exposures and at generally unrecorded gestational ages, appeared to produce central nervous system and eye defects similar to those reported in rats as early as 1922 (Xu50)-
--- End quote ---



Unexpected?  ??? NO WAY!

Nuclear Energy Verdict: Very Disappointing  :P

by Giles Parkinson

The story we published on Friday comparing the costs of new nuclear, now that they have been defined by contract signed by the UK Government for the construction of the $24 billion Hinkley C facility – with clean energy alternatives such as wind and solar, certainly generated a lot of interest, and comment.

Since then, we have received an analysis from Deutsche Bank, which makes some other observations about the cost of nuclear, the comparisons with gas, the price of abatement, and the cost of upkeep for France’s existing fleet.

The first point made by Deutsche is that this deal underlines the fact that nuclear is not cheap, but really, really expensive – a point that should not be forgotten in Australia, where there is still a push for nuclear in some quarters despite the abundant alternatives (in particular solar) that are not available to the UK.

As we have noted in the other article, the £92.50/MWh strike price is nearly double the current average cost of generation in the UK. Deutsche takes issue with the UK government’s claim that the contract is “competitive with other large-scale clean energy and with gas’.  It notes that this contract would only be cheaper than gas generation if the crude oil price (to which UK gas is linked) averages more than $150 barrel in real terms over the next 40 years. This, says Deutsche Bank, is around 3 times the average oil price over the last 40 years, and a 50 per cent premium to the average oil price over the last 5 years.

“Such comparisons do not show that this nuclear contract will be more expensive than gas generation (in 40 years), since conditions in the future may be very different from those of the past,” the Deutsche analysts write. “ However it does demonstrate that signing the proposed nuclear contract would commit the UK to buying electricity which would be expensive by historic standards.” It later describes the 35 year contract as “a poor trade for reducing risk.”

Then Deutsche Bank looks at the carbon cost of nuclear. It calculates that if the oil price were to remain at the current level of $100/barrel (in real terms), the cost of gas generation would be around £68/MWh (before paying for carbon emissions). Taking into account the amount of carbon emissions saved and the extra generation costs of nuclear, the nuclear generation comes at an implied cost of £65/tonne of carbon dioxide saved.

It notes that this carbon cost is more than ten times higher than the current traded price of carbon emissions in the EU ETS, is roughly twice the targeted level of the UK carbon price floor in 2020 set out by the Treasury in December 2011 (£30/tonne in 2009 prices), although it is less than the  £70/tonne price floor envisaged in 2030.

It says that nuclear is only justified in the UK if the government is serious about largely decarbonising the electricity grid by 2030, as has been canvassed by the UK’s Climate Change Council – the UK equivalent of the Climate Change Authority that Tony Abbott wants to disband. Deutsche notes that it does not meet UK’s short term needs to meet its 2020, which likely be met with more wind and biomass.

The CCC envisaged several scenarios to cut the UK’s carbon emissions to 50g/CO2-eMWh by 2030. The first scenario, see graph below, envisages 18GW of new nuclear. Deutsche Bank says this would require 5 more new nuclear facilities the size of Hinkley to be built within 16 years – not  only is such a target “hugely ambitious”, Deutsche says it would still be “not be nearly enough in itself to meet such a decarbonisation target.”

The UK would need at least as much wind generation as nuclear, and  some low-carbon flexible generation. Deutsche also notes that CCS is highly ambitious, as the technology is not proven, which leaves the most likely scenarios as being high renewables, or high energy efficiency, both of which leave wind and other renewables providing more than 50 per cent of the UK’s generation by 2030.

And just in case anyone feels like arguing that it is just new-build and new generation nuclear that is costly, this graph below (at article link) should blow a few misconceptions.

It’s another from the Deutsche Bank team, and it shows the estimated capital expenditure requirement for the EdF fleet of nuclear reactors in France. Note that it is significantly higher than the original cost of the reactors in the 1970s and 1980s. Deutsche Bank says consumer electricity prices are being jacked up to meet some of that cost, but it estimates that EdF will need to spend €55 billion ($79 billion), a situation that will leave it in a cash-flow negative situation (It already has an €85 billion debt :P).

As Deutche Bank noted, any investment in new reactors would need to be funded on top of the refurbishment budget. Given that it is already cash-flow negative and has such a huge debt, few people have any clue how that could possibly be done. Which is why EdF’s major shareholder, the French government, is looking to reduce the share of nuclear in France’s generation to around 50 per cent from more than 70 per cent, and intends to fill that hole with (cheaper) renewables.

Still, Deutsche Bank notes that EdF has effectively handballed the risk of new nuclear to consumer and the UK government. The consumer is picking up the tab through higher electricity bills, and the UK government is using taxpayers money to guarantee 65 per cent of the project cost.  With the involvement of Chinese nuclear interests, that leaves EdF with an exposure of just £3.5 billion

Giles Parkinson is the founding editor of RenewEconomy.com.au, an Australian-based website that provides news and analysis on cleantech, carbon, and climate issues. Giles is based in Sydney and is watching the (slow, but quickening) transformation of Australia's energy grid with great interest.


Agelbert NOTE:The really weird thing abut nuclear power plants is that the MORE YOU PAY  to build and run these poison energy factories, the more CANCER CLUSTERS you have. No wonder the big cancer research centers just love NUCLEAR MEDICINE! Nuclear power plants assure a continued stream of costumers for RADIATION THERAPY. It's a conscience free predator's dream "business" model (they get the money and you get the "business" 😈).


And Fukushima will bring MORE and MORE because it takes about 300 YEARS for ALL the cesium-137 to spread all over the planet since they started the atomic explosions to "HELP EVOLVE" our species.

I am engaged in a small dust up in regard to the deleterious effects of Nuclear power on the planet in general and our species in particular. Here's an update of the give and take. 

Poland Builds Electronic Wall To Keep Out German Renewableshttp://cleantechnica.com/2013/11/22/poland-builds-electronic-wall-keep-german-renewables/#DQlksfx5MxkhX3xG.99

Poland should really consider nuclear energy, now that time is running out.  Building solar panels is a joke in sun scarce Poland, and wind alone isn't going to fill the gap.
1 △  3 ▽

Here's  what nuclear energy has done to "accelerate" the "evolution" of Humans thanks to the 300 year "gift" that Pandora's Nuclear Box just keeps giving and giving.


RobertPPruitt > agelbert 
Just so you know, coal power plants release 100 times more radioactive material into the air   when burned(mostly uranium thorium and polonium . This settles into all our water and soil, and coal has been burning a LOT longer and there are LOT more of them than Nuclear plants.
A few releases of radiation from nuclear accidents is no match for the amount of radiation we have pumped into our food, water supply, and our bodies from coal for all these many decades....not by a long shot.

But most modern plants do catch most of it now, but the damage has been done.
Oh, and don't forget the radon gas that is almost completely released into the air....good stuff

Just so you know!, There has never been a case of a severely muted human baby from people that live in coal country.

And coal is a false comparison anyway! Was that in your propaganda 101 course to always try say "coal " is worse as if we have either coal or nuclear? 

Don't you ever get tired of repeating the same low IQ propaganda lies? Do you understand how Cesium-137 is immediately taken up in all the muscle tissue of mammals because our biochemistry believes it is the much needed nutrient called Potassium?

I guess not. You will reap what you have sown. Count on it. Have a nice day.

RobertPPruitt > agelbert 
Oh I know exactly how bad it is. I also know that the CDC and WHO traveled the world examining bodies and came up with somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 MILLION people die in the world EVERY year from the affects of pollution. Of which a very large percentage comes from coal.

I don't care if the Japanese packed up and walked away from Fukushima today and never went back it would never reach the yearly death toll that coal has. Coal just isn't considered as dangerous because it doesn't cause the visible affects that radiation can. Does not make it safer, not by a long shot.

If 3 million are dying yearly, just imagine what it is doing to EVERY human it doesn't kill. Also before coal was in widespread use for home heating cancer was actually pretty rare in the world. And chimney sweeps(coal not wood) were the first to develop occupational cancer, (of the scrotum no less) in the mid-late 1700's. After that cancer began a steady rise. I know of no study that links a rise in world wide cancers to nuclear plants coming online, or even enough of a local rise where nuclear accidents have happened to even panic over when compared to the overall cancer rates.

In 2006 Greenpeace(and we know what they're full of)  released a report from 52 "respected" scientists on the affects of Chernobyl and even they found that less than 200,000 extra deaths could be attributed to Chernobyl in what? 15 or so years? Way over 7 MILLION people die every year from cancer. Even that retarded organizations inflated numbers(always about everything) barely amount to a statistical anomaly. Fukushima is going to have to be MUCH more deadly to have any kind of real impact on cancer rates. But we know for a fact that coal has killed many many millions of people around the world.

But yes, we would do well to get rid of both nuclear and coal. But based on the science and deaths, coal needs to be gotten rid of first, and the sooner the better, since it's affects will likely last for many generations to come.

"But yes, we  would do well to   must get rid of both nuclear and coal."


But you fail to recognize the nuclear corruption rabbit hole in regard to the  Agreement the WHO has with the IAEA to not publish any epidemiological study of cancer clusters around nuclear power plants, internal organ damaging radionuclide dosage differences in DNA destruction far below the IAEA "safe" dosage levels for radionuclides in food, and much more that has contributed to the deaths of over 8 million human beings since Chernobyl alone!

WHO has been hamstrung by the IAEA for over half a century! Do the math. If the "horror" of coal was so much worse than nuclear, why has the WHO been gagged by the IAEA but not by king coal?

Take just 8 minutes of your time and watch this French video with English subtitles. Learn the truth. Then look at this map of Cesium-137 deposition in the USA <b>before</b> Fukushima.


It's much worse now and cesium-137 does not exist in nature. Do you think our cancer rate went from one in ten in the 1950s to one in three now because of coal? Coal is much more "profitable" than nuclear power but only the nuke pukes could muzzle the WHO. Why? Because if the truth was known, all nuclear power plants would be forced to close, period. You stated that "WAY over 7 million people die a year of cancer". Well, guess what? The increase in cancer rate on the planet is directly proportional to the amount of Cesium-137 (and some other radionuclides poison deposition) and inversely proportional to the distance from nuclear power plants!

It was never about cheap electricity. It was always about making plutonium for bombs off the public dime and to hell with the DNA destruction of children and population cancer clusters. The nuclear industry, like the fossil fuel industry, externalized the health costs that have degraded human DNA in order to make bombs and some money. You do not get more low down than that!

You have no idea whatsoever about the massive damage already baked into our DNA from this nuclear monstrosity. Both fossil fuel burning and nuclear fission must be ended if we are to survive on this planet. The more immediate danger is nuclear. Watch the video and do the research on the cruel, conscience free "agreement" between the WHO and IAEA that has done uncountable damage to Homo sapiens for the sake of nuclear profits.

Out of about 8,000 people at the WHO, two were assigned to work on radionuclide effects and safe dosages! That's criminal insanity!

Chernobyl and Fukushima Cesium-137 deposition maps.

Renewable Revolution


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

+-Recent Topics

Future Earth by AGelbert
March 30, 2022, 12:39:42 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
March 29, 2022, 08:20:56 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
March 28, 2022, 01:12:42 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
March 27, 2022, 02:27:28 pm

Heat Pumps by AGelbert
March 26, 2022, 03:54:43 pm

Defending Wildlife by AGelbert
March 25, 2022, 02:04:23 pm

The Koch Brothers Exposed! by AGelbert
March 25, 2022, 01:26:11 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
March 25, 2022, 12:46:08 pm

Books and Audio Books that may interest you 🧐 by AGelbert
March 24, 2022, 04:28:56 pm

COVID-19 🏴☠️ Pandemic by AGelbert
March 23, 2022, 12:14:36 pm

Go to full version