The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Nuclear power and water scarcity > Comments

Nuclear power and water scarcity : Comments

By Sue Wareham and Jim Green, published 26/10/2007

Drought stricken Australia can ill-afford to replace a water-thirsty coal industry with an even thirstier one: nuclear power.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. Page 13
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. 16
  13. 17
  14. All
Dickie, I expect that KAEP hasn't a clue about much beyond his own patent opinions. One of his/her more splendid ideas involves Australia in launching rockets from the mountains of New Guinea to establish energy transmitters between the orbits of Mercury and Venus, to harvest solar energy to save our planet. Yes, and KAEP alleges he/she knows a lot about thermodynamics.

As for responding any more to KAEP, I am saving my breath. With persistence, I could probably teach a budgie to count to 5, but no-one's ever going to teach the dear little thing to add and subtract.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Sunday, 4 November 2007 9:29:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Radon 222 causes about 32000 cancer deaths per year in the USA, mostly from radon trapped in houses and in miners (not only uranium miners) working underground.

As Radon 222 has a half life of less than 4 hours, and its most toxic daughters of less than 1 hr, and nuclear plants hold the gas for 100s of half lives, unless you work directly in the uranium cycle, the chance of Joe Bloggs getting cancer from the Radon 222 emitted from the nuclear industry is probably of the order of getting lung cancer from someone smoking outside 100km away.

Radon does not stick to dust particles, only some of its daughters (<1hr half life). There is more risk to your health from inhaling the dust than the radon.

The risks of the nuclear industry are well enough documented without having to make up any.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 5 November 2007 2:45:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Radon 222 causes about 32000 cancer deaths per year in the USA, mostly from radon trapped in houses and in miners (not only uranium miners) working underground and this is constant background radiation and has ZIP to do with proposed safe Australian PBR (Condom jacketed)nuclear reactors or any safe proposed nuclear research programs.

Effete scare campaigns as a distraction from Howard's penny-pinching, immigraphantic, up-the-USA-garden-path-economic-collapse Fiscal mismanagement are the Libs's current blitzkrieg stratagem so Shadow Minister would have to be a Liberal supporter IMHO.

Current unsafe yellowcake export contracts which Shadow is too weak to ever stop must be supplanted by safe PBR export industries with strong research into oceanic subduction zone disposal of PBR pebbles that will have additional plastic coatings to suppress any gaseous RAs escaping.

The chance of Joe Bloggs getting cancer from the Radon or Krypton emitted from the nuclear industry is probably of the order of getting lung cancer from someone smoking outside 100km away.

Radon & Krypton do not stick to dust particles. There is more risk to your health from inhaling the dust.

The risks of the nuclear industry in Australia today are well enough documented. Although ridiculously insignificant compared to human fight-to-the-death overpopulation and defecation of the planet, all Nuclear industry risks can be reduced and in some cases, totally removed.

But without a Total-Nuclear-Industries policy in Australia, which must remain effectively always under public (NOT PRIVATE) control, those documented risks will never be REDUCED.
Posted by KAEP, Monday, 5 November 2007 3:58:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister

I agree that it is the radon progeny which adheres to dust particles. However, without a parent, there is no progeny. The daughters of Rn222 are the radionuclides responsible for lung cancer.

When radon gas is allowed to build up in an enclosed space, such as a mine shaft or basement, the radioactive hazard increases enormously because of the build-up of radon progeny.

Conversely, when radon gas migrates through the atmosphere, the solid radon progeny are deposited on the soil and water below, entering into the food chain and hence the bodies of birds, animals, fish and insects.

"As Radon 222 has a half life of less than 4 hours, and its most toxic daughters of less than 1 hr,....."

Well you get a FAIL from me for that blunder, Shadow.

Polonium 210 has a half-life of 138 days

Radon 222 (Rn222) has a half life of 3.8 days.

If at first you don't succeed, why go on and make a fool of yourself?
Posted by dickie, Monday, 5 November 2007 5:11:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dickie,

Ignorance is bliss and if youv'e got it you flaunt it. Obviously neither reading nor maths are your strong points.

I said the "most toxic" progeny i.e. the ones recognised as actually causing death in the general populace. The very short half life of the 4 most toxic progeny mean that radon inhaled has a high concentration of radiation in the lungs from which nearly all deaths occur

After the most radioactive isotopes decay, they become lead 210 with a half life of 22 years which comparitively is inert, so the amount of polonium 210 is so small that its effect is not measureable.

As for ground take up, radon is continuously emitted from the ground in quantities that would dwarf any present or future emissions from human involvement, and even that is dwarfed by other radio activity from solar radiation, carbon 14, etc.

The scope of the threat is covered in the following link (which does not use too many big words) or maybe Kaep could give you some pointers.

http://www.cheec.uiowa.edu/misc/radon_occ.pdf
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 6 November 2007 9:52:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So, KAEP, ("Nuclear can't harm us and it can save us from the sweeping disorder that will arise when petrol reaches >$5/litre in less than a decade") where's YOUR plutonium powered Delorean?

http://www.VoteNuclearFree.net
Posted by Atom1, Tuesday, 6 November 2007 12:57:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. Page 13
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. 16
  13. 17
  14. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy