Is nuclear the way to go?

[WhiteBlue]

Making a mistake should not lead you to forget the target, but to effectively hit it without doing the same mistake again.

Pain should not be forgoten but also you should not live with fear of it.

There is no way a large percentage of humans can stop being greedy. Greedy bastards are useful anyways.

If you are against nuke AND carbon then you should not live inside a house, get dressed, use cosmetics, drive or use any transport, use any electronic device and eat anything you have to pay for. Because you cant be against something you use.

And a final thought: the only energy production method that is close to almost free unlimited energy is nuclear.
Now, Im not saying actual nuke energy plants are fine, but the biggest leap foward we can do as earth inhabitants is inside this field. We are not going to extract more magical properties out of fosils or wind and sun.

Please Belatti, nuclear is not 'free' it comes with the biggest danger the human race is likely to face from its own actions.

Please re-read the part of the text I coloured for you in red.

The biggest danger the human race is likely to face is its own stupidity. We can kill ourselves with nukes or with stones.

I think the Europeans have a different view compared to Americans (south+north) on this issue. I have lived under the nuclear fall out cloud and I know the feeling of not knowing what will happen as a consequence.

There have been scientifically sound reports about increased levels of birth defects at the time of maximum fall out in Germany and Turkey that cannot be denied. Those studies have been made under conditions of medical sophistication and accuracy that were not available in Ukaine, Belarus and Russia before, during and after the fall out occurred. These studies testify to the human suffering occurring thousands of kilometers away from the maximum impact zone. These babies did not die but were born with serious problems like morbus Basedow and other lifetime health problems due to Chernobyl. How much more will the population in the immediately hit areas suffer from such problems.

The nuclear proponents only look at immediate death and long term death by radiation and neglect that there are many known illnesses, birth defects and psychic conditions that are increased by number, aggravated or induced by nuclear fall out. If you are far away over the ocean you can nicely philosophize. It is different when you realize that a similar type of primitive reactor has been operating in your own nation or in the neighborhood.

[flynfrog]

I think the Europeans have a different view compared to Americans (south+north) on this issue. I have lived under the nuclear fall out cloud and I know the feeling of not knowing what will happen as a consequence.

There have been scientifically sound reports about increased levels of birth defects at the time of maximum fall out in Germany and Turkey that cannot be denied. Those studies have been made under conditions of medical sophistication and accuracy that were not available in Ukaine, Belarus and Russia before, during and after the fall out occurred. These studies testify to the human suffering occurring thousands of kilometers away from the maximum impact zone. These babies did not die but were born with serious problems like morbus Basedow and other lifetime health problems due to Chernobyl. How much more will the population in the immediately hit areas suffer from such problems.

The nuclear proponents only look at immediate death and long term death by radiation and neglect that there are many known illnesses, birth defects and psychic conditions that are increased by number, aggravated or induced by nuclear fall out. If you are far away over the ocean you can nicely philosophize. It is different when you realize that a similar type of primitive reactor has been operating in your own nation or in the neighborhood.

so what does this have to do with a modern reactor? Its like comparing a steam engine to a bullet train. They are both trains right?

I live next to a waste site I don't lose any sleep over it.

[casper]

The Chernobyl nuclear plant catastrophe is a disaster made by sheer human incompetence. The incident, how it came about, can be taught in engineering classes as the topic "How To Blow Up a Nuclear Power Plant." Because of the fallout, no power business entity will ever attempt to duplicate what the morons (morans) did in Chernobyl.

In Wikipedia, "Causes of Chernobyl Disaster - Causes" following is the finding of the IAEA. -
There were two official explanations of the accident: the first, subsequently acknowledged as erroneous, was published in August 1986 and effectively placed the blame on the power plant operators. To investigate the causes of the accident the IAEA created a group known as the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (INSAG), which in its report of 1986, INSAG-1, on the whole also supported this view, based on the data provided by the Soviets and the oral statements of specialists.[62] In this view, the catastrophic accident was caused by gross violations of operating rules and regulations. "During preparation and testing of the turbine generator under run-down conditions using the auxiliary load, personnel disconnected a series of technical protection systems and breached the most important operational safety provisions for conducting a technical exercise."[63] This was probably due to their lack of knowledge of nuclear reactor physics and engineering, as well as lack of experience and training. According to these allegations, at the time of the accident the reactor was being operated with many key safety systems shut off, most notably the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS). Personnel had an insufficiently detailed understanding of technical procedures involved with the nuclear reactor, and knowingly ignored regulations to speed test completion.[63]

[WhiteBlue]

I actually believe the second report was a lot more credible. According to this the accident was largely cause by design properties which made the reactor's partial load behavior counterintuitive to normal reactor operation. The typical observation is that new reactor designs have increased levels of incidents and accidents. This is one of the reasons I am very concerned with the objective to develop seven new reactor types for commercial use in the coming years and push them into service.

[casper]

Here are tangible real facts regarding the heath risks associated with operating nuclear power plants:

In 1991 the US National Cancer Institute published results of 34 year study, 1950 to 1984, on death rates from 16 types of cancer including leukemia for people living in 107 counties containing/adjacent to 62 nuclear facilities. These facilities began operating before 1982, consisting of 52 nuclear power plants, 9 DOE research and weapons plants, and 1 commercial fuel reprocessing plant. Cancer death rates before and after startup were compared were compared with cancer rates in similar 292 counties without nuclear facilities.
The researchers reported that "No study can prove the absence of an effect, but if any excess cancer risk due to radiation pollution is present in counties with nuclear facilities, the risk is too small to be detected by the methods used."

The whole article can be read here:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/fact ... facilities

For coal power plants however, the loose regulation for managing coal bottom ash, fly ash, scrubber sludge in landfills and wetponds is a clear and present danger.

http://climateofourfuture.org/epa-data- ... ash-dumps/

[Belatti]

Whiteblue, I understand the thoughts and fears of the people who lives in or near the disaster zones. I bet that if I lived arround there I would have another opinion formed by years of watching TV and reading newspapers.

However, the most rational thing would be to think that things can improve. I would consider anything else as retrograde.

If you count how many deaths per amount of driver by car accidents there were since Henry Ford began the mass production of the Ford-T and react the same way people does about Chernobyl, there would not be Auto Industries since the 30s.

We tend to think death is horrible, that people should not die of this and that, that we must avoid deaths, that everyone has to live till 100 years old and die quietly surrounded by grandchilds but, sorry to tell, life is not that fair and death is more normal that people wish.

In the veggie thread many forumers and more graphically Manchild said eating meat is murder. So that makes Lions murderers, right?

Well, sorry to tell you all (again) but to make an omelete you have to break some eggs.

[autogyro]

http://www.world-wire.com/news/1005030001.html

Damn nuisance having to post such long copy just to match all the bl--- lies innit.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Crisis in the National Cancer Institute

CHICAGO, IL, May 3, 2010 --/WORLD-WIRE/-- Cancer Prevention Coalition Chairman Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. says avoidable causes of cancer are being ignored by U.S. federal agencies while nearly one in two men and more than one in three women in this country now develop cancer in their lifetimes.

He cites an April 25 New York Times editorial on the National Academy of Sciences' new report that National Cancer Institute's (NCI) system for judging the clinical effectiveness of cancer treatments is approaching "a state of crisis."

As critical, says Dr. Epstein, "the NCI's system for publicizing avoidable causes of cancer remains virtually non-existent, even though nearly one in two men and more than one in three women now develop cancer in their lifetimes."

On April 24, Nobel Laureate Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), appointed by President Barack Obama on August 2009, delivered the Francis Collins Lecture in Chicago. Dr. Collins' lecture focused on his landmark discoveries of the genetic basis of disease, including cancer. In reference to a question on the role of genetics in avoidable causes of cancer, Dr. Collins responded, "I am unaware of any avoidable causes of cancer."

Dr. Epstein says it is not surprising that President Obama still remains unaware of a wide range of avoidable causes of a wide range of cancers as summarized in the following press release issued by the Cancer Prevention Coalition nearly 18 months ago.

January 23, 2009 --/WORLD-WIRE/-- President Barack Obama is the first President to develop a comprehensive cancer plan. While the plan reflects strong emphasis on oncology, the diagnosis and treatment of cancer, no reference is made to prevention.

President Obama's cancer plan should emphasize the many avoidable causes of cancer.

The plan defines and coordinates the responsibilities of four federal agencies: the National Cancer Institute (NCI), for research and clinical trials; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for epidemiological follow up and support of cancer survivors; the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, for funding cancer related care; and the FDA, for regulating cancer drugs.

In 1971, Congress passed the National Cancer Act which authorized the National Cancer Program, calling for an expanded and intensified research program for the prevention of cancer caused by occupational or environmental exposures to carcinogens. Shortly afterwards, President Richard Nixon announced his "War Against Cancer," and authorized a $200 million budget for the NCI. Since then, its budget has escalated by nearly 30-fold, to $5.3 billion this year.

Meanwhile, the incidence of a wide range of cancers, other than those due to smoking, has escalated sharply from 1975 to 2005, when the latest NCI statistics were published. These include malignant melanoma (172%), Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (79%), thyroid (116%), testes (60%), and childhood cancers (38%).

In November 2008, the NCI claimed that the incidence of new cancers had been falling from 1999 to 2005. However, this is contrary to its own latest statistics. These show increases of 45% for thyroid cancer, 18% for malignant melanoma, 18% for kidney cancer, 10% for childhood cancers, and 4% for testes cancer.

Disturbingly, the NCI has still failed to develop, let alone publicize, any listing or registry of avoidable exposures to a wide range of carcinogens. These include: some pharmaceuticals; high dose diagnostic radiation; occupational; environmental; and ingredients in consumer products - food, household products, and cosmetics and personal care products.

The NCI has also failed to respond, other than misleadingly or dismissively, to prior Congressional requests for such information.

In March 1998, in a series of questions to then NCI Director Dr. Richard Klausner, Congressman David Obey requested information on NCI's policies and priorities. He asked, "Should the NCI develop a registry of avoidable carcinogens and make this information widely available to the public?" The answer was, and remains, no.

Klausner's responses made it clear that NCI persisted in indifference to cancer prevention, coupled with imbalanced emphasis on damage control - screening, diagnosis, treatment, and clinical trials.

Moreover, NCI's claims for the success of "innovative treatment" have been sharply criticized by distinguished oncologists. In 2004, Nobelist Leland Hartwell, President of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Control Center, warned that "Congress and the public are not paying NCI $4.7 billion a year," most of which is spent on "promoting ineffective drugs" for terminal disease.

It should be further emphasized that the costs of new biotech cancer drugs have increased more than 100-fold over the last decade. Furthermore, the U.S. spends five times more than the U.K. on chemotherapy per patient, although their survival rates are similar.

The Obama Cancer Plan is subject to Congressional authorization, and funding approval by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. These committees will be in a position to require that major priority should be directed to cancer prevention rather than to oncology. Clearly, the more cancer is prevented, the less there is to treat. This will also be of major help in achieving Obama's goal "to lower health care costs," said the Cancer Prevention Coalition in the above January 23, 2009 news release.

Today, Dr. Epstein says, "An encouraging move in support of directing priority to prevention is the April 2010 appointment of a 'National Cancer Advisory Board (NCAB) Ad Hoc Working Group' to review NCI's opportunities for 'diagnosing, treating, and preventing cancer.'"

Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. is professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health; Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition; The Albert Schweitzer Golden Grand Medalist for International Contributions to Cancer Prevention; and author of over 200 scientific articles and 15 books on the causes and prevention of cancer, including the groundbreaking The Politics of Cancer (1979), and Toxic Beauty (2009 Benbella Press).

To read Dr. Epstein's columns in the Huffington Post, go to: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samuel-s-epstein

CONTACT:
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
Professor emeritus Environmental & Occupational Medicine
University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health
Chicago, Illinois
Tel: 312-996-2297
Email: epstein@uic.edu
www.preventcancer.com

The Cancer Prevention Coalition's January 23, 2009 news release reproduced above was endorsed by the following 20 leading national experts in cancer prevention:

Nicholas A. Ashford, PhD, JD
Professor of Technology and Policy
Director, MIT Technology and Law Program
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Rosalie Bertell, PhD
International Association for Humanitarian Medicine
International Science Oversight Committee for the Organic Consumers Association
Yardley, Pennsylvania

James Brophy, PhD
Adjunct Assistant Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Board of Directors, Toxic Free Canada
University of Windsor
Ontario, Canada

Richard Clapp, D.Sc., MPH
Professor
Boston University School of Public Health
Boston, Massachusetts

Paul Connett, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Chemistry,
St. Lawrence University
Canton, New York;
Executive Director
Fluoride Action Network
Canton, New York

Ronnie Cummins
National Director
Organic Consumers Association
Finland, Minnesota

Tracey Easthope, MPH
Director, Environmental Health Project
Ecology Center
Ann Arbor, Michigan

Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD
Professor
Department of Oncology
University Hospital
Orebro, Sweden

Hazel Henderson, D.Sc.Hon., FRSA
President, Ethical Markets Media, LLC;
Co-Creator, the Calvert Group of the Calvert-Henderson Quality of Life Indicators

Margaret Keith, PhD
Adjunct Assistant Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Board of Directors Toxic Free Canada
University of Windsor
Ontario, Canada

Joseph Mangano, MPH, MBA
Executive Director
Radiation and Public Health Project
New York, New York

James R. Mellow, MD, MS
Robert Wood Johnson Family Medicine Fellow
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Alliance for a Clean and Healthy Maine
Portland, Maine

Vicente Navarro, MD, PhD
Professor of Health Policy
The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions
Baltimore, Maryland

Peter Orris, MD, MPH, FACP, FACOEM
Professor and Chief of Service
Environmental and Occupational Medicine
University of Illinois at Chicago Medical Center;
Professor, Internal and Preventive Medicine
Rush University College of Medicine;
Professor, Preventive Medicine
Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine
Chicago, Illinois

Lawrence A. Plumlee, MD
President, Chemical Sensitivity Disorders Association
Bethesda, Maryland

Horst Rechelbacher
President, Intelligent Nutrients
Minneapolis, Minnesota

Janette D. Sherman, MD
Adjunct Professor Environmental Institute
Western Michigan University
Kalamazoo, Michigan

Eileen M. Wright, MD, ABIHM
Great Smokies Medical Center
Asheville, North Carolina

Daphne Wysham
Fellow, Institute for Policy Studies
Washington, District of Columbia

Quentin D. Young, MD
Public Health Advocate, State of Illinois
Chairman, Health and Medicine Policy Research Group
Past President American Public Health Association
Chicago, Illinois

[autogyro]

Whiteblue, I understand the thoughts and fears of the people who lives in or near the disaster zones. I bet that if I lived arround there I would have another opinion formed by years of watching TV and reading newspapers.

However, the most rational thing would be to think that things can improve. I would consider anything else as retrograde.

If you count how many deaths per amount of driver by car accidents there were since Henry Ford began the mass production of the Ford-T and react the same way people does about Chernobyl, there would not be Auto Industries since the 30s.

We tend to think death is horrible, that people should not die of this and that, that we must avoid deaths, that everyone has to live till 100 years old and die quietly surrounded by grandchilds but, sorry to tell, life is not that fair and death is more normal that people wish.

In the veggie thread many forumers and more graphically Manchild said eating meat is murder. So that makes Lions murderers, right?

Well, sorry to tell you all (again) but to make an omelete you have to break some eggs.

The toxic nuclear waste capable of wiping out a large percentage of human and other life on this planet already exists now today and most is stored in ineficient storage facilities and large amounts of it are even moved around our planet with little regard to safety. The people who promote this are criminals of the worst kind.

[flynfrog]

wall of text unrealeated to the subject.

Whats your point other than cancer docs want more funding.

[casper]

http://www.world-wire.com/news/1005030001.html

CHICAGO, IL, May 3, 2010 --/WORLD-WIRE/-- Cancer Prevention Coalition Chairman Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. says avoidable causes of cancer are He cites an April 25 New York Times editorial on the National Academy of Sciences' new report that National Cancer Institute's (NCI) system for judging the clinical effectiveness of cancer treatments is approaching "a state of crisis."

On April 24, Nobel Laureate Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), appointed by President Barack Obama on August 2009, delivered the Francis Collins Lecture in Chicago. Dr. Collins' lecture focused on his landmark discoveries of the genetic basis of disease, including cancer. In reference to a question on the role of genetics in avoidable causes of cancer, Dr. Collins responded, "I am unaware of any avoidable causes of cancer."


January 23, 2009 --/WORLD-WIRE/-- President Barack Obama is the first President to develop a comprehensive cancer plan. While the plan reflects strong emphasis on oncology, the diagnosis and treatment of cancer, no reference is made to prevention.

President Obama's cancer plan should emphasize the many avoidable causes of cancer.

...Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, for funding cancer related care; and the FDA, for regulating cancer drugs.

In 1971, Congress passed the National Cancer Act which authorized the National Cancer Program, calling for an expanded and intensified research program for the prevention of cancer caused by occupational or environmental exposures to carcinogens. Shortly afterwards, President Richard Nixon announced his "War Against Cancer," and authorized a $200 million budget for the NCI. Since then, its budget has escalated by nearly 30-fold, to $5.3 billion this year.

Meanwhile, the incidence of a wide range of cancers, other than those due to smoking, has escalated sharply from 1975 to 2005, when the latest NCI statistics were published. These include malignant melanoma (172%), Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (79%), thyroid (116%), testes (60%), and childhood cancers (38%).

In November 2008, the NCI claimed that the incidence of new cancers had been falling from 1999 to 2005. However, this is contrary to its own latest statistics. These show increases of 45% for thyroid cancer, 18% for malignant melanoma, 18% for kidney cancer, 10% for childhood cancers, and 4% for testes cancer.

Disturbingly, the NCI has still failed to develop, let alone publicize, any listing or registry of avoidable exposures to a wide range of carcinogens. These include: some pharmaceuticals; high dose diagnostic radiation; occupational; environmental; and ingredients in consumer products - food, household products, and cosmetics and personal care products.

The NCI has also failed to respond, other than misleadingly or dismissively, to prior Congressional requests for such information.

In March 1998, in a series of questions to then NCI Director Dr. Richard Klausner, Congressman David Obey requested information on NCI's policies and priorities. He asked, "Should the NCI develop a registry of avoidable carcinogens and make this information widely available to the public?" The answer was, and remains, no.


The Obama Cancer Plan is subject to Congressional authorization, and funding approval by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. These committees will be in a position to require that major priority should be directed to cancer prevention rather than to oncology. Clearly, the more cancer is prevented, the less there is to treat. This will also be of major help in achieving Obama's goal "to lower health care costs," said the Cancer Prevention Coalition in the above January 23, 2009 news release.

To read Dr. Epstein's columns in the HuTh ffington Post, go to: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samuel-s-epstein

All the article are liberal leaning in that the liberal scientists feel that NCI should create a general registry for all cancer causing chemicals. But I don't see them supporting the idea that nuclear plants cause cancer per the thread topic.

This is a typical liberal argument. Any person who opposes a liberal's thinking is called names - called out as racist (Tea party), or a dimwit (Sara Palin) . In the end, no reasonable factual discussion happens because liberal thinks their idea is right, and everybody else's is wrong (think AGW).

The articles allude to NCI is wrong for not creating a registry for carcinogens. But it is the FDA and EPA that does this thing. It is all about funding, and government big brother control

That statement about Obama lowering the cost of health care is the clincher for me. I don't believe a minute of it. Citing Huffy Post as a source for counterargument is a letdown. We all know its a blog mascerading as a newspaper.

[autogyro]

wall of text unrealeated to the subject.

Whats your point other than cancer docs want more funding.

Here is an example of the methods used to discredit others by those who support nuclear power and other issues of the 'greed' mentality.
Autogyro posted a report on an institution to show how discredited it is and that it cannot be trusted no matter how many reams of diatribe is posted supporting it.
It is of course directly related to the issue, other than to those with completely blinkered and brainwashed attitudes.

[Pandamasque]

Whiteblue, I understand the thoughts and fears of the people who lives in or near the disaster zones. I bet that if I lived arround there I would have another opinion formed by years of watching TV and reading newspapers.

Not necessarily. I don't fear the technology, but rather the attitude. Just one fact as an example why: the fire fighters had to erect an f-ing soviet flag on the chimney just above the reactor to mark their achievement after extinguishing the fires and cleaning the roof of the unit 4. Just think about it for a moment. That sort of attitude kills, literally.

[flynfrog]

wall of text unrealeated to the subject.

Whats your point other than cancer docs want more funding.

Here is an example of the methods used to discredit others by those who support nuclear power and other issues of the 'greed' mentality.
Autogyro posted a report on an institution to show how discredited it is and that it cannot be trusted no matter how many reams of diatribe is posted supporting it.
It is of course directly related to the issue, other than to those with completely blinkered and brainwashed attitudes.

your rant might make sense if what you posted was related to the subject or at least contained key words related to the subject. It was about Doctors who want more funding. Did not mention nuclear power generation or even the byproducts. I have no desire to discredit you. You are doing a fine job on your own.

[xpensive]

Sometimes I wonder what kind of technical forum this is, this thread is now about nuclear power in general, but most of the debate is about what happened a quarter of a century ago in a primitive reactor in the old Soviet union, a country which don't even xist anymore?

To compare this with modern nuclear technology is just as relevant as discussing WWII aircraft vs a JSF 35.

[autogyro]

Sometimes I wonder what kind of technical forum this is, this thread is now about nuclear power in general, but most of the debate is about what happened a quarter of a century ago in a primitive reactor in the old Soviet union, a country which don't even xist anymore?

To compare this with modern nuclear technology is just as relevant as discussing WWII aircraft vs a JSF 35.

Strange I thought the nuclear waste was exactly the same today as it ever was, increasing and still not being dealt with.
Of course there are those on here who do not believe it has anything to do with increased levels of cancer or the inability of certain organisations to define the reasons. Dont forget it is one in three men in the US who will get cancer in their lives. How many on this forum?