Evidence of Harmful Effects of Chernobyl Event

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Mostly agree with all the above.

With all things, there are always trade-offs. Once the trade-offs are considered, I choose to be for or against something. In the case of nuclear energy, I favor it if the alternative is building another fossil fuel plant.

I'd like to see renewable generation become the economical way to produce energy, with nukes making up for any deficiencies in demand and for peaking.

Yup .. My tweak would be.

Fission is a known dead end , long term .. with absolutely no way to avoid that .. At best it's a short term patch.

Long term RE with energy storage , and our own Fusion Reactors.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by IamIan

If a Pro/Con advocate claims a single one sided picture of the entire zone .. such as a pro advocate who might claim 'no evidence of any harm' .. that is incorrect or at best inaccurate .. equally so , as a con advocate who might claim it's a 'dead-zone'... Both extremes are at best inaccurate .. if not flat out wrong...

Which is pretty much where I am - with the realization that a) the cons get a lot more press by using scare tactics; and b) even when they're trying to be honest, they're basing all their estimates on the linear no-threshold (LNT) model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model which is fundamentally flawed.

This model states that if a high dose of something causes X amount of problems, then 1/10 that dose causes 1/10 the problems, and so on down to homeopathic levels. But AFAIK nothing in biology actually works like that. If you measure the LD50 dosage of something (the amount at which 50% of the recipients die), giving 1/10 that dose doesn't kill 5% of recipients. You can even point to many instances, from Vitamin D to water & oxygen, where a small amount is beneficial or even necessary for life, but too much will kill.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Denese Reifsteck

I got interested with the whole Chernobyl disaster story when we took this on a history class. I was literally drawn to the story of one of the first respondents of the explosion.

Does the story summarize your feelings about nuclear power generation? I mean, if you studied it you must have an opinion on the subject.

Perhaps my biggest concern about nuclear energy is the fact that if you have nuclear power generation, then you basically have the means to nuclear warheads.

I foresee every relevant country in the future possessing the ability to wage nuclear war, so this is kind of a moot point.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Perhaps my biggest concern about nuclear energy is the fact that if you have nuclear power generation, then you basically have the means to nuclear warheads.

OTOH, you don't need nuclear power to develop nuclear weapons.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Perhaps my biggest concern about nuclear energy is the fact that if you have nuclear power generation, then you basically have the means to nuclear warheads.

I foresee every relevant country in the future possessing the ability to wage nuclear war, so this is kind of a moot point.

I'll agree it's moot .. but for different reasons.

Nuclear weapons are a 1940's technology .. Based on 1910's Science .. Very very old stuff.

Basic devices are not cutting edge , by any stretch .. How it works is not a secret by any means .. The required raw materials are available around the world .. etc.

Today's pen drives for $20 require more complicated and advanced science and technology to produce.