Gundersen: 26 nuclear plants in area where Hurricane Sandy likely to hit —

[PamW]

93. From the past...

Last edited Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:16 AM - Edit history (1)

RobertEarl,

I remember another discussion I had with a person on another forum.

The topic was the effects of the use of a nuclear weapon on a city. This particular person stated
that if one were to drop a nuclear weapon on a city; the land that city resided on couldn't be used
for a hundreds of thousands of years.

I disagreed, and asked if his pronouncements applied to the aftermath of dropping a 15-20 kiloton
nuclear weapon on a city. Would his pronouncement apply? His response was in the affirmative.
His claim that a 15-20 kiloton nuclear weapon would render the land on which the city once stood
would remain uninhabitable for hundreds of thousands of years.

I then pointed out that we have done the "experiment", and have a counter example to his contention.
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit with nuclear weapons in the 15-20 kiloton range. Neither city
was made uninhabitable for hundreds of thousands of years. The Japanese started rebuilding both
of those cities in a matter of months. The 6 decades after World War II have had active, bustling,
metropolises in the locations of both World War II nuclear bombings.

Even with a well known counter-example staring him in the face, he couldn't admit that he was in error.
He was just so steeped in his own propaganda, that he couldn't acknowledge reality.

His ignorance was appalling, and he would never get any better. His prejudices just wouldn't admit
an education into his vacuous skull. Deja vous.

As for your "cleaner, more nuclear radiation free environment mentioned above; you do realize that you
can't have a nuclear radiation free environment. Mother Nature is exposing you to the bulk of the nuclear
radiation that you receive, and you can't free yourself of her radiation.

You get radiation from the cosmos in the form of cosmic rays; and you don't know that there is nothing you
can do about that.

You get radiation from the material this planet is made of because all the matter of this planet is actually
"nuclear waste" from a big nuclear reactor that we call a "star". Evidently you don't know that you can't
do anything about that.

You get radiation from the matter that makes YOU up. YOU are radioactive. Evidently you don't understand
that you can't do anything about that.

As far as making any change at all; let's see how much change you can effect if you are totally successful
in banning all future nuclear activities. Again, I refer to the breakdown of the radiation exposure that you
get that is provided courtesy of the Health Physics Society at the University of Michigan:

http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm

In your battle against nuclear power; the best you can do is get rid of the bit that is labelled "nuclear fuel cycle".

I assume you don't want to get rid of the medical benefits of diagnostic X-rays and nuclear medicine.

You can't do anything about the "Fallout" - that's already in the environment. That ship has sailed.

So with a Herculean effort; the best you can do is rid us of that <0.03% that is due to the "nuclear fuel cycle".

With all that effort, the best you can hope for is to go from 100.00% to 99.97% of current exposure levels.

..and you "think" I'm wasting my time...

I'd explain how futile your efforts are; but you wouldn't understand.

PamW