Nuclear waste

[Ahmed]

[Janic]

How many of these French people have reduced their consumption of gas or fuels? How many carpool daily? Have reviewed the insulation of their house .... Nothing that is not accessible to everyone ...

It begins very slowly as in all societies which have been kept in the dark about the urgency of things and who, with future global warming, are aware of it and are doing what they can.

And a certain number of them explain that it is the wicked multinationals who exploit the countries of the third world ... The truth is that it is us the consumers who exploit them, as one exploits the farmers when one buys tomatoes that come from Egypt because they are 10 cts cheaper ....

This last part is just ... partly. Our wealthy societies have grown accustomed to these exploitations which they are happy to profit from and there is great hypocrisy in pretending not to see it.
At the same time, the multinationals (who also have no mood and even less conscience) use these contradictions to exploit them. Because they play on the misfortune of some, the supporters under their thumb. Certainly money is an obsession, for everyone, in a world which was built on this notion; with the difference that the one who seeks to save 10 cents often does it to survive while the multinationals do not do it for the same reason, but simply they take advantage of misery to enrich themselves a little more, always more.
This is why it is the whole society (ours) which must be rethought from a different angle, which takes time!

Well, either, I don't agree. Accidents at 130 km / h on the front are very very rare and indeed fatal. But if the kinetic energy stored is the same the control of this energy is different if the car is equipped with an ABS, a belt with adaptive pretensioner, an airbag or an adaptive cruise control or even an obstacle detector.

It's a dream, even a fantasy to reassure yourself. On impact, the vehicle crashes far beyond the block chassis and all finished in mush, scrap like snowmen. ABS is only used to stay in line and possibly avoid an obstacle at low speed because the average driver is not trained for this maneuver. A belt with pretensioner is only used to prevent the body from pivoting too quickly around the 3-point belt, unlike the 4 points which effectively hold the torax applied to the seat, but few vehicles are 4-point. Airbags are more interesting in frontal impact only, but always at reduced speed even higher than crash tests which are limited to 64 km / h I believe and the regulators only serve to maintain a "reasonable" distance between vehicles, but are useless and effective in the event of a brutal accident such as on motorways.

We cannot say that it is not useful and that we are no safer than in a old Lada or in a old 205. Do you think that the decline in deaths and injuries over the past 40 years is only due to the human factor?

you weren't talking about old woman! The current crash tests started in the 60s I believe, at that time the vehicles did not have a seatbelt and only became compulsory in 73 for the driver.
The deaths are generally linked to excessive speed, but also due to the lack of vigilance of the drivers such as falling asleep at the wheel, alcoholism, fear of the gendarme and his multitude of speed cameras and the loss of point to the key (radars tagged showed that the drivers had increased their speed). On the other hand the wounded may have been reduced by these security systems, but address yourself to road safety and those who rescue the accident victims, but it is most of the time corpses or people who will have seen their guibolles reduced to pulp.

To think that nuclear power is nuclear and therefore that dangerousness is the same everywhere is a gross error. Japanese and Russian technologies are not the same as French.

Here again it is not a question of such or such technology, but of the product itself during major accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima which are only preambles for the following ones, statistically inevitable.

Statistics certainly, but the reality is that you are more likely to die on the road or in your pool than because of a nuclear accident or even a traditional SEVESO. Indeed, we rely on statistics to control our risks and overall it has been fairly effective so far.

The reasons for dying are endless by accidents of life actually, but this is not an act personnel due to recklessness, negligence and we only do the accounts on the rare dramas like T and F whereas nobody takes into consideration, those which statistically, will take place in a more dramatic way still and for the waste to make some gifts to our children as was planned from the start of this nuclear, it is long-term genocide which will not be punished because its leaders will be long dead and the institutions too.

If you are a real technician, like me, you know perfectly well that whatever the accidents, it is that these crazy guards were not sufficient or diverted by events impossible to take into account. It is not enough to cross your fingers to conjure a future fate and it is not enough to invoke that France would be the model of absolute security, there are lots of other power plants and its products around the world.

For now, industrial security is my specialty, I would like my job to be just to cross my fingers .... It really takes all the people who work in these industries for badgers ... I have not even want to comment !! and this comment includes your comments about the people of IRSN of course.

If this kind of security is the same as for the drugs and vaccines that I also denounce on this site, there is something to be scared.

Who currently only serve to justify our way of life of the wealthy nations

and what do we do then?

So, we wait until the next fart to make bion account because never two without three, due to the heaps of possibilities of which, can this global warming be?

and you think you're not pronuk?

neither for nor against, on the contrary !!

If my aunt had it, we would call him my uncle also. But for the moment you are not defending THAT the nuk, where are your arguments against?

[Janic]

For tobacco it is rather 85000 dead but let's move on.

At one time, the current figures (very different from each other) run between 60.000 and 73.000, but we are not ready. https://www.anpaa.asso.fr/lanpaa/actual ... rts-france

A question burns my lips if all these industries are so deadly why focus on nuclear?

there is no question of focusing only on nuclear! Anything that in one way or another poses a danger to the living must be questioned. Coal is in the crosshairs (carbon or not) for its pollution like fuel oil.

This technology is very far from making these scores, it would be known !! Remember that we are talking about annual victims.

These are not the industries themselves, but consumers who INDIVIDUALLY smoke or drink, even if the industrialists do everything to maintain an addiction to these drugs. However, the consumer is not left to choose his mode of electrical production and therefore consumption.

We should also remember that most of the nuclear incidents which resulted in victims took place in a hospital environment.

All the more, this product is indeed dangerous, even in medical use. I was chatting with cancer patients who had been treated with this nuclear medicine and who all complained of burning from the inside, permanently, with no way of making the fire go away.

What I know above all in a certain way (even the IPCC says it) it is that nuclear makes it possible to produce carbon-free energy in mass and for cheap !!

Ah here is the argument mass, the cost and its decarbonized aspect which is measured only on the present moment, not on the long term as usual. Except that the selling prices explode and will explode more and more because it is expensive to maintain old plants in operation (and that is not carbon-free!) And especially the construction of the EPR, a veritable chasm with cash.

[Christophe]

The accumulation of nuclear waste seen from the sky:

[GuyGadebois]

"Fossil energies must be eliminated, new renewable energies do not have the capacity to replace them, nuclear energy remains, despite the dogmatisms that oppose it. Especially since from a health point of view it is is the least dangerous energy there is. "
Signed: realistic ecology.

[Christophe]

Act, act ... I want to, but how?

I suggest that each French house take a barrel of weakly radioactive waste in its cellar in a small boron pool!

Do not laugh: this would make serious savings in heating and CO2 emissions!

Well we will obviously start with the policies and frameworks of EDF AREVA .... let's not forget the rich retirees of COGEMA!

[GuyGadebois]

Citizen initiative.
France, host country where life is good to live together:
Let's sponsor a radioactive waste barrel!
A migrant no, one was Areva yes!

[sicetaitsimple]

The accumulation of nuclear waste seen from the sky:

It is true that it is much easier and less directly visible to use the atmosphere as a trash can.

[izentrop]

[Janic]

nuclear like bisounours!