Understanding nuclear: reactions, radioactivity, waste

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
User avatar
realistic ecology
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 208
Registration: 21/06/19, 17:48
x 61

Re: Understanding nuclear power: reactions, radioactivity, waste




by realistic ecology » 07/02/20, 20:18

GuyGadebois wrote:
realistic ecology wrote:The measurement ... And the radioactivity measurements following the Chernobyl accident indicate that it was insignificant in France compared to natural radioactivity, whatever the region.

It is 100% false. Can you look in the mirror after that?

What are your measures?
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188

Re: Understanding nuclear power: reactions, radioactivity, waste




by Remundo » 07/02/20, 20:41

GuyGadebois wrote:
realistic ecology wrote:The measurement ... And the radioactivity measurements following the Chernobyl accident indicate that it was insignificant in France compared to natural radioactivity, whatever the region.

It is 100% false. Can you look in the mirror after that?

it seems to me a slightly exaggerated statement.

there are also phenomena of bio-accumulation of radionuclides (in mushrooms, plants or milk) which temporarily made food dangerous, especially where it had rained.
0 x
Image
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re:




by Exnihiloest » 07/02/20, 20:53

Macro wrote:Well I got confirmation Friday night. There has been a pro-nuclear propaganda of state (or lobby) in our school last week ... In favor of our wonderful central France where it is impossible for a Fukunobyl to occur ... Because they are not built like nananinananana ...

Some managers of institutions were followed by other non ...

We are planning a new big lie ...

No risk does not exist. There is nothing you can do without accepting a reasonable risk, not even living.
"To doubt everything or to believe everything, these are two equally convenient solutions which both exempt us from thinking".
H Poincaré
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: Understanding nuclear power: reactions, radioactivity, waste




by Exnihiloest » 07/02/20, 20:54

Remundo wrote:...
there are also phenomena of bio-accumulation of radionuclides (in mushrooms, plants or milk) which temporarily made food dangerous, especially where it had rained.

Possible.
Epidemiological studies would show it?
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9773
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Understanding nuclear power: reactions, radioactivity, waste




by sicetaitsimple » 07/02/20, 20:59

Remundo wrote:in any case you have time and energy to redo the 1986 debate on Tcherno :P


It actually seems a little surreal!
No one doubts that Chernobyl is a major nuclear accident.
Redo the film in terms of spinoffs in France and communication at that time, very little interest ...
What fell fell, period, better communication would not have changed anything.
I did not note, more than 30 years later, a study on human effects in France, but I may have missed something.
1 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188

Re: Understanding nuclear power: reactions, radioactivity, waste




by Remundo » 08/02/20, 07:59

Exnihiloest wrote:
Remundo wrote:...
there are also phenomena of bio-accumulation of radionuclides (in mushrooms, plants or milk) which temporarily made food dangerous, especially where it had rained.

Possible.
Epidemiological studies would show it?

It is not because there have not been enough precise "epidemiological studies" that the danger did not exist. At the time the media advised against eating certain foods, and rightly so.
0 x
Image
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Understanding nuclear power: reactions, radioactivity, waste




by Janic » 08/02/20, 11:03

Remundo wrote:
Exnihiloest wrote:
Remundo wrote:...
there are also phenomena of bio-accumulation of radionuclides (in mushrooms, plants or milk) which temporarily made food dangerous, especially where it had rained.
Possible.
Epidemiological studies would show it?
It is not because there have not been enough precise "epidemiological studies" that the danger did not exist. At the time, the media advised against eating certain foods, and rightly so. [*]
the more so as the winds pushed the cloud towards the south and, it seems, it was Corsica the most affected. After, lower, we do not care obviously it is the business of others of course.

[*] like the Lubrisol factory in Rouen which has extended far beyond! Like smoke, dust it is clearly visible and indisputable, the officials could not minimize the case! While radioactive isotopes cannot be seen! : Evil:
1 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
GuyGadebois
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6532
Registration: 24/07/19, 17:58
Location: 04
x 982

Re: Understanding nuclear power: reactions, radioactivity, waste




by GuyGadebois » 08/02/20, 13:17

Exnihiloest wrote:
Remundo wrote:...
there are also phenomena of bio-accumulation of radionuclides (in mushrooms, plants or milk) which temporarily made food dangerous, especially where it had rained.

Possible.
Epidemiological studies would show it?

No epidemiological study could account for the impact of Chernobyl fallout. The cancers on the rise today are certainly part of this incident, but how can we give irrefutable proof when, on the one hand, we are not equal concerning the triggering of cancers, that Chernobyl is a factor among others and that politics is not about transparency?
There are, however, strong presumptions regarding the withholding of state information and the torpedoing of initiatives to get an idea of ​​the results:
I) Premature termination and disappearance of a regional register of childhood cancers in 1996 after an excess of cases of thyroid cancer in children were recorded.

This is the PACA-Corsica region register, opened in 1984. Before it was stopped, the data had been changed after intervention by the General Directorate of Health. http://www.nuage-radioactif.com/wp-cont ... e-1996.jpg

II) A peak of cases of neonatal hypothyroidism in the PACA Corsica region, in 1986, a very significant pathology of nuclear pollution, passed over in silence and not studied by the manager of the registry due to a refusal by the hierarchy. http://www.nuage-radioactif.com/wp-cont ... e-1996.jpg
The following here for those who are interested but not for those who pretend to be interested when they already have their opinion and they don't really care:
http://www.nuage-radioactif.com/
1 x
“It is better to mobilize your intelligence on bullshit than to mobilize your bullshit on intelligent things. (J.Rouxel)
"By definition the cause is the product of the effect". (Tryphion)
"360 / 000 / 0,5 is 100 million and not 72 million" (AVC)
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: Understanding nuclear power: reactions, radioactivity, waste




by Exnihiloest » 10/02/20, 17:42

Remundo wrote:...
It is not because there have not been enough precise "epidemiological studies" that the danger did not exist ...


Nor is it because we do not have studies on sprites that they do not exist.

You will understand that your argument does not hold, it is the fallacy of the appeal to ignorance: "since we do not know, everything is possible", but in this case why speak of danger more than of non-danger? !

I cited epidemiological studies because if this cloud had had a significant impact, then we would have seen an increase in cancers some time later, which may depend on the type of cancer. But the stats by type of cancer we have, and nothing has been highlighted, especially on the one most likely to be activated, thyroid cancer.
So yes, the existence of Chernobyl-related cancers in France had the same probability as that of the elves. It is explained there:
https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/ar ... 55770.html
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Understanding nuclear power: reactions, radioactivity, waste




by Janic » 10/02/20, 18:01

Remundo wrote:
Exnihiloest wrote:
Remundo wrote:...
there are also phenomena of bio-accumulation of radionuclides (in mushrooms, plants or milk) which temporarily made food dangerous, especially where it had rained.
Possible.
Epidemiological studies would show it?
It is not because there have not been enough precise "epidemiological studies" that the danger did not exist. At the time the media advised against eating certain foods, and rightly so.
in the same way that there have been no epidemiological studies on the military and civilians having attended nuclear tests in the African desert ... far, far from France: leaving their shit as a gift.
A total of two hundred and ten French nuclear tests were carried out between 1960 and 1996, first in the Algerian desert then in French Polynesia, with a cumulative power of around 13 megatons, officially involving around 150 civilians and soldiers: from 000 in 1960: 1961 aerial tests at Reggane; Wikipedia

https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr ... 25409.html
1 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 235 guests