Reviewed by EDF engineer on misinformation tf1

[boubka]

https://www.econologie.info/share/partag ... iGQCAc.pdf

[dirk pitt]

this is an observation that unfortunately you can all make: every time you read in the press or see on TV a report on a subject that you know well (because it is your job or your passion) and for which you are already well informed; well each time, you say to yourself: "what bullshit" is false, including nothing included.

from there to deduce what it is about the subjects we are talking about and that you do not know or badly ....

that said, for the blow of the wind turbine which turns in engine, I find the explanation a little conspiratorial. perhaps it is simply tests carried out on a brand new wind turbine taking advantage of a windless period.

[Christophe]

Seen and seen, it has been circulating for months on the net ... the words are consistent ... but ...

... disinformation level, EdF is not bad too, don't you think? Are we talking about pushing back the lifespan of Nuke power plants from 20 to 40 years? Concealment to and by the media of the repeated shutdowns of Fessenheim, the oldest power plant in France which has just "celebrated its 30 years" of operation (and a little more for the 1st divergence)? Lack of security at the central access level, so that Greenpeace can enter them "without problem"? ...In short moralize yes but do not work in nuclear in France !!

Like wiki, a good example of disinfo? http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrale_n ... Fessenheim

Controversy over the closure of the plant

The Fessenheim plant is the oldest plant currently in operation on French territory. It was designed to be in operation for 40 years (Initial safety report of 1977).

Is that so? It is the first time that I hear that a French power plant has been designed for a lifespan of 1 years !! (unlike Belgian westinghouse reactor power plants) ...

So who's lying and misinforming?

[Remundo]

EDF nevertheless has the merit of providing a reliable network with energy independent of gas and oil.

More ... For communication and disinformation, they are very good too, almost as much as they are bothered by their waste

[Christophe]

Yes Remundo we are less dependent on coal and gas but we are less dependent on African, Australian (?) And Canadian uranium mines ... the energy independence of EDF (main argument of all nuclear) is a conception therefore pretty funny ...

Here you find: http://www.dissident-media.org/infonucl ... heim2.html

Le Matin (Switzerland), 24/12/2007:

Fessenheim scares the Jura

The extension of the operation of the Alsatian nuclear reactors, of the oldest atomic power station in France, will be fought by the Jura authorities

The Fessenheim nuclear power station - the oldest in operation in France - is showing signs of old age which frighten the Jurassians whose territory is located 60 km as the crow flies. Its reactors were put into service in 1977. They received a 20-year operating license and a 10-year extension. In Basel, it also manifests itself while in France the debate is open on a new extension of the operating lease.

So there is a deliberate intoxication on Wikipedia ... Never have French reactors been planned for 40 years of life ...

[Remundo]

Yes Remundo we are less dependent on coal and gas but we are less dependent on African, Australian (?) And Canadian uranium mines ... the energy independence of EDF (main argument of all nuclear) is a conception therefore pretty funny ...

Absolutely Christophe, Uranium is as fossil and poorly distributed as petroleum.

For Fessenheim, I do not know the file, but probably that the economic imperatives and certain lobbies lead to "pulling the rope" with this plant, in the hope that the rope does not break

[Christophe]

hoping the rope doesn't break

Ben in the 1st quarter of 2008, one of the 2 reactors was more shut down (or rather in "standby") than in operation ...

It must still last 10 years !!

It's scary ...

[jonule]

Uranium is as fossil and poorly distributed as petroleum.

while plutonium is renewable and constitutes the future electro-nuclear fuel ... the most carcinogenic created by man, and its handling will inevitably include major releases in the environment, that is to say us.

Our society is at an important crossroads: should plutonium be used on a large scale as fuel in atomic reactors, thus leading us to a plutonium economy on a global scale ?; or should plutonium be treated as hazardous waste with a high degree of risk to world security, and therefore it should be eliminated by halting all production of plutonium and by isolating and closely monitoring what has been already created?

When the fuel rods (or bundles) are put in place in an atomic reactor, they become very radioactive due to the accumulation of plutonium and other radioactive substances. From the start of the nuclear era, supporters of the nuclear path considered plutonium as the fuel of the future, dreaming of recycling the plutonium from the waste of irradiated fuel rods [also called spent fuel, ie the fuel which leaves a reactor when one has drawn the maximum of energy from it]. So-called breeder reactors have been built in France, Japan and the United States, with the aim of producing large quantities of plutonium, but serious accidents have forced all these countries to restrict their breeder programs.


The extraction of plutonium from the waste of irradiated fuel rods is a dangerous and excessively polluting activity. In the XNUMXs, reprocessing of spent fuel rods was carried out at two different AECL facilities at Chalk River. Both had to be closed due to accidents involving large spills of radioactive material into the environment. These facilities and the contaminants that result from them have never been cleaned. AECL therefore built another reprocessing plant to separate plutonium from used fuel waste and then export it to the United States for the production of atomic weapons. Reservoirs filled with highly radioactive liquid waste are still there, posing a significant decontamination challenge.

Eighty percent of the plutonium existing today is immobilized in the used fuel routinely produced in nuclear reactors.

France, Russia and Great Britain are reprocessing used fuel in order to chemically separate plutonium from the other highly radioactive substances found there. This process is used for military reasons, namely obtaining the raw material for atomic bombs. It is also used for non-military purposes: the plutonium thus separated may one day be used as fuel in nuclear power plants. About twenty percent of the plutonium on the globe is in this separate form. Once separated from other substances forming used fuel, plutonium can be more easily handled, stolen, transported or stored.

Public health and environmental hazards

The alpha radiation emitted by plutonium has only a very short range. This is the reason why, in certain cases, it can be handled and stored without having to resort to too bulky radiological protection screens. Take, for example, a small amount of plutonium in the vicinity of a human being: most of the energy emitted by the plutonium would collide on the outer, non-living surface of the skin (assuming that '' there are no open wounds and no plutonium particles are aspirated).

If, on the other hand, if one or more particles of plutonium were sucked up, they could go to lodge in the sensitive tissues of the lungs, causing a lot of biological damage. When drawn into the lungs, a few milligrams of plutonium is enough to cause death in the months that follow. A much smaller amount can also lead to fatal lung cancer many years later. For this reason, plutonium is considered to be one of the most carcinogenic known substances ever produced by humans.

extract of :
http://www.cnp.ca/sn/questions/plutonium-bkfr.html

[Remundo]

Hi Jonule, the Pu, it's dirty because it radiates (like all the unstable heavy atoms), but not renewable.

Here are typically the fission products of Pu, fission is not reversible.

The mass distribution of the fission products of a heavy nucleus depends little on the nature of the nucleus. Almost all the fission fragments, initially very radioactive, regain stability after a few years. A handful of elements, indicated in the figure, remain: strontium-90 and cesium-137 with a period close to 30 years; technetium-99, iodine-129 and cesium-135 with periods exceeding hundreds of thousands of years. The proportions of these elements are similar for plutonium-239 and uranium-235. They determine the characteristic form of radioactive decay.
According to http://www.laradioactivite.com/fr/site/ ... ssesPF.htm
Source CNRS / IN2P3

[jonule]

no but you didn't understand that I was joking, you still don't know me then?

Pu is not "dirty" as you say, but 200.000 times worse than uranium radiologically, not to mention toxicity.

If, on the other hand, if one or more particles of plutonium were sucked up, they could go to lodge in the sensitive tissues of the lungs, causing a lot of biological damage. When drawn into the lungs, a few milligrams of plutonium is enough to cause death in the months that follow. A much smaller amount can also lead to fatal lung cancer many years later. For this reason, plutonium is considered to be one of the most carcinogenic known substances ever produced by humans.

is that what you call "dirty"? like "your body is changing, it's not dirty"? or as "dirty defeat"? ...

if I say renewable, it is created from uranium which will one day disappear as a mineral resource, while the nuclear lobby is trying to impose it as a future spare tire, despite its extremely polluting handling and its toxicity much worse ...

who the nuclear lobby?
http://nucleaire-nonmerci.net/actualite ... eaire.html
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobby_nucl%C3%A9aire
http://www.enviro2b.com/environnement-a ... ticle.html

we will see those who live near nuclear power plants, + many to fill electric vehicles, how they will be followed by health survey: if we observe nothing I will remove what I put on this forum, okay ?
ah yes of course it will have to be done by an independent association, obviously ...
come on, have sweet dreams ... electric! for Christmas