Madness Of Nuclear Power

Fukushima - risks of future radiation fears (27.09.2020)

Update: 10th October 2007

Chernobyl (10 Years On)
Chernobyl:

• The release, dispersion and deposition of radionuclides

Enrico Fermi
Fast Breeder Reactor

During the period Thursday, 10th October and Friday, 11th October 1957,

50 years ago

one of two seven-year-old reactors at Windscale (Sellafield) was shut down (apparently it was being used for some kind of experiment) as a fire had started in at least two fuel channels in the centre of the reactor. This was fierce enough to vaporise fission products all the way up the 400-foot chimney and through the filters at its top. Hoses had to be used to play water down the fuel channels in a desperate attempt to control the temperature.

This was neither a routine plant breakdown nor a minor mishap, but a major accident.

Was the experiment being conducted responsible for this 'accident', and what was that experiment?

Clearly, the Windscale filters were inadequate for the job of preventing the escape of fission products. It was pure good fortune that the wind was blowing out to sea or contamination of the countryside would have been more serious to life. As it was, the contamination of the sea was bad enough and only diluted the problem. It didn't remove it. The issue was not made clear and everything was allowed to rest with the problem having been cleared up. The fact remains:

The sea was contaminated

And will remain so for hundreds if not thousands of years. Plutonium (239) has a half-life of 24,000 years.

Drenching the reactor with ordinary mains water added to the difficulties of bringing it back to working order. Not only did the burnt-out channels of radioactive debris (waste) need to be removed, but also the pile dried out [and presumably flushed] to remove all waterborne chemicals, and elements such as calcium, that would interfere with the fission process. Unless these products were [completely] removed, the entire reactor would need to have been stripped down and rebuilt.

Cost and time issues today (2007)
could potentially involve shortcuts
being made. How dangerous is that?

One undeniable fact:

Plutonium is produced in these reactors

In the 1957 Windscale 'accident', the amount of plutonium manufactured was between 1/4 and 1/3 of the country's production and as such affected the defence programme.

What is plutonium used for?

• At 11.02am, 9th August 1945 the 'Fat Man' bomb was dropped by the American Air Force (USAAF) on Nagasaki killing 70,000 citizens and wounding 100,000. It was only 3 days earlier that the uranium bomb (code-named 'Little Boy') decimated Hiroshima. As a second plutonium bomb was not quite ready, 2 days later 6000 tons of conventional bombs were dropped on Kumagaya. WWII ended the following day.

• The timing of just 3 days between the use of a uranium bomb ('Little Boy', 8.16am, 6th August 1945), with the destructive power of 12,500 tonnes of TNT, destroying 50,000 buildings and killing a total of some 75,000 people, following with a plutonium bomb, does seem to suggest that experiments were being conducted to see the effects of such novel weapons on live human beings. Some of the 75,000 died outright, but many others died later that month of their burns.

• This probably remains the most wicked act to have been perpetrated on any living species. Ever. And just to witness the effects. Pure opportunism and ranks up there with Nazi experiments on human beings. Conflict acting as the mask that covered the face of evil. The 'winners' of the war. The Americans. Still the nastiest race on Earth.

More carnage had actually been scheduled by the Americans, but didn't happen, as the Japanese surrendered. The Devil had already visited. Even more powerful bombs are today available that

'mimic'

the activity of the Sun, so no further example is necessary to demonstrate the distorted ego of some of the elements that exist within mankind. Textbooks that outline the basic theory of nuclear reactions do not describe the detail of manufacture. The Devil resides in the detail. Text and reference books do not explode. Any idiot can recognise the potential in such weapons, but a twisted desire to make one and actually build it is not the same as just planning to build one.

Imagining any desirable item does not make the physical item.

Such meddling is madness

Compared to the Earth, the Sun is over 109 times the diameter with a mass nearly 333,000 as great and a volume 1.3 million times as large. To visualise the comparison of only the diameters, consider one average human step of about 1 metre (the Earth) and walk the distance of more than two Olympic-sized swimming pools (100 metres) placed back to back (the Sun).

The major difference between the uranium and plutonium atomic bombs and the hydrogen bomb is that the former are using the fission of these elements to produce smaller ones and heat and the latter is a fusion bomb that unites hydrogen isotopes to form helium and heat. Uranium (238) is a naturally occurring element on Earth that when bombarded with neutrons forms (the radioactive) plutonium (239).

It can ONLY be made in nuclear facilities.

Plutonium half-life = 24,000 years

This very much simplifies hugely complex elemental chemistry. The technical issues are not normally discussed publicly, but over the period of more than 60 years, a very large (unquantifiable) number of research and development experiments have been conducted. And 60 years is a long time to remain 'accident'-free. It is likely that 'accidents' just haven't been of sufficient severity to have been reported.

Every 'accident' adds to the unknown, or at least not communicated, (accumulative) total of radioactive material that today pollutes the atmosphere and oceans. Global pollution that is on the increase NOW and that will be around for thousands of years. The products of such experiments were undoubtedly radioactive and not usable as a desired end product. Any actual end products were then, at best, only predicted.

What happened to all these products along the way?

Many 'artificial' and radioactive elements have been made (very few occuring 'naturally'), but mostly in nuclear facilities (polonium-210, discovered by Marie Curie in 1898, is now made only in such places):

• Polonium (1898) - atomic number 84
  
• Astatine (1940) - atomic number 85
• Radon (1900) - atomic number 86
  
• Francium (1939) - atomic number 87
• Radium (1898) - atomic number 88
• Actinium (1899) - atomic number 89
• Thorium (1815) - atomic number 90
  
• Protactinium (1917) - atomic number 91
• Uranium (1896) - atomic number 92
• Neptunium (1940) - atomic number 93
• Plutonium (1940) - atomic number 94
• Americium (1944) - atomic number 95
• Curium (1944) - atomic number 96
  
• Berkelium (1949) - atomic number 97
  
• Californium (1950) - atomic number 98
  
• Einsteinium (1952) - atomic number 99
  
• Fermium (1952) - atomic number 100
• Mendelevium (1955) - atomic number 101
  
• Nobelium (1956) - atomic number 102
• Lawrencium (1956) - atomic number 103
• Rutherfordium (1964) - atomic number 104
• Dubnium (1967) - atomic number 105
• Seaborgium (1974) - atomic number 106
• Bohrium (1981) - atomic number 107
• Hassium (1984) - atomic number 108
• Meitnerium (1982) - atomic number 109
• Darmstadtium (1994) - atomic number 110

Elements as yet unnamed:

• Element-atomic number

• Unununium-111 (1994)
• Ununbiium-112 (1996)
• Ununtriium-113 (predicted)
• Ununquadium-114 (1998)
• Ununpentium-115 (predicted)
• Ununhexium-116 (2000)
• Ununseptium-117 (predicted)
• Ununoctium-118 (unconfirmed)
• Ununennium-119 (predicted)

Fermium-257 (atomic number-100) has a half-life of 101 days decreasing with increasing atomic number: to 50 microseconds for ununhexium-116.

The element plutonium cannot be rendered harmless. Even buried in concrete, it remains extremely dangerous for a very long time, numbered in thousands of years. The global total of this element alone is just increasing and none of it is destroyed. More is being made all the time.

Just like 'making' lots of money and never spending any of it. One is the accumulation of 'wealth' and the other an accumulation of the means to the extermination of all life.

It is fascinating (in a somewhat cynical way - DA) to speculate how many now long obsolete chemical elements may have been 'natural' in a primordial existence - billions of years ago at the (speculated - DA) beginning of Earth's history. Time will have removed all trace of such elements. 50,000 years is nothing more than a moment in such terms. The plutonium half-life of 24,000 years is just a flash in time.

Imagine a new drug just... happening. Years and years of experimental work are necessary and thousands of experiments will produce a host of impurities. Reactions won't work. Wrong (impure) products will be synthesised to eventually generate the desired active entity. Such material can be totally destroyed either chemically or by burning (heat decomposition).

Reality is much different to any imagined situation. And that ignores all the 'spin' and lies used in the attempt to 'sell' an inherently flawed product to the public.

If anyone needs an illustration of what would happen today in the event of nuclear war, then...

These uranium-235 and plutonium-239 fission bombs originally happened 60 years ago. Uranium fission releases radioactive iodine-131 (half-life = 8 days) and, as iodine is essential to life and readily absorbed by the body, it is highly dangerous.

• The fall-out from those detonations is still with us today and will be for thousands of years.

• Such weapons are truly dreadful and to use the chemical process in a 'controlled' way is delusion. The very nature of these reactions is literally an out-of-control chain reaction. The first reaction produces several neutrons, each neutron then starting another reaction and so propagating the chain and (almost) instantly producing the enormous outpouring of energy.

• The technology is 'safe' ONLY if the many factors involved are maintained within clearly defined limits. One critical issue is water. Basically, the heat supplied by the neutron chain reaction is controlled only by cooling the fuel rod source. Each fuel rod is essentially a small nuclear explosion slowed down to produce heat and not an explosion. An explosion is simply a VERY rapid expansion of gases. The heat transfer to the water is where the energy comes from. Steam. No water, or even insufficient water, will enable the reaction to overheat and so induce the runaway reaction. This is self sustaining. A moderator is a medium that slows the reaction and one such is heavy water (deuterium oxide).
  

• The nuclear bomb cannot be 'uninvented', but it's use can be (realistically, though only theoretically) phased out. The smallpox virus has been 'eradicated' from the planet. Well, not entirely apparently. A tiny amount of the most deadly entity to human life to have ever been known, has been kept, even though it could and must be destroyed. Human logic in some 'people' is so devoid of sense, that some has actually been kept. Just in case. Of what? That it is needed? By whom? The solution to mankind's energy problems does not exist with nuclear energy and is an accident literally waiting to happen. The more examples of nuclear power stations, the sooner an accident will happen. It's not IF, but WHEN. And when it does happen then it'll just be too late to correct.

• The contamination released 60 years ago is still in the air we breathe today and will be for many more thousands of years. Any further addition, however small the 'accident' will just add to what is already there. Like the build-up of mercury in the body. It accumulates and isn't purged from the body. It's why it is so dangerous. It has not gone away, it's just been forgotten.

• Nuclear contamination is too diluted to be a recognised problem, but raises the question: "why is there so much disease and other health issues occurring today?"

• The introduction of flawed technology is the same mad logic that would allow the release of pit-bull terriers into a crowd to 'control' a problem that is bothering that crowd. How many times have stupid people tried to mix young children and dangerous dogs just to experience the obvious. The child suffers both physical and mental trauma if they survive any attack. Stupid people simply remain stupid.

None of this is deluded or cynical thinking, but fact based on known science. Any desire to build nuclear power stations is a desire to make plutonium and other radioactive products that can only be created in nuclear facilities. The 'nuclear powers' know this and is why there is so much condemnation of Iran's desire to build these nuclear facilities and simply justifying such a desire on pure pragmatism.

The hypocrisy is absolutely staggering in that it's OK for the west to 'meddle' with nuclear power (the UK government intends to begin a construction programme), but any other country (in the Middle East especially) must not. Obviously, nuclear weapons are being manufactured. Even uranium depleted shells that are very, very hard and can penetrate most materials with ease is a simple example. Natural uranium-238 is enriched with uranium-239, the process being carried out in a nuclear reactor (uranium-238 is converted into uranium-239), and the two isotopes then separated (as the volatile hexafluorides) so enriching with uranium-239. Whether terrorists could make terrible weapons as a result would be academic if nobody can meddle with this deadly technology.

Hydrogen bombs

Such weapons of mass destruction can never be 'uninvented'. They can be outlawed, but an effective policing strategy would be required. Something outlawed does not render it non-existent. Murder happens all the time. It's ludricrous that 'legal mass murder' is acceptable as long as biological weapons are not used. Similar sources of energy are contemplated today and that's in a relative 'peace-time' period. We are in the midst of all out global war (it's just not been officially declared).

Atom bombs, conventional bombs, bullets, knives...

anything excluding biological warfare.

The madness and hypocrisy of the 'nuclear' stance is totally indefensible, but it shouldn't be overlooked that Iran has probably more natural oil reserves than Iraq. Wars are being fought (heavily involving the USA) to wrench oil from Iraq. Arguments can be made that support the thesis that an American military presence anywhere outside America is purely to ensure that the oil pipeline to the USA is not threatened.

To my mind, no other examples are needed to support or deny who could be responsible for the September attack visited on New York in 2001 or the reasons why. It all stems from the US and the desperate need to maintain the external oil supply as there isn't enough internal capacity to satisfy it's growing demands.

Consider: Twin Towers and Controlled Demolition









(and consequential Patriot Act), Afghanistan, Iraq... stepping stones. Saudi Arabia?

Devil's Advocate

It would also offer one answer as to why Mugabe in Zimbabwe has been left alone (by the US and UK) to conduct his regime in the (alleged) nasty way he does.

Zimbabwe has no oil = no action
Iraq has oil = action

The UK is a MAJOR manufacturing base for weapons of war. The desire to build nuclear facilities is based on the fact that plutonium is made in these places. The justifiction is that CO2 'pollution' and an oil shortage conspire to make them necessary. A cynical justifiction that is based on lies and political 'spin'.

Humans produce CO2 by respiration in order to live and so we are, by definition, polluters and contribute to global warming. That's perverse. Completely, but uses the language of 'spin'.

The political noises (of the 'West') being made in opposition to Iran desiring nuclear power are so obviously aimed at weakening Iran so when the assault on the oil reserves begins it will be all relatively easy. The threats by 'western nuclear powers' against a non-nuclear Middle-Eastern power should make progress towards Iran's oil relatively easy.

Were Iran to have a nuclear capability, then the invasion of Iran would be rendered unthinkable without the likelihood of all-out nuclear war. It certainly couldn't be easy or even difficult, but probably impossible for America to invade Iran. The American Administration does consider itself so invulnerable by geographical location that anything is possible. The invasion of Iraq by conventional methods, as with Vietnam or Korea, almost defines a non-nuclear response is likely.

A nuclear onslaught on day-1 would end all further conflict, but also end all life. But:

The inconceivable is not impossible

In the language of 'spin':

The possible can be conceived and the unlikely becomes realistic

The future American oil supply IS the MAJOR issue and the Mad Max scenario is quite realistic. Mayhem caused by a shortage of petrol.

Paradoxically, the US route to global domination has the bizarre benefit of potentially uniting the rest of the world and splitting off North America into complete isolation. Then there is a real possibility of Armageddon.

Just because of the American demand for oil and delusion of being 'top dog'. We are at the brink to the end of 'peace-time' forever. Probably, that time in World History has already long gone.

What we 'meddle' with on Earth is beyond belief

GM

Should the US be isolated from the rest of the world, the GM production of foodstuffs would really become important. This could theoretically be used together in a conspiracy to destroy all crops outside the US at the same time enabling self sufficiency. Starving the world, once it has been made dependent on the US generated crops (Monsanto).

There could be a massive irony in the outcome...

The reactor at Windscale was one of the oldest in the world [suggesting one of the first to be built], designed and constructed when much less was known about fission. The detonation of an uncontrolled explosion in a nuclear bomb is one thing, but a 'controllable' nuclear reactor is quite another. It remains a fact that this was the design, construction and subsquent commission of a highly dangerous technology that was NOT properly understood.

This may have been at Windscale in 1957, but does demonstrate a MAJOR problem with nuclear power. There will ALWAYS be a problem with nuclear power.

The Sun is a long way off, some 93,000,000 miles (150,000,000km), yet still near enough to cause problems and if this nuclear reactor became very unstable, then that's it.

The End

The nature of the Sun is instability and emulating this chemistry without understanding it is actually being considered. Madness. The ego of the ignorant politicians who delude themselves that they understand it is ludicrous. In general, politicians understand only control, power (influence) and money. They do not understand common sense. Scientists can be too easily influenced, especially by politicians who hold the purse strings.

It's paradoxical in that the scientists who should know more are 'controlled' by the politicians who actually know less.

Not all scientists, but a majority implies consensus. Funding is an issue here and is where that beast called politics raises it's dangerous and ugly head like the Hydra.

Comments suggesting that design shortcomings will be fixed so that future reactors do not allow mistakes to be repeated do not inspire confidence. After all, the reactor was to be 'rebuilt' after the Windscale 1957 'accident' and it would seem without any major design modifications being possible. Time and cost considerations, let alone any practical reasons, would see to that.

Contamination was played down, but it did happen and it never went away. Diluted by the sea though still highly radioactive for thousands of years. Salt sea water does not neutralise radioactivity.

Nothing does that
Nothing can do that

The date of 1957 is literally within the blink of an eye to 2007 in terms of the lifetime of radioactive waste. The creation of radioactive material within a nuclear reactor (for example, plutonium) makes a substance that cannot be destroyed. Once made it becomes a Pandora's Box and talk that it can be safely buried in concrete is completely untrue.

A massive and even more GROTESQUELY CYNICAL lie

The storage of CO2 needs more explanation of the principles involved to capture and store billions of tonnes of this gas. The balance needs to be addressed that doesn't suffocate vegetation and trees. Photosynthesis requires this gas. It is oxygen that is the poison and is consumed by the humans that breathe it.

Don't hold your breath, though. It won't happen.

Caging a dangerous animal does not render that animal any less dangerous. The dangerous animal still exists and if let out will still be dangerous. A terrorist has only to destroy such a storage facility to release all the radioactivity. The potential of the 'suicide patriot' makes such a scenario quite feasible.

The lunacy of the will to self-destroy a nation should not be tested. It would only take a fanatical few to destroy an entire nation (and almost immediately the neighbouring nations) of those who are not so suicidal in their tendencies. The rest die later.

An animal can be destroyed, but radioactive waste never can

This makes global warming, climate change and CO2 management totally insignificant by comparison. It even suggests a hope that nuclear energy production will lessen the impact allegedly placed at the door of CO2.

That defines the justifiction for 'going nuclear'

It 'simply' replaces the problem with something much, much BIGGER and so it's a paradox that 1 tonne oil provides the same energy potential of something much SMALLER, 1g plutonium.

1g plutonium is 1,000,000 SMALLER

Any other potential solutions are given, at best, simple lip service since they have little potential to make shedloads of money for a relatively few people. Yet another ironical situation is that by making 'ordinary' people into stakeholders, they conspire to their own destruction by 'virtue' of their own blind greed.

$£bns

Money made from such construction will be useless as the end product itself will enable the destruction of all life

Greed is blind

The idol called money is the real Devil

Filthy Lucre

The irony is that these incredibly short-sighted (actually quite blind) 'business men' are also vulnerable humans and taking civilisation, and themselves, down a dead-end one-way street. Make no mistake, the conditioning being attempted NOW is that CO2 is the Devil and nuclear power is an Angel to make everthing safe again.

Never before has such a cynical lie been perpetrated in the pursuance of money.

The 'spin' is that France has had a nuclear programme for many years and therefore nuclear energy is safe. This is twisted and very dangerous, potentially lethal, logic. The more nuclear reactors there are in existence [hundreds or thousands around the globe at the financial cost (ie profit) of $£trillions] the greater the chances of a deadly accident on a global scale. The amount of radioactive waste produced will amount to an inconceivable annual tonnage that will remain lethally radioactive for thousands of years.

Pragmatism and common sense to nuclear energy shouts:

No, No, No (Survival)

Blind greed shouts:

Yes, Yes, Yes (Death)

There are no easy answers, but nuclear energy isn't one of them. In fact, it doesn't feature at all. It is the most dangerous route thinkable that will result in the annihilation of human and ALL other life. Imagine a runaway reaction BETWEEN two nuclear facilities and the chain reaction started by that. The more that such facilities are built, the greater the density by number are those facilities. They will exist nearer to each other and so threaten each other.

What is a 'safe' distance between them? Somewhat of a rhetorical question since the radioactive fallout will kill everything anyway. Academic.

Tidal Power

Wind Power

Once the building programme is underway and $£bns or more investments have been made, NOTHING will stop the final commissioning of this 'accident-in-waiting'. Except a global nightmare 'accident' of unimaginable proportions.

Too late

Fukushima Daiishi

Madness Of Nuclear Power
Nuclear Contamination

The Fukushima Daiishi disaster in Japan (11th March 2011) exemplifies the consequences of nuclear power and when things go wrong, they go terribly wrong. It has nothing to do with how resistant a plant may be to damage. It is the beast that is contained within. It is dreadful. The reactor should never have been sited where it was on a tectonic plate intersection, but regardless of the conspiracy of factors that caused the 'accident' (waiting to happen - DA) it was a monumental disaster the consequences of which will continue for literally 100's of millennia. The tsunami that preceded it was insignificant by comparison.

Note added: 01.05.2012

The public lecture of Dr. Helen Caldicott (video) and Global Research.ca (transcript) well-describes the situation. There is no exaggeration in what she describes.

The reactors partially withstood the earthquake, but the external electricity supply was cut off, and the electricity supplies the cooling water, a million gallons a minute, to each of those six reactors. Without the cooling water, the water [level] falls, and the rods are so hot they melt, like at Three Mile Island, and at Chernobyl.

U.S.NRC - United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

When the emergency diesel generators, which are as large as a house, got destroyed by the tsunami, there was no way to keep the water circulating in the reactors. Also, on the roof of the reactors, not within the containment vessel, are cooling pools. Every year they remove about thirty tons of the most radioactive rods that you can possibly imagine. Each one is twelve feet long and half an inch thick. It gives out so much radiation, that if you stand next to it for a couple of minutes, you'll die. Not drop dead. Remember Litvinenko, the Russian, who got poisoned by polonium? You'll die like that, with your hair falling out, and bleeding with massive infection, like AIDS patients die.

And [the spent fuel rods] are thermally hot, so they have to be put in a big pool, and continually cooled. The pool has really no roof. There have been three hydrogen explosions, blowing off the roof of the building, not the containment vessel of the core, but the roof. And exposing the cooling pool. Two of the cooling pools are dry. They have no water in them. Meaning that the nuclear fuel rods are covered with a material called zirconium. When zirconium is exposed to air, it burns, it ignites. Two of the cooling pools at this moment are burning. In the cooling pools are many times, like 10 to 20 times more radiation than in each reactor core. In each reactor core is as much long-lived radiation as would be produced by a thousand Hiroshima-sized bombs. We are dealing with diabolical energy.

E=mc^2 is the energy that blows up nuclear bombs. Einstein said nuclear power is a 'hell of a way to boil water'. Because that is all nuclear power is used for, to boil water through the massive heat, turn it into steam, and turn a turbine which generates electricity. Now when you fission uranium, 200 new elements are formed, all of which are much more poisonous to the body than the original uranium. Although uranium is pretty poisonous. America used it in Fallujah, and in Baghdad. And in Fallujah, 80 per cent of the babies being born are grossly deformed. They're being born without brains, single eyes, no arms... The doctors have told the women to stop having babies. The incidence of childhood cancer has gone up about twelve times. This is genocide - it's a nuclear war being conducted in Iraq. The uranium that they're using lasts more than 4.5 billion years. So we're contaminating the cradle of civilization. "The coalition of the willing!"

In the nuclear power plants, however, there is a huge amount of radiation: two hundred elements. Some last seconds, some last millions of years. Radioactive iodine lasts six weeks, causes thyroid cancer.  That's why people are saying, "Better take potassium iodide," because that blocks the thyroid uptake of radioactive iodine, which later can cause thyroid cancer.

In Chernobyl, over 20,000 people have developed thyroid cancer. They have their thyroids out, and they will die unless they take thyroid replacement every day, like a diabetic has to take insulin. Strontium-90 will get out, it lasts for 600 years.  It goes to the bone, where it causes bone cancer or leukemia. Cesium lasts for 600 years - it's all over Europe. 40 per cent of Europe is still radioactive. Turkish food is extremely radioactive. Do not buy Turkish dried apricots, or Turkish hazelnuts.The Turks were so cross with the Russians, they sent all their radioactive tea over to Russia after Chernobyl. Forty per cent of Europe is still radioactive. Farms in Britain, their lambs are so full of cesium they can't sell them. Don’t eat European food.

But that's nothing compared to what's happening now. One of the most deadly [nuclear byproducts] is plutonium, named after Pluto, god of the underworld. One millionth of a gram, if you inhale it, would give you cancer. Hypothetically, one pound of plutonium if evenly distributed could give everyone on earth cancer.  Each reactor has 250 kilograms of plutonium in it. You only need 2.5 kilograms to make an atomic bomb, because plutonium is what they make bombs with.

It's the probable reason that plutonium is used and not thorium for energy.

So any country that has a reactor, works with your uranium. You [Canada] are the biggest exporter of uranium in the world. Canada sells two things: it sells wheat for life, and uranium for death. Plutonium is going to get out and spread all over the northern hemisphere. It's already heading towards North America now. Radioactive iodine, plus strontium, plus cesium, plus tritium, and I could go on and* on and on. When it rains, downs come fallout, and it concentrates in food. If it gets into the sea, the algae concentrate it, hundreds of times. And the crustaceans concentrate it, hundreds of times. And then the little fish, then the big fish, then us.

Because we stand on the apex of the food chain. You can't taste these radioactive food elements, you can't see them, you can't smell them. They're silent. When you get them inside your body, you don't suddenly drop dead of cancer, it takes five to sixty years to get your cancer, and when you feel a lump in your breast, it doesn't say, "I was made by some strontium-90 in a piece of fish you ate twenty years ago."

All radiation is damaging.  It's cumulative - each dose you get adds to your risk of getting cancer. The americium is more dangerous than plutonium - I could go on and on. Depends if it rains if you're going to get it or not. If it rains and the radiation comes down, don't grow food, and don't eat the food, and I mean don't eat it for 600 years. Radioactive waste from nuclear power is going to be buried, I hear, next to Lake Ontario.  It's going to leak, last for millions of years, it's going to get into the water, and into the food chains.  Radioactive waste will induce epidemics of cancer, leukemia, and genetic disease for the rest of time. This is the greatest public health hazard the world has ever witnessed, apart from the threat every day of nuclear war.


Einstein said "the splitting of the atom changed everything, save man's mode of thinking" - very profound - "and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe."  We are arrogant, we have a lot of hubris, and I think the reptilian mid-brain of some men's (and women's - DA) brains is pathological. We are in a situation where we have harnessed the energy of the sun. It is totally out of control. And there's simply nothing we can do about it.

Nuclear Energy And The Future

Arguments regarding nuclear power have to be considered against the protectionism mounted by the oil and gas industries and the loss of immense profits as the stake. The profit and associated share values are the relevant business words in any commercial enterprise and safety will appear (if at all) only somewhere in the shadowy background. Safety issues constitute an attack on profits. Benefits are (mostly) financial and this can point to the probable reasons for creating fear with respect to nuclear power. Certainly, the potential for hazard is real, but the reality may be somewhat different. Misconceptions arrived at through caution have consequences, yet it remains critically important to weigh up the potential risks against the very real downside of using fossil fuels. The case in some respects becomes stronger in favour of nuclear power, but carries increased complexity in its opposition.

The fossil-based substances can never be replaced. Once they have been used up then that’s it, certainly for the currently existing population and its future generations. But that cannot by definition be for very long. There can’t ever be more for minimally hundreds of thousands of years. This is similar in principle to enjoying a feast of all the remaining food and water, leaving the larder empty rather than conserving food while attempts are made at finding an alternative source. One is obviously sensible and the other is just plain stupid. Ironically, if the original oil is not abiogenic, but from organic living sources that have died, the organic waste of the existing human population when it expires will, in part, replace what it has consumed. Eventually the human parasite will put something back in a (forced) selfless act. Itself.

   The irony is that after use, fossil fuels cannot be replaced but nuclear waste cannot be destroyed.

Currently, there are well in excess of 400 nuclear power stations around the world and produce more than 17% of all electricity used, roughly the same as hydroelectricity. Renewable sources (wind, biofuels etc) produce only around 2%. Hardly a threat to the energy industry. The nuclear power carbon (dioxide) footprint is zero, since it's not possible to create this gas in any nuclear (power) energy process. The yield of CO2 in transportation of all the fossil fuel based sources (oil, diesel, gas and coal) is at least 750 times the amount relative to nuclear fuel delivery and maintenance of waste (g/kWh energy). The volume of solid CO2 ‘created’ annually has been described as a 1-mile high cone with a 12-mile circumference of its base (about 3.8 cubic miles).

The issue of nuclear waste is probably the most contentious, but in context the materials that are used are radioactive to begin with and so the waste does not add to the overall amount. Mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium and thallium, are toxic chemicals and always will be. The creation of these elemental materials would be measured in billions of years. But the purified metal would have come from an inorganic ore. The toxicity of a pure metal and an ore containing the metal is different, but should still be regarded as a highly toxic source. The original sources of radioactive materials like uranium would have been mined in different places before being combined for use in a nuclear power station. Each original source may have been at a lower concentration, but the combined effect from these multiple sources when ultimately processed (as waste), will be in a higher concentration from a single location.

Nevertheless, to suggest that in 600 or so years, the high-level waste will have simply faded away is a particularly simplistic and very weak argument. In terms of human survival, this period represents a very long way back from today in terms of human history to around the 15th century. It also implies that the original activity billions of years ago was zero and so raises the question of how the radioactive nature was initially acquired and its activity enhanced. The potential hazard is still real, however described. The annual physical amount of spent fuel from a 1000 MW nuclear power station may only be enough to fill a small car (allegedly), yet is still a (relatively small) source of a deadly cargo and in one place. Whether only one Albert Hall-sized vessel full of highly radioactive waste instead of the several apparently described by the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), over a 40 year period this is still an immense amount of waste. A future of nuclear power can only escalate this estimate of waste dramatically.

The amount of radon gas breathed in by the UK population is thought to be 500 times that from the nuclear radiation produced by the nuclear industry. The danger here is comparing radiation from the nuclear industry and natural radon. Uranium and radon are not the same thing. The source is again confused or just obfuscated. The concentration of radiation from just a few nuclear sites does not compare with the diluted natural spread over an entire country from its rocks and soil. The Three Mile Island 'incident' may have not caused any direct deaths, but a safe landing by an aircraft in distress does not downplay any potential for a disaster, but only describes the outcome. The Chernobyl and Windscale disasters may have been 'accidents' (Chernobyl: steam explosion in an unstable reactor and being used for improper experimentation), but especially the Windscale (Sellafield) affair is a stark reminder of the potential for (absolute) decimation.

Uranium may not be a rare element, but the mining, transportation and processing will all increase the commercial profiteering potential. Coal is an abundant source, yet coal-fired energy production will never be cheap. Justifications for keeping the price high will always be promulgated and the commercial impact must never be overlooked when considering the viability of alternatives. Blind-thinking (stupidity) is simply the vision of the man-made concept of profit as being on the path to survival. Defunct governments sycophantically pursuing the favours of the highly profitable oil and gas industries downplay and shun the less instant nuclear ‘fast buck’. Artificially massaging conventional fuel prices upwards encourages these sources to be less desirable in the consumers' collective mind, so easing the path towards the introduction of nuclear energy. When the threat of power depletion is judged more economically real and so financially advantageous to the suppliers than at present, the industry will be motivated into action, but at (and to) the higher cost to the consumer. The pressure from the consumer to actually demand nuclear power will increase.

Create the problem and

provide the solution

The human race will certainly reach an abrupt end along this path. Human survival and the survival of national economies move in opposing directions away from each other. The one cannot be linked to the other as is still perceived. Gluttony kills everything human. Global economies are based on profit and whether the energy source is nuclear or non-nuclear, the end result will be the same. No future sufficiency of any kind will ever rescue humankind from itself. The only real prospect of any long-term future must be through changed attitudes. The stupid and greedy will turn to the scientists in the expectation of salvation that in all probability simply won't happen since it cannot.

An example of attitude change can be examined in the ‘wealthy’ (those who have a belief in the concept of virtual money that has no real value) apparently viewing excess driving speed as their right regardless of the law forbidding it. Buying an expensive and reasonably high performance car (almost the norm nowadays) also appears to provide the license to exploit the performance. It’s hedonism. Illusion and fantasy. Again commercialism married to technology produces corrupt and selfish thinking. Tragically, it appears that the only way to educate such people into the real world is when their own child is killed in a road traffic accident (RTA). It is only then that a new paradigm is adopted. But by then it's too late. In any case, a few deaths however regrettably caused, do pale into insignificance when the entire global population of billions is the real stake.

The Moon is responsible for the tides and these have been happening for billions of years. There is no reason to suppose the Moon will stop revolving around the Earth before the extinction of mankind. Eventual depletion of coal, oil and gas resources will force the not-too-distant next generations to face up to what is being ignored now. These failing sources are the least favourable and with wind and solar power insufficient to meet the demands of a still-growing population of consumers that feeds the profit hunger of commercialism, nuclear energy is raised to being the most favourable, even if not the most desirable. This does remain as potentially very hazardous, even on a more considered, but limited, appraisal. Tidal power must be examined. It is limitless in its potential. And if electrical (lightning) storm power could ever be harnessed, the energy is truly staggering. Attitudes are changing and the groundswell is increasing, but there are not enough of the visionary individuals who are not constrained by profiteering sponsors and the opposition of the stupid masses to any future that has real potential.

Whether a nuclear energy source or something else then becomes tragically irrelevant. The only way to prevent the global disaster created by that part of humankind that craves power and/or wealth is to remove the toys of destruction. Take away the reward and the problem evaporates. Replace it with pain and suddenly the greed factor will change.

But it won't disappear

The war-like nature of Man will rise. The nuclear weapons of war will almost certainly be deployed so paradoxically speeding up the inevitable end of humankind. The artificial (man-made concept) of financial gains will produce destruction. It becomes simply a different paradigm to the greed effect that produces selfishness. The greater the population the greater will be the polarisation of those supporting or opposing nuclear power. It would be interesting to speculate how views will change when push comes to shove and all the other non-renewable sources run out completely. But then, of course, it will be too late. Mankind is not capable of self-regulation. It’s not in the psyche of mankind’s nature. It will be the epitaph upon the world where there is no human life.


The manufacture of man-made (non-natural) CFCs costs money and so the cessation of production when the deleterious effects to atmospheric ozone were identified had little consequence when compared to the exploitation of a natural resource that has no manufacturing costs except its collection, transportation, refinement and distribution (sale). Even the ‘waste’ has its uses: the non-volatile fractions (asphalt). Other man-made disasters remain local affairs (Bhopal). These 'accidents' are more reminders of the potential for events going wrong. Or natural devastation: hurricanes and tsunamis. Inundation.

The artificial justification is by the creation of wars to so create the market place where the weapons of death are then sold. It’s the commercialism of death. A commercial business expects to get a return on its products. The facilitation of war and death. To develop and manufacture weapons that are primarily and only designed to maximise the yield of death and destruction. The cynical attitude is sickening, but doesn’t stop it happening. This exemplifies the distinction between natural or unnatural products being exploited for good or evil intent. Nuclear energy and nuclear weapons co-exist in a polarised marriage. Inextricably linked and so forever forming the trigger for an Armageddon. The shameful Hiroshima and Nagasaki  atrocities, but war produces war-like behaviour. In ‘peacetime’ there may be no current world conflicts, yet such events are today a feature of everyday life in many places around the world. Death and destruction are facts of human existence. Power and control and ultimately supremacy over the subservience of everything else.

Polonium-210

The radioactive heavy metal Polonium-210 (210Po), which killed Alexander Litvinenko, the former Russian spy, has crashed into public awareness. 210Po is a rare radioactive metalloid that is chemically similar to tellurium and bismuth, and occurs in uranium ores. It was discovered by Marie and Pierre Curie in 1898. Less than 100 grams are (claimed to be) manufactured each year and its principle industrial use is in nuclear reactors to superheat water. A mere 100gm to simply superheat water. Really?


210Po is a highly radioactive and an extremely toxic element. Even in milligram or microgram amounts it is very hazardous and requires specialised equipment with strict handling procedures. 210Po does not penetrate the skin's epidermis and is not a threat so long as it remains outside the body. A milligram of 210Po emits as much alpha radiation as about 5 grams of radium, and enough gamma radiation to cause a blue glow in the air around it. The level of 210Po in American tobacco has tripled in recent years, coinciding with the increased use of calcium phosphate fertilisers. The ores of calcium phosphate attract and accumulate uranium, which slowly releases radon gas. As radon decays, its electrically charged daughter products attach themselves to dust particles, which adhere to the sticky hairs on the underside of tobacco leaves. This leaves a deposit of radioactive polonium on the leaves.

The intense localised heat in the burning tip of a cigarette volatilises the radioactive metals. While cigarette filters can trap some tar and nicotinic chemical carcinogens, they are ineffective against the radioactive vapours. The lungs of a chronic smoker wind up with a radioactive lining, which actually emits radiation. Smoking two packs of cigarettes a day imparts a radiation dose by alpha particles of about 1,300 millirem per year. Consider: the annual radiation dose to the average American from inhaled radon is 200 millirem.


210-Po is soluble and is circulated through the body to every tissue and cell in levels much higher than from residential radon. The evidence is found in the blood and urine of smokers. The circulating 210Po causes genetic damage and early death from diseases reminiscent of early radiological pioneers: liver and bladder cancer, stomach ulcer, leukaemia, liver cirrhosis and cardiovascular diseases. Allegedly, radioactivity rather than tar accounts for at least 90% of all smoking-related lung cancers. The Centres for Disease Control concluded:

"Americans are exposed to far more
radiation from tobacco smoke 
than from any other source."

“Chelators” (Greek: to claw) are synthetic drugs that are designed to attach to heavy metals and eliminate them from the body, but such drugs can themselves be quite toxic and also remove a portion of desirable minerals from the body.

Blair And The American Trident System

Original posting, August 2006 

Here is a possible reason for Blair's attitude towards Bush

The British nuclear deterrent and whether to replace the Trident nuclear force: the British Trident strategic nuclear system consists of Vanguard-class nuclear-powered submarines (twice the size of the Polaris subs they replaced), Trident D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and the nuclear warheads for the missiles. The Vanguard subs will probably come to the end of their operational life between 2020-2025.

The SLBMs can be replaced from an American stockpile. The strategic nuclear deterrent is dependent on American support, even though Britain builds its own nuclear warheads. Trident is an American missile system and the UK 'leases' its missiles from the American stock. The US also supplies highly enriched uranium to fuel the submarines. Various other services and products are also supplied: the storage, assembly and servicing of the missiles; the facilities for the preparation of the Trident missiles; refurbishment during each major refit.

The British nuclear deterrent is hardly an independent one. Bush (in 2004) renewed the (1958) Mutual Defence Agreement which ensures American support to maintain 'a credible deterrent' to 2014.

• Arguments summarized from an article by Frank Barnaby in Focus (September 2006 issue)

What did Blair give in return in this mutual agreement? Without Britain's nuclear weapons (as a political weapon) there might be no permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council as it would certainly be challenged and so lose great-power status, or whatever it might still have.

Iran 'does not need nuclear arms'

The following is based on an article taken from the BBC website news.bbc.co.uk It rather speaks for itself and the comment by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes perfect sense. The comment that people who "want to solve everything through the use of force" I would suggest refers to the US and UK. Perhaps Israel too. I believe I am not being particularly careless in my thinking. Stand back a bit and think for yourself. This is a classic case of being led into wrong thinking because it’s what the majority (so it seems) are pontificating. Iran 'does not need nuclear arms'. But, bear in mind that the USA is rattling it’s sabres again and this is usually not an idle threat. So, Iran would be offered the right to defend itself in any way it sees fit since these ‘serious threats‘ are being made. I'm playing Devil's advocate here: it's not about being naïve, but exploring, questioning and challenging as opposed to pure acceptance of what I'm expected to believe. The news conference was the second of Ahmadinejad's presidency. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that his country does not need nuclear weapons. At a rare news conference in Tehran, Mr Ahmadinejad said they were needed only by people who "want to solve everything through the use of force". The president defended Tehran's recent move to restart nuclear research, which has sparked international condemnation. Iran says it has a right to peaceful nuclear technology and denies that it is covertly seeking to develop weapons. Of course, it has the potential to manufacture weapons grade plutonium. A nuclear power plant is the only place that such a product can be made. The US, UK, France and Germany are threatening to refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council, which could impose sanctions. But the president said a referral would not end its nuclear plans. The hypocrisy is still quite staggering even if it is typical, since it is precisely what all the peaceful, and reponsible, nations do. They just don't want the 'enemy' to arm themselves. Almost a paradox: denying your enemy a means to defend itself is the way of defeating that enemy. But it's a method of control: a combatant with his arms tied behind his back does not suggest balance. Or provide grounds for agreement. "If they want to destroy the Iranian nation's rights by that course, they will not succeed," he said. Tehran has said it will stop snap UN inspections of nuclear sites if its case is sent to the Council. The crisis intensified this week when Iran removed seals at three nuclear facilities, ending a two-year freeze. He criticised the "double standards" of Western countries which already had nuclear weapons, and attacked "arrogant rulers" for causing suffering. "Leaders who believe they can create peace for themselves by creating war for others are mistaken," he said. A few had a "medieval mindset" and sought to deprive Iran of valuable technology, without evidence of wrongdoing, he added. Mr Ahmadinejad sparked international outrage with his hardline stance towards Israel, following his election last June. He repeated both his attacks and calls for a referendum for Palestinians to choose their future political fate. "(Israelis) have no roots in Palestine and almost all are immigrants," he said. "Let the nation of Palestine decide among themselves." Western countries are now seeking to persuade other members of UN nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to agree to refer Iran to the Council. The Iranians crossed a line by reactivating nuclear facilities the UN had shut Albert Arnim, Dresden, Germany. European, Russian, Chinese and US officials are due to meet in London on Monday, when they are expected to set a date for the crucial IAEA meeting. On Friday, US President George W Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel agreed that the crisis should be resolved through peaceful means. Washington, Israel and many European powers distrust Iran, partly because it had kept its nuclear research secret for 18 years before it was revealed in 2002. Since last August, Iran has resumed all nuclear activity apart from enrichment, which can produce fuel for power stations or, under certain conditions, for bombs. Tehran has always said it has the right under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - which it has signed - to research nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Sept 2002: Work begins on Iran's first reactor at Bushehr Dec 2002: Satellites reveal Arak and Natanz sites, triggering IAEA inspections Nov 2003: Iran suspends uranium enrichment and allows tougher inspections June 2004: IAEA rebukes Iran for not fully co-operating Nov 2004: Iran suspends enrichment under deal with EU Aug 2005: Iran rejects EU plan and re-opens Isfahan plant Jan 2006: Iran re-opens Natanz facility