SamhainRising wrote:
AnnaMariaS wrote:

Therefore, any increase in radioisotopes, even in amounts that are not above "background" can still cause MORE people to get cancer, when they may normally not have gotten cancer. It is all about probability.
....
A recent paper shows that even background solar radiation (which makes up about 20-30% of the normal "background" radiation that we are exposed to), seems to be correlated with cancer related deaths.
I would never dispute that radiation is, in general, unhealthy. This is simply a fact. I had been questioning whether the scale of the disaster was as big as people had been saying, but after recent reports I'm quite willing to admit I was wrong and this could very well be an enormously significant problem. Do I believe that the death toll will be anywhere near that of Chernobyl? I believe strongly that it won't, but I've been wrong before (many times) and I could very well be wrong again.

As a scientific researcher, can you correct me on the following impression I've been given by bad science reporting? "On the topic of cancer, it seems that as one ages the probability of acquiring cancer approaches 1. While the risks can be reduced by a healthy diet, not smoking, not going outdoors in daylight, not using cellphones, not breathing air in cities or highly populated countries, and so on, it's sadly a fact of life right now. The list of things that cannot cause cancer is probably smaller than the list of things which can." I'm probably wrong about this. I hope.
AnnaMariaS wrote:
Moreover, it is IMPOSSIBLE to build enough nuclear plants (not enough space, money, time, or material) to actually provide the amount of energy that the world's population are projected to consume
True.
AnnaMariaS wrote:
It seems like alternatives that will not lead to cancer and death seem to be a smart direction to move!
Of course. What do you have in mind, though? Biofuel causes similar rates of pollutants, solar energy, hydroelectric, geothermal (which has its own environmental problems), and wind power aren't going to come close either. I guess the only solution at this point is to reduce energy consumption in general?

Well, SamhainRising

Two countries are convinced to be able to live without nuclear power and fixed it by law. Maybe you can watch this development and their energy conceptions, to get answers. This is Belgium (2003) and Germany (2002).

Both have the same problem at the moment with conserverative goverments, which have defined down this goal and extended using time of the nuclear power plants, but were not able to abolish. And it is amazing how quickly, they have changed their conservative minds with Fukushima. What was said half year ago here, how save this energy and no problem for the citizens has changed. Now they need stress tests and whatever stuff is now needed.

To answer your question with examples, maybe a combination of everthing: increase of the efficiency of power plants, developing new power plant types, improving isolation of houses and yes, saving energy. My parents use geothermy and thinking of combining it with solarenergy, which is supported financially by the state. The energy what is produced will go the first years in the grid, what means our house become a power plant and what is earn will be cleared with the use. After a couple of years we are allowed using this energy just for us, for the warmth pump. And it is enough energy to heatand cool the house round the year for a while.

I am powered by water, what is used for centuries in the region I grew up. Because there are natural downhill gradients and many rivers. 

I do not really understand, what are you looking for, there are many ideas and techniques for energy production. Just somewhere to start is left.


Last Edited By: luna Mar 26 11 4:07 PM. Edited 1 times.