clear nuclear

Nuclear power is the most efficient, safest and most environment friendly source of energy.

Welcome

This blog compiles facts that make nuclear energy the clear choice for powering our future.


I have NO connection with the nuclear power industry and I have never had any connection with the nuclear power industry.


I have created this blog because I believe we are in dire need of drastically reducing our carbon emissions. Coal fired power plants are the single largest producer of CO2. Nuclear power is the most efficient, safest and most environmentally friendly source of energy available.


Coal Is Bad

Alex Gabbard makes it clear in this ORNL article. Coal fired power plants are a bigger danger to your health and the future of our planet than nuclear power plants. Coal fired power plants release more radiation and more CO2 into the atmosphere than a nuclear power plant. Yet 52% of our energy comes form coal fired power plants, while only 15% is created by nuclear energy.


The Oak Ridge National Laboratory is the Department of Energy’s largest science and energy laboratory.

Books

  • "Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by Gwyneth Cravens, 2007 Finally a truthful book about nuclear power. This book is very easy to read and understand.
  • ENVIRONMENTALISTS FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY book: http://www.comby.org/livres/livresen.htm Fossil fuels such as coal oil, and gas, massively pollute the Earth's atmosphere (CO, CO2, SOX, NOX...), provoking acid rains and changeing the global climate by increasing the greenhouse effect, while nuclear energy does not participate in these pollutions and presents well-founded environmental benefits. Renewable energies (solar, wind) not being able to deliver the amount of energy required by populations in developing and developed countries, nuclear energy is in fact the only clean and safe energy available to protect the planet during the XXI st century. This book answers essential questions about nuclear safety, the Chernobyl accident, the public health problems our society has to face, viable solutions for nuclear waste, the benefits of clean nuclear energy for the environment, and important information about the future of our planet. Back cover - Table of contents - Introduction by James Lovelock - Review of this book by the American Health Physics Society http://www.comby.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/HealthPhysics-NUC-July2002.htm   Book Review   Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy, by B. Comby English edition, 2001, 345 pp. (soft cover), 38 Euros TNR Editions, 266 avenue Daumesnil, 75012 Paris, France; ISBN 2-914190-02-6 www.ecolo.org
  • "The Long Summer" by Brian Fagan
  • "Collapse" by Jared Diamond

Mass Extinction

The largest mass extinction of life occurred 251 million years ago when the atmospheric carbon levels rose to near 1000 parts per million, the ocean became anoxic (lacking oxygen). This allowed hydrogen sulfide gas to bubbled up from the bottom of the ocean and 95% of all life on earth died.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

EVACUATE DENVER!!!!

EVACUATE DENVER!!!!

If you live in Chernobyl the total radiation dose you get each year is 390 millirem. That's natural plus residual from the accident and fire. In Denver, Colorado, the natural dose is over 1000 millirem/year. Denver gets more than 2.56 times as much radiation as Chernobyl! But Denver has a low cancer rate.


Calculate your annual radiation dose:

http://www.ans.org/pi/resources/dosechart/


Average American gets 361 millirems/year. Smokers add 280 millirems/year from lead210. Radon accounts for 200 mrem/year.

http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/rp/factsheets/factsheets-htm/fs10bkvsman.htm


http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/around-us/doses-daily-lives.html


Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no data to unequivocally establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates -- below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv). Those people living in areas having high levels of background radiation -- above 1,000 mrem (10 mSv) per year-- such as Denver, Colorado have shown no adverse biological effects.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html


Calculations based on data from NCRP reports show that the average level of natural background radiation (NBR) in Rocky Mountain states is 3.2 times that in Gulf Coast states. However, data from the American Cancer Society show that age-adjusted overall cancer death in Gulf Coast states is actually 1.26 times higher than in Rocky Mountain states. The difference from proportionality is a factor of 4.0. This is a clear negative correlation of NBR with overall cancer death. It is also shown that, comparing 3 Rocky Mountain states and 3 Gulf Coast states, there is a strong negative correlation of estimated lung cancer mortality with natural radon levels (factors of 5.7 to 7.5).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9753369

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)