Greenpeace thinks that non-radioactive steam contains radiation.

[grundle]

This picture and text shows Greenpeace's true level of ignorance.


http://www.greenpeace-digital.co.uk/climate/solution/notnuclear.cfm

Nuclear - not the answer

http://www.greenpeace-digital.co.uk/climate/solution/images/nuclear.jpg

It's polluting

Every day, nuclear power stations pump radioactive pollution into the sea and air. These emissions can travel hundreds of kilometres, exposing wildlife and people to deadly radiation.

[grundle]

I voted that Greenpeace really is this ignorant.

Here's another example of their idiocy. Greenepace doens't know what a containment building is:


http://www.greenpeace-digital.co.uk/gp_nuclear/nuclear_power.cfm

Then there is the risk of a catastrophic nuclear accident like Chernobyl

[movielib]

The vote is a tough call. I can't imagine the bigwigs of Greenpeace could be this ignorant. But the vast majority of the rank and file along with fellow travelers probably are. Since the organization, Greenpeace, is not a person in and of itself, I think it doesn't think anything. But I think it is fair to characterize "its" opinion by its leaders. Therefore I voted "Greenpeace knows the truth, but is counting on [its] audience's [which includes its own members] ignorance."

[OldDude]

On the other hand, there are extremely high emissions of dihydrogen monoxide evident coming from those towers.

[movielib]

On the other hand, there are extremely high emissions of dihydrogen monoxide evident coming from those towers.
<img src="http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/smiley-faces-28.gif" alt="Frightened" />

[JasonF]

I think they know they truth. Grundle didn't quote this part, but they specifically talk about Sellafield and its emissions into the Irish Sea. Of course, they paint it in a way that makes it look much worse than it is. The reality is that all nuclear plants emit some radioactive material -- Tc-99, for example -- but then again, so do coal plants, and hospitals, and the earth, and the sun.

[Chrisedge]

Maybe I'm blind, but where did it say that the Steam has radiation? Or should there be another "Ignore this Grundle poll" option on the poll?

They say nuclear power stations pollute. Do they not pollute in any way?

[movielib]

Maybe I'm blind, but where did it say that the Steam has radiation? Or should there be another "Ignore this Grundle poll" option on the poll?
From the Greenpeace article cited:


It's polluting

Every day, nuclear power stations pump radioactive pollution into the sea and air. These emissions can travel hundreds of kilometres, exposing wildlife and people to deadly radiation.
Which is exactly what grundle quoted.

Nobody said anything about steam (edit: oops, I take that back; it's in the thread title; but it doesn't change anything) but I think that's mostly what is emitted from the big "smokestacks." Where else would the "radioactive pollution" that is "pumped into the air" claimed by Greenpeace come from? I don't understand your problem with grundle's characterization this time.

They say nuclear power stations pollute. Do they not pollute in any way?
Far less than any other viable energy source.

[X]

The worse pollution that nuclear plants create on a regular basis is heat. When water is used to absorb that heat, such as with plants by the ocean, the sealife seems to really like it.

I know biologists who gather up samples of that sealife and analyze it for radiation. Then they have a feast. I don't know of any sample of edible seafood gathered that way that they've refused to eat as a result of their testing.

[movielib]

From the Greenpeace article:

One particle of plutonium can cause fatal lung-cancer. The UK civil nuclear industry has a stockpile of 102 tonnes of plutonium with no plans for what to do with it.

Back in the real world, from Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium

All isotopes and compounds of plutonium are toxic and radioactive. While plutonium is sometimes described in media reports as "the most toxic substance known to man", there is general agreement among experts in the field that this is incorrect. As of 2006, there has yet to be a single human death officially attributed to exposure to plutonium itself (with the exception of plutonium-related criticality accidents). Naturally-occurring radium is about 200 times more radiotoxic than plutonium, and some organic toxins like Botulin toxin are still more toxic. Botulin toxin, in particular, has a lethal dose of 300pg/kg, far less than the quantity of plutonium that poses a significant cancer risk. In addition, beta and gamma emitters (including the C-14 and K-40 in nearly all food) can cause cancer on casual contact, which alpha emitters cannot.

When taken in by mouth, plutonium is less poisonous (except for risk of causing cancer) than several common substances including caffeine, acetaminophen, some vitamins, pseudoephedrine, and any number of plants and fungi. It is perhaps somewhat more poisonous than pure ethanol, but less so than tobacco; and many illegal drugs. From a purely chemical standpoint, it is about as poisonous as lead and other heavy metals. Not surprisingly, it has a metallic taste[1].

That said, there is no doubt that plutonium may be extremely dangerous when handled incorrectly. The alpha radiation it emits does not penetrate the skin, but can irradiate internal organs when plutonium is inhaled or ingested. Particularly at risk are the skeleton, whose surface it is likely to be absorbed on, and the liver, where it will collect and become concentrated. Approximately 0.008 microcuries absorbed in bone marrow is the maximum withstandable dose. Anything more is considered toxic. Extremely fine particles of plutonium (on the order of micrograms) can cause lung cancer if inhaled.

Other substances including ricin, tetrodotoxin, botulinum toxin, and tetanus toxin are fatal in doses of (sometimes far) under one milligram, and others (the nerve agents, the amanita toxin) are in the range of a few milligrams. As such, plutonium is not unusual in terms of toxicity, even by inhalation. In addition, those substances are fatal in hours to days, whereas plutonium (and other cancer-causing radioactives) give an increased chance of illness decades in the future. Considerably larger amounts may cause acute radiation poisoning and death if ingested or inhaled; however, so far, no human is known to have immediately died because of inhaling or ingesting plutonium and many people have measurable amounts of plutonium in their bodies.
Sure, it isn't totally nondangerous, but let's put things in perspective, Greenpeace.

Also see:

http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1053.html

[Duran]

Not surprisingly, it has a metallic taste.

Actually, I'm quite surprised someone tasted it. :)

[OldDude]

From the Greenpeace article:
Quote:
One particle of plutonium can cause fatal lung-cancer. The UK civil nuclear industry has a stockpile of 102 tonnes of plutonium with no plans for what to do with it.



That part probably isn't true either, as about 10 kg would be enough for a critical mass. I doubt the British government wants civilians with enough plutonium to make over 10,000 nuclear weapons.

In fact, all reactors "breed" a small amount of plutonium from U-238, the non-fissionable isotope of uranium used as a buffer. (A "breeder" reactor is designed to maximize this.) The fuel rod reprocessing normally reclaims it and adds it to new fuel rods along with U-235 at the correct concentration for the reactor's design. Mixing it into fuel rods in suitable proportions is probably the best way to get rid of weapons-grade plutonium, turning those old swords into plowshares.

[chess]

I'd say that this is the stupidest poll ever...but grundle most likely posted one yesterday.

[Birrman54]

I'd say that this is the stupidest poll ever...but grundle most likely posted one yesterday.

there is false and misleading information all over the Greenpeace webpage, either they are impressively ignorant about the very topic they purport to be experts in, or they're lying.

[JasonF]

I'd say that this is the stupidest poll ever...but grundle most likely posted one yesterday.
I disagree. Greenpeace may be deliberately spreading misinformation in order to further their agenda, or they may simply be ignorant. This is a real question, and it's far better than the typical one-sided "Are you in favor or against innocent people being horribly tortured?" that grundle usually posts. No offense, grundle. ;)

[NCMojo]

There are 703 words in that article. Two of them -- "and air" -- are technically incorrect. Only if you went into the article looking for some nitpicky point to raise a hubbub over would you isolate those two words.

So what is the point? That Greenpeace is exaggerating the potential impact of nuclear power plants? OK, point taken. There are articles in the Wall Street Journal that exaggerate the value of supply-side economics. There are articles in High Times that exaggerate the dangers of long-term marijuana use. There are articles in Bear Lovin' that exaggerate the number of men who want to see more man-on-man action in heterosexual porn. So what? They're advancing an agena, and you're advancing an agenda. But what does any of this mean?

How about posting articles that focus on the entire article? Stop pulling things out of context in order to "prove" some great left-wing conspiracy to defeat the free-market forces of capitalism or some such. It's hard to participate in a discussion when what you're really being asked to do is buy into some kind of dubious selling point.

[Numanoid]

There are 703 words in that article. Two of them -- "and air" -- are technically incorrect. Only if you went into the article looking for some nitpicky point to raise a hubbub over would you isolate those two words.

So what is the point? That Greenpeace is exaggerating the potential impact of nuclear power plants? OK, point taken. There are articles in the Wall Street Journal that exaggerate the value of supply-side economics. There are articles in High Times that exaggerate the dangers of long-term marijuana use. There are articles in Bear Lovin' that exaggerate the number of men who want to see more man-on-man action in heterosexual porn. So what? They're advancing an agena, and you're advancing an agenda. But what does any of this mean?

How about posting articles that focus on the entire article? Stop pulling things out of context in order to "prove" some great left-wing conspiracy to defeat the free-market forces of capitalism or some such. It's hard to participate in a discussion when what you're really being asked to do is buy into some kind of dubious selling point.

Is NCMojo trying to tell us something in his posts?

What do you think?
__ Yes, Mojo is coming on to us.
__ No, this is just a result of Mojo's deep latency

[grundle]

So what is the point? That Greenpeace is exaggerating the potential impact of nuclear power plants?


The thing that I posted doesn't talk about "potential" pollution.

It claims that such pollution happens, and that it happens every day.

That's not an "exaggeration."

It's a lie.

And take a look at the arrow. I didn't put it there - Greenpeace put that arrow there.

[OldDude]

There are 703 words in that article. Two of them -- "and air" -- are technically incorrect. Only if you went into the article looking for some nitpicky point to raise a hubbub over would you isolate those two words.



Well certainly movielib has discredited their claim that plutonium is the most poisonous substance on the planet, and I believe I have cast considerable doubt on the notion that industry has 102 tonnes of it and don't know what to do with it. (I doubt they have that much, and it is recycled when fuel rods are reprocessed)

So I think the technical word for those claims is "lies," perhaps "boldfaced lies", not exaggeration.

[grundle]

I think they know they truth. Grundle didn't quote this part, but they specifically talk about Sellafield and its emissions into the Irish Sea. Of course, they paint it in a way that makes it look much worse than it is. The reality is that all nuclear plants emit some radioactive material -- Tc-99, for example -- but then again, so do coal plants, and hospitals, and the earth, and the sun.


A coal plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear plant.

But I have never, ever heard any anti-nuclear power organization mention that fact.


http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

For comparison, according to NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95, population exposure from operation of 1000-MWe nuclear and coal-fired power plants amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.

[grundle]

The worse pollution that nuclear plants create on a regular basis is heat. When water is used to absorb that heat, such as with plants by the ocean, the sealife seems to really like it.

I know biologists who gather up samples of that sealife and analyze it for radiation. Then they have a feast. I don't know of any sample of edible seafood gathered that way that they've refused to eat as a result of their testing.


Yes. Nuclear power is very safe.

Unfortunatley, because of irrational opposition to nuclear power, we end up with this:


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06195/705778-113.stm

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates fine particle pollution from power plant soot and gases that form particles contributes to more than 20,000 premature deaths a year in the United States

[grundle]

Well certainly movielib has discredited their claim that plutonium is the most poisonous substance on the planet


http://www.atomicinsights.com/may95/plutonium_eff.html

Ralph Nader, noted activist and lawyer, once claimed that plutonium was "the most toxic substance known to mankind."

One man, Dr. Bernard Cohen, went so far as to volunteer to eat as much plutonium as Ralph Nader would caffeine in an attempt to demonstrate the folly of the severe toxicity claims.

Mr. Nader refused the challenge.

[JasonF]

And take a look at the arrow. I didn't put it there - Greenpeace put that arrow there.

Now you're the one that's stretching the truth. If you click on the link and wander around the Greenpeace website, the arrow is clearly part of Greenpeace's website dressage, and not intended to point to the cooling tower.

[Chrisedge]

What is misleading about this quote?

Every day, nuclear power stations pump radioactive pollution into the sea and air. These emissions can travel hundreds of kilometres, exposing wildlife and people to deadly radiation.

Do these plants leak ANY amount of radioactive pollution into the sea and the air? Can those pollutants travel 100's of kilometers? and do they expose wildlife and people to "deadly" radiation? (Maybe not deadly in the amounts that are leaked but is radiation in itself deadly?)

Now, I'm a "lefty" that has no problem with nuclear power. But these gundle polls are just silly.

[JasonF]

What is misleading about this quote?

Every day, nuclear power stations pump radioactive pollution into the sea and air. These emissions can travel hundreds of kilometres, exposing wildlife and people to deadly radiation.

Do these plants leak ANY amount of radioactive pollution into the sea and the air? Can those pollutants travel 100's of kilometers? and do they expose wildlife and people to "deadly" radiation? (Maybe not deadly in the amounts that are leaked but is radiation in itself deadly?)

Now, I'm a "lefty" that has no problem with nuclear power. But these gundle polls are just silly.

What's misleading is that, as I mentioned, every day a variety of sources pump radioactive polution into the sea and air -- sources like coal plants, hospitals, the earth itself, and the sun. Radiation is everywhere. Singling out nuclear plants preys on people's misconceptions that those plants release harmful radiation into the environment. They don't.

[movielib]

What is misleading about this quote?

Do these plants leak ANY amount of radioactive pollution into the sea and the air? Can those pollutants travel 100's of kilometers? and do they expose wildlife and people to "deadly" radiation? (Maybe not deadly in the amounts that are leaked but is radiation in itself deadly?)
No, radiation is not always "deadly"; sometimes it is actually healthier than no radiation at all.

In addition to what JasonF said, the amounts of radiation released by nuclear power plants are less than trivial. And according to the hormesis effect (low levels of radiation, under a certain threshhold, may actually be helpful, which makes sense given that we evolved in a particular environment of background radiation), the tiny additions to the background radiation may actually help a bit rather than hurt, at least in areas of lower than normal background radiation.

Now, I'm a "lefty" that has no problem with nuclear power. But these gundle polls are just silly.
Regardless of what one may think of other grundle polls (I tend to think they are not all as "bad" as people like to make them out to be), this one is quite legitimate. Credit where credit is due.

[OldDude]

Can those pollutants travel 100's of kilometers? and do they expose wildlife and people to "deadly" radiation? (Maybe not deadly in the amounts that are leaked but is radiation in itself deadly?)

Now, I'm a "lefty" that has no problem with nuclear power. But these gundle polls are just silly.

The fact that radiation is deadly at some level can't let them off the misrepresentation hook, unless it is deadly at the levels leaked.

If I put you in a room completely filled with dihydrogen monoxide, you will die. So, is it deadly at trace amounts?. Should you completely avoid exposure to dihydrogen monoxide?

(Well, no, because it is water. A complete lack of exposure will kill you too.)

[grundle]

If you click on the link and wander around the Greenpeace website, the arrow is clearly part of Greenpeace's website dressage, and not intended to point to the cooling tower.


Oh wow!

You're right!

[grundle]

I'm a "lefty" that has no problem with nuclear power.

Hooray!