[...] Sagan om den rena och säkra kärnkraften [...]

Personally. I prefer the switch from the idiotic idea of using U-235 for our reactors when we have enough cleaner but more expensive (lest we throw money into developing more efficient methods instead of the majority Obama wanted to throw to Oil Exploration in his latest jobs act) Thorium which can power America for 1,000 years. 

 The old thorium myth.  Thorium fuel requires extensive repossessing and requires irradiation to maintain the reaction so they mix uranium with it and it all becomes a huge toxic mess and is very difficult to clean up. 

And we will stick to these “fairy tales” until death do us part – and by then it is too late.

And we will stick to these “fairy tales” until death do us part – and by then it is too late.

And we will stick to these “fairy tales” until death do us part – and by then it is too late.

We are all exposed to radiation everyday, and nuclear power plants do not emit any extra radiation. They are built to withstand Boeing 747 crashes externally and have plenty of internal regulators to control anything from ever being exposed. Please, do some research on nuclear power before you try to post biased information based on your own illogical opinions to try and persuade others. Yes, accidents happen, but don’t plan on any nuclear explosion type radiation every being emitted, we learned our lesson after Chernobyl. 

Most engineers and operators of nuclear power plants are never exposed to dangerous amounts of radiation. The only place you’d get a ping from your trusty Geiger meter would be inside the plant’s core itself, somewhere very few people ever go within a power plant’s walls.
I agree with previous posts. My take on it is this: If electrical energy is the technological base of our global society, we need nuclear fuels to continue our way of life. Fossil fuels are finite, and renewable technologies aren’t quite able to provide a viable substitute, but they will within 20 years; after more advances in the electrical storage and transfer capabilities of these systems become economical. Economics is the balance of trade and consumption, and if we choose to perpetuate a system that is known to be unrenewable (such as coal and gas), we are choosing to undermine our own economic development. With just a few nuclear power plants we could supplement the world’s transition into a fully renewable energy economy. That will, eventually, be the end game for humanity: clean, abundant, cheap as dirt (possibly free) electrical energy.
To try and link an article focusing on the effects and damages of radiation exposure to nuclear power production is an irrational fallacy. Project censored has again attempted to skew the reader into believing something that is completely baseless and unrelated to the IDEA their article’s headline promotes. Correlation is not causation, and for “project censored” to disregard that basic ethical principle, they in turn disregard their readers’ intelligence.
To sum up my rant: nuclear power has been refined and developed (with safety and economy at the forefront of research) to such a high degree that “common sense” would tell us that if we choose not to go for nuclear power, we will be damning ourselves to rely on fossil fuels until they run out. When they do, what will all the anti nuclear campaigns say? We should’ve been working on renewables. I hope I’m not the only one who thinks it’s unethical for project censored to link an article about radiation exposure to the idea that building nuclear power facilities will be dangerous. Don’t forget, they told Galileo the earth was the center of the universe, Orville wright that his feet would never leave the ground, and Alan Turing that his machine wouldn’t amount to anything. Shame on you, project censored, you are just as bad at reporting news as the Murdough empire.

“within the pale of truth, the press is a noble institution. Equally a friend of science and civil liberty.” – Jefforson

Let’s also not forget that coal plants release many times more radiation to the environment than any operating reactor. Nuclear isn’t perfect; but it’s the best we have.

I’d ask Project Censored for more balanced reporting, thank you.

[...] Legislation 6. Google Spying? 7. U.S. Army and Psychology’s Largest Experiment–Ever 8. The Fairytale of Clean and Safe Nuclear Power 9. Government Sponsored Technologies for Weather Modification 10. Censored # 10: Real [...]

There is nothing clean or safe about nuclear power. Just ask those in Russia and Japan now sick and dying and whose babies are crippled, insane or in mass graves. The idea we made things safer is a lie. All we have done is reshuffle the deck chairs on our own nuclear Titanic. Now the industry wants “deregulation” so they can build even less safe facilities. Live in fear as the same actors who brought you the Exxon Valdez spill, the Gulf oil disaster and hydraulic fracking want to build a new generation of even more dangerous nuke plants. Grab your nuts, folks… with leadlined gloves.

considering the energy required to build a nuclear reactor, the fuel and energy required to mine and process the uranium, truth is, it takes more energy to get a nuclear reactor up and running and maintained than the energy it produces in its lifetime..

oh yes, and lets not mention the waste that stays with us forever. nice.

[...] 8. The Myth of Clean and Safe Nuclear Power (For full story, click here) [...]

Dear Mr. Peacock,
Please note that bananas, x-rays, and flying all increase radiation exposure as well.
Sincerely,
Prof. Plum

And in the meantime Tesla has been continually ignored because he threatens capitalism making as much money as possible out of the ignorant. People using some of Tesla’s inventions could make their own energy to run everthing for nothing aside from the small cost of making the equipment to do this.

@facebook-696966861:disqus 

Global energy use is on the order of 13 terawatts right now with a projected use of tens of terawatts to bring the globe out of poverty. Using thorium in a new generation of liquid-fuel nuclear fission reactors is our best hope at eliminating carbon emissions while revitalizing the global economy. Renewables (predominately wind/solar) cannot possibly hope to come anywhere near this level of use while remaining affordable due to the inherent limitations of ‘farming’ energy. Supposing otherwise is mere delusion.

Using thorium in these reactors requires very little processing before being used, though it must be converted from fertile (Th232) to fissile (U233) within the reactor. And yes, the reactor must be initiated with a some fissile (U/Pu), though that looks to be less than 1 tonne with one design (2-fluid).

This machine is expected to be exceptionally clean, not in small part due to thorium’s superior waste profile (compared to U/Pu), so decommissioning costs are expected to be very reasonable. 

We are calling this technology ‘Green Nuclear’ for a reason. And do not mistake the molten salt reactor advocates as industry, we are a grass-roots movement attempting to right a 40-year-old wrong in energy generation. The hope is to bring the public around on this technology as soon as possible so that we can rapidly replace coal plants, and then get on with the business of synthesizing fuels to replace petroleum.

The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR/MSR) remains our best hope for long-term economic security and peace.

> It’s capable of a catastrophic accident that can kill hundreds of thousands of people

Chernobyl was the product of inferiour reactor design, a huge number of idiots and under-trained people disabling ALL fail-safes, and the lack of a containment vessel.. American reactors are INCAPABLE of failing like Chernobyl. American plant operators are actually trained, not just reading a manual. The containment vessel around American plants would have contained the blast (according to models).

Lets look at Three Mile Island. NO ONE GOT HURT! No one got more than a CHEST X-RAY worth of radiation.

Nuclear reactors are safe. More people die in coal mines than have EVER been killed by nuclear power.

My hair is a bird. Your argument is invalid.

I am shocked to learn that the “Nuclear Power is Bad” story is being censored.   Personally, I find it difficult to avoid hearing about it.

What I don’t see are conclusions based on science for the major points of the article.   

The exception to that is the LNT hypothesis.  There is some documentation that this is true, but no discussion of the real risks is discussed.  This ignores the fact that we all balance benefit and risk every day in our lives.  For instance, we all pump our own gas, and are exposed to gasoline fumes.  It would be folly to assume that breathing gasoline fumes is not bad for humans, yet we all line up to do it.  The article also fails to point out that there is far more exposure to radiation sourced from the smoke stacks of coal fired power plants than from nuclear power plants.  Is there a suggestion then that we stop burning coal as well?

If you insist on a panacea, nuclear power is not the answer.

Other sources of energy that are not a panacea include:

Coal
Oil
Photo-Voltaic Solar (lots of chemical waste from producing those panels)
Hydro

Did I miss any??

Actually the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says that the effect of low levels of radiation hasn’t been determined, but they are assuming there are some, just to be safe.

“Although radiation may cause cancer at high doses and high dose rates, public health data do not absolutely establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates — below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv). Studies of occupational workers who are chronically exposed to low levels of radiation above normal background have shown no adverse biological effects. Even so, the radiation protection community conservatively assumes that any amount of radiation may pose some risk for causing cancer and hereditary effect, and that the risk is higher for higher radiation exposures.”

There is fact in this statement 

No fact*

what about Fukushima? There’s even talk of abandoning Tokyo cuz that shit is damn near impossible to clean up. How would you like to lose L.A. or Chicago or N.Y.?

Americans want CHEAP, cheap and more cheap. The nuclear industry is NOT cheap. They don’t even cover all of their potential losses, the uS Government subsidizes that.

 It’s true, and once you factor in the true cost of safely storing nuclear waste for hundreds of years, it actually is not a technology that economically stacks up.

The tech is there in theory, lab experiments in Germany a friend assisted on with solar produced a 98% efficiency according to him about 6 years ago. When it’s viable for commercial production and cost effective, that’s the kicker.
We really need more effort put into the renewables which requires funding which they just don’t get overall.

But lets be honest, there are ways to reduce carbon emissions and increase efficiency of coal fuelled power plants as an example but that rarely happens because it requires added costs.

Nuclear has its disadvantages, but the waste while toxic and hard to dispose of safely can be properly dealt with provided those responsible work properly, is still less damaging in the long term than most other fossil fuels are already.

The reality is we’re exposed to some forms of radiation even in the middle of nowhere, no products of civilization around, indeed we even need some such as UV radiation in low doses to produce vitamins our bodies need.