Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

30,000 litres of radioactive water poured into the Rhine river!!!

Expand Messages
  • XK SAZ
    KARLSRUHE, Germany — About 30,000 litres of radioactive water poured into the Rhine river in southwestern Germany after a pump malfunctioned at a nuclear
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 29 9:56 AM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      KARLSRUHE, Germany — About 30,000 litres of radioactive water poured
      into the Rhine river in southwestern Germany after a pump
      malfunctioned at a nuclear plant, a power company said today.

      The water leaked into the river Saturday night when a valve was
      mistakenly left open, but he said the health risk was minimal, said
      Dirk Ommeln of Energie Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany's third-largest
      energy company.

      "The water was lightly contaminated," said Ommeln, who likened the
      radioactivity exposure of drinking about four litres of the water to
      having a dental X-ray.

      The leak was not reported to the state Environment Ministry until
      Monday, prompting criticism from the local government, which requires
      immediate reporting for all incidents.

      The ministry also said the contamination was not strong enough to pose
      a health risk.

      The spill occurred during testing of high-speed valves that move
      wastewater into tanks. An unexpected increase in pressure blew out one
      valve, allowing the contaminated water to enter the Rhine.

      This just happened on Saturday but there is barely any news about it!!!
      What these articles don't say is that this just rendered the river undrinka=
      ble for 100's of
      years to come. If you are getting an xray for every four liters of water yo=
      u drink, that's alot
      of xrays in one year. Basically they just ruined the river, not only for th=
      e area's inhabitants
      but for their children and their grandchildren. One little mistake with Nuc=
      lear and it can
      lead to a hazardous situation.

      http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20040428-1255-germany-
      radioactives=pill.html

      http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/
      Arti=cle_Type1&c=Article&cid=1083149855494&call_pageid=968256289824&col=968=
      70
      5899=037
    • David
      ... undrinka= ... water yo= ... for th= ... with Nuc= ... Now this is a classic example of how two people can interpret the same thing in vastly different
      Message 2 of 7 , Apr 29 10:39 AM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        > This just happened on Saturday but there is barely any news about it!!!
        > What these articles don't say is that this just rendered the river
        undrinka=
        > ble for 100's of
        > years to come. If you are getting an xray for every four liters of
        water yo=
        > u drink, that's alot
        > of xrays in one year. Basically they just ruined the river, not only
        for th=
        > e area's inhabitants
        > but for their children and their grandchildren. One little mistake
        with Nuc=
        > lear and it can
        > lead to a hazardous situation.
        >

        Now this is a classic example of how two people can interpret the same
        thing in vastly different ways. When I read the article, I didn't get
        the impression at all that the entire river had been made unhealthy at
        all. I interpreted the statement to say that drinking 4 liters of the
        discharged water would give the approximate radiation dose of a dental
        X-ray.

        Obviously, the discharged water would be greatly diluted by the water
        already in the river, bringing the concentration of radiation down
        dramatically. And the statements "What these articles don't say is
        that this just rendered the river undrinkable for 100's of years to
        come" and "Basically they just ruined the river" are plainly wrong.
        What do rivers do? They flow to the ocean! Whatever radioactive
        water was discharged would very soon be diluted and swept out to sea,
        to be diluted even more! It's sensation statements like the ones you
        made that damage the credibility of the anti-nuclear prople even more
        than it already has been. They simply do not stand the test of logical
        thinking and science. Crying wolf often does far more harm than good.
      • Steve Dodd
        ... Exactly. How long does it take the water and discharge point to release the ocean? I don t know a lot about these things, but I d guess a matter of days,
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 29 11:05 AM
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 05:39:20PM -0000, David wrote:

          > > This just happened on Saturday but there is barely any news about
          > > it!!! What these articles don't say is that this just rendered the
          > > river undrinkable for 100's of years to come. If you are getting an
          > > xray for every four liters of water you drink, that's alot of xrays
          > > in one year. Basically they just ruined the river, not only for the
          > > area's inhabitants but for their children and their grandchildren.
          > > One little mistake with Nuclear and it can lead to a hazardous
          > > situation.

          > Now this is a classic example of how two people can interpret the same
          > thing in vastly different ways. When I read the article, I didn't get
          > the impression at all that the entire river had been made unhealthy at
          > all. I interpreted the statement to say that drinking 4 liters of the
          > discharged water would give the approximate radiation dose of a dental
          > X-ray.

          Exactly. How long does it take the water and discharge point to release
          the ocean? I don't know a lot about these things, but I'd guess a matter
          of days, at most.

          This is an example of a deeper problem, I think. When I read "river", I
          *see* a river, with water *flowing* along it. Is it possible others just
          see the letters R I V E R in their heads, with no associated
          information?

          --
          Home+FOAF: http://www.loth.org.uk/ OpenPGP: 201A57B6
          Original portions © 2004 Steve Dodd
          Appreciated this message?: http://www.loth.org.uk/tipjar/

          "Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the
          private schools, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the
          church and the state forever separated."
          -- Ulysses S. Grant
        • XK SAZ
          You agreed that radiation poisoning causes cancer. But then you don t believe that if it spills out into the environment it is dangerous? That doesn t make any
          Message 4 of 7 , Apr 29 1:01 PM
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            You agreed that radiation poisoning causes cancer. But then you don't believe that if it
            spills out into the environment it is dangerous? That doesn't make any sense.
            Rivers don't just flow straight out into the ocean, they go into tributaries, pools, lakes,
            dams. Fish and other animals live in rivers. We eat the fish. Just a small amount of
            radiation is enough to alter cell growth.

            Would you bath and drink from the Rhine? Would you let your kids do it knowing there is a
            risk?
            I'd rather be safe than sorry and there is too many accidents, deaths, and long term
            destruction from nuclear to feel at all safe. It's nice that you feel safe but its not
            necessarily good for you. It's like a country boy going into the city and playing the shell
            game with a street person and then wondering what happened to all his money.
            On an up note, I did read that victims of Hiroshima who ate Japanese diets had a much
            lower rate of cancer than those who ate Western diets. There are food sources that can act
            as antioxidents/ Poison antidote.
            In reality we all know so little about the world around us, the more we learn the more we
            realize how much we don't know. Our medical knowledge base doubles every 3 years.
            Remember that X28 solar flare? The news warned pregnant women not to fly those couple
            days because they would receive the equivalent to a few xrays in the plane. Would we have
            gotten that warning 20 yrs ago? Did we have the technology in place to constantly monitor
            the sun? Soho only went up in '95.

            In the bay area, where they used to clean off nuclear submarines in WW2, there is one of
            the highest rates of breast cancer in the country.
            http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/hunters_point.htm
            4 women I know well, between 30 and 50's have gotten breast cancer. 3 died, 1 is going to
            die in the next couple months.
            When you are diagnosing something, in addition to noting symptoms, you have to look at
            "What has changed" to cause this bad bill of health. There are a lot of fingers pointing
            towards the nuclear problem.

            Now I suppose we should agree to disagree and quit arguing.

            --- In methanehydrateclub@yahoogroups.com, "David" <b1blancer1@e...> wrote:
            > > This just happened on Saturday but there is barely any news about it!!!
            > > What these articles don't say is that this just rendered the river
            > undrinka=
            > > ble for 100's of
            > > years to come. If you are getting an xray for every four liters of
            > water yo=
            > > u drink, that's alot
            > > of xrays in one year. Basically they just ruined the river, not only
            > for th=
            > > e area's inhabitants
            > > but for their children and their grandchildren. One little mistake
            > with Nuc=
            > > lear and it can
            > > lead to a hazardous situation.
            > >
            >
            > Now this is a classic example of how two people can interpret the same
            > thing in vastly different ways. When I read the article, I didn't get
            > the impression at all that the entire river had been made unhealthy at
            > all. I interpreted the statement to say that drinking 4 liters of the
            > discharged water would give the approximate radiation dose of a dental
            > X-ray.
            >
            > Obviously, the discharged water would be greatly diluted by the water
            > already in the river, bringing the concentration of radiation down
            > dramatically. And the statements "What these articles don't say is
            > that this just rendered the river undrinkable for 100's of years to
            > come" and "Basically they just ruined the river" are plainly wrong.
            > What do rivers do? They flow to the ocean! Whatever radioactive
            > water was discharged would very soon be diluted and swept out to sea,
            > to be diluted even more! It's sensation statements like the ones you
            > made that damage the credibility of the anti-nuclear prople even more
            > than it already has been. They simply do not stand the test of logical
            > thinking and science. Crying wolf often does far more harm than good.
          • David
            ... don t believe that if it ... any sense. ... tributaries, pools, lakes, ... small amount of ... If you want to completely avoid radiation, then you d better
            Message 5 of 7 , Apr 29 2:54 PM
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In methanehydrateclub@yahoogroups.com, "XK SAZ" <swezlex1@y...> wrote:
              > You agreed that radiation poisoning causes cancer. But then you
              don't believe that if it
              > spills out into the environment it is dangerous? That doesn't make
              any sense.
              > Rivers don't just flow straight out into the ocean, they go into
              tributaries, pools, lakes,
              > dams. Fish and other animals live in rivers. We eat the fish. Just a
              small amount of
              > radiation is enough to alter cell growth.
              >

              If you want to completely avoid radiation, then you'd better build a
              lead room and seal yourself in it. Radiation is everywhere. Make a
              flight in an airliner, especially during a solar storm, and you'll get
              a nice dose of it.

              > Would you bath and drink from the Rhine? Would you let your kids do
              it knowing there is a
              > risk?

              After it was properly treated to kill the bacteria, yes, I would drink
              it or bathe in it without hesitation.

              > In reality we all know so little about the world around us, the more
              we learn the more we
              > realize how much we don't know. Our medical knowledge base doubles
              every 3 years.
              > Remember that X28 solar flare? The news warned pregnant women not to
              fly those couple
              > days because they would receive the equivalent to a few xrays in the
              plane. Would we have
              > gotten that warning 20 yrs ago? Did we have the technology in place
              to constantly monitor
              > the sun? Soho only went up in '95.
              >

              I agree with that.

              > In the bay area, where they used to clean off nuclear submarines in
              WW2, there is one of
              > the highest rates of breast cancer in the country.
              > http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/hunters_point.htm
              > 4 women I know well, between 30 and 50's have gotten breast cancer.
              3 died, 1 is going to
              > die in the next couple months.
              > When you are diagnosing something, in addition to noting symptoms,
              you have to look at
              > "What has changed" to cause this bad bill of health. There are a lot
              of fingers pointing
              > towards the nuclear problem.
              >

              I don't dispute the fact that radiation can be deadly. I'd be stupid
              if I said that. I also lost both my Mother and Father to cancer, so
              believe me, I know how painful that is to have to watch. My Dad was
              66 when he died in '82, which is relatively young by today's
              standards. He was a dentist, and must have taken tens of thousands of
              X-rays throughout his long career. Many of them were taken before
              modern safeguards were implemented, and made with older equipment that
              put out a stronger X-ray dose. Could there be a link? Beats me. He
              also smoked, although he didn't die of lung cancer. Ironically, his
              lungs were clear and his heart was strong. He died of abdominal
              cancer. By the time they found it, it was too late and pretty
              widespread. His death certificate says it may have started in his
              appendix. X-ray induced? Who knows??

              So you see, I am not completely unsympathetic. Nor do I think that
              the nuclear industry is perfect or that the gov't always tells the
              truth. I do not, however, believe going into a panic every time
              there is a small radiation release is the answer, and I still maintain
              that the nuclear power industry is for the most part doing a very good
              job.
            • mike@usinter.net
              ... get ... Don t get the wrong impression, I don t advocate for or against nuke energy, because I don t know much about the subject, but radiation and cancer
              Message 6 of 7 , Apr 29 11:14 PM
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                > If you want to completely avoid radiation, then you'd better build a
                > lead room and seal yourself in it. Radiation is everywhere. Make a
                > flight in an airliner, especially during a solar storm, and you'll
                get
                > a nice dose of it.
                >

                Don't get the wrong impression, I don't advocate for or against nuke
                energy, because I don't know much about the subject, but radiation
                and cancer is also a part of gaia. The atmosphere probably had
                periods of thin coverage where radiation struck the surface more--and
                growth regulation would want to be reduced--IOWs you want the cells
                to divide and multiply, because in so doing they would increase the
                conductivity of patches, and then increase the earth EMF, and reduce
                the amount of atmosphere lost by the wisking from the solar winds--
                and the atmosphere would increase and the radiation would also
                decrease.

                Like junk DNA, even complex creatures have remnants of a past that
                was closer to the regulations I am talking about . . .
              • XK SAZ
                My mother died of cancer, pretty young 51 yrs old. She was a doctor too. An x-ray machine didn t occur to me until you mentioned it. Too bad radiation is
                Message 7 of 7 , May 28, 2004
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  My mother died of cancer, pretty young 51 yrs old. She was a doctor
                  too. An x-ray machine didn't occur to me until you mentioned it.
                  Too bad radiation is invisible. We need built in geiger counter
                  sensors. It seems we should evolve that among other modern poison
                  detectors. We probably evolved the ability to sense hot and cold so as
                  not to get burned or frozen... Eyes so we don't bump into things.
                  When is the next step.

                  > I don't dispute the fact that radiation can be deadly. I'd be stupid
                  > if I said that. I also lost both my Mother and Father to cancer, so
                  > believe me, I know how painful that is to have to watch. My Dad was
                  > 66 when he died in '82, which is relatively young by today's
                  > standards. He was a dentist, and must have taken tens of thousands of
                  > X-rays throughout his long career. Many of them were taken before
                  > modern safeguards were implemented, and made with older equipment that
                  > put out a stronger X-ray dose. Could there be a link? Beats me. He
                  > also smoked, although he didn't die of lung cancer. Ironically, his
                  > lungs were clear and his heart was strong. He died of abdominal
                  > cancer. By the time they found it, it was too late and pretty
                  > widespread. His death certificate says it may have started in his
                  > appendix. X-ray induced? Who knows??
                  >
                  > So you see, I am not completely unsympathetic. Nor do I think that
                  > the nuclear industry is perfect or that the gov't always tells the
                  > truth. I do not, however, believe going into a panic every time
                  > there is a small radiation release is the answer, and I still maintain
                  > that the nuclear power industry is for the most part doing a very good
                  > job.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.