5 ms·

Radiation density is what matters. Radiation that escapes into a much larger volume rapidly becomes negligibly more radioactive than the average. If the surroun

Radiation density is what matters. Radiation that escapes into a much larger volume rapidly becomes negligibly more radioactive than the average. If the surrounding areas are contaminated, it should be trivial to find this without access to the plant itself. Unless this is radiation is completely contained in the plant, and in that case it's not really contamination is it? They don't want Greenpeace sticking random sensors everywhere, because they'll detect negligible amounts of radioisotopes and insist it's contamination. They're free to walk around less than a mile away from the plant with Geiger counters in and whatever other equipment they want. If nearby areas were contaminated, then being prohibited from entering the plant itself would pose no issue to discovering that contamination. And you can't just walk onto a nuclear facility, them being prohibited is not unusual in the slightest. It's like claiming the fact that Im not free to expose Area 51 is proof that there's something nefarious hidden there: aliens, genetically engineer Nekos, take your pick.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
The sensors removed were outside the facility. The suppression campaign was about Iodine in the soil. It is trivial to provide hard evidence about what the levels of radioactive Iodine, Krypton, Caesium, etc. are. Suppressing it just makes you look guilty. Their behavior is exactly like in Kakadu where the response is "you can't prove people don't smoke and drink more here", or what the tobacco and fossil fuel industries have done for decades.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  If evidence is so trivial to provide, then why hasn't it been found? The only readings these activists have taken show average levels of radioisotopes that they turn around and claim are contamination. Why aren't France's neighbors complaining about these spills? Surely neighboring countries would object to their waters being polluted, and they have the resources to detect it. Or does this conspiracy spread beyond France, an international conspiracy of countries colluding to cover up waste? If I stick a voltmeter on a power distribution center, and the plant workers remove it is it evidence of some sort of nefarious activity? No, because unknown devices being placed in critical infrastructure should be removed and examined. Greenpeace France have stopped trying to argue waste is being spilled. If nothing else I have to laud your commitment to this theory that waste is being released.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    > If evidence is so trivial to provide, then why hasn't it been found? Yeah you're right, conclusive evidence that it's safe and isn't producing an amount of radiation that would become dangerous over decades if it were to expand is trivial to provide. Why hasn't it been found?
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      I know right? It has been in operation for more than half a century. If there was a noticeable buildup of radioisotopes in the areas we'd be seeing a growing concentration in that areas. We have incredibly precise ways to measure radiation, sensitive to deviations if a fraction of a percent above average. The blueish area on this chart [1] is a trillionth (10^-12) above the initial radiation value. We can detect the radiation this far away not because it's dangerous, but because our instruments are so sensitive. If there was contamination then countries all across Europe would be detecting along their waters. But they aren't. 1. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/science-data/fukushima-radiation-us-west-coast-tuna https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/science-data/fukus...
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        That was a dye simulation you linked and it shows Fukushima is miniscule compared to enough reprocessing plants to cover a country's energy over a few decades. And that even a single reprocessing plant will release a Fukushima worth of radiation every few decades if they are operating without a group like Greenpeace to hold them to account. As usual, lies and attempted misdirection. Turns out the output in the English channel is measurable and has been measured. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0265931X16302053 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02659... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16376698/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16376698/ From just two facilities reprocessing a tiny fraction of spent fuel the amounts are measurable and have historically been high enough to cause major problems at neigible fuel output. Stellafield alone released more Cs137 into the ocean than Fukushima. They both decreased since the 90s because Greenpeace were right and they won and better control measures were put in place. The decreased output rate per kg of MOX is still not low enough for it to be safe with mass expansion. You are proposing the amount of nuclear derived electricity increase 20-fold. Including MOX in this would cause reprocessing to increase by several orders of magnitude. If the total quantity from those reprocessing facilities is safe, then this is trivial to prove. Set up publicly auditable monitoring around all of their outputs.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

The sensors removed were outside the facility. The suppression campaign was about Iodine in the soil. It is trivial to provide hard evidence about what the levels of radioactive Iodine, Krypton, Caesium, etc. are. Suppressing it just makes you look guilty. Their behavior is exactly like in Kakadu where the response is "you can't prove people don't smoke and drink more here", or what the tobacco and fossil fuel industries have done for decades.

Manuel_D 4y ago
If evidence is so trivial to provide, then why hasn't it been found? The only readings these activists have taken show average levels of radioisotopes that they turn around and claim are contamination. Why aren't France's neighbors complaining about these spills? Surely neighboring countries would object to their waters being polluted, and they have the resources to detect it. Or does this conspiracy spread beyond France, an international conspiracy of countries colluding to cover up waste? If I stick a voltmeter on a power distribution center, and the plant workers remove it is it evidence of some sort of nefarious activity? No, because unknown devices being placed in critical infrastructure should be removed and examined. Greenpeace France have stopped trying to argue waste is being spilled. If nothing else I have to laud your commitment to this theory that waste is being released.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  > If evidence is so trivial to provide, then why hasn't it been found? Yeah you're right, conclusive evidence that it's safe and isn't producing an amount of radiation that would become dangerous over decades if it were to expand is trivial to provide. Why hasn't it been found?
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    I know right? It has been in operation for more than half a century. If there was a noticeable buildup of radioisotopes in the areas we'd be seeing a growing concentration in that areas. We have incredibly precise ways to measure radiation, sensitive to deviations if a fraction of a percent above average. The blueish area on this chart [1] is a trillionth (10^-12) above the initial radiation value. We can detect the radiation this far away not because it's dangerous, but because our instruments are so sensitive. If there was contamination then countries all across Europe would be detecting along their waters. But they aren't. 1. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/science-data/fukushima-radiation-us-west-coast-tuna https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/science-data/fukus...
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      That was a dye simulation you linked and it shows Fukushima is miniscule compared to enough reprocessing plants to cover a country's energy over a few decades. And that even a single reprocessing plant will release a Fukushima worth of radiation every few decades if they are operating without a group like Greenpeace to hold them to account. As usual, lies and attempted misdirection. Turns out the output in the English channel is measurable and has been measured. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0265931X16302053 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02659... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16376698/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16376698/ From just two facilities reprocessing a tiny fraction of spent fuel the amounts are measurable and have historically been high enough to cause major problems at neigible fuel output. Stellafield alone released more Cs137 into the ocean than Fukushima. They both decreased since the 90s because Greenpeace were right and they won and better control measures were put in place. The decreased output rate per kg of MOX is still not low enough for it to be safe with mass expansion. You are proposing the amount of nuclear derived electricity increase 20-fold. Including MOX in this would cause reprocessing to increase by several orders of magnitude. If the total quantity from those reprocessing facilities is safe, then this is trivial to prove. Set up publicly auditable monitoring around all of their outputs.