Pope condemns possession of nuclear weapons

  • Thread starter Thread starter TK421
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So you have a vested interest. Take away nuclear power and you are out of a job. Being a nuclear engineer, you should know how danger nuclear radiation can be and is.
Nuclear plants are dangerous, because people build them in areas where things can go wrong. Earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.
Look at the mess in Japan. In our lifetime and beyond, people will not be able to inhabit the area where that catastrophe occured.
I do not want that for some place in America.
Please take your toxic stuff to some other country.
 
Not really, since my work is decommissioning nuclear facilities. Do you know how many people died from Fukushima Daiichi? Two. One from a crane accident and one from radiation-induced cancer. This is in contrast to the 20,000 who were killed by the tsunami itself. Besides which, the accident was caused by human pride, not the tsunami. The executives refused to acknowledge the gravity of the situation, delaying the response. They had twelve hours to get either offsite power or diesel generators restored before the temperature and hydrogen levels became dangerous; they should have flooded the reactor with seawater as soon as they realized they couldn’t restore power in twelve hours.

I am well aware of the dangers of radiation, and it’s a lot less than people think it is. But if you’re that afraid of radiation, never fly. Properly, flight crews should be considered radiation workers, since cosmic radiation exposes occupants to 1 millirem/hour at cruising altitude (compared to about 1/30 of a millirem/hour background at sea level). One time, my Health Physics professor managed to embarrass an airline when they rushed a child to the hospital on account of the child accidentally winding up inside the luggage x-ray machine. Turns out, the kid got less radiation from that than he would have gotten on the flight. Even at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the so-called epidemic of leukemia was only about a 10% increase.
 
mythbuster1 said:
Do you know how many people died from Fukushima Daiichi? Two. One from a crane accident and one from radiation-induced cancer. This is in contrast to the 20,000 who were killed by the tsunami itself.
Click to expand...
It’s pretty incredible that it took an 8.9 magnitude earthquake and a tsunami from the aftershock to even get Fukushima to that point. And it was built, what, a few decades ago? Nuclear power facilities are practically marvels of engineering.
 
Indeed, it was an outdated model, and I was briefed six months prior on just how such an accident could happen.
 
I can only assume that so much can be done, but do countries do any sort of upgrades to their nuclear power plants? Are they infrequent?
 
I’ll put it this way: 30 years ago, American nuclear power plants ran six months out of the year. Today, those same plants run continuously for 18 months and are shut down for six weeks, while operating at the same or higher power output.
 
edwest211 said:
People can’t vote for defense spending.
Click to expand...
i thought that in a representative democracy, the elected representatives vote for the government budget.
edwest211 said:
Of course people can write letters and protest.
Click to expand...
But I don’t see any widespread protest as to the cost of the American wars. We are talking about thousands of billions of dollars wasted on wars. If Americans really cared, could they not mobilize and protest these huge amounts of money spent to blast, bomb, kill and maim people in foreign countries. Where is the outcry? Where are the marches to end these wars which go on and on. Why are there so many destitute Americans living in the streets in dire poverty, while hundreds of billions of dollars are spent by the military industrial enterprise? On any given night there are 500,000 Americans experiencing homelessness in the USA.
 
mythbuster1 said:
dirty bombs are a nuisance, not a serious threat.
Click to expand...
Yes, but a nuclear bomb creates an explosion that is millions of times more powerful than that of a dirty bomb. The cloud of radiation from a nuclear bomb could spread to hundreds of square miles. Radiation poisoning can cause bone marrow death, central nervous system death, gastrointestinal death, and the risk of fatal cancer will increase.
 
AlNg said:
i thought that in a representative democracy, the elected representatives vote for the government budget.
Click to expand...
This is true, but it it the people who elect the representatives who vote for the budget. The people themselves do not vote for the budget; that would require a national referendum. Edwest’s statement is correct.

D
 
mythbuster1 said:
Even if your interpretation is correct, which I highly doubt, how does unilateral disarmament protect us from it?
Click to expand...
There is not room on the planet for two nuclear weapons superpowers. A global nuclear war is the inevitable result. Unilateral nuclear disarmament by the USA means that a global nuclear war between two nuclear superpowers could no longer occur. Of course the USA would have to accept living under the Russian nuclear umbrella. I have found that resistance to this idea in the USA is rabid. Therefore, I conclude the the USA will not undertake unilateral nuclear disarmament even though the inevitable alternative of global nuclear war will be an unprecedented disaster.
 
GiftofMercy said:
@undead_rat
There is no argument the world will come to an end and Christ will come back. The earth is quite old, after Christ it has been ticking along quite nicely for 2000 years. Weapons have come and gone in that time. There is no reason to think we will not be ticking along in another 2000 years.
I am sure in that time nuclear energy and weaponry will have been superseded and look ancient.
Click to expand...
In the OT we find a concept known as “The Great Day of YHWH” which is often shortened to simply “that day.” The OT prophets predict a great world-wide disaster on “that day.” The question is, have we entered into the time period of “that day?”

In Isaiah 3:17-24 we find the words “that day,” and also see a perfect description of conditions for Jewish women in WW II slave labor camps.

In 1595 Fr. Arnold Wion’s published a list of 113 predictions for Popes of the Church. We now find ourselves at prediction number 112 for Pope Francis. According to Fr. Wion the Church will have only one more Pope, and that Pope will be none other than St. Peter himself, returned to guide the Church though the tribulations of the last days.

In Pope St. Pius’ vision of 1914 he notes “the beginning of the last days of the world.” His two visions predicted the retirement of a Pope who shared a name with him. That has happened. The terrible fulfillment of the rest of these visions will confirm what I am saying.

Because of YHWH’s promise in Genesis 8:21 the world-wide disaster predicted for “that day” cannot be anything which could be construed as an “act of God.” No comet, meteor, vulcanism, or fire from heaven. That leaves only global nuclear war as a possible cause of the catastrophe.
 
Last edited:
vz71 said:
40.png
undead_rat:
Futhermore, Japan surrendered because their Emperor ordered them to; not because of the A-bomb.
Click to expand...
It would be foolish to think that multiple cities being destroyed did not play into his decision.
Click to expand...
Multiple cities already had been destroyed by B-29 fire-bombing raids. Hirohito did cite the “terrible new weapon” in his surrender speech. Was he going to tell his people, “I am ordering the nation to surrender to save my own neck?” The A-bombing was a convenient scapegoat. Likewise, was Truman going to admit that Japan surrendered because he reneged on his unconditional surrender commitment and offered Hirohito amnesty? Once again, the theory that the A-bombing caused the surrender was a convenient way to disguise what really happened.
 
Be that as it may, the area there will not be livable in our lifetime.
Why mess this stuff that is so toxic?
 
The problem is that we continue to manufacture radioactive waste without having a place to store it.
Until the storage issue is solved, all nuclear plants should be shut down and no new plants should be built.
 
JoeShlabotnik said:
Mythmaker, you work for an industry that peddles nuclear energy as a safe alternative. Which is totally bogus.
Click to expand...
You continue in several posts to be downright rude to mythbuster1. Stop these personal insults and apologise to him.
 
Quit picking on Joe. I have seen nothing that he has posted that I would consider to be rude.
Nuclear energy is unsafe.
 
JoeShlabotnik said:
Mythmaker…that is rude?
Click to expand...
It’s about as rude as me calling you “KnownothingShlabotnik”. A quip about his name does not need to be part of your opinion since his name doesn’t have to do with whether nuclear energy is “safe” or not. The same would go for me calling you that. It looks juvenile.
 
Sticks and stones, Fauken. Sticks and stones.
Call me what you will, just don’t call me later for supper. 🙂
The fact of the matter is that nuclear power creates nuclear waste, and that stuff is toxic for a long, long time. There are few safe places to dispose of this stuff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top