Nuclear Waste Dumped in Baloch Residential Areas

[Baloch Fighter]

Nuclear Waste Dumped in Baloch Residential Areas

Pakistani military is dumping the nuclear waste in Baloch residential.
More and more young children and babies are dying from these affects.
Please help us to stop this crime against Baloch nation.

Please look at these pictures of the nuclear dumping sites in BBC webpage.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/specials/1723_nu...ste/index.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/specials/1723_nuclear_waste/index.shtml)


http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/story/2..._waste_as.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/story/2006/04/060426_nuclear_waste_as.shtml)

Thank you very much

[Janus]

That is one of the problems with nuclear power. The waste doesn't go away, it has to be safely disposed off and many plants aren't even doing that. Of course, that option is very difficult for a developing country such as Pakistan.

[Lord Voltara]

Leftist governments are the masters of irresponsibly dumping nuclear waste

[Janus]

Leftist governments are the masters of irresponsibly dumping nuclear waste
:blink: Pakistan does not have a leftist government by any stretch of the imagination.

[VermontLeft]

i dont know that its a problem with nuclear waste as much as its one of capitalism.

i mean in a communist country, people would spend the effort to get rid of the waste safely, but if all that matters is "profit" and there a bunch of poor people with no real power ...well you know the rest. :( :(

[Baloch Fighter]

The worse thing is the pakistani government is doing this on pupose on Baloch areas, as we are in a war with the pakistani government of our independent land. this is part of the return back from the military regime in pakistan.

http://www.dawn.com/2006/04/28/nat11.htm

[Janus]

If the Pakistani military is dumping this nuclear waste then it is not really a problem with capitalism but nuclear energy and certain governments in general. The government controls the nuclear operations in Pakistan since much of it is concentrated on the nuclear weapons program which is where this nuclear waste is coming from I am assuming.

The Pakistani government is simply not taking responsibility for this and probably doesn’t have the capability to. After all, nuclear waste is hard to properly dispose of even with the proper personnel and materials.

[apathy maybe]

James Lovelock would be quite happy to have a bit of waste in his backyard. Listen to this interview http://www.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/feeds/lnl_20060420.mp3 for fasinating thoughts.

I personally think that if we have to have nuclear waste that we should shoot it all into the sun. Using craft that aren't going to break up as they go up (like the Shuttle). But I also think that we should reduce the amount of power and energy we use, so that we don't have to use fission power for electricity generation.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Fucking retards. Pakistan has plenty of mountains - why not find an empty valley and place the waste in proper storage there?


The Pakistani government is simply not taking responsibility for this and probably doesn’t have the capability to. After all, nuclear waste is hard to properly dispose of even with the proper personnel and materials.

How so?


But I also think that we should reduce the amount of power and energy we use, so that we don't have to use fission power for electricity generation.

Who decides how much less electricity we use, and why should we listen to them instead of beating their quasi-primitivist ass?

[Janus]

How so?
It doesn't go away. In order to properly dispose of it, you have to make sure that it can't leak or be washed away. Much of the nuclear waste is still stored in nuclear plants because of this.


Pakistan has plenty of mountains - why not find an empty valley and place the waste in proper storage there?
It could be washed down I suppose but there's really no excuse for this as Pakistan is dumping it in the waters surrounding Balochistan.

[barret]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 09:48 AM
Fucking retards. Pakistan has plenty of mountains - why not find an empty valley and place the waste in proper storage there?


The Pakistani government is simply not taking responsibility for this and probably doesn’t have the capability to. After all, nuclear waste is hard to properly dispose of even with the proper personnel and materials.

How so?

Right... Thats what we did with Yucca Mountain in Nevada. There are reports that Yucca Mountain Definintely will leak
(NPR On Yucca Mountian (http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/july/yucca/)) (NIRS on Yucca Mountain (http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/whyyuccawillleak.htm)). So please, don't be decieved by the fact that because the United States has insisted on puting 92% of it's nuclear waste in a mountian that its even remotely safe. Not only that, but the transportation of the waste to the site is extremely dangerous and is followed by much public outrage, knowing that a truck full of radioactive material is traveling through a town.


I personally think that if we have to have nuclear waste that we should shoot it all into the sun. Using craft that aren't going to break up as they go up (like the Shuttle). But I also think that we should reduce the amount of power and energy we use, so that we don't have to use fission power for electricity generation.

The problem is that we don't have the technology to make a space vessle that can: Hold radioactive materials safely
Be safe enough if there was an issue and one of the boosters exploded, thus releasing radioactive material all over the planet
Making a vessel which can hold even close to a fraction of the amount of nuclear waste created daily.
Nuclear waste isn't just spent fuel rods, it also any of the other parts of the reactor which may break downt that come in direct contact with either the radioactive material or the fluids used in energy production. Many of the barrels at Yucca Mountain are actually just the fluid that they use to power the turbines.

In my opinion, they only true method of dealing with this growing issue is for some investment into Plutonium powerplants, which utilize this radioactive waste, and some how convert the Uranium, and other radioactive materials involved into plutonium, using the energy over and over again. The only issues with this technology is that
A. it's about 50 years away in devolopment and
B. It uses some form of Sodium as it's cooling liquid, unlike normal power plants which use water. This sodium, if released into the environment is extremely toxic to every living organsim, not to mention that it would posses radioactive molecules.

[piet11111]

i consider chernobyl the perfect storage site as there is nothing that can make the radiation worse.
in exchange the country's that use chernobyl as a dumping grounds should pay for medical care to the chernobyl victims and they are also responsible for the security of the reactors that are still operational at chernobyl aswell as the sarcophacus (spelling?) that is currently beginning to collapse.

[Brekisonphilous]

Nuclear waste takes over millions of years to decay to safe radiation levels. There is no cock sure "safe" way of disposing waste so long as it is on the face of the earth. The safest way to avoid the problems of disposal is to simply not use Nuclear fission to produce energy.
No matter where it is stored, whether it be in the Yucca mountain, neighborhoods of pakistan, cherynobl, all places eventually get full and a new storage place needs to be found. This increases the risk of contamination, especially with increasingly unpredictable weather patterns which could disturb storage sites and leak radiactive waste everywhere. Transporting the radioactive waste is an extremely huge risk, and so is pretty much any other way of transport including one previous posters idea of sending it to the sun. Ever heard of the challenger rocket? imagine if that would have been filled to the brim with radioactive waste...

This method of producing energy is suicidal to that planet and it is a shame it was ever even discovered. In the small amount of time it has been around it has already negatively effected thousands, if not millions of peoples lives. Just imagine when its use becomes as frequent as coal. Not only do we have threats from accidental accidents, there is also the risk of intentional contamination by terrorists, governments, corporations.

Too big of a risk.

[piet11111]

This increases the risk of contamination, especially with increasingly unpredictable weather patterns which could disturb storage sites and leak radiactive waste everywhere.

if nuclear storage facility's where placed in skyscrapers in earthquake territory near known hurricane/tornado regions then yes i would agree.

however nuclear storage facility's are deep underground in super strong bunkers save from nature (chernobyl is probably the savest place when you concider the natural dangers to my knowledge there are none there)


all places eventually get full and a new storage place needs to be found.

if eventually means in a couple of century's then yeah even chernobyl could get quite full.


This method of producing energy is suicidal to that planet and it is a shame it was ever even discovered.

no more suicidal then conventional energy heck its much safer then anything we know off.
remember the Exon valdez ? perhaps not but you probably have seen the hellish tv footage of kuweits burning oilwells ?
those oilwells might not burn anymore but we are spewing out alot more of that shit into the air then you are probably willing to admit.
afterall thats all oil is good for anyway to the capitalists.

chernobyl was caused by poor design/technology aswell as human error caused by political pressure.
modern nuclear powerplants are practically impossible to mess up even by intention (excluding bombing ofcourse)
besides nuclear energy is the only realistic option we have when oil becomes harder to get (unless you somehow think the rest of the world is willing to share with us communists)
nuclear energy in my opinion is the only option untill we develop a new energy source as such you should consider nuclear power as an interim energy source.

as for you could you provide me some examples of the threats of nuclear energy that are still possible today in modern country's ?
(meaning the three mile island incident and chernobyl are out of the window as they are impossible to happen today same with that british radiation leak)

[Brekisonphilous]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 09:31 PM

as for you could you provide me some examples of the threats of nuclear energy that are still possible today in modern country's ?
(meaning the three mile island incident and chernobyl are out of the window as they are impossible to happen today same with that british radiation leak)
Sure.

Nuclear energy plants would be the new targets of aggression, releasing the most damage to any given country, eliminating the power source, crippling the countries citizens, sending them back to the dark ages.

Also, anything is possible. You cannot be positive that new technology will not fail and something can go wrong. I am sure the engineers of cherynobl said the same thing.
History repeats itself. But I do agree, that it would become much less common because they would learn from mistakes.

as for Oil, it fucking sucks too. I am definitely no supporter to keep abusing oil but it does not have the capability of raping a planet of every living organism (at least not in one lifetime!) I feel like more research must be done to find better ways before someone decides "hey, uranium is our new way of producing energy." I think the focus should be on renewable resources. not just replacing one bad habit with another.

I feel like an old grandpa saying this, but I doubt i will ever accept the use of nuclear anything. Any of you can call me an idiot or primitivist for having this mindset but it is simply my own opinion and I have seen what radioactivity has the potential to do to the planet, and anything with that kind of capability should be eliminated.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Nuclear energy plants would be the new targets of aggression, releasing the most damage to any given country, eliminating the power source, crippling the countries citizens, sending them back to the dark ages.

Like you can't bomb hydro-electric damns or wind farms :rolleyes:



Also, anything is possible.

Bullshit. Some new reactor designs rely on the laws of physics rather than active systems for safety.


You cannot be positive that new technology will not fail and something can go wrong. I am sure the engineers of cherynobl said the same thing.

They didn't, actually. They actually retracted the control rods further back than was safe. The fact that the RBMK design allowed for this is bad enough.


as for Oil, it fucking sucks too. I am definitely no supporter to keep abusing oil but it does not have the capability of raping a planet of every living organism (at least not in one lifetime!)

And neither does nuclear. Or did you not notice the flourishing wildlife around the Chernobyl reactor?


I think the focus should be on renewable resources.

I haven't seen any indications that renewable can provide for our current energy needs, let alone our future ones.


I feel like an old grandpa saying this, but I doubt i will ever accept the use of nuclear anything. Any of you can call me an idiot or primitivist for having this mindset but it is simply my own opinion and I have seen what radioactivity has the potential to do to the planet, and anything with that kind of capability should be eliminated.

You think our puny reactors and nuclear weapons can do lasting damage to the planet? You obviously aren't aware of the kind of shit that life on earth has survived. We've had asteroid impacts that would make World War Three look like a firecracker.

[Brekisonphilous]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 11:56 PM

Nuclear energy plants would be the new targets of aggression, releasing the most damage to any given country, eliminating the power source, crippling the countries citizens, sending them back to the dark ages.

Like you can't bomb hydro-electric damns or wind farms :rolleyes:



Also, anything is possible.

Bullshit. Some new reactor designs rely on the laws of physics rather than active systems for safety.


You cannot be positive that new technology will not fail and something can go wrong. I am sure the engineers of cherynobl said the same thing.

They didn't, actually. They actually retracted the control rods further back than was safe. The fact that the RBMK design allowed for this is bad enough.


as for Oil, it fucking sucks too. I am definitely no supporter to keep abusing oil but it does not have the capability of raping a planet of every living organism (at least not in one lifetime!)

And neither does nuclear. Or did you not notice the flourishing wildlife around the Chernobyl reactor?


I think the focus should be on renewable resources.

I haven't seen any indications that renewable can provide for our current energy needs, let alone our future ones.


I feel like an old grandpa saying this, but I doubt i will ever accept the use of nuclear anything. Any of you can call me an idiot or primitivist for having this mindset but it is simply my own opinion and I have seen what radioactivity has the potential to do to the planet, and anything with that kind of capability should be eliminated.

You think our puny reactors and nuclear weapons can do lasting damage to the planet? You obviously aren't aware of the kind of shit that life on earth has survived. We've had asteroid impacts that would make World War Three look like a firecracker.
You could bomb wind farms and hydro dams but why do that when you can bomb something that will have a huge reaction and impact and leave the people in radioactive badlands?
And many things rely on the laws of physics.. Alas a lot of things fail...

Of course I didn't notice the wildlife flourishing around chernobyl, I don't live in Russia. Provide me with evidence.

Haha, life may have survived asteroid impacts, but they also wiped out all of the dinosaurs with them.. bye bye humans.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You could bomb wind farms and hydro dams but why do that when you can bomb something that will have a huge reaction and impact and leave the people in radioactive badlands?

There is nowhere near enough material in a reactor for a "reaction" even if a bomb managed to penetrate the pile (Which, incidently, according to a German Reactor Safety Commission guideline* which came into force in 1981 the ten newest nuclear power plants in Germany are designed to withstand the crash of a military plane which weighs 20 tonnes and has attained a low-flying speed of 480 mph. This is equivalent to the crash of a Phantom fighter jet).

* RSK Commission guidelines for pressurised water reactors, 3rd edition, 14 October 1981, last amended / adjusted in 1996


And many things rely on the laws of physics.. Alas a lot of things fail...

Here's an idea: Have a set of reactor control rods suspended electromegnetically above the reaction chamber, connected with a set of wires made of a metal that melts at temperatures below that at which meltdown events occur. Should the reactor start to overheat, the wires will melt, breaking the circuit and causing the rods to fall into the chamber and kill the reaction. No need to have a technician constantly on the lookout, unless you seriously believe that the laws of gravitation will hold up long enough for meltdown to occur. This is known as a "failsafe".


Of course I didn't notice the wildlife flourishing around chernobyl, I don't live in Russia. Provide me with evidence.

Ask and ye shall recieve: Wildlife defies Chernobyl radiation (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4923342.stm)


Haha, life may have survived asteroid impacts, but they also wiped out all of the dinosaurs with them.. bye bye humans.

The largest nuclear weapon ever constructed was the 50 megaton Tsar Bomba. An extinction event asteroid impact would be hundreds of thousands of megatons. Most nuclear weapons are in the kiloton range. You work it out.

[Brekisonphilous]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 03:43 AM

Ask and ye shall recieve: Wildlife defies Chernobyl radiation (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4923342.stm)


:lol: haha BBC??? People here are quick to condemn mainstream media when they report something not in their favor, but once there is an article leaning in their direction of the argument, the sources are unshakable! funny how that works.

But anyways, thanks for that link.
That is awesome that wildlife is flourishing. I would have never thought. But the animals are radioactive and none of the species live as long as humans do. So if a human were to live at chernobyl through their lifetime, they would be affected. But the wildlife... awesome.
I am glad they are not aware that they are radioactive. that would really suck to live life knowing.

[piet11111]

i consider nuclear energy an interim energy source to bridge the gap between our oil needing days and the day that we figure out how to make a clean efficient and safe energy source.
windmills and solar energy are all nice and such but they require to much land and resources compared to their produce.
nuclear energy however is clean (when compared to other types of energy) safe and highly efficient and most importantly we already have the know-how for it.

and still where are the incidents i asked for Brekisonphilous ?
an argument based purely on chernobyl and the three mile island disaster is very unlikely to convince any of the pro nuclear energy camp.

[Brekisonphilous]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 10:08 PM
i consider nuclear energy an interim energy source to bridge the gap between our oil needing days and the day that we figure out how to make a clean efficient and safe energy source.
windmills and solar energy are all nice and such but they require to much land and resources compared to their produce.
nuclear energy however is clean (when compared to other types of energy) safe and highly efficient and most importantly we already have the know-how for it.

and still where are the incidents i asked for Brekisonphilous ?
an argument based purely on chernobyl and the three mile island disaster is very unlikely to convince any of the pro nuclear energy camp.
I gave you several in the other thread, but you rejected them. But time will tell.

How about the barrells of nuclear waste dumped into the ocean outside of NYC that are leaking?
What about when nuclear waste leaks into our groundwater? freshwater?
Anything like that can happen that would put complications and unnecessary deaths in peoples lives all because of a stupid energy source and industry, when other alternatives are available. Why take the risk of destroying lives when you can make them better? You know how industry continually violates environmental regulation... Well how about when nuclear energy grows in popularity and business are cutting corners on disposal? that is all it takes to start a contamination problem that should have never happened in the first place.

And by the way, I like your idea of disposal at chernobyl, but why endanger the workers to enter the site to dispose? how would you suggest storing there go about? would it be underneath the reactor?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How about the barrells of nuclear waste dumped into the ocean outside of NYC that are leaking?
What about when nuclear waste leaks into our groundwater? freshwater?

That's not an argument against nuclear power, that is an argument against unclean disposal practices. Simply dumping nuclear waste is not the only way to dispose of it.


Anything like that can happen that would put complications and unnecessary deaths in peoples lives all because of a stupid energy source and industry, when other alternatives are available.

Nonsense. Nuclear is perfectly safe if used properly. You might as well ban hydroelectric dams because of the chance they will break and wash away everyone downstream or wind farms because they mince up rare birds.


Why take the risk of destroying lives when you can make them better? You know how industry continually violates environmental regulation... Well how about when nuclear energy grows in popularity and business are cutting corners on disposal? that is all it takes to start a contamination problem that should have never happened in the first place.

If nuclear is going to become a major power source (Outside of France and Japan) then one of the most important things the industry is going to have to do is lose it's "dirty" image - and I think it's going to make more than sweet words to convince the public otherwise.