ScribbleLive

@lillymunster, yeah, like 'pro-nuclear bias' any questions?! Bet that study is online.

www.progressive.org

Renewables Now Surpass Nuclear Power in the U.S.

This is a good way to get 2012 rolling: A recent report reveals that for the first time renewable sources have outdone nuclear power in the United States.
“Renewable energy sources—wind, water, solar and others—passed nuclear generation as a share of U.S. power in September, according to the Energy Information Administration,” reports the San Francisco Business Times. “The EIA report showed 6.944 quadrillion Btus, or ‘quads,’ of energy generated from renewable sources in the first nine months of 2011, compared with 6.173 quads from nuclear power.” [...]

@lillymunster, I think one of the two cranes is the type that hoists something up.

Here's an example of the FukuFallout hoaxsters duping someone into believing that dangerous levels of fallout are inundating the U.S. now : www.youtube.com

@Lily, I'm all over Unit 2 and the scope. I'll post if I find anything.

Here's the EIA report that's reported to say Renewables outperformed nuclear from January to Sept 2011 eia.gov The 'Renewables' are: hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, wind, wood burning (boo!) and biofuels.

See page 3 for the data reported. It jibes, 6.173 quads for nuclear and 6.944 quads for Renewables! Hoot hoot! However, there's this footnote for Renewables:

b See Tables 10.1–10.2c for notes on series components and estimation; and see Note, "Renewable Energy Production and Consumption," at end of Section 10.

I've looked to where it points and don't know what to make of it. But it suggests to me that there might be a caveat in there that's not getting reported, like perhaps the costs of renewables are higher per unit of output vs nuclear. I don't known, but I'd want to be sure before I was to trumpet these data myself.

Radiat Environ Biophys. 2012 Jan 14.

Leukemia incidence in the Russian cohort of Chernobyl emergency workers.

Of all potentially radiogenic cancers, leukemia, a type of cancer of the blood, has the highest risk attributable to ionizing radiation. Despite this, the quantitative estimation of radiation risk of a leukemia demands studying very large exposed cohorts, because of the very low level of this disease in unexposed populations and because of the tendency for its radiation risk to decrease with time. At present, the Japanese cohort of atomic bomb survivors is still the primary source of data that allows analysis of radiation-induced leukemia and the underlying dose-response relationship. The second large cohort that would allow to study radiation-induced leukemia is comprised of individuals who were exposed due to the accident of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986. The objective of the present study was to estimate radiation risks of leukemia incidence among the Russian cohort of Chernobyl emergency workers, for different time periods after the accident. Twenty-five years after the Chernobyl accident and based on the results of the present study, one can conclude that the radiation risk of leukemia incidence derived from the Russian cohort of Chernobyl emergency workers is similar to that derived from the cohort of atomic bomb survivors: The time-averaged excess relative risk per Gray (ERR Gy(-1)) equals 4.98 for the Russian cohort and 3.9 for the life span study (LSS) cohort; excess absolute risk decreases with time after exposure at an annual rate of 9% for the Russian cohort, and of 6.5% for the LSS cohort. Thus, the excess in risk of leukemia incidence in a population due to a single exposure is restricted in time after exposure by the period of about 15 years.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov