TN - Resistance for a Nuclear Free Future

• < Previous Event
• Next Event >

Comment

Comment by Juan Andres Gonzalez Fernandez on August 24, 2013 at 2:15pm

TORIO

16 de febrero de 2012 a la (s) 22:52

El  torio  es uno de los Elementos Más abudantes en la corteza terrestre, es un combustible Altamente Eficiente Que se Aprovecha al 100% el pecado requerir alcalde Tratamiento y con Residuos Mucho Menos nocivos Que el uranio. Se encuentra a Dos Puntos a la Izquierda de uranio en la Tabla Periódica, en La Misma fila o en serie. Los Elementos en Los Mismos comparten Características de la serie. Con el uranio y el torio, LÃ similitud Clave it Que de yunque pueden absorción neutrones Ÿ transmutan es ELEMENTOS fisionables. ESO significa Que el torio Podria Ser utilizado párrafo Alimentar los Reactores Nucleares, Al Igual Que el uranio, El uranio ademas, debe Ser Altamente refinado párrafo someterlo al USO de los Reactores Nucleares y ONU de la estafa riguroso Tratamiento de Residuos sos, El torio Pertenece a la familia de las sustancias radiactivas, Lo Que significa Que Su núcleo es inestable por y Tras Cierto Tiempo sí transformación en Otro Elemento. Por Ello Tiene potencial párr servicio utilizado en el Futuro Como combustible nuclear el torio es Más Abundante en la Naturaleza Que el uranio, no es fisionable Por Sí Mismo (Lo Que significa Que las Reacciones Se Puede detener CUANDO mar necessary), producción Productos de desecho Que hijo Menos radiactivos, Mas géneros Energía Por tonelada, los Residuos duran Mucho Menos y no sirve párrafo HACER Bombas Nucleares.

"Los minerales en su mundo" a Estados Unidos Servicio Geológico de cooperación

Satélites en vivo  http://bit.ly/17ca5vI

Comment by Juan Andres Gonzalez Fernandez on April 6, 2011 at 6:54am

I would like to have your participation in this event
http://www.sonico.com/eventos/energiaalternativa alternativas de energía y contra energía nuclear para concienciar a los mandatarios del planeta la sustitución de las energías contaminantes" onmouseover="this.style.backgroundColor='#ebeff9'" style="background-color: #fff;">Group of alternative energy, alternative energy http://www.sonico.com/eventos/energiaalternativa and against nuclear energy to create awareness among the world leaders to replace polluting energy sources

Andres Gonzalez signed the European petition against nuclear power here:
www.million-against-nuclear.net/index_es.php

Share it on your wall
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_146534475412545" onmouseover="this.style.backgroundColor='#ebeff9'" style="background-color: #fff;">ENTER THE GROUP AND INVITE YOUR FRIENDS http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_146534475412545
Together we can

Group of alternative energy, alternative energy and against nuclear energy to create awareness among the world leaders to replace polluting energy sources. The planet does not need nuclear energy, the energy future of the planet can be met through other sources of energy, drastically reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and limiting climate change We have a lot more energy from the sun and air which we can draw from all the uranium on Earth ".. The Planet needs huge investments in renewable energy and in reducing energy consumption through improved efficiency. We have the necessary te

Comment by Juan Andres Gonzalez Fernandez on April 2, 2010 at 6:32am

SIMULATION OF CENTRAL ATTACK OR NUCLEAR EXPLOSION

Perimeter of the blast. Most people in this area would die on the spot at most less than a day. Second zone. Third degree burns and skin necrosis. Third area. Second-degree burns, similar to those produced by boiling water. Fourth area. First-degree burns, such as excessive sun exposure. black rain, mutations, etc that without the radiaccion.
It is shown that pump less than 100 Kt. ash and radioactive dust is not raised over the stratosphere, so that after a few hours or days falls back to earth without causing more damage than the radioactive fallout (which is little).
For values greater than 100 Kt. microscopic dust and ashes are installed in the stratosphere, above the clouds at over 13 km, staying there for a long time. It reaches the maximum value 1 Mt fire where the ball is placed entirely in the middle stratosphere, where the high temperature burning nitrogen (N) from the atmosphere chemically attacking the ozone (O3) destroying (creating oxides of nitrogen). The ozone is that prevents ultraviolet rays from reaching the surface of the earth and harm living species. Columns of smoke produced by fires in cities would rise between 1 and 7 km., 5% of them would be storms of fire where the smoke would reach the 19 km. (In the stratosphere). In non-urban fires as much arrive at 5 km., And long-term at 2 km.
So after the explosions will have a scenario in which the case will be chosen only quantitative implications. Particles due to fires and explosions are placed in the stratosphere obscuring sunlight for weeks or months, so that the planet's temperature will drop several degrees. Once the atmosphere becomes clearer ultraviolet light will begin to filter down to the surface to damage the little life that still resists.
Large fires on their own and cause as much damage to the planet: the black microscopic dust clouds conceal the sun's light, great clouds of smoke and toxic gases from the burning of cities and industries would stifle the surface, the ultraviolet light that would eventually filtered by damaging the DNA of the species, escape of toxic substances that contaminate soil and water. All this would occur almost simultaneously, the sum being much more than each of the parties, also spread across the globe.
A determining effect on the destruction of the global ecosystem is produced on green plants, which are the basis of life and the most affected by cold and darkness. Presumably, the most affected would be less acclimated to cold. Tropical forests would be the first to go, and although the plants from cold areas are made to cold, a sharp decline could be lethal. A reduction of 5% of sunlight is enough to stop the growth of the plant, and 10% significantly reduces photosynthesis. In the case of 10,000 Mt of light would be reduced to 1% for over a month in the northern hemisphere, reaching 50% at 8 months. If the global average temperature is 13 º C drop to -40 º C in the temperate northern hemisphere for 4 months, reaching -3 º C after one year.
And if all this were not enough, there is still consider that much of that dust in suspension at low altitude is radioactive. This would fall quickly in the form of radioactive fallout contaminated land with lethal doses during the first 48 h. Up to 30% of the land in the northern hemisphere receive more than 500 rems, killing half the healthy adults who had. Few people stay healthy after the first few hours, so this radiation capped off more than 50% of survivors, leaving almost all sequels on the planet: low resistance to disease, high likelihood of cancer, mutations and malformations. The average background radiation around the planet would be more than 100 rems in the northern hemisphere and more than 200 rems.
>continued below/body>

Comment by Juan Andres Gonzalez Fernandez on April 2, 2010 at 6:31am

Radioactivity resistance varies between species and birds, mammals and conifers are the most sensitive, being generally more resistant organisms simpler and shorter reproductive cycle, among which are those that cause disease (viruses and bacteria). it would make the owners of the planet
In addition, radioactivity first rains lead to land also would drag the residual chemical fires in cities, these would be a huge conglomerate of toxic products such as vinyl chloride, furans and piroexenos from the comforts of modern society: plastics, textiles, waste, fuel ... So the rain would also concentrated acid rain, tripping over for living.
The radioactive substances sedimented with the ashes that would cover the fields, streets and buildings would be very similar to those seen in volcanic eruptions, except that this would contain the following elements for a certain time: I 131 (8 days), Ru 106 ( 1 year), Mr 90 (30), Ca 137 (30) and 130 Cs (30 years). This would average 500 rems in the northern hemisphere during the first day, 100 rems to the first month and 10 rems for over a year. In the southern hemisphere will be less the short term (100 rems the first month) but much like the long term.
If someone is to see what their fate is not appreciated. The oil wells, coal mines and bogs continue to burn for months or years, 5% of the land in the northern hemisphere would be nothing but ashes. Soil erosion by vegetation would cause floods and mudslides and debris. Water and land would be contaminated, there would be nothing to eat or drink, and what remained would be seriously contaminated.
You can not imagine the psychological state of survivors of nuclear war, but the move from a comfortable life to utter loneliness and helplessness in weeks (even the less it would look like) would be to return to either crazy or at least to fall into the deepest of depressions, perhaps even a state of absolute prostration awaiting death.
The thing that would come out would be better off scavengers, surrounded by large numbers of corpses multiply their numbers dramatically. Thus the fauna of the "day after" would be a plump rats, cockroaches and flies.
It is generally thought what they would do the survivors of a nuclear war, although we have seen that in reality would not be many if not none. However, if the explosion was small and putting in the best case, survival would be possible (but nasty) and would depend largely on the level of destruction achieved. In any case we'll see what they expect, bearing in mind that although the war are mainly located in the northern hemisphere, the south would also be affected, though less so in the more immediate effects, also in the medium and long term.
If you think of seed banks and grain stores, we see that to be near the city would probably have burned or crops. The seeds that land would remain under relatively safe, because high temperatures caused the torment of fire would hurt too. The means of transport of resources they would be almost completely destroyed, so that each group would have to make do as the could.
>continued below/body>

Comment by Juan Andres Gonzalez Fernandez on April 2, 2010 at 6:29am

The survivors would have to subsist on what they could grow or raise. Would have to seek adequate and uncontaminated soil, planting and use what they had at hand, since genetic variation would be minimal. Until the weather would be restored unpredictable and extreme weather, plants also need other things like pollination, microorganisms and the absence of pests and crops would score the first bit helpful. The areas most affected would be the tropics where the loss of ecosystems would be very difficult to be a resurrection of human culture. The desperate search for new resources or arable land would result in further aggression and severely damaged the ecosystem.
If you think of the sea as a livelihood since their production would be considerably weakened, as well as storms, bad sea conditions and lack of fuel for modern navigation would also make it difficult to also keep the costs.
Modern man, in most cases, knows neither the environment nor how to eat it, not even the most rudimentary technology techniques (such as obtaining means or tools), so although ecosystems allow human life to harsh penalties if they could take advantage.
Life would be a return to prehistory in the best case, in which the best human civilization would be reduced to a set of groups of hunter-gatherers in the Pacific islands. An advanced civilization after a nuclear attack would be impossible because our ancestors were used as resources were nearly at hand and began to use the minerals (coal, oil, copper ...) by removing them from places that were accessible and abundant. Such sites are no longer on the planet, to get these same minerals are required tasks developed deep mines and refining and purification. After an era of recycling and use of materials left over from the current civilization and only one would expect a prehistoric or classical at most, the evolution of mankind stopped forever by herself for a Gerra or a nuclear attack

Comment by Juan Andres Gonzalez Fernandez on April 2, 2010 at 5:50am

The planet does not need nuclear energy. As evidenced by the different scenarios raised then the world's energy future can be met through other sources of energy, drastically reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and limiting climate change.
At each stage of the nuclear fuel cycle radioactive waste is generated from the extraction of uranium and reactors to processing of spent nuclear fuel. Radioactive waste remains dangerous for hundreds and thousands of years and radiation can cause cancer and defects in newborns.
The planet does not need nuclear energy. We have a lot more energy from the sun that we can draw from all the uranium on Earth.
The Metro requires substantial investment in renewable energy and in reducing energy consumption through improved efficiency. We have the technology and cost we can afford, and also create many more jobs than at any stage of nuclear energy. These renewable energy resources while delivering less impact on the environment and our health, can be more economical.
http://www.sonico.com/contraenergianuclear
Andres Gonzalez