Compact nuclear fusion reactor is 'very likely to work,' studies suggest

Re:Compact nuclear fusion reactor is 'very likely to work,' ... by drran on Wednesday September 30, 2020 @03:08AM (#24636357)

Tsunami and earthquakes are not man generated events, so we can dismiss them. Yes, they killed a lot of people, but cancer kills even more: about 10 millions per year. In part, cancer is caused by contamination of food by radionuclides from reactor leaks (Chornobyl) and nuclear bomb testing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Compact nuclear fusion reactor is 'very likely to work,' ... by outworlder on Wednesday September 30, 2020 @12:59PM (#24640912)

> In part, cancer is caused by contamination of food by radionuclides from reactor leaks (Chornobyl)

Sorry, this is just misinformation. Residual radiation worldwide from nuclear testing or Chernobyl is minuscule. We wouldn't even be able to detect anything if we didn't have incredibly sensitive instruments.

The sun is a much larger daily source of radiation. Or a banana.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Compact nuclear fusion reactor is 'very likely to work,' ... by drran on Wednesday September 30, 2020 @01:50PM (#24641466)

Radiation from Chornobyl affected large area, but not whole world. People die from radiation induced cancer in affected areas only, of course.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Compact nuclear fusion reactor is 'very likely to work,' ... by FriskyAlter on Wednesday September 30, 2020 @07:29AM (#24637607)

Yes, cancer did not exist before nuclear. We can blame cancer on nuclear plants and bombs. That's quality commentary.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Compact nuclear fusion reactor is 'very likely to work,' ... by drran on Wednesday September 30, 2020 @01:56PM (#24641540)

Radionuclides are major contribution to growth of cancer rate.

Quote: Radioactive fallout from nuclear weapons tests probably caused 17,000 cancer deaths in the United States in the latter half of the 20th century

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1849471.stm

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Compact nuclear fusion reactor is 'very likely to work,' ... by FriskyAlter on Thursday October 01, 2020 @04:32AM (#24648738)

"probably" 17000 in 70 years against 700 000 000 total cancer death. Pack it up, boys.

And if anything, that shows how bad nuclear weapons are, not the power plants.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Compact nuclear fusion reactor is 'very likely to work,' ... by Retric on Thursday October 01, 2020 @12:37PM (#24653026)

The 17000 is US numbers and the US is a long way from 10 million cancer deaths per year. The point stands fine without using misleading numbers.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Compact nuclear fusion reactor is 'very likely to work,' ... by FriskyAlter on Friday October 02, 2020 @04:20AM (#24660331)

There are not many countries who did nuclear weapon tests and even those that did, did not do it in such numbers. Maybe russia, but I doubt that would push the numbers much.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Compact nuclear fusion reactor is 'very likely to work,' ... by joncrane on Wednesday September 30, 2020 @11:30AM (#24639777)

I believe that coal releases more radioactivity into the environment than nuclear energy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Compact nuclear fusion reactor is 'very likely to work,' ... by drran on Wednesday September 30, 2020 @02:05PM (#24641643)

Quote:

McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...

[ Parent | on HN ]