Greenpeace: Arctic 30

[Norcon]

I wouldn't like to be within 1000 mile of fukushima right now!

 

[nickso]

I would at Chernobyl. Not at Fukushima, buildings need to decay for a while.

The only problem with taking kids aside from the fact it is forbidden is they can't be trusted not to touch stuff.

 

[ellal]

I would at Chernobyl. Not at Fukushima, buildings need to decay for a while.

The only problem with taking kids aside from the fact it is forbidden is they can't be trusted not to touch stuff.

The trouble is the 'half life' of a radiation source has been shown to be different between what is on the surface and what is in the land...

So added to my previous post is also the question of whether anyone would allow their kids to eat anything grown in the exclusion zone?

Another yes or no for wobs!

 

[JBR]

The trouble is the 'half life' of a radiation source has been shown to be different between what is on the surface and what is in the land...

I'm not sure I understand that statement. I understood that specific isotopes have specific half-lives regardless of where they are situated. For example, Plutonium 239 has a half-life of about 24,000 years whether it is under water or in the open air.

 

[nickso]

I would at Chernobyl. Not at Fukushima, buildings need to decay for a while.

The only problem with taking kids aside from the fact it is forbidden is they can't be trusted not to touch stuff.

The trouble is the 'half life' of a radiation source has been shown to be different between what is on the surface and what is in the land...

So added to my previous post is also the question of whether anyone would allow their kids to eat anything grown in the exclusion zone?

Another yes or no for wobs!

I ate there for 5 days....the only danger was the bearded lady that served the food......and some brown liquid they served which no one could tell me what it was.

Our driver bought cheap stuff from the side of the road.....wouldn't do that but I suppose some of what I was eating was from the same source.

 

[ellal]

Whatever you think about Nuclear, Dave sure made a good deal...

The British energy secretary, Ed Davey, has signed the first new nuclear contract with French state-backed utility firm EDF, admitting only a clairvoyant could know the true cost to the taxpayer of the 35-year contract because of the uncertainty of future energy prices.

Energy academics said on Monday that the deal was a gamble, but estimated the cost would be at least £80bn over the life of the two new reactors to be built in Somerset, or roughly £3.5m a day for each reactor at current rates. The cost will depend on how energy prices move over the next 30 years.

Ministers made it clear that future governments would be locked into the contract, set to run until 2058, or face large penalties to compensate EDF. The Treasury has also been forced to offer loan guarantees to underwrite the finance for the investment, which is being undertaken by a consortium of French and Chinese investors.....

And remember that is just for one plant....How many do we apparently need?

And still no costings about waste disposal in that of course...

Davey said consumers would pay £92.50 per megawatt hour once electricity was generated from the two reactors at Hinkley Point, falling to £89.50 if another contract is signed for a site at Sizewell. This "strike price" will rise in line with inflation, and will be paid for 35 years after its building, subject to periodic reviews to scrutinise wholesale energy prices.

Anyone have any faith in 'reviews'?

The coaliton agreement signed in 2010 opposed providing nuclear industry with any public subsidy, a position reaffirmed by the Liberal Democrats at their conference this autumn.

but then...

"Our policy is that [we will] not provide a public subsidy unless similar support [is given] for other suppliers of low-carbon generation. Nuclear is getting no special favours." Renewable energy is also receiving a larger subsidy, albeit for a shorter period. Davey argued that the consumer, not the taxpayer, would pick up the tab.

So subsidies all round, and us consumers/taxpayers can look forward to universal fuel poverty!

Nice one Dave!

 

[ellal]

I'm not sure I understand that statement. I understood that specific isotopes have specific half-lives regardless of where they are situated. For example, Plutonium 239 has a half-life of about 24,000 years whether it is under water or in the open air.

maybe this will help...

The radioactive half life of cesium 137 is usually 30 years.

But scientists at the Savannah River National Laboratory say that the cesium at Chernobyl will persist in the environment between 5 and 10 times longer - between 180 and 320 years.

Cesium 137’s half-life — the time it takes for half of a given amount of material to decay — is 30 years. In addition to that, cesium-137’s total ecological half-life — the time for half the cesium to disappear from the local environment through processes such as migration, weathering, and removal by organisms is also typically 30 years or less, but the amount of cesium in soil near Chernobyl isn’t decreasing nearly that fast. And scientists don’t know why.

It stands to reason that at some point the Ukrainian government would like to be able to use that land again, but the scientists have calculated that what they call cesium’s “ecological half-life” — the time for half the cesium to disappear from the local environment — is between 180 and 320 years.

“Normally you’d say that every 30 years, it’s half as bad as it was. But it’s not,” said Tim Jannik, nuclear scientist at Savannah River National Laboratory and a collaborator on the work. “It’s going to be longer before they repopulate the area.”

The news may not bode well for Fukushima, although the reasons for the longevity of radioactive particles at Chernobyl is still a mystery.

"Still a mystery"...

I guess it's also "Still a mystery" why natural radiation sources released in the fracking process and pumped back underground become more dangerous than they were when they were 'locked in place'...

 

[wobs]

[Most of what you post is lies and to be treated with the utmost suspicion.

Prove me wrong. Oh wait, you can't.

Because you don't have any evidence. Remember, Greenpeace are the ones that lie, as they are idealogically driven. I go by scientific evidence.

 

[wobs]

@wobs...

I have noted that every time I have asked you for definitive figures/facts/costs you have waffled on and on, and yet refused to reply to simple questions...

That is because you don't have any answers to the questions I have posed, and nor does the nuclear industry!

You seem to think that there is no risk...But the long term fatalities (despite your protestations) say otherwise!

So maybe you will simply answer me this...Would you take your kids (if you have any) or encourage anyone with kids to take them within the exclusion zones of Chernobyl or Fukishima?

Yes or No?

The world does not revolve around you. I have shown you a great deal of evidence, but I do have a finite amount of time to do these things.

Why don't you provide some evidence. For anything you assert.

Of course, when I say evidence, I mean credible evidence. Still waiting.

Truth is, nuclear power is safer than any energy source we have. Would you rather have fracking? Or Coal? Thought not.

 

[ellal]

True, the world doesn't revolve around me...

But you still won't answer a very simple question...

So shall we try again...

"Would you take your kids (if you have any) or encourage anyone with kids to take them within the exclusion zones of Chernobyl or Fukishima?

Yes or No?"

It's very simple and shouldn't take up much of that 'finite time' of yours...

(you could amaze us and also answer the second simple question - would you allow kids to eat anything grown in the exclusion zone? Yes or No?)

Of course if you wish to leave these unanswered then we are free to deduce whatever we like - we could call it a Blair/Baby Leo moment if you would like

(ps how come your 'evidence' is 'proof', whereas evidence that opposes your viewpoint you call 'lies'?)

 

[wobs]

[
You of course ignore the 'after costs'...

I don't:

Energy Act

In the Energy Act 2008 we legislated to ensure that operators of new nuclear power stations will have secure financing arrangements in place to meet the full costs of decommissioning and their full share of waste management and disposal costs.

Before construction begins, an operator of a new nuclear power station will have to submit a Funded Decommissioning Programme (FDP) for approval by the Secretary of State.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance-for-operators-of-new-nuclear-power-stations

Compare this with coal, that does not pay for its externalities (environmental impact), or renewables, which receive hefty subisidies for little output, or fracking gas......

With nuclear we are paying for the full impact (minimal) upfront, and getting low carbon technology. Without such a reliable baseload supply, thelights will go out, and people will die.

 

[ellal]

Oh dear wobs...

Still not answering those questions I note...

Why is that?

You did of course have 'finite time' to find that out of date 'evidence'

 

[wobs]

True, the world doesn't revolve around me...

But you still won't answer a very simple question...

So shall we try again...

"Would you take your kids (if you have any) or encourage anyone with kids to take them within the exclusion zones of Chernobyl or Fukishima?

Yes or No?"

Again, I only have a finite amount of time.

Yes, following rational monitoring, and not fear. There is a increasing voice that suggests they evacuated too many people (too wide an area) from teh Fukushima area, and this caused more problems than it solved, healthwise.

(you could amaze us and also answer the second simple question - would you allow kids to eat anything grown in the exclusion zone? Yes or No?)

See above

Of course if you wish to leave these unanswered then we are free to deduce whatever we like - we could call it a Blair/Baby Leo moment if you would like

Shaming language. Speaks volumes.

(ps how come your 'evidence' is 'proof', whereas evidence that opposes your viewpoint you call 'lies'?)

Experience.
I work in environmental management. Oh, and I don't say its proof, I say its evidence. There is a distinct difference.

You have often provided close to zero evidence.

When you rely on emotive language, like you have, it shows you lack substance.

 

[ellal]

Yes, following rational monitoring, and not fear.

'rational monitoring' has already taken place, and the relevant authorities have indeed banned such incursions...

Which means your argument/'evidence' of 'exaggerated health risks' is left in tatters...

Shaming language. Speaks volumes.

Shaming you is not a problem...

But volumes of what?

The only 'volumes' I see are the amount of bovine excrement coming from you...

 

[wobs]

[

Fukushima is in full meltdown mode mate. China Syndrome.
You probably think they have it sorted don't you?

You do know China Syndrome is fictional don't you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Syndrome_(nuclear_meltdown)#China_Syndrome

And if you haven't read this blog, you don't really know much about the Fukushima incident:
http://atomicpowerreview.blogspot.co.uk/