Greenpeace: Arctic 30

If Fukushima was that bad, they wouldn't allow the Japanese PM there:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP_Abe_visits_Fukushima_2009131.html

And we can't have such a discussion without this:
radiation.png
 
Sponsored Links
So again wobs...

Since 'rational monitoring' has already taken place, and the relevant authorities have indeed banned such incursions we need to find out what you actually think...

At this point in time (very important that bit ;)) 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?

And would you also allow kids to eat anything grown in the exclusion zone?

Yes or No to both of these questions are the only options before you!
 
Plenty of 'finite time' to post meaningless graphs and yet no 'finite time' to answer a couple of simple questions...

That just about sums up a pro-nuclear apologist doesn't it wobs... ;)
 
I do think the arguments for and against nuclear power are a bit pointless. Supporters point to the overall safety record (since the human race started using them) Anti nuclear brigade look at the worst case scenario and then say they should be banned.
Take this a step further, more people die as a result of car accidents, than die because of nuclear meltdown. Therefore should we outlaw cars, lorries, buses, motorbikes etc? ( Cue a list of all nuclear accidents now, by the anti nuclear brigade)
Perhaps we should ban everything which is known to shorten human life. Our diet would be bloody boring. You can kiss TV and the internet goodbye. Perhaps the green brigade would like to see a return to medieval times (life expectancy about 30 yrs) ;) ;)
 
Sponsored Links
@jock

Your argument gives carte blanche to those who wish to impose this on us without any comeback...

Thankfully those who have the intelligence to research it realise that the figures we are officially given are a crock of sh*t!

But if you are so confident about 'progress', may I suggest you accompagny wobs with your families and take up residence in a nuclear exclusion zone...

After all you're not worried about going back to a 30 yr life expectancy - or are you?

And a further couple of questions to the pro nuclear faction...

Who is liable if/when a disaster occurs?

Who foots the bill when another of these energy companies goes bust?

No conjecture - solid guarantees are required!
 
ellal, I'm just making the point that we're in a no win situation. Accidents are a fact of life. No one can make a nuclear reactor absolutely 100% safe Energy needs are rising, so we either build these, or the lights go out. Wind power is unreliable (and I won't even go into the "Carbon Footprint" associated with the manufacture of these monstrosities). We're caught between a rock and a bloody hard place. The green brigade haven't offered any viable alternatives (apart from reading by bloody candlelight) IMHO neither the pro nuclear lot or the anti nuclear lot are right in what they both say. I think they have to find some sort of middle ground, instead of argument and counter argument. Whatever they do, I hope they do it soon, before darkness descends on the civilised world. ;)
 
@ jock

There are alternatives, and as I've pointed out there are solutions that will make up some of the supply shortages...

"Energy needs are rising, so we either build these, or the lights go out."

So who is saying that energy needs are rising?

united-kingdom-electric-power-consumption-kwh-per-capita-wb-data.png


I have a small example for you...

Luckily I have a friend who travels regularly to Hong Kong...

Over several of his trips I have been able to kit out our house with LED's at a fraction of the cost in the UK...

If I now turn on every light in the house (bar a couple of outside lights) I would use no more than 600w in total!

So who is fooling who?
 
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'... :rolleyes:

I don't claim to understand what 'ecological half life' is or what factors contribute to it. I'm not alone, though, as it seems that scientists don't know either.

Is it possible that eco-warriors are using this to bend the statistics to suit themselves?
 
JBR wrote

I'm no economist, but why do we have to rely on the Frogs and the Chinese to build it for us?

Because the Chinese are bankrolling it mate. They call the shots.
You and the likes of wobs make me laff.
You demand these monstrosities be built and you ain't got a fooking bean to pay for them. :LOL:
 
I don't claim to understand what 'ecological half life' is or what factors contribute to it. I'm not alone, though, as it seems that scientists don't know either.

Is it possible that eco-warriors are using this to bend the statistics to suit themselves?
Or maybe the nuclear industry are 'bending the statistics to suit themselves'...

So maybe you ought to ask yourself this...

Who stands to benefit hugely financial wise from nuclear energy proliferation?

The energy companies or the 'eco-warriors'... ;)
 
I've just been listening to a discussion on the BBC news about nuclear power. Some silly woman representing CND (I can't imagine what nuclear disarmament is to do with nuclear power generation) was singing the praises of Germany and saying how it would be so nice if we followed their lead, so I had to look things up.
From Wikipaedia:

Germany is one of the largest consumers of energy in the world. In 2009, it consumed energy from the following sources:

Oil 34.6%
Bituminous coal 11.1%
Lignite 11.4%
Natural gas 21.7%
Nuclear power 11.0%
Hydro- and wind power 1.5%
Others

Germany is the fourth-largest producer of nuclear power in the world, but in 2000, the government and the German nuclear power industry agreed to phase out all nuclear power plants by 2021.

(I presume that 'others' - whatever they are - account for 8.7%, although that isn't in the numbers provided.)

If they also decide to phase out the burning of coal as well, that would leave a shortfall of 33.5% and, if all fossil fuel sources are removed as well, a total shortfall of 89.8%. How they're going to fill those voids with 'renewables' is beyond me, but we shall see.

It's a bit like the SNP's ridiculous claim to rely totally on renewables by 2020.

Talking's easy, isn't it, especially when it's done by politicians?
 
what the Germans are doing is a nonsense.

first of they live beside a county that has a 400TWh supply of nuclear energy. they will still be using nuclear energy. just sent over from France when its needed...

second burning more coal to replace nuclear is not green in the slightest.

The anti-nuclear folks need to take responsibility for their view point.

being anti-nuke is just a trojan horse for burning more fossil fuels and also realise that the blood shed taking place in control of them natural resources is all tied in to being anti nuke as well.

7 billion people in the world who all want a good standard of living. windmills and solar panels are just not going to cut it.
 
JBR wrote

I'm no economist, but why do we have to rely on the Frogs and the Chinese to build it for us?

Because the Chinese are bankrolling it mate. They call the shots.
You and the likes of wobs make me laff.
You demand these monstrosities be built and you ain't got a fooking bean to pay for them. :LOL:

Future bulids will be cheaper owing to economies of scale:
http://www.newscientist.com/article...ar-reactors-get-goahead-after-price-deal.html

This point is nothing new, as it was something that appeared ina white paper some years ago. Build a standard design, and repeat said design to save money.

This issue was the main thing that stopped the Seven Barrage, as it would have been a one off (regardless of your views on tidal power).

I should also note that while we lack the companies to build much of it, much of the money and skills are UK sourced. It is indeed sad that we lack the resources to entirely build it ourselves, but its a global market these days. If you want a large wind farm, how many will be built by a British company?

Remember, I said we could have had the tools to make the reactor ourselves, but Cameron refused a loan to Foregmasters - such short sightedness.
 
If you want to find cancer clusters, don't look near a nuclear power station, as you are unlikely to find it (certainly not in the UK). However, more conventional air pollution is thought to be a major contender:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...y:+Earth+&+Climate+News)&utm_content=My+Yahoo

The tar sands area of Canada has elevated cancers, and some known carcinogens. Lovely.

Lets cut down on oil consumption.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top