Here's a pic for the pro-nuclear to enjoy.

[bushwacker bob]

Yup. 10,000 died of the tsunami, none from radioactivity.

Dangerous stuff, water.......................

They dont live there any more but not because its a wet area.

 

[andyn]

Yup. 10,000 died of the tsunami, none from radioactivity.

Dangerous stuff, water.......................

You sure about that Andy?

What about the, at least, 5 already dead nuclear workers, and the many others still working there that will all die because of the radiation levels they have and are being exposed too?

Ok doesn't compare to the thousands killed by the tsunami, but the long term damage still really cannot be truly known to us yet.

Too true about the power of water! We spend so much time, money and resources in trying to control the stuff.

Sent from my phone.

 

[Retired Member southey]

Is that the watercress line? A great day out for the family, celebrate the fabulous water cress Industry of the south of England, why not stay in Winchester and explore some fantastic history and countryside.

 

[forestwalker]

Granite. The rock of Cornwall contains relatively more naturally radioactive elements (mostly uranium and thorium I think).

These elements slowly decay (very slowly, which is why they're still kicking around after the Big Bang, billions of years ago) and some of the decay products are also radioactive. One of the most important decay product is Radon, which is a gas and can collect in poorly ventilated spaces. It's dangerous to breathe it in because it can cause cancer. After smoking I believe it's the second or third most important cause of lung cancer, depending on the local use of asbestos products.

I'd say the uranium and thorium that decays into radon probably came from supernovas (ISTR that mostly hydrogen and helium was formed in the Big Bang). But other than that I agree: we have the same issues with radon in most of Sweden.

Of course, just to mess with peoples head I often point out that nuclear reactors are perfectly natural., which is silly but true.

 

[Andy BB]

You sure about that Andy?

What about the, at least, 5 already dead nuclear workers, and the many others still working there that will all die because of the radiation levels they have and are being exposed too?

Ok doesn't compare to the thousands killed by the tsunami, but the long term damage still really cannot be truly known to us yet.

Too true about the power of water! We spend so much time, money and resources in trying to control the stuff.

Sent from my phone.

Actually I was wrong - the death toll from the tsunami was estimated at 18,000, not 10,000 as I first stated. And the workers who died, died in the explosion, not from radiation as was inferred. Sadly, people die from industrial accidents worldwide on a daily basis, yet not too many people demand bread factories - or farming or fishing - to be banned!

 

[Magentus]

A bread factory or a farm doesn't have the same impact when it goes wrong as a nuclear power station. The long term effects of the Japanese disaster have yet to be seen. Why are you such an apologist for the nuclear industry? Will you even admit that they work fine until they don't?

 

[Andy BB]

A bread factory or a farm doesn't have the same impact when it goes wrong as a nuclear power station. The long term effects of the Japanese disaster have yet to be seen. Why are you such an apologist for the nuclear industry? Will you even admit that they work fine until they don't?

Apologist? No apologies from me. I just like to correct the horrific- and often deliberate - misconceptions of those that spout propaganda about the industry. For example, I have seen headlines and posts implying that the 18000 dead in Japan was as a result of the nuclear station. (look at Google and the headlines - I'll quote one - "[h=3]Japan disaster death toll rises to 18000; reactor pressure surges...[/h] And also point out that - if you want power that is not CO2 intensive- there is little if any sensible alternative.

Unfortunately there is this direct link between "atomic/nuclear" and bomb, which has been deeply embedded in the psyche since the 50s. Similarly the link between "radiation" and death. Sure, excessive radiation is nasty, but so is much else - skin cancer for example, yet you don't see the Greens lobbying against the Sun! Similarly, the death toll from the Rape of Nanching far exceeded the deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Perspective is very difficult to find when anything as emotive as nuclear power is mentioned, because people don't look at the facts, rather preferring to believe in the propaganda.

 

[Magentus]

You didn't answer the question though - will you admit that nuclear power stations are fine until they go wrong. You've carefully avoided addressing this point in a couple of posts, and if you're talking about propaganda, the nuclear power industry has a lot more money going into PR than any green group.

Your posts are full of smoke and mirrors - you can't lobby against the sun but you can put a hat on. There are thousands of death tolls higher than those connected with any kind of nuclear bomb/disaster but what is your point?

I'm not going to enter into any more of this with you as I think you have a vested interest so the stage is yours.

 

[cave_dweller]

You didn't answer the question though - will you admit that nuclear power stations are fine until they go wrong. You've carefully avoided addressing this point in a couple of posts, and if you're talking about propaganda, the nuclear power industry has a lot more money going into PR than any green group.

I won't try to speak for Andy, but the information I've seen suggests strongly that Nuclear is a pretty safe way to generate electricity on the whole. Sure, the accidents that do happen tend to be very high profile (and hugely over reported, and over dramatised in the media) but if you do the maths, there really aren't that many deaths attributable to the Nuclear power industry.

I went from being very 'anti-nuclear' to grudgingly accepting it while doing research on the subject in University around 25 years ago. That makes me pretty out of date, but I doubt much has changed. These days I tend to think of it as being the worst option (apart from all the others we've tried).

 

[wingstoo]

How much radiation is in the air from 30 odd years of nuclear weapons testing ? A darn site more than from all the nuclear power stations going wrong is my guess.

I read this on another forum.And I know the poster is on BcUK as well.

There is always a price to pay for whatever we do, Yin and Yang, good and evil. What is important is keeping the balance so overall there is no detriment. How you measure the detriment is moot, Pound signs, kilograms of carbon, excess deaths, loss of amenity. The list is huge and priorities change from person to person.

Did you know that coal contains many radioactive elements and the radiation released from the coal powered electricity stations was extremely high and certainly was responsible for many hundreds of thousands of cancer deaths in the UK over the years? Many, many times the deaths attributed to nuclear power worldwide, including mining the uranium in the first place. These deaths were a price society was prepared to pay for an electrical supply, similar to the societal acceptance of around 2000 deaths a year so we may have a road transport system.

To me nuclear power is the way to go. I believe we are in for a difficult and expensive time without it. The risks are worth it.

Thinking a few hundred to a few thousand years ahead, oil is the precursor to many other materials and I think it is just too valuable to burn. I suspect future generations will call this millennium 'the waster years'.

"nearly half of the total amount of Cs-137 estimated by the NCRP to have been released by all atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, Chernobyl, and world-wide reprocessing plants (~270 million curies or ~9.9 E+18 Becquerel)."

 

[British Red]

A bread factory or a farm doesn't have the same impact when it goes wrong as a nuclear power station.

Want a bet? There is a substantial argument that the long term effects of petro chemical based nitrate fertilisers will cost far more lives than the nuclear industry.

 

[blacktimberwolf]

For those who are getting their knickers in a twist about the "tongue in cheek" quote under the photo.............. d'ya really think it's going to change puplic opinion ? lighten up fellas.
Interesting though that the defenders of the industry are more aggressive & all to ready to criticize those that don't share their faith in nuclear. Concerns about nuclear safety are perfectly legitimate are they not ?.....Is there really no room for debate,? just accept the published figures & shut up ?.....

Both camps on the nuclear industry use propaganda....so what !..... there are truths & lies on all sides .... fortunately we are still free to decide which side of the fence we stand & I would have thought that on this forum of all places, differing points of view could be expressed without being ridiculed by those who think otherwise.

After all we're not here to change the world, not even to change each other's minds .... we are mearly putting foreward our opinions on any given subject. It's a hard fact to swallow but no one has a monopoly of the truth.


Cheers.

 

[blacktimberwolf]

No one else find it ironic that a photo taken by, a camera/phone charged using nuke power, is then transferred onto a computer/online storage running on nuke power, then transferred to the internet using a router connected to nuke power, for the op to then put said photo on a forum on a device running/charged on nuke power, THEN in some sort of half arsed attempt to criticise nuke power?

You never know...maybe the OP has solar panels & a wind turbine in the garden I doubt he has though.

 

[cbr6fs]

If there is a better real work alternative that's cleaner, offers less pollution, environmental impact and still keeps everyone happy i'd love to hear/read it.

 

[Nagual]

Nuclear Fussion is the future!

 

[British Red]

Nuclear Fussion is the future!

Nuclear Fusion for little old ladies who support the Green party?

 

[Toddy]

Scotland is now at 31% of it's energy requirements met from renewables, wind, wave and hydro. The aim is 80% by 2020.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Scotland

I'm not claiming that it's not without problems or detractors, but as technology improves, greater efficiency of both production and use, then the potential is there. Mind too that this is in a country that has a damp, overcast climate. Indeed we make jokes about the strange hot yellow ball thing that occasionally appears in the sky

I think that's our best hope for the future; technological advances and more carefully applied usage.

As for the photo in the OP ............and today's award of the Big Wooden Spoon, goes to Blacktimberwolf even if it was unintentional.

cheers,
Toddy

 

[British Red]

That "if" is bigger than the steam cloud

 

[MrEd]

i wouldnt worry its only a cloud factory!

 

[tinderbox]

Scotland is now at 31% of it's energy requirements met from renewables, wind, wave and hydro. The aim is 80% by 2020.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Scotland

Sorry, but that article is pure fantasy, and a prime example of why wiki is unreliable. It's a work of polemic. To give one example it states that the water in hydro plants produces energy several times over, but it fails to account for the energy used pumping the water back up hill. If that were taken into account hydro would appear as an energy deficit.