And nuclear kills less than coal.
No arguments here Rik. I actually agree with you on the whole.
And nuclear kills less than coal.
Very true. Even being born is not without it's hazards
wingstoo, you have my most sincere condolences. My comment was meant in a light hearted manner, without a thought to anyone actually being affected. Sometimes joking is in poor taste, my apologies
No worries bb07, we all say things that on reflection we shouldn't have...
Strange how it may seem a lot of good came about because of our loss.
This is a small corner of a special childrens burial section of our local cemetery we had created after our loss.
[/URL][/IMG]
And my eldest daughter works on the BNFL site for WS Atkins the civil engineer company, as an assistant costs analyst for the decommissioning project she lives in Whitehaven, just a few miles up the coast from the plant.
If the power goes off panic follows hence my support for reliable nuclear power; I ain't giving up my toys
The question (within the context of this thread) is, "Are nuclear reactors safe?" To answer that question accurately, all nuclear reactors have to be accessed for their failure rates. Their location is irrelevant.
saw on the news about thorium nuclear power, so I did a bit of reading about it. Looks to make uranium nuclear power a bloody outrage, we had test reactors in the 60's but didn't develop them. Litttle waste, no meltdowns, waste quickly becomes safe, chenobyl wouldn't have existed, and the uranium from the 60's would be safe. What have they precicely been playing about at? Waste untouchable for 100,000 years ? Meltdowns and radiation poisoming ? I always had my alarm bell ringing when they talked about nuclear plants and their waste. Fucushima will cost 100 billion dollars to clean up, and unlivable for a good few years, chenobyl virtually glows at night.
saw on the news about thorium nuclear power, so I did a bit of reading about it. Looks to make uranium nuclear power a bloody outrage, we had test reactors in the 60's but didn't develop them. Litttle waste, no meltdowns, waste quickly becomes safe, chenobyl wouldn't have existed, and the uranium from the 60's would be safe. What have they precicely been playing about at? Waste untouchable for 100,000 years ? Meltdowns and radiation poisoming ? I always had my alarm bell ringing when they talked about nuclear plants and their waste. Fucushima will cost 100 billion dollars to clean up, and unlivable for a good few years, chenobyl virtually glows at night.
So do you have another source that actually works? And doesn't cause global warming? Please don't say hydro, cause most environmentalists also oppose damning rivers and the ensuing ecological damage.
"Chernobyl actually glows"?
Funny that lots of people have moved back there then..........................
extract from Russia Today http://englishrussia.com/2013/04/26/chernobyl-today/4/ "These people already know which places are safe and which are better to avoid. And they do not need dosimeters. By the way, most of the places in Chernobyl have lower background radiation than Kiev."
Ah - did someone tread on your "Chernobyl glows" comment with a fact or two?!
As background radiation in Chernobyl is lower than Kiev, does that mean Kiev glows twice as much? Lucky that no-one lives anywhere near Kiev then..................
......as an alternative geothermal must be able to go along way, kenya in the rift valley produces loads, like iceland, I'm sure iceland could power most of europe and scicily and greece could do the rest. The us is hardly lacking in volcanism just like south america and japan. but thorium looks to be a goer, or just burn coal.
Edit:
actually they are already thinking of powering europe from iceland.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current