Plans to store nuclear waste in Ennerdale.

[Andy BB]

Despite numerous independant scientific & medical studies carried out over the last decade in many countries showing that there are higher incidences of certain types of cancer ( thyroid, leukemia), birth defects & genetic abnormalities in children living within a 5 Km ( some even further) radius of a nuclear plant, a lot of people still seem to want to believe the reassuring info issued to them by the communication experts working for the nuclear industry that it is 'safe'
QUOTE]

S'funny that - lots of people say this (so it must be true!), yet pretty much every independent study I've seen completely disproves these allegations. But they still get dragged out by the scaremongers with political points to make.

 

[Maxip]

Wasn't that taken from one of the nuclear industry's promo pamphets ?

No, but as I said from the outset, I'm pro-nuclear and as I live within sight of Sellafield (where my wife & many, many friends work) I probably have a higher level of knowledge of the industry than
many. I have had many in depth discussions (over wine) with senior managers in both NDA & Sellafield Ltd as well as NMP, NNL and other key players in the industry.

 

[blacktimberwolf]

I have had many in depth discussions (over wine) with senior managers in both NDA & Sellafield Ltd as well as NMP, NNL and other key players in the industry.

Do they actually spend any time in the plants & if so did they all have a full set of fingers ?

 

[blacktimberwolf]

QUOTE]

S'funny that - lots of people say this (so it must be true!), yet pretty much every independent study I've seen completely disproves these allegations. But they still get dragged out by the scaremongers with political points to make.

Then they couldn't have been that independant ................but if you're convinced that nuclear is safe then it's unlikely you're going to believe the results of studies carried out by independant researchers which you believe have other agendas..........admitttedly the research was initiated by concerns emanating from medical workers (in the UK, France, Germany & the US principally) treating higher numbers than the national averages of childhood cancers in the vicinity of nuclear plants so it could be argued that there were health concerns regarding the effects of living close to the reactors, thus questioning the safety of the installations as claimed by the industry but is that anti-nuclear ?

 

[Andy BB]

Ah - the "cluster" theories, proven time and again to be statistically invalid when compared to the rest of the country. Again, scaremongering by those with an agenda.

 

[blacktimberwolf]

I rest my case.

 

[santaman2000]

I'm pro-nuclear as it is the 'best' way we can generate electricity in the UK unless we want to keep using coal / oil (until they run out), wave / wind (if they can be made efficient) or gas (more fracking anyone). How we treat the reprocessed waste still needs lots of thought and a deep core repository is (IMHO) the best option. There are several of these in the US......

Actually no. Most spent fuel rods in the US are still being stored at the plants where they were used. There were plans to move them to Yucca Mountain but that is still on hold (more than a decade after being proposed) because of NIBYism near the site and concerns of others along the possib'e transport routes.

In fact all our NIMBYs are yelling that the UK and Europe recycles it's spent fuel rods.

 

[fishfish]

Heads up for this controversial plan to use Wild Ennerdale to dump nuclear waste.
There appear plans afoot to use Ennerdale, Lake District for the disposal of nuclear waste underground.

the Dingles and Tates will soon put a stop to that!

 

[santaman2000]

Then they couldn't have been that independant ................but if you're convinced that nuclear is safe then it's unlikely you're going to believe the results of studies carried out by independant researchers which you believe have other agendas..........admitttedly the research was initiated by concerns emanating from medical workers (in the UK, France, Germany & the US principally) treating higher numbers than the national averages of childhood cancers in the vicinity of nuclear plants so it could be argued that there were health concerns regarding the effects of living close to the reactors, thus questioning the safety of the installations as claimed by the industry but is that anti-nuclear ?

There are also many studies showing higher rates of cancer among those who live near ANY high voltage power transmission lines. So are those higher rates at the power plant due to reactor radiation levels? Or maybe electromagnetic radiation from the power leaving the plant?

 

[Maxip]

Actually no. Most spent fuel rods in the US are still being stored at the plants where they were used. There were plans to move them to Yucca Mountain but that is still on hold (more than a decade after being proposed) because of NIBYism near the site and concerns of others along the possib'e transport routes.

In fact all our NIMBYs are yelling that the UK and Europe recycles it's spent fuel rods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant - Yucca Mountain should have been the main location but as you say, has been cancelled.

UK recycles the fuel it can at Sellafield and remaining HLW is encapsulated in glass & concrete then stored. It is currently stored near site but a longer term solution is required, hence the need for a repository.

 

[Manacles]

Ah - the "cluster" theories, proven time and again to be statistically invalid when compared to the rest of the country. Again, scaremongering by those with an agenda.

You know Andy I honestly wish I could disagree with you on this - but you are right. A definite link has not been established and a lot of work has been done on the subject. Also on illness clusters in proximity to power lines, and mobile phone use, but nothing clear cut or definite in the way of results.

I suspect we humans are intrinsicly wary of the technology (why wouldn't we be? Technology gave us the A bomb amongst other scaries) and the understanding that goes with the processes is too highbrow for most of us to really understand fully.

 

[andybysea]

Not that i dwell on it seeing as i live about 15 miles from Torness power station,(and my misses travel the country working in them) i dont think you will ever get a definate link as to wether cancer rates were higher in there vacinity it would be buried,can you imagine the panic if the gov suddenly announced all those living within x miles of a nuclear power station are of higher risk of cancer,to much dosh involved, im not saying its higher or not,just that we wont get to know if it is.

 

[blacktimberwolf]

A definite link has not been established and a lot of work has been done on the subject. Also on illness clusters in proximity to power lines, and mobile phone use, but nothing clear cut or definite in the way of results..

True definate, identifiable links have not been found so we have to settle for the theories put forward by a few 'ologists explaining the cluster
illnesses, such as abnormal immune responses, high population turnovers & viruses...........I wonder if alien activity in these areas could be included in the possible causes...

 

[Andy BB]

There is NO statistical validity to "cluster" theories - it just isn't there.

In the same way that the world didn't end at 11.11 today, no matter how many people made predictions or claimed it would..........

 

[pastymuncher]

Despite numerous independant scientific & medical studies carried out over the last decade in many countries showing that there are higher incidences of certain types of cancer ( thyroid, leukemia), birth defects & genetic abnormalities in children living within a 5 Km ( some even further) radius of a nuclear plant, a lot of people still seem to want to believe the reassuring info issued to them by the communication experts working for the nuclear industry that it is 'safe'
They will tell you that low doses of radiation that continually escape from the plants & contaminate the air & local water supplies are completely harmless & that the higher cancer rates around the nuclear installations (they can't deny it as it's a fact) are just co-incidental & that there is no way of proving that the reactors are responsible & produce mountains of facts & figures, elaborated by the industries very own assigned experts, to prove it.
Of course we can believe whom we wish, just bear in mind that the basis for any of the nuclear industry's 'studies' is mainly concerned with reducing it's legal liabilities & responsibilities & not the welfare of the population.

See my earlier post re the cement works and crematoriums, they also have "hot spots" around them for the above health problems.

 

[pastymuncher]

Just to make you really scared

[video=youtube;856fWEltiXo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=856fWEltiXo[/video]

 

[andybysea]

I saw that on live link,quite a few in the 60s,though nothing to really worry about whats a bit of radiation amongst friends.

 

[wingstoo]

Just to make you really scared

[video=youtube;856fWEltiXo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=856fWEltiXo[/video]

Why scared, all that has been in the atmosphere all that time and no doubt more atmospheric pollution than all the nuclear power stations on the planet have put out, and we're still here and very little in the way of consequences to show for it apparently.

 

[santaman2000]

Why scared, all that has been in the atmosphere all that time and no doubt more atmospheric pollution than all the nuclear power stations on the planet have put out, and we're still here and very little in the way of consequences to show for it apparently.

Not neccesarily all atnospheric. A lot were I'm sure, but also at some point on the timeline they switched to underground detonations.

 

[pastymuncher]

Tongue firmly in cheek...
I spend my time working on Nuclear power stations etc.