Greenpeace: Arctic 30

[nickso]

There's a thing sitting in chernoble to this day that if you just walked past it by mistake you'd only have a few days to live!

Off topic a bit but genuinely out of interest....what thing? Been there and saw nothing that would kill you in a few days by walking by it.....make you ill but not kill. Several hundred people work there everyday in a block right next to the reactor that blew.

It was in a documentary and the scientists gave it a nickname.
Can't remember now but its still there and as lethal as ever and will be for thousands of years.

I have a pic of me next to the reactor and one of the buckets they used to dump **** into the core to cool/contain it. High radiation but not life threatening unless you lick it.

I will try and find the item you refer to......next time I go I will get a pic of that too.

 

[ladylola]

WW3 the most likely and most effective.

Well no argument as to nuclear having a definate part in that final solution

Yep, one way or another we're boned.

 

[jeds]

... The UK has no viable energy storage that is adequate to compensate for this inadequacy...

The only viable one is the Severn Estuary. But the latest bid failed and I can't see another one for years now. Shame.

 

[wobs]

[
Peak Uranium was way back in 1980 so nuclear is on its way out too.

This is so wrong, I don't know where to begin.

Firstly, broadly speaking, demand for uranium from the 1970s never really took off as predicted, owing to politics. This meant that mining companies didn't really look too hard for new reserves. Why would they, when they had enough (more or less) to supply the demand. With a 40 year lifespan of a typical mine, you don't really need to look for much more, when the demand isn't going through the roof.

Chernobyl stopped growth in the 80s, and beyond, and with reprocessing in the UK and France, demand was kept level for years.

It is only with China and other developing countries coming on stream that has seen an increase in recent years, and mining companies are looking for new reserves again.

Now lets look at reprocessing again.
Most countries do not reprocess. This is crazy, and the US hasn't done it for decades (thanks to Carter, and some stupid ideas re proliferation). It has wasted tonnes of fuel, and countries such as Finland are currently burying huge quantities of potential energy in safe but wasted facilities.

Not only is it a waste to do so, but it is environmentally better to reprocess, as the reprocessed fuel will return to the radioactive level of the ore within a few hundred years, rather than 1000s. Easily engineered to be safe.

It amazes me that the Green movement opposes this, as it saves on energy, and is better for disposal.

Then there is the nuclear cycle as a whole. It is far more efficient than it used to be. Meaning we get for energy per unit of ore than we used. This is called progress.

Future developments will greatly increase what we can use, including more plutonium, uranium other than U235 and thorium

Also, there are secondary sources of uranium. These include coal ash (Uraniferous coal ash (eg. lignite) could contain more energy in the uranium than the original coal did), phosphate, and as said eariler - seawater.

Seawater extraction has only been explored briefly, and has the potential to last millions of years.

And of course, thorium will probably become part of the mix in the future

As for the fear of radiation, you do know that only about 100 people died at Chernobyl, that no one has died at Fukishima, and far more people have died from just about any other power generation you care to mention on a deaths per GWh basis.

Not convinced? See this book on radiation:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Radiation-R...qid=1381913092&sr=1-8&keywords=radiation+safe

1. The radiation levels in the nuclear waste storage hall at Sellafield, UK are so low (1 micro-sievert per hour) that anyone would have to stay there for a million hours to receive the same dose that any patient on a course of radiotherapy treatment receives to their healthy tissue in a single day (1 sievert or gray). 2. The radiation dose experienced by the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs caused 0.6% to die of radiation-induced cancer between 1950 and 2000, that is about 1/20 of the chance of dying of cancer anyway and less than the chance of being killed on US highways in that period. 3. The wildlife at Chernobyl today is reported to be thriving, despite being radioactive. 4. The mortality of UK radiation workers before age 85 from all cancers is 15-20% lower than comparable groups. The case for a complete change in attitude towards radiation safety is unrelated to the effects of climate change. But the realisation that radiation and nuclear energy are much safer than is usually supposed is of extreme importance to the current discussion of alternatives to fossil fuels and their relative costs.

And see these figures:
Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

More on uranium reserves here:
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeAvailabilityOfUsableUranium

 

[wobs]

... The UK has no viable energy storage that is adequate to compensate for this inadequacy...

The only viable one is the Severn Estuary. But the latest bid failed and I can't see another one for years now. Shame.

That's not strictly a storage system. While is stores the tidal cycle, it is not designed to store excess renewable energy from wind and solar.

Pump storage is currently employed to make money, but to use it solely as a way of storing renewable energy would be unviable in the extreme.

 

[ellal]

As for the fear of radiation, you do know that only about 100 people died at Chernobyl, that no one has died at Fukishima

That assumes of course that increased rates of cancer have nothing to do with increased rates of deaths...

 

[wobs]

As for the fear of radiation, you do know that only about 100 people died at Chernobyl, that no one has died at Fukishima

That assumes of course that increased rates of cancer have nothing to do with increased rates of deaths...

http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/nuclearsafety/ARTICLE.pdf
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/S...rnobyl-Accident---Appendix-2--Health-Impacts/

While there was an increase in thyroid cancers in children shortly after, these were largely treatable. There were some child deaths that were entirely avoidable. Even these were exaggerated, as extended detection through up some cases that would otherwise not have been detected.

The claim that there was an increase in cancers overall in the long term is flawed. If you read the work of Wade Allison and others in this field (eg. UNSCEAR), you'll see that low level radiation is not the risk it used to be assuemd to be, as the body can cope with such cmall doses. The risk is not a linear line when you get down to such low levels.

Edit: And here:

So far some 1100 children have contracted cancer of whom 3 have died (1998). The incidence peaked in 1995 and is falling off. This was an entirely avoidable addition to the accident.

http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/nuclearsafety/recordarticle.htm

 

[jeds]

... The UK has no viable energy storage that is adequate to compensate for this inadequacy...

The only viable one is the Severn Estuary. But the latest bid failed and I can't see another one for years now. Shame.

That's not strictly a storage system. While is stores the tidal cycle, it is not designed to store excess renewable energy from wind and solar.

Pump storage is currently employed to make money, but to use it solely as a way of storing renewable energy would be unviable in the extreme.

Yes. Not really the same thing. But will be a useful source of renewable energy when it eventually happens.

 

[JBR]

I'd like to thank Wobs for providing all that information.

All things being equal, it should persuade the anti-nuclear brigade to stop bleating. I'm afraid, though, that their minds are set and are unlikely to listen to hard evidence - a bit like religionists, for that matter!

 

[Norcon]

wobs wrote

As for the fear of radiation, you do know that only about 100 people died at Chernobyl

Its closer to 93,000. (source greenpeace)
Soil in the UK is still contaminated with the fall out.

Google wrote

A recent book, Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, concludes that, based on records now available, some 985,000 people died between 1986 and 2004, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl accident

the world has been subjected to a massive cover up and deception about the true damages caused by Chernobyl."

The quantity of available uranium is limited and will decline. The price will go up. If the world adopts nuclear power as a major source of energy, there will be uranium wars just as there are now oil wars.

Because of their potential of mass destruction, nuclear power stations are a major target for terrorists. The 9/11 atrocity would be tiny by comparison. If a large plane were flown into a nuclear power station, the disaster would be immeasurably worse than Chernobyl.

At Fukushima we have the worst industrial disaster ever. Three simultaneous on going complete meltdowns have proven impossible to stop or contain since they started almost two years ago. These meltdowns are still pouring radiation pollution across the Japanese landscape.

International experts (e.g. Charles Perrow in Normal Accidents) agree that there will continue to be disastrous failures at nuclear power stations, and that this cannot be avoided

Edward Teller said

"If you [try to] construct something foolproof, there will always be a fool greater than the proof."

If we didn't have nuclear power we'd manage without it and we wouldn't be living under the constant shadow of nuclear contamination, sickness and death.
The industry is worth billions and billions so it wants to survive and it wants us to believe that it's safe as millions of people die, fall sick and give birth to deformed and damage children. The suffering is horrific yet all that's hidden away while the accidents are played down and the radioactive contamination spreads across the globe.

 

[Norcon]

I'd like to thank Wobs for providing all that information.

All things being equal, it should persuade the anti-nuclear brigade to stop bleating. I'm afraid, though, that their minds are set and are unlikely to listen to hard evidence - a bit like religionists, for that matter!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT1-rkJCiuU

That's your beloved nuclear energy for you.
wobs is telling you fairy stories and playing down the true dangers of this energy source.

Only 6 years and the entire pacific ocean will be destroyed with radioactive contamination.
No doubt wobs will be along shortly to play down the disaster!

 

[ellal]

While there was an increase in thyroid cancers in children shortly after, these were largely treatable. There were some child deaths that were entirely avoidable. Even these were exaggerated, as extended detection through up some cases that would otherwise not have been detected.

Ah, so it's ok to give a child cancer!

It's is however reassuring to know that when confronted with facts, the old 'exaggeration' argument comes into play...

If you want to know what exaggeration is, maybe you ought to look at the claims of 'almost free' nuclear energy, and no need to worry about the 'decommissioning costs' (£80bn and rising fast)...

Now that is the real exaggeration!

 

[JBR]

I'd like to thank Wobs for providing all that information.

All things being equal, it should persuade the anti-nuclear brigade to stop bleating. I'm afraid, though, that their minds are set and are unlikely to listen to hard evidence - a bit like religionists, for that matter!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT1-rkJCiuU

That's your beloved nuclear energy for you.
wobs is telling you fairy stories and playing down the true dangers of this energy source.

Only 6 years and the entire pacific ocean will be destroyed with radioactive contamination.
No doubt wobs will be along shortly to play down the disaster!

No he's not. He stated facts that agree with what I already knew.

However much you hate the thought of nuclear power generation, it's something you're going to have to get used to pretty soon. There's no alternative.

Fear of the unknown. That's why people criticise nuclear power. And don't believe what Greenpeace say: they're fairy stories concocted by sandal-wearing, brown-rice-eating Liberals.

 

[ellal]

Fear of the unknown. That's why people criticise nuclear power.

I'm afraid it's fear of the known...or do you deny the related radiation issue?

Plus the obvious fact that the economic argument just doesn't add up!

 

[Norcon]

JBR wrote

There's no alternative

There is always an alternative.
Blackouts. Just pull the isolater switch. Simples. Especially the one for Cheshire.
That's where your headed because the people don't want nuclear. Its only a tiny minority of the gullible who are taken in by the nuclear argument.

"New push by the Japanese authorities to dump radioactive water into the Pacific or boil it in a large kettle and release the steam into the atmosphere for many years"

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

Secretly, the Japanese TEPCO corp. have been pumping billions of gallons through these cores and then flushing the contaminated water out to sea. Every drop is pure poison.

However, the off-flow of contaminated water will eventually poison and kill all living creatures in the Pacific ocean. Mass deaths of fish and seals and birds are already being reported.