The Costs of Nuclear Power.

[John_M]

Originally Posted by RedFish

Oh my, there's some crackers on here. Greenpeace biased? Yes, of course they are, thankyou for pointing that out. If that makes their data inadmissable then any arguments from any employee, past or present, of the nuclear industry must also be inadmissable. After all, Greenpeace are not prostituting themselves by providing unquestioning acceptance in return for a wage/pension.(good luck with that, every renewable source detracts from the nuclear 'trough', so your pensions are looking increasingly 'dubious').
Direct action=terrorism.??. Well just lock me up now. That is a ridiculous statement. See Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, and quite a few Irish MPs. Science is NEVER wrong, is it? Never biased? Never Bought? Public Opinion means nothing, does it? Fascist.
Deep earth repositories are safe if you have an 'out of sight, out of mind', mentality. You cannot GUARANTEE zero earth movement or substrate fracture at a future date. The US is at present storing its waste above ground for that very reason.
'Cancers not conclusively linked.' --We've been hearing that same old rubbish for years. And it is rubbish. Just cos things in your 'seem to be getting along ok' world are fine, don't think that is the whole picture. Take your blinkers off.

It is now 24 YEARS since chernobyl. To the day. 24 years ago 2 friends of mine attended a motorcycle rally near the cumbrian town of Wigton. During the 3 day event they observed farmers bringing all the sheep and cattle from the surrounding fields under shelter from the persistent rain that fell during their time there. They thought it a little odd, as cumbrian livestock are quite hardy and a bit of rain shouldn't really be a threat to them. Wasn't the rain, though. It was the fallout from the Chernobyl incident that was causing the concern. Your 'rosy' picture painted by the industry is complete b******* when compared to ACTUAL EXPERIENCES of REAL PEOPLE. Hence the endless and tiresome ridiculing of REAL, non-scientific accounts of the events. It's a bit sad really.

''Two people were killed in the explosion. Thirty-seven died of acute radiation sickness soon afterwards. According to engineers who were there, dozens were killed while building the reactor’s concrete sarcophagus. More than 2,000 villages around Chernobyl were contaminated by radioactivity. More than 330,000 people were evacuated and relocated. Statistics predict approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases will be caused by Chernobyl. At least three million children required medical treatment. The effect on the health of the survivors and their children has been devastating: accelerated ageing, cardiovascular and blood illnesses, psychological illnesses, chromosomal aberrations and an increase in foetal deformations.'' Yes, that's from Greenpeace. Ridicule away.

Science is often wrong. The way science progresses is by proving itself wrong, rather than assuming it is right. ie it is fact based, not opinion based.
I wouldn't say that public opinion means nothing, but since the vast majority of 'the public' are, at best lacking in knowledge, at worst incredibly gullible, I think that it would be better to pay more heed to scientists who have gone to sometimes great lengths to understand particular phenomena, rather than the herd mentality of 'the public'.
What is your evidence to back up these "REAL, non-scientific accounts"?
Finally, no, we cannot guarantee zero earth movements in the future, but the dangers of earth movements are just as relevant to above ground structures as they are to buried structures.