The problem with nuclear

[STYRBJORN]

Originally Posted by Gill Catton

Radioactive spills and breakdown revealed at British nuclear plants | Environment | The Guardian

Have just read this, I've always rather been sat on the fence in relation to nuclear.... and I have to say that although these were small incidents which were rectified but I am shocked to read that there are small incidents every year! I don't know about you but when it comes to nuclear I want no incidents! None at all! Otherwise I'll never be properly convinced that its safe!

So you will never support clean coal in case anyone dies in a coal mine collapse. Gas? Ooh no, people die in gas-well flares. Oil? Perish ther thort, people keep on getting killed in accidents in oil-fields. Wind-power? Nice idea, look at Mick's figures to see how useful it is. Back to the woods fair maiden.

Like it or not, and many don't, nuclear power generation is the safest, cleanest, greenest and most efficient option we have. Rather than having hysterics all over the landscape, we should focus on keeping the risks to a minimum.

Ric

[pressld2]

Radio 4 next Tuesday, 26th April, at 8pm...

BBC - BBC Radio 4 Programmes - Fallout: The Legacy of Chernobyl

Dave P.

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

So you will never support clean coal in case anyone dies in a coal mine collapse. Gas? Ooh no, people die in gas-well flares. Oil? Perish ther thort, people keep on getting killed in accidents in oil-fields. Wind-power? Nice idea, look at Mick's figures to see how useful it is. Back to the woods fair maiden.

Like it or not, and many don't, nuclear power generation is the safest, cleanest, greenest and most efficient option we have. Rather than having hysterics all over the landscape, we should focus on keeping the risks to a minimum.

Ric

For something that has the potential to affect hundreds and hundreds of people for several generations yes I want no risk at all. I want fail safe after fail safe after fail safe.... After fail safe. I don't want one small failure allowing radioactivity to escape.

and to be honest, I haven't seen Micks figures but you can produce figures/ statisitics to support almost any viewpoint. I have worked on proposed windfarms and all of the relevant companies are very happy with the yield they're getting from existing farms.

And even where they are not working properly, how are you supposed to work such things out and improvement if you don't try them in the field? At least where they do go wrong they don't kill anyone.

And yes I think ultimately the future has to be a wide range of renewable resources (with energy produced locally as possible).

Everything else is finite. So this has to be the case.

I think its almost criminal that its only recently that decent money is being thrown at renewables when we've known since the 60s that the oil was going to run out.

And I'm not a fair maiden and I don't live in the woods!!

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by Gill Catton

For something that has the potential to affect hundreds and hundreds of people for several generations yes I want no risk at all. I want fail safe after fail safe after fail safe.... After fail safe. I don't want one small failure allowing radioactivity to escape.....

What I fail to understand, is why people with similar train of thought to yourself, apparently refuse to accept the readily available statistics which prove without a shadow of any doubt that the effects of the coal industry kill more people every year than civilian nuclear power has in its entire existence, and will undoubtedly continue to do so.

It can only be because radiation is a newsworthy story - it frightens people, and can be dramatically put across in the media, whereas coal related deaths occur day in day out year in year out to the tune of thousands per annum, without the slightest whimper, let alone uproar regarding health consequences by any sort of "anti-brigade".

The argument keeps on appearing about the possibility of radiation affecting hundreds or thousands of people for several generations. etc. etc. and that it should be 100% safe or it shouldn't be used.

What do you think happens with coal industry? - Why should the toxic "fall out" from that industry be allowed to kill thousands of people every year generation after generation? - Why aren't you just as concerned about that industry being 100% safe or it shouldn't be used?

Just because the toxic wastes are "only" the likes of arsenic, lead, mercury, nickel, vanadium, beryllium, cadmium, barium, chromium, copper, molybdenum, zinc, selenium, radium, etc. etc., should that be regarded as more acceptable than radiation? - the long term effects are pretty much the same if it happens to be you as an individual who becomes affected by it. And, if you have taken notice of what's been posted previously, you will know that the coal industry also produces more radioactive waste per year, than the entirety of the civilian nuclear industry.

The effects of the coal industry are insidious, but are readily accepted by the vast majority. Even if there were a nuclear meltdown every year, the statistical probability would still be that the consequences to population health worldwide would be less than an average year's worth of deaths caused by the coal industry.

Any sort of logical argument regarding getting rid of things on the grounds of least safe goes first, must, if taken on the basis of fact, require that coal goes before nuclear.

If you have never done so, I would highly recommend reading this book (the whole book is presented here, online) by Professor Bernard Cohen - one of the worlds leading and most respected environmentalists, and nuclear advocate: -
The Nuclear Energy Option
Or, at the very least, read this section on understanding risk: -
UNDERSTANDING RISK

Civilian nuclear power, as a global scale risk to the health of an individual, is less dangerous than Peanut Butter!!

Regards,
Mike.

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by Gill Catton

Radioactive spills and breakdown revealed at British nuclear plants | Environment | The Guardian

Have just read this....

A typical newspaper story more interested in selling papers than providing proper information.

Newspaper Quote "A brown puddle containing plutonium five times the legal threshold"

Official Quote " a small pool of approximately 25 ml....contained plutonium at a concentration that exceeded the statutory limit of Schedule 8 of the Ionising Radiation Regulations (1999) by a factor of about 5.".


I always take such stories with a pinch of salt, and if my curiosity is piqued, I will find the report issued by the authority in question, rather than rely on what the paper said, or more likely, failed to say!

Here is the 2011 1st quarter report from the Office of Nuclear Regulation: -
Quarterly statement of nuclear incidents at nuclear installations - Q1 2011

Here is the page for the last ten years worth of such reports: -
Quarterly statement of nuclear incidents at nuclear install....

An some more for incidents/accidents whilst transporting radio-active material: -
1958-2004 http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile.../1194947346295
2005 http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile.../1194947393377
2006 http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile.../1204286185596
2007 http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile.../1232436508409
2008 http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile.../1248766807377
2009 http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile.../1279888868216


Nothing to hide, and there for anyone who wants to get the facts, rather than the fiction.

Regards,
Mike.

[STYRBJORN]

[quote=Gill Catton;759065]

And I'm not a fair maiden and I don't live in the woods!!

Curses Moriarty! Foiled again!

Seriously Gill, I will add just one point to Mick's posts. Very often, when, or if, you read these reports carefully, it turns out that there has been no release of radioactive material to the atmosphere. The risk to the public is nonexistent. There may have been a slight risk to workers at the plant concerned, but coal miners are at vastly greater risk, not only from cave-ins and explosions but from lung diseases. Pneumo-silicosis is a nasty way to die. The risk comes with the job contract.

Ric

[Gill Catton]

I've never said I'm pro coal! I'm not what's the point in it? It's finite it's a dead end resource.

And I'm sorry but I'd swap management of risk for minimal or no risk any day. And if these incidents are important enough to have to be reported to the government then they don't seem minimal to me. If they can't prevent the little leaks when small things go wrong then how am I to have faith- 100% trust in them to be able to prevent big leaks when big things go wrong?

Renewables. A mosaic of different sources that complement each other. Given the choice, that is where I'd get my power.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Gill Catton

Renewables. A mosaic of different sources that complement each other. Given the choice, that is where I'd get my power.

yes but in the real world renewables dont have the cvapcity to deliver 100% of our power needs - so we are still left with a choice of nuclear or coal/oil/gas (unless and until someone creates a workable fusion reactor)

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by Gill Catton

...And I'm sorry but I'd swap management of risk for minimal or no risk any day....

So would I. - We would all like to live in a rose tinted spectacle world of utopia, where there was minimal or no risk in any venture. - But it simply doesn't exist.

You won't accept nuclear because of risks, but you are quite happy to accept renewables.

In terms of deaths per unit output, there are more documented deaths caused by the wind energy sector than by the nuclear industry. So by your logic, we should be scrapping the wind energy sector because of the risks.

There is no such thing as industry without risk. In the real world where humanity requires industrial processes to live, then there can only be management of the associated risks, and nuclear overall, for any given output comparison, (including renewables), has the lowest risk level of any of the energy sector industries. That is what I'm trying to get across.

I doubt whether you will accept this though, and if we continue, we will just go round in circles. So I suggest we agree to differ, as our opinions are clearly not going to align on this particuar subject of debate.

Regards,
Mike.

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by eeyore

yes but in the real world renewables dont have the cvapcity to deliver 100% of our power needs - so we are still left with a choice of nuclear or coal/oil/gas (unless and until someone creates a workable fusion reactor)

Not yet but they will provided the investment in it continues. Besides I can't see any of the proposed new nuclear being live in the next 10 years can you? Meanwhile new renewable tech is being tested left right and centre and will be quicker to roll out too. Long may it continue, the more it's tested the better it will get.