Bang Goes The Theory

[John D]

I have just watched the above mentioned programme on BBC1 which featured the 'operation and safety issues of nuclear power stations'.
Included was documented evidence from Chernobyl and the recent nuclear incidents in Japan. This was a programme worth watching. It covered in great detail much of what has been discussed on associated WAB Forums.
If you missed it I suggest you take the opportunity of watching in on BBC I Player.

John D
Zenfolio | John's Wild World

[Deb London]

Thanks for this John. Will try and catch this on iPlayer. I don't think it's there just yet.

[davedotcom]

Hi John,

I saw that, very interesting and worth a watch. A few surprises in there too, especially regarding chernobyl. Certainly shows a different side to nuclear power and radioactivity without the scare mongering - not that I'm saying I'm in favour of it!

This has been the first series of bang goes the theory I've seen but very impressed.

[PMG]

Yes I watched it too and was relieved to see the figures in black and white on the television - as in reach of the public for once - explained clearly and without hype. The operation of nuclear is not as dangerous as people are led to believe - which as usual the newspapers are to blame for - why folk pay good money for a daily dose of paper lies and rubbish when they could be spending on essentials just amazes me. I suppose the answer to that is that folks spend time watching soaps which are 'lies in person - acting out' but its everyone to their own - my point is tho instead of reading or watching stuff with a healthy dose of scepticism or acknowledgement that this is just 'make believe entertainment' people seem to take it as the truth and the myths are born. And so it is with nuclear - folk are straight off with the 'its too dangerous' yet they accept deaths on roads, drink driving deaths, even death from the severe diverticulosis I'm suffering at the minute, kills thousands more than nuclear has ever done. Even the dismantling of an old reactor, the care and time it takes and the storing of the waste and affected parts is not too big a worry taken against the usefulness and neccessity of nuclear provided power ......... you can cover the country arm to blade with wind farms and they still would not provide the amount of electricity required to power this modern life - the alternative is blackouts and huge bills to sit in the dark with no soaps to relieve the boredom ............

Pauline

[bigdave60dog]

Yes I watched it too.
I have personally seen many children and adults with a particular type of bone cancer that has become prevalent since the disaster. (there is even a scheme set up to treat Eastern European children for caners in Cuba where they have developed a particular expertise.)I have met with Pediatricians in The Ukraine. Don`t you believe a word of what that lady said. She is only counting the people directly affected by radiation poisoning and not the cancers, birth abnormalities etc. and who knows what is to come that are the residue of the accident.
Go see for yourself if you are in doubt.
Recent studies of the Exclusion Zone have revealed that there is a lot of wildlife but not nearly as much as would normally be expected.
There will be a lot of pressure as time goes on and the supply of Fossil Fuels fails to meet the demand.
Dave

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by bigdave60dog

....I have personally seen many children and adults with a particular type of bone cancer that has become prevalent since the disaster. (there is even a scheme set up to treat Eastern European children for caners in Cuba where they have developed a particular expertise.)I have met with Pediatricians in The Ukraine. Don`t you believe a word of what that lady said. She is only counting the people directly affected by radiation poisoning and not the cancers, birth abnormalities etc. and who knows what is to come that are the residue of the accident....

Hi Dave,
I recall that we have been here before: -
The problem with nuclear

You say that you have seen many people with "a particular type of bone cancer". - If this is not Leukaemia, then what is it? - and why is it not mentioned in any of the scientific and independently accredited reports that have been carried out over the years?

The independently accredited "Chernobyl Forum Report":- http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Boo.../chernobyl.pdf - (containing 20 years worth of evidence collation), and whose forum included, amongst others, the World Health Organisation, The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiation, notes (on page 18) a two fold increase in Leukaemia in the three affected countries, (Belarus, Russia, & Ukraine), during the years 1986-96.

In europe, the statistically average chance of contracting leukaemia, male/female populations taken into account, is 13.5 in 100,000 (National Cancer Institute - Statistical Epidemiology and End Results).
So, for every 100,000 people exposed to the Chernobyl radiation, that number might be expected to rise to 27 people.
When one considers that, in the western world, and with no exposure to anything other than the world's background radiation, 1 in 3 people will statistically contract cancer during their lifetime. - (i.e. 33,333 out of every 100,000) - then an increase of another 13.5 people is hardly significant.

That report also says:-

QUOTE

Have there been or will there be any inherited or reproductive effects?

Because of the relatively low dose levels to which the populations of the Chernobyl affected regions were exposed, there is no evidence or any likelihood of observing decreased fertility among males or females in the general population as a direct result of radiation exposure. These doses are also unlikely to have any major effect on the number of still births, adverse pregnancy outcomes or delivery complications or the overall health of children.

Birth rates may be lower in ‘contaminated’ areas because of concern about having children (this issue is obscured by the very high rate of medical abortions) and the fact that many younger people have moved away. No discernable increase in hereditary effects caused by radiation is expected based on the low risk coefficients estimated by UNSCEAR (2001) or in previous reports on Chernobyl health effects. Since 2000, there has been no new evidence provided to change this conclusion.

There has been a modest but steady increase in reported congenital malformations in both ‘contaminated’ and ‘uncontaminated’ areas of Belarus since 1986; see Fig. 4. (see page 20 of the report) This does not appear to be radiation-related and may be the result of increased registration.

UNQUOTE

Best evidence to date suggest that around 9000 will be the future and final death toll for all forms of sickness due to the Chernobyl incident.

If that number were doubled, or even multipled 10 fold, it would still be the case that civilian nuclear power world wide would remain the safest option for large scale electrical generation when compared to the effects of alternative methods of generation. (When properly compared on a like for like generated TWh output, and over the same number of years).

Like it or not, civilian nuclear power is by far the best of what is available, and it's actual (as opposed to potential) adverse effects on human health have been truly miniscule when compared to hundreds of other things that are routinely accepted on a daily basis.

Regards,
Mike.

[waxcap]

But has anyone considered the effect of nuclear accidents on fungi?



I think that introducing emotional anecdotes as evidence undermines ones position somewhat. Especially when followed by "Go see for yourself if you are in doubt".

[PMG]

[quote=waxcap;833181]But has anyone considered the effect of nuclear accidents on fungi?



QUOTE]


Yes - we will be able to go foraying at night - cos they will glow in the dark

Pauline

[Financial Enviro]

Actually - you know I was doing a search about Chernobyl after that programme because I know I had seen a lot more damning evidence about the accident that Bang Goes the Theory presented. That also led me to this series of posts and me joining.

The actual amount of deaths known from that catastrophe is not known, but I am pretty sure it is more than 222. The WHO report I have seen states it could be up to 4,000 deaths. Greenpeace believe it could be 200,000.

Some links:

Chernobyl: The true scale of the accident
World Health Organisation
WHO | Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident

Chernobyl Radiation Killed Nearly One Million People: New Book
Environment News Service
Chernobyl Radiation Killed Nearly One Million People: New Book

Anyway despite all that from every nuclear accident or leak we see massive areas of land being contaminated. Even if hundreds of thousands of people don't die - the natural wild life also suffers. Land has I hope many of you are aware will be increasingly important as time goes by, sea levels rise, habitable areas become inhabitable. Population rises and need more food and energy (yes, but nuclear is not the answer). Nuclear power has a direct affect on land usage in a way that tidal, wind and solar will never have. For a start we have mentioned the accidents and how they make areas of land unusable. But what about decommissioning sites that can take ages, the Windscale plant will take until around 2060 to decommission. Then we have to think about nuclear waste - that needs to be stored and can have a frighteningly long half life. Even in the UK we have seen many areas of habitat put out of use through leaks or accidents, many of which we are still cleaning up today:

Scottish nuclear fuel leak 'will never be completely cleaned up.'
The Guardian. Wed 21st September 2011
Scottish nuclear leak 'will never be completely cleaned up' | Environment | The Guardian


And to top it all we still need to mine the various materials that we turn into energy such as plutonium and all the rest= open cast mines in all probability.

The nuclear industry is also heavily subsidised by government - in most cases a nuclear plant doesn't turn a profit on its own - and leaves tax payers propping them up at a time when energy prices have reached an all time high.

Basically there is no argument against using solar, geothermal, wind and tidal - even aerobic digestion and many other means of creating our energy - rather than nuclear. I also hate the way the BBT tried to get people on the side of nuclear again pre 1945 as our cuddly friend. It was shameful and had me yelling at the TV!

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by Financial Enviro

....The actual amount of deaths known from that catastrophe is not known, but I am pretty sure it is more than 222. The WHO report I have seen states it could be up to 4,000 deaths. Greenpeace believe it could be 200,000.

Some links:

Chernobyl: The true scale of the accident
World Health Organisation
WHO | Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident

Chernobyl Radiation Killed Nearly One Million People: New Book
Environment News Service
Chernobyl Radiation Killed Nearly One Million People: New Book!

So, who do we believe is telling us the truth?

The world's leading independent health organisation, whose members are leaders in their fields, and whose published papers are peer assessed? - Or someone who is trying to sell a new book?

Factual documentation collated regarding this incident is freely available as peer reviewed, published articles from the best people in the field of radiation and epidemeological research. They don't write books with lurid titles and try to sell them to anyone gullible enough to buy them.

Originally Posted by Financial Enviro

....Anyway despite all that from every nuclear accident or leak we see massive areas of land being contaminated. Even if hundreds of thousands of people don't die - the natural wild life also suffers....

Chernobyl and Fukashima have been the only two incidents in the history of civilian nuclear power, which have resulted in large areas of land contamination. - So yes, extreme incidents do have that potential - but be rational about what you are saying.

Chernobyl occured solely due to grossly inappropriate testing being carried out by untrained personnel, on an outdated reactor. - Such a thing would be nigh on impossible these days.

Fukashima occured due to one of the world's largest earthquakes triggering a masssive tsunami. Were it not for the tsunami overtopping the tsunami defense wall, there would have been no incident worth reporting. (Yes they had already considered the possibility of such an occurence, but this was a far larger tsunami than they had thought ever likely to occur).

The power had been cut off by the quake, and the back-up generators had kicked in to keep the reactor cooling processes functioning.
It was purely the results of the tsunami knocking out the back-up generators which caused the problem.
i.e. - there was no inherent fault or problem with the nuclear plant itself.

Lessons have obviously been learned from this incident, and you can be certain that the Japanese will be taking appropriate action regarding such defences on any of their other reactor sites which might be subject to future tsunami's.

Originally Posted by Financial Enviro

....Population rises and need more food and energy (yes, but nuclear is not the answer)....

This, my friend, is the real crux of the problem!
There are too many people in the world, artificially sustained by the technological levels of achievement that we humans have attained. There is one answer, and one answer only, to the world's future problems relating to energy, food and water requirements - and that answer is to radically change our attitudes to having children. The natural resources available in the world simply cannot go on sustaining increased population levels ad infinitum.

Originally Posted by Financial Enviro

....Nuclear power has a direct affect on land usage in a way that tidal, wind and solar will never have....the Windscale plant will take until around 2060 to decommission. Then we have to think about nuclear waste - that needs to be stored and can have a frighteningly long half life. Even in the UK we have seen many areas of habitat put out of use through leaks or accidents, many of which we are still cleaning up today:

Scottish nuclear fuel leak 'will never be completely cleaned up.'
The Guardian. Wed 21st September 2011
Scottish nuclear leak 'will never be completely cleaned up' | Environment | The Guardian)....

I simply don't buy into any of these as rational arguments - when the overall benefits are considered.

Civilian nuclear power takes up a miniscule amount of land when compared like for like in terms of generated TWh output. - Just think about it - Ten nuclear power plants are able to consistently give the same sort of generated output that would take more than twenty thousand of the world's largest wind turbines. - which of the two has the least construction footprint? - Which of the two needs the least amount of infrastructure? - Which of the two needs the least, in terms of connectivity & cabling requirement to access the National Grid?

The amount of radioactive waste produced is again miniscule, when compared to the amount of generated output - If I recall correctly, we have approximately 130,000 tons of nuclear waste in Britain (about 95% of it being low level waste - which, if you recall what was said on the Bang Goes The Theory program, is about as radioactive as Brazil nuts!). The remaining 5% of high level waste will be long term stored for hundreds of years -but where is the problem in that? - It doesn't take up vast amounts of room, it is encased, as vitriolised glass, in welded stainless steel casks, and is stored under envoronmentally controlled and monitored conditions. - All of which, as per the decommissioning of civilian nuclear power plant, is costed and paid for by adding approximately 5% to the cost per unit of electricity sold to the customer.

You speak of many areas within the UK that are out of use through leaks and accidents - I'd be interested if you would provide some specific details of these so that I can make a considered assessment of exactly what loss of usage you speak of. - As far as I'm aware. there are 8 small hill farms within the UK that are still under animal movement control relating to the movement of sheep, as a result of the Chernobyl incident, and a couple of other places such as a small area near Dounreay where fishing is prohibited.

That Guardian article is yet another example of popular media exaggeration. - Read up on the true facts. The fragments of radioactive material spoken of (approximately 20,000 were apparently unintentionally released), are each the size of a grain of sand. - To highlight that these are "potentially lethal if ingested" may technically be true, but the odds are that you are far more likely to die from the chance inhalation of an asbestos fibre that floats by on the breeze, than you are from ingesting one of 20,000 sand grain sized particles, which then happens to be eaten by a fish (why?), a fish which then happens to be caught, processed, and sold at your local fishmonger. Be realistic - the chances of such a thing happening are so astronomically small, they aren't worth considering.

Originally Posted by Financial Enviro

....And to top it all we still need to mine the various materials that we turn into energy such as plutonium and all the rest= open cast mines in all probability.!...

Again, the mining of uranium (plutonium isn't mined - it isn't found in nature in anything other than trace quantities - it is created as a by product of nuclear fission) causes far less pollution and land disruption than does the mining of coal. (And the processes that it is used for cause far less ill effect on the world's population than coal, let alone the miners who extract it).

Originally Posted by Financial Enviro

....The nuclear industry is also heavily subsidised by government - in most cases a nuclear plant doesn't turn a profit on its own - and leaves tax payers propping them up at a time when energy prices have reached an all time high....

This makes me laugh! - Please don't try to get away with making sweeping statements like this and not have them challenged.
Civilian nuclear power is not heavily subsidised in the UK. - The plant is owned and operated by the generating companies, and has to make a profit accordingly. - Easily verfiable.
What is subsidised by the government, is the decommissioning and long term storage requirment of radioactive waste from Sellafield, and other legacy plant no longer in use, but which, when they were operational, had large percentages of their processes involved with military nuclear technology.

Originally Posted by Financial Enviro

....Basically there is no argument against using solar, geothermal, wind and tidal - even aerobic digestion and many other means of creating our energy - rather than nuclear.....

There is one very good argument against these technologies - Not one of them, nor all of them combined, for the forseeable future, will be able to produce sufficient power to replace coal/gas/nuclear.

Yes, I'm the first to agree that all of these technologies have their place in the overall scheme of things. But like it or not, for a good number of years to come, if we want to be environmentally friendly, and reduce the burning of fossil fuel, that leaves only nuclear as a viable option for large scale electrical generation.

Originally Posted by Financial Enviro

....I also hate the way the BBT tried to get people on the side of nuclear again pre 1945 as our cuddly friend. It was shameful and had me yelling at the TV!

Perhaps your time might be better spent researching the true facts about civilian nuclear power. Then you may be in a position to rationally assess its worth when compared to the available alternatives.

Regards,
Mike.