"Nuclear Emergency"

[rynnor]

Still wondering when the masses will realise that they are being ripped off to subsidise useless wind farms and pointless solar energy installations just to provide investment returns for the rich and that this subsidy disproportionately comes from the very poorest?

Edit - the hilarious part is that this scandalous wealth transfer tax was brought in by Labour - lol.

 

[Scouse]

Still wondering when the masses will realise that they are being ripped off to subsidise useless wind farms and pointless solar energy installations just to provide investment returns for the rich and that this subsidy disproportionately comes from the very poorest?

Pound for pound cheaper than nuclear when you include decomissioning, waste disposal and storage costs.

Oh, and effectively risk-free.

 

[rynnor]

Pound for pound cheaper than nuclear when you include decomissioning, waste disposal and storage costs.

Oh, and effectively risk-free.

Cheaper - no they are inherently more expensive because you still need your gas/nuclear generators for all the times the wind/sun isnt right so they are an expensive nonsense.

Risk free? As an investment maybe - as a source of dependable energy their risk is 100% of power interruptions - welcome to the 3rd world.

And nothing over the immorality of the current subsidy scheme?

 

[Zenith.UK]

I wonder if there's any jobs going on Anglesey - wouldn't mind a cottage somewhere near Red Wharf Bay.

Not yet there isn't, but there will be in years to come if the project moves ahead.

 

[Wij]

http://dlvr.it/31rnpK

 

[Wij]

Oh, and this:

http://science.time.com/2012/02/29/arpa-e-real-talk-from-bill-gates-on-energy/

 

[Scouse]

Or from Nature:

Japan dodged a bullet thanks to the weather. The pattern of prevailing winds during the accident meant that most of the radioactive materials released from the plant were blown out to sea...."The health consequences of this accident are smaller than Chernobyl because of the very favourable wind direction, out over the Pacific ocean, and the fact that there are no near neighbours...Tokyo is less than 200 km away. Had the winds prevailed in that direction, Fukushima would have been a whole different story."

Oh, and it's still leaking.

 

[Wij]

And nobody's dying and CO2 emissions are rising.

 

[Raven]

Can it be taxed
Can it be used for political gain
Can it be used for some half arsed, unnecessary study to keep a few PHDs and a bunch of grad students in work?

If the answer to any of those is yes then a fuss will be kicked up - see "global warming!12121!"

 

[Scouse]

Few people are dying because Japan was very lucky with the weather, the disaster is still ongoing but CO2 is still rising.

Fixed.


Of course, there are no other "real" issues and certainly no desire to kill of necessary research elsewhere on the planet into the "yawning science gap" of knowledge about the long-term effects of low-dose radiation exposure...

 

[Wij]

Fixed.


Of course, there are no other "real" issues and certainly no desire to kill of necessary research elsewhere on the planet into the "yawning science gap" of knowledge about the long-term effects of low-dose radiation exposure...

1.) some psychological problems related to FEAR of radiation (and not at all related to being part of a huge natural disaster obviously)
2.) studies that haven't shown health risks from low dose radiation aren't good enough then? You need proof that they don't harm rather than no proof that they do? That doesn't sound like a religionists argument to you? Prove that the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist and I'll fund your studies myself.

/disappointed

 

[Scouse]

/disappointed

What in?

Are you disappointed in the articles themselves that bring up A) issues of real psychological damage - regardless of whether you think that they're idiots for feeling like that, B) that there are serious concerns about the paucity of information in such an important subject and a lack of funds for necessary investigation, or C) the *fact* that Japan was very lucky that the prevailing winds prevented a much larger disaster?

Or are you disappointed that these articles appear in such an eminent publication as Nature, and therefore can't be dismissed out of hand - like you completely dismiss C, above...?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Here's a "factbomb" for ya

"The 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people. Although the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone and certain limited areas will remain off limits, the majority of affected areas are now considered safe for settlement and economic activity."

Ok. Now compare the solar panel one;

"The fifty actual deaths from roof installation accidents for 1.5 million roof installations is equal to the actual deaths experienced so far from Chernobyl. If all 80 million residential roofs in the USA had solar power installed then one would expect 9 times the annual roofing deaths of 300 people or 2700 people (roofers to die). This would generate about 240 TWh of power each year. (30% of the power generated from nuclear power in the USA). 90 people per year over an optimistic life of 30 years for the panels not including maintenance or any electrical shock incidents."

Only deaths from nuclear(outside hiroshima etc) are from Chernobyl.

 

[Wij]

What in?

Are you disappointed in the articles themselves that bring up A) issues of real psychological damage - regardless of whether you think that they're idiots for feeling like that, B) that there are serious concerns about the paucity of information in such an important subject and a lack of funds for necessary investigation, or C) the *fact* that Japan was very lucky that the prevailing winds prevented a much larger disaster?

Or are you disappointed that these articles appear in such an eminent publication as Nature, and therefore can't be dismissed out of hand - like you completely dismiss C, above...?

A and B already covered.

C, so some areas *could* have had a higher dose of radiation that still would have not killed anyone. The effect would be economic rather than a health one due to extended evacuation. This from a poorly designed reactor in a stupid place after an enormous natural disaster. I'm just not feeling the fear sorry.

 

[rynnor]

A and B already covered.

C, so some areas *could* have had a higher dose of radiation that still would have not killed anyone. The effect would be economic rather than a health one due to extended evacuation. This from a poorly designed reactor in a stupid place after an enormous natural disaster. I'm just not feeling the fear sorry.

Clearly for the Japanese the big fear should be earthquakes/Tsunami since they have killed so many - radiation must be quite low on their list logically.

 

[Wij]

And because of this Germany, which has virtually no seismic activity in the East at least, shuts its Nuclear Power plants and burns gas and coal instead (although it pretends wind is making a meaningful contribution) and is spewing out loads more lovely CO2.

 

[Scouse]

A and B already covered.

Pfft. But we'll gloss over that

C, so some areas *could* have had a higher dose of radiation that still would have not killed anyone.... I'm just not feeling the fear sorry.

I'm not "feeling the fear" myself. I think it's prudent to judge risks correctly - and you're acting like a flamingo on C.

What gives you your belief that much higher doses of radiation in highly populated areas wouldn't have killed people?

Ignoring all other effects, at the low doses seen there's already been a slight increase in risk of death (absolute) and dramatic in relative terms on certain cancers.

The article in Nature says this:

Japan dodged a bullet thanks to the weather..Tokyo is less than 200 km away. Had the winds prevailed in that direction, Fukushima would have been a whole different story

"Dodged a bullet"..."whole different story".

Not "*could* have had a higher dose" and "still would have not killed anyone"...

 

[old.Tohtori]

That doesn't also say "would have killed lots of people".

As said above, nuclear is one of the lowest killers in our world. More people get killed by bees yearly.

 

[Job]

Wind f

Pound for pound cheaper than nuclear when you include decomissioning, waste disposal and storage costs.

Oh, and effectively risk-free.

And quite often 'producing power' free, one month a last year the entire windfarms of the UK produced less than 1% power, which was downgraded to 0% for the chart.
They're just shite because they are a dreadful technology that suits the builders, the land owners and the government far, far more than it suits the actual process of making power from wind.

We need to get serious with giant spinning mountains that cost billions, but will produce good power for hundreds of years

 

[Ormorof]

And because of this Germany, which has virtually no seismic activity in the East at least, shuts its Nuclear Power plants and burns gas and coal instead (although it pretends wind is making a meaningful contribution) and is spewing out loads more lovely CO2.

ironically they now have to buy power from France which produces a lot of their power from Nuclear

so in Germanys case its more of a "Not in my backyard" mentality

 

[rynnor]

And because of this Germany, which has virtually no seismic activity in the East at least, shuts its Nuclear Power plants and burns gas and coal instead (although it pretends wind is making a meaningful contribution) and is spewing out loads more lovely CO2.

Coal produces tons of particulate smog that kills people and produces acid rain that kills trees and a significant amount of radioactivity (coal power plants produce more radioactive waste than a nuclear power plant) ironically.

 

[Job]

I'm amused that North Korea threatening thermonuclear war on the US is being beaten in the papers by some woman getting done for taking speeding points.

 

[Wij]

 

[Job]

It depends who you ask..a treehugger will scream millions of deaths...scientists will say hundreds...medical staff will say less than ten

 

[Chilly]

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AAFWeIp8JT0

 

[Scouse]

Professor at MIT who depends on nuclear power for his livelihood says all is fine shocker there, Chilly.

An ongoing power cut at Fukushima is a problem. They can't continue to top up water in the spent fuel containment pools and cannot treat radioactive water that's being discharged either. The power cut has not so far affected cooling water being injected into the reactors themselves.

Aaaaaaanyway. What I find amusing is this:

TEPCO was repeatedly criticised for downplaying the scale of the disaster in the first few months and has since admitted it was aware of the potential dangers of a big tsunami but had done nothing for because of the reputational and financial cost.

Campaigners who said the same before the nuclear power stations were built were dismissed as crackpots, conspiracy theorists and tin-foil hatters by the companies involved, the government and the public at large...

 

[Wij]

I don't recall having an opinion when Fukushima was being planned sorry.

 

[MYstIC G]

Professor at MIT who depends on nuclear power for his livelihood says all is fine shocker there, Chilly.

So you'd be happier if Jim the sweet shop owner wrote a paper saying nuclear power is good/bad?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Mystic, don't you know that a FH rant has a lot more scientific credibility then an MIT professor has.

 

[Scouse]

Nice to see nobody has commented on the ongoing very serious problems at Fukushima.