Energy Crisis: Do you fear Nuclear Energy? - why?

A right load of bollocks...

Re: Energy Crisis: Do you fear Nuclear Energy? - why?

Postby Trapper John » Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:24 am

Lady Murasaki wrote:
Rolluplostinspace wrote:
Lady Murasaki wrote:
Trapper John wrote:
Lady Murasaki wrote:
I had school girls from Fuckushima stay with us last year and they implied the evacuation was more stressful and caused more harm than anything. Surely the effects of the radiation will be noticed more in the next 20 or so years.


Yes that's what I understand and what I said in a post to Jack, earlier in the thread:

The worst effect by far from Fukushima was the death toll from the earthquake and tsunami and the lasting effects on the residents pysche's as they struggle to cope with personal loss and displacement from their homes and places they grew up in.


As far as long lasting effects go, who can say? what we do know about Chernobyl which was obviously a lot longer ago is as in the words of the UN's on going reports (the latest being 2015) on Chernobyl:

To date, there has been no persuasive evidence of any other health effect in the general population that can be attributed to radiation exposure.


Of course the big question there is the words 'To date' and I accept that.


Diagnosis for thyroid cancer amongst children in Fuckushima rocketed after the disaster.

And it's getting worse and will keep getting worse as the place continues to spew out massive amounts of radiation.
Life in the ocean is being fried.


The radiation fallout from Fuckushima was lower than Chenobyl. It affected the forestry in and around Chenobyl more. Officially no one died from radiation fallout in Fuckushima but hundreds died from the evacuation, mostly the elderly and infirm. The effects on the ecosystem are hopefully being monitored, as TJ said, mankind is selfish , we need to plan for the future. Looking after the environment is looking after the future.


Like they wouldn't have needed evacuation in the aftermath of houses falling about around their ears and several trillions of gallons of Pacific ocean ending up in their front rooms? that was the main reason for the displacement, the fact there was nothing left to stay for. :roll:

I'd like to see evidence too of 'thyroid cancers rocketing' that appears to be a sensationalist claim by anti nuclear activists and doesn't appear in any official reports from respected sources. Chenobyl was worse and 15 people, mostly children died from thyroid cancer attributed to the accident, that was more than 30 years ago and the figure hasn't changed.

The flora and fauna in and around the Chenobyl area and beyond showed little or no effect apart from parts affected in the intitial deluge at the beginning. It recovered well and to all intents and purposes is no different to what it was before. People still live very close to the plant and even go fishing in the lakes close by which supplied the cooling for the reactors.

It isn't widely reported either that the other reactors on the same site were manned and continued to work normally, producing electricity right up to the year 2000 when the plant finally closed completely. Doesn't sound much like the keep out, deadly radiation zone we were told it was/is.
User avatar
Trapper John
Gunner.
 
Posts: 35974
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:36 am
Location: Champions league next season - prediction date: 10/5/2018

Re: Energy Crisis: Do you fear Nuclear Energy? - why?

Postby Trapper John » Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:38 am

Rolluplostinspace wrote:
Lady Murasaki wrote:
Trapper John wrote:
Lady Murasaki wrote:
I had school girls from Fuckushima stay with us last year and they implied the evacuation was more stressful and caused more harm than anything. Surely the effects of the radiation will be noticed more in the next 20 or so years.


Yes that's what I understand and what I said in a post to Jack, earlier in the thread:

The worst effect by far from Fukushima was the death toll from the earthquake and tsunami and the lasting effects on the residents pysche's as they struggle to cope with personal loss and displacement from their homes and places they grew up in.


As far as long lasting effects go, who can say? what we do know about Chernobyl which was obviously a lot longer ago is as in the words of the UN's on going reports (the latest being 2015) on Chernobyl:

To date, there has been no persuasive evidence of any other health effect in the general population that can be attributed to radiation exposure.


Of course the big question there is the words 'To date' and I accept that.


Diagnosis for thyroid cancer amongst children in Fuckushima rocketed after the disaster.

And it's getting worse and will keep getting worse as the place continues to spew out massive amounts of radiation.
Life in the ocean is being fried.


Jack I could come along and tip a milk bottle full of massively radioactive Iodine into your bath and by the next evening you'd be able to drink the water with no ill effects.

Don't be fooled by half truths, it's 'half life' and concentration and length of exposure which are the important things here. Much of the radiation decays so rapidly it is harmless within days and it is dispersed widely by the sea making even the most long lived radioactive isotopes pretty much harmless because the concentrations are so small and exposure so fleeting.

The way you talk Jack it's as though you think a bloke just sits there puffing a fag and watching the stuff pour out into the sea without a care in the world, it's being and has been treated ever since the ruptures happened. :roll:
User avatar
Trapper John
Gunner.
 
Posts: 35974
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:36 am
Location: Champions league next season - prediction date: 10/5/2018

Re: Energy Crisis: Do you fear Nuclear Energy? - why?

Postby Guest » Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:03 am

Trapper John wrote:
Jack I could come along and tip a milk bottle full of massively radioactive Iodine into your bath and by the next evening you'd be able to drink the water with no ill effects.

Don't be fooled by half truths, it's 'half life' and concentration and length of exposure which are the important things here. Much of the radiation decays so rapidly it is harmless within days and it is dispersed widely by the sea making even the most long lived radioactive isotopes pretty much harmless because the concentrations are so small and exposure so fleeting.

The way you talk Jack it's as though you think a bloke just sits there puffing a fag and watching the stuff pour out into the sea without a care in the world, it's being and has been treated ever since the ruptures happened. :roll:


Trapper John wrote:Chernobyl for instance, one of the biggest nuclear accidents of our time, world wide and long lasting publicity made it a perfect example of why we should avoid nuclear power.

Yet the only people whose deaths can be directly attributed to the disaster were the 28 first responder, site firemen who so bravely gave their lives by rushing to the scene in full knowledge they were going to their deaths and putting out the fire. They were all dead within a week after receiving massive doses of concentrated radiation.

In fact, in the hospital of the nearby town of Pripyat - now an abandoned ghost town - where they were taken afterwards, their clothes and boots still lay strewn on the floor of a basement room and record 10,000 times normal background radiation even after more than 30 years. Frightening.


so, which is it to be ... ?
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: Energy Crisis: Do you fear Nuclear Energy? - why?

Postby Trapper John » Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:56 am

Guest wrote:
Trapper John wrote:
Jack I could come along and tip a milk bottle full of massively radioactive Iodine into your bath and by the next evening you'd be able to drink the water with no ill effects.

Don't be fooled by half truths, it's 'half life' and concentration and length of exposure which are the important things here. Much of the radiation decays so rapidly it is harmless within days and it is dispersed widely by the sea making even the most long lived radioactive isotopes pretty much harmless because the concentrations are so small and exposure so fleeting.

The way you talk Jack it's as though you think a bloke just sits there puffing a fag and watching the stuff pour out into the sea without a care in the world, it's being and has been treated ever since the ruptures happened. :roll:


Trapper John wrote:Chernobyl for instance, one of the biggest nuclear accidents of our time, world wide and long lasting publicity made it a perfect example of why we should avoid nuclear power.

Yet the only people whose deaths can be directly attributed to the disaster were the 28 first responder, site firemen who so bravely gave their lives by rushing to the scene in full knowledge they were going to their deaths and putting out the fire. They were all dead within a week after receiving massive doses of concentrated radiation.

In fact, in the hospital of the nearby town of Pripyat - now an abandoned ghost town - where they were taken afterwards, their clothes and boots still lay strewn on the floor of a basement room and record 10,000 times normal background radiation even after more than 30 years. Frightening.


so, which is it to be ... ?


Der! some radioactive isotopes have a half life of a few hours, some a half life of 4.5billion years. Pay attention :roll:
User avatar
Trapper John
Gunner.
 
Posts: 35974
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:36 am
Location: Champions league next season - prediction date: 10/5/2018

Re: Energy Crisis: Do you fear Nuclear Energy? - why?

Postby Guest » Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:58 am

Trapper John wrote:
Guest wrote:
Trapper John wrote:
Jack I could come along and tip a milk bottle full of massively radioactive Iodine into your bath and by the next evening you'd be able to drink the water with no ill effects.

Don't be fooled by half truths, it's 'half life' and concentration and length of exposure which are the important things here. Much of the radiation decays so rapidly it is harmless within days and it is dispersed widely by the sea making even the most long lived radioactive isotopes pretty much harmless because the concentrations are so small and exposure so fleeting.

The way you talk Jack it's as though you think a bloke just sits there puffing a fag and watching the stuff pour out into the sea without a care in the world, it's being and has been treated ever since the ruptures happened. :roll:


Trapper John wrote:Chernobyl for instance, one of the biggest nuclear accidents of our time, world wide and long lasting publicity made it a perfect example of why we should avoid nuclear power.

Yet the only people whose deaths can be directly attributed to the disaster were the 28 first responder, site firemen who so bravely gave their lives by rushing to the scene in full knowledge they were going to their deaths and putting out the fire. They were all dead within a week after receiving massive doses of concentrated radiation.

In fact, in the hospital of the nearby town of Pripyat - now an abandoned ghost town - where they were taken afterwards, their clothes and boots still lay strewn on the floor of a basement room and record 10,000 times normal background radiation even after more than 30 years. Frightening.


so, which is it to be ... ?


Der! some radioactive isotopes have a half life of a few hours, some a half life of 4.5billion years. Pay attention :roll:


right, so you wouldn't be putting the nasty stuff in rollup's bath then. what a relief. :roll: none of the bad leaky stuff is going to be the chernobyl strength.
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: Energy Crisis: Do you fear Nuclear Energy? - why?

Postby Trapper John » Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:35 am

Rules of thumb and understanding the way radiation works, for the simple minded who may only be able to understand analogies.

Half Life:A term used to describe the decay rate of radiation from a particular isotope. Something described as having a half life of 6 hours means that within 6 hours, half of it's radiation has been depleted. After that, the exisiting radiation continues to decay in 50% increments every 6 hours until it becomes inert. Rule of thumb, the shorter the half life the more dangerous the radiation, purely because of the speed it is emitting it at.

Concentration: A slice of bread won't stop you starving, several loaves will. Likewise with radiation, a pinhead of a particle exposed to radiation is unlikely to kill you, a bowl full will.

Exposure: Goes hand in hand with the other two. Put your hand in a roaring fire for a tenth of a second, nothing more than maybe a singed hair or two. Leave it there for a minute and it's BBQ hand. Same with radiation, exposure yourself to it quickly and nothing will happen, the longer you leave it though the more likely you'll suffer permanent damage or death.

So all in all, your chances of surviving accidental exposure to radiation are very good if you remember these simple facts. There are also other factors which make your chances even better but of course, you do need to know you've been exposed in the first place. :smilin:
User avatar
Trapper John
Gunner.
 
Posts: 35974
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:36 am
Location: Champions league next season - prediction date: 10/5/2018

Re: Energy Crisis: Do you fear Nuclear Energy? - why?

Postby Guest » Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:41 am

Trapper John wrote:Rules of thumb and understanding the way radiation works, for the simple minded who may only be able to understand analogies.

Half Life:A term used to describe the decay rate of radiation from a particular isotope. Something described as having a half life of 6 hours means that within 6 hours, half of it's radiation has been depleted. After that, the exisiting radiation continues to decay in 50% increments every 6 hours until it becomes inert. Rule of thumb, the shorter the half life the more dangerous the radiation, purely because of the speed it is emitting it at.

Concentration: A slice of bread won't stop you starving, several loaves will. Likewise with radiation, a pinhead of a particle exposed to radiation is unlikely to kill you, a bowl full will.

Exposure: Goes hand in hand with the other two. Put your hand in a roaring fire for a tenth of a second, nothing more than maybe a singed hair or two. Leave it there for a minute and it's BBQ hand. Same with radiation, exposure yourself to it quickly and nothing will happen, the longer you leave it though the more likely you'll suffer permanent damage or death.

So all in all, your chances of surviving accidental exposure to radiation are very good if you remember these simple facts. There are also other factors which make your chances even better but of course, you do need to know you've been exposed in the first place. :smilin:


right, so if i put a loaf of bread on my hand & stick it in a fire for 6 hours, i'll survive a nuclear accident.

thanks, tj, you've been very reassuring. :thumbsup:
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: Energy Crisis: Do you fear Nuclear Energy? - why?

Postby Trapper John » Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:43 am

Guest wrote:
Trapper John wrote:
Guest wrote:
Trapper John wrote:
Jack I could come along and tip a milk bottle full of massively radioactive Iodine into your bath and by the next evening you'd be able to drink the water with no ill effects.

Don't be fooled by half truths, it's 'half life' and concentration and length of exposure which are the important things here. Much of the radiation decays so rapidly it is harmless within days and it is dispersed widely by the sea making even the most long lived radioactive isotopes pretty much harmless because the concentrations are so small and exposure so fleeting.

The way you talk Jack it's as though you think a bloke just sits there puffing a fag and watching the stuff pour out into the sea without a care in the world, it's being and has been treated ever since the ruptures happened. :roll:


Trapper John wrote:Chernobyl for instance, one of the biggest nuclear accidents of our time, world wide and long lasting publicity made it a perfect example of why we should avoid nuclear power.

Yet the only people whose deaths can be directly attributed to the disaster were the 28 first responder, site firemen who so bravely gave their lives by rushing to the scene in full knowledge they were going to their deaths and putting out the fire. They were all dead within a week after receiving massive doses of concentrated radiation.

In fact, in the hospital of the nearby town of Pripyat - now an abandoned ghost town - where they were taken afterwards, their clothes and boots still lay strewn on the floor of a basement room and record 10,000 times normal background radiation even after more than 30 years. Frightening.


so, which is it to be ... ?


Der! some radioactive isotopes have a half life of a few hours, some a half life of 4.5billion years. Pay attention :roll:


right, so you wouldn't be putting the nasty stuff in rollup's bath then. what a relief. :roll: none of the bad leaky stuff is going to be the chernobyl strength.


On the contrary, I'd be using the most lethal because that will decay faster and so Jack will be able to drink the water safely in the allotted time.

Most of Chenobyl's fallout consisted of Iodine in three or four radioactive guises as explained earlier, all would become inert within 6 months, most a lot sooner.
User avatar
Trapper John
Gunner.
 
Posts: 35974
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:36 am
Location: Champions league next season - prediction date: 10/5/2018

Re: Energy Crisis: Do you fear Nuclear Energy? - why?

Postby Trapper John » Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:01 pm

Guest wrote:
Trapper John wrote:Rules of thumb and understanding the way radiation works, for the simple minded who may only be able to understand analogies.

Half Life:A term used to describe the decay rate of radiation from a particular isotope. Something described as having a half life of 6 hours means that within 6 hours, half of it's radiation has been depleted. After that, the exisiting radiation continues to decay in 50% increments every 6 hours until it becomes inert. Rule of thumb, the shorter the half life the more dangerous the radiation, purely because of the speed it is emitting it at.

Concentration: A slice of bread won't stop you starving, several loaves will. Likewise with radiation, a pinhead of a particle exposed to radiation is unlikely to kill you, a bowl full will.

Exposure: Goes hand in hand with the other two. Put your hand in a roaring fire for a tenth of a second, nothing more than maybe a singed hair or two. Leave it there for a minute and it's BBQ hand. Same with radiation, exposure yourself to it quickly and nothing will happen, the longer you leave it though the more likely you'll suffer permanent damage or death.

So all in all, your chances of surviving accidental exposure to radiation are very good if you remember these simple facts. There are also other factors which make your chances even better but of course, you do need to know you've been exposed in the first place. :smilin:


right, so if i put a loaf of bread on my hand & stick it in a fire for 6 hours, i'll survive a nuclear accident.

thanks, tj, you've been very reassuring. :thumbsup:


I did think I was pushing it a bit to expect everyone to understand even simple analogies - I was right about that as well even though I'm ever the optimist :roll:
User avatar
Trapper John
Gunner.
 
Posts: 35974
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:36 am
Location: Champions league next season - prediction date: 10/5/2018

Re: Energy Crisis: Do you fear Nuclear Energy? - why?

Postby Lady Murasaki » Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:31 pm

Trapper John wrote:
Lady Murasaki wrote:
The radiation fallout from Fuckushima was lower than Chenobyl. It affected the forestry in and around Chenobyl more. Officially no one died from radiation fallout in Fuckushima but hundreds died from the evacuation, mostly the elderly and infirm. The effects on the ecosystem are hopefully being monitored, as TJ said, mankind is selfish , we need to plan for the future. Looking after the environment is looking after the future.


Like they wouldn't have needed evacuation in the aftermath of houses falling about around their ears and several trillions of gallons of Pacific ocean ending up in their front rooms? that was the main reason for the displacement, the fact there was nothing left to stay for. :roll:

I'd like to see evidence too of 'thyroid cancers rocketing' that appears to be a sensationalist claim by anti nuclear activists and doesn't appear in any official reports from respected sources. Chenobyl was worse and 15 people, mostly children died from thyroid cancer attributed to the accident, that was more than 30 years ago and the figure hasn't changed.

The flora and fauna in and around the Chenobyl area and beyond showed little or no effect apart from parts affected in the intitial deluge at the beginning. It recovered well and to all intents and purposes is no different to what it was before. People still live very close to the plant and even go fishing in the lakes close by which supplied the cooling for the reactors.

It isn't widely reported either that the other reactors on the same site were manned and continued to work normally, producing electricity right up to the year 2000 when the plant finally closed completely. Doesn't sound much like the keep out, deadly radiation zone we were told it was/is.


Give me a day to compile an answer like what you had. :snooty:
User avatar
Lady Murasaki
 
Posts: 37246
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:46 pm

Re: Energy Crisis: Do you fear Nuclear Energy? - why?

Postby Trapper John » Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:10 pm

Lady Murasaki wrote:
Trapper John wrote:
Lady Murasaki wrote:
The radiation fallout from Fuckushima was lower than Chenobyl. It affected the forestry in and around Chenobyl more. Officially no one died from radiation fallout in Fuckushima but hundreds died from the evacuation, mostly the elderly and infirm. The effects on the ecosystem are hopefully being monitored, as TJ said, mankind is selfish , we need to plan for the future. Looking after the environment is looking after the future.


Like they wouldn't have needed evacuation in the aftermath of houses falling about around their ears and several trillions of gallons of Pacific ocean ending up in their front rooms? that was the main reason for the displacement, the fact there was nothing left to stay for. :roll:

I'd like to see evidence too of 'thyroid cancers rocketing' that appears to be a sensationalist claim by anti nuclear activists and doesn't appear in any official reports from respected sources. Chenobyl was worse and 15 people, mostly children died from thyroid cancer attributed to the accident, that was more than 30 years ago and the figure hasn't changed.

The flora and fauna in and around the Chenobyl area and beyond showed little or no effect apart from parts affected in the intitial deluge at the beginning. It recovered well and to all intents and purposes is no different to what it was before. People still live very close to the plant and even go fishing in the lakes close by which supplied the cooling for the reactors.

It isn't widely reported either that the other reactors on the same site were manned and continued to work normally, producing electricity right up to the year 2000 when the plant finally closed completely. Doesn't sound much like the keep out, deadly radiation zone we were told it was/is.


Give me a day to compile an answer like what you had. :snooty:


It's easy, all I do is absorb information about a subject which interests me, in this case it came mostly from a professor of physics called Dr Derek Muller who is also a documentary maker who gets down and dirty with his subjects whilst taking no sides.

He's the guy who went down into the basement of Pripyat hospital where they took the first responders and took the radiation readings, he walked the streets of Pripyat and Fukushima, often without protective clothing and spoke to many of the people these disasters affected most.

He's not a particular proponent of nuclear energy, nor against it though he wishes there were other forms of clean energy that were as useful as nuclear and fossil fuels in practical terms.

The interesting part of his documentary came right at the end, when after spending almost a year travelling to the most radiation affected places on Earth, carrying at all times a monitor recording the exposure he'd introduced himself to, the readings showed little more than would have been expected by anyone going about their daily life in any place on Earth.
User avatar
Trapper John
Gunner.
 
Posts: 35974
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:36 am
Location: Champions league next season - prediction date: 10/5/2018

Re: Energy Crisis: Do you fear Nuclear Energy? - why?

Postby Rolluplostinspace » Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:22 pm

So TJ thinks a nuclear waste management site has been set up to treat and process the waste!
Meaning he understands very little of what is going on.
They have been and are building massive containment tanks for the ever growing supply of contaminated water.
They are running out of space.
Some tanks are leaking.
All the tanks will only last a few years at most and the water will eventually end up in the ocean.
One reactor is still spewing radioactive steam into the atmosphere.
It's a disaster of monstrous proportions.
The immediate vicinity isn't as bad as it could be because everything is flowing out to sea.
There are millions of black backs full of radioactive waste that no one knows what to do with.
The fuel rods cannot be retrieved and are full on belting out massive doses of deadly radiation.
It is the worst industrial diasaster ever.
The worst man made ecological disaster ever.
The reason it's hard to find information in the mainstream media TJ is because it would be far to damaging to the nuclear industry where biillions of quids are at stake.
By the way wind and solar are contributing hugely now to this countries energy needs.
Just how much did Japan depend on those four nuclear plants for energy?
They didn't.
They were totally unnecessary.
The lights and the power supply in Japan carried on just fine without the flicker of a single bulb.
User avatar
Rolluplostinspace
 
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Energy Crisis: Do you fear Nuclear Energy? - why?

Postby Lady Murasaki » Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:40 pm

Trapper John wrote:
Lady Murasaki wrote:
Trapper John wrote:
Lady Murasaki wrote:
The radiation fallout from Fuckushima was lower than Chenobyl. It affected the forestry in and around Chenobyl more. Officially no one died from radiation fallout in Fuckushima but hundreds died from the evacuation, mostly the elderly and infirm. The effects on the ecosystem are hopefully being monitored, as TJ said, mankind is selfish , we need to plan for the future. Looking after the environment is looking after the future.


Like they wouldn't have needed evacuation in the aftermath of houses falling about around their ears and several trillions of gallons of Pacific ocean ending up in their front rooms? that was the main reason for the displacement, the fact there was nothing left to stay for. :roll:

I'd like to see evidence too of 'thyroid cancers rocketing' that appears to be a sensationalist claim by anti nuclear activists and doesn't appear in any official reports from respected sources. Chenobyl was worse and 15 people, mostly children died from thyroid cancer attributed to the accident, that was more than 30 years ago and the figure hasn't changed.

The flora and fauna in and around the Chenobyl area and beyond showed little or no effect apart from parts affected in the intitial deluge at the beginning. It recovered well and to all intents and purposes is no different to what it was before. People still live very close to the plant and even go fishing in the lakes close by which supplied the cooling for the reactors.

It isn't widely reported either that the other reactors on the same site were manned and continued to work normally, producing electricity right up to the year 2000 when the plant finally closed completely. Doesn't sound much like the keep out, deadly radiation zone we were told it was/is.


Give me a day to compile an answer like what you had. :snooty:


It's easy, all I do is absorb information about a subject which interests me, in this case it came mostly from a professor of physics called Dr Derek Muller who is also a documentary maker who gets down and dirty with his subjects whilst taking no sides.

He's the guy who went down into the basement of Pripyat hospital where they took the first responders and took the radiation readings, he walked the streets of Pripyat and Fukushima, often without protective clothing and spoke to many of the people these disasters affected most.

He's not a particular proponent of nuclear energy, nor against it though he wishes there were other forms of clean energy that were as useful as nuclear and fossil fuels in practical terms.

The interesting part of his documentary came right at the end, when after spending almost a year travelling to the most radiation affected places on Earth, carrying at all times a monitor recording the exposure he'd introduced himself to, the readings showed little more than would have been expected by anyone going about their daily life in any place on Earth.


Did you watch it yesterday? :gigglesnshit:
The increase in diagnosis for thyroid cancer in children happened because there was more screening according to the article I read. Bit of a spin there methinks. Thyroid cancer in children is quite uncommon around the world.
User avatar
Lady Murasaki
 
Posts: 37246
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:46 pm

Re: Energy Crisis: Do you fear Nuclear Energy? - why?

Postby Trapper John » Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:05 pm

Rolluplostinspace wrote:
The fuel rods cannot be retrieved and are full on belting out massive doses of deadly radiation.
It is the worst industrial diasaster ever.


Remember when they said that about Chenobyl Jack, that the reactor core was so hot it was eating it's way to the centre of the Earth? complete sensationalist bollocks dreamt up by alternative energy suppliers, greenpeace and all other haters of nuclear energy, even though they don't know why.

The reason it's hard to find information in the mainstream media TJ is because it would be far to damaging to the nuclear industry where biillions of quids are at stake.


And of course there is absolutley no benefit to alternative energy producers by continually rubbishing and sensationalising the ill effects of nuclear energy. :roll:

By the way wind and solar are contributing hugely now to this countries energy needs.


20% Jack, thats every form of alternative energy we're using, where's the other 80% gonna come from? bottling farts or are you gonna take off the tinfoil hat and wear a mini wind turbine on your head like the other 7 billion of us would have to do just to keep pace with demand from a rapidly rising population?

Just how much did Japan depend on those four nuclear plants for energy? They didn't.
They were totally unnecessary.
The lights and the power supply in Japan carried on just fine without the flicker of a single bulb.


You don't know that Jack, you haven't any idea what pressure the rest of Japan's energy grid is under, what would happen if just one of those other sources went up the pictures tomorrow?

User avatar
Trapper John
Gunner.
 
Posts: 35974
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:36 am
Location: Champions league next season - prediction date: 10/5/2018

Re: Energy Crisis: Do you fear Nuclear Energy? - why?

Postby Rolluplostinspace » Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:16 pm

The Chernobyl plant was built on solid rock so the rods didn't go anywhere.
Fuku was built on soft ground and theres a chance the government and Tepco may now be sued for allowing this to go ahead.
There is no way of containing the rods once they break free from the pressure vessel.
I notice most of your time talking about nuclear power has to be about past accidents possible future accidents and health implications.
Funny thing is it's what most people have to think about when it's nuclear.
I wonder why that is.
User avatar
Rolluplostinspace
 
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:12 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Sleeping Dogs' Arms

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests