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

[measurer]

Of course it is, and I hate those lights up here but realise we have to do it or face some kind of forced cuts elsewhere/ I'll be dead and not needing to worry but I do try and not add to the consumption.

[Trapper John]

Firstly, 31 die in Chernobyl. Two on site then 29 right after, BUT there are many more cases and they are still ongoing. Cancers of the throat in babies being fed by mommy to this day? I think we won't know the true figure for years, as the radiation will take a toll on many others.
116K lived there and were evacuated, that won't have saved them, as is proving the case.

Why would we want this risk rather than sea and wind power?

It's quite simple, if you covered every spare inch of ground and sea with wind turbines and wave rockers it still wouldn't create enough energy to supply the Earth with power.

Which ever way you look at it, it's a numbers game. Balance the needs of the many against the possibilty of harm to the few - it's a no brainer.

The figures I got for the deaths directly attributed to Chernobyl came from the Ukrainian scientists who continue to study the area and the UK professor who studied the deaths of the 15 children who died of thyroid cancer. Unfortunately no-one can say whether deaths in later years or decades were the result of Chernobyl or something which would have happened regardless of Chernobyl.

[Trapper John]

I don't think ordinary people really understand what it would be like in a world with very little power. It won't be a nice little rustic medieval existence we'll all learn to live with, using candles for light and horses as transport and work engines.

In one year, if civilisation survived, the death toll would be astronomical, that would just be in people who get no treatment for illnesses they survive today and those would shrink into insignificance compared to the ones who die from starvation.

It would never get to that though because whereas ordinary people 'might' cope and except their new lot, governments wouldn't. A global war would ensue with energy sources being the prize. It's happened before it will happen again but this time on a global scale.

Hitler never invaded Russia because he wanted to give Stalin a bloody nose, he sent half his invading army directly to the oilfields of Belaruse and the other half to form a barrier against retaliation. The Nazi's needed that oil to power their war machine and taking on a 10 million man army was not going to stop them.

Churchill didn't commit us to war because of some silly little treaty with Poland or because he didn't like what was happening to some European Jews. Neither did he commit the majority of our intact surviving forces after Dunkirk to the middle east to save our colonial heritage. He did it to preserve our access to middle eastern oil, without which we would have ceased to exist as a nation. It's why he had no qualms in letting the far east fall to the Japanese without as much as a raised gun, it didn't produce oil and was therefore expendable.

Make no mistake, a world with dwindling energy sources is not one which any of us would want to exist in, weigh that up against a few thousand people who 'MIGHT' die 'IF' there was another nuclear accident, it's a ridiculous to even make a comparison.

[Trapper John]

Radioactive fallout cloud from Chernobyl travelled across half of northern Europe and into Scandinavia. One of the most feared elements in that cloud was Iodine in it's radioactive forms.

It's feared because it emits huge doses of lethal radiation quickly as the isotopes have a very short half lifes - the rule of thumb is the shorter the half life the deadlier the radiation.

The Iodine isotopes which were the main constituent of the Chernobyl cloud were, Isotope 123 it has a half life of 13 hours - Isotope 131 a half life of 8 days and Isotope 125 a half life of 60 days. That means that the longest lasting '125' lost half it's radiation in 60 days and was completely inert after 120 days.

This is why there was no recorded increase in cancer contraction or deaths across the areas the cloud covered. When you add the short half lifes to the wide precipitation area, tne dangers continue to decelerate.

It's simple, eat from a bowl full of Iodine 123 and you are dead within hours, eat from the same bowl full 24 hours later, it will have no effect on you. Likewise have half a tonne of Iodine 125 fall on an acre of land anyone using that land will die and continue to die for 120 days. Spread that same half tonne across a thousand acres, the chances are anyone using that land will suffer no ill effects.

[Trapper John]

https://www.globalresearch.ca/search?q=Fukushima&x=0&y=0

Chernobyl was a big event but now overshadowed by the complete destruction of three nuclear power plants that we don't have the technology to even start putting right.
It is pouring shit out into the atmosphere and the Pacific on a truly frightening scale all these years later.
Nuclear is the most expensive energy production on the planet with waste having to be nursed for generations.

Jack, don't fall for all the crap they spin on that website you treat as gospel, most of the radioactive material which came from Fukushima and still comes out of it, is inert after a sort space of time. It isn't the global catastrophe they make it out to be.

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 amd places they grew up in.

Residents from Fukushima and surrounding areas blockaded off are still permitted to return to their old homes anytime they want for short visits. As much as the anti nuclear lobby would like to have you believe, being exposed to radiation doesn't mean an instant death sentence.

[Stooo]

Have you been reading about the horlicks that is HPC?

The reason why we don't have a lot of nuclear energy is because it takes ages to build and costs a fortune. HPC is being built by the Chinese and French.

I will probably be dead from the traffic fumes by the time that cunt is built

Yeah but in town they're making a new road between Quantock Terrace and the Drove/Leggar leading into Sainsburys, another new estate (Kings Drove) being built on the old cellophane factory site. Own this house for £395 a month up on banners. Once it's built, it's built, what happens to these houses then?

Fill it full of pikeys from Sydenham

I like the Sydenham estate

I haven't seen any on there, there's a few in Pawlett and a static community on the airfields at Westonzoyland though.

[Guest]

We are like the proverbial ostriches with our heads in the sand. An energy crisis is looming, in fact it's here and all the 'alternative' and 'green' methods of producing energy won't come anywhere near taking up the slack being left by dwindling stocks and the forced reduction of the usage of fossil fuels, let alone replace them.

The world's population is increasing expotentially and by 2030, just 12 years time, we will have added another 1.2billion people to our planet, by 2050 - well within our children's lifetimes - the increase will be 2.5 billion.

All these extra people will need power in one form or another and as we cannot even produce enough to satisfy today's demands, what hope do we have of finding a solution to future ones?

Of course there are lots theoretical solutions but even if they were found to be practical and started right at this very moment, it would take decades to even get them to a prototype stage, we simply do not have that time.

There is something though that could save our world descending into a 'power' mad anarchy, something we have already tamed, something which can produce clean, efficient, practical, almost limitless energy - Nuclear Power by fisson.

We have almost 100 years of theoretical and practical experience in it's usage, it's not a pipedream like fusion, or wind and wave power it's a proven technology that works, so why are people so afraid of it?

We need to be told the truths about nuclear power by fission because at this moment there seems to be a huge anti nuclear lobby coming from all directions and with varying reasons for stifling it's use, fuelled by misleading propaganda and preying on the fears of the ignorant.

We need to push nuclear power to the forefront now, not in ten years time because nuclear power stations take many years to build and every day we leave it, is a day closer to the civilistation we know falling into total collapse.

Chernobyl
Fukusima
Three Mile Island
Tokaimura
SL 1

[Lady Murasaki]

I suppose people fear it because of the word NUCLEAR, word association. It evokes a feeling of dread despite the fact we do use nuclear energy already.

[Trapper John]

I suppose people fear it because of the word NUCLEAR, word association. It evokes a feeling of dread despite the fact we do use nuclear energy already.

It is that I'm afaid and the ignorance of people who don't want to find out or care to understand the benefits of nuclear technology - like for instance in nuclear medicine. They see the word 'nuclear' and immediately equate it to a death sentence.

It's ably illustrated in the microcosm of our world, this forum. Despite me making the effort to prove their fears of nuclear technology are unfounded they prefer to avoid reading a few paragraphs but rather repeat the many decades old mantras coming from the nuclear age's infancy.

That might not be important now or on this forum but there may come a time soon when it is a question bigger than the brexit one, people need to know the advancements in nuclear technology and not base their fears or retiscence on ages old events or arguments.

[Lady Murasaki]

I suppose people fear it because of the word NUCLEAR, word association. It evokes a feeling of dread despite the fact we do use nuclear energy already.

It is that I'm afaid and the ignorance of people who don't want to find out or care to understand the benefits of nuclear technology - like for instance in nuclear medicine. They see the word 'nuclear' and immediately equate it to a death sentence.

It's ably illustrated in the microcosm of our world, this forum. Despite me making the effort to prove their fears of nuclear technology are unfounded they prefer to avoid reading a few paragraphs but rather repeat the many decades old mantras coming from the nuclear age's infancy.

That might not be important now or on this forum but there may come a time soon when it is a question bigger than the brexit one, people need to know the advancements in nuclear technology and not base their fears or retiscence on ages old events or arguments.

I'm impressed with your optimism that people would read all that
It'll be down to the government to educate the public about the benefits of nuclear energy (and the fact we already have nuclear plants generating it) to counteract the negative press over how unsafe it has been.

[Trapper John]

I suppose people fear it because of the word NUCLEAR, word association. It evokes a feeling of dread despite the fact we do use nuclear energy already.

It is that I'm afaid and the ignorance of people who don't want to find out or care to understand the benefits of nuclear technology - like for instance in nuclear medicine. They see the word 'nuclear' and immediately equate it to a death sentence.

It's ably illustrated in the microcosm of our world, this forum. Despite me making the effort to prove their fears of nuclear technology are unfounded they prefer to avoid reading a few paragraphs but rather repeat the many decades old mantras coming from the nuclear age's infancy.

That might not be important now or on this forum but there may come a time soon when it is a question bigger than the brexit one, people need to know the advancements in nuclear technology and not base their fears or retiscence on ages old events or arguments.

I'm impressed with your optimism that people would read all that
It'll be down to the government to educate the public about the benefits of nuclear energy (and the fact we already have nuclear plants generating it) to counteract the negative press over how unsafe it has been.

Yep it's a big ask - I wonder though if the same people will say I wish I had read that when I was asked if we should put all our money and efforts into building new style nuclear power plants 10 years ago and I voted no. Perhaps I would have thought about it a bit more and maybe voted yes, so I wouldn't be living without electricty for 18 hours a day like I do now?

[Lady Murasaki]

I suppose people fear it because of the word NUCLEAR, word association. It evokes a feeling of dread despite the fact we do use nuclear energy already.

It is that I'm afaid and the ignorance of people who don't want to find out or care to understand the benefits of nuclear technology - like for instance in nuclear medicine. They see the word 'nuclear' and immediately equate it to a death sentence.

It's ably illustrated in the microcosm of our world, this forum. Despite me making the effort to prove their fears of nuclear technology are unfounded they prefer to avoid reading a few paragraphs but rather repeat the many decades old mantras coming from the nuclear age's infancy.

That might not be important now or on this forum but there may come a time soon when it is a question bigger than the brexit one, people need to know the advancements in nuclear technology and not base their fears or retiscence on ages old events or arguments.

I'm impressed with your optimism that people would read all that
It'll be down to the government to educate the public about the benefits of nuclear energy (and the fact we already have nuclear plants generating it) to counteract the negative press over how unsafe it has been.

Yep it's a big ask - I wonder though if the same people will say I wish I had read that when I was asked if we should put all our money and efforts into building new style nuclear power plants 10 years ago and I voted no. Perhaps I would have thought about it a bit more and maybe voted yes, so I wouldn't be living without electricty for 18 hours a day like I do now?

Is there a vote on it? The government are already behind building new plants. We know that renewable energy will eventually run out so they are preparing for alternatives. If we can produce our own energy instead of paying through the nose to import it then everyone benefits.

[Trapper John]

People fear nuclear power, people fear living near nuclear power stations. My mum and dad had several caravans over 30 years, all based on the same site not 3 or 4 miles from Dungeness B nuclear power station as the crow flies.

Not once was there ever an alert or danger which threatened life or dangerous material escaping into the atmosphere. Essentially they and I lived for large parts of the year in it's shadow. It was built, it came and we thought it went because it was due for decommisioning this year.

However, so successful was the plant at producing non carbon emitting, cheap electrical power that the £15 million a year investment was all it took to win it a further 10 years of productive use. So much for some people saying it's the most expensive way of producing energy.

[Guest]

Have you been reading about the horlicks that is HPC?

The reason why we don't have a lot of nuclear energy is because it takes ages to build and costs a fortune. HPC is being built by the Chinese and French.

...a simpleton said.

Clearly you have not the faintest grasp of how modern projects are run (by multi national companies with multi national shareholders. But if you are interested in being released from ignorance heres some light reading...

http://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/n ... s-the-work

[Lady Murasaki]

People fear nuclear power, people fear living near nuclear power stations. My mum and dad had several caravans over 30 years, all based on the same site not 3 or 4 miles from Dungeness B nuclear power station as the crow flies.

Not once was there ever an alert or danger which threatened life or dangerous material escaping into the atmosphere. Essentially they and I lived for large parts of the year in it's shadow. It was built, it came and we thought it went because it was due for decommisioning this year.

However, so successful was the plant at producing non carbon emitting, cheap electrical power that the £15 million a year investment was all it took to win it a further 10 years of productive use. So much for some people saying it's the most expensive way of producing energy.

Scrap trident and build more nuclear plants. That's optimism for ya!