measurer wrote: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?
Rolluplostinspace wrote:Rolluplostinspace wrote: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.
Drunk Dalek wrote:Stooo wrote:Drunk Dalek wrote:Stooo wrote: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
Trapper John wrote: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.
Lady Murasaki wrote: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 wrote:Lady Murasaki wrote: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 wrote:Trapper John wrote:Lady Murasaki wrote: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 wrote:Lady Murasaki wrote:Trapper John wrote:Lady Murasaki wrote: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?
Stooo wrote: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.
Trapper John wrote: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.
Return to The Sleeping Dogs' Arms
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests