Home > Regular Features > Radioactive sandpit

Radioactive sandpit

November 14th, 2010

Since I’ve been incautious enough to mention the N-word in the previous post, I’ll open another sandpit specifically devoted to discussions of the merits, and otherwise, of nuclear power. Any mention of this topic on other threads will be deleted and will risk bans or restrictions on the offender

Update Since it’s still going, I’ve moved it up, which should reopen comments

Categories: Regular Features Tags:
  1. BilB
    November 28th, 2010 at 08:58 | #1

    “There are technically simple and economically maintainable means for managing radioactive hazmat (long life nuclear waste)”

    All evidence to the contrary, Fran. If it was that simple then they would be doing it.

    “Nearly as many people died there as at Chernobyl”

    This is just total nonsense. The many thousands of people whose lives have been devastated to various degrees by the Chernobyl Nuclear Failure would be totally offended by this comment. Those who died quickly were the lucky ones.

    Comparisons of CO2 to Nuclear Waste and radioactive contamination are entirely indirect. For starters it was hundreds of years before the danger from CO2 releases became known. With nuclear the dangers were apparent from very early on. To proceed with nuclear knowing the entreme long term consequences when there are far better alternatives would be the height of human folly. Eliminating CO2 release can only be achieved with the use of technology regardless of which approach is taken so to again there is no direct relationship.

  2. Alice
    November 28th, 2010 at 09:29 | #2

    @Fran Barlow
    First you accuse Bilb of ignoring scale Fran but you persist in complete denial of the risks of managing nuclear waste, nuclear accidents, and human compliance breaches in the same.

    Furthermore you and your few supporters in here are incapable of costing these risks in any manner that would render nuclear expansion commercial.. and therefore you downplay and deny the risks of nuclear until it is commercial to some.

    Its nice you have such a rosy view of nuclear expansion Fran but like Bilb I find your complete downplaying of events like Chernobyl and the multiple nuclear accidents to date with long lasting effects on peoples lives (ie the risks)..simply offensive and abhorrent.

  3. Chris O’Neill
    November 28th, 2010 at 09:35 | #3

    @Chris Warren

    Yea O’Neill, tell us all about the “nuclear contamination from coal-burning”.

    Coal-fired power stations give us 100 times as much background radiation as nuclear power stations.

    By the way, as you are a denialist,

    Are you or are you not in denial that coal-burning power stations expose us to far more background radiation than we would get from nuclear power stations? If you are then you are a denialist and a hypocrite.

    Just live with it.

    Yeah, just live with the background radiation from coal-burning power stations. Great advice coming from you.

  4. Chris O’Neill
    November 28th, 2010 at 09:55 | #4

    @BilB

    the worst outcome would be to replace one devastating form of contamination with another, Nuclear contamination.

    No, replacing coal-fired power stations does not just replace one form of contamination with another, it greatly reduces BOTH CO2 emissions AND background radiation. If governments really cared about background radiation, this would have been done years ago.

  5. Alice
    November 28th, 2010 at 11:13 | #5

    @Chris O’Neill
    And it greatly increases risk from contamination and leakage of radiation hazardous materials not to mention weapons proliferation. Just because you want to ignore longer term risks, refuse to offer realistic costings, and may not be here to experience those risks first hand doesnt mean the rest of the world is as foolish or myopic as you.

    The people of Japan and elswhere across the globe did not spend 50 years trying to rid the world of nuclear use so that some petty zealots could bounce back in the 2000s with dubious and misleading statistics advocating rapid nuclear expansion.

    Find another cause to pursue Chris Oneill. One that isnt mad and dangerous to mankind.

  6. Chris O’Neill
    November 28th, 2010 at 11:44 | #6

    @Alice

    And it greatly increases risk from contamination and leakage of radiation hazardous materials not to mention weapons proliferation.

    So now the goalposts shift. Took you a while to realize a goal when I made one. It’s never acknowledged of course.

    Considering that I would be exposed to less background radiation from nuclear power stations than the coal-fired power stations that currently exist (not to mention the lower CO2 emissions) I think I would be better off having the coal-fired power stations replaced with nuclear power stations.

    As far as weapons proliferation goes, not having nuclear power stations has never prevented anyone from making fission weapons.

  7. Chris O’Neill
    November 28th, 2010 at 11:58 | #7

    @Alice

    The people of Japan and elswhere across the globe did not spend 50 years trying to rid the world of nuclear use

    What a bizarre statement. If the people of Japan have spent 50 years trying to rid the world of nuclear use then why have they got nuclear power stations?

  8. Alice
    November 28th, 2010 at 12:14 | #8

    @Chris O’Neill
    says “As far as weapons proliferation goes, not having nuclear power stations has never prevented anyone from making fission weapons.”

    Translate “nuclear proliferation isnt a danger. Neither is black market trading in nuclear componetry. Neither is the illegal sale and purchase of nuclear bomb making materials from country to country a risk despite any supposed energy only use any country may lay claim to. Neither is nuclear terrorism a risk. Neither are some of the worlds worst regimes trying to put nuclear weapons together.. ”

    I guess its not in your capability to join the dots. How do you understand and get the componetry to make weapons except from other people and nations who use the technology…it may only take one corrupt nuclear bureaucrat or employee to do a deal.

    Ask the CIA. It happens now.

    More of the same denialism from Chris Oneill.

    Why do you seek to downplay the risks of nuclear? Seeing nuclear as a saviour from the global warming aspects of coal is simply a crazy fools short term paradise.

  9. Alice
    November 28th, 2010 at 12:23 | #9

    @Chris O’Neill
    And Chris who likes to downplay risk should read this
    Japans nuclear accidents
    1981: almost 300 workers were exposed to excessive levels of radiation after a fuel rod ruptured during repairs at the Tsuruga Nuclear Power Plant.[5]
    December 1995: the fast breeder Monju Nuclear Power Plant sodium leak.[5]
    March 1997: the Tokai reprocessing waste explosion.[5]
    1999: a fuel loading system malfunctioned at a nuclear plant in the Fukui Prefecture and set off an uncontrolled nuclear reaction and explosion.[5]
    September 1999: the criticality accident at the Tokai fuel fabrication facility.[5]
    August 2002: a widespread falsification scandal starting in that lead to shut down all of Tokyo Electric Power Company’s 17 nuclear reactors; Tokyo Electric’s officials had falsified inspection records and attempted to hide cracks in reactor vessel shrouds in 13 of its 17 units.[6]
    9 August 2004: five workers were killed after a steam explosion at the Mihama-3 station; the subsequent investigation revealed a serious lack in systematic inspection in Japanese nuclear plants, which led to a massive inspection program.[6]
    16 July 2007: a severe earthquake (measuring 6.8 on the Richter scale) hit the region where Tokyo Electric’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant is located and radioactive water spilled into the Sea of Japan; as of March 2009, all of the reactors remain shut down for damage verification and repairs; the plant with seven units was the largest single nuclear power station in the world.[6]
    2008: an earthquake cracked the reactor cooling towers at the Kurihara Nuclear Power Plant, spilling wastewater and damaging the reactor core.[5]

Comment pages
1 10 11 12 9011
Comments are closed.