Nuclear Power

[french frank]

I last flew, to Marseille, in 2007 frances.

My winter quarter gas + electricity consumption came to £120 - not sure what this tells me, except it's a very tight pinch

I do not have any children

Me too (well, Bordeaux c 2006). And I only have a bath if I'm going to be meeting people during the course of the day.

[Frances_iom]

t given the number of cases of cancer following Chernobyl.

... I don't imagine I was the only person who was reminded of Hiroshima when I saw the pictures from Japan.

yes the quake the 4th largest ever measured was equivalent to many Hiroshima type bombs - the damage was not so much by the quake (many buildings including the reactors were designed to withstand this) but by the immense tidal wave generated.

Please give a verified link to the implied high number of cancers - yes there will be some but some of the figures I've seen are completely crazy - the burning of coal also generates carcinogens - maybe you are not old enough to remember the effects of smog.

[StephenO]

Neither is driving a car, taking the train or walking down the street.

True, but I'd rather take my chances in a car than in a nuclear power station.

[scottycelt]

The point, surely, is that no nuclear power station is 100% safe. The risks of nuclear power far outweigh any supposed benefits and the sooner the world abandons nuclear power the better for all of us. I don't imagine I was the only person who was reminded of Hiroshima when I saw the pictures from Japan.

Well, yes, but surely these horrific pictures only demonstrate how nature can cruelly devastate as well and if mankind can sometimes utilise some of nature's awesome powers for its own benefit, then why not? There are risks attached to most attempts at human progress and nuclear power is no exception.

Just think of the countless poor souls who have died throughout the ages and continue to die by extracting coal, oil and gas from natural sources!

The Japan horror is a natural disaster and should be treated as such. Nuclear power has surely brought immense benefits as well as self-destructive harm to much of humanity?

[Frances_iom]

True, but I'd rather take my chances in a car than in a nuclear power station.

then I'm afraid you have no idea of the relative risks involved - one other demonstration coming out from Japan is that some 16 reactors shut down all bar the 3 that are being worried about correctly but need time to be restarted - this removal of a significant part of Japan's base load generators can be seen to cause real problems in the transport network etc - now think what will happen in the next year or when oil reaches well over £2 a litre - the need for electric powered transport (railways) will become essential and even the backwood tories might finally get it.

[MrGongGong]

Careful now, thats really going to confuse the academics at Nutwood....
lefties are supposed to be ANTI nuclear power (preferably with a German sticker in the split screen VW)

[french frank]

Please give a verified link to the implied high number of cancers - yes there will be some but some of the figures I've seen are completely crazy - the burning of coal also generates carcinogens - maybe you are not old enough to remember the effects of smog.

If this WHO report is correct, isn't it likely that the earthquake + tsunami will be far more lethal, even in the long term, than any threat from radiation?

[Bryn]

True, but I'd rather take my chances in a car than in a nuclear power station.

Why? I'm no proselyte for nuclear power, but there is so much rubbish being put about re. the potential risks associated with the Japanese PWRs at the moment. Remember, the radiation escaping from a coal powered electricity generating installation is much higher than that from a nuclear power station of similar output capacity, (I say "remember", but perhaps this basic fact had escaped your attention). Indeed, you are likely to receive a higher radiation dose walking down Whitehall, with all its granite stonework, than by working in, say, Wylva nuclear power station (which is the only one I have actually visited - lovely pastel colour scheme in the main generator hall, by the way). I am getting decidedly fed up with hearing ignorant reporters, even on Radio 4, interviewing engineers and academics thoroughly versed in the safety issues associated with nuclear power plants, then totally oblivious to the information imparted by those engineers and academics, prattling on about nuclear explosions (which are quite simply not on the agenda). I fear that some of the comments in this thread are based on a level of understanding of the issues similar to that exhibited by such reporters. I'm no nuclear engineer or scientist, (my academic training was in the interaction of science, technology and society), but it's really not that hard to discover the very real problems associated with the current situation at the Fukushima power station, and they do not include a danger of a nuclear explosion.

[Frances_iom]

If this WHO report is correct, isn't it likely that the earthquake + tsunami will be far more lethal, even in the long term, than any threat from radiation?

yes - my own suggestion is near 20,000 deaths in short term (ie bodies still to be found) - + the pollution caused by the destruction to the refineries etc - luckily it was a not a major centre of population - wait until the San Andreas fault goes, now that will be something. However my point re cancer was re Chernoybil.

[StephenO]

I'm no nuclear engineer or scientist, (my academic training was in the interaction of science, technology and society), but it's really not that hard to discover the very real problems associated with the current situation at the Fukushima power station, and they do not include a danger of a nuclear explosion.

I agree there's no danger of a nuclear explosion at Fukushima but it still doesn't mean nuclear power is a safe option. I certainly wouldn't want to live near a nuclear power station whatever the safeguards - but then I'm even less of a nuclear engineer or a scientist, having graduated in history and politics!

[Frances_iom]

but then I'm even less of a nuclear engineer or a scientist, having graduated in history and politics!

and there was I (+ others on my course) working hard at maths + physics believing the myth that those being trained to rule over us doing PPE etc were being trained to be objective evaluators of evidence - sounds as though all that free time such students had when we poor physicists + engineers had long hours in the labs was just used for partying.

[zoomy]

"A leak into the ground is bad but a leak to the press is a disaster." - nuclear industry maxim

[johnb]

One point worth mentioning is that the design of the Fukushima reactors dates back to the 1960s. The latest reactors are designed so that the reactor is cooled passively upon shut-down, rather than relying on the water cooling system continuing to operate.

[Serial_Apologist]

Cooled passively? Does that mean the nuclear fuel cools itself down?

[Dave2002]

I recently went to Rajasthan, India. OK - I know the air travel is bad .....

In the cold weather there was plenty of evidence of a carbon based economy, with many people gathering sticks and twigs, and cow dung being sold as fuel.

It is highly unlikely that many of us would wish to live like that, and that level of carbon usage is barely sustainable for large populations, though it may not be very environmentally damaging.

Nuclear power is still going to be a good option unless we take up some of the other suggestions, such as reducing the size of supported populations, or cut back very severely on our energy profligate (relative to sustainable production levels) lifestyles. Photo-voltaics are also a good option in some areas, though as with some other "renewable" resources, continuity of supply and storage of surplus energy are issues.