One year on from Blackpool and Fukushima....

[Budapest]

I wish I could find a summary of the pros and cons provided by someone who was essentially neutral in this debate (i.e. dispassionately assessing the evidence) as whenever debates take place the only possible positions seem to be either 1) nuclear power is massively dangerous, has caused untold damage and cannot be risked at all or 2) nuclear power is essentially safe, hardly anyone has died, there is nothing really to worry about providing proper precautions are taken. I don't find either position particularly persuasive. I could live with 3) nuclear power is potentially very dangerous (Chernobyl, Fukushima) and quite expensive but the risks can be significantly mitigated and it is a necessary resource if we are to avoid catastrophic global warming.

aeolium, I have posted links to two authoritative reports here that show how much damage is being done to human health by nuclear energy. Other posters have dismissed these reports as 'twaddle' and refer back to the UN report, 'The Chernobyl Forum', which everyone knows was a complete whitewash, including Kofi Annan the then Secretary-General of the UN (this is not conspiracy theory, it's fact).

Everyone has their opinions. This is mainly a UK based forum and those opinions might be a bit different if a reactor blew-up somewhere on the British Isles, which is a relatively small and overcrowded land mass. The UK has 16 nuclear reactors at nine plants. Most of these reactors are ageing, continuing to function well past their original operating license, and have produced thousands of tons of nuclear waste that no one knows what to do with (most of the waste is kept on site at these plants). In the brave new world of atomic energy we were supposed to get almost free electricity, and 'science' would come up with a solution for nuclear waste sometime in a vague future. Recycling spent fuel was the mantra, but it's turned out to be horrendously expensive, which is why they're closing down Sellafield, at humungus cost to the tax payer (1.5 billion a year - see here)...

Sellafield: the most hazardous place in Europe

Two things to perhaps note: 1) they don't really know what to do with the toxic crap they are removing from Sellafield (our present level of science has no way of properly making it safe); 2) the reason that they keep extending the license of the UK's ageing reactor fleet is because the cost of decommissioning them is astronomical (none of these costs are included in the price per kilowatt of nuclear power).

[teamsaint]

Discrediting the "opposition" is a favourite tactic of the powerful.

An Inspector calls doesn't like Budapest's replying, or dismisses them as twaddle.

Whatever, generating electricity by the current nuclear means , (which most sensible observers know is a method used to keep the arms industry going) is madness.
It may be we have to rely on it for a while, but the human race is ingenious enough, easily, to come up with better.
Isn't it?

[JohnSkelton]

Well now I'm puzzled. Is "The risk of heart disease or stroke from low dose radiation like that used in hospital or dental X-rays may have been significantly underestimated, a new study partly funded by the European Commission says. The results, which were published last week in the journal Public Library of Science (PLoS) Computational Biology, are consistent with risk levels reported in previous radiation studies involving nuclear workers" from the CORDIS site obvious twaddle?

Dr Mark Little and the research team at Imperial College London explored the hypothesis that radiation kills monocytes (a type of white blood cell) in the walls of arteries which would otherwise bind to monocyte chemo-attractant protein 1 (MCP-1). As a result, the higher levels of MCP-1 cause inflammation that leads to cardiovascular disease.

The authors of the study said, 'There is emerging evidence of excess risk of cardiovascular disease in various occupationally exposed groups, exposed to fractionated radiation doses with small doses/fraction. The mechanisms for such effects of fractionated low-dose radiation exposures on cardiovascular disease are unclear.'

It doesn't obviously look like twaddle.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

aeolium, I have posted links to two authoritative reports here that show how much damage is being done to human health by nuclear energy. Other posters have dismissed these reports as 'twaddle' and refer back to the UN report, 'The Chernobyl Forum', which everyone knows was a complete whitewash, including Kofi Annan the then Secretary-General of the UN (this is not conspiracy theory, it's fact).

Everyone has their opinions. This is mainly a UK based forum and those opinions might be a bit different if a reactor blew-up somewhere on the British Isles, which is a relatively small and overcrowded land mass. The UK has 16 nuclear reactors at nine plants. Most of these reactors are ageing, continuing to function well past their original operating license, and have produced thousands of tons of nuclear waste that no one knows what to do with (most of the waste is kept on site at these plants). In the brave new world of atomic energy we were supposed to get almost free electricity, and 'science' would come up with a solution for nuclear waste sometime in a vague future. Recycling spent fuel was the mantra, but it's turned out to be horrendously expensive, which is why they're closing down Sellafield, at humungus cost to the tax payer (1.5 billion a year - see here)...

Sellafield: the most hazardous place in Europe

Two things to perhaps note: 1) they don't really know what to do with the toxic crap they are removing from Sellafield (our present level of science has no way of properly making it safe); 2) the reason that they keep extending the license of the UK's ageing reactor fleet is because the cost of decommissioning them is astronomical (none of these costs are included in the price per kilowatt of nuclear power).

An awful lot (the majority) of people regard the Chernobyl Forum report as definitive.
All the nuclear facilities are ageing - obviously!
Lots of people know what to do with the waste - bury it. Job done.
Sellafield isn't closing.
The cost of decommissioning a magnox station varies, depending on particular design. The costs are not humungus - a typical example being Trawsfynydd which is currently running below £1b. Budapest is probably looking at a headline quotation of £70b and rising but that figure (a) covers the costs of all the UK nuclear facilities including civil power generation, civil and military research, weapons production, and the nuclear submarine facilities. The cost is spread over 150 years, and the figure has not been subject to any DCF analysis. The figure rises year by year simply because of inflation. If you factor the cost of decommissioning into nuclear production costs and look at Wylfa, then it's generated at approximately £62/MWh over its life; not the cheapest, but cheaper than all the renewables (apart from hydro).

Re John Skelton's ecstacy of discovering a paper linking dose to heart disease, the paper linked claims to provide model (note, model) results similar to those seen in nuclear workers. Well, it's worth noting that in the UK the life expectancy of civil nuclear workers is greater than those outside the industry. And whilst this division of 'route to disease or death' is worth exploring, it is well to remember that this does not disturb the use of the LNT model for nuclear risk, which would have included all radiation impacts over a huge range of dose. This is supported by observation that there appears to be no correlation between the incidence of heart disease and geographic areas of high radiation dose in the UK (http://heart.bmj.com/content/86/3/277.full)

[Frances_iom]

possibly a better group to study would be frequent fliers esp trans oceanic as they would have significantly higher cummulative radiation doses - eg pilots + airline staff - likewise those passing through the US border control with their millimetric scans - possibly the same might be true of staff/atheletes etc if they are introduced as 'security theatre' at the Olympics.

Likewise I would expect to find Cornish living in Cornwall more susceptiple to heart problems than those who live across the Tamar - larger groups might show some correlation

[Budapest]

An awful lot (the majority) of people regard the Chernobyl Forum report as definitive.
All the nuclear facilities are ageing - obviously!
Lots of people know what to do with the waste - bury it. Job done.
Sellafield isn't closing.

BBC News: Sellafield Thorp site to close in 2018

If you can find somewhere to bury all these thousands of tons of nuclear waste (maybe in your back garden?) it will need to be guarded, because if it gets into the wrong hands many more people will die at the hands of the nuclear industry. Once again, the cost of secure disposal over a very, very long time span is not factored into the costs of nuclear energy.

An_Inspector_Calls, we all take our various positions on these issues. I'm curious: have you or do you work in the nuclear industry? If so, I promise I won't use it against you. I just try to present the facts and let people make up their own mind (ie, you talk about a low cost of £1 billion to decommission a nuclear plant - which doesn't include the cost of secure storage of waste - as though it's an acceptable figure to the tax payer).

It's easy to talk about this stuff on forums like this. It might be instructive to see the actual reality of what we're all arguing about. Chernobyl Heart was an award winning documentary from 2004 (it was shown at a special session of the United Nations), which focused on the children of Chernobyl. I'm not using this documentary as any kind of scientific evidence (for one thing it's way too emotive), but just to emphasise that when we argue about safe levels of radiation, etc, we are actually talking about human lives. This is the documentary on YouTube. It runs to about 40 minutes...

Chernobyl Heart - the children of Chernobyl

[Bryn]

possibly a better group to study would be frequent fliers esp trans oceanic as they would have significantly higher cummulative radiation doses - eg pilots + airline staff - likewise those passing through the US border control with their millimetric scans - possibly the same might be true of staff/atheletes etc if they are introduced as 'security theatre' at the Olympics.

Likewise I would expect to find Cornish living in Cornwall more susceptiple to heart problems than those who live across the Tamar - larger groups might show some correlation

And what of those Government workers based in Whitehall? All that granite (with its component Potassium 40, Thorium, and Uranium) can't be doing their hearts much good, can it?

[Budapest]

Discrediting the "opposition" is a favourite tactic of the powerful.

An Inspector calls doesn't like Budapest's replying, or dismisses them as twaddle.

Whatever, generating electricity by the current nuclear means , (which most sensible observers know is a method used to keep the arms industry going) is madness.
It may be we have to rely on it for a while, but the human race is ingenious enough, easily, to come up with better.
Isn't it?

I'm not an expert on renewables, but would hazard a guess that somewhere like the Outer Hebrides, where not many people live (I lived there for a short time - Isle of Harris) could supply enough wind energy to power Scotland and a large part of northern England? Only the sheep would complain about the wind turbines, and the wind blows practically non-stop in the Outer Hebs. The old joke goes that they did once try to plant some trees on the Outer Hebrides, but they were blown away to Norway.

[Budapest]

And what of those Government workers based in Whitehall? All that granite (with its component Potassium 40, Thorium, and Uranium) can't be doing their hearts much good, can it?

People need to differentiate between natural unstable (radioactive) isotopes and man made unstable isotopes that come out of a reactor. The natural isotopes are not much of a danger to life on earth. If man made isotopes that come out of a reactor were part of the environment there wouldn't be any life on earth. Period.

[Frances_iom]

the UK kills around 2000 per year due to Road traffic 'accidents' (an improvement on the 3000 pa of a couple of years ago) - serious accidents are probaly 3 or 4x as frequent - over 25years that is well opver 50,000 deaths and 200,000 serious maimed - suggest that all road traffic be banned immediately

[teamsaint]

the UK kills around 2000 per year due to Road traffic 'accidents' (an improvement on the 3000 pa of a couple of years ago) - serious accidents are probaly 3 or 4x as frequent - over 25years that is well opver 50,000 deaths and 200,000 serious maimed - suggest that all road traffic be banned immediately

I think it suggests that we should invest in better alternatives....like public transport, which tends to be safer.

Likewise nuclear/renewables !

[JohnSkelton]

Re John Skelton's ecstacy of discovering a paper linking dose to heart disease, the paper linked claims to provide model (note, model) results similar to those seen in nuclear workers. Well, it's worth noting that in the UK the life expectancy of civil nuclear workers is greater than those outside the industry. And whilst this division of 'route to disease or death' is worth exploring, it is well to remember that this does not disturb the use of the LNT model for nuclear risk, which would have included all radiation impacts over a huge range of dose. This is supported by observation that there appears to be no correlation between the incidence of heart disease and geographic areas of high radiation dose in the UK (http://heart.bmj.com/content/86/3/277.full)

Oh no you don't. There's no "ecstasy" involved. I'm not trying to prove anything. You said something was "twaddle" and I queried that. I'm not making any claims about anything, because I'm in no position to make any claims about anything. You made a dogmatic assertion which didn't survive a Google search (which was all the "discovery" was).

Clearly it isn't simply "twaddle" - i.e something made up by conspiracy theorists / a bit of pseudo-science - and the fact that you couldn't be bothered to check before pronouncing doesn't suggest much interest on your part in accuracy.

[JohnSkelton]

Re John Skelton's ecstacy of discovering a paper linking dose to heart disease, the paper linked claims to provide model (note, model) results similar to those seen in nuclear workers. Well, it's worth noting that in the UK the life expectancy of civil nuclear workers is greater than those outside the industry.

And that would not be surprising, given that UK civil nuclear workers won't be among those socio-economic groups where forms of deprivation, poor diet etc. would be conducive to lower life expectancy. So presumably results on radiation and heart disease would need to be adjusted somehow to account for that. Unless the claim was some 'killer' effect, which as far as I can see the research doesn't make and which I certainly didn't (again, I didn't claim anything. I simply pointed out that your "twaddle" remark was dogmatic and incorrect).

[Budapest]

the UK kills around 2000 per year due to Road traffic 'accidents' (an improvement on the 3000 pa of a couple of years ago) - serious accidents are probaly 3 or 4x as frequent - over 25years that is well opver 50,000 deaths and 200,000 serious maimed - suggest that all road traffic be banned immediately

You remind me of George Monbiot, who recently said something like: "only 14,000 children will die of thyroid cancer as a result of Chernobyl". You have a choice whether or not you want to drive. You have no choice when it comes to man made radiation, which has killed and continues to kill untold millions. Compared to 2000 or so killed per year in road accidents, 157,000 at present die each year in the UK from cancers (source) and the number continues to spiral. By contrast, 191,000 die each year in the UK from heart disease (source), which continues to be the biggest killer.

The 2000 road deaths per year copt out of the nuclear industry is pretty lame compared to the really big numbers, particularly cancer.

Care to explain why such huge numbers of people are dying from cancer every year?

[JohnSkelton]

Care to explain why such huge numbers of people are dying from cancer every year?

Because people die from causes which tend to be historically variable (not many people die of bubonic plague now), because people in 'the West' live longer than they ever did, because cause of death in 'the West' is more accurately recorded than ever before, because of diet, life-style .... Etc. ? (I realise you weren't asking me ).