One year on from Blackpool and Fukushima....

[teamsaint]

The government have cracked it. Literally.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17987356

I am just posting this out of sheer frustration !!

( maybe that is what a day working round Bristol does to you !!)

I wonder if Lord Smith would like to live near a nuclear power station or a fracking induced earthquake zone with poisoned groundwater.
Perhaps he does.Prolly got good health insurance.

Rant over.

[Frances_iom]

James Lovelace (Gaia hypothesis ) on todays R4 'The life Scietific' (listen to repeat 9.30pm) had a nice description of those opposed to nuclear power - he likened them to the rural uneducated who refused to go near graveyards at night because of the ghosts etc

[Bryn]

James Lovelace (Gaia hypothesis ) on today's R4 'The life Scientific' (listen to repeat 9.30pm) had a nice description of those opposed to nuclear power - he likened them to the rural uneducated who refused to go near graveyards at night because of the ghosts etc.

He also made the point that not one person has died of radiation effects resulting from the Fukushima nuclear power plant's destruction by the tsunami.

[teamsaint]

James Lovelace (Gaia hypothesis ) on todays R4 'The life Scietific' (listen to repeat 9.30pm) had a nice description of those opposed to nuclear power - he likened them to the rural uneducated who refused to go near graveyards at night because of the ghosts etc

well its an opinion.
I presume he doesn't live near Fukushima.

Not that anybody does now.
(well not within 12 miles, for the forseeable future, with 75000 residents displaced.)

It's also a perfectly valid opinion to think that nuclear power, of the kind that our governments have decided we should have, is a completely insane way of producing electricity.

But I guess that's just the opinion of a rural uneducated person.:smiley(:idiot grin!!)

[teamsaint]

He also made the point that not one person has died of radiation effects resulting from the Fukushima nuclear power plant's destruction by the tsunami.

well hard information seems pretty hard to come by. I wonder why?

Anyway, just because nobody actually died yet, is hardly a justification for what happened.

Characterising opponents of your view as being similar to the rural uneducated is, if I may say so, spectacularly patronising, in at least two ways.
Just because somebody( a scientist) says something on R4 doesn't make it true !!

(and anyway, graveyards can be pretty scary at night !!)

[Resurrection Man]

Teamsaint...it seems that we are at odds again as I see nothing wrong with nuclear energy nor fracking. I see a lot wrong with land based wind turbines especially in areas where there is little wind viz the Reading monstrosity which is powered BY electricity to keep it turning on the days when there is insufficient wind..currently about 300 days of the year.

Let's reduce the world population by about 30% and then we can have a meaningful discussion on energy generation.

[teamsaint]

Teamsaint...it seems that we are at odds again as I see nothing wrong with nuclear energy nor fracking. I see a lot wrong with land based wind turbines especially in areas where there is little wind viz the Reading monstrosity which is powered BY electricity to keep it turning on the days when there is insufficient wind..currently about 300 days of the year.

Let's reduce the world population by about 30% and then we can have a meaningful discussion on energy generation.

RM.....I certainly think that the jury is out on wind turbines, certainly they don't seem well suited to all areas.

Nuclear. Simple, you either think the risk and is worth it or you don't. I don't . fukushima has a 12 mile exclusion zone, for the forseeable future.
Fracking. As far as anyone can tell , there is plenty of downside risk, all of which is well documented. Perhaps it can be done safely and well , but I suspect that we are nowhere near that yet, if we ever will be.

In any case, all of this should be seen as a distraction. The oil industry still dominates energy to a disturbing extent. It is time that our governments really put a huge effort into what most of us want........cheap clean power, rather than fighting wars and supporting dirty technologies to keep the status quo.
humans are incredibly creative. there are answers to our energy needs.

As for population reduction........which exact 30% do you want to get rid of?
Its rich people that strain the world's resources !!

(PS RM, you never got back on tory/labour spending......I would be happy to be proved wrong on this issue!!)

[Resurrection Man]

RM.....I certainly think that the jury is out on wind turbines, certainly they don't seem well suited to all areas.

Nuclear. Simple, you either think the risk and is worth it or you don't. I don't . fukushima has a 12 mile exclusion zone, for the forseeable future.
Fracking. As far as anyone can tell , there is plenty of downside risk, all of which is well documented. Perhaps it can be done safely and well , but I suspect that we are nowhere near that yet, if we ever will be.

In any case, all of this should be seen as a distraction. The oil industry still dominates energy to a disturbing extent. It is time that our governments really put a huge effort into what most of us want........cheap clean power, rather than fighting wars and supporting dirty technologies to keep the status quo.
humans are incredibly creative. there are answers to our energy needs.

As for population reduction........which exact 30% do you want to get rid of?
Its rich people that strain the world's resources !!

(PS RM, you never got back on tory/labour spending......I would be happy to be proved wrong on this issue!!)

TS...we concur on wind turbines!

The only reason why Fukushima got into the mess it is in is simply because the owners/Govt ignored or did not implement what they were supposed to have done. That, I would argue, is down to human stupidity/greed and not 'risk' per se of nuclear power generation.

I (and the energy industry) would I think be very grateful as to exactly what you mean by 'there are answers to our energy needs'. Do you mean at some point in the future ? A la Star Trek? I don't see any short or even near term viable alternative energy source that can replace the huge amount of energy produced by nuclear stations.

yes, the human race is very creative...I'd actually say 'procreative'. We have too many people on the planet. End of. Who would I get rid of? A very good question. Do I have carte-blanche?

And I really cannot buy into this continued mantra about 'it's the rich people'. How do you define 'rich'? Money? Spiritual richness? Bankers? Professional footballers? And where is the evidence that they strain the world's resources?

[will have to find the thread re finances again...can you give me the link please?]

[teamsaint]

TS...we concur on wind turbines!

The only reason why Fukushima got into the mess it is in is simply because the owners/Govt ignored or did not implement what they were supposed to have done. That, I would argue, is down to human stupidity/greed and not 'risk' per se of nuclear power generation.

I (and the energy industry) would I think be very grateful as to exactly what you mean by 'there are answers to our energy needs'. Do you mean at some point in the future ? A la Star Trek? I don't see any short or even near term viable alternative energy source that can replace the huge amount of energy produced by nuclear stations.

yes, the human race is very creative...I'd actually say 'procreative'. We have too many people on the planet. End of. Who would I get rid of? A very good question. Do I have carte-blanche?

And I really cannot buy into this continued mantra about 'it's the rich people'. How do you define 'rich'? Money? Spiritual richness? Bankers? Professional footballers? And where is the evidence that they strain the world's resources?

[will have to find the thread re finances again...can you give me the link please?]

Our discussion about labour profligacy was i "Online banking hassles". As I say, happy to be proved wrong on this.

I see the German government has come out against Fracking. (wonder what the German word for Fracking is ?!).

In this context rich means people in countries like ours and America.. (including me, unbelievably !!).

the US has 5% of world population and uses 25% of its resources.

As for alternative energy sources...too many good ideas being kept down by vested interests, I feel sure.

[Vile Consort]

But didn't I hear that the levels of radioactivity in the Fukushima exclusion zone are only about the same as the natural level in places like Cornwall?

[teamsaint]

But didn't I hear that the levels of radioactivity in the Fukushima exclusion zone are only about the same as the natural level in places like Cornwall?

if you did, I wonder who put the statistic out.....and is it true?
If they are the same as normal levels, why is there an exclusion zone? can that be in anybody's interests?

[amateur51]

I wonder if Lord Smith would like to live near a nuclear power station or a fracking induced earthquake zone with poisoned groundwater.
Perhaps he does.Prolly got good health insurance.

Rant over.

As one who has lived with HIV for many years and who has had to adapt his life accordingly, I'd guess that Lord Smith understands well how what seemed to be a doom-laden future can be transformed when science puts its mind to it within a relatively short time-span.

But I could be wrong

[Resurrection Man]

Not according to this, VC, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiati...clear_disaster

"the US has 5% of world population and uses 25% of its resources." I think that that is now a myth...certainly if you look at this chart http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/mint...on-by-country/ which puts a different perspective.

And what are these 'good ideas' that are being suppressed? Just curious.

[teamsaint]

Not according to this, VC, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiati...clear_disaster

"the US has 5% of world population and uses 25% of its resources." I think that that is now a myth...certainly if you look at this chart http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/mint...on-by-country/ which puts a different perspective.

And what are these 'good ideas' that are being suppressed? Just curious.

Well that chart seems to show the U.S. using very close to 25% of world electricity and oil production, unless I am reading it incorrectly. And its population is well under 5% of the world total.

As for ideas being suppressed.....I think it would be better to look around for yourself. By definition, its hard to be certain, but it always strikes me as odd that the internal combustion engine hasn't been improved upon in 120 years. Perhaps it is just a great solution after all......

[Frances_iom]

one of the arguments put forward against nuclear energy is that any radiation no matter how low level is harmful (which of course ignores the ever present radiation which in some areas (eg above the granite of Cornwall) is quite significant) - however http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/ now some years old does indicate that low level radiation need not be cummulatively harmful as living creatures, subject to continual low level radiation from natural sources, have evolved mechanisms to correct DNA transcription errors - in some experiments it would actually appear that those subject to higher doses of background radiation than control subjects actually suffered less cancer - one theory suggests that the bodies natural defence mechaism being triggered more frequently also removed other harmful DNA transcription errors.