Government and Nuclear Power...

Hereward

Volcano

All very interesting, but I noticed that you didn't post the results of a survey mentioning that Glasgow (or was it Edinburgh?) is more radioactive than Sellafield. You have also failed to mention that Coal fired power stations release large amounts of radioactive dust into the air every single day.

Volcano

Glasgow (or was it Edinburgh?) is more radioactive than Sellafield.

I await your link to that article.

You have also failed to mention that Coal fired power stations release large amounts of radioactive dust into the air every single day.

I haven't 'failed' to mention it as this is a thread on nuclear power, not coal.

Ken-Dodds-Hairy-Knodule

Hereward wrote:

You have also failed to mention that Coal fired power stations release large amounts of radioactive dust into the air every single day.[/COLOR]

As volcano never advocated building more coal-fired power stations why on earth would they mention it?

Thats like asking someone the time, and them replying "it's 2pm, but in china its 10pm". Totally nonsensical.

going2die_rich wrote:

Your not keen on it because of daft saftey fears that the media has put into your head. Nuclear power stations have some of the most stringent saftey measures around. Like I said in my previous post, you should be more worried about being nuked by North Korea or Iran than something happening to a UK built facility.

LOL - I think you need to look at your own daft safety fears first. The sun/mirror/mail/other tabloid trash say we are gonna be nuked by the 'axis of evil' so it must be true..

Hereward

Volcano was pointing out the dangers of the current generation of nuclear power staions; I was offering a view of the radioactive nature of current coal fired power stations. If you are going to make an argument of the comparity danges of nuclear fission then its good to see the risks from the alternatives.
As far as I am aware gas pwoer staions, anlong with wind and tidal generators, do not produce signifcant amounts of radioactive material.

BTW, I am trying to find the story where I read about Sellafield and Glasgow.

Hereward

I have had a good hunt around and I believe I saw it referenced in the Black Advisory Group's report on leukaemia occurring in young people living in the village of Seascale (I can’t seem to find a direct link). I believe that Glasgow was used as one of the control areas where it was noticed that the occurrence of radioactive particles was greater in the control area than in Seascale.

Etheco_2

Wow, there's some thoughtful and considered responses there.

I don't like nuclear power because I don't think we're capable of using it responsibly.

If we could develop a 100% safe reactor which was terrorist proof and we actually had a feasible plan for the safe long term storage of radioactive waste, then I'd be all for it.

The human factor puts me off. Between politics, money saving and human error, nuclear power is an accident waiting to happen, as has been proved time and time again.

tr3mor

Etheco wrote:

Wow, there's some thoughtful and considered responses there.

I don't like nuclear power because I don't think we're capable of using it responsibly.

If we could develop a 100% safe reactor which was terrorist proof and we actually had a feasible plan for the safe long term storage of radioactive waste, then I'd be all for it.

The human factor puts me off. Between politics, money saving and human error, nuclear power is an accident waiting to happen, as has been proved time and time again.

This really shouldn't be an argument.

Let's face it, the future lies in Nuclear topped up with renewables.

Come fifty years there's no way in hell we're going to be burning fossil fuels to make electricity. There's also no way that renewables can supply all of our electricity. Therefore we need new nuclear power plants.

France is extremely happy having most of its electricity supplied by nuclear because they had no other options without relying on imported fuels.

When we have no choice everyone will love nuclear power, there's no feasible alternative!

P.S. Etheco - You're not allowed links in your sig!

Etheco_2

Ok, thanks for the sig link heads up, didn't know that so I've removed it.

As far as the nuclear/renewable mix goes, that may be the only way to do it, as much as it worries me.

I don't understand though, why we wouldn't be able to supply all our power needs with renewable energy. We may not be able to meet current power needs but that's because we live in a wasteful power hungry society.

A few simple changes to our power consumption habits could significantly reduce our power needs and renewable energy, with the right kind of investment, would then be able to meet those needs.

Etheco_2

Volcano wrote:

So whose volunteering to have one built in their backyard? Feel free to build windmills in mine.

I do. It's going to be windy.

:rotfl:

Ok, I'm still pretty annoyed at you for reporting me but can't fault that post mate.

I'd also prefer to have windturbine in my backgarden to a nuclear power plant.

Good one.

Volcano

OK, no hard feelings eh?