Nuclear power

vivatifosi

ninky wrote: »

those are not malthusian forces they are the forces of scarce resource forced on those who have failed to self-check population levels with sustainability.

They haven't failed ninky, in many cases they've done what they think they have to do to survive. Governments may have failed them, education may have failed them, but they haven't failed in themselves.

Self-checking population levels is all very well when your kids aren't likely to die of preventable diseases before they reach five years old and when you have a social framework to look after you in old age, but in cases where these things are an issue you need to educate people as to why they should do something that isn't intuitive and may seem downright dangerous rather than blaming the people who are purely trying to live.

Anyhow.... Back to nuclear...

ninky_2

vivatifosi wrote: »

Self-checking population levels is all very well when your kids aren't likely to die of preventable diseases before they reach five years old and when you have a social framework to look after you in old age, but in cases where these things are an issue you need to educate people as to why they should do something that isn't intuitive and may seem downright dangerous rather than blaming the people who are purely trying to live.

Anyhow.... Back to nuclear...

#

the irony being that poverty is worsened with high birthrates actually lead to higher infant mortality and poverty in old age (if you ever get to it). the plan to have children to look after you in old age is a self defeating one often since you just pass on poverty to your children who by the time you are old are struggling to look after their own children (who you only had to look after you).

i'm not blaming people who are only trying to live. education is the way forward rather than crisis management of poverty. religion is also a massive force for over population (or at least against contraception) in some areas.

irok20002

ninky wrote: »

you aren't comparing like with like. fossil fuels have been massively relied on for a long time from heating our homes to transport. if we start to replace that with nuclear you will see more problems. the reason nuclear hasn't had as much devastating impact (yet) is it hasn't been relied on on the grand scale that fossil fuels have.

when are people going to start to see that it is the level of demand that is the issue not the method that is used to supply that demand?

the only way to realistically reduce demand is to reduce numbers of human lives on the planet. either we make moves to do that by reducing reproduction or we face increasing crises and conflicts over resources.

Reducing the amount of energy people use and the number of people on the planet is a different matter, and to be honest at the moment not very realistic. At the moment people expect to have electricity on tap. It would be best if people did reduce their usage but I can't really see it happening in the short term.

In France they seem to depend on nuclear quite a bit, my point was if you compare the health affects of an operating nuclear plant to an operating coal plant, the coal plant is damaging human health constantly while the nuclear plant will be having no effect.
From mining accidents, well you get a lot more energy from uranium than coal so you can argue less needs to be mined so less accidents.
The worst disaster from a nuclear plant has had some debate about how many it kills but the fact is theres been 3 accidents now in the history of nuclear power, and only 2 of them have had fatalities as a result. Coal plants kill when operating normally. Great.

kittypimms

ninky wrote: »

we're not just talking domestically
additionally oil is not only relied on for energy just about every product we use these days contains oil. at current population levels that is not sustainable.

True - Hence ->

kittypimms wrote: »

This does not take into account other uses for Nuclear - Medical (XRays, treatments etc), radionuclide tagging (used in conservation), food processing, carbon dating etc etc etc. The Applications for nuclear are at least as (if not more) varied than those for fossil; it's just we take these for granted, and awareness is not high.

So, up the volume of electricity supplied by nuke, and eke out the oil reserves slightly longer. Until BP have another pipe-tastrophe that is...

ninky_2

kittypimms wrote: »

True - Hence ->



So, up the volume of electricity supplied by nuke, and eke out the oil reserves slightly longer. Until BP have another pipe-tastrophe that is...

what we need it a sustainable cure. not palliative care.

population reduction is the only viable sustainable cure.

grimsalve

ninky wrote: »

population reduction is the only viable sustainable cure.

Don't you think this might happen anyway? The population in Europe is falling, the developing countries where overpopulation is an issue are affected by political instability, the occasional war, disease, natural disasters like earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. So it's actually a good thing to have dodgy nuclear reactors - when they go bang they "thin out" the surrounding population.

The world is going to end in 2012 anyway so we don't have to worry about it for much longer.

ninky_2

irok20002 wrote: »

The worst disaster from a nuclear plant has had some debate about how many it kills but the fact is theres been 3 accidents now in the history of nuclear power, and only 2 of them have had fatalities as a result. Coal plants kill when operating normally. Great.

where do you get that fact from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents#List_of_accidents_at_nuclear_power_plants



worldwide there have been 99 accidents at nuclear power plants from 1952 to 2009 (defined as incidents that either resulted in the loss of human life or more than US$50,000 of property damage, the amount the US federal government uses to define major energy accidents that must be reported), totaling US$20.5 billion in property damages. Fifty-seven accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster, and almost two-thirds (56 out of 99) of all nuclear-related accidents have occurred in the USA.


it's also harder to assess the number of deaths caused by these accidents as they frequently manifest long after the event and are in the general population not just workers who are easier to track.

irok20002

ninky wrote: »

where do you get that fact from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents#List_of_accidents_at_nuclear_power_plants



worldwide there have been 99 accidents at nuclear power plants from 1952 to 2009 (defined as incidents that either resulted in the loss of human life or more than US$50,000 of property damage, the amount the US federal government uses to define major energy accidents that must be reported), totaling US$20.5 billion in property damages. Fifty-seven accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster, and almost two-thirds (56 out of 99) of all nuclear-related accidents have occurred in the USA.


it's also harder to assess the number of deaths caused by these accidents as they frequently manifest long after the event and are in the general population not just workers who are easier to track.

I stand corrected, I did mean major accidents, and was only talking about power plants not processing so it wasn't a great statement for me to make to be honest.
There are 8 on that list that were given an INES level plus Fukushima which will get one. 5 of them are level 4 and above, I did not know about Idaho Falls (1961), Jaslovsk! Bohunice (1971) had no deaths and Tokaimura was a processing facility which I didnt include but probably should have, leaving Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima, the three I meant.

Most of the other accidents on that list are non nuclear related incidents that forced a shutdown with no effects on the shutdown of the plants.

It still shows a very safe industry if you read the stuff that page says about coal and gas power compared to nuclear.

ninky_2

radio active isotopes are due to hit US as early as Friday according to latest reports. still in levels "not harmful to health". but as it takes 7 days for them to travel the amounts are only likely to increase.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-japan-nuclear-usa-20110317,0,1431467.story

irok20002

ninky wrote: »

radio active isotopes are due to hit US as early as Friday according to latest reports. still in levels "not harmful to health". but as it takes 7 days for them to travel the amounts are only likely to increase.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-japan-nuclear-usa-20110317,0,1431467.story

If your worried about the amount of radiation that will reach them then you better go and make sure you have a non radioactive fire alarm in your house and never ever eat a brazil nut in your life.