Nuclear power

Derivative

This reactor has a 40 year old design. The issues here are wholly because of that. If in 2008 we'd have demolished that reactor and built one with the design available at the time, there is a very low chance you'd see the same problems.

I notice that above Degenerate has posted the same.

Ignoring the above completely:

A coal fired plant is basically a constant source of radioactive material in gaseous form. In lower concentrations, but during its entire life.

We need energy to survive. Simple as. I am too lazy to check numbers. But I'd wager nuclear power has a lower death toll than aeroplane crashes, than car accidents, probably than people crossing the street.

Nature threw its absolute worst at the reactor. Worrying about a reactor involved in an 8.9 mag quake could be compared to worrying about your mascara running when your husband dies. Ridiculous.

ninky_2

A._Badger wrote: »

So what would you suggest, Revd Malthus? The usual socialist remedies of eugenics (a la Webb and the Fabians), Pol Pot's 'year zero'? A nice plague perhaps, or a good war or three?

well children don't just 'happen', they have to be made. i suggest more people see the merits of not having their own child and instead putting more resources into a smaller next generation. i don't think it's something that should be forced but a lot of humans are quite sheeplike - if they see a lot of people deciding not to have children and doing quite well with the decision more will probably follow suit. we already see lower birthrates among more educated populations.

ninky_2

according to the IAEA radiation is now leaking directly into the air at 400 millisieverts an hour. exposure to more than 100 millisieverts a year poses a cancer risk.

to those saying nuclear is safe this is a clear message. it is not safe. we can reduce risk but the dangers are so high when those safety measures are breached - not just to human life but to all life - it's just not worth it.

the choice is either reduce numbers of population so we can live with safer sustainable resources or live with this horrific risks (and now realities) in order to have high numbers of people all chasing the modern lifestyle.

julieq

OK Ninky, do you mind turning your electricity off for 12 hours a day then? Thanks.

Oh, and how do you propose reducing the population? Gas or bullets?

blueboy43

A._Badger wrote: »

For an informed analysis of what is happening in Japan (as opposed to hysterical overreaction) the following is pretty good

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/14/fukushiima_analysis/

I'm all for nuclear power as despite the inherent risks, its worth it.

However "nor even much impact on the area around Chernobyl" seems to understate the increase in cancers a little.

Puddleglum

EdgEy wrote: »

We need energy to survive. Simple as. I am too lazy to check numbers. But I'd wager nuclear power has a lower death toll than aeroplane crashes, than car accidents, probably than people crossing the street.

Nature threw its absolute worst at the reactor. Worrying about a reactor involved in an 8.9 mag quake could be compared to worrying about your mascara running when your husband dies. Ridiculous.

We have seen Japan rocked by an enormous earthquake. 1000's dead, huge environmental destruction including vast tracts of once fertile land now useless.

The nuclear problems are minimal in comparison. A few people contaminated which may or not cause them problems in the future. There may possibly have been fatalities amongst the workers. We don't know.

We could be applauding the skill and forward planning of the Japanese nuclear scientists in managing this so well, instead we are getting in a tizzy about the possibility of a bit of radiation.

ninky_2

julieq wrote: »

OK Ninky, do you mind turning your electricity off for 12 hours a day then? Thanks.

Oh, and how do you propose reducing the population? Gas or bullets?

er..that's the point. i don't want to turn my electricity off for 12 hours a day. but that's what it's going to come to (best case scenario) with current population levels.

where have i said we should kill off the current population? my suggestion is to reduce numbers by voluntarily refraining from having children or at least keeping numbers if you do have them to 1 or 2 maximum.

ninky_2

Puddleglum wrote: »

The nuclear problems are minimal in comparison. A few people contaminated which may or not cause them problems in the future. There may possibly have been fatalities amongst the workers. We don't know.

.

no they aren't. huge areas of land are going to be contaminated. babies will be born with birth defects or have to be aborted. people will get cancer (it's not an if it's a when).

for some faced with the devastating health problems radiation creates they may well end up seeing those who died in the earthquake as the lucky ones.

for those who need a stark reminder.....

http://pphotographyb.blogspot.com/2010/09/chernobyl-by-paul-fusco.html

julieq

Current population where? The growth in energy usage is not in the West, it's in the undeveloped parts of the world, where the people have already been born.

FTBFun

ninky wrote: »

er..that's the point. i don't want to turn my electricity off for 12 hours a day. but that's what it's going to come to (best case scenario) with current population levels.

where have i said we should kill off the current population? my suggestion is to reduce numbers by voluntarily refraining from having children or at least keeping numbers if you do have them to 1 or 2 maximum.

This would only work with legislation. Are there compulsory abortions after the first/second child? Its not that straightforward and would take far too long to make any kind of impact, given how life expectancies are at the moment.