View Full Version : Does Nuclear Power Carry An Acceptable Risk?
Minstrel SE
10-12-2017, 20:55
Hi
I have just watched the dome going over the Chernobyl reactor which is an incredible feat of human engineering in the face of adversity. However it has reminded me that I dont consider Nuclear power to be an acceptable or safe form of energy creation.
I think I am 100% right in that we should never have been creating enriched Uranium/plutonium (or whatever it is 235...238) which is so dangerous to us and so dangerous to dispose of. I know there is natural radiation in the universe but the natural ecosystem of this planet developed on the basis that a load of Humans werent going to come along and start messing with gamma rays on that level. Its just polluting the planet and the Chernobyl exclusion zone is a deeply sinister example of how we are destroying our own planet. A Half life of thousands of years + is not something we should be messing with.
They sent people in to clear up in the name of duty who were clearly going to die as a result. The long term effects of radiation is still being monitored as people live on contaminated land.
In my view Nuclear power plants should all be decommissioned, no new ones built and we should be concentrating on power generation that is safe for the planet.
What do you think? The anti nuclear prostesters are clearly right. lets have a debate on this
Ali Tait
10-12-2017, 21:03
Curious to know how you see the Human race meeting it's future energy needs then?
walpurgis
10-12-2017, 21:08
Curious to know how you see the Human race meeting it's future energy needs then?
It would be nice to see a concerted effort made to radically reduce energy needs. There is some, like more fuel efficient transport, better insulated buildings, better means of utilising fossil fuels and the like. But it's nowhere near enough.
narabdela
10-12-2017, 21:12
Q: Does Nuclear Power Carry An Acceptable Risk?
A: Yes.
Minstrel SE
10-12-2017, 21:36
Curious to know how you see the Human race meeting it's future energy needs then?
Yes we will brush over that one....every home could have a log burning stove.
Seriously however I dont consider massive errors like Chernobyl as an acceptable trade off. A 3Ok exclusion zone and contamination of large parts of Europe because a reactor blew up. Japanese reactors in a Tsunami zone! Welsh land declared as unsafe because we dont have a safe energy policy!
as much as im all for alternative methods and on efficiencies without nuclear we will all be living in very cold, dark houses. I say all, but it will only be the strong... the rest will have been disposed of
Minstrel SE
11-12-2017, 07:32
Yes its a heavy subject but that Chernobyl programme moved me. I wont usually start these heavy subjects on here and there doesnt seem much alternative for the power generation we need. Hydro electric, wind and solar just wont do it on the scale needed. Im not sure where we are with coal and oil fired.
I would like to see alternative methods. Surely we should be able to come up with something that doesnt involve creating and dumping nuclear waste. They said coal was dirty and bad for the environment but where is all that nuclear waste going...are they still dumping it at sea?
Anyway Chernobyl..... what a disaster based on flawed systems and human error.
It was good to see workers from all over the world creating that dome though and its quite something to be working in a radiation zone. Its very clever that they are using robot cranes in the dome and I wonder if they will clean up the surrounding area with robot machines and bulldozers in future. All that contaminated forest and land is tragic
jandl100
11-12-2017, 07:58
The elephant in this particular room that hasn't been mentioned is population growth.
There are simply more of us than the planet can sustain. In terms of food production and energy needs etc.
I can't properly recall, and I can't be bothered to look it up at the moment!, but I think a sustainable population for our little blue dot is about 2 billion.
We are currently heading for 10.
We either limit ourselves and stop behaving like demented rabbits or "Nature" will do it for us.
The whole reason nuclear power plants were created was to make the bomb grade uranium the government’s needed for their nuclear arsenals. The first nuclear bomb was made of uranium, and the government built a plant to filter out the 238 they needed. A huge monstrous facility in Tennessee that cost a billion dollars in the 1940’s that employed thousands of people, just to make enough uranium to make one bomb. And it took over 6 months to make enough for the one bomb. The next thing you know, they are selling the public on this wonderful clean power of the future. Pushing the cost of making the bomb grade uranium off on the public! Nuclear power is the most expensive electricity ever made, and the waste material is the worst pollutant ever made. Not to mention the cost of keeping it out of the wrong hands. And as mentioned, accidents are real disasters! Almost impossible to recover from. If the money spent on nuclear research had been spent on hydrogen fuel cells or solar and wind power, perhaps those sciences would be up to par to compete with fossil fuels and nuclear power by now? How much of the research in these fields has been bought up and hidden by the oil companies?
If someone invented a generator that ran on water that could power the average home and car, and was affordable, it would cause wars and famine and possibly the end of the world! For attempting to change the status quo, all the people in the Middle East who’s income revolves around the sale of oil, the large part of the world’s money invested in these fossil fuel markets, stock markets would crash, entire regions would starve, wars would break out world wide. And chances are someone in a black suit would come around and kill the inventor before it got out of hand. Maybe it’s already happened?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
It would be nice to see a concerted effort made to radically reduce energy needs. There is some, like more fuel efficient transport, better insulated buildings, better means of utilising fossil fuels and the like. But it's nowhere near enough.
No more Valve amps then, Class D only. :)
Ali Tait
11-12-2017, 12:43
Fusion is clean, if it can be made to work on an industrial scale.
Just supposing there was a type of nuclear reactor that was physically incapable of melting down or running away, produced waste that only needed to be stored for seventeen years, plus a very small amount that needed to be stored for three hundred years, that didn’t require the impossible temperatures and problems of fusion, and couldn’t produce weapon material even if you wanted it to?
Well there is, and it’s only because of that last feature that you’ve never heard of it and it’s been ignored since the 50s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power
Ali Tait
11-12-2017, 14:25
Yes read an article on that recently, looks interesting.
Minstrel SE
11-12-2017, 18:12
Yes thats interesting Shane and I will read up on that
walpurgis
11-12-2017, 18:24
Anybody aware of the ZETA fusion project from the fifties? That showed some promise, but was sidelined as has been most fusion research.
Never mind 'cold fusion', which also had potential and never seems to get talked about now.
Minstrel SE
11-12-2017, 19:29
The elephant in this particular room that hasn't been mentioned is population growth.
There are simply more of us than the planet can sustain. In terms of food production and energy needs etc.
I can't properly recall, and I can't be bothered to look it up at the moment!, but I think a sustainable population for our little blue dot is about 2 billion.
We are currently heading for 10.
We either limit ourselves and stop behaving like demented rabbits or "Nature" will do it for us.
Yes absolutely and this underlies it all. They have no coherent policy on transport never mind worldwide population growth. Then again how do you control it? I remember people going absolutely beserk when I suggested no more than two children for example.
The planet can not support this level of population. I dont feel a direct connection with land that is easily supporting me.
I feel it in my bones that the illuminati want a world war or plague to keep it down but I am playing Deus Ex at the moment :)
Minstrel SE
11-12-2017, 19:35
The whole reason nuclear power plants were created was to make the bomb grade uranium the government’s needed for their nuclear arsenals. The first nuclear bomb was made of uranium, and the government built a plant to filter out the 238 they needed. A huge monstrous facility in Tennessee that cost a billion dollars in the 1940’s that employed thousands of people, just to make enough uranium to make one bomb. And it took over 6 months to make enough for the one bomb. The next thing you know, they are selling the public on this wonderful clean power of the future. Pushing the cost of making the bomb grade uranium off on the public! Nuclear power is the most expensive electricity ever made, and the waste material is the worst pollutant ever made. Not to mention the cost of keeping it out of the wrong hands. And as mentioned, accidents are real disasters! Almost impossible to recover from. If the money spent on nuclear research had been spent on hydrogen fuel cells or solar and wind power, perhaps those sciences would be up to par to compete with fossil fuels and nuclear power by now? How much of the research in these fields has been bought up and hidden by the oil companies?
If someone invented a generator that ran on water that could power the average home and car, and was affordable, it would cause wars and famine and possibly the end of the world! For attempting to change the status quo, all the people in the Middle East who’s income revolves around the sale of oil, the large part of the world’s money invested in these fossil fuel markets, stock markets would crash, entire regions would starve, wars would break out world wide. And chances are someone in a black suit would come around and kill the inventor before it got out of hand. Maybe it’s already happened?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Yes and this is why I get upset because its all linked in with nuclear weapons and energy policies which keep the power base and greedy noses in the trough.
I agree with you that there are clearly vested and twisted interests at work.
walpurgis
11-12-2017, 19:36
I remember people going absolutely beserk when I suggested no more than two children for example
It's a point of view. One with which I don't necessarily disagree. Everybody is entitled to think how they wish.
We could really stir things up by talking about population reduction or Eugenics. I have read Eysenck you know. Not that I'm advocating anything.
Q: Does Nuclear Power Carry An Acceptable Risk?
A: You'll know when it blows up near you.
jandl100
11-12-2017, 20:02
Acceptable risk.
I feel sure that far more people have died as a result of the coal mining industry than nuclear power.
Why is that more acceptable?
Between solar, wind and tidal we now have the technology to make it happen, problem is big oil lobbying will not want that to happen. As for nuclear I am all for fusion, and see fission as a dangerous thing to handle, to dangerous for mankind obviously as multiple disasters have already happened.
Ali Tait
11-12-2017, 20:07
No we don't. When you factor in the power required to run the world's vehicles when the oil runs out, renewables can only provide a fraction of what is required. Check the figures.
Hydro is one of the better clean ones but it's costly and disruptive to land and ecosystems. Nuclear really has to have its place like it or not
The elephant in this particular room that hasn't been mentioned is population growth.
There are simply more of us than the planet can sustain. In terms of food production and energy needs etc.
I can't properly recall, and I can't be bothered to look it up at the moment!, but I think a sustainable population for our little blue dot is about 2 billion.
We are currently heading for 10.
We either limit ourselves and stop behaving like demented rabbits or "Nature" will do it for us.
Spot on, there are no shortages of raw materials, just far too many people wanting them.
walpurgis
11-12-2017, 20:27
I wouldn't worry too much.
The world and humanity are overdue for a major cataclysm which could massively reduce or even eliminate the population. No doubt there will be one sooner or later and the need for energy resources will become very secondary.
Worldwide war? A global viral pandemic, maybe a super contagious VHF? That would do the job. Asteroid strike? Super-eruption? Giant solar flare? Magnetic pole reversal? Take your pick!
Ali Tait
11-12-2017, 21:05
Always looking on the bright side Geoff. :-)
walpurgis
11-12-2017, 21:14
Always looking on the bright side Geoff. :-)
Yup. Can't have folk being unduly optimistic! ;)
Ali Tait
11-12-2017, 23:04
LOL
Minstrel SE
11-12-2017, 23:08
Yeah dont build one near me but its how easily the radiation spreads
What was interesting is that they could work surprisingly close to the reactor where one Gamma ray might pass through you but not right on/beside the reactor ruins where loads of Gamma rays would pass through giving a large radiation dose. It is quite scary and I understand radiation sickness more as it destroys the cells ability to function especially if ingested.
These rays need 94cm? of lead as a barrier so there is little protection at the moment against 200 tonnes of decaying fuel rods. That dome is real Human achievement but its costing billions.
I just dont think it should be messed with. Those Russian reactors were not good enough. I dont know if it can ever be considered foolproof.
Im interested in how the fallout affects the land as it was killing large areas of trees. They photographed plenty of wildlife but there must have been serious consequences for all plant and animal cells exposed to the radiation
Minstrel SE
11-12-2017, 23:19
Acceptable risk.
I feel sure that far more people have died as a result of the coal mining industry than nuclear power.
Why is that more acceptable?
Yes that is a fair point in any debate about this. We would need to see all the graphs and pie charts but energy generation is expensive and mining coal could be dangerous
Within my lifetime (just!) the great smog of London in 1952 killed 12,000 people and injured a further 200,000 over a five day period, and was largely caused by coal. That’s just one event in one city. We’ve been burning coal in enormous quantities for 200 years world wide and have probably killed millions of people doing so, but because it’s not weird or sc-fi sounding we take it for granted and ignore it. In the West, we’ve cleaned coal up but now we’re doing the same thing all over again with diesel. Overall, nuclear is far less dangerous to us and to the environment, but when it does go wrong it’s far more scary and makes juicier headlines.
And I haven’t even mentioned global warming yet...
Haselsh1
12-12-2017, 08:20
As has already been said, the nuclear power program was set in motion mainly to build fast breeder reactors to generate plutonium for bombs but British reactors have dual containment buildings around them to protect from a runaway whereas the Russian ones had no containment other than the building itself. The outcome of such negligence has already been shown to the World.
Haselsh1
12-12-2017, 08:21
Always looking on the bright side Geoff. :-)
:lol:
jandl100
12-12-2017, 08:26
Coal miner deaths in the USA 1900 - 2016. Astonishing.
https://arlweb.msha.gov/stats/centurystats/coalstats.asp
Bring on nuclear power!
Haselsh1
12-12-2017, 08:27
Yeah dont build one near me but its how easily the radiation spreads
Radiation spreads according to the weather at the time in the same way a toxic gas would spread. We have a country with many chemical plants in it and a lot of those plants will emit toxic gases into the air. I don't hear too many complaints about that. I have worked so far for around forty one years in the chemical industry and have seen lots of toxic gas emissions by some very large chemical companies. These emissions were only cut down on fairly recently by the use of chemical scrubbers in accordance with EU regs that we probably won't have much longer. All you have to do as a member of the public is choose your poison.
I can see the BP plant on a clear day. one of the biggest... if it goes then so will I.
farflungstar
12-12-2017, 09:06
In my opinion the power of social media should be used to demand free energy. It exists and is disgusting that many people liver in fuel poverty.
Here in Spain where the sun shines almost every day it is illegal to use solar power.
No we don't. When you factor in the power required to run the world's vehicles when the oil runs out, renewables can only provide a fraction of what is required. Check the figures.
Yes this is a big problem requiring a change of mindset of cars as a convenience and a status symbol. Leave the roads for essential transport of goods, people who live in places that really need them and we are onto something sustainable.
Haselsh1
12-12-2017, 09:18
Transport of goods in the UK used to be done by rail until a certain person massacred the rail system and forced us all to drive.
In my opinion the power of social media should be used to demand free energy. It exists and is disgusting that many people liver in fuel poverty.
Here in Spain where the sun shines almost every day it is illegal to use solar power.
well illegal if you dont pay the solar tax. totally ridiculous national theft
well illegal if you dont pay the solar tax. totally ridiculous national theft
Like in Florida where it is illegal to go off grid, and perfectly doable.
Transport of goods in the UK used to be done by rail until a certain person massacred the rail system and forced us all to drive.
Regenerating our railways is the way to go. :)
walpurgis
12-12-2017, 09:36
Within my lifetime (just!) the great smog of London in 1952 killed 12,000 people and injured a further 200,000 over a five day period
I remember it. What nobody points out, is that smog was occurring every year in London to a greater or lesser extent.
That was also the same year the last London tram ran. I was on it for its last journey.
walpurgis
12-12-2017, 09:42
Transport of goods in the UK used to be done by rail until a certain person massacred the rail system and forced us all to drive.
There was an announcement rcently that many of the lines closed in the fifties and sixties are to be considered for re-opening.
(what's up with your text Shaun? It doesn't need to be that small. I have a job reading it)
Slight problem with shipping goods by rail is that they can only go as far as the station. Then you have to get them to their final destination by...truck. Fact is vehicles have largely replaced rail for shipping freight because they are a more effective solution, not because of Beeching. Or even Thatcher.
And there is a global conspiracy to stop us all getting cheap, clean power? Well, I suppose I have heard crazier theories...
Ali Tait
12-12-2017, 11:29
Yeah dont build one near me but its how easily the radiation spreads
What was interesting is that they could work surprisingly close to the reactor where one Gamma ray might pass through you but not right on/beside the reactor ruins where loads of Gamma rays would pass through giving a large radiation dose. It is quite scary and I understand radiation sickness more as it destroys the cells ability to function especially if ingested.
These rays need 94cm? of lead as a barrier so there is little protection at the moment against 200 tonnes of decaying fuel rods. That dome is real Human achievement but its costing billions.
I just dont think it should be messed with. Those Russian reactors were not good enough. I dont know if it can ever be considered foolproof.
Im interested in how the fallout affects the land as it was killing large areas of trees. They photographed plenty of wildlife but there must have been serious consequences for all plant and animal cells exposed to the radiation
Actually Gamma rays are the least damaging to tissue, Alpha and Beta being much worse in this respect, it’s just the fact that minimal shielding will prevent emissions from Alpha and Beta and much more is required for Gamma.
Haselsh1
12-12-2017, 13:19
There was an announcement rcently that many of the lines closed in the fifties and sixties are to be considered for re-opening.
(what's up with your text Shaun? It doesn't need to be that small. I have a job reading it)
Hey dunno.
Haselsh1
12-12-2017, 13:20
Regenerating our railways is the way to go. :)
:thumbsup:
Haselsh1
12-12-2017, 13:23
Actually Gamma rays are the least damaging to tissue, Alpha and Beta being much worse in this respect, it’s just the fact that minimal shielding will prevent emissions from Alpha and Beta and much more is required for Gamma.
:thumbsup:
God help you if you were to swallow an alpha or beta particle because they are particles and not 'rays'.
Haselsh1
12-12-2017, 13:26
There was an announcement recently that many of the lines closed in the fifties and sixties are to be considered for re-opening.
I would so love to see that happen. I'm not a 'trainspotter' cozz even if I were it is unlikely they'd resort to steam at any point in the future.
;)
In my opinion the power of social media should be used to demand free energy. It exists and is disgusting that many people liver in fuel poverty.
Here in Spain where the sun shines almost every day it is illegal to use solar power.
There are many places in the States that have such strange rules. A factory that makes solar panels had been heavily taxed by the local power company for cutting into their profits in Arizona, driving the cost of their product so it can’t compete. And out west in many states it is illegal to catch rain water! Because it may cost the local water company some business. So this is the government looking out for its citizens?
Russell
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.