[MikeM]

this is the report monbiot based his article on:
6. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, 2011. Volume II, Annex D: Health effects due to radiation from the Chernobyl accident. This is the latest section of the 2008 report Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation: Report to the General Assembly. See Paragraph 2, page 1 and Figure VII and paragraph 63, page 14. http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/Advance_copy_Annex_D_Chernobyl_Report.pdf
and FWIW he used to be rabidly anti nuclear. He changed his opinion after the weight of evidence.

[deepinthewoods]

you have not adressed each one. you have neatly and cleverly sidestepped from adressing each issue.
 
1000 tonnes of radioactive uranium is lying in the ground in iraq.
 
this is killing more iraqis through cancer and leukemia than the war did. i have proven this with evidence.
 
 please show me yours that says that is not true.
 
 
returnig gw soldiers had a 50% deformity rate in their children positively linked to gene mutation from d u weapon use. i have proved this with fact.
please show me your evidence that this is not true
 
 
if nobody died from chernobyl, why were all our welsh sheep monitored and prohibited from the food chain for 25yrs. if it safe??
 
i want to see links and papers showing me that the issues ive raised are not true. you cant do that because they ARE true and proven

[MikeM]

I have addressed them. Go back and read the thread again.
I have not disputed the claims you make about weapons. They are just not relevent to a thread about electicity generation in the UK. I have already said that when nuclear goes wrong or is misused it is horrendous. However, when coal goes right it is worse. And I never said no one died from chernobyl. Stop making stuff up, I know what I said.

[jaykay]

The link doesn't work, but I've found it and read it anyway.

The Committee has decided not to use models to project absolute numbers of effects in populations exposed to low doses because of unacceptable uncertainties in the predictions. However, the Committee considers that it is appropriate to continue surveillance

I read it (not just the quote above) as saying that they can't prove that cancers and genetic malformations are linked to the additional radiation. It doesn't mean that they are, or they're not. It means there is too many uncontrolled factors to show a definite causal link, so you don't claim it, which is good science.

[deepinthewoods]

and it all stacks up till one goes off.
 
well, one did, it was fukushoima, its still happening, theyre unable to do anything about it.
 5 more plants are now in trouble in anerica following sandy.
 
i dont want this in our country. i dont want this on the planet.
 
(you did never say that noone died from chernobyl, im sorry.)
 
my response to this issue, i admit is influenced by emotion as well as a limited intellect. i have seen enough evidence about the dangers of nuclear power to have convinced me that it is too dangerous to be used.
 
particularly as there are benign forms of energy available. now.
 
 

[deepinthewoods]

The link doesn't work, but I've found it and read it anyway.

The Committee has decided not to use models to project absolute numbers of effects in populations exposed to low doses because of unacceptable uncertainties in the predictions. However, the Committee considers that it is appropriate to continue surveillance

I read it (not just the quote above) as saying that they can't prove that cancers and genetic malformations are linked to the additional radiation. It doesn't mean that they are, or they're not. It means there is too many uncontrolled factors to show a definite causal link, so you don't claim it, which is good science.
 
 
i couldnt get that link either.
 
the bit of history of the un that ive seen on this issue shows that as sson as a resolution is passed to investigate thouroughly the impact of radiation, the uk the us, china, and france vetoe it. hence why the evidence is limited.

[MikeM]

fukoshima was an old generator with a fatal design flaw (the pumps that stopped working cos there was no power to run them). Modern fast breeder type reactors are inherantly safe. They automatically shutdown if they over heat, they operate at atmosperic pressures so can't "explode" and the coolant is held above the chamber, so that when the reactor gets too hot, valves (that are held shut by force) automatically open to cool the reactor.
The problem we face is this (and yet again I am repeating myself) we have to keep the lights on. Not only for us in the west, but also for growth in places like china, india and africa. To do that we need to generate lots of power. We can't keep burning fossil fuels to do so, as unchecked climate change will kill us more surely than a thousand nuclear incidents. Renewables, at this point in time, cannot generate enough energy to meet our current demands, let along the demand of a growing world. maybe they will in the future, with enough investment and commitment. Nuclear is the least bad option of those on the table.

[deepinthewoods]

i know weve got to keep the lights on. i know, i know 
 
renewables at this time do not meet the needs.... i know. we need to invest billions of pounds quickly now!! the tech is possible its just not being put into production. lets build a massive factory churning out wave generators. we have them working, efficiently and safely here in cornwall. already here!!   
http://www.wavehub.co.uk/
build 2 geothermic plants not  nuclear plants.  the tech has been used for years in iceland why not here?
 
lets get started , now!

[MikeM]

I agree, we should be putting more investment into renewables, and we should've done that 20+ years ago. I also think we should continue to invest in nuclear fusion and super conductors. But bottom line is this, you can't form a policy based upon emotions (though goodness knows, enough govts have), you have to coldly appraise what is feasible with the existing technology and work with that.

[deepinthewoods]

mike please accept my apology for my name calling earlier. im sorry.
 
 
 
 
just because we 'should have done' doesnt mean we shouldnt do.  coldly appraising what is feasible is exactly what is required. the trouble is, budgets are set and money is invested not due to what is feasible , safe and longterm, but by how much financial return is invlolved in the short term. this is why you cannot detach nuclear power from its profitable weaponry department.
 
 
 

[MikeM]

I certainly agree that you cannot disentangle energy generation from the invidious web of big business (there's a very interesting debate on monbiots site about the frankly fascist actions of EDF in the building of hinkley C) and that they will do all they can in their desperate desire to hold onto as much power (and therefore money) that they can. Sadly, I find myself in the highly compromised position of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. For me, the enemy we can't ignore is climate change. Hopefully once that's "beaten" we can find a way to stab our new "friends" in the back.

[deepinthewoods]

you cant 'beat' climate change. its way too late. nothing is going to stop it, unless you look to bill gates to geo engineer his way out of it.
 
that only leaves the fight with the other enemy, nuclear.
 
the issue thus becomes the insidious financial set up. thats where the battle is.

[northfifeduckling]

food for thought on growth

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/02/20-5

and I do not worry too much about China, they'll own us all in a few years.

[deepinthewoods]

right im not dragging this thread back up again.
but
i would just like to say that i have been somewhat edumacated by this thread and have changed my opinion to a degree. i can see the case for the ifr plant. i dont think its the answer but it would be useful thing if only to get rid of the DU.
 
so thank you for your input. and thank you for letting this thread run.

[Small Farmer]

It would be good if nuclear fusion (http://www.ccfe.ac.uk/) was actually getting somewhere rather than being theoretical certainty that doesn't work in practice, well not for longer than fractions of a second anyway.  But the money isn't being invested here - I think the French are doing the European work.  The facility at Culham is charmingly British - it looks like a set from an early Bond film.   I just don't see this government investing the money.


That would be nice clean nuclear generation.