nuclear power no thanks

I was "persuaded away from my views" on nuclear power, faye, about five years ago after being against it all my adult life. So did James Lovelock (he of the Gaia hypothesis fame), and a few others. These people argue that developing safer nuclear power production is the only way to provide humanity with the power it wants without raising carbon dioxide levels too much. Their main worry is anthropogenic global warming (which they think is driven by CO2 emissions) so this stance is logical. I think the reason they are in favour of nuclear power is because they recognise that renewable energy technology has a long, long way to go yet before it can 'deliver'.

What I'm trying to say here is that rational debate can change minds as people become better informed.

oldgreymare, thanks for the info. A study of workers directly involved in the cleanup found no significant long term health effects from their involvement. This was published in The Journal of Radiological Protection in 2010. To my mind, that is more likely to be correct than anything the BBC reports. It was also published after the 2007 BBC documentary and was an academic study rather than a media presentation.
I googled 'strontium 90' as you suggested and also 'strontium 90 health effects'. If you look at the article on the link below you will see that lifelong cancer risks from strontium are infinitessimally small.

www.evs.anl.gov/pub/doc/Strontium.pdf

I think this is really an important and interesting thread but it is a shame that we can't have a bit more humour. No one can persuade us away from our views because we all have by now made up our minds on Nuclear Power and lots of other issues. I believe we are putting people off by jumping in, boots and all to have our opinion heard and we are making others feel small. This is happening on both sides of the debate. Sometimes I notice someone will post something and the person to whom it is intended probably feels like they are being reprimanded because they don't agree. I can also see it's often not meant to sound like that, but on the internet you have to tread or write a bit more carefully because people can't see your expression. I suggest we all unite and discuss what we think we could do about Nuclear Power and we could also get stuck into our lazy politicians who are so easily swayed by greed!!!!!!!

Pompa.... I did add my comment without having read all the threads. But my views remain the same..... nuclear power, no thanks! Regarding 'accidents', yes we do have to cope with the aftermath of natural disaters so why then risk the possibility of man-made ones too?
Baggy, I refer you to an edition of the journal 'Atmospheric Environment' reported on the BBC news (Oct 2007) which claims that the radioactive fallout, from the 'accident' at Windscale in 1957, was underestimated and that the 'incident' generated twice as much radioactive material. This is believed to have caused more deaths from cancer than was previously thought.
I owe you an apology...the 350 or so Welsh farms still operating under restrictions in April 2008 ( the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl 'accident') were forced to do so as a result of that, not Windscale! Nevertheless, another nuclear catastrophe! Windscale merely caused gallons of milk to be poured away because of the levels of strontium 90! Try 'Googling' strontium 90 and read the research carried out in Florida ( higher levels found in the teeth of babies living near nuclear reactors).
carboncareful......rock on!
Must go.... Alan Sugar is searching for an apprentice.......

Carboncareful, as is very obvious I don't agree with many of your statements, although I think if you analyse what we have said in the long term, we are singing from the same hymn sheet. Provided we are respectful to others we should say what our hearts dictate. You are passionate in your debate and whilst I consider your views a little extreme at times, we need a whole range of views to keep progress rolling along. If everyone agreed, we would not have a debate.

hellypelly

I think you need to cool it, carboncareful. My complaint wasn't about the thread but about your apparent bad temper. Freedom of speech includes being allowed to remark that you think someone is making rather personal remarks on a thread that everyone else seems to be trying to discuss in a rational way. It's not going to help your 'cause' if you show so much irritatioin at perfectly reasonable opposing views, is it?

By the way, have you seen in the news recently that some people are predicting a little ice age for Britain (and other eastern Atlantic European coasts) by about 2040 or 2050? Interesting times.

Hellypelly, yes I do get irritable when I am criticised for being serious about a serious subject. You can have as much "fun" as you like on Gransnet but you can't dictate what other people want to discuss. If you don't like a thread you don't have to click on it again, nobody is compelling you to read it. There are no rules about how many or which threads we have to look at -as far as I know.
If you want to discuss knitting, for instance, then start a knitting thread. But would you like it if someone called you frivolous? Its just not on to complain about threads because you don't find them fun or they don't suit you. There are plenty of fun threads.
Also, somebody complained somewhere that I failed to go on topics unconnected with my interest in climate change (not true). Yes, "complained"! Well, is there some unwritten rule that we have to spread ourselves about on gransnet? No wonder Freedom of Speech is such an emotive subject.

Actually ... ponder, ponder ... doesn't Japan exist because of volcanic and earthquake action? That would explain the risks quite well.

oldgreymare, I notice that you have made a statement about Windscale/Sellafield. I don't suppose you would care to back that statement up with some hard evidence about "still counting the cost" by saying exactly what you mean?

Re flood plains flooding: what you suggest, that we blame the rain and swollen rivers (and geology while we're at it, i.e. natural causes ) for floods would make sense, wouldn't it? The flooding is not caused by people. Building houses is. Compare that with Fukushima. Nature in all her glory caused the destruction of the nuclear plant. I don't know how many years it had been running. You can't run a society on no risk. Blame whoever you like, the fact remains that Japan wants (needs) the power and, as pompa pointed out, there aren't many places you can build at all in Japan! Their choices are limited. They made a choice with a risk attached, as is most land in Japan. i wonder if there's any part of Japan that hasn't been affected by earthquakes and tsunamis.

Hello Oldgreymare.

I do not dismiss nuclear, mining or oil exaction accidents lightly, they damage the planet and lives. I just stated that they do and will happen, we have to learn from them and improve safety at every opportunity.

At this very moment we do not have a viable alternative to nuclear power to produce the bulk of our power. Alternatives are being developed, but regardless of how much cash is injected into that research, a practical alternative is years away.

Japan in particular, being a power hungry economy, is between a rock and a hard place regarding nuclear power. The whole country is vulnerable to earthquakes etc., they have no oil or gas supplies, what are their alternatives ?

Regarding your comment about building on a flood plain -- If you lived in parts of India, you would have little choice. This is the dilemma for Japan, what else do they do, other than improve safety whenever possible.

To get the full picture of Gransnet members on this subject, you need to read several related threads, as the debate hopped around a bit.

We have no control over where'natural disasters' may occur I agree......BUT people (politicians/experts) decide where to build nuclear power stations!!! Building one where earthquakes and resulting tsunamis are known to occur seems to have been an act of folly.
Come on Baggy..... were I to build a house on a known flood plain, could I blame the rain, the swollen river for the ensuing inevitable catastrophe?
Pompa...' accidents will happen' you say. Sadly nuclear 'accidents' are of such huge proportion that they cannot be dismissed so lightly. We are still counting the cost of the Windscale 'accident' ( cleverly renamed Sellafield to wipe the slate clean, maybe?)
I too am concerned that alternatives must be found, that oil is a finite resource, and hope that far greater minds than mine will think of some that are clean, safe, and viable.

In a report published in 2001 by the Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland, they examined the safety records of large-scale energy sources. They expressed the danger of each in terms of deaths from 1970 to 1992 per terrawatt year (twy) of energy made. A terrawatt year is a million million watts of electricity made and used continuously throughout the year.

Coal. Fatalities:6400. Who died:Workers. Deaths per twy:342

Natural gas. Fatalities:1200. Who died:Workers and public. Deaths per twy:85

Hydro. Fatalities:4000. Who died:Public. Deaths:883

Nuclear. Fatalities:31 Who died:Workers. Deaths:8

Table taken from p102, The Revenge of Gaia, James Lovelock, 2006.

The numbers will be different now but I bet the proportions haven't changed much.

Crimson, I think you can stop worrying yourself sick.

And a very sensible post it was, pompa. It's such a complicated subject with so many issues involved;difficult to come up with definitive answers. A very serious subject [I'm sure we're all agreed on that], but one that sometimes makes me have to bury my head in the sand for a while otherwise I'd worry myself sick.

haha I don't think you will ever get away with that....I think I will join you in the shed with some drinks I will just sit here.

Faye, I have never said it is not a serious subject. Early on, I did post a serious statement of my personal position, but we have discussed it to death now. Each party has their opinion and is unlikely to move from it. We are just going round and round now. Time for a new contentious subject.

helly pelly I would be irritable too if someone told me to go on a different forum because they didn't agree with me. Debate is being stopped dead in its tracks because lots of people won't express an opinion if they think a bunch of grannies are going to jump down their throats. I could name a few interesting topics where comments have ceased, I believe for this very reason. People don't want to be singled out and told off. Some people are passionate about subjects and rightly so. They should be allowed to express them without fear of being ganged up on.
pompa it is a contentious thread because it is a very serious subject. I am very concerned what type of planet my grandchildren are going to be left with. They can't pack up their bags and leave when they want!!!!!

Hello Hellypelly, you have certainly found the most contentious thread on Gransnet atm. Come on over to Granddads shed for a quiet afternoon and a Pymms.

Hi, I'm new on here. Most of the threads are fun but I'm getting the impression that the person who calls themself carboncareful is rather irritable. She (?) seems to like having a go at certain people in a rather immature way.

I think you will find that Japan is very limited where it can build nuclear power stations, much of the country is mountainous and the whole country is on major earth quake faults. They already have power stations all round their coastline. They have to import all their oil and gas, so nuclear is their only option atm, they are such a power hungry economy.
No one deliberately builds a nuclear power station where they think there will be a problem, there will always be critics, that if things go wrong they say "I told you so". It's easy to be a critic.
I shall now go and sit in the quiet room.

Japan were warned not to build the reactor where they did;they should have heeded that advice. Difficult to understand, for such a forward thinking country.

Just been looked at other sites. Now we know why Baggy supports nuclear power: her student lodger, turned scientist, from Czechoslovakia was happy to eat English lamb after Chernobyl!!

The reason the green lobby and the government advocate electric cars is because we shall eventually run out of oil. In future it is hoped that the electricity to recharge the batteries will be from renewable sources.

Long before fossil fuels run (if they ever do) the economics of extracting them will escalate to make alternatives more interesting to the big multi national companies, it will be anticipated profit that will drive development, money drives the world. (or am I being sceptical).

No more serious chat for me today, back to being relaxed.

When the oil runs out we'll have to use electric cars, which I hope will be run on renewable sources of electricity. So there isn't a problem, really. It'll happen when it has to happen, necessity being the grand old proven mother of invention. This all sounds good to me.