Retiring wind farms

Is this out of date Flick or why else isn't it showing more recent events?

It was published in 2001 but, despite Fukishima I see no reason why the circumstances should have changed significantly in the last 14 years.

Estimating deaths from nuclear accidents is extremely difficult and there are many different estimates - and no definitive answer. Some argue that adverse health effects of nuclear accidents are more a result of the stress and worry than the radiation.
This blog points out the fact that many forget - millions die prematurely from the effects of air pollution caused by burring fossil fuels.

blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2013/04/02/nuclear-power-may-have-saved-1-8-million-lives-otherwise-lost-to-fossil-fuels-may-save-up-to-7-million-more/

So why miss out Kyshtym?

But yes, it's very hard to estimate death rates from nuclear as I said earlier but using sudden increase in cancers is one way, as in Windscale. Not sure that stress and worry can be a major cause though

Likewise it's hard to estimate deaths from burning fossil fuels but they must be considerable too.

Wind and solar technology, in fact all the renewables are in their infancy. I liken them to the first computers, taking up vast spaces. With more investment and research there's no reason that renewables in the future will not be more efficient and affordable. I hope so, as the resources of the planet are finite unless we rely on nuclear, which brings its own problems.

I think the cancers at Windscale were found not to have anything to do with the nuclear facility but to do with the introduction of internal migrant workers into an area with a relatively static gene pool. The same pattern of disease has been found in areas with a similar pattern of indigenous and incomer populations in the UK and elsewhere where the reason for the influx did not involve nuclear facilities.

Fossil fuels certainly contributed to my maternal grandmother's death. She was born in the slums of Bermondsey and had asthma from childhood then recurring pneumonia, always worse in winter and during smogs, when her daughters used to ship her out to stay with them, when possible. Every year in London before the smoke abatement acts thousands of deaths were attributed to air pollution. the same probably applies to any conurbation in Britain at the time.

Our upper hills and some offspring of sheep are still unusable due to the fallout from Chernobyl and lobster, in particular, still show higher than average levels of radiation all emanating from Sellafield. Our Government is now bracing itself for when NI builds the nuclear reactors as it would appear we are likely to get the same problems again.

When you consider that something like dental x rays can put you in danger of thyroid cancer (which is what happened to me), I think people have become a little bit blase about the dangers of nuclear power and raddiation exposure. I think it is one of those cases where technology is ahead of our ability to deal effectively with the negative sides of it.

www.thyroid.org/thyroid-physicians-professionals/thyroid-disease-information/clinical-thyroidology/september-2013-volume-25-issue-9/clin-thyroidol-201325201-202/

Oh Holly, poor you, are you fully recovered?

We went on a tour of Dungeness in Kent when we lived not all that far away - and look what I found today!

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/exclusive-dungeness-nuclear-power-station-quietly-taken-offline-for-five-months-over-fears-of-fukushimastyle-flood-disaster-9200494.html

It was fascinating, but the reason we went was because a friend of ours gave us some huge fish, he said they were far bigger than the ones he normally found - and then told us after we had eaten them that he had caught them in the warmer waters near Dungeness! They do have a thrivinge cosystem of weird sealife there, with a display about it.

Flick you are joking I trust, or did Nigel Farage come up with that one?

Holly's post shows the reality.

www.comare.org.uk/documents/COMARE10thReport.pdf

Gemma

A tragedy, but it doesn't prove anything. It is not a properly researched scientific report.

A very dear friend died recently of liver cancer. There is a suggestion that the fact that doctors took several years to discover that statins were causing him liver problems possibly could have caused the cancer has made me very wary about taking statins myself. But I accept that my decision is utterly irrational because most scientific studies show that statins are safe for the vast majority of people. Tragedies like both these do not make good science.

I skimmed through your link, FlicketyB, but couldn't find the relevant bit about migrants muddying the logal gene pools.

That seems very unlikely to me, but I'm no scientist and my doubt is no more unreasonable than your linking the use of statins to cancer in your friend.

I think the issue is that childhood cancers are very rare and therefore it is hard to get a useful statistical analysis of change over time.
Imagine you had 2 cases a year on average for several years. Then you get an apparent "blip" - 2 extra cases in the next 2 years. 100% increase!!! But actually it is just a blip for no reason at all.
if the population increases because people move into the area you are not comparing like with like.

By migrants I mean people moving within the UK from one region to another, internal migration, not migration from other countries.

janerowena

Thank you. Yes, so far so good. This was about 12 years ago and I was fortunate with the surgeon I had.

Your link shows the lengths they will go to in order to cover up the hazards of nuclear power stations.

Exactly.

I'm glad your outcome was good, Holly and sorry you had to go through such a terrible thing.
To return to turbines, I wonder if the public at large are aware of the huge sums in subsidies that we pay to the energy companies and the millions in compensation when they have to be turned off because the grid is saturated? I am lucky enough to live in the countryside, and chose to do so because of the peace and quiet, wildlife and the fields and hedges we can see etc. The downside is the cost of petrol(no buses) no streetlights, less efficient rubbish collection and a long way to go to the shops, well worth it for the last 30 years in my eyes.
During the last 3 or 4 years, 5 turbines have sprouted within our view, 2 solar farms and if a proposed turbine goes ahead, the value of our property will fall by 20% according to an independent survey.It isn't just the appearance of turbines, they make a noise if you live near enough, and the flicker effect has caused great distress to some of our neighbours. If they were efficient I might feel differently, but the figures put out by companies are for them working full time at maximum efficiency- not something they do very often.
The effect on wildlife is detrimental in terms of loss of habitat and more devastating in the case of bats, which implode if they go too near.
A neighbour was at a recent meeting and overheard a farmer who had a turbine on his land say he gets £45,000 per year for it and he doesn't even have to get out of bed!
Sorry for the rant, but this issue has made many of us in our area really miserable over the past couple of years. I appreciate the need for carbon reduction etc. and haven't an easy answer, except for trying to be economical with electricity which is a drop in the ocean I know. But I cannot believe that wind power is the answer either.

There are so many scientists out there working on the problem, all we can do is hope that they find something before too long. Otherwise we'll all be using our dogs/children to turn a wheel to generate our own electricity!

DH cannot understand why more use is not made of wave power, and other hydro-electric power. And if new builds all incorporated solar panels then that would ease the need for the production of electricity by large corporations.

Yes indeed putting solar on new build would be a great idea. Unfortunately the construction industry lobby against anything that would make houses more expensive to build.
The technology to harness wave power is a long way behind wind power rosequartz - much more complex technological challenge than just turning a big blade. To generate energy you usually turn a turbine - whether it is using steam (in coal, gas and nuclear) or hydroelectric or wind. Waves go up and down ...

But tides go in and out? I don't know, not being an engineer, DH would know more.

rosequartz

DH cannot understand why more use is not made of wave power

This is why I asked if there was anyone from Northern Ireland on here as NI has two underwater turbines for generating electricity - it would have been interesting to hear their point of view about efficiency and any nuisance factor/advantages over other types.

NI members seem to be very few and far between on here, if indeed there are any at all. Perhaps they have their own version of Gransnet.

My DH is a former nuclear power engineer (now retired) and I have to admit I am rather convinced by his arguments for it, rather than against it.

I still think a lot is hidden abut the consequences of nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl.

hollydaze had a chance to quiz DH, while on glorious walk, just across the bay from nuclear power station as it happened. Sitting on the headland like a huge cubist art installation.
Underwater turbines work well if you have an area where there are very strong tidal currents and also can get the cable ashore in a place where you can connect to grid. They are big underwater turbine blades - so you need quite deep water not far from the shore.