Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
 

A study published in The Lancet found nuclear had the lowest health effects of all power generation technologies
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...253-7/abstract

Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
 

However as the summary points out, that is for run-of-mill production, not taking account of storage of nuclear waste and the potential for catastrophic accident or terrorist attack.

Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
 

There should be a Godwin's law for Charlie Sheen as well. ;)

Well done, if it wasn't for that bit, it could have been a sane counter point. :D

Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
 

I suspect that there's been a fair bit of dodgy accounting behind some of the bold statements made on here.

Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
 

Who's telling them to take the iodine?

Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
 

Nobody - they are doing it of their own choice.

Reminds me of when the Skylab satellite came back down to earth - loads of Americans went out and bought protective helmets...


S

Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
 

I'm still waiting for the shark experts to tell me that the crocodiles produce more methane and are therefore the cause of climate change.

Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
 

Interesting that this is a mass reaction and hasn't been directed.

When the nuclear plant my brother worked at had an emergency release they were all issued with iodine tablets.

I don't think he got a helmet though :unsure:

Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
 

Why not have eco friendly cycle farms or stations, we all get on at some stage throughout the day do 20 minutes each and add to the national grids power input, simple:D
The only explotion then would probably be from the pro nuclear camp about how much land would be taken up by such a venture;)

Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
 

I saw a TV programme about that. I think they had 50 (or possibly 100) cyclists powering a home for a family of four. They didn't make it through the day.

Interesting to watch though. :thumbup:

Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
 

Indeed. However, to extrapolate, say the consequences of those incidents are similar to the postulated upper figure of 4000 deaths from a nuclear disaster that has happened once in decades, that would still be less than the coal-industry deaths over the similar period of time, & in a single year.

Theoretically (but not at all statistically likely), there could be several nuclear accidents a year and several nuclear terrorist attacks in which case the figures might reverse but based on current projections it wouldn't be prudent to dismiss a power generation technology for those reasons. & if the world ended up like that anyway I'd prefer to be well out of it!

Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
 

Yes, potassium Iodine (KI) tablets have a reasonable level of success at retarding the effects of radiation sickness, and if there is any possibility that somebody has been exposed to levels above those that start to reduce the white blood cell count, then it is a wise precaution to take them. It works by providing the body with a stable source of iodine, instead of using radioactive iodine from a potentially polluted environment, which can build up in the thyroid.

In the case of the US, people are taking them and there is no evidence that any radiation has, or is likely to make it as far as their mainland. It is possible that some may make it to the Hawaiian islands, but this will all depend on how much is released, wind direction etc etc, and will take many days to get there. Guzzling KI tablets down if you're in Utah, however, is just a ridiculous response.


S

Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
 

We would need to also re-think what constituted a home for a family of 4.
I'm not sure I agree on 4,000 being an 'upper figure'.

However, yes coal is a bad source of fuel in those terms.

Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
 

It's not just domestic energy generation that is the problem. Though there is lots of it needed, you would be unlikely to be able to power an aluminium smelting works using batches of cyclists. For this sort of heavy industrial application, you need a reliable baseload supply.


S

Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
 

You shit on a dam and you'll definitely kill more people...most nuke plants are designed to take a direct strike from a fully fuelled 747 4 times before breaking.