|
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Statistically nuclear power is the safest source of energy. Oxygen is the biggest carcinogen and the reason 1 in 3 get cancer anyway! It isn't feasible to continue to burn carbon without a means of capturing it so where do we go if we don't go nuclear?
|
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Originally Posted by iamthecreaturefromuranus
(Post 9235308)
I was reading something not that long ago about the farming restrictions in Wales. It pointed out that background radiation levels in Cornwall are actually higher than those in the effected area in Wales... but as those levels in Cornwall are 'normal' it's OK for them to farm sheep, but not in Wales. :confused:
Cornish radiation I suspect is due to Radon gas rather than nuclear fall out. The difference may be that the sheep are more exposed to radiation in Cornwall but they don't ingest the radioactive substances. |
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Originally Posted by Rambi
(Post 9235314)
It's an English plot then? :D
Cornish radiation I suspect is due to Radon gas rather than nuclear fall out. The difference may be that the sheep are more exposed to radiation in Cornwall but they don't ingest the radioactive substances. Dunno about the technical differences between the sites, but the article itself was making the point that it wasn't so straightforward an issue as the nuclear inspectorate was making out. I think it was trying to make the case, that it was safe to farm in those areas of Wales and had been for years, but wasn't seen as 'politically safe' to be seen to remove the restrictions until levels fell to pre-Chernoybl levels. |
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Originally Posted by Turban Explorer
(Post 9235310)
Statistically nuclear power is the safest source of energy. Oxygen is the biggest carcinogen and the reason 1 in 3 get cancer anyway! It isn't feasible to continue to burn carbon without a means of capturing it so where do we go if we don't go nuclear?
|
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Originally Posted by iamthecreaturefromuranus
(Post 9235321)
The levels in Cornwall are indeed due to Radon.
Dunno about the technical differences between the sites, but the article itself was making the point that it wasn't so straightforward an issue as the nuclear inspectorate was making out. I think it was trying to make the case, that it was safe to farm in those areas of Wales and had been for years, but wasn't seen as 'politically safe' to be seen to remove the restrictions until levels fell to pre-Chernoybl levels. I would say if the number of failed tests falls to zero in a 12 month period that they lift the restrictions. |
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Originally Posted by renth
(Post 9234452)
Hopefully this will put paid to the idea that nuclear is the answer to global warming.
Too many people have been falling for that argument since it started to show its ugly head here a few years ago (on the back of intense lobbying by uranium mining interests). Most or all of those who support it on the grounds of economic or enviornmental reasons would be classic NIMBY's who of course would happily accept the plants somewhere but would not live next to 'em. |
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Originally Posted by BadgeIsBack
(Post 9235294)
My Daily Mail headline generator would manage that one easily!
http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/ |
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Re: the nuclear reactor in Japan...
O! this is rich...some American guy on CNN is saying that the Japanese government isn't 'forthright'...i.e. truth-telling. :rofl: |
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Originally Posted by iamthecreaturefromuranus
(Post 9235305)
What about them?
WHO estimates, in a worse case scenario, that Chernobyl related deaths, far and away the worst nuke accident, at about 4,000 over the next 50 years. Pretty good in a direct comparison to mining deaths, never mind 'indirect deaths' from the polution from burning coal. However it appears to ignore significant health problems, fetal abnormalities and so on also 34,499 people who took part in the clean-up of Chernobyl. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...energy.ukraine |
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Originally Posted by Sally Redux
(Post 9235528)
That is the figure given by the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organisation.
However it appears to ignore significant health problems, fetal abnormalities and so on also 34,499 people who took part in the clean-up of Chernobyl. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...energy.ukraine |
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Being a consipracy theorist by nature... How much WILL they be telling us about the situation in japan....??
|
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Originally Posted by Sally Redux
(Post 9235528)
That is the figure given by the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organisation.
However it appears to ignore significant health problems, fetal abnormalities and so on also 34,499 people who took part in the clean-up of Chernobyl. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...energy.ukraine |
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Checking the back pages for unpalateable news... Its a good day for governments to be slipping nasty surprises past voters without us noticing isn't it...
|
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Originally Posted by DeadVim
(Post 9235565)
Any news on the people hit by falling wind turbines or skidding off the roof installing solar panels?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nSB1SdVHqQ |
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Originally Posted by DeadVim
(Post 9235565)
Any news on the people hit by falling wind turbines or skidding off the roof installing solar panels?
|
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 1:19 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.