Japanese prefer nuclear power to blackouts….

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18468685

How long until the other assets are back online?

No real option really, except for no power…

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PPPPPPPLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEE

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can’t understand why it’s a tough decision if it’s the right choice.

Fancy splitting the pack Flashy?

just got a fresh can, and i have all night as im off 2mro.

Ooooh, my favourite, Don. Thanks.

On ice. With an umbrella, please.

Got any straws?

I can’t understand why it’s a tough decision if it’s the right choice.

politically difficult – populace are anti-nuclear (post Fukushima) but not keen on sitting around in the dark with their Sony/Hitachi/Pioneer stuff not working.

straws???
in beer??
crikey, id rather have nuclear power thanks.

I can easily produce a straw man if that helps?

I’ve got some blackcurrant cordial that’ll go nicely.

Got any straws?

populace are anti-nuclear

Ah, I see.

Well sod them I say.

I didn’t expect anything less.

Lots and lots of small wind turbines.

Are those straws ‘specially for campanologists?

its all very well being anti nuclear, but nobody actually wants to sit in the dark of an evening.

I totally agree.

Instead of arguing the point myself, I’ll leave it to somebody who’s far more informed and puts it far better than I ever could:

”A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.”

martymac – Member
its all very well being anti nuclear, but nobody actually wants to sit in the dark of an evening.

We could all just sit around and read by the light that shines out of <insert_forum members name here> arse.

i hadnt thought of it like that.
i suppose anti nuclear peeps would point to chernobyl as another alternative scenario though.
i wouldnt argue the point about that one, as i read a book about it many years ago which concluded that chernobyl was at least partly caused by operator error.
lol @ the brick.

martymac – Member

its all very well being anti nuclear, but nobody actually wants to sit in the dark of an evening.

there is no need to be nuclear to have reliable electricity supplies -and we ( the nuclear powers) refuse to allow some countries to have civil nuclear reactors

nuclear is only a couple of % of the worlds energy usage.

a significant area of Japan is now uninhabitable for the foreseeable future – half a million people displaced- and the dose of radiation some folk have received will lead to cancers with no doubt at all – and millions have received low level doses that it is arguable will give ride to cancers

the dose of radiation some folk have received will lead to cancers with no doubt at all

a significant area of Japan is now uninhabitable for the foreseeable future – half a million people displaced- and the dose of radiation some folk have received will lead to cancers with no doubt at all – and millions have received low level doses that it is arguable will give ride to cancers

+1, while I understand it’s difficult to prove this, I’m not comfortable gambling with the lives of others.

nuclear is only a couple of % of the worlds energy usage.

And so is the production of electricity through fermentation of ethically sourced mung beans and tofu.

Your point?

Z11 – don’t be such a cynic. TJ has “no doubt” so it is true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNKrBQCzQOI

if nuclear is only a couple of % of the worlds energy usage,(i dont doubt you are right) surely we could do our bit to reduce our usage by a couple of %?
we could watch a bit less tv, or sell our iphones and dig the old nokia out of the kitchen drawer, or maybe stop spending all our free time on internet forums and turn our laptops off.
all of us, not just tj and i, i mean.

http://www.nature.com/news/fukushima-s-doses-tallied-1.10686

The UNSCEAR committee’s analyses show that 167 workers at the plant received radiation doses that slightly raise their risk of developing cancer. The general public was largely protected by being promptly evacuated, although the WHO report does find that some civilians’ exposure exceeded the government’s guidelines. “If there’s a health risk, it’s with the highly exposed workers,” says Wolfgang Weiss, the chair of UNSCEAR. Even for these workers, future cancers may never be directly tied to the accident, owing to the small number of people involved and the high background rates of cancer in developed countries such as Japan.

They were exposed to radiation levels of 170-180 millisieverts, he said, which is lower than the maximum level permitted for workers on the site of 250 millisieverts. Two of the workers were taken to hospital.

“Although they wore protective clothing, the contaminated water seeped in and their legs were exposed to radiation,” said a spokesman.

“Direct exposure to radiation usually leads to inflammation and so that’s why they were sent to the hospital to be treated.”

Most people are exposed to 2 millisieverts over the average year, while 100 millisieverts is considered the lowest level at which any increase in cancer is clearly evident.

we could watch a bit less tv, or sell our iphones and dig the old nokia out of the kitchen drawer, or maybe stop spending all our free time on internet forums, install some double glazing and proper insulation and turn our laptops off.

😀

This is the highest recorded radiation measured in a resident. One who remained where he really shouldn’t have against advice for 1 month after the crisis.

……Which is half the allowed annual dose limit for nuclear workers.

So yeah, some doubt.

martymac – Member

if nuclear is only a couple of % of the worlds energy usage,(i dont doubt you are right) surely we could do our bit to reduce our usage by a couple of %?

Oh indeed. We could easily save the energy that is produced by nuclear world wide and more and never even notice.

No p[political will to do so. It has been calculated that if every TV / video / digibox in the UK was turned off rather than left on standby the output of one nuclear power plant would be saved

So yeah, some doubt.

No. There can be no doubt for he has spoken, and therefore it is FACT !

I’d imagine a few more train loads of coal have just been ordered in advance of this thread repeating itself yet again getting going in the morning.

We could easily save the energy that is produced by nuclear world wide and more and never even notice.

But we won’t. So we need the Watts.

the dose of radiation some folk have received will lead to cancers with no doubt at all

slightly raise their risk of developing cancer.

lowest level at which any increase in cancer is clearly evident.

And if we were going to focus on the dangers to workers within the industry like TJ did, then nuclear still gets my vote.

Oh indeed. We could easily save the energy that is produced by nuclear world wide and more and never even notice.

And if anyone know about saving energy it’s our prospective member of the green party.

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/how-much-do-you-pay-per-month#post-3501409
😳

Even th sceptics agree that some deaths are inevitable

http://www.nature.com/news/japan-s-post-fukushima-earthquake-health-woes-go-beyond-radiation-effects-1.10179

A year out, public health experts agree that the radiation fears were overblown. Compared with the effects of the radiation exposure from Fukushima, “the number of expected fatalities are never going to be that large,” says Thomas McKone, of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health.

And some, including Richard Garfield, a professor of Clinical and International Nursing at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, go a step further. “In terms of the health impact, the radiation is negligible,” he says. “The radiation will cause very few, close to no deaths.” But that does not mean that the accident has not already caused wide-reaching health issues. “The indirect effects are great,” Garfield says.