[Closed] Beginners guide to nuclear power stations ?

Using a controlled nuclear explosion as a source of energy

Which isn't really how it works.

Problem is that all the other ideas are also crap.

Which isn't really how it works.

Really ? I thought it was the exactly the same process. What's the difference?

Really Molgrips - name me one other generation process that can put this amount of stuff as poisonous into the ecosphere and have the effects last for millenia.

What's the difference between a gas explosion and a hob for cooking on?

Really Molgrips - name me one other generation process that can put this amount of stuff as poisonous into the ecosphere and have the effects last for millenia

Burning fossil fuels. Actually no, that's way worse.

What's the difference between a gas explosion and a hob for cooking on?

Molgrips - get a grip. Read up on how toxic plutonium and the transuranic elements are.

Gas hob is not an explosion. Explosion is a rapid expansion of something.

Nuclear fission reactors are a very slow controlled reacting. In the same way that you control a wood stove with the damper, you control a nuclear reaction with control rods, the nuclear equivalent of cold water. Risky yes, explosion no.

Fusion technology IS a controlled explosion tho imo.

Molgrips - get a grip. Read up on how toxic plutonium and the transuranic elements are.

Well aware of that mate. However, anthropogenic climate change is STILL way worse than that imo.

So fusion is a controlled explosion, but fission isn't?

Jeremy; read up on how many people are dying now as a result of climate change.

(just to play devils advocate).

TandemJeremy - Member

Really Molgrips - name me one other generation process that can put this amount of stuff[b] as poisonous [/b]into the ecosphere and have the effects [b]last for millenia.[/b]

So fusion is a controlled explosion, but fission isn't?

Correct.

TJ how long do you think the effects of catastrophic climate change would last then?

If a substance causes damage then it's effectively a posion, arguing otherwise is splitting hairs. The effects of our profligate use of fossil fuels are worse than the current record of nuclear incidents imo. And whilst people are up in arms about nuclear no-one seems to give much of a crap about CO2.

So fusion is a controlled explosion, but fission isn't?
Correct.

Help me out here, I'm struggling.

Uranium atoms spontaneously decay on their own. When they do they release a neutron that can knock into another atom and cause that to decay, releasing another neutron and so on. If there are enough atoms (critical mass) then enough of the neutrons hit other atoms, and it triggers an avalanche of decays ie an explosion.

However if not enough of the neutrons hit other atoms then an explosion won't happen. To make a bomb, you set it up so that there will be an explosion. To make a reactor, you set it up so that there won't. It's why reactors catch fire, leak, melt down etc but they don't explode Hiroshima style.

A controlled explosion would be like in a car engine. Each spark triggers an actual explosion, but a small one contained in a cylinder. In fusion you have to pressurise and heat the gaseous fuel to the point where it would be exploding if you weren't containing it somehow - either with a magnetic field, or by some other trickery.

put this amount of stuff as poisonous into the ecosphere and have the effects last for millenia

Completely irrelevant straw man - the stuff released form Fukushima and causing the "disaster" is I-131, half life about nine days!

Plutonium has been released as well due to the containment being breached

Oh dear TJ - the sky still isn't falling!

[i]Reports that plutonium had been detected at five locations inside the grounds of the stricken Fukushima nuclear power plant set off a flurry of activity on blogs and twitter accounts today. But the truth is that plutonium around the facility was to be expected--and the levels found do not pose a threat to human health.
Indeed, TEPCO officials believe that three of the five samples found on March 21 and 22 were actually deposited on the site many years ago following the testing of nuclear weapons by various countries in the atmosphere, which left trace amounts of plutonium in the soil of locations around the world. The other two traces of plutonium came from fuel of reactor No. 3, a MOX fuel that contains roughly 5% plutonium. These samples of escaped plutonium were of similar concentrations to the decades-old plutonium, and therefore do not pose a threat to human health.[/i]

It's a reaction not an explosion, in the same way that normal combustion is burning rather than an explosion.

I had to check the definition of "explosion". It turns out it means :

[i]ex·plo·sion (k-splzhn)
n.
1.
a. A release of mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy in a sudden and often violent manner with the generation of high temperature and usually with the release of gases.[/i]

A 'sudden realise of nuclear energy which generates very high temperatures' works for me.

Of course I could be wrong - my knowledge of the English language and science tends to be somewhat limited. But both tend to be very much in line with what is average for the population, so I reserve the right to use English in a manner which is acceptable to the average person.

Indeed, TEPCO officials believe

I had to check the definition of "explosion". It turns out it means :

ex·plo·sion (k-splzhn)
n.
1.
a. A release of mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy in a sudden and often violent manner with the generation of high temperature and usually with the release of gases.

A 'sudden realise of nuclear energy which generates very high temperatures' works for me.

Of course I could be wrong - my knowledge of the English language and science tends to be somewhat limited. But both tend to be very much in line with what is average for the population, so I reserve the right to use English in a manner which is acceptable to the average person.

The reason it doesn't fit that definition of an explosion is that it is not 'sudden' - the release of energy is controlled, ramped up, held stable/continuous and ramped down when required. There is nothing 'sudden' about it.

Not that whether something is or isn't an explosion does much to address the bigger picture here.

Not that whether something is or isn't an explosion does much to address the bigger picture here.

You wouldn't thought so would you ?

nb, you did see my use of the word "controlled" btw ?

TJ how long do you think the effects of catastrophic climate change would last then?

Seems to me that the nuclear bods like to have it both ways. Apparently Fukishima is old technology, so therefore this disaster doesn't count, because new stations wouldn't fail like that, yet on the other hand its prefectly reasonable to then drone on about global warming due to the consumption of fossil fuels over the past 300 years or so. Guys you can't have it both ways, either old stuff counts or it doesn't.

If a substance causes damage then it's effectively a posion, arguing otherwise is splitting hairs. The effects of our profligate use of fossil fuels are worse than the current record of nuclear incidents imo. And whilst people are up in arms about nuclear no-one seems to give much of a crap about CO2.

Utter crap. Did you not notice the absence of pea souper type smog and the fact that air quality in the Western world was improved consistently year on year for the last 50 years or so? The problem is that when they started out with industrial consumption of fossil fuels they were unaware of the issues, so they carried on without concern. Once we were aware we have acted to change, and the nuclear industry is in fact evidence of that change. In respect of nuclear energy we are already aware of the issues, and furthermore the scale of them when something goes wrong is of an entirely different order to that which happens with any other single station source of energy failing. So reverting back to the double standards point, if the argument is that we should simply accept the dangers associated with nuclear energy, then it is surely disingenuous to suggest that there is any problem with the continuing use of fossil fuels. Alternatively if you believe as I do that it is criminal to pretend that everything in the garden is rosy when self evidently it isn’t, we should be having an open discussion about the reality of generating energy in this way, and the reality is that in return for Jam today we are taking a very substantial risk with our futures, Fukishima is just the latest evidence of that fact.

A release of mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy in a [b]sudden[/b] and often violent manner with the generation of high temperature and usually with the release of gases

Nuclear fission reactors do not run on a sudden release of energy. Therefore not an explosion.

The accident at Fukushima was an explosion (not a nuclear one), but that's not what we were talking about.

Not that whether something is or isn't an explosion does much to address the bigger picture here

No, that was just for j_me's background information.

So reverting back to the double standards point, if the argument is that we should simply accept the dangers associated with nuclear energy, then it is surely disingenuous to suggest that there is any problem with the continuing use of fossil fuels

I disagree (with that bit - didn't really understand the rest of your post or why you thought my bit was crap). My point is that the consequences of future nuclear accidents will not be anything like as bad (imo) as the consequences of continued fossil fuel usage.

Did you not notice the absence of pea souper type smog

I presume this picture must be really old:
[img] [/img]

So reverting back to the double standards point, if the argument is that we should simply accept the dangers associated with nuclear energy, then it is surely disingenuous to suggest that there is any problem with the continuing use of fossil fuels.

Anyone seen [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/a_is_for_atom.html ]this?[/url] linked on from the [url= http://youyouidiot.blogspot.com/ ]ENTSCHWINDET & VERGEHT[/url] blog.
Interesting viewing.

Isn't arguing about the pros and cons of nuclear power a bit pointless anyway?

The fossil fuels will run out. Fact.

There is enough nuclear fuel on this planet for it not to be an issue. Fact.

We need energy. Fact.

Humans are not going to cut down on their energy use. If anything, they will want more. Fact.

Really, what we want is fusion. No pollution, tons of energy, plenty of fuel. Just it's hard to optimize at the moment - we don't have the tech, or the funding.

Wind, solar, tidal, burning logs, etc. etc. is never going to cut it. If you covered the entire Sahara desert in solar panels, you would provide more then enough energy for the world. But that's completely infeasible of course, for a hundred reasons. Wind is pretty useless, even when it is windy. Tidal destroys coast lines and is very expensive for what it gives. It also means that countries without large coastlines are dependent on other countries.

So the obviously conclusion is we need something to give us energy in the gap between the fossil fuels running out, and fusion being perfected. Nuclear. Doesn't matter if you don't like it. There's nothing you can do about it. Unless you're a fusion specialist.

Care to post the number of coal miners that have died since the tsunami, Aracer.

[img] [/img]

So the very small dangers associated with nuclear power

no sorry you've got that back to front they are very large dangers with a low frequency, although that too is a moot point and is dependant on how you measure them, and over what period of time. That is entirely my point the debate is neither open nor truthful.

Try going to an enquiry for the building of a nuclear power station and asking why its being built so far away from the population centre that needs the power. Be insistent on a proper answer and you'll get escorted out. The simple reason is they are ****ing dangerous and its not politically acceptable to stick them in or close to a city.

Dangerous more locally. That's why they are in remote places.

However coal is dangerous GLOBALLY.

Hurrah! so we've crossed the rubicon and agreed that they are dangerous then?

Of course there's a risk.

However it's small, and preferable to fossil fuels imo.

However it's small, and preferable to fossil fuels imo.

Oh, and we're all screwed anyway according to Lovelock so no point arguing. 😉

My point is that the consequences of future nuclear accidents will not be anything like as bad (imo) as the consequences of continued fossil fuel usage.

Gaia is nonesense of the highest order.

Molgrips - the risk is large - the frequency may be small but the severity is huge

Even the frequency is not that low - there are around 500 nuclear reactors in the world, in 50 years we have had half a dozen loss of life incidents with releases from reactors. Increase the number of reactors significantly as the pro nukes want and we will be having a fukushima every couple of years and a Chernobyl every decade - then we will get a really big incident at some point

And its a Global risk as well- look how far the plume from chernobyl went and note that 20 years on there are still farms in the UK where levels are above safe.

How many people have died in car accidents in the same period?

Cars seem safe enough to most people.

Molgrips - the risk is large - the frequency may be small but the severity is huge

No
Its
Not

As [b]proven[/b] the the actual, researched, validated, accepted death figures, which show that only a very, very small number of people have actually been killed, either cumulatively or in any individual one of the "disasters" that have taken place. The truth is that the frequency is small, and the severity is small.

Its like saying that you should ban aeroplanes, on the basis that one might fly into a skyscraper!

Molgrips - the risk is large - the frequency may be small but the severity is huge

Overall net risk to population then is small COMARED WITH GW.

we will be having a fukushima every couple of years

Ooooh, that's flawed reasoning! The more we do it, the better we'll get at it, surely to goodness?

a Chernobyl every decade - then we will get a really big incident at some point

There's almost certainly another Chernobyl (or something far worse) lurking round the corner because the people in charge there were actually the best trained and most cautious in the world, and Chernobyl had lots of failsafes other reactors don't have.

Chernobyl had lots of failsafes other reactors don't have.

Hang on - I thought it was inherently risky? Gravity fed?

sarcasm detector: fail.

8P

1000!

I missed a bit that might help you out, molgrips:

we will be having a fukushima every couple of years

Oh.. sorry.. 🙂

[url= http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html ]Probably all made up...[/url]

aracer - Member

Bearing that in mind I'm surprised you're only extrapolating based on the number of reactors, TJ. Though I'm slightly unsure who it is suggesting the massive expansion you seem so concerned about.

You for one 🙄

Though I'm slightly unsure who it is suggesting the massive expansion you seem so concerned about.

That'll be me, oh and James Lovelock. If I have to side with either TJ or JL, I'll take JL every time.

You for one

New UK power stations proposed: 8
UK power stations due to close before the likely end of all new build: 9 (though do feel free to prove me wrong on this point by suggesting the new build will happen sooner than that 😉 )
UK power stations closed in the last decade: 5

Though don't you ever let fact get in the way of your fiction, TJ

Aracer - you have been saying that energy consumption will rise, that there is no point in building any renewables as they don't work and that we must get rid of fossil fuels thus the only remaining answer is an expansion of nuclear. Or what is your position if I understand that wrongly?

No I haven't, no I haven't and no I haven't. I ought to be surprised you don't know what my position is after a month of this thread, but actually I'm not. Not quite sure why I should expend effort repeating it all when you've clearly not been paying attention (I've even restated my position a couple of times) - sorry you'll just have to go back and read it all again.

As I said, quote me - remembering what other people have written and being able to quote them is a useful skill 😉

Ah well aracer - you do keep contradicting yourself and changing your argument so it does make it hard to keep up.

Now please tell us what you want the future mix of generation to be in 2020. More nuclear than now or not? More nuclear in other parts of the world or not? Less more or the same number of reactors?

or are you just going to continue to attempt to rubbish anyone who does not agree with you

You still haven't answered the question I asked about nuclear power BTW

So lets get this clear - you agree with me that energy consumption can be reduced thru efficiency measure, renewables will be effective and thus we don't need nukes while meeting Kyoto standards?

Why is Kyoto the aim?

because its feasible and achievable and we as a country committed to it

But is it actually going to fix AGW?

you do keep contradicting yourself and changing your argument

Though I'll point out that disagreeing with "energy consumption will rise, that there is no point in building any renewables as they don't work and that we must get rid of fossil fuels" isn't the same as agreeing with "energy consumption can be reduced thru efficiency measure, renewables will be effective and thus we don't need nukes". If you think they are equivalent that would explain your problem with sensible discussion on this thread.

I'll continue to rubbish rubbish arguments, nothing personal.

How many people have died in car accidents in the same period?

Cars seem safe enough to most people.

........ and your point is? Presumably that we should ignore any saftey concerns and neither be honest about them or seek to mitigate them. The simple fact is that the nuclear industry has lied about safety since its earliest days, and continues to do so. Fukishima is a classic case in point where consistently the Japanese public have been told not to worry and that its under control, when clearly and self evidently it isn't.
My point is that I can't be in favour of this form of energy generation while that situation persists. I know its dangerous, so some twunt telling me not to worry and its unbelievably unlikely that an accident might happen is not going to brighten up my day. There is a point above about how bad does the earthquake have to be and so forth. Sizewell is built on the fastest eroding coastline in Europe, averaging a metre per annum into the briney blue. If you know anything at all about the history and geography of the region you will also know how foolhardy building there is. Don't for one moment think that Fukishima couldn't happen here just because we don't have earthquakes of any magnitude. It'll happen because people have used blinkered and flawed thinking. Thats what leads to accidents.

Thats why its important to have open and honest debate.

........ and your point is? Presumably that we should ignore any saftey concerns and neither be honest about them or seek to mitigate them.

The benefits far outweigh the risks and the risks are trivial compared to stuff we consider safe. Then throw in the massively greater damage done by co2 and it's all blindingly obvious. Crack on with nuclear.

Sorry, been stuck well beyond the arse-end of nowhere, so forgive me for skim-reading the last 5 pages

1) if the solution is uranium reactors then how does this apply worldwide? Nukes in Iran? Afghanistan? How about countries with geological instability?

The solution is not uranium reactors, the solution is uranium reactors as a stop-gap to thorium, better renewables and greater energy efficiency. As said before, if this doesn't lead to fusion sooner or later, I think we'll all see a nice little discussion over the remaining oil with the one type of fusion reaction we have mastered being the currency...

2) Where is the fuel going to come from

Over the next 85 years as the stop-gap listed above, where we know it is. I know more use = shorter time, but more use also = more efficient reprocessing = more fuel. See above for probable events when it runs out. I'm shying away from saying we have centuries of it because what needs to be remembered is if it costs more to extract, it probably costs a lot more energy to extract, which after a while, starts to defeat the point somewhat.

3) what to do with the waste?

Leave it where it can be monitored and do so, or bury the really nasty stuff in a geologically-stable deep hole. Neither is rocket science, both perfectly feasible.

Now have you worked out how to break the laws of thermodynamics from the conventional alternative that doesn't have such rigours placed on its waste management policies and turn all that CO2 back into geogenic carbon?

4) How to cope with fluctuations in demand using nukes?

By having a balanced energy mix including storage and renewables (sound familiar?)

5) How are you going to fund both nukes and reneawables?

Not my problem, frankly. But making conventional fossil-based generators pay the full cost of their pollution would go some way. The two are not exclusive - it's only the anti-nuclear leaning writers on here who keep pushing this erroneous argument

6) why discount solar ( PV and heat), wind, wave?

The manufacture of solar requires lots of Rare Earth Elements, and the clue is in the name there as to how abundant they are. Also, waste from their manufacture is toxic and radioactive. Wind is hopelessly inefficient and unreliable - I believe someone else has highlighted just how much steel would be needed to build enough turbines to power the UK. Wave is under-developed, and shows lots of promise for countries with a coastline. They all have a part to play, but cannot be the whole answer.

7{) why discount energy usage reductions?

I don't think you'll find anyone is. What we are discounting is meaningful reductions in a global economy where per-capita energy usage is rising.

Assuming oil will run out, this means more cars will be powered by electricity. So even if the UK cuts its energy usage by some margin, its electricity usage likely increases. Same goes for gas and space / water heating. This is a common sense argument that noone should have any difficulty with.

Now my questions:

1) Why does nuclear have to answer for all its wastes, when the chemical toxicity of coal ash seems to be being ignored? Bearing in mind that these do not decay in any form, and our current methods of disposal are either disperse throughout the environment from the flue, or dump in a shallow hole and hope they don't leak at some later date.

2) Why are none of the anti-nuclear leaning posters seriously contrasting projected / actual loss of life from a nuclear disaster with real disasters from conventional power - hydro dams being the obvious. It is unlikely that one fails, just as it is unlikely that a nuclear plant fails, but when one does and you're in the path of it, you are dead. Not maybe attributable in 30 years time depending on statistical significance, but absolutely, definitely dead.

3) The elephant in the room lingers on - no anti-nuclear leaning writers are willing to pay any real credence to actual or projected deaths from AGW - why is this?

4) Having now been accused of moving the goal-posts twice, I'll re-state my stance. We need to produce our energy in the most sustainable, least damaging way possible. We can (and have) sit here for weeks trading nuclear vs conventional disaster, but I'm afraid AGW trumps them all. The Kyoto protocol is nearly 15 years old now - doesn't anyone think we should be striving for higher targets than pre-1990 levels? It's a political benchmark - a compromise to try to kickstart action (and a fat lot of good it did there). It is far from ideal.

the Japanese public have been told not to worry and that its under control, when clearly and self evidently it isn't

Does that mean no-one will learn from this? I don't think so. The actions of a government or organisation don't invalidate a technology.

We still make and drive cars after the Ford Pinto scandal for instance.

The benefits far outweigh the risks and the risks are trivial compared to stuff we consider safe. Then throw in the massively greater damage done by co2 and it's all blindingly obvious. Crack on with nuclear

Succint.

the risks are trivial compared to stuff we consider safe. Then throw in the massively greater damage done by co2 and it's all blindingly obvious

Why are none of the anti-nuclear leaning posters seriously contrasting projected / actual loss of life from a nuclear disaster with real disasters from conventional power

no anti-nuclear leaning writers are willing to pay any real credence to actual or projected deaths from AGW - why is this?

Thanks for at least attempting to answer the questions Zokes

I could take task with a couple of things - using Uranium as a "stop gap" means gambling on Thoruim and / or fusion becoming a reality. We will not get the development of renewables as quickly as we might if we spend the money on nuclear as renewables will continue to be starved of investment (my prediction).

Waste - burying it keeps being mooted but has major drawbacks. Surface storage is preferable IMO as at least it can be monitored. Not a solution tho.

Still no answer to why not pass the nukes onto Iran and so on. UK using nukes for a small % of its energy usage will not make any significant dent in CO2 production

A quick bash at your questions
1) nuclear waste is far far more toxic
2) the risk from nuclear is so much higher. a really serious accident would dwarf all deaths from conventional generation and nuclear will not reduce this anyway by a significant amount as nuclear will only replace a small amount of the energy used worldwide as you won't share it with some countries
3) as above - AGW will not be halted by nuclear unless the majority of electricity production worldwide is switched to nuclear - a modest use of nuclear as you seem to be espousing will not make any significant reduction in CO2 production -= simply because it will be such a small % of global energy usage
4)Why Kyoto - its feasable and realistic to achieve. No country on the planet is actually going to acheive it anyway aiming higher is unrealistic and bound to fail.

so basically a small amount of nuclear will have no impact on waste from conventional stations and AGW, a large amount of nuclear carries unnaceptable levels of risk

a small amount of nuclear will have no impact on waste from conventional stations and AGW, a large amount of nuclear carries unnaceptable levels of risk

AGW will not be halted by nuclear unless the majority of electricity production worldwide is switched to nuclear - a modest use of nuclear as you seem to be espousing will not make any significant reduction in CO2 production -= simply because it will be such a small % of global energy usage

1/4 of the uks electricty consumption is 1/16th (ish) of its energy consumption and nukes do especially in the building phase produce CO2 - so that will only be a few % reduction in CO2 - and as you won't share the nuclear power with the world then it won't even be the few % of the worlds CO2 production.

Thats one of the fallacies in the pro nuclear argument
You cannot have it both ways on risk - if its safe than share it with the world and build the stations in the middle of cities.

I do understand risk - clearly better than you do. 🙄

You are not reducing CO2 production by any significant amount with eth nuclear stations notr are you reducing the amount of convenntional generation worldwide by a significant amount but you are introducing a new risk of the increased numbers of nuclear power station.

Spending the money on reneawables and efficeincy would reduce these risks

you both understand it you just place different values to different risks. You can both see th logic in each others position - do either of you expect to change your mind or persuade the other?
mmm wonders if you can actually reach consensus on this question 😉

I'm thinking hard but failing to see how all the wind turbines ever built (and to be built) could contaminate as much land for so long or poison as many people as Tchernobly.

- do either of you expect to change your mind or persuade the other?
mmm wonders if you can actually reach consensus on this question

Thats been apparant for the last few hundred posts. I might as well give up I guess.

I might as well give up I guess

Don't you bloody start!

nukes do especially in the building phase produce CO2

I do understand risk

Aracer - did you look at the figures for embedded energy given a couple of pages back in a link? Shows nukes to be worse than wind by a large factor.

As for relative risk its depends on too many factors. and the deaths occur in different pattern. Nuclear will continue to kill for hundreds of years with an increase in cancers. One heck of a lot of dodgy stats about as well.

I might as well give up I guess

Ok. So let's summarise.

1) Nukes have locally severe risks
2) Coal has global possibly severe risk
3) Renewables have feasibility issues
4) Energy reduction is always good no matter what

TJ thinks 1 outweighs 2, I and others don't.

did you look at the figures for embedded energy given a couple of pages back in a link?

[i]From Sustainable Energy- Without the hot Air

To create 48 kWh per day of offshore wind per person in the UK would require 60 million tons of concrete and steel...
For comparison, to make 48 kWh per day of nuclear power per person
in the UK would require 8 million tons of steel and 0.14 million tons of concrete.[/i]

TJ thinks 1 outweighs 2, I and others don't.

As for relative risk its depends on too many factors

Nuclear will continue to kill for hundreds of years with an increase in cancers

Nuclear in principle DOES have locally severe risks. In the same way as having an open fire is risky cos it could burn out of control.

It's the level of risk that's important. Open fires serve people well for heat all over the world, despite some houses burning down.

I think that as we develop more modern nukes we'll get better and better at containing the risks. It will probably be worth it.

I was quite on the fence about nuclear at the start of this thread, now I'm pro.

I've been following this from the beginning, I've enjoyed reading (most of) the debate! I reckon I was pro nuke at the start but now I'm edging toward anti but just can't see a reasonable alternative 😕

No - diffent link http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2008/01/eroie.html Looks like a biased source but interesting reading and counters the bias of the hot air book

Molgrips - nuclear has global issues as well - the pollution is worldwide. The pollution from Chernobyl still means some UK farms are unable to sell teh sheep as they are not safe to eat. the pollution from Fukishima has reached the UK

Anyone who wants to read the greenpeace rebuttal of the pro nukes

Oh, well, thats impartial isn't it TJ?

Just for the sense of balance - Patrick Moore, Co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, says:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/greenpeace-is-wrong--we-must-consider-nuclear-power/2007/12/09/1197135284092.html

Nuclear power plants are, next to nuclear warheads themselves, the most dangerous devices that man has ever created. Their construction and proliferation is the most irresponsible, in fact the most criminal act ever to have taken place on this planet

Patrick Moore, Assault on Future Generations, 1976

So, one of the worlds most rabid anti-nuclear campaigners, with impeccable credentials and unprecedented access to the facts and scientific opinions, has changed his mind about Nuclear over the past thirty odd years

Whereas the all knowing TJ remains happily ensconced in his 1970's Nuclear bogeyman, chicken little, the sky is falling, fear mongering fantasy world!

🙄

Oh, well, thats impartial isn't it TJ?

So all your comments are based on an "impartial" appraisal of the situation Zulu-Eleven ?
You walked onto this thread with an open mind ?

No of course you didn't. Therefore by your own logic, all your comments on this thread are quite worthless.

No Ernie - just pointing out that fervent anti nuclear protesters tend not to have a particularly realistic appraisal of the risks - posting something up written by Greenpeace, is pretty much the equivalent of posting up the history of the cold war written by CND!

If you read my own posts Ernie - you'll see that the main sources I've referred to are the WHO and UNSCEAR - though obviously they're just part of the global conspiracy lead by the NWO and the Bilderbergers! I heard that the Illuminati were suppressing green power for their own reasons!