[Closed] Beginners guide to nuclear power stations ?

Aha, the Elfin defence - trash the thread with pictures and close down debate when you've been proved to be talking out of your sphincter.

Is that just another form of flounce TJ?

Realman - how is where you live out of your control? if I offered you this exciting new villa, part of a new housing development in my newly built holiday resort of New Pompeii, would you have just a slight trepidation about the risk of pyroclastic flow entering your bedroom?

The fact that governments in the pacific rim have gone to the extent of creating a tsunami warning system, and hold tsunami drills, shows that the chance of it happening is entirely feasible, yet people choose to live there for a whole variety of reasons - but its fantasy to say that the risk is entirely out of their control!

TJ is hardly alone on this forum in being opinionated and not changing his mind - Socialist are we molgrips?- yet he seems to get the most grief for it from people

He's by far the most intractable person on here AND he throws in nasty insults all over the place right from the start, which is really out of order and pisses people off.

I can think of nothing else that has the potential to be as catastrophic as a nuclear power station

Lol! The biggest potential catastrophe facing the earth is the one caused by fossil fuels!

Re question 7 - energy savings are essential, however, that requires persuading 65m people in the UK alone to do the right thing. You've seen how people react when I've talked about fuel efficient cars (not specifically Prius) - they bring out the China defence i.e. why should I save a bit of fuel when China is 100 times worse? etc etc etc. People just don't care.

Nuclear power is probably the easiest carbon saving technology to roll out. You can make a few phone calls, maybe get some subsidy money out (maybe not) and viola, carbon emissions cut.

Just to make it clear, I personally favour a diverse mix of renewables and huge energy savings - I just don't know how on earth we'd make it work. Nuclear would be easy to make work imo.

Like I keep saying, the bottom line is always education - in this case education about saving energy and I don't just mean a few BBC news items and a sliding VED scale.

I offered you this exciting new villa, part of a new housing development in my newly built holiday resort of New Pompeii, would you have just a slight trepidation about the risk of pyroclastic flow entering your bedroom?

Evidence from California suggests that people are easily capable of putting that out of their minds. That TV programme ages ago about geology where the guy interviewed people living in a housing development under a big unstable mountainside covered in cracks and evidence of previous landslides, in a massive active earthquake zones. People bringing up their kids there and all 😯

Like I said before,

Having a nuclear power plant and a nuclear bomb factory are two very different things, don't get confused between the two.

Do you believe anything that has bad consequences if a human operator messes up is bad? Do you drive a car?

What are the possible consequences of you going outside? Could get hit by lightning, or by a car or a bus. Could get mugged, shot, raped, stabbed. Could get bitten by a rabid animal. Yet you don't really consider those things when you walk out the door.

The place we live is entirely within our control too

Exactly Molgrips - and I'd be willing to bet that the same bloke, living in a house under a mountainside which is inevitably going to collapse at some point - spends all his time worrying about the infinitesimally small chance he has of being killed by a nuclear reactor accident or muslamic terrorists.

He's by far the most intractable person on here AND he throws in nasty insults all over the place right from the start, which is really out of order and pisses people off.

Molgrips - really - I think you will find on this thread I have been sinned against more than sinned - and you are one of the big perpetrators

find a nasty insult I have dished out?

I've seen signs of all the contributors to this thread except Z-11 learning from others including Zokes who seems more open minded on the effects of low level radiation now.

In my case I've learned that 3W bulbs are considered too expensive by some and there is little enthusiasm among thread contributors for investing in energy saving/producing measures with a financial returns of five to twenty years. That contrasts with my real-life French and German friends.

On energy saving attitudes can be changed and do change. Look at the difference in attitudes towards smoking over the last 25 years. People used to smoke on hospital wards FFS.

attitudes can be changed and do change. Look at the difference in attitudes towards smoking over the last 25 years. People used to smoke on hospital wards FFS.

Yes TJ - I mean, twenty odd years ago nobody would even [b]dream[/b] of wearing a cycle helmet...

find a nasty insult I have dished out?

Oh this old chestnut.

Being insulting is not limited to the use of an epithet. I've tried explaining this to you before*

* this is an insulting comment btw.

Edukator - your real life French and German friends are proably intending to stay in the same house for 25 years, aren't they? Plus I think they get better feed-in tariffs etc don't they? They certainly did until recently since we had no FIT at all.

For me it's not a case of not wanting to invest in solar/pv, I simply don't have the spare cash right now. It's in the queue of things in my life that need £10k spending on them.

On energy saving attitudes can be changed and do change. Look at the difference in attitudes towards smoking over the last 25 years. People used to smoke on hospital wards FFS

Absolutely. But this will be a lot more difficult. People and their loved ones were dying in the most heartbreakingly slow and painful ways right in front of people's eyes, and it still took generations to make a change. This will be way harder.

So please tell me where I have been insulting? I might need to apologise.

he throws in nasty insults all over the place right from the start,

Please show this or is it hyperbole ?

molgrips even if he was [ lets be honest we all have at some point and i have no idea re this thread ] two wrongs dont make a right.

I've tried explaining this to you before

Ahh, helmets. What"s your view then Z-11 and whom do you believe? I believe:

1/ The Bath university study that found drrivers tooks less care around helmetted cyclists potentially resulting in more injured cyclists.

2/ The doctor that wrote the article in the Irish Medical Times who said that the reduction in cycling due to enforced helmet wearing (as demonstrated in Australia) would lead to an increase in the death rate due to heart disease. This more than outweiged any potential benefits from helmet wearing

3/ That a cycle helmet can only absorb a very small amount of energy in falls when it is not displaced. It may help but only in a small number of low speed, low energy accidents.

I wear a helmet most of the time but sometimes enjoy wind in my hair rides. The increased risk is on a similar level to driving a soft top car.

And you Z-11? Just out of idle interest.

molgrips - Member

"and argument that does not fit in with your own prejudices"

Don't call me prejudiced you arrogant fkwit!

Now that is an insult

The increased risk is on a similar level to driving a soft top car.

So, Edukator - significanly higher by several orders of magnitude than the actual proven risk posed to anybody in the entire western world from all the nuclear disasters, leaks and atmospheric atom bomb tests that have taken place globally in the last seventy years... yet still TJ is passionately against nuclear power, but not convinced by the need to wear a helmet... 😆

Now that is an insult

Yeah, but he's right though - you are an arrogant fkwit!

House values here reflect their energy performance Molgrips. You have to get a house energy assessed befora you can sell it. The category the house is in must appear in adverts. If you sell you can be pretty much certain to recoup much of what you've invested. People keep bills for everything and bring them out when negociating price. It's like buying a second-hand car when the seller brings out the bills of a new engine and suspension parts.

The French a German housing markets are very different to the British one. With the exception of a few cities such as Paris, Grenoble and Munich price reflects supply and demand. Supply can be increased to meet demand as land is available. The green belt policy and the buying up of land by a cartel of house builders has resulted in severe distortions of the British market and a boom-bust cycle.

If you take the number of bicycle deaths in Europe and then consider the small number of deaths or serious injury that would have been prevented by wearing a helmet you end up with a very small number per year. I'll be generous a give you a 100. Now take the numbers for Tchernobyl which most of the posters on the thread seem happy with, of the order of thousands to tens of thousands. It strikes me that just one nuclear accident has resulted in more death and suffering than the lack of helmets on cyclists heads over the last thirty years and will do for a good many more.

Can you back up your claim that most posters on this thread are happy with the claim of thousands killed by Chernobyl?

The IAEA and WHO say its bullshit!

I think there is a LOT of conjecture on the death toll.

IAEA has a vested interest in the industry so there may be bias in their figures. And IIRC the WHO cannot publish any stats on Nukes etc without sign off from IAEA so I would expect the WHO's stats to tie in with IAEA(I could be wrong though).

From what I've read a total of 1000+ deaths from Chernobyl is at the more conservative end of the spectrum.

You have to get a house energy assessed befora you can sell it. The category the house is in must appear in adverts.

Same here, it's an EU thing.

I dunno if someone would pay 10k extra for a house with PV or not - maybe. There are so few people who've done it, presumably because of the lack of FIT and uncertainty as to whether or not they'll get their money back at sale.

It's like buying a second-hand car when the seller brings out the bills of a new engine and suspension parts

It's widely recognised that you don't get your money back in this situation. Nor do you get your money back if you install a new bathroom etc.

Remember most houses are cripplingly expensive here so that limits the spare cash people have to invest.

The problem is that If 50,000 people a year were dying of cancer ar the time of chenobyl and 52000 died last year were the extra cancer deaths caused by radiation or is the rise down to better diagnostics and intensive monitoring of those who were exposed?

There is no statistical proof that the death rate from cancer has gone up - though of course everyone with any form cancer 1000miles from the plant will blame the accident!

Read the thread again Z-11, you appear to have missed quite a lot.

There is no statistical proof

Edukator - I've missed nothing, there is no evidence at all of increased death rates, only TJ's unreferenced assertion that over 10k people have died as a result.

J_me - and so far, the probability that someone (outside of a small, identified group of people) will die from a cause which is in any way attributable to radiation exposure from Chernobyl is infinitesimally small, (and inside that group the risk is only fractionally higher!)

J_me - and so far, the probability that someone (outside of a small, identified group of people) will die from a cause which is in any way attributable to radiation exposure from Chernobyl is infinitesimally small

Eh ? I thought it was yourself that quoted the WHO report which estimated a total of up to 4000 deaths could eventually be attributed to the accident?

You don't have to look any further than Wikipedia to find 10 000 deaths. Look further and you sometimes find more but rarely less. Those that do quote less are those that you would expect to due to vested interests. Anyone with a minimum of independance talks in thousands.

J_me: Yes, read it again - that includes the likely deaths amongst the liquidators!

Edumakator:

don't have to look any further than Wikipedia to find 10 000 deaths

hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahh, wikipedia? you're joking, right? you [b]are[/b] joking aren't you?

I'm not joking. The references in Wikipedia check out fine.

I'm not joking. The references in Wikipedia check out fine.

Seriously Educkator - you've really just taken this debate to a whole other level 😆

Whats next? - "a bloke down the pub told me"

250,000 is not [i]"a small, identified group of people"[/i]. But yes they account for the majority (2,200) of the estimated deaths.

There are still 1,800 deaths outside this group. Still a figure that confirms [i]"the claim thousands killed by Chernobyl"[/i].

For reasons given above these estimates are likely to be conservative.

Go on then Z-11, quote the person or organisation quoted by Wikipedia whose work you find so laughable.

oh i know this one it is this bunch of charlatans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipcc

So what's your problem with the Wiki entry Junkjard? Whatever you think of the IPCC the Wiki content is remarkarkably complete and includes criticisms.

Edukator - sorry mate, I've just got to ask again, just to check - [u]Wikipedia [/u]- you are joking right? 😆

I'm not your mate, Z-11. I will be do my best to avoid ever coming into contact with you. There aren't many forum posters I'd cross the road to avoid but you are one of them. Do you have any disticnitve signs so that when I ride Swinley I'll know when to sprint off?

Hahahaha - sorry, **** me, you were actually being serious, I didn't realise 😯

Wikipedia?

oh, my giddy aunt... oh my oh my... lordy lordy...

[b]wikipedia?[/b]

where to start... 😕

*best * thread * ever*

Back to Fukushima. Some France 3 journos have just driven as close as possible to the plant. Approaching the town they were already 25 times over "safe radioactive limits". They stopped when the buildings were just in view of the telephoto lense with the geiger counter beeping away merrily and dangerous level on the readout.

Maybe they got their "safe radioactive limits" from Wikipedia?

😆

How much longer are you going to cane this one Zulu-Eleven ?

You really are a childish muppet.

And you wonder why I can rarely be arsed to enter into a serious debate with you ?

Aah, diddums Ernie 🙂

Maybe if I used wiki as an authoritative factual reference more often, you'd feel more comfortable with the prospect of serious debate 😆

So what's your problem with the Wiki entry Junkjard?

An aecdote: When the Tchernobyl cloud dumped a lot of rain over Wales we thought it might be a good idea to make sure the water we were distributing was safe to drink. We weren't in theory responsible for radioactivity in the water but felt a responsibility to protect consumers.

Debate in the office, phone calls were made but we found we were on our own; the radiological protection board being completely and utterly useless, providing no infromation whatsoever in the early stages. We didn't have a geiger counter but after a few minutes realised they'd probably have one in the local school or university physics department. More phone calls were made and a few hours later we had enough information to decide what to do.

If you want information o radioactivity levels you'd do better to ask Greenpeace or the local schoool than the radiological protection board (or whatever it's called now)..

**** me, are you [b]still[/b] smarting over the name thing [url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/cuts-union-knee-jerk-response-or-last-line-of-defence-against-the-torries/page/5#post-1807611 ]Junky[/url]?

TJ - if you're accusing others of not answering your questions, maybe you'd care to point out somewhere in this thread where you've answered questions posed to you. You could start by showing me where you answered my last question to you - I presume you must have.

Junkyard - Member
None it was a reference to Z-11 and was a comment at him not you.Sorry for the confusion. I am not an climate sceptic.
I am sure you can understand why, a number of us choose not to respond to him

The best policy. Sometimne I feel it nessasary to correct the most stupid factual innacuracies he comes out with such as less than 100 deaths from Chernobyl when even the pessimistec report from the WHO that he quotes with very narrowly drawn paramenters givce 4000 and other reputable cources give 25 000 or so.

However it is totally pointless getting into any sort of debate with him.