[Closed] Japanese nuclear: tough decision, right choice

[img] [/img]

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?
[img] [/img]

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.

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?

[img] [/img]

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:

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima ]"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."[/url]

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

[img] [/img]

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

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.

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 [b]raise their risk[/b] of developing cancer. The general public was [b]largely protected[/b] 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.

[url= http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/life_and_death/AJ201206130057 ]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.[/url]

[url= http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/radiation-risk-in-japan-understanding-radiation-measurements-and-putting-them-in-perspective-201103161976 ]......Which is half the allowed annual dose limit for nuclear workers.[/url]

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 [s]repeating itself yet again[/s] getting going in the morning.

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

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

[b]slightly raise their risk[/b] of developing cancer.

lowest level at which [b]any[/b] increase in cancer is clearly evident.

[img] [/img]

[url= http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclear-power-vs-coal/ ]And if we were going to focus on the dangers to workers within the industry like TJ did, then nuclear still gets my vote.[/url]

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

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

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 [b]expected fatalities[/b] 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. "[b]The radiation will cause very few, close to no deaths[/b]." But that does not mean that the accident has not already caused wide-reaching health issues. "The indirect effects are great," Garfield says.

Strange as today ukplc are giving Rols Royce a ptrivate company a billion quid to develop nuclear reactors at Derby ,

I'm now not sure whether you're arguing for nuclear or not TJ?

a significant area of Japan is now uninhabitable for the foreseeable future - half a million people displaced

TOHOKUGEO.JP "http://tohokugeo.jp/disaster/articles/e-contents28.pdf"

Got a source for that or is it made up numbers?

Where we're going, we don't need sources...
[img] [/img]

Even the sceptics agree that some deaths are inevitable

In terms of the health impact, the radiation is negligible," he says. "The radiation will cause very few, close to no deaths.

[img] [/img]

hmanchester - Member

I'm now not sure whether you're arguing for nuclear or not TJ?

mere;y pointing out that even the sceptics in the scientific community agree that there will be deaths from radaition as a result so your initial quote is wrong. Not many and hard to prove direct casuality but tehre will be some without a doubt.

hard to prove direct casuality but tehre will be some without a doubt.

[img] [/img]

im sort of on the fence about it tbh, but im in no doubt we COULD manage without it, we just dont WANT to.
in much the same way, many people express a desire to be green, and they demonstrate this by taking wine bottles to be recycled in the back of the X5*
*other gas guzzlers are available
what people say/think they want, is often quite different to what their lifestyle shows they actually want.

Can I award a STW Oscar to Z11 for those gifs? Inspired!

as there will [deaths of workers] in every industry that will make electricity.

+1 flashy
the one where hes knocking on the door almost made me snort on my (diet) coke.

Brilliant! The best newkiller fred in ages 🙂

TJ: if, for example, as a nurse you had the choice to treat those under your care with a drug which would immeasurably improve their quality of life, but which would [b]slightly increase their risk[/b] of cancer [or other life-threatening illness]. Presumably you would chose to let them carry on suffering, rather than take the [b]slight[/b] chance of giving them cancer?

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

I reckon Sizewell B could manage 40 modern tellies on standby per UK household. Doesn't add anything to the debate, but I was bored 🙂

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

How big is significant??
This shows it overlayed on Birmingham
[img] [/img]

As for the millions receiving the low level dose, we all do every day due to Naturally Occurring Radiation.

As for Causing cancer check out this [url= http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/ ]handy guide[/url]

TJ, are you having a "TJ makes up the FACTS" evening?

Take that TV/digibox comment.

My TV uses 1W on standby, it's fair to assume the digibox and sky box, and every other box does as well, so even if I left 3 of them on that's 3W (probably less).

Assuming 50% of the country turns theirs off already, so that leaves 15million houses, or 45million watts.

Heysham 2 produces 1250million watts, or to put it another way, heysham 2 produces enough electricity to keep EVERY TV, video and digibox in EUROPE on standby (including the 50% of houses I initially assumed already switched off!).

mikewsmith - that looks like the most convincing argument yet for building new nuclear - particulary in Birmingham's city centre!

My prediction. Locked and closed in 5. Possibly some bans too.

Why, sandwich? I'm always amazed that people join in a thread simply to call for its closure. This one's actually quite light hearted for a change 🙂

Sandwich - Member

My prediction. Locked and closed in 5. Possibly some bans too.

zokes - Member

Why, sandwich? I'm always amazed that people join in a thread simply to call for its closure. This one's actually quite light hearted for a change

Just an observation, in keeping with the Z11 gifs above.

Its worth noting

The tsunami killed 15,853 people and injured another 6,000. More than 3,000 people are still missing.

Re figures I am not sure what TJ mean by a significant area [ percentage TJ]or where he gets 500,000 from
The BBC reportes 80,000 were displaced and some 16,000 had returned 03/12

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17562418

I'm always amazed at how many folks are sucked in by the Nuclear Industry's marketing.

loum - Member
I'm always amazed at how many folks are sucked in by the Nuclear Industry's marketing.

😆

I'm always amazed at how many folks are sucked in by the Nuclear Industry's marketing.

I'm always amazed how many people run round with their fingers in there ears about nuclear. No No No No No never No it's all bad!!

Despite the fact that their tin foil hats will protect them 🙂

I'm not going to get into the main debate 🙂

But TINAS - Your standby figures are very low.
Some items consume as much as 25W in standby. My Sky+ HD box uses 19W for example. You can see how that can very quickly escalate the figures.

There are already rules in place to prevent new equipment consuming this much, but that wont change the fact that there are 10 million Sky subscribers and that very few people switch off a Sky+ box in case a recording might be set.

That's just one example. This was big news a bit ago, so there are plenty of sources of info. This is jut the first that came up on google:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-2057727/How-does-cost-leave-household-appliances-standby.html

As annoying as those watts wasted on inefficient set top boxes and televisions are, they are going to pale into insignificance once leccy cars become mainstream.
Not to mention that as gas prices rise more people will presumably be using electric cookers & heating.

Electric cars are a multi-page thread of their own surely 🙂
Electric things are in theory, better than gas-based things, as they have the potential to be renewably powered. But right here, right now, that certainly isn't the case.
The political will to make renewables a priority hasn't yet materialised.

Not to mention that as gas prices rise more people will presumably be using electric cookers & heating.

The problem is that the fossil fuel and electricity prices are linked as the majority of electricity is made form coal and gas. As a result we don't generaly see much of a reduction in electricity costs as renewables or 'new' technology (nuclear) comes online as ultimately they only get built when the fuel proices rise, it'll be years before fossil fuel prices are high enough to make wind power seem cheep. Nuclear is slightly different as it's constantly in develoment, so building a new plant today costs a lot more than it did 50 years ago becasue they're more powerfull, more compact and safer, all of which is good, but all pushes the price up. There isn't (except hydro, but we haven't got big enough rivers/dams for that in this country, and people get upset if you flood seagull nests) a cheep way of making lecy, otherwise it would be 100% that.

Did you know that a large coal fired power station releases several kilograms of uranium directly into the air every year (along with vast quantities of other pollutants that cause increased deaths)?

Did you know that a large coal fired power station releases several kilograms of uranium directly into the air every year (along with vast quantities of other pollutants that cause increased deaths)?

Oh, he does - he's had this pointed out to him on just about every nuclear thread. He just chooses to ignore that fact. If it were called 'nuclear coal', instead of just coal, he'd be up in arms about it like a shot though 😆

Perhaps we could have a nuclear-powered wave generator - the energy generated by by TJ's own internal conflict would solve the energy crisis in a flash

Perhaps we could have a nuclear-powered wave generator - the energy generated by by TJ's own internal conflict would solve the energy crisis in a flash

A bit like a laser boucning arround in his cranium, untill it reaches a certain point then breaks free?

Any Scotish postal workers free to start shining lasers arround to kick start the process? Can Kaesee recomend one?

I think he'd have a complete mental breakdown if he saw the figures for neodymium mining and pollution fatalities... let alone the fact that rare earth reserves are usually found in with large amounts of radioactive Thorium

[img] [/img]

[url= http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/racism ]A slightly different prespective. Where the Uranium comes from. [/url]

Z-11 - that one wins!

Because coal/oil/any commodity is ethically sourced right?

More STW-Oscar worthy giffage from Z11 there! Sueprb!

Cheers Flash & Zokes

[img] [/img]