[Closed] Lakes nuclear dump?

Yes, and we still appear to be doing nothing about it

What apart from finding an even worse alternative??? 😯

What apart from finding an even worse alternative???

Nuclear has some serious work to do to even approach the levels of death and destruction caused by fossil fuels

Think about it. Aeroplanes have been about for over 100 years now, and batteries some 220, yet Boeing can't combine the two without them spontaeously combusting. Like I say they all do on the job learning. Problem is a nuclear accident does tend to have much further reaching consequences.

Problem is a nuclear accident does tend to have much further reaching consequences.

Yes, but nowhere near as many as burning fossil fuels.

The ideal, as you say, would be to reduce demand on the planet as a whole. But, there's only been a few people in history who were particularly effective at that, and history doesn't judge them too well.

Despite the fact we both know this, you've got kids and we're expecting our first... so even people most acutely aware of this are still doing nothing about it

Nuclear has some serious work to do to even approach the levels of death and destruction caused by fossil fuels

Give it a 100 years, it will be in pole position by then!

the problems around Chelyabinsk make this seem a bit like a chipped cup at tea party

Give it a 100 years, it will be in pole position by then!

Sorry BB, but I disagree. And unless you can find a body of evidence anywhere near as string as there is for the implications of climate change, you won't convince me to change my mind

Despite the fact we both know this, you've got kids and we're expecting our first... so even people most acutely aware of this are still doing nothing about it

Agreed, I fear the choice is either we take it on and address it or nature will. Strangely nature does have equilibrium and always finds it eventually. Take this year for example. Have you noticed a distinct lack of wasps? Bad summer last year apparently did for them. Apparently their prime food sources are glutting this year and new colonies are springing up everywhere. We had to take out two at last weeks Nationals at Hadleigh for example.

I suspect natures way will be more brutal than us doing it ourselves.

Chelyabinsk..... Chernobyl is for pussies by comaparison 😥

How many died?

Who knows..... they reckon that something like 2/3rd of a million people have been irradiated at levels somewhere between Chernobyl and Hiroshima. There is toxic radioactive waste in the lakes and rivers of which much has now either drained into the White Sea (Greenland) or is airborne as dust.

Chelyabinsk..... Chernobyl is for pussies by comaparison

Er...not exactly. Chelyabinsk (or more properly the Kyshtym Disaster) was a level 6 emergency, Chernobyl and Fukushima were both level 7, and the two highest ever recorded.

By comparison, Three Mile Island and the Calder Hall fire were only level 5.

So just to be clear, because of an incident nearly 60 years ago which has less than 10000 attributed deaths in spite of being one of the worst incidents of its kind we should be more worried than we are about the technology that has millions of attributed deaths per year?

The thing that concerns me about Nuclear isn't that some people may die.

It's that we can make parts of the earth uninhabitable, in some cases effectively forever.

It's that we can make parts of the earth uninhabitable, in some cases effectively forever.

You've been to the west coast of cumbria then?

No. What are you telling me about it?

So just to be clear, because of an incident nearly 60 years ago which has less than 10000 attributed deaths in spite of being one of the worst incidents of its kind we should be more worried than we are about the technology that has millions of attributed deaths per year?

Millions of attributed deaths - somewhat over egging the pudding

The thing that concerns me about Nuclear isn't that some people may die.

It's that we can make parts of the earth uninhabitable, in some cases effectively forever.

THIS

Nuclear is better if it doe snot go wrong and they sort out safe storage issue for the next few hundred thousand years.

The potential of nuclear to mess up is shown by the fact they never build one in say the middle of London.

It is , given AGW, inevitable it needs to be relied on more but the risks , of an error, are potentially catastrophic, for an entire area for several lifetimes.

Its worth noting, due to concrete use, that nukes are not that carbon neutral but are compared to burning fossil fuels

The potential of nuclear to mess up is shown by the fact they never build one in say the middle of London.

To be fair, not since battersea has there been a power station of any sort in London

It's that we can make parts of the earth uninhabitable, in some cases effectively forever.

Yes, climate change will, killing billions either directly through extreme weather and flooding or indirectly through disease and famine. Through over-extraction and damage of aquifers in a futile attempt to stave off the inevitable drought in many regions, hundreds of thousands of square kms of agricultural land will become infertile due to rising salinity. Equally large areas will become inundated with seawater, rendering them uninhabitable.

Well, we'd better convince everybody to turn off the lights, then, hadn't we?

To be fair though, one [significant radiation = uninhabitable] is difinately going to happen [given an appropriately bad leak], wheras the other is, quite frankly a guess.

Myself, I am of this mindset:
[list][*]Reduce the total power used[/*]
[*]Introduce larger quantities of renewable power[/*]
[*]Advanced reactors that are not derived from bomb-making tech need investigating [molten salt/pebble bed][/*]
[*]Invest in new-generation* nuclear on a small-ish scale[/*]
[/list]
I'm starting now by turning this monitor off and going back to work on the other one 🙂

*You know - the ones that reduce their output correctly when required, maybe ones with moderating methods that drop DOWN between the piles, rather than requiring them to be pushed UP by a source of power that may not be available.

Wait, what?

[b][u]goslowerstripes[/b][/u] - [u]Dismember[/u]

Uh-oh! I have created a parallel universe!

See, kids, this is what happens when you mess with nuclear reactors and mother nature. Now if you'll just excuse me I have a small ??? to feed.

Er...not exactly. Chelyabinsk (or more properly the Kyshtym Disaster) was a level 6 emergency,

Ever been there John? When we used to go there the company supplied us with personal monitoring kit. We had od'ed before the plane had even started its descent. You are talking about an area which has had at least 3 major nuclear disasters, and probably more. Until the early 90's it was a closed KGB military area no one in - no one out stylee, so the truth is nobody really knows more than that. The most obvious problem is the fact that they've been dumping the by product of manufacturing weapons grade material into the lakes and rivers for the best part of 50 years to the extent that no one even knows whats gone in there. The people who "monitor it" have a very short life span because just approaching the area is a lethal dose. They did dam it up, but they couldn't maintain the dam because it was so bad, and when I was last there it was a given that it was only a matter of time before the dam collapsed and the lakes discharged into the white sea. That has happened now I believe, and on top of that you now have a dust bowl where the lake was and the wind is blowing the contaminated material who knows where.

All of this was military, top secret, unreported, broadly not know about even within the region let alone outside, and still goes without much attention. Trust me, it makes all the other problems added together, multiplied several times, and then exaggerated look like an episode of Fireman Sam.

To be fair though, one [significant radiation = uninhabitable] is difinately going to happen [given an appropriately bad leak], wheras the other is, quite frankly a guess.

Regardless of your forum-bending skills, you're still mistaken. You're assuming there will be an appropriately bad leak at some point. On the other hand, it's pretty clear what damage climate change is already going.

All of this was military, top secret, unreported, broadly not know about even within the region let alone outside, and still goes without much attention. Trust me, it makes all the other problems added together, multiplied several times, and then exaggerated look like an episode of Fireman Sam.

Thank goodness it's got sweet FA to do with civilian power generation (and therefore the thread) then

So just to be clear, because of an incident nearly 60 years ago which has less than 10000 attributed deaths in spite of being one of the worst incidents of its kind we should be more worried than we are about the technology that has millions of attributed deaths per year?

It doesn't have to be a choice of which pile of shit you have to step in. There are other options.

Ever been there John?

Er, no. Can't say I have - but whichever way you look at it, Chelyabinsk was recorded as a level 6, Chernobyl as a level 7. Ergo, Chernobyl is considered the more serious of the two - or it was at the time that it happened. Given the fact that two cities had to be completely abandoned and the effect is still widely felt even in the UK (Cumbrian lamb still has to be tested for radiation before going on sale) and I'd say that whilst Chelyabinsk was/is no walk in the park, the effects of Chernobyl were far wider ranging and affected more of the earth's population.

That said, who knows how the fallout from Chelyabinsk will affect the populace in the future?

OK - I do agree with you that climate change [i]is[/i] happening, it's just that I am very afraid of the consequences of radiological contamination, as the abovementioned Chelyabinsk area illustrates. We've overreached ourselves, and we're all strapped to this rollercoaster now.

There are other options.

[Pauline Hanson] Please explain [/Pauline Hanson]

OK - I do agree with you that climate change is happening, it's just that I am very afraid of the consequences of radiological contamination, as the abovementioned Chelyabinsk.

Well, do some more reading about climate change, and you'll find the consequences a lot more bleak than what is a military research site, not a civilian nuclear power plant. The biggest problem with getting people to actually really understand the issues of global warming is that it's the most vulnerable of the world will be the most affected first. Us lucky westerners are likely to be the last to reap what we sow.

At least with nuclear power, for the most part, if it does go wrong, it's generally those most responsible that feel its effects first

Oh thats all right then.... 😉

..... and actually my point was that "we/they" are learning on the hoof, not whether things are civilian or not. I'm quietly confident that the sovs weren't deleiberately contaminating themselves. ITs just that they didn't know any better when they started, then the politics of it became such that to stop doing it would be an admission of guilt so they just kept on.

Now then back on back on message: Run it past me how much knowledge do we actually have about the [b]long[/b] term effects of the storage of nuclear waste say over the danger period of what is being stored for example??

Uh-oh! I have created a parallel universe!

FTFY.

I think this is a bit weird, this conversation. I understand plenty about climate change, I'm a frikkin' Sci-hippy, man!

But the thing is, "feel its effects first" is not something that gives me any confidence. As I said - we need to "turn off the lights". Neither of these two options is appealing.

Luckily - I have a place on a boat.

GTG - in a hurry for some reason.
[img] [/img]

Awwwww Cougar 🙁

Run it past me how much knowledge do we actually have about the long term effects of the storage of nuclear waste say over the danger period of what is being stored for example??

Limited, I would say.

Much less limited, perhaps, than the effects of ****ing about with the only atmosphere we have, however

Though, the thread Kit started a few weeks ago from an energy conference demonstrated that reprocessing and breeder reactors can significantly reduce the risks of what's left to be stored long term

Ever been there John? When we used to go there the company supplied us with personal monitoring kit. We had od'ed before the plane had even started its descent.