Lakes nuclear dump?
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) thenPosted 4 years agoBerm BanditMember
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.Posted 4 years agojohnellisonMember
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?Posted 4 years ago
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 area illustrates. We’ve overreached ourselves, and we’re all strapped to this rollercoaster now.Posted 4 years ago
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 firstPosted 4 years agoBerm BanditMember
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 long term effects of the storage of nuclear waste say over the danger period of what is being stored for example??Posted 4 years ago
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.Posted 4 years ago
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 **** 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 termPosted 4 years ago
The topic ‘Lakes nuclear dump?’ is closed to new replies.