PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Fukushima meltdown hastens decline of nuclear power
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Aurora



Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 8502

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 1:24 pm    Post subject: Fukushima meltdown hastens decline of nuclear power Reply with quote

Quote:
People & Planet - 24/05/12

While the draft UK Energy Bill appears to incentivise new nuclear at the expense of other low-carbon technologies, few governments remain enthusiastic about nuclear power which, some experts now believe, has passed its peak.

Article continues ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JohnB



Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 6457
Location: Beautiful sunny West Wales!

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A wise and far sighted vision from our government at last. If every other country gives up nuclear power, there will be plenty of uranium for us Very Happy Rolling Eyes
_________________
John

Eco-Hamlets UK - Small sustainable neighbourhoods
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lgliddon



Joined: 11 May 2012
Posts: 3
Location: Orange County, California

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 6:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The U.K., Russia, Canada, South Korea, India, South America, and China are all moving forward with nuclear power. I find the article inaccurate.

Russia sees a huge market for its natural gas, so it is getting onto nuclear so it will have a greater surplus for profit on the Germans and Western Europe. The danger is that Russia gets to turn it off and on at its discretion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 5431
Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 8:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I read somewhere that the total number of people who have died as a direct result of the Fukishma nuclear accident is less than can be counted on one hand. Consequently, I think that people's fear of nuclear accidents is massively overstated.

I've read, similarly, that the number of people directly killed by the Chernobyl accident was less than thirty and that the increased risk of cancer to the people of the region and of the wider continent is barely more than statistical noise. Ironically, as well, the clearance of humans of the area surrounding Chernobyl mean that now it is one of the most biodiverse regions of the continent.

Having said all of the above, I do not consider nuclear to be our saviour. Far from it. It simply allows the unsustainable party to continue for a little while longer. Meaning the hangover will be all the greater.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
PS_RalphW



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 5200
Location: Cambridge

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 9:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you add up the total economic cost of all the dislocation caused by Russian and Japanese meltdowns from the long term loss of land, etc. as well as the direct cost of clearing up the mess, how much is it compared with the cost of replacing the remaining nuclear power stations with renewable sources ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 5431
Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RalphW wrote:
If you add up the total economic cost of all the dislocation caused by Russian and Japanese meltdowns from the long term loss of land, etc. as well as the direct cost of clearing up the mess, how much is it compared with the cost of replacing the remaining nuclear power stations with renewable sources ?
Oh, I quite agree on the cost. Completely bonkers. I'm just making the narrow point about safety and mortality risk.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7501

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 10:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevecook172001 wrote:
I read somewhere that the total number of people who have died as a direct result of the Fukishma nuclear accident is less than can be counted on one hand. Consequently, I think that people's fear of nuclear accidents is massively overstated.


Indeed, it's quite clear that a lot of the fear is irrational. It's similar to the hype rail and aviation deaths receive compared to road deaths. Per kWh generated, nuclear has a dramatically lower death rate compared with coal, and when CO2 is considered, a dramatically lower global impact.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 13552
Location: way out west

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Please give every cancer an attributable cause.
_________________
The human appears to have no idea what its ideal diet should be; has self-inflicted diet-related diseases; causes extensive environmental destruction through basic food production & creates pathogenic infestations that widely infect its food supply.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7501

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

emordnilap wrote:
Please give every cancer an attributable cause.

What are you suggesting?
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18555
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That the cause of a lot of cancers is unknown and that some of them may have resulted from the nuclear industry but have not been counted. Nevertheless, even the most ardent anti-nuke would probably have to admit that coal has killed far more.

However, when people say that Chernobyl killed 37 and Fukushima killed nobody they are just displaying the stupidity.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7501

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
However, when people say that Chernobyl killed 37 and Fukushima killed nobody they are just displaying the stupidity.


Indeed. I would suggest there are lots of good reasons why nuclear power is a particularly bad idea, but the number of people it's killed in past accidents simply isn't one of them.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 5431
Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
That the cause of a lot of cancers is unknown and that some of them may have resulted from the nuclear industry but have not been counted. Nevertheless, even the most ardent anti-nuke would probably have to admit that coal has killed far more.

However, when people say that Chernobyl killed 37 and Fukushima killed nobody they are just displaying the stupidity.
The point about cancer, B, is that we humans get it in large numbers anyway. That being the case, I recall that there have been a number of longitudinal studies done following the Chernobyl incident and it has been found that the number of cancers across Europe that have happened since Chernobyl and are above the normal rate (and therefore attributable to Chernobyl) is so small as to be regarded as only barely above statistical noise.

As for Fukishima, we won't know about the cancer rates for some years. However, as a matter of fact, the number who have died directly as a result of the Fukishima nuclear accident is, if I remember the BBC report correctly, 6 people. There may well be more who have been working on the cleanup who will die in the not too distant future. However, as things stand, the number is 6.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 13552
Location: way out west

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

clv101 wrote:
emordnilap wrote:
Please give every cancer an attributable cause.

What are you suggesting?


No more than - until you can prove a particular cancer has a particular cause, deaths attributable directly to nuclear is no defence of nuclear.
_________________
The human appears to have no idea what its ideal diet should be; has self-inflicted diet-related diseases; causes extensive environmental destruction through basic food production & creates pathogenic infestations that widely infect its food supply.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18555
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevecook172001 wrote:
only barely above statistical noise.


The trouble is that the statistical noise is so loud that a large number of individuals may end up dead and we'll never know. That doesn't mean they are not dead. It just means that people who say nuclear power is safe may not be telling the truth.

Tangentially, not doing organic farming cost 20000+ lives at Bhophal and mad cow disease. But who thinks about that in Tesco?
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 5431
Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
stevecook172001 wrote:
only barely above statistical noise.


The trouble is that the statistical noise is so loud that a large number of individuals may end up dead and we'll never know. That doesn't mean they are not dead. It just means that people who say nuclear power is safe may not be telling the truth.

Tangentially, not doing organic farming cost 20000+ lives at Bhophal and mad cow disease. But who thinks about that in Tesco?
We have only the stats to go on B and the stats show clearly little if any cancer rates above background following Chernobyl. It doesn't matter if you don't like nuclear (neither do I by the way, for different reasons), the plain fact is the worst fears of the anti nuclear power lobby, in terms of the cancer rates following accidents, have simply not been born out. That doesn't mean that a terrible and significant legacy of long term cancer rates could not conceivably follow a nuclear accident. It's just that all nuclear accidents to date have not produced that outcome.

At all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 1 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group