Short films /web project about nuclear power

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 04 Mar 2011, 01:55

An Inspector Calls wrote:.......... The economic impact is now insignificant, and has been so for decades.

Just because something has a high hazard rating does not mean that it must be avoided at all costs. We regularly pack over 400 people into an aeroplane confident in the knowledge that they are certainly safer travelling by that means than by car. We've done that by learning the lessons from previous accidents. Just as we've done with other industrial disasters, such as Piper Alpha, Flixborough, and also Chenobyl. You cannot live without exposure to risk on almost a routine basis.

The economic impact was insignificant because the disastrous nuclear failure happened a thousand miles away and because of a quirk of meteorology the fallout came down in a low productivity hilly area. If the failure had happened at Sizewell with an easterly wind blowing, or just across the Channel with a southerly, a major proportion of our wheat growing agricultural area would have been out of action for thirty years at least. Ask the Irish what they think about the continuing the loss of fishing in the Irish Sea after Seascale.

Yes. we all accept risks in our lives. I drive and work in the farming and building industries so accept a higher level of personal risk than most people. If I have a fatal accident it will effect me and my immediate family for a few years. A nuclear accident could effect millions for hundreds of years, maybe more. That's a whole different ball game and one that I would not want to take the risk for. Especially to help sustain the unsustainable.

The economic system we have now is about to blow itself out so I don't want to leave a gross hazard for my children and grand children. We already have tonnes of highly toxic stuff which will be around for a half life of 100,000 years which means that it will be around for a long time more than that. If the much vaunted, by a few, nuclear industry can't deal with the past 60 years worth of its excrement why should I believe that it will deal with the next 60 years worth.

DominicJ · Post by **DominicJ** » 04 Mar 2011, 08:12

Saying the UK should go nuclear because of Chernobyl is akin to saying I no one should drive because some people get drunk adn then drive.

The Soviet nuclear program failed, what a shock.
Shall we ban farming because the Soviet farming program failed?

An Inspector Calls · Post by **An Inspector Calls** » 04 Mar 2011, 09:34

Kenneal.

I assume that by toxic you really mean radioactive.

Nuclear waste with a half life of 100,000 years (or whatever long period you wish to postulate) is just not a problem at all. You could pick it up in your hands, put it on display on your mantelpiece - if it has a long half life, it will not give out a lot of radioactivity. In fact there's already plenty of radioactive material with similar half lives in the fabric of your house. And don't go on holiday to Cornwall, Aberdeen, or the Lakes.

What is the gross hazard you imagine for your kids? I've often wondered what construction is assumed for a future disaster involving buried waste?

First: let's assume we bury the vitrefied waste underground and then that civilisation as we know it is wiped out.
Next: that some time after this event some tribe of Kenneals stumble across the unlit entrance to the nuclear cave.
Next: that they decide that this will be a good place to live. Some get irradiated (albeit, it is now years later - perhaps 200-400 years, and by this time the nasty, medium lifetime stuff has nearly given up the ghost).
And then: the ultimate tragedy: a Kenneal dies.

Any good at determining risk - you seem to claim that in your resume? Let's give each of those hypothetical events a 1 in a 100 probability. To get the probability of the Kenneal death, each of the events has to happen, so we'd need to multiply them all together. Result: about 1 chance in 10^8.

Not worth bothering about. So why has the nuclear industry not done this? Ask Greenpeace, they've done a great job of stirring lunacy on this issue - as is their wont.

An Inspector Calls · Post by **An Inspector Calls** » 04 Mar 2011, 09:41

Oh, and Northern Island fisheries seem to be taking significant catches, so big that they've almost fished the sea out:

http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/researchan ... 1/3311.pdf

I can't find any mention of concerns about the nuclear industry in this report. Mind, it must be noted that the rivers of the Lake District, flowing into the Irish Sea, do carry a heavy burden of radioactive 'pollutants' from the eroded mountains.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 04 Mar 2011, 11:52

DominicJ wrote:Saying the UK should go nuclear because of Chernobyl is akin to saying I no one should drive because some people get drunk adn then drive.

I tried Google Translate but that didn't work.

An Inspector Calls · Post by **An Inspector Calls** » 04 Mar 2011, 13:36

biffvernon wrote:
DominicJ wrote:Saying the UK should go nuclear because of Chernobyl is akin to saying I no one should drive because some people get drunk adn then drive.
I tried Google Translate but that didn't work.

Yes, a strain for some. Try

DominicJ wrote:Saying the UK should [not] go nuclear because of Chernobyl is akin to saying . . . no one should drive because some people get drunk [and] then drive.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 04 Mar 2011, 13:42

An Inspector Calls wrote:First: let's assume we bury the vitrefied waste underground

After 60 years you haven't even reached that assumption yet. The stuff is still lying around on the surface so the rest is just drivel.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 04 Mar 2011, 13:46

DominicJ wrote:Saying the UK should go nuclear because of Chernobyl is akin to saying I no one should drive because some people get drunk adn then drive.

Again, Dom

If I have a fatal accident it will effect me and my immediate family for a few years. A nuclear accident could effect millions for hundreds of years, maybe more. That's a whole different ball game and one that I would not want to take the risk for.

The level of risk is entirely different and not comparable.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 04 Mar 2011, 14:01

kenneal wrote: If I have a fatal accident it will effect me and my immediate family for a few years.

With all due respect, Ken, I think a fatal accident might affect you for more than a few years, or do you have powers I don't know about?

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 04 Mar 2011, 15:39

True

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 04 Mar 2011, 16:45

biffvernon wrote:
kenneal wrote: If I have a fatal accident it will effect me and my immediate family for a few years.
With all due respect, Ken, I think a fatal accident might affect you for more than a few years, or do you have powers I don't know about?

This is a nuclear power discussion, not a punctuation one

"If I have a fatal accident it will effect me, and my immediate family for a few years."

An Inspector Calls · Post by **An Inspector Calls** » 04 Mar 2011, 17:32

kenneal wrote:
An Inspector Calls wrote:First: let's assume we bury the vitrefied waste underground
After 60 years you haven't even reached that assumption yet. The stuff is still lying around on the surface so the rest is just drivel.

Well that's not the fault of the nuclear industry, but people like you objecting to a sensible proposal.

It's not exactly rocket science building an underground store for nuclear waste.

But then, it was ludicrous to expect you to be able to handle a risk assessment.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 04 Mar 2011, 18:07

I've never objected to a sensible proposal and I've never objected to a nuclear waste proposal. My proposal for nuclear waste is to put it in the London Clay under London and use the heat given off for a district heating scheme for the city. After all they use most of the electricity and they could do with the heating so why not there. London clay is virtually water proof and it's a stable strata that's not likely to be eroded for a few hundred thousand years so the waste should be safe by the time it makes the surface.

And according to the Inspector it's safe as houses.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 04 Mar 2011, 18:33

JohnB wrote: This is a nuclear power discussion, not a punctuation one

"If I have a fatal accident it will effect me, and my immediate family for a few years."

Huh! He's lucky I didn't also point out that there's a difference between effect and affect.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 04 Mar 2011, 19:40

biffvernon wrote:
JohnB wrote: This is a nuclear power discussion, not a punctuation one

"If I have a fatal accident it will effect me, and my immediate family for a few years."
Huh! He's lucky I didn't also point out that there's a difference between effect and affect.

Yeah, I know. But he's a builder and farmer, not a writer of literature as far as I know, and has two very nice dogs who are Charlie's mates

.