Do Japan's nuclear power plants pose a threat to the UK?

[Guest sibon]

Have a look at Chernobyl,nothing lives there,the birds that do carry tumours via thier young,if thier not born deformed.

.

 

That really isn't true.

 

There is loads of life in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. It appears that people were more of a problem to the wildlife than the radiation has been. That makes you think, doesn't it?

[cressida]

I heard on Radio Five/Live last night that Russia could be at risk depending on the direction of the wind

[HeadingNorth]

I sometimes wonder how many people live under the illusion that Sheffield is a radiation-free zone. I imagine they'd be scared witless if someone put a Geiger counter in their front room and they could hear how much noise it makes.

[melthebell]

i was thinking about a similer question really.

i know some people, including on here have harped on about fuel consumption and the need for more nuclear power stations, and how theyre a lot safer than they used to be.

 

BUT

events like this current one do put things in perspective, do people who think theyre safe STILL think theyre safe and of no risk? or do the benefits outweigh the risks?

will risks increase with more and more natural events?

are natural events getting worse and so affect places such as nuclear power plants more and more?

[HeadingNorth]

events like this current one do put things in perspective, do people who think theyre safe STILL think theyre safe and of no risk?

 

I've never met anyone who considered nuclear plants to be of no risk. You can't generate power in any form without an inherent risk. Doing so by nuclear methods is less risky, overall, than using fossil fuels; but it's a bit like travelling by aeroplane being safer than travelling by car. The numbers of casualties overall is lower, but they tend to come all in one massive lump and attract a lot of attention.

[Guest sibon]

I've never met anyone who considered nuclear plants to be of no risk. You can't generate power in any form without an inherent risk. Doing so by nuclear methods is less risky, overall, than using fossil fuels; but it's a bit like travelling by aeroplane being safer than travelling by car. The numbers of casualties overall is lower, but they tend to come all in one massive lump and attract a lot of attention.

 

And you have the rather tricky and expensive task of decomissioning plants at the end of their lives. You will see this in detail as the Japanese have to deal with their ruined power station.

[Grandad.Malky]

I sometimes wonder how many people live under the illusion that Sheffield is a radiation-free zone. I imagine they'd be scared witless if someone put a Geiger counter in their front room and they could hear how much noise it makes.

 

I wonder how many people have

work tops.

[Nagel]

I sometimes wonder how many people live under the illusion that Sheffield is a radiation-free zone. I imagine they'd be scared witless if someone put a Geiger counter in their front room and they could hear how much noise it makes.

 

Background radiation in Sheffield is low at about 20 counts per minute. I've got two Geiger counters so I know.

 

What used to surprise me was the level of radiation of the dust that accumulated on the screen of my old TV -

 

http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q157.html

[Grandad.Malky]

Background radiation in Sheffield is low at about 20 counts per minute. I've got two Geiger counters so I know.

 

 

 

 

In your link they are talking about 10x background radiation, what’s the largest reading you have ever read, have you been to places like Edinburgh castle, isn’t that build on a granite outcrop.

[HeadingNorth]

In your link they are talking about 10x background radiation, what’s the largest reading you have ever read, have you been to places like Edinburgh castle, isn’t that build on a granite outcrop.

 

Aberdeen's a good one. Granite city, they used to call it - I believe the background radiation in Aberdeen is higher than it used to be at Windscale.