quisquose Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 I think those that consider nuclear power to be dangerous need to put it in perspective alongside fossil fuel power, which is far more dangerous imho. Consider the cost in lives and to the environment in extracting the stuff. Consider the problem of waste in burning the stuff, which is far worse than the the waste from nuclear power. Remember Aberfan? Consider the fact that coal soot itself contains radioactive contaminants, and as a result the radiation levels surrounding a coal plant are actually higher than those around a nuclear plant. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste The impact of an occasional plane crash might be more dramatic than the many daily car crashes, but nobody would use this to claim that air travel is more dangerous than car travel. Ditto with nuclear power v conventional power supplies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 The impact of an occasional plane crash might be more dramatic than the many daily car crashes, but nobody would use this to claim that air travel is more dangerous than car travel. The sad truth is, some people do reach exactly that coclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 The vast majority of information concerning nuclear power comes from scientists in the employ of the nuclear industry, including what we are now hearing about these reactors in Japan. The extent of the risk is certainly going to be played down. Therefore, the true extent of the toxicity and the area it will effect is anybody's guess. It seems unlikely it will get to Europe in any significant amounts. As I understand it, the worst risk is not atmospheric pollution, but a meltdown, which would contaminate ground water supplies over a potentially vast area. No it wouldn't, because the reactors are designed so that if that did happen it would be contained within the power station via three containment facilities. All three would have to be breached before it can contaminate the outside world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 this phoney text message turned up in the inbox of my cellphone earlier BBC News Flash Report: Japan government confirms radiation leak at Fukushima nuclear plants. Asian countries should take necessary precautions. Remain indoors first 24 hours. Close doors and windows. Swab neck skin with betadine where thyroid area is. Radiation hits thyroid first. It may hit Philippines starting at 4pm today. Let's all pray protection against radiation. Pls. Repost. radiation 'hits' thyroid first? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 The latest is the fuel rods may now be melting down. Is that the same as a reactor meltdown? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 The latest is the fuel rods may now be melting down. Is that the same as a reactor meltdown? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ Unless I am mistaken, a meltdown occurs when the nuclear reaction runs away causing the core to heat up and melt down through the ground underneath the reactor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digglydog Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 I think those that consider nuclear power to be dangerous need to put it in perspective alongside fossil fuel power, which is far more dangerous imho. Consider the cost in lives and to the environment in extracting the stuff. Consider the problem of waste in burning the stuff, which is far worse than the the waste from nuclear power. Remember Aberfan? Consider the fact that coal soot itself contains radioactive contaminants, and as a result the radiation levels surrounding a coal plant are actually higher than those around a nuclear plant. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste The impact of an occasional plane crash might be more dramatic than the many daily car crashes, but nobody would use this to claim that air travel is more dangerous than car travel. Ditto with nuclear power v conventional power supplies. So which would you rather Bin Laden got his mits on? A sack of coal or a sack of uranium/plutonium ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bladesufc1 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 The Japanese reactors - so I'm reading - are of a type which don't generate an atomic explosion when they fail. Consequently, even if they fail catastrophically, very little radiation is likely to reach the stratosphere and be dispersed around the globe. the cores will either melt, then go direclty in to the ground / Ocean, or explode contaminate japan this has been mentioned now for days on Sky news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 this phoney text message turned up in the inbox of my cellphone earlier BBC News Flash Report: Japan government confirms radiation leak at Fukushima nuclear plants. Asian countries should take necessary precautions. Remain indoors first 24 hours. Close doors and windows. Swab neck skin with betadine where thyroid area is. Radiation hits thyroid first. It may hit Philippines starting at 4pm today. Let's all pray protection against radiation. Pls. Repost. radiation 'hits' thyroid first? Really? As I understand it a radioactive isotope of iodine can be released from these events..as the thyroid gland uses iodine this radioactive sort can be absorbed into it..usually people in the nearby area are given iodine tablets to sort of "fill up" the thyroid so there's less of the "bad" iodine absorbed.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickycheese Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 You've no need to go to Edinburgh to encounter high radon levels. The Peak District will do nicely. http://ukradon.org/map.php?map=englandwales&showmap=ZG93bmxvYWRzL01hcHMvRW5nV2FsL01hcDE0LmdpZg%3D%3D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.