dosxuk Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Yet Folkestone (within 20 miles of a nuclear reactor) had two earthquakes in recent years. Causing damage running into the billions millions hundreds of thousands tens of thousands thousands hundreds tens of pounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On the ball Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 I will blame them for the dangers in forcing government to keep waste above ground, rather than burying it in a safer and more secure geological repository. So you admit keeping high-level waste above ground is dangerous. As for name calling, speaking the truth is not name calling. In debates I have had the green lobby has shown a woeful ignorance of basic science and engineering. It's not name calling to point out that someone is unable to make a cogent and coherent argument when they have no understanding at all of the foundations on which the argument is resting. So which of these 'green lobby' arguements against nuclear power would you like to disprove first? 1. All things considered it is hugely expensive. 2. We have nowhere to put the high-level radioactive waste it produces. 3. Nuclear power has increased the risk of nuclear proliferation. (More countries with the bomb.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 So you admit keeping high-level waste above ground is dangerous. So which of these 'green lobby' arguements against nuclear power would you like to disprove first? 1. All things considered it is hugely expensive. 2. We have nowhere to put the high-level radioactive waste it produces. 3. Nuclear power has increased the risk of nuclear proliferation. (More countries with the bomb.) Is that first line a question or a statement? 1. No it isn't as France has so ably proven 2. Yes we do - or do you think we just leave it lying at the side of the road? 3. No it hasn't. Commercial once through fuel or MOX fuel with high burnup percentages is incredbily difficult to use in a bomb You admit I see to not knowing what you are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staffsNlaffs Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 and in any case, the capability to make nuclear weapons is readily available to those that can afford it. Technology is for sale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Nice infographic about the levels of radiation experienced normally, in the current crisis, and what can kill you. http://xkcd.com/radiation/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On the ball Posted March 22, 2011 Author Share Posted March 22, 2011 Is that first line a question or a statement?. There is no question mark, you can contest it if you wish. 1. No it isn't as France has so ably proven 2. Yes we do - or do you think we just leave it lying at the side of the road? 3. No it hasn't. Commercial once through fuel or MOX fuel with high burnup percentages is incredbily difficult to use in a bomb You admit I see to not knowing what you are talking about. 1. On what information do you back up this claim? 2. Okay I'll rephrase that. We have nowhere safe to put the high-level radioactive waste it produces. 3. Just because normal reactors don't produce weapons grade plutonium doesn't mean nuclear power has not increased the risk of nuclear proliferation. All the new countries accepted to have nuclear weapons (pakistan, israel, north korea, etc) began their weapons programmes with nuclear power. It enables them to learn relevant skills and makes it harder for the IAEA to police proliferation. If what you say is correct why is the US so worried about Iran's nuclear power programme? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 The government's planning a load of new nuclear power stations for the UK. Do we want them? Yes, they should all be based in London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 George Monbiot has published a thought provoking article in The Guardian this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 There is no question mark, you can contest it if you wish. 1. On what information do you back up this claim? 2. Okay I'll rephrase that. We have nowhere safe to put the high-level radioactive waste it produces. 3. Just because normal reactors don't produce weapons grade plutonium doesn't mean nuclear power has not increased the risk of nuclear proliferation. All the new countries accepted to have nuclear weapons (pakistan, israel, north korea, etc) began their weapons programmes with nuclear power. It enables them to learn relevant skills and makes it harder for the IAEA to police proliferation. If what you say is correct why is the US so worried about Iran's nuclear power programme? 1. The cost of French electricity 2. Yes we do. 3. *Our* production of nuclear energy makes no difference to Iran building a bomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 George Monbiot has published a thought provoking article in The Guardian this morning. I've been reading Lewis Page's articles in The Reg: Shameful media panic very slowly begins to subside http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/18/fukushima_friday/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.