Fracking in Sheffield?

[Cyclone]

Fukushima a good example of nuclear safety?

 

Cyclone, with all due respect I think you've gone insane.

 

Have you even looked at what happened there?

 

Hit by an earthquake and then a Tsunami. And it caused how many deaths?

 

None.

 

An incredibly small amount of radioactive leakage has occurred. It's a poster boy for nuclear safety.

 

The fact that you don't realise that explains why you don't support nuclear power, a complete lack of knowledge and understanding.

[I1L2T3]

Have you even looked at what happened there?

 

Hit by an earthquake and then a Tsunami. And it caused how many deaths?

 

None.

 

An incredibly small amount of radioactive leakage has occurred. It's a poster boy for nuclear safety.

 

The fact that you don't realise that explains why you don't support nuclear power, a complete lack of knowledge and understanding.

 

Stop being ignorant and inform yourself properly on the situation at Fukushima.

 

Fukushima was a very unsafe plant for many reasons. The situation there remains critical.

 

I'll wager I know far more about the reality of it than you do. Do a bit or reading, come back and we'll discuss.

[Obelix]

I think my money would firmly come down on Cyclone for knowing about what the realities of the reactor are. Would you care to expand on your post about your objections, and answer the ones I posed whilst you are at it?

[I1L2T3]

I think my money would firmly come down on Cyclone for knowing about what the realities of the reactor are. Would you care to expand on your post about your objections, and answer the ones I posed whilst you are at it?

 

Your post about more people being killed by hydro plants and coal? Depends how you calculate the figures. You can't possibly know the eventual death toll from Chernobyl or Fukushima. It could eventually be millions.

 

As for the Fukushima design parameters. They were wrong. Simple as that. The nuclear disaster was preventable and man-made. Japan had previously experienced tsunamis with run-up heights way in excess of 15m. The emergency generators for the reactor and fuel pool cooling systems were in the basements!

[Obelix]

Your post about more people being killed by hydro plants and coal? Depends how you calculate the figures. You can't possibly know the eventual death toll from Chernobyl or Fukushima. It could eventually be millions.

 

Really? Is that more of the chicken little sort of figures then?

 

It is perfectly possible to determine what the effect of both Fukushima and Chernobyl will be, and it is abundantly clear that it won't be in the millions. If you think it will be let's see your figures and methodology from a reputable peer reviewed source.

[I1L2T3]

Really? Is that more of the chicken little sort of figures then?

 

It is perfectly possible to determine what the effect of both Fukushima and Chernobyl will be, and it is abundantly clear that it won't be in the millions. If you think it will be let's see your figures and methodology from a reputable peer reviewed source.

 

Yes really. It's currently impossible to know what the eventual death toll will be. That's the difference with nuclear accidents. The released contamination stays around for a long time, in unexpected places. Read this:

 

http://fairewinds.org/demystifying/cleanup-from-fukushima-daiichi-technological-disaster-or-crisis-in-governance

 

Do you want to make a response on the Fukushima design parameters. Note that because design parameters were exceeded it does not mean they were reasonable. Tepco knew that in the event of a large earthquake and resulting Tsunami that the Fukushima plant was in danger. They knew it for decades. They also knew that the 70s design of the reactors was deeply flawed with poor containment. Yet still the plant continued to run. The whole thing could have been avoided.

[Obelix]

Yes really. It's currently impossible to know what the eventual death toll will be. That's the difference with nuclear accidents. The released contamination stays around for a long time, in unexpected places. Read this:

 

http://fairewinds.org/demystifying/cleanup-from-fukushima-daiichi-technological-disaster-or-crisis-in-governance

 

Sorry, but that article doesnt mention a thing about fatality rates - indeed it doesnt say much about anything. Something that even fails to indicate the exposure levels and just writes flannel about it being five times this and that and the other is ultimately useless.

[I1L2T3]

Sorry, but that article doesnt mention a thing about fatality rates - indeed it doesnt say much about anything. Something that even fails to indicate the exposure levels and just writes flannel about it being five times this and that and the other is ultimately useless.

 

It's posted on the site of a respected firm of consulting nuclear engineers.

 

Anyway, let me connect the dots for you. Radiation released from Fukushima is being detected in unexpected places at high levels. It is being absorbed by the ground, grass, plants etc... People are living in those places and eating food produced in those places. Some of them will die from cancer. They might not die for 10, 20, 30 years but they will. How you can say it can be accurately predicted is beyond me when true contamination levels are unknown. There are reports that big urban areas in Japan were/are heavily contaminated. Rural areas too

 

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2012/11/18/life/the-muddy-issue-of-cesium-in-a-lake/

 

Fukushima is still leaking pretty badly by the way.

[Obelix]

It's posted on the site of a respected firm of consulting nuclear engineers.

 

You "forget" to mention that this "respected" firm is paid by a large number of anti-nuclear lobby groups to write for them. Cui bono....

 

Anyway, let me connect the dots for you. Radiation released from Fukushima is being detected in unexpected places at high levels.

 

Really? What are these "high" levels? Care to produce numbers? Or is it more handwaving?

 

It is being absorbed by the ground, grass, plants etc... People are living in those places and eating food produced in those places. Some of them will die from cancer. They might not die for 10, 20, 30 years but they will. How you can say it can be accurately predicted is beyond me when true contamination levels are unknown.

 

Because they are not unknown, and because the effects of ionising radiation on people is very well understood.

 

There are reports that big urban areas in Japan were/are heavily contaminated. Rural areas too

 

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2012/11/18/life/the-muddy-issue-of-cesium-in-a-lake/

 

:hihi: That is not heavy, or even light contamination - if you have/had a coal fire you would find that the ash you take outside, every day is more radioactive than that.

 

Fukushima is still leaking pretty badly by the way.

 

And it's so far conspicuously failed to kill anyone at all.

[I1L2T3]

You "forget" to mention that this "respected" firm is paid by a large number of anti-nuclear lobby groups to write for them. Cui bono....

 

 

 

Really? What are these "high" levels? Care to produce numbers? Or is it more handwaving?

 

 

 

Because they are not unknown, and because the effects of ionising radiation on people is very well understood.

 

 

 

:hihi: That is not heavy, or even light contamination - if you have/had a coal fire you would find that the ash you take outside, every day is more radioactive than that.

 

 

 

And it's so far conspicuously failed to kill anyone at all.

 

 

The readings are in both of the articles I posted above. Move to Japan if you think it's safe there.

 

Fairewinds is not anti-nuclear. It's pro-safe nuclear

 

The effects of ionising radiation are known. It can be lethal. What is not known is how much has been released, where it all is, where the hotspots are etc...

 

Fukushima is still leaking. There is no containment. It is still in crisis. Groundwater is contaminated.

 

Are you arguing that a coal fire is more radioactive than the products released from a nuclear reactor core meltdown?