Greenwash

[Nemesis]

Gas pipes too.

 

[skier-hughes]

Interesting, I've never taken much interest in it and I just thought it was very good practise.

 

[NT]

We know that, deaths occur from all forms of large scle power gen.
There are no totally reliable figures about Chernobyl casualties. Even the scientists can't agree,

Isnt it ever the way. How does one put a definite fixed figure on deaths from coal pollution? Etc. We live with disagreement and some level of possible variation.

although several thousand seems to be a conservative figure.

Hmm. To get an acurate figure you'd need to separate the causes. Many deaths were deliberate, some were due to negligence after the event, etc.

But really this is a red herring, I'm more interested in the safety record of safer designs than the risky Chernobyl. You might just as well say a horse & buggy is dangerous above 30mph so we must restrict cars to 30.

I don't have figures on coal-fired power, but imagine the total death count is higher.

By far I believe.

I couldn't find any references to fatalities from hydro power, wind farms, solar or biomass.

I saw something about the construction of the hoover dam, but dont recall how many died in construction, due to collapses of other dams, or due to poverty after losing their land to dams in poorer countries.

You have made a strong argument for a move towards small scale, local generation, something which is being developed in other countries.

I'm not sure who has, but I dont think its a move one could find much supporting argument for at present.


[/quote]a risky Chernobyl design doesnt tell us anything about more sensible designs,
The Cernobyl reactor was not thought to be 'risky' when it was built. At the time, it was 'sensible'.[/quote]

Well, I'll disagree. Such designs were never touched in the west for good reason. And again, the performance of a risky historic design tells us no more about future safer nuke designs than a collapsed historic bridge tells us about today's bridges, or a 1950s car about today's cars. No-one is proposing building new Chernobyls.

The space shuttle had cutting edge technology and was 'sensible'.

In fact the engineers involved thought otherwise, and expressed their opinions on the matter very strongly. They knew to about 80% probability what would happen, and it did.

Sometimes even the best designs go wrong.

Sure, and a modern nuke will, its only a matter of time. Whether that time is 1000 years, 10,000... thats another question. The same is true of all the large scale power gen techs, over a long enough timescale there will be gross failures and deaths with all of them.

It's just that some 'accidents' have greater consequences than others.

And that is why modern nukes, and indeed all western ones, even as far back as the 1950s, have robust containment buildings, precisely so the consequences are not comparable to Chernobyl.

Deep buried vitrified waste is as safe as it gets. But again this doesnt tell us much, what counts are the real figures.
What is 'as safe as it gets'? Does anyone have the 'real' figures, whatever they are? 'As safe as it gets' sounds a little complacent when discussing something that will still be poisonous a few thousand years from now.

If you can tell us how many have died from buried fuel, please do. I dont have the figures on that. I presume the number is tiny.


[/quote]nuclear reactor testing is so thorough, and the safety layers so many. A single faulty component does not initiate a severe accident... again nuclear engineers are not morons.

Not all of them anyway. At Sellafield between 1950 and 2000 there have been 21 serious incidents or accidents[/quote]

Really? How many deaths have there been? Not what the rest of us call serious then.

The large 2005 Thorp plant leak of 83 000 litres of radioactive waste was not detected for nine months.

How many deaths? The rest is just emotional propaganda. We can sit and tell personal tales of suffering with any industry, or toxic sites created by mishap of various sorts - it tells us nothing about the relative safety of the major power gen technologies.

And this is precisely the problem with the anti-nuke camp, they arent willing to get factual. The plain fact is that nuke has a safety record better than coal, yet people continue to mine and use coal but freak out when nuclear power is suggested. Fiction of such dramatic extremity has been written about nuclear power (mainly due to confusion in ignorant minds of mass nuclear warhead deployment with single nuclear power station failure) that these people seem to imagine nuclear power somehow endangers the planet and our species. Nothing could be further from reality. Chernobyl proved that.

FWLIW 83,000 litres would have to be of near zero radioactivity level to not be detected for so long. I note the wording is picked to suggest fuel or spent fuel.

The OSPAR Commission reports an estimated 200 kg of plutonium has been deposited in the marine sediments of the Irish Sea. Cattle and fish in the area are contaminated with plutonium-239 and caesium-137 from these sediments and from other sources such as the radioactive rain that fell on the area after the Chernobyl disaster and the results of atmospheric atomic weapons tests prior to the partial test ban treaty in 1963. Most of the area's long-lived radioactive technetium comes from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at the Sellafield facility.(Journal of Nuclear and Radiochemical Sciences, Vol. 4, No.1, pp. A1-A8, 2003. )

We know Chernobyl caused contamination in some places, this isnt news. So have other power industries. There is a huge long list of such occurrences with numerous industries. See for example minamata bay.

Again: how many deaths. That is the only thing that tells us about the relative safety of the mass power gen techs.

In 1999 it was discovered that the plant's staff had been falsifying some quality assurance data since 1996. An official investigation stated "in a plant with the proper safety culture, the events described in this report could not have happened"

It happens in any industry. Engineers design for this. Its why we use multiple safety layers rather than one.

Again: how many deaths.

The equipment does sometimes fail, and human error does occur.

Its a routine occurrence. All power plants need repair and maintenance, and are designed for this. All power plants have means to detect unsafe human operation, automatic safety devices, etc etc etc. This is routine engineering stuff.

when the situation is reexamined it is found that in fact the delivered goods satisfy all the relevant criteria, so going ahead and using them is fine. The point being made was that the faulty materials did NOT satisfy the specification demanded, and so standards were lowered. Why set the high standards in the first place if they were not necessary?

You misunderstood, I didn't say they met spec I said they satisfied all the relevant criteria. What I wrote will only make sense when those 2 are distinguished. You snipped and would need to go back to read what was written to make sense of it.

As for whether nuclear power is sustainable or not, the question is irrelevant and the answer unknown.
The question is certainly relevant. I don't want to leave a legacy of pollution that will be with my descendants for the next hundred generations.

Well, you will whatever technology you use. I dont have a problem with deep buried vitrified nuclear waste.

Again: how many deaths will it cause? We can determine that by asking how many has it caused.

The answer, according to experts at the UN, is known, and is 'no'.

We really dont know enough about the fuel sources to know whther its sustainable. And I fail to see any relevance. We know the fuel will be around for the life of the reactor, and thats what we need to know. Whether people can continue using nukes in 1000 years time is hardly a significant issue today.

As for a political body's take on it, the day politicians become skilled engineers will be the day hell freezes over.

I have tried to include some facts for you, this time taken from Wikipedia and fully sourced. Can you either:
a) show that these facts are not true
Or
b) quote some attributal facts that show nuclear power to be at least as safe as the renewable methods mentioned above.

As is so often the case with these things, the problem is one of understanding the issues rather than the quoted facts or claims. And, as is the case with any controversial political subject, whatever your POV you can find references to other people saying the same. Which does devalue such references rather heavily.

I know that renewables cannot replace nuclear at the moment, but with willpower it could happen.

We really dont know, as no practical renewable technology for mass power gen exists. I very much hope it comes along, and believe it probably will, but its not here and we need to build power plants that will work now.

It is a fact that they cannot make the Irish sea one of the most polluted in the world, they cannot provide material for weapons

Cut the waffle and tell us how many deaths. Then compare the figures.

Weapons? We need them. In the real world we need powerful weapons or we're in trouble. Just look what happens to countries without them.

and they will never leave the planet looking like this http: kiddofspeed/

Nor will nuclear power plants. Ever. They dont have the ability to. Chernobyl is the worst case scenario and its a town, not a planet. If you think power plants are a threat to the planet, you're not understanding a vital and basic concept.


NT

 

[Nemesis]

I don't want nuke. So there.

 

[biffvernon]

That's it then. We won't have any more.

Now should we see to it that the few we have get listed before some vandal decides that decomissioning means demolishing. Er, what alternative uses could they be converted to?

 

[Nemesis]

Er..... pass. Visitor centres?

 

[NT]

I don't want nuke. So there.

I suspect most people dont, but the govt has ignored what we want for the past 50 years on this one, and I'm sure will continue to.

There are always people that think some things too important for democracy to get in the way.


NT

 

[DaveBrigg]

Well, you asked for facts so I gave you facts. In return I got:
How does one put a definite fixed figure on deaths...
But really this is a red herring...
I believe...
I'm not sure...
I dont think...
I dont have the figures on that...
Not what the rest of us call serious...
We really dont know...

And having failed to prove any of the quoted facts wrong - and the only reference of yours that I could check being the one about the space shuttle, you add 'And this is precisely the problem with the anti-nuke camp, they arent willing to get factual' :lol:
Having demanded facts, and been unable to disprove them, there is added "the problem is one of understanding the issues rather than the quoted facts or claims." The last time the goalposts were moved so far was when Arsenal left Highbury.

We can agree to disagree whether the legacy we leave to future generations is important - personally, I think passing on a planet with unnecessary man-made radioactive contamination does matter.
Perhaps we can disagree whether increased cancer rates and long-term deaths from radiation matter, or whether it is just immediate deaths that should be used to judge an industry safety record.

What I think is beyond reasonable doubt is that:
The effect of long tern exposure to low lever radiation is still not fully known, but the evidence from what happened at Chernobyl suggests it has a serious effect on health, particularly that of children

Evidence from Medical Radiological Research Centre of Russian Academy of Medical Sciences
Even discounting Chernobyl, the nuclear industry has, considering all the stringent safeguards, got a less than perfect safety record. There have been major leaks at Sellafield, Japan(cutting back its nuclear programme as a result), USA, France and Argentina. These 'accidents' have occurred regularly since nuclear energy was first harnessed, and show little sign of decline. So much for learning from mistakes.

When working in its current state, nuclear power routinely adds to the environment material which is known to be fatal in high doses, to cause severe health problems in medium doses and for which knowledge of long-term effects of low-level exposure is patchy.

Safety procedures at nuclear plants in several countries have failed. Only one has caused large scale loss of life so far.

It produces a highly toxic waste product for which there is no consensus among the nuclear industry itself as to safe methods of long term storage.

Therefore in my opinion, at best, nuclear energy is an expensive gamble. There may be not another fatal leak of radiation ever again. On the other hand, given its record so far, I don think it is beyond reasonable doubt that another catastrophic event may occur. Time will tell.

There are alternatives to nuclear that do not carry the same risks.

Personally, I don't like gambles.

(p.s. I will be offline for the next two weeks - nothing personal )

 

[biffvernon]

Over breakfast this morning with some visitors from Strasburg we got talking about mushrooms. They told us they could no longer gather the wild fungi from their Alsace mountains as they were accumulating too much radioactivity from the Chernobyl fallout.

 

[NT]

> Well, you asked for facts so I gave you facts.

I wish that were true. Instead you gave us political propaganda with quite basic errors.

Unfortunately you didn't give a single _relevant_ fact, despite what you claim. The one comparison to be made when determining safety is total deaths from nuclear generation compared to total deaths for other gen technologies. This is a very simple concept. The other stuff either leads to deaths or doesn't, and all deaths are summed to determine how many die from each generating technology.

You've consistently concentrated on relatively minor details not relevant to the point. Some of your details were factual, but too many clearly not. To expect basic engineering competence or honesty from a political campaign group was not the wisest move.

When it comes to direct deaths, consequential deaths & environmental damage, coal outstrips nuclear on all fronts. Thankfully power generation brings many benefits which far outweight the downsides.

To snip a quote of me calling much of your information a red herring and then use that as a basis for criticism does seem odd.

Your suggestion that I might wish to ignore all the consequential deaths (from Chernobyl and from storage) I also find odd. I have always said total deaths. To say otherwise would not make much sense.

To criticise my acknowledgement that there will always be some difference of opinion on consequential deaths also seems odd. It borders on obvious, and is equally applicable to all power gen techs, and indeed all industry sectors. This is very basic stuff.

If you want to verify or challenge what I claim, google is your friend. Its all out there. There's no point reading just one site, bias and bull are rife on this subject, read many and see what stands up and what doesn't. Your quotes have already demonstrated the real world value of a single reference.

To blindly reassert that because Greenpeace said something it must be true is a weak excuse for one's mistakes.

Your summary of the situation is truly unrealistic, and you continue to avoid the point, so I dont think there is a lot to be gained by us continuing.

If you're willing to get factual and compare total nuclear deaths with total deaths for other power techs, then great. The rest is simply not relevant when determining relative safety.

Enjoy your break.


NT

 

[NT]

> What I think is beyond reasonable doubt is that:
> The effect of long tern exposure to low lever radiation is still not fully known

It has been studied. If you compare a radiation level map pf the whole US and another of cancer incidence, the correlation is strikingly strong. The higher the rad level, the lower is the incidence of cancer. The states with highest cancer incidence are those with the lowest rad levels. So the limited evidence does seem to suggest its strongly beneficial at low levels.


> but the evidence from what happened at Chernobyl suggests it has a serious effect on health, particularly that of children

Chernobyl was hardly low level!


NT

 

[biffvernon]

The states with highest cancer incidence are those with the lowest rad levels. So the limited evidence does seem to suggest its strongly beneficial at low levels.

That's got to be the worst mis-use of statistics since the idea that smoking is good for you. :roll:

 

[NT]

That's got to be the worst mis-use of statistics since the idea that smoking is good for you. :roll:

Any particular reason why?


NT

 

[biffvernon]

I would not expect cancer rates and radiation level geography to correlate since enviromental radiation is a very small contributor to overall cancer rates. The effect would be masked by other environmental, lifestyle and other health factors. To then jump to the conclusion that radiation is 'strongly beneficial at low levels', is just plain nuts.

 

[NT]

I would not expect cancer rates and radiation level geography to correlate

I'm sure you werent alone on that. But it turns out they do.

since enviromental radiation is a very small contributor to overall cancer rates. The effect would be masked by other environmental, lifestyle and other health factors.

Well, the data does appear to clearly show otherwise, the correlation is strong. I realise what you say is what had long been assumed, but assumed is all it was.

To then jump to the conclusion that radiation is 'strongly beneficial at low levels', is just plain nuts.

Why? The correlation is strong.


NT

 

[biffvernon]

The states with highest cancer incidence are those with the lowest rad levels

But you are claiming a negative correlation? You are going to have to supply some refrences to the data before we can get much further. The implications for what you are saying are profound for period buildings. Are you suggesting we should build more houses in the high radon areas with none of the radon proofing strategies required by the Buildings Regulations?
Crazy.

 

[tom.harrigan]

The prediction that many thousands would die as a direct result of the Chernobyl disaster was based on the LNT (linear no threshold) model of cancer risk. This didn't happen, and it's clear that there is at least a threshold level of exposure below which the population is unaffected. Some studies claim a total of 54 deaths as a result of the accident up to 2004.

The idea that small amounts of radiation are beneficial to health is more controversial, though if you google for "hormesis" or "hormesis radon", you will find plenty of research supporting the hypothesis. For some radon evangelism see: http://www.radonmine.com/resource.html


T

 

[NT]

Are you suggesting we should build more houses in the high radon areas with none of the radon proofing strategies required by the Buildings Regulations?
Crazy.

Such an illogical conclusion would indeed be crazy. Or just illogical.


NT

 

[biffvernon]

Well, NT, what do you mean by '...its strongly beneficial at low levels'?

Some studies claim a total of 54 deaths as a result of the accident up to 2004.

and the moon is made of green cheese. :roll:

 

[Nemesis]

I was just about to ask for details of these studies.

I do not doubt they exist of course...

I'm interested in the claim that it is clear that etc etc... clear to whom?