New nuclear power plants in the UK, and the downfall of humanity

Recommended Videos

danm36

New member
Feb 25, 2009
31
0
0
Yosharian said:
Yes cos it's fantastically easy to detect the effects of a nuclear power plant radiation leak on surrounding populaces. Nobody actually knows how much radiation was released, and it will take years for the true damage to be detected. All of which is besides the fucking point, a catastrophe occurred because of incompetence, and nothing is happening to prevent future similar occurences.
Sure, the Fukashima incident was horrible. But remember that the thing was hit by both an extremely powerful earthquake (That displaced the islands of Japan themselves) and an extremely powerful tsunami. There was incompetence, sure, but for such an old power plant to not go all Chernobyl, you can see how practices have changed for the better.

At any rate, what are the chances that the UK (Which, might I add, is the location this topic is talking about) gets hit by a earthquake/tsunami double team? The UK isn't on or near any destructive plate boundries - it is almost impossible for the UK to be hit by a high power tsunami short of one caused by an eruption of a large volcano in Iceland which, might I add, are not the destructive boundary volcanoes found in places like St Helens or Japan. I can understand issues when building a nuclear power station on a place prone to disasters but the UK? The worst we've had are minor floods which, I certainly hope, something as dangerous as a nuclear power station will be protected from.
 

The White Hunter

Basment Abomination
Oct 19, 2011
3,888
0
0
kailus13 said:
Homer Simpson is apparently a real person now. Also wind farms are inneficient, ugly and noisy.
I don't generally check the news so thanks for pointing this out.
And kill bats in very unpleasant ways.

OT: Yeah I've been saying for years that people in this country are too ignorant about this stuff and should actually try reading books at some point.

Yeah we totally get tsunamis all the time here in the UK...

A bigger concern would be to look at historical problems like the issues with the nuclear plants that used to be near Seascale and the contamination of the surrounding countryside, including a large number of dairy farms which in turn lead to a lot of cases of leukemia cropping up after a short while.

You'd think that would have been a big deal, especially since it was caused by ineptitude, inadequate research, inadequate testing, and general apathy on behalf of the government. When it was discovered it was hastily covered up and those that made the discovery were made to sign the secrecy act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire Yes wikipedia is the only source I can be bothered to look up.

>>>Edit: I got off track sorry, my point was that when people object to nuclear power here in the UK this is really the one they need to be citing, not Chernobyl or the recent disasters in Japan. However we've learned enough to not have this crap happen and we aren't so ignorant as we were in the 50's, it's pretty safe for us to continue smashing atoms apart for power.<<<

In a related topic, my A-level physics teachers step dad was one of the people who discovered the contamination of the surrounding area.
 

Oltsu

New member
Feb 16, 2013
27
0
0
Yosharian said:
Yet more ignorance.

Both of you: READ. [http://www.gregpalast.com/fukushima-they-knew-2/#more-7924]
I open the link in a new tab and the first thing I see before the site has loaded is something about the WTC tower 1.

I have an idea; how about we don't use that as a source for anything?
 

kailus13

Soon
Mar 3, 2013
4,568
0
0
SkarKrow said:
kailus13 said:
Homer Simpson is apparently a real person now. Also wind farms are inneficient, ugly and noisy.
I don't generally check the news so thanks for pointing this out.
And kill bats in very unpleasant ways.
Liquefication of internal organs is what many people will classify as unpleasant yes.
 

zumbledum

New member
Nov 13, 2011
673
0
0
Ed130 said:
Nuclear power isn't the answer.

Its just trading one finite resource (oil/coal) for another (fissile material).

It's reliance on water to cool the plants can be a weak point during heatwaves/droughts, although this issue can be mitigated somewhat.

no one says its "the answer" , that is fusion reactors with mono filament super conductor tether's so far in orbit to not represent a problem even if it goes, unfortunately none of those techs exist right now and i want the kettle to work and my pc to stay on so we need something right now.

It basically comes down to a choice, of guaranteed high levels of pollution with fossil , a very low chance of potentially more damage with nuclear or the double blind random crap shoot "renewable" which may well be the most dangerous of all.

As someone who lives in England and has all of his family in Cornwall which is just next door to somerset id still pick fission as the best of whats available right now.
 

Arina Love

GOT MOE?
Apr 8, 2010
1,061
0
0
Until there is Fusion power, nuclear fission power is probably only way we will provide power hungry planet with enough of it. It's not going away just accept it.
 

Ed130 The Vanguard

(Insert witty quote here)
Sep 10, 2008
3,782
0
0
bartholen said:
Ed130 said:
Nuclear power isn't the answer.

Its just trading one finite resource (oil/coal) for another (fissile material).

It's reliance on water to cool the plants can be a weak point during heatwaves/droughts, although this issue can be mitigated somewhat.
While it is true in the long run that uranium is a finite resource like oil or coal, I have to disagree with you. Compare the amount of environmental damage, all the wars being fought over, the emissions of, the degree to which oil affects politics worldwide, to the negative effects of nuclear power. We might leave the future generations a shit ton of nuclear waste to deal with, but the rate at which oil and coal degrade the planet at the moment, the future generation might not even have the possibilities to deal with environmental problems in the first place. And nuclear waste is actually stored in contained, protected vaults and most of the radiation decays to a non-lethal level in a few centuries. It's not like we're creating death chambers that last for 10,000 years around the world.
I was talking that fissile materials aren't finite and are very rare, current estimates of total fissile materials that have been identified and can be mined range from 50 to 100 years before exhaustion (these estimates assume that usage remains constant).

Breeder Reactors using U238 could extend that timeframe but at the cost of producing Plutonium.

As the the 10,000 year 'death chambers,' 10,000 years is the low end when calculating the radiation release from the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. Scientists predict the radiation levels will peak in 400,000 years.
 

Dryk

New member
Dec 4, 2011
981
0
0
Yosharian said:
Nobody actually knows how much radiation was released, and it will take years for the true damage to be detected.
Little radiation (which we wouldn't have detected) would have been released compared to any amount of radioactive material that was released. Radioactive material is a much bigger problem too because radiation sources lose potency proportionally to r^2. If anyone wants to know how much radioactive material was released all they have to do is walk around the area with a Geiger counter and take notes.
 

Loop Stricken

Covered in bees!
Jun 17, 2009
4,723
0
0
Yosharian said:
Sad that some people still don't know who Greg Palast is, christ.
Feel free to educate us unwashed heathens, because as it stands, that website just reads like conspiracy theory babble.
 

The White Hunter

Basment Abomination
Oct 19, 2011
3,888
0
0
kailus13 said:
SkarKrow said:
kailus13 said:
Homer Simpson is apparently a real person now. Also wind farms are inneficient, ugly and noisy.
I don't generally check the news so thanks for pointing this out.
And kill bats in very unpleasant ways.
Liquefication of internal organs is what many people will classify as unpleasant yes.
More that the sudden pressure drops they create rupture the capillaries in their lungs and they then drown in their own blood but yes, extremely unpleasant.
 

Ed130 The Vanguard

(Insert witty quote here)
Sep 10, 2008
3,782
0
0
zumbledum said:
Ed130 said:
Nuclear power isn't the answer.

Its just trading one finite resource (oil/coal) for another (fissile material).

It's reliance on water to cool the plants can be a weak point during heatwaves/droughts, although this issue can be mitigated somewhat.

no one says its "the answer" , that is fusion reactors with mono filament super conductor tether's so far in orbit to not represent a problem even if it goes, unfortunately none of those techs exist right now and i want the kettle to work and my pc to stay on so we need something right now.

It basically comes down to a choice, of guaranteed high levels of pollution with fossil , a very low chance of potentially more damage with nuclear or the double blind random crap shoot "renewable" which may well be the most dangerous of all.

As someone who lives in England and has all of his family in Cornwall which is just next door to somerset id still pick fission as the best of whats available right now.
As long as you don't view it as a magic bullet and are willing to deal with any issues arising from it, be my guest.
 

Hero in a half shell

It's not easy being green
Dec 30, 2009
4,286
0
0
tsb247 said:
Hero in a half shell said:
All energy production has absolutely horrific downsides.
This seems a little sensational, don't you think?
Not really, every single one has large drawbacks, but when you take these and magnify them to such a grand scale as would be necessary to supply energy for the counties of the world there pretty much is no other word, because the downsides of each are unsustainable when considered for mass international use. From the well known problems of fossil fuels, to the relatively unknown costly environmental price of solar and wind (which need so many rare earth materials to work, which are not only extremely rare, but highly toxic when disposed of!)

Hydroelectric may seem like a good idea, and it is a fantastically reliable energy source (Iceland's national grid is 70% hydroelectric!) But it takes a huge amount of energy to create the giant concrete dams (produced by highly pollutive industry) and causes absolute environmental devastation to the immediate area (by flooding it) not to mention the long term consequences of having a large body of relatively stagnant water where one should not exist naturally (creating a breeding ground for pests and insects, as was found to the detriment of farmers living near the Aswan dam in Egypt)
Not to mention the Chinese disaster in 1975 when several dams broke, drowning 230,000 people living downstream. That's not a typo, two hundred and thirty thousand people died in that incident.

Geothermal is actually really environmentally friendly, but unfortunately only Iceland can really exploit it to any large extent (and even they only manage to have it make up 30% of their national grid) So it is not a suitable power source for the rest of the world.

Wave energy has a lot of potential, and is really effective when it works... although it's very situational, and as anyone who lives near the coast will tell you, you will get days where there just are no waves, and then the country depending on them for their energy production are absolutely screwed.

All energy sources have their downsides, but when you consider the huge amount of energy we demand today, and you magnify those negatives to a national scale, I think horrific is pretty apt to describe how each would perform on an international level.
indelibleStain said:
Then there's the overpopulation issue to tackle. That's going to be a tough'en ;(
Ah, we'll just get Merkel on the phone and have her start another war. You can say what you want about the Germans, but they always organise the best wars.
 

Loop Stricken

Covered in bees!
Jun 17, 2009
4,723
0
0
Yosharian said:
Loop Stricken said:
Yosharian said:
Sad that some people still don't know who Greg Palast is, christ.
Feel free to educate us unwashed heathens, because as it stands, that website just reads like conspiracy theory babble.
Greg Palast is one of the best investigative reporters on the planet, if you don't know who he is that's your problem not mine. Educate yourself, it's not my job to do it. That's what the internet is for.
Well aren't you just a bucket of happiness and sunshine.

He can't be that good if I've never heard of him.
 

generals3

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,198
0
0
TizzytheTormentor said:
Well, after Chernobyl, people are pretty scared of nuclear power, the effects of the explosion still remain.

But we have come a long way since then, nuclear power is very efficient and as long as they do what they can to make it as safe as possible, I am all for it.
And people tend to forget Chernobyl was caused due to severe incompetence. They literally disabled the safety nets during the test they were conducting. It's almost as if they were asking for the reactor to meltdown.
 

Aris Khandr

New member
Oct 6, 2010
2,353
0
0
AngloDoom said:
Comments like these are just lessons in sensationalism.

"Only in the UK could we considering giving up radiation - the same stuff we use to run harmless microwaves on a daily basis - to fuel the country on dead animals! What has this gunk ever given us? BP spill anyone? Only a lunatic would stop using radiation to fill our wires with exploding dinosaurs."
If I ever start a band, I'm naming us Exploding Dinosaurs.

Not really surprised by the reactions, though. People have been overreacting about nuclear power for almost as long as I've been alive. They don't really know anything about it, they just know that Chernobyl was bad, and thus all nuclear power is bad. Because clearly we haven't improved technology at all from what was used by mid-80s Soviet satellite nations.