GoaThief said:
JeanLuc761 said:
Are there other possible environmental factors that could be causing the high cancer rates?
No.
The pattern is repeated elsewhere but these things tend to get brushed under the carpet.
Unless your local plant is experiencing radiation leaks, whether they be airborne or through groundwater, the plant shouldn't be affecting that.
Says you with absolutely no first hand experience. On paper everything is made to be kosher but the reality is radiation
always gets into the surrounding area, "venting" happens on nearly every single plant and is often not even covered in the news, even local. There are other methods too, strange how the surrounding seawater is devoid of much life and sits at a few degrees higher than elsewhere in the estuary.
the estuary is because of the reduced oxygen in the higher-temperature water, not nuclear run-off. the water is used to cool the heating power-system, that which isn't vented from the cooling towers goes into local water-sources, and is not irradiated
As far as Fukushima goes, in my opinion that event is not a good argument against the use of nuclear power due to the extreme circumstances surrounding it.
Any nuclear plant built around water (all of them) has the potential to be struck by tsunamis and flooding of various kinds, to assume it's not going to happen just because it hasn't already is folly in the extreme. Nuclear energy has only been around for a blink of an eye, Fukushima is a fine example as is Chernobyl. These things will happen again and in greater numbers if these plants are continued to be built.
Meanwhile, 75% of France's energy demands are provided entirely by nuclear power, and they're having no problems.
You're joking, right? Twice the rate of childhood leukaemia around French nuclear plants [http://jech.bmj.com/content/55/7/469.long] is just one random example. The country has seen many thousands protest against nuclear power within the last year alone.
There are 435 nuclear plants in the world, and only two of which have had a catastrophic problem, and those issues have been rectified by modern reactor designs.
Catastrophic problems are not the only problems, aside from which ONE is too many as it is. If you were born around the immediate area of a disaster you might well be saying otherwise, if you were still living of course.
Most nuclear plants are still using outdated technology, this is all due to money. They aren't cheap and corner-cutting happens all the time. Humans are not infallible either and mistakes will be made and you can bet your ass that terrorist groups are eyeing up nuclear reactors with glee.
Then, there's thorium nuclear power which is quite literally meltdown-proof.
I guess you missed the key part about "scientific" groups and thinktanks backed by some of the richest corporations on the planet responsible for some of, if not the worst man-made disasters the world has seen. Let that sink in for a minute.
Additionally, a wind farm is not nearly efficient enough to feasibly provide enough power to a large population.
You must have glazed over the key tidal barrage part, which accounts for a lot more and is definitely powerful enough to power large populations. As I previously stated, the plans are there it's just the simple fact that energy giants are more interested in making a bigger profit, aka nuclear. Don't try to tell me it's impossible as even the biased media and politicians around here agree it's feasible yet finance plays a big role.
We haven't even touched upon the transport and disposal of nuclear material yet, another big problem that inevitably gets sidelined in these discussions. But hey, what does a guy who has lived in the shadow of a large nuclear plant for years know anyway?[/quote]
