Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?

An interresting point I just discovered.

The Japanese earthquake also caused a damfailure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujinuma_Dam

Quote from the article:
In the early morning of 12 March 2011, the dam failed, reportedly due to the Tōhoku earthquake. Locals reported hearing a loud burst before seeing a flood. The flood washed away five houses while damaging others, disabling a bridge and blocked roads with debris. Eight people were missing and four bodies were discovered after searches began at dawn.

So dams busting due to the earthquake has already caused more deaths than the triple meltdown at Fukushima is likely to cause. But I haven't heard anything about it so far. And I highly doubt this will make us reconsider the safety of hydroelectricity and deem it unsafe for the future.

The interesting thing is that you're always talking about direct casualties. Radiation however, kills rather slowly than directly. Unfortunately the Russians were trained well in covering things like these. Otherwise we would now have better research results on the effects of radiation on mortality and so on.

Another good example: Kyshtym disaster
(edited)

The perception of danger is also determined by the way it affects you. Cancer is seen as far worse to die than drowning. But in general, the point you are raising is interesting.

As far as I know nuclear installations can be quite easily regulated, to produce more or less power. That makes it also a good option to have some nuclear backup capacity.

The Kyshtym disaster is not a very good example. It was an accident at a secret military installation. The city was in fact so secret, it didn't even have a name or showed on any official maps. Plus it happened during the coldest part of the cold war in the heart of the Soviet Union, so the cover up is almost expected.

Regarding Chernobyl the results are actually quite well examined today. WHO has made some recent studies. I've written about in a previous post in this thread, so you can go a bit back. The main conclusion is however, that the fears of long term radiation is probably much higher than the actual effect. At least from the doses people experienced around Chernobyl.

Yes, contrary to popular belief it's actually possible to regulate the effect of a nuclear power plant on an hourly basis. France gets around 80% of it's supply of electricity from nuclear power. But the economics of nuclear power - as I've understood it - gets better with a stable demand.

I don't believe in a report that has been carried out 15 or more years after Tchernobyl considering the lack of data from the time after that accident.

Furthermore the interest conflict between WHO and IAEO is known and makes any study of the WHO regarding the effects of radiation look rather useless.
(edited)

I admire your patience

I just don't accept people spreading their pro-nuclear propaganda in here without others showing the truth of real alternatives. I don't like the 'no we can't' as this isn't a human thing to say, but is only text of pro-nuclear people to let others think or even believe we really can't without that shit or don't have the capabilities to make alternatives work. All lies and I don't accept people in here trying to tell others this lie without the other side of the story. I didn't even mention the money involved in nuclear power plants and the lies of politicians about that part, the real costs.

Nature produces thousands of Terrawatts, we only have to use it and we can. The problem is that some don't want. Maybe somekind of lobby ... ? I wouldn't be surpriced.

(edited)

Come on... If you don't believe WHO, who do you believe? The studies has mainly been of statistical nature. Very large populations have shown no recordable difference in say leuchimia compared to other non- or less-affected populations.

WHO and IAEA are both major United Nations agencies. So of course there is a link between the two. By the way IAEA is the UN agency in charge of overseeing security and preventing proliferation of nuclear weapons. It's not some kind of shady nuclear lobby agency.

I said none of what you try to imply here. I'm just not trusting the WHO report in that issue because of above agreement between both organizations.

The aim of the IAEA: "The Agency works with its Member States and multiple partners worldwide to promote safe, secure and peaceful nuclear technologies."
It might not be shady but the goal is obvious. There's no reason for them to work on a report that casts a damning light on nuclear technology. That's enough reason for me.


(edited)

You're unbelieveable. I've spent hours explaining my beliefs with patience, facts, background knowledge and reason in this thread. And the best you've got is some kind of innuendo about lobbyism and denial. What a fucking load of bullshit, dude. I don't feel I need to make any excuses for my conviction, but I can assure you, that my beliefs are based on nothing but a year long interrest and research into climate change and power production.

Then name a study, you can trust. A study big enough to be trustworthy. Maybe Greenpeace, who's as strongly anti-nuclear in everything they do as anyone has ever been pro-nuclear. Greenpeace, by the way, base their reports on the WHO studies.

I read an interresting posting in the commentary section of a Danish forum for engineers (I'm not an engineer myself, but I read parts of the forum out of personal interrest - my daily work is as a journalist on a local newspaper in Denmark) about a week ago. It was by a Danish engineer who's worked eight years studying the aftermath and effects of the Chernobyl disaster. He started his research with a staunch anti-nuclear belief, but ended as a strong proponent. His reasoning was something like "if this is the worst that can happen...". I'll see if I can find it again, even though it's in Danish...

(edited)

That's exactly my point. There is no decent study because there can't be. The few incidents that happened where either (and fortunately) less dramatic because the worst had been avoided or they were covered up which made a decent study impossible.
I hope that the current incident at Fukushima will not be treated like that and instead be used to really and objectively find out what impact radiation has on environment and people.

If however it will be played down as well, it will only encourage me to think it's as a dangerous as I think.

Listen to pro-nuclears and you will always hear the same arguments over and over again, doesn't matter who you talk to. The moment that happens, doesn't matter if this is nuclear power or for example god, over and over the same arguments makes me wonder why ...

And some other things. You show a link with doses of radiation, is really interesting. I show you child leukemia near 'fine' working nuclear power stations, you don't believe it.
You say not many died of nuclear power so far, I show you a study of Greenpeace with over 500.000 sick and 100.000 dead (only with Chernobyl), you don't believe it.
You say nuclear power plants have a small footprint, I show you the picture of a nuclear power station, but I could also show this mining uranium, this isn't a small footprint at all! every windpark, however big has a smaller footprint as this.
You are talking about cheap energy, I show you really cheap energy made entirely of renewable energy (tidal wave for example), your answer is we can't yet.

The moment I show you numbers that doesn't fit your personal study your answer is 'I don't believe that study'. And of many other things I showed you alternatives and how great they already work, your answer is this isn't realistic, but I think you forgot to take this seriously in your personal study for energy production.

You're such a fucking hypocrite... You haven't responded to a single of my points. So pardon me if I've lost interrest in wasting my time on your postings. My only regret is, that I still do it from time to time - like now. Believe what you want to believe. I know you will.
(edited)

The Chernobyl accident has probably been the most researched disaster ever. And the WHO studies has been the largest. If you can't put any trust into them and claim them as some part of a cover up, all that's left is pure speculation and wild guesses. The WHO is not an agency set up to promote nuclear power. It's an agency set up to provide the best means and research possible into human health effects.

Besides that, what you're saying is actually:

If the results of the examination into the Fukushima accident in some years will be, that there hasn't been a major impact om health and/or environment, you'll automatically assume, that there's been a cover up. As you do with Chernobyl. Only if the results are, that it has had a serious effect, you'll believe it. Am I getting this right..?

Really, you're making my points in this debate better, than I can do myself.