Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

right_freds_dead

Hemel Hemstead Proves Nuclear Danger

Recommended Posts

well if todays news hasn't opened your eyes to industrial accidents, the you are simply choosing to ignore the reality of working close to towns with dangerous substances.

they will tell you nuclear is great and its cost effective and its safe to embark upon.

if they can blow up a petrol terminal they can melt down a reactor or go critical on a storage plant.

given the very nature of an accident, its something that was unplanned for. its accidental.

would you like to have woken up today to a burning cloud of radioactive fallout from a meltdown.?

they told everybody that this was impossible, until chenobyl and three mile island.

now they tell us thats its safe and efficient and ready to build all over the uk and next to you.

are we ready for this kind of responsibility ? are we accident efficient.?

well i wouldnt like to live next to one.....

while this is happening, we are ignoring a real chance to use our british inventivness and become world leaders in what is to become the future of the worlds governments. renewable energy.

we always lead on inventiveness. its time we took our normal place as the key to a scientific problem.

this is our chance to develop and research the options while we still have time.

yet ive seen people here bitch about how ugly wind farms look and how contemporary solar is weak. when the first steam locomotive was ugly and the first petrol engine was weak. then they get developed with the right kind of industrial money backing. and they evolve. henry fords first cars didnt have 220bhp from the get go.

for the next 20 years we can either fight the arabs for the oil. go nuclear or come up with some real work and some real ideas. some real alternatives to nuclear.

and maybe, just maybe we might get back to exporting something good we can make a living from and not be tucked next to an accident waiting to happen. because they always will. as you've seen today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well if todays news hasn't opened your eyes to industrial accidents, the you are simply choosing to ignore the reality of working close to towns with dangerous substances.

they will tell you nuclear is great and its cost effective and its safe to embark upon.

if they can blow up a petrol terminal they can melt down a reactor or go critical on a storage plant.

given the very nature of an accident, its something that was unplanned for. its accidental.

would you like to have woken up today to a burning cloud of radioactive fallout from a meltdown.?

they told everybody that this was impossible, until chenobyl and three mile island.

now they tell us thats its safe and efficient and ready to build all over the uk and next to you.

are we ready for this kind of responsibility ? are we accident efficient.?

well i wouldnt like to live next to one.....

while this is happening, we are ignoring a real chance to use our british inventivness and become world leaders in what is to become the future of the worlds governments. renewable energy.

we always lead on inventiveness. its time we took our normal place as the key to a scientific problem.

this is our chance to develop and research the options while we still have time.

yet ive seen people here bitch about how ugly wind farms look and how contemporary solar is weak. when the first steam locomotive was ugly and the first petrol engine was weak. then they get developed with the right kind of industrial money backing. and they evolve. henry fords first cars didnt have 220bhp from the get go.

for the next 20 years we can either fight the arabs for the oil. go nuclear or come up with some real work and some real ideas. some real alternatives to nuclear.

and maybe, just maybe we might get back to exporting something good we can make a living from and not be tucked next to an accident waiting to happen. because they always will. as you've seen today.

Don't be such an arsehole. Nuclear energy has been shown to be the safest, most efficient source of power yet realised.The French have been exporting it to us for years and typically idiots like you benefit from cheaper costs but singularly fail to acknowledge the superiority of such a source.Get real or otherwise you will lose any credibility left remaining. At present the only real alternative source of energy is probably methane, to which you undoubtedly contribute immensely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

duet mon droit' or whatever your name is. sounds like your the asshole.

how can we learn lessons from the french who bring us massive civil disorder and farm subsidies so vile its ruining any chance of a fair europe.

who are you to dictate that nuclear is safe. nuclear is not safe. its about as safe as a french colony with problems. just because it hasnt yet happened in france doesnt mean it wont be coming. it only has to 'appen once and goodbye french wine for the next 400 years or so.

plus the way you pave off any thoughts of any other method of energy makes you look like a *****.

id consider nuclear if there was a track record of either safety or efficiency.

its propped up in france and the usa by HUGE subsidy (suprise suprise).

pound for pound is not cost efficient and were left with costly disposal which we 'think' will be okay in 500 years. even oil is cheaper than nuclear. nuclear is unstable.

nuclesar is your typical government/big business partnership that spells profits for some and lies for the rest. there will never be any 'cheap' energy from this. they said that about the north sea oil and the cold war dividend.

this is going to be the kind of parnership thats brought you the government/high street lending partnership. and the 'independent boe'. and had us chase into iraq for 'weapons of mass destruction'.

so yeah. "dont be such an asshole" even thinking about renewables you credit drinking, subsidy sipping socialist. go burn some live cattle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anybody read this description from a biker girl that rides through the Chernobyl area?

Recommended:

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html

Usually, on this leg of the journey, a beeping geiger counter inspires to shift into high gear and streak through the area with great haste. The patch of trees in front of me is called red - or 'magic" wood. In 1986, this wood glowed red with radiation. They cut them down and buried them under 1 meter of earth.

The readings on the asphalt paving is 500 -3000 microroentgens, depending upon where you stand. That is 50 to 300 times the radiation of a normal environment. If I step 10 meters forward, geiger counter will run off the scale. If I walk a few hundred meters towards the reactor, the radiation is 3 roentgens per hour - which is 300,000 times normal. If I was to keep walking all the way to the reactor, I would glow in the dark tonight. Maybe this is why they call it magic wood. It is sort of magical when one walks in with biker's leather and walks out like a knight in a shining armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nuclear energy is good in theory. and thats all. its not practical at the moment. its too unsafe.

its as developed as solar. only it works now- crudely. so we PLUNGE into it because we smell HUGE profit and sod the consequences. a little like the way we PLUNGED into burning fossil fuel - which may now kill us all by cocking up the worlds climates.

if we PLUNGE into solar and wind and hydro we might just DEVELOP something good - but where are the HUGE profits ??

the only real questions in todays governments.

where are our HUGE profits and can we tax them ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not posted much on this site before, but i've never heard so much b******s talked about, saying nuclear is "unsafe"!! Why do you think it's unsafe? Because the environmentalists tell you it is? I actually worked in the nuclear industry until quite recently, so I know quite a bit about this unlike a lot of people and I can say that it is by far the safest industry in the world. Let's look at it from a logical basis. The nuclear industry has been operating since the 1940's and at present there are around 440 power reactors in the world today which generate electricity day in day out without a single incident. How many accidents has there been of a serious nature? Ok, we had Windscale in this country, but it doesn't really count given that it was a military reactor and not even remotely like the designs used today. Three Mile Island? How many people died in that? Eh, nobody. Chernobyl? If you look at the figures, I think it is 37. Yes, 37. And sadly, Chernobyl was completely avoidable given that the operators were performing an unauthorised experiment which involved turning off the reactor safety systems and withdrawing control rods from the core. In the West you can't interfere with the safety systems, as the reactor would shut itself down immediately. Terrorist threats? Well, its a bit of a joke that one, because nuclear reactors are very heavily fortified constructions and crashing an aircraft might shut down the power station, but it isn't going to cause another Chernobyl, not one bit.

Now, lets compare the nuclear industry to the chemical industry over the same length of time (i.e. the 1940s), how many people have died as a result of accidents in chemical plants? I don't have the figures, but may I cite one example: Bhopal in India. I think about 10,000 people died in that one incident. But do I hear people saying that they want all chemical plants shut down. No.

The big problem which most people have is that they have absolutely no conception of risk. You take risks everyday of your life, one of the biggest is driving your car. It can be said that operating a nuclear power station is very low down on the risk register and frankly i'd rather live with the risk of living next door to one (I actually live near one a few miles down the road from where i live) than the greater risk of global warming. Lets face it, if you don't want to shiver in the winter in the future, you are going to have to embrace nuclear like it or not. Some of you might say, wind turbines. Well the big problem with them is that if the wind doesn't blow, you don't get any electricity. And, the peak demand for electricity happens to be in the summer and winter when wind conditions are not favourable for electricity production. So you have to have back up capacity.

My view is that we as a world need to embrace renewables and nuclear. Not one or the other. Both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Oil burns, and in confined spaces explodes. Uranim does not. Many more people have died mining coal and oil than in the nuclear industry. Renewable AND nuclear, until we can find a better source, probably nuclear fusion, in a few decades time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nuclear is cost-unefficient. it relies on a HUGE subsidy.

we have the correct conditions for hydro, solar and wind, but industry cant make a mint out of this and so wont spend a lot of research money making it efficient because it cant get a return back over the long term.

so like the dunlop long life tyre and the ford pinto it boils down to money over safety.

the government and this industry love each other. its going to get rammed down our throats until a time comes when one of these plants does blow like the safe petrol dump today, and were spitting loose teeth in cumbria for the next 35 years.

yeah - so safe no one really knew if a meltdown would not travel all the way through the earth and into china.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it doesnt.

unless your french and then you simply dump it into the sea in cement barrels over the side of a freighter.

or you bury it in deep lead filled channels drilled into a non porous bed rock. then you kine the bedrock in kryptonite and line the whole thing in lead. then you encase that in another even bigger cement barrel with has sacrificial mercury anodes welded to it with titanium. encrust teh whole block in diamonds and then dump it at sea after 1000 years when its partly safe. we think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not posted much on this site before, but i've never heard so much b******s talked about, saying nuclear is "unsafe"!! Why do you think it's unsafe? Because the environmentalists tell you it is? I actually worked in the nuclear industry until quite recently, so I know quite a bit about this unlike a lot of people and I can say that it is by far the safest industry in the world.

I don't think anybody believes that nuclear stations are held together with bits of string and sellotape. They're probably 99.999% safe... but when that 0.001% chance comes along - and that includes human error - the consequences are dire.

If a windfarm went into meltdown I don't think anybody would notice.

As for the death toll at Chernobyl, I believe the <50 figure includes only those on-site during the initial explosion (i.e. all of them). The emergency workers are not counted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify: the number of deaths directly attributable to the Chernobyl accident was 57, not 37.

This figure includes emergency services (the majority of the 57) and deaths due to thyroid cancer in children (9 deaths from approx 1800 cases). It does not include other forms of cancer on the general population, as the statistical data for cancer cases in Russia prior to the accident is limited, so there is no way of determining the consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ‘enemy within’ and nuclear power stations do not mix well, bit like water and Oil

Blair loves it all as it gives him an excuse to enslave the public.

We need to see who stands to gain on the price of petrol going up in the UK and see if these people have been buying shares. Same happened on 9/11 with Bush & Saudi Co Ltd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

37 deaths my ringpiece. On the scene maybe, what about all the increases in terminal desease as a result of the radioactive cloud etc etc (which apparently reached the Welsh Hills???)

Fair enough, they managed to put it out...but couldnt it have been worse? I agree that Nuclear energy is safe, very safe. But when it go's wrong...my my. There's a big potential for disaster. Why isnt the UK stocking up on windpower? Eyesore? Maybe. I'd rather that than future generations suffering due to our inaction/ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RFD, tell me. What will the nation do when the wind is not blowing, its coludy and all the Dams have run out of water for HEP??? Do we just sit round in the dark like cavemen??

Because if TB and the government listened to pinko sissie individuals, thats what we would end up doing. Why oh why, bearing in mind 100% of our energy requirement could come from tidal power, do we not invest in huge tidal dams? The severn alone could generate 30% of UK requirement with absolutely NO CO2 emmisions. Youve guessed it. the same Pinko leftie sissies whinge about the effect on the environment, bird life et cetera. One or the other. you cant have both. Oh, one thing about those wind turbines in north scotland. Most of their blades have fell off. No Sh*t. I should know, I fly over them on a regular basis. You dont read that in the mirror do you. Wind power is a complete and utter joke. always was, always will be. You will always need the generating capacity to cover wind power for when it is not blowing. Fact.

Your suggestions that the nuclear option would generate similar volumes of highly radioactive waste are naieve in the extreme. Due to increases in manufacturing performance, as well as a mature view on storage difficulties, the volumes involved will be minescule compared to the current volumes. If you truly believe in the environment, and want to cut down on CO2 emmisions for a price that is around 1.5 times the unit cost of coal and gas (rather than the 5-6X for wind, 10X for solar and 4X for HEP) Nuclear is the only option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until Nuclear Fusion comes along, which I suspect will be never LOL I don't think there is going to be an easy answer to all this.... In an ideal world we wouldn't consume the energy we use today, but that ain't going to happen either :lol: It's all a farce and comes down to money of course :rolleyes:

I have to say I do hate hearing about Chernoble as an example of the dangers of nuclear power - from what I understood it was a very in-experienced junior and an incomplete manual that caused this problem - along with fifties technology this was trouble for the making! I think we have learnt a few lessons there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until Nuclear Fusion comes along, which I suspect will be never LOL I don't think there is going to be an easy answer to all this.... In an ideal world we wouldn't consume the energy we use today, but that ain't going to happen either :lol: It's all a farce and comes down to money of course :rolleyes:

I have to say I do hate hearing about Chernoble as an example of the dangers of nuclear power - from what I understood it was a very in-experienced junior and an incomplete manual that caused this problem - along with fifties technology this was trouble for the making! I think we have learnt a few lessons there!

Thing is, its a proven technology! If they threw enough money at it, they could solve all the problems. (Mainly material and quantum level problems in understanding) Alas, research costs far outweigh energy produced by current carbon-based fuels. I find it rather strange that, nations like saudi, sat on unlimited wealth do not fund such projects on the understanding they reap say 40% of any future profits of energy produced through fusion. The UN could even decide the cost of a unit of energy. Alas, they instead choose to sit round and wait till their supplies run out, then wonder what the hell to do.

A perfect example of enterprise in the middle east like this is the explosion of wealth in Dubai - the UAE was one of the poorer OPEC producers yet used their limited wealth to further their potential. Talking about splitting between so called renewable and traditional means of poer generation is poppycock. One or the other, otherwise it becomes far too expensive. A la Wind power; masively expensive and pure government hype.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.