http://www.breakingnews.ie/World/mhgbidsngbgb/

There is news of a serious uranium leak into two rivers in France. Has anyone any more information on this?

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/07/08/france-nukespill.html

It happened in the water recycling plant. 30 m3 of water with 12 gr uranium each, leaked on the ground and then trickling into river.

All activities like drinking water, fishing and nautic sports are temporarily banned.

I think the risk depends on how technicians handle the equipment. If well handled, it is safe, if not, it is lethal.

With a nuclear plant in Ireland, because the Irish drink all the time and spend their time quoting literature instead of working, I think it would be highly unsafe.

If the world wishes to consume at the rate that it does, or to increase consumption, as it appears to - some form of nuclear energy is going to be inevitable. I have a friend who is an electronic engineer and I tend to bow to his superior judgment on these matters, he would be a supporter of nuclear power playing some role in our energy needs.

Really though I would support a single European Energy market and the power plants which are in each country would be those that are most efficient to produce in that country. I'm unaware if Ireland has the correct infrastructure or anything like that to really make nuclear worthwhile in that sort of market. Certainly tidal energy would be a runner, though I understand it is very expensive to develop.

[quote="arnaudherve"]It happened in the water recycling plant. 30 m3 of water with 12 gr uranium each, leaked on the ground and then trickling into river.

All activities like drinking water, fishing and nautic sports are temporarily banned.

I think the risk depends on how technicians handle the equipment. If well handled, it is safe, if not, it is lethal.

With a nuclear plant in Ireland, because the Irish drink all the time and spend their time quoting literature instead of working, I think it would be highly unsafe.[/quote]

You shouldn't judge the entire Irish nation by the posters on this site, arnaudherve...

cactus flower wrote:

You shouldn't judge the entire Irish nation by the posters on this site, arnaudherve...

Yes there are also women who drink more beer than you, talk louder than you and threaten to pull you by your hair to the church all the time.

And they always have numerous big, tall brothers who play rugby and are easily irritated.

So, no, I won't give a nuclear plant to an Irish woman. It would be the end of the world.

arnaudherve wrote:

With a nuclear plant in Ireland, because the Irish drink all the time and spend their time quoting literature instead of working, I think it would be highly unsafe.

We don't drink water so as long as the guinness is uranium free...

As for the original question, Is Nuclear Power Worth The Risk? The answer is yes. To put it in perspective nobody would consider that driving a car isn't worth the risk despite the fact that hundreds of people die on our roads every year.

Lestat wrote:

As for the original question, Is Nuclear Power Worth The Risk? The
answer is yes. To put it in perspective nobody would consider that
driving a car isn't worth the risk despite the fact that hundreds of
people die on our roads every year.

Does this mean that you'd recognise that I as an individual should have the right to procure uranium and fire up my own little reactor?

Hermes wrote:

Lestat wrote:

As for the original question, Is Nuclear Power Worth The Risk? The
answer is yes. To put it in perspective nobody would consider that
driving a car isn't worth the risk despite the fact that hundreds of
people die on our roads every year.

Does this mean that you'd recognise that I as an individual should have the right to procure uranium and fire up my own little reactor?

Even if you were to accept that premise, the cost of having a personal reactor, the time involved and the maintanence required would militate against widespread adoption of the technology.

AT wrote:

Even if you were to accept that premise, the cost of having a personal
reactor, the time involved and the maintanence required would militate
against widespread adoption of the technology.

That, in a very roundabout way is one of the points I'm making. If I had fissionable material, I'd make a complete balls of it and poison those around me and the immediate vicinity for thousands of years. I'd make a better job of it than the government though, who initiate policies designed to cut corners.

Jaysus man, I'd not willingly give them the remote for the tv (eventhough I don't have one) for fear of what they might do. You need to crawl before you can walk. Our lot aint even out of the womb yet.

Hermes wrote:

Does this mean that you'd recognise that I as an individual should have the right to procure uranium and fire up my own little reactor?

Whatever lights your bulb.

Hermes wrote:

That, in a very roundabout way is one of the points I'm making. If I had fissionable material, I'd make a complete balls of it and poison those around me and the immediate vicinity for thousands of years. I'd make a better job of it than the government though, who initiate policies designed to cut corners..

Well so would I and so would the government which is why neither you, I or a member of government would be employed to run a nuclear power station. However there are nuclear power stations running all over the world and far fewer people die in nuclear accidents every year than die in car accidents.

Lestat wrote:

Hermes wrote:

Does this mean that you'd recognise that I as an individual should have the right to procure uranium and fire up my own little reactor?

Whatever lights your bulb.

It isn't about what lights my bulb. My point was specifically aimed at your bulb and why it was on the point of blowing.

Lestat wrote:

Hermes wrote:

That, in a very roundabout way is one of the points I'm making. If I had fissionable material, I'd make a complete balls of it and poison those around me and the immediate vicinity for thousands of years. I'd make a better job of it than the government though, who initiate policies designed to cut corners..

Well so would I and so would the government which is why neither you, I or a member of government would be employed to run a nuclear power station. However there are nuclear power stations running all over the world and far fewer people die in nuclear accidents every year than die in car accidents.

You might be surprised at what I'm qualified to run. Then again, maybe you wouldn't. Whatever the case, I was not making a point that looked at my qualification or the lack thereof. I was looking at the record of our government and expressing the opinion, that they are not capable of facilitating a nuclear industry in Ireland.

I'd like to know where you get your data from that facilitates you practically saying that radioactive contamination is insignificant. I put it to you, that there is not a body of water in Ireland, that is not contaminated below what would be considered normal if there were no nuclear industries. And more to the point, I put it to you, that there are no statistics available that can reliably determine how many deaths and illnesses are caused each year by the nuclear industry. Also, thanks to the nature of radiation and its longevity, we know that these statistics (whatever they actually are) will rise each year rather than decline.

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/ChernobylCoSS.html

This link puts forward a very much blacker view than that published by the USSR or the UN. It suggests that many hundreds of thousands have had their lives shortened as a result of nuclear emissions.

It would take a biologist with specialist knowledge of radiation effects and epidemiology to make sense of the very divergent figures that are put out about nuclear pollution-related dates and I'm not that person. On googling it is interesting to see how many sites there are that are funded by the nuclear industry and that give us a very reassuring picture of nuclear fission risks.

cactus flower wrote:

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/ChernobylCoSS.html

This link puts forward a very much blacker view...

By coincidence, I was also making reference to that website yesterday, here.

Every so often you get a decent discussion on P.ie, but with the nuclear issue it's unlikely.

Hermes wrote:

...I put it to you, that there are no statistics available that can reliably determine how many deaths and illnesses are caused each year by the nuclear industry. Also, thanks to the nature of radiation and its longevity, we know that these statistics (whatever they actually are) will rise each year rather than decline.

If there are no reliable statistics available how can you possibly know that they will rise every year.

Lestat wrote:

Hermes wrote:

...I put it to you, that there are no statistics available that can reliably determine how many deaths and illnesses are caused each year by the nuclear industry. Also, thanks to the nature of radiation and its longevity, we know that these statistics (whatever they actually are) will rise each year rather than decline.

If there are no reliable statistics available how can you possibly know that they will rise every year.

That's easilly answered. But before I do, I should clarify that there's a gulf of difference between not having full and reliable statistics, and assuming that we know nothing about the effects of radiation on the human body.

We know that the amount of nuclear waste grows each year - it's not like it's taken off the planet. We can use simple logic to plot a graph and show that the amount of nuclear related deaths and nuclear related illnesses are proportional to the amount of nuclear waste materials available. This too is simple: No nuclear material = no nuclear related illnesses or death - some nuclear material = illness and death - provided that some nuclear material doesn't sicken or kill everyone, lots of nuclear material will effect more people. Tis like the shell game. With only one pea under one of the three shells, there's a good chance you won't find it, even if you've been watching the manipulation and misdirection. Put a pea under each of the shells and you'll find a pea no metter how good the manipulator is.

Fair enough, nuclear material that's still in use and has yet to be considered waste will massage these figures too. But let's not complicate simplicity.

Of course there's a bootstrapping mechanism at work too. The more folks there are on the planet that are suffering from nuclear related illnesses, the more children will be born with nuclear related illnesses and defects.

Watch the former Yugoslavia and the Middle East over the next 10 - 20 years. Recycled nuclear waste (depleted uranium) will have a big effect. Just like it did after the first Gulf War. Course the amount of radiated munitions used then was miniscule compared to now. A point to take from this particular example is that lots of 'experts' called depleted uranium harmless when it was first deployed as a weapon. The number of these 'experts' has shrunken over time as the effects of depleted uranium became obvious. Even Boeing have promised to stop using this waste as ballast in the planes they manufacture. The really scary thing to note here, is that compared to most forms of nuclear waste, depleted uranium is relatively harmless.

To give a good example of how 'harmless' DU is, check out this video. You'll also get a good taste for why reliable statistics are hard to come by. Also, you'll see that the folks who refine and use fissionable material, will use any means available to dispose of waste materials.

The Doctor, The Depleted Uranium and The Dying Children.

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3

Hermes wrote:

That's easilly answered. But before I do, I should clarify that there's a gulf of difference between not having full and reliable statistics, and assuming that we know nothing about the effects of radiation on the human body.

Bullsh1t.

If you have no reliable base statistics then you cannot extrapolate reliably from those statistics.

A lengthy post full of waffle backed up with a few video clips makes bullsh1t seem more impressive though. Well done.

Lestat wrote:

Hermes wrote:

That's easilly answered. But before I do, I should clarify that there's a gulf of difference between not having full and reliable statistics, and assuming that we know nothing about the effects of radiation on the human body.

Bullsh1t.

If you have no reliable base statistics then you cannot extrapolate reliably from those statistics.

A lengthy post full of waffle backed up with a few video clips makes bullsh1t seem more impressive though. Well done.

Your arrival on the MN scene Lestat has not marked an improvement in the tone or substance of debate. I see you've been busy all night at this. The moderators seem not to be much in evidence over the last day or two but ordinarily they are pretty hot about reminding people that gratuitous insult of this sort is not welcome here.

Where are your own baseline statistics Lestat?

I'm not extrapolating from any statistics. I don't need to. I'm extrapolating from what we know about the health effects associated with nuclear material and waste. We know that the amount of waste grows each year and that it has a long shelf-life (to put it mildly). It's common sense really.

If I've posted bullshit and waffle, it'll be easy to shoot it down with produce other than your imaginings, won't it?

Also, this is a forum where we treat each other with courtesy. I suggest you get with the program.

Aragon wrote:

Lestat wrote:

Hermes wrote:

That's easilly answered. But before I do, I should clarify that there's a gulf of difference between not having full and reliable statistics, and assuming that we know nothing about the effects of radiation on the human body.

Bullsh1t.

If you have no reliable base statistics then you cannot extrapolate reliably from those statistics.

A lengthy post full of waffle backed up with a few video clips makes bullsh1t seem more impressive though. Well done.

Your arrival on the MN scene Lestat has not marked an improvement in the tone or substance of debate. I see you've been busy all night at this. The moderators seem not to be much in evidence over the last day or two but ordinarily they are pretty hot about reminding people that gratuitous insult of this sort is not welcome here.

Indeed. Keep the posts clean lads and lasses!

I think Hermes' apprehensions seem to be centred around the potential for misuse or mishandling of nuclear materials and nuclear waste.
I don't know much about nuclear power so my questions are born of ignorance, but....
Is nuclear power really very efficient?
Is there a plentiful and sustainable supply of fuel (is it uranium?)?
Is there a safe way of handling and storing the waste?
I have to admit that I would be apprehensive as well. As has been pointed out, governments haven't been very reliable is many other fields so I wouldn't be filled with confidence in their ability to properly regulate a nuclear industry and fully enforce those regulations.

Aragon wrote:

Your arrival on the MN scene Lestat has not marked an improvement in the tone or substance of debate. .

I get the impression that you and Hermes are baffled when others don't fall into line with your opinions. Better learn to deal with it.

Hermes wrote:

Where are your own baseline statistics Lestat?.

As you said yourself, they don't exist.

Hermes wrote:

I'm not extrapolating from any statistics. I don't need to.

So basically you know what you know and that should be good enough for the rest of us.

Hermes wrote:

If I've posted bullshit and waffle,

What has DU ammunition got to do with the argument in question? Which in case you've forgotten is whther nuclear generation is worth the risk or not. Bottom lineis we need electricity. Fossil fuels are running out and clean methods of generating enough electricity for our needs aren't viable. We are left with nuclear generation or candles. Take your pick

Hermes wrote:

Also, this is a forum where we treat each other with courtesy. I suggest you get with the program.

I am extremely courteous. But if I read what I believe to be bullsh1t then I call it, as I see it.

AfricanDave wrote:

I think Hermes' apprehensions seem to be centred around the potential for misuse or mishandling of nuclear materials and nuclear waste.
I don't know much about nuclear power so my questions are born of ignorance, but....
Is nuclear power really very efficient?
Is there a plentiful and sustainable supply of fuel (is it uranium?)?
Is there a safe way of handling and storing the waste?
I have to admit that I would be apprehensive as well. As has been pointed out, governments haven't been very reliable is many other fields so I wouldn't be filled with confidence in their ability to properly regulate a nuclear industry and fully enforce those regulations.

Check out this LINK to the BBC from yesterday, to see how efficient nuclear power is. If taking care of the waste products wasn't so expensive, nuclear power would be incredibly efficient. To make it even worse, radioactive waste is generated in quite a few ways, for example: when nuclear material is refined for use and when it has been used and/or contaminates water etc. whilst electricity is being generated.

There's a very plentiful supply of nuclear material.

The storage of waste links into the first question you asked. It is possible to safely store waste (relatively safe - subject to human error and greed). But it's incredibly expensive and since the amount that needs to be stored increases the whole time, the expense rises. The nuclear industry has tried to reduce this cost by selling the nuclear waste, like depleted uranium, which has been used in everything from weapons to ballast in airplanes and ships.

In truth, if we could guarantee the behaviour of the nuclear industry and, if we could curb the greed and downright carelessness (on many levels) of our government, I'd be in favour of nuclear power in Ireland. However, those two 'ifs' are of such a magnitude they border on the impossible and are complete fantasy. So whether or not I'm in favour of nuclear generated power is neither here nor there.

Lestat wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Your arrival on the MN scene Lestat has not marked an improvement in the tone or substance of debate. .

I get the impression that you and Hermes are baffled when others don't fall into line with your opinions. Better learn to deal with it.

Hermes wrote:

Where are your own baseline statistics Lestat?.

As you said yourself, they don't exist.

Hermes wrote:

I'm not extrapolating from any statistics. I don't need to.

So basically you know what you know and that should be good enough for the rest of us.

Hermes wrote:

If I've posted bullshit and waffle,

What has DU ammunition got to do with the argument in question? Which in case you've forgotten is whther nuclear generation is worth the risk or not. Bottom lineis we need electricity. Fossil fuels are running out and clean methods of generating enough electricity for our needs aren't viable. We are left with nuclear generation or candles. Take your pick

Hermes wrote:

Also, this is a forum where we treat each other with courtesy. I suggest you get with the program.

I am extremely courteous. But if I read what I believe to be bullsh1t then I call it, as I see it.

So you have nothing other than your opinion to prove me wrong.

It's not a matter of knowing what I know and that being good enough for everyone. I broke my argument into very bite-sized chunks. I cannot dumb it down any further. It was based on logic and if my logic is flawed it would be easilly pointed out. Course you haven't done that. You're still basing what you have to say on faith in spite of accusing me of the same thing.

DU has everything to do with this argument. If you'd bothered to read what I've said so far or bothered to watch the video 'clips,' you'd possibly get it.

You're very far from being courteous, never mind being extremely so. This is a debate. Debates use facts and logic. Thus far you've attempted to argue using your imagination and have offered insult when your imagination is shown not to reflect fact.

You've already shown that you know practically nothing about nuclear materials. Get off your high horse and start reading, you're bringing both the tone and the value of this thread downwards.

AfricanDave wrote:

I think Hermes' apprehensions seem to be centred around the potential for misuse or mishandling of nuclear materials and nuclear waste.
I don't know much about nuclear power so my questions are born of ignorance, but....
Is nuclear power really very efficient?
Is there a plentiful and sustainable supply of fuel (is it uranium?)?
Is there a safe way of handling and storing the waste?
I have to admit that I would be apprehensive as well. As has been pointed out, governments haven't been very reliable is many other fields so I wouldn't be filled with confidence in their ability to properly regulate a nuclear industry and fully enforce those regulations.

Obviously all those concerns have to be addressed. My opinion,

It's relatively efficient, not relying on sunshine or wind power.
There's about a hundred years supply of uranium left.
Yes the waste can be and is safely handled and stored.
We rely on government to properly regulate lots of dangerous things. Fortunately nuclear power also has a lot of international oversight.

Hermes wrote:

You've already shown that you know practically nothing about nuclear materials. Get off your high horse and start reading, you're bringing both the tone and the value of this thread downwards.

I'll leave you to it.