Whats the problem with nuclear power?

DPinBucks

This is one of those marginal issues which rely on statistics.

The question really should be extended to include diseases contracted in later life though exposure to radiation, as well as birth deformities.

Certainly, there can be an attributable increase in such cases where a known release has occured, the most notable being Chernobyl and Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

However, where there is no known leakage, and in some places where there are, no cases that I'm aware of can be definitely shown to be above the statistical norm. There is sometimes some publicity about, for example, increases in childhood leukemia, but these have never been shown to more than might be expected anyway. Statistically, pockets of increased occurence do crop up (it would be suspicious if they didn't), but there are no more such pockets around nuclear installations than anywhere else.

andy1249

Ive taken a neutral stance so far , but in regards to the above , Im sorry but that , particularly in relation to Chernobyl , where the horrendous effects have been quite clearly documented , is offensive rubbish !!

And were anyone from any agency to spout that nonsense to me in relation to chernobyl I would treat them in the same way I would treat a holocaust denier.
Its one thing to take the stance that a Chernobyl style accident couldnt happen in a properly controlled modern facility , its quite another to play down the effects of that horrendous disaster!
I find that absolutely despicable.

It is very very important , if nuclear power is to be the only alternative , that anyone who is to propose such developments takes a very respectful attitude to the event in Chernobyl , any kind of dismissive attitude as quoted in Bold above is likely to undermine any faith in Safety protocols and lead to a heavy backlash from the likes of Greenpeace and similar.

I would like to add , especially in my case , that I find the prevalence to terms such as , "a stroll through Grand Central Terminal exposes a person to more radiation than a walk of equal length through a uranium mine" and the many similar terms in this thread quite insulting ..... No matter how many times this rubbish is spouted no one is going to take their family on a picnic beside a cooling tower !

We all know that if not properly controlled a Nuclear plant can be a Dangerous long term disaster , dont spout nonsense like the above , rather tell me why it is very unlikely to happen with the plants your going to build , and have these audited and reported on by an independant  third party.

GasDad

Oddly enough if you drive a train into a tank, the structure of the tank survives.

Shoot an armour piercing round at it though....

DPinBucks

Again, I agree with all you say.

I bet the quotation about background levels at Chernobyl and Denver refers to just that: normal background levels. I wouldn't be surprised if Denver were quite high and Chernobyl low. But to quote it in that particular context, to imply that the people of Chernobyl have received less radiation since the disaster than the people of Denver is, as you say, quite disgraceful.  Ditto the Grand Central allusion.

johntheexpat

It depends how extreme you want to go on your worst case scenario planning.  I couldn't find the link that Steve J Davies put up on that topic in another thread.  But if it falls off the train, no problem, if the train hits an obstacle no problem.  If the train runs full pelt into another train, still OK.  If a fully laden 747 hits the train, who knows?  If the terrorists surmount all the obstacles and difficulties and fire an armour piercing round into one, then maybe it will spring a leak.  But that is taking things to such an extreme that to think like that will never get anything done.

But it still doesn't answer the problem that nuclear power seems to be a lot cleaner, from a nuclear fallout point of view, than coal.

When all is said and done, you have to wonder if coal had only recently been discovered, would burning it to produce power be allowed under current health and safety legislation?  We live with it because we always have, but that is the only reason.  Like aspirin, which if synthesised in the labs for the first time today, wouldn't even reach clinical trials because it would be deemed too dangerous with too many side effects.  I think the same is true for coal.  Mining it is dangerous and an environmental disaster, burning it produces a huge range of toxic (and radioactive waste), the ash is dangerous, the combustion products cause untold damage, etc etc.

Kebabhead

I was think more around nicking it and trying to turn it into a dirty bomb

SyStemDeMoN

I'm far from an expert on Chernobyl, but I remember reading up on this some years ago, and From what I Can remember the disaster was casued by someone running a test when he should'nt have.

Something like the conditions for the test were not suitable, I think the core (4?) should of been producing low power but it wasn't.

From what I can remember, the guy who ordered the test, and was in the control room at the time, was exposed to massive amounts of radiation.  He was still alive at the time of me reading that book about 10 yrs ago!!

And he denies any responsability for it
Would the accident have happened if someone else had been on that shift ?  To me its not so much an accident as a stuborn mistake.  There was no need to do the test, the cheif was just out to prove something I think.

Sonic67

I think statistic for statistic more people have died from mining disasters and use of coal in general than from nuclear power. Same with health issues. Besides it matters little what we do or not. France has loads of nuclear power stations.

andy1249

Probably not the most accurate account in the world , but quite detailed nonetheless , look at the section entitled individual involvement.

Chernobyl disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of Deaths and Injuries ... Note those with no dates ?
There are no records of what happened to some of these people ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster

pragmatic

My quotes were based on the comments that nuclear fallout will cause land to be destroyed and uninhabitable for centuries if not thousands of years.  Of course there were deaths from Chernobyl, estimated at a maximum of 50 direct deaths, mainly firemen and the like that were brought in to bring the plant under control and wrongly told it was safe.

The number of people affected by the fallout is difficult to know, and while any death is a terrible thing it wasn't an Armageddon like event people say it would be or seem to think it was.

I feel its all a bit futile talking about it in this way though, it suggests another Chernobyl is gonna happen when really not even likely (I mean winning the lottery every week for a year).  More people are killed by coal 'fallout' (toxins) every year but most anti nuclear folk don't seem to be bothered about that, or maybe they are just ignorant to both modern nuclear power and how unclean coal really is.

I don't think anyone did, your running off with your imagination, and if I implied that I apologise (otherwise please quote the comment).

Again (you mentioned it multiple times) I was talking about now and not the incident, safety of modern reactors is unquestioned by anyone who likes to use facts rather than fear.
Regarding Greenpeace they can't decide between them if wind power is good or not, I feel their time has come and gone, its now up to a scientifically backed governments to sort things out, not a band of renegade campaigners.

You can say rubbish all you want but this is evidence based, sorry

Neither would said family be there if the water cooler was for oil, gas or coal power, or beside an incinerator, sewage works or a recycling centre (or Wigton!).  Plenty of places families wouldn't have picnics, I don't see your point.

Its not nonsense though, maybe your looking at it from a certain/different point of view.

As for the bit in bold, over 50 years of energy production around the world without a single death with the exception of Chernobyl speaks quite highly of the safety of such plants, can you name another industry with such a record?
The fact is Nuclear industry has more safeguards than any other, they are safety paranoid, and I'm glad they are and so they should be because when it goes wrong it can go very wrong as pointed out.

In the real world its safe.
In the fear world its only a matter of time until Chernobyl will happen again.