Nuclear project in disarray as two pull out making new plants

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by martyh

yeah you may want to read them yourselves

taken from Mertle's link here http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/hazard/UKhazard.html




kind of backs up what i said really doesn't it ,the rest of the links either talk about other countries or are just theories

I stepped back from the thread when he started to post quotes i felt he had no bothered to read first.

The chances of us having an incident anything like that of Japan is negligible.

Tim do you think we will be able within the next 25 to 40 years to provide all the power we need from renewable ?? Because i don't and gas is running out the same as oil, So nuclear is the only option for power in the amount we need now and going forward. The nimby's complain about nuclear then complain about wind then complain about gas ???? i some times wonder if they want us back in caves

Originally Posted by Sirius

I stepped back from the thread when he started to post quotes i felt he had no bothered to read first.

The chances of us having an incident anything like that of Japan is negligible.

Indeed ,It reminds me of a person who relies on tv weather forcasts to know if it is raining instead of simply looking out of the window

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Would you like to be the one who tells 1000's of people who live within a 25 mile range of lets say Selafield, that there is a 1% chance that they could die due to an earthquake causing a massive radiation. And then don't forget all the contamination caused by the radiation cloud.

Tad over the top and reminds me of "Will someone save the Children" whilst running around screaming with there hands in the air

1% chance

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Not at all. Even a 1% chance is a chance. And when you are dealing with nuclear power, then that chance is far too high.

Would you like to be the one who tells 1000's of people who live within a 25 mile range of lets say Selafield, that there is a 1% chance that they could die due to an earthquake causing a massive radiation. And then don't forget all the contamination caused by the radiation cloud.

Everything has a hazard attached to it ,if we followed you risk free mantra that you keep spouting we would all be living in caves .I would maybe accept your arguments against nuclear power as valid if they where based on something such as human error or faulty equipment which is far more likely than earthquakes or tsunamis

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Sirius

I stepped back from the thread when he started to post quotes i felt he had no bothered to read first.

The chances of us having an incident anything like that of Japan is negligible.

Tim do you think we will be able within the next 25 to 40 years to provide all the power we need from renewable ?? Because i don't and gas is running out the same as oil, So nuclear is the only option for power in the amount we need now and going forward. The nimby's complain about nuclear then complain about wind then complain about gas ???? i some times wonder if they want us back in caves

Even if the chance is small, then it is still unacceptable due to the massive destruction a nuclear accident causes:

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_accident
There have been many radiation leaks into the Irish sea, making it the most radioactive sea in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...nts_by_country

There are other alternatives as I have mentioned before, including geothermal, hydroelectric, wave power, tidal power, and biomass.

I personally don't care about the nimbys, as they don't live in the real world. But what I do care about is the lives of people that could be lost for many years to come, following a nuclear accident, due to radiation.

---------- Post added at 09:53 ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

Everything has a hazard attached to it ,if we followed you risk free mantra that you keep spouting we would all be living in caves .I would maybe accept your arguments against nuclear power as valid if they where based on something such as human error or faulty equipment which is far more likely than earthquakes or tsunamis

You really need to read the thread before you comment. Earthquakes and tsunamis are just two of the risks. If you look at this link you will see that there are many risks involved with nuclear power: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...nts_by_country

I'm certainly not risk averse, otherwise I wouldn't do my job. But as long as there are alternatives, then due to the destruction caused by nuclear accidents, then the risk is unacceptable. If the UK was far bigger, and less densely populated, then you could stick a couple of nuclear power stations 100's of miles from civilisation, and they wouldn't be a problem...although the radiation cloud from Chernobyl was supposed to reach Cumbria. Although personally I think it was just convenient for the government to use as a cover up for yet another leak at Sellafield.

---------- Post added at 10:00 ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 ----------

Originally Posted by Sirius

Tad over the top and reminds me of "Will someone save the Children" whilst running around screaming with there hands in the air

1% chance

How many leaks have there been at Sellafield?? More than you think, and a lot more than we are told about.

And how many people do you think have cancers, or other illnesses caused by radiation due to leaks from power stations, many years after the leaks?

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

How many leaks have there been at Sellafield?? More than you think, and a lot more than we are told about.

And how many people do you think have cancers, or other illnesses caused by radiation due to leaks from power stations, many years after the leaks?

not many according to this ,the Irish sea is far from being the most radioactive in the world
and you can verify that info by clicking the numbers which will direct you to the reports that info is taken from

Doses of man-made radioactivity received by the heaviest consumers of seafood in Ireland in 2005 was 1.10µSv.[27] This compares with a corresponding dosage of radioactivity naturally occurring in the seafood consumed by this group of 148µSv and a total average dosage in Ireland from all sources of 3620µSv.[28] In terms of risk to this group, heavy consumption of seafood generates a 1 in 18 million chance of causing cancer. The general risk of contracting cancer in Ireland is 1 in 522. In the UK, the heaviest seafood consumers in Cumbria received a radioactive dosage attributable to Sellafield discharges of 0.22mSv (220µSv) in 2005.[29] This compares to average annual dose of naturally sourced radiation received in the UK of 2.23mSv (2230µSv).[30]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Sea#Radioactivity

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Meanwhile back in the real world, if there was ever a magnitude 9 earthquake in this country a few thousand deaths from the remote possibility of a radiation leak would be dwarfed by the hundreds of thousands or millions killed in collapsing buildings and the consequent food riots by the collapse of the infrastructure.

Indeed, Funny that was not quoted, Maybe we should all go and live on top of a mountain in case that 1% comes and bites us on our irradiated butts

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by martyh

not many according to this ,the Irish sea is far from being the most radioactive in the world
and you can verify that info by clicking the numbers which will direct you to the reports that info is taken from



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Sea#Radioactivity

I notice you didn't quote this part:

As an example of this profile, discharges of plutonium (specifically 241Pu) peaked in 1973 at 2,755TBq[18] falling to 8.1 TBq by 2004.[19] Improvements in the treatment of waste in 1985 and 1994 resulted in further reductions in radioactive waste discharge although the subsequent processing of a backlog resulted in increased discharges of certain types of radioactive waste. Discharges of technetium in particular rose from 6.1 TBq in 1993 to a peak of 192TBq in 1995 before dropping back to 14TBq in 2004.[18][19] In total 22PBq of 241Pu was discharged over the period 1952 to 1998.[20] Current rates of discharge for many radionuclides are at least 100 times lower than they were in the 1970s.[21]

Although they have cleaned up their act now, there are still many people who may be now (or in the future), suffereing illnesses caused by the radiation.

---------- Post added at 11:04 ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 ----------

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Meanwhile back in the real world, if there was ever a magnitude 9 earthquake in this country a few thousand deaths from the remote possibility of a radiation leak would be dwarfed by the hundreds of thousands or millions killed in collapsing buildings and the consequent food riots by the collapse of the infrastructure.


Quoting Chernobyl as a risk factor is not really relevant as it was a faulty design being run experimentally outside it's own poor limits. Even then as about the worst accident you could have with the core fully molten and exposed, relatively few people will die as a consequence compared to say the thousands that die every year, year on year, in mining, oil and gas exploration or on the roads.

Yes 1000's of people would be killed by a magnitude 9 earthquake in a city in the UK. But then once the clear up had been carried out, things would gradually get back to normal. But, radioactive contamination frm a nuclear accident would last for many years, possibly contaminating 100's of square miles.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

I notice you didn't quote this part:


Although they have cleaned up their act now, there are still many people who may be now (or in the future), suffereing illnesses caused by the radiation.

Which just proves the point that in the past the nuclear industry was hazardous ,but has now cleaned up it's act and given the level of current technology and lessons learned from the past is probably as safe as it can be

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by martyh

Which just proves the point that in the past the nuclear industry was hazardous ,but has now cleaned up it's act and given the level of current technology and lessons learned from the past is probably as safe as it can be

But that doesn't mean that there won't be another accident.

Remember, they said Buncefield would never happen!!

And "probably as safe as it can be" may not be safe enough.

There are alternatives that we need to explore first.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

But that doesn't mean that there won't be another accident.

Remember, they said Buncefield would never happen!!

Of course it doesn't ,what it does mean ,is that the risk is very much lower than in the past and much more acceptible

---------- Post added at 11:19 ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 ----------

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

There are alternatives that we need to explore first.

which are being explored with limited success ,and no one expects all the alternatives to provide a replacement for current levels of power usage

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by martyh

Of course it doesn't ,what it does mean ,is that the risk is very much lower than in the past and much more acceptible

Any risk is unacceptable due to the consequences if an accident does happen.

Originally Posted by martyh

which are being explored with limited success ,and no one expects all the alternatives to provide a replacement for current levels of power usage

In your opinion.

They just need to invest in the research.

[mertle]

Martyh you will be suprised not advocating not build them there no alternative yet.



Fussion power not ready yet talk will be thirty years before reactor. Although regardless blurbs still risks. We could limp on wait be first to build these plants be groundbreaking or we go fo nuclear now.

http://www.ccfe.ac.uk/

Alternative build the most modern reactors ever even japans was not that latest. Japans was generation 2. We could build these.

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



What saying we cant be closed to it wont happen on our shore nobody say we will get 9 level earthquakes they extremely rare even in fault lines.

What we saying we have had 6.1 thats not like the fault line 7's but we cant stick head in sand say we wont get 7's. This damaged property on land god knows what would happened if this hit land this 6.1 in 1931.

All those links telling they can happen anywhere intraplate have had little studies on them. We now finally get some studies but like one link scientist bickering. People want risk assessment map but you cant do it they dont leave scars.

Infact new zealand christchurch earthquake was caused by actually brand new tectonic plate. Maryland example was found to be old fault re-awaken.

You do know there is dormant faults in uk. We dont know if any will re-awaken they may stay quiet for another 1,000 years great would be more than pleased if they kept quiet in my and families lifetime. We may waken tomorrow it becomes active.

The UK is not currently on an active plate margin, but the plate tectonic setting has changed drastically through time (it has been part of subduction zones and mountain belts), there are a number of old fault lines running through the UK.
Some examples:
The Moine Thrust
The Highland Boundary Fault
The Great Glen Fault
The Church Stretton Fault
The first three of these are in Scotland while the last is in Shropshire. All of them have had large amounts of movement in the past. There are a great many other smaller fault lines in the UK and despite not being on a plate boundary, strains can still build up in plate interiors big enough to cause small ruptures on old lines of weakness.

[Sirius]

Mertle

The UK is not currently on an active plate margin, but the plate tectonic setting has changed drastically through time (it has been part of subduction zones and mountain belts), there are a number of old fault lines running through the UK.

Do you know how long that takes

Originally Posted by Sirius

Mertle



Do you know how long that takes

About as long as it takes the governement to come up with a workeable energy policy