How committed are we to nuclear power? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-17-2011, 06:13 AM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 07:40 AM
I'm personally very committed, but it's tough getting certain parts out of Pakistan.
__________________

__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2011, 06:27 AM   #17
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 05:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KhanadaRhodes View Post
i agree angela, it does sound like a nice setup. yet again germany is all awesome-like. i have to be honest, if i could live anywhere in the world i'd probably pick there.

 
(sorry ian)
Wow, really? It's my opinion you've already landed one of the two best nations on earth. Canada being my other choice for the most balanced and sane. though, nz and Canada have shit weather... Still.

This thorium, we need to get on this shit.
__________________

__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2011, 06:56 AM   #18
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,920
Local Time: 07:40 PM
nuclear free since aaaages ago.

:l&p:
__________________
coolian2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2011, 07:00 AM   #19
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,600
Local Time: 12:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela Harlem View Post
Wow, really? It's my opinion you've already landed one of the two best nations on earth. Canada being my other choice for the most balanced and sane. though, nz and Canada have shit weather... Still.

This thorium, we need to get on this shit.
yeah, canada's #1 on my list but it's just...

*checks who's posted list*

*reads*

phew, okay. it's too cold for me. hell even germany is but it's not as cold. i'm a southerner, the summer here is more like the late spring i'm used to. it's too bad the socialist countries are all cold.
__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2011, 12:41 PM   #20
The Fly
 
Just_Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: In an event horizon
Posts: 252
Local Time: 12:10 PM
Fear of Japan's nuclear crisis far exceeds actual risks. Chernobyl was bad, but in the general category of industrial disasters… no, it wasn’t so bad. Certainly one could quickly find industrial accidents that have resulted in much more serious affects than Chernobyl.
__________________
Just_Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2011, 01:02 PM   #21
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 12:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Boy View Post
Fear of Japan's nuclear crisis far exceeds actual risks. Chernobyl was bad, but in the general category of industrial disasters… no, it wasn’t so bad. Certainly one could quickly find industrial accidents that have resulted in much more serious affects than Chernobyl.
Okay, Union Carbide's Bhopal India crime was horrible but...worse than generations of leukemia and birth defects from Chernobyl?

Please list some others.
__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2011, 01:05 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 02:40 AM
YouTube - (Subbed) Nuclear Boy うんち・おならで例える原発解説
__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2011, 01:20 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,428
Local Time: 10:40 PM
Link
Quote:
If Japan, the United States, or Europe retreats from nuclear power in the face of the current panic, the most likely alternative energy source is fossil fuel. And by any measure, fossil fuel is more dangerous. The sole fatal nuclear power accident of the last 40 years, Chernobyl, directly killed 31 people. By comparison, Switzerland's Paul Scherrer Institute calculates that from 1969 to 2000, more than 20,000 people died in severe accidents in the oil supply chain. More than 15,000 people died in severe accidents in the coal supply chain—11,000 in China alone. The rate of direct fatalities per unit of energy production is 18 times worse for oil than it is for nuclear power.

Even if you count all the deaths plausibly related to Chernobyl—9,000 to 33,000 over a 70-year period—that number is dwarfed by the death rate from burning fossil fuels. The OECD's 2008 Environmental Outlook calculates that fine-particle outdoor air pollution caused nearly 1 million premature deaths in the year 2000, and 30 percent of this was energy-related. You'd need 500 Chernobyls to match that level of annual carnage. But outside Chernobyl, we've had zero fatal nuclear power accidents.
__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2011, 01:33 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 07:40 AM
Interesting defense of nuclear power. "Okay, Chernobyl was bad, but look, there has been something worse."
The Forsmark incident two or three years ago was very serious, then there were two not so minor incidents here in Germany in the same year, and most companies, among them TEPCO, have been notorious for hiding and lying about incidents in the past. The Financial Times Germany ran an interesting article about the probability claim of proponents, that a major incident such as Chernobyl would only happen once in every 10,000 years. But they divided this probability by the number of active nuclear reactors (441). On average, we now have a figure of 22.6 years. Chernobyl was merely 25 years ago.
In the vicinity of many nuclear facilities there is increased numbers of cases of leukemia, especially among children. And we still don't quite know what to do with the uranium (half-time of uranium-235 is 703 million years) and plutonium (half-life: 24,000 years).
It is usually claimed that security and safety standards are oh so high, and there are so many control mechanisms in place so that we are so much safer than the people in the Ukraine were. Well, according to all we knew something like in Fukushima couldn't have happened either, or so they say. Just recently I saw a report about one type of nuclear reactors, boiling water reactors, where a major welding seam is likely dimensioned too weak to withstand the enormous pressures over the many years. While in Austria this finding let to the break-off of construction, in Germany this type is still running. And the welding seam is inaccessible, so no one can really inspect it.
It doesn't cause me to lose sleep, but I don't really buy into these claims that nuclear power is fool-proof either. After all, the titanic was unsinkable as well.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2011, 01:33 PM   #25
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 12:40 AM
Quote:
If Japan, the United States, or Europe retreats from nuclear power in the face of the current panic, the most likely alternative energy source is fossil fuel. And by any measure, fossil fuel is more dangerous. The sole fatal nuclear power accident of the last 40 years, Chernobyl, directly killed 31 people. By comparison, Switzerland's Paul Scherrer Institute calculates that from 1969 to 2000, more than 20,000 people died in severe accidents in the oil supply chain. More than 15,000 people died in severe accidents in the coal supply chain—11,000 in China alone. The rate of direct fatalities per unit of energy production is 18 times worse for oil than it is for nuclear power.

Even if you count all the deaths plausibly related to Chernobyl—9,000 to 33,000 over a 70-year period—that number is dwarfed by the death rate from burning fossil fuels. The OECD's 2008 Environmental Outlook calculates that fine-particle outdoor air pollution caused nearly 1 million premature deaths in the year 2000, and 30 percent of this was energy-related. You'd need 500 Chernobyls to match that level of annual carnage. But outside Chernobyl, we've had zero fatal nuclear power accidents.
^No doubt, coal is terrible, but "Just_Boy" referenced general industrial accidents.
__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2011, 01:41 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 07:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
How many cities have been rendered uninhabitable for decades by these incidents, what size of area world-wide has been affected by these, and what were the long-term consequences? Let alone that fossil fuels are not the only thing out there. Uranium miners have largely increased rates of cancer from their work.
The conditions under which coal is mined in China or oil is produced in Nigeria and other countries are to blame for the vast number of deaths. These are easily avoidable. It's apples and oranges, really.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2011, 01:51 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,428
Local Time: 10:40 PM
Nope. You're wrong. It's the same.



See how unsatisfying lazy arguing is? I posted something with actual links to support its claims and you're throwing out a whirlwind of assertions.
__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2011, 01:55 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,428
Local Time: 10:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramwest1 View Post
^No doubt, coal is terrible, but "Just_Boy" referenced general industrial accidents.
I did not quote anyone in my post. I considered this link generally relevant to the topic of energy safety.
__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2011, 01:56 PM   #29
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 12:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
I did not quote anyone in my post. I considered this link generally relevant to the topic of energy safety.
__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2011, 01:59 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,428
Local Time: 10:40 PM
By my count there have been 328 coal mining fatalities over the last decade in the United States.

Obviously coal mining can be safer as well and regulatory capture can explain why companies can get away with unsafe conditions. But let's not get too snobby over third world countries. Hard work can reduce fatalities from shockingly appalling (China) to upsetting (US).
__________________

__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com