Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..
I think that if nuclear power can be located in the middle of nowhere, where if it did irradiate the surrounds and didn't matter to a lot of people, then go for it. If the energy required to get cooling water there and transmit the power back to where people need it, then I am okay with that. If it creates newer areas nearby that can then be used, its a bonus.

But to say it's cheap and discount a failure is a bit risky. If it stands up economically in the middle of nowhere with the associated costs to get staff there, get the infrastructure there, and then get the power out of there, then its worth considering.

You can locate it right in the middle of somewhere and the risk of "irradiation" is still vanishingly small.

It is cheap in the overall scheme of power production, and you're right -- to discount failures is indeed risky.

But in case you missed it up there -- 7 of the 10 reactors at ****ushima plants survived the largest earthquake in recorded history and the largest tsunami in a thousand years. A single person died years later from being "irradiated".

That's a pretty good result. Just how risky do you need risky to not be, for it to be worthwhile...?

Yes. Weather you can believe those reports is another question. It was the Soviet Union in the late 80's!!!
No government or big company has ever lied or falsified papers for their benefit. Or paid off outside contractors to make the numbers look better for them.
Maybe we should all use the Internet less and save energy!
Anyhow this is a watersport forum. So have a nice day and hopefully get out on the water.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

FormulaNova said..
I think that if nuclear power can be located in the middle of nowhere, where if it did irradiate the surrounds and didn't matter to a lot of people, then go for it. If the energy required to get cooling water there and transmit the power back to where people need it, then I am okay with that. If it creates newer areas nearby that can then be used, its a bonus.

But to say it's cheap and discount a failure is a bit risky. If it stands up economically in the middle of nowhere with the associated costs to get staff there, get the infrastructure there, and then get the power out of there, then its worth considering.

You can locate it right in the middle of somewhere and the risk of "irradiation" is still vanishingly small.

It is cheap in the overall scheme of power production, and you're right -- to discount failures is indeed risky.

But in case you missed it up there -- 7 of the 10 reactors at ****ushima plants survived the largest earthquake in recorded history and the largest tsunami in a thousand years. A single person died years later from being "irradiated".

That's a pretty good result. Just how risky do you need risky to not be, for it to be worthwhile...?

Wikipedia says that ****ushima had 6 reactors. You say 10. Do you work in base 6?

Interestingly Chernobyl exploded 1986, yet the Ukraine used one of the reactors to generate power until very late into 2000.

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said.
Wikipedia says that ****ushima had 6 reactors. You say 10. Do you work in base 6?

****ushima is a "state". There were two plants in ****ushima: the infamous Daiichi plant and 12km down the coast, its sister plant Daiini -- with 4 reactors.

Two plants, 10 reactors.

Select to expand quote

tarquin1 said..
Yes. Weather you can believe those reports is another question. It was the Soviet Union in the late 80's!!!
No government or big company has ever lied or falsified papers for their benefit. Or paid off outside contractors to make the numbers look better for them.
Maybe we should all use the Internet less and save energy!
Anyhow this is a watersport forum. So have a nice day and hopefully get out on the water.

I assume that like ****ushima, there was oversight of the situation by independent regulatory bodies, such as the IAEA and INSAG.

Select to expand quote

tarquin1 said..
Yes. Weather you can believe those reports is another question. It was the Soviet Union in the late 80's!!!
No government or big company has ever lied or falsified papers for their benefit. Or paid off outside contractors to make the numbers look better for them.
Maybe we should all use the Internet less and save energy!
Anyhow this is a watersport forum. So have a nice day and hopefully get out on the water.

I'm not referring to 'reports'. Peer-reviewed academic studies and Govt research (funded by many different countries) were undertaken to see what happened after Chernobyl and F U K ushima. Lots of studies. many are by PhD students in other countries, completely independent.
You seem to think we're going off a post-incident report made by the company in question? or the Govt lies from a dodgy little country

No, the whole world has interest in whether its safe and how to recover and so on, its been studied in depth. When the harshest analysis comes up with no direct deaths and hmmm if pushed we can say 30 died from being relocated from hospital ICU or aged care - its NOTHING like the stuff claimed by the anti nuke lobby.

The 30 deaths were in 3 months! After that they weren't considered to be caused by Chernobyl.
In my opinion saying only 30 people died is not right.
Plenty more people died later. Then ther was Thyroid cancer birth defects etc.

Select to expand quote

tarquin1 said..
The 30 deaths were in 3 months! After that they weren't considered to be caused by Chernobyl.
In my opinion saying only 30 people died is not right.
Plenty more people died later. Then ther was Thyroid cancer birth defects etc.

No that was the initial estimate. It was quickly revised, although as you pointed out earlier there's a great deal of discrepancy in the range of figures.
I think your opinion is correct
Sure, but you'd need evidence of that, as studies found no increased rates of cancer in the Liquidators...

It was quickly revised to how many and over what period of time?
Look into who was taking all the data. You cant do studies on false data.
So you are saying there was no increase in Thyroid cancer in the area and people working on the clean up.

Select to expand quote

tarquin1 said..
It was quickly revised to how many and over what period of time?
Look into who was taking all the data. You cant do studies on false data.
So you are saying there was no increase in Thyroid cancer in the area and people working on the clean up.

It was in the link you posted.
Sure, but studies tend to collect their own data. Kinda the point of a study, unless it's a meta analysis and I've gone off them lately.
I'm not saying it, the studies that followed the Liquidators are saying it.

Oh yeh they pushed that way out to 5 months or something, and the deaths went up to 50 something. Cant remember exactly. Years later many more died or had cancer. Its impossible to know because all the data is so dodgy.
So once again all I am saying is that saying only 30 people died from Chernobyl is wrong in my opinion.

Following the dissolution of the USSR in the 1990s, the health of liquidators has proved difficult to monitor. This has been compounded by Russia's reluctance to provide the true figures for the disaster, or even on make serious estimates. The authorities agree that 28 workers lost their lives to acute radiation sickness, while another 106 of the liquidators were treated and survived. But the health toll for the survivors continues to be a matter of debate. One advocacy group, the Chernobyl Union, says 90,000 of the 200,000 surviving liquidators have major long-term health problems.A study by Belarusian physicians however states that the rate of cancers among liquidators from Belarus is about four times greater than the rest of the population.

Select to expand quote

tarquin1 said..
Oh yeh they pushed that way out to 5 months or something, and the deaths went up to 50 something. Cant remember exactly. Years later many more died or had cancer. Its impossible to know because all the data is so dodgy.
So once again all I am saying is that saying only 30 people died from Chernobyl is wrong in my opinion.

Following the dissolution of the USSR in the 1990s, the health of liquidators has proved difficult to monitor. This has been compounded by Russia's reluctance to provide the true figures for the disaster, or even on make serious estimates. The authorities agree that 28 workers lost their lives to acute radiation sickness, while another 106 of the liquidators were treated and survived. But the health toll for the survivors continues to be a matter of debate. One advocacy group, the Chernobyl Union, says 90,000 of the 200,000 surviving liquidators have major long-term health problems.A study by Belarusian physicians however states that the rate of cancers among liquidators from Belarus is about four times greater than the rest of the population.

Yes, I agreed with your opinion, as does the WHO etc. The estimates range between 4,000 and 90,000 IIRC, but that figure of 30 may be related solely to the Liquidators. I forget.

Studies have been done in the late 2000s, which you'll find further down on the Wikipedia page.
Belarus took the brunt of the fallout IIRC, so if you wanted data about the Liquidators and the effects of their clean up work, you'd have to rule out confounding variables like that.

Fallout is bad; Chernobyl was a different event to ****ushima, where nobody (bar one) has died from radiation issues.

I wonder about the number of deaths from F-shima. They have their own liquidators. Trafficked or indebted to the yakuza, they repeatedly join the contamination clean up crews under different names, until what? They walk away healthy and free? Nah.

Select to expand quote

Buster fin said..
I wonder about the number of deaths from F-shima. They have their own liquidators. Trafficked or indebted to the yakuza, they repeatedly join the contamination clean up crews under different names, until what? They walk away healthy and free? Nah.

They'd have protective suits during the clean up.

Select to expand quote

Buster fin said..
I wonder about the number of deaths from F-shima. They have their own liquidators. Trafficked or indebted to the yakuza, they repeatedly join the contamination clean up crews under different names, until what? They walk away healthy and free? Nah.

Yeah, I know one of the guys who was involved in the clean up. He's not dead, he's not trafficked by the yakuza LOL he's still using his own name, he's walking healthy and free. Yeah.

Let the conspiracies fly, eh. Nevermind all that science bollocks.

Select to expand quote

bjw said..
They'd have protective suits during the clean up.

Special ones the yakuza give them, made from the same stuff as surgical masks -- stops all the bad stuff. Even more than all the other NPIs.

My biggest shock about governments is that renewables do actually do the job reliably!
What governments do not do however is put on the system of infrastructure and tactic that does because it means having more Mw of generators and more locations of farms of whatever type than will be required to actually supply Mw/H's.
Their only economic view of implementation is more 1:1 size maximum of combined plants to produce e.g alike the snowy scheme where at low supply maybe one generator will be idle or dumping.
Renewables using industrial power station battery buildings as lead acid system is totally recyclable all the way to the water acid solution and decayed lead elements.
Another point about lead acid industrial battery buildings is they can be recharged by thunder storms in moments, simply extend a receiver electrode tower or cable Ballon up into it to promote easy strike

Select to expand quote

tarquin1 said..
... So once again all I am saying is that saying only 30 people died from Chernobyl is wrong in my opinion...

Got to agree with ya there tarquin1.

But all I am saying is that dismissing 'nuclear' power (fusion / fission / any flavor of anything 'nuclear') out of hand because the Soviets hamfisted a reactor design in the 1970s is wrong in my opinion.

Just like it is dumb to say that if anything else once produced a bad outcome that it must never be entertained again.

I would be very skeptical that nuclear power is a sensible idea for Australia in the near future. Unless the Frenchies get their small scale reactors going then nuclear power is more suited to dense areas requiring large amounts of power. The Australian landscape with small scale domestic consumption and sporadic industrial needs spread over very large areas doesn't really suit a central generator and long transmission lines.

Australia would probably be better with multiple small scale generators and many interconnected, but generally self reliant grids.

But that is nothing to do with the safety or anything else with nuclear. It is about the scale required to make nuclear economical and the logistics of transmission and distribution of the power generated. Same problem goes with hydro. Good in very large scale, less good at small scale.

The opposite goes for PV solar. Gooder at small scale, badder at large scale. Doesn't mean we dismiss it outright.


The idea that research or investigation into nuclear power should be dismissed based on what happened at Chernobyl seems about as sensible as rejecting wind farms because the noise of one once kept a Scottish woman up at night.


Not sure how many lead-acid batteries people think it would take to run the Queensland alumina smelter or Newcastle steelworks or Garden Island military base. I know the lead acid battery in my car is heavy as ****, friggin' expensive and useless after a few years.

Select to expand quote

nicephotog said.. Another point about lead acid industrial battery buildings is they can be recharged by thunder storms in moments, simply extend a receiver electrode tower or cable Ballon up into it to promote easy strike

Really? Nobody has successfully "caught" it in the wild, and it actually doesn't contain that much energy.
Now inducing it to strike, yes. catching it? No

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

tarquin1 said..
... So once again all I am saying is that saying only 30 people died from Chernobyl is wrong in my opinion...

Got to agree with ya there tarquin1.

But all I am saying is that dismissing 'nuclear' power (fusion / fission / any flavor of anything 'nuclear') out of hand because the Soviets hamfisted a reactor design in the 1970s is wrong in my opinion.

Just like it is dumb to say that if anything else once produced a bad outcome that it must never be entertained again.

I would be very skeptical that nuclear power is a sensible idea for Australia in the near future. Unless the Frenchies get their small scale reactors going then nuclear power is more suited to dense areas requiring large amounts of power. The Australian landscape with small scale domestic consumption and sporadic industrial needs spread over very large areas doesn't really suit a central generator and long transmission lines.

Australia would probably be better with multiple small scale generators and many interconnected, but generally self reliant grids.

But that is nothing to do with the safety or anything else with nuclear. It is about the scale required to make nuclear economical and the logistics of transmission and distribution of the power generated. Same problem goes with hydro. Good in very large scale, less good at small scale.

The opposite goes for PV solar. Gooder at small scale, badder at large scale. Doesn't mean we dismiss it outright.


The idea that research or investigation into nuclear power should be dismissed based on what happened at Chernobyl seems about as sensible as rejecting wind farms because the noise of one once kept a Scottish woman up at night.


Not sure how many lead-acid batteries people think it would take to run the Queensland alumina smelter or Newcastle steelworks or Garden Island military base. I know the lead acid battery in my car is heavy as ****, friggin' expensive and useless after a few years.

I am not against nuclear.
I don't really look into any more but I think the States are closer to producing small nuclear plants. The idea was to be able to drop them into war zones. Power for years without having to worry about diesel. Unfortunately its all about war. They have had the tech for at least 10 years.
The problem now is reactors will take years to build and cost a lot of money before they start producing energy, making money.

Should see what's in a nuclear power plant !
Why die of toxic chems or radiation ! When there is everything you need in there...
You don't simply require to "go nuclear" !
When you can just GO anyhow ! (take a the tour at 1 min 52 sec)