The future of Nuclear power

[BlasterBates]

I agree with George on this. Well not all of it, but the general thrust that Nuclear is still cleaner and safer than coal.

Japan nuclear crisis should not carry weight in atomic energy debate | George Monbiot | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Heap loads of hysteria in most newspapers, especially the German newspapers, who are now expecting Tsunami's to go sweeping across their landlocked country.

Let's recap the death toll of this catastrophe is ?

The answer is 0.

The 50 workers have been subjected to no more than twice the normal dose they get anyway.

...and the radioactivity, all short bursts that decay due to irradiated steam.

May I suggest that those workers who smoke, stop smoking and then increase their life expectancy by about 15 years. I think 40% of the Japanese population smoke.

[AtW]

Let's recap the death toll of this catastrophe is ?

5 of the workers in nuclear station died, a lot more got most certainly life limiting doses of radiation.

A lot more will die from cancer.

I was on a fence previously (so long as nuclear station is not next to me), but now I am moved to object it in principle - cost is not cheap, and risks are way too high: you can do basically fook all for generations if something goes wrong. It's not worth it, not unless those stations are in a massive country far far away maybe - on a small island it is a suicide to have them.

[doodab]

I think this is one of those things that we should learn from and move on. No reason to stop building nuclear power plants but every reason to make them even better.

[BlasterBates]

5 of the workers in nuclear station died, a lot more got most certainly life limiting doses of radiation.

A lot more will die from cancer.

I was on a fence previously (so long as nuclear station is not next to me), but now I am moved to object it in principle - cost is not cheap, and risks are way too high: you can do basically fook all for generations if something goes wrong. It's not worth it, not unless those stations are in a massive country far far away maybe - on a small island it is a suicide to have them.

I checked on what the doses mean, they've doubled the yearly dose they get normally. That doesn't shorten their life, nor more than going for abdominal X-rays.

There maybe one or two that got life limiting doses. But what about a coal mine?

There are plenty of nasty pesticides, chemicals out there. In the Nuclear industry they monitor like in no other industry. If were to work in a "nasty" industry, Nuclear would be my choice.

Thousands die in road accidents. I'd rather have a 5% increased chance of getting cancer, than get crippled in a road accident. In any case 40% of the population regularly increase their chances of cancer, heart attack and strokes, by far more than that just so they can smoke.

[doodab]

In the Nuclear industry they monitor like in no other industry. If was to work in a "nasty" industry, Nuclear would be my choice.

I would go with porn personally.

[AtW]

I checked on what the doses mean, they've doubled the yearly dose they get normally.

oh FFS, this is what they tell you - the guys there are risking their life proper, fair few of them won't last more than few years and they still do it not for money but because of their duty - don't insult their intelligence by saying it's low doses, ffs - this is MUCH incident worse than Chernobyl.

[Moscow Mule]

5 of the workers in nuclear station died, a lot more got most certainly life limiting doses of radiation.

A lot more will die from cancer.

Pish. They have not received life-limiting doses.

They will not suffer any more or less cancer incidence than the rest of Japan.

Their total exposure has been about 2 years worth of radiation from working at the plant, so they will probably get to retire 2 years early.

[AtW]

Their total exposure has been about 2 years worth of radiation from working at the plant, so they will probably get to retire 2 years early.

We shall see in a few years.

[Moscow Mule]

oh FFS, this is what they tell you - the guys there are risking their life proper, fair few of them won't last more than few years and they still do it not for money but because of their duty - don't insult their intelligence by saying it's low doses, ffs - this is MUCH incident worse than Chernobyl.

YOU are resorting to FFS??? You're the one with the indefensible position.

[AtW]

You're the one with the indefensible position.

Quiet.

A few nuclear reactors next to each other proper blown up, workers struggle to cool them for days - finally have to leave because radiation will pretty much kill them in a few hours (like those who were send to deal with Chernobyl with spades without explanations). The crisis still continues and there is no obvious end to it anytime soon.

So this makes my position is indefensible but the guys who claim "it's all right they will just die 2 years earlier" have perfectly defensible point of view.