The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > That was then, this is now: Chernobyl’s legacy and Australia’s uranium > Comments

That was then, this is now: Chernobyl’s legacy and Australia’s uranium : Comments

By Dave Sweeney, published 26/4/2016

Five million people in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia still live in highly contaminated areas with a further 400 million living in regions with a continuing radioactive fingerprint.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
This article is nuclear alarmism. The only deaths that can be unequivocally attributed to Chernobyl are the 50 or so directly affected which the author mentions. The rest is just estimates, and the Russian disorganisation of the time meant no proper records were kept, even of the people directly exposed in the aftermath.

There were certainly additional deaths but - although the lowest estimate sounds like a very large number - no statistical blip was detected against the backdrop of deaths from all causes in any area with reliable records. The only other, unequivocal affect is a heap of thyroid cancers in children which, fortunately, were mostly cured.

All that said the Chernobyl accident was an example of Russian disorganisation and failure to take basic steps such as ensure reactors have a containment shield, or to ensure that lunatics are not in charge of reactors. It doesn't say much about the nuclear industry
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 26 April 2016 10:32:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What about the tens of millions of tonnes of CO2 that Australian uranium keeps out of the atmosphere each year? That's for coal free power that works at night and in all weathers. Some of the countries that use our uranium actually have decreasing emissions unlike us.
Posted by Taswegian, Tuesday, 26 April 2016 11:55:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Dave Sweeney is nuclear free campaigner for the Australian Conservation Foundation. "

A reliable source of information on nuclear matters. You've got to be joking.

Here's a question for Dave: What is the safest way to generate electricity?

Hint: nuclear power.

Got that yet? Here it is again: nuclear power is the safest way to generate electricity.

Just one accident caused fatalities in 60 years. Only 60 fatalities are attributed to the Chernobyl accident and radioactive contamination since the accident. The projections by Greenpeace of hundreds or thousands or millions of fatalities, ACF etc. are rubbish. Three Mile Island and Fukushima accidents killed no one and no future fatalities from the leaks are likely.

Dave should read up on the authoritative studies and not distort them.
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 26 April 2016 11:58:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the anti-nukes hadn't been blocking progress for the past 50 years, nuclear deployment would have continued at the accelerating rate experienced up to about 1980. At this rate, the equivalent of all coal generating capacity would have been replaced by nuclear by around 2000 and the cost of nuclear would be less than 1/10th of what it is now. Even if the deployment rate had not accelerated but had continued at the rate achieved in the mid 1980s, nuclear would have generated an additional 85,000 TWh of electricity by now, avoiding around 85 Gt CO2 and saving 5 million fatalities.

The anti-nukes and the so called environmental NGO's like ACF, Greenpeace, WWF, FoE, etc. are responsible for these additional 5 million fatalities. The moral values of these people and groups are repugnant.
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 26 April 2016 12:31:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Lang makes a very valid point.
From Table 6.1 Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy. A 2006 Commonwealth Publication:
Direct fatalities for a number of modes of electricity generation are quoted. Units are “Direct fatalities per GWe / year.
Coal 0.876
Oil 0.436
Coal (China Excluded) 0.690
Natural Gas 0.093
LPG 3.536
Hydro 4.265
Hydro (Shimantan dam
Accident excluded) 0.561

Nuclear Reactor 0.006

These figures to be found in an Australian Government publication are about 10 years old. None-the-less they are in the correct ballpark. More up to date data if available would be appreciated.
The overall safety of nuclear power generation is apparent.
Posted by anti-green, Tuesday, 26 April 2016 12:51:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder if all those proponents of nuclear power will be so keen when at some time in the next few years the nuclear crap being spewed into the sea at Fukushima, makes it's way around the Pacific and reaches Australian shores?
Posted by Robert LePage, Tuesday, 26 April 2016 1:34:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy