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 > Nuclear disease > Comments

Nuclear disease : Comments

By Danny Kennedy, published 14/8/2006

The world's first atomic bombs exploded in Japan 61 years ago, reminding us of the dangers of the nuclear age.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
I do not care if the nuclear people amuse themselves by invent more and more phantasies. The important point is that solar technology is finding increasing application in industry, science and technology. Hopefully, Australia will open up more solar retail and wholesale outlets, and in the years to come will build and operate solar panel factories, such as this one in the US:

http://www.nanosolar.com/
Posted by Ev, Monday, 14 August 2006 10:29:44 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
The Japanese were already beaten, even reduced to extracting alcohol from tree-roots to fuel their vehicles in some areas.

They were desperate to surrender because the Russians were already moving across from Europe to attack them from the north.

Japan did not want to become partioned like Germany but their culture made surrender difficult under those circumstances.

Meanwhile the US was worried that the War would end before it was able to field-test the two different types of A-Bombs it had prepared but also wanted to end the War before the Russians arrived.

Therefore the bombing became inevitable for these three reasons.
Japan was able to surrender in the face of an unprecedented civilian atrocity and the USA could claim it wanted a swift end to the conflict to save lives.While this last point was true it certainly was not the full picture.

One bomb plus time for the Japanese to fully consider their options may have just as effectively ended the War, but the use of two bombs made the Japanese seem a little like Lab Rats.

It may also have been an opportunity for the USA for a show of strength by demonstrating that not only did it have this new weapon, but was willing to use it.
Posted by wobbles, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 1:23:36 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
Guys, you are all looking backwards. Look this way ...
If only there were a reactor which could never melt down or catch fire, ran at temperatures above 900o C for high efficiency, and could run on long lived nuclear waste. If only its fuel did not use metal cladding then its burden of Intermediate Level Waste would be negligible. If only this new fuel packaging could contain all its fission products for a million years and was tough enough to be left in the reactor till all its nuclear fuels had been deep burned to ash, there would be no long lived waste left to bury. If only all the 250,000 year waste of the last century, and all the Plutonium produced, could be burned then the burden on future generations would be gone in 300 years. If only CoRWM or the Royal Society knew of such reactors then its estimates of the size and timescales of the nuclear waste problems would have been far smaller, cheaper, and less daunting to the public.
Such reactors have been designed by General Atomics of California and similar demonstration reactors are operational in Japan and China. A GA weapons Plutonium burner is to be built in Russia, with French and Japanese partners, and a version to drive a Hydrogen production plant is to be built in Idaho. If you want more details then Google “Brendan McNamara” Nuclear.
If onl
Posted by brenmcn, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 4:11:28 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
It's interesting to read the comments of both the antinuclear people, and the pro-nuclear. Several arguments are raised - not always valid ones. For example - are we really to swallow the idea that "nuclear weapons save lives"? I am also struck by the arguments for nuclear power as a solution to climate change. Isn't anyone noticing the trouble that nouclear power stations in the Northern hemisphere are having - unable to be properly cooled during the current heat wave there? Perhaps climate change is running ahead of nuclear power's supposed ability to solve it.
Also struck by the continued insistence that the atomic bomb won the war in Japan. If you study authoritative works, such as Robert Jungk's "Brighter Than A Thousand Suns" - it becomes apparent that the U.S. dropped those bombs in a great hurry - wanting to test them out BEFORE the Japanese surrendered.
But best of all is anti-green's argument that the antinuclear people provide "emotional rants". I guess when he hasn't got a good factual argument - well, then - let's just try and discredit the other side by whatever words we can fling at them! Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com
Posted by ChristinaMac, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 12:13:28 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
ChristinaMac

I downloaded this quotation from the sayings of the famous 19th century physicist Lord Kelvin.
"In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and practicable methods for measuring some quality connected with it. I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be."

It is rare indeed for the supporters of Greenpeace to provide quantifiable information. I am aware that in the UK, Green Audit attempts such quantification. COMARE a high powered UK committee whose reports can be easily downloaded has had no difficult in dismissing the claims and epidemiological studies advanced by Green Audit.

However, if the anti-nuclear groups would care to advance substantial arguments, I have every confidence that there are sufficient people in this group who can provide answers. This has to be a group exercise, because none of us pro or anti has sufficient knowledge to cover all the many radiological disciplines.
Posted by anti-green, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 1:08:50 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
One of the problems we need to discuss more now is nuclear proliferation.

Iran's quest for nuclear weapons should be of primary concern. Nuclear technology may have reached or may be reaching terror groups.

A. Q. Khan is the “Father of Pakistan’s Nuclear Bomb.” He was sacked from the position unceremoniously in January 2004 during an investigation into allegations that he gave or sold nuclear secrets to nations and groups outside Pakistan.

He confessed and apologized.

Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker in March 2004, “His confession was accepted by a stony-faced Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s President, who is a former Army general, and who dressed for the occasion in commando fatigues. The next day, on television again, Musharraf, who claimed to be shocked by Khan’s misdeeds, nonetheless pardoned him, citing his service to Pakistan (he called Khan “my hero”).

John Carey
http://peace-and-freedom.blogspot.com/
Posted by Jecarey2603, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 7:16:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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