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 > The nuclear sword of Damocles > Comments

The nuclear sword of Damocles : Comments

By Evaggelos Vallianatos, published 20/10/2008

To avoid a global nuclear meltdown, we must abolish all that has to do with the smashing of the atom.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
There's another way to look at it.

It was the prospect of nuclear annihilation that succeeded in keeping the peace during 40 years of the Cold War. Contrary to the author's statement, neither America nor the USSR were ready to destroy themselves and the planet which is why they did everything they could to avoid direct military engagement with each other.

It sounds scary and counter-intuitive, but the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction has actually enabled us to live in a more peaceful world than we would have done without nuclear weapons.

And whatever we may wish for, they can't be uninvented.
Posted by Cazza, Monday, 20 October 2008 4:22:25 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 concept of mutual destruction is just that, and no way during the "cold war" was that going to happen.

Check out Sellafield Uk, where cancer incidents amongst young children, was way above the norm for other kids in the rest of the country.
Posted by Kipp, Monday, 20 October 2008 7:25:38 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
Cancer clusters are frequently reported. Although the public imagines that scientific investigation of cluster will lead to discovery of a clear cut cause -radiation, chemical exposure, infection etc. - this is rarely the case. Health authorities always consider these events seriously. Disease clusters are often similar to the "Texan Sharp Shooter" problem. Find a cluster draw a tight, but arbitrary boundary around it in both space and time- A Bulls Eye. Recall the cluster at the Brisbane ABC studio of 11 women with carcinoma breast. No cause has yet been identified [ Coory M. Int Med J 2008; 288-291].

The Sellafield saga started with a Yorkshire TV program “ Windscale: the nuclear laundry.” There was an extensive investigation by a committee chaired by Sir Douglas Black. The Black committee found that any radiation emissions from the plant were far too small and could not establish a cause.

Martin Gardner [BMJ 1990; 300:423-9] raised the question that the cause was due to paternal occupational exposure at the British Nuclear Fuels establishment prior to conception.

Doll R.et al Nature 1994; 367:678-680 argues against Gardner on grounds of radio biology and genetics. In a subsequent editorial Brit J Cancer 1999; 81:3-5 Doll gives his support to Kinlen’s hypothesis* namely that a likely cause is a viral infection due to mixing of populations. As yet the putative virus has not been identified. Dickinson and Parker [Brit J Cancer 1999; 81:141-151] provided statistical support showing that the incidence acute lymphoblastic leukaemia and non Hodgkin’s lymphoma in Sellafield was highest in children born in areas with high levels of population mixing and if both parents were born outside Cumbria.

The cause of clusters even if statistical significant compared to the general population will always be difficult and often impossible to explain. I am of the view that weight should be given to the Kinlen hypothesis.

* Kinlen LJ, Brit J Cancer 1995; 71:1-5.
Posted by anti-green, Tuesday, 21 October 2008 2:30:17 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 think that Evaggelos Vallianatos needs to understand the difference between nuclear bombs and power stations. Before I burn my text books on physics I suggest that he learns the difference.

Nuclear physics studies rhe elemental properties of matter. Yes bombs are possible, so are cures for various cancers, and a relatively non-polluting source of large amounts of energy. By the way the uranium needed for bombs is a different isotope than that required for power stations.
Posted by logic, Tuesday, 21 October 2008 8:24:38 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
Once again an unsupported polemic by someone who has no real concept of what he is proposing.

The premise that all teaching of neuclear physics could be stopped is moronic and would involve the destroying of all maths physics and engineering texts since the 1920s and the need to stop anyone with a decent IQ from ever thinking again.

The bomb was designed based on physics from the late 1930s. The reason that it has taken so long is the collection of the U235 isotope for weapons as opposed to the U238 for power generation. Once you have the uranium or plutonium, the construction is relatively easy.

Many more lives have been saved with nuclear technology via medicine etc than have ever been lost from weapons, accidents etc.

The very foundation of modern microchips use the same theory.

Vallianatos may wish to revert to the stone age, but I doubt that many would care to join him.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 22 October 2008 10:22:44 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
One of the effects of radiation is that it alters the genes in the bone marrow where the red blood cells are produced. These altered blood cells are not recognised by the immune system, and are destroyed. Gradually, the person becomes anaemic. Depending on the dose of radiation, (or whether any radio-active material has been ingested) a person can die in years or weeks, or even days.

There are other forms of altered cell structures due to radiation which can cause various cancerous growths. Of course, in the right dose delivered accurately, radiation can also destroy cancerous cells.

There are lots of very dangerous chemicals and small organism we have to deal with. Nuclear radiation may be feared more because it can not be seen. Yet with the right instruments it can be detected as any other dangerous material.

The worry is that not everybody who has access to nuclear material, now or in the future, are aware of the dangers of its misuse.
Posted by Istvan, Tuesday, 28 October 2008 4:14:37 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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