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 role of fear in the nuclear debate > Comments

The role of fear in the nuclear debate : Comments

By Noel Wauchope, published 18/6/2013

Why are we being told to overcome our fear of nuclear radiation?

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Thank you for this, Noel Wauchope; it is an excellent, well researched and timely argument for at least great caution, or preferably the banning of Nuclear power generation.
I hope it gets a wider audience than "The forum".
Posted by ybgirp, Tuesday, 18 June 2013 8:17:43 AM
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
Noel shows us that nuclear energy is not risk free.

What she fails to mention is that neither is solar power, wind power, coal, gas or any generation system.

The statistics are clear. Measured by the number of fatalities per TWhr, nuclear power is the single safest method of generation, even including the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 18 June 2013 9:41:24 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
The subtitle of the article asks:

>"Why are we being told to overcome our fear of nuclear radiation?"

The answer should be pretty simple. Nuclear power is about the safest way to generate electricity. This is a summary of the authoritative studies with links to the studies: http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html

Over 1 million fatalities would be avoided world wide if nuclear was being used instead of coal for electricity generation. Over 2 million fatalities per year would be avoided by 2050.

Applying USA figures, it amounts to 700 fatalities would be avoided per year in NSW. That is mostly from fine particulates and black carbon, plus other chemicals.

So the answer to your question is very simple.

We are prevented from having safer, cleaner electricity because of the nuclear phobia created by fifty years of anti-nuke protesting.

Until the 'Progressives' stop blocking progress, there will be little progress.
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 18 June 2013 9:49:22 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
Electricity generation is not without risk however the long term effects of radiation exposure and contamination makes nuclear a much riskier proposition in the long term. The Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents are a lesson in those risks and, in the Fukushima example, it was highlighted that the company intentionally took shortcuts to save money. Where money is concerned there is not much room for rational debate, safety standards or government oversight.

The recent climate change report stresses the dependency on coal as one of the greatest factor in global warming. While nuclear may assist in offsetting the risks of coal in that context it does not address the long term effects of contamination. In this debate there is also the issue of alternative energy sources.

Fear can be used as a tool for or against nuclear. It is just about what you believe will be the greatest risk. It may be that in the future we will all need to reduce our use of power considerably and make the switch to alternative energy. If the climate change scientists are right we will be reacting too late rather than being proactive in the present.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 18 June 2013 10:08:30 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
My science qualification is not connected to medical science but I have read on many occasions that there is a radiation level up to which cell damage repair is more competently repaired naturally than it would be in a lower radiation environment.

In Taiwan, 8,000 people were exposed to radiation of 400mSv of radiation. The outcome was monitored For the cohort 186 cancers were predicted had the exposure not occurred. It was predicted that this would increase to 242 due to the exposure. The actual outcome was 5 in total. That suggests that as a consequence of exposure 181 cancers were avoided.

There are also areas in the world where populations are subject to much higher levels of radiation than are acceptable in nuclear facilities. Populations in such areas have been studied and there has been no evidence that life expectancy is lower than for comparable low radiation areas.

Chernobyl was a power station design that would not be permitted in any western country and that station is responsible for the only fatal accidents in the history of nuclear power stations.

The US nuclear fuelled fleet has had no significant reactor failure in over 50 years of activity.

Thorium liquid salt reactors have been shown to be fail safe, to have the ability to consume much of the waste products from older style uranium fuelled reactors and to produce only very small quantities of waste needing to be stored underground, preferably in stable natural common salt deposits.

There is a move afoot by China to lead the world in this field and there is some promise that such reactors could produce 100MW of electric power from a reactor about 4m in diameter which could be mass produced at the rate of one per day.

The aim is to produce electric power at a cost cheaper than the cheapest fossil fuel, coal. Coal and diesel particulates cause thousands of early deaths per year.

I suggest that the author, and anyone concerned for nuclear safety, read the chapter on safety in, "Thorium, energy cheaper than coal" by mathematician and physicist Robert Hargraves.
Posted by Foyle, Tuesday, 18 June 2013 10:25:20 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
In essence this article emphasises the very point the author cannot understand..

Noel rejects material that point to the blindingly obvious, that there were no immediate deaths or adverse health outcomes due to radiation from the Japanese events. Noel doesn't seem to challenge those articles. Instead, the inference is that they cannot be right because they challenge the author's deeply held belief, which is basically a fear of radiation.

Why be so fearful? Because the author, like many others, probably has not the faintest idea what radiation is, or what it does or doesn't do, or anything about the arguments they have over safe limits or of the big variations that occur in natural background levels of radiation. The genetic instability stuff, for example, is complete nonsense, so is the internal radiation stuff. It occurs, sure, but it wasn't mentioned in those reports cited because the effects are too small to be worth worrying about.

Does this fear stop them taking trips in airplanes or being X-rayed at the dentist? Not on your life, because they don't realise they are being subjected to increases in radiation. then the author has the hide to complain that some efforts are being made to overcome this fear gap.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 18 June 2013 10:37:04 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. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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