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 real reason some people hate nuclear energy > Comments

The real reason some people hate nuclear energy : Comments

By Martin Nicholson, published 14/2/2014

Using the risk perception factors above, environmental advocates are able to dramatize the risks: 'if it scares, it airs'.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. All
Matthew S

In response to your venom against the "Left" and "Arts" but devoid of argument, I'll restate my arguments which I already posted on this thread - if you'd bothered to notice.

New things happen – things not even considered by engineers. For example 9/11 consisted of smashing full sized passenger jets into large buildings. The engineering design of the World Trade Centre did not consider large aircraft collisions likely.

Would a large passenger aircraft intentionally crashed into a nuclear reactor cause a problem?

Some facts can be less disputable than others. For example the residential area previously part of Lucas Heights in Sydney was renamed "Barden Ridge" in 1996 to increase the real estate value of housing in the area.

That is real estate agents had determined that housing in "Lucas Heights" had been harder to sell and at lower prices because of proximity to the reactor complex...see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_Heights,_New_South_Wales

Is "our house is harder to sell and at a below market price" a worry for home-owners near future reactor projects here in Australia?

If storing nuclear waste is such a potential money earner that nuclear advocates claim, why aren't countries with large empty areas like Canada and Russia turning waste storage into a paying proposition? Both Russia and Canada already have long term established nuclear industries.

Nuclear companies keep the profits but inflict the costs of nuclear accidents on the taxpayer.

Hence the Japanese Government is paying $billions in taxpayer money to Tepco. See "Japanese government to bear more Fukushima cleanup costs for Tepco" http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/12/20/japan-tepco-idUKL3N0JY1R620131220 :

"Under the new plan, the [Japanese] government, which essentially nationalised Tepco last year with a 1 trillion yen ($9.59 billion) injection of public funds, will nearly double to 9 trillion yen ($86.35 billion) the amount of interest-free loans it provides the utility through the state-backed Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Corp (NDLFC)."

Address each of these issues if you can.
Posted by plantagenet, Sunday, 16 February 2014 1:23:37 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
As difficult as it is for the intellectually challenged, it is not nuclear waste current threatening the total annihilation of all life on this planet! However, carbon is!
The Chinese are opening a new coal fired power station every week, and there is more radioactive material exiting coal-fired smokestacks, than any nuclear facility.
And single issue activists, reportedly claim they would sooner build a coal-fired power station than dam a minor river.
Russia and the US are currently storing their waste in relatively safe, ceramic drums, which are stored inside stainless steel drums, which are stored inside caste iron casks.
A demonstration, was reportedly organised, to smash a remotely controlled loco into a cask at around ninety miles an hour. The loco was totaled, while the cask remained undamaged.
This suggests that those who quote waste as a problem are politically motivated, blinkered ideologues, and can only countenance solutions that include depopulation, deindustrialization and a return to preindustrialization lifestyles.
That takes care of around one billion of us, what do we do with the rest? Survival of the fittest perhaps?
Which would in the first instance, rid the world of all the highly impracticable environmentalist dreamers and antinuclear naysayers; who would send warships to defend whales, but not each other or the nation!?
We who have in recent decades spent something in the order of 700 billions trying to prop up uneconomic industries, which has only ever helped said industries to offshore their enterprises; surely wouldn't be too disturbed by the expenditure of some 2.5 billions, decommissioning extremely dated nuclear power stations.
We for our part don't need to ever cross that bridge, given we could simply build cheaper than coal, thorium power stations!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 19 February 2014 3:16:48 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
Giday Rhrosty

If only nuclear waste was so simple.

Once spent fuel rods are extracted from reactor use these still hot rods must spend several years in actively circulating coolant pools - to cool down. THEN they can be diluted and put in drums.

Usually these spent fuel coolant pools are co-located with the reactors - under the concrete domes - because of high security requirements, risks and costs.

At Fukushima spents fuel rods were in coolant pools that ceased to circulate and the subsequent explosions are (recent) history.

Here's the first of several Fukushima explosions that have caused the enforced depopulation of a wide area http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3DW33V-MtE

Leakage of high level nuclear waste is still happening from those drums you mention.

Regards

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 20 February 2014 1:43:13 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
Good news.

ABC News, February 25, 2014, reports:

"Hundreds of Japanese people will soon be allowed to return to their homes, two years after the Fukushima nuclear disaster forced them to leave.

A 20 kilometre exclusion zone was declared around the nuclear plant after an earthquake and tsunami triggered a reactor meltdown in March 2011.

...Over the next two years, up to 30,000 people will be allowed to return to their homes in the original exclusion zone, thrown up in a bid to protect people from the harmful effects of leaking radiation."

see http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-25/an-evacuated-fukushima-residents-to-be-allowed-to-return-home/5281628

With at least 30,000 people still banned from returning home due to radiation fears many Australian nuclear advocates, who seek to downplay the impact of Fukushima, are probably engineers who wish to make money out of nuclear power.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 25 February 2014 8:20:48 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. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. All

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