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 > Australia - uranium and nuclear power > Comments

Australia - uranium and nuclear power : Comments

By Helen Caldicott, published 26/8/2014

Sadly the Australian people are now relatively uninformed about the medical hazards of the whole nuclear fuel chain.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Even though solar is nuclear with the solar, wind and wave resources we have in Australia, or the whole planet for that matter, nuclear is both expensive and unnecessary.
Posted by ateday, Tuesday, 26 August 2014 10:37:02 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
Actually Helen, there are more risks and dangers from coal fired power, which still far and away kills and or harms many more people than the total sum of the three accidents you describe!
Coal fired power leaks far more radioactive material into the atmosphere and our waterways etc, than the nuclear option! Not only uranium; but lead, mercury and carcinogenic cadmium as well, just to mention a few!
And let's not link nuclear fuel with nuclear bombs, and the harm that can cause. These are two very different reactions!
I mean as bad as the accidents referred to are, not one has simply vaporized 45,000 people, in just a second of activation!
New pebble reactors simply prevent the chain reaction or fuel melt downs you referred to, and if you were fully informed, [and I suspect you actually are,] you would know it!
As opposed to the usual, release of endless misinformation, or descriptions of technological difficulties, already fifty years out of date. [Par for the course, activist scare/rumor-mongering!?]
And then there's thorium, which completely opposite to oxide reactors, consumes most of it's fuel, [around 95%,] with the waste being far less toxic than that produced by the oxide reactor!
And such waste as is produced by the thorium reactor, is eminently suitable, as long life space batteries.
And as hot as the process is, its not as hot as smelting titanium, or that created by the fusion reactor!
And we manage both of those in comparative safety!
Even then, nuclear power stations produce less background rads than do Scottish homes and buildings, which are traditionally built of granite, and expose the residents to more annual rads than any nearby nuclear power, as does high altitude flying!
If the actual facts be known, the antinuclear brigade, are in truth, the anti development brigade?
And as bad as the meltdowns referred to were, they are not threatening us with an Armageddon, but carbon clearly is!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 26 August 2014 10:59:41 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
Given economies of scale and the fact that both pebble and thorium reactors can be mass produced and trucked onsite, both of these options are now, cheaper than traditional coal fired power!
Which is still cheaper than wind or solar!
That said, nothing but nothing beats biogas,(methane) and a methane fed ceramic fuel cells, as the best most cost effective option!
And every home or domicile, produces enough biological waste to support this process 24/7!
Meaning, we only need a nuclear option for industry!
However, we could manage the latter with hydrogen, made from converting seawater to its constituent gases, via the, [seriously modernized] solar thermal powered, water molecule cracking method. And solar thermal, could be made to compete with coal fired power, just by mass producing the arrays, and incorporating economies of scale, which would be exactly how we would want to produce industry supporting hydrogen!
Given hydrogen can be mass produced as described, for just a couple of cents per cubic metre; and then stored as ready to use on demand, endlessly sustainable, cheaper than chips, energy!
We should be investigating that possibility.
And there would be far less energy (profit) losses, transmitting it as gas in a pipeline, rather than electricity in wires!
And, we're never likely to run out of sea water or sunshine!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 26 August 2014 11:23:03 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
Nuclear power is the safest way to generate electricity. Get used to it. The authoritative life cycle analyses for the past 30 years or so have shown that nuclear power is the safest or close to the safest way to generate electricity. Here's a summary of the more recent, authoritative studies. You can find the many peer reviewed papers and other authoritative reports on line.

Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)

Coal (elect,heat,cook–world avg)100,000 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal electricity – world avg 60,000 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal (elect,heat,cook – China) 170,000
Coal electricity- China 90,000
Coal – U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)
Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)
Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)
Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)
Solar (rooftop) 440 (0.2% global electricity)
Wind 150 (1.6% global electricity)
Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)
Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)
http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html

If nuclear replaced coal for electricity generation world wide this would avoid around a million fatalities per year.

What more could Dr Caldicot and the anti nuke protesters want?

The anti-nuclear campaigners have been spreading their dishonest message for 50 years. They have caused widespread paranoia about nuclear power. They have done enormous damage.
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 26 August 2014 11:27:28 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
Reading Helen Caldicott's argument, and the responses of Rhrosty and Peter Lang makes me yearn for an independent science based analysis that will produce a report that enables non-scientists such as myself to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Unfortunately, we have the most anti-scientific government in living memory, intent on cutting research, driving scientists out of the country and pursuing manifestly ideology based non-scientific policies.

How then does one make a rational choice between competing arguments?
Posted by James O'Neill, Tuesday, 26 August 2014 11:47:13 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
But James O'Neill it is fairly easy to sort through the arguments. Caldicott's stuff is basically hysteria from the 1970s.. of the three incidents she cites only Chernobyl resulted in a significant number of deaths (in Japan I'm talking about deaths from the reactor incident itself, not the Tsunami).. not the one million she cites, that's straight propaganda, but certainly a number were killed at Chernobyl because management went out of their way to create an accident in a reactor without a containment shield..
and coal mining disasters have caused more..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 26 August 2014 1:09:59 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. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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