“There is no innuendo. I have spelt it out in several previous posts with links that you have read, and Spindoc has included in his posts the information you wanted.”

SM

You have not spelt it out at all. I am entitled to a response since your innuendo implied that there were higher mortalities in the solar and wind industry. If you are incapable of backing up your claim then I will conclude that you have resorted to your usual hyperbolic nonsense.

In addition, you have conveniently side-stepped all six paragraphs in my post which were addressed to you.

“Where are all the French nuclear power problems?

Spindoc

You either know the following facts, are obfuscating them or are totally ignorant of those facts. Which is it?

Thyroid cancer has dramatically increased over the last two decades in France. The increased incidence is disturbing – 8.1% and 6.2% per year in women and men, mainly due to papillary type with an epidemic of micro carcinomas. France’s Thyroid Cancer Committee has recommended a national registry dedicated to thyroid cancer of youths (<18 years old.)

contd......

Frédéric Goldschmidt and Jean Marc Peres of the IPSN/Environment Protection Department France advised in their Radiological Impact Assessment of a Uranium Mill Tailings Repository in 2002 that:

"The quantity of uranium mill tailings currently stored in France is about 50 million tonnes distributed on 20 sites, five of which hold more than 5 million tonnes.

"The half-life of some radionuclides (230Th is 75,000 years, 226Ra 1,600 years) present on repositories means that the period during which “nuisances” will be present will be practically infinite when considering a human life span.

"The radiological impact of repositories for these tailings currently takes account of:

"- the external exposure ;

"- internal exposures due to incorporation by inhalation of uranium dust, 220Rn and 222Rn, and ingestion of soluble 226Ra and uranium, induced by living close to the site, without considering the time factor."

That is the reality Spindoc and there is no repository!

The authors of the paper failed to express concerns about uranium dust's ability to hitch a ride on the prevailing winds thus exposing humans far removed from the location. Again, this omission demonstrates the tardiness of the regulatory bodies who are meant to protect citizens from exposure to radiation.

The dust storms which occurred in NSW and Queensland and indeed, were detected as far away as New Zealand, demonstrate the ability of hazardous plumes to travel thousands of miles from a source and not disperse close to the site as our regulators would have us believe.

The source of the recent dust storms was South Australia, in close proximity to the open cut Olympic Dam project.

Sulphur plumes from Kalgoorlie’s nickel smelters and gold roasters in WA have been detected in South Australia. The plumes from the massive chemical fire in WA during 2001, were detected in South Africa.

Yet information on radioactive plume measurements are censored - unavailable to the public. Why is that Shadow Minister?

“I may be the dim wit you assert.” That’s a frank admission Spindoc. Can we now expect similar from Shadow Minister who conveys images and myths that typically serve his interests?

You know Protag, the simplest way to determine if a proposition is “emotive” or “realistic” is to apply the “hype” test. Firstly, does the proposition “scale up”? And secondly, is it proportional?

There is absolutely no doubt that things go wrong with nuclear power stations, sometimes disastrously, security breaches, leaks, uncontrolled dangerous emissions. That is not the real issue. How big a problem is it “really”?

Let’s take the first test. If all the nasty things you and others have asserted can happen to just one nuclear power plant, what happens when we have a concentration of 75 x nuclear power plants? As is the case with France, highly concentrated population, geographically small, close proximity to multiple borders, millions of tourists, pan-European transport and logistics.

If your case is not emotive but “real”, then the problems you assert will scale to 75 X times the problem for France specifically, and it’s immediate neighbors in general. Not one single anti-nuclear poster has been able to make the case of “scalability”.

Secondly, is the threat proportional? Unless you can actually demonstrate that the threats you pose are factually “disproportionate” to other things that do kill us, often in thousands of times greater numbers, and demonstrate that these deaths are 75 x times greater in France, you have again failed and your proposition is emotive.

You, and others, bombard us with terrifying links to dozens of Armageddon publications. Yes they are a concern but they are not evidence of systemic, unresolved engineering problems. If they were you would definitely be presenting the case from France and their neighbors that were 75 times greater. You have not because you cannot.

These simple comparisons remain unanswered by Helen, Richard, Sir Vivor and you. If you cannot answer them, your proposition remains in the “emotive case basket”.

Protagorass,

The paragraphs which I "side stepped" have no references, no context, and are in most cases pitiful. You really are a joke.

In spite of your inability to back up any of your statements, here is more than enough for you to chew on, and covers all the main technologies, perhaps not at the same time.

The drawback is that often big words are used.

http://www.wind-works.org/articles/BreathLife.html
http://www.ieahydro.org/reports/ST3-020613b.pdf
http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/ehs.html
http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2006aug19_n.html

"For coal-fired power stations, there are 342 fatalities per terawatt year which are predominantly related to coal-workers actually extracting the coal.

"However, this number would be far worse if the figures where there were fewer than five fatalities per incident were included.

"With oil, it is 418 fatalities per terawatt year.

"With wind it is 197 fatalities per terawatt year.

"With natural gas, it is somewhat lower - 85 fatalities per terawatt year, and this refers to workers as well as the public.

"LPG-related fatalities are extremely high - 3,280 per terawatt year of electricity generated.

"With hydro-electricity - a method that some opponents of nuclear energy favour while some dislike - there are 883 fatalities per terawatt year which predominantly involves the public due to collapsing dams.

"Nuclear energy, with 31 fatalities per terawatt year. This is the lowest of all electricity-generation methods."

Richard,

The LLRC, to which you repeatedly refer appears to be a one man published website that re posts poorly researched work by such organisations as Green Audit, whose misuse of statistics could prove either that radiation is the cause of all evil or the cure for all diseases.

While there is opposition to nuclear in France, the 70% of public strongly in support is unlikely to bend to the fringe.

Spindoc,

I gave you the last word, but you largely spent it on the person you imagine me to be, rather than clarifying any of your ideas in favour of nuclear electricity.

At least you admitted that the data your rely so doggedly upon is built on assumptions; that's a step forward. With regard to that, I wonder whether you have examined the assumptions and context, or simply taken all on faith?

Spindoc, your argument about risk of death reminds me of the hogwash that came from from the mouths of Edward Teller, Sir Phillip Baxter and that lesser light, Lesley Kemeny, 20 and more years ago. Personally, I would rather choke to death on rice pudding tomorrow than have my children acutely irradiated 40 years down the historical track by one of your you-beaut, Gee Whiz radioactive contraptions; or the radioactive weapons, waste and pollution they generate.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has just put on-line its July/August issue of 20 years ago. It is eerie in its prescience on a range of issues.

An article by Kosta Tsipsis (a recongnised authority on matters nuclear) states:

"The clearest "present danger" facing the United States today is environmental deteroration. both local and global. The "greenhouse effect", ozone depletion, acid rain, pollution of all kinds are threatening the air, the water, the very ground we live on. Unlike raw materials, these treasures are not contained within national boundaries. They cannot be captured as the spoils of victory, or secured by military force. They are indivisible. The healing and preservation of these global resources require cooperation rather than combat. Military might is irrelevant in the battle for the environment."

Tsipsis, K. (1989) After the Cold War: new tasks for arms controllers; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, v45 no6 July/August 1989 pp 7-8

http://books.google.com/books?id=3wUAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA13#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Spindoc, I feel I owe it to you to give you another shot at the last word. Remember, it's not about you and I, it's about the medical and social impact of an unsustainable technology.

Sir Vivor, How’s it going down there in the swamp with the opinion alligators? Thought we might have lost you there for a while.

Anyway, I see you brought a few more opinion alligators back with you for your post. Unfortunately, we said we didn’t need any more.

All we need you to do is tell us why France does not have 75 times more of these nasty “medical and social impact” thingies you keep telling us about. It’s a very simple question.

If, like Helen, Richard and Protag, you can’t actually explain this, it’s OK, don’t get emotional about it, and don’t worry. But please don’t drag any more opinion alligators in here, we can’t move for the damn things.