(25 August 2013, 09:15)Lightspeed Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting premise that you only need to worry about fallout if you are within 25 miles of one of the nuclear power plants.
If you believe that, you'll believe anything. Again, false /misleading data at the heart of the article.
Research how far the fall out reached from Chernobyl see http://www.toxiccoast.com/ChernobylFalloutmap.jpg
This means that we are all in the heavy fallout zone of most UK and Western european plants. Our chances of avoidance are very much influenced by prevailing wind direction and strength on the days immediately following any disaster.
Where's a nice atlantic weather front when you need it!
(25 August 2013, 09:15)Lightspeed Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting premise that you only need to worry about fallout if you are within 25 miles of one of the nuclear power plants.
If you believe that, you'll believe anything. Again, false /misleading data at the heart of the article.
Research how far the fall out reached from Chernobyl see http://www.toxiccoast.com/ChernobylFalloutmap.jpg
This means that we are all in the heavy fallout zone of most UK and Western european plants. Our chances of avoidance are very much influenced by prevailing wind direction and strength on the days immediately following any disaster.
Where's a nice atlantic weather front when you need it!
Just goes to prove that you cannot bank on the usuual wind direction to keep you safe.
(25 August 2013, 18:42)Tarrel Wrote: [ -> ] (25 August 2013, 09:15)Lightspeed Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting premise that you only need to worry about fallout if you are within 25 miles of one of the nuclear power plants.
If you believe that, you'll believe anything. Again, false /misleading data at the heart of the article.
Research how far the fall out reached from Chernobyl see http://www.toxiccoast.com/ChernobylFalloutmap.jpg
This means that we are all in the heavy fallout zone of most UK and Western european plants. Our chances of avoidance are very much influenced by prevailing wind direction and strength on the days immediately following any disaster.
Where's a nice atlantic weather front when you need it!
(25 August 2013, 09:15)Lightspeed Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting premise that you only need to worry about fallout if you are within 25 miles of one of the nuclear power plants.
If you believe that, you'll believe anything. Again, false /misleading data at the heart of the article.
Research how far the fall out reached from Chernobyl see http://www.toxiccoast.com/ChernobylFalloutmap.jpg
This means that we are all in the heavy fallout zone of most UK and Western european plants. Our chances of avoidance are very much influenced by prevailing wind direction and strength on the days immediately following any disaster.
Where's a nice atlantic weather front when you need it!
(25 August 2013, 09:34)NorthernRaider Wrote: [ -> ]FYI particulates are normally created by chemical reactions not nuclear fusion or fission, particulates which are the most damaging in lethality and number are produced primarily by diesel engines who emmisions react with sun light to produce carcinogenic particulates which are then inhaled by pedestrians. These nasty buggers can be found in higher concentrations in local magnetic fields that surround power stations, sub stations and lines of pylons. In areas where pylons and lots of vehicles are in close proximity to communities there are claims that higher levels of cancer are found.
The cooling systems of nuclear power stations are ( normally) totally seperate from the reactors and fissile materials, eg the only thing normally coming from cooling towers is steam. radioactive particles normally found near power stations often come from leaking cooling ponds but those isotopes are normally found in the water or soil not in the air.
Because it is always easier for people to go for the doomsday scenario. People equate nuclear energy to nuclear bombs, but they forget that everyone that spent a lifetime down the pit died of pain, silicosis, accidents or tiredness over the lifetime and those that breathed in fumes from poor coal fires of respiratory disease and a lifetime of grime.
It is all about relative risk, and risk in nuclear power is managed proportionately better than the risks of coal and oil and gas against deaths caused by extraction,generation and use of power per unit of power production. This risk management makes nuclear more expensive, but not as expensive as those bloody windmills.
(26 August 2013, 00:32)BDG Wrote: [ -> ] (25 August 2013, 09:34)NorthernRaider Wrote: [ -> ]FYI particulates are normally created by chemical reactions not nuclear fusion or fission, particulates which are the most damaging in lethality and number are produced primarily by diesel engines who emmisions react with sun light to produce carcinogenic particulates which are then inhaled by pedestrians. These nasty buggers can be found in higher concentrations in local magnetic fields that surround power stations, sub stations and lines of pylons. In areas where pylons and lots of vehicles are in close proximity to communities there are claims that higher levels of cancer are found.
The cooling systems of nuclear power stations are ( normally) totally seperate from the reactors and fissile materials, eg the only thing normally coming from cooling towers is steam. radioactive particles normally found near power stations often come from leaking cooling ponds but those isotopes are normally found in the water or soil not in the air.
Because it is always easier for people to go for the doomsday scenario. People equate nuclear energy to nuclear bombs, but they forget that everyone that spent a lifetime down the pit died of pain, silicosis, accidents or tiredness over the lifetime and those that breathed in fumes from poor coal fires of respiratory disease and a lifetime of grime.
It is all about relative risk, and risk in nuclear power is managed proportionately better than the risks of coal and oil and gas against deaths caused by extraction,generation and use of power per unit of power production. This risk management makes nuclear more expensive, but not as expensive as those bloody windmills.
Spot on.
...and not fogetting the cost in financial and human terms of the wars that are fought to secure the favour of certain middle eastern and north African oil producing states