Fukashima lives

[Timelord]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-alv...44146.html

:-(

[Paul]

This is so old news.
Someone remind Robert Alvarez that nought can be done except clean up the mess and move on.
There are bigger issues than this now, today, and with the Middle East rattling their sabres, the chance of mushrooms sprouting over Israel is more of a concern to me.
If they do start throwing crowd pleasers round, just imagine what will happen to the cost of fuel.
Now that's a real worry not this tired article about what has or could have happened.

[Timelord]

Thankyou for giving the impression this is unimportant out of date radioactive[/align] small time news. I am sure many people will be relieved to hear that.

---

Earthquakes aside.

[bigpaul]

this is the very reason i have always been against Nuclear power, it aint cheap(not if you add in all the clean up costs) and it aint safe! and YES, i WOULD rather the lights went off than have to rely on nuclear power, maybe i was a "luddite" in a previous life!!

[Timelord]

I am one now! or at least thats one of the milder things friends & relatives sometimes call me. lol. I think it is my Neanderthal genes of which I am very proud.. :-)[/align]

[bigpaul]

(24 April 2012, 15:46)Timelord Wrote: I am one now! or at least thats one of the milder things friends & relatives sometimes call me. lol. I think it is my Neanderthal genes of which I am very proud.. :-)[/align]

good for you! i definitely think i was born in the wrong century, i hate modern life and everything about it!!

[Timelord]

I see the Fukishima issue as an ongoing concern. While it does not make current popular news, it has enormous potential to do widespread harm. If there is another large siesmic event, those pools could dump their contents into the adjacent ocean. This could have major environmental, political & economic repercussions in that part of the world and further eminating outwards across the globe.

[Prep Girl]

For every thing they report on this matter there's so much more they won't admit to, I have not nor will I eat fish coz that crap is already in the Oceans

[Paul]

Nuclear power. Yes its dangerous, unsightly, when it goes wrong devastating, and it's expensive.
And I forgot, I wouldn't like it in my back yard (yes I'm a NUKE NIMBY)
As for survival? Nuke doesn't scare me as much half as much as Biological's do.
As for being cooked gently by fallout from Fuki'whatsit?
Both water and air is and has been ALL ROUND THE WORLD.
Anyone remember Chenovol? I'm well cooked from that anyway and I believe they are still checking sheep up North for Strontium.

What is the world going to do about it?
What can anyone do about it, realistically, come on, realistically?
Nought. . . .Why? Because it's there and only time decays radiation and the clean up in Japan is being controlled by the Japanese government but you can forget about a fast resolution in any language.

Alternatives?
Coal fired stations. Banned, too much Carbon, thanks to the EU and the global warming lobby.

Oil fired. Soon to be useless after the oil stops flowing and a carbon producer so see above.

Gas powered. Good option except we haven't got any real quantity of our own so we are in the hands of them across the water. I just wonder how long it'll be before they use that as a weapon against us. Oh yeah, carbon producers. See above twice.

On land Wind Powered. How many of you live by a wind farm? How many have experienced the noise? Apart from that, they are are useful back up but not as a constant source of power.

Off shore wind. Works yes, and is currently supplying a tiny fraction of our current demand.
So why aren't they building more? Because it costs a lot of money AND the lobby against them is powerful because they are "unsightly".
Not forgetting the whale lobby who are convinced the cables muck up their navigation.

Wave power. Eventually but they still haven’t done much towards it and probably won't. Why? Money and environmentalists.

Hydro electric. Super efficient, reliable, the way to go except, you need dams and lakes to power them and the environment lobby take care of stopping that almost every time.

Solar (photovoltaic) panels possible but allowing complete fields to be covered? People get funny when the farmers force their crops under plastic and unless the climate REALLY changes, not very efficient and certainly not cost effective at this moment.

Costs? A 1000 acre field? I read somewhere 10 Billion.
At least it'll stop all overseas aid for a week or so but ultimately you'll have to pay, about £3 for an electrical unit I read.

So what’s left? Geothermal? in the UK? I think not.

They are/were talking about geothermal electricity being sent under the sea from Iceland.
Nearest thing to a piped dream I've read in a long time and another UK government waste of time. The cost I read would be in the 1000's of billions. More of your dosh going out then.

No matter how much you hate it (and I hate it with a passion) nuclear is the only current viable way to generate our ever increasing need for power.

Fuki'whatsit was bad as was Chenovol, so what. **** happens.
Now lets carry on planning for the next event (whatever that may be) which hopefully will be something we can do something about.

[bigpaul]

the only reason that nuclear power seems to be the only option is because there are too many people, if we had less people then you wouldnt need so much power and then other options, instead of nuclear, would be viable. the more people you have, either born here or immigrants, then the strain on services, not just power generation but water,sewerage, council services, transport etc.etc., becomes greater, in the end something WILL have to give, you cannot just carry on having more and more people without there being a consequence, eventually "the system" will collapse, and the result will be anarchy & revolution!!