The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote:
more people die from fall out from coal fired generators than nuclear
reactors and that the health and safety record of hydro-electrical
power is terrible.
Indeed. IF the results of CO2 emission turn out to be about a million
times worse than the worst nuclear accident ever (Chernobyl) then we
have some thinking to do.
You missed my point the chimney wastw that is dangerous is ash. CO2 of
itself is largely beneficial:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.t...d6768efd2d8e/#
I can't see Tory BLiar pushing that one through under those circumstances.
But this is a democracy so who is going to stand for that?
The real effects of long term exposure to low level radiation are really an unknown.
The only data points we appear to have - that was a very interesting program - are
naturally 'hot' places, Chernobyl, and workers routinely exposed (airline crews)
So you want one in your garden?
There is IIRC some evidence that whilst low level generalised radiation
is not harmful, a 'hot spot' from e.g. a particle of plutonium that
gets inhaled, and stick in a lung, can be a starting point for a cancer.
I suspect that the number of cases of skin cancer due to global warming
far exceeds the number that may or may not be due to the nuclear industry 
A far as cancers from Diesel engines go..I think you would be
surprised..the upshot is that conventional fossil fuel is nasty
dangerous and very polluting, and nuclear is not by and large.
The biggest problem is that rational debate is hampered by emotional
response that compare nuclear power with nuclear weapons. Which is a
sane as comparing a domestic oil boiler with a fuel-air bomb..and would
see every bag of flour taken off the shelves as a 'dangerous explosive'
(ever made a flour bomb? Try it!)
Conventional fuels are only dangerous in the wrong weather conditions.
Calm misty weather ca ause smogs with them. The ash is no more
dangerous than soil. But we are not designed to breathe soil.
By the way I refute the 'snipped' part of your post where you equate Britain's post
war ills with development of nuclear technology. Unlike the Germans who declared
bankruptcy and were then given Marshall Aid to rebuild, England was hugely
financially in debt to the USA, which gave no aid, and instead sucked just about
every bit of technology we had in exchange.
Over simplification and lies. Check your facts.
Had the UK been advised of expenditure into nuclear research, rationing
would have ended a lot sooner and thus the way paved for recovery to
take place in the 1950's rather than the 1960's.
Once the war was over, rationing and that whole culture should have
ended and then monetary problems would have been allowed to sort
themselves out. In the 1950's there was so much work avilable that
people got choosey.
After that with a "there is still a war on mentality", customers became
institutionalised into never complaining about poor and shoddy service.
To this day, people my age and over have difficulty throwing things out
or telling suppliers of products and services off.
We tend to hoard junk because that was the way our parents were and
they were that way out of needs that they grew up with from the late
1920's on.
Nuclear fuel was sold to us to help fund the recovery of the money
spent on research. The research was into weapons grade fuel. Too many
reactors since then have been fast breeders.
Much less would have been allowed to continue had the fact that most
nuclear research cost lives starting with the first scientists involved
in the 1940's. A lot of them died fried. But it was all kept secret. No
one knows if Peirre Curie was badly afflicted with cancers when he
"fell under a wagon" but his wife was made very ill.
Many radium enthusiasts went the same way. But the stuff can be
contained. It's just that in a climate of fear and secrecy, the truth
and the necessary standards fall victim to expedience and corruption.
That reactor on the coast of N Scotland is a case in point. Those
responsible for safety there were criminally negligent and have been
allowed, because of secrecy, to get away with murder.
But even so, how many innocent people will die in road accidents today
do you suppose?
Are there moves to close all towns to through traffic?
No.