Something I was studiously avoiding was the windmill thread however I
had to say something in response to this:

Only when you have a really STUNNING case on paper - as nuclear power was in the 50's -

In Britain the cost of nuclear research cost the general public a
secret amount of money, so secret that even cabinet members were
unaware of the expense.

(It was such a vast amount that the economy, already devastated by WW
2, took much longer to recover than the rest of western Europe where
the Nazis had stripped it of all they could loot and eradicated vast
sections of the population either in death camps and forced labour, or
to other casualties of war.)

The cost effect was to cripple not only Britain in the 50's but have
damaging long term effects as the shoddy, unstable reactors were kept
in production and their faults kept secret up to today.

More overt were the ways waste was disposed of. Dumping it untreated in
45 gallon drums of the sort heros in police chases inadvertantly crash
into half way through a drive through factory in whatever Bond type
film.

Today some waste is vitrified. How they deal with Oxygen and Hydrogen I
can't say but carboon is left buried. The vast quantities of graphite
used in Wylfa will be encased in concrete.

But the point is that research into the reuse of waste is still to be
done as throwing it away wa once th preferred option. Radio active
components may well turn out to be erasable by incorporating the waste
ino the fuel rods or whatever.

Some research has shown the capability. So the massive stock piles of
waste we fear leaving to our children might turn out to be more useful
than we think.

It is still fresh history to note that such waste products as petroleum
gas was routinely burned at the oil field where only petrol and
paraffin were wanted. And before the motor car even the petrol was not
considered precious.

I believe it was Tony Benn that asked the industry to pipe the gas
ashore and find a use for it. But even so, some years later, the town
or borough councils around the Stanlow (IIRC) processing plant refused
the offer to use their waste to heat local houses.

I am not validating anything Tory BLiar has said about nuclear fuel.
The man is a maniac lickspittle and should be shot out of hand not
respected as a leader of men.

A recent programme on the TV showed that small doses of background
radiation seems to alleviate cancers in that the genes to fight them
seem to be initiated in people who live in regions with fairly high
natural radiation.

Work on the Chernobyl site seems to back this idea up. Less people were
known to have died directly from the disaster than are killed each week
on the roads in the UK.

Another pundit or (schill?) this week told an interviewr that 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.

I wonder if they include the body count for the Hoover dam. (The site
engineer responsible should have been hanged by vigilantes for that and
all of the US congress or whatever their parliament is called with
him.)

But until nuclear power design, cost and management and everything else
is openly discussed, the only way to maintain good safety specs is that
everyone responsible for building them should be forced to live the
rest of their lives near them until the reactor is long closed -when
their kin will be responsible for their oversight until the waste
denatures to safe levels..

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 sort of protection?

Weatherlawyer wrote:
Something I was studiously avoiding was the windmill thread however I
had to say something in response to this:

Only when you have a really STUNNING case on paper - as nuclear
power was in the 50's -

In Britain the cost of nuclear research cost the general public a
secret amount of money, so secret that even cabinet members were
unaware of the expense.

(It was such a vast amount that the economy, already devastated by WW
2, took much longer to recover than the rest of western Europe where
the Nazis had stripped it of all they could loot and eradicated vast
sections of the population either in death camps and forced labour, or
to other casualties of war.)

The cost effect was to cripple not only Britain in the 50's but have
damaging long term effects as the shoddy, unstable reactors were kept
in production and their faults kept secret up to today.

More overt were the ways waste was disposed of. Dumping it untreated
in 45 gallon drums of the sort heros in police chases inadvertantly
crash into half way through a drive through factory in whatever Bond
type film.
snip

Interesting opinions (not taking the mick BTW).

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
oups.com...
Something I was studiously avoiding was the windmill thread however I
had to say something in response to this:

Only when you have a really STUNNING case on paper - as nuclear power was
in the 50's -

snip

But until nuclear power design, cost and management and everything else
is openly discussed, the only way to maintain good safety specs is that
everyone responsible for building them should be forced to live the
rest of their lives near them until the reactor is long closed -when
their kin will be responsible for their oversight until the waste
denatures to safe levels..

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 sort of protection?


It's worth remembering that in the 50s the future looked to be a nuclear
one. Everyone believed that nuclear energy would provide "free" energy for
all & would power our homes, cars, planes & ships. Nuclear technology at
that time was seen as a Panacea - a silver bullet to keep you safe and warm.

What self respecting super power could have afforded to pass that one by?

Maybe the best way to decide on what we should do now, will be to accurately
predict what will happen during the next 50 years.

--
ETV

Weatherlawyer wrote:
....

I am not validating anything Tory BLiar has said about nuclear fuel.
The man is a maniac lickspittle and should be shot out of hand not
respected as a leader of men.

Agreed.

A recent programme on the TV showed that small doses of background
radiation seems to alleviate cancers in that the genes to fight them
seem to be initiated in people who live in regions with fairly high
natural radiation.

Work on the Chernobyl site seems to back this idea up. Less people were
known to have died directly from the disaster than are killed each week
on the roads in the UK.


A curious and interesting program, both in its timing, its content and
its general conclusion.

If true, it propbaly means that there is no nuclear waste problem at all.

Low level waste could be dumped in landfills with no real problem.

High level waste could be reprocessed and the materials used in
processing kept for a few years and dumped likewise.



Another pundit or (schill?)

Shill. No 'C'.

this week told an interviewr that 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.


I wonder if they include the body count for the Hoover dam. (The site
engineer responsible should have been hanged by vigilantes for that and
all of the US congress or whatever their parliament is called with
him.)

But until nuclear power design, cost and management and everything else
is openly discussed, the only way to maintain good safety specs is that
everyone responsible for building them should be forced to live the
rest of their lives near them until the reactor is long closed -when
their kin will be responsible for their oversight until the waste
denatures to safe levels..

Suits me. You can shove one in my back garden.


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 sort of protection?


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 (the airline crews)

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!)

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.

Weatherlawyer wrote:
Something I was studiously avoiding was the windmill thread however I
had to say something in response to this:

Only when you have a really STUNNING case on paper - as nuclear power was in the 50's -

In Britain the cost of nuclear research cost the general public a
secret amount of money, so secret that even cabinet members were
unaware of the expense.

(It was such a vast amount that the economy, already devastated by WW
2, took much longer to recover than the rest of western Europe where
the Nazis had stripped it of all they could loot and eradicated vast
sections of the population either in death camps and forced labour, or
to other casualties of war.)

The cost effect was to cripple not only Britain in the 50's but have
damaging long term effects as the shoddy, unstable reactors were kept
in production and their faults kept secret up to today.

If it was that secret, where does your evidence come from for these
assertions?


I am not validating anything Tory BLiar has said about nuclear fuel.
The man is a maniac lickspittle and should be shot out of hand not
respected as a leader of men.

Who respects Tony Blair as a leader of men?


Work on the Chernobyl site seems to back this idea up. Less people were
known to have died directly from the disaster than are killed each week
on the roads in the UK.

Tell that to the Chernobyl children who are still dying, or those still
suffering whose reproductive systems are ruined. For each of those who
have died, the effect of exposure was 100% mortality



BTW I am not against the nuclear power option!

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.

Homer2911 wrote:
where does your evidence come from for these
assertions?


Work on the Chernobyl site seems to back this idea up. Less people were
known to have died directly from the disaster than are killed each week
on the roads in the UK.

Tell that to the Chernobyl children who are still dying, or those still
suffering whose reproductive systems are ruined. For each of those who
have died, the effect of exposure was 100% mortality


where does your evidence come from for these assertions?


BTW I am not against the nuclear power option!


I am increasingly for it.

"Horizon" on BBC2 yesterday was pretty interesting . Tens of thousands of
deaths were predicted from Chernobyl using the standard model, which
extrapolates from the high exposures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact
there have been well under 100 deaths (I think it was 47). There has been no
increases in leukemia, and the local wildlife is thriving in spite of
constant exposure for 20 years now..

The conclusion was that low radiation exposure was at worst harmless and
might even be beneficial, as certain protective genes are "turned on".

--
LSR

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:32:40 +0100, "LSR" wrote:

"Horizon" on BBC2 yesterday was pretty interesting . Tens of thousands of
deaths were predicted from Chernobyl using the standard model, which
extrapolates from the high exposures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact
there have been well under 100 deaths (I think it was 47). There has been no
increases in leukemia, and the local wildlife is thriving in spite of
constant exposure for 20 years now..

The conclusion was that low radiation exposure was at worst harmless and
might even be beneficial, as certain protective genes are "turned on".

Was it sponsored by BNFL?
--
Get away from it all
http://www.travelfreebies.co.uk/thomson-holidays.htm
Late deals, mega cheap flights and bargains

mogga wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:32:40 +0100, "LSR" wrote:

"Horizon" on BBC2 yesterday was pretty interesting . Tens of
thousands of deaths were predicted from Chernobyl using the standard
model, which extrapolates from the high exposures of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. In fact there have been well under 100 deaths (I think it
was 47). There has been no increases in leukemia, and the local
wildlife is thriving in spite of constant exposure for 20 years now..

The conclusion was that low radiation exposure was at worst harmless
and might even be beneficial, as certain protective genes are
"turned on".

Was it sponsored by BNFL?

No, by the Chernobyl Forum, "an international organisation of scientific
bodies including a number of UN agencies". Link he
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5173310.stm

(nb no. of deaths is 56, not 47)

Still, don't let the facts get in the way...

--
LSR

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Homer2911 wrote:

For each of those who have died, the effect of exposure was 100%
mortality

where does your evidence come from for these assertions?

What evidence do you need to prove the assertion that for someone who
has actually been killed by radiation, the mortality rate is 100%?

"Homer2911" wrote in message
ups.com...

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Homer2911 wrote:

For each of those who have died, the effect of exposure was 100%
mortality

where does your evidence come from for these assertions?

What evidence do you need to prove the assertion that for someone who
has actually been killed by radiation, the mortality rate is 100%?


Well, a mortality rate includes people who weren't killed (thus giving a
rate) so a mortality rate just for those who died is pointless. The
mortality rate for those who die of bee stings is 100% but we don't ban
bees.


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

Bob Mannix wrote:
"Homer2911" wrote in message
ups.com...

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Homer2911 wrote:

For each of those who have died, the effect of exposure was 100%
mortality

where does your evidence come from for these assertions?

What evidence do you need to prove the assertion that for someone who
has actually been killed by radiation, the mortality rate is 100%?


Well, a mortality rate includes people who weren't killed (thus giving a
rate) so a mortality rate just for those who died is pointless. The
mortality rate for those who die of bee stings is 100% but we don't ban
bees.


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

I have not suggested we ban anything - I am in favour of exporing the
nuclear power option. Pointing out that the mortality rate for those
who die is 100%, may be pointless, but it may prevent them being
written off as a mere statistic

Homer2911 wrote:
Bob Mannix wrote:
"Homer2911" wrote in message
ups.com...

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Homer2911 wrote:

For each of those who have died, the effect of exposure was 100%
mortality

where does your evidence come from for these assertions?

What evidence do you need to prove the assertion that for someone who
has actually been killed by radiation, the mortality rate is 100%?


Well, a mortality rate includes people who weren't killed (thus giving a
rate) so a mortality rate just for those who died is pointless. The
mortality rate for those who die of bee stings is 100% but we don't ban
bees.


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

I have not suggested we ban anything - I am in favour of exporing the
nuclear power option. Pointing out that the mortality rate for those
who die is 100%, may be pointless, but it may prevent them being
written off as a mere statistic

Interesting you didn't realise you'd been spoofed. Taking your eye off
the ball is all it takes to lose the thread.

The subtle art of politics is made of such conjouring.

This is he original:
The cost effect was to cripple not only Britain in the 50's but have
damaging long term effects as the shoddy, unstable reactors were kept
in production and their faults kept secret up to today.

If it was that secret, where does your evidence come from for these
assertions?

I could actually tell you the answer to that question but your
mortality might be effected to unity.

Homer2911 wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Homer2911 wrote:

For each of those who have died, the effect of exposure was 100%
mortality

where does your evidence come from for these assertions?

What evidence do you need to prove the assertion that for someone who
has actually been killed by radiation, the mortality rate is 100%?

Nothing like a good snip to completely remove the meaning and context,
avoid looking a total plonker, and come up smelling of roses.

YOU ARE Tony Bliar, and I claim my £5.

wrote:
On 14 Jul,
"LSR" wrote:

"Horizon" on BBC2 yesterday was pretty interesting . Tens of thousands of
deaths were predicted from Chernobyl using the standard model, which
extrapolates from the high exposures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact
there have been well under 100 deaths (I think it was 47). There has been
no increases in leukemia, and the local wildlife is thriving in spite of
constant exposure for 20 years now..

The conclusion was that low radiation exposure was at worst harmless and
might even be beneficial, as certain protective genes are "turned on".

Was it the first bit of propoganda for the next generation of nuclear
stations?


Possibly, but if it was, it has to be pretty easy to check against the
actual known data.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
On 14 Jul,
"LSR" wrote:

"Horizon" on BBC2 yesterday was pretty interesting . Tens of thousands of
deaths were predicted from Chernobyl using the standard model, which
extrapolates from the high exposures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact
there have been well under 100 deaths (I think it was 47). There has been
no increases in leukemia, and the local wildlife is thriving in spite of
constant exposure for 20 years now..

The conclusion was that low radiation exposure was at worst harmless and
might even be beneficial, as certain protective genes are "turned on".

Was it the first bit of propoganda for the next generation of nuclear
stations?

Possibly, but if it was, it has to be pretty easy to check against the
actual known data.

I am gobsmacked that in this day and age so few actually realise that
the Chernobyl site has been a wildlife reserve for several years now.
Experiments to introduce large mammals eradicated from the region
centuries ago have been very successful.

Have you all got your heads up your arses or what?

Weatherlawyer wrote:

[building nukes]

(It was such a vast amount that the economy, already devastated by WW
2, took much longer to recover than the rest of western Europe where
the Nazis had stripped it of all they could loot and eradicated vast
sections of the population either in death camps and forced labour, or
to other casualties of war.)

You mean, like France ? France has a huge number of nuclear power
stations. Somehow they managed to build those, AND things like the TGV,
AND do post-war reconstruction too. What am I missing ?

Geronimo W. Christ Esq wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote:

[building nukes]

(It was such a vast amount that the economy, already devastated by WW
2, took much longer to recover than the rest of western Europe where
the Nazis had stripped it of all they could loot and eradicated vast
sections of the population either in death camps and forced labour, or
to other casualties of war.)

You mean, like France ? France has a huge number of nuclear power
stations. Somehow they managed to build those, AND things like the TGV,
AND do post-war reconstruction too. What am I missing ?

The secrecy?

The British and the Yanks were and still are so paranoid about the
secrecy levels for anything using the "n" word that they will arrest
anyone remotely involved in blowing the whistle on dirty deals and etc.

France on the other hand will sell theirs to anyone.

France was not involved in the research of the 40's and 50's was it?
Have you done any research on the subject? Get a computer and ask you
mam if you can surf the world wide bit of the net they let you on.

Geronimo W. Christ Esq wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote:

[building nukes]

(It was such a vast amount that the economy, already devastated by WW
2, took much longer to recover than the rest of western Europe where
the Nazis had stripped it of all they could loot and eradicated vast
sections of the population either in death camps and forced labour, or
to other casualties of war.)

You mean, like France ? France has a huge number of nuclear power
stations. Somehow they managed to build those, AND things like the TGV,
AND do post-war reconstruction too. What am I missing ?

An axe to grind.

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:58:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Weatherlawyer wrote:
....

I am not validating anything Tory BLiar has said about nuclear fuel.
The man is a maniac lickspittle and should be shot out of hand not
respected as a leader of men.

Agreed.

Seconded (although shooting is too good for him).

A recent programme on the TV showed that small doses of background
radiation seems to alleviate cancers in that the genes to fight them
seem to be initiated in people who live in regions with fairly high
natural radiation.

Work on the Chernobyl site seems to back this idea up. Less people were
known to have died directly from the disaster than are killed each week
on the roads in the UK.

A curious and interesting program, both in its timing, its content and
its general conclusion.

Yes. I was thinking the whole way through that it must be sponsored
by nulabour. I was worried that they referred to "Radiation" as if
"it" was all the same. There are at least three different types (If I
remember my A level Physics correctly ;-), all of which have different
effects.

If true, it propbaly means that there is no nuclear waste problem at all.

Low level waste could be dumped in landfills with no real problem.

Not necessarily true. See above.

High level waste could be reprocessed and the materials used in
processing kept for a few years and dumped likewise.

[snip]

But until nuclear power design, cost and management and everything else
is openly discussed, the only way to maintain good safety specs is that
everyone responsible for building them should be forced to live the
rest of their lives near them until the reactor is long closed -when
their kin will be responsible for their oversight until the waste
denatures to safe levels..

Suits me. You can shove one in my back garden.

You must have a very large garden ;-)

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 sort of protection?


The real effects of long term exposure to low level radiation are really
an unknown.

Definitely. It takes more than one "science" program to make me be
willing to be exposed to low level radiation.

[snip]

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!)

Most debates are hampered by irrational arguments IMHO.

Mark

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:38:03 +0100, "LSR" wrote:

mogga wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:32:40 +0100, "LSR" wrote:

"Horizon" on BBC2 yesterday was pretty interesting . Tens of
thousands of deaths were predicted from Chernobyl using the standard
model, which extrapolates from the high exposures of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. In fact there have been well under 100 deaths (I think it
was 47). There has been no increases in leukemia, and the local
wildlife is thriving in spite of constant exposure for 20 years now..

The conclusion was that low radiation exposure was at worst harmless
and might even be beneficial, as certain protective genes are
"turned on".

Was it sponsored by BNFL?

No, by the Chernobyl Forum, "an international organisation of scientific
bodies including a number of UN agencies". Link he
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5173310.stm

(nb no. of deaths is 56, not 47)

Still, don't let the facts get in the way...

Are we really confident that the death statistics are correct? I'm
sure the authorities there would anxious to minimize the bad
publicity.

Mark

Mark wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:58:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Weatherlawyer wrote:
....

I am not validating anything Tory BLiar has said about nuclear fuel.
The man is a maniac lickspittle and should be shot out of hand not
respected as a leader of men.
Agreed.

Seconded (although shooting is too good for him).

A recent programme on the TV showed that small doses of background
radiation seems to alleviate cancers in that the genes to fight them
seem to be initiated in people who live in regions with fairly high
natural radiation.

Work on the Chernobyl site seems to back this idea up. Less people were
known to have died directly from the disaster than are killed each week
on the roads in the UK.
A curious and interesting program, both in its timing, its content and
its general conclusion.

Yes. I was thinking the whole way through that it must be sponsored
by nulabour. I was worried that they referred to "Radiation" as if
"it" was all the same. There are at least three different types (If I
remember my A level Physics correctly ;-), all of which have different
effects.


You mean alpha, beta and gamma?

From memory at least one of those is stopped very easily by almost any
layer of anything.




If true, it propbaly means that there is no nuclear waste problem at all.

Low level waste could be dumped in landfills with no real problem.

Not necessarily true. See above.

I think you need to delve more into the science here.

For example, plutonium and uranium are as likely to be dangerous as
metals in themselves as radioactive emitters. They are also the items
that are = with americum - responsible for the long time delay problems.

Almost all other secondary products - iodine, caesium etc - decay within
20-30 years.

The largest amount of low level waste is simply contaminated clothing
etc containing not the actual fuel rods or products therefrom, but
simply material that has been irradiated and has some residual
radioactivity in it.

IF low level radiation exposure is relatively benign, this could simply
be buried for a while.


High level waste could be reprocessed and the materials used in
processing kept for a few years and dumped likewise.

[snip]

But until nuclear power design, cost and management and everything else
is openly discussed, the only way to maintain good safety specs is that
everyone responsible for building them should be forced to live the
rest of their lives near them until the reactor is long closed -when
their kin will be responsible for their oversight until the waste
denatures to safe levels..
Suits me. You can shove one in my back garden.

You must have a very large garden ;-)

Not really. I was being a little humorous.. But there isn't a huge
amount of waste tons wise from the power stations...



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 sort of protection?

The real effects of long term exposure to low level radiation are really
an unknown.

Definitely. It takes more than one "science" program to make me be
willing to be exposed to low level radiation.


But you always have been. We are all exposed to low level radiation all
the time. The earth itself is a huge nuclear reactor, and cosmic
radiation comes in all the time. Life has developed in this environment,
and it would be strange if it could not cope with it.


The one point that was made by the program, that is incontrovertibly
valid, is that no data for low continuous radiation exists, apart from
the ones cited.,

Namely that we know that above a certain threshold, cancer happens..we
know that at a normal background level, it doesn't. Bombs and normal
life give us those points on the graph.

Down low, the only data is from areas with naturally high background
levels, which show no extra cancer rates, or airline staff, who don't
either.

IIRC there is SOME evidence that RADON - an inhalable gas fund all over
dartmoor etc, has some correlation to lung cancer, but its buy no means
a sure thing.



[snip]

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!)

Most debates are hampered by irrational arguments IMHO.


Do you think that this one can be allowed to remain that way?

Mark

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/...oact/index.htm

has some worthwhile reading on these topics.

The amount of actual radioactivity in the environment from the nuclear
industry seems extraordinarily low.

Most of it is short duration stuff, and what gets into us is trivial
compared with the natural background levels.

Mark wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:38:03 +0100, "LSR" wrote:

mogga wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:32:40 +0100, "LSR" wrote:

"Horizon" on BBC2 yesterday was pretty interesting . Tens of
thousands of deaths were predicted from Chernobyl using the standard
model, which extrapolates from the high exposures of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. In fact there have been well under 100 deaths (I think it
was 47). There has been no increases in leukemia, and the local
wildlife is thriving in spite of constant exposure for 20 years now..

The conclusion was that low radiation exposure was at worst harmless
and might even be beneficial, as certain protective genes are
"turned on".
Was it sponsored by BNFL?
No, by the Chernobyl Forum, "an international organisation of scientific
bodies including a number of UN agencies". Link he
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5173310.stm

(nb no. of deaths is 56, not 47)

Still, don't let the facts get in the way...

Are we really confident that the death statistics are correct? I'm
sure the authorities there would anxious to minimize the bad
publicity.

Mark
According to the BBC website the data comes from the IAEA ..the
international atomic energy agency or whatever.

DEFRA's own statistics make interesting readings.

50% of all radiation we currently receive is from natural RADON.
14% is from X-rays and other medical stuff.
Cosmic and other natural radiation accounts for most of te est.

Fallout from Chernobyl and nuclear industry sources is utterly trivial
by comparison.

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 10:23:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mark wrote:
Yes. I was thinking the whole way through that it must be sponsored
by nulabour. I was worried that they referred to "Radiation" as if
"it" was all the same. There are at least three different types (If I
remember my A level Physics correctly ;-), all of which have different
effects.

You mean alpha, beta and gamma?

Yes.

From memory at least one of those is stopped very easily by almost any
layer of anything.

Yes. For example the human body is very good at absorbing and hence
stopping alpha radiation. This process can damage the aforementioned
body.

If true, it propbaly means that there is no nuclear waste problem at all.

Low level waste could be dumped in landfills with no real problem.

Not necessarily true. See above.

I think you need to delve more into the science here.

Agreed. I think I was trying to suggest that in my previous post.

For example, plutonium and uranium are as likely to be dangerous as
metals in themselves as radioactive emitters. They are also the items
that are = with americum - responsible for the long time delay problems.

Almost all other secondary products - iodine, caesium etc - decay within
20-30 years.

And maybe they would be all the more dangerous during this time frame?

The largest amount of low level waste is simply contaminated clothing
etc containing not the actual fuel rods or products therefrom, but
simply material that has been irradiated and has some residual
radioactivity in it.

IF low level radiation exposure is relatively benign, this could simply
be buried for a while.

If this can be proved to be so.

You must have a very large garden ;-)

Not really. I was being a little humorous.. But there isn't a huge
amount of waste tons wise from the power stations...

Hence the ;-)

Definitely. It takes more than one "science" program to make me be
willing to be exposed to low level radiation.

But you always have been. We are all exposed to low level radiation all
the time. The earth itself is a huge nuclear reactor, and cosmic
radiation comes in all the time. Life has developed in this environment,
and it would be strange if it could not cope with it.

I should have phrased this point more carefully maybe:
"... willing to be exposed to _more_ low level radiation ..."

The one point that was made by the program, that is incontrovertibly
valid, is that no data for low continuous radiation exists, apart from
the ones cited.,

Namely that we know that above a certain threshold, cancer happens..we
know that at a normal background level, it doesn't. Bombs and normal
life give us those points on the graph.

Down low, the only data is from areas with naturally high background
levels, which show no extra cancer rates, or airline staff, who don't
either.

But, in the program, there is no mention of the type of radiation
these studies measured. Statistics based on one type of radiation
could have no bearing on the effects of a different type.

IIRC there is SOME evidence that RADON - an inhalable gas fund all over
dartmoor etc, has some correlation to lung cancer, but its buy no means
a sure thing.

I would not wish to live in an area with high radon gas.

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!)

Most debates are hampered by irrational arguments IMHO.

Do you think that this one can be allowed to remain that way?

No. Although I don't know how this could be stopped in pratice. I was
just pointing out that fact. The current political culture of spin
and the media culture of the tabloids are not doing anything to help
cool and rational debate.

In recent times I cannot think of any major national issue that has
been debated in a factual manner. Can you?

Mark

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 10:32:52 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/...oact/index.htm

has some worthwhile reading on these topics.

The amount of actual radioactivity in the environment from the nuclear
industry seems extraordinarily low.

Most of it is short duration stuff, and what gets into us is trivial
compared with the natural background levels.

Personnally I would like to see more research and understanding on
what causes cancer "hot-spots" before we risk raising the level of
background or other radiation.

Mark

Mark wrote:
But, in the program, there is no mention of the type of radiation
these studies measured. Statistics based on one type of radiation
could have no bearing on the effects of a different type.

Go look up the definition of the "sievert" and "equivalent dose". The type
of radiation and various other biological factors are taken into account.
--
LSR

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

DEFRA's own statistics make interesting readings.

50% of all radiation we currently receive is from natural RADON.
14% is from X-rays and other medical stuff.
Cosmic and other natural radiation accounts for most of te est.

That is a surprisingly high percentage from X-rays.
I would have thought that with all the care they take nowadays
the absorption during normal X-rays would be negligible.
I wonder if this is due to a very small percentage
getting very high radiation doses during cancer treatment?

Also 36% for cosmic rays seems very high.
It would suggest to me that people who fly a lot (eg pilots)
must get massive doses.

Fallout from Chernobyl and nuclear industry sources is utterly trivial
by comparison.

I agree with this.
Also, it is amazing that people who claim to be concerned about radiation
do not seem to worry at all about radon,
especially as it is relatively easy to reduce the dosage from this.

Incidentally, all this does not prove that nuclear power generation
is a sensible option.
I do not think it is;
it has always been subsidized to a large (and hidden) extent
by weapons production.
It is a very expensive way of generating electricity.



--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:28:22 +0100, "LSR" wrote:

Mark wrote:
But, in the program, there is no mention of the type of radiation
these studies measured. Statistics based on one type of radiation
could have no bearing on the effects of a different type.

Go look up the definition of the "sievert" and "equivalent dose". The type
of radiation and various other biological factors are taken into account.

Interesting.

Mark

Mark wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 10:32:52 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/...oact/index.htm

has some worthwhile reading on these topics.

The amount of actual radioactivity in the environment from the nuclear
industry seems extraordinarily low.

Most of it is short duration stuff, and what gets into us is trivial
compared with the natural background levels.

Personnally I would like to see more research and understanding on
what causes cancer "hot-spots" before we risk raising the level of
background or other radiation.

Mark

But that is precisely what HAS happened.

Total exposure from the nuclear industry is less than 0.2% of the total
we receive, whereas medical uses is a wopping 14%, and natural radiation
is 85%..

In short there is bugger all exposure at all to any nuclear power
radiation. Despite all the hooha.

Just allowing the indiustry to dose us with as much as e.g. tooth X-rays
would eliminate 90% of the low level waste disposal 'problem'

The Chernobyl accident HAS provided data..

Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

DEFRA's own statistics make interesting readings.

50% of all radiation we currently receive is from natural RADON.
14% is from X-rays and other medical stuff.
Cosmic and other natural radiation accounts for most of te est.

That is a surprisingly high percentage from X-rays.
I would have thought that with all the care they take nowadays
the absorption during normal X-rays would be negligible.
I wonder if this is due to a very small percentage
getting very high radiation doses during cancer treatment?

Also 36% for cosmic rays seems very high.
It would suggest to me that people who fly a lot (eg pilots)
must get massive doses.

At one time it was thought that astronauts would die within minutes of
getting above the earths atmosphere.

That's why they sent up monkeys and dogs first.

Now it seems that maybe they get about double teh dise if they saty up a
few months..


Fallout from Chernobyl and nuclear industry sources is utterly trivial
by comparison.

I agree with this.
Also, it is amazing that people who claim to be concerned about radiation
do not seem to worry at all about radon,
especially as it is relatively easy to reduce the dosage from this.


Inded.
Incidentally, all this does not prove that nuclear power generation
is a sensible option.
I do not think it is;
it has always been subsidized to a large (and hidden) extent
by weapons production.
It is a very expensive way of generating electricity.


No, it isn't...it may have been subsidised in the past, but thats no
longer the case. IF you take out decommissioning costs and compare like
for like with fuel power stations (how much asbestos has to come out of
old coal fired stations...and how much radioactivity is in coal ash?)
its pretty similar in capital cost. And fuel costs as well.

Its been actively discriminated against by having to conform to
pollution standards infinitely higher than any other technology.

Now it seems that those standards are totally uneccessary, it probably
ranks better than coal and oil, and on a par with gas.

If you e.g. start to charge fossil fuel techonology with the cost of
long term storage (say a billion years) of THEIR waste - CO2 - I think
you will see an entirely different slant on the cost benefit analysis.