"It is important to understand that the risk to health from radiation
from Fukushima is negligible, and that undue concern over any possible
health effects could be much worse than the radiation itself"

Gerry Thomas
Imperial College, London

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...a_0309131.html

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 04/09/2013 09:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
"It is important to understand that the risk to health from radiation
from Fukushima is negligible, and that undue concern over any possible
health effects could be much worse than the radiation itself"

Gerry Thomas
Imperial College, London

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...a_0309131.html

I think negligible is over egging it a bit. The threat to nuclear
workers in the plant is real enough if they are unlucky or careless.

Most of the surroundings will have cooled down by now, but the presently
uncontrolled leaks to groundwater are not good news. Tepco management
has basically lost the plot and everybodys' trust.

The surrounding contamination is now pretty well under control but like
in the UK moorlands some parts have vegetation that concentrates certain
radioisotopes. It is also true that in Japan fear of nuclear
contamination has considerably more public resonance than elsewhere.

They are the only nation to have been attacked with nuclear weapons.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 04/09/13 10:50, Martin Brown wrote:
On 04/09/2013 09:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
"It is important to understand that the risk to health from radiation
from Fukushima is negligible, and that undue concern over any possible
health effects could be much worse than the radiation itself"

Gerry Thomas
Imperial College, London

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...a_0309131.html

I think negligible is over egging it a bit. The threat to nuclear
workers in the plant is real enough if they are unlucky or careless.


they carry dose meters and alarms.

Most of the surroundings will have cooled down by now, but the
presently uncontrolled leaks to groundwater are not good news. Tepco
management has basically lost the plot and everybodys' trust.


there are no uncontrolled leaks to groundwater.

There was one leak, which didn't get far, and is now contained.


The surrounding contamination is now pretty well under control but
like in the UK moorlands some parts have vegetation that concentrates
certain radioisotopes. It is also true that in Japan fear of nuclear
contamination has considerably more public resonance than elsewhere.

They are the only nation to have been attacked with nuclear weapons.

They are the only nation that cannot realistically do without nuclear
power, too.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 10:54:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

there are no uncontrolled leaks to groundwater.

There was one leak, which didn't get far, and is now contained.

Well I suppose you are hanging that statement on the "to groundwater"
hook.

The news that I have read is that several of the storage tanks have
leaked over the years and that some of the pipework has also leaked
and they aren't sure what is getting out of the containment
vessel(s).

TEPCO do seem to have lost the plot, latest cock appears to be using
a meter with FSD of 100 mSv and saying that the puddle was at that
level, then going backa few days later with a meter witha higher FSD
and finding 800 odd mSv... Combine that basic plumbing failures(*)
and the Japanese cultural inabilty to admit to failure it's hardly
surprising there is some distrust of TEPCO and their abilty to manage
the situation.

(*) It's only water they are storing moving about FFS. Yes it has a
minute trace of some radioactive isotopes but it's still only water.
Hardly difficult to store or have leak proof pipework.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 04/09/13 11:36, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 10:54:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

there are no uncontrolled leaks to groundwater.

There was one leak, which didn't get far, and is now contained.
Well I suppose you are hanging that statement on the "to groundwater"
hook.

The news that I have read is that several of the storage tanks have
leaked over the years and that some of the pipework has also leaked
and they aren't sure what is getting out of the containment
vessel(s).
that's not the news that I read.

TEPCO do seem to have lost the plot, latest cock appears to be using
a meter with FSD of 100 mSv and saying that the puddle was at that
level, then going backa few days later with a meter witha higher FSD
and finding 800 odd mSv... Combine that basic plumbing failures(*)
and the Japanese cultural inabilty to admit to failure it's hardly
surprising there is some distrust of TEPCO and their abilty to manage
the situation.

that is deliberate misinterpretation of the facts.

the puddles were relatively low but as the water evaporated a very small
hotspot was left at the centre of the puddle.

100mSv/h is not a huge issue anyway. 100msV is the radiation dose given
toi cuyre cancers and is the threshold for ANY detectable increases in
cancer risks or a as my oncologist said 'a 5% extra chance of secondary
cancer in 15 years time'



(*) It's only water they are storing moving about FFS. Yes it has a
minute trace of some radioactive isotopes but it's still only water.
Hardly difficult to store or have leak proof pipework.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 13:12:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 04/09/13 11:36, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 10:54:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

TEPCO do seem to have lost the plot, latest cock appears to be using
a meter with FSD of 100 mSv and saying that the puddle was at that
level, then going backa few days later with a meter witha higher FSD
and finding 800 odd mSv... Combine that basic plumbing failures(*)
and the Japanese cultural inabilty to admit to failure it's hardly
surprising there is some distrust of TEPCO and their abilty to manage
the situation.

Yes, as per the link I gave in another reply:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23779560

"Having initially reported high levels of radiation - of about 100
milliSieverts per hour near the leaked water within the moat -
officials had to concede later that the equipment used to take the
readings had an inadequate scale. When newer equipment was brought in,
it was established that the levels of beta radiation had actually been
18 times higher. Subsequent readings have been up to as much as
2,200mSv per hour. While still extremely high, experts say that,
properly protected, workers can still operate in such an environment."

that is deliberate misinterpretation of the facts.

No, you're the only person doing that.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 04/09/13 11:36, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 10:54:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

there are no uncontrolled leaks to groundwater.

There was one leak, which didn't get far, and is now contained.
Well I suppose you are hanging that statement on the "to groundwater"
hook.

The news that I have read is that several of the storage tanks have
leaked over the years and that some of the pipework has also leaked
and they aren't sure what is getting out of the containment
vessel(s).
that's not the news that I read.

TEPCO do seem to have lost the plot, latest cock appears to be using
a meter with FSD of 100 mSv and saying that the puddle was at that
level, then going backa few days later with a meter witha higher FSD
and finding 800 odd mSv... Combine that basic plumbing failures(*)
and the Japanese cultural inabilty to admit to failure it's hardly
surprising there is some distrust of TEPCO and their abilty to manage
the situation.

that is deliberate misinterpretation of the facts.

the puddles were relatively low but as the water evaporated a very small
hotspot was left at the centre of the puddle.

100mSv/h is not a huge issue anyway. 100msV is the radiation dose given
toi cuyre cancers and is the threshold for ANY detectable increases in
cancer risks or a as my oncologist said 'a 5% extra chance of secondary
cancer in 15 years time'



(*) It's only water they are storing moving about FFS. Yes it has a
minute trace of some radioactive isotopes but it's still only water.
Hardly difficult to store or have leak proof pipework.


Usual crap fromTurNiP.
http://www.hazardexonthenet.net/arti...mergency-.aspx

On 04/09/2013 10:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

they carry dose meters and alarms.


Apparently, the meters were set with a maximum range of 100 mSv, so the
leak was logged at that level. Unfortunately, it was actually vastly
higher, but nobody noticed until much later.

I imagine one of the issues they have is that they have to discharge
experienced staff, as they have been subject to lifetime radiation
limits, if not beyond. Consequently, they have all sorts of new people
on-site who have no clue about what they are doing.

Quite frankly, if you did have an idea about what you are doing, would
you work there?

On 04/09/2013 11:48, GB wrote:
On 04/09/2013 10:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

they carry dose meters and alarms.


Apparently, the meters were set with a maximum range of 100 mSv, so the
leak was logged at that level. Unfortunately, it was actually vastly
higher, but nobody noticed until much later.

I imagine one of the issues they have is that they have to discharge
experienced staff, as they have been subject to lifetime radiation
limits, if not beyond. Consequently, they have all sorts of new people
on-site who have no clue about what they are doing.

Quite frankly, if you did have an idea about what you are doing, would
you work there?

As it happens, yes. They did an appalling job of handling release of
information to the media at the outset; since TMI we are *much* better
organised in the UK. But they also did a relatively good technical job
in the immediate recovery period as, for that matter, did the Russians
after Chernobyl.

I have to agree, though, that they are not doing well now.

An interesting juxtaposition of figures, at the time the Japanese talked
about allocating another third of a billion euros/dollars to Fukushima,
a BBC radio program was talking about how the Norwegians are tucking
away a billion euros/dollars into their wealth fund *every week*.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 12:18:11 +0100, newshound
wrote:

An interesting juxtaposition of figures, at the time the Japanese talked
about allocating another third of a billion euros/dollars to Fukushima,
a BBC radio program was talking about how the Norwegians are tucking
away a billion euros/dollars into their wealth fund *every week*.

You'd have thought that with that much wealth they would cut income tax and the
price of fuel, beer and electricity.


--

On 04/09/13 11:48, GB wrote:
On 04/09/2013 10:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

they carry dose meters and alarms.


Apparently, the meters were set with a maximum range of 100 mSv, so
the leak was logged at that level. Unfortunately, it was actually
vastly higher, but nobody noticed until much later.

I imagine one of the issues they have is that they have to discharge
experienced staff, as they have been subject to lifetime radiation
limits, if not beyond. Consequently, they have all sorts of new
people on-site who have no clue about what they are doing.

imagination doesn't beat facts. Only tow workers reached annual dosage
levels at the time of the spill.

Quite frankly, if you did have an idea about what you are doing, would
you work there?

Money?


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 04/09/2013 13:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I imagine one of the issues they have is that they have to discharge
experienced staff, as they have been subject to lifetime radiation
limits, if not beyond. Consequently, they have all sorts of new
people on-site who have no clue about what they are doing.

imagination doesn't beat facts. Only tow workers reached annual dosage
levels at the time of the spill.

You mean from this particular spill? Do you have figures for how many of
their experienced staff have had to stop work because of radiation
limits? Or are you saying it's just 2 since the original problems
started? If so, I must express my surprise.






Quite frankly, if you did have an idea about what you are doing, would
you work there?

Money?

On 04/09/2013 11:48, GB wrote:
On 04/09/2013 10:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

they carry dose meters and alarms.


Apparently, the meters were set with a maximum range of 100 mSv, so the
leak was logged at that level. Unfortunately, it was actually vastly
higher, but nobody noticed until much later.

I imagine one of the issues they have is that they have to discharge
experienced staff, as they have been subject to lifetime radiation
limits, if not beyond. Consequently, they have all sorts of new people
on-site who have no clue about what they are doing.

Quite frankly, if you did have an idea about what you are doing, would
you work there?


You might do it for health reasons, it appears nuclear workers have less
cancers than the general population.

On 04/09/2013 19:55, dennis@home wrote:

You might do it for health reasons, it appears nuclear workers have less
cancers than the general population.

The general population includes people at home with cancer, who can't work.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 10:54:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

there are no uncontrolled leaks to groundwater.
There was one leak, which didn't get far, and is now contained.

More pro-nuclear lies from TNP ...

Not only is the leak is not yet contained, it is getting worse:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23945612

This is how they are PLANNING to contain it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23940214

They are the only nation that cannot realistically do without nuclear
power, too.

Another lie - they are currently surviving with hardly any
contribution from nuclear power:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan

"Problems in stabilizing the Fukushima I nuclear plant had hardened
attitudes to nuclear power. As of June 2011, "more than 80 percent of
Japanese now say they are anti-nuclear and distrust government
information on radiation".[11][12][13] As of October 2011, there have
been electricity shortages, but Japan survived the summer without the
extensive blackouts that had been predicted.[14][15][16] An energy
white paper, approved by the Japanese Cabinet in October 2011, says
"public confidence in safety of nuclear power was greatly damaged" by
the Fukushima disaster, and calls for a reduction in the nation’s
reliance on nuclear power.[17]

Many of Japan's nuclear plants have been closed, or their operation
has been suspended for safety inspections. The last of Japan's 50
reactors (Tomari-3) went offline for maintenance on May 5, 2012.,[18]
leaving Japan completely without nuclear-produced electrical power for
the first time since 1970. Despite protests, on 1 July 2012 unit 3 of
the O-i Nuclear Power Plant was restarted.[19] As of September 2012,
O-i units 3 and 4 are Japan's only operating nuclear power plants,
although the city and prefecture of Osaka have requested they be shut
down.[20]"
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

In article , Java Jive
scribeth thus
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 10:54:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

there are no uncontrolled leaks to groundwater.
There was one leak, which didn't get far, and is now contained.

More pro-nuclear lies from TNP ...

Not only is the leak is not yet contained, it is getting worse:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23945612

This is how they are PLANNING to contain it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23940214

They are the only nation that cannot realistically do without nuclear
power, too.

Another lie - they are currently surviving with hardly any
contribution from nuclear power:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan

"Problems in stabilizing the Fukushima I nuclear plant had hardened
attitudes to nuclear power. As of June 2011, "more than 80 percent of
Japanese now say they are anti-nuclear and distrust government
information on radiation".[11][12][13] As of October 2011, there have
been electricity shortages, but Japan survived the summer without the
extensive blackouts that had been predicted.[14][15][16] An energy
white paper, approved by the Japanese Cabinet in October 2011, says
"public confidence in safety of nuclear power was greatly damaged" by
the Fukushima disaster, and calls for a reduction in the nations
reliance on nuclear power.[17]

Many of Japan's nuclear plants have been closed, or their operation
has been suspended for safety inspections. The last of Japan's 50
reactors (Tomari-3) went offline for maintenance on May 5, 2012.,[18]
leaving Japan completely without nuclear-produced electrical power for
the first time since 1970. Despite protests, on 1 July 2012 unit 3 of
the O-i Nuclear Power Plant was restarted.[19] As of September 2012,
O-i units 3 and 4 are Japan's only operating nuclear power plants,
although the city and prefecture of Osaka have requested they be shut
down.[20]"

Let them --- erect Windymills)....


All done 'n dusted!.....
--
Tony Sayer

On 04/09/13 20:52, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Java Jive
scribeth thus
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 10:54:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
there are no uncontrolled leaks to groundwater.
There was one leak, which didn't get far, and is now contained.
More pro-nuclear lies from TNP ...

Not only is the leak is not yet contained, it is getting worse:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23945612

This is how they are PLANNING to contain it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23940214

They are the only nation that cannot realistically do without nuclear
power, too.
Another lie - they are currently surviving with hardly any
contribution from nuclear power:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan

"Problems in stabilizing the Fukushima I nuclear plant had hardened
attitudes to nuclear power. As of June 2011, "more than 80 percent of
Japanese now say they are anti-nuclear and distrust government
information on radiation".[11][12][13] As of October 2011, there have
been electricity shortages, but Japan survived the summer without the
extensive blackouts that had been predicted.[14][15][16] An energy
white paper, approved by the Japanese Cabinet in October 2011, says
"public confidence in safety of nuclear power was greatly damaged" by
the Fukushima disaster, and calls for a reduction in the nations
reliance on nuclear power.[17]

Many of Japan's nuclear plants have been closed, or their operation
has been suspended for safety inspections. The last of Japan's 50
reactors (Tomari-3) went offline for maintenance on May 5, 2012.,[18]
leaving Japan completely without nuclear-produced electrical power for
the first time since 1970. Despite protests, on 1 July 2012 unit 3 of
the O-i Nuclear Power Plant was restarted.[19] As of September 2012,
O-i units 3 and 4 are Japan's only operating nuclear power plants,
although the city and prefecture of Osaka have requested they be shut
down.[20]"
Let them --- erect Windymills)....


All done 'n dusted!.....
Any article on climate change, nuclear power or renewable energy in
wikipedia is written by the green/renewable lobby.

And essentially is totally untrustworthy. In fact the lies that are in
there - demonstrable lies - are one of the reasons it becomes obvious
that where these matters are concerned we are not dealing wioth science
or facts, but with well orchestrated propaganda.


Japan is suffering a massive balance of payments problem, spiralling
import bills and regular power cuts.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Java Jive
scribeth thus
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 10:54:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

there are no uncontrolled leaks to groundwater.
There was one leak, which didn't get far, and is now contained.

More pro-nuclear lies from TNP ...

Not only is the leak is not yet contained, it is getting worse:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23945612

This is how they are PLANNING to contain it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23940214

They are the only nation that cannot realistically do without nuclear
power, too.

Another lie - they are currently surviving with hardly any
contribution from nuclear power:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan

"Problems in stabilizing the Fukushima I nuclear plant had hardened
attitudes to nuclear power. As of June 2011, "more than 80 percent of
Japanese now say they are anti-nuclear and distrust government
information on radiation".[11][12][13] As of October 2011, there have
been electricity shortages, but Japan survived the summer without the
extensive blackouts that had been predicted.[14][15][16] An energy
white paper, approved by the Japanese Cabinet in October 2011, says
"public confidence in safety of nuclear power was greatly damaged" by
the Fukushima disaster, and calls for a reduction in the nation's
reliance on nuclear power.[17]

Many of Japan's nuclear plants have been closed, or their operation
has been suspended for safety inspections. The last of Japan's 50
reactors (Tomari-3) went offline for maintenance on May 5, 2012.,[18]
leaving Japan completely without nuclear-produced electrical power for
the first time since 1970. Despite protests, on 1 July 2012 unit 3 of
the O-i Nuclear Power Plant was restarted.[19] As of September 2012,
O-i units 3 and 4 are Japan's only operating nuclear power plants,
although the city and prefecture of Osaka have requested they be shut
down.[20]"

Let them --- erect Windymills)....


All done 'n dusted!.....


They already are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Japan

Well as has been said more than once. Natural processes can generate more
radiation than diluting the pacific with the whole reactor load of
contaminated stuff and water from that accident. Unfortunately, it is just
that people do not trust the scientists, the company or the government on
any of this so they have not done it.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
"It is important to understand that the risk to health from radiation from
Fukushima is negligible, and that undue concern over any possible health
effects could be much worse than the radiation itself"

Gerry Thomas
Imperial College, London

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...a_0309131.html

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members
of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded
with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
"It is important to understand that the risk to health from radiation from
Fukushima is negligible, and that undue concern over any possible health
effects could be much worse than the radiation itself"

Gerry Thomas
Imperial College, London

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...a_0309131.html


Full of sh*t as usual.
Three hundred tons a day (atleast)of radioactive water is leaking from the
site.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23779561

The true cost of nuclear power.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...69d_story.html

Taxpayer picks up the bill as usual with nuclear power.

On 04/09/13 20:00, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
"It is important to understand that the risk to health from radiation from
Fukushima is negligible, and that undue concern over any possible health
effects could be much worse than the radiation itself"

Gerry Thomas
Imperial College, London

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...a_0309131.html

Full of sh*t as usual.
Three hundred tons a day (atleast)of radioactive water is leaking from the
site.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23779561


lie. at most 300 tins IN ALL has leaked.

The true cost of nuclear power.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...69d_story.html

washingtn post is like the new ytorsk times, hardly unbiased.

Taxpayer picks up the bill as usual with nuclear power.

because governbment insists on making it stupidly expensive.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 20:12:40 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 04/09/13 20:00, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Full of sh*t as usual.
Three hundred tons a day (atleast)of radioactive water is leaking from the
site.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23779561

at most 300 tins IN ALL has leaked.

That's actually correct, for once, but it's quite bad enough.

The true cost of nuclear power.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...ly-500-million
-as-tepco-deals-with-water-crisis/2013/09/03/581876c6-147c-11e3-880b-7503237cc69d_story.html

washingtn post is like the new ytorsk times, hardly unbiased.

Whereas you are UNBIASED????? Everyone in this ng KNOWS that you have
a pro-nuclear bias, but perhaps not everyone quite realised just how
badly it affects your judgement until you were stupid enough to start
a pro-nuclear thread in the middle of the leak crisis at Fukushima.
Talk about moronically bad timing - no wonder all the **** is flying
in your direction!

Taxpayer picks up the bill as usual with nuclear power.

Exactly.

because governbment insists on making it stupidly expensive.

Noone has MAKE it expensive, when you work out the true cost of it, it
just is.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 04/09/2013 20:48, Java Jive wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 20:12:40 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
....
because governbment insists on making it stupidly expensive.

Noone has MAKE it expensive, when you work out the true cost of it, it
just is.

When you work out the true cost, including all fuel mining and transport
costs and everything from breaking ground to final decommissioning,
nuclear costs about the same as coal, half to one third the cost of wind
power and one fifth the cost of solar PV. It is also, by a long way, the
safest way to make electricity.

Colin Bignell

This is the perpetual claim of the pro-nuclear lobby here, but yet
again, just as with TNP, It's just so much hot air - you give no
FIGURES in support of your argument.

Meanwhile, here are some actual, real figures, which already you seem
to have forgotten, even though they were only posted in the fracking
thread on 22nd August :-(

"""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...United_Kingdom
"However The Times reported the cost of building each EPR reactor had
increased to £7 billion, which Citigroup analysts did not regard as
commercially viable, projecting a generation cost of 16.6p/kWh for
private-sector financed reactors."

.... in a little more detail ...

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/0...8470XC20120508
"A report from the Times newspaper on Monday said French nuclear
developer EDF had raised the cost of building a nuclear power plant to
7 billion pounds from 4.5 billion pounds last year.

"If the latest cost figures are true, new nuclear power plants in the
UK are not commercially viable," Citi analyst Peter Atherton told
Reuters. Based on the new figures, nuclear would be the most
expensive form of electricity generation, exceeding even offshore
wind, he said. "The only way they could be built is if the
construction risk was transferred to the taxpayer," Atherton said,
equating to a multi-billion pound government insurance policy.

EDF's Flamanville reactor, which is under construction in France, is
running four years late and at least double its original budget."

Note: The figure of £7bn does not include the costs of
decommissioning at end-of-life and handling waste; it is unclear
whether or not the 16.6p/kWh unit cost of electricity does so.
"""

On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 09:49:07 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

When you work out the true cost, including all fuel mining and transport
costs and everything from breaking ground to final decommissioning,
nuclear costs about the same as coal, half to one third the cost of wind
power and one fifth the cost of solar PV.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 05/09/2013 09:49, Nightjar wrote:
On 04/09/2013 20:48, Java Jive wrote:
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 20:12:40 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
...
because governbment insists on making it stupidly expensive.

Noone has MAKE it expensive, when you work out the true cost of it, it
just is.

When you work out the true cost, including all fuel mining and transport
costs and everything from breaking ground to final decommissioning,
nuclear costs about the same as coal, half to one third the cost of wind
power and one fifth the cost of solar PV. It is also, by a long way, the
safest way to make electricity.


In these days of privatisation, near-monopolies or cartels, and general
fraud, I'd also make a distinction between price and cost.

Cheers, Rob