Chernobyl blamed for everything

[soubresauts]

Have a look at this book by the Oxford Professor Wade Allision.

Oxford physics professor writes pro-nuclear book just as the nuclear propaganda gets fully wound up, and you think that trumps Gofman's work?

The arguments set out in the blurb are truly pathetic. I'd need to hear something else before I'd bother reading the book.

[FrankSpeaks]

Oxford physics professor writes pro-nuclear book just as the nuclear propaganda gets fully wound up, and you think that trumps Gofman's work?

The arguments set out in the blurb are truly pathetic. I'd need to hear something else before I'd bother reading the book.

You asked for a critique of Gofman's work and whilst this is not an actual critique of that work; it is however a scientific refutation of the perceived and overstated risk of nuclear radiation. However because it does not agree with your thinking on the issue, you refuse to read it. This is a typical Ostrich response, bury your head in the sand.

[cry freedom]

Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security - Submissions - Tithe an Oireachtais

The above meeting is taking place today @2.30.

Nuclear power will probably not be discussed as it is[FONT="Arial Black"] banned [/FONT]in this country.

I do hope - for the sake of their immortal souls - that none of the committee have an "impure thought" on nuclear power during the meeting.

If one of them is brave enough to bring it up will they be hauled off to jail?

We become internationally more ridiculous with each passing year!

[Dasayev]

...
Dasayev, in an effort to shock, states that 20,000 of the 500,000 Chernobyl liquidators are now dead; the implication being this is a result of the radiation. This death rate is just what one would expect from normal causes over the 24 years since the accident.

It was not an effort to shock. Believe it or not, there are those of us who are sceptical of claims that Chernobyl only killed 56 people, that 99.9% of Adi Roche's work is based on a lie, and there are those of us who are sceptical that the old Communist Party, or its successors, are now or have ever been particularly trustworthy.

[cry freedom]

What about other indirect effects? From genetic damage (thus leading to damaged genes passed to kids - though I am happy to be proven wrong on that) to the extreme poverty and hopelessness that many people fell into after the disaster. If job stress and stress of poverty can cause disease (as they have been shown to) then surely the much more intense stress of living in a disaster zone can do the same.

A very reasonable question!
As far as I know it is not possible for genetic defects caused by radiation to be passed on to future generations but I will seek superior advice on this and get back to you.
Of course Chernobyl was a dreadful incident and no one would like to see its recurrence. It was a piece of industrial vandalism of the highest order.
As was Bhopal, Flixborough, Piper Alpha and dozens of other industrial accidents around the world. As are the almost weekly coal mining disasters in China and elsewhere.
For better or worse we have decided that life based on the reliable supply of electricity is better than drifting back to the dark ages. Given that assumption, it is incumbent on the leaders of this country to make rational decisions -based on science and logic-to bring that happy state about.
Renew ables, by their very nature, will never be able to supply much more than 20% of our needs.

The Spirit of Ireland idea will never get off the ground. Much as I would like to see it succeed, there is no way they are going to be allowed to store millions of tons of sea water in mountain lakes without sealing the the bottoms of these lakes to prevent leeching into the surrounding strata.
This sealing would be impractical even if it was economically feasible.

Given my years, I am highly unlikely to either benefit or suffer from the results of going nuclear,so I can hardly be accused of having a vested interest. I will, however, make this prediction: Sooner or later we will have to fall back
on the only viable alternative to sitting around in the dark.
We either do it in a planned calm manner after we have had a national debate or we are bounced into it in a NAMA like flurry.

[Cut Once]

It was not an effort to shock. Believe it or not, there are those of us who are sceptical of claims that Chernobyl only killed 56 people, that 99.9% of Adi Roche's work is based on a lie, and there are those of us who are sceptical that the old Communist Party, or its successors, are now or have ever been particularly trustworthy.

I think the problem is not what Adi Roche believes, but the impression that very many people get as a result of her work. That is, her work leads many people to believe that the problems facing the children are caused by ongoing radiation. These children are, in fact, economic victims of circumstance.

[SAT]

Originally Posted by Dasayev View Post
It was not an effort to shock. Believe it or not, there are those of us who are sceptical of claims that Chernobyl only killed 56 people, that 99.9% of Adi Roche's work is based on a lie, and there are those of us who are sceptical that the old Communist Party, or its successors, are now or have ever been particularly trustworthy.

You appear to be assuming the fallout all landed on Soviet soil. That is not the case. Most of western Europe including Ireland (and Northern Europe) were affected but the fears voiced at the time of large increases in cancers have proved completely unfounded unless you think all of the European governments are in cahoots with Russia to hide casualties.

People have been conditioned to fear radioactivity to an irrational extent. Plutonium is touted as one of the most deadly radioactive substances on the planet and yet in reality you could pick it up and carry a block of it around with you all day without it doing any harm to you whatsoever.

[cry freedom]

When are the renewable brigade going to wake up to the limitations of their strategy.

Renewables, as they exist today, can never be more than a small part of the solution to the energy problem.And a very expensive solution at that!

Let me try an analogy out on you, and please,feel free to come back to me with your rebuttals.

Lets say I was in the market tomorrow for a new car and I had 3 choices available to me:

1] A slightly more expensive model that was capable of running 7 days a week.

2]A slightly cheaper model that could only run Monday to Friday.

3]A back up car which cost almost as much as any of the first two options and had very high fuel consumption but whose purchase was necessary if you were not inclined to walk everywhere at the weekends.

Let me also propose that the second option car has a very high servicing to mileage ratio and I think you will begin to see the fatal flaw in the renewable
option.
To get the same mileage and convenience you have to double the expense of your car pool.
Where is the economic sense in any of that?

[jcdf]

When are the renewable brigade going to wake up to the limitations of their strategy.

Renewables, as they exist today, can never be more than a small part of the solution to the energy problem.And a very expensive solution at that!

Let me try an analogy out on you, and please,feel free to come back to me with your rebuttals.

Lets say I was in the market tomorrow for a new car and I had 3 choices available to me:

1] A slightly more expensive model that was capable of running 7 days a week.

2]A slightly cheaper model that could only run Monday to Friday.

3]A back up car which cost almost as much as any of the first two options and had very high fuel consumption but whose purchase was necessary if you were not inclined to walk everywhere at the weekends.

Let me also propose that the second option car has a very high servicing to mileage ratio and I think you will begin to see the fatal flaw in the renewable
option.
To get the same mileage and convenience you have to double the expense of your car pool.
Where is the economic sense in any of that?

Yes a good example. A lot of the stuff being proposed by the eco-lobby makes no economic sense at all. In order for an green car to be viable it must be able to do everything a normal car can do within approximately the same financial constraints.

Battery technology, which is most important development for electric cars, is improving considerably so we will probably see electric cars in our life times. The current ones though do not cut the mustard though.

The big problem then is how to generate massive quantities of electricity without fossil fuels? Given the amount of energy transport consumes cars, planes, ships and trains, we will need to considerably expand our power grid beyond what it currently is.

Some of the ideas I have seen put forward look promising on paper. Using the large quantities waste uranium to generate electricity. It remains to be seen if it will work or not! What is most important is that they are trying.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-fq2Zn7I&feature="]YouTube- Bill Gates on energy: Innovating to zero![/ame]

It should not take something like the global warming to inspire technological innovation of this sort. Perhaps governments do inhibit innovation and progress by their excessive monopolies of certain industries.

[gaius hippingo]

It does seem to be overstated to me - dont get me wrong, I think what they are doing for those children is fantastic, but I always got the impression there was a lot of anti nuclear spin thrown in for good measure.

Bring in Nuclear power to Ireland now I say, I'd live beside a nuclear plant no problem at all, my heavy smoking habit is already doing a great job in the carcinogenic stakes.....