Japan & Nuclear Catastrophe?

[katie1997]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Germany has, in response, even shut down all its

> reactors for safety checks - yet they are not in a

> earthquake / tsunami zone.

I wonder about the response to the catastrophe in Japan from the French Government, considering the amount of nuclear power they rely upon and the protestors that emerged following this type of reporting.

[Huguenot]

Sometimes I don't know where you're coming from katie1997 :(

Fossil fuel deposits are not spread around the world evenly. Whether it's the Middle East, Venezuela, Russia or anywhere else, it generates intensive competition to exploit those resources that most often resolves itself in either social upheaval or violent international conflict. This isn't a contentious or minority observation.

I don't know what you mean by 'should' be distributed, I'm talking about geology not morality.

Likewise, I have no idea what you believe causes climate change?

As the Met Office describes: "It has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the climate is changing due to man-made greenhouse gases. We are already committed to future substantial change over the next 30 years and change is likely to accelerate over the rest of the 21st century."

The principle source of greenhouse gases is the conversion of complex fossilised carbohydrates (oil, coal and gas) to produce carbon dioxide, other by-products and ENERGY.

Whilst changes in land use alter the ecosystem's opportunity to lock CO2 back in to the earth, the fact is that in the UK, for example, 65% of carbon emmissions come from centralised energy generation (power stations) and 21% comes from burning fuels in transport.

In other words almost 90% of greenhouse gas generation is from burning fossil fuels.

I don't really see what there is to wonder about the response to the tragedy by the French government. Opposition to nuclear power is based on a complete inability for otherwise sane human beings to make a reasonable cost-benefit judgement on nuclear power.

No, nuclear power isn't completely safe, neither is fossil fuel generation. The global impact of a reliance on fossil fuels has been a global catastrophe of incalculable proportions. Conversely nuclear power is less dangerous than a surfing holiday in Newquay.

[Marmora Man]

For a balanced view see BBC Article

[katie1997]

Advance Warning: *Fisk Alert*

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sometimes I don't know where you're coming from

> katie1997 :(

Now I have a proper keyboard, I will try to see if I can express myself better (clearer?) but no guarantee...:'(

> Fossil fuel deposits are not spread around the

> world evenly. Whether it's the Middle East,

> Venezuela, Russia or anywhere else, it generates

> intensive competition to exploit those resources

> that most often resolves itself in either social

> upheaval or violent international conflict. This

> isn't a contentious or minority observation.

I know that fossil fuels do not form evenly around the world.

But ... from your post, particularly this bit

seemed to me to be implying that you thought they should be more equally distributed. Which you'll agree is not only impossible but ludicrous given that fossil fuels are not, in fact, deposited - they are formed slowly over a period of around 2 million to 30/40 million years.

> Likewise, I have no idea what you believe causes

> climate change?

No, you don't and personally I have no desire to have a discussion about it on a thread about the media's over-reaction on nuclear power, following the catastrophe in Japan. I mentioned it in response to your comment on oil and coal and I think now I understand, given the the text you quoted from the Met Office, that we are talking at cross-purposes and from a vastly different timescale/perspective.

> I don't really see what there is to wonder about

> the response to the tragedy by the French

> government. Opposition to nuclear power is based

> on a complete inability for otherwise sane human

> beings to make a reasonable cost-benefit judgement

> on nuclear power.

I got sidetracked on the subject of mild-mannered janitors scientists so the next post may have seemed apropos of nothing but it was simply me wondering whether the adverse press on the nuclear industry as a whole (of which France is a big supporter on the world-stage) could have a detrimental effect on public perception and not doing a whole lot of good for the future diversity of energy supplies. (which I agree is important and much needed)

> No, nuclear power isn't completely safe, neither

> is fossil fuel generation. The global impact of a

> reliance on fossil fuels has been a global

> catastrophe of incalculable proportions.

But oh, people will still drive and fly and ... people will always find new means of energy too. When everyone thought the US was running out of gas however many years ago, what happened? ... they found better ways of extracting shale gas. Now that we are looking towards 'greener' technologies, people are clambering over themselves to exploit rare mineral resources needed (and a future Huguenot will no doubt be posting about the competition to exploit these and the resultant evil wars etc).

> Conversely nuclear power is less dangerous than a

> surfing holiday in Newquay.

:))

[katie1997]

Apologies, Chair and Marmora Man if my lengthy post above is side-tracking from the subject. Please delete if you want (once Huguenot has read it/if Huguenot reads it) :))

Thanks.

[witsd]

This comes down to the same issue that blighted the early days of the Large Hadron Collider. Scientific language vs. journalistic interpretation.

A scientist cannot say "there is no chance" of something occurring. To do so in almost every scenario would be to lie. The fact that the chance of the LHC producing a black hole that gobbles up the Earth is so small to be virtually indistinguishable from zero to anyone who doesn't understand "10^-30" doesn't make saying it is zero any less of a lie.

And so they say that there is a tiny chance of said black hole and the media goes wild (and a few crazy people kill themselves and their pets in preparation).

And so the same thing happened here. The scientists say that small amounts of radiation may reach Tokyo, or talk about background radiation levels (which are a constant thing we are exposed to every day) and everyone reaches for their face masks, plane tickets and tinfoil hats.

[Marmora Man]

A very good article Here

[KidKruger]

Chernobyl pics

Interestingly, "the area around the Chernobyl plant will not be safe for human habitation for up to 900 years".

Also, the Ukraine govt. is trying raise funds to build a structure to surround the ageing sarchophagus around reactor 4.

[KidKruger]

Due to its contamination by plutonium isotopes, the village of Pripyat cannot be inhabited for another 24,000 years:

Town will be empty a long time

That's a lot of keep out signs to maintain.

[wjfox]

Fukushima radiation map -

[aaliya]

This was the horrible occurrence of nature happened in Japan,I have watched the complete video by FOX News Live Streaming OMG, there a lot of houses gone destroyed, Hope that they all can face this situation, with all the great guts.