namnugenot wrote on Dec 30^th, 2013 at 8:11am:


That's an Oxymoron.

Its not possible to run the nuclear power industry safely. "SAFE" long term Nuclear waste disposal and management is also technologically impossible.

I defy you to find a nuclear scientist/engineer in the world today that denies the science of Global warming and climate change.

Have you ever wondered why?

Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 31^st, 2013 at 2:06pm:



For once, you've said something that makes sense.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 31^st, 2013 at 12:54pm:


Technological bullsh1t

Quote:


Maybe because they understand basic physics.

- Maybe because they would lose credibility if they were to deny the First Law of Themodynamics.

Mind you, I'm sure that Arnie Gundersen would be happy to deny the First Law of Thermodynamics for a fee. He seems to treat basic radiological science with a cavalier anti-nuclear advocacy perspective.

A Euro MP has called on the Government to release figures after a new study suggested people living near nuclear power stations stood a high risk of developing cancer.

Radiation expert and independent researcher for Green Audit Dr Chris Busby found that children in Chepstow, south Wales, were 11 times more likely to develop myeloid leukaemia than the national average.

Chepstow is just five miles from Oldbury nuclear power station on the banks of the River Severn, which has been found to contain high levels of radioactive particles.

South West MEP Michael Holmes, who commissioned Dr Busby's report, said: "It is imperative that Health Minister Alan Milburn releases data on all cancer incidence down to ward levels as a matter of grave public concern.

"How many more clusters will have to be discovered before this government recognises that its existing models do not address the environmental causes of cancer, particularly the regular, permitted radioactive discharges from nuclear power stations such as Oldbury?

"It's possible the authorities know this is a much bigger threat then they are letting the public know - that's why they don't let the figures out.

"If the data Dr Busby had access to is correct and his mapping is correct it casts grave doubt on the view that nuclear power is safe."

Myeloid leukaemia is a very rare form of cancer which is strongly associated with radiation.

The report shows that three cases of the rare cancer were discovered in children up to the age of four between 1974 and 1990 in Chepstow, compared to the national average of 0.27.

It also shows children in Chepstow run a higher risk of developing all cancers at 3.54 times the national average.

Campaigners believe the findings are comparable with the Sellafield leukaemia cluster which was highlighted in the 1990s.

The study uses data gathered by the Wales Cancer Registry.

Dr Busby pushed for the same data to be released from the South Western Cancer Registry to find out if the incidence of cancer is as high on the English side of the River Severn, but said he was refused on the grounds of patient confidentiality.

He said: "This discovery begs for the immediate release of data for the English side of the river to give the complete picture, especially as Bristol is only eight miles from Oldbury and could be blighted."

Green Audit says it is an independent research consultancy serving the environmental movement.

Anti-nuclear campaigner and co-ordinator of pressure group Stop Hinkley, Jim Duffy described the findings as a "public health scandal" as three million people live within 35 miles of the Oldbury plant.

He said the study proved there was an "overwhelming link" between radiation levels around nuclear power plants and incidence of cancer.

BNFL, which runs Oldbury, was reported to have dismissed Dr Busby's findings.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-42066/New-study-links-nuclear-sites-cancer.html#ixzz2p2FJnjiw
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 31^st, 2013 at 5:12pm:


Yes, you do.

muso wrote on Dec 31^st, 2013 at 3:57pm:


I can't see anybody putting up reliable figures . I see Muso supporting Innocent Bystanders plucked straight from airyfairy land of a million car deaths a year, (In what country, continent, world or Galaxy he's not saying), and accepting the proposition that a lot of little car accidents are much like a nuclear meltdown. Tell that to the tow truck driver wearing the radiation spill suit.

I'm not much impressed by numbers and statistics because we know how you can juggle those items and make lawyerspeak look like amateur hour. Though to suggest Nuclear is safer than Solar is a giggle.

Look, we all know out here in ignoranceville that even places like Aberdeen in Scotland have cancer clusters caused by being built of natural granite of a type that gives out higher than normal readings of background radiation. So how in hell do you expect me to believe that Chernobyl and fukushima were no big deal after covering most of Europe in radioactive dust that's rendered a great deal of pasture unusable.  The last restrictions lifted in England only in 2012.

http://www.scilogs.com/mmmbitesizescience/british-sheep-and-chernobyl-radiation/

Then you have the potential for catastrophe in wartime, WW3 odds are shortening rapidly, agreed? What's the planet going to look like when the major military targets for the last five years have been Nuclear power stations?

The future has precious little to thank us for now, how bad a legacy do you want us to leave? Not much oil, gas, pottable water, species diversity, fertilizer, but plenty of steaming radioactive piles. Yeah they're gonna think High of us

muso wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 1:07pm:


Well I think I could I mean there's guys and gals out there who'd assure me new gen coal power stations produce less emissions than a passive smoker eating beans. And with multiple fail safe super sensitive canaries the risk of mining is negligible.

Whereas when you use a word like 'Hazard'... It's hard to see anything more potentially hazardous than a nuclear power industry. That's the rub. The potential for catastrophe from nukes is beyond all previous meanings for enormous; looked at from a number of different compass points.

....the ignorance and levels of disinformation concerning the dangers of Internal and External radiation is just mind blowing.

The incidence of cancer in Falluja post US depleted Uranium attacks is higher than post Hirsoshima/Nagasaki nukings.

Some food for thought.

And the insane aspect of the Fallujah attacks was that the USA didn't even need to use depleted Uranium tipped weaponry as there were no armoured vehicles or tanks to blow up.

But they used the weapons anyway - contaminating their own military personnel and effectively sprinkling U238 in what was the cradle of civilisation.

There is not a single industrial pursuit which is more insanely irresponsible and self destructive than Nuclear power using fission.

Its defenders are either paid by the industry and so are protecting their own pockets, OR they are morally bankrupt individuals.

Usually both