uncle charlie wilson
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 266
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7KoTtK_Q6OI
It is entirely feasible that a meltdown of similar proportions could happen here in the UK or the US.
Current safety procedures are inadequate across the entire industry.
The nuclear industry has close ties with governments, and here in the UK it was proven that the industry and the coalition government colluded to play down Fukushima while it was still unfolding (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/30/british-government-plan-play-down-fukushima).
Once the worst case scenario proves itself a reality no-one within the industry is held accountable.
The nuclear industry protects their economic interests at the expense of the public's health.
Radiation has been detected in air and rain samples across the Northern Hemisphere.
Once the radiation reached the west coast of the US in March, the EPA immediately ceased all air monitoring. No figures were made public.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrC6EaItrQM&feature=related[/youtube]
In the west coast of the US, the rate of infant mortality increased by 35% in the months of March and April.
Radiation continues to be detected in rainfall.
May, St Louis; [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9tnLG_D1KE[/youtube]
July 17th (3 days ago), Hope BC, Canada; [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq5mxd26wAk[/youtube]
Radioactive isotopes have been found in Californian milk and have also been confirmed to have been found as far away as France, in their milk produce.
Radiation levels in Japan itself continue to be widely ignored and trivialised by the Japanese government.
One example - 'Safe' background radiation exposure levels for children in schools have been raised from 1 mSv a year to 20 mSv a year, the maximum permitable allowance for an adult working at a German nuclear power plant.
As I type this very post there is a nuclear power plant in Nebraska (Ft Calhoun) in the heart of the US, surrounded by flood waters, and in very real danger of losing all electrical power to cool its reactor.
In the same US state there is another nuclear power plant which is still operating normally and hasn't been brought to a cold shutdown. Should flood levels continue to rise it would be desperately vulnerable, it is of an identical design to the reactors at Fukushima, and shares the same flaws.
There is currently a media blackout with regards to these two plants. At present, there is a strictly enforced no fly zone around Ft Calhoun.
On a wider note, all promises about the safety of nuclear power plants, and newer 'modern' plants should be met with much skepticism. All safety measures and protocol for the designs which attempt to ensure the safety of these plants is entirely theoretical. In the immediate aftermath of a single explosion at one of the containment facilities at Fukushima, there was bemusement among the nuclear community, as the hydrogen gas which accumulated and subsequently blew the facility to pieces appeared to have been a criticality, i.e there was a nuclear reaction within the spent fuel fool.
This blew pieces of spent fuel as far away as a mile from the plant. This points towards the explosion being a detonation rather than a deflagration (see the first video), this has fundamental ramifications for the designs of all nuclear containment facilities. The theories which denote these power plants, which they rest their safety foundations upon never foresaw this. This damages the integrity of all present nuclear containment designs.
Nuclear power is a technology which we still haven't learned to safetly control or harness, and I don't believe we ever will. So while our ever pro-nuclear government is carefully managing public opinion by intentionally misinforming us, the risks will continue to increase. While the public remains ignorant, in the face on an accident we're left clueless as to the realities of the accident and how to protect ourselves and our families.
Apart from the inherent threat of nuclear power itself, the nuclear industry and the governments that are in its pockets pose an even greater threat to the health of the public and our environment.
As Japan attempts to recover from what will prove to be the most costly industrial accident of mankind, our government goes ahead with its flawed policy to tackle the energy crisis with nuclear power. This is despite the inherent dangers of the technology, despite public opinion (which they're incessantly trying to manipulate), despite the cost of managing the waste, despite the cost of decommissioning these plants and despite the potential for an enormous government bail-out in the case of a serious accident.
There are many unsavoury vested interests when it comes to the nuclear industry. Uranium mining is worth a lot of money, to a lot of countries, and these countries hold a lot of power. There are the businesses which are guaranteed enormous windfalls from the development of new plants.
The nuclear industry regulates itself and doesn't answer to anyone. In the case of a serious accident, a government (taxpayer) bail-out ensues. The industry is fraught by lies, mistruths and I suspect, a healthy amount of corruption. They're simply not to be trusted.
If the spent fuel pools caught fire at Fukushima, the whole of Northern Japan would have been rendered uninhabitable. They only escaped this scenario by the skin of their teeth. There is no precedent for decades worth of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel catching fire and depositing its fallout upon an unsuspecting, densely populated island. It has never even been theorised by the industry, it has never been contemplated. The repercussions for Japan, and even the entire Northern Hemisphere itself wouldn't bear thinking about.
The cost on the world's economy doesn't bear thinking about in such a scenario, let alone the effects on the quality of human life.
Nuclear power makes neither economic sense or practical sense. It is inherently dangerous, and we simply don't have the capacity to harness its power safely.
Thorium reactors sound promising, but as with all untried and untested technologies, it too will prove dangerous.
I have no definitive plan on how to tackle global warming / the energy crisis, I simply know that conventional nuclear power isn't the answer.
And I sure hope I'm not alone in that sentiment.
EDIT: The typo is no more. And a useful resource for independent scientific analysis on Fukushima;
http://www.llrc.org/index.html
It is entirely feasible that a meltdown of similar proportions could happen here in the UK or the US.
Current safety procedures are inadequate across the entire industry.
The nuclear industry has close ties with governments, and here in the UK it was proven that the industry and the coalition government colluded to play down Fukushima while it was still unfolding (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/30/british-government-plan-play-down-fukushima).
Once the worst case scenario proves itself a reality no-one within the industry is held accountable.
The nuclear industry protects their economic interests at the expense of the public's health.
Radiation has been detected in air and rain samples across the Northern Hemisphere.
Once the radiation reached the west coast of the US in March, the EPA immediately ceased all air monitoring. No figures were made public.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrC6EaItrQM&feature=related[/youtube]
In the west coast of the US, the rate of infant mortality increased by 35% in the months of March and April.
Radiation continues to be detected in rainfall.
May, St Louis; [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9tnLG_D1KE[/youtube]
July 17th (3 days ago), Hope BC, Canada; [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq5mxd26wAk[/youtube]
Radioactive isotopes have been found in Californian milk and have also been confirmed to have been found as far away as France, in their milk produce.
Radiation levels in Japan itself continue to be widely ignored and trivialised by the Japanese government.
One example - 'Safe' background radiation exposure levels for children in schools have been raised from 1 mSv a year to 20 mSv a year, the maximum permitable allowance for an adult working at a German nuclear power plant.
As I type this very post there is a nuclear power plant in Nebraska (Ft Calhoun) in the heart of the US, surrounded by flood waters, and in very real danger of losing all electrical power to cool its reactor.
In the same US state there is another nuclear power plant which is still operating normally and hasn't been brought to a cold shutdown. Should flood levels continue to rise it would be desperately vulnerable, it is of an identical design to the reactors at Fukushima, and shares the same flaws.
There is currently a media blackout with regards to these two plants. At present, there is a strictly enforced no fly zone around Ft Calhoun.
On a wider note, all promises about the safety of nuclear power plants, and newer 'modern' plants should be met with much skepticism. All safety measures and protocol for the designs which attempt to ensure the safety of these plants is entirely theoretical. In the immediate aftermath of a single explosion at one of the containment facilities at Fukushima, there was bemusement among the nuclear community, as the hydrogen gas which accumulated and subsequently blew the facility to pieces appeared to have been a criticality, i.e there was a nuclear reaction within the spent fuel fool.
This blew pieces of spent fuel as far away as a mile from the plant. This points towards the explosion being a detonation rather than a deflagration (see the first video), this has fundamental ramifications for the designs of all nuclear containment facilities. The theories which denote these power plants, which they rest their safety foundations upon never foresaw this. This damages the integrity of all present nuclear containment designs.
Nuclear power is a technology which we still haven't learned to safetly control or harness, and I don't believe we ever will. So while our ever pro-nuclear government is carefully managing public opinion by intentionally misinforming us, the risks will continue to increase. While the public remains ignorant, in the face on an accident we're left clueless as to the realities of the accident and how to protect ourselves and our families.
Apart from the inherent threat of nuclear power itself, the nuclear industry and the governments that are in its pockets pose an even greater threat to the health of the public and our environment.
As Japan attempts to recover from what will prove to be the most costly industrial accident of mankind, our government goes ahead with its flawed policy to tackle the energy crisis with nuclear power. This is despite the inherent dangers of the technology, despite public opinion (which they're incessantly trying to manipulate), despite the cost of managing the waste, despite the cost of decommissioning these plants and despite the potential for an enormous government bail-out in the case of a serious accident.
There are many unsavoury vested interests when it comes to the nuclear industry. Uranium mining is worth a lot of money, to a lot of countries, and these countries hold a lot of power. There are the businesses which are guaranteed enormous windfalls from the development of new plants.
The nuclear industry regulates itself and doesn't answer to anyone. In the case of a serious accident, a government (taxpayer) bail-out ensues. The industry is fraught by lies, mistruths and I suspect, a healthy amount of corruption. They're simply not to be trusted.
If the spent fuel pools caught fire at Fukushima, the whole of Northern Japan would have been rendered uninhabitable. They only escaped this scenario by the skin of their teeth. There is no precedent for decades worth of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel catching fire and depositing its fallout upon an unsuspecting, densely populated island. It has never even been theorised by the industry, it has never been contemplated. The repercussions for Japan, and even the entire Northern Hemisphere itself wouldn't bear thinking about.
The cost on the world's economy doesn't bear thinking about in such a scenario, let alone the effects on the quality of human life.
Nuclear power makes neither economic sense or practical sense. It is inherently dangerous, and we simply don't have the capacity to harness its power safely.
Thorium reactors sound promising, but as with all untried and untested technologies, it too will prove dangerous.
I have no definitive plan on how to tackle global warming / the energy crisis, I simply know that conventional nuclear power isn't the answer.
And I sure hope I'm not alone in that sentiment.
EDIT: The typo is no more. And a useful resource for independent scientific analysis on Fukushima;
http://www.llrc.org/index.html
