Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 86949	2008-02-02 19:36:00	Nuclear Power Documentary on TV One last night	somebody (208)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
636741	2008-02-04 09:23:00	Much as I like our "nuclear free" policy as a point of difference in the world, apart from politicians no-one takes much notice of it internationally. Europe, Britain, Russia, China, and the USA all have nuclear power plants and their populations don't give a toss. Long-term, denying nuclear power is destructive of the environment because we'll continue to harm it with dams, windmills etc, so we'll go there some day. However I agree that we should wait and see a bit longer. Fusion will be possible soon and that is clean.	Winston001 (3612)
636742	2008-02-04 09:29:00	You did get that if with each breath everyone of us inhales a molecule from the last breath of Caesar then considering that a least one of the events at Chernobyl was an explosion which blasted radioactive materials all the way into the stratosphere think how many more of those particles we are breathing and it will never be possible to say whether or not this will contribute to our demise. This is why even taking the chance is not worth while. As an aside, on the night of Chernobyl the was a BBC feed on TV1 which showed the actual footage from a satellite feed of the blast and then its subsequent spreading all around the skies over Europe down into Africa and up to the lower parts of the Arctic Circle. People who were at the Reactor said they could see an almost invisible blue ray blasting up into the sky as far as they could see, radioactive neutrons. I will try to find the links for this information.	zqwerty (97)
636743	2008-02-04 09:31:00	The population do care but they know it is too late to do anything meaningful now in their countries, over here we can still keep some isolation from the problem by not getting reactors in the country.	zqwerty (97)
636744	2008-02-04 09:46:00	hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu www.nsrl.ttu.edu www.time.com	zqwerty (97)
636745	2008-02-04 09:48:00	The population do care but they know it is too late to do anything meaningful now in their countries, over here we can still keep some isolation from the problem by not getting reactors in the country. There are 439 nuclear power reactors in operation in the world, operating in 31 countries with more to come in the next few years. Without them half of Europe and USA would be without electricity. All the population are concerned about is having a continuous reliable power supply. When we start having blackouts here we might start to get realistic.	Safari (3993)
636746	2008-02-04 10:06:00	You did get that if with each breath everyone of us inhales a molecule from the last breath of Caesar then considering that a least one of the events at Chernobyl was an explosion which blasted radioactive materials all the way into the stratosphere think how many more of those particles we are breathing and it will never be possible to say whether or not this will contribute to our demise. This is why even taking the chance is not worth while. As an aside, on the night of Chernobyl the was a BBC feed on TV1 which showed the actual footage from a satellite feed of the blast and then its subsequent spreading all around the skies over Europe down into Africa and up to the lower parts of the Arctic Circle. People who were at the Reactor said they could see an almost invisible blue ray blasting up into the sky as far as they could see, radioactive neutrons. I will try to find the links for this information. OK. Please do find the links if you can. I could give you a link to the Flat Earth Society and in fact I will:- www.alaska.net Lower parts of the Arctic circle may have been an Aurora. Almost invisible probably means a ghost.	Sweep (90)
636747	2008-02-04 10:23:00	From this link Sweep: hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu This is a depiction of the contamination cloud roughly following that reported by Time Magazine on May 12, 1986. Some of the first reports of radioactivity came from Finland since the U.S.S.R. was silent about the accident until after it had been detected by its neighbors to the north. With time, some detectable radiation spread throughout the world.	zqwerty (97)
636748	2008-02-04 10:33:00	There are 439 nuclear power reactors in operation in the world, operating in 31 countries with more to come in the next few years. Without them half of Europe and USA would be without electricity. All the population are concerned about is having a continuous reliable power supply. When we start having blackouts here we might start to get realistic. People do die due to accidents, misadventure or old age or a medical condition. Also due to drugs, alcohol and I could go on. I am not against Nuclear energy per se. As to the points from PCTEK I do ask how many people have been killed in the WORLD due to Nuclear reactors as opposed to others killed in the WORLD via train or car crashes. I would also ask how many people have been killed by electrocution in their own homes. Definitely electricity is safe I am sure.	Sweep (90)
636749	2008-02-04 10:49:00	From this link Sweep: hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu This is a depiction of the contamination cloud roughly following that reported by Time Magazine on May 12, 1986. Some of the first reports of radioactivity came from Finland since the U.S.S.R. was silent about the accident until after it had been detected by its neighbors to the north. With time, some detectable radiation spread throughout the world. OK. Do you believe that just because an event is reported on the news or in a magazine it it actually the truth? For me I question most of the time. This is how I learn. While I respect Time as I think they try to research you have given a link that goes back to 1986. May I ask what has happened since then?	Sweep (90)
636750	2008-02-04 10:51:00	firstly, i was watching that doco in the ads of whatever else i was watching, and it seemed very biased nearly gave up when they started talking to the green party It was better balanced than I expected and showed the true risks of nuclear tech, one human error/mistake plus one engineering/scientific error and serious problems. The tantalizing lure of virtually unlimited power with the drawback of the disposal problems, 100,000 years and the danger is only reduced, not gone. If you saw that program and still think we should have nuclear reactors in NZ, then really I am surprised you don't need someone to help you dress yourself in the morning. let's see, from what i saw and already know: NZ is possibly the only nuclear free country (so i sdon't see how being baxckwarsd is meant to be a selling point), but our law don't actually prevent us using a nuclear plant. what fuel isn't recyled is buried for retrieval later when we have a better place/use for it nuclear power is in essence the "perfect" fuel from a carbon emmissions and environmental impact point of view. if the greens coulsd see past their technophobia they might see that they are fighting the very thing they have been asking for. in the doco they raved on about dangerous nations being able to make nukes, and made a point of mentioning iran etc... what about bigger nations like the US which is steadily withdrawing from all the anti nuclear war treaties? chernobyl, while reported briefly as being the result of doing what one was told, is a much deeper story... budget cuts basically meant some things were not built as they should be, then, on orders from higher up (and further away), they were instructed to basically turn the safeties off and see how much power could be generated. when they tried the emergency cooling, the budget system (graphite rods that were only graphite at the tips etc etc) failed. so of course if you turn the safeties off, do a half ass job of construction and then push it past it's design limits it will end badly. in britain's reprocessing plant they had a leak for 8 months that never caused any harm as the plant design contained it as it was meant to. so while there was a problem, it was still safe. did the doco mention long island? meltdown contained within the plant, as it should be, and the plant sits harmlessly without catastrophe Put the reactors south of Christchurch somewhere. Use the Auckland Islands for the radioactive waste. can't put it there, has to be somewhere geologically stable, and as the doco said, somewhere where we can retrieve it in the future if the waste can be re-used Setting up a nuclear power plant (which would need to go close to Orcland where the most users are), it would make wind and other renewable generation pretty much redundant. NZ is known globally as a green country, and nucleur free, so setting one up would be a major sell out. The major problem in NZ is the resource management act. What we need is more hydro, tidal and wave generators. Our current problem is not the lack of generation, but the lack of intrastructure to carry that electricity around the country. eg part of the cook strait cable needing to be shut down and lack of maintence of cables and fixings through the entire country. the problem with nuclear in NZ is we consume too little power. we would still need all our current production as "reserve" capacity for when the nuclear plant is under maintenance, so with one plant we'd need/have capacity for twice what we need. not very economical nor efficient another issue is we would be creating a dependance on australian uranium... less than ideal: just look where out oil dependance is getting us	motorbyclist (188)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10