Its still waste that needs disposing of and like i say its another matter entirely... i couldn't care less on that particular point.
10 myths about nuclear power
- Thread starter slambo69
- Start date
Its still waste that needs disposing of and like i say its another matter entirely... i couldn't care less on that particular point.
Of course not, but the risk is billions probably trillions to one. The whole system and principals are different. if left alone they shut down. if tampered with they shut down.
If you would read up on it, you would realise how safe and vastly different they are.
it's low hazard waste, same as low grade hospital waste, disposal is not a problem in the slightest.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 10,155
- Location
- Burscough
Mathematically speaking, of course it is possible for such a catastrophic event to occur.
But in the UK, the chances of this happening would be millions to one, and if anything did happen it would certainly not be anything like on the scale of Chernobyl.
Take Three Mile Island for example, it is almost a prime example of safety contingencies in action, the result was that all the the radioactive materials were perfectly contained with the Containment building (the dome).
I think from the health impact calculations the figures for the total number of people killed as a consequence to the accident was something like 0.001 people! I'd say that was a great result.
i am more than aware of this AH.
BUT lets say Bin Laden Osama gets a job... a very important job... impossible might be nothing...
Can this point be ignored now?
No, if he gets a job what is he goign to do. it really is not as simple as just getting a job.
And as said even if something does happen it is contained and controlled, the chances of it going that far are ridiculously small and getting smaller with every design.
OK but despite how safe nuclear is these days there is still always the risk. These days its most likely sabotage. Risk yes... today likely? Yes.
That's all im saying on that issue now.
Well lets just put this into a bit of perspective. This is my last post as need to be at a meal for 8.30
If i wanted to create a large scale dangerous fire... i would probably get a job at a fire works factory. If i wanted to poison people.. i'd start working somewhere where they sell chemicals, kill people in their cars a petrol station. This is only a small point and to be honest a small flea on the dog.
I'll agree but even if there is a 1^0 chance of it... there is still a chance.
Will msg later if i aren't worn out.
Many of the containment systems are inbuilt, can not be disabled with out some massive bombs, which you would be better launching from a stolen US plane.
And the less secure systems are checked, backed up, backed up, backed up again, then backed up by inbuilt structural systems.
And the less secure systems are checked, backed up, backed up, backed up again, then backed up by inbuilt structural systems.
They don't just let anyone work on nuclear sites here you know.
I know someone who is a nuclear engineer but was born in France and so is only permitted limited access to nuclear sites in the UK.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 11,788
- Location
- Somewhere
Appeal to emotion. Also, spotlight fallacy.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 10,155
- Location
- Burscough
Yes its more likely, but still unlikely as you have an armed presence at all nuclear sites and more security then you or I will ever know to prevent things like this happening.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 10,155
- Location
- Burscough
Didn't for a minute think ya were
Are we not singing from the same sheet here??
I think we are, its just you put a question mark in your sentence and I wasn't sure!
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 10,608
- Location
- Sussex, UK
What we need to do is use a variety of different methods of energy generation. So we need nuclear, wind, wave, solar, waste-to-energy and many others.
We also need to get away from the idea that energy is generated soly in power plants, we need to generate energy at a local level i.e. on our homes, offices and public buildings as well as giant stations.
We also need to get away from the idea that energy is generated soly in power plants, we need to generate energy at a local level i.e. on our homes, offices and public buildings as well as giant stations.
We can, if it's done right. Wave power and tidal power are the most promising in practical terms (high altitude wind power is better on paper, but the practical problems are huge).
The biggest problem with waves is that there's too much power. It tends to break the power stations too quickly.
Nuclear has its place, but you're wrong to dismiss other sources that could be cheaper, would generate no waste and would double as defences against coastal erosion as an added bonus.
Yes it is. If you do it right, you can transmit electricity from Africa to Britain with ~10% loss. Doing it from an island just off the coast would be trivial. Also pointless in the worst case scenario you refer too, as it would still be far too close.