Are you OK for you & your family to be living with-in 5 km of a Nuclear plant?

[connieguy]

...The fact remains that nuclear power has an excellent safety record. Compare that with, say oil production in the gulf of Mexico. We should ask if you would live within 5kms of an oil refinery or drilling platform

I agree that Nuclear engineers have worked long and hard to achieve a very reliable process to extract electricity from a low level radioactive reaction. The problem is when Murphy wins, as we know will always happen, the potential release of radioactive material makes accident issues with other forms of energy generation fall behind many magnitudes of consequential damage.

The worst case that can happen to a coal / gas / refinery / drilling platform can not compare to the worst case from a nuclear power plant.

As I said if there are no issues with a worst case Nuclear accident in Oz, then call up Tony and have him start selling Oz Nuclear as his Green solution. His political life could then be measures in minutes.

 

[connieguy]

...Trying to build a nuclear power plant in Oz would make the "No Dams" campaign seem like kindergarten in comparison.

Why? Because the risk of a worst case Nuclear accident in Oz is not acceptable. No one can guarantee this will never happen and if they did, no one would believe them.

 

[drron]

I agree that Nuclear engineers have worked long and hard to achieve a very reliable process to extract electricity from a low level radioactive reaction. The problem is when Murphy wins, as we know will always happen, the potential release of radioactive material makes accident issues with other forms of energy generation fall behind many magnitudes of consequential damage.

The worst case that can happen to a coal / gas / refinery / drilling platform can not compare to the worst case from a nuclear power plant.

As I said if there are no issues with a worst case Nuclear accident in Oz, then call up Tony and have him start selling Oz Nuclear as his Green solution. His political life could then be measures in minutes.

Absolutely true because there are too many people who refuse to let facts get in the way of a good scare story.
Fact-more people have died in Wind Farm accidents than have been proven to have died as a result of Chernobyl.(see my references in the Carbon tax thread).

 

[medhead]

I agree that Nuclear engineers have worked long and hard to achieve a very reliable process to extract electricity from a low level radioactive reaction. The problem is when Murphy wins, as we know will always happen, the potential release of radioactive material makes accident issues with other forms of energy generation fall behind many magnitudes of consequential damage.

The worst case that can happen to a coal / gas / refinery / drilling platform can not compare to the worst case from a nuclear power plant.

As I said if there are no issues with a worst case Nuclear accident in Oz, then call up Tony and have him start selling Oz Nuclear as his Green solution. His political life could then be measures in minutes.

Political reality has nothing to do with safety. Is any material with economically viable uses considered a waste?

Well fukashima had the highest INES rating. Compare that to the gulf of Mexico oil platform fire. The oil platform fire had vastly greater environmental and economic effects not to mention that 11 workers died in the deep water horizon accident. Whereas no one died from radiation at Fukushima and 2 died because of the earthquake.

The fact remains that you comment about Murphy applies to all industrial activities. We don't stop all undertakings because of Murphy.

 

[serfty]

Why? Because the risk of a worst case Nuclear accident in Oz is not acceptable. No one can guarantee this will never happen and if they did, no one would believe them.

Not acceptable to whom?

In relation to nuclear power, the risk is certainly acceptable to me; in post #2 of this thread I posted I'd live next door.

Such risk is IMHO negligible.

It's more dangerous walking down the street. This week a bus stop near my home where I regularly wait for a bus was creamed by an out of control vehicle.

However, there are other who, more through ideology than reason, would do whatever they could to prevent such construction, even at the risk of their own and other's lives.

 

[connieguy]

...The fact remains that you comment about Murphy applies to all industrial activities. We don't stop all undertakings because of Murphy.

I have spent a lot of time working to ensure Murphy stays at bay. But I do respect complex systems, involving high pressures, velocities, temperatures and complex control / protection systems. Add in radioactive material and you have an engineering challenge such as was faced by the Shuttle designers. Even they got it wrong a few times.

With what has happened in Japan and in Germany, I just can't see that Nuclear has much of a chance to do anything other than to generate heated discussion. Now to find a way to turn than heat into electricity!!!

 

[gumpy]

Yes if Thorium no if Uranium. Fusion if it gets past the theory stage and it's as safe as they say it is then yes also.

 

[Dyslexic traveler]

I'd be happy to live next to a plant but the man you need to talk to is Homer He may want to get a job in one

 

[drron]

I have spent a lot of time working to ensure Murphy stays at bay. But I do respect complex systems, involving high pressures, velocities, temperatures and complex control / protection systems. Add in radioactive material and you have an engineering challenge such as was faced by the Shuttle designers. Even they got it wrong a few times.

With what has happened in Japan and in Germany, I just can't see that Nuclear has much of a chance to do anything other than to generate heated discussion. Now to find a way to turn than heat into electricity!!!

If the Nuclear deniers would just take notice of the facts then it would have a great future.But you are right there are too many with their head stuck in the sand but still able to spread doom or gloom about nuclear despite the facts.What has happened in Japan and Germany is that governments have caved in to the doomsayers-do you think this is what governments should do?

 

[tuapekastar]

I would live near a suitably modern and well-planned and constructed nuclear plant, based solely on safety criteria. Aesthetics may be an issue though.

 

[medhead]

Surprised no one mentioned this yet. Japan PM to reveal nuclear phase-out | The Australian

Regional governments have confirmed that the meat of several cows tainted with radioactive cesium has been sold in 11 prefectures in Japan, including Tokyo, and some has been eaten.

But before we al get too excited lets look at the detail

more detailed tests on meat from the same herd found cesium levels of more than six times the allowable limit of 500 bequerels per kilogram.

and

Osaka City University professor Ginji Endo, who studies the impact of radioactive material in food, told the Yomiuri Shimbun that the limit for food was based on long-term consumption and eating small amounts of this beef posed no danger to human health.

Umm look out 6 times the long-term consumption limit. i.e. if you eat that level of contamination for 12 months

And the quantity consumed.

and about 15kg had already been consumed.

15kg! so that would be 30 meals in my house, between 4 people. so for a month we consume 1.5 times the safe limit for the entire year (or more). And the dose will be slightly more than trivial. Hopefully, this gives an idea why I think Fukushima pales into comparison with, say, Bhopal.

I have spent a lot of time working to ensure Murphy stays at bay. But I do respect complex systems, involving high pressures, velocities, temperatures and complex control / protection systems. Add in radioactive material and you have an engineering challenge such as was faced by the Shuttle designers.

What a totally bizarre statement. Adding radioactive material makes no difference to the engineering requirements, the pressures, velocities, temperatures and control systems don't change. If you need to contain steam, it makes no difference if it is radioactive. In some cases you can actually have lesser protection systems for radioactive materials than you need for acid or caustic chemicals, for example. Really there is nothing special about radioactive material in an industrial context. It is just a hazard that needs to be controlled. It's certainly not rocket science.

 

[Smackbum]

I was considering voting ... until I saw that the answers were not a simple "Yes" or "No", but a classic case of push-polling.

I would not live within 5 km of any power generation facility, regardless of type, and the whole question reeks of the NIMBY mentality. As a society we should decide if we want these facilities, and then place them where appropriate. Equally - everyone wants to fly but nobody wants to live beside an airport.

 

[NM]

It's certainly not rocket science.

Unless its a nuclear powered rocket

 

[siomn2]

Its no ok for me .At that point we are not safe.

 

[medhead]

Its no ok for me .At that point we are not safe.

Welcome to AFF.

You joined to say that? What is the basis for your view? (out of academic interest)

 

[codash1099]

I'd rather live next to a nuclear plant than a coal fired one. However, given my druthers, I'd prefer to be well away from any industrial plant.

 

[Stuser]

NO.

Not okay to love anywhere near (aka within 1000km) of a nuclear plant.

Not okay that is still considered safe. Hello, Japan.

Not okay that nuclear waste is considered okay.

 

[MatF]

Not okay to love anywhere near (aka within 1000km) of a nuclear plant.

Worried about birth defects?

 

[medhead]

NO.

Not okay to love anywhere near (aka within 1000km) of a nuclear plant.

Not okay that is still considered safe. Hello, Japan.

Not okay that nuclear waste is considered okay.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

 

[drron]

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

But the science is proven.Sorry couldn't resist that one.