Betteridge's law of headlines always applies.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
11–20 of 619 posts
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#12With advances in long distance power transmission, I don't know why theyre not being build on desert coasts. Does anyone know?
The Singapore-Australia line is about the se distance as a Western Sahara-UK line would be...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia%E2%80%93ASEAN_Powe...
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#13The attitude on risks of radiation have little to do with the economic and technological failures of nuclear power. With multiple schedule and cost failures it seems like fission nuclear is an exercise in what is possible, but not really practical compared to what is accessible via renewables + storage and it's far less constrained financial and technological foundations.
Nuclear opponents: File lawsuits and generally propose BANANA policy
Also nuclear opponents: Gee, look how long it takes to build a nuclear plant.
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#14Is this already the new BBC? The article sounds like propaganda to me.
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#15After you ionize the straw man to death, ask the engineers wtf are we going to do with hazardous waste byproducts for which the current plan is to let sit and rot on site at various plant sites. When you look at the inevitable destruction that will be wrought on the Columbia river ecosystem by the Hanford site, perhaps it’s worth considering what will happen in the coming years as uneconomical nuclear plants are shut…
It’s not like this hasn’t been solved in several ways: France recycles not only their own waste, but waste for other countries. Yucca Mountain was built to store what couldn’t be recycled, but certain people (cough Harry Reid cough) decided that it couldn’t be used after being specifically built for the purpose.
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#16The attitude on risks of radiation have little to do with the economic and technological failures of nuclear power. With multiple schedule and cost failures it seems like fission nuclear is an exercise in what is possible, but not really practical compared to what is accessible via renewables + storage and it's far less constrained financial and technological foundations.
Nuclear opponents: File lawsuits and generally propose BANANA policy Also nuclear opponents: Gee, look how long it takes to build a nuclear plant.
Except failures were more due to insider problems. No one forced Westinghouse to screw up on Summer or Vogtle. No one forced the welds to be botched on Flamanville 3.
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#17The attitude on risks of radiation have little to do with the economic and technological failures of nuclear power. With multiple schedule and cost failures it seems like fission nuclear is an exercise in what is possible, but not really practical compared to what is accessible via renewables + storage and it's far less constrained financial and technological foundations.
This is a ridiculous statement. The schedule and cost overruns is BECAUSE of un-ending environmental reviews, community protests, more safety planning lawsuits, then lawsuits over the disposal of waste, then another environmental impact review...
These are all problems for which we have reasonable technical solutions (ex: Yucca mountain was a GREAT solution for nuclear waste storage until breeder reactors come online). The problem is in the politics and planning.
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#18With advances in long distance power transmission, I don't know why theyre not being build on desert coasts. Does anyone know? The Singapore-Australia line is about the se distance as a Western Sahara-UK line would be... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia%E2%80%93ASEAN_Powe...
I'm guessing you don't just want geological stability, but also political stability where you build nuclear plants. Northern Africa, and occupied territories in general, aren't the greatest of places to put important industry.
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#19With advances in long distance power transmission, I don't know why theyre not being build on desert coasts. Does anyone know? The Singapore-Australia line is about the se distance as a Western Sahara-UK line would be... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia%E2%80%93ASEAN_Powe...
I believe that it may be partly due to the workforce required to keep the plant running. It will be very difficult for the workers to provide a good life to their families or education to their children in some remote location on a desert coast.
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#20Good article, until they ask the usual suspects and get this answer:
no2nuclearpower says, "there is no such thing as an absolutely safe level of radiation: all exposures no matter how small entail some risk - even background radiation."
This is absolute nonsense. If an increase in exposure at these low doses mattered, we'd see a correlation between background exposure and cancer rates, but we don't. More importantly, accidental experiments like the Taiwanese radioactive apartment buildings show, that an increase of exposure at low dose rates is actually beneficial.
That BBC quotes antinuclear SIFs uncritically, as if they had any actual expertise or were scientists, in my opinion invalidates the whole article. It's probably "for balance", but really, talking to the village idiot doesn't balance anything.