Nuclear Power – Unfairly Demonised

[BRUCE]

Of all the current methods of cheap, effective and for the most part clean energy - why has the left gone to such extremes to demonise nuclear power?

Consider this recent report:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21134015-38197,00.html?from=public_rss

In China alone, in the last year, more than 90 times the deaths that happened in the worst ever nuclear accident at Chernobyl has occurred.  This accounts for some 4746 people, yet in what endeavour did these people die?  For what godly energy source?  Surely one so clean that Gaia herself would swoon in spiritual bliss.....

......well actually, no.  They died mining coal.  Yes, the energy we are told is 'unclean' and creates more nasty carbon pollutants than any other of our energies.

So why no outrage from the left?  Why is Greenpeace not hitting the media up with completely unfounded claims that thousands more people died than actually did?  What has nuclear power done to deserve this?

[Stark]

we are children of the anti nuclear generation, it's stupid to think that nuclear power is dirty, it is the cleanest source of power around... people need to be reeducated.

[G o a t b o y]

we are children of the anti nuclear generation, it's stupid to think that nuclear power is dirty, it is the cleanest source of power around... people need to be reeducated.

..And, unlike fossil fuels, it is not in short supply.  Almost certainly in our lifetimes oil will run out... no expert seriously questions this. Transportation will likely be switched from oil to electricity, which means we will have to generate more electricity than we currently do (by an order of magnitude).  Unless solar technology takes a quantum leap forward (unlikely), nuclear will be the best non-polluting option.

The real question is, will we have our economy switched over to something other than oil before the oil starts running out, or will we wait too long and be forced to fight a war against a nuclear-armed China over the remaining oil?

[BRUCE]

we are children of the anti nuclear generation, it's stupid to think that nuclear power is dirty, it is the cleanest source of power around... people need to be reeducated.

Yes, you would think the green movement would be more positive towards nuclear.

[BRUCE]

..And, unlike fossil fuels, it is not in short supply.  Almost certainly in our lifetimes oil will run out... no expert seriously questions this. Transportation will likely be switched from oil to electricity, which means we will have to generate more electricity than we currently do (by an order of magnitude).  Unless solar technology takes a quantum leap forward (unlikely), nuclear will be the best non-polluting option.

The real question is, will we have our economy switched over to something other than oil before the oil starts running out, or will we wait too long and be forced to fight a war against a nuclear-armed China over the remaining oil?

Good post.  Australia is full of uranium we can't sell right now.

[Stark]

Yes, you would think the green movement would be more positive towards nuclear.

My parents for excample are fun to watch: years ago they would have murdered me If I had said anything for the use of nuclear power, thye dragged us to demonstrations and educated us nostop of the evil and destruction of nuclear power.
Now 20 year later they think nuclear power is just right and dandy... I love people changing their mind over time, they think you don't remember and it's fun to play along

[Camel Jockey]

What's the real con of nuclear power? Storing spent fuel rods? We have a lot of fucking space so I don't see how thats a big deal. As you guys already pointed out, it's a pretty clean source of energy and easily the most efficient.

[Cavalier22]

we wont have a choice in 40 years when fossil feuls are burned out

[Hugo Chavez]

[BRUCE]

Poor children.  Your point?

[OzmO]

Of all the current methods of cheap, effective and for the most part clean energy - why has the left gone to such extremes to demonise nuclear power?

Consider this recent report:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21134015-38197,00.html?from=public_rss

In China alone, in the last year, more than 90 times the deaths that happened in the worst ever nuclear accident at Chernobyl has occurred.  This accounts for some 4746 people, yet in what endeavour did these people die?  For what godly energy source?  Surely one so clean that Gaia herself would swoon in spiritual bliss.....

......well actually, no.  They died mining coal.  Yes, the energy we are told is 'unclean' and creates more nasty carbon pollutants than any other of our energies.

So why no outrage from the left?  Why is Greenpeace not hitting the media up with completely unfounded claims that thousands more people died than actually did?  What has nuclear power done to deserve this?

I strongly agree with you on this one BRUCE.   

Environmentalist idiots caused public opinion to go against nuclear energy in the 70's as a result we still burn far too many fossil fuels that end up in the atmosphere.  If we had continued to develope nuclear energy we wouldn't have the dependence on these fuels like we do today and our environment would be healthier.  Nuclear energy is very safe and very clean. 

[BRUCE]

I strongly agree with you on this one BRUCE.   

Environmentalist idiots caused public opinion to go against nuclear energy in the 70's as a result we still burn far too many fossil fuels that end up in the atmosphere.  If we had continued to develope nuclear energy we wouldn't have the dependence on these fuels like we do today and our environment would be healthier.  Nuclear energy is very safe and very clean. 

There's a lot of sensible posts coming out in this thread, yours included.  Surely if we are to consign ourselves to belief in Global Warming, nuclear power is our saviour.

[Hugo Chavez]

Poor children.  Your point?

[OzmO]

There's a lot of sensible posts coming out in this thread, yours included.  Surely if we are to consign ourselves to belief in Global Warming, nuclear power is our saviour.

Economically it's also very prudent. 

[BRUCE]

No really, I wasn't trying to patronise you, what's your argument?

[Hugo Chavez]

No really, I wasn't trying to patronise you, what's your argument?

well for one thing, I'm sure your estimates above came from the Kremlin...  They wouldn't exagerate their numbers or anything. I've watched documentaries of the thousands of people and children being born deformed and dying of cancer.  The victims of that one accident will be piling up for a long time to come...  I'm just saying, consider the reality of an accident in your unfairly demonized statement.  The pictures are the human face to the thread...

Chernobyl: approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also concludes that on the basis of demographic data, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000.

[BRUCE]

well for one thing, I'm sure your estimates above came from the Kremlin...  They wouldn't exagerate their numbers or anything. I've watched documentaries of the thousands of people and children being born deformed and dying of cancer.  The victims of that one accident will be piling up for a long time to come...  I'm just saying, consider the reality of an accident in your unfairly demonized statement.  The pictures are the human face to the thread...

Chernobyl: approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also concludes that on the basis of demographic data, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000.

I'm sorry my friend - you're wrong.  You must be getting your information from Greenpeace.

Here's some facts for you to consider, the death count is actually closer to 50.  Read this, I'm afraid you're very much mistaken.

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/complexity/complexity.html

And I quote:

But the shock that I had experienced reverberated within me for a while.  Because what I had been led to believe about Chernobyl was not merely wrong—it was astonishingly wrong.  Let’s review the data.

 


 

The initial reports in 1986 claimed 2,000 dead, and an unknown number of future deaths and deformities occurring in a wide swath extending from Sweden to the Black Sea. As the years passed, the size of the disaster increased; by 2000, the BBC and New York Times estimated 15,000-30,000 dead, and so on…

 

Now, to report that 15,000-30,000 people have died, when the actual number is 56, represents a big error. Let’s try to get some idea of how big.  Suppose we line up all the victims in a row.  If 56 people are each represented by one foot of space, then 56 feet is roughly the distance from me to the fourth row of the auditorium.  Fifteen thousand people is three miles away.  It seems difficult to make a mistake of that scale.

 

But, of course, you think, we’re talking about radiation: what about long-term consequences?  Unfortunately here the media reports are even less accurate.

 


 

The chart shows estimates as high as 3.5 million, or 500,000 deaths, when the actual number of delayed deaths is less than 4,000.  That’s the number of Americans who die of adverse drug reactions every six weeks. Again, a huge error.

 

But most troubling of all, according to the UN report in 2005, is that "the largest public health problem created by the accident" is the "damaging psychological impact [due] to a lack of accurate information…[manifesting] as negative self-assessments of health, belief in a shortened life expectancy, lack of initiative, and dependency on assistance from the state."

 

In other words, the greatest damage to the people of Chernobyl was caused by bad information. These people weren’t blighted by radiation so much as by terrifying but false information.  We ought to ponder, for a minute, exactly what that implies. We demand strict controls on radiation because it is such a health hazard.  But Chernobyl suggests that false information can be a health hazard as damaging as radiation. I am not saying radiation is not a threat. I am not saying Chernobyl was not a genuinely serious event.

Read the whole thing.

[Hedgehog]

Of all the current methods of cheap, effective and for the most part clean energy - why has the left gone to such extremes to demonise nuclear power?

Consider this recent report:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21134015-38197,00.html?from=public_rss

In China alone, in the last year, more than 90 times the deaths that happened in the worst ever nuclear accident at Chernobyl has occurred.  This accounts for some 4746 people, yet in what endeavour did these people die?  For what godly energy source?  Surely one so clean that Gaia herself would swoon in spiritual bliss.....

......well actually, no.  They died mining coal.  Yes, the energy we are told is 'unclean' and creates more nasty carbon pollutants than any other of our energies.

So why no outrage from the left?  Why is Greenpeace not hitting the media up with completely unfounded claims that thousands more people died than actually did?  What has nuclear power done to deserve this?

In Ukraine, the Chernobyl disaster happened in 1986.

We are still, 20+ years later seeing effects from that. Here in Sweden we have restrictions on mushrooms, reindeers and a few other things. The same with a lot of other countries in Europe.

I know nothing about the numbers that Berserker mentions.

I do know that the "56" you mention, are the 56 persons that could be accounted for right after the disaster. Those are workers on the power plant, et al. The same report you got that from, the Chernobyl Forum, mentions that 9000 people are expected to die from cancer related to Chernobyl BTW.

Personally, I think that's a low estimate.

Also, Chernobyl blew up during the cold war, and very little was admitted by Soviet authorities, death count was never made public to my knowledge.

Some other numbers:

2.5 million Ukrainians suffer from health problems related to Chernobyl.

Nuclear power has its benefits. It also has its risks. I know that if a nuclear plant blows up in Ukraine, and it effects me here in Sweden... Then alternatives needs to be explored.

I don't like coal, so that's not an option IMO, but other alternatives should be looked into.

-Hedge

[BRUCE]

In Ukraine, the Chernobyl disaster happened in 1986.

We are still, 20+ years later seeing effects from that. Here in Sweden we have restrictions on mushrooms, reindeers and a few other things. The same with a lot of other countries in Europe.

I know nothing about the numbers that Berserker mentions.

I do know that the "56" you mention, are the 56 persons that could be accounted for right after the disaster. Those are workers on the power plant, et al. The same report you got that from, the Chernobyl Forum, mentions that 9000 people are expected to die from cancer related to Chernobyl BTW.

Personally, I think that's a low estimate.

Also, Chernobyl blew up during the cold war, and very little was admitted by Soviet authorities, death count was never made public to my knowledge.

Some other numbers:

2.5 million Ukrainians suffer from health problems related to Chernobyl.

Nuclear power has its benefits. It also has its risks. I know that if a nuclear plant blows up in Ukraine, and it effects me here in Sweden... Then alternatives needs to be explored.

I don't like coal, so that's not an option IMO, but other alternatives should be looked into.

-Hedge

Wrong.  The 56 number I have given is the correct figure for the total number of deaths from Chernobyl.  These 'effects' you have seen are simply a result of green hysteria.  I challenge you to prove me wrong on this, using facts, of course.

[24KT]

Chernobyl radiation did not only affect the Ukraine.
Due to wind patterns, those in Southern Cali felt a piece of it as well.

Harnessing Solar Power as well as the ocean tides could do a heckuva job with providing continuous, responsible, eco friendly and renewable energy.

...and we could power an entire nation off all the hot gasses produced by Rush Limbaugh

...ooops... I forgot, ...that's a fossil fuel 

[Hugo Chavez]

My estimates, greenpeace's estimates might be high but in this case, I'll error toward the worst case made... WHY?... Well Duh...  

Bruce, your numbers are stupidly low...  There are deformed ruined people being born every week who won't have a chance at life thanks to that accident... those numbers will keep adding up... That's land that will be unlivable/unsafe for how long??? Oh brother... You're numbers are just not anywhere close to realistic.


The Accident
* The Chernobyl power plant is located on the border area between Ukraine and Belarus.

* The explosion of the reactor at Chernobyl released 100 times more radiation than the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (1)

* At the time of the accident, about 7 million people lived in contaminated territories, including 3 million children.

* About 5.5 million people - including more than a million children - continue to live in contaminated zones. (2)


* Thyroid Cancer: Thyroid cancer in children has increased dramatically since the disaster, particularly in the Gomel region of Belarus. The World Health Organization predicts that, in this region alone, 50,000 children will develop the disease during their lifetime. Throughout Belarus, the incidence of this rare disease in 1990 was already 30 times higher than in the years before the accident. (3)


* Leukemia: In the Gomel region of Belarus, incidence of leukemia has already increased 50% in children and adults.


* Other Cancers: Swiss Medical Weekly recently published findings showing a 40% increase in all kinds of cancers in Belarus between 1990 and 2000. (5) Tumor specialists fear that a variety of new cancers will only emerge 20-30 years after the disaster. (6) Cases of breast cancer doubled between 1988 and 1999. (7)


* Birth Defects: Maternal exposure to radiation can cause severe organ and brain damage in an unborn child.   Five years after the disaster, the Ukrainian Ministry of Health reported three times the normal rate of deformities and developmental abnormalities in newborn children, as well as an increased number of miscarriages, premature births, and stillbirths. (4)


* Cardiac Abnormalities: Heart disease in Belarus has quadrupled since the accident, caused by the accumulation of radioactive caesium in the cardiac muscle. (10) Doctors report a high incidence of multiple defects of the heart - a condition coined "Chernobyl Heart."


* Genetic Mutations: Hereditary defects in Belarusian newborns increased in the years after the disaster. ( Scientists have observed that congenital and hereditary defects have passed on to the next generation, as young people exposed to radiation grow up and have their own children. (9)


http://www.chernobyl-international.org/facts.html

     * The economic damages to Belarus after the accident over 30 years (1986 - 2015) will be $235 billion, or over 32 annual national budgets.   (11)      

[240 is Back]

Bruce has continually quoted the Michael Crichton article where he said Chernobyl was no big deal.

[Hugo Chavez]

Bruce has continually quoted the Michael Crichton article where he said Chernobyl was no big deal.

LOL... Chernobyl... eh... no big deal... A massive undertaking costing billions to contain it will last a lousy 100 years, a problem that will need to be dealt with by hundreds of generations after we're gone...  A site that will remain lethal for thousands of years.... eh... no biggie


Michael Crichton Oh real genius

[240 is Back]

some of the crichton article was good, but he is such a huge generalist that is goes beyond practical.  To say the Earth is a self-healing being is great.  To say that mankind might wash away, but it's but a blip on the screen of earth... well... that's OUR blip

[G o a t b o y]

I always consider people with an axe to grind to be reliable, credible, and objective sources of information.