For all those with electric cars and battery chargers or who use
trains. Of course, the obvious solution, which is conveniently
overlooked by the energy profiteers is, switch everything off when not
in use. That should reduce demand by at least a third. Also, the
credit crunch will also turn some of those lights off at Canary Wharf
and elsewhere at night.

"The UK will experience prolonged power cuts in about five years
unless urgent action is taken now, a report warns.

It said a third of generation capacity was due to be decommissioned by
2020, but was not being replaced fast enough.

The report, by nuclear supporting Fells Associates, said new reactors
would not be ready in time, and questioned spending on renewable
energy..."

More:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7618840.stm

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Travel broadens the damage.

Doug wrote:
> For all those with electric cars and battery chargers or who use
> trains. Of course, the obvious solution, which is conveniently
> overlooked by the energy profiteers is, switch everything off when not
> in use.

So why not follow your own advice and switch everything off?

Doug wrote:
> For all those with electric cars and battery chargers or who use
> trains. Of course, the obvious solution

More nuclear power stations?

-- 
Abo

On Sep 17, 7:39 am, Doug  wrote:
>  switch everything off when not
> in use. That should reduce demand by at least a third.

do you have a source for this claim?

Fod

In message 
, Doug 
 writes
>It said a third of generation capacity was due to be decommissioned by
>2020, but was not being replaced fast enough.
>
>The report, by nuclear supporting Fells Associates, said new reactors
>would not be ready in time, and questioned spending on renewable
>energy..."
We've plenty of coal for about 200 years, lets have more coal fired 
stations like the Chinese, cut our dependence on gas from the east and 
be more self sufficient, don't you agree Dug?
-- 
Clive

Doug wrote:

> For all those with electric cars and battery chargers or who use
> trains. Of course, the obvious solution, which is conveniently
> overlooked by the energy profiteers is, switch everything off when not
> in use. That should reduce demand by at least a third. Also, the
> credit crunch will also turn some of those lights off at Canary Wharf
> and elsewhere at night.
> 
> "The UK will experience prolonged power cuts in about five years
> unless urgent action is taken now, a report warns.
> 
> It said a third of generation capacity was due to be decommissioned by
> 2020, but was not being replaced fast enough.
> 
> The report, by nuclear supporting Fells Associates, said new reactors
> would not be ready in time, and questioned spending on renewable
> energy..."
> 
> More:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7618840.stm

Exactly.

We'd better get our fingers out and build some coal-fired and nuclear-powered 
  generating stations, pronto.

On 17 Sep, 07:39, Doug  wrote:

> "The UK will experience prolonged power cuts in about five years
> unless urgent action is taken now, a report warns.
>
> It said a third of generation capacity was due to be decommissioned by
> 2020, but was not being replaced fast enough.

Yes, this has been known about for at least a decade, but your eco-
terror friends have been against replacing generation capacity.

The power companies propose a few new nuclear power stations, and your
friend says
"They are Bad m'okay, and dangerous m'okay. We don't want them".

So the government says "how about a few wind turbines, they are not
dangerous", and your friend says
"They are Bad m'okay, they kill the poor birds and spoil the
landscape. We don't want them."

So the government says "lets build a tidal barrage on the river
severn", and your friend says
"That is Bad m'okay, it destroys the mud flats m'okay. We don't want
it".

So the government says "lets build a new coal fired power station,
that is really clean", and your friend says
"That is Bad m'okay, it pollutes m'okay. We don't want it".

Then you and you friend look around and say "How are we going to power
our networks of computers, lighting throughout the winter, this is Bad
m'okay, let's blame the government".

So the people who are really to blame here are you and your eco-terror
friend.

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:0ede53bc-b979-4413-a3cb-a08c813ac167@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> For all those with electric cars and battery chargers or who use
> trains. Of course, the obvious solution, which is conveniently
> overlooked by the energy profiteers is, switch everything off when not
> in use. That should reduce demand by at least a third. Also, the
> credit crunch will also turn some of those lights off at Canary Wharf
> and elsewhere at night.
>
> "The UK will experience prolonged power cuts in about five years
> unless urgent action is taken now, a report warns.
>
> It said a third of generation capacity was due to be decommissioned by
> 2020, but was not being replaced fast enough.
>
> The report, by nuclear supporting Fells Associates, said new reactors
> would not be ready in time, and questioned spending on renewable
> energy..."

I vote for nuclear and have no problems with reactors close by - no NIMBYism 
here!

" cupra"  wrote in message 
news:6jd5guF2oskiU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "Doug"  wrote in message 
> news:0ede53bc-b979-4413-a3cb-a08c813ac167@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> For all those with electric cars and battery chargers or who use
>> trains. Of course, the obvious solution, which is conveniently
>> overlooked by the energy profiteers is, switch everything off when not
>> in use. That should reduce demand by at least a third. Also, the
>> credit crunch will also turn some of those lights off at Canary Wharf
>> and elsewhere at night.
>>
>> "The UK will experience prolonged power cuts in about five years
>> unless urgent action is taken now, a report warns.
>>
>> It said a third of generation capacity was due to be decommissioned by
>> 2020, but was not being replaced fast enough.
>>
>> The report, by nuclear supporting Fells Associates, said new reactors
>> would not be ready in time, and questioned spending on renewable
>> energy..."
>
> I vote for nuclear and have no problems with reactors close by - no 
> NIMBYism here!
>

Same here! It'll bring the house prices down a bit and get rid of some of 
the neighbours too :-)

Mike

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:0ede53bc-b979-4413-a3cb-a08c813ac167@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> For all those with electric cars and battery chargers or who use
> trains. Of course, the obvious solution,

... is to stop protesters from trying to interfere with plans for new power 
stations.

Colin Bignell

On 17 Sep, 22:17, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
wrote:
> "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> news:0ede53bc-b979-4413-a3cb-a08c813ac167@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > For all those with electric cars and battery chargers or who use
> > trains. Of course, the obvious solution,
>
> ... is to stop protesters from trying to interfere with plans for new power
> stations.
>
Nope because carbon capture is unproven and expensive and is being
used merely as an excuse to build more heavily polluting coal power
stations. Protesters have helped to publicise this scam.

While renewables look attractive they cannot meet demand and are in
some cases uneconomic. Nuclear is extremely hazardous and costly.

The only sensible solution in the short term is to decrease energy
consumption and its attendant pollution by cutting waste and by
conserving energy. Such measures as smaller and fewer cars, less
travel and home insulation, etc., are needed immediately.

Hopefully the credit crunch will help to reduce some travel,
particularly frivolous flying to distant lands but weven greater
disincentives are called for.  Unfortunately the profit motives of a
few directly conflicts with sensible conservation and there will
always be some who want to profit from the misfortunes of others by
harming people and the planet.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Travel broadens the damage.

On 18 Sep, 08:02, Doug  wrote:
> On 17 Sep, 22:17, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> wrote:> "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> >news:0ede53bc-b979-4413-a3cb-a08c813ac167@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > For all those with electric cars and battery chargers or who use
> > > trains. Of course, the obvious solution,
>
> > ... is to stop protesters from trying to interfere with plans for new power
> > stations.
>
> Nope because carbon capture is unproven and expensive and is being
> used merely as an excuse to build more heavily polluting coal power
> stations. Protesters have helped to publicise this scam.
>
> While renewables look attractive they cannot meet demand and are in
> some cases uneconomic. Nuclear is extremely hazardous and costly.

So you don't like any sort of power generation?

> The only sensible solution in the short term is to decrease energy
> consumption and its attendant pollution by cutting waste and by
> conserving energy. Such measures as smaller and fewer cars, less
> travel and home insulation, etc., are needed immediately.

Why don't you set an example by not using any electricity at all in
your home?
Turn off your computers, TV, fridge, lights etc.
Or are you just a hypocrite?


> Hopefully the credit crunch will help to reduce some travel,
> particularly frivolous flying to distant lands but weven greater
> disincentives are called for.  Unfortunately the profit motives of a
> few directly conflicts with sensible conservation and there will
> always be some who want to profit from the misfortunes of others by
> harming people and the planet.

Like the "moral" profit for you trying to send us all into the dark
ages for your own personal satisfaction.

Doug wrote:
> On 17 Sep, 22:17, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:0ede53bc-b979-4413-a3cb-a08c813ac167@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> For all those with electric cars and battery chargers or who use
>>> trains. Of course, the obvious solution,
>> ... is to stop protesters from trying to interfere with plans for new power
>> stations.
>>
> Nope because carbon capture is unproven and expensive and is being
> used merely as an excuse to build more heavily polluting coal power
> stations. Protesters have helped to publicise this scam.
> 
> While renewables look attractive they cannot meet demand and are in
> some cases uneconomic. Nuclear is extremely hazardous and costly.
> 
> The only sensible solution in the short term is to decrease energy
> consumption and its attendant pollution by cutting waste and by
> conserving energy. Such measures as smaller and fewer cars, less
> travel and home insulation, etc., are needed immediately.
> 
> Hopefully the credit crunch will help to reduce some travel,
> particularly frivolous flying to distant lands but weven greater
> disincentives are called for.  Unfortunately the profit motives of a
> few directly conflicts with sensible conservation and there will
> always be some who want to profit from the misfortunes of others by
> harming people and the planet.
> 
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> Travel broadens the damage.

So you have given the answers for the short time, how about long term?

-- 
Tony the Dragon

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:1ffbed53-473a-4f46-b122-e2590f08fc19@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 17 Sep, 22:17, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:0ede53bc-b979-4413-a3cb-a08c813ac167@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > For all those with electric cars and battery chargers or who use
>> > trains. Of course, the obvious solution,
>>
>> ... is to stop protesters from trying to interfere with plans for new 
>> power
>> stations.
>>
> Nope because carbon capture is unproven and expensive and is being
> used merely as an excuse to build more heavily polluting coal power
> stations.

Carbon capture is only needed to meet the most stringent of future targets. 
There are several other technologies that can be used to meet current 
standards that are well proven, from simple measures like improving the 
thermal efficiency of the generating plant to modern answers like co-firing 
biomass. All are relatively expensive, but the cost will be passed onto the 
consumer.

> While renewables look attractive they cannot meet demand and are in
> some cases uneconomic.

Something we have been saying on here for a while.

> Nuclear is extremely hazardous and costly.

It is neither. There have been only two major reactor failures in a 
cumlative 12,700 years of reactor operation. At Three Mile Island, the 
containmnet procedures prevented any harm to anyone. At Chernobyl, it was 
the lack of similar containment procedures that caused the problems. 
Windscale was the result of weapons research, not nuclear generation. While 
the capital cost of nuclear plants is high, the generating costs are very 
low and it is by far the cheapest way to generate electricity. The only 
reason we don't have a lot more of it is the similarly ill-informed 
protesters of an earlier era.

Colin Bignell

On Sep 18, 9:09 am, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
wrote:
> the capital cost of nuclear plants is high, the generating costs are very
> low and it is by far the cheapest way to generate electricity. The only
> reason we don't have a lot more of it is the similarly ill-informed
> protesters of an earlier era.

French politicians had the balls to ignore the CND mob and just went
ahead and built a load of nuclear power stations anyway. Unfortunately
our ruling classes have yet to grow a pair as they just cave in when
faced with a bunch of unwashed hippies with placards.

B2003

Doug wrote:
> On 17 Sep, 22:17, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:0ede53bc-b979-4413-a3cb-a08c813ac167@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> For all those with electric cars and battery chargers or who use
>>> trains. Of course, the obvious solution,
>>
>> ... is to stop protesters from trying to interfere with plans for
>> new power stations.
>>
> Nope because carbon capture is unproven and expensive and is being
> used merely as an excuse to build more heavily polluting coal power
> stations. Protesters have helped to publicise this scam.

If it's not put into use and further developed how does it become "proven"?

> While renewables look attractive they cannot meet demand and are in
> some cases uneconomic. Nuclear is extremely hazardous and costly.

If "nuclear is extremely hazardous" then you'll be able to show the number 
of deaths and injuries caused?

> The only sensible solution in the short term is to decrease energy
> consumption and its attendant pollution by cutting waste and by
> conserving energy. Such measures as smaller and fewer cars, less
> travel and home insulation, etc., are needed immediately.

Far more pollution comes out of power stations and factories than from 
cars.. So what electrical equipment are you switching off Doug?

On 18 Sep, 09:09, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
wrote:
> "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> news:1ffbed53-473a-4f46-b122-e2590f08fc19@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 17 Sep, 22:17, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:0ede53bc-b979-4413-a3cb-a08c813ac167@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > For all those with electric cars and battery chargers or who use
> >> > trains. Of course, the obvious solution,
>
> >> ... is to stop protesters from trying to interfere with plans for new
> >> power
> >> stations.
>
> > Nope because carbon capture is unproven and expensive and is being
> > used merely as an excuse to build more heavily polluting coal power
> > stations.
>
> Carbon capture is only needed to meet the most stringent of future targets.
> There are several other technologies that can be used to meet current
> standards that are well proven, from simple measures like improving the
> thermal efficiency of the generating plant to modern answers like co-firing
> biomass. All are relatively expensive, but the cost will be passed onto the
> consumer.
>
This sort of technological tinkering at the edges may provide small
gains but it doesn't solve the problem.
>
> > While renewables look attractive they cannot meet demand and are in
> > some cases uneconomic.
>
> Something we have been saying on here for a while.
>
Becuase its obvious?
>
> > Nuclear is extremely hazardous and costly.
>
> It is neither. There have been only two major reactor failures in a
> cumlative 12,700 years of reactor operation. At Three Mile Island, the
> containmnet procedures prevented any harm to anyone. At Chernobyl, it was
> the lack of similar containment procedures that caused the problems.
> Windscale was the result of weapons research, not nuclear generation. While
> the capital cost of nuclear plants is high, the generating costs are very
> low and it is by far the cheapest way to generate electricity. The only
> reason we don't have a lot more of it is the similarly ill-informed
> protesters of an earlier era.
>
The use and very long-term storage of radioactive material is
obviously hazardous to human life and at risk from sabotage.
Decommissioning of nuclear plants is extremely expensive.The mining
and transport of uranium is polluting. There is a strong possibility
that radioactive areas causes cancer clusters. Unless people like you
can prove conclusively that nuclear power is absolutely safe the
precautionary principle should be applied and attention should be
given instead to reducing energy wastage with a view to reducing
pollution.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

Doug wrote:
> On 18 Sep, 09:09, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:1ffbed53-473a-4f46-b122-e2590f08fc19@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 17 Sep, 22:17, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>>>> news:0ede53bc-b979-4413-a3cb-a08c813ac167@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>> For all those with electric cars and battery chargers or who use
>>>>> trains. Of course, the obvious solution,
>>
>>>> ... is to stop protesters from trying to interfere with plans for
>>>> new power
>>>> stations.
>>
>>> Nope because carbon capture is unproven and expensive and is being
>>> used merely as an excuse to build more heavily polluting coal power
>>> stations.
>>
>> Carbon capture is only needed to meet the most stringent of future
>> targets. There are several other technologies that can be used to
>> meet current standards that are well proven, from simple measures
>> like improving the thermal efficiency of the generating plant to
>> modern answers like co-firing biomass. All are relatively expensive,
>> but the cost will be passed onto the consumer.
>>
> This sort of technological tinkering at the edges may provide small
> gains but it doesn't solve the problem.

That depends on what one believes the problem to be.

>>> While renewables look attractive they cannot meet demand and are in
>>> some cases uneconomic.
>>
>> Something we have been saying on here for a while.
>>
> Becuase its obvious?

It's obvious to those with an open and analytical mind. Which isn't you 
Doug.

>>
> The use and very long-term storage of radioactive material is
> obviously hazardous to human life and at risk from sabotage.
> Decommissioning of nuclear plants is extremely expensive.The mining
> and transport of uranium is polluting. There is a strong possibility
> that radioactive areas causes cancer clusters. Unless people like you
> can prove conclusively that nuclear power is absolutely safe the
> precautionary principle should be applied and attention should be
> given instead to reducing energy wastage with a view to reducing
> pollution.

How can evidence to be gathered if the proposers aren't allowed to set up a 
working installation?

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:578ff791-650a-405c-bf05-0808ede81bf6@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 18 Sep, 09:09, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:1ffbed53-473a-4f46-b122-e2590f08fc19@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 17 Sep, 22:17, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
>> > wrote:
>> >> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:0ede53bc-b979-4413-a3cb-a08c813ac167@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > For all those with electric cars and battery chargers or who use
>> >> > trains. Of course, the obvious solution,
>>
>> >> ... is to stop protesters from trying to interfere with plans for new
>> >> power
>> >> stations.
>>
>> > Nope because carbon capture is unproven and expensive and is being
>> > used merely as an excuse to build more heavily polluting coal power
>> > stations.
>>
>> Carbon capture is only needed to meet the most stringent of future 
>> targets.
>> There are several other technologies that can be used to meet current
>> standards that are well proven, from simple measures like improving the
>> thermal efficiency of the generating plant to modern answers like 
>> co-firing
>> biomass. All are relatively expensive, but the cost will be passed onto 
>> the
>> consumer.
>>
> This sort of technological tinkering at the edges may provide small
> gains but it doesn't solve the problem.

Drax, which is already a high performing station, is set to achieve a 20% 
reduction in CO2 emissions by co-firing biomass and 40% overall, with all 
technological advances currently planned. That is hardly tinkering at the 
edges.

>> > While renewables look attractive they cannot meet demand and are in
>> > some cases uneconomic.
>>
>> Something we have been saying on here for a while.
>>
> Becuase its obvious?

It hasn't been obvious to you in the past.

>> > Nuclear is extremely hazardous and costly.
>>
>> It is neither. There have been only two major reactor failures in a
>> cumlative 12,700 years of reactor operation. At Three Mile Island, the
>> containmnet procedures prevented any harm to anyone. At Chernobyl, it was
>> the lack of similar containment procedures that caused the problems.
>> Windscale was the result of weapons research, not nuclear generation. 
>> While
>> the capital cost of nuclear plants is high, the generating costs are very
>> low and it is by far the cheapest way to generate electricity. The only
>> reason we don't have a lot more of it is the similarly ill-informed
>> protesters of an earlier era.
>>
> The use and very long-term storage of radioactive material is
> obviously hazardous to human life and at risk from sabotage.

An area that Britain has a great deal of experience in. However, a properly 
planned expansion of nuclear power would include the provision of at least 
one fast consumer reactor or hybrid reactor, which would greatly reduce the 
problem by transmuting the long half-life high level waste into short-lived 
radioactives.

> Decommissioning of nuclear plants is extremely expensive.

It still works out cheapest overall.

>... Unless people like you
> can prove conclusively that nuclear power is absolutely safe the
> precautionary principle should be applied and attention should be
> given instead to reducing energy wastage with a view to reducing
> pollution.

Nothing is absolutely safe, nor is it theoretically possible for anything to 
be. However, there are many well-proven methods for assessing risk and it is 
possible to reduce risk to levels so low that they become insignificant. Do 
you worry about being struck by lightning? Between 1950 and 1999 an average 
of five people every year died due to being struck by lighting, which 
implies the number struck would have been 50-100. The number of people who 
have died due to a nuclear generation accident in the UK in the same 
period - nil.

Colin Bignell

> "Doug"  wrote in message
> news:578ff791-650a-405c-bf05-0808ede81bf6@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On 18 Sep, 09:09, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
>> wrote:
>>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:1ffbed53-473a-4f46-b122-e2590f08fc19@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 17 Sep, 22:17, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> news:0ede53bc-b979-4413-a3cb-a08c813ac167@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>>> For all those with electric cars and battery chargers or who use
>>>>>> trains. Of course, the obvious solution,
>>>
>>>>> ... is to stop protesters from trying to interfere with plans for
>>>>> new power
>>>>> stations.
>>>
>>>> Nope because carbon capture is unproven and expensive and is being
>>>> used merely as an excuse to build more heavily polluting coal power
>>>> stations.
>>>
>>> Carbon capture is only needed to meet the most stringent of future
>>> targets.
>>> There are several other technologies that can be used to meet
>>> current standards that are well proven, from simple measures like
>>> improving the thermal efficiency of the generating plant to modern
>>> answers like co-firing
>>> biomass. All are relatively expensive, but the cost will be passed
>>> onto the
>>> consumer.
>>>
>> This sort of technological tinkering at the edges may provide small
>> gains but it doesn't solve the problem.
>
> Drax, which is already a high performing station, is set to achieve a
> 20% reduction in CO2 emissions by co-firing biomass and 40% overall,
> with all technological advances currently planned. That is hardly
> tinkering at the edges.
>
>>>> While renewables look attractive they cannot meet demand and are in
>>>> some cases uneconomic.
>>>
>>> Something we have been saying on here for a while.
>>>
>> Becuase its obvious?
>
> It hasn't been obvious to you in the past.
>
>>>> Nuclear is extremely hazardous and costly.
>>>
>>> It is neither. There have been only two major reactor failures in a
>>> cumlative 12,700 years of reactor operation. At Three Mile Island,
>>> the containmnet procedures prevented any harm to anyone. At
>>> Chernobyl, it was the lack of similar containment procedures that
>>> caused the problems. Windscale was the result of weapons research,
>>> not nuclear generation. While
>>> the capital cost of nuclear plants is high, the generating costs
>>> are very low and it is by far the cheapest way to generate
>>> electricity. The only reason we don't have a lot more of it is the
>>> similarly ill-informed protesters of an earlier era.
>>>
>> The use and very long-term storage of radioactive material is
>> obviously hazardous to human life and at risk from sabotage.
>
> An area that Britain has a great deal of experience in. However, a
> properly planned expansion of nuclear power would include the
> provision of at least one fast consumer reactor or hybrid reactor,
> which would greatly reduce the problem by transmuting the long
> half-life high level waste into short-lived radioactives.
>
>> Decommissioning of nuclear plants is extremely expensive.
>
> It still works out cheapest overall.
>
>> ... Unless people like you
>> can prove conclusively that nuclear power is absolutely safe the
>> precautionary principle should be applied and attention should be
>> given instead to reducing energy wastage with a view to reducing
>> pollution.
>
> Nothing is absolutely safe, nor is it theoretically possible for
> anything to be. However, there are many well-proven methods for
> assessing risk and it is possible to reduce risk to levels so low
> that they become insignificant. Do you worry about being struck by
> lightning? Between 1950 and 1999 an average of five people every year
> died due to being struck by lighting, which implies the number struck
> would have been 50-100. The number of people who have died due to a
> nuclear generation accident in the UK in the same period - nil.
>
In which case, shouldn't lightning be made illegal?

Doug  wrote:

> The use and very long-term storage of radioactive material is
> obviously hazardous to human life

Really? How many people have died as a result of the storage of
radioactive material in the UK? Or indeed how many have been injured by
such storage?

Come on Duhg, show us your research skills.

"nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here> wrote:

> The number of people who have died due to a nuclear generation accident in
> the UK in the same period - nil.

Number of people who have died due to a waste storage incident - also
nil.

Coal 161 deaths/TWh 
Solar 12.5 deaths/TWh
Wind Energy  0.4-0.15 deaths/TWh
Hydro 0.1 deaths/TWh
Nuclear (including Chernobyl) 0.0012 deaths/TWh

<http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.
html>

Duhg, foot, perforated.

On 19 Sep, 10:43, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Doug  wrote:
> > The use and very long-term storage of radioactive material is
> > obviously hazardous to human life
>
> Really? How many people have died as a result of the storage of
> radioactive material in the UK? Or indeed how many have been injured by
> such storage?
>
> Come on Duhg, show us your research skills.

Obvious init

Francis

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:578ff791-650a-405c-bf05-0808ede81bf6@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
FOADQ

"Brimstone"  wrote in message 
news:Z5SdnRBj2Kgx-E7VnZ2dnUVZ8hidnZ2d@bt.com...
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
....
>> Nothing is absolutely safe, nor is it theoretically possible for
>> anything to be. However, there are many well-proven methods for
>> assessing risk and it is possible to reduce risk to levels so low
>> that they become insignificant. Do you worry about being struck by
>> lightning? Between 1950 and 1999 an average of five people every year
>> died due to being struck by lighting, which implies the number struck
>> would have been 50-100. The number of people who have died due to a
>> nuclear generation accident in the UK in the same period - nil.
>>
> In which case, shouldn't lightning be made illegal?

ITYMS Frightful!  Why can't something be done about all these potential 
killers?

Colin Bignell

On 19 Sep, 09:10, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
wrote:
> "Doug"  wrote in message
>
>
>
> Nothing is absolutely safe, nor is it theoretically possible for anything to
> be. However, there are many well-proven methods for assessing risk and it is
> possible to reduce risk to levels so low that they become insignificant. Do
> you worry about being struck by lightning? Between 1950 and 1999 an average
> of five people every year died due to being struck by lighting, which
> implies the number struck would have been 50-100. The number of people who
> have died due to a nuclear generation accident in the UK in the same
> period - nil.
>
Maybe this is why deaths from radiation are believed by you to be nil.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/investigation-of-radiation-deaths-refused-690769.html

"The Government refused to launch an inquiry yesterday into the case
of a family who claim their three daughters died after their father
was exposed to radiation.

The Government refused to launch an inquiry yesterday into the case of
a family who claim their three daughters died after their father was
exposed to radiation.

Nigel Evans, Conservative MP for Ribble Valley, said they would fight
on to find the truth about the effect of radiation on Joe McMaster. Mr
McMaster received a dose of uranium while working for the Atomic
Energy Authority, now British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) in Preston,
Lancashire, during the 1950s. Tests showed he had more than 18 times
the radiation level that he normally registered at..."

How can you tell if low level radiation has not caused cancers and if
radiation is as safe as you try to make out why are such stringent
precautions taken with it? Also, the accidental release of large
amounts of radiation over a very long historical period is always a
distinct possibility, if we are not all killed first by the bomb, etc.

"Longer term exposure to radiation, at doses less than that which
produces serious radiation sickness, can induce cancer as cell-cycle
genes are mutated."

Plenty of reasons to apply the precautionary principle.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
The problem is in not recognising there is a problem.

Doug wrote:
> On 19 Sep, 09:10, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>> Nothing is absolutely safe, nor is it theoretically possible for anything to
>> be. However, there are many well-proven methods for assessing risk and it is
>> possible to reduce risk to levels so low that they become insignificant. Do
>> you worry about being struck by lightning? Between 1950 and 1999 an average
>> of five people every year died due to being struck by lighting, which
>> implies the number struck would have been 50-100. The number of people who
>> have died due to a nuclear generation accident in the UK in the same
>> period - nil.
>>
> Maybe this is why deaths from radiation are believed by you to be nil.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/investigation-of-radiation-deaths-refused-690769.html
> 
> "The Government refused to launch an inquiry yesterday into the case
> of a family who claim their three daughters died after their father
> was exposed to radiation.
> 
> The Government refused to launch an inquiry yesterday into the case of
> a family who claim their three daughters died after their father was
> exposed to radiation.
> 
> Nigel Evans, Conservative MP for Ribble Valley, said they would fight
> on to find the truth about the effect of radiation on Joe McMaster. Mr
> McMaster received a dose of uranium while working for the Atomic
> Energy Authority, now British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) in Preston,
> Lancashire, during the 1950s. Tests showed he had more than 18 times
> the radiation level that he normally registered at..."
> 
> How can you tell if low level radiation has not caused cancers and if
> radiation is as safe as you try to make out why are such stringent
> precautions taken with it? Also, the accidental release of large
> amounts of radiation over a very long historical period is always a
> distinct possibility, if we are not all killed first by the bomb, etc.
> 
> "Longer term exposure to radiation, at doses less than that which
> produces serious radiation sickness, can induce cancer as cell-cycle
> genes are mutated."
> 
> Plenty of reasons to apply the precautionary principle.
> 
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> The problem is in not recognising there is a problem.
> 
> 
> 

You do like shooting yourself in the foot with one post don't you.
Radiation is not safe, that is why stringent precautions exist.
Why is accidental release of radiation a distinct possibility as you posted?

I notice that you slipped a piece from Wikipedia in there.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Doug wrote:
> On 17 Sep, 22:17, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:0ede53bc-b979-4413-a3cb-a08c813ac167@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> For all those with electric cars and battery chargers or who use
>>> trains. Of course, the obvious solution,
>> ... is to stop protesters from trying to interfere with plans for new power
>> stations.
>>
> Nope because carbon capture is unproven 

Bollocks.

-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

Boltar wrote:
> On Sep 18, 9:09 am, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> wrote:
>> the capital cost of nuclear plants is high, the generating costs are very
>> low and it is by far the cheapest way to generate electricity. The only
>> reason we don't have a lot more of it is the similarly ill-informed
>> protesters of an earlier era.
> 
> French politicians had the balls to ignore the CND mob and just went
> ahead and built a load of nuclear power stations anyway. Unfortunately
> our ruling classes have yet to grow a pair as they just cave in when
> faced with a bunch of unwashed hippies with placards.

The ultimate result is that the government panics and says "we need new 
power stations fast - the only way to do this is for a French company to 
do it."

-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 00:32:30 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
wrote:


>Maybe this is why deaths from radiation are believed by you to be nil.
>
>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/investigation-of-radiation-deaths-refused-690769.html
>

<snip tosh from the windy pendant about one woman having a miscarriage
in 1958. *FIFTY* years ago Duhg>

>How can you tell if low level radiation has not caused cancers and if
>radiation is as safe as you try to make out why are such stringent
>precautions taken with it?

I get it, damned if we do ... damned if we don't.

Firstly let me tell you the AEA nuclear weapons plant at Preston was
built on the site of the old ICI Mustard gas factory and in the '50s
was probably contaminated to hell and back with very nasty chemicals.

And incidentally, I worked on the highly effective health safety
monitoring systems there in 1988. <Hand and Foot monitors>.

>Also, the accidental release of large
>amounts of radiation over a very long historical period

Any thoughts about  Half-life considerations Duhg ? 

The earth is naturally much more radioactive, providing man made
radioactivity in the environment is kept to far below the natural
background radiation with which human life has evolved to co-exist no
harm will result.

> is always a
>distinct possibility, if we are not all killed first by the bomb, etc.
>
>"Longer term exposure to radiation, at doses less than that which
>produces serious radiation sickness, can induce cancer as cell-cycle
>genes are mutated."
>

So what?

There has never been a case of serious (or mild) radiation sickness on
these islands. 

>Plenty of reasons to apply the precautionary principle.

That's what we did and then you cite it as evidence of a hazard.

Derek

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:11:48 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
wrote:


>> > Nuclear is extremely hazardous and costly.
>>
>> It is neither. There have been only two major reactor failures in a
>> cumlative 12,700 years of reactor operation. At Three Mile Island, the
>> containmnet procedures prevented any harm to anyone. At Chernobyl, it was
>> the lack of similar containment procedures that caused the problems.
>> Windscale was the result of weapons research, not nuclear generation. While
>> the capital cost of nuclear plants is high, the generating costs are very
>> low and it is by far the cheapest way to generate electricity. The only
>> reason we don't have a lot more of it is the similarly ill-informed
>> protesters of an earlier era.
>>
>The use and very long-term storage of radioactive material is
>obviously hazardous to human life

So you seperate the human life from the radioactive material. & / or
transform the waste into a form that is not hazardous.

> and at risk from sabotage.

So you seperate the saboteurs  from the ...  

>Decommissioning of nuclear plants is extremely expensive.

But the electricity is cheap.

>The mining and transport of uranium is polluting.

You want the energy or do you not ~?

> There is a strong possibility that radioactive areas causes cancer
>clusters.

But no evidence of such. "Strong possibility" > moon > green cheese.

>Unless people like you
>can prove conclusively that nuclear power is absolutely safe the
>precautionary principle should be applied

We've done all that, then you said it just goes to show how hazardous
it is.

>and attention should be given instead to reducing energy wastage with
>a view to reducing pollution.

Bring it on, but we will still need new power stations.

Derek

Doug  wrote:

> How can you tell if low level radiation has not caused cancers

It involves a branch of mathematics called "statistics". In the past you
have shown an unfortunate tendency to not have a fucking clue where even
simple statistics (such as calculating the arithmetic mean or knowing
when to the mode or median) so I suspect understanding dose-response
curves is really going to finish you off.

> and if radiation is as safe as you try to make out why are such stringent
> precautions taken with it?

It's safe because stringent precautions are taken, and because
radionucleides can be detected using simply equipment at far lower
levels than typical carcinogens. And of course psychologically people
tend to worry more about radionucleides than they worry about infections
agents or carcinogens.

Even when considering radionucleides people are irrational in their
treatment of the risk. Hence the average human being who is exposed to
more uranium from the chimneys of coal-fired power stations than they
ever were from nuclear power stations doesn't worry about the emissions
from coal-fired power stations. You are a case in point and until quite
recently you argued for coal burnign over nuclear generation. Until of
course the next bandwagon came along.

Anyway the hysteria over this man seems to be just that (plus of course
the ever-present hope of a big conpensation payout). A dose of 300Bq
over an entire lifetime is nothing. Infant milk is permitted to have up
to 1000Bq/kg.

Doug wrote:
> On 19 Sep, 09:10, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>> Nothing is absolutely safe, nor is it theoretically possible for anything to
>> be. However, there are many well-proven methods for assessing risk and it is
>> possible to reduce risk to levels so low that they become insignificant. Do
>> you worry about being struck by lightning? Between 1950 and 1999 an average
>> of five people every year died due to being struck by lighting, which
>> implies the number struck would have been 50-100. The number of people who
>> have died due to a nuclear generation accident in the UK in the same
>> period - nil.
>>
> Maybe this is why deaths from radiation are believed by you to be nil.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/investigation-of-radiation-deaths-refused-690769.html
> 
> "The Government refused to launch an inquiry yesterday into the case
> of a family who claim their three daughters died after their father
> was exposed to radiation.
> 
> The Government refused to launch an inquiry yesterday into the case of
> a family who claim their three daughters died after their father was
> exposed to radiation.
> 
> Nigel Evans, Conservative MP for Ribble Valley, said they would fight
> on to find the truth about the effect of radiation on Joe McMaster. Mr
> McMaster received a dose of uranium while working for the Atomic
> Energy Authority, now British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) in Preston,
> Lancashire, during the 1950s. Tests showed he had more than 18 times
> the radiation level that he normally registered at..."
> 
> How can you tell if low level radiation has not caused cancers 

You can't and no one can, except by the often spurious* method of 
identifying clusters. You can never associate a particular case of 
cancer with radiation. This is part of the difficulty.

* because they may not actually exist - only being apparent when 
statistics is misused, as it often is.

> "Longer term exposure to radiation, at doses less than that which
> produces serious radiation sickness, can induce cancer as cell-cycle
> genes are mutated."

True for medium dose ranges, but not for low level exposure.

> Plenty of reasons to apply the precautionary principle.

No scientific reason to apply the precautionary principle exists.



-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:412b47ba-ee23-4062-b8a5-1f75e3d0a6a4@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 19 Sep, 09:10, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>> Nothing is absolutely safe, nor is it theoretically possible for anything 
>> to
>> be. However, there are many well-proven methods for assessing risk and it 
>> is
>> possible to reduce risk to levels so low that they become insignificant. 
>> Do
>> you worry about being struck by lightning? Between 1950 and 1999 an 
>> average
>> of five people every year died due to being struck by lighting, which
>> implies the number struck would have been 50-100. The number of people 
>> who
>> have died due to a nuclear generation accident in the UK in the same
>> period - nil.
>>
> Maybe this is why deaths from radiation are believed by you to be nil.
>
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/investigation-of-radiation-deaths-refused-690769.html
>
> "The Government refused to launch an inquiry yesterday into the case
> of a family who claim their three daughters died after their father
> was exposed to radiation.
>
> The Government refused to launch an inquiry yesterday into the case of
> a family who claim their three daughters died after their father was
> exposed to radiation.

Had he the same dose as the Swedes allow reindeer meat to have and still be 
accepted for human consumption.

....
> How can you tell if low level radiation has not caused cancers

It is not possible, simply because there are so few cases where that is even 
possible, that there is insufficient data to decide.

> and if
> radiation is as safe as you try to make out why are such stringent
> precautions taken with it?

Nobody in their right mind would claim that radiation is safe. However, the 
stringent safety precautions are intended to make handling it safe. All the 
evidence of over half a century is that they have been supremely successful 
in that aim.

...
> Plenty of reasons to apply the precautionary principle.

Taking precautions does not mean not doing anything that carries any risk. 
If humankind had done that, we would still be living in caves, assuming we 
had not simply died out. To go back to my question; are you afraid of being 
struck by lightning, which is far more dangerous than nuclear generation or 
storage? If yes, why? If no, why not?

Colin Bignell

"nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here> wrote:

> Taking precautions does not mean not doing anything that carries any risk.
> If humankind had done that, we would still be living in caves, assuming we
> had not simply died out. To go back to my question; are you afraid of being
> struck by lightning, which is far more dangerous than nuclear generation or
> storage? If yes, why? If no, why not?

Simple, Duhg's reaction to science and technology is primarily primitive
religious. Nuclear power is big bad juju. Lightning is sent from the
gods. Hence nuclear is evil meddling with forces of nature. Being hit by
lightning is divine retribution.

Duhg needs no evidence, his entire life is ruled by a belief system
which is primarily irrational.

On 21 Sep, 17:11, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
wrote:
> "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> news:412b47ba-ee23-4062-b8a5-1f75e3d0a6a4@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 19 Sep, 09:10, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> >> Nothing is absolutely safe, nor is it theoretically possible for anything
> >> to
> >> be. However, there are many well-proven methods for assessing risk and it
> >> is
> >> possible to reduce risk to levels so low that they become insignificant.
> >> Do
> >> you worry about being struck by lightning? Between 1950 and 1999 an
> >> average
> >> of five people every year died due to being struck by lighting, which
> >> implies the number struck would have been 50-100. The number of people
> >> who
> >> have died due to a nuclear generation accident in the UK in the same
> >> period - nil.
>
> > Maybe this is why deaths from radiation are believed by you to be nil.
>
> >http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/investigation-of-radiat...
>
> > "The Government refused to launch an inquiry yesterday into the case
> > of a family who claim their three daughters died after their father
> > was exposed to radiation.
>
> > The Government refused to launch an inquiry yesterday into the case of
> > a family who claim their three daughters died after their father was
> > exposed to radiation.
>
> Had he the same dose as the Swedes allow reindeer meat to have and still be
> accepted for human consumption.
>
?
> ....
>
> > How can you tell if low level radiation has not caused cancers
>
> It is not possible, simply because there are so few cases where that is even
> possible, that there is insufficient data to decide.
>
It is not possible only because it is difficult to prove a causal link
after the passage of time but nevertheless it is a fact that radiation
damages body cells.
>
> > and if
> > radiation is as safe as you try to make out why are such stringent
> > precautions taken with it?
>
> Nobody in their right mind would claim that radiation is safe. However, the
> stringent safety precautions are intended to make handling it safe. All the
> evidence of over half a century is that they have been supremely successful
> in that aim.
>
Half a century is nothing compared to the half-life of some
radioactive waste. We would be putting future generations at risk
purely because we love wasting energy and that doesnt even allow for
nuclear accidents.
> ...
>
> > Plenty of reasons to apply the precautionary principle.
>
> Taking precautions does not mean not doing anything that carries any risk.
> If humankind had done that, we would still be living in caves, assuming we
> had not simply died out.
>
There are two kinds of risk, the risk you choose to take and the risk
imposed by others without your consent.
>
> To go back to my question; are you afraid of being
> struck by lightning, which is far more dangerous than nuclear generation or
> storage? If yes, why? If no, why not?
>
I don't believe it is more dangerous than nuclear generation,
particularly as you have no means of proving how many have been killed
by radiation exposure.

"This issue of radioactive pollution--from nuclear testing fallout,
from the routine emmissions of nuclear (commercial or military)
reactors, from the billions of tons of uranium tailings left exposed
at sites around the globe, from the massive amounts of low level and
high level radioactive waste generated every year for decades from
hundreds of commerical, military and research reactors around the
globe--far from being the "passe" story the industry's PR hacks and
media assets constantly present it as, is the number-one problem our
children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, great-great-
grandchildren, ad infinitum, will have to deal with for at least the
next 240,000 years. The damage to the integrity of the gene pool is
still being assessed as well as increased. And all this has happened
in less than the past fifty years. The challenge is paramount. Denial
promises extinction of all our relations."

"# 1500% increase in incidence of testicular and ovarian cancer in
children on Navaho reservation in uranium mining area
# 500% increase in bone cancer in children affected by uranium
# 250% increase in leukemia (all ages) in the Navaho population
# 200% increase in each of the following non-cancer effects:
miscarriage, infant death, congenital defects, genetic abnormalities,
learning disorders.
Baseline for 1-4: Navajo residents living near Uranium facilities were
compared to Navajo residents in non-uranium areas"

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

On 21 Sep, 17:19, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here> wrote:
>
> > Taking precautions does not mean not doing anything that carries any risk.
> > If humankind had done that, we would still be living in caves, assuming we
> > had not simply died out. To go back to my question; are you afraid of being
> > struck by lightning, which is far more dangerous than nuclear generation or
> > storage? If yes, why? If no, why not?
>
> Simple, Duhg's reaction to science and technology is primarily primitive
> religious. Nuclear power is big bad juju. Lightning is sent from the
> gods. Hence nuclear is evil meddling with forces of nature. Being hit by
> lightning is divine retribution.
>
> Duhg needs no evidence, his entire life is ruled by a belief system
> which is primarily irrational.

Filth's reaction is press on regardless of who dies from pollution,
radiation or poisoning as long as it isn't him.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:68c34f38-3b55-4702-959a-406990ed6f15@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 21 Sep, 17:11, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:412b47ba-ee23-4062-b8a5-1f75e3d0a6a4@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 19 Sep, 09:10, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
>> > wrote:
>> >> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>> >> Nothing is absolutely safe, nor is it theoretically possible for 
>> >> anything
>> >> to
>> >> be. However, there are many well-proven methods for assessing risk and 
>> >> it
>> >> is
>> >> possible to reduce risk to levels so low that they become 
>> >> insignificant.
>> >> Do
>> >> you worry about being struck by lightning? Between 1950 and 1999 an
>> >> average
>> >> of five people every year died due to being struck by lighting, which
>> >> implies the number struck would have been 50-100. The number of people
>> >> who
>> >> have died due to a nuclear generation accident in the UK in the same
>> >> period - nil.
>>
>> > Maybe this is why deaths from radiation are believed by you to be nil.
>>
>> >http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/investigation-of-radiat...
>>
>> > "The Government refused to launch an inquiry yesterday into the case
>> > of a family who claim their three daughters died after their father
>> > was exposed to radiation.
>>
>> > The Government refused to launch an inquiry yesterday into the case of
>> > a family who claim their three daughters died after their father was
>> > exposed to radiation.
>>
>> Had he the same dose as the Swedes allow reindeer meat to have and still 
>> be
>> accepted for human consumption.
>>
> ?
>> ....
>>
>> > How can you tell if low level radiation has not caused cancers
>>
>> It is not possible, simply because there are so few cases where that is 
>> even
>> possible, that there is insufficient data to decide.
>>
> It is not possible only because it is difficult to prove a causal link
> after the passage of time but nevertheless it is a fact that radiation
> damages body cells.
>>
>> > and if
>> > radiation is as safe as you try to make out why are such stringent
>> > precautions taken with it?
>>
>> Nobody in their right mind would claim that radiation is safe. However, 
>> the
>> stringent safety precautions are intended to make handling it safe. All 
>> the
>> evidence of over half a century is that they have been supremely 
>> successful
>> in that aim.
>>
> Half a century is nothing compared to the half-life of some
> radioactive waste. We would be putting future generations at risk
> purely because we love wasting energy and that doesnt even allow for
> nuclear accidents.

Did you not understand the bit about fast consumer rectors earlier in the 
thread? They take long half-life high level radioactive waste, transumte it 
into short lived isotopes and consume those to create power.

>> ...
>>
>> > Plenty of reasons to apply the precautionary principle.
>>
>> Taking precautions does not mean not doing anything that carries any 
>> risk.
>> If humankind had done that, we would still be living in caves, assuming 
>> we
>> had not simply died out.
>>
> There are two kinds of risk, the risk you choose to take and the risk
> imposed by others without your consent.

You can't avoid either and anyone who puts others at risk has a legal duty 
to assess that risk and to take the steps necessary to reduce that risk to 
the lowest level.

>>
>> To go back to my question; are you afraid of being
>> struck by lightning, which is far more dangerous than nuclear generation 
>> or
>> storage? If yes, why? If no, why not?
>>
> I don't believe it is more dangerous than nuclear generation,
> particularly as you have no means of proving how many have been killed
> by radiation exposure.

There is no evidence that anyone has been killed by exposure due to nuclear 
generation or storage in the UK, which is all that is relevant. OTOH, in the 
50 years 1950-1999, an average of 5 people died every year due to lightning 
strike.

...
> "# 1500% increase in incidence of testicular and ovarian cancer in
> children on Navaho reservation in uranium mining area
> # 500% increase in bone cancer in children affected by uranium
> # 250% increase in leukemia (all ages) in the Navaho population
> # 200% increase in each of the following non-cancer effects:
> miscarriage, infant death, congenital defects, genetic abnormalities,
> learning disorders.
> Baseline for 1-4: Navajo residents living near Uranium facilities were
> compared to Navajo residents in non-uranium areas"

There are two problems associated with uranium mining in the Navajo nations. 
First, occupational health problems among the miners. Second, that of people 
living in uranium rich areas. It was unusual levels of lung cancer among the 
workers that lead to the discovery of the dangers of radon gas in the mines, 
after which steps were introduced to protect them from the previously 
unknown problem. The people living in uranium rich areas, whether they are 
mined or not, are at risk from radon gas in the home - a problem that was 
not identified until the early 1980s - after mining stopped in the Navajo 
nations. Again, it was impossible to do anything about the problem before it 
was identified. Producing figures that relate to illnesses that resulted 
from an unknown cause that was later identified is no guide what will happen 
in the future.

However, radon gas is not a hazard that is unique to uranium rich areas; 
anyone living on granite, for example, is also at risk. Do you suggest we 
evacuate Aberdeen on the 'precautionary principle'?

Colin Bignell

On Sep 22, 7:37 am, Doug  wrote:
> On 21 Sep, 17:19, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>
> > "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here> wrote:
>
> > > Taking precautions does not mean not doing anything that carries any risk.
> > > If humankind had done that, we would still be living in caves, assuming we
> > > had not simply died out. To go back to my question; are you afraid of being
> > > struck by lightning, which is far more dangerous than nuclear generation or
> > > storage? If yes, why? If no, why not?
>
> > Simple, Duhg's reaction to science and technology is primarily primitive
> > religious. Nuclear power is big bad juju. Lightning is sent from the
> > gods. Hence nuclear is evil meddling with forces of nature. Being hit by
> > lightning is divine retribution.
>
> > Duhg needs no evidence, his entire life is ruled by a belief system
> > which is primarily irrational.
>
> Filth's reaction is press on regardless of who dies from pollution,
> radiation or poisoning as long as it isn't him.
>

Its ironic that you prove what Steve says in your reply.

Fod

Doug  wrote:

> On 21 Sep, 17:19, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
[snip]

> > Duhg needs no evidence, his entire life is ruled by a belief system
> > which is primarily irrational.
> 
> Filth's reaction is press on regardless of who dies from pollution,
> radiation or poisoning as long as it isn't him.

My reaction is evidence based.

List the individuals in the UK who have died as a result of exposure to
radiation. There are so few you could probably name all of them if you
tried.

Doug  wrote:

> "# 1500% increase in incidence of testicular and ovarian cancer in
> children on Navaho reservation in uranium mining area
> # 500% increase in bone cancer in children affected by uranium
> # 250% increase in leukemia (all ages) in the Navaho population
> # 200% increase in each of the following non-cancer effects:
> miscarriage, infant death, congenital defects, genetic abnormalities,
> learning disorders.
> Baseline for 1-4: Navajo residents living near Uranium facilities were
> compared to Navajo residents in non-uranium areas"

More unattributed quotes.

Would that be because it comes from the website www.nirs.org which is an
anti-nuclear power website which specifically offers copy and paste
quotes for those against nuclear power but too stupid to do their own
research with a section headed "Reports, Papers and Info You Can Use"?

Note that even on that website the claims made above by Duhng are quoted
without any reference to the peer-reviewed journal in which they
appeared.

Derek  wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 23:34:43 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
> wrote:
> 
> >"# 1500% increase in incidence of testicular and ovarian cancer in
> >children on Navaho reservation in uranium mining area
> 
> Which is very, very rare indeed.
> 
> ># 500% increase in bone cancer in children affected by uranium
> ># 250% increase in leukemia (all ages) in the Navaho population
> ># 200% increase in each of the following non-cancer effects:
> >miscarriage, infant death, congenital defects, genetic abnormalities,
> >learning disorders.
> 
> All of which can be accounted for by improved diagnosis and an
> increase in population density as the Navajo moved into civilised
> communities and came into contact with white men.
> 
> >Baseline for 1-4: Navajo residents living near Uranium facilities were
> >compared to Navajo residents in non-uranium areas"
> 
> Yes moving to "uranium areas" itself causes clustering.
> 
> It's not that long ago since indians were shot on sight, men women and
> children.

I don't think any of hte above statistics are reliable. Even on the
website that Duhng magpied the quote from, the data is not qualified.
And data presented as percentages like this is entirely meaningless.
Unless and until we know the size of the population and the number of
individuals affected the raw percentages mean nothing. We don't even
know what the baseline is.

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1ino86b.1gbzdzmkaltdjN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Derek  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 23:34:43 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"# 1500% increase in incidence of testicular and ovarian cancer in
>> >children on Navaho reservation in uranium mining area
>>
>> Which is very, very rare indeed.
>>
>> ># 500% increase in bone cancer in children affected by uranium
>> ># 250% increase in leukemia (all ages) in the Navaho population
>> ># 200% increase in each of the following non-cancer effects:
>> >miscarriage, infant death, congenital defects, genetic abnormalities,
>> >learning disorders.
>>
>> All of which can be accounted for by improved diagnosis and an
>> increase in population density as the Navajo moved into civilised
>> communities and came into contact with white men.
>>
>> >Baseline for 1-4: Navajo residents living near Uranium facilities were
>> >compared to Navajo residents in non-uranium areas"
>>
>> Yes moving to "uranium areas" itself causes clustering.
>>
>> It's not that long ago since indians were shot on sight, men women and
>> children.
>
> I don't think any of hte above statistics are reliable. Even on the
> website that Duhng magpied the quote from, the data is not qualified.
> And data presented as percentages like this is entirely meaningless.
> Unless and until we know the size of the population and the number of
> individuals affected the raw percentages mean nothing. We don't even
> know what the baseline is.

He probably thinks baseline is what his cycle-sound system delivers....

"  cupra"  gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> I don't think any of hte above statistics are reliable. Even on the
>> website that Duhng magpied the quote from, the data is not qualified.
>> And data presented as percentages like this is entirely meaningless.
>> Unless and until we know the size of the population and the number of
>> individuals affected the raw percentages mean nothing. We don't even
>> know what the baseline is.

> He probably thinks baseline is what his cycle-sound system delivers....

He probably thinks "baseline" is an arse-crack.

Derek  wrote:

> Nice round figures aren't they.

Very, and no standard deviation, no sample size, not even an indication
over how many years the "study" was performed. If 1500% indicated 15
people at one location and 1 from a smaller population at another
location then the values really are meaningless.

Other, more reputable, studies estimate the risk of living in an area
contaminated by uranium mine tailings as doubling the rates of (some)
cancers. Both Australia and Canada seem to do better than the USA in
this respect. Possibly because the real killers in this respect are
wind-blown dust and radon emissions. The USA was, in the past, extremely
careless in this respect.

OTOH, setting these values in context, it was estimated that *half* of
all the children at Love Canal had tumours as a result of the chemical
contaminants dumped on site. The US attitude towards pollution and
dumping has been pretty grim in every respect and it's clear that dumped
chemical pollutants represent a much greater health risk than controlled
uranium mining.

Also setting the figure in context, coal miners generally run about 7
times the risk of getting lung cancer of the general population, and
that statistic is dwarfed by the incidence of pneumoconiosis in coal
miners.

On 22 Sep, 17:45, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Derek  wrote:
> > Nice round figures aren't they.
>
> Very, and no standard deviation, no sample size, not even an indication
> over how many years the "study" was performed.

I think the technical term for them is "GollumStats".

Steve Firth wrote:
> Derek  wrote:
> 
>> Nice round figures aren't they.
> 
> Very, and no standard deviation, no sample size, not even an indication
> over how many years the "study" was performed. If 1500% indicated 15
> people at one location and 1 from a smaller population at another
> location then the values really are meaningless.
> 
> Other, more reputable, studies estimate the risk of living in an area
> contaminated by uranium mine tailings as doubling the rates of (some)
> cancers. Both Australia and Canada seem to do better than the USA in
> this respect. Possibly because the real killers in this respect are
> wind-blown dust and radon emissions. The USA was, in the past, extremely
> careless in this respect.
> 
> OTOH, setting these values in context, it was estimated that *half* of
> all the children at Love Canal had tumours as a result of the chemical
> contaminants dumped on site. The US attitude towards pollution and
> dumping has been pretty grim in every respect and it's clear that dumped
> chemical pollutants represent a much greater health risk than controlled
> uranium mining.

Indeed, the USA is the only place where so much pollution was dumped 
into one river it was possible to set fire to it. Even the USSR didn't 
go that far.
-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin