Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

1 2 3 4

AIBU?

this new nuclear reactor in Somerset?

88 replies

OoozingCervix · 21/10/2013 18:39

How is something that produces dangerous waste, that needs storing for half a million years, a good idea?

OP posts:

Report

Shenanagins · 22/10/2013 10:20

I think we need to face up to the very hard reality is there is no other viable option if we want to maintain our current levels of energy use.

We have rising energy costs that are putting many into fuel poverty which will only get worse the more reliant we become on Putin.
We were sold the myth that renewables were the way forward but as we are seeing are not.

For those who don't want it but want cheap fuel and their lights to stay on, what do you suggest we do as we are quickly running out of time and bright ideas.

PatoBanton · 22/10/2013 10:25

'cars are much more dangerous than nuclear reactors'

yes of course.

ontheallotment · 22/10/2013 10:31

1970-1992 nuclear industry fatalities (worldwide): 31.

Care to find the figures for road traffic accidents pato? You should probably include those killed in drilling and refining the oil too.

PatoBanton · 22/10/2013 10:32

We're at cross purposes. I'm not talking about numbers of fatalities. I'm talking about the type of damage caused.

But I think you know that.

PatoBanton · 22/10/2013 10:34

and if you took the number of people likely to be killed by a single power plant, and the number of people likely to be killed by a single car, you would have a different set of stats entirely.

It's not worth arguing over. I know cars can kill people. I still think nuclear power is too dangerous.

MinesAPintOfTea · 22/10/2013 10:36

What "type of damage caused" is worse than death Pato?

specialsubject · 22/10/2013 10:36

That is an utterly specious argument as obviously one car will not kill as many people as one faulty nuclear plant.

tot up fatalities and injuries if you have the stats.

ontheallotment · 22/10/2013 10:41

car accidents cause lifelong injuries too. Roads damage the environment. And as for the asthma cases caused by the emmisions from vehicles - that's huge too. I'm not sure what your point is either paton.

I think people find cars too convenient to give up in spite of the risks actually.

ontheallotment · 22/10/2013 10:43

If as a nation we had less than 20 cars in the country, that argument might work special. As it is...

DreamingofSummer · 22/10/2013 10:49

We have to face the facts. We need nuclear power we also need shale gas.

Apologies to Jonathon Porritt and his green friends but if we are to have long term, secure energy he have to build nuclear and have shale gas plants.

ApocalypseCheeseToastie · 22/10/2013 10:59

TBH i'm just happy it's not being put in the nuclear dumping ground of Great Britain.......aka Cumbria.

Now Southerners too can be subjected to childhood cancer rates above the national average. Yaaaayyyyy. (( ^that was sarcasm for the benefit of the influx of stupid we appear to have had recently.^ ))

WMittens · 22/10/2013 11:28

PatoBanton

'cars are much more dangerous than nuclear reactors'

yes of course.

Well, yes, they are.

There are some people on MN who don't get the fact that risk is a product of frequency vs. severity. Nuclear risks: very high severity, very low frequency; car risks: low severity, very high frequency.

Air travel is the safest form of travel. "But, but, but! Over 400 people could die in one go!" Yes, but incidents very rarely happen.

WMittens · 22/10/2013 11:30

PatonBanton

I still think nuclear power is too dangerous.

That's fine, I've not problem with that; what is your opinion based on?

WMittens · 22/10/2013 11:30

*no, not 'not'.

PatoBanton · 22/10/2013 11:36

Look what I am trying to say is that a car out of control is far less damaging than a nuclear power plant out of control.

But some of you are more interested in how many cars go wrong versus how many nuclear power plants go wrong.

That's nothing to do with what I'm saying. Obviously more cars go wrong, and a lot of people are killed by cars. When there is a car accident the damage caused can normally be contained to at most, several other cars, and thus probably fewer than say 20 casualties. That's a really bad accident.

We can 'control' the damage in terms of the longevity of its effects.

When a nuclear plant goes wrong, there can be massive environmental damage (as well as human casualties as a direct result of the accident) and these effects can last for years and years and well, centuries.

And often there are massive problems with containing the after effects, as seen in Fukushima, Chernobyl etc etc.

Is no one really getting that or are you all trying to pretend it isn't true for argument's sake?

PatoBanton · 22/10/2013 11:36

and why are there about five different spellings of my name on this thread? Is it really hard to read because if it is, I'll change it.

Shenanagins · 22/10/2013 11:42

Ok pato i get your point but what do you suggest we do to combat rising energy costs coupled with an over reliance on Russia for fuel?

PatoBanton · 22/10/2013 11:48

I have no idea at all.

WMittens · 22/10/2013 11:55

PatoBanton

Is no one really getting that or are you all trying to pretend it isn't true for argument's sake?

Do you really not understand about frequency in the calculation of risk?

PatoBanton · 22/10/2013 12:00

I'm not interested in that, though, WMittens. No offence.

Sorry, perhaps I shouldn't have voiced an opinion on this thread.

Shenanagins · 22/10/2013 12:01

Pato the point is that nobody likes the idea of nuclear power and its very nice to have principles but the reality is there is no effective alternative.

We all use electricity and are reluctant to give up all our gadgets that make our lives easier, gadgets such as lights, heating, etc.

WMittens · 22/10/2013 12:04

PatoBanton

I'm not interested in that, though, WMittens. No offence.

BUT THAT'S THE ENTIRE CRUX OF RISK!

Just because you're not interested in it, doesn't mean it's not real.

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Email address

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

MinesAPintOfTea · 22/10/2013 12:05

Pato the use of frequency and likelihood in the calculation of risk is vital when deciding what should and shouldn't go ahead.

Far more people died each year due to asthma and other breathing conditions when we powered everything by coal than have ever been killed by civil nuclear power. There isn't a perfectly safe way to get all the power the UK needs, and with climate change looming nuclear power is likely to be the safest way.

Don't forget the lights will start going out before this power plant can be built because of the "not sures" holding it up.

Tslade123 · 22/10/2013 12:07

An where do you think the French have their Nuclear stations - On the English Channel. Whats the difference?

JenaiMorris · 22/10/2013 12:13

Apocalypse there's a nuclear power station there already - Hinkley Point opened nearly 50 years ago.

They're not confined to the North (or am I missing something?).

Flip

1 2 3 4

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.