nuclear

[TRUCKER]

I see by the news papers that gas is going up by 35% and that it could go up again by another 40% by christmas. The scottish goverment should reverse their policy on not building nuclear power stations in scotland .WE need something thats cheaper because the way prices are going people will not be able to heat their homes.

[EDDIE]

i think they should reversse the policy and make solar and wind energy affordable to the working class people.
When u think about the world has to much dependence on oil and thats something that has to change and sooner rather than later

[KEEP_ON_TRUCKIN]

yeah lets go nuclear - build a power plant in Caithness and keep people in work!

[Lady In Bed]

Do I get a hint of sarcasm K O T? Many people relied on DNPDE for their daily bread. I would vote for a new establishment in Caithness. Please do not give all the reasons why it should not hapen as this is old ground being raked up again.:roll:

[Whitewater]

Nuclear is the only viable source left to us. We lost it all because of short sighted government policy. We are now having to import oil and gas, we are at the mercy of the supplier, too much oil in muslim hands, too much gas under Russian control. They have us by the short and curlies.

[Sapphire2803]

Yep, nuclear gets the vote in my house. Topped up with renewable energy of various types.
A nice affordable wind turbine in my garden, one that will supply enough to be worth having. Not some £8000 battery charger.

[KEEP_ON_TRUCKIN]

Do I get a hint of sarcasm K O T? Many people relied on DNPDE for their daily bread. I would vote for a new establishment in Caithness. Please do not give all the reasons why it should not hapen as this is old ground being raked up again.:roll:

Erm NO - NO SARCASM - I think it's a real possibility for the way forward.

Don't mistake me for some of the other orgers than enjoy sarcasm and negativity!

[mccaugm]

I agree although nuclear seems to get a bad press at least its available. Re more natural forms of energy, if the possibilities are there then we should use them. I am sick of the people going on about it negatively, its a neccessity so we must make use of every resource we have.

[Lady In Bed]

Erm NO - NO SARCASM - I think it's a real possibility for the way forward.

Don't mistake me for some of the other orgers than enjoy sarcasm and negativity!

Sorry, I stand corrected:confused

[oldchemist]

Nuclear is the only available option in the short to medium term. Other technologies are still in their infancy but may be useful in the future. Much as I would like to see a nuclear power plant in Caithness the sensible location is closer to centres of population. Existing nuclear power sites are the most likely location.

[TBH]

So, which part of Caithness should they ruin with radiation. They have done dounreay, how about Clyth?

[Tubthumper]

More nuclear please. Also more 'alternative' energy that doesn't reduce the quality of life.

[TBH]

More Nuclear more luekemia.

[Tubthumper]

More Nuclear more luekemia.
Nah........

[TBH]

Nah........Nah, you don't want more luekemia cases?

[Tubthumper]

Nah, you don't want more luekemia cases?
Don't be putting words in my mouth now.

[TBH]

Don't be putting words in my mouth now.The point is, there is a link between cases of luekemia in areas where nuclear power stations are situated.

[Tubthumper]

The point is, there is a link between cases of luekemia in areas where nuclear power stations are situated.
Tell me more...

[TBH]

Tell me more...Was that a tell me more because you are interested or was that sarcasm? I can't tell the difference anymore.:D

[Tubthumper]

I was meaning tell me more because I'm interested. I don't believe there is a clear link, but I'm willing to listen

[TBH]

I was meaning tell me more because I'm interested. I don't believe there is a clear link, but I'm willing to listenI didn't say their was a clear link. Although there is enough of a link to warrant concern.

http://greennuclearbutterfly.blogspot.com/2007/12/nuclear-power-causes-leukemia.html

Circumstantial evidence I'll grant you but is it worth taking a chance with?

[Tubthumper]

How about debating a circumstantial link between cars and unnaturally high death-rates of young people...
Acceptable Risk? Should we take the chance?

[TBH]

How about debating a circumstantial link between cars and unnaturally high death-rates of young people...
Acceptable Risk? Should we take the chance?
Maybe the insurance companies already have recognised that fact with higher insurance for people of a certain age.

[Tubthumper]

Maybe the insurance companies already have recognised that fact with higher insurance for people of a certain age.
A fair point, but I fear it may be as much to do with higher risk = more accidents = more payouts for insurance companies = increased premiums. It certainly doesnt seem to be a bad-driving/speeding deterrent or cutting the accident rate.

[TBH]

A fair point, but I fear it may be as much to do with higher risk = more accidents = more payouts for insurance companies = increased premiums. It certainly doesnt seem to be a bad-driving/speeding deterrent or cutting the accident rate.That would be the cynical view, hell, we are both right!
Insurance companies are rubbing their hands with glee.:eek:
Kids will never stop speeding, not that speeding is the preserve of the young but it doesn't matter how many die it will never be a deterant.

[wifie]

Och it is lovely to see two Orgers gettin on! :) But I think you are wandering off the subject gentlemen! ;)

[Tubthumper]

No Nuclear!!!

[TBH]

No Nuclear!!!Glad that you have re-appraised your opinion.;)

[Whitewater]

The point is, there is a link between cases of luekemia in areas where nuclear power stations are situated.

Where is your information coming from???

In the late 80s and 90s a national study was carried out by Comarie (or some similar name, can't remember now, I will have to look it up) because there was such a fuss made about it. It proved that there was no link between the areas where nuclear power plants were located and luekemia, in fact it actually proved that the incidence of luekemia in some plant areas was actually below the national average. Dounreay was one such place.

[Tubthumper]

Where is your information coming from???

In the late 80s and 90s a national study was carried out by Comarie (or some similar name, can't remember now, I will have to look it up) because there was such a fuss made about it. It proved that there was no link between the areas where nuclear power plants were located and luekemia, in fact it actually proved that the incidence of luekemia in some plant areas was actually below the national average. Dounreay was one such place.
In that case - More nuclear!!!

[Tubthumper]

I reckon there is some risk associated with all energy sources:

Oil = pollution, asthma, global warming, supplies to run out, held to ransom by dodgy regimes.
Gas = pretty much the same except more sinister dodgy regimes
Coal = stinky, polluting, have to rely on dodgy unsafe mine owners in China & Poland
Wind = bloody great fans in your back garden
Tidal = Loads of power twice a day, scuba divers needed to oil turbines
Solar = no Eastenders at night, Caithness is knackered
Biomass = huge swathes of land given over to oilseed rape etc, the whole place stinking of chips
Nuclear = body-melting leftovers buried deep underground
I don't want to return to the dark ages - A blend of energy sources is the answer, including nuke, wind, tidal, gas, oil, coal, biomass and anything else. I don't want to miss eastenders!

[TBH]

Where is your information coming from???

In the late 80s and 90s a national study was carried out by Comarie (or some similar name, can't remember now, I will have to look it up) because there was such a fuss made about it. It proved that there was no link between the areas where nuclear power plants were located and luekemia, in fact it actually proved that the incidence of luekemia in some plant areas was actually below the national average. Dounreay was one such place.You rest on your laurels whilst people are dying of cancer and then tell me Nuclear is the way to go.

[Whitewater]

People die of cancer for many reasons and I can assure you I'm not resting on any laurels and I have people in my family die of cancer but it was not activated through nuclear power, asbestos was the cause.

[Tubthumper]

You rest on your laurels whilst people are dying of cancer and then tell me Nuclear is the way to go.
People are dying of cancer as a result of a huge range of external influences, including sunshine, air pollution, lead from car exhaust and many more. People are also dying of cancer because it's built into their genes.
In fact people are dying in huge numbers, and nuclear power has nothing to do with it.
You're hysterical, man!

[TBH]

People die of cancer for many reasons and I can assure you I'm not resting on any laurels and I have people in my family die of cancer but it was not activated through nuclear power, asbestos was the cause.I have had many family members die from Cancer, most through working in the nuclear power industry.

[TBH]

People are dying of cancer as a result of a huge range of external influences, including sunshine, air pollution, lead from car exhaust and many more. People are also dying of cancer because it's built into their genes.
In fact people are dying in huge numbers, and nuclear power has nothing to do with it.
You're hysterical, man!I am far form hysterical 'man', I am cool, calm and collected!

[Tubthumper]

I have had many family members die from Cancer, most through working in the nuclear power industry.
Indeed......

[TBH]

Indeed......Indeed....

[Pink Lippy]

Variations on a Theme

Nucular fusion,
Is just an illusion,
Say friends of the earth,
In the town of my birth.

But I think they're wrong,
To bang the wind gong,
And sully the earth,
Near the town of my birth.

Deuterium and tritium,
We need just a bittie'em,
To power the earth,
From Pentland to Perth.

While we're here wishin',
Let's build some more fission,
Some say it caused cancer,
Probability's chancer.

We've studied the stats,
On us, the lab rats,
But the numbers are small,
And prove nothing at all.

Perchance they did die,
By gamma or pi,
But the numbers are small,
And prove nothing at all.

Arise all ye doubters!
Ye arties and shouters!
So few have died,
In this we take pride.

[Kevin Milkins]

So, which part of Caithness should they ruin with radiation. They have done dounreay, how about Clyth?

If Dounreay is considerd to be done ,why not just done it some more.
Build a new up to date plant there and continue where it all started .
At least the locals have time to get used to it and many have come to depend on it.

[Welcomefamily]

Anyone fancy hugging a wind turbine?? im off to gym now perhaps we should connect the treadmills to generators.

[Tubthumper]

im off to gym now perhaps we should connect the treadmills to generators.
If we're not careful that's what we'll end up relying on for power. Switch on people, there's a power crisis just around the corner!

[saffy100]

Seems that we will never all agree on what power is best...but what is clear is that people don't want wind power and are not keen on nuclear...but we have to decide on something as the other availible options are very expensive and running out.

I know there are plenty of renewable resources, but they are all still in early stages of development....and i doubt that any of them would be readily availible i the near future to provide us with enough energy to heat our homes.

[Tubthumper]

I bet there will be a lot less groaning about nuclear power when the lights start going out...
Might do a lot for the population. What else is there to do when there's no power.

[TBH]

I bet there will be a lot less groaning about nuclear power when the lights start going out...
Might do a lot for the population. What else is there to do when there's no power.People survived before without power, maybe it's about time we stopped taking it for granted.

[scorrie]

I didn't say their was a clear link. Although there is enough of a link to warrant concern.

http://greennuclearbutterfly.blogspot.com/2007/12/nuclear-power-causes-leukemia.html

Circumstantial evidence I'll grant you but is it worth taking a chance with?

These studies always seem to come with some sort of caveat regarding the findings. It usually comes down to one side interpreting it the way they WANT it to read.

Take for example this page on Healthynet:-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Children and young people who live near a nuclear plant are far more likely to develop leukemia, a major study has discovered.

Death rates increased by up to 24 per cent in children aged nine or younger, depending on how close the children lived to a plant. In young people up to the age of 25, the death rate rose as high as 18 per cent in some areas.

Overall incidence rates of leukemia increased by 21 per cent in children aged up to nine years, and by 10 per cent in young people aged up to 25 years.

The study is one of the first to take a global view of the problem. The researchers looked at 17 study papers that covered 136 nuclear sites in the UK, Canada, France, the USA, Germany, Japan and Spain.

As nuclear plants are usually sited in rural areas, the population size has often been too small for a meaningful scientific study. The research team, from the Medical University of South Carolina, were able to measure the health of the local populations before and after a nuclear plant was installed.

(Source: European Journal of Cancer Care, 2007; 16: 355-63)."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That seems to be a clear cut piece of evidence, yet, if you look at the abstract of the report they quote from in The European Journal of Cancer care, you find this:-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The meta-analysis combined and statistically analysed studies of childhood leukaemia and nuclear facilities. Focus was on studies that calculated standardized rates for individual facilities. Due to variability between study designs, eight separate analyses were performed stratified by age and zone. One hundred and thirty-six sites were used in at least one analysis. Unadjusted, fixed effects and random effects models were used. Meta-rates greater than one were found in all models at all stratification levels often achieving statistical significance. Caution must be used when interpreting these results. The meta-analysis was able to show an increase in childhood leukaemia near nuclear facilities, but does not support a hypothesis to explain the excess. Each type of model utilized has limitations. Fixed effects models give greater weight to larger studies; however, population density may be a risk factor. Random effects models give greater weight to smaller studies that may be more likely to be affected by publication bias. A limitation of the overall study design is that standardized rates must be available for individual sites which led to exclusion of studies that only calculated rates for multiple sites and those that presented other statistical methods. Further, dose-response studies do not support excess rates found near nuclear facilities. However, it cannot be ignored that the majority of studies have found elevated rates, although not usually statistically significant."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hardly the same degree of "certainty" implied by the passage on Healthynet.

I am in favour of Nuclear Energy. There is an inherent risk involved with almost all forms of energy production. Fossil Fuels are pumping out pollution and greenhouse gases. Try running your PC on candle power and see how much fun you have living the life of the Dark Ages.

For those opposed to Nuclear Power, get used to ever bigger bills, as the companies involved bend you over that Oil Barrel and Pump it up your Gas Outlet ;)

[TBH]

These studies always seem to come with some sort of caveat regarding the findings. It usually comes down to one side interpreting it the way they WANT it to read.

Take for example this page on Healthynet:-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Children and young people who live near a nuclear plant are far more likely to develop leukemia, a major study has discovered.

Death rates increased by up to 24 per cent in children aged nine or younger, depending on how close the children lived to a plant. In young people up to the age of 25, the death rate rose as high as 18 per cent in some areas.

Overall incidence rates of leukemia increased by 21 per cent in children aged up to nine years, and by 10 per cent in young people aged up to 25 years.

The study is one of the first to take a global view of the problem. The researchers looked at 17 study papers that covered 136 nuclear sites in the UK, Canada, France, the USA, Germany, Japan and Spain.

As nuclear plants are usually sited in rural areas, the population size has often been too small for a meaningful scientific study. The research team, from the Medical University of South Carolina, were able to measure the health of the local populations before and after a nuclear plant was installed.

(Source: European Journal of Cancer Care, 2007; 16: 355-63)."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That seems to be a clear cut piece of evidence, yet, if you look at the abstract of the report they quote from in The European Journal of Cancer care, you find this:-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The meta-analysis combined and statistically analysed studies of childhood leukaemia and nuclear facilities. Focus was on studies that calculated standardized rates for individual facilities. Due to variability between study designs, eight separate analyses were performed stratified by age and zone. One hundred and thirty-six sites were used in at least one analysis. Unadjusted, fixed effects and random effects models were used. Meta-rates greater than one were found in all models at all stratification levels often achieving statistical significance. Caution must be used when interpreting these results. The meta-analysis was able to show an increase in childhood leukaemia near nuclear facilities, but does not support a hypothesis to explain the excess. Each type of model utilized has limitations. Fixed effects models give greater weight to larger studies; however, population density may be a risk factor. Random effects models give greater weight to smaller studies that may be more likely to be affected by publication bias. A limitation of the overall study design is that standardized rates must be available for individual sites which led to exclusion of studies that only calculated rates for multiple sites and those that presented other statistical methods. Further, dose-response studies do not support excess rates found near nuclear facilities. However, it cannot be ignored that the majority of studies have found elevated rates, although not usually statistically significant."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hardly the same degree of "certainty" implied by the passage on Healthynet.

I am in favour of Nuclear Energy. There is an inherent risk involved with almost all forms of energy production. Fossil Fuels are pumping out pollution and greenhouse gases. Try running your PC on candle power and see how much fun you have living the life of the Dark Ages.

For those opposed to Nuclear Power, get used to ever bigger bills, as the companies involved bend you over that Oil Barrel and Pump it up your Gas Outlet ;)
What is the mystery element to support the hypothesis?
Re-no ebergy, I wouldn't mind if I couldn't run the pc, It would be no great loss.

[teenybash]

What is the mystery element to support the hypothesis?
Re-no ebergy, I wouldn't mind if I couldn't run the pc, It would be no great loss.


Awe, it would be a miss....you would miss the org and all the batter, debates etc...............:Razz

[TBH]

Awe, it would be a miss....you would miss the org and all the batter, debates etc...............:RazzYou are correct, I would miss the craic but I would adjust and learn to live without it. We humans are a very resilient species.:D

[scorrie]

What is the mystery element to support the hypothesis?
Re-no ebergy, I wouldn't mind if I couldn't run the pc, It would be no great loss.

You can check the article online. Mind you, it'll cost you!! You only get the abstract free. Anyway, the point is that there is NO definitive article that I am aware of, on the link between Nuclear Power Plant location and leukaemia. There was a Horizon programme in fairly recent times that largely debunked the connection between Chernobyl and related cancers in the area. As the American expert so succinctly put it at the close of the show, "Chernobyl is a piss-poor carcinogen"

I suspect you are in a tiny minority who would not miss both their PC and energy in general.

The world according to TBH:-

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i237/scorrie57/caveman3.jpg

"Let us destroy this evil path to progress!!" ;)

[TBH]

Ah, you think so much of me Scorrie, cheers buddy.;)
'Let us destroy this evil path to progres', Are you summing up mankinds mindset?

[Tubthumper]

Here's one, link between power and cancer. Surprisingly robust research. And reported by the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/933678.stm

"Across the country, this could mean more than 3,000 premature deaths annually, roughly the number of people killed every year on the UK's roads."

Nuclear Power? No actually, increased incidence of cancer in those living in the vicinity of overhead power lines. Just the normal electricity lines, not ones carrying atomic electrical power

[Melancholy Man]

Suppressing rants about Salmond, I am for nuclear energy. I thought it was only neo-cons who wanted cheap oil and gas.

[TBH]

Suppressing rants about Salmond, I am for nuclear energy. I thought it was only neo-cons who wanted cheap oil and gas.Neocons and Cheap in the same sentence? Surely Neocon and free, i.e, stolen ergo free?

[Melancholy Man]

In what way is neo-connery about resource theft in any way more than that paleo-luddite smashing the stone?

[TBH]

In what way is neo-connery about resource theft in any way more than that paleo-luddite smashing the stone?Or smashing the loom? Big difference.

[Melancholy Man]

What the smeg are you talking about?

[TBH]

What the smeg are you talking about?
I thought you were typing about Luddites?

[Melancholy Man]

Aye, I was. As you seemed to promoting the popular perception of neo-connery (i.e. as much to do with Irving Kristol, Ronald Reagan et al. as burning witches is to Christianity), I assumed you were suggesting that the immense ineptitude and corruption of the past few years is not to be found in every human society since said bloke in Scorrie's piccie.

As for leukemia and nuclear power stations, yes it is a theoretical risk, but I understood the studies had determined that clusters around stations were to do with influxes of individuals from elsewhere in the country, either demographically or by bringing some as yet unknown causative agent in. It's been going on since the Industrial Revolution.

Also, the notion that with a sudden disappearance of hydrocarbons all we'd have to do is turn off our pooters, it won't be like The Road (a book which should come with razor blades to slash your wrists). Maybe more like Survivors.

Has anyone mentioned The Horses (http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-horses/)? And a big slobbery kiss to whomever identifies the link between this (http://www.worcesterart.org/Images/Collection/Photos/American/1934.65.jpg) and my recent posts.

[scorrie]

Aye, I was. As you seemed to promoting the popular perception of neo-connery (i.e. as much to do with Irving Kristol, Ronald Reagan et al. as burning witches is to Christianity), I assumed you were suggesting that the immense ineptitude and corruption of the past few years is not to be found in every human society since said bloke in Scorrie's piccie.

As for leukemia and nuclear power stations, yes it is a theoretical risk, but I understood the studies had determined that clusters around stations were to do with influxes of individuals from elsewhere in the country, either demographically or by bringing some as yet unknown causative agent in. It's been going on since the Industrial Revolution.

Also, the notion that with a sudden disappearance of hydrocarbons all we'd have to do is turn off our pooters, it won't be like The Road (a book which should come with razor blades to slash your wrists). Maybe more like Survivors.

Has anyone mentioned The Horses (http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-horses/)? And a big slobbery kiss to whomever identifies the link between this (http://www.worcesterart.org/Images/Collection/Photos/American/1934.65.jpg) and my recent posts.

Quakers. Keep the kiss though!!

[Melancholy Man]

Handshake, though?