If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options
Nuclear power stations: "no cancer risk"
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,722 Bot
To which I say: yeah, right, whatever.
Story.
Odd how this report comes out just before the government want to expand the network of nuclear power stations, I must say.
It's one thing proving it, but how anyone can say living next door to Sellafield isn't bad for the health is unfathomable.
Story.
Odd how this report comes out just before the government want to expand the network of nuclear power stations, I must say.
It's one thing proving it, but how anyone can say living next door to Sellafield isn't bad for the health is unfathomable.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Funnily enough this is a very similar argument to that over at the global warming thread. Just because something hasn't (yet) been categorically proven with physical evidence it does not mean is not happening; and we can still confidently say it is. Are they claiming that the increased cases of cancer reported in the vicinity of all nuclear power stations are just 'coincidence' or something?
There was a similar story a few days ago regarding high tension power lines. For decades it has been observed that there have been big increases on certain conditions (mostly cancer I think) in children who live close to overhead power lines. But just the other day someone came and said they could not find any proof to confirm it. So all is alright then...
hmm so that confirms the precense of all unprovenable things, if you cannot prove a link, let alone a causal link, it does normally mean there is no link.....
HOWEVER id like to see some indpendent research myself :rolleyes: cause we still do not know yet really on this topic, im yet to hear some myself
personally IMHO living near a power station isnt enough reason to get cancer, it really isnt, ive heard hearsay evidence to the contrary but nothing that can be backed up like % incidences of cancer etc etc not by "my sons got leukeimia i live near a powr station so it must be that"
do we actually read about how much influence they have over politics? over the media? over research groups? over the various channels which how they influence politics and media and research groups? how often are there any tenacious investigative reporting regarding this?
not cancerous? please. not SO cancerous perhaps.
Living near nuclear power stations does, though, which is why this report is so bizarre. Why there are so many cancer hotspots near Sellafield is obviously just a coincidence.
I don't care how many reports say otherwise, living by nuclear installations, under power lines and sending your kid to a school with a phone mast can't possibly be good. I live on a main road, and my windows are always filthy- no doubt a report will say I'm fine, but I am breathing that muck in.
I'd rather have some hard facts to go on before we start making decisions about the source of electricity we should use for the next century.
As far as sources go, Hydro is the future. Though only because the public at large believe that nuclear is detrimental to the environment.
But they have not looked openly and with un-prejudiced minds at it. Nuclear waste has thus far been treated as a cancer, even though nuclear waste's impact on the environment is secluded to the vicinity in which is deemed to be expendable and of course because of disasters like Chernobyl. Although its effects are extensive to all organic life (within the aforementioned vicinity) it is not impossible to work around this. However, due to previous misconceptions open-mindedness lacks about nuclear energy as a viable option.
Fusion is of course a viable option(if achieved) but Hydro and Wind Turbines are at least available.. as is nuclear.
As should be Warp speed.
:razz:
I agree, but with none of the side effects. I admit finding a workable global option for dumping is a problem.. but only a political one. The theory is sound!
You bury it and cover it up, many scientists are convinced this makes it safe.
it wouldnt be as serious an issue if HM goverment werent so cheap about it.....
can some show me some statitics to say theres an increased chance of cancer from living to a certain proximity of a nuclear power station?
living near a dump site yes living near the station itself though im slightly skeptical and are keeping an openmind
Woah woah woah
Hold on there. What about the effect it has on underground water? It does not make the radioactive material 'safe' it just helps reduce the radioactive emissions from being transmitted outside of the container it is buried in.
It is not buried in a container. If you do not understand the theory I referenced then you obviously do not know much about this issue.
Not safe, I am not saying so.. but workable yes. It is true that the dumping of it in the past has been atrocious, I am not condoning it, I am merely stating a fact. Given the right amenities for dumping, taking into consideration a workable environmental quarantine, nuclear power is by far our best WORKABLE option thus far. Of course we all live in a world of evolution and it is not necessarily the ultimate solution but by today’s standards, if the right safety precautions are put into place globally then we have a new generation of fuel. Either that or you will be seeing many more third world Chernobyl’s in the future.
personally its a stop gap until fusion which is at the moment 75 yrs away
Either way, Nuclear is the best current solution until we grab fusion. Its less polluting to the Atmosphere, we can just bury the waste (Why don't we blast it into space? Its not like it'll come back unless some annoyed aliens return it.), and it provides alot of power. Indeed.
If we ever globally were able to commit to it, space would be a very viable option for the waste. YES, it provides more than enough power!
Hmm... :chin:
What theory? You haven't referenced any theory.
Fusion is happening now, ie there will be a fusion powered station running in the next 100 years. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4328597.stm
FYI, Hydro, Wind, Wave and Geo-thermal are all either too unpredictable, or too hard to get at. Hydro needs VAST amounts of water flowing at reasonably fast speeds, for example.