Home Politics & Debate
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 ✨
Options

Nuclear power stations: "no cancer risk"

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.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
«1

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i dont mind more nuclear fission power stations built, as long as its coupled with increased research and more alternative forms, since the problem with renewables is a non guranteed uncontrollable supply so we need something stable to make up for fluctuations, and at the moment, nuclear fission is the only way, just try to keep it away from populated areas, and no matter how expensive it is, go for the deep level burial of waste, which is the safest and msot expensive option
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I wouldn't move in next door, but if there is no evidence of a causal link, what else do you expect them to say? And of course they will publish the evidence at the same time as they promote nuclear power - they want to win the argument.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No single person will ever grow to love nuclear power but I fear it is the only way forward. Personally I think it is time we scrapped electricity and cars all together and paved over our roads with grass and trees so none of these things will be needed however I acknowledge both these ideas as fantasy. In reality unless you want the truly grotesque wind turbines in every back garden of every house in every town in every rural area across every metre of the country nuclear power is the only option.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    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.
    Of course it is bad for you.

    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...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Of course it is bad for you.

    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"
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i think we should CONSIDER why we only hear about NUCLEAR POWERPLANTS and never on the NUCLEAR INDUSTRY.

    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.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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"

    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.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Of course it is bad for you.

    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...
    By that argument, any scare story picked up by the media should warrant the banning of whatever is the subject of the story.

    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.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don’t agree catagorically that there are any adverse effects from living in the vicinity of a Nuclear Power Station,(unless of course it looses its integrity) however, living under/next to an electric pylon/plant can only ever be bad for you.

    As far as sources go, Hydro is the future. Though only because the public at large believe that nuclear is detrimental to the environment.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Wizzy™ wrote:

    the public at large believe that nuclear is detrimental to the environment.
    especialy those who have looked at the disposal of waste problem.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Actually hydro isn't good enough, and only works where there is a lot of reasonably fast flowing water (so not really in this country). Fusion is the future. With renewable sources as added backing. As things go we have enough fuel on the planet to power the entire earth for 1000 years under fusion power.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Pah. Fusion power is where it should be at.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    especialy those who have looked at the disposal of waste problem.

    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.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    Actually hydro isn't good enough, and only works where there is a lot of reasonably fast flowing water (so not really in this country). Fusion is the future. With renewable sources as added backing. As things go we have enough fuel on the planet to power the entire earth for 1000 years under fusion power.

    Fusion is of course a viable option(if achieved) but Hydro and Wind Turbines are at least available.. as is nuclear.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Mist wrote:
    Pah. Fusion power is where it should be at.

    As should be Warp speed.


    :razz:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nuclear power is non-renewable just like coal, gas and oil?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nuclear power is non-renewable just like coal, gas and oil?

    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!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Wizzy™ wrote:
    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.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    especialy those who have looked at the disposal of waste problem.


    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
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not really. You are merely just moving to another substance that will eventually run out instead of trying to invest in something that is sustainable.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You bury it and cover it up, many scientists are convinced this makes it safe.

    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.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You bury it and cover it up, many scientists are convinced this makes it safe.

    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.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    btw uranium 235 sources will run out very quickly if we all switch to nuclear

    personally its a stop gap until fusion which is at the moment 75 yrs away
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    and I guess that's why environmentally and practically our best source(s) is natural kinetic energy of some form. It's a sad day when realistically nuclear energy is by far our best option though I am not so sure its as bad as the press it gets. I appreciate its a "gap" but its clean.... we have to find better ways to utilize kinetic energy.. our planet is after all ferocious!
  • Options
    Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Haha, Bullshit. They obviously are. But so is microwaved food.

    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.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    (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!
  • Options
    Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Could we tie big rockets to countries we dislike, and blast them into space then?

    Hmm... :chin:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.

    What theory? You haven't referenced any theory.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Wizzy™ wrote:

    As should be Warp speed.


    :razz:
    You don't know a lot about power supply do you?

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.