yourmumsdomain.com

Anyone else interested in this/effects it's still having across Europe?

It's the first news 'event' I can remember along with the Shuttle Blowing up, which was also 1986 I think?

Fucking insane to think we're considering building more nuclear plants in this country when you read a little bit about how fucked people are across an area around Chernobyl twice the size of Britain.

A photographer travelled into the Chernobyl dead zone and took loads of pictures; It's quite eery, seeing that completely abandoned area.

Pictures of her trip: http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html

There was a few articles in the papers up here about it, pretty interesting stuff. I remember seeing some pretty horried pictures a few years ago from there.

There was some awsome scheme they run up here, when some families take some of the kids that were affected as babies by the accident for a month in summer, they reckon it adds about 2 years onto there age expentance.

I don't think you can really compare the two nuclear situations though, but I agree with you, that I'd rather not have these nuclear plants, I mean the problems with the one thats already up here is surely enough to give them the big v.

Calix wrote: Fucking insane to think we're considering building more nuclear plants in this country when you read a little bit about how fucked people are across an area around Chernobyl twice the size of Britain.

Another chernobyl in western europe would kill 2-3 times as many.

Draklon wrote:A photographer travelled into the Chernobyl dead zone and took loads of pictures; It's quite eery, seeing that completely abandoned area.

Pictures of her trip: http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html

Awesome. I saw this last year sometime and I've been meaning to look for the link again, thanks.

Calix wrote:Fucking insane to think we're considering building more nuclear plants in this country when you read a little bit about how fucked people are across an area around Chernobyl twice the size of Britain.

Thing is, nuclear power stations are honestly nowhere near as dangerous as people think. They're actually extremely safe, and the amount of mis-information that abounds is amazing.

Benn wrote: Thing is, nuclear power stations are honestly nowhere near as dangerous as people think. They're actually extremely safe, and the amount of mis-information that abounds is amazing.

http://www.zetnet.co.uk/oigs/n-base/dounreay.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4272199.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2458637.stm - probably a better link to review from problems

Granted, the technology has moved on a lot since the 60's, and far more is known about it, but you only have to look at the potential problems to decide whether its really worth it, clearly the Government thinks it is.

I really wouldn't fancy living anywhere near one of these feckers.

Draklon wrote:A photographer travelled into the Chernobyl dead zone and took loads of pictures; It's quite eery, seeing that completely abandoned area.

Pictures of her trip: http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html

It's still an interesting website, but it's apparently all BS, and she's toned down quite a few of her more outlandish claims over time as that's been discovered.

[quote="Benn
Thing is, nuclear power stations are honestly nowhere near as dangerous as people think. They're actually extremely safe, and the amount of mis-information that abounds is amazing.[/quote]

Far fetched but was reading something the other day about the effects of terrorists flying a plane or whatever into one of Britains current plants, not exactly a nice thought.

pain wrote:

Another chernobyl in western europe would kill 2-3 times as many.

From what i've read the only reason Chernobyl didn't kill tens of thousands was due to the weather conditions in the days directly after the explosions.

Calix wrote:Far fetched but was reading something the other day about the effects of terrorists flying a plane or whatever into one of Britains current plants, not exactly a nice thought.

Actually again that's pretty much 100% scaremongering. The mechanisms that run the reactors basically mean if anything even looks like it might go wrong, big fuckoff rods get dropped into the reactor, and the reactions immediately stop dead.

The effects of a plane hitting a station would achieve little more than possibly a few deaths (it's a bloody plane hitting a building) and many millions of cash loss due to the shutdown and damage.

The thing people don't realise is what Chernobyl was. Just because it was NUCLULEARR!!11 honestly was not at all the reason that the catastrophe occured.

I'm struggling to come up with a decent comparison to explain the differences between Chernobyl and any other Station anywhere else; suffice to say they're only barely related, and information on Chernobyl doesn't apply elsewhere.

I watched a vid on it in A-level physics, there were basically a shitload of failsafes but the scientists overode them. A similar thing could have happened in a coal station, we just wouldn't have x-men.

We know 99.999% of nuclear power stations are safe, and very efficient sources of energy, better for the environment. If it can happen once though I don't understand how anyone can rule out the possibility of a repeat occurance, surely it's a matter of time.

Chernobyl was caused by lack of maintenance, which in turn was the result of a Communist government that simply didn't generate enough money to pay for the maintenance of all state run enterprises (everything basically). People like to bash capitalism, but without capitalism a country could never be truly first world, as to make anything work a country needs money, you can't be completely self sufficient. Russia has had nucelar submarines rotting away in ports for years, that have reached the critical stage because they are about to start leaking radiation, and they can't afford to dispose of them properly.

Firstly nuclear power stations are not really a danger, and secondly the lack of alternatives means we have no choice but to build them. Renewable energy is wonderful in theory but the technology just isn't there to do it properly.

Stuff like wind turbines are wonderful ideas, but woefully inefficient. To generate the same amount of power as a nuclear station would take a landmass the size Kent, Sussex and Surrey combined completely blanketed in wind turbines. Not to mention they are a blight on the landscape, and worse yet they make a shocking amount of noise. We all have to hold out for fission, which may not be far away.

[quote="Benn]
Thing is, nuclear power stations are honestly nowhere near as dangerous as people think. They're actually extremely safe, and the amount of mis-information that abounds is amazing.[/quote]


the thing is so are all power stations, really just look at Buncefield

Small chance of a nuclear power station going pop and killing a few million people or global warming wipes out most of the planet... seems worth it to me.

...then again we could just stick a few more windmills up and recycle cans j/k