[NFS]

Originally Posted by peterg1965

However, it doesn't undermine the risks of nuclear power in areas where there are no such earthquake risks, such as the UK/Europe. I suspect there were many safeguards in place in that Japanese reactor plant, regrettably they seem not to have been up to the job.

What annoys me is the scare mongering about nuclear power that is perpetuated by Green lobby groups, it is generally unfounded and plays into the uninformed fears of the general public. I could go on, but I will refrain.

It's the old risk assessment issue:

Chance of failure x Severity = Risk

In the case of nuclear, the chances of failure are very low indeed, because of the levels of redundancy in design of nuclear power plants. But, the 'severity' is extremely high. Whichever way you look at it, nuclear is a risk.

However, its a risk we will have to take if we want energy security.

[Shadow]

Originally Posted by NFS

However, its a risk we will have to take if we want energy security.

^^^^ This. Nuclear power is the only viable option to satisfy the human race's demand for energy, medium to long term. Renewables satisfy a tiny fraction of demand and are reliant on both rare and politically "difficult" materials (e.g. indium, neodymium), hydrogen (and pumped hydro-electric) are red herrings (energy storage, not primary generation), and fossil fuels aren't scalable.

Whatever the media are saying, Fukushima is not another Chernobyl; the only similarity is that both incidents involved *some* form of nuclear power plant. Otherwise, it's bollocks. In case anyone forgot, Chernobyl was a result of *deliberately* overriding the safety systems of an inherently unstable reactor design.

[FieldingMellish]

Originally Posted by peterg1965

.... the scare mongering about nuclear power that is perpetuated by Green lobby groups, it is generally unfounded and plays into the uninformed fears of the general public......

[FieldingMellish]

Originally Posted by NFS

It's the old risk assessment issue:

Chance of failure x Severity = Risk

In the case of nuclear, the chances of failure are very low indeed, because of the levels of redundancy in design of nuclear power plants. But, the 'severity' is extremely high. Whichever way you look at it, nuclear is a risk.

However, its a risk we will have to take if we want energy security.

Right but isn't re-embracing nuclear power, in order to decrease our reliance on non-renewable energy sources, a bit like, I dunno, cutting your head off to cure a cold?

People will say, oh there ar eno earthquakes in England, therefore it's safe to build nuclear power plants. But earthquakes aren't the only form of potential disaster, are they?

Some of the commenters above infuriate me by pulling the old "Greenpeace afre fun-spoiling scare-mongers, frightening the (clueless) general public" card. It's bullsh1t, pure and simple. No 'scare mongering' is required. They still haven't cleaned up Chernobyl, and that was nearly a quarter of a century ago.

[FieldingMellish]

Originally Posted by Shadow

^^^^ This. Nuclear power is the only viable option to satisfy the human race's demand for energy, medium to long term. Renewables satisfy a tiny fraction of demand and are reliant on both rare and politically "difficult" materials (e.g. indium, neodymium), hydrogen (and pumped hydro-electric) are red herrings (energy storage, not primary generation), and fossil fuels aren't scalable.

Whatever the media are saying, Fukushima is not another Chernobyl; the only similarity is that both incidents involved *some* form of nuclear power plant. Otherwise, it's bollocks. In case anyone forgot, Chernobyl was a result of *deliberately* overriding the safety systems of an inherently unstable reactor design.

Tsk. That old bogeyman, 'the media', eh? Honestly, this sort of talk is so depressing.

Who's to say that 'deliberately overloading' would never happen again, particularly if profit was put before saftey.

EDit: And isn't oit a bit early to be assessing whether 'the media' are overstating the problem(s)? The story is still unfolding:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12724953

[FieldingMellish]

Originally Posted by NFS

It depends if we want our society to continue as is in a new era of energy shortages and insecurity.

The UK is pretty much the worst placed G8 country in terms of reliance on fossil fuel. That will cause us real difficulty if there is a global transition from an oil based economy. The French get at least 80% of their energy from nuclear and are a net exporter of electricity.

All things being equal, I would rather that we did not have nuclear power, but we have nothing else that could provide even a remotely sensible level of energy security in the face of massive global economic change. On that basis, we don't really have any choice.

I know where you're coming from, and I don't think teh issue can be viewed as cut and dried, from either a pro or anti perspective. But I also think it makes only some logical sense to say: there is no alternative to nuclear, therefore we must pursue that direction.

[F31-340i]

Originally Posted by FieldingMellish

Right but isn't re-embracing nuclear power, in order to decrease our reliance on non-renewable energy sources, a bit like, I dunno, cutting your head off to cure a cold?

No.

Some of the commenters above infuriate me by pulling the old "Greenpeace afre fun-spoiling scare-mongers, frightening the (clueless) general public" card. It's bullsh1t, pure and simple. No 'scare mongering' is required. They still haven't cleaned up Chernobyl, and that was nearly a quarter of a century ago.

Equally, I get absolutely infuriated by the nuclear bashers who pretend renewables might be the answer (they can't be at the moment), and cripple the UKs ability to make important decisions on Nuclear. Compare the UK and FR nuclear industries - one of us "got it right". PS It wasn't the UK.

And ultimately that's all the nuclear bashers have achieved - crippling UK industry to the extent that we must buy off shore technology. Given we led the world in 1956, its yet another sad reflection on our culture which prefers to knock things, rather than be constructive.

The media shoulders alot of the blame IMO in not presenting a balanced picture - nuclear horror stories sell more papers, so lets forget the scientific and statistical reality!

[FieldingMellish]

Originally Posted by ///ajd

No.

You sound so certain. That must be nice. What's it like, living in a world devoid of nuance?

Originally Posted by ///ajd

The media shoulders alot of the blame IMO in not presenting a balanced picture - nuclear horror stories sell more papers, so lets forget the scientific and statistical reality!

I have no chance whatsoever of understanding or relating to the mentality which paits 'the media' as some sort of know-nothing scare-mongers.

The 'reality' at teh minute is that a Japanese nuclear facility - one about which safety warnings had been repeatedly voiced, and ignored - has come close to a meltdown, and teh situation isn't over yet. But you guys are still pretending there are no dangers.......

[F31-340i]

Originally Posted by FieldingMellish

You sound so certain. That must be nice. What's it like, living in a world devoid of nuance?

The irony is that everything is uncertain - everything is about risk and how much to tolerate. This was a response to your assertion that going nuclear was "like cutting off your head" - which sounds rather universally negative, no? Its also an emotional rather than rational viewpoint?

I have no chance whatsoever of understanding or relating to the mentality which paits 'the media' as some sort of know-nothing scare-mongers.

The 'reality' at the minute is that a Japanese nuclear facility - one about which safety warnings had been repeatedly voiced, and ignored - has come close to a meltdown, and the situation isn't over yet. But you guys are still pretending there are no dangers.......

The reality is that many who hold anti-nuclear beliefs do so given what they 'learn' through the media. Given how much is regurgitated, this is patently the case, and it is often misleading.

I have seen so much media inaccuracy and bias in areas I do understand - usually in the pursuit of sexing up a story - to be sure you cannot rely on much of what is broadcast as a basis for some of the complex decisions that affect our future energy needs.

No one is pretending there are no dangers in Nuclear - but I believe it is counter-productive to draw knee jerk reactions over what is happening in Japan and start to question the future of nuclear here in the UK - which I think some seem to be doing, no?

Just my opinion.

[FieldingMellish]

Originally Posted by ///ajd

The irony is that everything is uncertain - everything is about risk and how much to tolerate. This was a response to your assertion that going nuclear was "like cutting off your head" - which sounds rather universally negative, no? Its also an emotional rather than rational viewpoint?

Yes, but said somewhat tongue in cheek, that must have been obvious?

Originally Posted by ///ajd

The reality is that many who hold anti-nuclear beliefs do so given what they 'learn' through the media. Given how much is regurgitated, this is patently the case, and it is often misleading.

But statements such as this imply that (a) the media consumer is a poor deluded sap who takes media reports at face value, (b) the media don't know anyting about the issue they're reporting on, and (c) the maker of this statement *does* know, better than both 'the media' and 'the general public'. It reeks of arrogance.

Originally Posted by ///ajd

I have seen so much media inaccuracy and bias in areas I do understand -

Agreed. Very often the case, and a reason to be cautious. But when, say, the BBC are reporting what's been said by a highly regarded Japanese siesmologist, then I think we can at least be sure that the guy knows more about it than people on this forum.

No one is pretending there are no dangers in Nuclear - but I believe it is counter-productive to draw knee jerk reactions over what is happening in Japan and start to question the future of nuclear here in the UK - which I think some seem to be doing, no?

Just my opinion.

But I don't think it is 'knee-jerk', it's reasonable for teh UK to at least pause for thought in light of what is happening now, in Japan, whatever teh differences in circumstance etc.

[F31-340i]

Originally Posted by FieldingMellish

Yes, but said somewhat tongue in cheek, that must have been obvious?

If its just tongue in cheek, then my "no" dismissal is not unfair? Perhaps my "no" didn't need saying, but its hard to judge delivery on the internet.

But statements such as this imply that (a) the media consumer is a poor deluded sap who takes media reports at face value, (b) the media don't know anyting about the issue they're reporting on, and (c) the maker of this statement *does* know, better than both 'the media' and 'the general public'. It reeks of arrogance.

All I can go on it the number of times I find
a) people do not question what the media is saying
b) how often the media fail to put forward a balanced view - which all too often can be improved by a search on the internet
Does this make me arrogant? Not necessarily. I am guilty of it too - often I will say "I saw this on the news", only to have someone who understands the issue better outline some other factors that have a tangible bearing on the overall conclusions you might draw.

Agreed. Very often the case, and a reason to be cautious. But when, say, the BBC are reporting what's been said by a highly regarded Japanese siesmologist, then I think we can at least be sure that the guy knows more about it than people on this forum.

Another "BBC expert" was talking about the "fusion process" having stopped in the reactor. It can be very hit and miss.

But I don't think it is 'knee-jerk', it's reasonable for teh UK to at least pause for thought in light of what is happening now, in Japan, whatever the differences in circumstance etc.

But it is, isn't it? If you are suggesting we recheck the tsunami and earthquake threat in the UK, then fine.

I can't help feeling the anti-nuclear lobby are just using this to further their our cause - one which I personally don't think is realistic given modern day energy demands.

It looks (thankfully) as though the current crisis (hopefully Reactor 3 will also be 'managed') is actually less serious than 3 mile island (which while serious from a meltdown & economic perspective (it was almost brand new) has not had any proven health effects or fatalities).

That said, the Japanese govt and media record on telling the truth are not blemish free, so I do hope the problems have really been contained. Looking here at the pre and post tsunami effects on the power station - it looks like the wave caused significant damage to some of the power stations ancilliary equipment.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/events/ja...eforeafter.htm

[peterg1965]

Here is a current example of the media getting a snippet of information, getting a sensationalist story together with the firm aim of assisting and promoting the anti-nuclear debate.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ws?INTCMP=SRCH

It was the Guardian, not without it's lefty, Green credentials of course, which published this scare story, and it was picked up on the Channel 4 news last Thursday. It is of course utter bollocks, and the headline says it all. Quotes taken out of context and the author clearly has little idea what he is saying. What would you suggest is the purpose of the article?

For the record, I have lived, worked, slept and eaten for months and months on end, all within a few metres of a Pressurised Water Reactor. To my knowledge, with no ill effects - (my wife may contest that though). I also live within a few miles of Heysham nuclear power station.

Most people are apathetic regarding the nuclear debate, however, there is a loud, vocal, disproportionately effectively, anti-nuclear lobby which punches above it's weight. We should have been building a new generation of nuclear power stations 15 years ago. It is a SAFE, cost effective way of generating power. No doubt there are risks, but they are manageable, and above all acceptable.

[FieldingMellish]

Originally Posted by peterg1965

Here is a current example of the media getting a snippet of information, getting a sensationalist story together with the firm aim of assisting and promoting the anti-nuclear debate.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ws?INTCMP=SRCH

It was the Guardian, not without it's lefty, Green credentials of course, which published this scare story, and it was picked up on the Channel 4 news last Thursday. It is of course utter bollocks, and the headline says it all. Quotes taken out of context and the author clearly has little idea what he is saying. What would you suggest is the purpose of the article?

For the record, I have lived, worked, slept and eaten for months and months on end, all within a few metres of a Pressurised Water Reactor. To my knowledge, with no ill effects - (my wife may contest that though). I also live within a few miles of Heysham nuclear power station.

Most people are apathetic regarding the nuclear debate, however, there is a loud, vocal, disproportionately effectively, anti-nuclear lobby which punches above it's weight. We should have been building a new generation of nuclear power stations 15 years ago. It is a SAFE, cost effective way of generating power. No doubt there are risks, but they are manageable, and above all acceptable.

Incredible!

The arrogant, dogmatic attitudes some people have. *You* know it all, and the Guardian (or whoever) know nothing, etc.

Why ask anyone to suggest what the purpose of the article might be? You've already decided for youself that it is "getting a sensationalist story together with the firm aim of assisting and promoting the anti-nuclear debate." I like that "firm" aim, a nice touch.

I'm sorry but this is total, full-on wing-nut territory, the right-wing conspiracy theorist's unwavering conviction that the 'liberal' media are out to push some big sinister agenda. What must it be like to actually *believe* that? I guess it's pretty frightening?

I personally don't know whether this particular story is "bollocks" or not, although a quick scan seems to suggest that it is based on a diect quote from a very senior Ministry of Defence source.

Bit of a mind-blower that people can be making these claims that nuclear power is "SAFE", and wittering on about "acceptable" risks, while a very serious nuclear incident is still currently ongoing!

Mad.

[willhollin]

[Hotcoupe]

Originally Posted by FieldingMellish

I'm sorry but this is total, full-on wing-nut territory, the right-wing conspiracy theorist's unwavering conviction that the 'liberal' media are out to push some big sinister agenda. What must it be like to actually *believe* that? I guess it's pretty frightening?

Personally I always read the Daily Mail and watch the BBC news, that way at least I know everything I read/watch is totally unbiased and is the truth and nothing but the truth.

I might go to bed worried but I generally sleep OK as I know 'my' media outlets don't buy into hidden agendas, sinister or not.

[FieldingMellish]

Originally Posted by Hotcoupe

Personally I always read the Daily Mail and watch the BBC news, that way at least I know everything I read/watch is totally unbiased and is the truth and nothing but the truth.

I might go to bed worried but I generally sleep OK as I know 'my' media outlets don't buy into hidden agendas, sinister or not.

That really takes the biscuit. The Daily Mail, unbiased, no agenda? You *are* being satirical, I assume? Good one.

[Shadow]

Originally Posted by FieldingMellish

Incredible!

The arrogant, dogmatic attitudes some people have. *You* know it all, and the Guardian (or whoever) know nothing, etc.

You appear to be assuming that nobody here might be an expert on anything. While not wishing to "wave it about", I, for example, hold an Masters in Electrical & Information Sciences Engineering from Cambridge, and I can speak with more authority on engineering matters than most journalists. I can also tell you that almost everything I have read in the various print and online media in my sphere of expertise is either misunderstood or downright wrong.

Now, I do not wish to be guilty of assumption here - pray, what your ARE qualifications?

[NFS]

Originally Posted by peterg1965

It is a SAFE, cost effective way of generating power. No doubt there are risks, but they are manageable, and above all acceptable.

As you say, there are risks. You may believe that these are acceptable, but that doesn't mean that everyone else will.

I totally agree that the media are using the problems in Japan right now to stir up the debate on nuclear. I am seeing both 'pro' and 'anti' nuclear 'experts' being wheeled out to justify the entrenched positions of the organisations that pay their wages.

In reality I don't think this is about engineering understanding or scientific knowledge. You don't have to be an atomic scientist to understand the issues. And a lack of expertise in this area does not make someones opinion invalid.

I wish we had an alternative to nuclear because I believe it to be a risk for two fundamental reasons:

1. Although catastrophic failures are very unlikely, they could happen and the results are potentially very terrible indeed (looking at photos of Pripyat is a sobering experience).

2. Disposal of nuclear waste is a difficult issue. Again, lots of very clever people (some of whom I know are on this board) have helped to create very 'safe' ways to store nuclear waste, with high levels of redundancy. However, none of us have a crystal ball and I am concerned that this is storing up risk for future generations.

Within living memory some very clever scientists thought that they were doing the right thing when they invented asbestos. Do we know what the asbestos of the future will be? Could history repeat itself?

Having concerns about nuclear power does not mean someone is ill informed. It's actually the only sensible position. However, as I mentioned above, right now nuclear is the only way to ensure our energy security.

As soon as we have something better (and at some point we will), I would like to see nuclear fission consigned to history.

[F31-340i]

Originally Posted by peterg1965

Here is a current example of the media getting a snippet of information, getting a sensationalist story together with the firm aim of assisting and promoting the anti-nuclear debate.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ws?INTCMP=SRCH

It was the Guardian, not without it's lefty, Green credentials of course, which published this scare story, and it was picked up on the Channel 4 news last Thursday. It is of course utter bollocks, and the headline says it all. Quotes taken out of context and the author clearly has little idea what he is saying. What would you suggest is the purpose of the article?

For the record, I have lived, worked, slept and eaten for months and months on end, all within a few metres of a Pressurised Water Reactor. To my knowledge, with no ill effects - (my wife may contest that though). I also live within a few miles of Heysham nuclear power station.

Most people are apathetic regarding the nuclear debate, however, there is a loud, vocal, disproportionately effectively, anti-nuclear lobby which punches above it's weight. We should have been building a new generation of nuclear power stations 15 years ago. It is a SAFE, cost effective way of generating power. No doubt there are risks, but they are manageable, and above all acceptable.

Peter,

You have helped prove my point with a great example. I have similar experiences in a different field of engineering/media reporting.

FieldingM - it is not arrogant to get annoyed at the media when they peddle bo**ocks. It is infact very annoying when it is in a field you have some knowledge. The most annoying thing though is when the general public seem to believe journalists above those in the field in question.

Truely, truely terrifying, if I'm honest.

Infact while I'm on a rant, I fear that the way we allow ill-informed opinion to rule political decision making in the UK will become an increasing curse on its prosperity.

Should we have been building nuclear 15 years ago - too right. Why haven't we been? For all the wrong chuffing reasons - its a scandal IMO.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by ///ajd

Should we have been building nuclear 15 years ago - too right. Why haven't we been? For all the wrong chuffing reasons - its a scandal IMO.

Because no-one wants to live next door to a nuclear power station.

[Shadow]

Originally Posted by NFS

Within living memory some very clever scientists thought that they were doing the right thing when they invented asbestos. Do we know what the asbestos of the future will be? Could history repeat itself?

Do you know that asbestos occurs naturally? No one "invented" it, you can pick it up in lumps. The asbestos industry concealed the dangers from the public; that's not science, it's politics.

If people are scientifically illiterate, that's the sort of thing that can happen. Why are some people in this country so proud to be scientifically illiterate? It's no surprise we're driving German cars, now is it?

[NFS]

Originally Posted by Shadow

The asbestos industry concealed the dangers from the public; that's not science, it's politics.

Scientists invented asbestos containing products, which were cut up by builders and brought into peoples homes.

They used scientists to conceal the dangers. Just as the pro and anti nuclear lobbies have each used scientists to further their objectives in the media over the last couple of days. I've seen how the academic world works. They all need funding and business only provides that where there is a vested interest.