«

[omg]

i edited just as you wrote that. read the last site on the chain. actually read em all if you wanna dispute. they are not rubbish. cancer is not extremely common. more people die from heart disease. there is a huge finacial interest in covering up the facts. bnfl have had many studies shut down over the years. i live near sellafeild. just down the coast. a lot of us do not swim in the sea Because of it. it needs to stop. and gradually the goverment is seeing sense. however bnfl are still a mean lobbying force. we Do Not Need the nuke.

[Havell]

That's a diagram of a nuclear power plant, notice how the only radioactive parts of the plant are safely housed inside a containment building, the water used for cooling does not come into contact with radioactive material.

[Nick]

The answer is no.
Creation of nuclear bomb is one of those moments, which force you to loose assurance in tomorrow. Like creation of needle repeating rifle by Dreize in 1840 (official date, the potentialities were early). The availability of Nuclear Weapons makes warfare more not interesting, when it was only with machine guns and rifles.
I would not refuse to live in Middle Earth, for example, where, as it was told in film, after 1000 or some years from battle, where Isildur (or how the hell his name will be in English) took the ring, people didn't guess to invent gunpowder at least. The less weapons you have to fight, the more strategic and tactical opportunities you have in battle.
See yourself - NW didn't help in stopping the war on planet. Local conflicts continue and it looks like with more intensity. Terrorists, young "revolutionaries" (like in Georgia and Ukraine) and so on. Or maybe we should look in past? Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan...

[Shrek]

i like wind turbines. o think they look nice inte the landscape.

BTW, another advantage of wind turbines overs big power plants: big power plants produce large amouts of power and polution in one area. that large amount of power will then be chanellized to final consumers over a large area and longer distances. the transport of that energy is allways associated to a loss (Joule' s efect in power lines). each wind turbine produces a quite smaller amount of power (i think it' s about 2 MW per turbine against what, 300 MW to 500 MW from a tipical power plant) wich means you can spread turbines in diferent zones and reduce loss associated to transport.

to stay on topic, and as i said before, if a nuclear power plants exists, use it for its life time- do not dismantle it before time. if they are to be builded now or in a near future time, in my opinion there should be considered alternatives instead like wind, solar, bio-mass, etc...

[omg]

havell stop defending evil man. i know your choice of hero is rather dubios. but the damned plants still have something called an *effluant pipe* . nicely enuff there isnt one on your lovely little g.c.s.e diagram.

[Toxik]

thats what i said
i mean only the water from reactor is radioactive and its sealed in concrete shelter(i think)with no leaks
what you say omg seems to me little bit like propaganda
i mean of course theyre not 100 percent safe but because attitude of people like you there are new ways invented so that theyre even safer
about cancer its not caused only by radioactivity.there are various causes
actualyy you can find ANY info on the net,there are thousands of pages saying rubbish
be catholic or be damned!goverment controls us with alien substance in money!
Cell phones are dangerous to ur health and they damage your aura(i even seen photos of aura in that one)!
EAN causes cancer!
just little exaple what i've seen

[omg]

comparing that to bbc reports is a bit spurios toxic. i have mostly been using bbc for the fact that i knew there would be people like you who would say anti nuke is all propaganda. hence why i mainly used bbc. but the fact is its just as easy to say any pro nuke statement is propaganda. jeesh. you cant just say Evry web site is prepared by fanatics man.

After it has been removed from the reactor, spent fuel is stored under water on the reactor site for a year or more to allow radioactive fission products with short half-lives to decay. The spent fuel is then transported by rail to reprocessing plants at Cap de la Hague or Sellafield in steel flasks. Inevitably some fission products leak into the cooling-pond water, both at the reactor site and at the reprocessing plant,

[ReamusLQ]

Originally posted by Toxik@Aug 8 2005, 12:57 PM
thats what i said
i mean only the water from reactor is radioactive and its sealed in concrete shelter(i think)with no leaks
what you say omg seems to me little bit like propaganda
i mean of course theyre not 100 percent safe but because attitude of people like you there are new ways invented so that theyre even safer
about cancer its not caused only by radioactivity.there are various causes
actualyy you can find ANY info on the net,there are thousands of pages saying rubbish
be catholic or be damned!goverment controls us with alien substance in money!
Cell phones are dangerous to ur health and they damage your aura(i even seen photos of aura in that one)!
EAN causes cancer!
just little exaple what i've seen

saying all power plants are dangerous is a little like saying all gays have AIDS and carry HIV, or that the US Government has planned all terrorist attacks lately as part of their plan for world domination, or that if you have sex unprotected you WILL get an STD or you WILL get pregnant, and you WILL die.

Of course if you only look for ANTI Nuclear Power Plant material, that is all you will find. If you search for the basic structure of them, and stuff by people who AREN'T against NPP, you will find stuff that proves why they are good and not dangerous.

It's the same as if you look at a religion. There are thousands of Anti-Mormon books and information out there, but they all take things out of context, or things are just hearsay and stupid. The only way you can actually gain a closer knowledge to the truth is to get information from both sides.

[omg]

for the second time. which ... is ... why ... i ... used ... the ... bbc.... (am i gonna hafta bloody say this a third time i wonder)
stop comparing the bbc to fanatics.

saying all power plants are dangerous is a little like saying all gays have AIDS and carry HIV, or that the US Government has planned all terrorist attacks lately as part of their plan for world domination, or that if you have sex unprotected you WILL get an STD or you WILL get pregnant, and you WILL die.

maybe in conservative world it is. but i can tell the difference between a dodgy technoligy and a gay person. one is huge , made from concrete and steel. and produces nasty waste. one is a chap. it is a fact that ALL nuke power station have efluant pipes. it is a FACT that these pipes release nasty nasty isotopes onto the enviroment. and if you read bnfls OWN litriture you will see that it is a FACT that they are always pushing to be allowed to relese more of these toxic nastys into our enviroment. even they will admit that there is a greater risk of cancer amongst there employees but they use the words *not significant increase.* (eg increase but not huge) now bnfl employees actually have a lower rate of lung and throat cancers than the rest of the country. which helps cancel out the fact that they get more leukimia and deep bone cancers. a thought ocoured to me. there statistics do not take into account how much they smoke.i figure less of them smoke than the rest of the country. (which would account for the lower rate of lung and throat cancer) probably out from superstion.
so if you were to look at bnfl employees and ONLY look for leukimia and deep bone cancers you would find a large increase over the rest of the population. it is only when you factor in lung and throat cancers that you get the figure that bnfl uses.
people who have billions of pounds riding on an industry are far more likley to utilise propaganda than people who dont methinks.

[ReamusLQ]

Originally posted by omg@Aug 8 2005, 01:24 PM
for the second time. which ... is ... why ... i ... used ... the ... bbc.... (am i gonna hafta bloody say this a third time i wonder)
stop comparing the bbc to fanatics.

I'm not, I'm just saying, from all of the articles you pulled, they were all for ANTI power plant stuff. Hence, they focus mainly on the bad. If you search you stuff PRO NPP, you would find a counter to a lot of what they say, with many many accounts from Nuclear Physicists, etc.

Edit: And still, just because it's BBC doesn't mean they aren't trying to prove a point and omit facts. It's like people that take everything they see on the History or National Geographic Channel as the complete truth. The people writing and filming have a point they are trying to prove, so they won't look at other factors