Sellafield's Mox fuel plant to close

Run_to_da_hills

Good.

Every cloud has a silver lining, at least one good thing has came out of Fukushima.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/03/sellafield-mox-plant-close

FatherLen

oh good. remember the iodine tablets??? no need for them now!!!

mawk

FatherLen wrote: »

oh good. remember the iodine tablets??? no need for them now!!!

There was a need for those at some point?

mackg

The Mox nuclear fuel plant at Sellafield will be closed on Wednesday afternoon, with the loss of about 600 jobs.

The closure is a consequence of the Fukushima incident in Japan in March, which has closed down much of the nuclear industry there and led to a rethink of nuclear power around the world.

Workers at the plant were told on Wednesday morning that there was "considerable scope" for them to be re-employed in other parts of the Sellafield complex.

It will take several months for the plant to close fully.

The west Cumbrian mixed-oxide fuel plant has cost the taxpayer £1.4bn since it was commissioned in the early 1990s.

The plant, operated by the government-owned Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), was set up to create mixed-oxide fuel for use in nuclear power plants, with its chief customers the Japanese nuclear industry, including the Fukushima complex.

The plant was built in 1996 and became operational in 2001.

The NDA denied there were any repercussions for the troubled Thorp reprocessing plant, although Thorp is also involved in generating Mox fuel, which is made from plutonium and uranium.




Tony Fountain, chief executive of the NDA, told workers on Wednesday morning: "The reason for this [closure] is directly related to the tragic events in Japan following the tsunami and its ongoing impact on the power markets. As a consequence we no longer have a customer for this facility, or funding."

He admitted that the plant had suffered "many years of disappointing performance" that has been funded by the taxpayer. He said the key to attempts to save the plant in recent years had been the commitment of Japanese utilities to reusing nuclear fuel, and their support for the UK as a "centre of excellence". But with the crisis in the Japanese nuclear industry, that route is no longer viable.

Fountain said: "The Hamaoka plant, owned by Chubu, the intended recipient of the first fuel, is currently closed awaiting extensive reinforcement work. Following Chubu, Tepco were destined to take 50% of the plant output and they as owner of the Fukushima plants are clearly facing the most extreme challenges."

Speculation about the future of the plant has been rife for months, as it became clear that the Japanese nuclear industry was unlikely to recover after Fukushima.

The NDA said: "[We have] concluded that in order to ensure that the UK taxpayer does not carry a future financial burden from [Sellafield Mox plant] that the only reasonable course of action is to close [Sellafield Mox plant] at the earliest practical opportunity."

The NDA said it would continue to store Japanese plutonium safely, and "further develop discussions with the Japanese customers on a responsible approach to support the Japanese utilities' policy for the reuse of their material".

Separately, the government has been consulting on the policy options for dealing with the UK's plutonium stockpile, including possible re-use as Mox fuel.

Local MP, Jamie Reed of Labour, called for the government to lay out details of a potential plan to build a new Mox plant at Sellafield. He said: "It is now absolutely essential that the new Mox plant is brought forward as quickly as possible. The market for Mox fuel exists and is growing, our plutonium disposition strategy relies upon such a facility and the industry requires it."

He warned that "gleeful vultures" would seize upon the decision to close the plant and argue against the "critical national need for new Mox plant".

Einhard

I don't know much about the MOX plant so I won't comment on it directly, but the scaremongering and entirely ignorant hysteria perpetrated about nuclear power has to be addressed. Recently Germany announced the shuttering of it's nuclear industry. In order to take up the slack, investment in energy from fossil fuels is going to be ramped up, with potentially calamitous consequences for the environment and public health. Far more people die from the effects of fossil fuel buring than has ever been the case with nuclear, and yet people tremble at the thought of fission, whilst cheerfully inhaling the toxic by-products of fossil fuels. It's about time people took their heads from their arses, and had a proper, reasonable, and informed debate about nuclear power.

Absurdum

what will be blame for cancer now????

mackg

Einhard wrote: »

I don't know much about the MOX plant so I won't comment on it directly, but the scaremongering and entirely ignorant hysteria perpetrated about nuclear power has to be addressed. Recently Germany announced the shuttering of it's nuclear industry. In order to take up the slack, investment in energy from fossil fuels is going to be ramped up, with potentially calamitous consequences for the environment and public health. Far more people die from the effects of fossil fuel buring than has ever been the case with nuclear, and yet people tremble at the thought of fission, whilst cheerfully inhaling the toxic by-products of fossil fuels. It's about time people took their heads from their arses, and had a proper, reasonable, and informed debate about nuclear power.

Everyone cites chernobyl but that was run really really poorly, Nuclear power is not to be messed with but at the same time it's not the big bad wolf it's made out to be a lot of the time.

FatherLen

mawk wrote: »

There was a need for those at some point?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xECUrlnXCqk

bluto63

Einhard wrote: »

I don't know much about the MOX plant so I won't comment on it directly, but the scaremongering and entirely ignorant hysteria perpetrated about nuclear power has to be addressed. Recently Germany announced the shuttering of it's nuclear industry. In order to take up the slack, investment in energy from fossil fuels is going to be ramped up, with potentially calamitous consequences for the environment and public health. Far more people die from the effects of fossil fuel buring than has ever been the case with nuclear, and yet people tremble at the thought of fission, whilst cheerfully inhaling the toxic by-products of fossil fuels. It's about time people took their heads from their arses, and had a proper, reasonable, and informed debate about nuclear power.

It's not scaremongering, they said it's because they lost their biggest customer. It's economical, not environmental.

mackg

Absurdum wrote: »

what will be blame for cancer now????

3 way tie between the church, the banks and the government

the_syco

I'm unable to find out how much energy the fossil fuel and renewable energy power plants in Britain produce when I search with Google

Run_to_da_hills

Einhard wrote: »

I don't know much about the MOX plant so I won't comment on it directly, but the scaremongering and entirely ignorant hysteria perpetrated about nuclear power has to be addressed. Recently Germany announced the shuttering of it's nuclear industry. In order to take up the slack, investment in energy from fossil fuels is going to be ramped up, with potentially calamitous consequences for the environment and public health. Far more people die from the effects of fossil fuel buring than has ever been the case with nuclear, and yet people tremble at the thought of fission, whilst cheerfully inhaling the toxic by-products of fossil fuels. It's about time people took their heads from their arses, and had a proper, reasonable, and informed debate about nuclear power.

People have learned enough from Chernobyl and may never hear the full truth of Fukushima.

Nuclear energy is deadly and always will be and no amount of white washing will cover it up. We are hearing of increasing levels of radiation almost every day from Fukushima and it looks like it will never stop.

The whole Nuke industry is run through lies and deceit that covers up the reality. Good reddens to Sellafield and hopefully more will go down the same route and fcuk those that lost their jobs,

Chuck Stone

If the world states must subsidize energy production then let it subsidize renewable (R&D).

Nuclear power is a public liability.




.

bonzodog2

the_syco wrote: »

I'm unable to find out how much energy the fossil fuel and renewable energy power plants in Britain produce when I search with Google

This would give you a rough idea: picture on wiki

Doctor_Socks

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

People have learned enough from Chernobyl and may never hear the full truth of Fukushima.

Nuclear energy is deadly and always will be and no amount of white washing will cover it up. We are hearing of increasing levels of radiation almost every day from Fukushima and it looks like it will never stop.

I certainly wouldn't like a Nuke power plant within 200 miles of my back yard and I am sure there are millions like me.

The whole Nuke industry is run through lies and deceit that covers up the reality. Good reddens to Sellafield and hopefully more will go down the same route and fcuk those that lost their jobs,

This is harsh, those people were just making a living like anyone else. I don't know what this 'run through lies and deceit' is either. You can find real facts about nuclear power all over the internet that proves that its a very safe form of power.

NTMK

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

People have learned enough from Chernobyl and may never hear the full truth of Fukushima.

Nuclear energy is deadly and always will be and no amount of white washing will cover it up. We are hearing of increasing levels of radiation almost every day from Fukushima and it looks like it will never stop.

:rolleyes: believe it or not the other traditional power sources have killed more. It wasnt the nuclear
plant in fukushmas fault that it was built in quite possibly the worst place to put a plant

The whole Nuke industry is run through lies and deceit that covers up the reality. Good reddens to Sellafield and hopefully more will go down the same route.

Quiet well regulated actually if you look into it. if you look back at the two major accidents the countries involved were very secretive and lied to inspectors repeatedly. also if you think this is a good thing wait until the prices of electricity shoot up because the uk and germany have to increase imports of fuel to meet their pop. demands

and fcuk those that lost their jobs,

Classy

Biggins

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Good.

Every cloud has a silver lining, at least one good thing has came out of Fukushima.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/03/sellafield-mox-plant-close

Sellafield?

O' ...you mean "Windscale" as it was called when things got so bad with fires and leaks that they did a PR job - and renamed it so the masses of sheep in Ireland could forget about it with their short memories the politicians hoped they would have!

Run_to_da_hills

Doctor_Socks wrote: »

This is harsh, those people were just making a living like anyone else.

You could say the very same about people working on a cocaine plantation.

Chuck Stone

NTMK wrote: »

believe it or not the other traditional power sources have killed more.

It's not as simple as a kill count. This is akin to saying 'a lot more people die in cars than trains'.

So what?

Even if we do play the 'who-killed-more' game the numbers are still quite startling.

The international expert group predicts that among the 600 000 persons receiving more the most ‘contaminated’ areas), the possible increase in cancer mortality due to this 16 radiation exposure might be up to a few per cent. This might eventually represent up to four thousand fatal cancers

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf

Four thousand slow miserable deaths might I add.

Also, the 'kill-count' argument fails to account for unmeasurable stress experienced by the mass evacuation of the public and the stress which might be experienced by some 600,000 liquidators (site clean up workers).

Summary. It's not as simple as a 'kill-count' which is a favoured argument by nuclear fan-boys.

NTMK

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's not as simple as a kill count. This is akin to saying 'a lot more people die in cars than trains'.

So what?

Even if we do play the 'who-killed-more' game the numbers are still quite startling.

Four thousand slow miserable deaths might I add.

Also, the 'kill-count' argument fails to account for unmeasurable stress experienced by the mass evacuation of the public and the stress which might be experienced by some 600,000 liquidators (site clean up workers).

Summary. It's not as simple as a 'kill-count' which is a favoured argument by nuclear fan-boys.

It isnt and i fully agree with you but what you highlighted is worst case scenario as is This i was highlighting that nuclear isnt as deadly as some scaremongers would want us to believe

plants are getting safer and more efficient with every development and waste is being greatly reduced the Chinese have recently figured out how to recycle their nuclear waste and it is atm the most viable green source of electricity

Einhard

mackg wrote: »

Everyone cites chernobyl but that was run really really poorly, Nuclear power is not to be messed with but at the same time it's not the big bad wolf it's made out to be a lot of the time.

Not only was the Chernobyl plant run in an appalling manner, it was a poorly designed model used nowhere outside the USSR. There's simply no comparison between the Chernobyl model, and those used outside the former Soviet bloc, and especially those constructed in the last few decades.

bluto63 wrote: »

It's not scaremongering, they said it's because they lost their biggest customer. It's economical, not environmental.

The reason it's closing is because of the hysteria in places like Germany and Japan which has seen nuclear shutdowns simply to pander to uninformed public opinion.

the_syco wrote: »

I'm unable to find out how much energy the fossil fuel and renewable energy power plants in Britain produce when I search with Google

A 1000 MW nuclear reactor produces less than 30 tonnes of used fuel pa, most of which can be reprocessed and re-used. Coal-fired plant will dicharge 400k tonnes of ash and several million tonnes of carbon every year. (www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html - obviously a nuclear industy website, but a source gleaned from The God Species, pg 180, by Mark Lynas, a respected environmentalist, so I think the information therein can be accepted)

150 nuclear power plants over 20 years would remove 18 bllion tonnes of C02 from atmosphere, compared with coal powered equivalents. (The God Species, 181).

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

People have learned enough from Chernobyl and may never hear the full truth of Fukushima.

The death toll from Fukushima is 0.

By contrast, in 2010 alone, there were at least 25 serious multiple fatality accidents involving the fossil fuel industry. On 7 Feb, a refinery explosion in Connecticutt killed 6; a 15 March coal mine fire in China killed 25; on 20 March, a coal mine collapse in Quetta killed 45; another flooded mine in Yichuan, China killed 44 on 28 March; in Washington state 5 died in an oil refinery blast on Aprl 2; on April 5, 29 miners killed in exploson in Virginia mine.

By any reasonable analysis therefore, the impact on human health from fossil fuel accidents, far outweighs the negative impact from nuclear fuels. And that's not even taking into account the hundreds of thousands who suffer ill health, and die, each year from respitory and other illnesses, brought on by, and exacerbated, by the pollution emitted by fossil fuels.

And yet, in the debate over nuclear Vs fossil fuels, the health impacts of the former are routinely exaggerated, whilst those of the latter are routinely ignored. Hard to have a reasonable debate on anything, when one side refuses to discuss all the pertinent facts.

In terms of Chernobyl, the public know next to nothing of fact about the accident. They know an awful lot of pseudo-science dressed as fact, and propoganda disseminated by anti-nuclear environmantal groups.

In 2002, the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) concluded that "there is no evidence of a major public health impact related to ionising radiation 14 years after the Chernobyl accident. No increase in overall cancer incidence or mortality that could be associated with radiation exposure have been observed". Furthermore, "The risk of leukemia, one of the most sensitive indicators of radiation exposure, has not been found to be elevatd even in the accident recovery operation or in children. There is no scientific proof of an increase in other non-malignant disorders related to ionising radiation"

That's pretty clear for me, and a damning indictment of all those who conspired, for various reasons, to have the world believe, against all the evidence, that the Chernobyl accident was worse that was actually the case. 50 people died in the immediate aftermath of the accident, and thusfar, there have been 4000 cases of tyroid cancer in children, of which 15% have been fatal. Now of course any fatality is tragic, but these figures are far below the impression that one would have from the hysterical reporting on the Chernobyl incident, often propogated by environmental groups who oppose nuclear power for ideological reasons, whilst ignoring the scientific reality.

I certainly wouldn't like a Nuke power plant within 200 miles of my back yard and I am sure there are millions like me.

And millions of people like you are uninformed on nuclear power.

Einhard

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's not as simple as a kill count. This is akin to saying 'a lot more people die in cars than trains'.

So what?

Even if we do play the 'who-killed-more' game the numbers are still quite startling.

Well, the "who-killed-more" game is quite important if we're to have a rational discussion about the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power, as opposed to fossil fuels.

Four thousand slow miserable deaths might I add.

Good point, but as I mentioned, most of these extra 4k cancers were forms of tyroid cancer, which are preventable in most cases through the administration of iodine tablets. Also, the fatality rates through cancer were 15%, not the 100% that seems to be implied in your quote.

Also, the 'kill-count' argument fails to account for unmeasurable stress experienced by the mass evacuation of the public and the stress which might be experienced by some 600,000 liquidators (site clean up workers).

If the evidence of the increased radiation, and its impact, is anything to go by, then the mass evacuation was, by and large, unnecessary. Additionally, according to UNSCEAR, peoples' self-identified status as "Chernobyl victims" has led to dependency, poor health, alcohol abuse, and even suicide, so the stress caused is not a one way street.

Also, as I mentioned, comparing Chernobyl to a modern nuclear power plant is akin to comparing a BMW to the Model T.

Summary. It's not as simple as a 'kill-count' which is a favoured argument by nuclear fan-boys.

I don't think it's fair to call those of us who advocate nuclear as "fan-boys". It's pretty derogative, and implies that we're just jumping on bandwagon, without giving the issue any thought. I was against nuclear power until relatively recently, when I started reading more about environmental issues. When confronted by the evidence, I didn't think I had a choice but to change my mind. I'm not alone in this either- James Lovelock, the proponent of the Gaia theory; George Monbiot, prominent environmentalis, and former nuclear arch-critic; Stephen Tindale of Greenpeace UK; Mark Lynas, environmental journalist and former critic of nuclear energy- all have come out in favour of nuclear energy in recent years, and all changed their minds when they looked at nuclear power through objective eyes, rather than the prism of entrenched dogma.

fedor.2.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

People have learned enough from Chernobyl and may never hear the full truth of Fukushima.

Nuclear energy is deadly and always will be and no amount of white washing will cover it up. We are hearing of increasing levels of radiation almost every day from Fukushima and it looks like it will never stop.

The whole Nuke industry is run through lies and deceit that covers up the reality. Good reddens to Sellafield and hopefully more will go down the same route and fcuk those that lost their jobs,

What an ignorant post, and its good riddance bud, not reddens

Gunmonkey

Kinda depressing how much mileage the anti-Nuclear brigade is gonna wring out of Fukashima. In any other industry if the only 2 major accidents worldwide were due to the reactors having:

A) the operators turning off the safety protocols, overloading the reactor WAY past capacity, didnt alert the safety inspector to this "experiment" (awaits inevitable Homer Simpson joke), all to see "What would happen if we....." No massive fault in the technology, just basic human stupidity.

got hit by the 4th largest earthquake recorded on Earth and then the subsequent tsunami, and then only 1 of the 4 reactors was crippled, and still didnt go into full meltdown. Oh and it was a 40 year old plant, so didnt have a lot of the safety protocols that modern plants do. Worst you could level at the Fukushima disaster was the piss-poor placing (by the sea to use the water to cool the reactor easier).

.....then they wouldnt be calling for the entire industry to be folded up to "save the children". Especially since the negative problems (terrible management, poor planning, outdated plants still at full capacity) arent solely attributed to the nuclear industry but to industries in general.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's not as simple as a kill count. This is akin to saying 'a lot more people die in cars than trains'.

Even if we do play the 'who-killed-more' game the numbers are still quite startling.

Summary. It's not as simple as a 'kill-count' which is a favoured argument by nuclear fan-boys.

So your not playing the "numbers killed game", but the "people were just straight up killed" excuse for abolition, since that REALLY doesnt play well in your favour. Because if we are to ban something if ANYONE has ever died from it then theres a LOT of things that take priority before nuclear energy due to ease of access and their lethality.

hooradiation

Biggins wrote: »

Sellafield?

O' ...you mean "Windscale" as it was called when things got so bad with fires and leaks that they did a PR job - and renamed it so the masses of sheep in Ireland could forget about it with their short memories the politicians hoped they would have!

Well good thing we have people like you willing to whine endlessly about the sheep in Ireland.

Chuck Stone

Gunmonkey wrote: »

So your not playing the "numbers killed game", but the "people were just straight up killed" excuse for abolition, since that REALLY doesnt play well in your favour.

I didn't initiate the 'numbers killed' dynamic I 'played that game' - so to speak. Anyway the death count is simplistic reasoning; it's never that black and white. How would people feel if the govt. said we 'will be banning cars and switching to public transport because the death count and polllution is too high'.

People would go ape-**** - all out revolution imo but yet that is the pro-nuclear side of the death count argument.

---

Einhard wrote: »

Well, the "who-killed-more" game is quite important if we're to have a rational discussion about the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power, as opposed to fossil fuels.

It's important but it's not nearly good enough as a primary rationale for going nuclear.

If the evidence of the increased radiation, and its impact, is anything to go by, then the mass evacuation was, by and large, unnecessary.

Also, isn't it better to error on the side of caution when it comes to unknowns such as mass exposure to radioative fallout. It's not like you can say 'sorry lads - we didn't think it was going to be that bad - you're probably going to die'. Can you imagine the Irish govt. telling the population of Dublin to 'not panic - the Sellafeild radiation cloud is... not too bad.. we think'. Would you trust them?

Additionally, according to UNSCEAR, peoples' self-identified status as "Chernobyl victims" has led to dependency, poor health, alcohol abuse, and even suicide, so the stress caused is not a one way street.

An unfortunate side-effect but a side effect nonetheless.

I don't think it's fair to call those of us who advocate nuclear as "fan-boys". It's pretty derogative, and implies that we're just jumping on bandwagon, without giving the issue any thought.

Okay, I take this on board and desist from using this term.

I think it should be noted that some people will use the 'damn hippies stopping progress' thing as an argument and I think it's entirely fair to counter this with 'nuclear fan-boys' (but I agree that it is unhelpfull against a reasoned debate).

I was against nuclear power until relatively recently, when I started reading more about environmental issues. When confronted by the evidence, I didn't think I had a choice but to change my mind.

I myself have flip flopped from anti (ill-informed) to sympathetic (listening to the pro camp) to anti again.

I would like to explore this part of your rebuttal.

Einhard wrote: »

The reason it's closing is because of the hysteria in places like Germany and Japan which has seen nuclear shutdowns simply to pander to uninformed public opinion.

This sounds a lot like democracy (for all it's flaws).

You've decided to describe the backlash in Germany and Japan as ill-informed rather than the democratic will of these people.

Are you now claiming that 'the will of the people' which doesn't comform to your view of nuclear power as 'hysterical'.

Don't you think that view is a little unfair, perhaps even an autocratic?

Biggins

hooradiation wrote: »

Well good thing we have people like you willing to whine endlessly about the sheep in Ireland.

Well given the endless rubbish you post, someone has to refresh minds before ye try to herd them into doing your bidding!

There is a boards rule that one can't link stuff from one section into another so if anyone is interested, look up posts by hooradiation in the politics section, then note the consistent regurgitated items he comes out - and he complains about me?

LOL hypocritical and laughable!

Chuck Stone

Lads - let's at least try to not get personal. There really is no need.

*hugs all round*

Biggins

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Lads - let's at least try to not get personal. There really is no need.

*hugs all round*

*Big kiss back*

Chuck Stone

Biggins wrote: »

*Big kiss back*

Aw shucks

bashful.jpeg

Biggins

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Aw shucks

bashful.jpeg

Now bend over!

Chuck Stone

Biggins wrote: »

Now bend over!

Run awayyyyyyyyyyyyyy

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3101/3154521722_8b5f2ab674.jpg

Capt'n Midnight

Biggins wrote: »

Sellafield?

O' ...you mean "Windscale" as it was called when things got so bad with fires and leaks that they did a PR job - and renamed it so the masses of sheep in Ireland could forget about it with their short memories the politicians hoped they would have!

Sellafield?

renamed


Ah, you mean Calder Hall

Biggins

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Sellafield?

renamed

Ah, you mean Calder Hall

Now you'll get them all confused! :pac:

We can't be having that - we best leave that to those that are doing the constant renaming.
Good little chaps that they are. They wouldn't be doing it to confuse the public of course!

Run_to_da_hills

Einhard wrote: »

The death toll from Fukushima is 0.
.

Early days yet, deaths and deformities from the Chernobyl incident did not appear night, in fact they went on for decades. Radiation exposure and the follow up cancer is a horrible thing and can effect the unborn.

imitation

Like it or not, Nuclear power is here to stay (unless something better is found) as it is a far more sustainable fuel source than fossil fuels. Its very easy to get rid of Nuclear power now as a political statement and as a panacea, but when the oil is all gone people will have a simple choice between living in the dark or living with the boogyman.

Wind and solar are all well and good, but in a power grid they can only be the minority, they can't replace fossil or Nuclear fuel.

stimpson

Gunmonkey wrote: »

got hit by the 4th largest earthquake recorded on Earth and then the subsequent tsunami, and then only 1 of the 4 reactors was crippled, and still didnt go into full meltdown. Oh and it was a 40 year old plant, so didnt have a lot of the safety protocols that modern plants do. Worst you could level at the Fukushima disaster was the piss-poor placing (by the sea to use the water to cool the reactor easier).

Sorry, but this is a gross oversimplification. Off the top of my head, they can be accused of:

* adapting one reactor to run on MOX fuel which contains plutonium 239. One of the most toxic substances known to man. It has a half life of 24,000 years. Not even the Russians were that stupid.

* storing used fuel rods above the reactors

* "re racking" the fuel storage so it could hold more rods than originally designed for

* not doing sufficient (any?) modeling on what would happen if a monster earthquake happened

* insufficient failsafes

* lying about the severity of the accident early on

The MOX thing is super scary. If that gets out into the environment you can kiss goodbye to Tokyo.

Now think of how many badly run stations there are around the world and the consequences of a major disaster in one every 25 years.

Run_to_da_hills

stimpson wrote: »

The MOX thing is super scary. If that gets out into the environment you can kiss goodbye to Tokyo.

It has already been spewing out of reactor 3 for weeks while people were foolishly led to believe that it was the same material that was spewing out of the other three.

Eoin_Sheehy

FatherLen wrote: »

oh good. remember the iodine tablets??? no need for them now!!!

They expired in 2008 I think, pointless.

lemd

There is an episode of BBC Horizon called "Nuclear Nightmares" about the effects of radiation and how it may not be as bad as we think and even beneficial at lower doses.
I don't think links to copyrighted material are allowed here but a quick google would turn it up. Just thought some of you might find it interesting.

LighterGuy

I remember around 10-15 years ago when I was a kid, each home was given emergency tablets in case of an "accident" with sellafield.

being older and looking back, what on earth could those tablets do if nuclear radiation is blowing over?!?

Run_to_da_hills

FatherLen wrote: »

oh good. remember the iodine tablets??? no need for them now!!!

Apparently they are suppose to turn hallucinogenic after 9 years.

lemd

LighterGuy wrote: »

I remember around 10-15 years ago when I was a kid, each home was given emergency tablets in case of an "accident" with sellafield.

being older and looking back, what on earth could those tablets do if nuclear radiation is blowing over?!?

They were iodine tablets. Certain radioactive isotopes collect in the thyroid gland and cause thyroid cancer. The iodine in the tablets also collects in the same gland and stops the radioactive material from being absorbed.

More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_iodide

AlmightyCushion

LighterGuy wrote: »

I remember around 10-15 years ago when I was a kid, each home was given emergency tablets in case of an "accident" with sellafield.

being older and looking back, what on earth could those tablets do if nuclear radiation is blowing over?!?

It helps to prevent thyroid cancer. They fill your thyroid full of non-radioactive iodine, stopping the radioactive iodine released by the nuclear accident from being stored there.

LighterGuy

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

It helps to prevent thyroid cancer. They fill your thyroid full of non-radioactive iodine, stopping the radioactive iodine released by the nuclear accident from being stored there.

But you would still die from other things knowing the event of nuclear radiation, right?

Chuck Stone

LighterGuy wrote: »

But you would still die from other things knowing the event of nuclear radiation, right?

I guess it depends on the doseage and which toxin it is.

I was watching a program (I think it was Coast) and there was a radioative leak from a power station yonks ago on the north coast of Scotchland which contaminated a, now off limits, beach.

I can't remember exactly what toxin it was (plutonium or sezium if forced to guess) but he said that ingesting one tiny particles was almost certain death.

He said it was akin to having a tiny little bit of glowing coal cooking your insides. Those particles will be fatally radioactive for decades.

Scary stuff.

AlmightyCushion

LighterGuy wrote: »

But you would still die from other things knowing the event of nuclear radiation, right?

Depends. If there was enough other radioactive elements released from the accident then yes. Look at Chernobyl though, there was no increase in the rates of cancer apart from thyroid cancer.

papu

Its Good to see the Mox plan close , there are better and safer ways of harnessing the power of Nuclear energy with modern plants,Which when compared to Fossil Fuel is much more efficent , safe and Less poluting to the environment as a whole. As our energy demand increases we're eventually going to run out of things to burn

lemd

LighterGuy wrote: »

But you would still die from other things knowing the event of nuclear radiation, right?

Depends, it takes massive doses for radiation to kill directly, moderate to high increase the risk of cancer and there are studies that show low doses may actually make you more resistant. The effects of low radiation doses (<100 mS) are poorly researched.

Here is a link to a pdf about the risks of radiation: http://www.rpii.ie/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?nodeguid=5155fafc-fb01-4702-a196-f0ca1329039c&PublicationID=1583

And here is a link to the RPII (Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland): http://www.rpii.ie/.aspx
Interesting website, well worth a look.