Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

The German people stopped a train--guarded by 17,000 police troops

2»

Comments

  • #32
    the_syco
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,310 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    It's nuclear waste, it hasn't endangered any of them yet
    If some of the protestors tried to remove the nuclear waste, I'd be pretty sure the "protestor" would be upgraded to "terrorist" or "Al'Qaeda cell", and that they'd be approached differently.

    =-=

    As for Chernobyl...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
    As in the previously released report INSAG-1, close attention is paid in report INSAG-7 to the inadequate (at the moment of the accident) “culture of safety” at all levels. Deficiency in the safety culture was inherent not only at the operational stage but also, and to no lesser extent, during activities at other stages in the lifetime of nuclear power plants (including design, engineering, construction, manufacture and regulation). The poor quality of operating procedures and instructions, and their conflicting character, put a heavy burden on the operating crew, including the Chief Engineer. “The accident can be said to have flowed from a deficient safety culture, not only at the Chernobyl plant, but throughout the Soviet design, operating and regulatory organizations for nuclear power that existed at that time".
    They tested a new system during the day. Had a special team of electrical engineers that were present to test the new voltage regulating system and all. The plan was, that the test should have been carried out during the day, but unfortuneately it wasn't, and sh|t hit the fan at around 1am.

    So comparing modern day plants with Chernobyl isn't that good a comparison.


  • #33
    Carry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,024 ✭✭✭Carry


    galah wrote: »
    did anyone mention that this is GERMAN nuclear waste from GERMAN nuclear plants, generating electricity for GERMAN consumers, just returning to Germany where it rightfully belongs?

    Idiots.

    No, galah sweetie, it is not.The waste comes from La Hague in Normandy which processes the stuff mainly from French and some other European nuclear plants. It's just dumped in Germany.
    Now who is the idiot? :pac:

    And nuclear plants are not essential to provide electricity in Germany or elsewhere. There are other means, as you should well know, if you'd keep yourself informed.


  • #34
    freckly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 77 ✭✭freckly


    Carry wrote: »
    No, galah sweetie, it is not.The waste comes from La Hague in Normandy which processes the stuff mainly from French and some other European nuclear plants. It's just dumped in Germany.
    Now who is the idiot? :pac:
    .

    The "idiot" may be you... German media has reported that the waste was treated in France, after being created in Germany. Here's a quote from an English language site in Germany, called The Local
    "The waste is on its way back to Germany - where it was initially created in the generation of electricity - after being treated at a plant in France by nuclear giant Areva.The convoy is the 11th of its kind to be sent back to Germany."
    http://www.thelocal.de/national/20101105-30995.html
    The same information was also used in Germany language news (radio and RTL tv)


  • #35
    galah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,215 ✭✭✭galah


    oh really?

    La Hague is just a processing plant - the orginal waste does come from Germany, is processed there, and now sent back. I do keep myself informed, thank you very much, no need to be condescending.

    And the question remains - where else should this waste go? Some other country?


  • #36
    Corsendonk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,870 ✭✭✭Corsendonk


    Carry wrote: »
    No, galah sweetie, it is not.The waste comes from La Hague in Normandy which processes the stuff mainly from French and some other European nuclear plants. It's just dumped in Germany.
    Now who is the idiot? :pac:

    And nuclear plants are not essential to provide electricity in Germany or elsewhere. There are other means, as you should well know, if you'd keep yourself informed.

    La Hague is a processing plant just like Sellafield and THORP in the UK. Germany had one in Karlsruhe that was closed in 1990 so they use La Hague



    If you wish to have a debate on other energy sources perhaps the sustainability forum might be better, you may be educated.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,900 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Corsendonk wrote: »
    Not always shoddy construction, they still have 1954 Russian constructed AK-47s working away in Afganistan.

    Actually, the AK's success lies in its shoddyness by design. It is built to such loose tolerances that it will continue to work (Albeit not as accurately as, say, a Western rifle) despite all the foreign matter it may ingest or abuse you put it through. I submit, however, that loose tolerances and inaccuracy are perhaps not terms which really should be deliberately incorporated into the design of a nuclear reactor.

    NTM


  • #38
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Seaneh wrote: »
    nuclear is clearly the best, cheapest and cleanest way we have to produce electricity

    So why does the nuclear industry in Britain and the US (to name just two countries) recieve massive public subsidies and still struggle to turn a profit ?
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    It is pathetic that the anti-nuclear crowd's big bogeyman is an outdated design made by a country with a reputation for shoddy construction manned by less-than-stellarly trained Soviet Peoples' Technicians,

    Not as pathetic as when "the accident which could never happen" became "the accident which could never happen outside the Soviet union"
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Japan, a country which may perhaps know more than most about radioactive incidents, is continuing to expand its own disaster-free nuclear network.
    Disaster free ? are you sure about that ? Certainely not near-miss free at any rate !
    the_syco wrote: »
    So comparing modern day plants with Chernobyl isn't that good a comparison.

    Im pretty sure the vast majority of currently operational nuclear reactors in France and Germany predate the Chernobyl incident.


  • #39
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,900 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    So why does the nuclear industry in Britain and the US (to name just two countries) recieve massive public subsidies and still struggle to turn a profit ?

    I can't speak for the UK, but in the US there are so many regulatory and legal hoops to go through, plus everyone with a cause goes and sues the manufacturer, that the costs are in the hundreds of millions of dollars over the first fifteen or twenty years just doing the paperwork to allow the first brick to be laid. Just expanding the Votgle plant by adding a new reactor, the first new reactor in thirty years in the US, was a process which started in 2002, was approved in 2010, and is expected to be completed 2016.

    Building the thing itself is cheap.

    NTM


  • #40
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Seaneh wrote: »
    nuclear is clearly the best, cheapest and cleanest way we have to produce electricity. In ireland we have the perfect conditions and with t plants and the continued use of our hydro plants we would be producing well over our grid capacity and could even be making a net profit by exporting.

    Looking at the situation regarding the planned incinerator, theres two chances.....


  • #41
    peasant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,789 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    galah wrote: »
    did anyone mention that this is GERMAN nuclear waste from GERMAN nuclear plants, generating electricity for GERMAN consumers, just returning to Germany where it rightfully belongs?

    Idiots.

    Did anyone mention that the German governement (after years of struggle) had finally agreed on a plan to get out of nuclear energy (and its ill thought out policy of just dumping the waste in a hole at what used to be wasteland near the East German border) only to renage on it because ..."there's a recession on don't you know?"

    I would hazard a guess and say that the protest might have had something to do with that ...the democratic will of the people being trampled upon and all that.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    Corsendonk wrote: »
    Not always shoddy construction, they still have 1954 Russian constructed AK-47s working away in Afganistan.

    There are 1898 German mausers being used in Afghanistan as well.


  • #43
    TheRiddler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 425 ✭✭TheRiddler


    The great Adolf would not stand for this!


  • #44
    biko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,060 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    It would have been amusing had the engineer put the locomotive into Notch 1, then stuck his head and hands out the window saying "you can sit on the tracks if you want to, but the train will take far less damage than you will"
    "If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem tends to look like a nail"


  • #45
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    Carry wrote: »
    No, galah sweetie, it is not.The waste comes from La Hague in Normandy which processes the stuff mainly from French and some other European nuclear plants. It's just dumped in Germany.
    Now who is the idiot? :pac:

    And nuclear plants are not essential to provide electricity in Germany or elsewhere. There are other means, as you should well know, if you'd keep yourself informed.

    These anti-nuclear retards don't seem to realise that the main alternatives like coal, gas and oil do FAR more damage to the environment than nuclear power does.


  • #46
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,698 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    I wouldnt jump on the hyperbole that nuclear power is evil.

    but at the same time it is far too much power to take casually and I kinda like the idea that regardless of your own personal ideology the vast majority of people be they capatilist, socialist, whatever tend to have a very cautious view on nuclear energy at least if not outright opposition.


    Take away that element of caution (fear) and the industry will get laxed and corners will start to be cut corners or take safety precautions less serious and we end up with situations ala the BP oil spill.

    except with nuclear fallout.


    So do I agree with the fear at a logical level...no not really.

    But do I trust goverments/companies enough to have the run of it without any complaints...Gods no!


  • #47
    dsmythy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,589 ✭✭✭✭dsmythy


    What was the protesters preferred alternative?


  • #48
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    dsmythy wrote: »
    What was the protesters preferred alternative?

    Wind ? Tidal ? Wave ? Solar ? Biomass ? Clean coal ? Hydro ? Geothermal ? Energey efficency ? I dunno probably all of the above.


  • #49
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,900 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    Disaster free ? are you sure about that ? Certainely not near-miss free at any rate !

    Nope, there have been incidents. But, strangely, the safety procedures in place do seem to have worked in all cases in order to prevent disaster.
    "If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem tends to look like a nail"

    I'm just saying. The protestors have the right to assemble and to protest. The catch is that the locomotive engineer has the right to freedom of travel.
    Problem is that in this example of the force meeting object, one is relatively irresistable, while the other is really not very immovable.

    NTM


  • #50
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Nope, there have been incidents. But, strangely, the safety procedures in place do seem to have worked in all cases in order to prevent disaster.

    The relatives of the five people killed in the 2004 incident might take issue with you on that one. And the safety procedures did take a while to pick up on the falsified inspection records/cracks ??


  • #51
    peasant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,789 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    The catch is that the locomotive engineer has the right to freedom of travel.

    Very simplistic view that.

    "Freedom of travel" sounds very catchy and all that ...but what about the deadly poisonous load that he's so "freely" carrying to a not so secure hole in people's back gardens?

    You can sell that kind of "freedom" to the Iraquis maybe or the Afghans ..oh no hang on ..you need tracked and armed "locomotives" for them as well, don't you? :D

    As for the loco driver ...he's getting paid whether he's moving or stationary, so I wouldn't worry about his personal freedom too much really :D


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,900 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    The relatives of the five people killed in the 2004 incident might take issue with you on that one.

    Firstly, it was a steam explosion, a problem which could happen to any form of thermal turbine power generation to include geothermal, coal and oil. Secondly, your definition of a 'disaster' is interesting, considering how many people were killed in the Deepwater Horizon incident, by way of comparison. I believe more people have been killed in the wind turbine industry in the last decade than the nuclear power industry.
    And the safety procedures did take a while to pick up on the falsified inspection records/cracks ??

    Seem to have, don't they?


  • #53
    evercloserunion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,889 ✭✭✭evercloserunion


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXD6Gtinvbc


Advertisement
Advertisement