This is an excellent Photo Essay of the Chernobyl Legacy. Well worth watching the whole thing through.
Chernobyl Essay
It's ok, it won't happen here.
Printable View
This is an excellent Photo Essay of the Chernobyl Legacy. Well worth watching the whole thing through.
Chernobyl Essay
It's ok, it won't happen here.
greeny propaganda :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Grunt
What, the nuclear power plant or the accident?Quote:
Originally Posted by Grunt
If we, as a species, continue to live as we like to live, then we will need to find a means to produce more electricty than we do today, and from a means that is sustainable. For good or bad, that includes nuclear energy at or near the top of the list.
Don't get me wrong here, I am no big fan of nuclear anything (besides medicine), but we are running out of genuinely viable options really &%$$^% quickly.
(I am not a fan of nuclear energy, but I am a realist for better or for worse. I have also stood at 'Ground Zero, Hiroshima'. Cures any positive nuclear leanings in anyone pretty ^^%$^% quick...)
I worked at Sizewell in the Uk for about 6 months and felt perfectly safe. the problem here in Aus is that we are using fossil fuels that are causing probs to the atmosphere.
We need to look at alternatives such as Neuclear and wind power, the Vic govt plans to stick the wind farms on land is sheer stupidity, they should be placed out in the bass starit or between mainland and tassie. If many european countries can iinstall them in the north sea why cant we install them offshore.
Practically every state has desert in them and with the amount of open space solar farms could be built.
All and every options have there merits and faults
this is not excellent, this is terrible.
warning for those soft of heart, many of the images in the essay are disturbing.
I remember when they were looking at a third runway option in sydney years ago someone suggested one out at sea using a serious of concrete cups turned upside down with generators inside that used the tide and swell to produce electricity.
Howard has jumped on the nuclear option without exploring other options. Im all for nuclear power stations.
I haven't had time to watch the lot, but will do so later.
A few things stand out. It's a photo essay by a bloke who doesn't speak the language, he's taking pics in an institution for disabled kids.
We don't have those institutions any longer in this country, but in the 60's and 70's it would have been easy to have put together a similar album here.
Nice pics, but probably vouyeristic claptrap.... I'll wait till I've seen it all, and read his scientific backup before I make judgement. (For instance, has he analysed the chemicals used to fertilize the turnips their mothers ate before jumping to conclusions about the cause?)
On the other hand http://www.kiddofspeed.com/ still does it for me, despite a huge wave of conspiracy theories when the pics were first published.
The potential for disaster is great, sure, but it's not just nuclear reactors which cause disruption. Just ask the people of Bopal:
I wouldn't particularly like to be living within 5k of a fuel refinery if there was a major accident either!Quote:
The report from London-based Amnesty International said "new research" revealed that more than 7,000 people had died immediately after the gas leak, while a further 15,000 people had died of related diseases since 1984.
"More than 100,000 people are suffering from chronic or debilitating illnesses," the report said.
Personally, I'd support HUGE increases in power costs so that consumption would be reduced and the world's resources would be used more prudently, but the same bleeding hearts that moan about damage caused by a nuclear accident, would then be filling their websites with graphic pictures of kids in rags, sheltering against the freezing cold.
I'll go over the whole site in detail before making up my mind though!
Cheers,
P
:D
Little Johnny seems to be jumping to some push from overseas, surprise surprise.
Like Schtoo, I'm not keen on the nuclear powerplant 'alternative', but we're running out of options. It appears that the plants themselves have a limited life span, so not only the waste to dispose of, but the plant itself?! Never mind, we've got great tracts of desert, and an empty ocean just on the doorstep.:rolleyes:
We are going to need more power, especially with the push for desalination, so there is a link between water supply and power needs. I've heard that the Perth desalination plant will be fired by natural gas.
Cheap coal seems to be all the go here in Qld, another short sighted attempt.
Like the water debate, I don't think we should rely on one source for all our power needs, spread it around to what is most suitable in the locality. I've always liked the idea of solar and wind power, but there are high initial costs involved, which aren't offset by power returns...certainly not in the short term.
Cheers,
Chernobyl is an unfair comparison as we are talking Russian technology (oxymoron).
Just take a look at the cars and aircraft they produce, I have been for a ride in a Russian military chopper and that was the ultimate in crude.
Even the Lada Samara, to make a point, was still using a generator and blew headlights over a certain speed as regulation didn't work.
I dread to think what happens within a reactor, near enough is good enough......Comrade Homer.
At this point Solar is not an option as it is not efficient enough unless you run a few acres of panels to power one home.
The only decent things I have had out of Russia where the flight home and Borsch.
midge, get serious - this is irrefutable - are you just trying to cause an argument here ?:mad: this deserves a red if ever!:mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by bitingmidge
everybody knows too many electrons whizzing about a nucleus is bad for you,. so is beryllium, cynenide, nicotine, crossing the road etc. however we dont ban elastic metals (beryllium), ciggies (nicotine), battery factories & gold smelters (Cyenide), busses and roads do we ? is greenhouse emmisions the only way ? obviously not. this thread alone mentions heaps of options (solar, tidal, wind)
we need power, or we need to get off the planet and as grunt so elequently put it previously "Strip mine other plantets instead". "Paying higher power bills" is short sighted and is simply a nose thumbing at poor folk. its not about cost u goose, its about sustainability and alternatives...
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zed
Go for it, but it's a pretty gutless way of responding to a serious argument, or showing that you don't have a better answer. So come on... give me an alternative. Show me how YOU would get the message across to your neighbours that they really should be insulating their house better and creating solar dams, rather than heating it, or that airconditioning is completely unnecessary at the office.Quote:
this deserves a red if ever
Go on... show me.
.Why?Quote:
we need power, or we need to get off the planet .
We've only had power for a hundred years or so, why not ration it and treat it as a valuable commodity instead of lighting bridges and buildings in pretty coloured lights all night. Why should we burn coal at 25,000 tonnes a second just so our kids can leave a light on in their bedroom all night?
.No it's not, it's far sighted, and the simplest way for Joe Bloggs to get the point. We can introduce a safety net for poor folks. I'm not that harsh, but once apon a time living rooms had a single 60 watt bulb in the centre of them....and power was so expensive my old man used to rant and rave about us leaving the lights on, and even took the bathroom bulb out once. We no longer think of it as something of value.Quote:
"Paying higher power bills" is short sighted and is simply a nose thumbing at poor folk. .
.I'm an insect you ape!Quote:
its not about cost u goose, .
AND efficient use of resources. The most sustainable source of power will still drive consumerism which in turn keeps the merry go round turning... more aircon, more consumption, more resources used ...Quote:
its about sustainability and alternatives...
Get real Zeddy, the source of the problem is the REASON for the power use, not the creation of power itself.
Same goes for fuel.
And even for "renewable" resources. Time for a wholesale shift.
Tonight, I'm going to a football match. The power consumed by the stadium lighting could probably keep a small town alive for a month, complete with all functioning emergency services. Does that not seem wasteful to you?? All those tons of coal burnt on a football match for crying out loud.
Cheers,
P
Quote:
Originally Posted by zed
Like I said Zeddy,Quote:
Originally Posted by bitingmidge
Gutless.
P
:D :D :D
No matter which course the Government takes there will be heaps of whingers and opponents. So they can't avoid a big brawl.
In that scenario going for nuclear is the easy course for the Government of the day. (regardless of party politics)
It doesn't matter what the topic, dams, fuel, power, there is no shortage of people who:
a) think what we have is bad
b) think that change to what we have is bad
c) think "they"(someone else) should do something about it
d) don't want a solution which will in any way affect the way they presently live
e) throw stones (or red squares :D ) at anyone who proposes an alternative which has an impact on them, but never propose an alternative.
At the same time we have governments who are elected by the above people, and want to stay in power, so just keep responding.
Time for a benevolent dictatorship I think, or a true republic??
Cheers,
P
:D :D :D
So what IS the answer? Overthrow the government? Things will only get to that point when it's already too late to do anything. Try to educate the masses? Waste of time. Most people are either too complacent, too dumb, or have too much to lose. The way I see it, collapse is inevitable. All we can do is sit back and watch. Behaving yourself will not change a thing but at least it will give you a clear conscience. Which will be cold comfort when the last drop of oil or last lump of coal is gone and they come to break down your door and steal your stash of baked beans.
I just looked at that site. How have 'they' kept all of this out of the spotlight for 20 years?
If you have children, have a look. Look anyway.
Flippant comments will no longer suffice.
I need to go for a walk now, in the clean Tassie air. I will try not to cry.
midge, I dont have the answer/s to the worlds fuel hunger. I wish I did. If I had it I would publish and hopefully make some money and help the planet, my kid etc....
I cant influence my neighbours on their enegy utilisation withouth them satrting to hate me for telling them how to run thier lives - I do however make an attempt to keep mine to a minimum.
FYI - my reddie was for the statement about the deformed kids being deformed due to turnip fertiliser rather than radiation poisioning caused by chernobyl, not your wishing to debate things - I do generally agree with your sentiments - just the above I took offence too.
if that is gutless in your eyes so be it.
If I may stray back onto the thread for a moment:
It's not actually. I've just spent a fascinating if not enjoyable(?) lunch hour reading a summary of Greenpeace's recent report, the UN Chernobyl forums report of last year, and a few other commentaries. On balance, I don't think my first reaction was far off the mark. Neither side it seems has been terribly careful about producing statistics which can be corroborated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zed
Yes there was a terrible nuclear catastrophe. Were the deformities shown a result of these? There seems to be little evidence that that was actually the case, and the photographer comments on future generations of these families without looking to the past. I think I'd want to make sure they weren't the product of a dud gene pool before making sweeping statements, but that's why I'll never be a "journalist".
We have kids with leukemia here, kids with tumors, kids with severe mental disabilaties.
The difference is that we have familiarly comfortable institutions, surgery, better care, different dress customs, Ronald MacDonald House, the Starlight foundation, and no nuclear story, all of which would make it more difficult for an undoubtedly gifted photographer to produce the impact that this one has were he to do the same here.
The pics in this sense do more to remind me of my comfortable place in the world than they do to make me aware of any danger.
I have also scoured the photographer Paul Fusco's other galleries, and like a few others of his type, he's probably got little chance of dying happy!
I don't want to deny, that there was a catastrophe, nor that these kids are not at all well, nor that the photo essay is powerful. All of those things are completely true.
I just think the photos are designed to attack one's emotions and they do that very well, but in this as well as most other issues, an unemotional analysis of the cause is more appropriate.
I guess I'm just in a particularly obstreperous mood today, I just love monthly progress claim time!
Cheers,
P (Sorry Grunt, I didn't mean to devalue your original post - honest!)
:cool:
Midge,
I (dis)respectfully disagree with your statements about the deformities being cuased by other means rather than radioation poisioning.
IMO for you to say/imply/suggest that this may have been caused by something else and should be explored/investigated/studied prior to formal conclusions being drawn displays the following :
- Pig ignorance,
- Journalistic investigative aptitude,
- willingness to incite an argument for the sake of the argument itself.
I imagine that you'd be the type of person that when asked "what colour is the house we're looking at?" would respond by saying "its red, on this side"
Hmmm. Putting aside the 'no nukes' argument, those children are alone in those institutions, over there, right now. Just kids. No future.
The point that is made in any dispassionate review of Chernobyl is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove a connection between deformities and illnesses that are presenting now, and what happened then. It's all based on statistical analysis: are there more cases now than there were before the accident? How do you prove it?
The first the Western world knew about what happened was when some workers at a reactor in Sweden discovered radioactive particles on their clothes. They couldn't find the source and it was investigations into that which forced Russia to admit what had happened. This means that the stuff was spread far and wide across Europe.
In fact, I have read that the majority of the fallout affected surrounding countries. The people in Chernobyl and surrounds who died immediately as a result of the accident were killed by radiation, not cancer.
Thanks Dr Zed, and I guess your other medical colleague Dr Photographer would confirm that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zed
Stats that I've read today vary between a two and ten-fold increase in various ills depending on who is reporting. One even had the frightening conclusion that on a 5million person population base, the actual increase in numbers were insignificant.
No increase is acceptable, but I guess I'm once again railing against a lack of objectivity in reporting.
It's a marvellous thing photography, but it's not a truthful reporting medium. How many times have you shown someone a photo you took and said "but it wasn't really like that"........
TassieK you are dead right.
Cheers,
P
Unfortunately not! There's a lot of information on the Intenet and quite a few books about this disaster. Amongst a lot of other material I've read, one book was written by an investigating engineer based upon his personal experiences just after the "accident". It highlights the soviet thinking of the time. Especially the buck-passing and cover-ups till the evidence of what had happened became so widely experienced any further attempt to hide the facts was futile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Two-Words
It was an inefficiently designed reactor and the main reason this model was built was that it provided some of the right material for making nuclear bombs.
Personally, I don't care how alegedly safe they are now, I formed an opinion at the time that this technology is the last thing we need in this country. I don't know what all the alternatives to nuclear power are but I do know that there's an awful lot more that can be done before this is ever given any credence.
Interesting isn't it, that the "debate" is only raised when Little Johnny is in the US. You can bet your bottom $ that if it ever happens, we won't be buying this technology from the French or the Germans. It will be US companies that benefit..
Oh, and by the way, I'm not a greenie by any stretch of the imagination.:)
Keith
You should know by now that my posts have no value to start with.Quote:
P (Sorry Grunt, I didn't mean to devalue your original post - honest!)
I did a bit of search on the number of casualties caused by Chernobyl. Greenpeace estimated 100,000 fatal cases and 250,000 incidents of cancer. WHO in there initial estimates were at 4000 deaths.
This report which appears to be balanced and produced by actual scientists, suggests the number is between 30,000 and 60,000.
With that number of deaths caused by radiation the number of people with non-fatal cancers would be in excess of 100,000. Children are more vulnerable to cancers caused by radation.
My biggest concern with Nuclear Power is what to do with the waste. The stuff is really leathal for 25,000 years and doesn't really go away for 100,000 years. You are kidding yourself if you believe that we can build something that will contain this stuff for that long.
Interesting, The Age had two related articles.
Debunking the Greenhouse Friendliness of Nuclear Energy
Pipe Ruptures
The older I get the greener I become. I keep looking at the world and keep getting amazed at how fricked it really is.Quote:
Oh, and by the way, I'm not a greenie by any stretch of the imagination.:)
I've decided that I'm going to power down. As SilentC says, it won't make a difference but at least I'll have some baked beans for someone to steal.
Chris
Keith, exactly my point earlier!Quote:
Originally Posted by keith53
And Grunt, I just had a look through those Age articles, the first one is juicy stuff, and written by someone who should know what he's talking about.
I'll have to admit not looking into the photo essay that prompted this thread, my stomach is pretty weak when it comes to kids and deformities. No doubt the emotive content could be seen as swaying the argument, but due to my cynical nature, I think the true legacy from Chenobyl will always be watered down by vested interests...like the pro-nuclear industries. If official estimates are 30,000 minimum, I'd bank on their higher one- 60,000 killed. And the fallout, which obviously went on from an earlier date than reported, may have had a wider impact than Europe alone. Like the dumping of dried apricots from Turkey on the world market soon afterwards.
Cheers, from another NIMBY:D
If you really want to get into it, have a look here and follow up some of the references. Lots of contradicting figures, depending upon who commissioned the study.
There are a couple of frightening aspects to it though. One is how far the contamination spread over Europe and the other is how fragile the 'sarcophagus' over the reactor is. It's not air tight and leaks water. No-one really knows how much fuel and other stuff is still in there. Anyone want to volunteer to have a look?
Darren,Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
you answered your own question in your first sentance. one of the premises of scientific disemination is: "repeatable, measurable and predictable."
Hence the statistics you speak of is the proof itself. Oh.. unless you discount Hiroshima and Nagasaki... If you look at all the stats available, even taking a pessimistic "low number" actual figure then the numbers are still pretty high. what did Hiroshima cause in the initial bast ? was it 140k ? then cancers until this very day.... no doubt someone here can scare up the stats on the net.
with Chernobyl its probably less immediate death figures but I woud imagine the fallout cancers may prove just as high.
Having no Lymphatic system, brains outside of skulls, huge tumours, massive cretinism, lukemia's etc etc.... this is proof enough for little old me. whilst I cannot see a better alternative i think nuc power is the only thing with enough output to satisfy us humans. what about the waste ? I reckon do a superman and hurl the waste into the sun. expensive ? sure, risky ? probably, beats burying it if you ask me...
A couple of things. Firstly, statistical analysis does not prove anything. It gives you an indicator that there might be a connection between some event and an observed phenomena, but you need something else to actually prove it. The first question you must ask yourself when assessing a theory is "could any other set of circumstances give rise to the results I have observed". If the answer is yes, you have to eliminate those first.
Second, all of the things you describe happen all the time elsewhere in the world. The only question is whether or not they are happening more in that particular part of the globe than a. they do elsewhere and b. they did before the event. Even if the answer to both is yes, you do not have proof, but you do have enough evidence to be suspicious.
The problem is that it is hard to prove the connection. You can't (unfortunately) just say "well, it happens a lot more there than it did prior to 1986, so therefore it must be because of the radiation".
Mate, it probably is and either way it's horrible. I'm not disagreeing with you on that score. Just pointing out that it's very hard to prove and this explains why the numbers vary so widely and why so many people are able to argue against it.
Remember: lies, damn lies and statistics...
Going back to the energy debate and the need (or otherwise) for nuclear power, I came across a really good book yesterday called "Australia Compared". Although at $50 odd I didn't buy it, I had a good scan through it...basically compares Australia with a list of many countries throughout the world, with statistics on many things. Like income, health, education, water usage and energy consumption, spread over 2 pages for each category. It scored Australia on a list, supported by 4 relevant graphs, based on the Bureau of Stats., with changes over a twenty year gap. A fascinating insight really, but what took my interest was the fact that each of us uses more energy and water than we did twenty years ago! So much for energy saving developments, and waterwise etc. We really are a mob of hungry consumers, with little thought for future needs.:(
Maybe 'Midges suggestion- of making us pay more for energy AND water usage- is worth listening to. Now if we could just charge industry, like aluminium smelting, for the real, unsubsidised costs of electricity...?
Cheers,
1. Congratulations Grunt the more this sort of discussion is brought in to the public eye the better we all are.
2. Personally I think the photo essay is a gret piece of work.
3. This sort of work is exactly the reason I do NOT watch the TV news and read newspapers. It gives one side to a story on a subject that I can do jack %$^ about and just makes me frustrated and depressed ... I'd pefer to be designing my next project.
4. I think of my self towards the green side of things
5. Do I think Nuke power has a future in Oz ... depends on if we can get enough information to prove it's any worse than coal fired power stations ... here's one in Qld (cleaner than the brown coal from Vic) http://origin.theaustralian.news.com...5165370,00.jpg
6. Mark Diesendorf (UNI NSW): Australia has the biggest per capita emissions of greenhouse gases in the world. Australia’s biggest single source of emissions is burning coal to generate electricity. Coal-burning also emits dangerous air pollutants, including oxides of sulphur and nitrogen, sulphuric and hydrochloric acid, boron, fluoride, particulate matter, mercury and even low-level radioactivity. In addition, coal is responsible for much water pollution, water consumption, land degradation, and occupational health and safety hazards ... from Ockham's Razor about 2 months ago.
7. How about we all panic about the damage we're already doing to the current generation ... and our kids ... why is Cancer so high in Australia already?
8. I wish I had an answer
9. Great to see some level-headed argument about the whole subject (I can forgive a little emotion when the thread starts something made to do exactly that)
10. Thanks guys
Can't really disagree with any of that..Quote:
Originally Posted by Grunt
By the way:
there are 442 "new clear" power plants operating around the world (over 100 in the US) producing nearly 370 000 MW of power and another 31 in construction.
there more NPP's commissioned 21-22 years ago than any other time in history ... hmm when was Cherobyl '86.
the cost of producing clean power from coal will triple our power bill (see this article from the Australian)
The info from Ockhams razor that I quoted above is here for those genuinely interested in alternatives
The average coal fired power station runs at about 31% efficiency.
... no opinion here just sime facts
An estimate of 60,000 deaths in the nuclear industry is certainly not trivial. But take a look at this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining
Admittedly estimates, but 20,000 deaths IN ONE YEAR in China ALONE in coal miners. This does not include deaths in the general population directly caused by illnesses caused by breathing the smoke and fumes from burning the stuff.
Makes me wonder if there are any figures on how many have died mining this stuff over the years??
Apparently (according to Auntie yesterday) the current and planned Nuke stations will exhaust the known supply of Uranium in about 9 years.
Johnny didn't tell you that.
You blokes are kidding yourselves if you think that we won't go to nukuler power AND your really playing with it https://www.ubeaut.biz/wanker.gifif you think that Chernobyl is a good comparison to make to current plants. It's like comparing a sand castle to the Taj Mahal.
From what I've read, Nuclear power is the cheapest and cleanest power there is. I would have thought the Greenies would love it. It will stop the shyte we're currently putting into the atmosphere burning millions of tonnes of coal. Then again, logic and reasoning are not their strong suits are they?https://www.ubeaut.biz/smarty.gif
Dan
OK all you anti-nuclear knowledgeable types, what's the go with Thorium then?
From what I gather, it's biggest drawback (apart from having a much safer "spent" form) is that it isn't particularly suitable for weapons-grade proliferation, which makes it a bit uncool in the only country that is allowed weapons of mass destruction, and why that particular country (see how diplomatic I am Moderator Zed?) is actually sponsoring work in Russia to see what gives.
As an aside, Australia does have about a quarter of the known reserves, so that could be a handy thing.
More info please!
cheers,
P
I used to worry that we would be leaving the future generations ....albeit those several hundred or thousands of years hence......nothing.
No water (global warming)
No fuel ( excessive use)
No arable land (urbanisation)
No fertile women or men (tight underpants)
No large herbivores ( food shortages)
No means of transport (as no fuel)
No hairy wombats, whales nor any large creatures that generate visual sympathetic pains on television left alive ( David Attenborough retires)
No Africans ( Aids)
But the reality is that the human race is really resiliant and just as intelligent humans built the pyramids around 5 thousand years ago and the Romans used cement for construction, I now firmly believe that future generations or a few pandemics will resolve the problem of power, population and all other concerns.
Yes, future generations will need to review their wasteful ways, but as the COST of goods and services increases, this will automatically happen. Look how a small increase in petrol has already altered the purchasing habits for new vehicles.....
Ou current stupid concerns will be resolved in time
Coal will run out in around a thousand or so years, so that will solve that problem.
Nuclear fuel will go fusion, so that will solve that problem.
We will begin to breed whales and hairy wombats so that will solve that problem.
Wood is a renewable resource and loves carbon dioxide, so that's OK for global warming.
Men and women will still seek to breed, but the breeding herd will limit the quantity of progeny, so over-population will be resolved as well.
What's the worry???
(Though I guess I will still worry about lawyers and where to dig for gold or find red cedar.... I mean a man's got to have something to amuse him at 3.00 am in the morning)
Greg
One of the arguments that is always used against nuclear power is the matter of waste.
Can anyone tell us what quantity of waste we are talking about. How much waste does a nuclear power station generate in say one year?
Peter.
Build a waste dump at Nimbin:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturdee