So, the number of people who have died as a direct result of nuclear power generation is less than 50. How many tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people have been killed in coal mines, and of the directly associated health effects of coal mining? In 2004 in China alone, 6027 deaths occurred in coal mines. The fact that anyone even mentions Chernobyl etc. as a reason not to go nuclear shows just how successful the Lefties have been in their nonsensical argument against it.
well they are the most well known and to ignore the amount of people that would have received excessive radiation levels and died painful deaths is classic head in sand arguments. Like I said earlier, I'm in favour of nuclear generation but there are always pitfalls that have to be taken into account.(as a 35 year support IT engineer we always planned for the worst case scenario but hoped for the best) Coal is ridiculous but we seem to be staying on this line for some time due to our reserves. I seem to remember those socialist French have a great love of nuclear power Nuclear Power in France | French Nuclear Energy
Great read. Truth slowing picking up steam. Just because someone has a few letters behind their name doesn't necessarily lend them credibility ... just follow the money trail! How long can they keep up this sham? The United Nations is unsustainable.
Are you serious? No doubt about it these cities have major air quality challenges, but is it really carbon (dioxide) pollution choking the world? "Smog is air pollution that reduces visibility. The term "smog" was first used in the early 1900s to describe a mix of smoke and fog. The smoke usually came from burning coal. Smog was common in industrial areas, and remains a familiar sight in cities today. Today, most of the smog we see is photochemical smog. Photochemical smog is produced when sunlight reacts with nitrogen oxides and at least one volatile organic compound (VOC) in the atmosphere. Nitrogen oxides come from car exhaust, coal power plants, and factory emissions. VOCs are released from gasoline, paints, and many cleaning solvents. When sunlight hits these chemicals, they form airborne particles and ground-level ozoneor smog." and "Hong Kongs Air Quality Health Index, which was launched in December 2013 and ranks the air on a scale from one (good) to 10 (bad), monitors the concentrations of four major pollutantsozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulphur dioxide (SO2) and particulate matter, including both PM10 and PM2.5on a three-hour moving average."
Isn't it amazing how nuclear power, global warming and left wing politics are intertwined. Australia should be using nuclear power for baseload power generation, its a scandal we are still relying on coal. As pointed out by others, there are a large huge number of fatalities and health problems associtated with coal production and use, yet the relatively few deaths associated with nuclear power are somehow much worse. And you would think that the green movement would lobby for nuclear power as it generates close to zero pollution, yet the greens excuse is "nuclear is cost prohibitive". The greens position however serves to expose their true agenda: the greens are are not really about "saving the environment or the planet", because if they truly believed that the planet was at risk, they would clamour to lobby for whatever technology it took to "save the planet" irrespective of the cost (and so why not nuclear ?) This is because the greens agenda is essentially anti-development, which is why they don't support workable energy alternatives and only advocate technologies that are not ready, or will never fully cater for the countries baseload energy needs, resulting in reduced supply and increased energy costs and thus providing justifiaction for their agenda to change society and further their utopian (socialist) goals . And on the subject of climate chnage, this guy has pretty much nailed it: Henrik Svensmark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia M
Well said. I cant wait till those bird chopping monstrosities out your way are pulled down. What an eyesore.
A pretty lame (and straight out of the Green manual on how to scare people) question, but in any case... Sure. Bring it on. I have no problem at all in SA having our country's first nuclear power plant. After all, we have virtually all of our raw material, plenty of sites to put one (obviously not in my, or anyone else's "burb"), and we need the economic benefits it would certainly bring. Or, if it makes the hypocrites happy, we can carry on burning dirty coal in our old fashioned power plants whilst stupidly dreaming of a future where wind and solar powers everything... It's no coincidence that SA currently has both the most "renewable" energy production in Australia, and also the highest electricity prices in the world.
Yes I'd object. I want a coal burning power plant in my suburb, along with many other industrial and manufacturing plants. One stupid post deserves another.
Good friend of mine works for Electranet on the windmill farms and all the other alternative power sources as well as the main stream power from coal so you can blame him for the high cost AFTER they just sacked hundreds of workers there ..... he must be due for another pay rise so watch out for another HUGE increase in electricity costs.
KIAI moonlighting [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46Mx8R7wxVg]Barbeques Galore - May Madness TV Commercial - YouTube[/ame]
Why stupid? The fact is NOBODY wants a nuclear plant close to them. All good as long as it's in somebody else's back yard. And for the record, I think wind turbines are beautiful! No problem living with those.
Holy Crap! I didn't realise God was on this forum! Someone who knows what EVERYONE thinks! For the record, I for one would much rather have a modern nuclear power plant near me than an old fashioned coal power plant. Maybe I'm just a realist rather than an idealist.
Tiki just told me off for saying that. She said that if a man says something stupid, I wouldn't tell him he's making men look dumb. Btw Karen, have you ever heard a wind farm?
