Should Ireland go Nucular?

Agamemnon

Bambi wrote: »

Are our energon generators not online yet?

They were supposed to be but the feckin' Decepticons keep stealing our energon cubes. They're worse than the Spanish stealing our fish.

kmick

Nuclear is a terible solution in that the by product of its use is so dangerous and lasts so long we cant even begin to understand how to deal with it.

NUCLEAR = FAIL

Back to the drawing board.

Blisterman

No, with Steorn, and their perpetual motion machines, we'll have all the electricity we'll ever need. Hurrah!!

It's just a shame, they're having such a hard time, with the distributer, delaying the production.

Cunny-Funt

Yes, and we should start a weapons program too. Just too see how the world would react to Ireland developing nukes.

SimpleSam06

Nuclear is an option for many countries (as several posters have pointed out, France), but Ireland has a better option.

Steyr wrote: »

Those wind fars are an eyesore so too is a powerplant though.

No, Ireland is uniquely placed, probably better than any country in the world, to take advantage of offshore wind farms. Recent developments in the technology mean you can even have deep water wind turbines that you never have to see. The winds over the deep ocean are also a lot stronger and more constant than over land, and even then you can pump water up into reservoirs as your emergency supply.

String a load of them up the coast and you have more power than you could ever want. Transmission isn't a problem, you can pump power over thousands of miles with negligible losses; you only lose power at last stage power redistribution and you were going to lose that no matter how you generate it.

Whats more is it could be the starting point for the development of a huge domestic industrial base (for example Denmark, which has wind turbine industries employing over 30,000 people), and we could export the products all over the world. The hits just keep coming.

rossie1977

Dave! wrote: »

I'm open to it in general, and not thrown off by stuff like Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, etc., but the one remaining concern for me is -- what do you do with all the waste? As far as I'm aware there's no way to recycle it, is there? Failing that, it just keeps building up...

there is no way of recycling it, it all ends up being buried. yucca mountain in nevada is a big topic in the states http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/topics/yucca-mountain/

cyburger wrote:

People talk about launching it into space, what'd be wrong with that? there's a negligible risk to an explosion on take off, but if the waste is protected it shouldn't be a problem?

if that was an option it would have been tried years ago. Its a non-runner. if the rocket explodes on takeoff you render that area uninhabitable for thousands of years, if the rocket blows up mid-air you get deadly nuclear waste raining down on an area hundreds of miles in size :eek:

R0ot

Yes, we already import a ton of our electricity from England and Europe, we seriously need to start standing on our own two feet or at least attempt it. This knee jerk reaction when the word nuclear pops up is particularly annoying when we are trying to do something that will benefit the country.

Sonderval

For those who espouse the solar option, I was away at a conference last week in Canada dealing with optical materials (I'm a scientist). We had a number of plenary speakers talking about PV devices (solar cells). None of them think its a viable solution in any meaningful timeframe (The 300 odd scientists in the room didn't disagree either).

Meaningful, as in, before we exceed the CO2 450-550 ppm rating that climatologists are referring to as the tipping point.

Nuclear is a viable option now and is uniquely positioned to provide us with a stopgap energy solution. Modern reactor designs are far from the ones used at Chernobyl and have a much, much reduced threshold for failure.

As a note, people seem to think we have plenty of time to solve this issue and reign in our societies energy production excesses. We don't. Another point the speaker emphasized.

DublinWriter

Sonderval wrote: »

We had a number of plenary speakers talking about PV devices (solar cells). None of them think its a viable solution in any meaningful timeframe (The 300 odd scientists in the room didn't disagree either).

The problem with solar/wind/wave is the pitifully low yield.

For example, I recall reading one particular study about those wind-generators you can buy for your house - most will have to spend 20 years generating electricity before recouping the energy involved in their manufacture.

The question of should Ireland go Nuclear is largely a mute one; Ireland should have gone nuclear in the 1980's. Boo hoo, too late now. Time's up, game over.

Regarding nuclear waste, the Chinese are now leading the world in ceramic coating in order to render nuclear waste totally harmless.

Sonderval

rossie1977 wrote: »

if that was an option it would have been tried years ago. Its a non-runner. if the rocket explodes on takeoff you render that area uninhabitable for thousands of years, if the rocket blows up mid-air you get deadly nuclear waste raining down on an area hundreds of miles in size :eek:

It is an option, actually, just one nobody has the political will to try. Creating containment vessels to safely store any un-processable radioactive material is not an impossible task - it is well within our engineering capability. An understanding of modern rocketry will illuminate you to the fact that there are a number of factors in play which people seem to believe are deleterious to this sort of dumping system.

Sonderval

DublinWriter wrote: »

The problem with solar/wind/wave is the pitifully low yield.

Precisely, and with the substrate material of choice, Silicon, being used in ever greater quantities to fuel our demand for semiconductor devices, the costs behind PV devices also increase.

Its a complex issue, not one usually well defined to the greater public.

andrew

kmick wrote: »

Nuclear is a terible solution in that the by product of its use is so dangerous and lasts so long we cant even begin to understand how to deal with it.

NUCLEAR = FAIL

Back to the drawing board.

Or...we could try to deal with/solve the problem. So long as terrorists don't get at it then Nuclear waste isn't that big a problem. I think we should solidify it and dump it somewhere remote, so that even if it does leak it just pollutes empty land. But thats just my solution i'm no scientist.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Nuclear is an option for many countries (as several posters have pointed out, France), but Ireland has a better option.


No, Ireland is uniquely placed, probably better than any country in the world, to take advantage of offshore wind farms. Recent developments in the technology mean you can even have deep water wind turbines that you never have to see. The winds over the deep ocean are also a lot stronger and more constant than over land, and even then you can pump water up into reservoirs as your emergency supply.

String a load of them up the coast and you have more power than you could ever want. Transmission isn't a problem, you can pump power over thousands of miles with negligible losses; you only lose power at last stage power redistribution and you were going to lose that no matter how you generate it.

Whats more is it could be the starting point for the development of a huge domestic industrial base (for example Denmark, which has wind turbine industries employing over 30,000 people), and we could export the products all over the world. The hits just keep coming.

Wind + Nuclear anyone?

FuzzyLogic wrote: »

BTW accidents are not a risk nowadays.
Those arguments are invalid.

He does have a point people. Reactor designs are extremely safe. The risk of being affected by an accident is too small to really consider in comparison to the benefits.

Quazzie2002 wrote: »

And do you honestly think that any technology the Irish Government are going to buy is going to be current. The last peat burning technology they bought from the russians was obselete before even being built. Any Nuclear Power plants going up in Ireland will almost certainly former eastern european plans that they wouldn't even touch themselves anymore

That's just being silly.

kowloon

jester77 wrote: »

You need to spread them a few more times and leave more space in the stacks

What we really need is antimatter!

Would we produce the antimatter using nuclear energy? :pac:

Pride Fighter

There is a lot of nonsense being spouted about about Nuclear accidents and that areas would be uninhabitable for thousands of years. Nobody has defended those statements with facts. People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after an A-Bomb was dropped on those cities. Chernobyl could be re-populated if the Ukranian government wanted to but I believe they are turning it into a national park.

Sonderval

Society has long held irrational fears, Pride Fighter. And your points are entirely valid.

Even still, I'd rather risk the absolutely minute chance of a nuclear accident then the alternative - an increasingly uninhabitable earth, and the deaths of a few billion people as society begins to collapse.

Judgement Day

No way should Ireland go nuclear - it's bad enough living this close to Sellafield not to mention the two power stations in the North Wales Earthquake zone. One of which has been closed for some years and the other is scheduled to close in 2010 but may be replaced.

[FONT=&quot]Trawsfynydd [/FONT][FONT=&quot]is a village in North Wales, adjacent to the A470 north of Dolgellau[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The village is close to Llyn Trawsfynydd, a large man-made reservoir which was originally built to supply water for Maentwrog hydro-electric power station between 1924 and 1928, and later to supply cooling water to a twin reactor nuclear power plant used for the commercial generation of electricity for the UK national grid. The reactors were of the magnox type. Both reactors are now shut down and the site is in the process of being decommissioned by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.[/FONT]




Wylfa is a nuclear power station situated just west of Cemaes Bay on the island of Anglesey, north Wales. Its location on the coast provides an excellent cooling source for its operation.
It houses two 490 MW Magnox nuclear reactors, "Wylfa-1" and "Wylfa-2", which were built from 1963 and became operational in 1971. They have a combined capacity of 980 MW and Wylfa typically supplies 23 GW·h of electricity daily. It is the largest and last reactor of its type to be built in the UK. It was the second British nuclear power station, following Oldbury, to have a pre-stressed concrete pressure vessel instead of steel for easier construction and enhanced safety.
The original design output was 1,190 MW but unexpected accelerated ("breakaway") corrosion of mild steel components of the gas circuit in hot CO2 was detected even before the first reactor began operating. The channel gas outlet temperature, the temperature at which the CO2 leaves the fuel channels in the reactor core, had to be reduced, initially dropping the power output to 840 MW, which was later raised to 980 MW as more experience accumulated.
The graphite cores each weigh 3,800 tonnes, 6,156 vertical fuel channels contain over 49,248 natural uranium magnox clad fuel elements, hence the name magnox reactor. A further 200 channels allow boron control rods to enter the reactor and control the nuclear reaction. The primary coolant in the reactors is carbon dioxide gas.
The power station is operated by British Nuclear Fuels Limited. The site is owned by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA). Its purpose is to oversee and manage the decommissioning and clean-up of the UK’s civil nuclear legacy.
On 20 July 2006 the NDA announced that the station will be shut down in 2010 because operation beyond then would be "totally uneconomic".[1]
A second plant (generally referred to as Wylfa has been proposed, in part to provide for the needs of the Anglesey Aluminium smelter located in Holyhead. This proposal has been the subject of some local opposition, led by the group People Against Wylfa B ([PAWB]http://stop-wylfa.org - "pawb" is Welsh for "everyone"). The subsidised electricity supply to the smelter company will end, even if the life of the nuclear station is extended by a year or two. Substantial works were needed to strengthen the reactors against deteriorating welds discovered in the safety review in April 2000. Amid public controversy, Greenpeace issued an independent safety appraisal [2] by the nuclear engineering consultancy, Large Associates, but the permit to restart operation was given in August 2001. In addition to welding weaknesses, radiolytic depletion of the graphite moderator blocks was still of concern and PAWB continue to campaign for early shut-down of the plant as well as against any nuclear replacement. Nevertheless, in March 2006 the local council voted to extend the life of Wylfa A and to support the construction of Wylfa B, citing the potential loss of employment in the smelter works and nuclear station.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]


The current estimate by the United Kingdom's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is that it will cost at least £70 billion to decommission the existing United Kingdom nuclear sites; this takes no account of what will happen in the future. Also, due to the latent radioactivity in the reactor core, the decommissioning of a reactor is a slow process which has to take place in stages; the plans of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority for decommissioning reactors have an average 50 year time frame.
REF: Wikipedia

kowloon

The answer is magnets; the world of tomorrow will be powered by those executive toy thingies. There will be partial nudity.

Are we really that worried about accidents? We could just stick it in Monaghan or some other county that nobody cares about, or are even aware of the existance of.

SimpleSam06

rossie1977 wrote: »

there is no way of recycling it, it all ends up being buried. yucca mountain in nevada is a big topic in the states http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/topics/yucca-mountain/

US reactors are pitifully outdated, they haven't built new ones in decades. The latest reactors use the nuclear waste as fuel, breeder reactors. I still don't think thats a great option for Ireland though.

rossie1977 wrote: »

if that was an option it would have been tried years ago. Its a non-runner. if the rocket explodes on takeoff you render that area uninhabitable for thousands of years, if the rocket blows up mid-air you get deadly nuclear waste raining down on an area hundreds of miles in size :eek:

Folks, the more deadly the radioactive material, the shorter the half life. Radioactive materials that persist for thousands of years aren't that dangerous.

Sonderval wrote: »

Nuclear is a viable option now and is uniquely positioned to provide us with a stopgap energy solution.

US and European solutions aren't neccesarily the best solution for Ireland.

DublinWriter wrote: »

The problem with solar/wind/wave is the pitifully low yield.

Sonderval wrote: »

Precisely, and with the substrate material of choice, Silicon, being used in ever greater quantities to fuel our demand for semiconductor devices, the costs behind PV devices also increase.

Nonsense, wind produces great yields. Denmark gets near to 14% of its power from wind turbines. Germany isn't far behind. A country like Ireland could get as near as makes no difference to 100% wind power.

andrew wrote: »

Wind + Nuclear anyone?

Or just wind by itself.

Sonderval

Nonsense indeed - the yields for wind power are decent, but you fail to consider a crucial fact. As we fill up easily exploitable areas for wind power (near shore facilities), the cost of developing alternative sites (as well as the required technology) increases. 1sq mile may cost 3 million, but as you progress onto difficult to develop sites (nearing the continental shelves, various seafloor considerations, etc) its not so cheap. Its almost a logarithmic function, where we plot cost/farm vs relative energy price.

Secondly, the technology for these deep ocean windfarms isn't developed yet, certainly not the scale we need in the immediate future.

Nuclear power, on the other hand, is a mature technology that can provide clean power and can help immediately, barring reluctance from societies irrational fear of another Chernobyl.

SimpleSam06

Sonderval wrote: »

Nonsense indeed - the yields for wind power are decent, but you fail to consider a crucial fact. As we fill up easily exploitable areas for wind power (near shore facilities), the cost of developing alternative sites (as well as the required technology) increases. 1sq mile may cost 3 million, but as you progress onto difficult to develop sites (nearing the continental shelves, various seafloor considerations, etc) its not so cheap. Its almost a logarithmic function, where we plot cost/farm vs relative energy price.

And you fail it, as the recently developed technology is in floating deep sea wind turbines.

Sonderval wrote: »

Secondly, the technology for these deep ocean windfarms isn't developed yet, certainly not the scale we need in the immediate future.

Yes, it is. Norway is building one next year. It is already in use for offshore oil and gas platforms.

Sonderval wrote: »

Nuclear power, on the other hand, is a mature technology that can provide clean power and can help immediately, barring reluctance from societies irrational fear of another Chernobyl.

For the gargantuan investment you would have to make for one nuclear reactor, you could happily cover enormous areas of otherwise unused ocean with wind turbines. Added bonus which you have not factored in, an immense boost for an exportable domestic industry which we badly, badly need in this country.

Sonderval

With sincerity, I have 'failed' at nothing (nor have I called any of your points 'nonsense')

My points are entirely valid. Wind produces decent, but fluctuating yields. Indeed, another one is the issue of wind-power integration with national energy grids.

Re: the link you posted. You are aware that this is a research project? The article in your link clearly states as much, and goes on to mention, quote: "floating wind power is not mature technology yet, and the road to commercialization and large scale development is long. An important aspect of the project is therefore research and development”.

Nuclear power is immediately available, mature and capable.

xOxSinéadxOx

nuclear is the only way forward

ZygOte

The Scientist wrote: »

Lol at everyone voting yes,
I wonder how many would change their tune if a Plant was being built in a 10 - 20 mile radius of their house.

lol at you you think a 10 - 20 mile radius is anywhere near enough? With Ireland being the size it is i doubt it would matter one iota where you put a power plant if that thing goes were are all probably going with it, and anyone who doesnt would be wishing they had when the after effects kick in.


personally i think yeah maybe one day we should go nuclear but the real question is would you trust our government/civil service with one ?
Tea break lads! dont worry about that flashy light thing until after........

SimpleSam06

Sonderval wrote: »

My points are entirely valid. Wind produces decent, but fluctuating yields. Indeed, another one is the issue of wind-power integration with national energy grids.

Wrong, deep water wind is far more steady and stronger than onshore winds. I already pointed this out.

Sonderval wrote: »

Re: the link you posted. You are aware that this is a research project?

By statoil hydro, which states the turbine will cost around 80 million. Then again, the first computer cost around 5 million. I wonder what sort of a computer that money will buy you these days?

The fact of the matter is, floating wind turbines have moved beyond proof of concept, and that there are still minor engineering challenges to overcome is all the more cause for us to pile onto it immediately before anyone else does.

There is no reason at all, none, that any money (billions or tens of billions) put into a single solitary nuclear plant in Ireland could not produce far greater returns in every way possible if put into deepwater or even just plain old offshore wind turbine projects.

I mean you're talking about running out of space. We have what, three and a half thousand miles of coastline in this country?

SimpleSam06

And further googling reveals commercial deep water wind farms in the offing... Now really is the time to get working on it.

ScumLord

I'm going nuclear tomorrow. Anyone want to buy some electricity and/or radioactive keep sakes?

Red Alert

The trouble with wind farms is they're unpredictable, also they're not good for stability in the transmission system - so you end up with frequent blackouts unless they're well managed.

Nuclear would definitely be an option because with modern technology it'd be much less harmful to the environment.

SimpleSam06

Red Alert wrote: »

The trouble with wind farms is they're unpredictable, also they're not good for stability in the transmission system - so you end up with frequent blackouts unless they're well managed.

Aaaaand for the third time so far, deep water winds are both much steadier and stronger than onshore winds.

Tnx for the input though.

Sonderval

SimpleSam, this isn't a commercially viable technology yet! Even the bloody guys who make them say so. Its all prototype tech, and everything about them is an estimate. They even go on to say that it won't be commercially viable for a long time yet to come. You totally missed the point Red Alert was making. Off shore winds may be steadier in their intensity, but that doesn't mean they are always on.

Again, Nuclear energy is mature, available and immediate.

SimpleSam06

Sonderval wrote: »

SimpleSam, this isn't a commercially viable technology yet! Even the bloody guys who make them say so. Its all prototype tech, and everything about them is an estimate. They even go on to say that it won't be commercially viable for a long time yet to come.

You obviously didn't read that second link. If they are planning on opening a commercial deep water wind farm in four or five years, its as good as done. And thats only one project. There are pleanty of others. Every element of this technology is proven, tried and trusted. Putting them together isn't that hard.

Its not a question of if, its a question of when, and that when is very soon. And hell yeah I want my country to have a piece of that.

Sonderval wrote: »

You totally missed the point Red Alert was making. Off shore winds may be steadier in their intensity, but that doesn't mean they are always on.

And we swing back to the point I originally made, which is that Ireland is uniquely well placed to take advantage of steady deep water Atlantic winds. You also missed the point that you can pump water into reservoirs with your surplus during off peak times to act as a buffer for the five minutes annually when there is a lull in the winds along the entire Atlantic seaboard.

Sonderval wrote: »

Again, Nuclear energy is mature, available and immediate.

If by immediate you mean five to ten years and billions or tens of billions of euros of investment to build just one, assuming you could ever get around the local popular resistance to the technology. And you won't. For Ireland, nuclear is a step backwards.

I realise I am making my points strongly, but thats how I get when I am arguing a position that seems as clearly obvious as the nose on my face to me.

Tar.Aldarion

Wind, hydro, nuclear, whatever. Doesn't matter if they do them right...
Shock, technology has improved since computers were the size of a room.

Earthhorse

kowloon wrote: »

The answer is magnets; the world of tomorrow will be powered by those executive toy thingies. There will be partial nudity.

FFS, there's always a drawback with these things.

Best stick with nuclear for the minute. I don't want to see anybody's "bits".

nyarlothothep

yes, it would be cool

though "ah sure t'will be grand" would just not cut it nor would incompetence, it would have to be run with teutonic tightness for eternity

Havermeyer

Yup, it's gonna have to be done eventually. As soon as all the fúcking tree huggers and old prudes have been culled we should get on with building a nuclear plant. Solar power/wind power are not productive enough to power a country single handedly without requiring vast amounts of wind farms/solar plants; and besides they are more expensive to run and less productive than other forms of energy.

Most of the nay sayers hear nuclear and just think Chernobyl. We'll have to embrace it one day.

SimpleSam06

nummnutts wrote: »

Solar power/wind power are not productive enough; and besides they are too expensive to run for the return you get from them.

/facepalm

Dyr

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Chernobyl could be re-populated if the Ukranian government wanted to

That must be very comforting for the people who lost their homes and gained cancerous growths.

remember kids a nuclear power plant is not just for life its forever :pac:

Terry

nummnutts wrote: »

Yup, it's gonna have to be done eventually. As soon as all the fúcking tree huggers and old prudes have been culled we should get on with building a nuclear plant. Solar power/wind power are not productive enough; and besides they are too expensive to run for the return you get from them.

Most of the nay sayers hear nuclear and just think Chernobyl. We'll have to embrace it one day.

Best of luck with that.
Someone tried to build a badly needed car park in my town and they were shot down completely.

You can't build anything in this country without some bitch complaining.


We need to build up. The higher the better.

SimpleSam06

Terry wrote: »

Someone tried to build a badly needed car park in my town and they were shot down completely..

You could park ten thousand square miles of wind turbines off the coast here and no one would be the wiser. No NIMBY because its NIYBY, MF.

Terry

Try it.
I guarantee that someone will complain.

astrofool

We simply wouldn't have the dam capacity to run the country if we went wind power alone, or have the expertise to develop large offshore wind farms ourselves, without a longer (say 10-15 years to get enough people educated, and working on it).

However, thinking in terms of Europe, Spain is usually windy when we are not, and Norway has enough dams to fill any gaps in wind via hydroelectric for 4 weeks. We do however need to build a DC power network to connect it all. (source: http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9539765 )

Anyway, for now, we can go out and buy in a nuclear reactor like Finland have done, straight from Westinghouse or GE, run that for 20-30 years, and have wind to take over from it as it is being decommissionned, we avoid large amounts of waste (that can be used in breeder reactors anyway, as their tech improves), can use the cheap, plentiful power to get our wind farms up and running, both from a manufacturing point of view, and expertise point of view (in 30 years time, wind farm tech should be a lot more efficient than it is now).

As it is now, we are not building much wind anyway, are buying nuclear power from abroad, and rely on a large, very polluting coal power plant to keep us going. Go us.

Lockstep

I lived near one/went to school next to one for five years.

Class trips usually meant going to see Didcot power station. Fine by us kids, we got free biscuits and orange juice as well as a guide who made Simpsons references to the power plant.

Judgement Day

Don't get your point as the two power stations at Didcot burn gas and other conventional material and have nothing to do with Nuclear power generation. It's also a bit like saying that because the visitor centre and cafe at Sellafield are nice and clean then so is nuclear power.:):)

b3t4

I do not believe Ireland should go nuclear.

Why?

Because we already have a problem with household waste. How on earth are we going to manage nuclear waste? This world of ours is finite. There is only so much room and only so many places we can dump waste. What happens when we run out of space? Nuclear waste is even a bigger problem as it's active for thousands of years!

I live in NZ currently and they rely predominantly on renewable energy. NZ and Ireland ain't that much different, apart from Kiwi's can use thermal energy, we even have a similar population. It was a kiwi who first split the atom and they still don't use nuclear power (http://www.rutherford.org.nz/)

I can't fathom why people would think that nuclear is the only way. I'd much prefer a windmill in my back garden than a nuclear point plant. I happen to think windmills are quite pretty too

A.

turf

build on one of the islands of the coast.. perfect for shipping and less complaints id say.

we really shud, nuclear power has been givin a bad rap by newspapers and some sellafield conspiracy.. better for atmosphere, less use of important un-renewable resources and in 2008, pretty sure ireland wud be alrite at building a safe station. we only have countless other successful stations worldwide to base it on.

people who say no should research first. or add an option for "no - and i actually formed that opinion on fact, not media."

turf

b3t4 wrote: »

I do not believe Ireland should go nuclear.

Why?

Because we already have a problem with household waste. How on earth are we going to manage nuclear waste? This world of ours is finite. There is only so much room and only so many places we can dump waste. What happens when we run out of space? Nuclear waste is even a bigger problem as it's active for thousands of years!

do you think they use like a tankful a day or something? the amount used is very small in comparison wit the energy created.. do americans jus leave nuclear waste in the back alley? no.. they were able to create a way of dealing with it. cudnt we?

hussey

All for Oireland going Nucular, I mean we still have not produced a Super hero yet, let's speed up the process I say.

turf

hussey wrote: »

All for Oireland going Nucular, I mean we still have not produced a Super hero yet, let's speed up the process I say.

ah but the hulk isnt as cool as the other superheros..

Riddle101

Yes. It's the best way, we'd be less dependant on other countries and it's clearner, it may have a risk but i strongly believe that we can do it

Spastafarian

Pride Fighter wrote: »

There is a lot of nonsense being spouted about about Nuclear accidents and that areas would be uninhabitable for thousands of years. Nobody has defended those statements with facts. People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after an A-Bomb was dropped on those cities. Chernobyl could be re-populated if the Ukranian government wanted to but I believe they are turning it into a national park.

Fallout from an atomic bomb is very temporary compared to fallout from a power plant.
I still voted yes though cos I really have a better chance of being killed by a falling wind turbine than a nuclear power plant.

turf

Spastafarian wrote: »

Fallout from an atomic bomb is very temporary compared to fallout from a power plant.
I still voted yes though cos I really have a better chance of being killed by a falling wind turbine than a nuclear power plant.

i like ur edit, without the wit, ur comment was pretty obvious..