A most fascinating piece on uranium in Cornwall.
That was a pleasant surprise to read, and some of the readings would have the greens fainting in shock. Its more radioactive than anything around Fukushima!!
The cleanup targets there are trying to get radiation down to 1msV/yr or about 1.25uSv/hr.,
That wall there reading 200uSv/hr sheeshh.
Quite recently South Terras was featured on local TV. Some academics from Plymouth Uni had been investigating the site and expressing concern about uranium etc leaching into the local river, the Fal, and whether this has implications for the up-coming EU water directive. See
and nobody gives birth to a two headed sheep.
About one lamb in ten dies at or within a few days of birth due to (mostly) birth defects, even without radiation or heavy metal poisoning. For scare stories, consult your nearest shepherd or trainee shepherd. I overheard a full commentary from one such at our local college the other day.
21 days
Can't believe that noone pulled me up on that.
Yes, my thesis does. Nuclear power stations are even worse than that - that's why it took so long to shut down Fukushima Daichi, and Chernobyl melted. The reason wind makes it _worse_ is that it varies in an unpredictable matter. Even I know that there will be a peak in power consumption at teatime, and a spike in the ad breaks for Coronation St. This can be planned. Adding in allowances for the uniquely unpredictable nature of wind makes it far harder.
I mean unique, BTW; Hydro is normally limited by river flow long term, but you can empty your reservoir at peak times to get a spike in generation, and it's really good at that. Tide happens twice a day (and nicely at opposing phases for the Bristol Channel and Morecambe Bay BTW, not that they are really big enough to help much). Solar you _know_ goes off every night - though the days are also pretty unpredictable...
Andy
There I agree with you. What bothers me with these windmills is that they cost a load of time and resources, and may not be contributing anything worthwhile.
Andy
I don't read the Grauniad either, and that seemd a pretty odd statement for him to make. So I did a little digging:
"In 2003 the Energy White Paper3 declared nuclear power to be uneconomical in the then current climate and foresaw the closure of all but one of the existing nuclear power stations by 2023."
That fits much better with my world view. We're not going to run out of fuel, it's just the power plants are getting old.
The source? Not someone you'd trust, obviously, like a journalist.
Given that I'm sorry, but I'm going to disregard the rest of the article.
Andy
Fascinating, thanks. It appears though that the answer to my tongue-in-cheek question was German glass. I hope it doesn't dissolve in wine ;)
Andy
There are some uranium-glass nuggets for sale on e-bay at present:
It was also proposed that water from the Trenwith mine be used to convert a local hotel into a 'radium spa'. That never happened, but as I said earlier, it was used for the local water supply for decades, as my other head will confirm.
If you asked anybody to compare, off the top of their head, how the number of UK deaths annually due to exposure to natural radon compared with deaths in road traffic accidents, I think most folk would put the radon ones at a very small fraction.
Currently it stands at a little over half.
Chris
That says that of the 1100 lung cancer deaths attributable to radon
160 of them are caused by radon alone. The rest were smokers. (Page 31)
It then goes on to say "The remaining 2.8% are caused both by radon and by active smoking in the sense that the lung cancer would have been avoided if the person concerned either had never smoked or had never been exposed to radon. Nearly half of the deaths caused both by radon and smoking are likely to occur in people who have already given up smoking."
Chris
The count of deaths due to RTA's is pretty easy to perform with confidence. The count of deaths due to radon-induced cancer (mostly lung) is much more problematic and requires a number of assumptions. I note that it says that an estimated 3.3% of lung cancer deaths in the UK are due to residential exposure to radon (3.3% of 34000 ~= 1100). Of these, only 0.5% (~170) are due to radon alone, the other 2.8% are due to the combined effects of radon and smoking. While I haven't ploughed through the whole report and may not have seen it, it would be helpful to have some idea of the accuracy of those estimates, i.e
3.3+/-?, 0.5+/-?. Given the uncertainty in the overall calculation, it wouldn't surprise me if the 0.5% figure at least, wasn't statistically significant.Interesting numbers as they stand, though.
Be very wary of that Radon paper. You have to make a LOT of assumptions to come up with numbers.
Whilst there is no doubt that radon does increase lung cancer deaths, by how much is very very hard to say.
Presumably one could get some confirmation, or otherwise, of those numbers by comparing lung cancer rates in a 'hot spot' with those of a 'cool spot' of similar population. Devon & Cornwall vs. East Anglia would seem good candidates. Actually, I'd be surprised if it hadn't already been done. Does anyone know, and if so, what was the outcome?
I've answered my own question, more or less. The report at
"The lung cancer incidence rate for males in the South West (49.6 per
100,000) is significantly lower (p < 0.01) than England (61.1 per 100,000), and significantly the lowest nationally (p = 0.02). The lung cancer incidence rate for females in the South West (27.4 per 100,000) is significantly lower (p < 0.01) than England (34.7 per 100,000), but in contrast to males is not significantly the lowest nationally (p=0.06)." Section 2.3, p.25.Although the area covered is larger than just Devon and Cornwall, and includes other counties and bits of counties further east, the numbers do rather contradict what one might expect from the Health Protection Agency analysis, where Devon and Cornwall are rightly highlighted as significant radon 'hot spots', and suggests, to me at any rate, that things aren't as bad as they predict.
One in the eye for linear-no-threshold, ISTM.
Smoking and radon is statistically significant. Radon alone is much much less so.
To the point where 'X deaths caused by radon' is a meaningless statement.
Were 27 people shot yesterday by legal guns or by a disturbed young man?
In article , Java Jive scribeth thus
Yes they might there but thats not SW1 is it?..
So were seeing that the UK has been becalmed for the best part of a cold week how are you going top back that up?...
OK..
Yes thats disgusting unnecessary behaviour..
May not be so if the energy policy was to build more nuclear stations which will be good for quite sometime to come yet..
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.