If you were a scientist you would know that the waste from coal fired plants like Drax are more radioactive than anything that has escaped from a nuclear power station. There doesn't appear to be much concern about it either they just make low density concreate blocks out of it and use it to build houses.
I bet you think powerlines cause lukemia too.
Sometimes I dont think you think at all.
NT
I think you're trying to take advantage of the fact that I'm not a scientist by making ridiculous assertions. Even if coal fired plants are responsible for radioactive emissions the statement you make above is daft.
Has there been any consideration done on how the energy in these blocks can be harnessed by the domestic heating systems they house?
I don't know but if I was worried about it I'd give them a wider berth.
Despite the wide dispersal of Thorium from coal fired power stations "escaped from a nuclear power station in Yorkshire" would be slightly more accurate.
You conveniently forget Windscale/Sellafield 1957 and Chernobyl 1986, neither of which are in Yorkshire but still didn't stop the radioactive shit falling on gods own county.
Radioactive concrete blocks, what will they think of next?
And they probably do, but as more recent research has indicated this may require other environmental factors to have any significance.
The message from Mike Halmarack contains these words:
Nope, he's right. Total emmisions of radiation from coal plants is way more than from nuclear stations.
So how come there have been no Chernobyl type incidents around coal fired power stations?
Every energy industry has its death rate. With coal the deaths are mostly in smaller numbers more frequently, so get less attention. There have of course been various cases of mass deaths in mines, but none capture the imagination and hysteria of wild eyed reporters as much as the one nuclear mass death at Chernobyl.
Chernobyl was a truly stupid incident, but such will occur in any industry, even nuclear.
Theres a fascinating account of Chernobyl by a woman that managed to get through the security cordon and have a good look round the site, taking lots of pictures. I didnt re-find the address though.
NT
The message from Mike Halmarack contains these words:
Because it's slowly and continually emitted in the exhaust stream. The concentration is low - but there's an awful lot of it.
I think you're right. I think Guy is right too, if he meant that coal fired power allows more radiation escape than nuclear, when the nuclear power station is running as intended.
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 12:43:27 +0000 someone who may be Mike Halmarack wrote this:-
The best examples of this are the big radiation releases that few people have heard of. The three big disasters at Ozersk (Mayak) in
1949-56, 1957 & 1967 and the Seversk (Tomsk-7) explosion in 1993. These are outlined in the following two links
Possibly this ??
What an experience it was reading that.
"The police began shooting looters in May, when radioactive TV sets began to appear in the pawn shops of Kiev."
is particularly creepy.
True. Try going round your local car dealerships and see if you can get their sales managers interested in your exciting new concept.
Possible.
However. Think one stage further and assume that all of this worked and there were no longer any 4x4s on the road.
Would it make a measurable difference (that could be determined to be scientifically rigorous) to global warming if these vehicles are replaced with others using internal combustion petrol or diesel engines?
If it would, then fine. However, I'm sceptical. I don't know for sure either way and I am not even convinced that it could be rigorously measured.
Given that situation, should we not go the whole hog and apply such disincentives to all IC vehicles?
That would be a fair distribution of responsibility.
So coal is out.
Gas is out.
Oil is out.
Hmm.
You don't live in Yorkshire,do you?
When I was a child there were very frequent pit disasters. Streets would be quiet for a long time while wives, mothers and families grieved.
The same was true in Wales and other coal fields.
Do you *really* know what happened at Chernobyl - or have you been reading the newspaper and watching television?
And, assuming that you DO know, can you think of other incidents?
Please don't say Tthree Mile Island by the way.
But there isn't an alternative to the IC engine yet. (Please don't start silly arguments about electric and hydrogen cars as they produce as much if not more pollution.)
What needs to be done is to limit the effects to the minimum. This means stopping people using more fuel than is needed. They don't need to use two ton of steel shaped like a brick to shift one mother and a kid a mile down the road.
A Ka would do the job just as well and save loads of fuel. Walking would be better but they are always too busy.
I don't really see the need for cars bigger than, say, an Astra for most families or a small people carrier for large families. Anything bigger is just wasting the fuel. .
In article , Mark writes
middle of the warm period in the middle.
There is nothing the human race can do to change anything. Apart from anything else the orders of energy we have control over are minute in comparison with the orders of energy involved in the natural processes.
Get over it!
The cat?
The trouble here is that you are now seeking to tell people what they should have and do.
Perhaps they don't like Kas and Astras.
You may think that these are acceptable vehicles. Someone else may think that anything more than a push bike is unacceptable.
If you would like to restrict the choices of others because you don't feel that what they have is necessary, are you also willing to accept censure of you by people on bikes because they don't think that what you have is necessary?
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.