24 replies to this topic

[Ingham Fireworks]

[Damp Squib]

The current stats say in the UK 1/3 get it and 1/4 die from it. However the most common type is the type associated with smoking (it a ridiculously high percentage of smokers get cancer). So if you do not smoke, it's more like 1/6 get and 1/8 die.

15 million people die of cancer every year check your figures m8 ,even if 1\4 of those 15 million die thats still 3.75 million,with the normal death rate excluding cancer we'd run out of people in about 2020

[RegimentalPyro]

DampSquib,

Andrew's figures are correct. I don't think he quoted them "per annum" as you have assumed.

Also please cut out the txtspeak. It's unclear. There are plenty of foreign members on this board and *they* all manage to stick to English to aid communication. I'm sure you can also!

[Damp Squib]

DampSquib,

Andrew's figures are correct. I don't think he quoted them "per annum" as you have assumed.

Also please cut out the txtspeak. It's unclear. There are plenty of foreign members on this board and *they* all manage to stick to English to aid communication. I'm sure you can also!

I know I just got up I came back to my computer to apologize after thinking about it you beat me to it damn you for being up this early on saturday morning ,I also dont like text speak on forums the only one I use on forums is m8 I'll cut it out though if you so desire

[Phoenix]

Whilst I am a supporter of Greenpeace (and Friends of the Earth), my views on nuclear power are more in line with those of alany and James Lovelock. I don't "like" nuclear power, because it does produce dangerous waste and it is not carbon neutral (the the greenhouse gasses produced by building the station, refining the fuel, and then burying eveything after it's been used (fuel and station) are not trivial). However, I think it's a massive improvement over burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuels produce a huge volume of waste in the form of carbon dioxide, which is released into the atmosphere, where it is far from harmless. Nuclear fission also produces dangerous waste, but the quantities are tiny by comparison - I'm sure most people will have see a photo of the waste from supplying the average person with energy for their entire lifetime - it's a ball about the size of an orange. Whilst keeping nuclear waste out of the environment may not be easy, it's certainly a lot easier to deal with than millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide.

In an ideal world, I, like Greenpeace, would like to see truly clean and renewable energy sources (wind, solar, biofuels etc) replace fossil fuels. I think that theoretically this might be possible, however, this would mean real changes to the way people live, so in practice you'd first have to "win the hearts an minds" of the developed world, and of course developing nations such as China and India. Frankly, that ain't gonna happen in time, and I think that nuclear power is the best option for lowering greenhouse gas emissions to safer levels before it's too late. Ideally this would be as a "stepping stone" to cleaner sorces of energy, be they wind, biofuels or some as yet undeveloped source such as nuclear fusion.

BTW, here's quite an interesting page about nuclear waste.

Edited by Phoenix, 28 January 2006 - 04:15 PM.

[Andrew]

15 million people die of cancer every year check your figures m8 ,even if 1\4 of those 15 million die thats still 3.75 million,with the normal death rate excluding cancer we'd run out of people in about 2020

Those figures relate to the population over a period of the ALE (Average Life Expectancy); about 90 years now give or take. Just one point though, if the population were to die at a percentile rate of the instantanious population, you would never kill every one off. The sum to infinity would be zero yes, but it would take forever to get there.

I don't "like" nuclear power, because it does produce dangerous waste and it is not carbon neutral.

In the grand scheme of things it pretty much is. Granted there is a small spurious component that is often ignored; the construction etc. In a full life time study of a nuclear power station, the total carbon emissions equate to a negligible amount.

One strategy BNF is considering (they might well be implementing it now), is to turn the waste into glass, mix it up with the ore that it came from in the first place, reform it into rock, and put it back into the hole it came from in the first place. The net affect is to accelerate the decay of the radioactive material in any one given bit of rock. In effect making the rock less radioactive, than it was before refining and use of the fuel.

The biggest thing the government should be concentrating on is scrapping tax on carbon neutral fuels; bio-diesel and solar panels etc. This would propel the development of the technology and make it cheaper for the end user.

[Chaz]

Ridiculous. Maybe if Green Peace were campaigning with genuine reasons to stop nuclear power stations, it would be ok. But as it has already been pointed out in this thread, a plane wouldn't damage a nuclear power station. Here's the video someone further up mentioned:

http://dl2.dumpalink...DRMdRSFwzGc.wmv

[Andrew]

Nice video.

That is the sort of thing that happens to debree when it hits a spacecraft!!! Except a hole is usually left right through the satellite, and it usually stops all your instruments working.

Some would argue that an Airbus A380 is a different matter though, but that wall represents only the outer skin of a power station. That is only a fraction of the width of a real wall. In the US it might only be that thick! There was a mass role out of nuclear power in the US well before the UK. There are many serious problems with the US nuclear power reactors at the moment, several have had to be decomissioned early because of critical design floors causing leaks.

[Damp Squib]

My only grievance with the test was I didnt see a fuel fireball,a sign the plane was just an empty aluminium carcas the avionics and engines may have been removed also

If anyone has more info on the test I'd appreciate the info

[lew]

In response to the 9/11 attacks, all british naval reactors onboard our submarines have had kevlar/titanium armour applied to the outer hull of the boat, where the reactor is situated.

This again is to resist attack from the air, and more probably, the sea.

Another interisting development is KKP, or Kinetic Kill Principal - The most probabal threat is a RIB or small boat filled with terrorists and/or explosive contact charges attempting to ram and detonate in contact with the hull of the submarine.
An SA80 rifle may kill terrorists, and make a few small holes in the boat, but it would still continue on its course.

So, its a good job a decision has been made to equip us with miniguns then!!!

The idea is to have (an un disclosed number) of fixed miniguns that will, (by firing eighty 7.62mm round a second), reduce any atacking vessle to matchstcks faster than you can say "Bin-Laden's a big pansey"