Mission Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Interesting, maybe there has been an overall rise in rates over the past couple of decades then. I've been here 15 years now and honestly, have never known so many people to be struck down with some form or other. There was something in the news last week about alcohol and cancer wasn't there? Do we all drink more these days than 20 years ago? From my own personal observations, the island seems to be very sport orientated so you would figure the general health of the population should be pretty good, maybe like others in this thread, I just happen to know / knew lots of people that have / had some form of cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Does it just come with age Mission? My dad always said you know you're old when your year is filled with more funerals than weddings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 I guess that could be the case, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lagman Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Well if it isn`t just paranoia, does anyone have any idea of the legal implications if it could be proved? I mean atleast Cumbria gets employment benefits from the situation, as far as I`m aware we don`t recieve any benefits from it and hasn`t the IOM always protested having it there in the first place? I don`t think anywhere in England or even the rest of Britain/UK could do anything as it`s in that country under that government, but as we are technically a different country what would the ramifications be for damaging the health of people of a different country? As our government pays for Cancer etc. treatment of Manx people in UK hospitals, what would be the implications if it could be proved that it was caused by their reprocessing plant emmisions? And what about all the new power plants that are supposed to be going up along the coast? - not the same thing exactly, but then again -. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJR Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Yes this essential power generation can be a dangerous business - a pal of mine was cut in half by a wind turbine....how unlucky can you get as they only work 12% of the time.It was his own fault though as he was out when the wind was blowing strongly and in the right direction..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Radioactive spills and breakdown revealed at British nuclear plants Leaked report details incidents at three plants during February that were serious enough to be reported to ministers Yes this essential power generation can be a dangerous business 1. Sellafield is not a power generation plant. It is a reprocessing plant which produces a type of fuel for which there is very little demand. 2. Sellafield has a consistenty awful record with respect to safety and transparency. 3. Nuclear power is past its sell by date. It belongs back in the modernist era when people believed that big science and engineering could completely or adequately solve the inherent safety issues. Unless it could be made 100% safe (which it cannot) the dangers of failure mean that nuclear will always be a solution which is potentially too dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Unless it could be made 100% safe No method of power generation can be 100% safe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Unless it could be made 100% safe No method of power generation can be 100% safe exactly. But when nuclear goes wrong the consequences are potentially very much worse then when any other source of power generation goes wrong. A coal power station which is less than 100% safe is much less bothersome than a nuclear power station which is less than 100% safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Of course. That's obvious, however the last two significant accidents were completely avoidable. It always amazes me how we don't care about all the shite that comes out of all the coal powered stations as if it's completely harmless yet it just goes into the atmosphere and its effects are worldwide and very significant. Assuming you keep the lid on nuclear, the waste is all traceable and due to very sensitive instruments, the tiniest amounts of leakage are instantly identifiable. It goes without saying that the industry has to make safety the #1 priority. However I think it it very easy to make everyone very scared of nuclear yet we accept without a second thought much more dangerous and risky things in life. Nuclear has the ability to make huge inroads into climate change. All these renewables, whilst being a help, just won't keep the light on. They just won't, no matter how much we would all like them to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Most people would rather take their chances with climate change than with nuclear waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Nuclear waste can be controlled* whilst climate change is on the verge of becoming uncontrollable. What's your answer to keeping the lights on without hugely accelerating climate change then pongo? * and not by just sticking it under the reactor in a country (in)famous for its earthquakes. FFS a 10 year old could work out that wasn't a good idea just as doing a few unauthorised experiments ( a "systems test" ) during a boring night shift actually on a shift change somewhere near Kiev wasn't either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey boy Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Well if it isn`t just paranoia, does anyone have any idea of the legal implications if it could be proved? I mean atleast Cumbria gets employment benefits from the situation, as far as I`m aware we don`t recieve any benefits from it and hasn`t the IOM always protested having it there in the first place? I don`t think anywhere in England or even the rest of Britain/UK could do anything as it`s in that country under that government, but as we are technically a different country what would the ramifications be for damaging the health of people of a different country? As our government pays for Cancer etc. treatment of Manx people in UK hospitals, what would be the implications if it could be proved that it was caused by their reprocessing plant emmisions? And what about all the new power plants that are supposed to be going up along the coast? - not the same thing exactly, but then again -. You would never be able to prove it. Try proving which way the wind was blowing during the Windscale accident in the 1950's. Despite the fact met records were kept at the time you won't be able to. Money talks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Most people would rather take their chances with climate change than with nuclear waste. What opinion poll is this coming from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 What's your answer to keeping the lights on without hugely accelerating climate change then pongo? Hugely ? Turn the lights out more often and move the economy away from a dependence on continual growth. Reverse growth towards sustainability. If you believe in man made climate change and are convinced that it is a problem then reduce your own footprint. Stay at home. Turn everything off. Stop reproducing. The nuclear industry has been trying to use belief in climate change to push its case. But even before the Japan earthquake a slight majority in europe remained opposed to nuclear power. Despite all the media attention around climate change and propaganda from the nuclear industry. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_297_en.pdf The results would likely be significantly different today. I doubt that nuclear power will be politically viable for decades now even assuming there are no further nuclear accidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 Ah, yes pongo that will be the ideal world you're talking about wouldn't it? In an ideal world we would tell ourselves on an individual level that we should reproduce less and consume less and then carry that out. Like many idealistic principles, the real life scenario and the ideal are poles apart. My insight into all this is a son doing a M.Eng in electrical engineering at the moment. Opinion there is that unless something is done in the next year or three, lights will be going out and factories will be stopping. You may regard that as a good thing, self limiting the problem but I doubt (just for example) the dialysis patient would see things the same way. As to "hugely", that is the case. Look at the number of coal fired power stations being commissioned annually in China and then kid yourself they have no effect here. As to the report well that is to be expected. If someone asked me a question like "would you prefer to have or not to have a nuclear powered industry (obliquely suggesting there was a sustainable alternative) I would of course prefer there not to be one. However, despite researching PV and solar quite recently on an individual level, I am told that all the renewable technologies just can't replace conventional power generation. The numbers, although we'd all love them to, just don't add up. Nuclear is unfortunately the answer although I would agree that there are lots of unanswered questions to be resolved first. If you can frighten some people with phone masts (including some 'doctors'!) just imagine what you can do with nuclear power and then do a survey. Now, c'mon pongo answer that question I posed earlier without just saying " reproduce and consume less", because in reality that isn't going to happen. Of course, it should but it ain't going to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.