You think Australia has a Nuclear Future

[TassieKiwi]

I just looked at that site. How have 'they' kept all of this out of the spotlight for 20 years?

If you have children, have a look. Look anyway.

Flippant comments will no longer suffice.

I need to go for a walk now, in the clean Tassie air. I will try not to cry.

[Zed]

midge, I dont have the answer/s to the worlds fuel hunger. I wish I did. If I had it I would publish and hopefully make some money and help the planet, my kid etc....

I cant influence my neighbours on their enegy utilisation withouth them satrting to hate me for telling them how to run thier lives - I do however make an attempt to keep mine to a minimum.

FYI - my reddie was for the statement about the deformed kids being deformed due to turnip fertiliser rather than radiation poisioning caused by chernobyl, not your wishing to debate things - I do generally agree with your sentiments - just the above I took offence too.

if that is gutless in your eyes so be it.

[bitingmidge]

If I may stray back onto the thread for a moment:

midge, get serious - this is irrefutable -

It's not actually. I've just spent a fascinating if not enjoyable(?) lunch hour reading a summary of Greenpeace's recent report, the UN Chernobyl forums report of last year, and a few other commentaries. On balance, I don't think my first reaction was far off the mark. Neither side it seems has been terribly careful about producing statistics which can be corroborated.

Yes there was a terrible nuclear catastrophe. Were the deformities shown a result of these? There seems to be little evidence that that was actually the case, and the photographer comments on future generations of these families without looking to the past. I think I'd want to make sure they weren't the product of a dud gene pool before making sweeping statements, but that's why I'll never be a "journalist".

We have kids with leukemia here, kids with tumors, kids with severe mental disabilaties.

The difference is that we have familiarly comfortable institutions, surgery, better care, different dress customs, Ronald MacDonald House, the Starlight foundation, and no nuclear story, all of which would make it more difficult for an undoubtedly gifted photographer to produce the impact that this one has were he to do the same here.

The pics in this sense do more to remind me of my comfortable place in the world than they do to make me aware of any danger.

I have also scoured the photographer Paul Fusco's other galleries, and like a few others of his type, he's probably got little chance of dying happy!

I don't want to deny, that there was a catastrophe, nor that these kids are not at all well, nor that the photo essay is powerful. All of those things are completely true.

I just think the photos are designed to attack one's emotions and they do that very well, but in this as well as most other issues, an unemotional analysis of the cause is more appropriate.

I guess I'm just in a particularly obstreperous mood today, I just love monthly progress claim time!

Cheers,

P (Sorry Grunt, I didn't mean to devalue your original post - honest!)

[Zed]

Midge,

I (dis)respectfully disagree with your statements about the deformities being cuased by other means rather than radioation poisioning.

IMO for you to say/imply/suggest that this may have been caused by something else and should be explored/investigated/studied prior to formal conclusions being drawn displays the following :

• Pig ignorance,
• Journalistic investigative aptitude,
• willingness to incite an argument for the sake of the argument itself.

I imagine that you'd be the type of person that when asked "what colour is the house we're looking at?" would respond by saying "its red, on this side"

[TassieKiwi]

Hmmm. Putting aside the 'no nukes' argument, those children are alone in those institutions, over there, right now. Just kids. No future.

[silentC]

The point that is made in any dispassionate review of Chernobyl is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove a connection between deformities and illnesses that are presenting now, and what happened then. It's all based on statistical analysis: are there more cases now than there were before the accident? How do you prove it?

The first the Western world knew about what happened was when some workers at a reactor in Sweden discovered radioactive particles on their clothes. They couldn't find the source and it was investigations into that which forced Russia to admit what had happened. This means that the stuff was spread far and wide across Europe.

In fact, I have read that the majority of the fallout affected surrounding countries. The people in Chernobyl and surrounds who died immediately as a result of the accident were killed by radiation, not cancer.

[bitingmidge]

I (dis)respectfully disagree with your statements about the deformities being cuased by other means rather than radioation poisioning.

Thanks Dr Zed, and I guess your other medical colleague Dr Photographer would confirm that?

Stats that I've read today vary between a two and ten-fold increase in various ills depending on who is reporting. One even had the frightening conclusion that on a 5million person population base, the actual increase in numbers were insignificant.

No increase is acceptable, but I guess I'm once again railing against a lack of objectivity in reporting.

It's a marvellous thing photography, but it's not a truthful reporting medium. How many times have you shown someone a photo you took and said "but it wasn't really like that"........

TassieK you are dead right.

Cheers,

P

[keith53]

greeny propaganda :mad:

Unfortunately not! There's a lot of information on the Intenet and quite a few books about this disaster. Amongst a lot of other material I've read, one book was written by an investigating engineer based upon his personal experiences just after the "accident". It highlights the soviet thinking of the time. Especially the buck-passing and cover-ups till the evidence of what had happened became so widely experienced any further attempt to hide the facts was futile.

It was an inefficiently designed reactor and the main reason this model was built was that it provided some of the right material for making nuclear bombs.

Personally, I don't care how alegedly safe they are now, I formed an opinion at the time that this technology is the last thing we need in this country. I don't know what all the alternatives to nuclear power are but I do know that there's an awful lot more that can be done before this is ever given any credence.

Interesting isn't it, that the "debate" is only raised when Little Johnny is in the US. You can bet your bottom $ that if it ever happens, we won't be buying this technology from the French or the Germans. It will be US companies that benefit..

Oh, and by the way, I'm not a greenie by any stretch of the imagination.

Keith

[Grunt]

P (Sorry Grunt, I didn't mean to devalue your original post - honest!)

You should know by now that my posts have no value to start with.


I did a bit of search on the number of casualties caused by Chernobyl. Greenpeace estimated 100,000 fatal cases and 250,000 incidents of cancer. WHO in there initial estimates were at 4000 deaths.

This report which appears to be balanced and produced by actual scientists, suggests the number is between 30,000 and 60,000.

With that number of deaths caused by radiation the number of people with non-fatal cancers would be in excess of 100,000. Children are more vulnerable to cancers caused by radation.

My biggest concern with Nuclear Power is what to do with the waste. The stuff is really leathal for 25,000 years and doesn't really go away for 100,000 years. You are kidding yourself if you believe that we can build something that will contain this stuff for that long.

Interesting, The Age had two related articles.
Debunking the Greenhouse Friendliness of Nuclear Energy

Pipe Ruptures

[Grunt]

Oh, and by the way, I'm not a greenie by any stretch of the imagination.

The older I get the greener I become. I keep looking at the world and keep getting amazed at how fricked it really is.

I've decided that I'm going to power down. As SilentC says, it won't make a difference but at least I'll have some baked beans for someone to steal.

Chris

[Andy Mac]

Interesting isn't it, that the "debate" is only raised when Little Johnny is in the US. You can bet your bottom $ that if it ever happens, we won't be buying this technology from the French or the Germans.

Keith, exactly my point earlier!
And Grunt, I just had a look through those Age articles, the first one is juicy stuff, and written by someone who should know what he's talking about.
I'll have to admit not looking into the photo essay that prompted this thread, my stomach is pretty weak when it comes to kids and deformities. No doubt the emotive content could be seen as swaying the argument, but due to my cynical nature, I think the true legacy from Chenobyl will always be watered down by vested interests...like the pro-nuclear industries. If official estimates are 30,000 minimum, I'd bank on their higher one- 60,000 killed. And the fallout, which obviously went on from an earlier date than reported, may have had a wider impact than Europe alone. Like the dumping of dried apricots from Turkey on the world market soon afterwards.

Cheers, from another NIMBY

[silentC]

If you really want to get into it, have a look here and follow up some of the references. Lots of contradicting figures, depending upon who commissioned the study.

There are a couple of frightening aspects to it though. One is how far the contamination spread over Europe and the other is how fragile the 'sarcophagus' over the reactor is. It's not air tight and leaks water. No-one really knows how much fuel and other stuff is still in there. Anyone want to volunteer to have a look?

[Zed]

It's all based on statistical analysis: are there more cases now than there were before the accident? How do you prove it?

Darren,

you answered your own question in your first sentance. one of the premises of scientific disemination is: "repeatable, measurable and predictable."

Hence the statistics you speak of is the proof itself. Oh.. unless you discount Hiroshima and Nagasaki... If you look at all the stats available, even taking a pessimistic "low number" actual figure then the numbers are still pretty high. what did Hiroshima cause in the initial bast ? was it 140k ? then cancers until this very day.... no doubt someone here can scare up the stats on the net.

with Chernobyl its probably less immediate death figures but I woud imagine the fallout cancers may prove just as high.

Having no Lymphatic system, brains outside of skulls, huge tumours, massive cretinism, lukemia's etc etc.... this is proof enough for little old me. whilst I cannot see a better alternative i think nuc power is the only thing with enough output to satisfy us humans. what about the waste ? I reckon do a superman and hurl the waste into the sun. expensive ? sure, risky ? probably, beats burying it if you ask me...

[silentC]

A couple of things. Firstly, statistical analysis does not prove anything. It gives you an indicator that there might be a connection between some event and an observed phenomena, but you need something else to actually prove it. The first question you must ask yourself when assessing a theory is "could any other set of circumstances give rise to the results I have observed". If the answer is yes, you have to eliminate those first.

Second, all of the things you describe happen all the time elsewhere in the world. The only question is whether or not they are happening more in that particular part of the globe than a. they do elsewhere and b. they did before the event. Even if the answer to both is yes, you do not have proof, but you do have enough evidence to be suspicious.

The problem is that it is hard to prove the connection. You can't (unfortunately) just say "well, it happens a lot more there than it did prior to 1986, so therefore it must be because of the radiation".

Mate, it probably is and either way it's horrible. I'm not disagreeing with you on that score. Just pointing out that it's very hard to prove and this explains why the numbers vary so widely and why so many people are able to argue against it.

Remember: lies, damn lies and statistics...

[Andy Mac]

Going back to the energy debate and the need (or otherwise) for nuclear power, I came across a really good book yesterday called "Australia Compared". Although at $50 odd I didn't buy it, I had a good scan through it...basically compares Australia with a list of many countries throughout the world, with statistics on many things. Like income, health, education, water usage and energy consumption, spread over 2 pages for each category. It scored Australia on a list, supported by 4 relevant graphs, based on the Bureau of Stats., with changes over a twenty year gap. A fascinating insight really, but what took my interest was the fact that each of us uses more energy and water than we did twenty years ago! So much for energy saving developments, and waterwise etc. We really are a mob of hungry consumers, with little thought for future needs.
Maybe 'Midges suggestion- of making us pay more for energy AND water usage- is worth listening to. Now if we could just charge industry, like aluminium smelting, for the real, unsubsidised costs of electricity...?

Cheers,