IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Explosion at Hydroelectric plant
Topic Summary:
Created On: 25 February 2010 08:36 AM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 25 February 2010 08:36 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rogerbryant

Posts: 867
Joined: 19 July 2002

This links to an American report on an accident at a Russian hydroelectric plant. The death toll was higher than Chernobyl!

http://www.hss.energy.gov/csa/...y2010/OES_2010-01.pdf

Best regards

Roger
 24 March 2010 01:07 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

The Ruskies don't seem too good at running power plants, do they?

Re: your comments in another thread:


Ipayyoursalary, I find your views to be rather inconsistent. You rant on about the pseudoscience of climate change and global warming yet you follow the emotional/political hype regarding the dangers of nuclear power,

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From your post on wind turbines...


My point was that people who profess concern about trace amounts of a natural plant fertilizing gas CO2 seem unconcerned about the very real dangers of nuclear accidents.

Re Chernobyl casualties. When studying figures you have to be careful about the bias of the reporting organisation. eg. It is in the interest of the IAEA and governments to downplay the figures and downplay any side effects. Although, even according to their 2005 report, there were "56 direct deaths (47 accident workers and nine children with thyroid cancer) and an estimated 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people."

As for me 'ranting on about the pseudoscience of climate change'. Sorry for that - but it's an important issue and I was dismayed to find the IET magazine full from cover-to-cover with climate alarmist nonsense - and all 3 main parties supporting the madness - and no discussion of the issue here among engineers tasked with keeping the lights on.
 24 March 2010 01:30 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19759
Joined: 23 March 2004

with climate alarmist nonsense


In your view - there is a reasonable body of evidence that suggests that anthropogenic CO2 has potential to exert a forcing influence on natural cyclic patterns of global temperature.

and no discussion of the issue here among engineers tasked with keeping the lights on.


As an engineer, I would wish to take a precautionary approach that reduces demand because that's more in line with a sustainable agenda than climate change in isolation - there is plenty of debate if you care to look for it

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 24 March 2010 03:35 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rogerbryant

Posts: 867
Joined: 19 July 2002

I agree entirely regarding the biasing of reporting and try to find a balanced view in all areas.

The climate is changing as it always has. Just outside the next village to me is a boulder the size of a car that was delivered by a glacier in the last ice age. The tongue of that glacier is now 10s of km away. The influence of human activity on this change is rather less certain. There are various mathmatical models linking CO2 levels and global temperature based on past data from ice cores etc. My question is always which came first, the warming or the CO2. If you raise the temperature all living things respire faster and give off more CO2.

High doses of radiation are dangerous. 10 Sv is almost certainly fatal, 0.5 Sv will cause measurable changes to your blood count. However 20 Aspins are almost certainly fatal, 2 will relieve your headache and one half per day may protect you from heart attacks and strokes.
The effects of low doses of radiation are not certain. There do not appear to be higher death rates or incidences of cancer in areas with higher levels of natural radiation (higher altitude, granite etc) and some studies suggest that the incidence of cancer may be lower. Similar results were obtained from an apartment block in (I think) Taiwan which was built with radioactive reinforcing bars. The current legislation on radiation dose is based on the Linear No Threashold (LNT) principle that the risk is always proportional to the dose.This is the source of the estimated 4000 extra deaths from Chernobyl (or 10,000 or 50,000 depending on your source). The greatest loss of life from Chenobyl was the estimated 100,000 unnecessary abortions carried out on women in western Europe due to radiophobia and scaremongering.

This LNT theory (and hence a lot of the perceived danger of radiation) sits at a similar credibility level as the theory that climate change is caused by human activity. It is supported by all parties of all govenments, it is based on extrapaolation from a small set of results without a true scientific basis and a lot of researchers and govenment departments get their money from supporting it.

Best regards

Roger
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.