Tags: Politics, Science, Society
Nuclear Power: ‘No Thanks’ or ‘Yes Please’?
December 1st, 2005, by Rich.
Warning: apache_lookup_uri() [function.apache-lookup-uri]: Unable to include '/pics/2005/nukes/no' - error finding URI in /home/www/boakes.org/htdocs/mods/plugins/boakes-depicticon.php on line 65
For me, the arguments against nuclear power-plants in their current form are overwhelming; the most significant of these being the collapse of the “nuclear is clean” argument (because of the apparent hidden CO2 costs of preparing the enriched uranium).
What’s important for the UK right now is that people engage in an informed debate about how we want to live our lives and the legacy we aspire to leave our decendants.
If, at this juncture, we (the collective British democratic consciousness) opt to create more nuclear plants and they turn out to be global polluters, then several hundred years from now everything else that we stand for will appear irrelevant because our legacy will be an uninhabitable planet. We cannot even hide behind the ignorance of those who went before us, because thanks to the World Wide Web the information that is available to the general public is now infinitely richer - more is known, more is understood and with this increase in knowledge comes a greater collective social responsibility.
I’m certainly not saying Nuclear Power is entirely bad, it’s just that there are too many negatives associated with it at present for it to be a viable global option. Of course, if nuclear power is the wrong answer, it doesn’t necessarily mean that there is an obvious right answer that doesn’t have it’s problems or detractors.
So, debate is good, and debate now, whilst there is not a power crisis (unlike North America) is especially good, because we can take the time to consider and hopefully opt for, a fundamental change in the way we generate, share and use our power.
I’ll be wearing the yellow badge.
Update
A few people have asked if high resolution badge images are available for print purposes. Please contact the copyright holder OOA Fonden, who’s task is to make the logo available for use by the antinuclear movement world wide and to protect the integrity of the logo.
February 4th, 2006 at 11:05 pm
No New Nuclear Build Petition written by South Lakeland Friends of the Earth can be signed online
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/NUCLEARX/petition.html
It takes 10 years to build a nuclear power station but mining companies are already gearing up to add to the tens of thousands abandoned uranium mines on the land of indigenous people from the Aborigines in Australia to the Navajo in New Mexico. Rather like Marie Antoinette saying ‘the water is undrinkable? so what let them eat yellow cake’
February 13th, 2006 at 11:05 am
Fear for nuclear energy is entirely based on fear for radiation. This fear is completely misplaced. It is possible to kill someone with radiation, but the levels needed for it are terribly high. There are many places in the world where natural radiation is several hundreds of times higher than what you in the UK and I me in Holland experience at sea level. Cancer incidence and and mortality in these areas is *lower*. Check the net for ‘radiation hormesis’ or ask me for more info. No I am not paid by the nuclear industry, though I would not object to that. I am a free lance journalist. I came here becauise I searched for the green ‘Nuclear yes please’ button that you show here. Can I copy that?
February 13th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Hi Theo,
I created the “yes please” badge to illustrate the opposing view that the UK lobbyists hold (which differs from the sadly indifferent opinion of the many).
I have no objections to you using my rendering of it (445k), however, the design remains copyright of WISE since it’s a minor derivative of the original, similar to previous multilingual translations.Rich
Update: In the statement above I mistakenly attributed ownership of the trade mark to WISE. Anyone interested in using either logo should contact the copyright holder OOA Fonden, who’s task is to make the logo available for use by the anti nuclear movement world wide and to protect the integrity of the logo.
February 13th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Theo’s comments about fear of radiation are certainly valid, but my concerns are based on the hypothesis that long term stability of energy supply is likely to be more robust and less polluting if we can harness localised energy sources - radiation doesn’t particularly worry me more than the next indifferent man in the street.
I would prefer to get my energy from a nearby wave, wind and solar farms, that can be locally maintained, and which don’t require an international supply network to be managed, maintained, policed and protected.
March 11th, 2006 at 9:09 am
I am actually a little girl who already is against nuclear power!
I was doing some research for school when i stumbled across your site!
The reason i was doing research was for a persuasive argument!
No-one in my class chose Nuclear power. They did nto choose it because
they are unaware of the dangers and risks it gives our world.
I actually found that shocking and i just hope my report against
Nuclear power is a real eye opener for them!
March 29th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Nuclear Power brings shame to our world. Its gases that poloute our air but help our air at the same time. Many people could argue nuclear powers “little” problems are worth all the electricity we use, but do we really need that much electricity. All the modern day things we use like TV and computers can be helpful but do we really need them. Why not rather use newspapers and posters to show adverts? What we really need to think about here is whether we are ready to give up most TV and computer time? Are we truly ready to make the ultimate sacrifice?
March 29th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
If only it were that simple. A man far wiser than I once said “be the change you want to see in the world“, but if you and I both switched off our machines then our voices would not be heard.
The only way to introduce the attractive downshift that you’re proposing is first through providing the people of every country with enough information that each individual can make up their own mind and agree that the change you’re suggesting is worthwhile.
For the next bit, democracy must exist in all countries and there must exist trust between all countries.
When (and if) a worldwide majority of people agree with you, they must then elect governments that will develop international agreements to restrict the ways in which research can be conducted, and limit the “progress” that can be made.
We would have to agree not to use our inventions.
There is a small group of people (Amish) who have already started to live like this - and consequently they have little or no effect on the rest of the world; both in terms of their impact on the climate, and on the way everybody else behaves towards it.
So what’s the long term view? Life will continue on the planet, but humans won’t, our individual and pack instincts for selfish survival are what will eventually extinguish the human race; not through war, but through destruction of the environment.
Consider Ginsberg’s restatement of the laws of thermodynamics:
They are particularly relevant here because they can be applied to humanity on Earth:
So what we may really be engaged in is a battle to either discover the secrets of the universe and thus (perhaps) free ourselves intellectually from the physical confines of this Earth, or instead - the second prize - to keep the human race alive long enough that we can break the third rule and escape the planet.
The latter option will require that we first learn to live within a small sealed ecological environment or we’ll very quickly run out of resources (again) - because finding another inhabitable planet is going to involve a very, very long journey, possibly lasting thousands of years, in a sealed space ship. Maintaining diverse biological life with limited resources is something which we (in supposedly advanced countries) are not very good at (witness the impending expiry of fossil fuels and the rapid deforestation of the planet) which is why closed ecological experiments such as Biosphere 2 are so important to understanding the feasibility of long distance space travel.
So, the solution may not be to unlearn and restrict ourselves, but to learn faster. We will have to work at educating ourselves (humans, not you and I in particular) in all aspects of the problem, and all sides of the different arguments along the way, but regardless, building better governments and improving international accord will be necessary for either escaping the planet, or living on it for as long as possible.
March 30th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
What you have said is very true and very interesting. Of course it is unlikley and we do need to take time but right now we need to tackle the building of no-more because as i am sure you have heard Tony blair wants to build more! Sadly however hard we try he will not back down unlesss we can get most of the country behind us. Which as we all know is a really big challenge. But i believe in a better world, a better place where freedom and no nuclear power is known. A better world, hopefully a world without Tony Blair
April 10th, 2006 at 10:26 am
People say Nuclear Power is bad but do we have any other option. It helps our world and i love it. Its you protesters that damage our world. We need Nuclear Power, there is NO other option. This site talks about Nuclear Power being bad when it is goood sooooooooooooooooooooooo good. I’d like to see you load of moaners survive one minute without it!
[Troll warning: Louise gave the same email address and her machine has the same IP Address as Emma, who has previously commented here, here and here]
April 11th, 2006 at 8:44 am
There is so much wasted power around that nuclear power should NOT be considered if we are concerned about our future on the planet.
Wind, can be harnessed. The real moaners (Louise please note) are the folk who see wind farms as ugly. The Spanish have gigantic windfarms. I’d prefer people just to accept the majestic beauty of these things, and learn to love them realising how much power they can harvest. Think of the windmills of yore. (Hooray says Don Quixote!)
The rivers have potential too. Our daily bread used to be made from flour ground in a mill powered by a passing river or stream, why not harness it again? Heaven knows, we have enough rain in the west to be useful.
There is enormous tidal potential in the sea (particularly in the Bristol Channel with the second largest tide in the world). All this power flows untapped past us twice an day (or four times if you want to be pedantic). Why not use it?
Solar potential in UK is less than in places like Spain and Africa, but as a supplement, it can all help.
Can I have a “No” Badge please???