Nuclear Power Lie

by mgnaiow! - (iosaf ipsiphi) Sun Mar 05, 2006 15:24

Not just Bush and Blair on behalf of the anglo-saxon empire, but the Nestlé food Corporation weighed in. Nestlé as everyone ought know is the largest Food / Famine corporation on the planet.
They are the people who help you work :: rest :: play And in the process of cooking up ever healthier shite for the rich ( us lot ) to eat, & leading the biotech sector in "genomic profile" food (so that in 50 years we may get our own breakfast cereal tailored to our cancer / disease risk profiles ) they also promote "addictive" babymilk formulae in the third world, undermining motherhood, by offering free samples very few can afford to buy for the full weaning term. Considering that few thirdworld mothers have constant access to clean water, and that they generally attempt thrift by under-mixing formulae, the result is increased child malnutrition and associated infant mortality.
anyway - never forget about Nestlé Famine Corp! their technology and resources could actually feed the planet if used properly. http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=239 But instead Peter Brabeck who co-chaired this year's WEF in Switzerland, declared the third world needed nuclear power. http://194.6.181.128/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=107&si...26000 Brabeck is one of the CEO's on the top list of Jabberwocky evil kids. He came to power, ( & it is power ) in an extraordinary meeting of nestlé shareholders after the premature death of one of the Ogilvy clan just about the time of the Tsunami. And is the only CEO I am aware of a top corporation who combines both positions of chairman & chief executive. As well as talking up Nuclear Power, (which needs a lot of water to be safe - one thing most people don't like mentioning is the near meltdown of France's nuclear reactors every drought hit summer, they divert water from ordinary people to stop their installations going pop) He also declared his opinion as one of the "Philosopher Kings of Capitalism" that the capitalist world leadership need to give organise water.
Now they don't want to organise water (h2o) for the poor mothers of supposedly overpopulated countries, they already try and sell them Nestlé water. Nope not a bit of it. they want to privatise water completely. the old "water war story".

Nice to See Keith the cyber aware independent councillor of Mayo still around! :-)

by Eleth Wed Apr 05, 2006 18:24

Climate change is coming about slowly due to the combustion of carbon fuels and the spread of the by-product gasses into the atmosphere where they damage the Ozone layer

The author is confused here. The major byproducts of carbon based fuels such as carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide do not damage the ozone layer. Some power plants do of course emit small levels of nitrous oxide (NO) which can react with O3 to form O2 and NO2. CO and CO2 cause the greenhouse effect of global warming which is a seperate issue to ozone depletion.


Nuclear power, the lie goes, can end our dependence and use of these fuels and thus halt climate change. But so can solar power, wind power, wave power, tidal power, and the use of Biodiesel and oil crop fuels none of which cause climate change and none of which give off by-products that will remain radioactive for thousands of years.


Nuclear power can end our dependance on these fuels. Solar power, wind and wave all have environmental impacts too. All need substantial energy investments and require large areas to operate. Hydroelectric dams, the previous darling of alternative energy destroy river ecosystems by warming the water.


The only thing to counter it is the big truth. The big truth is that climate change, if the sources of it are unchecked, could make Ireland uninhabitable within a thousand years, Nuclear power could make our country uninhabitable within hours.


Contrary to popular belief, it is not possible for a nuclear reactor to explode in the manner of a nuclear weapon. The boogeyman of Chernobyl is often trotted out in these arguments. Chernobyl's RBMK was badly designed and operated under purposely unsafe conditions. Many safety interlocks and procedures were disabled in order to run experiments on the reactor. Because of the reactor design and the experiments taking place, a runaway reaction causing meltdown was possible. Modern reactor designs have come on quite a bit since this 60's era Soviet technology. I suggest the author read up on void coefficients in order to see how catastrophic coolant loss in such as system would lead to reaction cessation rather than meltdown.

While I'm not completely sold on the idea of a nuclear plant on Irish soil I would prefer it over supporting old decrepit British nuclear reactors by purchasing British electricty, stripping our peat bogs and burning fossil fuels.

by phm Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:16

The author indulges his/herself in every politically correct cliche about nuclear power and the nuclear industry. The facts show a more complex picture.

The companies who design and build nuclear power plants are doing just fine. Many of them are spending large sums of money on 'renewable-energy' projects and research as well as 'conventional' energy generation.

Large areas of the Irish coastline are due to become uninhabitable within the next 50 years - including the low-lying areas of all our major cities and coastal towns. This will probably now happen irrespective of what energy policies we pursue.

Wind, wave-power, solar, and other 'renewables' have their own problems. One problem is to design systems which generate significantly more energy than is expended (usually by burning fossle-fuels) in their manufacture and maintenance. Another is to devise practical energy-storage systems to smooth out the crests and troughs irregular and intermittent renewable power-generation.

The big problem which will drive us towards nuclear power is the fact that all renewable sources are low-concentration. Ugly and noisy wind-towers every 50 metres along the entire west coast would not generate as much energy as one modern nuclear plant - even if they were running at 100% efficiency 24-7-365. I leave the visual amenity and environmental consequences to your imagination.

The good news is that the French (who already generate 76% of their electricity by nuclear-power) have led the development of a new generation of nukes which are inherently fail-safe. Luckily, uranium is a common element in the earth's crust. Without nuclear, the future will be bleak and unimaginable, both from a quality of life, and environmental point of view. We will just have to manage the waste knowing that whatever problems may arise will be less awful than the alternative.

by TrollWatch Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:35

Even the style is the same. You are only kidding yourself.

by Eleth Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:47

I'm afraid not Trollwatch. If by style is the same you mean "both use fact based arguments" I can't say I disagree.

It's heartening to see others have researched the topic at hand and come to the same conclusion though.