# nuclear, its pronounced newculer



## cris (Jun 8, 2006)

It appears our federal government is now pushing for a increase in our nuclear industry and now greenpeace is in support of this too.
I imagine the bulk of ppl would be against it so i thought i would do a poll


----------



## Retic (Jun 8, 2006)

Now I am a bit of a fence sitter on this one, I personallly would rather see energy generated through sustainable means like huge hamster wheels. 
By the way check your spelling of nuclear ;-)
I didn't vote because you didn't include a option for people who like hybrid mongrels.


----------



## Wrasse (Jun 8, 2006)

Q: What is the correct way to pronounce nuclear?
A: The word nuclear is correctly pronounced ‘NYOOK-li-uhr’. You increasingly hear people say ‘NYOOK-yuh-luhr’ but this is incorrect.

http://www.wordquery.com/wordqueries.asp?id=5#jump10


----------



## cris (Jun 8, 2006)

> Q: What is the correct way to pronounce nuclear?
> A: The word nuclear is correctly pronounced ‘NYOOK-li-uhr’. You increasingly hear people say ‘NYOOK-yuh-luhr’ but this is incorrect


sorry, i got mine from homer and i cant do those phonetic thingos :lol:


----------



## Wrasse (Jun 8, 2006)

Sucks that you have to pay dictionary.com to hear the pronounciation, means we have to go elsewhere.


----------



## Rennie (Jun 8, 2006)

According to George Bush Jr its "new killer" but I say it "new clear".
Not that I know much about the subject at all but there aren't many melt downs that I know of these days, and a lot of countries now use it.
It doesn't create as much pollution as our current main source of power, coal.
We also have the space in our country to put it in the middle of nowhere so it won't have a huge effect if there is an accident.
It also is something we have the raw materials abundant for in our country.


----------



## CodeRed (Jun 8, 2006)

I am all for nuclear power. Not only will it reduce pollution but it will create a whole new high tech industry in this country.


----------



## Retic (Jun 8, 2006)

The problem is you have to locate the reactor near a huge water source so the ocean is the only reliable source so it can't really be put too far in the middle of nowhere, more like the edge of nowhere


----------



## Wrasse (Jun 8, 2006)

Western Australia would be ideal, we could pop it down somewhere remote and unneeded, like Perth. Road and Rail in/out and nothing else there but scrub and sand.


----------



## Rennie (Jun 8, 2006)

As long as its not near the habitat of any of WA's beautiful reptiles, who cares about the human population!


----------



## Wrasse (Jun 8, 2006)

Well, if we plopped it down dead centre of Perth, most of the reps would have moved out by now anyway.


----------



## cris (Jun 8, 2006)

Western australia is actually probably the best place in world for a massive nuclear dump, we sell them the fuel and then they pay us to take it back, lots of money for us  
Although the thought of having radioactive stuff underground isnt liked by some, but i guess atleast they would support mining urainium :lol: 

I think they will try to put reactors near most coastal capital cities.

I think its a great idea myself, its far better for the environment then any other viable power source and also very good for the economy.


----------



## peterescue (Jun 8, 2006)

It needs to be somewhere so that in the event of a major meltdown the effects would be minimal.
looks like Sydney then.


----------



## Hickson (Jun 8, 2006)

Rennie said:


> there aren't many melt downs that I know of these days,
> We also have the space in our country to put it in the middle of nowhere so it won't have a huge effect if there is an accident.



There aren't many meltdowns, but there are lots of close calls. You obviously don't watch the movies and TV action/adventures or you'd be aware of this. 

And "the middle of nowhere" is a homocentric term meaning that it's the middle of nowhere as far as human populations are concerned. As far as wildlife goes, there is no middle of nowhere. 



Hix


----------



## JEZ (Jun 8, 2006)

I agree we the results so far in the poll....If it's done right then yes....but in saying that I don't want it in my backyard either....just in case..  

We need to look for alternatives for what we currently use.......


----------



## Retic (Jun 8, 2006)

My backyards not big enough anyway, unless we are talking about individual reactors for each house, that would be very economical though would it ?


----------



## Wrasse (Jun 8, 2006)

Sure would mean we would take good care of them though, when it is our own families and collections at risk if there is an accident.


----------



## Magpie (Jun 8, 2006)

"Mr Fusion"


----------



## Earthling (Jun 8, 2006)

A nuclear powerstation is all good just like everything else is all good, till it goes pear shaped. But our country is soooo stable i hear people cry, both economically and politically and physically, what could go wrong? People said the same thing about Russia only a few decades ago. Now look where they are. Pear shaped. Why go nuclear when there are so many other healthier alternatives for us the environment and the future?

I just read the pole questions and had to laugh when i read done correctly. I ponder the last few big decisions this country has made and the 'correct' data that was used as well as the lies thats been fed to us. Everythings good if its done correctly, but you dont know its done correctly till we get a melt down.


----------



## star11 (Jun 8, 2006)

If it cuts the cost of heating enclosures, I am all for it. :wink: 
....and if it doesn't, let's look for alteratives that do.


----------



## Earthling (Jun 8, 2006)

Money money money.....Theres more to life then money peoples. 
Heres a few quotes:

Few rich men own their property. Their property owns them.

When a man says money can do anything, that settles it. He doesnt have any.

The man is the richest whose pleasures are the cheapest.

The only thing wealth does for some people is to make them worry about losing it.


----------



## jack (Jun 8, 2006)

bad bad bad bad bad idea


----------



## star11 (Jun 8, 2006)

Nice quotes Earthling, and I totally agree.  

Here is another:
"Money is just an energy, let us not waste it"
(by me...)


----------



## waruikazi (Jun 8, 2006)

I have done a bit of quick research, from what i have looked at so far the occurance of nuclear meltdowns are incredibly low. Infact if it wasn't for the potential damage a melt down could cause, i would say that the risk of a melt down is negligable. 

What seems to be a bigger problem is radiation accidents, this is where people are exposed to radioactive material, even the number of occurances of this type of accident are incredibly low.

The only real problem that i can see with "going nuclear" is the disposal of the waste, and again from the research i have done Australia is probably the safest place to do this.

This is where i got most of my info from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_accident

Oh and i thought that i would point out that the only way a nuclear reactor in Aus would be economically viable is if it is IN a capital city. In other words if we do get one it will be right next to Melbourne or Sydney.


----------



## Magpie (Jun 8, 2006)

So i's ok to keep ripping huge areas of land up for coal, burning it and polluting the entire planet because the alternative carries with it a very very small risk of damaging an area? If we keep burning fossil fuels the way we are, there's not going to be anything left to be damaged by radiation.
I'd much rather a renewable resource, but unless one of you is sitting on a solar cell design about 10000% better than the ones around now, nuclear is the only viable alternative.


----------



## Magpie (Jun 8, 2006)

What really makes me chuckle is that squidney already has a nuclear reactor, an old one at that. A new one would not only provide huge amounts of cheap power, it would be safer.
http://www.ansto.gov.au/natfac/hifar.html#Operating


----------



## waruikazi (Jun 8, 2006)

Very true Mags I forgot about that one as most people seem to. I think the reactors that have been proposed are much larger than the one already in use. I think the one we already have has a reactor only about the size of a washing machine.


----------



## CodeRed (Jun 8, 2006)

yeah ironic that Sydney already has a reactor isnt it


----------



## Earthling (Jun 8, 2006)

yes Australia is the safest place to dispose of waste Gordo untill :
A nuclear powerstation is all good just like everything else is all good, till it goes pear shaped. But our country is soooo stable i hear people cry, both economically and politically and physically, what could go wrong? People said the same thing about Russia only a few decades ago. Now look where they are. Pear shaped.

We never know where this country is going in the future and there is a lot of changes going to take place in the next 50 years politically and economically around the world including the countries on our doorstep(look whats happened around the world in the last 50 years), let alone Australia. To say we are going to be fine politically and economically for the required time for nuclear waste to become safe is realistically pretty silly. Unless these people in favour of this method can see into the future? Not.

Alternatives, what about wind and tidal for starters. Sure money wise in the short term more expensive but enviromentally a lot safer and cleaner. 

We have to ask ourselves what do we want, dollars in our pocket or a clean enviroment for our kids? make that decision and base your decisions from there. Simple as that.


----------



## waruikazi (Jun 8, 2006)

Earthling i think it is great that you are so passionate about this, but it seems to me that your mind is already made up.

My main reason for being opened minded about nuclear is that, from the information i have gathered, it is safer and cleaner to the environment. You could rattle off countless different types of re-newable energy and although i do believe they should be explored and lots of money should be spent on research and development of these sources. We have an environmental and resource problem now, for this reason i think we should atleast look at the pro's and con's.

I know someone will chime in and say that this is the problem, that no body thinks about the future but people are (well, atleast some) when they are talking about nuclear.

The only major nuclear meltdown i can find is Chernoble, in this case three warnings were ignored (i got that info from a doco i watched a couple of years ago). As far as i know there have been no other major catastrophes, please enlighten me if i am wrong.


----------



## Magpie (Jun 8, 2006)

Oh.. tidal there's good power source.
Lets rip out the mangroves and estuaries where incidently 90 percent of our fish breed, put in huge, unreliable power generating equipment that will no doubt kill more sealife......
Can't have wind power either, it kills the birds :s
Actually, the biggest problem with wind power is there is a very small number of sites where the wind is constant enough. And most of them are places people don't want huge big noisy turbines.


----------



## CodeRed (Jun 8, 2006)

My wife reckons I could generate a few megawatts after a good meal


----------



## waruikazi (Jun 8, 2006)

Just about every source of energy that can be thought of will have some bad aspect to it, you get absolutely nothing for free!


----------



## Earthling (Jun 8, 2006)

Righto Gordo perhaps a melt down is not very likely, period. However up till a few months ago i too was in favour of nuclear energy but what put me in the negative camp was the fact (as i said before) about perhaps in 50 years time things may not be so good in this country as they are now. We may not be able to afford the upkeep let alone the security of our waste dumps, or more to date, these sites could be prime terrorist targets(which i hate using the terrorist fear campaign, but.... ).
And yes every source has its pros and cons. minimalist impact would be the one i would vote for. Wind power was put in the last town i lived in, being Albany WA, and its fantastic, good tourist draw card and a huge asset for the future. very impressive to see.


----------



## UncleChopChop (Jun 8, 2006)

Do you know how long nuclear waste needs to be stored before it becomes Inert? 10's of thousands of years.
It all seems good now until innocent people start contracting cancer and other ailments from something that could have been avoided.
We are surrounded by a "google" of water and the best they can come up with is a nuclear reactor :roll: Hydro electricity is a renewable source of energy and will be here as long as earth is, It would cut hosehould electricity bills in half and we wouldn't need to worry about it killing the ozone layer as it would give NO dangerous agents off at all.

John Howard just wants to be like George "wanker" Bush and the quicker we get rid of them the better, The 2 of them would have 3 braincells put together.


----------



## Retic (Jun 8, 2006)

Chernobyl wasn't the only reactor accident, there was also 3 Mile Island in the US in the late 70's. Although it started out as a non reactor problem it did escalate to the point it did affect the reactor itself.
I'm very much in favour of it, it's clean and doesn't use millions of tons of fuel to generate the power so is far more efficient.


----------



## waruikazi (Jun 8, 2006)

I know a bout the three mile islan incident Boa but that did not result in a melt down. As far as i still undersdtand Chernoble was the only catastrophe.


----------



## Rennie (Jun 8, 2006)

Yes Hix, I'm aware of the dangers lots of people on TV and in movies say there are, but how often can tou rely on that? According to The Simpsons, there are lots of close calls :lol: 
The reactor at Lucas Heights (Sydney) is very small and strictly for research, producing very little power and would have a minimal impact if there was a problem (from what I've heard).
There has been at least one other meltdown thet I know of, obviously they succesfully kept it pretty quiet but 3 Mile Island in the US had one I believe (again I'm only basing this on TV and not a documentry either)
Still, in my very limited and uneducated knowledge, it is a relatively good source of a lot of power with minimal enviromental effects, assuming we keep strict safety procedures in place and dispose of all waste properly (not like the Springfield Nuclear Powerplant :lol: )
Although there is still mining involved, (where do you think the uranium or plutonium comes from, the sky?) it requires a lot less fossil fuel than coal or gas plants and produces less emissions.


----------



## Retic (Jun 8, 2006)

Yes Chernobyl was the only actual meltdown and that was caused by operators failing to respond to the warning signs. Nuclear reactors are incredibly safe.


----------



## Rennie (Jun 8, 2006)

Whoops, beat me to it, yay I was right about 3 mile.
Hydro is great, yeah, no enviromental impact, lets dam up our waterways and..... oh wait what happened to the Snowy River again? Thats right, it's flow slowed right down and now salt water flows up last I heard. :roll:


----------



## Earthling (Jun 8, 2006)

Safety, safety, safety. keeps coming up. unfortunately when humans are involved 'human error 'comes into the equation and safety is not so safe anymore.


How about tidal for Hydro? What ever happened to the Derby idea?


----------



## waruikazi (Jun 8, 2006)

To make hydro viable there would have to one next to every major settlement which would equal hundreds no more like thousands across the country. Wheras Nuclear it would be more like one per state. All of the ideas are good Hydro, Geo thermal, nuclear, solar, wind etc. But we can do something with nuclear now to help a problem we have now. I just hope we don't end up depending on nuclear like we now depend on fossil fuels.


----------



## Earthling (Jun 8, 2006)

Isnt it funny how we rely on technology to solve our problems that technology produces, which in turn makes more problems. I wonder when the ride will end.


----------



## jack (Jun 8, 2006)

CHERNOBYL WAS NOT A MELTDOWN, it was a steam explosion that spread radioactive material into the atmosphere. If chernobyl HAD of been a meltdown our population would be enormous, due to the fact a large area of Eastern europe would now be uninhabitable...

nuclear is a bad bad bad bad bad bad bad idea...


----------



## Earthling (Jun 8, 2006)

Why Jack?


----------



## jack (Jun 8, 2006)

ok...in brief here is why it is a bad idea...
ECONOMICS...the electricity produced is actually marginally more expensive than that of fossil fuel produced electricity, hence the reason Britian is not building more plants. Nuclear proponents in the US (where no new nuclear power plants have been built since 1979, though a few have been brought "on line") rely on the argument that when a cost is applied to carbon emmisions then nuke power will be economically viable.
SAFETY...1) extracting the fuel: how many unwanted releases of radiactive material into the environment have occured in the ranger mine in kakadu? and at beverly or olympic dam? between them more than 20 since 2000!
2) using the fuel. nuclear power stations are basically a fission reaction in a box, the same fission reaction that occurs in an atomic bomb, only "under control"... lets face it, aussies tend to take a lax attitude to work, and here is something that goes boom in a big way if someone is just a little to lax.
3) the waste. what is left over after using the fuel has to be stored for at least several hundred thousand years...yes Australia is stable now but can you guarantee that it will be for this long...and even if we store the stuff way out west, you still have to get the waste there...I cant wait to be following a truckie full of speed with a deadline to meet and a sign on the back that says the truck is hauling radioactive waste...

The alternatives... wind and solar and tide...why don't we lead the world in these technologies that are renewable and so much safer...

I could go on, but I reckon people should do some research...at the very least on the 'net.


----------



## Earthling (Jun 8, 2006)

Good on ya Jack...well said.


----------



## peterjohnson64 (Jun 8, 2006)

Politics is a funny thing. 56% of respondents voted for the proposal and yet the noise being made in the thread is primarly against it. No different to council really.


----------



## Retic (Jun 8, 2006)

I think you will find it's the same with any subject, those in favour of something are often content to just be in favour but those against find it necessary to be much more vocal and ultimately do themselves no favours.


----------



## peterescue (Jun 8, 2006)

I like being a lefty, I can listen to a litanay of right wing abuses then go out to the pub, see a band, eat a meal, all in the knowledge of how crap the world is. Moral high ground or what? Ooh, mind if I bot a ciggie off yah?


----------



## Rennie (Jun 8, 2006)

I know I'm speaking for myself and at least a few others when I say a few more of those votes should've been in "I don't know much about it at all" category, but just because I don't know much or make much of an argument doesn't mean I don't want to have a say.


----------



## Magpie (Jun 8, 2006)

> 2) using the fuel. nuclear power stations are basically a fission reaction in a box, the same fission reaction that occurs in an atomic bomb, only "under control"... lets face it, aussies tend to take a lax attitude to work, and here is something that goes boom in a big way if someone is just a little to lax.


Of all the statements made, i find this the most offensive and least well thought out.
Australia has great OHandS and an enviable safety record. I can't believe you can live in this great country and say a nuclear reactor would have meltdown purely because it was staffed by aussies.


----------



## Wrasse (Jun 8, 2006)

Don't take offence Magpie, it is only offensive if you happen to be one of Jacks family, mates or associates. For him, they are the known quantity and they are the people he bases his knowledge and experience on.


----------



## AntaresiaLady (Jun 8, 2006)

I don't think Nuclear power is the way at all. We can mine all the radioactive components needed, but then when they've 'outlived' their usefulness, what do we do with them? Eventually with populations growing, and 'middle of nowheres' becoming closer to cities, there will be nowhere 'safe' to place the nuclear waste. 

Should we just power on with it, and let future generations try to fix our mess? I don't think thats all that smart personally.


----------



## UncleChopChop (Jun 8, 2006)

Rennie said:


> Whoops, beat me to it, yay I was right about 3 mile.
> Hydro is great, yeah, no enviromental impact, lets dam up our waterways and..... oh wait what happened to the Snowy River again? Thats right, it's flow slowed right down and now salt water flows up last I heard. :roll:



:? Ummm Australia is surrounded by salt water and you think they will use small freshwater creeks? :roll: 
And i thought John Howard didn't have a clue :roll:


----------



## UncleChopChop (Jun 8, 2006)

jack said:


> ok...in brief here is why it is a bad idea...
> ECONOMICS...the electricity produced is actually marginally more expensive than that of fossil fuel produced electricity, hence the reason Britian is not building more plants. Nuclear proponents in the US (where no new nuclear power plants have been built since 1979, though a few have been brought "on line") rely on the argument that when a cost is applied to carbon emmisions then nuke power will be economically viable.
> SAFETY...1) extracting the fuel: how many unwanted releases of radiactive material into the environment have occured in the ranger mine in kakadu? and at beverly or olympic dam? between them more than 20 since 2000!
> 2) using the fuel. nuclear power stations are basically a fission reaction in a box, the same fission reaction that occurs in an atomic bomb, only "under control"... lets face it, aussies tend to take a lax attitude to work, and here is something that goes boom in a big way if someone is just a little to lax.
> ...



Give that man a cigar


----------



## peterescue (Jun 8, 2006)

Few years back i had a mate from the UK come over. He had booked time at Lucas Heights to run a few experiments and was laughing at what he termed the ridiculously high level of security at the facility. Made me feel pretty good. I did an OH&S course with a few people from there including AFP officers who are stationed there. One in particular comes to mind. Somewhat petite woman with penchant for fast motorbikes, dumb men and 100% on her sniper training exercises. Never really wanted to go herping near there since then.


----------



## Rennie (Jun 8, 2006)

I was just giving an example of where hydroelectric power had a negative effect on the enviroment.
Besides I never claimed to know a lot about the subject, just throwing in my 2c worth (or 2 yen maybe :lol: )


----------



## UncleChopChop (Jun 8, 2006)

Rennie said:


> I was just giving an example of where hydroelectric power had a negative effect on the enviroment.
> Besides I never claimed to know a lot about the subject, just throwing in my 2c worth (or 2 yen maybe :lol: )


I think you should go take your 2 ritlan and have a sleep or something.


----------



## Earthling (Jun 9, 2006)

Now now...everybody is entitled to have a view........ even if it is wrong :wink:


----------



## Earthling (Jun 9, 2006)

Media has just told us that Nuclear made electricity will cost twice as much as current electricity at your metre box. Isnt that good to know guys and gals. Still a good idea?


----------



## Retic (Jun 9, 2006)

Yes, the media told us, it must be true ;-)


----------



## peterjohnson64 (Jun 9, 2006)

Rennie said:


> Ia few more of those votes should've been in "I don't know much about it at all" category, .



Again, thats politics. I reckon lots of politicians make that comment after they lose!!!


----------



## Wrasse (Jun 9, 2006)

The media once turned an arab x standardbred horse I had into a racing thoroughbred. Track meets wouldn't let me enter it though.


----------



## Sdaji (Jun 9, 2006)

Rennie said:


> I know I'm speaking for myself and at least a few others when I say a few more of those votes should've been in "I don't know much about it at all" category, but just because I don't know much or make much of an argument doesn't mean I don't want to have a say.



That's probably the best post of the thread. After studying physics for three years, including at university, which involved learning about nuclear energy production, I still voted for the "I don't know enough to deserve an opinion on the issue" option.

My 2c: the chance of a meltdown is almost (but not quite) small enough not to worry about. The main problem (at least in my very humble opinion) is the disposal of radioactive waste. It's certainly not impossible to deal with properly, but it's extremely likely that to save money, it will sometimes be dealt with inappropriately. Whether or not this makes it worse than coal is a question which perhaps none of us should try to answer as our voices would only obsure those who know.

It seems strange to me that wind generated electricity is so frowned upon. Coal puts up toxic and climate changing fumes, nuclear produces waste 40 times as hot as the hottest stuff in hell, but when a wind mill kills a bird everyone cries about the ecological damage.


----------



## Gav (Jun 9, 2006)

As Boa said they need salt "heavy water" to cool the reactors, the boiling point is beyond that of H2O.
I also agree with wrass, I think Perth would be the perfect venue.

I also think that we should suppliment with renewable energy. Although if there is another Ice age, which they seem to think happens every about every 10K years i'd hate to be relying on renewable energy.

Going back to the nuclear issue, we haven't harnessed nuclear / atomic manipulation. 
You dont tend to research these things as well if your not working with it.


----------



## NativeScales (Jun 9, 2006)

Well I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the company I work for has been contracted to carry out soil testing and soil sampling at a few locations SA for a nuclear dump site. We have been plugging holes up to 4km into the ground for over 12 months. We have drilled some 400 holes and are nearing an end of the drilling process, so it wont be long now.


----------



## cris (Jun 11, 2006)

> Rennie wrote: ?I know I'm speaking for myself and at least a few others when I say a few more of those votes should've been in "I don't know much about it at all" category, but just because I don't know much or make much of an argument doesn't mean I don't want to have a say.


I was goin to put that next to one of the options but i thought that might make the poll look a bit bias :lol:

I put this thread up before i went away to minimise me arguing, it worked good too  

nuclear waste would be an excelent way of heating herps just put it a few meters underground and watch them grow at record rates :lol: 

But seriously here in australia we have the most stable and safe locations for a nuclear dump largely WA but as m3r mentions SA and NT(from memory) has suitable places too. Currently around the world such waste is stored in sheds and similar locations, while little hazard to us(in Australia) it isnt much good for the planet in general.

The "risk" of a meltdown is virtually nil, IF suitable practices are used IMO. You should be more worried about "shooting stars", I saw a ripper a few weeks ago  

Even if somehow our "enemy" or massive incompetance managed to destroy a reactor somehow, far worse nuclear destruction has already occured in Maralinga, Emu and a place off the WA (cant remember exactly but they blew up a ship) by the above ground/water nuclear bomb tests by the english(with our governemnts permission). This seemed to be forgotten pretty quick by most ppl :?


----------

