But he is basing his opinion largely on Japan’s geography which isn’t an issue in Ireland, so is hardly relevant to the debate here. The potential for disasters is the one downside to a very efficient energy source, so we have to weigh the risks against the potential benefits.

The risks aren’t the only major factor in it. There’s also the difficulty of disposing the nuclear waste

Renewable energy is the way to go.
Not an energy which is potentially very very dangerous because of its production and waste process!

It’s a clear cut decision really.

It doesn’t really matter what he’s basing his argument on. The conclusion is the same. If there is an accident. We’re goosed.

Wrong Killian.There have been 32 Nuclear power accidents in history. 2 of these have resulted in more than 34 deaths. 26 have resulted in 10 or fewer deaths. Nuclear power is very safe when plants are run in an efficient and professional manner.

And such was the outcome of one of the disasters that an area of the planet (Chernobyl) is now completely uninhabitable for hundreds of years.

If 10 people are killed by the same person it’s still considered a massacre. There’s been plenty of school shootings in the US with close to 10 victims but we don’t view them any differently to one that has 36. Why should it be any different with nuclear incidents? Just look at the immediate and lasting effects of Chernobyl, Fukushima and Hiroshima/Nagasaki. It’s simply not acceptable

Danny what are you on about, are you high on something? I see you on here now and then b.s’n to everyone about nonsense. Justifying your nonsense with nonsense. This is about nuclear energy not about the gun lobby in America. Nuclear disasters have nothing to do with this article… If you are going to use an example use a decent one..

Hey Pol, I keep seeing you on here trolling. But it isn’t very good, it’s quite a pathetic attempt. At least you’re not calling me Justin Bieber this time

Danny I am sorry if I hurt your feelings. You shouldn’t get so hurt when people point out the obvious to you.

In general terms and in an Irish context, it is mostly uneducated hippies who oppose nuclear technology. Almost everyone I have discussed the topic with during my time in third level education has been in favour of it to different degrees.

Both my parents also oppose nuclear power. They’re both highly respected academics with PhDs. Are they also uneducated hippies? You may think people who oppose nuclear power are uneducated hippies, but often they’re highly educated people with regular jobs. The ones who were hippies back in the 1960s and 1970s are now, generally, highly successful in their careers and they most likely still oppose nuclear power. Calling them uneducated hippies is both pathetic and uneducated.

You’re full of it, Danny. If your parents were actually that educated, they would use logic and reason. Logic dictates that we should harness nuclear energy. It is what the future will be built on, an inevitable step in technological evolution, but of course, with every make technological innovation, there are those scared few who are frightened by progress. If it is good enough to for stars to use, it is good enough for us

Well said.

Why is it then that not every country in the world uses or wants to use nuclear power? Why are there huge advances being made in green energy (solar, tidal, wind etc)? Why is hydroelectric power still widespread and constantly being developed? Why are people still reflects not to let go of fossil fuels? Why are there experts on this are and people who made careers in the nuclear industry who oppose nuclear power? You just keep calling these people uneducated clueless hippies simply because they don’t agree with you. That’s pathetic, it isn’t even an argument. There is too much risk associated with nuclear power. Incidents may be rare, but when they do happen they’re completely disastrous. There is a reason why nuclear weapons are so feared.

Could you be more condescending philip! Oh and btw I have a science degree and masters and I oppose nuclear power for many reasons. Am I also an uneducated hippy?

Nu-cular it’s pronounced Nu-cular…

@ Grace Curren .doesn’t make you a hippy, but doesn’t necessarily make you right either!

I have l PhD and I am in favour of exploring nuclear energy as an alternative to finite fossil fuels. Let’s have some real debate in its country.

There definitely needs to be a proper debate on the issue, but calling people clueless uneducated hippies isn’t part of that

I never called anyone a clueless uneducated hippy.

I never said you did, Mike

Sacrifice Zones, Nuclear Power and the Sacrificial Victims System Is Spreading Globally As Part Of Predatory Capitalism
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/09/sacrifice-zones-nuclear-power-and.html

He quite clearly made a point about there being nowhere safe in japan to build a nuclear power plant, seeing as it’s all along/near a fault line, and that, presumably based on where fault lines and areas prone to natural disasters, there are few places in the world that are safe to build a nuclear power plant.

Japan is on the Pacific Ring of Fire, prone to seismic activity. To say there is pretty much nowhere on the entire planet safe is ridiculous. The UK doesn’t have to worry about that risk. Of course their dumb foreign policy means they’re open to terrorist attack.

All nuclear power-plants are vulnerable to the environment because they depend on water. They are particularly vulnerable to drought because they suck up fresh water. Example in 2009, France had to basically shut down most of its nuclear plants.

My dad had to experience an earthquake a few years ago that made a guy’s entire chimney collapse into the house. That was in Sheffield. The UK and Ireland have a long history of earthquakes averaging between magnitude 3 and magnitude 5.

There’s multiple minor/medium fault lines under the UK

Mike, the geography and seismology are not the point. If anything happens to the reactor the result is no different, perhaps only in scale depending on the event.

Actually you will find Danny that the earthquakes here range between 1.5 and 4.5. And almost half are either around 2 or below. Look up the history.To bring you back from your amateur dramatics Ireland the UK have one fault line called the Iapetus Suture and in this country the Shannon River by and large follows it. It’s closed shut and has been closed for millions of years and is virtually no threat to us at all. We are not the pacific region. Countries in that region are at risk because of constant shifts in the earth’s plates something of which again does not happen at our end of the world very often. One of the reasons why that man’s chimney fell over was perhaps because of shoddy construction like bad foundations, poor mortar mixtures or even a badly supported primary structure mixed with a light tremor.

Pol, I did look at the history of seismic activity in this area. That’s how I got those figures in the first place. There are multiple fault lines under the UK and Ireland, mostly minor, some medium. At no point did I say that this is the pacific region. I mentioned the chimney as an example, and it wasn’t shoddy building. There are other examples from that incident and others. It isn’t just seismic activity that affects the UK. This area is prone to major storms and flooding, and the occasional land slide that has been known to cause significant damage. The risk just isn’t worth it. If something did happen, it would be disastrous

Fair enough but there is only one medium one. Not some. One. A lot of the problems that occur that you are talking about are in areas of flooding. Things can be done to rectify flooding just look at the Netherlands. The thing you seem to be forgetting is councils have area plans which show where flooding is most likely to occur and the depth based on historical precedents. You are not going to build a plant in a place of seasonal flooding no more than you would build a house in a hollow.

I didn’t say it was a shoddy building. A house can be poorly constructed and look nice and expensive when built. But over a period of time parts can fail as a result of poor techniques in the construction of it. Such as subsidence as an example. It could have been ready to go for years and a tremor hit and bang there it went.