Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Living in Switzerland > Daily life
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 21.07.2013, 14:13
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Zurich
Posts: 189
Groaned at 4 Times in 2 Posts
Thanked 194 Times in 95 Posts
Calvin has earned the respect of manyCalvin has earned the respect of manyCalvin has earned the respect of many
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen

Quote:
View Post
Don't be daft - 40,000 people died from an 8.9 level earthquake and all the quacks can jump up and down about is the Fukushima plant which killed exactly zero people.

In China 20000 workers a year die from coal mining and roughly 750,000 from atmospheric pollution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining
Thanks for missing my point completely. And now you tell me how Switzerland would be viable if it had a nuclear no-go-zone stretching from Berne to Baden.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 21.07.2013, 14:25
DrX's Avatar
DrX DrX is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Basel
Posts: 42
Groaned at 2 Times in 2 Posts
Thanked 34 Times in 20 Posts
DrX is considered knowledgeableDrX is considered knowledgeableDrX is considered knowledgeable
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen

Last week I saw this set of devices attached to a corner of a building in Chicago.

Turns out they are wind generators helping to power the building (as well as the entire roof being solar) they feed the building and the grid. Considering Chi-town IS the 'windy city' they are using a free resource to good effect.

Even better that they look 'Arty' and are illuminated at night !

Nice
Attached Thumbnails
earthquake-st-gallen-aka-worldwide-nuclear-disasters-don-t-ask-dsc_0285.jpg   earthquake-st-gallen-aka-worldwide-nuclear-disasters-don-t-ask-dsc_0286.jpg  
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank DrX for this useful post:
  #23  
Old 21.07.2013, 14:25
parnell's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Geroldswil
Posts: 385
Groaned at 88 Times in 53 Posts
Thanked 947 Times in 445 Posts
parnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen

Quote:
View Post
Thanks for missing my point completely. And now you tell me how Switzerland would be viable if it had a nuclear no-go-zone stretching from Berne to Baden.
You mean like France and it's 58 plants which have been humming away producing cheap electricity for export to the rest of Europe for the last 40 years or so ? It's about the only good thing the French economy has going for it.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank parnell for this useful post:
  #24  
Old 21.07.2013, 15:46
Ynegve's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Glen Waverley
Posts: 9
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanked 11 Times in 2 Posts
Ynegve has earned some respectYnegve has earned some respect
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen

Quote:
View Post
I cannot believe that people still, after both accidents think nuclear power plants are an option.
Well, nuclear power is at the moment BY FAR the most safe way of obtaining power in deaths by amount of power produced.

Burning of coal is the way major part of electricity is produced. Deaths from resulting air pollution are estimated around 1 million per year. For some reason, not many people pay much attention, compared to nuclear "disasters".

Hydropower - a single catastrophe in China directly caused ~170,000 lives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

Environmentally safe, green solar power - about 1,000 people die in US alone yearly from incidents during solar panel installation.

Nuclear "disasters" by comparison
Chernobyl - about 50 direct deaths and, in 2005, WHO estimated that 4,000 people may die earlier as an indirect result
Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident
Fukushima - zero death toll, zero sick
Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick
Took a freaking one in 100 years earthquake, followed by tsunami, to kill no one, while 170,000 in China were killed as a result of unusually high rainfall. Why aren't people demonstrating against hydro power already?

A good compilation of sources on the subject can be found here
Comparing deaths/TWh for all energy sources

I guess it's just some way human brain is wired, it is not good at intuitively understanding statistics and risks, but one-off incidents get remembered, and don't forget the role of media in imprinting the image of nuclear power = horrible death for everyone in 100 km radius. Just like more people being killed by pigs than sharks, or more kids drown in pools compared to accidents with guns, but people are generally more afraid of guns and sharks, rather than pigs and swimming pools.
Reply With Quote
The following 10 users would like to thank Ynegve for this useful post:
  #25  
Old 21.07.2013, 16:22
429's Avatar
429 429 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: near Frauenfeld
Posts: 111
Groaned at 10 Times in 6 Posts
Thanked 69 Times in 38 Posts
429 has no particular reputation at present
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen

Quote:
View Post
[*]April 26, 1986: Chernobyl disaster. The ensuing steam explosion and fire killed up to 50 people[/LIST]
Where do you have that numbers from? Of course you can list only those that have been burnt to death by radiation. That makes no sense thought. You have to list all the people dying because of the emitted radioactivity.

Health of plant workers and local people

Medal for valour and compassion.
In the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness (ARS), of whom 31 died within the first three months.[13][113] Most of the victims were fire and rescue workers trying to bring the accident under control, who were not fully aware of how dangerous the exposure to radiation in the smoke was. Whereas, in the World Health Organization's 2006 report of the Chernobyl Forum expert group on the 237 emergency workers who were diagnosed with ARS, ARS was identified as the cause of death for 28 of these people within the first few months after the disaster.
No further ARS-related deaths were identified in the general population affected by the disaster. Of the 72,000 Russian Emergency Workers being studied, 216 non-cancer deaths are attributed to the disaster, between 1991 and 1998.[citation needed] Of all 66,000 Belarusian emergency workers, by the mid-1990s only 150 (roughly 0.2%) were reported by their government as having died. In contrast, 5,722 casualties were reported among Ukrainian clean-up workers up to the year 1995, by the National Committee for Radiation Protection of the Ukrainian Population.[92]


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob...n_human_health

But thats only the peopley dying nearby. Further down under "Death due to radiation exposure" there is the sentence:

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment is an English translation of the 2007 Russian publication Chernobyl. It was published in 2009 by the New York Academy of Sciences in their Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. It presents an analysis of scientific literature and concludes that medical records between 1986, the year of the accident, and 2004 reflect 985,000 premature deaths as a result of the radioactivity released.[148]

Hey thats still shy of a million deaths, so no reason then to stop building nuclear power plants, right?

Sorry but playing down the aftermaths of both accidents is a hard slap in the face for all those affected until today. And the real bad thing is that we cannot even do much about it. We can't clean up, these areas are inhabitable for almost endless time. No money can bring them back. And this is the hard fact about nuclear power plant: We cannot afford them because we can't guarantee that nothing happens and if something happens that piece of land and thousands of square km around it are lost forever. How can we place a burden as this on the shoulders of the generations that follow us?
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users groan at 429 for this post:
  #26  
Old 21.07.2013, 16:32
429's Avatar
429 429 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: near Frauenfeld
Posts: 111
Groaned at 10 Times in 6 Posts
Thanked 69 Times in 38 Posts
429 has no particular reputation at present
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen

I think one thing that always is forgotten when talking about earthquakes in context of geothermal drilling or operation: We should be thankful for the small ones because they release tension in the ground that could potentially unleash itself in much larger earthquakes. So in a way they are very good actually.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank 429 for this useful post:
  #27  
Old 21.07.2013, 16:53
parnell's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Geroldswil
Posts: 385
Groaned at 88 Times in 53 Posts
Thanked 947 Times in 445 Posts
parnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen

Quote:
View Post

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment is an English translation of the 2007 Russian publication Chernobyl. It was published in 2009 by the New York Academy of Sciences in their Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. It presents an analysis of scientific literature and concludes that medical records between 1986, the year of the accident, and 2004 reflect 985,000 premature deaths as a result of the radioactivity released.[148]
Really ?
Quote:
The Russian founder of that regions chapter of Greenpeace, also authored a book titled Chernobyl:Consequences of the Catastrophe..., which concludes that among the billions of people worldwide who were exposed to radioactive contamination from the disaster, nearly a million premature cancer deaths occurred between 1986 and 2004.[19]
The book however has failed the peer review process,[20][21] five reviews were published in the academic press, with four of them considering the book severely flawed and contradictory, and one praising it while noting some shortcomings. The review by M. I. Balonov published by the New York Academy of Sciences concludes that the value of the report is negative, because it has very little scientific merit while being highly misleading to the lay reader. It also characterized the estimate of nearly a million deaths as more in the realm of science fiction than science.[22]
Away with you and your quackery.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank parnell for this useful post:
  #28  
Old 21.07.2013, 16:56
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Zürich
Posts: 7,522
Groaned at 164 Times in 139 Posts
Thanked 8,548 Times in 4,684 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen

Quote:
View Post
Where do you have that numbers from? Of course you can list only those that have been burnt to death by radiation. That makes no sense thought. You have to list all the people dying because of the emitted radioactivity.

Health of plant workers and local people

Medal for valour and compassion.
In the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness (ARS), of whom 31 died within the first three months.[13][113] Most of the victims were fire and rescue workers trying to bring the accident under control, who were not fully aware of how dangerous the exposure to radiation in the smoke was. Whereas, in the World Health Organization's 2006 report of the Chernobyl Forum expert group on the 237 emergency workers who were diagnosed with ARS, ARS was identified as the cause of death for 28 of these people within the first few months after the disaster.
No further ARS-related deaths were identified in the general population affected by the disaster. Of the 72,000 Russian Emergency Workers being studied, 216 non-cancer deaths are attributed to the disaster, between 1991 and 1998.[citation needed] Of all 66,000 Belarusian emergency workers, by the mid-1990s only 150 (roughly 0.2%) were reported by their government as having died. In contrast, 5,722 casualties were reported among Ukrainian clean-up workers up to the year 1995, by the National Committee for Radiation Protection of the Ukrainian Population.[92]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob...n_human_health

But thats only the peopley dying nearby. Further down under "Death due to radiation exposure" there is the sentence:

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment is an English translation of the 2007 Russian publication Chernobyl. It was published in 2009 by the New York Academy of Sciences in their Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. It presents an analysis of scientific literature and concludes that medical records between 1986, the year of the accident, and 2004 reflect 985,000 premature deaths as a result of the radioactivity released.[148]

Hey thats still shy of a million deaths, so no reason then to stop building nuclear power plants, right?

Sorry but playing down the aftermaths of both accidents is a hard slap in the face for all those affected until today. And the real bad thing is that we cannot even do much about it. We can't clean up, these areas are inhabitable for almost endless time. No money can bring them back. And this is the hard fact about nuclear power plant: We cannot afford them because we can't guarantee that nothing happens and if something happens that piece of land and thousands of square km around it are lost forever. How can we place a burden as this on the shoulders of the generations that follow us?

About "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment"
The primary author, Alexey V. Yablokov, is a co-founder of Greenpeace Russia.
The book was not peer reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences.
Five reviews were published in the academic press, with four of them considering the book severely flawed and contradictory, and one praising it while noting some shortcomings.
The review by M. I. Balonov also published by the New York Academy of Sciences concludes that the value of the report is negative, because it has very little scientific merit while being highly misleading to the lay reader. It also characterized the estimate of nearly a million deaths as more in the realm of science fiction than science

I think the slap in the face is to the lay readers who did not understand what they were reading & were fooled into believing these fantasies.

Ooops, I must learn to type faster.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #29  
Old 21.07.2013, 17:05
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Zürich
Posts: 7,522
Groaned at 164 Times in 139 Posts
Thanked 8,548 Times in 4,684 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen

Quote:
View Post
Where do you have that numbers from? Of course you can list only those that have been burnt to death by radiation. That makes no sense thought. You have to list all the people dying because of the emitted radioactivity.

Health of plant workers and local people

Medal for valour and compassion.
In the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness (ARS), of whom 31 died within the first three months.[13][113] Most of the victims were fire and rescue workers trying to bring the accident under control, who were not fully aware of how dangerous the exposure to radiation in the smoke was. Whereas, in the World Health Organization's 2006 report of the Chernobyl Forum expert group on the 237 emergency workers who were diagnosed with ARS, ARS was identified as the cause of death for 28 of these people within the first few months after the disaster.
No further ARS-related deaths were identified in the general population affected by the disaster. Of the 72,000 Russian Emergency Workers being studied, 216 non-cancer deaths are attributed to the disaster, between 1991 and 1998.[citation needed] Of all 66,000 Belarusian emergency workers, by the mid-1990s only 150 (roughly 0.2%) were reported by their government as having died. In contrast, 5,722 casualties were reported among Ukrainian clean-up workers up to the year 1995, by the National Committee for Radiation Protection of the Ukrainian Population.[92]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob...n_human_health

But thats only the peopley dying nearby. Further down under "Death due to radiation exposure" there is the sentence:

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment is an English translation of the 2007 Russian publication Chernobyl. It was published in 2009 by the New York Academy of Sciences in their Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. It presents an analysis of scientific literature and concludes that medical records between 1986, the year of the accident, and 2004 reflect 985,000 premature deaths as a result of the radioactivity released.[148]

Hey thats still shy of a million deaths, so no reason then to stop building nuclear power plants, right?

Sorry but playing down the aftermaths of both accidents is a hard slap in the face for all those affected until today. And the real bad thing is that we cannot even do much about it. We can't clean up, these areas are inhabitable for almost endless time. No money can bring them back. And this is the hard fact about nuclear power plant: We cannot afford them because we can't guarantee that nothing happens and if something happens that piece of land and thousands of square km around it are lost forever. How can we place a burden as this on the shoulders of the generations that follow us?
About "if something happens that piece of land and thousands of square km around it are lost forever"

Forever!! It is less than 30 years & Chernobyl is already open for tourists; see here
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
This user groans at marton for this post:
  #30  
Old 21.07.2013, 17:55
429's Avatar
429 429 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: near Frauenfeld
Posts: 111
Groaned at 10 Times in 6 Posts
Thanked 69 Times in 38 Posts
429 has no particular reputation at present
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen

My quackery? How come you identify me as the author of said wiki entry?

Come on guys, have you really been so totally blinded by nuclear lobbying? How do you solve the nuclear waist problem? How do you ensure that such a thing does not happen again?

Oh yes, after Chernobyl all western owners told us that their reactors where safe. I remember on the first few days "experts" telling us that Fukushima has a safe reactor type that in case of power off will simply shut down and that it was absolutely impossible that there will be a nuclear melt down. Isn't Mühleberg the same type as Fukushima?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 21.07.2013, 18:11
parnell's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Geroldswil
Posts: 385
Groaned at 88 Times in 53 Posts
Thanked 947 Times in 445 Posts
parnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen

Quote:
View Post
My quackery? How come you identify me as the author of said wiki entry?

Come on guys, have you really been so totally blinded by nuclear lobbying? How do you solve the nuclear waist problem? How do you ensure that such a thing does not happen again?

Oh yes, after Chernobyl all western owners told us that their reactors where safe. I remember on the first few days "experts" telling us that Fukushima has a safe reactor type that in case of power off will simply shut down and that it was absolutely impossible that there will be a nuclear melt down. Isn't Mühleberg the same type as Fukushima?
You post on this forum pieces of information which have been already proven to be lies as the truth. Your points are diametrically opposite to scientific knowledge.

What is safe ? Safe enough that after an 8.9 level earthquake the plant kills exactly zero people ?
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank parnell for this useful post:
  #32  
Old 21.07.2013, 18:31
429's Avatar
429 429 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: near Frauenfeld
Posts: 111
Groaned at 10 Times in 6 Posts
Thanked 69 Times in 38 Posts
429 has no particular reputation at present
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen

Quote:
View Post
You post on this forum pieces of information which have been already proven to be lies as the truth. Your points are diametrically opposite to scientific knowledge.

What is safe ? Safe enough that after an 8.9 level earthquake the plant kills exactly zero people ?
Well sorry to say but I don't regularly check all information on Wiki for differing opinions

If you are such an expert I'm sure you can tell this daft man how easily the nuclear waist problem can be solved, right? Please educate me.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 21.07.2013, 19:05
Corbets's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Zug, CH
Posts: 2,839
Groaned at 155 Times in 111 Posts
Thanked 5,382 Times in 1,839 Posts
Corbets has a reputation beyond reputeCorbets has a reputation beyond reputeCorbets has a reputation beyond reputeCorbets has a reputation beyond reputeCorbets has a reputation beyond reputeCorbets has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen

Quote:
View Post
Well sorry to say but I don't regularly check all information on Wiki for differing opinions

If you are such an expert I'm sure you can tell this daft man how easily the nuclear waist problem can be solved, right? Please educate me.
Same way everyone else solves their waist problems: diet and exercise.
Reply With Quote
The following 5 users would like to thank Corbets for this useful post:
  #34  
Old 21.07.2013, 19:23
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 2,462
Groaned at 50 Times in 31 Posts
Thanked 2,232 Times in 1,226 Posts
rainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen

I think, even the pro-nuclear guys (and girls) around here will have to agree that should an incident like in Fukushima - i.e. a large-scale release of radioactivity in a populated area - happen in Europe, society as we know it would pretty much cease to exist.
Panic, protests, violent turmoils, looting - the whole shebang.
In Japan, people just kept staying at home, patiently, waiting for orders from the government.
Is there really anyone here who wants to bet serious amounts of his own money on this being the case in CH, DE or FR?
AFAIK, the North of Japan, where this happened is not very densely populated.
Should anything even remotely resembling the Fukushima-incident happen to one of the sites in Germany, Switzerland or France, the results would be absolutely apocalyptic.
Most likely, the neighbor-states would demand compensation for damages - the amount of which would quickly bring even Germany to its knees.

As for the number of deaths in Chernobyl: that is indeed a very difficult to pin-down number - mostly, because the number has always had a political dimension.
While the USSR existed, that number had to be as small as possible (for obvious reasons) and after the end of the USSR, Ukraine found that with a higher number, it could milk more money from the West...
It's all a big money-game now, and each side has an agenda of their own - a game where the sick children in Belarus and the on-site workers who are still alive are just pawns on a chess-board.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 21.07.2013, 19:46
parnell's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Geroldswil
Posts: 385
Groaned at 88 Times in 53 Posts
Thanked 947 Times in 445 Posts
parnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen

Quote:
View Post
I think, even the pro-nuclear guys (and girls) around here will have to agree that should an incident like in Fukushima - i.e. a large-scale release of radioactivity in a populated area - happen in Europe, society as we know it would pretty much cease to exist.
You mean like the 1000s of nukes exploded in the Nevada desert in the 60s and 70s which led to how many extra deaths/cancer clusters etc etc ?

Compared to the chances of something pretty bad happening with nuclear energy the certainties of more shit things happening with coal and gas fracking make the choice rather clear.

A quick fact check drags up that the population density of Fukushima is 447.94 people per square kilometer :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C5%8Driyama,_Fukushima

whereas for Switzerland it is 195.65 in 2010 :

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/swit...m-wb-data.html
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank parnell for this useful post:
  #36  
Old 21.07.2013, 19:50
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Zürich
Posts: 7,522
Groaned at 164 Times in 139 Posts
Thanked 8,548 Times in 4,684 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen

@Rainer D

Take a look at a map; the French nuclear stations are nearer London than Paris.

About "an incident like in Fukushima - i.e. a large-scale release of radioactivity in a populated area"

Large scale release? In 2013, two years after the incident, the World Health Organization indicated that the residents of the area were exposed to so little radiation that it probably won't be detectable.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #37  
Old 21.07.2013, 20:22
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 2,462
Groaned at 50 Times in 31 Posts
Thanked 2,232 Times in 1,226 Posts
rainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond reputerainer_d has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen

Quote:
View Post
@Rainer D

Take a look at a map; the French nuclear stations are nearer London than Paris.
Some are.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_...eich#Landkarte


Quote:
View Post
About "an incident like in Fukushima - i.e. a large-scale release of radioactivity in a populated area"

Large scale release? In 2013, two years after the incident, the World Health Organization indicated that the residents of the area were exposed to so little radiation that it probably won't be detectable.
I'm talking more about the psychological effects. People freak out here over concert-tickets or closing-sales. I can't imagine the frenzy created by an incident like Fukushima.
Japan, in addition, had the luxury (and luck with the weather) to dispose a great amount of radiation into the sea.
We don't have that luxury.
In Germany (and in CH) we can't even agree on a waste-disposal site.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 22.07.2013, 07:44
parnell's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Geroldswil
Posts: 385
Groaned at 88 Times in 53 Posts
Thanked 947 Times in 445 Posts
parnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen

Quote:
View Post
I'm talking more about the psychological effects. People freak out here over concert-tickets or closing-sales. I can't imagine the frenzy created by an incident like Fukushima.
Japan, in addition, had the luxury (and luck with the weather) to dispose a great amount of radiation into the sea.
We don't have that luxury.
In Germany (and in CH) we can't even agree on a waste-disposal site.
Yes I think you're starting to get the picture - a bunch of Germans getting upset about disposal of nuclear waste (to which two points - new plants produce only about 5% as much waste and two almost all of it can be reprocessed into new fuel) - chaining themselves to railway lines - that kind of silliness. Meanwhile Bavaria - where most of the cars are made still continues to have something like 30% of power provided by aging nukes and is terrified at the prospect of not having sufficient amounts of full load capacity. The construction of the massive sea platforms for wave power I see has proved to be an unmitigated disaster all but completely hushed up by the German media...
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank parnell for this useful post:
  #39  
Old 22.07.2013, 08:40
Slaphead's Avatar
Moderato espressivo
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Zürich
Posts: 3,146
Groaned at 40 Times in 36 Posts
Thanked 8,995 Times in 2,761 Posts
Slaphead has a reputation beyond reputeSlaphead has a reputation beyond reputeSlaphead has a reputation beyond reputeSlaphead has a reputation beyond reputeSlaphead has a reputation beyond reputeSlaphead has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen

How on earth did a thread about an earthquake in St Gallen, which may or may not have been cause as a result of geothermal exploration, turn into a rabid thread on nuclear power station disasters and associated problems?

Ah bugger it, I'll just change the thread title.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Slaphead for this useful post:
  #40  
Old 22.07.2013, 08:59
429's Avatar
429 429 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: near Frauenfeld
Posts: 111
Groaned at 10 Times in 6 Posts
Thanked 69 Times in 38 Posts
429 has no particular reputation at present
Re: Earthquake - St Gallen (aka worldwide nuclear disasters - don't ask)

To the naysayers of green energy:

So what about that?

http://inhabitat.com/germany-sets-ne...-power-demand/

http://inhabitat.com/germany-set-to-...ear-phase-out/

http://inhabitat.com/germany-quadrup...ast-two-years/

http://inhabitat.com/germany-sets-an...ration-record/

Just for comparison our 5 nuclear power plants did produce 72 GW on average in 2007.

So Water, Wind and Solar is just for dreamers, yes?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
earthquake, fracking




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ICN trains-route St Gallen/Geneva/St Gallen not running btw Morges & Gland 03.07 MusicChick Transportation/driving 2 03.07.2012 09:41
Ask for rental information near University of St. Gallen ninikitty Housing in general 2 24.07.2009 08:49
St. Patrick's Day in St. Gallen?? SwissP Entertainment & dining 3 15.03.2008 20:37
How to get this darned tuner working... (aka i don't understand swiss tv) xaphod TV/internet/telephone 6 16.12.2007 20:27
"I don't believe it" aka the Victor Meldrew thread [bitterness and resentment] Lob General off-topic 11 14.09.2006 20:14


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:08.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0