infact we could dump our waste into our seas too and into the forests cos we dont know what else to do with it! oh wait a minute we could use it to maim and mutate generations of children and destroy people we don't like

Kindly taken from
 http://www.stophinkley.org/StopPress.htm

If Japanese national legislation in fact leaves no other choice for handling the radioactive tsunami waste, and deciders plead to have been taken by genuine surprise of the possibility of such a challenge, the correct procedure would be to turn to international institutions. Has there been any formal request to the IAEA to help resolve what remains unresolvable for a single nation? If not, has at least a proper public advance announcement period been followed? Does the uselessness of the IAEA in the case of this country have anything to do with the fact that it is being governed by a national, who is inevitably biased? Can any international institution be useful when it happens to have to deal with the country its president is coming from? Shouldn't any individual, who in an international role comes to oversee an attempt of politicial suicide of his own country, better resign than be a human shield of organised irresponsibility? Or, asking the same question from another direction, can a precedent like this remain unechoed by dictators around the world with their own atomic ambitions? Who will hold the Japanese government accountable for giving a bad example by ordering such an irresponsible thing? Where are the social networks that can find the just people in that country, and how can they get to their Tahrir square moment? Is it up to the international whaling resistors to bring this conflict back home to the braindead empire? Does this entire mess have to do anything with the fact that the land of the yasukuni has flooded the world with death before, only that this time it seems a bit less human and a bit more efficient?

infact we could dump our waste into our seas too and into the forests cos we dont know what else to do with it! oh wait a minute we could use it to maim and mutate generations of children and destroy people we don't like
grrr!

We could use it for important cancer treatments which we can produce by any other means.
We could also reduce the number of deaths from coal mining, pollution and transport.

lowest mortality rate
well i suppose that depends on who is editing those figures.

use for important cancer treatments
that are in no way attributed to nuclear pollution?

reduce pollution???
nuclear transport???

was this an extension of the sarcasm that was portrayed by grrr! ???

lowest mortality rate
well i suppose that depends on who is editing those figures.

WTF?! Try starting with statistics from the World Health Authority for starters.
Go and do some research.....Stop swallowing media hype and look at facts.
A brief overview.... but you can dig a lot deeper if you bothered:
Nuclear has a smaller mortality rate than coal, oil, wind or hydroelectricity. Fact.
 http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html


> use for important cancer treatments
> that are in no way attributed to nuclear pollution?
Idiot. Cancer has been around a lot longer than any nuclear polution.
Go and do some research. Home many lives have been saved from treatments that used by-products from nuclear reactors against estimates on cancers producted by nuclear pollution and you will find its a no brainer. What do you want? more cancer deaths?!

> reduce pollution???
> nuclear transport???
Thats not even a coherent thought? What about all the deaths caused by the production of the steel for wind turbines? All that mining, transport, working on high structures and offshore dangerous environments. Per Tw, Nuclear is 4 times less mortaility rate than wind.

was this an extension of the sarcasm that was portrayed by grrr! ???
Go and do some research and argue the facts rather than just being emotional about it all.
If we did MOX processing then there wouldn't be all this nuclear waste to bury - guess who's idea that was to bury all the nuclear waste - oh yes, it was the greens!

You never hear of an apologist volunteering for the clear up do you.

Emotional, damn right. look at this.  https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/03/477049.html

Yes, Nuclear may have a squeaky record in the day to day running of production. So where is the data for the deaths due to cancer from accidents, leaks and waste. 1 million estimated from Chernobyl, we will never know the true figures due to creative accounting. Lets not stop there. Cancer rates have accelerated since nuclear weapons testing in the 50's. Then there is the systematic spreading of Depleted Uranium by the war machine. It is all processed.

Any data that comes from the Swiss club needs to taken with a pinch of salt, understatement! Nuclear, Health and War all cosy with a candle lit dinner. Wakey, Wakey.

Cancer is a product of man made pollution, a recent phenomenon. Nuclear is just a good place to start as it is the nastiest of the bunch and the legacy lasts for generations. Personally i want to see a stop to all toxic production. The air and the sea are POISONED.

We already do MOX processing you Tw/h@. Sellafield has been doing it since 2001.

May i suggest you run a little experiment all by yourself. Buy a load of radioactive milk from the states, drink lots, keep us updated, annual updates will do it, don't really want to hear your excremental propaganda on a regular basis.

Finally it wasn't the Greens who made this toxic pile of shit that is set to increase 20x this century.
You are the media hype. You ignoramus (or should that be spelt anus, ed).

Got any more misinformation for us then?

>> You never hear of an apologist volunteering for the clear up do you.
Irrelevent.

>> Emotional, damn right. look at this.  https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/03/477049.html
Irrelevent.

>> Yes, Nuclear may have a squeaky record in the day to day running of production. So where is the data for the deaths due to cancer from accidents, leaks and waste. 1 million estimated from Chernobyl, we will never know the true figures due to creative accounting.
Well thats a made up figure if i've ever heard one. A cool one million eh? How convenient.
The WHO puts the figure at 4,000 (same as number who die from coal pollution every single year but no one bleats about them). Even greenpeace who famously said about cold fusion "we don't understand it, but we are against it anyway" (and hence lost even more credibility on the subject of nuclear) said a max of 200,000. Actual figure to date...... 64.
Ergo.... nuclear is PROVEN to be the safest as it has the safest track record. FACT

>> Lets not stop there. Cancer rates have accelerated since nuclear weapons testing in the 50's. Then there is the systematic spreading of Depleted Uranium by the war machine. It is all processed.
Irrelevent. Cancer rates are attributed: tobacco (25-30%), diet and obesity (30-35%), infections (15-20%), radiation (both ionizing and non ionizing, up to 10%)
And before you bleat on about radiation, no one who actual works in this area says anything about nuclear pollution, it is all to do with medical eg CT scans. FACT

>> Any data that comes from the Swiss club needs to taken with a pinch of salt, understatement! Nuclear, Health and War all cosy with a candle lit dinner. Wakey, Wakey.
Irrelevent. That is clearly just your prejudgements and opinions. NON FACT

>> Cancer is a product of man made pollution, a recent phenomenon. Nuclear is just a good place to start as it is the nastiest of the bunch and the legacy lasts for generations. Personally i want to see a stop to all toxic production. The air and the sea are POISONED.
Wrong. Do some research. Cancer rates are majority attributed to lifestyle choices, namely tabbacco, obesity, exercise lack of, and diet.

>> We already do MOX processing you Tw/h@. Sellafield has been doing it since 2001.
Woopee. And thats a good thing rather than just burying it.

>> May i suggest you run a little experiment all by yourself. Buy a load of radioactive milk from the states, drink lots, keep us updated, annual updates will do it, don't really want to hear your excremental propaganda on a regular basis.
Irrelevent. And no - why would i want to drink radioactive milk? May i suggest you go and jump off the top of a wind turbine and report back on what injuries you have sustained?

>> Finally it wasn't the Greens who made this toxic pile of shit that is set to increase 20x this century. You are the media hype. You ignoramus (or should that be spelt anus, ed).
No, but greens based their knowledge on emotion rather than facts.

Got any more misinformation for us then?
Have you actually got any information / stats / facts? Because your entire argument is based upon "I don't like it.....". Guess what i don't like wind turbines, but that doesn't have any bearing on their value.

FACTS please that can stand on their own merit without your hand wringing influence.

The recruitment problems of the atomic industry really seem to have a negative influence on the general criteria of what passes as science these days. The reality is atomic energy is so unsafe that nobody can guarantee to limit its mortality once it is being brought upon the face of a planet. That's why it has stars to contain it.

The infantile look at my toy mindset exhibited in the sample above is so detached from any realistic approach to use the safe and clean atomic energy provided by the sun in the most sustainable manner that science ought to actively object against it. When the theories of atomic energy proponents concerning the general risks of their undertakings cannot be falsified other than by total devastation of the planet, maybe this is not enough to be counted as fundamentally falsifiable.

>> The recruitment problems of the atomic industry really seem to have a negative influence on the general criteria of what passes as science these days. The reality is atomic energy is so unsafe that nobody can guarantee to limit its mortality once it is being brought upon the face of a planet. That's why it has stars to contain it.

The infantile look at my toy mindset exhibited in the sample above is so detached from any realistic approach to use the safe and clean atomic energy provided by the sun in the most sustainable manner that science ought to actively object against it. When the theories of atomic energy proponents concerning the general risks of their undertakings cannot be falsified other than by total devastation of the planet, maybe this is not enough to be counted as fundamentally falsifiable.
orbital heretic

Speaking of science, it sounds like you need to read up a lot more. Comparing a nuclear reactor to the sun, is like comparing chalk and cheese.... they are completely different. Nuclear fission (like in reactors) is happening right underneath your feet in the earth, not the sun. I think when you are talking of the stars you mean nuclear fusion?

Yes, nuclear fission has its dangers. But, if you want to keep the lights on, and are bothered about all the real deaths made by coal and oil rather than theoritical deaths from nuclear, then you best get your inventors hat on and come up with a solution.

If you can think of one that is also cheaper than coal then you will save the planet and be rich too. Get to work!

So there we have it, junk science, madness, or energy without mutants and death.
Its your choice.
If you care, Say No To Nuclear, and save a future for your family !!!