Comments on: 23 years after Chernobyl (or the nuclear fool cycle)

By: rod

rod — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 02:53:31 +0000

I haven’t seen the word hiccough in a long long time…

By: Chuck Norris

Chuck Norris — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:36:44 +0000

What is the evidence that the extraction process in Nuclear power causes a higher total carbon load than fossil fuels?

When looking at the evidence consider that the green power money machine has as much to gain from an anti nuclear stance as the nuclear industry has from been pro nuclear….. It’s all about the money.

By: JOhn

JOhn — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 05:01:49 +0000

a devastating yet strangely beautiful series of photos , haunting as anything I’ve seen.

shows how blogs are the equal if not the superior of the credited print media.

a terrific blog, James. I’m sold.

By: James Bradley

James Bradley — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 04:26:47 +0000

I’m never quite sure what to make of Lovelock’s position on nuclear power. Obviously he’s someone who deserves to be taken seriously, but I also think he’s wrong, not least because the emissions are associated with extraction etc are so high (and his basic position is that we’ve already passed the point of no return climate-wise, so everything he says is filtered through that fairly apocalyptic prism).

But simultaneously I think we have to be really careful we make the right decisions for the right reasons, and part of that has to be accepting that for the time being nuclear power has to be part of the solution, at least insofar as it’s so important in the European power generation economy. But saying that is definitely not the same as saying we should be building more nuclear power stations, particularly if the total carbon load of power generated by them exceeds the total carbon of equivalent production by conventional means. That said, my position probably isn’t far from George Monbiot on this (he’s got a nice piece at http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/02/20/nuked-by-friend-and-foe/ ).

And I was looking at the Wikipedia entry on Chernobyl while I was writing the post, and oddly enough there’s a detail there about the actual reactor now being full of black, melanin rich fungus which is thriving in the high radiation zone. So maybe it’s not just the mushrooms that are thriving. Nice.

By: Mardi

Mardi — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 04:11:37 +0000

Amazing photos. There was a picture story in marie claire, of all places, a few years back showing images from Chernobyl and the people still living nearby. I remember one of a peasant woman selling HUMONGOUS mushrooms she’d picked from the forest in the exclusion zone (mm, yummy). I think the story mentioned that while some of the local wildlife had been decimated by the radiation, other things, like the mushrooms, had responded by getting creepily huge. Just like something out of a comic (or a Godzilla movie).

By: Steven

Steven — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:14:52 +0000

The photographs are remarkable, though, if a little gratuitous with the use of mouldering dolls, but the comments beneath are also worth a look, one person immediately dubbed it: On my 1000 places to go before I die list for sure.
Surely even he must be able to see the irony…

By: Steven

Steven — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:09:15 +0000

Curiously James Lovelock, he of the Gaia model, is also a proponent of nuclear power, seeing it as one of the only ways we can both practically and immediately cut carbon emissions enough to stop a disaster he sees as almost unavoidable.
While I don’t want to be found supporting his point of view I was very taken by the comment he made when he was questioned about the business of waste (I paraphrase): he said that the area around Chernobyl was now one of the most biologically diverse in the world, because the damage done by radiation was so little compared to that of having humans actually living there.