The giant wind farms clearing Queensland bush

 

 

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/giant-wind-farms-clearing-queensland-bush/13670398

 

 

 

Chalumbin Wind Farm project near World Heritage rainforest draws protesters in Far North Queensland

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-14/chalumbin-wind-farm-fnq-protests-world-heritage-rainforest/100857160

 

 

 The South-Korean owned wind and solar energy developer Epuron wants to build a 94-wind turbine development that will border World Heritage listed rainforest, west of Cairns.

12 comments

WTH! I do not get this clearing of trees --  this is madness!

I think clearing forests near the World Heritage rainforest area is disgraceful. Surely there is already cleared grazing land elsewhere they could use.

We should NOT be clearing old forests for any reason and all forests cleared should be replanted to offset the loss of carbon storage. Ultimately all green energy is not entirely green. The carbon emissions from the manufacturing, transport and construction of wind towers and the subsequent power lines and towers required to deliver the electricity to the  grid is high. Also, agricultural production is also impacted.

 

IMO this is a bloody disgrace and you are dead right Kateo they are doing more damage --and it is MORE trees we need everywhere.

Clearing will also mess with the wildlife as well, what is wrong with these idiots!? 

What handouts are they getting to allow Koreans to do this?

Clearing forests anywhere s a very stupid idea

 

I think some people have missed the most important point about wind farms; they are only there because of a panic about climate change. Yes, climate is changing, as it has since the earth settled down millions of years ago and long before man walked upright. The climate change zealots would have us believe that unless governments around the world destroy their economy and pay a bounty to a few people that the earth will disappear by 2030. Realistically, man cannot change the climate just as King Canute couldn't stop the tide from rising.

Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weighs 1715 tonnes (the equivalent of 23 houses) and contains 1320 tonnes of concrete, 300 tonnes of steel, 50 tonnes of iron, 25 tonnes of fibreglass, and the hard to extract rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 36700 kilos and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We cannot recycle used blades. Sadly, both solar arrays and windmills kill birds, bats, sea life, and migratory insects. These can’t produce enough energy in their life to replace the energy used to manufacture them.

In Australia's case, if we do all of the things that the climate change zealots ask of us, mining will cease, manufacturing will close down, the national herd will be reduced by 2/3rds, unemployment will rise, government income will reduce, food will be more expensive and all of this will not reduce the temperature. We keep being told that mining jobs will be replaced by jobs in ecology but a lot of detail is not forthcoming. Details like how many will actually get a full-time job, what will the remuneration be and where these mythical jobs are.

 

Yes dead right Horace,  and if it were climate change how the hell are we going to do a thing about it with all these blasted rockets and war machines etc. and the like and all the unnatural things we humans are doing and have always done.

Nature knows best and always has and always will.

 

Have you people got your heads up your chimneys?

Horace the astrologer reckons climate change is crap...no problem to see here he reckons.   Either get some information about the latest increase in natural disasters horrie, or confine your attention to the star signs of uranus

4 posters reckon that removal of less than 4% of the trees from 1200 Hectares is going to cause far greater ecological damage that a clean energy windfarm that will power homes of 350,000 families. Get real posters!   you really would have to have bizzare thinking processes (or be driven by some other motivation...   craig kelly coal lovers, bob katter activists..  or somethink similar, like big clive's politics)

Coal and fossil fuels are increasingly changing our environment. If you don't give a toss about future generations then say so. Nuclear power is looking far better as an alternative to coal...   are you welcoming a nuclear reactor next door?

What is with you people!!

Thank you Koj, if you read my opinion piece again, you'll note that I have stated that I agree that climate is changing, nowhere have I claimed that "climate change is crap". I note that the article from which you quote certainly has the numbers you claim but it also has the statement that 1200 ha will be cleared. Where there is a conflicting claim the answer usually lies somewhere between. The claim by Epuron (not yet confirmed by the government departments) that 350,000 homes will be powered does not have any proof to support the statement nor does it mention a battery back-up. How many homes will be powered when the wind doesn't blow or is so strong that the wind turbines are shut down?

Koj, I see you are rather scathing of the statement by Horace that 'climate is changing, as it has since the earth settled down millions of years ago and long before man walked upright.'

Perhaps you could educate us all. What caused the end of the last glacial age and the Holocene glacial retreat approx 11500 years when there were no humans digging up fossil fuels, no cattle herds farting their way to oblivion, no land clearance for agricultural crops, no concentrated man-made developments requiring heating/cooling/lighting/power for anything/ no woke conglomerates chopping down trees for wind-farms (oh the irony of this particular activity) no dirty manufacturing, no nuclear power plants, no vehicles or machinery of any kind for any purpose? Pretty sure I must have left something out but I am certain you will enlighten me. 

Horace is correct, as are others. Climate is always changing, and we have always had 'weather events' since time immemorial. There is no stopping it, even if we give up all the trappings of the 21st century, euthanase 90% of the world population and revert to cave living and hunter-gathering.

The mass hysteria over 'climate change' reduces otherwise reasonably intelligent people into temper tantrum-throwing juveniles unable to use common sense and logic.  

Mankind should be looking at alternative fuel sources not because of climate change, but because eventually the current fuel stock will be exhausted (not in my lifetime nor in that of anyone currently living though). Investigation into how to survive as the earth continues to increase in temperature (if indeed it does) should be the focus not some ridiculous attempt to force Australia to destroy itself and people's livelihoods in some vain attempt to change the course of nature. 

Wow, move over whoever or whatever created this planet and the universe,  climate changers are now going to eliminate NATURAL disasters with wind farms and solar panels! we should be looking at ways to minimise emissions not eliminate the country.  Horace Cope and KSS  have the right idea.  The destruction to birds and wildlife are more important than the overbreeding human populations of the future.

Koj, your ultimate sentence says a lot. Any educated, thinking and intelligent person who claims to have a concern about the future climate and energy systems in this country would be embracing a neighbourhood nuclear power station.  In over 60 years of high level power generation, nuclear has proven to be the safest and most reliable form of getting quality electricity to the homes and industries. (They actually have less radioactive emissions than a coal burning power plant.)

A nuclear power station would have a productive life of over 50 years.  Typically the wind farms come down at the end of their Government subsidy which is usually around 20 years from date of commissioning.  In the meantime, they are only there because the wind farm owners generally receive a State Government (Qld) subsidy of around $200,000 per annum per turbine.  This is regardless of whether it generates the plated output into the Grid or draws from it when the winds are calm.

I suggest that you read "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by bjorn Lomberg for an objective analysis of what would really happen to the world with the much feared 2 degree warming.  It isn't as bad as the hysterical activists would have you believe.

You would probably raise the argument against nuclear of the "horrible toxic waste that will kill people for thousands of years".  That is a politically created lie.  Thanks to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaties signed in the late 1950's and early 1960's at the behest of the old Soviet Union. all signatories are prohibited of recycling and reusing the spent fuel.  The French did not sign such limiting Treaties and have consistently and safely recovered and recycled their spent fuels to continue generating power with negligible waste.

In terms of waste, a nuclear power station produces virtually none compared to disposing of the tired turbine blades which will be going to landfill and much of the turbine generator itself is regarded as uneconomical to recover the rare earth metals from it once it has been brought down.

In overall lifetime consideration, wind farms aren't very green at all.  At the end of the contractual period, all landscapes disturbed by the construction and maintainence of the facility must be returned to the pre-farm condition.  The actual deconstruction and site remediation are at the expense of the land owner.  Estimates on contemporary costs put that as in the vicinity of $100,000 per tower.  If it is on State owned land, can you see that happening?  When all of the States have shown that they are both unable and unwilling to maintain State Forestry Reserves in fire safe conditions, do you think that they will spend a cent more than they have to when the time comes?

 

Been saying that for years. Nuclear is the way to go and well said Couldabeen.

           

 

Waste not want not

Easy Thanksgiving Recipes (real food recipes!) - Fit Foodie Finds

Couldabeen said:

in terms of waste, a nuclear power station produces virtually none compared to disposing of the tired turbine blades which will be going to landfill and much of the turbine generator itself is regarded as uneconomical to recover the rare earth metals from it once it has been brought down.

-----------

What do you call the HUGE amount of waste that was brought into Aussie the other night in an enormous specially made container and is very DEADLY?

What about the damage from the like of Chernobyl/Fukushima /etc etc etc etc  - that they are still sending out deadly radiation and will very many decades to come?

Plan B, There has not been a nuclear power station built like Chernobyl for decades.

Fukushima did NOT result in the 'deadly radiation' so frequently trotted out. "There have been no deaths or cases of radiation sickness from the nuclear accident, but over 100,000 people were evacuated from their homes as a preventative measure." (World Nuclear Association) and this: "

"In 2018 UNSCEAR decided to update the 2013 report to reflect the latest findings. In March 2021, UNSCEAR published its 2020 Report, which broadly confirms the major findings and conclusions of the 2013 report. The 2020 Report states: "No adverse health effects among Fukushima residents have been documented that are directly attributable to radiation exposure from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant accident".

The same report finds that contamination of water around and in the reactors is back to pre-tsunami levels i.e. has been decontaminated. And all but about 41000 evacuees have returned to their homes in the area. The remaining 41000 have chosen not to return for now.

And as for nuclear waste, the non-proliferation treaty for nuclear weapons resulted in accumulated nuclear waste. France was not a signatory to that treaty and have been recycling their nuclear waste from nuclear power plants for decades. Learn from them!

You really do need to keep up to date with advances in nuclear power stations. We have come a very long way from Chernobyl and a nuclear power plant is now something much smaller, more efficient and far safer than something built in 1977! 

Thanks KSS for covering much of the concerns of PlanB.

PlanB could you give me a link to this "Huge amount of deadly waste" that has been brought into Australia recently and exactly how is it very "DEADLY".

What evidence do you have of the deadly radiation that is, according to you, still coming from Chernobyl and Fukushima?  There has been a lot of hyperbole about this but very little actually from objective measurement. The immediate areas around both Chernobyl and Fukushima appear to he thriving natural environments with no obvious deleterious effects attributable to excessive radiation exposure. 

A lot of the fear of radiation is based on the LNT (Linear No Threshold) theory that was raised in the 1950's.  It has never been proven on science and was simply opinion. As LNT would make many urban areas around the world "toxic" it apparently has little to no value in medicine or science.

Again, the so called waste from nuclear power stations could really just be called low grade fuel and reprocessed to give many more years of use.

If you ever get the chance, pick up a brick of depleted uranium (as found on most airliners as part of their anti-flutter damping balance weights).  If you haven't met them before, you will be very surprised about how heavy it is.  A cubic foot of such material weighs over a tonne.  So when they talk about hundreds of tonnes of nuclear waste as depleted fuel, it only occupies a quite small volume.  When these wastes are packaged for transport, the packaging is excessive and zero radiation can penetrate the casing.  The external back ground radiation levels are usually many times greater than the maximum permitted from the encased materials.

Low grade radioactive wastes include the old ionising smoke/fire detectors and whilst harmless to humans may only be disposed of in controlled facilities.  Similarly the surgical gowns and gloves used by theatre staff doing cancer radium therapy procedures. Absolutely harmless, but graded as toxic for controlled disposal only.

Thank you RnR.  As I thought that it may be benign medical waste that by irrational fears has to be guarded every inch of the way while fully enclosed in hermetically sealed enclosures.  Funny how in the absence of real detail on the consignment, the Secretary of the local Council turns it into an anti-nuclear submarine argument (or that may just be the ABC).

It is interesting that the Council Secretary believes that just because the new submarines will be nuclear powered, it will make his home port a "nuclear" target.

I recommend reading through the articles on this website:

http://hiroshimasyndrome.com/what-is-the-hiroshima-syndrome.html

It is an objective over view of the nuclear industry including the fears and scare campaigns.

Nuclear waste shipment bound for Sydney 

 

March 11, 2022

Police are preparing to escort a monolithic steel cask of nuclear waste to Sydney this weekend, reigniting debate about Australia’s plans for the toxic material.

The hulking capsule resembling something from NASA’s space program contains two tonnes of intermediate-level radioactive waste that will need to be isolated from the environment for thousands of years.

https://www.aap.com.au/news/nuclear-waste-shipment-bound-for-sydney/

 

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=nuclear+waste+brought+to+Aust+this+week

 

Here is some on the Fukushima  situation and has been happening since 2011

 

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=fukushima+still+pouring+into+the+pacific

 

Re the existing and damaged plants:

They might build different nuclear plants these days but it does rid us of the problem of the damage it has done all over the world with the old ones when they were damaged and have -- and continue to -- spread the radiation all over the world and will do so for aeons.

 

Thank you for those links PlanB.

I hope that you have followed the link that I gave to the Hiroshima Syndrome and worked your way through the objective and honest story of nuclear power and the dangers there in.

In case you missed it here it is again:

http://hiroshimasyndrome.com/what-is-the-hiroshima-syndrome.html

Read their contentions right through and think about it.

One element that I'm not sure is in there is the fact that the old USSR sponsored the anti-nuclear movement throughout the west for over 30 years.  In Australia the "Ban the Bomb" protests and the like that you saw every year in the Labour Day parades were paid for through the AWU from Moscow.

The scare campaign that they pushed was not based on demonstrated dangers to health or the environment but on theories from people who were determined to undermine the promotion of cheap unlimited and safe power in the west.

The example here of encasing 2 tonnes of radioactive waste within 100 tonnes of sealant shows how ludicrous the whole scare campaign has become.  To then demand that it may only be transported via fully escorted secure and undisclosed routing certainly confirms that the lunatics have taken over the asylum.  Many of the conditions placed on the sealing and storage of the waste are based on worst case theoretical concepts and not on demonstrated proven science.

Your links to the Fukushima Daiichi power station and radiation releases turned out to be dud links with no science included.  Yes, there is an ongoing release of radioactive water from the plant, but it is diluted below environmentaly detectable levels within the Pacific Ocean.  It poses no threat to life anywhere in that Ocean.

Does not the fact that the "ground zeros" in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were thriving business centres within a decade and the rates of losses of life from cancers and other possibly radiation exposure caused health conditions are consistently below those of other large Japanese cities such as Kyoto and Tokyo today indicate that the fears are overstated?

Does not the fact that multigeneration wildlife are thriving in the exclusion zones right up to the boundary fences at both Chernobyl and Daiichi indicate that things do return to normal far more quickly than the anti-nuclear lobby suggest?

 

It appears from this recent article that the traditions of the old USSR have continued through to present political powers in Moscow:

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18330/russia-funding-environmental-groups

Yes Couldabeen, I have read the site you put up --thank you

Yes, the wildlife seems to be coping in Chernobyl and Daiichi but they have a shorter life than humans and so it seems they adjust with the ongoing generations but there is still a lot of damage done to their cells. also a lot of damage done to many natural things.

There are also many more cancers than there ever were in the human race.

I will also read the last site you suggested, thank you

PlanB, I read this after I posted the reply to your comment to the Sophie stream.

What reports are you referencing to cellular damage to the wild life around Chernobyl and Daiichi?

I have read studies where the researchers went looking for it and had to go back multiple times in their bid to find anything beyond normal mutational changes.  More wildlife died in the search than died as a result of the radiation exposures.

Animals that have naturally short life spans also develop adverse health reactions at a commensurate rate.  That is why they are used in many medical research projects and their health is regarded as equitable to human susceptibility .

What is the damage done to "many natural things"?

It is not possible to say that there are "more cancers than ever" without justifying the contention.  There is a much greater effort put into finding cancers in all areas of the body than there have been in past years.

Note though that the rates of cancers in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are below that in other large cities in Japan.  When the orthodoxy suggests that it should be the other way around.

We do not need nuclear power stations.

For a start nuclear power stations are banned in every state, and in every territory in Australia. Such bans were introduced because of community concerns about the health and environmental risks.

On average it takes around nine and a half years to build one and costs an incredible amount of money. Nuclear power is not renewable. Uranium is a finite resource just like coal, oil and gas, so this is also of great concern.The intelligent way to go is the building of large-scale wind and solar projects. It is low risk, renewable and non-polluting. The bottom line is – nuclear power is the slowest, most expensive, most dangerous and least flexible form of new power generation for Australia.

I used to think a few years ago that nuclear might be some sort of solution, however, my mind is firmly changed. The world has changed and looking at the bombing of the nuclear power station in Ukraine is food for thought because, power stations can in the future become a target for any nearby country that wants to attack Australia.

Sophie, I have to wonder about who or what has got to you to have you change your mind so dangerously.

You have been badly misled on many points by the look of it.

The reason that nuclear power stations are banned in all Australian States is purely on the activists hysteria from decades ago. This was fueled by foreign powers determined to ensure that the benefits of large scale production of low cost electrical energy was hampered at every step.

The bans are not based on sound science from either the engineering, economic or health ground. They were and are based on theoretical fears that have little to no basis in fact.

From the purely safety perspective, over the past 60+ years there have been many hundreds of nuclear power stations, both fixed and mobile, operating around the world with almost no accidents or even incidents of note.  On Terrawatts of power produced, nuclear is many steps safer than any other form of power generation.  Lowest fatality rate across the board against all other forms.

The time taken to build a nuclear power station is a direct result of excessive and unrealistic bureaucratic procedures.

Sorry, but nuclear power is as close to renewable as one can get in a real world.  Firstly, the known deposits of uranium are sufficient for over a thousand years of mining and single stage use.

The exhausted power rods can be recycled, refined and reused almost an infinite number of times.  The reason that this is not done is a purely political master stroke engineered by the former Soviet Union.  The AEC was formed during the 1950's to oversee the nuclear industry.  Under the guise of preventing countries reprocessing their wastes into plutonium and then into feed stock for atomic weapons, the refining and reprocessing was banned by all of the signatory countries.  Including many who did not have either nuclear power stations or plans to build any,  Fortunately France went on to not only not sign such a binding agreement but to develop their industry and refine and reuse not only their own wastes, but much from other countries.  As such, France is essentially power and fuel independent.

So the exhaustion of fuel stock for nuclear power will not be of concern for thousands of generations of people.

And your fear of the "bombing" of the Chernobyl power station facility in the present conflict has little basis in real terms.  It is a power station using heat generated by nuclear fission at a very low level. It is not a "bomb" that could explode at any time.  Ever.  Never.

The Russians have every reason to preserve it intact as a functioning power station.  It has no strategic value beyond that.  The power who controls the power stations can control the whole country.

I have to strongly disagree with you on any suggestion that going for large scale wind and solar is in any way "intelligent".

Seriously, would you buy a car or even a computer that would only work 30% of the time?  That is the overall reality of both wind and solar. At least with solar, you know when that 30% will be.  with wind, beyond about a 24 hour prediction window, you do not.  They may both overlap completely leaving you with nothing for 70% of the time.  Battery storage and pumped hydro you say will fill in the gaps.  To provide 24 hour redundancy, your solar must produce approximately 500% over demand available for storage during that productive period.  No-one has yet made a battery with such a storage capacity. (Including pumped hydro.)  The costs of such storage are not included when the proponents of wind and solar tell you how they cost nothing to run.  Fortunately at present within Australia (and especially South Australia) natural gas and coal burning power stations are lurking in the background ready to step up and supply the missing essentials.

As far as the term "renewable" applies to wind and solar, under the contractual agreements, every one of the many thousands of wind turbine that are projected for Australia will be coming down at around the 20 year end of contract period,  The blades alone are promising/threatening an environmental disaster as they cannot be recycled but will in all probability be going into landfill.  Little of the generator and towers will be recovered and recycled as it looks as if it will be less expensive to source virgin rare earths than to recover from the mess of the generator.

Similarly, the same fate awaits the solar farms as hundreds of thousands of solar panels degrade below viable out put, or suffer irrepairable damage from storms and natural degradation.  Again, very little of the solar panels are actually recyclable and will also be looking for a large hole in the ground to hide their shame in.

The fate of the cells in the large scale "mega battery" farms is no less promising.  The current pride of the litter, the Lithium ion family, do suffer from deep cycle fatigue and when used to such an extent (as an absence of quality base load supply will require) may no longer be fit for purpose within a decade.  To date, inspite of significant Government research grants, there has been little success in recycling these cells.  Another hole in the ground.

The industry itself likes the term "renewable" as that is what the industry is, it must renew itself on an ongoing and never ending basis.  Not like a coal or nuclear power station that once built will still be fully functioning and providing at better than 90% of plated output over its life for at least 50 and maybe double that years into the future.

Couldabeen stated:

And your fear of the "bombing" of the Chernobyl power station facility in the present conflict has little basis in real terms.  It is a power station using heat generated by nuclear fission at a very low level. It is not a "bomb" that could explode at any time.  Ever.  Never.

------------------------------

If the Chernobyl is so darn  "safe" then why is it so dangerous now--  and for aeons to come after an accident?  We have many accidents that have happened to nuclear power stations with horrific outcomes.

Chernobyl happened in 1986 and is still pouring out radiation and will do for a long time, there is NO safe nuclear reactor as at any time there could be an accident or weather happening that makes it unsafe.

 Fukushima is the same and still dangerous and still pouring radiation out.

 

I am with Sophie and IMO 1945 and the bomb was really the beginning of the end

PlanB, have you actually read the scientific analysis of the situation around both Chernobyl and Daiichi as explained in the Hiroshima syndrome?  Both Chernobyl and Daiichi are quite safe for visits and even moderate term stays.  Their back ground radiation levels are within normal back grounds.

If they are both so dangerous, how come all forms of plant and animal life are thriving after multiple generations in the immediate areas?

The hysteria and fear about them are political constructs.

Tell us again about all of these many accidents that have happened to nuclear power stations with "horrific" outcomes?  The world would like to hear about them.

It might be a good idea if you did some research into the safeguards that go into the construction of nuclear power stations.  It takes extremely extraordinary chains of events to cause any problems with contemporary designs.  You will of course recall that there were no deaths outside the Daiichi power plant caused by the uncontained releases of radiation.

For your information, almost everything and every place puts out radiation.  The soil that your home is built upon has a residual output.  Due to hormensis, our bodies strengthen.  In fact it may even be essential to healthy life.

As I said, there are hundreds of nuclear power plants working around the world 24 hours a day and have done so for over 50 years, there is no trail of destroyed health from any of them.

You can be with Sophie, but you are both suffering from irrational fears of the invisible.  If you ever have any cancerous tumours, I hope that you do not expect radiation treatment that can save your life.  If you are male, check out the brachytherapy method of treatment for CA of the Prostate.

Couldabeen please have a look at this site it was on the SBS Viceland on 11th March and explains a lot about the animals and natural things.

https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/2004541507612/fukushima-nature-in-the-danger-zone

 

Also, you stated:

As I said, there are hundreds of nuclear power plants working around the world 24 hours a day and have done so for over 50 years, there is no trail of destroyed health from any of them.

----------

Those were not impacted or damaged - but if they were they would also then be dangerous --like the others that have been.

Yes, the world had a certain amount of radiation as does every time you fly but don't kid yourself that large amounts of radiation are not harmful.

If you are listening to the mainstream media news they are not going to tell you the truth.

Anyone that would choose to go and spend time at the places because they are told it is all OK have rocks in their heads.

Speak to someone that has knowledge of such and you will get the truth.

Go to

Libbe Halevy site and search there and also Helen Caldicott you will get the truth about what is happening from them too.

 

 

PlanB, unfortunately the SBS special video will not load and play for me.  I have seen other programs and discussions about the health of the area around Daiichi. And read several reports in print.  As has been found, no evidence what so ever of any damage to the local ecosystems (or even the remote ones) that can be attributed to radiation from the power stations.

As has been demonstrated, there is no danger to either short or long term health from spending time in the areas around Chernobyl or Daiichi.

You will've read the discussions on dangers of radiation exposure in the Hiroshima Syndrome.  Learned and accurate discussions from experts in the field and not just opinions from those with a political agenda and bias.

If I was seeking to maintain any semblance of integrity, I'd completely step away from Helen Caldicot.  She has been ranting about the dangers of radiation exposure for decades and none of her predictions of massive adverse health effects have come to fruition. She is not regarded by the serious science community as a person of knowledge but more one of ideology.

I'm having trouble understanding your fear of nuclear power stations.  They do not present any real danger even when damaged by natural disasters.

Only the Russian Chernobyl reactor has caused any adverse effects from radiation beyond their immediate building.  Other than it and Daiichi, there have been no other power stations damaged such that measurable levels of radiation have been released such that they have caused actual harm in identifiable cases.  All contemporary designs have inbuilt fail safe design factors making it almost impossible for anything of significance to occur in even what could be regarded as catastrophic damage.

In the Hiroshima Syndrome you will've read how pressure from Green politicians forced a reduction in allowable levels of radiation to below back ground levels for a purely political reason with no science to support the new limits.  A significant reason that some of the evacuees have been reluctant to move back to their old homes is that while they can claim that it would be unsafe for them to do so, they continue to receive a Government Pension that they would not otherwise be entitled to. In real terms, there is no danger to physical health in moving back into the area around the power station.

There have been activists on the west coast of the USA who have claimed that their local marine life has been contaminated by the outflow of radioactive waters from under the Daiichi power plant.  This is utterly impossible as the dilution into the northern Pacific Ocean waters is such as to make it undetectable.  There continues to be hysteria about the matter from people who have probably never even passed the equivalent of Years 11 and 12 Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics and University level Physiology.

I hope that after you have made your way through the information on the website that I've suggested, you will be reassured that the dangers are much less than you already face in normal life in Australia.

That happens to a lot of videos from various countries unless they are cleared.

Then I agree to disagree with you Couldabeen.

Best wishes

The documentary was one that was on the SBS Viceland Celia on 11th March

12 comments



To make a comment, please register or login

Preview your comment