Nuclear Plants Kill Billions Of Fish, Says Scientist

[kewskills]

PFK Article

 

[andywg]

While it seems that this is an entirely preventable situation, something strikes me:

Estimates and calculations. Few hard numbers.

I would far rather that PFK waited a month or two and also posted the peer review response to the article. Like too many in the journalistic profession they print the stunning headlines of a new discovery and never bother listing where people actually look at how accurate they are.

 

[invader]

I would far rather that PFK waited a month or two and also posted the peer review response to the article. Like too many in the journalistic profession they print the stunning headlines of a new discovery and never bother listing where people actually look at how accurate they are.

I agree. It's just to get your attention and to get people rilled up, even without any fact basis behind it.

 

[andywg]

There is undoubtedly a scientific paper behind this, and I daresay it has some facts to support its claim, but I would be interested to see what the peer review is on the processes used.

 

[nickelplates]

PFK Article

I can't see why this article is slanted against the nuclear industry. All power stations that use steam in their process have this same problem. If you can see cooling towers at a power station it is sucking millions of tonnes of water out of somewhere (and dumping it back a few degrees warmer). And for all it's faults nuclear is not screwing up the climate.

 

[pastabake]

As with much reported science I suspect that there is a considerable contextual discrepancy between it and the final published paper.

Well if its dumping the water back a few degrees warmer then it must be having some effect, however marginal ... and if I remember rightly from my visits to power stations the ends of the outflow pipes are observable by dint of the number of sea birds looking for food.

 

[darknirvana217]

I just did an analysis on this issue. It is particularly dangerous in the North Sea in plants like Sellafield, where nuclear plants are killing off local water life and destroying habits. Not only is it destroying the fish, but their decrease in population is affecting nations like Norway, who for years now have colplained of this issue because their second largest export is their fishing industry. Its not to just get people excited, this is a serious issue both environmentally and politically. This isn't the first time Norway has had environmental issues from the UK. They have had to address environemntal issues with them before when there was a dramatic increase in acid rains coming from the UK's heavy industry. This also caused fish and wildlife deaths.

 

[darknirvana217]

Here's another article, this one by the BBC, which discusses the Sellafield plant how it is effecting the political and environmental areas around the UK. Its vague on most of the issues, but an interesting read.

http/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1886267.stm

 

[andywg]

Though the Norwegians haven't cited any research to suggest that Sellafield is causing a problem.

Norway copmlain because fish is one of their main exports, scientists are repeatedly saying that overfishing is depleting fish stocks to the point of unsustainability (though these levels are arbitrarily ignored when setting quotas). Could this in fact be a smoke screen to try and blame someone else (other than fishermen) for why there are so few fish left in the seas and oceans of Northern Europe?

 

[kewskills]

Though the Norwegians haven't cited any research to suggest that Sellafield is causing a problem.

Norway copmlain because fish is one of their main exports, scientists are repeatedly saying that overfishing is depleting fish stocks to the point of unsustainability (though these levels are arbitrarily ignored when setting quotas). Could this in fact be a smoke screen to try and blame someone else (other than fishermen) for why there are so few fish left in the seas and oceans of Northern Europe?

ah conspiracy theory's everywhere..........

 

[darknirvana217]

Kind of odd that the two sources are UK based, and arguing against UK nuclear plants and their destructive effects on the environment. Had it had been a Norwegian based media source it may classify as a biased report trying to pin the blame on someone. Norway has always had a pro environment record, now more than ever with a red-green party system in the Storting since 2005. Also, Ireland is finding the same effects from the Sellafield "monster", so its not just the Scandinavian fishers. this is a serious environmental issue that needs ro be addressed. Its no worse than the hydroelectric dams that are being constructed in the amazon that are stirring up Methane gas deposits and ruining spawn sites.

 

[andywg]

Looks like quite a case of NIMBY-ism from Norway and Ireland. I'd much rather we went more nuclear and had another Sellafield or two than rely on oil from states that support terrorism. No one has ever proved any actual detriment to anything from Sellafield, it's just people moaning about what they don't fully understand.

Square eyes from telly anyone?

 

[pastabake]

Have they moved Sellafield? Wasn't it on the West coast of England up near (in?) Cumbria ... That's nowhere near the north sea, its the Irish sea ... I'm also not sure that I'm going to listen to a bunch of Whale hunters when it comes to conservation of the oceans life ... mind you they do excellent pickled fish.

 

[nickelplates]

Here's another article, this one by the BBC, which discusses the Sellafield plant how it is effecting the political and environmental areas around the UK. Its vague on most of the issues, but an interesting read.

[URL="http/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1886267.stm"]http/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1886267.stm[/URL]

This article on the bbc site is raising a completely different issue, that of radioactive waste entering the sea. This is an important issue which should be scrutinised and is unique to the nuclear industry but shouldn't be confused with fish being sucked into cooling water intakes which is a problem every large power station (except hydro) has to deal with and was the subject of the original post.

On the subject of the waste heat this does have local effects and so may be important but on a global scale simple physics shows we cannot raise the temperature of the earth significantly by physically heating it, even consuming all the fossil fuel on the planet plus all the Uranium wouldn't be enough. It's just not a concern.

What the climate scientists are worried about is changing the balance between the heat that arrives from the Sun and what is radiated into space, this represents an unimaginably vast amount of energy but because the flow in (plus warmth from deep within the earth) equals the flow out the atmosphere stays at the same overall temperature, by adding to the CO2 in the atmosphere we are reducing very slightly the amount of heat the earth loses into space altering the balance and warming the atmosphere. In man mad climate change the heat comes from the sun but don't be fooled even though the energy comes from the sun it is the man made changes in atmospheric composition that are the root cause.

In short on a local scale close to the the outfall the heat is significant and its impact should be considered. On a global scale forget it, it is tiny, but don't confuse this with man made climate change which has a totally different cause.

 

[Shrimper]

Have they moved Sellafield? Wasn't it on the West coast of England up near (in?) Cumbria ... That's nowhere near the north sea, its the Irish sea ... I'm also not sure that I'm going to listen to a bunch of Whale hunters when it comes to conservation of the oceans life ... mind you they do excellent pickled fish.

Google Maps is your friend...

http/maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=e...233459&z=12

That looks like the west coast to me. It should be the Irish who are worried, not the Norwegians!