The green movement has misled the world about the dangers of radiation.

Aoxomoxoa said:
My point is very simple, what design criteria do we implement bearing in mind costs and benefits? Fine, don't build nuclear reactors on fault lines yet the Fukushima reactors survived a 9.0 earthquake, the biggest one in that area in a thousand years, only to be inundated with a 35 foot tsunami. The stupid Japanese only built the walls around the complex to a height of 24 feet, how could they be so short sighted? 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, I wonder if any of the health and safety bods, armed with their superior knowledge, could pinpoint the next accident waiting to happen?
Click to expand...

Yeah, Captain Hindsight always has the answer. What side are you on?

There have been other catastrophic disasters and this is with limited use of nuclear power.

Now watch faux-everything tell me that we should allow the government to subsidize nuclear power because that is how it is done in a free market.

What side am I on? I don't really know but it is certainly not gonna be based on some knee jerk reactionary bullshit. The fact that some on the American statists oppose it will not affect my views anymore than the fact that French statists support it. I am certaionly not under the ignorant impression that Republican statists are the last word on free market thought.
 
TheSuperstringTheory said:
Yeah, Captain Hindsight always has the answer. What side are you on?

There have been other catastrophic disasters and this is with limited use of nuclear power.

Now watch faux-everything tell me that we should allow the government to subsidize nuclear power because that is how it is done in a free market.

What side am I on? I don't really know but it is certainly not gonna be based on some knee jerk reactionary bullshit. The fact that some on the American statists oppose it will not affect my views anymore than the fact that French statists support it. I am certaionly not under the ignorant impression that Republican statists are the last word on free market thought.
Click to expand...

I am not on any side, well not strictly true if you consider debunking myths to be a side.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I would advise you to not eat Brazil nuts or bananas as they contain potassium 40. By the way, I am being facetious. I find that I have to put in that proviso as there are too many zealots on here without a shred of irony in their bones!!

http://www.raw-food-health.net/Natural-Radiation.html

http://www.raw-food-health.net/Natural-Radiation.html
Click to expand...

Well, thanks. I am a skeptic. I don't buy into false fears too quickly. I look to rational scientist that know the issues for guidance. Mott, I forget exactly what his background is, has always struck me as calm and honest. I would not necessarily believe him either but, I would trust him over Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santorum who the stalker and faux-libertarian expert goes to for information.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I am not on any side, well not strictly true if you consider debunking myths to be a side.
Click to expand...

I am just saying, you seem to be complaining that the Japanese were stupid and then say hindsight is 20/20. Sure it is, but that won't be available when we build the next power plant. I mean it seems like you are making an argument against the idea that we can have any reasonable expectation of safety. I understand, no option is without risk.

However, my second point concerns me more. There have been several catastrophic disasters and from what I understand the percentage of power from nuclear is small. Also, this disaster will do damage over a longer period.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
My point is very simple, what design criteria do we implement bearing in mind costs and benefits? Fine, don't build nuclear reactors on fault lines yet the Fukushima reactors survived a 9.0 earthquake, the biggest one in that area in a thousand years, only to be inundated with a 35 foot tsunami. The stupid Japanese only built the walls around the complex to a height of 24 feet, how could they be so short sighted? 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, I wonder if any of the health and safety bods, armed with their superior knowledge, could pinpoint the next accident waiting to happen?
Click to expand...
Those are good points you make but you are mistaking my comments. I'm not opposed to developing nuclear power. By and large it's record for safety and environmental impact has been steller compared to its competitors but why is that? It's because what I stated is an objective fact. When you fuck up with nuclear power the consequences are catastrophic and those who operate nuclear facilities are extremely cognizant of this fact and operate accordingly.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I am not on any side, well not strictly true if you consider debunking myths to be a side.
Click to expand...
I'm all for dealing with reality but again the problem with nuclear power is are the catastropic risk when something goes wrong and the extremely hazardous nature of the waste generated by these facilities both of which are extremely difficult and costly problems to manage (and I've managed the later....you have no idea how difficult and costly it is.) and these problems are only exasberated when you increase nuclear powers utilization by an economy of scale compared to its limited use now. These dangers and risk limit nuclear powers cost affectiveness and it is why it is difficult to obtain construction permits. When disaster occurs too the consequences are long term to. You can't just go in and clean the problems up with a shovel. Look at Chernobyl and Fukushima, even though Fukushima disaster was an order of magnitude lower than Chernobyl you still have an area of 20 km radius around the plant that's inhabitible due to contamination. Now thanks to the evacuation efforts few people were impacted as compared to Chernobyl but that's still a large chuck of real estate in which a lot of people have lost their homes and property not to mention that the environmental contamination is on going and significant. At Chernobyl this occurred on a much larger scale with vastly more numbers of people affected. There's no way you can get around the dangers and risk of nuclear power and that impacts its cost. Nuclear power has huge potential for the future but risk mitigation is the critical pathway for its future.
 
Haiku said:
People are still dying from Chernobyl are you serious? No, you're a shill. You have no other point.
Click to expand...

I quote from the the original article, are you saying that UNSCEAR is a bunch of shills as well?

The UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) is the equivalent of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Like the IPCC, it calls on the world’s leading scientists to assess thousands of papers and produce an overview. Here is what it says about the impacts of Chernobyl.

Of the workers who tried to contain the emergency at Chernobyl, 134 suffered acute radiation syndrome; 28 died soon afterwards. Nineteen others died later, but generally not from diseases associated with radiation(6). The remaining 87 have suffered other complications, included four cases of solid cancer and two of leukaemia. In the rest of the population, there have been 6,848 cases of thyroid cancer among young children, arising “almost entirely” from the Soviet Union’s failure to prevent people from drinking milk contaminated with iodine 131(7). Otherwise, “there has been no persuasive evidence of any other health effect in the general population that can be attributed to radiation exposure.”(8) People living in the countries affected today “need not live in fear of serious health consequences from the Chernobyl accident.”(9)
Click to expand...
 
Mott the Hoople said:
So do I but I know knee jerk reactions when I see one. You seem to make a stereotype out of environmentalist.
Click to expand...

Mott, I am quoting George Monbiot who is extremely well known for his environmentalism. He has done a complete volte face on nuclear power and he at least deserves to be read, which you admitted you hadn't done before. I would also point out that third generation reactors produce far less waste than previous generations and are many times safer as well. We have spoken before about vitrification, why is it being successfully used in the UK and not in the USA?
 
Haiku said:
The Japan disaster is on going, uncontrolled and being shared with the USA. Nice eh? We are assured the radiation levels in the west and in rain water here are nothing to worry about....I'm so glad *snark*

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcm...s-where-you-can-monitor-u-s-radiation-levels/
Click to expand...

Somebody forgot to inform the stupid Japanese. :palm: Great link by the way, there was nothing there!

Nakoso-beach-Fukushima-re-008.jpg


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/17/fukushima-beach-reopens-to-public
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top