Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 154 (8094 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-23-2014 1:19 PM
206 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: yudi
Upcoming Birthdays: Bliyaal
Happy Birthday: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 732,986 Year: 18,827/28,606 Month: 2,098/2,305 Week: 303/671 Day: 35/114 Hour: 1/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Japan
dronester
Member
Posts: 1108
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 26 of 175 (608830)
03-14-2011 9:55 AM


for Rahvin . . .
From the "American Budget Cuts" thread (it is closed so I am replying here), Rahvin writes:

Rhavin writes:

{I am} a huge supporter of nuclear power as the cheapest, cleanest, SAFEST and most plentiful method of power generation currently available.

SAFEST, bolded by me.

In light of the potential catastrophic problem in Japan regarding their nuclear power-plants, are you still enamored with nuclear power?

And besides natural disasters, what about potential terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants? Seems the 9/11 terrorists could have done a lot more damage if . . .

Japan evacuates thousands from vicinity of two nuclear power plants
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../03/11/AR2011031103673.html

Japan earthquake: nuclear disaster feared after power plant 'explosion'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...ter-power-plant-explosion.html

Edited by dronester, : clarity

Edited by dronester, : typos


Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 03-14-2011 10:39 AM dronester has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Huntard, posted 03-14-2011 10:47 AM dronester has responded
 Message 38 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2011 1:26 PM dronester has responded
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 03-15-2011 1:32 PM dronester has not yet responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1108
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 29 of 175 (608838)
03-14-2011 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Huntard
03-14-2011 10:47 AM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
Huntard and Jar,

If a natural or man-made disaster causes another Chernobyl catastrophe, would you then still be a strong supporter?

How many lives lost would it take for you to change your mind? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions?

(I am not "anti-nuclear power", but I am curious with your response, as I think the latest news in Japan SHOULD at least give reflection)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Huntard, posted 03-14-2011 10:47 AM Huntard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 03-14-2011 12:20 PM dronester has not yet responded
 Message 31 by Taq, posted 03-14-2011 6:37 PM dronester has responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1108
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 33 of 175 (608924)
03-15-2011 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Taq
03-14-2011 6:37 PM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
Thanks Taq,

I think I mostly agree with Omnivorous' thinking Message 192 that when it comes to nuclear power safety, we might be able to trust scientists, however we shouldn't trust a de-regulated industry, a corporatist government, "terrorists", and, as shown in Japan, mother-nature to do the right/SAFE thing.

Case in point, I received this in my email yesterday from Credo Action . . .

Even now, politicians of both parties are so beholden to the nuclear industry, that they are racing to microphones to say that the U.S. must EXPAND its taxpayer support of building even more nuclear reactors.
President Obama's 2012 budget includes $36 billion in loan guarantees to the nuclear energy industry. With Congressional leaders competing to cut public spending, we face a spectacle where senators in both parties were quick to defend nuclear power in the days following {Japan's} earthquake. Sen. Chuck Schumer, vice chair of the Democratic Senate caucus, has joined with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, in refusing to support a moratorium on building new nuclear reactors in seismically active areas in the U.S.1

https://act.credoaction.com/campaign/say_no_to_nuclear/?r...

(Dem. Schumer is my awful NY sen. He enthusiastically supports the funding of the deaths to women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan, pushes for a flag burning amendment, supports patriot act., etc,. Just a horrible criminal that NYers keep electing.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Taq, posted 03-14-2011 6:37 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Taq, posted 03-15-2011 12:25 PM dronester has responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1108
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 35 of 175 (608943)
03-15-2011 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Taq
03-15-2011 12:25 PM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
Taz writes:

We shouldn't ignore the positives of nuclear power, either.

Taz writes:

lesser of two evils

Yes, I understand the positives of nuclear power and of our currently poor options. However, when reading . . .

a quake-crippled nuclear power plant exploded and sent low levels of radiation floating toward Tokyo

and

Prime Minister urged people within 18 miles of the facility -- a population of 140,000 -- to remain indoors

and

Officials said radiation in the capital was 10 times normal by evening

and

Toxicologist said such a radiation level was not an immediate threat to people but the long-term consequences were unknown.

and

. . . a chemical pathologist said the blasts could expose the population to longer-term exposure to radiation, which can raise the risk of thyroid and bone cancers and leukemia. Children and fetuses are especially vulnerable, . . .

. . . I am amazed that many of our US representatives are fighting to secure funding for nuclear power plants near earthquake zones.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110315/ts_nm/us_japan_quake

https://act.credoaction.com/...say_no_to_nuclear/index2.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Taq, posted 03-15-2011 12:25 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Taq, posted 03-15-2011 12:58 PM dronester has not yet responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1108
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 41 of 175 (608970)
03-15-2011 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Rahvin
03-15-2011 1:26 PM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
Hi Rahvin, nice to communicate with you again. Thanks for the detailed email.

Rahvin writes:

Yes, safest, as opposed to completely safe.

Safer than good ol' Hydro power? I live nearby the mostly-ecologically-safe Niagara Hydro Plant. I'm not an engineer, but I think a plane crash into the hydro plant wouldn't cause the area to be inundated with radiation for another 30+ years. I've always wondered why there can't be more similar designed hydro plants. There are rivers all over the US, right?

Rahvin writes:

The plant was designed to withstand a 7.8 quake, because historically the area could be expected to experience quakes in the 7.2-7.3 range.

The New Orleans coastal/dam system was designed for a rated 3-4 hurricane because historically that area could expect a 3-4 hurricane. Seemed like that wasn't too SAFE of planning either, was it? Seems to be a pattern here.

Rahvin writes:

The problem was the ensuing tsunami, which damaged the plant's cooling systems.

No, not quite. It was the loss of electrical power that allowed the cooling systems to be damaged. Not all the reports are clear/known right now, but read my links below for the best technical explanations now.

Rahvin writes:

planning for the best possible scenario would be simply falling victim to the planning fallacy. So we'll disregard things like how poorly designed the Chernobyl plant was compared to modern reactors;

Not quite. Please read my links below which showed that the Fukushima reactors were knowingly defective. And that planned US power plants will use the same defective design.

Rahvin writes:

To determine relative safety, we need to look at how many people actually die or are injured . . .

It's premature to do such a calculation while this crisis is ongoing . . .

That's why I asked how many people need to be killed BEFORE you would partly/fully change your stance. Please read and comprehend my posts in their entirety (praise be god you are not crashfrog).

Rahvin writes:

Fuel rods may have burned, which carries the risk of sending radioactive particulate matter into the air - ie, fallout.

It is my understanding, that, at this time, the fuel rods are likely exposed (see linked website). Possible that I'm wrong.

Rahvin writes:

People aren't afraid of nuclear power because it's more dangerous. They're afraid because it's more scary.

Well, actually both, they are potentially scarily dangerous. Cancer, birth defects, etc. Pretty scary to me.

Rahvin, as I wrote before, I am not anti-nuclear, but I'd simply want everyone to consider ALL the angles BEFORE any catastrophe can happen and make the necessary extraordinary precautions. I am sure you agree with this stance.

1. Natural disasters: in this case a nuclear power plant was built on the Pacific ring of fire, prone to earthquakes and tsunamis, with forewarnings. A meltdown can cause tens, or thousands, or millions to have radiation poisoning and to render VAST quantities of land to be uninhabitable for DECADES. Excuse me, but because of this reason, I (and you) should want better guarantees of safety than a simple coal burning plant.

2. Deregulated/dishonest industries. Check out my link below regarding corruption to make a profit. PLEASE, read through "Tokyo Electric to Build US Nuclear Plants" below. It will make you want to go back to the steam age. A meltdown can cause tens, or thousands, or millions to have radiation poisoning and to render VAST quantities of land to be uninhabitable for DECADES. Excuse me, but because of this reason, I (and you) should want better guarantees of safety than a simple coal burning plant.

3. Corrupt corporatist government. Check out my link that shows US representatives want to push funding for similar defective powerplants in quake areas of the US. Also, a power plant in Michigan has been in safety violation of law since 1994! A meltdown can cause tens, or thousands, or millions to have radiation poisoning and to render VAST quantities of land to be uninhabitable for DECADES. Excuse me, but because of this reason, I (and you) should want better guarantees of safety than a simple coal burning plant.

4. "Terrorists". Before 9/11, I could understand your marginalization. But after? The difference between flying a 747 into a nuclear powerplant and a "shopping mall" is that a nuclear power plant meltdown can cause tens, hundreds, thousands, or millions to have radiation poisoning and to render VAST quantities of land to be uninhabitable for DECADES. Excuse me, but because of this reason, I (and you) should want better guarantees of safety than a simple "shopping mall". (I know you didn't write the retarded example of "shopping mall".)

Lastly, PLEASE read the two links below about the seriousness of radiation spreading from Japan. It is likely that governmentS are going to downplay the actual amount of radiation released. Excuse me while I straighten my tin-cap, but I urge you to be extra skeptical in governmental and corporate media reporting.

Japan Facing Biggest Catastrophe Since Dawn of Nuclear Age
http://www.zcommunications.org/...uclear-age-by-many-authors

Tokyo Electric To Build Us Nuclear Plants
http://www.zcommunications.org/...lear-plants-by-greg-palast


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2011 1:26 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by NoNukes, posted 03-15-2011 6:21 PM dronester has responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1108
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 63 of 175 (609052)
03-16-2011 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by NoNukes
03-15-2011 6:21 PM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
Thanks for the clarification Nonukes.

However, your point that the failed levee system in New Orleans was woefully inadequate (like nuclear power plant designs and safety regulations in Japan and USA), was my primary point.

I simply want systems that could potentially harm a great many people to be rigorously designed and regulated. My previous links, and the real world example in Japan, show they "aint".

Edited by dronester, : clarity

Edited by dronester, : clarity


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by NoNukes, posted 03-15-2011 6:21 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1108
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 64 of 175 (609053)
03-16-2011 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by fearandloathing
03-15-2011 5:35 PM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
I am not an engineer, but I think the New York Power Authority Niagara Power Project Power Vista is pretty much non-invasive. It does not damn the river (literally and figuratively), the water is sapped off the main river into a reservoir which then drives the turbines. There is type of salmon that can be caught in the river in which it thrives, not at all effected.

At least in this specific case, hydro power IS much SAFER and CLEANER than nuclear power.

I do not understand why this system is not used more.

I noted Rahvin hasn't conceded this.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=niagara+mohawk+buffalo+ny&h...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by fearandloathing, posted 03-15-2011 5:35 PM fearandloathing has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Rahvin, posted 03-16-2011 11:58 AM dronester has responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1108
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 65 of 175 (609056)
03-16-2011 9:47 AM


micro nuclear power plants?
Anybody read this article in National Geographic? Very interesting:

Small Town Nukes
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/big-idea/08/mini-nukes

"Small reactors can't address all the problems standing in the way of more nuclear investment, but they can address the biggest barriers—the economic ones,"

"Besides costing less to build, some small reactors could be inherently SAFER, . . ."

(BTW, this was a most interesting thread/topic. Most particpants had valid thoughts and examples that were thought provoking. IMHO, this is what EvC should be about. Thanks all)

Edited by dronester, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by fearandloathing, posted 03-16-2011 11:01 AM dronester has not yet responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1108
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 69 of 175 (609078)
03-16-2011 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Rahvin
03-16-2011 11:58 AM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
Rahvin writes:

An earthquake like the one that struck Japan would certainly destroy any dam

I wouldn't recommend building a dam OR nuclear power plant on an active earthquake zone without extraordinary precautions (extraordinary regulations, extraordinary designs, extraordinary laws, and extraordinary maintenance) which apparently the Japanese Nuclear powerplant didn't have. Again, I am not specifically against nuclear power, I am just against inadequate maintenance, inadequate design, inadequate regulations, inadequate laws, corruption, and corporatism, which, unfortunately, is the greedy world we live in (it seems you do not want to consider):

Reports: Lax oversight, 'greed' preceded Japan nuclear crisis
http://www.csmonitor.com/...ed-preceded-Japan-nuclear-crisis

Rahvin writes:

However, yes, hydro power can be extremely safe.

"Can be"? Not only can Hydro be safe, but it IS safe. Do you want to compare deaths by nuclear power plants compared to deaths by hydro power?

Rahvin writes:

I don't consider hydro/solar/wave/geothermal/wind in this discussion simply because they are only supplemental power generation.

Really? from the link site below:

When the Niagara project produced its first power in 1961, it was the largest hydropower facility in the Western world at the time. Today, Niagara is the biggest electricity producer in New York State, generating 2.4 million kilowatts

Niagara Power Project
http://www.nypa.gov/facilities/niagara.htm

(BTW, the hydro power is only 20 minutes away from my home and the tours are free. Guess where I'll be visiting this month?)

I would wager it's many large turbines can compete with any nuclear power plant.

Rahvin writes:

Hydro and geothermal can only be built in specific areas.

Well, duh, but the electricity CAN be transported via POWERLINES many hundreds (thousands?) of miles to the customer.

From your previous post Message 38:

Rahvin writes:

Right now we're detecting elevated but still not harmful levels of radiation in the area (2x normal is the number I've heard, and double the normal daily amount of radiation is virtually nothing).

apan officials: Stay indoors, nuclear leaks now dangerous
http://www.csmonitor.com/...oors-nuclear-leaks-now-dangerous

"We are now in a situation that is different from yesterday's. It is very clear that we are at a level six, which is an intermediate level between what happened at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl," the ASN president said at a news conference in Paris.

Japanese officials are now ordering 140,000 people living near nuclear power plants damaged by Friday's 9.0 earthquake and subsequent tsunami to stay indoors and seal their doors and windows.

Still not convinced Rahvin? In addition, the US aircraft carrier sensed increased radiation and has taken the precaution of moving even further out to sea. So, if you had a family with children living downstream of this exploding Japanese reactor, would you calmly tell them there is nothing to worry about and advise them to make the area home for the next thirty years?

Would you chance your children's health that you were absolutely right?

Edited by dronester, : more accurate quotes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Rahvin, posted 03-16-2011 11:58 AM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by jar, posted 03-16-2011 1:25 PM dronester has not yet responded
 Message 74 by Rahvin, posted 03-16-2011 2:25 PM dronester has responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1108
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 77 of 175 (609106)
03-16-2011 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Rahvin
03-16-2011 2:25 PM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
Hey Rahvin,

Did you rush your last post? It was all over the place. My response will awkwardly follow its path.

Rahvin writes:

despite your red herrings about evacuation orders and "increased radiation" being detected

"MY"? "MY" red herrings? I'm just reporting the facts, M'am, just reporting the facts. If you have a problem with the facts, take it up with the people who reported them. I'm just the messenger. I can only base my argument on what other people are reporting from Japan. I am not there.

Rahvin writes:

I have provided solid numbers regarding the casualties caused by nuclear power.

Solid? You mean SPECULATIVE. Because how can anyone give SOLID numbers of the total cancer victims killed by Hiroshima and Negasaki? How about cancers caused by Neveda test sites and the winds that carried over towns to see if populations were affected? Same with Chernabyl, can you give me SOLID numbers who have died from cancer and who WILL die from cancer from that accident?

Rahvin writes:

Again, hydro is NOT a primary form of generation

Niagara is the biggest electricity producer in New York State. How could BIGGEST be construed as SUPPLEMENTAL?

Rahvin writes:

There just are not enough geographical locations to build enough plants,

Yes, I heard your bare-assertion before. Do you have studies that show that small hydro plants, constructed every dozen miles on the Mississippi River or any other major river in N America, could only ever be supplemental?

Rahvin writes:

Those numbers objectively refute the idea that nuclear power is unsafe when compared to other main-line power generators.

Oh, puhlease . . .

Rahvin writes:

112 people died during the construction of the Hoover Dam

Oh, come on now. Are you joking? You're gonna use people who died in construction as "victims" of hydro power?

Rahvin writes:

47 people died at a Russian hydroelectric plant

Oh, come on now. Are you joking? How many hours did it take you to find this obscure-hardly-related-to-hydro-power-plant statistic? (What's next, a wash room attendant slipped on a wet floor in a Hydro Power plant, absolutely proving that hydro power plant wash rooms are 100% more dangerous than nuclear power washrooms ). From your site. . .

Authorities say the disaster occurred when an oil-filled transformer exploded Monday and flooded a machine room housing the plant's turbines.

C'mon.

Rahvin writes:

per terawatt of energy produced, hydroelectric power kills 885, coal kills 342, natural gas kills 85, but nuclear kills only 8.

First of all, you got this statistic from a highly biased nuclear-fuel propaganda site. Secondly, it doesn't describe what these numbers mean or how they were derived.

Rahvin writes:

Nuclear power seems to scare your pants off, dronester, for absolutely no rational reason.

Curiously, for some illogical reason, you think the following is "absolutely no rational reason".

ordering 140,000 people living near nuclear power plants to stay indoors and seal their doors and windows.

we are at a level six, which is an intermediate level between what happened at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl

You're still not hearing me Rahvin. For the third time, I am not anti-nuclear. Did you read my post Message 65 regarding Small Town Nukes? I like it.

For the many-th time: It appears that the Fukushima and Chernabyl power plants are catastrophes caused by the lack of: extraordinary regulations, extraordinary designs, extraordinary laws, extraordinary laws, extraordinary diligence, and extraordinary maintenance. The same companies that built Fukushima, are hoping to build more nuclear power plants in the US. There's a saying, "you cannot fix a problem by the same mind that continues to cause the problem". There's a god reason I do not want Michael Jackson baby-sitting my kids, and there's a good reason why I fear the companies who will build the nuclear power plants with continuing inattentive regulations, bad designs, and corrupt oversight from the government. Have the Bush Jr. year's taught us nothing? Did you read my last post with the link about Greed/lax oversight?:

http://www.csmonitor.com/...ed-preceded-Japan-nuclear-crisis

Rahvin writes:

"Increased radiation" doesn't mean you're going to die, or get cancer,

Yes, I agree. Just like smoking a carton of cigarettes will not necessarily mean you'll get lung cancer. Or eating a gross of twinkles everyday will not necessarily make you obese. However, what's the rule and what's the exception? if you were a good father, would you still allow your children to do either?

Rahvin writes:

More people die in a single day from car accidents.

Yes, and if I had a BETTER, SAFER, CLEANER option than car transportation, I would urge its use too. (cough, cough, . . . Amtrak)

Rahvin writes:

Now either provide numbers proving my assertions wrong, or concede that you haven't looked at a single goddamned fatality statistic to back up your emotionally-spawned irrational fearmongering.

First of all, what's with the attitude? "goddammed"? "emotionally-spawned irrational fearmongering"? I am reminded of Crashfrog. Rahvin, I enjoy our debate whether I win or lose, so unless this is a childish debating technique, let's try to stay civil.

Secondly, your numbers from your last post were a little, let's say, . . . dubious.

Rahvin writes:

Fukushima would have to be worse than Chernobyl, by far.

OK, then why don't we revisit this thread after the Fukushima disaster ends and then we can tally. I sincerely hope your rose-coloured-glass-prediction is correct and I am wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Rahvin, posted 03-16-2011 2:25 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Rahvin, posted 03-16-2011 5:33 PM dronester has not yet responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1108
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 136 of 175 (609564)
03-21-2011 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Percy
03-20-2011 8:15 AM


Re: Information
Thanks for weighing in Percy, although maybe your post (and mine) would have been better in the other "is nuclear safe" thread.

I've done a lot of reading about Fukushima, nuclear power, and other power sources lately. It seems one needs an advanced education about any/each/all of them to talk with a degree of accuracy so I hesitate to offer additional information:

As you have alluded in your post, according to the following article, the term "spent" fuel rods are not really spent:

“Spent” is an industry-euphemism. It implies something harmless, wasted or used up. Quite the opposite.

Spent fuel is irradiated fuel: fuel that has been irradiated inside a nuclear reactor’s core. After removal from the reactor, this fuel is massively contaminated with radioactive elements and must be stored in giant pools.

On March 15 the New York Times said these fuel pools “could pose an even greater danger” than the reactors melting down.

An even greater danger? Isn’t a core meltdown as bad as it gets?

Alas, a fuel pool meltdown could be worse than a reactor core meltdown. Much worse. This is because fuel pools contain far more radioactivity than that which is inside a reactor core. Unfortunately, at Fukushima we may get both types of meltdowns.

Robert Alvarez, formerly of the US Department of Energy and now at the Institute of Policy Studies, provided insight into this potential nuclear Armageddon. In a recent blog Alvarez states the fuel in each of the pools at the Fukushima complex has 5 to 10 times the radioactivity of the fuel inside one reactor core. And much of this radioactive material is the highly toxic and long-lived radionuclide, cesium-137. See.)

Another problem: Unlike the reactor cores, which have a hefty, six-inch thick steel containment vessel, the fuel pools at Fukushima are in unhardened and therefore highly vulnerable concrete structures. The roof of one of these structures has been completely demolished in at least one of the stricken reactors, Unit 4.

Why is irradiated fuel sitting in pools? (They’re sort of like swimming pools, though considerably deeper. About 40 feet long, 40 feet wide and 45 feet deep.)

After removal from the reactor core, the irradiated fuel is fiendishly hot. The fuel is so hot it will cause the water it is immersed in to boil – if the water is not cooled. What if fuel pool’s cooling systems fail? Disaster. If the water is not cooled for a certain number of days or weeks, the water will boil off. Next, the fuel can catch fire, releasing its toxic load to the environment.

https://alethonews.wordpress.com/...mageddon-and-the-experts

I am unsure if there are similarly designed and operated nuclear plants currently operating in the USA. I am simply raising the concern (though some may accuse me of fear-mongering. BTW, perhaps it is the constant fear-mongering and vigilance that causes the nuclear power to be AS safe as it is?).

Percy writes:

The difference in opinion on power options has a strong emotional core deriving from the fact that nuclear plants pollute through accident and catastrophe while other options pollute through normal operation.

Good words, but this may not be specifically true with all types of Hydro power.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Percy, posted 03-20-2011 8:15 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Rahvin, posted 03-21-2011 2:01 PM dronester has not yet responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1108
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 161 of 175 (611951)
04-12-2011 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Rahvin
03-21-2011 12:55 PM


unreasonably pessimistic?
Rahvin writes:

Those who are still expecting a Chernobyl or worse are being unreasonably pessimistic.

quote:
Japan ups nuke crisis severity to match Chernobyl

TOKYO – Japan raised the crisis level at its crippled nuclear plant Tuesday to a severity on par with the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, citing high overall radiation leaks that have contaminated the air, tap water, vegetables and seawater.

Officials from Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said that the cumulative amount of radioactive particles released into the atmosphere since the incident had reached levels that apply to a Level 7 incident.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_japan_earthquake

Edited by dronester, : clarity


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Rahvin, posted 03-21-2011 12:55 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Rahvin, posted 04-12-2011 12:09 PM dronester has responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1108
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 163 of 175 (611955)
04-12-2011 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Rahvin
04-12-2011 12:09 PM


Re: unreasonably pessimistic?
Rahvin writes:

Come back to me when we have a final death toll

I think a final CANCER toll would be AS revealing. Unfortunately, as I written previously, like Chernobyl and other radiation born catastrophes, good luck in finding SOLID numbers. I submit these dubious examples:

quote:
A more recent, 2000, report, "Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation", by the United Nations' Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation increased to 1,800 the number of thyroid cancers in individuals exposed in childhood to releases from the Chernobyl accident.
http://www.magma.ca/~jalrober/Howbad.htm

The new data, based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predictsapproximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also concludes that on the basis of demographicdata, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000.
http://www.greenpeace.org/...eatures/chernobyl-deaths-180406


In addition, it seems the Japan site is increasing the contaminated zone (+12 miles) for evacuation. A similar 19 mi exclusion zone is around the site of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...uclear_Power_Plant_Exclusion_Zone


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Rahvin, posted 04-12-2011 12:09 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Rahvin, posted 04-12-2011 12:37 PM dronester has responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1108
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 165 of 175 (611960)
04-12-2011 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Rahvin
04-12-2011 12:37 PM


Re: unreasonably pessimistic?
Drone writes:

I submit these dubious examples:

I added bolding this time to help you absorb the relevant information, which you seemed to completely ignore.

Let me know when you come up with SOLID cancer numbers.

In addition to ignored information:

In addition, it seems the Japan site is increasing the contaminated zone (+12 miles) for evacuation. A similar 19 mi exclusion zone is around the site of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...uclear_Power_Plant_Exclusion_Zone


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Rahvin, posted 04-12-2011 12:37 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Rahvin, posted 04-12-2011 12:53 PM dronester has responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1108
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 167 of 175 (611986)
04-12-2011 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Rahvin
04-12-2011 12:53 PM


Re: unreasonably pessimistic?
Rahvin writes:

Yet you still posted them as if they meant something. Curious.

Because you weren't paying attention, I suppose you would find it curious. As Taq and I have already stated previously on this thread, all cancer related injuries and cancer related deaths from nuclear power would have to be speculative. How can anyone specifically know which specific cancer was caused by this or that and know how many specific years life expectancy was shortened because of it or will be shortened because of it? To show you equally SPECULATIVE examples I supplied concedingly dubious numbers.

Rahvin writes:

Since we both agree that "SOLID" cancer numbers are going to be impossible, . . .

Thanks for finally conceding that solid numbers for cancer deaths and cancer related illness from nuclear power is nearly impossible to ascertain, and thus the dangers/risks from nuclear power can never be fully described with "SOLID" numbers. However, if you would like, we can meet on this forum in 60 years and go over the revised data then. (If I live downwind from a similar Fukushima-designed nuclear plant still in operation in the US, you can recognize me by my head-sized goiter. Hey, at least it's not a death statistic, right?)

Rahvin writes:

19 miles is more than 50% greater than 12.

(+12 miles)

I added bolding this time to help you absorb the relevant information, which you seemed to completely ignore.

You wrote:

Rahvin writes:

Still not nearly comparable to Chernobyl.

"Not nearly comparable"? I disagree, +12 miles around Fukushima does compare to 19 miles around Chernobyl.

Rahvin writes:

Besides that, who cares? Evacuation areas and even exclusion zones are precautions.

Maybe the people who lived there all their life care. To a lesser extent, the billions of dollars lost in damages/abandonment matters.

Why do you only want to focus on death tolls? Why is that, I wonder?

Edited by dronester, : there>their


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Rahvin, posted 04-12-2011 12:53 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014