Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8872 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-18-2018 12:16 PM
224 online now:
DWIII, Percy (Admin), Stile, Tangle, Tanypteryx, vimesey (6 members, 218 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Son of Man
Post Volume:
Total: 842,232 Year: 17,055/29,783 Month: 1,043/1,956 Week: 40/506 Day: 40/89 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   Is nuclear power safe??
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1139 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 31 of 57 (614619)
05-05-2011 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by dronestar
05-05-2011 12:46 PM


Re: The Grand Canyon Uranium Rush
As long as the actual direct deaths per TWh are kept low, I suppose SOME people MIGHT think that uranium mining in the Grand Canyon is a GOOD policy.

Why? Do you suppose that supporters of nuclear power because it is the safest method of power generation are somehow so stupid as to support Uranium mining anywhere and everywhere we can get the stuff, just because it's there?

The relative deaths per TWh mean that nuclear is the best option. The deaths per TWh from mining and using Uranium in the Grand Canyon would be lower than a coal mine in the same place, or solar panels, or wind turbines, or a hydroelectric plant, or a frakking operation...but who the hell thinks that the Grand Canyon is a good place for any of that?! Hell, I wouldn't even want solar or wind power there - the Canyon is a natural national treasure! It should be left alone and preserved, like Yellowstone and Yosemite.

"Safest method" in no way translates to "always appropriate everywhere." We just aren't hard up for Uranium enough to justify that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by dronestar, posted 05-05-2011 12:46 PM dronestar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by dronestar, posted 05-05-2011 1:15 PM Rahvin has responded

  
dronestar
Member (Idle past 292 days)
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 32 of 57 (614622)
05-05-2011 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Rahvin
05-05-2011 1:06 PM


Re: The Grand Canyon Uranium Rush
Rahvin writes:

Do you suppose that supporters of nuclear power because it is the safest method of power generation

Still waiting for SOLID numbers that include cancer illnessES.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Rahvin, posted 05-05-2011 1:06 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Rahvin, posted 05-05-2011 1:34 PM dronestar has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1139 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 33 of 57 (614624)
05-05-2011 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by dronestar
05-05-2011 1:15 PM


Re: The Grand Canyon Uranium Rush
Still waiting for SOLID numbers that include cancer illnessES.

I can only give the numbers I can find. I backed up my claims with evidence. If you take issue with my claims, if you think I'm mistaken, the onus is on you to provide new numbers that prove my position wrong.

If you think cancer deaths due to nuclear power are sufficient to change the relative risk assessment compared to other methods of power generation, it's your responsibility to back up that assertion with evidence, not mine.

Incidentally, if all you have is a "general sense" that nuclear power generation causes significant cancer deaths, and not any real numbers, that's rather strong evidence that you are currently holding a belief that is not based on any real-world evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by dronestar, posted 05-05-2011 1:15 PM dronestar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by dronestar, posted 05-05-2011 3:14 PM Rahvin has responded

  
dronestar
Member (Idle past 292 days)
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 34 of 57 (614646)
05-05-2011 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Rahvin
05-05-2011 1:34 PM


Re: The Grand Canyon Uranium Rush
Rahvin writes:

If you want to dispute those numbers, provide your own source. Until and unless you can give an independently-sourced casualty number that records a higher death toll than what I found, you have no evidence to support your argument. End of fucking story.

Though your death toll numbers MAY be correct, I have not been debating the death tolls that you keep harping on. (I haven't seen such an unwavering and peremptory stance since Kenner Toys introduced GI Joe's Kung Fu Death Grip action doll.) However, I AM repeatedly harping on the cancer/radiation sickness tolls.

OK, here AGAIN are some cancer numbers I have submitted before.

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


To paraphrase your argument:

If you want to dispute these cancer numbers, provide your own source. Until and unless you can give an independently-sourced casualty number that records a LOWER CANCER toll than what I found, you have no evidence to support your argument. End of fucking story.

Incidentally, if all you have is a "general sense" that nuclear power generation causes insignificant cancer illness, and not any real numbers, that's rather strong evidence that you are currently holding a belief that is not based on any real-world evidence.

Edited by dronester, : clarity


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Rahvin, posted 05-05-2011 1:34 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Rahvin, posted 05-05-2011 5:06 PM dronestar has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1139 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 35 of 57 (614660)
05-05-2011 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by dronestar
05-05-2011 3:14 PM


Re: The Grand Canyon Uranium Rush
Your own source agrees with me. From your link:

quote:
Also attending the conference were 280 journalists but the media are still talking of thousands already dead from Chernobyl. In some instances the source of the myth can be identified. For instance, the figure of 125,000 said to be those already dead from Chernobyl was in fact the number of deaths during the period 1988-94 from all causes in the area affected by the accident. A figure of 10,000 deaths in the 600,000 people who helped in the clean-up represents the normal death rate over five years in any comparable population. The most likely explanation of the media's irresponsible propagation of mythology is laziness, simple repetition from other media, combined with a relish for disasters and conspiracy theories that sell "news". Thanks to the media, and according to Mark Twain:

* "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

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. It noted that the high incidence and relatively short induction period are unusual and suggested that other factors may be influencing the incidence. The report confirmed that, except for the thyroid cancers, no increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality that could be attributed to ionizing radiation have been observed.

The report also provided average doses during the first decade after the accident:

* 100 mSv for the 240,000 recovery operation workers
* 30 mSv for the 116,000 evacuated persons
* 10 mSv for those who continued to live in contaminated areas

and an estimated 20 - 50 mSv lifetime dose for Europeans outside the former U.S.S.R.. It noted that these doses, even for the first group, are comparable to an annual dose from natural, ambient radiation and are, therefore, of little radiological significance. Yet another U.N. report, in 2007, put the total deaths attributable to the accident at only 50.


Your words were also misleading - the Greenpeace link was not part of any UN report, but was their own investigation, whose results are rather oddly similar to the very myths discounted in your first link.

So what you've provided real evidence of is 1) a bunch of nucleophobic idiots who actually used the total mortality rate over all causes of death in the region for an entire year as the death toll for the Chernobyl incident (which would be like using the total mortality rate from 2010-2011 in Tokyo and saying Fukushima caused it all) and 2) an estimated 1800 thyroid cancers, not all of which were lethal (I rather think it's only fair that we restrict the numbers to actual deaths, since we aren't including in the argument any nonlethal injuries from the other methods of power generation).

Of course, since nuclear power causes orders of magnitude fewer deaths according to the numbers I provided, even if we add all 1800 thyroid cancer cases to the death toll, the math still favors nuclear power.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by dronestar, posted 05-05-2011 3:14 PM dronestar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by dronestar, posted 05-06-2011 12:38 PM Rahvin has responded

  
dronestar
Member (Idle past 292 days)
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


(1)
Message 36 of 57 (614760)
05-06-2011 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Rahvin
05-05-2011 5:06 PM


Re: The Grand Canyon Uranium Rush
Hey Mister Rhavin,

It seems youve been giving my posts the short thrift. I am often needing to remind you of my previous posts or point out strategic words used. Dronester sad.

1. When you gave pro-nuclear stats from a questionable propaganda site, I called you on it. You replied unless I have my own stats, I should stay quiet, Fucking end of story. Ok, precedence was set.

2. So when I gave you SELF-ADMITTED DUBIOUS cancer numbers, instead of replying with your own stats as you have directed me, you dismissed ALL of my stats. Doesnt seem fair.

3. You want to restrict the numbers to actual deaths because there can never be SOLID cancer illness numbers. This doesnt sound like an accurate way to determine the safety of nuclear power.

4. You want to only use the death per TWh as indicative of nuclear power safety. I think this marginalizes too many other current serious problems with nuclear power. As Fukishima showed, nuclear power plants shouldnt be built near populous zones. They are. Nuclear Powerplants shouldnt be placed on fault zones. They are. Nuclear Powerplants shouldnt be placed near tsunami risk-areas. They are. Nuclear Powerplants should be held to high safety regulations and strict monitoring. They arent. Nuclear Powerplants should have adequate safety backups. They dont. Nuclear Powerplants should NOT be operated with known design flaws. They are. Nuclear Powerplants should not store spent fuel rods in non-reinforced, un-secure pools. They are. You may only want to use death tolls, but that wouldnt accurately show the true on-going risk of nuclear power. Indeed, I am asserting, weve been lucky so far. Consider, if a highly technologically advanced nation like Japan could have so many glaring serious problems, what can we expect when a third world nation, banana-republic, wants to build /operate nuclear powerplants? I think future catastrophes are inevitable.

5. The costs of nuclear power plants is extraordinary. Why not spend the money towards alternate power sources. I mentioned hydro before. I am starting to conclude the real reason hydro power (ocean wave or mini-river) isnt pushed is because it simply isnt as profitable as nuclear.

6. I am not fully against all nuclear power. I have already stated I think the mini nuclear power plants a good idea. Unfortunately, industry wants massive sized nuclear power plants because of the huge profit margin and because the risk, if something catastrophic happens, is capped.

7. I am not fully against all nuclear power. But I do want the concerns addressed. Perhaps the shrill and hyper-vigilance of the anti-nuclear crowd will somewhat cause advances in safety. But if we simply leave it to industry and government, we are not being very good parents to our children or stewards of the earth

8. Lastly, just a plea towards a healthy earth. I am trying to contain the epidemic, and others seem to be driving the infected monkey to the airport. I love tuna, but health officials urge women and children to restrict their consumption because of the mercury poisoning we have poisoned our waters with. I love safe drinking water, but industry wants to increase pumping poisonous chemicals into the ground to release gas/oil. The government works against us by implementing standards that allow manufacturers to pollute the earth. Government reduces funding for regulations and monitoring and then the industry is not adequately policed or fined. And America is a first world nation. What about third world nations where industrial toxic sludge is directly pumped into rivers? You can say, currently, that nuclear power is the cleanest or safest, but really, is this the best we can do? Our standards continue to slip, indeed, do we really NEED to fight against mining in the GRAND CANYON? Its amazing that this is even contemplated in the first place. Can you concede our national, and more pressing, global safety net is swinging haphazardly?

Rhavin, this is a somewhat rambling post. But in it, can you at least see my aggravation/frustration that the earth will be in a much worse condition than when I inherited it? Often, when an eco-system is once changed, there is never going back to replace it. I am urging everyone to re-think how best to maintain a fragile planet's health.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Rahvin, posted 05-05-2011 5:06 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Theodoric, posted 05-06-2011 1:00 PM dronestar has responded
 Message 39 by Rahvin, posted 05-06-2011 2:48 PM dronestar has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 37 of 57 (614779)
05-06-2011 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by dronestar
05-06-2011 12:38 PM


Quick aside
Just a point of fact the term is Short shrift

little attention or consideration in dealing with a person or matter: to give short shrift to an opponent's arguments.

It is a very interesting term if you look up the definition for shrift.

Please carry on. Sorry for interrupting.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by dronestar, posted 05-06-2011 12:38 PM dronestar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by dronestar, posted 05-06-2011 1:07 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
dronestar
Member (Idle past 292 days)
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 38 of 57 (614783)
05-06-2011 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Theodoric
05-06-2011 1:00 PM


Re: Quick aside
Short SHRIFT.

Err, kinda explains the little attention or consideration my posts are getting.

Thanks Theo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Theodoric, posted 05-06-2011 1:00 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1139 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(1)
Message 39 of 57 (614803)
05-06-2011 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by dronestar
05-06-2011 12:38 PM


Re: The Grand Canyon Uranium Rush
Dronester, you set up so many straw men it's no wonder you only barely responded to my previous post.

It seems youve been giving my posts the short thrift. I am often needing to remind you of my previous posts or point out strategic words used. Dronester sad.

In fairness, there was a delay of several days between posts in the thread, and I haven't re-read everything to catch myself back up.

Of course, the other side of that is that I had to remind you what your own link said because it didn't back up your assertions. I at least read my own links.

1. When you gave pro-nuclear stats from a questionable propaganda site, I called you on it. You replied unless I have my own stats, I should stay quiet, Fucking end of story. Ok, precedence was set.

2. So when I gave you SELF-ADMITTED DUBIOUS cancer numbers, instead of replying with your own stats as you have directed me, you dismissed ALL of my stats. Doesnt seem fair.

I dismissed your statistics based in large part on your own link, which very clearly stated that the absurdly large cancer numbers attributed by some sources to Chernobyl, none of them actual scientific studies, were myths and not facts, including one in which every death in the region over an entire year for all causes was added to the Chernobyl death toll. I didn't cast doubt on your numbers just because I didn't like them, but rather because your own link said they were bullshit, and showed why.

3. You want to restrict the numbers to actual deaths because there can never be SOLID cancer illness numbers. This doesnt sound like an accurate way to determine the safety of nuclear power.

It's the only fair way to do it, unless you think you can somehow track down the cancer/injury/other hazard numbers for all the other methods of power generation. If we include non-lethal cancers in considering nuclear power, wouldn't we also need to include non-lethal cases of black-lung for coal? Non-lethal groundwater contamination from frakking? The point isn't to unfairly leave out data, it's to establish a uniform base of comparison.

If you don;t like using deaths per TWh, what metric would you use in comparing relative safety?

4. You want to only use the death per TWh as indicative of nuclear power safety. I think this marginalizes too many other current serious problems with nuclear power. As Fukishima showed, nuclear power plants shouldnt be built near populous zones. They are. Nuclear Powerplants shouldnt be placed on fault zones. They are. Nuclear Powerplants shouldnt be placed near tsunami risk-areas. They are. Nuclear Powerplants should be held to high safety regulations and strict monitoring. They arent. Nuclear Powerplants should have adequate safety backups. They dont. Nuclear Powerplants should NOT be operated with known design flaws. They are. Nuclear Powerplants should not store spent fuel rods in non-reinforced, un-secure pools. They are. You may only want to use death tolls, but that wouldnt accurately show the true on-going risk of nuclear power. Indeed, I am asserting, weve been lucky so far. Consider, if a highly technologically advanced nation like Japan could have so many glaring serious problems, what can we expect when a third world nation, banana-republic, wants to build /operate nuclear powerplants? I think future catastrophes are inevitable.

You won;t even find argument from me in quite a bit of that little rant. I agree that the Fukushima plant, as a single example, was an outdated design that should have been closed down and rebuilt years or even decades ago. A major theme of my posts in the Fukushima thread was that the design used in that plant was abandoned for new plant construction in the US in the 70s, which hardly speaks to the relative safety of that particular design. Sticking all of the backup diesel generators for the cooling system in a basement in an area that can be easily flooded by a tsunami was certainly stupid in retrospect.

But all power plants everywhere have flaws, and they're especially obvious in hindsight. I still maintain that the best metric we can use for comparing safety between methods of power generation is the number of deaths caused per TWh generated.

That doesn't at all mean that we should stop looking for ways to improve, looking for plants that need to be retired, refitted, or redesigned. "Safest" in no way translates to "perfect," or even "safest possible."

5. The costs of nuclear power plants is extraordinary. Why not spend the money towards alternate power sources. I mentioned hydro before. I am starting to conclude the real reason hydro power (ocean wave or mini-river) isnt pushed is because it simply isnt as profitable as nuclear.

That would be one reason. Another is transmission distance. Power lines aren't superconductors, and you can build a coal or gas or nuclear plant basically anywhere you can get approval. Wave power is only usable on coastlines or at sea and is unreliable; wind power can only be used in fairly windy areas, takes up a lot of physical space per unit of power, and isn't reliable; same for solar. Hydro dams are pretty reliable, but can only be placed in specific locations - not every river can support a dam, and even among the ones that can, certainly not all of them are like Niagara Falls. Only a finite amount of power can ever be generated by hydro dams.

Nuclear, coal, oil, and gas remain extremely scalable, generate a lot more power per square foot, and can be build virtually anywhere to cut down transmission distance. Among those, nuclear is the clear winner on safety, while coal is the clear winner on cost.

Choosing how to generate electricity is not single-issue. It's not only about cost, not only about reliability, etc. But when one method of power generation kills fewer people per unit of power, AND is extremely reliable, AND is extremely scalable, AND can be built in virtually any location, it becomes the clear choice for most situations.

6. I am not fully against all nuclear power. I have already stated I think the mini nuclear power plants a good idea. Unfortunately, industry wants massive sized nuclear power plants because of the huge profit margin and because the risk, if something catastrophic happens, is capped.

I'm not so sure it's that simple. Getting a small-scale plant design approved for mass production would make for an excellent opportunity for profit - the cost is in getting a new design approved. For the very reasons we're discussing now, cases like Fukushima, new designs for nuclear plants are very stringently analyzed and can take a lot of time and money to finally get approved...not to mention the permits required, which are likely scaled to large traditional plants rather than small ones. Small-scale plants are so outside-the-box that I would place a fair bet that the regulatory structure will need some modification before we see them.

7. I am not fully against all nuclear power. But I do want the concerns addressed. Perhaps the shrill and hyper-vigilance of the anti-nuclear crowd will somewhat cause advances in safety. But if we simply leave it to industry and government, we are not being very good parents to our children or stewards of the earth

That's just the thing - "shrill hyper-vigilance" really means "insane, inaccurate propagandic lies being spread to kill an industry entirely rather than address any real flaws." And while I have no confidence in the nuclear industry in regulating itself, we are the government, the government is suppsoed to represent and answer to us, and what we actually need is accurate information dispensation and a strong public will to address the issues of nuclear power like storage, reprocessing, and safety in ways other than the standard Greenpeace "no nukes." It's an abstinence-only approach to the nuclear industry, and it's just not going to work.

8. Lastly, just a plea towards a healthy earth. I am trying to contain the epidemic, and others seem to be driving the infected monkey to the airport. I love tuna, but health officials urge women and children to restrict their consumption because of the mercury poisoning we have poisoned our waters with. I love safe drinking water, but industry wants to increase pumping poisonous chemicals into the ground to release gas/oil. The government works against us by implementing standards that allow manufacturers to pollute the earth. Government reduces funding for regulations and monitoring and then the industry is not adequately policed or fined. And America is a first world nation. What about third world nations where industrial toxic sludge is directly pumped into rivers? You can say, currently, that nuclear power is the cleanest or safest, but really, is this the best we can do? Our standards continue to slip, indeed, do we really NEED to fight against mining in the GRAND CANYON? Its amazing that this is even contemplated in the first place. Can you concede our national, and more pressing, global safety net is swinging haphazardly?

Like I said above, "safest" does not mean "safest possible." In no way would I ever claim that nuclear power is the safest form of generation we will ever develop - I would hope within a few more decades we'll get fusion based plants working, and those generate far more power while being impossible to "melt down" and not using long-decay radioisotopes as fuel or waste.

I favor fission now because now it is the safest and best we have available. I'd like to see all the coal plants in the US replaced by a much smaller number of higher-producing and lower-fuel-consumption nuclear plants, with reprocessing instituted to recycle most of the "waste" just like what France has been doing for years.

But if next year we make a better mousetrap, I'll shift my support in an instant. Hell, I've heard some wonderful things about the Thorium fuel cycle as an alternative to Uranium that allows for more efficient reprocessing, a far more plentiful fuel, and less hazardous end products. I'd LOVE to see some of those benefits.

Rhavin, this is a somewhat rambling post. But in it, can you at least see my aggravation/frustration that the earth will be in a much worse condition than when I inherited it? Often, when an eco-system is once changed, there is never going back to replace it. I am urging everyone to re-think how best to maintain a fragile planet's health.

Of course I can see that - but you should really realize that nuclear power hasn't been responsible for more than a very tiny amount of that. Nuclear power doesn't pollute much at all, either in the mining of Uranium (since not particularly much is needed with the energy density of fissile fuel), or the actual generation of power. Nuclear waste is more visible as a problem because we actually need to either reprocess it or bury it somewhere...as opposed to the waste products of combustion, where we just let fly ash from coal burning out into the air to cause cancer, respiratory ailments, and acid rain to name just a few.

My issue is that people tend to target a specific mode of pollution in a vacuum. They say "look how awful that pollutes, we shouldn't do that" without even looking at the alternatives for a comparison. Perfection is impossible; anything we do is going to have SOME kind of environmental impact. We can't say "this pollutes, let's not do that" without heading back to the stone age. What we need to do is look at how much each option damages the environment and in what way, and make an informed decision to minimize lasting harm to the Earth and to human life.

That's what I'm about, and it's why I support nuclear power - I think it's the smartest choice, given its proven safety record, the low amount of pollution generated, the prevalence of the fuel required, it's easy scalability, and the ability to build plants in locations of our own choosing without needing thousands of kilometers of inefficient power lines wasting the electricity and making us mine a bunch of copper, not to mention being more susceptible to the sort of issues that caused the East Coast blackout a few years back (the longer the lines, for instance, the more vulnerable they are to electromagnetic induction, and so they become more susceptible to solar weather among other things...).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by dronestar, posted 05-06-2011 12:38 PM dronestar has not yet responded

  
Caleb
Junior Member (Idle past 2640 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 05-11-2011


Message 40 of 57 (615244)
05-11-2011 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by jar
03-17-2011 7:29 PM


Re: of course not
I will agree with you that no form of energy production is perfectly safe, but the dangerous effects of radiation is not as bad as most people think. For example the worst radiation problem in history is supposed to be in Chernobyl, Russia. However, plant, animal, and human life was hardly damaged there. Some scientists have tried to claim an increase of cancer occured, but the only thing that can actually be agreed upon is some farmers who drank contaminated milk that Russia new about and kept quiet. So, radiation concerns are mostly unfounded. Of course anything in excess can be harmful!


"Everybody makes mistakes"
Visit my website at www.propagandabypass.org
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by jar, posted 03-17-2011 7:29 PM jar has not yet responded

    
Caleb
Junior Member (Idle past 2640 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 05-11-2011


Message 41 of 57 (615249)
05-11-2011 6:39 PM


Sorry for my rambling and nothing to back myself up with. http://www.who.int/.../news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html is a good source for the actual number of directly related deaths of the event which it says 50. The quote from the source describes my views of Chernobyl
This was a very serious accident with major health consequences, especially for thousands of workers exposed in the early days who received very high radiation doses, and for the thousands more stricken with thyroid cancer. By and large, however, we have not found profound negative health impacts to the rest of the population in surrounding areas, nor have we found widespread contamination that would continue to pose a substantial threat to human health, within a few exceptional, restricted areas.

With that I conclude that radiation is not a big threat to human life.


Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Trae, posted 05-12-2011 12:46 AM Caleb has not yet responded

    
Trae
Member (Idle past 2259 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 42 of 57 (615282)
05-12-2011 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Caleb
05-11-2011 6:39 PM


Caleb, I agree. What we havent discussed is how much damage may be done by not having cheap additional energy available. As the cost of energy increases, more jobs get shipped overseas, people cancel services that help maintain physical and mental health, food costs increase, but for the most part the cost of everything increases. I have to wonder if were risking runaway inflation by refusing to adopt more nuclear power.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Caleb, posted 05-11-2011 6:39 PM Caleb has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2142 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 43 of 57 (615533)
05-14-2011 12:32 AM


I'll throw my 3 cents (do to inflation) in.

"Nuclear power is safe except that the reactors are run by humans, who tend not to be." Bill Young, 2011


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 44 of 57 (695075)
04-02-2013 12:57 PM


Latest News
Nuclear Power Prevents More Deaths Than It Causes

That article has a link to this study:

quote:

Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power

Abstract: In the aftermath of the March 2011 accident at Japans Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the future contribution of nuclear power to the global energy supply has become somewhat uncertain. Because nuclear power is an abundant, low-carbon source of base-load power, on balance it could make a large contribution to mitigation of global climate change and air pollution. Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented about 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes (Gt) CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. Based on global projection data that take into account the effects of Fukushima, we find that by mid-century, nuclear power could prevent an additional 420,000 to 7.04 million deaths and 80 to 240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels, depending on which fuel it replaces. By contrast, we assess that large-scale expansion of natural gas use would not mitigate the climate problem and would cause far more deaths than expansion of nuclear power.


If nuclear power save more lives than it costs, then I'd call it "safe" and give it the green light.

In my opinion, utilizing nuclear power is the only way we're going to move forward into the future.


Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Rahvin, posted 04-02-2013 1:07 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply
 Message 46 by nwr, posted 04-02-2013 1:49 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-02-2013 3:02 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1139 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(3)
Message 45 of 57 (695076)
04-02-2013 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by New Cat's Eye
04-02-2013 12:57 PM


Re: Latest News
Given that this is the case with current reactors, most of which are decades out of date and which do not take full advantage of fuel cycles or advanced failsafes, imagine how safe they could be in the near future if the nuclear industry were to be revived.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. Albert Camus

"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-02-2013 12:57 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018