• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged nuclear power safe?

Java Man said:
Are you telling us that you're ok with maximizing profit at the expense of security until things really get bad.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you babbling on about? The nuclear industry is the most watched over industry, the one with the most regulations, protocols and whatnot, that i can think of. Maybe only some special branch of the weapons industry might be even tighter controlled, if that is true at all.

Yes, humans make mistakes that can lead to harsh consequences. Yes, some people lie to maximize their profits. Yes, if a nuclear reactor goes belly up the consequences are huge. Yes, Fukushima is a serious situation.

So what? That simply does not change the fact that, despite all these flaws, nuclear power plants are still the safest way currently. They have the least impact on the environment and health of people. They have the lowest number of human fatalities compared to other methods of power generation. No amount of babbling will change that.

Sure, you can always go ahead and demand even more regulations, checks, and whatnot. But there simply is a level after which it doesn't make sense anymore. Want to make the world safer for humans? Want to have things have less impact on the environment? Great, start with the stuff that really makes a lot of problems. Start with implementing more regulations and checks for coal mines, oil platforms, refineries, the chemical industry. Heck, go ahead and demand the same for cars and airplanes. Because these are the things that cause more deaths, more environmental impact and more health risks _right_now_ than nuclear does.

It's easy to pick on a target that you personally do not like. But your personal opinions have absolutely no meaning in reality. Neither do mine or anyone elses. Reality is just that: reality. We can try to change things for the better, but everything has its limits. Instead of picking on something that you have personal qualms with, and which causes less harm so far compared to almost everything else, you are better advised if you spend your time on stuff that really kills people every day, many of them. Stuff that really impacts our environment, measurably and to a great extent.

Really, get over it.

Greetings,

Chris
 
Java Man said:
Yes, have you cared reading the news? Doesn't seem like it.
Click to expand...

I have read the news, and the first thing I noticed was that most of the reporters covering the accident haven't got even close to the science knowledge needed to know what they are talking about. The second thing I noticed was the insistance to blow it out of proportions and to over emote everything to make it sound as bad as possible, and the third thing I noted was their continual use of so called experts who were just as lacking in their knowledge but adamently passionate about ridding the world of the nuclear menace.

Hence why I have prefered to listen actual experts who know what is going on and do my own research based on my knowledge of chemistry and physics rather then swallowing the latest catastrophic denouncements of the media.
 
This has been linked in other threads, but might set some minds at rest (Java Man?):

Radiation dose chart in everyday terms from eating a banana to 10 minutes next to the Chernobyl reactor when it went up.

And I'd like to echo PhantomWolf's point about the scare tactics of the MSM. They seem to be positively itching to inflate every scare to the max.
 
Java Man said:
Now let's bring it down to non-radiation workers.

Limit is 1uS not 50uS.
Click to expand...

Limit for what?

Radiation only begins to have an increased risk of cancer at a constant rate of 100mSv/year.

So that's 100 000 times more than you would get from drinking 1000 glasses of milk in a year.

The yearly limit for US radiation workers is 50mSv, which is 50 000 times more than your measurement. What, you think radiation workers are picked because they are somehow hardened against radiation? This is the yearly limit for US radiation workers because it's a safe limit that doesn't go close to posing a real health risk, but is high enough that they can do their jobs properly.

Get a good firm grip on reality Javaman. Just because a non radiation worker isn't normally subjected to that level in a year doesn't mean they are going to be harmed by it.
 
Java Man said:
I'm not missing the fact that there are monetary concerns. I'm just suggesting there should be a cap on the monetary priority.
Click to expand...

Really ? I'm concerned about reality, not some hypothetical utopia. In the real world, those concerns exist and WILL influence decisions to update plants. Saying it "shouldn't" be so doesn't change that.
 
Puppycow said:
Well the thread is now 1660 posts.

Were the pools not damaged in the explosions?

Something is clearly causing radiation to be emitted.
Click to expand...

It seems pretty obvious to me. This is not, and cannot be, a Chernobyl, but that seems to me to make the pro-nuclear pundits think there is no real problem. There was a real problem the moment they lost control of the plants and just started trying things, hoping for the best.
 
Java Man said:
Now let's bring it down to non-radiation workers.

Limit is 1uS not 50uS. All of a sudden your 58,000 glasses of milk become 1,000. Your 160 years become 3 years.

And then there's the little itsy bitsy detail of the difference between radioactive iodine on the skin and in the thyroid.
Click to expand...

Because you are not a radiation worker does not mean the radiation is going to kill you quicker... The difference is that radiation worker *will* get exposed so the law set at which level it becomes dangerous.

Also *single* spike dose are dangerous. Cumulative dose unless cumulated in specific organs, they will get eliminated also partially with time (Iodine strontium are dangerous because of that).
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
It seems pretty obvious to me. This is not, and cannot be, a Chernobyl, but that seems to me to make the pro-nuclear pundits think there is no real problem. There was a real problem the moment they lost control of the plants and just started trying things, hoping for the best.
Click to expand...

There is a major problem, but "There's a major problem" =/= "It's emitting dangerous levels of radiation".
 
'Tokyo water unsafe for infants after high radiation levels detected'

"The Japanese prime minister, Naoto Kan, instructed authorities in Fukushima to issue a ban on the consumption of certain agricultural products grown in the prefecture after radioactivity exceeding legal limits was found in 11 types of vegetable.

...

The US, meanwhile, has become the first country to ban milk and food imports from Fukushima and three neighbouring prefectures.

...

The Japanese government's chief spokesman, Yukio Edano, said abnormal levels of radioactivity in food posed no threat to human health and urged trading partners to act rationally."

No problem... nuclear is safer than coal... etc....
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
It all depends on how close you want to get and for how long. The on-site workers are being carefully managed, and there is some sort of leakage happening somewhere.
Click to expand...

Yes and yes, but unless someone can point me to a source that verifies dangerously high levels, I'm going to be content that if you aren't in the plant itself, you're probably perfectly safe as it currently stands.

Take what JihadJane just linked, coupled with the obviously derisory comment. The level of radiation in the water is still pitifully low compared to radiation levels that are dangerous to adults, so while it may be the case that infants could be at risk (although I think it's more likely that this is a precautionary measure) it isn't going to wipe out an entire generation in Tokyo or anything. Frankly, the derisory comment is ludicrous, because coal plants can and do pollute more than this nuclear plant, which is having serious problems due to virtually unforeseen circumstances at an outdated plant. The assessment that because increased radiation levels in water might possibly hurt small children if taken in large enough doses means that pro-nuke people are lying when they say it's safer than coal is either a blatant attempt to twist the truth with an appeal to emotion, or the words of someone who doesn't understand radiation dose levels and relative risk.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Yes and yes, but unless someone can point me to a source that verifies dangerously high levels, I'm going to be content that if you aren't in the plant itself, you're probably perfectly safe as it currently stands.

Take what JihadJane just linked, coupled with the obviously derisory comment. The level of radiation in the water is still pitifully low compared to radiation levels that are dangerous to adults, so while it may be the case that infants could be at risk (although I think it's more likely that this is a precautionary measure) it isn't going to wipe out an entire generation in Tokyo or anything.
Click to expand...

I'm so relieved. I'll stop worrying, because, if it's not an entire generation getting wiped out, what's the point? :rolleyes:

Frankly, the derisory comment is ludicrous, because coal plants can and do pollute more than this nuclear plant, which is having serious problems due to virtually unforeseen circumstances at an outdated plant.
Click to expand...

That's not my point. My point is that it is a We're-better-than-the-Taliban argument. So what if we're better than the Taliban or if nuclear electricity is safer than burning fossil fuels?


Your "virtually unforeseen circumstances" comment is equally ludicrous.

The assessment that because increased radiation levels in water might possibly hurt small children if taken in large enough doses means that pro-nuke people are lying when they say it's safer than coal is either a blatant attempt to twist the truth with an appeal to emotion, or the words of someone who doesn't understand radiation dose levels and relative risk.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that the nuclear lobby is lying by claiming that nuclear is safer than coal.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom