• 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?

DC said:
is that your usual behavior? claim stuff and not providing evidence for it?
and when people ask you for evidence you direct them to google?
Click to expand...

It seems to be the norm here, when you call somebody on a claim, they will do just about anything except simply say, "I got that from ..." and then explain the source they learned it from. Or even why they said it.

Then if you push, they start joking around, insulting you and trying to search for a source that could possibly support what they made up.

Then a day later they accuse you of being a liar and demand an apology. It's startling the first time it happens.
 
r-j said:
It seems to be the norm here, when you call somebody on a claim, they will do just about anything except simply say, "I got that from ..." and then explain the source they learned it from. Or even why they said it.

Then if you push, they start joking around, insulting you and trying to search for a source that could possibly support what they made up.

Then a day later they accuse you of being a liar and demand an apology. It's startling the first time it happens.
Click to expand...

r-j said:
Try learning to use Google. ...

Instead of demanding to be spoon fed here, spouting out one- or two-liners with each post, get up and seek some information on your own. It's not that hard, really.
Click to expand...



I was going to come in here and point out the hilarious hypocritical nature of r-j, but instead I'll quote the most recent post of this obvious and rather sick concern troll.

r-j said:
Meanwhile, the suffering in poor Japan just keeps increasing. Those poor babies. And mothers. Now they fear the water they drink. And it's just starting.

The earthquake and tsunami didn't effect most of the people directly. But the radiation, that is causing so much fear and tension. If it's dangerous now, what about in a month? And nobody has any plan at all to deal with this.
Click to expand...

I mean seriously. Really?
 
More one liners, with no content. This is starting to be fun.

It certainly beats fretting about a nuclear disaster, or discussing science.
 
MrQhuest said:
"Safe" is entirely relative. How many people die in coal mines? How many in oil refinery accidents? How many people die from lung cancer caused by coil and oil soot? How many people died in 3 mile island? How many from Chernobyl?
Click to expand...

It would seem that "how many died" is the only thing considered when discussing nuclear power plants. That is ridiculous.

The economics is far more important to most people.

"How many people die in coal mines?" Who cares? Insurance pays the miners families, the insurance company doesn't go under from a mine accident. Neither does the power company.

Coal mining destroys mountains, pollutes the water! So? That is nothing compared to the damage just one nuclear power plant can do in a day.

"How many in oil refinery accidents?"

Again, even a huge oil refinery disaster doesn't risk an entire state, or a quarter of a country. Or the world.

"How many people die from lung cancer caused by coil and oil soot?" Now that is closer to a real issue, but again, by only focusing on deaths, rather economics, you are trying to frame the discussion in an unrealistic way. The risk is spread out, and cancer also is an economic boon to most countries, cancer doesn't destroy the ability for farmers to live, for people to eat, for the economy to continue on.

"How many people died in 3 mile island?"

Now that is pure straw man at this point. You might as well ask how many people died from an explosion at a fertilizer plant. What does that have to do with the risks of a nuclear disaster?

But the economics of TMI, that is worth looking at. How much money did that cost the company? Did they go bankrupt? How long did the clean up take? Did they even finish removing all the dangerous radioactive material from the plant? (the answer is no)

How did that effect other business? Other plants being built? The money aspect is often more important than how many will die. Insurance companies know they will have to pay out for deaths, it's part of the world of business. If there is a chance they will have to pay out for poisoning an entire state with radiation, well, is that a good risk? Even if it might not happen for 30 years?

"How many from Chernobyl?"

That figure is contested, but it wasn't just deaths. The people that lost everything, the loss of cropland, the river polluted, the whole disaster there was very expensive.

Looking at deaths is a terrible way to figure risks. If your chance of death is the only thing you care about, the whole thing is just so lopsided.
 
r-j said:
Well, ignoring that you will never admit you were wrong, of course, and how you never produced any evidence that radioactive Cesium is found in all milk, and that while you lied you are now calling me a liar, well, maybe I should ignore you instead.
Click to expand...

*sigh* except that evidence has been provided, you realize that ? Even if somebody else provided the link, it has been provided. But seeing your other behavior, it is quite clear you will never admit it. Thank you for confirming me I won't need to bother to read your question or even answer about this subject.
 
I think what impresses me is how the arguments (mostly on one side) fall into bivalence. It's as if people are allergic to nuance and can't grasp the world unless it falls into either/or.

"Oh wonderful news reporters, tell me what to think about this. Keep the confusing facts and complexities at bay and just give me the pre-digested bottom line."

Fight the urge my brethren!
 
marplots said:
I think what impresses me is how the arguments (mostly on one side) fall into bivalence. It's as if people are allergic to nuance and can't grasp the world unless it falls into either/or.

"Oh wonderful news reporters, tell me what to think about this. Keep the confusing facts and complexities at bay and just give me the pre-digested bottom line."

Fight the urge my brethren!
Click to expand...

Sometimes the bottom line is useful, but only when the fact checking process used to work out the bottom line is accurate and run by people who know what they are talking about. With the MSM it appears that it couldn't be further from the truth in a vast majority of cases.
 
I agree. See my previous post about how the question, "how many died?" is used to try and frame a discussion of safety and risk. Like that is the measurement of danger for a business.

"Safe" does not mean "risk of death", which most people know. If a device is capable of causing great financial harm, that can be considered far more dangerous than a device that might kill one person out a million. Someday.

Maybe.

It's also a huge logical fallacy.
 
Aepervius said:
*sigh* except that evidence has been provided, you realize that ?
Click to expand...

More lies. If evidence is evident, then you simply link to the post, or the source, which would make me look foolish. That you can't, but still want to personally attack me, it isn't making me look bad.
 
Belz... said:
JihadJane said:
'
No problem... nuclear is safer than coal... etc....
Click to expand...

Gee, if I didn't know better, I'd swear you had an agenda...
Click to expand...


Shame I don't know you better. What's your agenda?

ETA: What would my agenda have been if you hadn't known me better?



MarkCorrigan said:
Ok, how about "Since they've now issued the warning, it's likely that no on will be hurt, and even beforehand it wasn't certain that anyone would anyway"? Make it better for you?

Well, given how early stage the renewable energy sources are at the moment, beyond being exceptionally lucky about where you live, you aren't going to find anywhere that doesn't absolutely require either fossil or nuclear. Given that nuclear is considerably safer, more reliable and more efficient than coal, oil or gas, I'd say it's the best bet. I accept that some people say "Just use less energy" but I think I'm confident in saying that even if households power down to the point at which they could use solely renewable sources, industry will still need something much higher yield.
Click to expand...

The title of this thread isn't "Is nuclear safer than xyz" but is nuclear power safe. It clearly isn't.

What makes you think our industrial civilization can do anything but fatally degrade the environment that it depends on?

Why? Yeah, it was an Earthquake on the ring of fire, so they should have seen it coming!

Except wait, it was a stupefyingly powerful one. In fact, the earthquake didn't even damage the plant in any significant way. It was in fact the single safest location in the affected area.

Then again, tsunami is a Japanese word and they should have known one was coming.

Wait again! It was an enormous tsunami, one of a size that is so rare, that even with the positioning of the plants, would not have been seriously considered in 2010, let alone 1966 when the plants began construction.

Of course, they should have known that the diesel engines would have been compromised.

Wait again! Why? No one had predicted and no one could possibly have ever expected a natural disaster of that magnitude in the area. Even if they had and it was poor oversight not to include a different backup source, what would you have used that would NOT have been compromised by the tsunami?
Click to expand...

I would have used not building it in a spot known to be susceptible to earthquakes and tsunamis.

Remember, even though modern designs don't rely on such a source, you have to use something that was available and reasonable back in 1966. Further to this, you cant' suggest they should have been upgraded without specifying exactly what upgrade you would give them and how you would apply it to the design of the plant, and you can't talk about scrapping them because they were due to be scrapped at the end of the month anyway.

Hindsight is 20-20 and all that.
Click to expand...

Despite the extravagant theatrics, nothing in your post supports your ludicrous statement about "virtually unforeseeable circumstances". What did you mean by "virtually", anyway?


That's certainly what you imply when you make a comment like you did.
Click to expand...

I explained the rationale of my comment in my previous post. Perhaps you overlooked it.

The obviously dismissive tone along with the comment about nuclear power being safe certainly implies that you think it's either a lie or a hollow, untrue statement.
Click to expand...

No, I regard it as a red herring.

Burning coal and oil have both been environmental disasters of epic, planetary proportions so being safer than fossil fuels is, in itself, hardly a recommendation.

BTW, are you are now implying, above, that nuclear power is safe rather than simply safer than coal? It looks that way.


~~~~~~~


Founding Engineer Says Reactor 4 Has Always Been A "Time Bomb", Exposes Criminal Cover Up

"Mitsuhiko Tanaka says he helped conceal a manufacturing defect in the $250 million steel vessel installed at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi No. 4 reactor while working for a unit of Hitachi Ltd. in 1974."
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
The title of this thread isn't "Is nuclear safer than xyz" but is nuclear power safe. It clearly isn't.
Click to expand...

Define safe.

Depending on how you define "safe" nothing is safe. you can kill yourself with a 9V battery and a multimeter or a vending machine

Burning coal and oil have both been environmental disasters of epic, planetary proportions so being safer than fossil fuels is, in itself, hardly a recommendation.
Click to expand...

Whats the alternative?

Given the choice I wouldn't use nuclear anything, anywhere. When you sit down and look at the numbers though out of all the power generation technologies we have available today the only one that makes sense to use for the bulk of energy production is nuclear fission.

Western civilisation is not going to use less power, how do you keep the lights on?

1000 years from now I'm confident nuclear fission will be a distant memory. In the meantime though it looks like it's the best option available until some brightspark somewhere rewrites a law of physics.
 
r-j said:
More lies. If evidence is evident, then you simply link to the post, or the source, which would make me look foolish. That you can't, but still want to personally attack me, it isn't making me look bad.
Click to expand...

Read all the link and post from page 34.

You can also look here
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1919831/?page=5

Or even here

http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19720491349.html;jsessionid=150A092B5FC05018ED1B4F876225AEBB

That is old 60 litterature, but even if the quantity trace are lower, they are almost certainly not zero.

And if you don't believe me here is a 1991 litterature about macedonia

http://www.irpa.net/irpa8/cdrom/VOL.2/M2_176.PDF

And there are many more about UK, germany, europe, US.... Spanning 1960 to 1990. I did not bother searching for more as it is enough.

just google "deposition speed of Cs137 in forage or dairy milk" for example.

And the link from page 33/34 certainly says that the element is present due to fallout/Chernobyl as TRACE. Negligible, belong to background radioactivity. The fact is that you EVEN admitted page 34 that it would be present as trace from fallout and Chernobyl, but you stutbornely refused to draw the conclusion.

And that is not even counting the various other isotope potassium, iodine, strontium etc...

But you consistently refused to either read the link provided or google it for yourself. If you had tried, you would have found the link everybody gave you and the one I just gave you above.

PS: As shown inside the article for the Cs 5 years after, is still present. The main reason for that is : Cs in all form adhere relatively well to top soil.

So now. say whatever you want. i bet your next goalpost moving will be "but you did not dig litterature from 2011"
 
BenBurch said:
Let's discuss the issue at hand, not each other.
Click to expand...

Yes, please cease feeding the troll, people. And by "troll" I mean r-j; it is perfectly clear that he isn't willing to actually discuss the issue at hand.

Ignore him.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom