• 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?

Belz... said:
Dammit, when can we expect the reactors to finally shut down ?
Click to expand...

This does seem to be dragging on a bit.

At first I was willing to give Tokyo Electric the benefit of the doubt over allegations of mis-management of the situation, given all the anti-nuclear rhetoric and alarm-ism we have had to deal with, but I really feel (and yes, this is a feeling - I am not an expert) that the situation should have been under control by now.
 
Belz... said:
Yes, because the anti-nuclear lobby is clearly interested in something else than people's safety, right ?

:boggled:
Click to expand...


Funny how it's supposed to be all about the Pro-nuclear Lobby verses the Anti-nuclear Lobby... if only life were a computer game.
 
JihadJane said:
Thanks for the sophistry.

"Free from danger or the risk of harm"



If you want to sustain the hyper-destructive civilisation that has blossomed as a result of temporary fossil abundance, maybe there's isn't one (others argue otherwise --> http://www.zerocarbonbritain.com/ )but that doesn't magically make nuclear power safe!



What gives Western Civilization plundering rights?

I don't believe the lights will stay on, nuclear power or otherwise, particularly if the rest of the world catches up with Western Civilization's resource consumption rates. We have already begun the process of global systemic collapse.



Your confidence in a "Thousand Year Reich" for industrial civilization is irrational.

If you disagree with that, please explain what historical precedent your confidence is based on.



You posts become ever more fantastical!
Click to expand...

You know what I noticed in yours ? Complete lack of argument.
 
r-j said:
Nobody would dispute that a lot of milk has traces of nuclear fall out in it. But that's not what you claimed. You said almost all milk has Cesium137 in it.
Click to expand...

Bolding mine.

While he did imply that there was Cs137 in almost all milk:

Aepervius said:
They better stop drinking milk today already then. There is almost certainly no milk with "no cesium at all" in it.
Click to expand...

You said:

r-j said:
I checked long ago, there is no natural source of radioactive Cesium, and there certainly isn't any in the food we eat.
Click to expand...

So, "nobody" would dispute what, now ?
 
The argument over Cesium levels in food is very interesting. Did you know that they stopped above ground testing because somebody figured out that the levels of radioactive fall out from bombs was causing cancer? All over the world?

This also led to stopping experiments where they used Cesium-137 to create clouds of radioactive dust in the atmosphere, to test radar equipment.
 
Belz... said:
Stop trolling, now. Or perhaps you can point to some useful content in your post ?
Click to expand...

Stop your name-calling now and read my words intelligently:

JihadJane said:
Thanks for the sophistry.

"Free from danger or the risk of harm"


If you want to sustain the hyper-destructive civilisation that has blossomed as a result of temporary fossil abundance, maybe there's isn't one (others argue otherwise --> http://www.zerocarbonbritain.com/ )but that doesn't magically make nuclear power safe!


What gives Western Civilization plundering rights? I don't believe the lights will stay on, nuclear power or otherwise, particularly if the rest of the world catches up with Western Civilization's resource consumption rates. We have already begun the process of global systemic collapse.

Your confidence in a "Thousand Year Reich" for industrial civilization is irrational. If you disagree with that, please explain what historical precedent your confidence is based on.

You posts become ever more fantastical!
Click to expand...
 
r-j said:
Did you know that they stopped above ground testing because somebody figured out that the levels of radioactive fall out from bombs was causing cancer? All over the world?
Click to expand...

How is this relevant to nuclear power generation?
 
The Cesium levels now are mostly from nuclear reactors that released radioactive particles into the air. It's relevant because we are discussing nuclear power and safety.
 
r-j said:
The Cesium levels now are mostly from nuclear reactors that released radioactive particles into the air. It's relevant because we are discussing nuclear power and safety.
Click to expand...

Please explain how nuclear explosives are in any way related to nuclear electricity generation, scare-mongering aside.
 
MattusMaximus said:
I'm not sure about Cesium 137 (I misunderstood the point, I think), but are you willing to admit that there are naturally-occurring radioactive elements in everything that we eat and you therefore cannot get away from consuming radiation at a rate of about 40 mrem/year from this source?
Click to expand...

How does 40 mrem/year convert to becquerels?
 
JihadJane said:
You posts become ever more fantastical!
Click to expand...

Why is that fanciful?

If there is a nuclear incident, if handled well and the safety features hold, it can be dealt with without issue aside from the economic cost.

You think I'm wrong? Please, tell me what non economic issues they had to deal with at Three Mile Island.

Hell, tell me how a minor radiation leak, well within the safe levels of dosage causes any issues that aren't caused by groundless panic.
 
It's interesting that the people who seem to have some blind faith in nuclear power and it having to be safe, no matter the evidence, also have a tendency to be personal and insulting, rather than simply answer questions and educate people about the matters involved.

But thanks to the internet and Google and Wikipedia, I have most of the answers now, and realize just how wrong some of you are. It's quite shocking. Not as shocking as seeing that man say Plutonium has a half life of 9 years, but even so, quite a shock.
 
Sophistry is using sophisms. A sophism is a specious argument used to deceive someone.

Depending on how you define "safe" nothing is safe
Click to expand...

is not a specious argument. You defined "safe" as:

JihadJane said:
"Free from danger or the risk of harm"
Click to expand...

Nothing is free from danger or the risk of harm.

If you want to sustain the hyper-destructive civilisation [...]
Click to expand...

People aren't going to want to go back to living without electricity.
Short of a global catastrophe of some kind that's just not going to happen. Policy makers in the west are going to do everything they can to keep the lights on, else they'll get voted out of office and the voters will vote in policy makers that will keep the lights on.


Anything that is hyper-destructive isn't going to last long. Civilisation will either stop being as destructive, or it will fall apart as a result of being overly destructive and something else will come along and fill the space.

Your confidence in a "Thousand Year Reich" for industrial civilization is irrational.

If you disagree with that, please explain what historical precedent your confidence is based on.
Click to expand...

Where did I posit a thousand year reich? I think that life in general and humans in particular are very resiliant and that in 1000 years there will still be people living on this planet. Either humans will manage to sustain a technological civilisation, in which case how we generate and use power will be very different to the world of today. Or some major catastrophe will have happened and fewer humans will be living simpler lives. Either way nuclear power will be a distant memory.

All that being said it's not the topic of this thread though.

Any rational examination of nuclear power must conclude that it's pretty safe, that it's getting safer as better technologies are implemented, and that it causes less damage to the environment we live in and to human health than fossil fuel based tech.

Is it perfectly safe? no. Should we spend more on renewable energy solutions? yes. Can we do without fossil or nuclear entirely right now? absolutely no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom