• 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?

It's ridiculous to say something is 'perfectly safe' if general society considers it dangerous.

In most countries it would be illegal to carry sticks of dynamite or plutonium rods along a street, or even store them in your garage. And for good reason! These things ARE dangerous.

With sufficient safety systems and back-ups, such dangerous items may be made "safe enough" (whatever that means).

For example, flying in the air is inherently more dangerous (for humans) than travelling along the ground. Because of this, there are many more rules, regulations, training for what to do in the event of a failures, etc. for flying aircraft than for driving cars. This can (and does) result in flying actually being safer per person-mile travelled than driving.

The same COULD apply to nuclear power. This thread is about whether we're there yet. You might think we are, but we only have about 50 years experience so far in operating nuclear power stations. More serious accidents/disasters may yet occur. Given the known time-scales for handling the waste products, there's still plenty of room for doubt - at least for me.
 
ceptimus said:
It's ridiculous to say something is 'perfectly safe' if general society considers it dangerous.
Click to expand...

And considering that even something that is GRAS can be dangerous if misused or used for bad intent, to say "dynamite is safe" is so far off the tracks I keep thinking you are setting me up for a punch line.
 
r-j said:
Oh no no no no. You don't get to say I have an odd view point.
Click to expand...


Too late, I already did. :D

And I wager I'm not the only one in this thread who shares in the opinion.


ceptimus said:
It's ridiculous to say something is 'perfectly safe' if general society considers it dangerous.
Click to expand...


It is perfectly safe in the context of simply being around it is not going to cause you to spontaneously drop dead. And considering the degree to which general society can greatly overestimate or underestimate the actual risks involved in something, I'm not sure general society's opinion is necessarily all that trustworthy or instructive. See the many misunderstandings about radiation, espoused in this thread and others as just one example.
 
r-j said:
And considering that even something that is GRAS can be dangerous if misused or used for bad intent, to say "dynamite is safe" is so far off the tracks I keep thinking you are setting me up for a punch line.
Click to expand...


I guess you are using the word "safe" in a very particular and restrictive manner. All I can tell you is that simply walking into a room where brand new sticks of dynamite are stored will not cause you to die. You can even pick one up in your hands, toss it around, heck, even light it on fire and you won't drop dead as a result.

I'd call that safe, in the more practical and wider usage of the term.

By your rather narrow definition of safe, you must be greatly concerned over the widespread use and availability of gasoline (it's vapour can explode!) and thus you can't possibly want your average citizen anywhere near anything which contains the stuff.
 
"Guns are perfectly safe!"

"So are rockets!"

"And Napalm!"

"So true, you can sit right next to it and nothing will happen."

"Yes, that's the definition of safe you know!"

"I know!"
 
DC said:
ah now i see what Eddy Dane meant further down. Some viewpoints are taboo. Some viewpoints are considered correct and are constantly at the forefront. Here it is just the other way around. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

When somebody has no argument , he exagerate the point of other. My point was that Bikerdruid is unable to properly estimate what is safe or not, and for all his posturing he is using activity like the internet which are definitively a waste of "energy" and almost certainly using nuke energy on the way.

But no, since you have no argument you choose to use that as if I was seeing his viewpoint as taboo.

No I am seeing it as stupid and hypocrital. Waaaay different. But don't let that fly over you DC. Like the rest of this thread.
 
Mark6 said:
I find the title of this thread inane to the point of being offensive on a skeptics' forum.

Any supposed skeptic ought to understand that NOTHING is completely safe. Nuclear power, or hydropower, or cars, or swimming pools, or horses, or horseshoes all pose certain risks. Any of these things should be considered in context. Does the risk outweigh benefits? How does the risk-benefit ratio compare to that of alternatives? How are risks tied to external circumstances? (Hint: nuclear power is rather less safe on Pacific Rim than in the middle of Eurasian plate) Etc.

Anyone who claims "nuclear power is unsafe and should be banned!" or for that matter "nuclear power is safe, clean and reliable!" without taking all of the above into account, is not worth listening to.
Click to expand...

Eactly ! This is what many of us have been saying for 50 pages ! Risk are relative to each power generation method, and need to be weighted agaisnt each other.
 
Wow. The German Media just did another "masterpiece". The interviewed Hideto Sotobayashi, a survivor of the Hiroshima nuclear bomb attack.

You can read the original article here.

"Every reactor is a nuclear bomb". Yea, sure it is....

He goes on to say that things like Tsunamis and quakes are natural disasters that no one can do anything against. But it would have been possible to prevent the Fukushima disaster. When asked "How?" he replies "I'm not an expert in this field. But ..." and "They talk about clean energy. That's completely wrong. I'm a chemist, i know what i'm talking about. For decades they are telling us lies."

Oh boy. And they jump on it and happily put it into the media. Methinks that grumpy old man has a few things wrong, and is somewhat confused about what he says/claims. He goes on about how bad Hiroshima was, etc. A classic call to emotion.

But nonetheless, they put a pretty headline above it telling us that all reactors are nuclear bombs.

Greetings,

Chris
 
But nonetheless, they put a pretty headline above it telling us that all reactors are nuclear bombs.
Click to expand...

Well, their priority is circulation, not truth.
A rather sad reality.
 
Well .. Germany will be one big experiment. Can nation wide grid be run mostly from wind and sun ? We'll see soon.
I'm from Czech Republic, and we export/import a lot of German electricity. We actually transport electricity from north Germany into south Germany, cause they don't have their own lines strong enough. Large amount of German wind turbines almost caused Europe-wide blackout last summer .. the situation can repeat any time and every reactor turned of is just another step closer to that.
Well at least I hope guys at our power grid control center will cut Germany off before the blackout cascades into our network.
 
When discussing radioactivity, safety issues and nuclear reactors, the important factor which should be stressed, at all costs, is the dangers, failings and problems with all other matters. In no situation should an actual dialogue about nuclear reactors, danger, radiation and long lasting health and economic issues be discussed.

Focus rather on other sources of energy, and try to stress the failings they have. Use specific examples, and if anyone tries to talk about nuclear reactors, spent fuel rods, nuclear waste, and especially the current crisis, either ignore them, or make a joke about it.

Discuss how they don't know anything, and ask them to compare nuclear accidents to something else, like being run over by a bus. You know how many people die from being hit by a bus?

How many people died from nuclear reactors?

See that? Nuclear power is safe.
 
r-j said:
When discussing radioactivity, safety issues and nuclear reactors, the important factor which should be stressed, at all costs, is the dangers, failings and problems with all other matters. In no situation should an actual dialogue about nuclear reactors, danger, radiation and long lasting health and economic issues be discussed.

Focus rather on other sources of energy, and try to stress the failings they have. Use specific examples, and if anyone tries to talk about nuclear reactors, spent fuel rods, nuclear waste, and especially the current crisis, either ignore them, or make a joke about it.

Discuss how they don't know anything, and ask them to compare nuclear accidents to something else, like being run over by a bus. You know how many people die from being hit by a bus?

How many people died from nuclear reactors?

See that? Nuclear power is safe.
Click to expand...

Yep. Nuclear power is a lot safer than all the other stuff you're not talking about. So why are you in this thread? Shouldn't you be in some other thread, talking about something really dangerous, like coal or air travel?
 
It's ridiculous to say something is 'perfectly safe' if general society considers it dangerous.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Whether something is safe or not is not subjectively decided by the general public. If reactors are safe, they're safe, regardless of how much they scare the people around them.

ETA:
When discussing radioactivity, safety issues and nuclear reactors, the important factor which should be stressed, at all costs, is the dangers, failings and problems with all other matters. In no situation should an actual dialogue about nuclear reactors, danger, radiation and long lasting health and economic issues be discussed.
Click to expand...
Excuse you? These discussions have been had at length here.

Focus rather on other sources of energy, and try to stress the failings they have.
Click to expand...
Why is this a bad thing? As a rule, when you're opposed to a solution, you need to present an alternative. If no alternative can be presented, you have to bite the bullet and go with the proposed solution. If nuclear has an advantage over, say, wind turbines in a given situation, then naturally you go nuclear.

Discuss how they don't know anything, and ask them to compare nuclear accidents to something else, like being run over by a bus. You know how many people die from being hit by a bus?

How many people died from nuclear reactors?

See that? Nuclear power is safe.
Click to expand...
Otherwise called "putting things in perspective". Seat belts kill 30 000 people a year, but I don't see too many people trying to ban them anymore -- because they save far more people than they kill. Reactors are kind of the same way -- they're scary the few times they hurt or kill people, but then you realize how rarely this happens, and you can't do anything but admire the genius that lies behind them. Cars, on the other hand, kill people all the time, but auto accidents doesn't cause many fatalities, and are commonplace enough to not attract much news coverage, so very few are afraid of them.
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
When somebody has no argument , he exagerate the point of other. My point was that Bikerdruid is unable to properly estimate what is safe or not, and for all his posturing he is using activity like the internet which are definitively a waste of "energy" and almost certainly using nuke energy on the way.

But no, since you have no argument you choose to use that as if I was seeing his viewpoint as taboo.

No I am seeing it as stupid and hypocrital. Waaaay different. But don't let that fly over you DC. Like the rest of this thread.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: jaja its ok.
 
The same COULD apply to nuclear power. This thread is about whether we're there yet. You might think we are, but we only have about 50 years experience so far in operating nuclear power stations.
Click to expand...
"Only":boggled:?

More serious accidents/disasters may yet occur.
Click to expand...
Of course they will. Sure, they'll in all likelyhood be extremely uncommon, especially considering how they're adding layer upon layer of safety systems to the reactors.
 
r-j said:
When discussing radioactivity, safety issues and nuclear reactors, the important factor which should be stressed, at all costs, is the dangers, failings and problems with all other matters. In no situation should an actual dialogue about nuclear reactors, danger, radiation and long lasting health and economic issues be discussed.
Click to expand...


You do realize that all those apply just as equally to about any product or technology? Cigarettes are responsible for the deaths of thousands of people every year, but I don't see you stating they should be banned. But you ought to since clearly they are not safe products and do cause demonstrable harm.


r-j said:
How many people died from nuclear reactors?

See that? Nuclear power is safe.
Click to expand...


The number of deaths something causes is one of the main ways something is determined to be safe or not. There are other measures besides death, of course, but death is a major one. Probably because death is permanent, whereas other health effects may well be treatable.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
"Only":boggled:?
Click to expand...

Yeah, 'Only fifty years!'

These nuclear power stations, and the waste they produce, take a lot of looking after - thousands of years.

Fifty years is nothing. Imagine that we were still having to carefully guard the waste left by the building of the Egyptian pyramids, or Stonehenge - that's the kind of time scale we're looking at for nuclear waste.

Of course, some new technology may come along that makes dealing with the waste a breeze. Then again, it may not. Time will tell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom