Merged nuclear power safe?

[Cuddles]

Is there a mili/micro messup in there somewhere?

No, looks OK to me. The numbers may not be exactly correct, but they seem to be the right order of magnitude (except the Three Mile Island one, which should say the total dose at one specific spot, the way it's stated implies that was the total radiation released which is not correct).

According to this chart, posted earlier in the thread http://xkcd.com/radiation/
EPA limit is 1ms per person per year. Wouldn't they blow past this in ten days?

Yes. I can't remember if it's been noted in this thread, but the limits are not set according to what is actually safe, but instead according to what it the lowest possible dose that might be reasonably reached. In other words, most people are going to be exposed to that much radiation anyway, so there's absolutely no point in setting a lower limit, but you'd have to be exposed to much more before there are actually any effects.

Essentially, they're not a statement of what is the safe limit, but simply a guideline to the sort of level organisations should generally try to keep exposure below. Since you shouldn't be releasing lots of radiation into the environment, if the public are getting exposed to more than that it suggests there may be a problem, even though it probably doesn't present any actual danger to them. Of course, we already know there's a problem at Fukushima, so that doesn't come as much of a surprise.

To put it in perspective, the limit for radiation workers is 50 mSv/year. There's nothing special about radiation workers, their bodies can't handle radiation any better than anyone else. It's just impractical to keep such a strict limit on them, so they're given a much higher, but still entirely safe limit. Incidentally, 5.7 uSv/hour will result in about 50 mSv/year.

Also, note the point about mammograms - you get 3 mSv just from having one, and you get something like 7 mSv from a CT scan. If 1 mSv was a hard limit, medical imaging would be essentially impossible.

Finally, assuming the claim is actually true, it is most likely to be the highest measurement found at one spot, not the dose that will actually be seen by anyone in the area. Just as measuring 4 Sv at one point in a steam vent doesn't mean every part of the Fukushima site is exposed to that much. So someone standing in that particular spot may be exposed to 5.7 uSv/hr, but if they move around a bit the average dose will actually be much less. And that's before taking any decay into account.

 

[r-j]

Some examples of radiation exposure in medical treatments are a chest x-ray or mammogram which gives a dose of about 0.1 milli-Sievert, a chest CT-scan which gives up to 11 milli-Sieverts, and a single Coronary angiogram which give 4 to 15. Some single medical procedures can give up to 17 milli-Sieverts. A whole-body CT scan can give up to 100 milli-Sieverts.

http://tech-novog.blogspot.com/2011/03/what-is-sievert-or-explanation-on.html

But they put out a lot of radiation. A CT scan of the chest involves 10 to 15 millisieverts (a measure of dose) versus 0.01 to 0.15 for a regular chest X-ray, 3 for a mammogram and a mere 0.005 for a dental X-ray

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2201007...equently-used-ct-scans-may-raise-cancer-risk/

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Number of Germans killed in last month by organic farming: 31

Number of Germans killed by causes unique to nuclear power in last half century: Zero

No word yet from the german government as to whether they plan on "phasing out" organic farming.

 

[JihadJane]

"The effects (of radiation) do not come to people that are happy and laughing, they come to people that are weak spirited, that brood and fret." says Dr. Shunichi Yamashita, Japan's Radiological health safety risk management adviser at the Atomic Bomb research institute. He will head up a health study at the end of this month.

Don't Worry, Be Happy:

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

"The effects (of radiation) do not come to people that are happy and laughing, they come to people that are weak spirited, that brood and fret." says Dr. Shunichi Yamashita, Japan's Radiological health safety risk management adviser at the Atomic Bomb research institute.

That certainly is a silly thing to say, if indeed Dr. Yamashita actually said that.

None of the people I know who work in the nuclear industry would allow someone with such a viewpoint to work at their facilities.

 

[Eddie Dane]

That certainly is a silly thing to say, if indeed Dr. Yamashita actually said that.

None of the people I know who work in the nuclear industry would allow someone with such a viewpoint to work at their facilities.

Maybe I don't understand Japanese culture.

But if he came out with such a statement in the west during a nuclear crisis, it would probably result in a nation-wide blind panic.

Perhaps we're just more cynical.

 

[JihadJane]

That certainly is a silly thing to say, if indeed Dr. Yamashita actually said that.

None of the people I know who work in the nuclear industry would allow someone with such a viewpoint to work at their facilities.

You have shown yourself to be prone to a wild fantasies on various subject so, to be on the safe side, I'll assume you're talking out of your ass this time as well.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You have shown yourself to be prone to a wild fantasies on various subject so,

Hilarious coming from a member of the "jews did WTC" crowd.

to be on the safe side, I'll assume you're talking out of your ass this time as well.

I'm a member of the Canadian Nuclear Society. I have participated in presentations at schools and teachers conferences on behalf of the CNS. I have attended two national conferences of the Canadian Nuclear Society. I do know numerous people in the field.

If any of the people I know were approached by someone claiming that happy thoughts were effective shielding against ionizing radiation, they would be garanteed to not find work in the industry.

This should be a no-brainer. You didn't claim that these remarks are taken seriously by the industry, and obviously they wouldn't be. But if you are making that claim, then back it up. Prove it.

Otherwise I see no relevance to Dr. Yamashitas (probably quote mined) comment.

 

[JihadJane]

Hilarious coming from a member of the "jews did WTC" crowd.

Thanks for providing such a nice example of your wild fantasies.

I'm a member of the Canadian Nuclear Society. I have participated in presentations at schools and teachers conferences on behalf of the CNS. I have attended two national conferences of the Canadian Nuclear Society. I do know numerous people in the field.

If any of the people I know were approached by someone claiming that happy thoughts were effective shielding against ionizing radiation, they would be garanteed to not find work in the industry.

This should be a no-brainer. You didn't claim that these remarks are taken seriously by the industry, and obviously they wouldn't be. But if you are making that claim, then back it up. Prove it.

Otherwise I see no relevance to Dr. Yamashitas (probably quote mined) comment.

You have shown yourself quite happy to propagate groundless lies, as you so kindly illustrated above. It's a credibility thing. You haven't got any.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Thanks for providing such a nice example of your wild fantasies.

And thank YOU for feigning offense at having your trutherism called out while plagiarizing a post from the godlikeproductions.com forums.

You have shown yourself quite happy to propagate groundless lies, as you so kindly illustrated above. It's a credibility thing. You haven't got any.

Yeah... worrying about how I'm perceived by people who have accused me of working for the CIA really keeps me up at night, Jane.

It's revealing that you have chosen to fixate on who I know and whether or not I actually know them rather than Dr. Yamashitas comments and whether it actually reflects on the nuclear industry (let alone the issue of whether or not he actually said that).

Looking at photographs of Pickering Nuclear Generating Station in Ontario, the Gentilly Reactor in Quebec, the Cernavoda reactors in Romania, the Wolsong reactors in South Korea or the Qinshan reactors in China clearly shows a reliance by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. on large steel reinforced concrete domes. Not "positive vibes".

My original statement stands. No one I know in the nuclear industry would give this man a job if he said what you claim he said (again, this is assuming the quote is not fabricated or heavily quote-mined).

In fact, no one in the US or Japanese nuclear industries would take him seriously either. The Fukushima I power plant suffered remarkably light damage for having experienced an earthquake that knocked the island of Japan four feet to the east. And the reactors at Fukushima II suffered hardly any damage at all (both built in Japan and designed by General Electric).

No evidence of reliance on happy thoughts there either.Your possibly made-up quote from Dr. Yamashita doesn't appear to reflect on the nuclear industry anywhere in the world.

So why bring it up?

 

[JihadJane]

And thank YOU for feigning offense at having your trutherism called out while plagiarizing a post from the godlikeproductions.com forums.



Yeah... worrying about how I'm perceived by people who have accused me of working for the CIA really keeps me up at night, Jane.

It's revealing that you have chosen to fixate on who I know and whether or not I actually know them rather than Dr. Yamashitas comments and whether it actually reflects on the nuclear industry (let alone the issue of whether or not he actually said that).

Looking at photographs of Pickering Nuclear Generating Station in Ontario, the Gentilly Reactor in Quebec, the Cernavoda reactors in Romania, the Wolsong reactors in South Korea or the Qinshan reactors in China clearly shows a reliance by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. on large steel reinforced concrete domes. Not "positive vibes".

My original statement stands. No one I know in the nuclear industry would give this man a job if he said what you claim he said (again, this is assuming the quote is not fabricated or heavily quote-mined).

In fact, no one in the US or Japanese nuclear industries would take him seriously either. The Fukushima I power plant suffered remarkably light damage for having experienced an earthquake that knocked the island of Japan four feet to the east. And the reactors at Fukushima II suffered hardly any damage at all (both built in Japan and designed by General Electric).

No evidence of reliance on happy thoughts there either.Your possibly made-up quote from Dr. Yamashita doesn't appear to reflect on the nuclear industry anywhere in the world.

So why bring it up?

Sorry, ruth, if you're foolish enough to tell blatant lies on a topic about which I am the world's foremost expert don't expect me to pay any attention to anything else you say.

 

[Aepervius]

Sorry, ruth, if you're foolish enough to tell blatant lies on a topic about which I am the world's foremost expert don't expect me to pay any attention to anything else you say.

Making stuff up is an expertise now ?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Sorry, ruth, if you're foolish enough to tell blatant lies on a topic about which I am the world's foremost expert don't expect me to pay any attention to anything else you say.

It's revealing that you have chosen to fixate on who I know and whether or not I actually know them rather than Dr. Yamashitas comments and whether it actually reflects on the nuclear industry (let alone the issue of whether or not he actually said that).

Fabricated or mined quotes by people who aren't part of the nuclear industry, isn't evidence of lack of safety in the industry.

 

[Mark6]

It's revealing that you have chosen to fixate on who I know and whether or not I actually know them rather than Dr. Yamashitas comments and whether it actually reflects on the nuclear industry (let alone the issue of whether or not he actually said that).

Fabricated or mined quotes by people who aren't part of the nuclear industry, isn't evidence of lack of safety in the industry.

Why do you bother replying to a troll?

 

[BenBurch]

Number of Germans killed in last month by organic farming: 31

Number of Germans killed by causes unique to nuclear power in last half century: Zero

No word yet from the german government as to whether they plan on "phasing out" organic farming.

Nominated.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Number of Germans killed in last month by organic farming: 31

Number of Germans killed by causes unique to nuclear power in last half century: Zero
No word yet from the german government as to whether they plan on "phasing out" organic farming.

According to your logic:
1) we should only consider deaths in the last half century.
2) we shouldn't question these questionable findings (there's some skepticism for you. )
3) we shouldn't consider the dangers imposed by the fact that we have no consistently safe way of storing Nuclear Waste.
4) we shouldn't consider the likelihood that Nuclear facilities are subject to potential nuclear meltdowns.
5) we shouldn't consider the possibility that Nuclear facilities are vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
6) we shouldn't consider the fact that Nuclear Power is not cost effective (Private power companies rely heavily on taxpayer subsidies).
7) we shouldn't consider the huge carbon imprint of mining and transporting Nuclear fuels.
8) we shouldn't consider the inherent dangers of transporting nuclear fuels.


GB

 

[Ziggurat]

According to your logic:
1) we should only consider deaths in the last half century.

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps we should go back further. Let's include deaths from nuclear power during the 19th century as well. Hell, why not go back to the medieval period? The dark ages? How far back do you want to go?

2) we shouldn't question these questionable findings (there's some skepticism for you. )

So what are the questions, then?

3) we shouldn't consider the dangers imposed by the fact that we have no consistently safe way of storing Nuclear Waste.

Sure we do.

4) we shouldn't consider the likelihood that Nuclear facilities are subject to potential nuclear meltdowns.
5) we shouldn't consider the possibility that Nuclear facilities are vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

And gas lines are subject to rupture and explosion. And oil refineries are vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

6) we shouldn't consider the fact that Nuclear Power is not cost effective (Private power companies rely heavily on taxpayer subsidies).

Let me guess: you're going to suggest solar power as an alternative, right?

7) we shouldn't consider the huge carbon imprint of mining and transporting Nuclear fuels.

Ummm... yeah, no. That imprint is significantly smaller (as in orders of magnitude smaller) than the carbon footprint for fossil fuels.

8) we shouldn't consider the inherent dangers of transporting nuclear fuels.

Why, we let people just walk around with the stuff in their pockets!

 

[Travis]

According to your logic:
1) we should only consider deaths in the last half century.
2) we shouldn't question these questionable findings (there's some skepticism for you. )
3) we shouldn't consider the dangers imposed by the fact that we have no consistently safe way of storing Nuclear Waste.

We have no consistently safe way to stop a car either. Brakes will fail occasionally.

4) we shouldn't consider the likelihood that Nuclear facilities are subject to potential nuclear meltdowns.

Who says we shouldn't consider this? The thing is that a meltdown isn't dangerous to the surrounding countryside if it happens in a properly designed plant.

5) we shouldn't consider the possibility that Nuclear facilities are vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

Almost everything is vulnerable to terrorist attacks. If we limit ourselves to only constructing things immune to terrorists all our buildings will be hundreds of feet underground surrounded by titanium shells.

6) we shouldn't consider the fact that Nuclear Power is not cost effective (Private power companies rely heavily on taxpayer subsidies).

So you only want the cheapest power? Get ready for another century of coal.

7) we shouldn't consider the huge carbon imprint of mining and transporting Nuclear fuels.

Or we should consider the carbon footprint of all other major electricity production methods that dwarf nuclear power by many orders of magnitude.

8) we shouldn't consider the inherent dangers of transporting nuclear fuels.

What danger would that be? Has anyone, ever, been injured by nuclear fuel in transport?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps we should go back further. Let's include deaths from nuclear power during the 19th century as well. Hell, why not go back to the medieval period? The dark ages? How far back do you want to go?



So what are the questions, then?



Sure we do.



And gas lines are subject to rupture and explosion. And oil refineries are vulnerable to terrorist attacks.



Let me guess: you're going to suggest solar power as an alternative, right?



Ummm... yeah, no. That imprint is significantly smaller (as in orders of magnitude smaller) than the carbon footprint for fossil fuels.



Why, we let people just walk around with the stuff in their pockets!

Brilliant Rhetorical answers. That's my argument skuppered then.


GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

We have no consistently safe way to stop a car either. Brakes will fail occasionally.



Who says we shouldn't consider this? The thing is that a meltdown isn't dangerous to the surrounding countryside if it happens in a properly designed plant.



Almost everything is vulnerable to terrorist attacks. If we limit ourselves to only constructing things immune to terrorists all our buildings will be hundreds of feet underground surrounded by titanium shells.



So you only want the cheapest power? Get ready for another century of coal.



Or we should consider the carbon footprint of all other major electricity production methods that dwarf nuclear power by many orders of magnitude.



What danger would that be? Has anyone, ever, been injured by nuclear fuel in transport?

Brilliant Rhetorical answers. Obviously my argument has been defeated.

GB

PS: You and Ziggy might want to refer to your fallacy lists to remind you what Red Herrings and Straw Men arguments are.