Merged nuclear power safe?

[Ziggurat]

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


GB

Pretty much. Perhaps that's why you have offered no rebuttal.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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

Germany's first nuke plant went on-line in 1960. The last half century is the only window we can consider.

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

Feel free to do some research of your own. Find someone killed in germany anytime in the last half century by causes unique to nuclear energy and PWN me with it.

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

This is not true. If we wre using nuclear energy properly, the waste would only need to be stored for 300ish years.

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

Only some classes of reactors are. Other newer designs are effectively meltdown proof.

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

As a rule, they generally aren't. Most western reactors have containment vessels that are all but immune to 9/11 style attacks. Nuclear reactor security teams are among the best in the world, with the security team from North Americas largest reactor facility having won the US national SWAT championships 3 years running.

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

Not true.

Wind power receives more than fourteen times the subsidies that Nuclear does.

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

No, we shouldn't.

Wind and solar often have higher carbon footprints than nuclear does. But in my opinion, these are invalid arguments regardless of which side is using them. As long as our primary source of energy is fossil fuels, everything will have a carbon footprint. Nuclear power in a nuclear powered society will have a carbon footprint of zero.

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

There are no dangers in transporting nuclear fuels.

Yes, you read correctly.

Modern cars and trucks are designed with "crumple zones". They are designed to sacrifice their own structure in order to protect the passengers inside. Nuclear transport casks are designed the opposite way, they are built to kill and destroy everyone and everything around them before the transport cask itself suffers so much as a scratch.



If you still feel that transporting nuclear fuel is dangerous, then we can easily deal with that by planning trucking routes away from rocket powered train crossings.

 

[Belz...]

As a rule, they generally aren't.

And again, when terrorism is concerned, everything can be a target. And as for radiation, one form of toxicity is well worth another, eh ?

It's amazing how Gandalf's Beard apparently hasn't read the rest of the thread.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It's amazing how Gandalf's Beard apparently hasn't read the rest of the thread.

He's off looking for dead germans buried in lead caskets.

He may be gone a while.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

And again, when terrorism is concerned, everything can be a target. And as for radiation, one form of toxicity is well worth another, eh ?

It's amazing how Gandalf's Beard apparently hasn't read the rest of the thread.

Sorry Belz. We can't always agree on everything.

I just don't feel the need to read a bunch of Apologists for the Nuclear Power Industry. I hear plenty of that rubbish on local radio and mainstream media, even NPR and PBS (which are largely underwritten by Energy Companies).

"Safe, Clean Energy" my ass. Anything that has the potential to cause the kind of Radioactive Disasters that we have seen in Japan, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island should be abandoned.

I currently reside in California, with 6 Nuclear Plants only two of which are currently active. It's bad enough that any NP facility has the chance to go "Nuclear," but to build them in seismically active areas is sheer insanity.

It's so crazy that even some California Republicans are questioning the safety of NP facilities.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=california-nuclear-plant-seismic-surroundings

New seismic fault and reversed blueprint

The 2008 discovery of a new seismic fault, running directly under Diablo Canyon, has had state lawmakers and agencies calling for more studies before the NRC issues new licenses to PG&E. Ten state senators wrote to the Energy Department last year about the Shoreline Fault, which they said could also intersect with the existing Hosgri Fault, exacerbating the risk of radioactive leaks.

"We need independent, third-party studies to determine the true risk presented by these large, dangerous faults in such close proximity to California's aging reactors," state Sen. Sam Blakeslee (R) said yesterday in a statement.

Blakeslee, a former Exxon research scientist from San Luis Obispo with a Ph.D. in earthquake studies, authored a bill in 2006 requiring the state to assess the vulnerability of the state's nuclear plants to a major disruption, either from an earthquake or plant aging. The California Energy Commission, in turn, produced a report in 2008 directing both utilities to update their seismic studies using more advanced techniques than had been available before. Neither has yet done so.

GB

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Anything that has the potential to cause the kind of Radioactive Disasters that we have seen in Japan, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island should be abandoned.

The technology responsible for Chernobyl has been abandoned. There will never be another RBMK built.

Your argument fails with Fukushima. The Fukushima-I reactors were hit by a quake 100 times more powerful than the ones they were designed to resist. And they performed extremely well. The Fukushima II reactors were an improvement over the designs used at Fukushima I and they suffered hardly any damage at all.

Your argument fails again at Three Mile Island, there was no major radioactive disaster there.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

The technology responsible for Chernobyl has been abandoned. There will never be another RBMK built.

Your argument fails with Fukushima. The Fukushima-I reactors were hit by a quake 100 times more powerful than the ones they were designed to resist. And they performed extremely well. The Fukushima II reactors were an improvement over the designs used at Fukushima I and they suffered hardly any damage at all.

Your argument fails again at Three Mile Island, there was no major radioactive disaster there.

If you say so! Just based on mainstream media reports, your arguments are full of crap! But I don't expect anything else from Nuclear Industry Apologists.

but don't worry, I'm not planning to hang out and spoil your fairy tales. I just popped in when I saw that someone's dumb-ass post was nominated. When the next inevitable Nuclear Disaster occurs, I sincerely hope it's not in your neighborhood.

I mean honestly, do you really believe the Oil Industries' claims that there won't be anymore oil spills in the Gulf too? You are sitting on the biggest pile of woo in this forum next to DOC's.

I thought this was a forum for skeptics, not True Believers of Energy Companies' Propaganda.


GB

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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

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

I just don't feel the need to read a bunch of Apologists for the Nuclear Power Industry.

As long as you explaining what skepticism is, you should describe how refusing to even hear alternative points of view that fall outside your predetermined conclusions and well poisoning fits into it.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

As long as you explaining what skepticism is, you should describe how refusing to even hear alternative points of view that fall outside your predetermined conclusions and well poisoning fits into it.

My predetermined conclusions are based on a long looooong history of Energy Industry Lies. I really don't need to hear them again.

If you want to believe in those fairy tales, it's fine with me!


GB

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

If you say so! Just based on mainstream media reports, your arguments are full of crap!

If anything that I said was untrue, supply proof. Otherwise, just bend over an imagine you`re somewhere else.

When the next inevitable Nuclear Disaster occurs, I sincerely hope it's not in your neighborhood.

Not likely. Canadian reactors have an even better safety record than German or US reactors. And no one in the US has died due to causes unique to nuclear power in the last 50 years either.

I thought this was a forum for skeptics,

It is. But we were bored and decided to let you in anyway.

 

[Aepervius]

If you say so! Just based on mainstream media reports, your arguments are full of crap! But I don't expect anything else from Nuclear Industry Apologists.

You mean the media report which said Fukushima and Chernobyl were like Hiroshima explosion ? Those one ? Or do you mean the emdia report which reported inflated radioactivity in Tokyo ? Or the one which are telling us LONG half life nuclear waste (many 10 thousand of years to millions) are much more dangerous and a concern than the few hundred year half life nuclear waste ? The same media which made all kind of dump report and error ?

but don't worry, I'm not planning to hang out and spoil your fairy tales. I just popped in when I saw that someone's dumb-ass post was nominated. When the next inevitable Nuclear Disaster occurs, I sincerely hope it's not in your neighborhood.

I mean honestly, do you really believe the Oil Industries' claims that there won't be anymore oil spills in the Gulf too? You are sitting on the biggest pile of woo in this forum next to DOC's.

I thought this was a forum for skeptics, not True Believers of Energy Companies' Propaganda.


GB

I do not see you or anybody else wailing when a chemical spill disaster occurs. I do not see you or your friend wait when miners die for coal or the other death due to pollutions. I do not sere you and your friend s wail when the whole gulf was contaminated. I do not see you and your friends wail at the media when more people die due to solar or wind instalation (yes there are more of those in germany than nuclear death) than nuclear. No , I see you wail at a potential contamination due to leak in a reactor. I do not see much german wail at the brown coal enormous strip mine which destroyed the ecology of an enormous area and moved people away.

When people overlook all the actual death and problem of current energy geenration and cocnetrate on a potential problem "MAYBE" hapenning, when they are fueled on emotion not reason, there is indeed no way to discuss with them.

You can't reason somebody out of a decision they arrived at out of non rational reason, or at least it is extremely difficult.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

When the next inevitable Nuclear Disaster occurs, I sincerely hope it's not in your neighborhood.

Coal pollutants cause or contribute to thirty thousand deaths per year in the United States alone. Coal plants also release thousands of tons of radioactive waste directly into local soil and water tables. My power where I live comes from coal.

I would have less radiation in my food and air if I lived near a nuke plant.

 

[Travis]

Sorry Belz. We can't always agree on everything.

I just don't feel the need to read a bunch of Apologists for the Nuclear Power Industry. I hear plenty of that rubbish on local radio and mainstream media, even NPR and PBS (which are largely underwritten by Energy Companies).

"Safe, Clean Energy" my ass. Anything that has the potential to cause the kind of Radioactive Disasters that we have seen in Japan, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island should be abandoned.

Except two of those incidents were not radiation disasters at all.

But you know what does cause radiation disasters? Coal.

I currently reside in California, with 6 Nuclear Plants only two of which are currently active. It's bad enough that any NP facility has the chance to go "Nuclear," but to build them in seismically active areas is sheer insanity.

It's not insanity. And the fact that my state of California does not have more nuclear plants is something I am greatly ashamed about. We pretend to care about the environment but turn our back on the one and only low carbon electricity option for a modern society.

It's so crazy that even some California Republicans are questioning the safety of NP facilities.

Crazy knows no party boundaries. And if they are questioning it they are the crazy ones.


Does it need to be stated again? Nuclear power is not totally safe but it is safe enough that we absolutely should rely on it instead of polluting fossil fuels. And anyone that thinks otherwise is welcome to drop out of modern society and live as a subsistence farmer in some isolated place. Modern society is better off without them.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

With all the Brainiacs on this forum, you'd think we'd have something better than Carbon emitting Fossil Fuels and Radiation spewing Nuclear Energy by now.

Is that really it??? Only 2 energy alternatives which can kill us ???


GB

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

With all the Brainiacs on this forum, you'd think we'd have something better than Carbon emitting Fossil Fuels and Radiation spewing Nuclear Energy by now.

Nuclear power plants don`t spew radiation. They have 6 foot thick steel reinforced concrete domes that prevent it.

Is that really it??? Only 2 energy alternatives which can kill us ???

Civilian nuclear energy doesn`t kill people either. No one has died due to causes unique to nuclear energy in the United States in the last 50 years.

Coal = 30,000 deaths per year
Nuclear = Zero deaths in 50 years

Is this really that hard for you to figure out? Are you that dense?

 

[Aepervius]

With all the Brainiacs on this forum, you'd think we'd have something better than Carbon emitting Fossil Fuels and Radiation spewing Nuclear Energy by now.

Is that really it??? Only 2 energy alternatives which can kill us ???


GB

Everything can kill you, even eating or breathing. What you are asking for do not exists as baseload energy generation.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

"Safe, Clean Energy" my ass. Anything that has the potential to cause the kind of Radioactive Disasters that we have seen in Japan, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island should be abandoned.

Japan: Zero dead.
Three Mile Island: not a disaster. Radiation contained. Zero dead.
Chernobyl: 2000 dead.

In contrast, by Googling "world's worst dam disaster", I am led to:
Bangiao Dam: 230 000 dead. 5 960 000 buildings destroyed. 11 million "affected".

Where are all the people decrying hydroelectric power? Shouldn't dams be banned because "they have the potential to cause the kind of Disasters we have seen at the Bangiao Dam"? Especially since they've killed so many more people than the, oh, 2000 people nuclear power has killed in the last half century?

Edit to add:

Is that really it??? Only 2 energy alternatives which can kill us ???

Here's a newsflash: anything can kill you. You don't measure by whether or not something causes fatalities. Cars cause fatalities. Bycicles cause fatalities. Wind turbines cause fatalities. Doorsteps and seat belts and toasters and sofas cause fatalities.

No power source known to man has never caused fatalities. If it weren't for the Soviet idiots that built and ran Chernobyl, nuclear would have been the first one, but alas, no such luck.

Another quick edit:
http://www.wind-works.org/articles/ASummaryofFatalAccidentsinWindEnergy.html

Wind power has apparently killed 20 people since the 1970s.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Japan: Zero dead.
Three Mile Island: not a disaster. Radiation contained. Zero dead.
Chernobyl: 2000 dead.

Slight correction, there are 3 dead at Fukushima. None of which were from radiation poisoning.

There were 60 dead at Chernobyl. Some 4000 to 6000 developed thyroid cancer, however thyroid cancer has a 98% cure rate.

Oh, and Three Mile Island is still producing cheap, clean, carbon free nuclear power to the residents of Harrisburg Pennsylvania and is due for liscense renewal in 2034.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Nuclear power plants don`t spew radiation. They have 6 foot thick steel reinforced concrete domes that prevent it.

Except for when they don't.

According to all the official reports, fire brought down WTC7. Everyone except 9/11 loonies know that. If a simple carbon fire can take out a steel reinforced concrete skyscraper, how safe would you really feel next to a Nuclear Reactor when it pops?

Civilian nuclear energy doesn`t kill people either. No one has died due to causes unique to nuclear energy in the United States in the last 50 years.

Coal = 30,000 deaths per year
Nuclear = Zero deaths in 50 years

Is this really that hard for you to figure out? Are you that dense?

I guess I have to believe your figures, because the Nuclear Power Industry wouldn't possibly put out bogus figures. I mean, they're just a bunch of nice guys with our interests at heart. Why would they lie?

And even if they're true, they don't mean squat when another plant melts down.

And I'll be sure to remember that some random dude on JREF told me Nuclear Power is perfectly safe when an Earthquake takes out the aptly named Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant and spewing radiation heads my way.

Hey, I tell you what, why don't you take a trip to Japan for the summer and let me know how the ongoing nuclear meltdown is going, up close and personal. I'm sure you'll be perfectly safe even if Tokyo's water is radioactive.


GB

 

[JihadJane]

Making stuff up is an expertise now ?

What have I made up?

Why do you bother replying to a troll?

I expressed no opinion on who SOT knows.

Do you think it's wise put one's faith in people who are known to repeatedly and unrepentantly tell slanderous lies?