Nuclear disasters and AGW fears

[Roboramma]

The problem comes when fear isn't actually an appropriate response. Being attacked by a bear is a good reason to be scared. Thinking that a small amount of CO2 over the next few decades will kill millions really isn't.

That's what Cuddles said.

 

[DC]

When someone who is scared of global warming encounters others who aren't scared, they often won't understand that people who don't share their fear aren't actually scared at all.

The problem comes when fear isn't actually an appropriate response. Being attacked by a bear is a good reason to be scared. Thinking that a small amount of CO2 over the next few decades will kill millions really isn't.

true. but thinking that 10 Billion tons a year of CO2 will cause huge Problems in the near future is. no amount of your science denial will ever Change that.

 

[r-j]

Oh don't you wish.

The problem comes when fear isn't actually an appropriate response.

What problem? That's the interesting, yet unstated thing.

Why is it a problem for you, if somebody is concerned, even scared, about leaking radiation from four ruined reactors? How does that effect you in any way? Why do people get upset and try to convince everyone else that there is simply no danger from leaking reactors?

And at the same time, so earnestly want everyone to be afraid of some distant, and possibly fictitious global warming disaster?

Do you really think it's the fear over Fukushima that is going to effect the building of new reactors? I doubt the Chinese (or anyone else) has changed anything, except to make the designs even safer. It's not like the people scared of nuclear disasters are asking anyone to tax the world just in case another half dozen reactors fail.

It's just such a strange disconnect from reality. Fear of an actual disaster is considered foolish, while fear over something that hasn't even happened is considered wise and prudent. You don't run into that sort of thing very often.

 

[ben m]

It's not like the people scared of nuclear disasters are asking anyone to tax the world just in case another half dozen reactors fail.

Quite the opposite. The Nuclear Industry Indemnification Act spells out precisely the mechanism by which the US (both the taxpayer and the nuclear industry) buy insurance, pool money, and pay claims in the event of a nuclear disaster.

 

[macdoc]

He doesn't understand the difference between fear and risk avoidance....

On the Record: Climate Change as a Security Risk According to U.S. Administration Officials
May 20, 2013 by Caitlin Werrell and Francesco Femia

Obama_Bush_and_ClintonUnder both Republican and Democratic Administrations, leaders in the U.S. foreign policy and national security establishment have recognized the security risks of climate change, and have become increasingly active in arguing for a response commensurate to the threat. Below is a sampling of statements, and actions, regarding the security risks of climate change, by some of our current and past foreign policy and national security leaders. This is by no means a complete list, but it is a good reminder that climate change is far more than an environmental concern. See Jill Fitzsimmons’ post from last year for more.

Secretary of State, John Kerry (May, 2013)

“And at the top of that list of shared challenges which does not get enough attention…a principal challenge to all of us of life and death proportions is the challenge of climate change…So it’s not just an environmental issue and it’s not just an economic issue. It is a security issue, a fundamental security issue that affects life as we know it on the planet itself, and it demands urgent attention from all of us.”

National Security Advisor, Tom Donilon (April, 2013)

“The national security impacts of climate change stem from the increasingly severe environmental impacts it is having on countries and people around the world…The fact that the environmental impacts of climate change present a national security challenge has been clear to this Administration from the outset.”

U.S. Department of Commerce Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Market Access and Compliance, Michael Camuñez, (April, 2013)

“Extreme weather events can damage agricultural production as we know, paralyze the transport of goods and services, and result in an economic loss that reverberates across the globe. Therefore, protecting our ecosystem and improving the management of our resources are at the core of our regional security and economic prosperity alike. And certainly participating States, like all nations of the world, face the challenge of climate change and global warming, which is perhaps the paramount existential security threat facing us all today.”

U.S. Director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper (March, 2013)

“Terrorists, militants and international crime groups are certain to use declining local food security to gain legitimacy and undermine government authority. Intentional introduction of a livestock or plant disease could be a greater threat to the United States and the global food system than a direct attack on food supplies intended to kill humans. So there will almost assuredly be security concerns with respect to health and pandemics, energy and climate change. Environmental stresses are not just humanitarian issues. They legitimately threaten regional stability.”

Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, Admiral Samuel Locklear (March, 2013)

Significant upheaval related to the warming planet “is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.’’

And: “While the Indo-Asia Pacific today is relatively at peace, I am concerned by a number of security challenges that have the possibility to impact the security environment…Examples include, climate change, where increasingly severe weather patterns and rising sea levels, along with inevitable earthquakes and tsunamis’ and super-typhoons, and massive flooding threaten today and will continue to threaten populations in the future in this region.”

Former Secretary of State, George Shultz (March, 2013)

“There are huge changes that are in the works if we don’t moderate what’s going on. Changes in heat levels. Some places can get very, very hot, and we’ve already experienced some of that. Even Vladimir Putin got out of Moscow a couple summers ago. So you’ve got that problem…I’m a marine, and during World War II I flew over the Pacific, and we flew over those islands, and they’re just little islands out there in the ocean…So you can create conditions that lead people to want to fight about things. If I suddenly find that I am losing all my land, I want to get somebody else’s.”

Former Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Secretary of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush, Tom Ridge (R-PA) (February, 2013)

“The U.S. national security community, including leaders from the military, homeland security, and intelligence, understand that climate change is a national security threat… They’re not talking about whether or not it is occurring – it is… They’re talking about addressing the problem and protecting the American people. It’s time Washington does the same.”

there are numerous more

http://climateandsecurity.org/2013/...sk-according-to-u-s-administration-officials/

take away

ormer Commander of the U.S. Fleet Forces Command under President George W. Bush, Admiral John Nathman, USN (ret) (October, 2009)

“There are serious risks to doing nothing about climate change. We can pay now or we’re going to pay a whole lot later.The U.S. has a unique opportunity to become energy independent, protect our national security and boost our economy while reducing our carbon footprint. We’ve been a model of success for the rest of the world in the past and now we must lead the way on climate change.”

http://climateandsecurity.org/2013/...sk-according-to-u-s-administration-officials/

but some choose to bury their head on climate, and playing chicken little over nuclear fears while ignoring coal....

 

[ben m]

It's just such a strange disconnect from reality. Fear of an actual disaster is considered foolish, while fear over something that hasn't even happened is considered wise and prudent. You don't run into that sort of thing very often.

There has never been a nuclear war. Nevertheless, millions of very intelligent people spent the years 1945-1990 extremely worried that this might happen in the future, and doing everything they could to prevent it. This was considered "wise and prudent". Do you disagree?

The Earth has never completely lose its ozone layer. Nonetheless, science showed that the Earth was on a path towards losing the ozone layer due to CFCs, and a (very expensive, multinational) intervention was carried out. This was considered "wise and prudent". Do you disagree?

The Earth has never before had 250ppm of CO2 injected into the atmosphere over a short 100-year span. Science shows that this CO2 puts us on a path to a warmer planet with sudden shocks to climates, ecosystems, agriculture, and sea levels. Given that science, intervening is wise and prudent.

 

[r-j]

This isn't the topic to argue whether global warming, or even Fukushima, is happening. It's about the fears.

And so far, it has been quite educational.

 

[ben m]

This isn't the topic to argue whether global warming, or even Fukushima, is happening. It's about the fears.

And so far, it has been quite educational.

Yes. You seem to think it's irrational to be afraid of global warming, which has scientifically-predictable global effects which will be very, very, very bad.

This makes no sense to me whatsoever.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Fear is a normal, healthy response to the unknown but not particularly helpful to solve problems.

 

[r-j]

Fear is a normal, healthy response to the unknown but not particularly helpful to solve problems.

I never experience fear when investigating the unknown, unless it's some strange wolf/coyote hybrid in the middle of the night rooting around in the chicken coop. Which is why I make my husband deal with it.

 

[r-j]

You seem to think it's irrational to be afraid of global warming

What was your first clue?

 

[ben m]

I never experience fear when investigating the unknown,

Ok, I didn't think we were picking nits about the word "fear". Global warming is not the "flight or fight adrenaline" sort of fear, it's the "something bad is going to happen and there will be unnecessary suffering and loss" sort of fear.

Many people use the word "fear" to describe this sort of unpleasant anticipated loss. People fear an upcoming round of layoffs. People fear future health problems, financial uncertainty in retirement, etc..

 

[Trakar]

Fear is a normal, healthy response to the unknown but not particularly helpful to solve problems.

Well, it serves its purpose, which is to alert the higher brain functions that there is an issue of concern that needs attention and action to resolve.

 

[macdoc]

I do not view irrational fears as healthy at all and the studies regarding Chernobyl bear that out...the worst health outcome was stress from the fear.

Abstract
The impact of the world's worst nuclear disaster at Chernobyl in 1986 is reviewed within a framework of a triad of fear, rumour and truth. The scope of the accident, Soviet secrecy about it, and the lack of general awareness of, or disregard for, the effects of radiation created a fertile ground for persistent fears and rumours attributing any health problem to Chernobyl.

Scientifically correct answers to health issues have been the means to combat disinformation, and to replace interconnected fears, misconceptions and rumours.
To date, according to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) 2000 Report, based on a review of epidemiological and radiobiological studies, the main radiation-related effect of the Chernobyl accident is an increased risk of childhood thyroid cancer. In addition, the accident has had serious non-radiation-related psychological consequences on the residents of the contaminated territories, resettled populations and clean-up workers. Researchers in search of the truth through epidemiological reasoning are facing serious challenges which are reviewed within this article.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12565980

Fear is often not rational.
Reasoned, informed risk management leads to better outcomes and a far better life quality.

 

[Trakar]

I do not view irrational fears as healthy at all and the studies regarding Chernobyl bear that out...the worst health outcome was stress from the fear.




http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12565980

Fear is often not rational.
Reasoned, informed risk management leads to better outcomes and a far better life quality.

so it comes down to what type of fear we are talking about.

 

[macdoc]

yeah - irrational fears can really hamper a personal psychologically. Fear of heights etc is somewhat in the norm but if it paralyses you from things like driving over a bridge then it's pathological.

Fear of flying is irrational.
Fear of getting a cold or some such walking into a doctors waiting room rational.

Luckily we don't have the fear of driving that in fact might be warranted.

I don't much like the term at all when dealing with risk.....

If I smoked I should rightly be concerned about getting cancer.

If I eat sushi....not so much tho maybe Alzheimers if there is a mercury association.

 

[Mitchell314]

It's the degree that matters. The mere presence of extra CO2 and a little warming would actually benefit the world, not hurt it.

See how similar the attitudes are?

No, they are not similar.

 

[macdoc]

Just how wrong can you get r-j - on and on with the absolute nonsense.....how about you argue with WHO over benefits...

Climate change and health

Fact sheet N°266
Reviewed November 2013

Key facts

Climate change affects the social and environmental determinants of health – clean air, safe drinking water, sufficient food and secure shelter.
Global warming that has occurred since the 1970s caused over 140 000 excess deaths annually by the year 2004.
The direct damage costs to health (i.e. excluding costs in health-determining sectors such as agriculture and water and sanitation), is estimated to be between US$ 2-4 billion/year by 2030.

Many of the major killers such as diarrhoeal diseases, malnutrition, malaria and dengue are highly climate-sensitive and are expected to worsen as the climate changes.

you can read the reast of the "benefits" here

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/

You get all chicken little on a non-existent radioactivity risk and then discount a serious threat....

Just what world DO you live in .....apparently not this one.

More on what a little C02 and warming portend

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/22/3191081/dangerous-climate-change-impact/