Merged nuclear power safe?

[Ziggurat]

no.
power corrupts.
absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

 

[r-j]

I'm sure the nuclear deniers will ignore all that.

While I knew the denial would happen, the illogical rejection of basic science was unexpected.

Her second point is laughable as well. By her logic we all should drop dread in droves, because we are constantly exposed to radiation from various sources.

What he is speaking about:

2) Nuclear industry proponents often assert that low doses of radiation (eg below 100mSV) produce no ill effects and are therefore safe. But , as the US National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report has concluded, no dose of radiation is safe, however small, including background radiation; exposure is cumulative and adds to an individual's risk of developing cancer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/11/nuclear-apologists-radiation

To help the nuclear denialist comprehend why their brand of denial reeks of hypocrisy, which is putting it nicely, you can imagine if the health effects of particulates from coal were dismissed in the same manner.

If somebody points out that coal causes up to 30,000 deaths a year, and explains why, and you see a response like this to those facts, you might suspect the person is not being honest.

"The point about deaths from coal is laughable as well. By that logic we all should drop dread in droves, because we are constantly exposed to particulates from various sources."

That you can see the illogical approach on one hand, but not on the other, that is denial.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

What he is speaking about:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/11/nuclear-apologists-radiation

This is the second time you have linked to an article by a pediatrician (a medical doctor specialized in the treatment of illness and injury in children).

According to your own criteria:

Are you a nuclear engineer? Of course not. Did you ever work at a reactor? No. Do you actually know anything about radiation and nuclear accidents? Of course not. But you act like you know something when you don't, and then you try to degrade people who do. Pathetic really.

...Dr. Caldicott lacks the qualifications to asses the safety of nuclear power.

 

[r-j]

2) Nuclear industry proponents often assert that low doses of radiation (eg below 100mSV) produce no ill effects and are therefore safe. But , as the US National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report has concluded, no dose of radiation is safe, however small, including background radiation; exposure is cumulative and adds to an individual's risk of developing cancer.

Medical doctors educating people about radiation are viewed by denialist as not important. because they don't like the scientific reality, which is not even that hard to read about.

At low doses, damage is caused by the passage of single particles that can produce multiple, locally damaged sites leading to DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs). DNA DSBs in the low-dose range can be quantified by a number of novel techniques, including immunofluorescence, comet assay, chromosome aberrations, translocation, premature chromosome condensation, and others. Some of these indicators of DSBs show linearity down to doses of 5 to 10 mGy.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=313

The average radiation dose from an abdominal X-ray is 1.4 mGy, that from an abdominal CT scan is 8.0 mGy, that from a pelvic CT scan is 25 mGy, and that from a selective CT scan of the abdomen and the pelvis is 30 mGy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_(unit)#Dose_by_source

Somehow nuclear radiation damage is now questioned, like all the science and knowledge of doctors can't possibly mean as much as some opinion (propaganda) from a non doctor. Classy.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Nuclear Energy and Health: And the Benefits of Low-Dose Radiation Hormesis

U R WTFPWN3D.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

My basic response to such a claim is quite simple, and I think useful, because it cuts through the somewhat arcane and context-laden epidemiological arguments. It’s this: The additional radiation exposure of those living in the vicinity of NPP is ~0.0002 millisieverts (mSv), versus a background level of 2 to 4 mSv (depending on where you live) — the latter due to everything from cosmic rays, to ground-derived radon emissions, to eating bananas (this last one gives you more radiation than the NPP). So that’s 1/15,000 of your total yearly dosage coming from the ambient levels produced by nuclear power (in the US). Living near a coal-fired power station would give you 100 to 300 times more radiation exposure, and even that is trivial and not the reason coal burning is damaging to your health.
- Professor Barry Brooks, Director of Climate Science at The Environment Institute, University of Adelaide.​

 

[bikerdruid]

U R WTFPWN3D.

is that supposed to mean something?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

is that supposed to mean something?

Do you have anything to add to the conversation?

 

[Aepervius]

is that supposed to mean something?

You could look up Powned or Pwned or pown3d in the urban dictionary. The rest if easily readable, if somewhat a turn around the autocensor (but then again I see whiskey tango foxtrot everywhere so it might be OK).

*shrug* "powned" might be exagerated , but then again since when scientific argument and basic rationality has stopped anti nuclear proponent...

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I would have thought Dr. Cutler and Dr. Pollycoves qualifications would have explained it sufficiently.

Or at the very least, caused R-J to move his goalposts again.

 

[Belz...]

While I knew the denial would happen, the illogical rejection of basic science was unexpected.

And now you're talking to yourself ?

 

[Christian Klippel]

While I knew the denial would happen, the illogical rejection of basic science was unexpected.

What he is speaking about:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/11/nuclear-apologists-radiation

You really don't give much about reading, except for the buzzwords you are looking for, do you? Or since when is "Helen" a "he"?

And again the point i made is flying directly above your head. See, she wrote ".. exposure is cumulative ..", which implies that whatever dose you got, it stays in your body forever, adding up to the total. Especially in connection with ".. no dose of radiation is safe, however small, including background radiation ..". If that would be the case, radiologists would have to be disposed as highly nuclear waste once they die, for example.

Or let me put it differently. What would you say that consuming water is cumulative? Because that also implies that at some point one would drown simply from drinking water.

If radiation doses where that cumulative, no worker in a NPP would be able to work there for longer time spans. Because he/she would at some point reach the dose limit set by the regulations. But for some reasons such limits are tied to a given time period as well. Once exceeded the worker has to wait until that time has passed, and can work again. Also, if that dose is not reached (say, throughout a year) he/she can continue to work next year as if nothing happened (that is, can "use up" the dose limit again in the new year).

People getting x-rays, mammograms, etc. would all very soon hit the lethal level if radiation would be as "cumulative" as she implies.

But then, you have shown time and time again that you are not interested in things like facts and science, but instead prefer buzzwords and panicking.

ETA: Let's not forget that the whole planet and all the life on it would be "glowing in the dark" by now from all that cumulative radiation coming from space and the earth itself. This planet would be a nuclear wasteland. But somehow it isn't. Funny that....

 

[r-j]

You really don't give much about reading, except for the buzzwords you are looking for, do you? Or since when is "Helen" a "he"?

If you read the entire post in context, it is obvious I was speaking of him who was talking about what she said. But the focus on small perceived errors on your part seems to be typical when one has no facts to use.

It's like you want to distract from the real issue, which is a doctor taking nonsense to task. As I said, if it was about coal and the health effects from it, you would easily grasp the situation. But because it is your sacred cow, you don't like it being gored.

 

[tyr_13]

If you read the entire post in context, it is obvious I was speaking of him who was talking about what she said. But the focus on small perceived errors on your part seems to be typical when one has no facts to use.

It's like you want to distract from the real issue, which is a doctor taking nonsense to task. As I said, if it was about coal and the health effects from it, you would easily grasp the situation. But because it is your sacred cow, you don't like it being gored.

You pick out one sentence from a very good refutation of your stance and you accuse them of focusing on small perceived errors?

Your source is wrong on the basic science and of no use. She has her facts wrong, and her conclusions are wrong as well. I guess you don't grasp this because vilifying nuclear science is your sacred cow. Oh, you already accused someone of bias? Well I guess that means you couldn't be purposefully blind.

 

[r-j]

And again the point i made is flying directly above your head. See, she wrote ".. exposure is cumulative ..", which implies that whatever dose you got, it stays in your body forever, adding up to the total.

You are the one saying that, not her. She was clear and backed up her statement with science and facts. You just say things, and then get annoyed when skeptics don't just buy your line.

Responding to a ridiculous comment like yours is just a waste of time.

 

[bikerdruid]

Do you have anything to add to the conversation?

yes.
i thought the language of this forum was 'english.
U R WTFPWN3D. does not qualify.

 

[Skwinty]

Good grief, the fog of confusion still hasn't lifted.

 

[Christian Klippel]

You are the one saying that, not her. She was clear and backed up her statement with science and facts. You just say things, and then get annoyed when skeptics don't just buy your line.

Responding to a ridiculous comment like yours is just a waste of time.

Then show us where the linked-to paper states that "exposure is cumulative". From a quick search i did all i can find is that they talk about cumulative radiation doses, and not that "exposure is cumulative".

The wording she used is designed to deliberately confuse people and to induce some mental panicking about radiation. i would say that she is deliberately deceiving people. The way she stated it suggest that something gets a dose of X, and a year later a dose of Y, and that that something is then contaminated with radioactive material with an amount of X+Y.

See, it's called "dose" for a reason. If you take one dose of medicine for something does not mean that dose will stay in your body forever, and that by taking another dose you will have twice the amount of the drug in your body forever.

But hey, you can easily clear that up by finding the part in that paper where it says that "exposure is cumulative". Go ahead, show me wrong.

The ridiculous comments are mostly from you and your "sources".

 

[uruk]

The power curve for a wind turbine is steeper than the cube of wind speed. The cube comes from K = 0.5*mv^2 times the rate at which mass flows past the turbine, which is proportional to wind speed. It's steeper than that because wind turbines are designed to be most efficient at quite high wind speeds.

The result of this attrocious power curve is that going from 8 m/s wind to 10 m/s wind doubles the power output; going from 8 m/s wind to 6 m/s wind halves the power output.

This is your nearly constant wind 365:

[qimg]http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/7775/ercotjanjuly06.jpg[/qimg]

It's a couple of years out of date, so the scale on the y-axis has changed. But there's no reason to believe variability has improved any, because weather systems are still the same size and just putting more wind turbines in the same ERCOT(texas) area doesn't really make your wind farms more geographically diverse.

If I read your chart right (which i may not be without looking at the source page) but it seems that the MW rate hits zero only momentarily each month. It appears to me that the MW's average out at the 800MW range for much of the year.

Granted, it's not stellar output, but it does have the advantage of not producing radiactive waste, or green house gasses, or acid rain, etc..

 

[r-j]

Cumulative Radiation Exposure and Cancer Risk from Diagnostic Imaging in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department.

Vol. 15, No. 5, Supplement 1, May 2008 of Academic Emergency Medicine

If you can't find extensive literature regarding Cumulative Radiation Exposure you aren't actually looking.