• 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?

r-j said:
Unless you live in the Fukushima district, or other zones with heavy fallout.
Click to expand...

There is no heavy fallout in the Fukushima district.

Based on the radiation levels around Fukushima, it is wrong to speak
about a health risk from the radiation. There is, however, a very
real health risk is from the fear that the media and many others have
been whipping up. This is post-traumatic stress syndrome. It
happened at Chernobyl and it is happening again, now, to the many tens
of thousands of evacuated people around Fukushima. We ought to do
something to stop this suffering.
- Dr. Jerry Cutler, lead designer of the the reactor control, safety system and radiation monitoring instrumentation for
the CANDU 6 series reactors​

r-j said:
I've seen the 30,000 deaths a year many times, but nobody ever provides any evidence. You would think lawyers would get involved on that.
Click to expand...

Here's a page I found in ten seconds on google (ignore the bottom link on that page, that number is completely out to lunch, the benefits of nuclear power are substantial enough that we don't need to make crap up to sell it). It has links to several documents detailing coal related deaths.

Next Big Future is the source for the list of power sources and deaths per terawatt hour.

You could find more if you search around.

r-j said:
That's a lot of money if you can nail the coal burning bastards who are killing people.
Click to expand...

No, you can't. You seem to have this unreasonable expectation that something can be made free of all unwanted side effects. I'm afraid that is not possible under the physical laws of this universe (thermodynamics, no system can be 100% efficient, look it up). Errors will occur, accidents will happen and waste products will be accumulated. That's inevitable.

The coal industry can not be held responsible for the inevitable effects of the use of coal. We know that these things will happen, it is our choice as a society to let them happen by our use of coal. In fact the coal industry is responsible for precisely the opposite. The number of lives saved by the availability of large scale electricity generation is easily in the tens of millions if not hundreds of millions. And right now, most of that comes from coal.

We would lose tens of millions if we didn't have our electrical grid. We're only losing a few tens of thousands per year by mass use of coal. We could drop that down to a couple hundred per year or less by switching to the cleanest, safest and greenest energy resource ever discovered.
The choice to me is logical, why isn't it to you?
 
Last edited:
"Dr. Cuttlers" does not appear except in your post. What are you on about now?
 
r-j said:
Ah, you must mean "Dr. Jerry Cutler".

I did a search to find the source and this showed up.

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

Yes, Dr. Jerry Cutler. A nuclear engineer with decades of experience. lead designer of the radiation monitoring systems for one of the worlds most successful reactors. He is highly qualified to asses the situation at Fukushima.

Dr. Cutler is not mentioned at all in the link you provided.

The article you provided is written by Dr. Helen Caldicott, a pediatrician. An expert in the field of boo-boos and sniffles. She has never received a degree in physics, or engineering. She has never designed, constructed or manufactured anything for the nuclear industry. She is completely unqualified to assess the situation at Fukushima.

Earlier you laid out your requirements to be taken seriously on this topic:

r-j said:
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?
Click to expand...

Dr. Cutler meets your criteria. Dr. Caldicott does not.

Try again.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Your article was written by a nuclear denier.
Click to expand...

And it has the usual low quality, exactly what is to be expected of them. She talks about how it is misleading to talk about the effects of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombing, because of the difference of internal and external exposure. But how does she think one does raised levels of internal exposure, if not by ingesting/inhaling stuff that, by nature, was external before? Or does she really thing that a dropping a nuke will cause some radiation and release radioactive materials that never get into foodstuff, soil, etc, but that this only applies to materials released by NPP's?

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.

Of course she includes Chernobyl and the number of deaths caused by it. When do they learn that just because an accident happened, that this does not automatically mean that every fatality after that is caused by it? But it's much easier to say "see, people die from cancer since the accident, so it must be the cause" as if there were never any cancer deaths before.

And then she walks off into conspiracy land about the WHO. If you have no arguments, make up some conspiracy crap. The usual MO.

At least the article is honest in one way. Right at the bottom it reads:

Helen Caldicott is president of the Helen Caldicott Foundation for a Nuclear-Free Planet and the author of Nuclear Power is Not the Answer
Click to expand...

Nuclear-free planet, eh? Once they are done with NPP's, they are going to shut down the sun, shield earth from the universe, etc?

Greetings,

Chris
 
If I made a claim, and it turned out I was wrong, I would certainly admit it. Posting links to sources, even when they are what you consider questionable, dubious or plain crazy people, that is honest.

I notice that a lot of people made claims early in the disaster at Fukushima, and they turned out to be wrong. None of those people ever revisited their claims, much less admitted they were wrong. But the pot calling the kettle black thing, now that is good comedy action.
 
In that regard, I remember when Israel bombed a nuclear reactor, before it even started up. Killed a few French engineers in the process. Nobody in the west really protested, much less cared, because it was bad people building the reactor. And bad people shouldn't have reactors. Why? Everybody knows the answer.

I don't even have to say it. Because everybody already knows, nothing is as dangerous as an operating nuclear reactor. They are so dangerous, people want to bomb them or prevent them from ever being built. Why are people nervous about North Korea having nuclear power? If it is so safe and harmless compared to coal? Nobody is complaining about North Korea having coal power.

Just nuclear power.
 
Last edited:
Sword_Of_Truth said:
A 9.0 earthquake came along and destroyed everything. The Fukushima reactors have performed spectacularly in the midst of this disaster. Of all the buildings and industrial facilities that have been severely damaged in this disaster, the Fukushima plant is one of the few tht hasn't killed anybody. The Japanese people haven't lost any gambles with reactors designs that they didn't lose a thousand times worse on almost any other major structure. Fixating on a nuclear plant in the midst of everything else that's happened is absurd.
Click to expand...

First, the earthquake did relatively small damage compared to the tsunami, which was of course part of the earthquake.

The Fukushima reactors failed, at least one of them before the tsunami hit the plant. But even so, it is obvious now how wrong your claim was.

Very few people died from buildings and bridges collapsing, you can actually see this in the multiple videos of people filming the tsunamis. Very little damage before the waves hit.

Clearly the 'gamble' on reactors was an all in bet that was called by mother nature, and she had a royal flush.

People fixated on Fukushima, because unlike all the other disasters at the time, it was getting much worse, and rescue efforts were hampered by the radiation released. Even the US Navy had to move it's rescue operations to the other side of the country to avoid the radioactive fallout.

Well over three months later, the true horror of multiple meltdowns, explosions, fires and radioactivity is starting to become clear.

Unlike made up claims about what happened.
 
r-j said:
I notice that a lot of people made claims early in the disaster at Fukushima, and they turned out to be wrong. None of those people ever revisited their claims, much less admitted they were wrong. But the pot calling the kettle black thing, now that is good comedy action.
Click to expand...

Links? Proof? You know, everything you say has to be considered a lie by now, and until can provide links to those claims, one must assume that you are, as usual, flat out wrong.
 
Sometimes having discussions on this forum feels like playing Monopoly, only you don't make money every time you're back at the beginning...
 
r-j said:
In that regard, I remember when Israel bombed a nuclear reactor, before it even started up. Killed a few French engineers in the process. Nobody in the west really protested, much less cared, because it was bad people building the reactor. And bad people shouldn't have reactors. Why? Everybody knows the answer.

I don't even have to say it. Because everybody already knows, nothing is as dangerous as an operating nuclear reactor. They are so dangerous, people want to bomb them or prevent them from ever being built. Why are people nervous about North Korea having nuclear power? If it is so safe and harmless compared to coal? Nobody is complaining about North Korea having coal power.

Just nuclear power.
Click to expand...

Again you show that you have absolutely no clue about what you are talking.

Tell me, did they bomb it make sure it never produces electricity, or was it because they did not want them to be able to produce weapons grade nuclear material?

Hmmm?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom