Merged nuclear power safe?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Do you know how many people have died at Fukushima, BD?

let's leave that question for a few days.

Forgive the thread necromancy. But I just had to point out that it has been 7 or 8 months now and the death toll at Fukushima remains firmly in the single digits.

The radiation casualty count is exactly zero.

 

[r-j]

One could say the same thing about a coal power plant. Or 11,000 of them. Nobody has died, so what is the problem?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Small nitpick: 30-40 000 people die from coal-related pollution annually in the US alone.

But do tell, what is the problem?

 

[Cuddles]

One could say the same thing about a coal power plant.

Sure, one could say that. However, there's a word for people who say things that aren't actually true. For instance, just since BenBurch's last post before this thread was bumped, at least 81 people have died in 4 separate coal mining accidents just in China. In the same time period, the manager of the New Zealand coal mine that recently had several deaths has been charged in court, and the recent accident in Wales where 4 people died was in the news again. A couple of weeks before that a new study looking at the health effects of coal power was announced:

The coal industry is regarded as one of the most dangerous professions

That article also notes that 12 people have died in the UK in the last four years, 5 of them just in the last few months.

So, death toll from Fukishima, and all nuclear power, in the last 8 months - 0.
Death toll from coal in the last 3 months - at least 86 just from two countries.

Please, tell us again how safe coal power is.

 

[r-j]

Small nitpick: 30-40 000 people die from coal-related pollution annually in the US alone.

I've read that sort of thing since Fukushima I Reactor One blew up. (not before, but after).

Being slightly gullible I see something like that and tend to just believe it. (I mean, it sounds right, it feels right, it must be true)

Since the nuclear disasters I have wondered why none of those dead people, killed by coal smoke (not the accidents by workers) are compensated? Do any of the millions of people killed by coal plants ever get any money? Or is it just like nuclear and other silent pollution? Nobody can prove anything?

 

[Cuddles]

I've read that sort of thing since Fukushima I Reactor One blew up. (not before, but after).

Your inability to read is not our problem. This is incredibly basic stuff that has been known since at least the 14th century.

 

[r-j]

I remember just how quickly coal came up in this thread. (or the one merged with it, it's hard to remember)

So far any possible damage to the environment from the nuclear power station seems to me to pale into insignificance when compared with say the recent oil leak and spillage in the Gulf of Mexico.

In the UK it has proven (this is from a radio programme I heard) it's very difficult to clean up a site that an old coal powered power-station occupied because of the years of pollution - the land may never be be declared safe for domestic use.

For some reason we seem to fear pollution from nuclear power stations disproportionately when compared to the pollution caused by other forms of energy production.

I think that is true, and it's not just coal/oil pollution. Mercury from coal (and other sources) is a huge huge problem, but the people that profit from polluting the planet seem very well versed in avoiding reasoned conversations about the real consequences of their actions.

Like how tobacco producers managed to keep a lid on the effects of smoking, or how alcohol producers avoid the science that reveals the damage from drinking. Or a dozen other examples.

The dangers of radio-cesium (and other nuclear pollutants) is much like mercury, coal ash, fertilizer run off, and so on. The people who profit don't want the population of the planet to actually know what is going on. They might get pissed off about it.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

The dangers of radio-cesium (and other nuclear pollutants) is much like mercury, coal ash, fertilizer run off, and so on. The people who profit don't want the population of the planet to actually know what is going on.

The "people who profi" seem to be doing a piss-poor job at keeping the lid on, well, anything at the moment. It's not like the general public is going around thinking radiation is harmless and reactors are the best thing since sliced bread.

They might get pissed off about it.

Yeah, we could end up with people waving banners in the streets--

Oh. Never mind.

 

[r-j]

The "people who profi" seem to be doing a piss-poor job at keeping the lid on, well, anything at the moment. It's not like the general public is going around thinking radiation is harmless and reactors are the best thing since sliced bread.

Yeah, but I am agreeing with the commentary that it seems to be different with nuclear than other pollutants.

And yet the same as well. There is this definite thing where people downplay the effects if pollution, and especially if it might mean they have to compensate families for killing people.

Like with coal, how many people can you actually prove died as a result of coal pollution?

Same with nuclear pollution. Good luck trying to prove any health problems are directly related.

 

[r-j]

You edited while I was responding!

Yeah, we could end up with people waving banners in the streets--
[qimg]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-w7P42OI4BMU/Td0h8TjWp5I/AAAAAAAAU4k/Wc8NW8Ep7rE/s1600/Anti-nuclear+activists+demonstrated+near+the+Beznau+plant+at+the+weekend.jpg[/qimg]
Oh. Never mind.

It probably has to do with nuclear by products being used for bombs. And the possibility of massive and long lasting damage from nuclear accidents. I don't really know. I never understood the nuclear protesters.

But the scientists that early on raised grave concerns about the effects of nuclear power were right on the money.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It probably has to do with nuclear by products being used for bombs. And the possibility of massive and long lasting damage from nuclear accidents. I don't really know. I never understood the nuclear protesters.

But the scientists that early on raised grave concerns about the effects of nuclear power were right on the money.

First, you don't understand the issues... but somehow you know the "scientists" are right?

Second, the scientists who meet the criteria you laid out:

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.

... do not agree with you at all:

New lessons are beginning to emerge from Fukushima. Each new concern leads to additional safety requirements. But some contradictions are beginning to raise questions: Amid tens of thousands of deaths from non-nuclear causes, not a single life-shortening radiation injury has occurred. Not one! And while some people in the housing area are wearing cumbersome rad-con suits, filtered gas-masks, gloves and booties, there are many people living carefree in other places like Norway, Brazil, Iran, India where folks have lived normal lives for countless generations with radiation levels as much as a hundred times greater than forbidden areas of the Fukushima homes.

At Fukushima this is no abstract issue. People are being told they cannot return home for an indeterminate period – perhaps years. And efforts to decontaminate their home sites may require stripping off all the rich top-soil and calling it RadWaste. People who were evacuated have been reduced to economic poverty, clinical depression, and even suicide.

There is good scientific evidence that, except for some hot spots, the radiation levels at these home-sites are not life-threatening. The current restrictions are based on a desire to be “conservative.” No matter how well intended, this “conservatism” is cruelly destructive. The respected radiation authority Wade Allison, author of Radiation and Reason, has proposed that the current annual radiation dose limit be raised 1000-fold, which he says is still well below the hazard level of clinical data on which he bases his proposal. Other radiation protectionists are beginning to feel unhappy about the harm their rules have caused and are joining in the cry for quick action as the Japanese head into winter.

It’s time that the draconian measures be revoked. A simple declaration of the known health facts about radiation from the proper authorities would be a good first step.

- Dr. Ted Rockwell, former Chief of Technical Staff to Admiral Hyman Rickover​

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I've read that sort of thing since Fukushima I Reactor One blew up. (not before, but after).

http://www.google.no/search?hl=no&s...142l0l9355l45l42l3l31l34l0l216l1155l3.2.3l8l0

 

[Travis]

But the scientists that early on raised grave concerns about the effects of nuclear power were right on the money.

Right. As in fear they spread was spread very well.

 

[r-j]

do not agree with you at all:

And while some people in the housing area are wearing cumbersome rad-con suits, filtered gas-masks, gloves and booties, there are many people living carefree in other places like Norway, Brazil, Iran, India where folks have lived normal lives for countless generations with radiation levels as much as a hundred times greater than forbidden areas of the Fukushima homes

.
I think you must have overlooked my comment in post #3101

Radiation makes people healthier.

http://www.learningaboutenergy.com/

After looking at the data, it concluded that most people who get a small dose of nuclear radiation are not harmed by it, and in fact are benefited. That’s what the science said: Most people would benefit by receiving more radiation.

Those people in Norway, Brazil, Iran, India and so forth, that have levels of radio-cesium a hundred times what the Fukushima dead zone has, they are all probably much healthier than people who are missing out out on radio-cesium.

This forum real IS educational. Thanks guys. Now I have stopped worrying and love the radio-cesium.

 

[gumboot]

Yeah, but I am agreeing with the commentary that it seems to be different with nuclear than other pollutants.

And yet the same as well. There is this definite thing where people downplay the effects if pollution, and especially if it might mean they have to compensate families for killing people.

Like with coal, how many people can you actually prove died as a result of coal pollution?

Same with nuclear pollution. Good luck trying to prove any health problems are directly related.

I can think of one example. There's high levels of uranium poisoning in the population of the Punjab, from fly ash burned in nearby coal power plants. High numbers of children with birth defects are showing up in the population, and they have levels of uranium in their bodies high enough to cause disease.

However I think immediate health risks are the least of our concerns. 33% of the world's entire CO2 output is from fossil-fuel burning power stations.

That's a pretty big argument for nuclear power right there.

Coal seam fires alone account for 3% of the world's CO2 output.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Why are people still arguing with r-j?

It's a total waste of time. Anything you say will either be ignored, dismissed or twisted in an attempt to make you look stupid.

 

[r-j]

I'll take my chances with the nuc.

Worst imaginable nuclear accident just happened.

No, and it's hard to imagine nobody else called you on that. It wasn't even close to the worst.

 

[r-j]

I can think of one example. There's high levels of uranium poisoning in the population of the Punjab, from fly ash burned in nearby coal power plants. High numbers of children with birth defects are showing up in the population, and they have levels of uranium in their bodies high enough to cause disease.

You make it sound like radiation is bad for people.

Has anyone been able to prove anything? Is anything being done about it?

One thing I learned from all this, is that coal burning is putting out a lot of radioactive material, along with mercury. I would say it's a huge health problem, and not just in some third world country that nobody cares about. The soot is also causing serious global problems, along with the CO2 levels.

I don't think anyone is arguing coal is safe and good for children.

But from a logic point of view, that has little do with a discussion of a nuclear disaster, the risks of nuclear power, and the effects of radio-cesium on people, animals and real estate values.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Why are people still arguing with r-j?

It's a total waste of time. Anything you say will either be ignored, dismissed or twisted in an attempt to make you look stupid.

Probably for the same reasons that others are still arguing with Anders Lindman and Rerevisionist.

As utterly incapable of understanding the issues as R-J appears, he is definitely not the worst we've seen.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No, and it's hard to imagine nobody else called you on that. It wasn't even close to the worst.

He said "worst imaginable". Chernobyl was caused entirely by human factors that are ultimately under human control. Fukushima was caused by an earthquake that knocked the entire Island of Japan eight feet to the left.

That Fukushima ended in a better state than Chernobyl given the starting conditions is nothing less than spectacular.