The Green New Deal

Wait are we talking Chernobyl or Fukashima?

Because if we're talking the former... well the Soviets couldn't install a fuse without killing a thousand of their people. Soviet doctrine has always been "we have reserves."

If we're talking the later the statistics is fear mongering B.S.
 
varwoche said:
@Red Baron Farms ...

And yet the gratuitous insult. Did you get that from Dale Carnagie?
Click to expand...
Most certainly not. Dale Carnegie was an American writer and lecturer, and the developer of famous courses in self-improvement, salesmanship, corporate training, public speaking, and interpersonal skills.

Not one damn one of those has anything at all to do with the plight of the American farmer, who tends to very much dislike salesmen, corporate execs, and of course all these mamby pamby libtard self-improvement and interpersonal skills courses!

And you think this attitude is gratuitous? You driven out to the midwest small town farm communities recently? Have you seen what the libtards, neoliberals and neo-luddite arsewipes have done to the foundation of this great country?

It aint even about left wing and right wing anymore. Damn near all city folk politics has conspired to destroy the farmers way of life with all their naive "help".

But bad as that all may be, in the end it will be us farmers and ranchers that pull you all out of the fire of global warming, if you just stop trying to stop us from doing our job and provide a little infrastructure support instead. A carbon market with verified offsets in the soil would go a very long way towards undoing all the destruction caused by libtards, neo-luddites, neoliberals meddling.

It's conservative because you would simply be paying for a service. Get it? No free lunch. Stop paying welfare to farmers to cause global warming, and instead pay for the service of carbon sequestration into the soil, and it will be all over with in a few decades. Problem solved by conservative capitalism.
 
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy said:
A thousand people DID die.
Click to expand...

From your link:


By October 2012, over 1000 disaster-related deaths that were not due to radiation-induced damage or to the earthquake or to the tsunami had been identified by the Reconstruction Agency...

The premature deaths reported in 2012 were mainly related to the following: (1) somatic effects and spiritual fatigue brought on by having to reside in shelters; (2) Transfer trauma – the mental or physical burden of the forced move from their homes for fragile individuals; and (3) delays in obtaining needed medical support because of the enormous destruction caused by the earthquake and tsunami.​

Effects (1) and (2) were largely preventable by not evacuating. Effect (3) cannot be disentangled from the effects of the tsunami. The lesson seems to be that overreaction is a greater threat than an accident itself.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
Most certainly not. Dale Carnegie was an American writer and lecturer, and the developer of famous courses in self-improvement, salesmanship, corporate training, public speaking, and interpersonal skills.

Not one damn one of those has anything at all to do with the plight of the American farmer, who tends to very much dislike salesmen, corporate execs, and of course all these mamby pamby libtard self-improvement and interpersonal skills courses!

And you think this attitude is gratuitous? You driven out to the midwest small town farm communities recently? Have you seen what the libtards, neoliberals and neo-luddite arsewipes have done to the foundation of this great country?

It aint even about left wing and right wing anymore. Damn near all city folk politics has conspired to destroy the farmers way of life with all their naive "help".
Click to expand...

It isnt city folk that did that. Unless you mean rich bankers and corporations. Them city folk?
 
Ziggurat said:
And not just in the design, let it be said. The operators couldn't have done any better if they had intentionally wanted to blow it up either. It's really stunning how badly they fumbled things.

Even assuming some American operators similarly did every possible thing wrong, a US reactor is not physically capable of blowing up like Chernobyl did.
Click to expand...


Fukishima was
constructed and run in conjunction with General Electric and Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO).[3]
Click to expand...


Not as bad as Chernobyl but not a great effort either. I know nuclear can be a lot safer but it's not just because of Chernobyl that nuclear gets a bad name.
​
 
Ziggurat said:
From your link:


By October 2012, over 1000 disaster-related deaths that were not due to radiation-induced damage or to the earthquake or to the tsunami had been identified by the Reconstruction Agency...

The premature deaths reported in 2012 were mainly related to the following: (1) somatic effects and spiritual fatigue brought on by having to reside in shelters; (2) Transfer trauma – the mental or physical burden of the forced move from their homes for fragile individuals; and (3) delays in obtaining needed medical support because of the enormous destruction caused by the earthquake and tsunami.​

Effects (1) and (2) were largely preventable by not evacuating. Effect (3) cannot be disentangled from the effects of the tsunami. The lesson seems to be that overreaction is a greater threat than an accident itself.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with all that. It's possible that maybe next time people won't die because of what we learned here. But just because their deaths were avoidable does not mean they were avoided. They happened. And in regards to your point 3 I already pointed that out myself and most of my posts have only mentioned the most conservative number I could find from reliable sources.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
No. From Fukushima FFS.
Click to expand...

Calm down. Your comment was in response to a sentence of mine about Chernobyl. If you're going to change the subject you should make that clear rather than blow a fuse.

If you want to claim that deaths during the evacuation are attributable to the power plant, then fine, but how can you, as Zig pointed out, dissociate those from deaths from the rest of the earthquake/tsunami event? The problem is that anti-nuclear interests are folding as much as they can into the categories that they think will support their argument, rather than being more neutral. As I've stated earlier, the death toll from the radiation exposure could be much higher than I suspect, but you have no way to know.

Can't tell if you're serious. Unfortunately it's come to that.
Click to expand...

At this point you're not even having a discussion. Don't know who pissed in your cereals this morning, but no one here has been impolite towards you.
 
Belz... said:
If you want to claim that deaths during the evacuation are attributable to the power plant, then fine, but how can you, as Zig pointed out, dissociate those from deaths from the rest of the earthquake/tsunami event?
Click to expand...

Can you read my posts, and Zig's for that matter, and the links I cited and maybe see that this has been answered multiple times?

If I, or my sources, hadn't done this I'd be saying 20K plus as the number of deaths.
 
Belz... said:
If you want to claim that deaths during the evacuation are attributable to the power plant, then fine, but how can you, as Zig pointed out, dissociate those from deaths from the rest of the earthquake/tsunami event?
Click to expand...

Category (3) isn't separable, but categories (1) and (2) are largely separable, since you know who was evacuated because of the nuclear accident and who wasn't.

But even with those deaths, nuclear is still pretty safe. And since they were preventable, odds are that the next accident will have fewer of them, making it even safer.
 
Ziggurat said:
Category (3) isn't separable, but categories (1) and (2) are largely separable, since you know who was evacuated because of the nuclear accident and who wasn't.
Click to expand...

Granted. However, were the evacuations largely necessary? People tend to react rather... disproportionately to nuclear issues (see the thread about the grand canyon paint bucket exposure from today).
 
There's something rather uncouth about laying those 1,000 corpses at the feet of nuclear power while at the same time spreading the kind of fear mongering that causes the mass panicked evacuations.

"The fact that people got killed running away from this thing I say is so dangerous is proof of how dangerous is!" returns a syntax error when I try to compile it.

And all of this is even assuming it's possible to logically separate the evacuation from Fukashima from the broader evacuations from the Earthquake/Tsunami which... well you can't.
 
Belz... said:
How about you quote the relevant parts, then, assuming I missed something?

(And I did mention Zig's post, so your request that I read them is ironic.)
Click to expand...

My first post you:

RecoveringYuppy said:
More than a thousand dead and more than 100K evacuated.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...rity/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties


It's difficult to distinguish an exact list of deaths cause by the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear accident but I can't find any source that attributes less then a thousand deaths to the nuclear accident.
Click to expand...

And it's addressed in both links I cited.
 
Belz... said:
Granted. However, were the evacuations largely necessary?
Click to expand...

No, definitely not, that's pretty clear now.

Since the overreaction was caused by the nuclear plant problems, I don't think it's unreasonable to put those deaths in the category of "nuclear". But that risk is still low, and we should keep in mind that it was from an overreaction, not from radiation, and hopefully we won't overreact again next time.
 
JoeMorgue said:
There's something rather uncouth about laying those 1,000 corpses at the feet of nuclear power while at the same time spreading the kind of fear mongering that causes the mass panicked evacuations.

"The fact that people got killed running away from this thing I say is so dangerous is proof of how dangerous is!" returns a syntax error when I try to compile it.
Click to expand...

A syntax error? That's one bad compiler you've got there. Mine warns me that it's recursive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom