Discussion About Anti-Nuclear Energy/Arms Protest

[aam641]

Again, you seem to be saying that you're willing to accept the risks. I am not. Does that make me irrational or merely cautious? You seem to find my caution offensive for some reason. There are risks in every day life, however, more over the effects of when those risks become reality are limited. Nuclear accidents aren't. When Chernobyl was burning, radiation affected most of eastern and northern Europe. When Fukashima leaks, it effects the Northern Pacific. When Sellafield's chimney burnt, if affected a large slice of the UK and Ireland. Again, you just don't seem to appreciate the scale of the risks associated with nuclear power.

I believe that you are applying a double standard here. You use the word "effect" to mean two very different things.


When talking about nuclear accidents, the "affected" people seems to included everybody downwind. And while all of them have a reason to be worried, only a tiny portion of them will experience any health problems as a result of the accident. You mentioned the Windscale fire. It is true that millions of people may have had a reason to be worried, yet (statistically) only about 200 people were actually injured.
And then you talk about "ordinary" accidents and the word "effect" seems to include only the actual deaths. Say that a driver of a semi-trailer looses control on a highway and slams into two passenger cars killing a total of 7 people. You would claim that the accident only "affected" those 7 people. Yet, would not all 100,000+ people driving on the highway that morning have a reason to fear for their lives? If they hear about the accident on a radio, should they not be worried that another semi is going to hit their car? Were they not "affected" by the accident too, if the earlier definition is used?


I hope you can see the parallels between the two examples. We can compare how many people are at risk, or we can compare how many people are actually injured. But we cannot compare apples with oranges.

In particular, with the last, we are assured continually that nuclear power plants are safe and reliable, that is until the next disaster. Then we are told this was an exceptional event. Which it is, until the next one and the same root causes are invariably identified - incompetence, neglect and corrupt dealings.

Could you, please, give a specific example. None of the examples you mentioned earlier showed either incompetence or negligence. While we could argue about cronyism and regulatory capture, I am not aware of any instance of actual corruption taking place. Perhaps you know better?

 

[aam641]

And shouldn’t a discussion about the pros and cons of nuclear power be thinking about the future roll out of energy production? In which case we can look at the pros and cons of next generation nuclear power plants that are currently under development.

I would disagree. On a technical level, the discussion has already taken place. Without an affordable grid-scale electricity storage (or a world government), nuclear power will have to play a major role in any zero-carbon future economy. There are some fairly wild ideas about burning algae, but the environmental consequences have not been thought through IMHO. But in all other debates, the public and the politicians need to be convinced about the safety of nuclear energy both in concept and in present practice, before they'll sign off on further development. Future reactors are currently only a bit of pipe dream. The level of investment is barely enough to keep them on the table. Fusion probably gets more funding.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I know everyone here knows it but I think it bears mentioning with all the anti-nuke comments about Fukishima and to remember it was hit by a billion ton tsunami and not just some technical/plant error. That's a real 'Black Swan' that is incredibly hard to predict and therefore plan for.

There is an incredible logical disconnect about understanding the impact of Fukishima in the press and chattering classes. The nuclear accident only happened at Fukishima because of the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami. It is not a standalone nuclear accident like Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. It is simply part of a wider natural disaster.

Any damage caused by Fukishima is because of Tohoku. And in terms of the damage inflicted by Tohoku the effect of Fukishima is minuscule. 18,535 dead and missing caused by the earthquake and tsunami of which 0 are attributable to the subsequent nuclear accident. And in environmental and physical damage again Fukishima rates well below any measureable scale compared to the other effects of the earthquake and tsunami.

It is only anti-nuclear hysteria which is promoting Fukishima as some kind of catastrophe in its own right. If a modern city with a nuclear power plant in its environs was hit by a nuclear bomb would people be making a deal out of the subsequent and miniscule damage caused by the destroyed reactor compared to the initial blast? No way. But the same thing happened to the Sendai area of Japan minus the bomb and the only thing people in the west are upset about is the nuclear power plant.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

But in all other debates, the public and the politicians need to be convinced about the safety of nuclear energy both in concept and in present practice, before they'll sign off on further development. Future reactors are currently only a bit of pipe dream. The level of investment is barely enough to keep them on the table. Fusion probably gets more funding.

While you are no doubt right in practice I would argue that if we were having a debate about significantly increasing the role of nuclear in future energy production we should consider the type of reactor we could build to achieve that end state. But of course practically the effect of the drive for so-called renewable energy (How does a solar power cell or wind turbine renew itself? Magic?) has diverted much needed funds from development of next generation reactors so we are being put further and further behind in schedule.

There are some fairly wild ideas about burning algae, but the environmental consequences have not been thought through IMHO.

The algae in a desert pond is a very attractive concept for producing large scale supplies of bio diesel (who needs dinosaurs and millions of years of underground dynamics). I doubt it would have any significant environmental impact because it is predicated on using abundant resources like desert space and salt water. However the breeds of algae have not been developed that could yet make it practical.

 

[Orionblamblam]

The algae in a desert pond is a very attractive concept for producing large scale supplies of bio diesel (who needs dinosaurs and millions of years of underground dynamics).

I still like thermal depolymerization, which could turn *any* biological hydrocarbon into petroleum. The energy needs are fairly substantial and the test systems so far built have proven to be stinky, but it seems to work. And even in a world where all the energy production needs are magically met by solar and wind, we'd *still* need something like petroleum. Not only because the battery has not yet been invented that can even dream of competing with gasoline or jet fuel for vehicle propulsion, but our entire civilization is built on petroleum products, from plastics to fertilizer to medicines.

I doubt it would have any significant environmental impact

The "desert defender"-types would have a conniption if you started planting thousands of acres of pond scum over virgin deserts. But also, you'd be turning bright deserts dark... damn, it'd get hot!

But hey, whatever works. I say, build the solar plants where the sun shines. Build the wind turbines where the wind blows. Plant pond scum whereever there's crappy land and access to water.. Build reactors whereever there's three square feet of unused property. Build TDP plants next to wherever there's sewer outlets, dead critter carcasses, whatever. Anything that adds energy and wealth to the West and takes a nickle away from the worst craphole theocratic chuckleheaded nations on Earth. Once the famines and plagues knock their populations down, we can use their gold-plated, sand-covered religious monuments to stupidity as long-term radioactive and chemical waste storage facilities.

 

[aam641]

The algae in a desert pond is a very attractive concept for producing large scale supplies of bio diesel (who needs dinosaurs and millions of years of underground dynamics). I doubt it would have any significant environmental impact because it is predicated on using abundant resources like desert space and salt water. However the breeds of algae have not been developed that could yet make it practical.

Doing anything on such a massive scale will have huge environmental consequences.

 

[Bill Walker]

Doing anything on such a massive scale will have huge environmental consequences.

Unfortunately, "anything" includes supporting 7 billion people on this little planet. We have to choose the "least worse" scenario in such a case. Here in Ontario we have an ongoing debate about power sources in general, and nuclear in particular. Here is an interesting statistic that I find stops a lot of the debate. Smog from coal fired plants kills 250 people a year in Ontario, and is responsible for about another 100,000 major illnesses per year (asthma, etc.).

The only confirmed deaths due to radioactivity around here lately have been the unfortunate ladies that painted radium instrument faces during the Second World War. So which is worse, coal or nuclear power?

Yes, nuclear plants are tricky and potentially hazardous, requiring great care. What isn't like that, these days?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Doing anything on such a massive scale will have huge environmental consequences.

Not quite. US DoE estimates that if bio diesel using Algae replaced all petroleum products in the USA it would only require an Algae farming area of 15,000 square miles (39,000 sqkm), which is the size of the US state of Maine but importantly less than 15% of the land used to farm corn. That’s the equivalent of 30,000 Olympic sized swimming pools.

 

[Orionblamblam]

less than 15% of the land used to farm corn.

Keep in mind, though, that biodeiselalgae farms almost certainly wouldn't *replace* any of the corn farms, but would go somewhere that's not being used to grow food. Because the whole world needs food, regardless of the fuel situation. Additionally, the ground prep would probably be far more involved than farming... you can farm by running a tractor and a combine back and forth on a plot of land, but an algaefarm would require every square inch to be covered by something like a swimming pool covered by a greenhouse, with a whole lot of robotic arms and such.

 

[Rickshaw]

I am sorry, I don't share your enthusiasm for nuclear weapons.

Then presumably your enthusiasm is for once-a-generation spasms of worldwide conventional war that kill tens of millions. Nukes put an end to that.

They may but does that mean though I must be enthusiastic about them to the point of ignoring the very real dangers they also represent as well as the uses you proposed?

If you have an issue with me calling you enthusiastic about a nuclear-free world and its inevitable and obvious consequences, why do you call me enthusiastic about nuclear weapons?

Consequences which you believe would result, not I. I don't think that it is nuclear weapons which have preserved the peace. I agree wholeheartedly with Ronald Reagan when he said, "“A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used. But then would it not be better to do away with them entirely?” His view was that they created a climate of fear and uncertainty.

You, OTOH appear to be willing to accept risks with radiation which no sensible person would. You also seem at various times to relish, even hope for the use of nuclear weapons, often merely to eliminate people who hold different political opinions to yourself.

So get governments out of the business of commercial nuclear powerplants. The less government meddling, the better.

Another who appears to desire little or no regulation of the nuclear industry.

Yet another totalitarian collectivist who cannot understand the difference between "minimize meddling" with "no law at all." Typical.

You routinely make no differentiation, so is it surprising that I am confused by your comments? You didn't qualify your comment, you merely implied all regulation.


Government is not in the business of sellign soda pop or beer, yet provides adequate regulation. Unlike with the nuclear industry, regulation of soda and beer is reasonable rational, such that the businesses that do provide them do so in a way that provides good profit and allows for growth. Soda and beer providers feel free to experiment with new products with little fear of government regulators coming in and holding things up for *decades,* unlike the nuclear industry. Yet if soda and beer providers produce a tainted or dangerous product (see NOTE below), government regulations are in place and sufficient to provide serious legal repercussions and enforcement of changes.

NOTE: both soda and beer kill more people annually than nuclear power plants have *ever.*


Perhaps this is the problem with Government control of the nuclear industry, as I originally pointed out? Looks to me like you don't trust government. Neither do I in nuclear matters yet you attack me for saying I also don't trust private industry because of it's appalling past record where nuclear matters are concerned. For a method of producing energy which can potentially and has affected millions of people, you are incredibly blase' about it.

Governments might not be directly involved in the production of beer and "soda", but it does heavily regulate it. Methods, ingredients, additives all must be approved by government before they can be sold. Why not nuclear energy? Why are you so willing to allow companies to take risks with your health. Tell me, would you prefer a situation like China, where Government regulation is lax and Companies routinely add chemicals to foodstuffs which poison their customers or a situation like your own country where the FDA creates regulation which it routinely checks and enforces on producers? The China of today is the sort of situation you appear to thirst for. Almost unlimited capitalism, little or no regulation which is enforced and companies showing just how little respect they have for their customers or workers.

Government regulation of Nuclear Power was created because their was a demand for it. it wasn't done on a whim.

The social responsibility of a business *is* to make a profit. If it doesn't, things don't get better. Jobs aren't created. Civilization doesn't advance. The serfs stay in thrall to their lord.

See what I mean? You would ignore the social responsibility of a business in favour of an over-riding profit motive.

Once again: "potato." If a business focuses on profit, then it is focusing on its highest social responsibility. So how can it ignore what it is focused on?

No, if it focuses on profit, all it is doing is making money for its owners/shareholders and ignoring what damage it may well be doing to society and the land. It shouldn't be either/or. It should be both. The emphasis though, IMO should be, social responsibility. Make money but don't exploit anybody in doing so. Don't pollute the land, don't make dangerous products, don't harm anybody or anything. Create a better world. Don't create a worse one.

We've seen in the past during the Industrial Revolution when profit was king and there was no regulation, no acceptance of social responsibility. Workers were exploited, customers ignored, dangerous, polluting production methods employed, safety ignored. It was because of that that regulation of industry grew up. Governments reacted to a perceived need to protect peoples, lands, resources. Without that, we'd still have kids in the mills and mines, polluted air/water/land, tenement living, no health care, etc. Something it appears you'd be happy with, all in the name of minimising or eliminating government "interference". :

 

[Rickshaw]

You seem to have a quaint idea that companies will always act honestly and fairly towards workers and consumers.

Not sure where you get that from. Everybody lies. Check the avatar.

I don't recognise it. Is it someone of significance? If you believe everybody lies, then why should I believe you aren't?

Moreover, if you believe "everybody lies" why are you so upset when I say I don't trust private industry to manage nuclear power? Or that I also state that I don't trust Government to either? It appears to me that from your comments that you seem to believe only Government lies and cannot be trusted while that if Private Industry lies, they should be given a "get out of gaol" free card, because well, they're Private Industry doing the lying but can be trusted. This is a strange and contradictory conclusion to come to, IMO. I apply my distrust equally to both organisations and you don't like it?

 

[Rickshaw]

Nuclear energy BAD. Burning dead dinosaurs GOOD.

I am Lothar of the Hill People and I have spoken.

well put Lothar.

In order to try and get this thread back on track, I will ask a simple hypothetical question.

Lets pretend that burning tons of fossil fuels had a determiental effect that caused a kind of "global warming" if you will. (remember this is purely hypothetical) and this "global warming" would have massive implications for our environment and humanity on a global scale, might it be worth the occasional fukishima to prevent this wide spread disaster? A kind of lesser of two evils?

Discuss.

There are other alternatives to nuclear energy, which should be considered. It is not a case of only fossil fuels or nuclear power. Why shouldn't decentralised power systems utilising renewable energy sources be an alternative?

Utilising such power sources eliminates the dangers of both fossil fuels and nuclear energy.

 

[Rickshaw]

Again, you seem to be saying that you're willing to accept the risks. I am not. Does that make me irrational or merely cautious? You seem to find my caution offensive for some reason. There are risks in every day life, however, more over the effects of when those risks become reality are limited. Nuclear accidents aren't. When Chernobyl was burning, radiation affected most of eastern and northern Europe. When Fukashima leaks, it effects the Northern Pacific. When Sellafield's chimney burnt, if affected a large slice of the UK and Ireland. Again, you just don't seem to appreciate the scale of the risks associated with nuclear power.

I believe that you are applying a double standard here. You use the word "effect" to mean two very different things.

When talking about nuclear accidents, the "affected" people seems to included everybody downwind. And while all of them have a reason to be worried, only a tiny portion of them will experience any health problems as a result of the accident. You mentioned the Windscale fire. It is true that millions of people may have had a reason to be worried, yet (statistically) only about 200 people were actually injured.

Yet there were cancer "clusters" created around Windscale/Sellafield. They were covered up by government and industry. 200 is too many IMO. Would you accept your child as merely a member of the 200 if they developed Leukemia?

And then you talk about "ordinary" accidents and the word "effect" seems to include only the actual deaths. Say that a driver of a semi-trailer looses control on a highway and slams into two passenger cars killing a total of 7 people. You would claim that the accident only "affected" those 7 people. Yet, would not all 100,000+ people driving on the highway that morning have a reason to fear for their lives? If they hear about the accident on a radio, should they not be worried that another semi is going to hit their car? Were they not "affected" by the accident too, if the earlier definition is used?

I hope you can see the parallels between the two examples. We can compare how many people are at risk, or we can compare how many people are actually injured. But we cannot compare apples with oranges.

There is a difference in the scale of "effect". Those who are exposed to nuclear radiation can all rightly fear they may or will suffer health effects. Those on the highway unless in actual proximity of the accident have no fear that they will be physically effected by it. So, on one hand you have millions who are contaminated, of which some will develop adverse health effects. On the other, you have at most a few tens who are in close proximity to the highway accident who may become directly involved in it and physically effected. You are, I would suggest comparing Apples and Oranges rather than Apples and Apples.

A better simile would be if your truck was carrying some form of hazardous material (chemical/radioactive) and this leaked after the accident. Then, potentially those downwind may become effected. Vehicle accidents by themselves are localised whereas nuclear accidents are usually not.

In particular, with the last, we are assured continually that nuclear power plants are safe and reliable, that is until the next disaster. Then we are told this was an exceptional event. Which it is, until the next one and the same root causes are invariably identified - incompetence, neglect and corrupt dealings.

Could you, please, give a specific example. None of the examples you mentioned earlier showed either incompetence or negligence. While we could argue about cronyism and regulatory capture, I am not aware of any instance of actual corruption taking place. Perhaps you know better?

Where there is corruption there is always the potential for accidents. South Korea is a good, recent example of where corruption was detected. Japan has a worse history of corruption in it's nuclear industry. I would have thought the failure of Tepco to protect the Fukashima Nuclear Plant with a high enough sea wall, was sufficient evidence of both incompetence and negligence. Tsunamis of higher than 10 metres were well known along the Japanese east coast but Tipco ignored warnings about the inadequacy of it's seawall at Fukashima. Then you have again, Tepco's incompetence and negligence in the containment and recovery operations being so bad that they were sacked and replaced by government officials.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Consequences which you believe would result, not I.

Then you are rejecting what history has actually shown. Since WWII, nukes have prevented the sort of all-out war humanity had grown accustomed to.

You, OTOH appear to be willing to accept risks with radiation which no sensible person would.

I'm perfectly happy to accept the risks of the level of radiation released by Three Mile Island. Who wouldn't?

You also seem at various times to relish, even hope for the use of nuclear weapons, often merely to eliminate people who hold different political opinions to yourself.

Wow. Really? You're *that* divorced from reality?

How can I hold a rational conversation with someone who is, at his basis, completely irrational?

 

[Orionblamblam]

I don't recognise it. Is it someone of significance?

Apparently not.

If you believe everybody lies, then why should I believe you aren't?

You shouldn't.

More importantly, you should question the people who convinced you of the lie that "nukes are bad."

But then, that would be a rational thing to do, and I waste my time in trying to reason with you.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I would have thought the failure of Tepco to protect the Fukashima Nuclear Plant with a high enough sea wall, was sufficient evidence of both incompetence and negligence. Tsunamis of higher than 10 metres were well known along the Japanese east coast but Tipco ignored warnings about the inadequacy of it's seawall at Fukashima.

And yet, nobody died at the reactor due to the tsunami. How many died in various cities and towns due to the tsunami? Why is Tepco at fault, but the local and national governments are not? Whose failure is worse? Why do you focus on the failure that *didn't* kill thousands?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

with a whole lot of robotic arms and such.

No need for the robot arms. Just someone to come around every few days/weeks/months and skim up all the pond scum.

 

[bobbymike]

Please use this as a placeholder for any future response to certain posts;

deleted

Video clip removed just thought it was funny it being from a comedy movie. Unlike accusing someone of wanting to use nuclear weapons and kill millions of people.

 

[Rickshaw]

I would have thought the failure of Tepco to protect the Fukashima Nuclear Plant with a high enough sea wall, was sufficient evidence of both incompetence and negligence. Tsunamis of higher than 10 metres were well known along the Japanese east coast but Tipco ignored warnings about the inadequacy of it's seawall at Fukashima.

And yet, nobody died at the reactor due to the tsunami.

Actually two did. Two bodies of Tepco employees were found several days later in the basement of one of the Reactor Buildings, drowned from the Tsunami which overflowed the sea wall.

The major problem with the Dai Ichi nuclear reactor's design was that the seawall wasn't tall enough and that the pumps I understand were placed right by the seawall, so when it overflowed, they were immediately lost. Compare that to the design of the one at the Onagawa Nuclear Power Planet, up the coast from Fukushima Daiichi and therefore closer to the epicenter of the March 11 earthquake and tsunami. At this power station the sea wall was 14 meters tall and successfully withstood the vast majority of the impact of the tsunami, preventing the serious damage and radiation releases that occurred at Fukushima.

 

[Rickshaw]

Consequences which you believe would result, not I.

Then you are rejecting what history has actually shown.

Has it shown it? How can you prove a negative? "Correlation does not denote causation" is a favourite saying in statistics. If you need help understanding it, please ask.

Since WWII, nukes have prevented the sort of all-out war humanity had grown accustomed to.

Didn't stop Korea. Didn't stop Vietnam. Didn't stop numerous conflicts in Africa. Did not stop the Iran-Iraq war. Did not stop the first or second Gulf Wars. Did not stop the war in Afghanistan. Just a few counter-examples. Total causalties greater than what occurred in WWII.

You, OTOH appear to be willing to accept risks with radiation which no sensible person would.

I'm perfectly happy to accept the risks of the level of radiation released by Three Mile Island. Who wouldn't?

So, when are you moving to Chernobyl? Fukashima? Going to live near Sellafield? Three Mile Island was a minor event in comparison.

You also seem at various times to relish, even hope for the use of nuclear weapons, often merely to eliminate people who hold different political opinions to yourself.

Wow. Really? You're *that* divorced from reality?

I have read your posts over many years. You recently suggested you'd like to see Southern California nuked in this thread. Why? 'cause you disagreed with their politics. Need I say more?

How can I hold a rational conversation with someone who is, at his basis, completely irrational?

I am very rational. How many people attempt to characterise their opponents as "irrational" simply because they disagree with them? :

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Please use this as a placeholder for any future response to certain posts;

Personal attacks deleted

 

[starviking]

Regarding placeholders and other humourous pics - can we keep them off this thread? I'd hate to have it locked, as I've a lot I'd like to add - when I have time . Let's play the points, not the man.

 

[Jemiba]

Last warning: Please refrain from personal attacks, insults and so on, or we have to lock this thread !
Regardless of being supporting or rejecting nuclear energy, we are discussing just opinions, although
they quite often seem to be regarded as assured facts by some of you !
Discussing is ok, that means postig the own opinion and arguing about it and about the opinions posted
by others. But honestly, I find it hard to believe, that someone of us is the owner of the absolute and in-
dubitable truth !
So, again, please calm down and come back to a factual level of discussion !!!

 

[Orionblamblam]

Has it shown it?

Yep.

Since WWII, nukes have prevented the sort of all-out war humanity had grown accustomed to.

Didn't stop Korea. Didn't stop Vietnam. Didn't stop numerous conflicts in Africa. Did not stop the Iran-Iraq war. Did not stop the first or second Gulf Wars. Did not stop the war in Afghanistan. Just a few counter-examples.

And yet, none of them came anywhere close to being the sort of all-out war humanity had become accustomed to. For the locals, sure, it was bad. But you didn't see them becoming World Wars.

Just as knowing one person who got whacked by a murderer doesn't negate gains made in crime reduction if your local murder rate has been cut in half, since the introduction of nuclear weapons into geopolitics the major players have *really* backed off on all-out warfare. Look at the US: Lost 625,000+ in the War of Southern Aggression. Lost 116,000+ in WWI. Lost 400,000+ in WWII. And then... 36,000+ in Korea, 58,000+ in Viet Nam, 294 in GW1, 2,229 in Afghanistan, 4,488 in GW2. Compare Russian losses in WWII to their losses in wars since. British losses. French. German.

The fact that Africans continue to slaughter each other with a seeming joyful abandon does not negate the point; it strengthens it. The Hutus and the Tutsis, for example, did not have nukes. And nobody was going to go nuclear for them. So for them, the nuclear bomb basically didn't exist, and played no role... and thus you got genocide.

So, when are you moving to Chernobyl? Fukashima? Going to live near Sellafield?

Who's paying me?

Three Mile Island was a minor event in comparison.

Maybe you should keep that in mind when comparing American reactors to Soviet ones, or antiquated Japanese reactors on fault lines and tsunami zones.

You also seem at various times to relish, even hope for the use of nuclear weapons, often merely to eliminate people who hold different political opinions to yourself.

Wow. Really? You're *that* divorced from reality?

I have read your posts over many years. You recently suggested you'd like to see Southern California nuked in this thread. Why? 'cause you disagreed with their politics. Need I say more?

Yeah. Maybe you can say why you are incapable of understanding sarcasm.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

200 is too many IMO. Would you accept your child as merely a member of the 200 if they developed Leukemia?

yes anything more than 0 is too many, but that's not the world we live in. And if my child was buried in coal mine collapse? or lost his life in a solar panel manufacturing accident? or fell from the top of a wind generator?

This is 100 percent emotional argument, and completely disregards the risks that other forms of energy carry. It has nothing to do with accurately debating the pros and cons of nuclear power. its a cheap shot, that fails to take into account risks and casualties that are happening as we speak with other forms of power production:

Unfortunately, "anything" includes supporting 7 billion people on this little planet. We have to choose the "least worse" scenario in such a case. Here in Ontario we have an ongoing debate about power sources in general, and nuclear in particular. Here is an interesting statistic that I find stops a lot of the debate. Smog from coal fired plants kills 250 people a year in Ontario, and is responsible for about another 100,000 major illnesses per year (asthma, etc.).

Is this the part where you tell me its better to lose 250 and 100,000 ill a year than 200 every ten years? because one is coal and good and the other is nuclear and bad? Again no one gets away clean here. Deaths, illness, safety, and environmental impact are not at all only applicable to nuclear power. Lets use some of those statistics you were talking about and compare?

"Correlation does not denote causation" is a favourite saying in statistics. If you need help understanding it, please ask.

Ironic considering that has been your entire argument all these pages. You have been light on evidence and heavy on supposition and then trying to connect it all.

Statistically nuclear is safer, this is despite evil capitalism, fukishima, chernoble, etc. Again we have decades of stats to look at with nuclear, and despite it all even when nuclear "goes wrong" it still is statistically safer than its contemporaries. Much like how an airline crash grabs all the headlines, 212 people died in aircrashes worldwide last year, but over 25,000 were killed in the US alone in automobiles. Even when air travel goes terribly, wrong it still comes out on top statistically as the safest form of travel.

If we are going to create a "zero defects/zero loss" standard we must be prepared to give up an awful lot of things civilization depends on. Cars, planes, trains, surgery, coal plants, swimming pools, bath tubs, firearms, etc. etc

 

[Orionblamblam]

This is 100 percent emotional argument, and completely disregards the risks that other forms of energy carry.

It's a common enough way to debate, though, especially with issues that are political. Firearms are the big one in the US. The common point: "guns/nukes kill X number of people per year," as if that's the whole of the story. But there's more to the story than the deaths caused by the alternatives... "yes, but knives/coal kill Y number of people per year." There is the lesser discussed "if you take guns/nukes away, Z number of people will die per year." With firearms, this is seen in the higher murder rate that the UK seems to have compared to the gun-armed US; with nukes, it's seen directly in the reduction in global war since the introduction of nukes and the likely re-introduction of total war as a way of life if nukes were to go away. And with nuclear power? How mny will die due to nuclear power being eliminated? It's hard to say. However, getting rid of commercial nuclear power plants permanently and world-wide will have the effect of vastly reducing, if not eliminating, the class of person known as the "nuclear engineer." The result of *that* will be to greatly slow, if not stop, the expansion of human civilization into space. It will greatly hamper the ability of mankind to develop and deploy planetary defenses against asteroid/comet impacts.

So... how dangerous can the elimination of nuclear power be? If it sets mankind 40 years behind on space development, and some decades down the line a 15-km-wide comet is seen on an impact trajectory, the danger could be severe. In History A, where nukes are developed and prosperous and common, the comet is deflected while still months from impact. Mankind goes on to the stars. In History B, where space development has been slowed due to the lack of nukes, the comet impacts. The entire planetary population of 9 billion die screaming.

But it's worse than that, worse than a mere nine billion deaths. In History A, where nukes save the day, humanity expands into the universe; the total number of humans who live on into the future cannot be readily counted, and can only be expressed in terms of "ten to the power of a very big number." Say, out of the 100,000,000,000 stars in this galaxy, 10% wind up with humans living around them. And that the average population at any one time around each star is a comfortable 100,000,000,000 on planets, asteroids, moons and stations. That means that at any one time, the galactic population would be 1E21. But that's just at any one time. Humanity, and our descendants, could last for a trillion years. If the human populace turns over once ever 100 years for a trillion years, that means the total human population over time would be on the order of 1E32. None of whom would exist if the anti-nuclear activists get their way.

So are, say, 200 people dead due to a hypothetical reactor meltdown a bad thing? Yup. Would the loss of 1E32 humans to save 200 be a worthwhile exchange? Ahhhhh... no.

And we need not invoke an impact, something that nukes could directly prevent. Almost certainly a greater threat to the survival of mankind would be an engineered virus. Within very short order, it will be within the power of any half-bright lunatic to whip up an artificial virus and spring it on the world. Earth is very likely doomed. Without off-world colonies, mankind will likely be eliminated. Those who oppose nukes oppose the one sure means of preserving humanity.

*THAT* is one of the important reasons why these people irritate me so much.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Even if you don't subscribe to OBB's theory, the warnings of Co2 emissions raising the very temperature of the Earth along with the consequences therein should be enough to reconsider the status quo with coal.

Looking at the upper bound estimate, it seems that nuclear electricity is terribly dangerous. Yet these numbers need to be put into context, say by comparing them to coal fired power plants under normal operation. Greenpeace found 22,000 deaths per year in the EU and scientific american reported 115,000 deaths per year in India. And suddenly nuclear does not seem so bad after all.

for some reason these lives are not worth the emotional appeal

 

[sferrin]

Physicist discusses how many nuclear fear mongering statements are mathematically correct but silly and misleading:
_
"There was no Fukushima nuclear disaster. Total number of people killed by nuclear radiation at Fukushima was zero. Total injured by radiation was zero. Total private property damaged by radiation….zero. There was no nuclear disaster. What there was, was a major media feeding frenzy fuelled by the rather remote possibility that there may have been a major radiation leak.

Certainly from the ‘disaster’ perspective there was a financial disaster for the owners of the Fukushima plant. The plant overheated, suffered a core meltdown, and is now out of commission for ever. A financial disaster, but no nuclear disaster.

Recently some water leaked out of the Fukushima plant. It contained a very small amount of radioactive dust. The news media quoted the radiation activity in the physics measure of miliSieverts. The public don’t know what a Sievert or a milliSievert is. As it happens a milliSievert is a very small measure.

Doubling a very small amount is still inconsequential. It is like saying: “Yesterday there was a matchstick on the football field; today there are two matchsticks on the football field. Matchstick pollution has increased by a massive 100% in only 24 hours.”"

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/10/physicist-discusses-how-many-nuclear.html

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Doubling a very small amount is still inconsequential. It is like saying: “Yesterday there was a matchstick on the football field; today there are two matchsticks on the football field. Matchstick pollution has increased by a massive 100% in only 24 hours.”"

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/10/physicist-discusses-how-many-nuclear.html

He wouldn't be so casual if it was his matchsticks.

 

[aam641]

There is a difference in the scale of "effect". Those who are exposed to nuclear radiation can all rightly fear they may or will suffer health effects. Those on the highway unless in actual proximity of the accident have no fear that they will be physically effected by it. So, on one hand you have millions who are contaminated, of which some will develop adverse health effects. On the other, you have at most a few tens who are in close proximity to the highway accident who may become directly involved in it and physically effected.

OK, lets try it a little differently. You are driving on a highway. You know that statistically there will be one serious accident that morning that will kill 2 people. You also know that perhaps 100,000 people will use the highway that morning. So your chances of dying because of that accident are 1 in 50,000. Are you "affected" by the accident, even if you are lucky and arrive to work safely? Why not?

You are living in northern England in 1957 when you hear about the fire at Windscale. The amount of released radioactivity is reported, you pull out a napkin and quickly figure out that it will result in 200 excess cancers down the road. Beside you, there are 10 million people living down-wind, so your chances of getting an excess cancer are 1 in 50,000. Are you "affected" by the accident, even if you are lucky and live to 95 in perfect health?

You make a good point on South Korea, which I was not aware of.[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif] With Fukushima, they certainly could have done more. I don't have enough information on whether TEPCO was negligent though. 5th largest earthquake ever recorded may have been a bit beyond the design requirements. And while there were several earlier recommendation to raise the sea wall at the site, few care to remember that all of those proposals were too low for the tsunami that actually occurred.[/font]

 

[circle-5]

Anti-Nuclear propaganda is everywhere, contaminating uneducated masses with the irrational fear of nuclear energy.

 

[circle-5]

Nobody is even attempting to educate children about atomic energy, as was the case not so long ago...

 

[Orionblamblam]

Nuclear edumacation for the modern era:
http://ringshadow.deviantart.com/art/Nuke-for-Dummies-Page-1-154180410

 

[Arjen]

Physicist discusses how many nuclear fear mongering statements are mathematically correct but silly and misleading:
_
"There was no Fukushima nuclear disaster. Total number of people killed by nuclear radiation at Fukushima was zero. Total injured by radiation was zero. Total private property damaged by radiation….zero. There was no nuclear disaster. What there was, was a major media feeding frenzy fuelled by the rather remote possibility that there may have been a major radiation leak.

Certainly from the ‘disaster’ perspective there was a financial disaster for the owners of the Fukushima plant. The plant overheated, suffered a core meltdown, and is now out of commission for ever. A financial disaster, but no nuclear disaster.

Recently some water leaked out of the Fukushima plant. It contained a very small amount of radioactive dust. The news media quoted the radiation activity in the physics measure of miliSieverts. The public don’t know what a Sievert or a milliSievert is. As it happens a milliSievert is a very small measure.

Doubling a very small amount is still inconsequential. It is like saying: “Yesterday there was a matchstick on the football field; today there are two matchsticks on the football field. Matchstick pollution has increased by a massive 100% in only 24 hours.”"

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/10/physicist-discusses-how-many-nuclear.html

The clean-up of Fukushima is a work in progress. Evacuated residents are still waiting to return:

Cleanup of Fukushima towns near nuclear plant delayed by years

Oct 21, 2013

Just when residents could hope to return home by next year, the Ministry of Environment revealed Monday some changes that spell no good news to residents from the exclusion zone in Fukushima. According to the ministry, it may take a year or more before residents can return home.

Six of the 11 municipalities in Fukushima Prefecture will have to wait longer as the Environment Ministry decided to extend cleanup efforts in the affected areas. The original plan was supposed to have completed the decontamination by March next year, three years after the nuclear meltdown that was triggered by a tsunami. Although initial decontamination has given some residents the green light to visit their homes during day time, they still cannot live in their former residents.

“We would have to extend the cleanup process, by one year, two years or three years, we haven’t exactly decided yet,” said Shigeyoshi Sato, an official from the Environment Ministry in charge of the decontamination efforts. According to Sato, one reason for the delay is resident’s opposition in having radioactive waste dumped in their neighborhood. This is not the first time that the government found no place to dump the debris.

Besides location or residential issues, the government is also struggling with how to restore local communities. More troubling, however, is how to ensure food safety and job security. With the never-ending issues regarding the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, people have been wary and cynical in buying produce from the prefecture.

The order of magnitude of what it costs to decontaminate Fukushima Prefecture:

A report from the Asahi Shimbun newspaper says that Japan’s central government is holding back more than 60% of the 255 billion yen (approx. $2.56 billion) budget reserved for the radiation cleanup efforts in Fukushima Prefecture. They are supposed to be directly overseeing the disaster recovery efforts around the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

Source: http://japandailypress.com/report-says-government-holding-back-over-60-of-fukushima-recovery-budget-1232258/

 

[Orionblamblam]

From reading that, it doesn't seem like the residents are being held back due to valid health risks, but due to politics. Hardly the first time. See: Times Beach, Missouri. An entire town was cleaned out due to fears of a chemical that turns out to not be that dangerous to humans.

 

[Arjen]

The Japanese government has set aside 255 billion yen (~2.5 billion dollars) for cleanup operations. Not the kind of money to be spent on a whim, they want to clean it up so bad that they're spending big money. They hope to recover this to some extent from Tepco. Funding local decontamination efforts is delayed because of financial considerations: keep Tepco in the loop, otherwise whatever the government spends on decontamination will be that much harder to recover from Tepco - the company which the Japanese government considers to be culpable, because of design and maintenance deficiencies of the Fukushima plant.

Two possibilities come to mind:
1) the danger is real enough to make you want to spend big money
2) there are psychological reasons at work which force you to make a grand gesture, but how do you sell that idea to Tepco which has already acknowledged responsibility anyway by financing some of the cleanup?

I'm guessing 1) is the case, but in either case, the worst thing to do would be dragging your heels.

The immediate cause of the residents not being allowed back in is that Fukushima Prefecture is still contaminated in a very real sense.
The contamination was initially expected to be removed rather earlier than is expected now - which *is* because of the central government dragging its heels.

 

[Grey Havoc]

From the excellent Freefall webcomic:

 

[Arjen]

Adding another site to favourites. Thanks.

 

[aam641]

Two possibilities come to mind:
1) the danger is real enough to make you want to spend big money
2) there are psychological reasons at work which force you to make a grand gesture, but how do you sell that idea to Tepco which has already acknowledged responsibility anyway by financing some of the cleanup?

I'm guessing 1) is the case, but in either case, the worst thing to do would be dragging your heels.

I am getting feeling that it is 2). From IAEA:

The Mission encouraged the Japanese government to strengthen its efforts to explain to the public that an additional individual radiation dose of 1 millisievert per year (mSv/y), which it has announced as a long-term goal, cannot be achieved in a short time by decontamination work alone. In remediation situations, with appropriate consideration of the prevailing circumstances, any level of individual radiation dose in the range of 1 to 20 mSv/y is acceptable and in line with international standards and the recommendations of the relevant international organisations.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Two possibilities come to mind:
1) the danger is real enough to make you want to spend big money
2) there are psychological reasons at work which force you to make a grand gesture, but how do you sell that idea to Tepco which has already acknowledged responsibility anyway by financing some of the cleanup?

I'm guessing 1) is the case, but in either case, the worst thing to do would be dragging your heels.

Trying to assign monetary value to perceived levels of danger is non sensical especially when we are talking about the expense incurred by a massive natural disaster. The US government spent a small fortune rebuilding the Super Dome after hurricane Katrina. It costs what it costs and there was no danger of radiation from a stadium. I wouldn't try assign a dollar value vs danger. A US16 ejection seat costs 1 million dollars that doesn't mean that a Texan II is in more danger of crashing than a cessna with some parachutes even though it has 2 million dollars worth of ejection seats in it.

Like a lot of natural disasters cleanup typically runs into the billions. If the price tag for cleanup of fukishima is 1 billion, then they spend 1 billion, 2 billion for 2 billion and so on.

hope this makes sense havn't had my coffee.