Discussion About Anti-Nuclear Energy/Arms Protest

[Arjen]

I am having a little trouble peering through the officialese in the IAEA's message.

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.

I may misunderstand this, but I take this to mean that the Japanese government aims to reduce the additional radiation dose as a result of the Fukushima mishap to 1 millisievert per year. I do not know what the radiation dose was before the event. I do not know the current radiation dose. I assume the radiation doses are those which can be measured in Fukushima Prefecture.

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 such as the IAEA, International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effect of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and World Health Organisation (WHO).

So: is the current radiation dose in the affected area within the safe range of 1 to 20 mSv/y? The IAEA's message doesn't say. If it were, the Japanese government's task would be to convince Fukushima residents that current radiation levels are safe. Publish radiation doses before and after the event, international recommendations for safe levels, and so on. Instead, residents are yet again advised to stay away from their homes, and funds are still earmarked for further cleanup operations. I have some difficulty in accepting the Japanese would be that wasteful, particularly if simply broadcasting the good news would save loads of money.

Besides, why would Tepco participate in a scam which can only harm what's left of their reputation? Or their finances?

 

[aam641]

I may misunderstand this, but I take this to mean that the Japanese government aims to reduce the additional radiation dose as a result of the Fukushima mishap to 1 millisievert per year. I do not know what the radiation dose was before the event. I do not know the current radiation dose. I assume the radiation doses are those which can be measured in Fukushima Prefecture.

So: is the current radiation dose in the affected area within the safe range of 1 to 20 mSv/y? The IAEA's message doesn't say.

Quickly on radiation doses:

• Dose from natural radiation is about 3 mSv/y, depending on where you live.
• Most countries allow regular people to receive 1 mSv/y from man-made sources, but not counting medical procedures (full body CT scan is about 3-10 mSv).
• Radiation workers, whose doses are monitored in some way, are allowed 20 mSv/y on average over several years, and up to 50 mSv in a single year. But they actually receive about 5 mSv/y.
• You need to receive at least 200 mSv in a single day to show any immediate symptoms.

Last radiation measurements are available here.

 

[Arjen]

Last radiation measurements are available here.

AdamF, thank you for a very interesting link. I've had a short glance at the site, one page shows radiation levels ranging from 0.1 to upwards of 19 microSieverts/hour measured 1 metre above ground surface. Data compiled March 11, 2013.

That translates to a range of 0.876 to more than 166.6 milliSieverts/year. The higher figure is decidedly unhealthy, the government's decision not to let residents return to the afflicted areas makes sense.

 

[circle-5]

The U.S. invented and pioneered nuclear energy production, but has fallen way behind. We are now only barely in the top 10 in the world. The fearmongers and troglodytes are winning.

 

[bobbymike]

The U.S. invented and pioneered nuclear energy production, but has fallen way behind. We are now only barely in the top 10 in the world. The fearmongers and troglodytes are winning.

Could also be said of our nuclear weapons industry. :'(

• In 1989, the United States halted the design and manufacture of new nuclear weapons.
• In 1992, the United States conducted its last full-scale, underground nuclear weapons test

 

[Rickshaw]

The U.S. invented and pioneered nuclear energy production, but has fallen way behind. We are now only barely in the top 10 in the world. The fearmongers and troglodytes are winning.

That image is out of date. I believe Germany no longer has any power reactors in operation.

At the time of the Japanese Fukushima disaster, Germany was getting just under a quarter of its electricity from nuclear power.[6] After the Fukushima disaster, the following eight German nuclear power reactors were declared permanently shutdown on 6 August 2011: Biblis A and B, Brunsbuettel, Isar 1, Kruemmel, Neckarwestheim 1, Philippsburg 1 and Unterweser.[27]
Some German manufacturers and energy companies have criticized the phase-out plans, warning that Germany could face blackouts.[28] However, this did not happen.[29] Germany remained a net exporter of about 5 terawatt hours (TW·h) of power in 2011 after exporting 17.7 TW·h last year, according to data published by the energy utility association "AG Energiebilanzen" in February 2012.[30]

[Source

Japan's share of nuclear power generated electricity is also incorrect, I believe.
I won't bother with your characterisation of those who believe caution is better than taking unnecessary risk as "fearmongers and troglodytes". Your doing so, merely adds to the heat and does not increase the understanding of the issues involved. :

 

[Rickshaw]

The U.S. invented and pioneered nuclear energy production, but has fallen way behind. We are now only barely in the top 10 in the world. The fearmongers and troglodytes are winning.

Could also be said of our nuclear weapons industry. :'(

• In 1989, the United States halted the design and manufacture of new nuclear weapons.
• In 1992, the United States conducted its last full-scale, underground nuclear weapons test

I fail to see why these are negatives. The US has IMO more than sufficient knowledge and numbers of nuclear weapons.

As we are meant to be, as I understood discussing the pros and cons of Nuclear Energy, not Nuclear Weapons, your comment appears to confirm my point that Nuclear Energy and Weapons development are deeply entwined and form an unholy alliance.

 

[starviking]

That image is out of date. I believe Germany no longer has any power reactors in operation

Germany's plan is to bring their remaining nuclear power plants out of service by 2022. The following link gives the current slice of power production attributable to nuclear as 18%.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-G-N/Germany/#.UnJYAGthiSN

Japan's share of nuclear power generated electricity is also incorrect, I believe.

We're currently at zero, as Japanese NPPs have to shut down for mandatory inspections ever 2 years. The local permissions required to restart have been hard to get. Currently there is an application process underway at the Nuclear Regularion Authority to clear plants which have setup new safety measures at their facilities for restarts, though the final say will still rest on local communities.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I believe Germany no longer has any power reactors in operation.

Japan's share of nuclear power generated electricity is also incorrect, I believe.

I'm glad you included that phrase in there, rather than going with a link or any form of actual evidence. Once again Star Viking sets it straight... that is unless you have something more than your belief to back it up?

I won't bother with your characterisation of those who believe caution is better than taking unnecessary risk as "fearmongers and troglodytes". Your doing so, merely adds to the heat and does not increase the understanding of the issues involved. :

Bold card for you to play as you broadly rail against capitalism, fearmonger about politics, and the perception of safety and decide to rely on what you believe rather than what is actually happening, all while accusing people of political beliefs they don't have. Tell me, how much heat and lack of understanding do you think you have added to this thread? How much of it only has very little to do with the pros and cons of nuclear energy as well? And for more of a lack of understanding how many times have people in this very thread had to correct on you basic facts about nuclear energy, as above? Now just to be clear is everyone who has hesitation about nuclear power a "fearmonger" or "troglodyte"? absolutely not, but the way you have been acting certainly gives that impression about you. please stop confusing your beliefs with facts, and if you can't do that, at least keep them to yourself. So you can come down off the cross now, and stop acting persecuted.


Your entire argument has been nothing more than a poorly made NIMBY under the cover of health and safety. Thousands of people around the world die directly just from mining coal every year, without even getting further into the effects that burning it has on the health of people and the environment. The world needs power, If it can't be nuclear something else will be used, and its by and large been fossil fuels, which almost everyone can agree are terrible, and usually after that the only debate is what we want to use to replace them (solar/wind/nuclear) and ASAP at that. I don't think you can contribute any thing helpful to this thread. You made your broad points, we get that you don't like nuclear power. I would appreciate if you let those who want to explore and delve more into the facts and details of the subject actually get to it, if I want mouth breathing irrationality based on bias and belief, I can go check out APA.

 

[Arjen]

In short: calling people names like fearmonger or troglodyte is perfectly acceptable and not at all detrimental to reasoned debate.

And on that bombshell it's time to end. Thanks very much for watching, good night!

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

In short: calling people names like fearmonger or troglodyte is perfectly acceptable and not at all detrimental to reasoned debate.

Yes, just like accusing people of political beliefs they don't have, (or even perverting this thread to political beliefs rather than facts about nuclear power) which Kadija has done on several occasions through out the thread
:

Having concerns about nuclear energy is perfectly reasonable. Postulating that industry and government will automatically collude leading to automatic nuclear accidents would definitely qualify as fear mongering-- especially when we have so much evidence to the contrary.

 

[Arjen]

I think pigeonholing is precisely what you are doing when you accuse Kadijaman of ranting against capitalism.

You appear to believe that mere criticism of capitalism and it's excesses means that I am the enemy of all aspects of it. Capitalism, tempered with socialist aspects and well regulated works well IMO. Unfettered capitalism only distributes wealth in one direction, upwards to the detriment of all on the lower rungs of the socio-economic scale.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I think pigeonholing is precisely what you are doing when you accuse Kadijaman of ranting against capitalism.

You appear to believe that mere criticism of capitalism and it's excesses means that I am the enemy of all aspects of it. Capitalism, tempered with socialist aspects and well regulated works well IMO. Unfettered capitalism only distributes wealth in one direction, upwards to the detriment of all on the lower rungs of the socio-economic scale.

Look carefully at what I said. Me saying someone railing against capitalism is not me accusing them of being communist, but more of a critique about how that really doesn't belong in this thread anymore than a talk about the weather in the Netherlands should mention prostitution.

Besides I thought we were done here, Arjen?

 

[Arjen]

I posted a message in this thread on the Soviet system being positively inimical to safe operation of nuclear plants.

Power generation doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists within different societies, all of which have their various strengths and weaknesses. The Soviet Union of the eighties had a political system positively inimical to safe operation of nuclear power plants, and I share Kadijaman's notion that modern capitalism has, to a lesser extent, features that stand in the way of guaranteed security in operating nuclear power plants and handling nuclear waste.

I think a regulated society, with proper feedback mechanisms in place *and* working is indispensible for safe operation of nuclear plants. In the Soviet Union of the eighties feedback was poor because the leadership of the day, in line with its political theory, consciously crippled feedback. Communist leadership considered itself the vanguard of the masses - they knew what was good for the people (or so the storyline went).

In Japan, feedback was crippled by considerations from another end of the political spectrum: the conviction that companies, if left to their own devices, would always, out of enlightened self-interest, behave in a socially responsible way. Tepco's history should put that theory out of its misery. Rules were in place, but oversight was lax. Tepco took advantage of that to make more money - in the short term.

Implementing any strong feedback mechanism in any political system that doesn't have that mechanism changes that system. The change, in itself, is a political act. I think it is very appropriate to discuss the politics of power generation.

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=18616

 

[bobbymike]

The U.S. invented and pioneered nuclear energy production, but has fallen way behind. We are now only barely in the top 10 in the world. The fearmongers and troglodytes are winning.

Could also be said of our nuclear weapons industry. :'(

• In 1989, the United States halted the design and manufacture of new nuclear weapons.
• In 1992, the United States conducted its last full-scale, underground nuclear weapons test

I fail to see why these are negatives. The US has IMO more than sufficient knowledge and numbers of nuclear weapons.

As we are meant to be, as I understood discussing the pros and cons of Nuclear Energy, not Nuclear Weapons, your comment appears to confirm my point that Nuclear Energy and Weapons development are deeply entwined and form an unholy alliance.

No it 'confirms' my opinion that there has been a precipitous decline in the nuclear weapons enterprise and Triad industrial base nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Orionblamblam]

The US has IMO more than sufficient knowledge and numbers of nuclear weapons.

The math on the numbers of nukes has been pointed out to you before. You failed to even attempt to refute it.

Also: what's the shelf life of a nuclear bomb?

Nuclear Energy and Weapons development are deeply entwined and form an unholy alliance.

You have failed to even try to refute the fact that nuclear weapons have saved countless lives since WWII by preventing more World Wars, and will probably save uncountably countless lives in the future. So... by what definition are nukes "unholy?" Does the Human Extinction Movement have a religion now?

 

[Grey Havoc]

Is it long since time to look again at this idea: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/2013/02/the-american-plan-to-build-nuclear-power-plants-in-the-ocean/

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Is it long since time to look again at this idea: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/2013/02/the-american-plan-to-build-nuclear-power-plants-in-the-ocean/

Interesting link, thanks

 

[Arjen]

The article refers to Gordon P. Selfridge’s 1975 paper “Floating Nuclear Power Plants: A Fleet on the Horizon?”.

Since nuclear power plants have a tremendous impact on the surrounding community, problems and confrontations on land have contributed to the impending move offshore. Physically, the plants consume enormous amounts of water for cooling and steam production and emit low-level radiation. With reference to the “once-through” cooling water necessary for the plants’ operation, one study has projected that the demand for such coolant will encompass over fifty percent of the entire runoff from the continental United States in only twenty-five years unless the plants are moved offshore. The possible ecological impact of running half our river water through nuclear power plants has led many to conclude that such plants would be better built in the coastal zone.

Selfridge wrote in 1975 (even before Three Mile Island) about the difference between an accident on land and one in the ocean: “A similar accident at sea, however, would have a far more devastating effect. A meltdown at sea would not create its own glazed insulation chamber. The poisonous reactor core would melt through the barge and descend into the hydrosphere where the radioactive core would contaminate thousands of cubic miles of ocean. Some radiation would be released to the atmosphere, the rest would enter the marine food chain. Radioactive contamination of the entire northwest Atlantic food chain for hundreds of years from one meltdown is a conceivable scenario.”

Mixed blessings.

 

[F-14D]

CNN on Nov. 7 is going to air "Pandora's Promise". Althogh it was shown at this year's Sundance Film Festival, like most films that don't go along with the Hollywood orthodoxy ("Waiting for Superman", "Won't Back Down", etc.), it got zero publicity and support.

It's pro nuclear power and among the people involved are prominent environmentalists who have changed their view. I myself have not yet seen the film, and and assuming it hasn't been re-edited (unlikely foif only for legal reasons) frankly I'm (pleasantly) shocked that CNN is airing it.

Trailer here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p8m0JMstHc#t=66.

 

[Rickshaw]

CNN on Nov. 7 is going to air "Pandora's Promise". Althogh it was shown at this year's Sundance Film Festival, like most films that don't go along with the Hollywood orthodoxy ("Waiting for Superman", "Won't Back Down", etc.), it got zero publicity and support.

It's pro nuclear power and among the people involved are prominent environmentalists who have changed their view. I myself have not yet seen the film, and and assuming it hasn't been re-edited (unlikely foif only for legal reasons) frankly I'm (pleasantly) shocked that CNN is airing it.

That looks interesting and I will endeavour to find a copy available in Oz. Despite what many here seem to assume, I do have an open mind on the issue. I am always weighing the pros and the cons of Nuclear Energy whenever the discussion comes up. At the moment, as I have pointed out, the cons outweigh the pros IMO.

 

[Jemiba]

Probably it's my fault, should have made it clear from the start, that here only the civil use of nuclear energy should
be discussed, after such posts were split from the thread about nuclear weapons. I modified the title again, so
that it should be clear to everyone now... :
The last posts were back to the pros and cons of new nuclear weapons again, so not relevant in this context and
therefore removed. And now, please come back to a civilised discussion, which surely get along without insults, or
personal atack and so on ! This theme IS highly political, so principally it's against point 2 of our forum rules.
Do you remember ? "Political, religious and nationalistic posts are discouraged."
So, please think twice before posting, if you want this thread to stay open !

 

[Orionblamblam]

The last posts were back to the pros and cons of new nuclear weapons again, so not relevant in this context

Incorrect. The posts you removed pointed out that nuclear weapons require that people who understand nuclear engineering maintain and update them... just as with nuclear reactors. The two technologies require the same disciplines. You get rid of one tech, you damage the ability of the other to exist safely because you get rid of many of the people who understand them.

 

[Jemiba]

...The posts you removed pointed out that nuclear weapons require that people who understand nuclear engineering maintain and update them...

... and they weren't removed just because of this, but because the tone of the whole discussion had become
quite harsh again, too !
The personal messaging system here allows multiple recipients, so it's tailor-made for such discussions, that are
funny for the participants, but often enervating for others, due to the arguments spinning around and around.

 

[Orionblamblam]

the tone of the whole discussion had become quite harsh again, too !

What is best in life?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I do have an open mind on the issue. I am always weighing the pros and the cons of Nuclear Energy whenever the discussion comes up.

Thats an odd thing to say as you seem to operate on false notions and scientifically incorrect assumptions that have been corrected by posters many times previously.

Hard to weigh the pros and cons without facts, amiright? I would also wonder why on Earth you decided to be "open minded" by completely shifting the thread to political and economic opinions that have little to do with nuclear energy facts.

You have made your opinion known-- we get it. If you could stick to the subject at hand and work with facts from no on that would be greatly appreciated.

 

[SOC]

What is best in life?

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

It seems to me that the crux of the issue is that nuclear power is perceived to be dangerous. Well, obviously. But the question that should be relevant is whether or not it's more or less dangerous than using coal-fired power plants or natural gas burning plants or whatever. The numbers clearly say no. Failure to acknowledge that fact makes it a debate grounded not in fact but opinion. Which, in a scientific debate, is irrelevant.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

What is best in life?

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

It seems to me that the crux of the issue is that nuclear power is perceived to be dangerous. Well, obviously. But the question that should be relevant is whether or not it's more or less dangerous than using coal-fired power plants or natural gas burning plants or whatever. The numbers clearly say no. Failure to acknowledge that fact makes it a debate grounded not in fact but opinion. Which, in a scientific debate, is irrelevant.

agreed. If nuclear was the only form of power production that killed people, messed the environment, made people sick, and affected generations to come this would be a very simple and obvious little debate. But all forms of power production do this, so the question becomes what are the acceptable trade offs?

China alone loses an estimated 20,000 a year in mining accidents, thats an average of 57 a day, so In the time this little thread has started that's 1,972 people dead from the mining in just one country.

 

[circle-5]

It seems to me that the crux of the issue is that nuclear power is perceived to be dangerous. Well, obviously. But the question that should be relevant is whether or not it's more or less dangerous than using coal-fired power plants or natural gas burning plants or whatever. The numbers clearly say no. Failure to acknowledge that fact makes it a debate grounded not in fact but opinion. Which, in a scientific debate, is irrelevant.

Thirteen pages of posts can be replaced by these three lines of concentrated wisdom.

 

[Rickshaw]

What is best in life?

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

It seems to me that the crux of the issue is that nuclear power is perceived to be dangerous. Well, obviously. But the question that should be relevant is whether or not it's more or less dangerous than using coal-fired power plants or natural gas burning plants or whatever. The numbers clearly say no. Failure to acknowledge that fact makes it a debate grounded not in fact but opinion. Which, in a scientific debate, is irrelevant.

Is this a scientific debate or is it a debate about the "pros" and "cons" of Nuclear Power? Nuclear Power is not an issue that can be devolved purely to scientific matters IMO. It is something which is and remains largely subject to social and political views, as well as the scientific ones and in the end it will and always will be IMO the first two which are the deciding factors. Scientific views can inform and influence them but will not, despite what some here seem to believe, necessarily decide matters.

It is not purely an issue of numbers. It is also an issue of perceptions and of course, opinion. Nuclear Power may have a role to play in the future but we should not IMO ignore the dangers, real or perceived. Nor can one ignore the political views of people as some here desire to (perhaps they fear their own being challenged?). It is politicians, and despite the derision some heap upon them, who will make the decisions.

To believe otherwise is naive.

 

[SOC]

It is something which is and remains largely subject to social and political views... Scientific views can inform and influence them but will not, despite what some here seem to believe, necessarily decide matters.

You're right. That's the biggest problem or "con" with nuclear energy today. Compared to conventional fission, a fusion reactor like ITER being built right now is far safer and produces far less, if any (depending on the reaction) hazardous waste. Yet it's "nuclear", and to some anything "nuclear" has to be bad, because they said so, not because of any actual logical basis in reality.

Generally speaking the problem with fission itself isn't even one of safety or what to do with the waste products, it's one of a lack of education on the actual dangers involved that leads to the growth of illogical resistance.

So again, you're right, there are political and social elements to the issue. What's unsaid is that their presence, a result largely due to a lack of proper education on the matter, is unfortunate, and that we'd be far better off if it was handled as a scientific issue.

It is politicians...who will make the decisions.

And that can be counted as a "con" in far more issues than just this one.

What irritates me is when people try to make it an issue without being intellectually honest about it. If it's really human safety you want to argue, why is the campaign against something that admittedly kills far less people than coal-fired power and its effects? Why is that not the target? Anti-nuke activists who are anti-nuke "because of health" are as hilarious as anti-capitalist or anti-industry activists wearing Birkenstocks and listening to iPods. Their existence in both cases is a logical fallacy.

 

[Rickshaw]

It is something which is and remains largely subject to social and political views... Scientific views can inform and influence them but will not, despite what some here seem to believe, necessarily decide matters.

You're right. That's the biggest problem or "con" with nuclear energy today. Compared to conventional fission, a fusion reactor like ITER being built right now is far safer and produces far less, if any (depending on the reaction) hazardous waste. Yet it's "nuclear", and to some anything "nuclear" has to be bad, because they said so, not because of any actual logical basis in reality.

This is something I find so interesting. You, like many here dismiss the opinions of others because you believe the are formed from ignorance and only, if only these people would read and understand the science, they'd automatically accept you views on the matter. Well, despite what is claimed here, I have and do read quite extensively on nuclear matters because well, I like to be informed of the latest developments. That doesn't mean I necessarily automaticly support the use of Nuclear Power. Rather it has informed me of the reasons why I presently oppose it. Those reasons are not grounded in ignorance, any more than I assume others' are.

Generally speaking the problem with fission itself isn't even one of safety or what to do with the waste products, it's one of a lack of education on the actual dangers involved that leads to the growth of illogical resistance.

Yes, and no. It is also a consequence of knowing and understanding the history of the development of the Nuclear Power industry, as well the science that backs it. Up till now, the world has been remarkably lucky with the nuclear accidents that have occurred. However, as the PIRA once used to say to the Security Services in the UK, "You have to be lucky every time, we only have to be lucky once." In this case the "we" being nuclear accidents.

So again, you're right, there are political and social elements to the issue. What's unsaid is that their presence, a result largely due to a lack of proper education on the matter, is unfortunate, and that we'd be far better off if it was handled as a scientific issue.

Here we must disagree. It will never be handled on a purely scientific basis and for good reason IMO. Scientists are as human as everybody else, they will be swayed by factors other than science, just as much as everybody else, despite what seems to be believed here. Indeed is that not what is claimed by The Global Warming critics about scientists who have made statements warning of the dangers of Global Warming?

It is politicians...who will make the decisions.

And that can be counted as a "con" in far more issues than just this one.

I think that is rather a broad statement. I know the American experience of politicians is very different to that of most other nations but please consider that those other nations' citizens may have a different view. I also believe it is largely dependent on the politician in question. Some I do trust, some I don't. Some, like those who outright deny Global Warming as my nation's present Prime Minister does, I wouldn't trust with two bob tied in the corner of his hanky. The point being that if you demand that we trust science, you can't pick and choose which bits should be listened to.

What irritates me is when people try to make it an issue without being intellectually honest about it. If it's really human safety you want to argue, why is the campaign against something that admittedly kills far less people than coal-fired power and its effects? Why is that not the target? Anti-nuke activists who are anti-nuke "because of health" are as hilarious as anti-capitalist or anti-industry activists wearing Birkenstocks and listening to iPods. Their existence in both cases is a logical fallacy.

Intellectual elitism? You know the science so therefore you believe your views should be paramount over those that don't? Sorry, I believe the electorate is a great deal more savvy than you appear to be giving them credit for. They invariably can sus out a bullshitter when they hear one. They may not know all the particulars of the science but they do know from recent events Nuclear is not quite as safe as has been portrayed by it's proponents.

There are safer reactor designs, I understand. The problem is, they are in the future. It is the present, existing, older designs we must deal with because neither Government nor Big Business is prepared to invest in replacing them - RIGHT NOW. It is the disposal of the Nuclear Waste which presents a problem - RIGHT NOW. It is the corruption and malfeasance which presents a problem - RIGHT NOW. Get the drift?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Nor can one ignore the political views of people as some here desire to (perhaps they fear their own being challenged?).

Child please. :

Its not that it all, my problem is talking about politics in a very broad generalized manner that has little to do with the subject at hand, even worse your editorialized opinion and interpretation of broad politics that already had nothing to do with the subject at hand.

If we want to talk politics then lets use things like political debate about the building, maintaining, and shutting down of actual nuclear plants rather than throwing poo at the wall to see what sticks. You know, try and keep it on subject for a change? here is a hint about that. When you are trying to prove nuclear power is bad/good by saying that government or private industry are not trustworthy and you find yourself debating about an airline safety record you may have last track of the task at hand in there somewhere.

For some reason when we talk about something like the TSR2 we can talk politics and yet it almost always stays aircraft related and within the subject and never devolves into socio-economic debate about capitalism and its secondary and tritary effects and the "IMO"s therein. And then using the production of tea in china to prove that collectivism would have saved the TSR2, because "look at all the teabags."

I'm all for talking politics, but lets actually keep it nuclear based. leave the soap boxes and editorials elsewhere, and when called out on that playing the victim and posting about people being "afraid" or some such nonsense. Go blog about it, take it elsewhere, leave this thread out of it.


So just to review:

talking about the influence of politics on nuclear power = good. Talking broad politics= bad. Sharing your opinion on those broad politics= even worse. Trying to connect those broad politics to nuclear power using other examples = completely wasteful.

Up till now, the world has been remarkably lucky with the nuclear accidents that have occurred.

Yes, its all luck and has nothing to do with forethought, and intelligent planning and design and built in safety features and contingency plans. Ask me how I "lucked" into my Masters degree. Or how I "lucked" into my latest promotion at work.

Given all the doom and gloom predictions about nuclear power, it must be the luckiest thing ever devised by man.

Well, despite what is claimed here, I have and do read quite extensively on nuclear matters

just skipped over the parts about half life, how plants don't automatically produce weapons grade material , and had no inkling of government regulatory groups already in existence for years. "Extensively" ? Who and what are you studying?

There are safer reactor designs, I understand. The problem is, they are in the future.

You mean "luckier" right? Its all luck anyway. define "safer?" after decades of use in multiple countries and even warships the safety record is outstanding in comparison to fossil fuels.

It is the present, existing, older designs we must deal with because neither Government nor Big Business is prepared to invest in replacing them - RIGHT NOW. It is the disposal of the Nuclear Waste which presents a problem - RIGHT NOW. It is the corruption and malfeasance which presents a problem - RIGHT NOW. Get the drift?

How are fossil fuels doing --RIGHT NOW? and should we discontinue their use immediately until a more optimal and safer solution presents itself in the future? secondly, how will that more optimal source ever present itself if we wait until perfection of not just the science, but also the end of human corruption and malfeasance?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Up till now, the world has been remarkably lucky with the nuclear accidents that have occurred.

Up till now, *dozens* of people have died from nuclear accidents. Up till now, *millions* have died from not just accidents with coal and petroleum, but from the normal combustion byproducts. How many are dying, or at least dying sooner, just in Shanghai from the coal smog? How many homes burn to the ground due to screwups with the fireplace?

There is a place for worrying about the hypothetical... but when the *reality* of the alternative is hugely worse, maybe the hypothetical isn't what should concern you most.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Up till now, the world has been remarkably lucky with the nuclear accidents that have occurred.

Up till now, *dozens* of people have died from nuclear accidents. Up till now, *millions* have died from not just accidents with coal and petroleum, but from the normal combustion byproducts. How many are dying, or at least dying sooner, just in Shanghai from the coal smog? How many homes burn to the ground due to screwups with the fireplace?

Its only killing the unlucky millions.

We're just lucky it hasn't killed in the Billions, OBB. Very Lucky. Could you imagine if Fossil Fuels went horribly wrong?

What if Fossil Fuels caused wars? or funded and propped up corrupt regimes? Thank god that sort of human corruption only happens with Nuclear.

There is a place for worrying about the hypothetical... but when the *reality* of the alternative is hugely worse, maybe the hypothetical isn't what should concern you most.

No, no, no. we are like the abused wife who's husband beats her daily and will one day beat her death but we take it, because doing something different could theoretically be worse. Even though leaving the bastard would put an immediate halt to all the beatings the next guy could beat you even worse! So its the devil you know even when you can see how the end goes. I'm sure we will leave him one day, when Mr. perfect randomly strolls through the door of course, no initiative or risk need be put on our little shoulders. Luck is a course of action. We just need to Luck harder.

 

[SOC]

This is something I find so interesting. You, like many here dismiss the opinions of others because you believe the are formed from ignorance and only, if only these people would read and understand the science, they'd automatically accept you views on the matter.

Incorrect. I could care less what people's opinions actually are, because they're opinions, and by definition not necessarily anything related to actual fact. My issue is the problem in society that facts are all too often incapable of changing minds. Opinions? Totally, utterly useless if they contradict the actual facts. If people only heeded factual evidence we'd have far fewer problems around here, and one more Worl...heh.

Yes, and no. It is also a consequence of knowing and understanding the history of the development of the Nuclear Power industry, as well the science that backs it. Up till now, the world has been remarkably lucky with the nuclear accidents that have occurred. However, as the PIRA once used to say to the Security Services in the UK, "You have to be lucky every time, we only have to be lucky once." In this case the "we" being nuclear accidents.

-The worst nuclear accident, Chernobyl, has apparently only actually resulted in 60-some fatalities.

-The "China Syndrome" is actually impossible.

-Reactors cannot spontaneously detonate. Or spontaneously melt down, unless you're a complete idiot and deactivate the cooling rods.

-Containment vessels are designed to withstand the buildup of gases produced in the case of a core problem and do not actually blow up when designed by people who work inside a system with actual quality control.

-You can detonate large amounts of explosives next to a reactor containment dome and it will laugh at you; this has been tested.

Where's the luck? I'd say the only intervention of luck into the process has been Fukushima, which was decidedly UNlucky in that it was hit by a freak tsunami. I bet an asteroid might be able to cause some serious damage. Should they be stopped due to the dangers of asteroid impact as well?

You do realize that you don't pick up a nuclear reactor, put fins on it, and call it a nuclear bomb, right? One of the more significant nuclear material incidents I can think of happened in 1960 and involved the release of a bunch of plutonium into the groundwater in New Jersey. That was the result of a warhead getting torn to bits when the SAM it sat inside blew up. As in totally unrelated to anything nuclear power related.

-Oh, and if we're going by the history, then apparently nuclear energy is perfectly fine for anyone to use unless they're a socialist/communist.

Here we must disagree. It will never be handled on a purely scientific basis and for good reason IMO. Scientists are as human as everybody else, they will be swayed by factors other than science, just as much as everybody else, despite what seems to be believed here. Indeed is that not what is claimed by The Global Warming critics about scientists who have made statements warning of the dangers of Global Warming?

If nuclear energy or global warming were handled on a purely scientific basis we'd be far better off, because by definition you'd be cutting out the influence from non-scientific sources such as the oil lobby. Global warming itself is a whole different debate, and is about as asinine.

I think that is rather a broad statement. I know the American experience of politicians is very different to that of most other nations but please consider that those other nations' citizens may have a different view. I also believe it is largely dependent on the politician in question. Some I do trust, some I don't. Some, like those who outright deny Global Warming as my nation's present Prime Minister does, I wouldn't trust with two bob tied in the corner of his hanky. The point being that if you demand that we trust science, you can't pick and choose which bits should be listened to.

No, the problem is you need to trust science, not politics. Although it sounds like your PM is at least not falling for the standard environmentalist BS, good for him.

Intellectual elitism? You know the science so therefore you believe your views should be paramount over those that don't?

Yes. This is no different than you hiring a lawyer when you need legal help, because he actually knows the law.

Sorry, I believe the electorate is a great deal more savvy than you appear to be giving them credit for.

The intelligence of the electorate is laughable. Congress will get a 25% approval rating, yet the electorate will manage to vote to retain 80% of the legislature. That is not the sign of an intelligent population.

They invariably can sus out a bullshitter when they hear one.

I'll believe that when they start asking where the million jobs are.

They may not know all the particulars of the science but they do know from recent events Nuclear is not quite as safe as has been portrayed by it's proponents.

And that viewpoint is not grounded in scientific fact. Hence the problem. And again, the whole argument is laughable as it's being couched in the form of "it's not safe". Well, coal-fired power is proven to be less safe. More people die as a result. There are definite ecological and environmental issues with it. It's also used a great deal more. Arguing against that would make a much larger impact. Why is nuclear power less palatable when it's proven to be the lesser of the two "evils"?

Here's another one. Nuclear power plants on land are much the same as those at sea, only bigger. Navy ships appear to not be going radioactive all the time. The only way to really screw that up is once again to be a socialist/communist and dump all of your used reactors into the open ocean. There's safe use, and then there's just being a dumbass.

There are safer reactor designs, I understand. The problem is, they are in the future. It is the present, existing, older designs we must deal with because neither Government nor Big Business is prepared to invest in replacing them - RIGHT NOW. It is the disposal of the Nuclear Waste which presents a problem - RIGHT NOW. It is the corruption and malfeasance which presents a problem - RIGHT NOW. Get the drift?

Nuclear waste disposal isn't a problem. It's got solutions that the government is not willing to utilize. Also, capitalism does not always equal corruption or malfeasance, either. How dare they profit and not give away everything they worked to make. Although that reminds me, you're right, our government isn't totally useless. It's cutting Snap something like $30 a head.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Well, despite what is claimed here, I have and do read quite extensively on nuclear matters

Yes, and no. It is also a consequence of knowing and understanding the history of the development of the Nuclear Power industry, as well the science that backs it. Up till now, the world has been remarkably lucky with the nuclear accidents that have occurred. However, as the PIRA once used to say to the Security Services in the UK, "You have to be lucky every time, we only have to be lucky once." In this case the "we" being nuclear accidents.

-The worst nuclear accident, Chernobyl, has apparently only actually resulted in 60-some fatalities.

-The "China Syndrome" is actually impossible.

-Reactors cannot spontaneously detonate. Or spontaneously melt down, unless you're a complete idiot and deactivate the cooling rods.

-Containment vessels are designed to withstand the buildup of gases produced in the case of a core problem and do not actually blow up when designed by people who work inside a system with actual quality control.

-You can detonate large amounts of explosives next to a reactor containment dome and it will laugh at you; this has been tested.

Where's the luck? I'd say the only intervention of luck into the process has been Fukushima, which was decidedly UNlucky in that it was hit by a freak tsunami. I bet an asteroid might be able to cause some serious damage. Should they be stopped due to the dangers of asteroid impact as well?

You do realize that you don't pick up a nuclear reactor, put fins on it, and call it a nuclear bomb, right? One of the more significant nuclear material incidents I can think of happened in 1960 and involved the release of a bunch of plutonium into the groundwater in New Jersey. That was the result of a warhead getting torn to bits when the SAM it sat inside blew up. As in totally unrelated to anything nuclear power related.

-Oh, and if we're going by the history, then apparently nuclear energy is perfectly fine for anyone to use unless they're a socialist/communist.

They invariably can sus out a bullshitter when they hear one.

Extensively.

 

[Rickshaw]

This is something I find so interesting. You, like many here dismiss the opinions of others because you believe the are formed from ignorance and only, if only these people would read and understand the science, they'd automatically accept you views on the matter.

Incorrect. I could care less what people's opinions actually are, because they're opinions, and by definition not necessarily anything related to actual fact. My issue is the problem in society that facts are all too often incapable of changing minds. Opinions? Totally, utterly useless if they contradict the actual facts. If people only heeded factual evidence we'd have far fewer problems around here, and one more Worl...heh.

I don't think I'd like to live in a coldly rational world. Ever read "Brave New World" by Huxley?

Yes, and no. It is also a consequence of knowing and understanding the history of the development of the Nuclear Power industry, as well the science that backs it. Up till now, the world has been remarkably lucky with the nuclear accidents that have occurred. However, as the PIRA once used to say to the Security Services in the UK, "You have to be lucky every time, we only have to be lucky once." In this case the "we" being nuclear accidents.

-The worst nuclear accident, Chernobyl, has apparently only actually resulted in 60-some fatalities.

-The "China Syndrome" is actually impossible.

-Reactors cannot spontaneously detonate. Or spontaneously melt down, unless you're a complete idiot and deactivate the cooling rods.

-Containment vessels are designed to withstand the buildup of gases produced in the case of a core problem and do not actually blow up when designed by people who work inside a system with actual quality control.

-You can detonate large amounts of explosives next to a reactor containment dome and it will laugh at you; this has been tested.

Describe a well-designed, well-maintained nuclear reactor. However, as we have seen, most of the meltdowns and near meltdowns occurred in older, less well-designed and less well-maintained reactors. Which is why I listed this as a "con".

Where's the luck? I'd say the only intervention of luck into the process has been Fukushima, which was decidedly UNlucky in that it was hit by a freak tsunami. I bet an asteroid might be able to cause some serious damage. Should they be stopped due to the dangers of asteroid impact as well?

This page contains a list of civilian nuclear accidents many of which often because of what could be best described as mere luck did not become much worse than they were.] many of which often because of what could be best described as mere luck did not become much worse than they were.

You do realize that you don't pick up a nuclear reactor, put fins on it, and call it a nuclear bomb, right? One of the more significant nuclear material incidents I can think of happened in 1960 and involved the release of a bunch of plutonium into the groundwater in New Jersey. That was the result of a warhead getting torn to bits when the SAM it sat inside blew up. As in totally unrelated to anything nuclear power related.

-Oh, and if we're going by the history, then apparently nuclear energy is perfectly fine for anyone to use unless they're a socialist/communist.

Really? That page I linked to up above lists far more serious accidents than you seem aware of.

Here we must disagree. It will never be handled on a purely scientific basis and for good reason IMO. Scientists are as human as everybody else, they will be swayed by factors other than science, just as much as everybody else, despite what seems to be believed here. Indeed is that not what is claimed by The Global Warming critics about scientists who have made statements warning of the dangers of Global Warming? If nuclear energy or global warming were handled on a purely scientific basis we'd be far better off, because by definition you'd be cutting out the influence from non-scientific sources such as the oil lobby. Global warming itself is a whole different debate, and is about as asinine.]

If nuclear energy or global warming were handled on a purely scientific basis we'd be far better off, because by definition you'd be cutting out the influence from non-scientific sources such as the oil lobby. Global warming itself is a whole different debate, and is about as asinine.

Well, here we must disagree again. Perhaps however, we should take that point to a different thread. As ~97% of surveyed climatologists believe Global Warming is real, then I rather think you're on shaky ground there.

However, leaving that aside, as you've admitted, handling matters on a purely scientific basis isn't going to happen so it would be better, would it not, to deal with how they are actually handled?

Well, here we must disagree again. Perhaps however, we should take that point to a different thread. As ~97% of surveyed climatologists believe Global Warming is real, then I rather think you're on shaky ground there.

However, leaving that aside, as you've admitted, handling matters on a purely scientific basis isn't going to happen so it would be better, would it not, to deal with how they are actually handled?

I think that is rather a broad statement. I know the American experience of politicians is very different to that of most other nations but please consider that those other nations' citizens may have a different view. I also believe it is largely dependent on the politician in question. Some I do trust, some I don't. Some, like those who outright deny Global Warming as my nation's present Prime Minister does, I wouldn't trust with two bob tied in the corner of his hanky. The point being that if you demand that we trust science, you can't pick and choose which bits should be listened to.

No, the problem is you need to trust science, not politics. Although it sounds like your PM is at least not falling for the standard environmentalist BS, good for him.

Science as an entity or science as a means of describing reality?

You and I, I suspect, disagree over how much Climatology can be trusted. Does that mean you're not acting rationally in that field?

Intellectual elitism? You know the science so therefore you believe your views should be paramount over those that don't?

Yes. This is no different than you hiring a lawyer when you need legal help, because he actually knows the law.]

There are good and bad lawyers. There are good and bad scientists. How does one tell the difference?

Sorry, I believe the electorate is a great deal more savvy than you appear to be giving them credit for.]

The intelligence of the electorate is laughable. Congress will get a 25% approval rating, yet the electorate will manage to vote to retain 80% of the legislature. That is not the sign of an intelligent population.]

Well, considering your system has voluntary voting, how can you claim the actual electors are representational of the entire electorate? There is an old saying, "we get the Government we deserve". Very true at the moment downunder, I can assure you! I wonder if the same could be said for your Legislature?

They invariably can sus out a bullshitter when they hear one.

I'll believe that when they start asking where the million jobs are.

Perhaps it's simply another example of American exceptionalism. We've just see a very good, albeit perhaps politically dysfunctional government thrown out. The voters got fed up with it's political infighting and showed them the door in no uncertain terms.

Hence the problem. And again, the whole argument is laughable as it's being couched in the form of "it's not safe". Well, coal-fired power is proven to be less safe. More people die as a result. There are definite ecological and environmental issues with it. It's also used a great deal more. Arguing against that would make a much larger impact. Why is nuclear power less palatable when it's proven to be the lesser of the two "evils"?]
Hence the problem. And again, the whole argument is laughable as it's being couched in the form of "it's not safe". Well, coal-fired power is proven to be less safe. More people die as a result. There are definite ecological and environmental issues with it. It's also used a great deal more. Arguing against that would make a much larger impact. Why is nuclear power less palatable when it's proven to be the lesser of the two "evils"?

I will not go into bat for fossil fuelled power stations. However, their risks are known and understood. Nuclear power stations' aren't. At the moment we have the largest city in Japan poised to be evacuated if Tipco stuffs up again at Fukashima. You wouldn't have that with an accident at a conventional or alternative power plant, now would you?

Here's another one. Nuclear power plants on land are much the same as those at sea, only bigger. Navy ships appear to not be going radioactive all the time. The only way to really screw that up is once again to be a socialist/communist and dump all of your used reactors into the open ocean. There's safe use, and then there's just being a dumbass.

Navy reactors are routinely maintained and replaced with newer, more efficient and safer designed ones on a regular basis. The large, Nuclear Power Plants on land aren't. Which returns to that "con" of mine...

There are safer reactor designs, I understand. The problem is, they are in the future. It is the present, existing, older designs we must deal with because neither Government nor Big Business is prepared to invest in replacing them - RIGHT NOW. It is the disposal of the Nuclear Waste which presents a problem - RIGHT NOW. It is the corruption and malfeasance which presents a problem - RIGHT NOW. Get the drift?]There are safer reactor designs, I understand. The problem is, they are in the future. It is the present, existing, older designs we must deal with because neither Government nor Big Business is prepared to invest in replacing them - RIGHT NOW. It is the disposal of the Nuclear Waste which presents a problem - RIGHT NOW. It is the corruption and malfeasance which presents a problem - RIGHT NOW. Get the drift?

Nuclear waste disposal isn't a problem. It's got solutions that the government is not willing to utilize. Also, capitalism does not always equal corruption or malfeasance, either. How dare they profit and not give away everything they worked to make. Although that reminds me, you're right, our government isn't totally useless. It's cutting Snap something like $30 a head.]

I won't bother with the issue of what capitalism equal. My viewpoint is well known and I've no desire go down that path again because I fear such a philosophical discussion is upsetting to some here.

With Nuclear Waste, the main issue is it's longevity and the difficulties with storing and protecting it for such long periods of time. Disposal of waste has a poor history, with numerous leaks, damage to ground waters, surface water, etc. You mentioned one yourself, the safe disposal of naval reactors in the fUSSR. Yet the US's record on waste management hasn't been exactly exemplary either.

[edited to fix the formating, not sure what went wrong there...]

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

As ~97% of surveyed climatologists believe Global Warming is real, then I rather think you're on shaky ground there.

What do the 97 percent say about the cause of global warming?