Originally Posted by das_nut
Well, when you use terawatts/hour, it's a unit of consumption.
Yes, that's established. Again, do not ignore the point at hand, I was simply stating that the information I was waiting for you to provide was in regards to deaths and energy production. Obviously since the nuclear industry is subsidized and alternate energies are stomped on then we get a bigger industry with better equipment resulting in skewed data. Again if other forms of energy were given fair treatment the numbers would vastly change. Realistically the deaths since Three Mile Island we've had have been TMI, Chernobyl, and three units at Fukushima that have melted down. So six in the last 35 years, the chance of a meltdown is one meltdown every 6 years. 6 out of 400 is about 1.5%... with that percentage of failure applied to something like airplane travel we would have airplanes dropping from the sky every day. But the real kicker is an airplane crash the disaster is localized and apparent whereas a nuclear reactor is on a global scale and very difficult to track (invisible energy that causes many symptoms of illness which could be attributed to other things). So where's the reasoning behind proclaiming an airplane crash where a couple hundred people die as a tragedy broadcast all over the news with moments of silence for the people... yet when Fukushima goes up in flames where potentially a million people will be dying from the tragic event we see headlines saying 'radiation is good for you!' and 'Fukushima is under control (again and again under control)' or 'nothing to see here, forget everything you heard about Fukushima'.
In short: Nuke apologists are seriously whack.
Originally Posted by das_nut
Sure you can. Chernobyl lacked a containment structure, Fukushima required active-cooling in the event of a SCRAM. Not all nuclear reactors lack these two safeguards. There are nuclear reactor designs that have excellent safety records. Then there are those with bad safety records.
Yeah, Chernobyl lacked wind turbines for all their energy production. And Fukushima should have been using hydroelectric generators. Then all those tragedies would have been avoided.
Hindsight is 20/20.
The reactor cores, even if all went into the ocean, are a tiny, tiny fraction of the volume of the Pacific ocean. Wikipedia states the volume of the Pacific is 622 million cubic km^3. That's a lot of water.
Meh, I've seen more water.
Once it gets dispersed in the Pacific, it's more or less meaningless. Thus the danger exists more or less near the coast of Japan, and not to people on the other side of the Pacific.
Please provide evidence of dissipation of radioactive fallout in ocean waters gradually spread out and becomes "meaningless".
That's quite a lofty claim, especially in the face of the amount of fallout coming from Fukushima. If you happen to 'forget' to provide this evidence I'll be sure to remind you, if unsatisfied I'll just disregard the claim.
I happened to read a memo from the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission stating: "dissipation of radioactive fall-out in ocean waters is not a gradual spreading out of the activity from the region with the highest concentration to uncontaminated regions, but that in all probability the process results in scattered pockets and streams of higher radioactive materials in the Pacific."
Meanwhile the information you're holding onto at this point in the conversation was due to a frantic grab of some off-topic information from a completely different source and then you worked some middle school math magic to justify that the amount of one particular isotope in one specific spot in the entire world at a particular time had (surprise) about the the amount of cesium we'd expect to see.
Nevermind overlooking the risks in eating transport of radionuclides In pelagic species - no, now the conversation is to focus on an area of ocean that has yet to be contaminated in excessive amounts of one and only one particular isotope; this is exactly what we should be doing if we are to evaluate health risk conditions?
Oh yeah, and only because Americans matter to you we won't look at the health risk of people outside of that area.
Your pattern of "give me proof" and then ignoring it or dismissing it on flimsy grounds is apparent and tiresome: I already provided plenty of sources for studies showing the affects of Fukushima on the American people all while you run away from addressing the real concerns of the Japanese people.
If this is the type of logic you want to use then I guess we'd better refresh your ethnocentric American memory:
If you weren't concerned about Americans' safety, why did you even bring it up in the first place? Remember, it was you who mentioned the effect on America first.
Don't blame your apathy on non-Americans on me.
So if I mentioned America first and I keep reminding you about the rest of the world then I'm obviously empathetic towards all of humanity, not just having an ethnocentric selfish mindset. Cool.
But blaming me for your shortcomings isn't making a good case for you. The more you avoid the major health problems of the Japanese people the less your argument holds ground and the more insensitive you'll look.
My suggestion is to cut your losses and give your sympathies to the entire people of the world, to refuse to do so in some kind of self-glorifying goal of stubbornly holding onto an insensitive argument is both seriously disrespectful to those of us who have loved ones suffering from the effects of nuclear radiation.
Since we're talking about the Japanese, why not point out that most of the expected deaths would be from the evacuation, and even the combined death toll from Fukushima is dwarfed by the non-nuclear death toll from the earthquake/tsunami.
Because that's just a simple attempt at a petty distraction. The thread is about nuclear power, not about laying blame on the ocean and earth. A tsunami could have hit a solar energy plant and we would not see the same tragedy as compared to the Fukushima Daiichi plant disaster. That's why.
However, you were called out on your short-sighted opinion praising nuclear power during a time of the worst nuclear power disaster in history.
Actually, mine is the long-sighted view. The short-sighted view would be to panic and have a knee-jerk reaction towards nuclear. Which your actions are consistent with.
No, praising nuclear power during a time of a nuclear crises is about as short-sighted as you can get.
I've held my opinion of nuclear power for YEARS before the fukushima disaster, I'm sure there's a few of my posts about it even here on these boards and on other online forums decrying the stupidity of the whole industry. Far cry from "knee-jerk reaction".
After losing a friend to Chernobyl's event as well as another person who grew up near TMI at the time of meltdown getting brain cancer and MS, I'm far beyond a knee-jerk reaction for Fukushima - at this point I have a lot of friends who are in Japan right now and I do not need anymore nuclear-related tragedies in my life, especially when I am living in the area that is going to see the most fallout from Fukushima. Maybe I can squeeze a small amount of sympathy out of you when I post here with the information that I've developed thyroid cancer, doubtful considering your words regarding the Japanese people already.
Take off the rose-tinted glasses from inside the internet and look at how people are suffering in the real world. The nuke industry needs to be phased out ASAP, we've got the alternatives (see Germany) and we've got the resources, we just need to change our attitude from apologizing for the nuke suits and do something about it (see Japan's massive protests).
should lead you to the paper. If you are still having computer problems, then try this link
Thank you, that link actually works.
I'll spend some time reading it later in the evening and get back to you on it. Just glancing over it I am simply puzzled how they can make a claim that Chernobyl was worse of a disaster with their reasoning being complete conjecture, although at the time of writing I don't think they were being given accurate data and would be having a difficult time making proper estimates which is why a more recent estimate I saw had about 1,000,000 cancer related deaths compared to their ~130 to 600.
I care more about the actual science instead of cherry picking sources to prove my point.
Apparently not considering the amount of times you keep saying "cherry picking". Go back and count.
And I'm just pointing out that most people would consider a website that posts about government conspiracies and the benefits of "earthing" is not credible.
You don't think governments conspire?
I think most of the problems with government is all the people who have to conspire together to pass bills and go through all the red tape in Washington. But if you don't think it happens maybe you'd like to take a tour of any state/federal building sometime and see for yourself.
I'm not sure what earthing is, and I don't think it's really a point of interest in this conversation.
Again, I did not provide the link to naturalnews, but I still think it's a more credible site than the information I see posted on online forums and mainstream media (not like I give those sources much credibility though). So your ad hominem attack has not only failed, but failed for being an ad hominem, but failed for multiple reasons.
"Natural News > opinions on forums > sweaty donkey balls >>>> mainstream news > Nuclear Meltdowns"
Actually, pointing out that "Natural News" is not a credible source is not an ad hominem attack.
Once again you're correct for all the wrong reasons.
It's a Straw Figure Fallacy.
The ad hominem comes from associating my character with the Straw Figure.
Trying to discredit me by associating me with Natural News and then using rhetoric to discredit that site does not do anything more than give your ego an illusion of "winning" the argument at the same time signaling to me you surrender the argument at hand. To which I have already accepted the surrender.
Once again, pointing out the severe environmental effects of hydroelectric and its effects on the ecosystem and greenhouse gases is not an ad hominem attack.
And once again, correct for all the wrong reasons. That was not referring to the ad hominem.
This is why I quote you.
Here is the quote again since you ignored it or outright were blind to it:
How do you even dare to post about what forms of energy are best when you clearly don't know the horrible environmental consequences of the forms of energy you advocate?
Just saying "you don't know" is attacking the person, not the argument.
Once again you hit a dead end, either back-peddle and get back on track or stubbornly sit there shaking your argumentative fist by yourself.
I think you should recall our earlier conversation how I don't give a crap about "global warming"; the whole greenhouse gas scare is not a concern for me compared to 600 years of radioactive wasteland (or thousands of years for other isotopes). If CO2 scares you so much I'd suggest having a nice lush forest around the dams, because plants love that greenhouse gas. Oh, what's around the hydroelectric plants near me? Forests. Works great for us. The global warming scare kind of blinds other people and keeps them from enjoying vast amounts of energy (which we end up selling to coal factories and other states because they can't produce enough energy), if only those poor people of Ukraine and Japan who were so concerned over global warming had a lush forest surrounding hydroelectric stations.
Are you ignoring it because you want to "win" an argument on the web?
Or do you not know?
Another slight = another flaw in your argument.
Taking jabs at me winning arguments just casts your words into a weaker level of argument.
Likewise, your false dichotomy is a clear signal that you want to limit my options to ensnare me in a simple trap of a catch-22. If I take the first option I am ignorant. If I take the second option I simply do not know.
Tricks like these may work on simpletons you're used to arguing with, but clearly your previous attempts at such ruses have all fell flat and your persistent use of such tactics render your argument a complete and embarrassing failure.
Wanting to win an argument means wanting the best possible evidence supporting the strongest foundational premises and a solid and compelling conclusion.
Compare my strategy of wanting to win with your strategy of ad hominems, trickery, and underhandedness and you'll clearly see why I choose the option of winning any arguments I enter into.