Nuclear power - Page 11

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/17/researchers-estimate-130-might-die-from-fukushima-related-cancers/?hpt=hp_bn12

Comments?

---

I don't know if nuclear power is the cleanest energy we know, I'd have to see more information and what people mean by 'cleanest.'

Picking standards about what happens when something goes wrong as a measure of cleanliness is arbitrary. If you want to make a comparison, compare the so called 'cradle to grave' impacts and define your terms. What's the impact for all forms of energy production from mining, processing/refining, construction, and distribution?

What's your measure for cleanliness? Human impacts, environmental impacts, what?

Where do you come up with this "nuke plants that hide nuclear waste in peoples' back yards" too?

 

It's actually a hell of a problem if you look at it, and it depends on how you define it.

 

For example, if natural gas electrical power plants are used to compensate for the unpredictable supply of electricity from wind or solar, do we count that towards the "uncleanliness" of wind and solar?  If we need to clear a forest for wind, solar, or hydro, does that count?  What about the methane emissions from artificial lakes needed for most hydro installations?  What about the lower power densities of solar or wind installations - and thus the increased land use.  Does that count towards being unclean as well?

 

There's also a problem that there's not just one form of electrical plant - some are designed for continuous power, some are designed for variable power output to keep up with fluctuations during the day.  If that continues to be the method we use because of technological limitations, it may be that different power plant types result in different methods being considered the cleanest for each role.

 

As for the article you posted, it has some research problems - the article claims that no deaths are reported due to the Fukushima accident, but several workers did die following the earthquake and tsunami.  (None died due to radiation.)  The predicted death toll from Fukushima seems to be right within an order of magnitude with the data we have.  I suspect there's still some whitewashing by Tepco, and I'd double the predicted number of deaths from that study just to be on the safe side when it comes to risk-assessment.  On the other hand, the linear-no-threshold model probably being used in the study is remarkably conservative and probably overstates the deaths.

 

Also I'll predict that some anti-nuclear group will release their own study showing a far higher number of predicted or actual deaths.  That seems to have been the case with the Chernobyl disaster.

Thinking about it, I would also want to add that having a monoculture of electrical generation is probably a very bad idea.  Diversity using some of the cleanest energy sources should be more fault-tolerant than a single, "uber-cleanest" energy source, especially when it comes to energy sources that rely on the weather for power generation.

I agree completely.

Agreed, and that's only just getting into the complications.

To be fair, t0mmy didn't start with the 'cleanest energy' statement. I quoted his, more because of his overly simplistic notion of what happens when something goes wrong (as if that is the only issue concerning 'cleanest').

My biggest issue with energy sourcing has been mostly with the mentality of simply looking to consume more. I'd rather see wiser energy use (which, again, gets complicated quickly). If only, we as humans, were as smart as so many claim we are, we'd change building and living practices to take into account regional/local climate conditions, locally available materials, etc. Improve building practices to take into account solar impacts. Also to improve our mental state to move away from the wall outlets (as well as the air, the water, the soil, etc) as being a simply one vast resource just waiting to be used by humans.

So my biggest issue with nuclear has been the idea of one more vast resource waiting to be tapped.

Realistically looking at the situation, humans consume and seem to be consuming more energy every year. We need to be realistic and find options that are best suited to the task, both in reducing risks, minimizing impacts on ourselves and the environment. At this time, I think nuclear energy has to be part of that equation. To fear monger or dismiss it while asking for pipe dreams seems to be asking for the status quo. That status quo is fossil fuels.

Yeah, such is the reporting nature of media. I didn't post it because I agree or disagree. Simply to see what people see and take away from it.

 

While I think we should aim for more energy-efficiency, especially in several specific areas, at the same time I think we should be aiming to increase our electrical generation capacity.  At this point, electric vehicles seem to be the only proven alternative to fossil-fuel vehicles that is acceptable to the public.  Electric heat pumps seems to be the only proven non-fossil-fuel heat source that is acceptable to the public.  And electric water heaters, while inefficient, can be a lower source of CO2 emissions than their fossil-fuel alternatives.

 

So moar electric.  Less petroleum.  Less natural gas.  Less coal.

 

There are some pretty amazing things that have been done in the name of efficiency.  The whole "passivhaus" movement is awesome.  But it's far from being mainstream, and even if it becomes mainstream, we're still going to have plenty of older structures still around.

I have no problem with that, so long as there is a larger decrease (in energy equivalent terms) in fossil fuel use.

Although energy-efficiency is only an aspect of wiser energy use. I think humans have some bad habits in terms of consumption.

Quote:

 

 

 

That's one of the reasons I'd like to see energy use go up.  Lets get cheap, plentiful energy in order to make more resource-efficient processes economically practical.

I'm not sure I follow. Cheap energy makes resource efficient processes economically practical?

 

Quick example:  Using reverse osmosis to distill freshwater from seawater for cities and farms near the coast, instead of diverting rivers and pumping aquifers for freshwater needs.  Takes more energy, but far more efficient on resources.  (Seawater is plentiful, while for some areas, freshwater is not - just look at how the Colorado river has been overused to irrigate such areas as the Imperial valley.)

reverse osmosis is expensive. really expensive for the gallons purified.

 salt can be removed much cheaper.

 for every gallon of RO water you store, you waste, or return 3 gallons of feed water. that adds up, and, what is returned is not going to be ecologically sound.

 

Isn't the "inefficiency" of the feed water what makes it more likely to be sound?

 

If it takes 4 gallons of salt water to make 1 gallon of fresh water, that means the "waste" three gallons only have their salinity upped by a third.

 

Obviously you could cut the waste water with more salt water to reduce the salinity (and in practice, that may be necessary), but ideally, when extracting fresh water from salt, you don't want to raise the salinity too high, or have a pile of salt that needs to be disposed of.

 

By the way, what method (that can be used for mass production) is cheaper?  Looking at the mass-production methods, it seems that vacuum distillation or reverse osmosis are the main methods, and reverse osmosis is supposed to use less energy, at least according to the wiki.

 

Isn't this where you would tell me "Cite your sources"

 

 

Aside from citing sources, the interpretation is key here. Without a source to look at I'm left assuming the source of information is in regards to every day joes installing panels on their roof using their old wooden ladder from their sheds compared to multibillion dollar equipment in the nuclear field. And I'm going to assume it will be based on TWh/year; seeing that the nuclear reactors that have had so much money poured into them will have considerable more energy output then the suffocated alternative energy fields one death by industrial accident will seem next to nothing compared to one guy falling off his roof in such a small field of the nearly non-existent solar industry.

 

As a side note, a superior form of solar power would be the Coolearth concentrated solar power system which would be installed on the ground or wires over a ground installation. If the only deaths are from people falling off roofs then a simple and inexpensive solution to correct it would eliminate nearly all injury. Heck, even the newer solar balloon methods remove any risk of falls AND significantly reduces the cost of solar energy from the current price of around $4 per watt of installed capacity to (levels where it would compete directly with fossil fuel-based energy sources).

With this information, your sources really aren't needed as deaths from everday joe on his rickety ladder vs overly funded nuclear equipment would be a moot point anyway.

 

 

 

Trying to pretend I'm a fearmonger isn't making your argument any stronger. In fact it lost it long ago.

You can't stick by your middle school math to back up your argument and then admit that the sources show America will be affected by the oceanic radiation ten fold that of the Japanese. Yes, 1+1=2 and the ocean currents are sweeping the radioactive hazards right over to America like you asked to be shown proof of.

Now that your nose has been rubbed in the proof of how it affects Americans and before you even try to present an accusation of others ignoring points made, I insist you address my question you have thrice ignored: Why is it so important to you that the radiation be shown to affect ONLY Americans. Why ignore the rest of the world? Until you answer that point none of yours would hold credibility as it would be too short-sighted in a narrow, ethnocentric selfishness.

 

 

Ad hominems come in the guise of "advice" and other gifts; very much like a trojan horse, it's an old trick. Kudos for the craftiness, but not for the courage to come out and say it honestly.

Either way, ad hominems signal defeat, that which I have already graciously accepted your surrender in my previous post.

 

You say this like this is a direct quote.

Please do not use quotation marks when referring to what someone has said unless it is actually a quote (unless you are trying to confuse people?).

With that, there's no reason for me to address the rest of the argument with points of ionizing vs non-ionizing radiation, seeing as it is simply a red herring fallacy. If you want to pursue the red herring and win victory over a strawman you can do your own research as to why that argument is failure on your own (I'd suggest by starting with what exactly "radiation" is as it seems like you are confused about it). Meanwhile I'll still be at the finish line waiting for you to finish with that yourself.

 

Do you really want to go down this road?

 

Source.   Comes up with .15 deaths per TWh.  Global energy consumption is 132,000 TWh.  Total is 19,800.  About 20,000 deaths a year.  And this errs on the side of caution, since obviously the wind doesn't blow on demand, and an infrastructure purely built on wind power is going to realize that the wind doesn't always blow the hardest when we need it.  Therefore we're going to either have to have excess capacity, or come up with a fallback source of power or power storage that we can rely on, and that is going to most likely increase the number of deaths.

 

 

Well, let's examine this claim.  Nuclear has had a lot of money poured into it, but it does provide around 33.2% of the world's electricity, while wind is at 3.4% (source).

 

So we should expect nuclear to have more money poured into it than wind - after all, there's more nuclear generating capacity.

 

I haven't found the cost of the research and past construction of either wind nor nuclear plants.  Nor have I found a credible estimate of total past production of energy of either.  (And considering how the technology has changed, such a comparison may be apples to oranges anyways).

 

I have found a source that compares the cost per MWh of new wind and new nuclear in the US estimated in the year 2020 (source - massive PDF warning).  Onshore wind is the cheapest (US$ 96.8/MWh) .  Next is nuclear, or actually what's called "advanced nuclear" (US$ 112.7/MWh).  Most expensive by far is offshore wind (US$ 330.6/MWh).  So "advanced nuclear" is about 16.4% more expensive than wind.  This is comparisons only for the US, and if I chose a country that actually approved had a new nuclear power plant built within the last 15 years, the costs would be more skewed to favor nuclear.  But the US would be going from the current Generation I or II nuclear reactors to either a late-design Generation III or an early Generation IV nuclear reactor, and that increases the costs.

 

So for a strictly resources-poured into it, at least in the US, wind is slightly cheaper tan nuclear.  (While natural gas is cheaper than wind.)

 

 

Well, if by hazard, you mean that we're expected to see a 0.01% increase in radioactivity of seawater, which your source says "do not pose a health risk for the US population", then you'd be correct.  That is an odd definition of "hazard" though

 

 

You were the one that started to talk about radioactive waste washing up on the west coast of the US.  Not I.  Now you're shocked that the subject has veered towards the health risks to Americans?

 

The health risks to the Japanese are said, and we've already seen a loss of life of about 600 attributed to the evacuation, with an estimated loss of life due to cancer predicted to be most likely about 130 dead, with the data we have.  That's 780 people dead.  Most likely another 50 people will suffer from cancer and survive.  We've also seen 160,000 people displaced, and the creation of an 132 square kilometer "exclusion zone", some of which will not be reoccupied for decades.  (Source for all of that).  So about a thousand dead, and 160,000 more people affected.

 

That's tragic.

 

You know what's more tragic?  The fact that coal power kills far more than a thousand people each year in just the US.  Under the Bush EPA, coal was attributed to almost 24,000 deaths each year, with 2,800 from lung cancer.  Our coal power plans, with modern, first world environmental regulations, operating normally, are killing more people than Fukushima with its core meltdown, and all of the other nuclear power plants combined.

 

Japan had 11 nuclear reactors at four sites that were hit by the 5th largest earthquake in human history.  They were also hit by the tsunami that was generated by the earthquake.  Many of those nuclear reactors were designed half a century ago.  Most of those reactors survived, but three at Fukushima did not, due to inadequate emergency power generation and structural damage.

 

The three of those reactors that didn't survive are estimated to kill under a thousand people.

 

While our coal power plants, functioning normally, will kill tens of thousands of people each year.

 

Don't you think we're putting the cart before the horse?

 

And speaking of ignoring deaths, tens of thousands of people died as a direct result to the tsunami.  What about those individuals?  Or don't we care about them because we can't exploit their deaths for an anti-nuclear agenda?  Do we even not want to mention those poor individuals, because the death toll was so much greater than the predicted Fukushima death toll?

 

 

I'm being serious.  You seem bright enough.  If you can be a little more skeptical of all sources, instead of just the sources which disagree with you, and if you can do some critical thinking, I think you'd have the potential to contribute a lot to the discussion.

 

Or at the very least, if you could vet your sources and offer a more credible foundation to base your beliefs on, you could present your point more effectively.

 

 

Actually, it is not only the type of radiation, but the amount of radiation that presents a problem.  Low-level sources of radiation consistently do not show an increase in mortality.  It may be that the effect is far too small to show up statistically, or it may be that low level sources of radiation do not cause unrepairable damage to cells.

 

As the saying goes, the dose makes the poison.

 

And speaking of fallacies, there's what is called the "perfect solution fallacy".  Quite frankly, we have no perfect solution when it comes to power generation.  All solutions that we currently have the technology for have a real cost in human deaths.  They all produce pollution.  They all create global warming.  They all use resources.  Some may not be reliable enough to base an entire infrastructure off of.  Some may minimize greenhouse gas emissions (such as nuclear or wind, where most of the greenhouse gas production is during manufacturing and construction).  Some may minimize the cost in human deaths (nuclear, wind, and solar seem to be the best here).

 

All I'm asking for is that we realistically look at the costs of all of them, and to decide what mixture we can tolerate for energy production.  We don't want a single source, since monoculture, even in power production, is probably not a good idea.  We also want the ability to increase our electrical production, since we should really like to switch over to non-fossil fuels for transportation and HVAC, and that's going to require more electricity being generated, probably at night.

 

We should also keep researching and keep trying new things.  Fusion may still work out.  There may be ways of making synthetic fuels that are pretty green and work well with existing infrastructure.  We can work on the material science end of things and reduce routine maintenance and failures of wind turbines, which will reduce the risk of accidental death.  We can even work on electrical transmission and storage, increasing efficiency.  And we should really put more into making PassivHaus the default, as well as work on water and resource conservation.

Edited by das_nut - 7/25/12 at 3:32pm

I read this shortly after you posted it, but I had to take some time to think about it.

I had always come to the conclusion that instead of looking for more energy to be more resource efficient we should just try not to use the resource (or just minimize the resource use).

While I still do think simplifying is a positive step, it may not always be the most appropriate or 'best' step. So yes, I agree. Depending on the details.

 

Why should we minimize saltwater use for desalination in the conceivable future?  (Serious question.)

what are you doing with the salt when it's been taken from the water? when it's put back in the sea it creates areas of hyper-salinity which can have adverse effects on wildlife.

 

whats the scale of the impact? i don't know. it's not as silly as conserving wind or solar power. i guess ideally all that salt could be sold for road salt and whatnot or just pumped into an old salt mine.

To me, in this example, the resource in question would be water. Saltwater would simply be a way to obtain water.

So instead of finding energy for desalination, we would instead change our habits and perspectives to first reduce/stop using the water from the rivers and aquifers.

Perhaps even source our water requirements from rain (in areas that can support that) and move away from areas that cannot.

 

Presumably, the ocean can deal with a sizable loss of freshwater, since evaporation occurs across the entire ocean's surface.

 

Although dumping hyper-saline saltwater isn't a great idea, it could be diluted and returned to the ocean without being bad to the environment.

What does that have to do with wanting to do what I feel is the most appropriate or correct thing to do?

Wanting the world to go vegan is probably unrealistic. Wanting people to get past their nuclear phobias is probably unrealistic. Wanting people to rely more on reason, logic, evidence, thought, is probably unrealistic. That doesn't mean pursing these are pointless.

As I stated I tend to approach life from a different perspective.

 

Very true.

So one thing I'm not really familiar with is salt production (I should really look more into it). How much salt is generated from desalination to produce drinking water for people? Is it currently all used? I don't even know where the majority of our (global humans) salt (sodium chloride) comes from.

Perhaps there are too many contaminates around large cities (where I would assume the desalination would be focused).

When done on ship the brine is pumped back into the ocean. I don't think it would be much different for a land based operation. Don't think it would be very cost effective, cheaper to just pump it back than to hold it and reboil over and over again to get  salt.

 

Salt is mined, I think there is still a pretty big salt mine in operation under the Great Lakes.

Edited by havocjohn - 7/28/12 at 3:02pm

 

Yep, I called it. Terawatt/hour.

 

You'll note that solar is for rooftops, before assuming huge deaths for an auxiliary source, please consider non-rooftop solar sources.

 

 

Let me know how that goes.

 

 

Cool story. Guess we'll see how inaccurate those estimates will turn out to be in the future.

 

 

Nope, that's not what I mean by hazard. Is that what you mean?

 

 

No, I'm shocked at how you're evading the question why Americans are more important than everyone else to you.

 

 

Is that a rabbit in your tophat? An ace up your sleeve?

No, what's more tragic is the false dichotomy of coal/nuclear - my reasoning that we shouldn't use either still stand strong despite the rhetoric of how many people die from coal energy production. Just because coal hazards are more disclosed than nuclear hazards it doesn't make either the best choice.

BTW, your source for how many will die globally from cancer due to Fukushima doesn't lead anywhere. Might want to link me to the actual source.

 

 

Nope.

 

 

Sorry, I learned that if I want to win an argument I take the stronger side. And clearly the side of the argument that we need better sources for energy production over nuclear energy production is a clear winner. So, no.

 

 

 

Don't even try to pull that one again. Several times in this argument as well as several OTHER arguments you're always trying to say I'm the one who isn't educated enough and don't have the proper sources. Give it up -- I always go out of my way to provide my grounds for evidence; that trick will always fail.

 

 

 

 

 

So now you provide an argument against your prior argument of low-dose radiation? That is contradictory, another sign of argumentative defeat -- but  already accepted the ad hominem surrender.

 

 

 

 

Strange, been saying this for a while.

Here ya go: Solar, Wind, Hydroelectric and other alternatives <= They may not be perfect, but they're enough to get rid of the major problems we face with the current coal/nuclear paradigm and offer a whole lot more potential.

Additionally cutting back on our gross energy consumption would work wonders.

 

In the end it looks like we seem to agree on the same conclusion.

What did you call? Power per unit time?

TWh is short for terrawatt hour meaning power times time which is energy.

When do you use TW/h in your studies?

 

Actually, it's Terawatt*hour, not Terawatt/hour.  Your units make no sense.

 

 

So can we also cherry-pick methods for nuclear generation to get more favorable numbers?

 

 

Well, actually that's a study, not a story.  But do you think the estimates are wrong?  Is wind power going to be far more cost ineffective in the future?

 

Or are you only criticizing the parts where it doesn't say what you want it to say about nuclear power?

 

 

Why don't you explain how a tiny fraction of a percent increase in the radioactivity of seawater is a hazard then.  I'm waiting.

 

 

I don't believe I said Americans are more important than everyone else.  Why are you putting words in my mouth?  Why don't you just debate what I actually said, instead of making things up?

 

 

Actually, I never said either was the best choice.  There is no "best" choices here.  There's always trade-offs.  Speaking of which, the production possibility frontier does indicate that a multi-modal approach to power generation will replace fossil fuel power far more quickly than a single modal approach.

 

I checked the link and it works for me.  If it isn't working for you (assuming you are using MS Windows) try opening IE in safe mode, and seeing if the link works then.  If it does, I recommend a spyware/malware/virus scan of your computer.

 

I don't care about winning arguments on the Internet.  Those who do seem to miss the possibility for productive conversation.

 

Natural News is not a proper source.  Heck, the site was going on about "earthing" awhile back.  (And yes, it's as dumb as it sounds.)

 

 

And can you link to my post about my prior argument of low-dose radiation?  I fear you're putting words in my mouth again.

 

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?  Take hydroelectric.  It destroys ecosystems.  Not only does it turn swiftly-flowing bodies of water into still lakes, but those lakes have a large greenhouse gas footprint, and in case of dam failure, it can potentially kill tens of thousands of people.  The river downstream is also affected, even during normal operation, since dams can chill river systems.  The Hoover Dam is a good example of this - it significantly lowered the temperature of the Colorado river during summer months, leading to the deaths of several warm-water loving species in the river.  Also, dams destroy the natural flooding patterns of rivers, harming flood-adapted species.

 

So, to summarize, you listed an alternative that contributes to global warming, harms the environment, and puts human lives at risk.  And this is your solution?

 

 

I think there's always the potential to conserve.  But many ways in which we can "conserve" electricity are bad for the environment.

 

Natural News also has an article about the Batman murders being part of a grand government conspiracy.

 

 

There's another article on Natural News about how the UN is going to remove parent's rights to choose their child's medical treatment.

 

Sorry, meant *, but /hour should also make sense, just not the same syntax. Not sure if you're really trying to pursue some kind of argument based on a typo or not. If so, shows desperation; if not, frivolous post is frivolous.

 

 

 

We? There are more than one person using your account?

Because you cherry-pick against solar then you can cherry-pick across the board. That's assuming you can even get more favorable results for nuclear, I don't think you can though.

 

Cool study. Guess we'll see how inaccurate those estimates will turn out to be in the future.

 

 

I wouldn't call multiple nuclear reactors melting down a "tiny fraction of a percent increase".

 

 

Then stop acting like there's no nuclear crises in Japan and other parts of the world and stop asking for how it affects Americans:

 

 

The people of Japan say hi.

 

 

 

Nobody claimed that's what you said.

However, you were called out on your short-sighted opinion praising nuclear power during a time of the worst nuclear power disaster in history.

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't support using Windows, nor Internet Explorer, but that's not the case at hand. Allow me to clarify: The link you provided does work, however it does not lead to the source of information, instead it links to another site and that link does not lead to the source cited. Please direct me to the proper link or there's no sense in accepting the statement.

 

That probably explains why you're doing it wrong.

 

 

I'm sorry? This is your response to me calling you out on your shallow pattern attack of decrying lack of education on me in this thread and others? Maybe you are randomly addressing Vrindavan1 with their post: http://www.veggieboards.com/t/122977/nuclear-power/240#post_3158846

Where Nogardsram said the facebook link had linked to Natural News and I said:

 

"Natural News > opinions on forums > sweaty donkey balls >>>> mainstream news > Nuclear Meltdowns"

 

An opinion of mine that has not changed.

But good job completely missing the point of never resorting to ad hominems (focused on a person's education, especially since you don't have access to that background information).

 

 

 

If you'd keep track of your words then you wouldn't have anything to fear. The whole conversation is laid bare to the public, I believe it speaks for itself (although you will find links to your posts from me going back to the pertinent points).

 

 

Tripping over your ad hominems again?

Or over the contradiction of your "perfect solution fallacy"?

 

 

Attacking the person who "doesn't know" does nothing for your argument. Then saying the energy production I pointed out isn't perfect just snares itself in your own trap you tried setting for me.

You surrendered long ago, now this is just getting to be an act right out of a 60's sitcom.

And, I'm sorry, I just don't find those old sitcoms worth watching.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, I don't remember listing NUCLEAR POWER. lol

 

 

 

Cool story, bro.

So watcha gonna do 'bout all the problems you're fretting over? Post on a vegetarian forum telling other people they don't know what they're talking about? X^D

 

Well, when you use terawatts/hour, it's a unit of consumption.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

Hence, that's why when you brought up radiation affecting Americans, I pointed out that any increase in radiation is negligible.
 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

Well, this should lead you to the paper.  If you are still having computer problems, then try this link.

 

I care more about the actual science instead of cherry picking sources to prove my point.

 

 

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.

 

Speaking of which, I should check to see if they talk about Manchurian sleeper agents in the wake of the Sikh shooting.  They already discussed government plots in the Aurora shooting.

 

 

Actually, pointing out that "Natural News" is not a credible source is not an ad hominem attack.  

 

 

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.

 

Nor would it be a contradiction of the perfect solution fallacy (PSF), since the PSF does not claim that solutions are unrankable.  The prefect solution fallacy only states that a solution cannot be rejected because of the assumption a perfect solution with no flaws exists.

 

 

Actually, hydroelectric tends to contribute a large amount of greenhouse gases, destroys watersheds, and has in the past contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands of people.

 

Are you ignoring it because you want to "win" an argument on the web?

 

Or do you not know?

 

Hydroelectric is not a really clean energy source.  For example:  In 1990 (13 years after filling), the Curuá-Una Dam emitted 3.6 times more greenhouse gases than would have been emitted by generating the same amount of electricity from oil.  That's your so-called "clean" energy source right there.  What about the impact on wildlife and humans?  The Belo Monte dam, also in the same country, states a loss of habitat for species, some found nowhere else other than the area affected by the dam (source - PDF).  The same source also points out the impact on humanity in the region.

 

If you're looking at greenhouse gas emissions or deaths per terawatthours, or impact on the environment, nuclear numbers tends to be similar to non-hydro "renewables".  Nuclear does have the advantage that it's a more concentrated power source in terms of land use.  It has several disadvantages as well, as does wind and solar.  Hydro is somewhere in between when the numbers are considered as a whole - not too dangerous to human beings, but a bad source of greenhouse gases, and a severe impact on the local area as well as the river systems it is part of.

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.

 

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.

 

 

Meh, I've seen more water.

 

 

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.

However...

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:

• http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/medical-journal-article--14000-us-deaths-tied-to-fukushima-reactor-disaster-fallout-135859288.html
• http://markey.house.gov/sites/markey.house.gov/files/documents/06-01-12%20letter%20to%20FDA%20re%20seafood%20safety%20in%20Pacific%20Ocean_radiation%20FINAL.pdf
• http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/12/20/researchers-trumpet-another-flawed-fukushima-death-study/
• http://enenews.com/fairewinds-hot-particles-bombarded-west-coast-canada-contaminated-farms-food-sources-radioactive-debris-island-size-texas-crossing-pacific
• http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/06/serving_tuna_with_a_geiger_cou.html
• http://enenews.com/seals-walruses-now-unprecedented-number-of-sea-turtle-deaths-in-vancouver-island-says-oceanographer-audio
• http://www.alaskapublic.org/2011/12/26/japanese-tsunami-flotsam-appearing-in-kodiak-waters/
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYOJEF6mHUw&feature=BFa&list=PLB798C95B2004BB5D&lf=g-all-a
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4spUp_LzEPM&feature=g-hist&context=G2aca042AHTvLGZAACAA

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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).

 

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.

 

 

Apparently not considering the amount of times you keep saying "cherry picking". Go back and count.

 

 

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.

Again:

"Natural News > opinions on forums > sweaty donkey balls >>>> mainstream news > Nuclear Meltdowns"

 

 

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.

 

 

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:

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.

 

 

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.