It’s probably nothing new.
I had a similar thought independently. Although I wouldn’t go so far as paid shill, he definitely seems like he has a strong connection to the hydrocarbons industry. That is the only place I can see combining such a passionate denial of the dangers of global warming, while at the same time passionately overplaying the dangers of nuclear power.
Pictures and video of the removal of spent fuel assemblies from reactor building four.
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/removal4u/index-e.html
Some pretty damn cool shit there. The timetable for “cleaning up” the site is now 40 years out. But at least they are moving on what is the most dangerous situation, the fuel pond in building four. If all goes well they expect to have the fuel out of there by the end of the year.
What’s left of building three is so radioactive they can’t determine why there is steam coming out of it now and then, but the best guess is rainwater getting in and heating up from the PVC, which is interesting in it’s own way.
After almost three years, there shouldn’t be anything hot enough in there still. If we live long enough, we might eventually find out what happened to reactor three.
But it’s doubtful. Hell, a lot of people still think Three Mile Island was no big deal.
Goddamn you is funny.
The only connection I have is when my goddamn car is hooked up to a pump and I’m paing way too much for the little bit of fossil fuel I still use.
Everything else is nuclear or solar powered. You want to know how I feel about fossil fuels?
You should read my rants about BP and the Gulf oil blowout clusterfuck disaster. And the entire oil industry in general.
Those motherfuckers are some evil motherfucking pieces of human waste.
Okay, you’re covered, don’t oversell it.
Nuke power hasn’t put any American oil companies out of business, I don’t see it bankrupting anyone in the middle-east.
Today I’m reading about the latest deal between Japan, France and Turkey to build & operate some reactors and the deal includes Japan establishing a university in Turkey to teach them how to do all the enriching and reprocessing they agree not to do. Hm.
We’ll see increasing proliferation in the mid-east, but I don’t see nuke power bankrupting any oil nations.
That’s because we haven’t created enough of them. If we had enough plants to heat every home with nuke-generated electricity they’d make a lot less money.
Well, TMI cost a ton of money. However, the number of deaths caused by the accident is extremely low, maybe one or two*.
TMI, was a big deal. However, if you compare costs and health effects of TMI to other energy sources, TMI was minor.
I know you have a problem understanding this but I will try yet again.
Number of deaths per trillion kilowatt hour by energy source:
Nuclear 90
Coal 170,000
Oil 36,000
Solar 440
Wind 150
Hydro 1,400
Yes, Fukushima is bad. However all energy sources are dangerous. All energy sources damage the environment. The question becomes which energy sources are least dangerous while being economically viable. Nuclear, especially the new designs, is way safer than any other power source. The cost is higher, mainly due to lawsuits which make it all but impossible to build new, safer nuclear plants.
But then again, nuclear is scary.
Slee
*The number of deaths due to TMI is, according to most studies, very low. There was one study by the Radiation and Public Health Project which claimed a large number of deaths. However, the RPHP has a bad reputation among epidemiologists and the study is considered to be very flawed.
My father spent a great deal of time at TMI when the accident happened. He ran a nuclear research division and was asked to head the clean up. He declined as he preferred research to ‘grunt work’.
Solar power is so dangerous I can wear it on my wrist. I’d like to wear my nuclear power watch but the six feet of lead was clumsy.
Yes, nuclear is way more dangerous and scary than every other form of energy. That’s why we spend billions and billions making it constantly safe to be anywhere around, every moment of the day, year in and out, and will be for many millennia, if we’re around that long.
If it were *actually *safe, everyone would be doing it by now and we wouldn’t have to threaten war with other countries over it.
Hahaha yeah let’s build reactors in every country, cause reactors are so safe to have around.
But seriously, would anyone invade and bomb the shit out a city that had several reactors nearby? Or, right in the middle of the city? (cause it’s so safe you see)
You put reactors in every major city, and in every country (yay! end global warming) and you pretty much ended any modern war, the kind where we bomb the shit out a country before invading it.
You know, where you destroy the infrastructure, the power plants and sub stations, with bombs. There was a good reason they bombed that reactor that one time before it started running. After it’s running, and especially after it has years of spent fuel in ponds, right there next to the reactor, nobody sane will bomb it. Hell, they won’t even bomb around it when it’s all full of extremely dangerous spent fuel.
You can say anything on the internet. Except for shit that is so totally fucked nobody will actually believe it. OK you can even say that, but nobody will care.
I dare you to wear the toxic sludge that is created in making it…
oh great now we have to expect politicians and the military to be sane.
Well, I wouldn’t want to have much to do with most industrial sludge. It’s not a matter of national security in most cases. Most sludge isn’t known to be one of the most toxic substances in the universe. Yeah, I said universe. Even exploding stars don’t make some of the stuff we make in reactors.
You can call nuke power an energy source if you want, but you can’t call it safe. Safety records don’t equal “safe.” Excellent safety records means “really expensive and heavily regulated.”
TEPCO is one of the biggest power companies in the world and they can’t handle the cleanup of a single plant. That single plant has displaced 100’s of thousands of people and its remediation is projected to cost $100 billion+ and take decades. Some areas will be unfit for humans permanently. Safe my butt, never mind the cost to taxpayers.
yeah but nobody died and that is the only important thing
Cite of anyone threatening war over a non-weapons nuclear power installation? The threats of war (and acts of war) were over acquisition of nuclear weapons, not nuclear power.
Electric conduits, concentrators, transformers, and transmission lines are very easy targets. They are rarely hardened, and often stretch for long distances over open ground. Conventional weapons strikes could trivially cut off Tehran – or Los Angeles – from electric power without threatening nuclear reactors.
I’m guessing, though, that you were speaking in irony, rather than in actual belief. With you, it’s hard to tell.
“With FX, I never quite know if the irony is intentional.”
~ voxrat
I’d say Israel threatening to attack Iran if they continue with enrichment and/or reprocessing qualifies. As I’m sure you know ENR is used for both power & weapons production. Why so much concern and tension over something so safe? Conclusion: not so safe.
OMG, solar rooftop installers sometimes fall off roofs. We can’t allow this technology to fall into enemy hands!
Well, not quite. There is a threshhold of enrichment that goes beyond power-supply purposes and exists solely for weapons purposes. The world is pressuring Iran to stay under that line.
Safety has nothing to do with it. If an Iranian reactor were in danger of melting down, Israel might or might not applaud that state of affairs…but they certainly wouldn’t threaten war to prevent it.
Well that’s missing the point. No one is going to invade someone else because their reactors are melting down. They’ll attack because they possess nuclear power technology that we, the nuclear supply group, haven’t sold them. How dare they act as sovereign nations with such a [del]dangerous [/del] safe technology.
You aren’t making yourself clear. The safety of Iran’s nuclear plants is not in any way at issue. Their ability to refine weapons-grade fissiles is.
You say I’m missing the point…but as far as I can tell, you’re conflating two entirely separate points, and failing to distinguish them.
Even Israel doesn’t care if Iran has dozens of nuclear power plants, no matter how dangerous or safe, so long as the plants aren’t configured to make bomb-quality Uranium or Plutionium.
Obviously, everyone in the world would prefer that every nuclear power plant be as safe as possible. But the danger of the power source isn’t why anyone is leaning on Iran.
Can you, perhaps, come back and make your point in a way that is clear?