That isn’t true. I know you’ve brought this up, but they didn’t do a real study with controls. I’m sorry, but you need to find a better source for this.
True enough, but the level of radiation that 3MI released is trivial. You know if you get a day’s dose of radiation from some source you have the same cancer risk as someone a day older than you?
Not at all. But a first world reactor would include a containment vessel. Which in Japan have managed to largely contain a half dozen reactors that went through a 9.0 earthquake and 10 meter tsunami. Doesn’t that impress you a bit?
I don’t know. But say 100 people die. How many people would have died from coal for the same number of kilowatt hours? What if the coal number is 500, would that bug you?
Not safe, just better than coal.
How many people died from coal when you compare kilowatt hours? That’s assuming that your cite isn’t completely wrong.
I will not defend coal. Coal is not only dirty but a hell of a lot more dirty than it has to be. But that goes for all big energy. They will pollute like hell to increase profits.
Gee let me get impressed . The fact is you build so nuclear plants can not fail. In case you have been asleep the last month, nuclear energy uncontained is extremely dangerous to living things and the environment.
Do you suggest we could not build a plant that could withstand a large quake? If so you are arguing for the wrong side. I, on the other hand think you could. But the build would be more expensive.
As far a s TMI is concerned, they did not test and follow the people around the plant. That limits the data that might prove embarrassing. They did not admit for years that they had a melt down. They say they don’t even know how much radiation leaked. But you feel secure in making a claim nobody died. That reveals a lot more about you than TMI.
They deny any deaths from nuclear reactors. Any at all. Particularly in the US. And they believe it. Now we all know that many people have died in the US from nuclear reactors and accidents in the US. But their idea of science excludes that reality. They are not scientists by the traditional definition, but more like Fox News Scientists.
I don’t dispute that people are killed by coal. It’s utterly irrelevant to the discussion. More republicans die by auto-erotic asphyxiation too, and that is also irrelevant. Coal has nothing to do with this thread except in your fevered imagination. I’ve posted a list of the US nuclear accidents earlier in this thread. Google is your friend. Google Idaho reactor deaths if you are too lazy to re-read the thread.
No it isn’t you stupid fuck. Coal is the workhorse energy source we have other than nuclear. Barring breakthroughs solar and wind aren’t gonna keep up.
Yes it does you stupid fuck. Coal is what we will use if we don’t increase nuclear. If you had even a cursory care for facts and intelligent argument you’d know that solar and wind can’t carry the burden.
So an experimental reactor all you have? Are you stupid enough to believe that experimental reactors in the 1960s are a good analogue for modern production reactors?
The ICRP says 3000. Which is bad enough. But we don’t have a solid grasp on the numbers yet, so maybe you should hold back on your chicken-little dance?
Wind, solar and geothermal were just under 10 percent in 2007 and by 2020 they will be at one-third.
It can be done by people willing to do it who are actually going to do it, not talk about it. We actually build generating capacity in California, and there isn’t going to be any nuclear or coal built in this state. None. There are two commissioned nuke plants, and they will not be relicensed.
You may think that using obscene language and insults make you persuasive, it doesn’t. It makes you look like a fifteen year old who can’t control himself. (No offense to fifteen year olds who can control themselves.)
And now that you have undoubtedly googled the nuclear deaths caused by reactors, it is not enough to now slobber that they be dismissed as trivial before acknowledging that your earlier assertions about them not ever having existed were mistaken, which you were. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of deaths over the next few generations just from the careless incidents that have already occurred. Multiply the number of reactors you want for the future to get a conservative estimate of the deaths future reactors will cause. Because the one thing that is absolutely certain is that there will be unforeseeable series of mistakes in the future. Never mind that the current lethality has been covered up by the desire to minimize risks to investors and neighbors. The fact that such a rabid slobbering at the mouth pro-nuke psychopath like you didn’t know about any of the dozens of “incidents” in the US is a testament to the effectiveness of pro-nuclear propaganda. Coal has no cadre of zealot apologists willing to ignore all reality to advance their way of making a living. One of the reasons coal is more acceptable is because they do not baldly lie about cave-ins, black lung, pollution and radiation. Nukies are better at covering up the truth about nuclear risks than a bishop moving pedophile priests to another diocese.
If the nuke people actually acknowledged the real risks the public would be more inclined to accept them. But bullshit about Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Windscale, Hanford and Idaho being unrepeatable and completely non-dangerous to the general public are occasionally wiped away by something like Fukushima, where of the six reactors, they can access none of them, four are ruined forever and in various states of meltdown. It is nonsense to say that nobody could have predicted a 30 foot tsunami because the Japanese did predict just that, but forgot to factor in that the land would also drop a few meters. Never mind that parts of the coast of Japan have previously been hit by 125 foot tsunamis. Never mind that far larger quakes have been measured in a similar subduction zone in Chile. What the fuck did they think was going to happen? Tsunamis were going to completely overrun this plant in a 100 year span with a certainty, and other similarly situated plants too.
I remain stunned that so many on the SDMB find the series of screw-ups at Fukushima so acceptable. That so many are blase about the series of screw-ups at Chernobyl and at TMI, Windscale and Idaho. These screw-ups all have a number of things in common: each human mistake in the chain renders the next human mistake less predictable and more lethal and more intractable as to remedy.
It is a basic law of physics that the more you concentrate energy, the more chaos will ensure to bring that energetic state into equilibrium. When you put a nuclear pile together that can generate a gigawatt for 25 years running, that is a whole lot of energy. Anyone who tells you that there will be no mistakes letting the monster out doesn’t know squat about human nature. Factor in a profit motive and I cannot believe they aren’t outright lying.
Slow down stupid. How many people have been killed by US reactors? That’s what I asked. You showed me an industrial accident where an experimental non-commercial reactor was involved.
I ask again, how many people have been killed by US commercial reactors?
By being a hysterical liar about nuclear power you are dooming us to more coal.
How many people have been killed by US commercial reactors?
How many people have been killed by US commercial reactors?
How many people have been killed by US commercial reactors?
Doesn’t it bother you that you have to lie and deceive people to make your argument? That’s usually a sign that you’re wrong.
I’m not offended, it’s the Pit, but it doesn’t make it persuasive, and the way you use it doesn’t rise to the level of clever. Whoever called me Nancy Grace was clever in his use of insult.
I compare this to what I remember when my PG&E investment was waiting decades for Diablo Canyon and it makes no sense to me not to cover suitable farmland with wind turbines.
The largest wind turbines on the drawing board are for Spain, with nameplate capacity of 15MW and cost about $10 million for off shore use. 70 percent of the earth’s surface is off shore.
I’m more stunned that you also try to prop up this straw man,
And many should pay for those mistakes as even I mentioned before, thing is that looking at climate science the biggest mistake is the assumption we will be able to remedy the problems that are coming by doing nothing to control CO2 and other global warming gases. It is a mistake IMHO to claim that we can not learn from past mistakes or that we can stop using nuclear power in this modern world.
Because it is a habit of yours to miss what people like me are saying, it has to be mentioned that I also think that advances in solar and wind will make less risky solutions more attractive in the near future.
Beats me how many have been killed and how many will be killed. I’ve pointed out three specific deaths (Silkwood and the two in Idaho) that I am aware of. Yes, I am aware that you are pointing out that these are not at US commercial reactors, but rather experimental and fuel facilities. I am also aware of exposures during the Manhattan project that years later probably resulted in death. (They lost all their teeth within days of exposure). There may have been many more instances, but they have been covered up. The fact that you didn’t know about the ones pointed to shows they are downplayed. I earlier linked to several dozen US nuclear “incidents” which are not fully reported on.
I do not think excluding non US incidents has any scientific basis. Fukushima is a US design and Chernobyl uses the same laws of physics we use. How many cancers will kill people and cause sickness with untold human and medical costs?
The idea that Chernobyl was caused by sub-human Soviet ideology isn’t true. The chain of screw-ups is remarkably similar to Three Mile Island and Fukushima in that people did stupid things for profit and only made things worse once the crisis started. The idea that human beings with modern designs cannot make similar or worse mistakes assumes that human beings will stop making mistakes. We will not. We will continue to do stupid things until one of them wipes us out as an entire species. Building a thousand nuclear reactors might be that thing. Maybe allowing Monsanto to do GM to food will be it. Maybe some nut with bio-warfare will do us in. Maybe coal will so overheat the world that we will die of hunger and thirst. I’m pretty sure it isn’t going to be windmills and solar cells. But what do I know? I’m a moron. I don’t invest anymore in nuclear. I will invest again in wind.
We can and will stop using nuclear. The US public will never license another commercial nuclear reactor. In 10, 20 or 30 years we will not open another nuke plant in the US and will shut many down. I make this prediction and I do not think it will be mistaken. When you say that we cannot stop using nuclear power in this modern world, you may be talking about an autocratic country, but not the US. The public is done with nukes.
If you cannot make yourself understood, that is an interesting problem. But it is yours, not mine. Like that sentence about “make less risky solutions more attractive”. What the hell are you trying to say? That wind and solar more risky now? But they might not be in the future? That can’t possibly be what you mean.
Solar and wind work now. They are not risky now. They will become more cost effective as the technology develops.
Is there enough off shore wind to supply all of the planet’s future electrical needs? Yes. But it will need to be developed. Can conductive wires move that power on shore to distant places where the wind isn’t blowing? Yes. But it will need to be developed. Is there enough solar radiation from that giant fusion reactor Sol to power all of the world’s future energy needs? Without question. But it will need to be developed and wired in. Will tidal (gravitational) power work? That I don’t know. It’s being tried. There are enough tidal forces (not counting weather currents in the ocean) to power the whole world, but can it be developed? It’s more experimental and I’m skeptical, but it’s there and won’t go away.
No, that nuclear is more risky. But this makes clear that you don’t know about context.
And I’m an optimist on those fronts too, so stop using that wide brush of yours, the truth is that when your side resorts to exaggerations that are not needed you only get to be discredited, if there is a problem making others understand you maybe one reason is that we see many howlers and misinformation coming from people like FX and it does not generate any complaints from you.
Umm, this thread is about exaggerations. There isn’t really a Godzilla, you know. The problem I have with news is that the government and industry lie and cover up government and industry screw ups and all the media and serious discussion is owned by the government and industry.
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is the only half-way decent US news show and that is, as Jon Stewart has said, utterly appalling.
As for FX, he is closer to being right than the people disagreeing with him. And that is utterly appalling too. And hey, I’m an idiot or moron, depending on who’s zooming who.
The pro nuke people are cheerleading. They are like the hometown announcers for Warriors basketball, trying to put a high glossy polish on a turd. If the people who claim they are most knowledgeable about nuclear power do not hold up industry and government to the highest standards of honesty, openness and operating like anal retentive engineers, then they are not a solution to the problem, but a major part of it. These are the guys who should be issuing 300 page reports on why the control room staff needs more training, sneaking copies to liberal members of Congress, etc. They are not doing that. FX isn’t going to kill anyone with his koolaid (other than coal deaths, which are in the public’s opinion far more acceptable), but the pro-nukie crowd is going to want to build 10 to 100 times as many reactors and have a corresponding number of “incidents” that destroy the lives of poor people who live around those plants.
