My implication is that nuclear sucks. It’s not just an implication; it does suck.
This is just one more nail in its coffin. The thing is, it’s not about easily quantifiable deaths per million megawatts global man hours or something. It should never have been. Nuclear is too horrible to contemplate using, so we don’t contemplate it and just close our eyes and use it anyway.
It’s like nuclear weapons. They’re too horrible to contemplate. Sure, on cost benefit per death basis, they’re probably a real deal. Kill a few quickly, and save untold death and suffering from a protracted conflict/occupation. But we don’t do that, because nuclear weapons are just too horrible.
However efficient it may be, it’s too horrible to contemplate actually using. This is just one more example why.
Good grief. Man…they are still estimating 15,000(!!) people are STILL MISSING (last I checked they had found something between 12,000-13,000 bodies so far, but are estimating the death toll as over 27,000 based on the lists of the missing and the fact that it’s been so long that there is little hope they will be found alive in the rubble at this point). How many of those bodies that won’t have radiation on them do you suppose will, in the end, be able to have their full traditional Japanese rights performed on?? It’s been 3 WEEKS! Many of the bodies were swept out to sea (I don’t know if they are even still finding those at this point) and will certainly be lost forever.
And why would you have said that the IAEA would have to ‘sugar-coat’ this? As if it’s something that has to be covered up?? Again…you weren’t trying to deceive there, were you? Because, you know, it sure looked like you were, since I’m sure you could read the same things in the article you linked to that I could…yet you failed to mention the key parts of that article.
I didn’t say they would be covering up, I said they’d sugar-coat it, which isn’t a conspiracy, although it seems you really like to imply conspiracy theory thinking on my part whenever you think you can in an attempt to discredit me, instead of my arguments against nuke.
What I find to be key in the Japan crisis, and what you think is key are two very different things and probably always will be.
Conspiracy theories? No, I’m not implying that you are using CT thinking. I’m saying that you are deliberately being deceptive in an attempt to bolster your various arguments.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
What I find to be key in the Japan crisis, and what you think is key are two very different things and probably always will be.
[/QUOTE]
Obviously. And I doubt we’ll ever see eye to eye on any of this.
Well, you are right about the first part. I DO think that the person making that statement is caving into fear and ignorance, though I could understand concern on his part. But when looked at rationally, I doubt that the fishing in the immediate area of the nuclear power plant BEFORE this was ever a huge resource…and outside of the immediate area, especially now that they have the major leak from the plant to the ocean plugged, is not going to have much of an impact…except in costs for the added expense of the government having to test the sea food being brought in (and the added inconvenience of the new regulations). Again, no one is saying that all of this isn’t without cost, without risk, without damage, etc etc etc…it was a disaster for the Japanese, and the nuclear aspect certainly adds to that disaster in all of those terms. But you have to look at the ACTUAL risks, and weigh them in a relative fashion. How much ACTUAL risk is there going to be to the livelihoods of the local Japanese fishermen? How much ACTUAL risk is there going to be to the Japanese public as a whole?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/business/global/20renuke.html Here is a NYT article explaining the problem of aging nuclear plants in the US and how poor maintenance is . It also describes how easy it is to get NRC approval to extend the licenses 20 years,
The result will likely be some disasters . Not on scale of the Japanese problems but very worrisome.
The plants are suffering from metal fatigue, corrosion , aging electronics and cost cutting by operators.
The plants were supposed to last 40 years. Getting approval for another 2 decades is easy, just apply.
Even if Japan felt it had the right to contaminate its own people, that doesn’t give Japan the right to contaminate Korea and China. That’s an actual risk too. Now Japan is relying on help from foreign governments, and not for earthquake relief. They need urgent help controlling a monster of their own creation. That should be humiliating.
I wasn’t being deceitful when I asked how IAEA would sugar-coat this. I was being sarcastic, implying they wont be able to sugar-coat this.
They won’t HAVE to sugar coat it…that was my point. There is nothing to sugar-coat on this issue. Because what we are talking about here is a few hundred bodies (out of the over 10,000 bodies STILL MISSING) won’t be able to have traditional Japanese cremation rights performed on them, since making them safe to handle will pretty much finish off the decomposition process and won’t leave anything to burn. But that’s going to be the case with thousands of the non-nuclear contaminated bodies that are STILL MISSING. That’s the part you were being deceptive on.
As for contaminating Korea or China, that’s ridiculous. They dumped the equivalent of 5 or 6 swimming pools into the ocean…and ocean that has trillions of swimming pools worth of water in them. Outside of the immediate area around the plant they are checking the radiation levels and they are low…and get lower as you move further away. Yeah…China and Korea can both detect radiation from the spill as well as from airborn radiation. But the levels are FAR below legal limits, unless you have some data to the contrary. DO you have such data showing that the Japanese contamination in Korea or China are above legal limits??
[QUOTE=The Second Stone]
And if they get to be above legal limits, then we can just adjust the legal limits, which are based on industry recommendations.
[/QUOTE]
And which varies from country to country. The ‘legal limits’ are set intentionally low…it’s not like they are some sort of hard line that, having gone past them means instant horrible death.
Alternative-Energy-News.info domain is for sale | Buy with Epik.com There is a lot of interesting technologies being invented and improved as this article shows. Nuclear is clumsy, dangerous outdated technology that must be rapidly phased out.
The luddites that keep touting it are obviously not keeping up with where the field of energy production is moving.
wrong One definition is those who are against technological change. The nukers are clinging to a moribund and dangerous technology of the past. They don’t want to accept the new technology that will replace the expensive boondoggles that are radiating us.
On most political issues, i’m actually on the same side as you, but fuck are you stupid. Please try to avoid agreeing with me on anything in future, because that might cause me to rethink my position.
The Gonz isn’t just stupid, he is the gold standard of SDMB stupidity.
Other posters may hope to plumb the depths o’ dumb, but no matter how far down they get, they’ll just see the face of Gonz, serene and undisturbed, smiling up at them.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
wrong One definition is those who are against technological change.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that’s one definition of what a Luddite is. The trouble is that the definition doesn’t match with a pro-nuclear mindset, and specifically since I’m sure your little jib was aimed at me (since I used that term in an earlier discussion), I’m about as opposite of to a Luddite as you can get.
I know you are confused about why your definition doesn’t work (I realize you saw me use it in an earlier discussion and are probably riled because you figured if I could use it, you could too), so let me 'splain. Er…that would take too long, so let me sum up. The technology is ‘moribund’ IN THE US, because folks like you have MADE it that way. Nuclear technology in and of itself isn’t ‘moribund’…there is plenty of innovation still happening, and there are newer, more modern and safer designs that COULD be built (and are in fact being built elsewhere), but aren’t (in the US) because, again, anti-nukers such as yourself have poisoned the well to the extent that it’s impossible.
We’ll find out in the next 10-20 years how this will all play out with replacing nuclear energy. If your magic ponies can actually step up to the plate and fill in the gap then I’m fine with that…as long as it doesn’t cost an arm and a leg to do it. And it actually DOES fill the gap, and works as we need it too. And did I mention that it can’t cost the world to do? If not, what I predict is that as nuclear dries up we’ll need to replace that 20% of our electrical generation with coal, natural gas or some other CO2 producing energy source, with maybe a few percentage points extra coming from wind and solar (heck, if we REALLY push maybe 5 or even 10% eventually coming from those, which would be great), because that’s the unfortunate reality. But we’ll see…nuclear plants are going to start dropping off the map in the next few years, and that is going to make a hole in our current electrical energy generation…a hole that COULD be filled by wind and solar, if you advocates are right. So…here is your big chance! Wind and solar can prove all the Nay Sayer’s wrong! you just have to increase wind and solar by an order of magnitude to what it’s doing today, then double that in about 20 years and you guys are home free to have replaced a technology that produces no green house gasses during generation with…a technology that produces no green house gasses during generation! Wohoo!
Sadly, that leaves the 40-50% of our electrical coming from coal, but you can’t have everything…