I’m sorry retard. I don’t disbelieve radiation sickness. I disbelieve your horribly ignorant stance that when risk evaluating nuclear vs. coal we have to add all the good performed by the electricity of each source. And since coal provides more absolute wattage and has a longer tenure it’s safer than nuclear.
You’re a muddy-thinking moron if you think that. A child, no, a stupid child, would understand what that is sloppy reasoning. But a sniveling, frightened, hysterical coward like yourself has the nerve to present a rational face when your unreasoning terror has robbed you the capacity to think?
Assuming, of course, you aren’t generally stupid. Maybe you’re as cool as a cucumber and just are in general subnormal. Either way, on this subject you’re gibbering.
The whole thing is so absurd, I keep thinking there must be some leg pulling going on.
“Natural” radiation from burning coal kills “some calculated number of people” every year. So small amounts of natural radiation kill people, so coal is bad. Very dangerous.
Then the same person telling me that turns around and says radioactive material from leaking nuclear isn’t very dangerous, and will hardly even hurt anyone. That Chernobyl, the former worst nuclear disaster in history only killed like 65 people, and that took a long time, and so it’s not that bad.
I don’t know what to believe anymore. Radioactive Cesium and Strontium and Cobalt and even Plutonium just aren’t that dangerous. But Uranium is.
And coal plants are putting out tons of uranium.
Dumping nuclear waste into the ocean isn’t bad because the ocean is so big.
I really want to go with the nuclear deniers on this. Because then I can stop worrying and learn to love the reactor.
Of course I will also have to start fearing the coal plant. And do something about the tens of thousands of people dropping dead each year from coal burning.
But at least I won’t worry about the Japan situation. It’s a trade off. But I think I can make it.
No one is saying nuclear is totally safe. That’s a lie you’re telling to make your point. Nuclear is probably safer than coal. That’s a true thing.
Since solar cells or wind turbines can’t make up the difference (unless some huge technological breakthroughs happen, which I hope they do, but planning your energy policy on something that hasn’t happened yet is stupid) you need to at some point decide between nuclear and coal. But you chicken-little retards are afraid of what nuclear *might *do, when coal is *actually *doing it.
You need to define the word “safer”. Obviously the Japanese reactors are safer than the coal plant upwind of you. But is the coal plant upwind of you safer to the Japanese who evacuated?
Wow, you are one thick cow pie of an intellect. You’re still on about that?
Look stupid, saying we should go all nuclear because coal shortens people’s lifespans by some tiny inconsequential fraction is moronic. So, it’s no surprise that’s your only argument. While mocking you, I pointed out if you’re going to count coal death, you should also count coal life. Le sigh.
I’m embarrassed for you. You poor thing. It’s a good thing the human body doesn’t require any mental effort from its owner to breath. Your beer can collection would be an orphan by now.
Again, that is the argument from someone who literally doesn’t know how to think. Electricity is valuable. The means to generate it have costs. The costs to generate the valuable thing need to be evaluated. You are saying the greater historical lifespan of coal is an argument in its favor because it provided more electricity and thus more value over time. That’s drivel. You’re honestly too stupid to understand how to reason.
Big words for a guy who never learned how to reason. Seriously, your argument isn’t one an adult should make. Much less an adult on a website for reducing ignorance. You aren’t up to this discussion.
Obviously standing next to the plant would be a bad thing. Which is why I personally think American reactors should be in low population areas. That said, the Japanese plants withstood an immense earthquake and were only put into the situation they are in because of a resulting tsunami. There are few places in America that have both possibilities.
If the level of catastrophe necessary to wreck a plant also renders the area around it uninhabitable anyway, thats something to work into your cost-benefit analysis.
And once more, in small words, for the hard of thinking: If, as you claim, any level of radiation at all is potentially fatal, what do we do about the level of radiation the body itself has.
And if governments and companies cannot be trusted to run nuclear power plants, why can we trust them to run toxin producing coal plants, or chemical plants, or any other of a myriad of industries that have potentially massively fatal consequences? And just what are you proposing we replacing these with?
In your own time, and feel free to ask a passing adult to help with the bigger words.
Like I say, gibberish. The utter vapid stupidity of that statement is something I’d expect from Clothahump. You always struck me as a reasonable mind, but this pretty much falsifies that.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Quit lying and making stuff up. The level for workers in Japan was just raised to 250 mSv/year. If you ever actually read anything about the Japan crisis instead of just gazing at disaster pictures you wouldn’t be making yourself look so ignorant right now.
[/QUOTE]
Um…it’s not me who is making stuff up or lying in these series of threads. True or false…the level for emergency workers in Japan RIGHT THIS FUCKING MINUTE is 250 mSv/year? True? False? You don’t have a clue?
Now…go back and read what I ACTUALLY wrote, and then answer the fucking question you deceptive little weasel.
Here, let me help you out there. Here is what you said:
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
20 mSv/yr is the current limit (averaged) for nuclear industry employees. That’s 20 mSv/yr, for five years. Go over 100mSv in five years, you’re out of job.
[/QUOTE]
Current limits IN JAPAN are…what again? Unless by ‘nuclear industry employees’ you meant…what? In the US? France? Germany? In Japan before the EMERGENCY? See, they are all different depending on the country, and countries in emergency situations are allowed to set the limits where they think they need to when they are, you know, in an emergency situation.
Fucking little mega-weasel.
So, in other words, you made an unsubstantiated claim (again), and then got riled when I asked you for a cite to back your bullshit up, because that’s unfair?
But that’s not what you said. You said they were working in areas for “30, 40, 50 minutes or so, then rush out”…and you claimed this was in areas that are “receiving 1,000 mSv per hour”. And that they are doing this daily, for weeks now. I can only respond to whatever bullshit you spew out, not whatever bullshit you is in your head.
We’ll just pretend that you didn’t make another unsubstantiated claim in this paragraph and just push on, shall we?
I really have no idea what the fuck point you think you are making here. Your cite is from March, and doesn’t seem to have much to do with Chernobyl, which is what I was responding too.
Sadly, you aren’t learning a god damned thing, and I think you are actually getting more ignorant as these threads go on. I thought I was being overly harsh to you earlier so I had backed off a bit (wrt you anyway), but your latest series of posts could have come from such notable intellects as gonzo, Le Jac, TSS or FXM. I didn’t THINK you were in the same, er, league as them, but perhaps I was wrong about that and you should proudly join their ranks.
We all wait in hopeful anticipation of you providing some actual evidence to back up your claims. Here is what the IAEA (I know…who you dismiss) has to say about those 3 workers who, afaik, have gotten the worse exposure to date:
It’s about all the beloved family pets who were left behind in the evacuation zone because the government didn’t tell the owners how long they would be gone, and now it’s against the law to go back in and get them. The pets are all still there, slowly starving to death and wondering when their owners are going to come back for them.
When a nuke plant goes bad, thousands of innocent pets are abandoned to suffer and die.
When a coal plant goes bad, thousands of innocent pets get to stay right at home with their loving families, safe and sound.
So you are discounting Idaho a causing deaths previously? That’s pretty convenient. Somewhat early no in the thread I linked to a site that listed about two dozen US nuclear accidents. You apparently didn’t read the memo sent to the pro nuke propagandists, but you are supposed to qualify around Idaho by referring to power generation since it was an experimental reactor. That way you can say with a somewhat straight face nobody with a name has died directly from US nuclear power generation for consumers. The Navy has incidents, fatalities of which are not reported, so further qualify it as civilian power generation. Remember that on US nuclear power civilian deaths count when directly caused by radiation. Non-US citizens, such as Russians or Soviets, are not fully human, and do not count when doing pro nuclear propaganda.
Very unfortunately, your implied claim that nobody in Japan has yet died from the radiation is shortly going to be untrue. A number of the workers at the plant have been exposed to high levels so often that some will inevitably succumb to some kind of radiation poisoning and/or cancers. These brave people have stayed and worked to try to mitigate this disaster full knowing that they will probably die. They have said their goodbyes to their families. They did not sign up to die, but to make a living for their families. Unlike GE and the owners and executives who have all taken their profits and bonuses already, some of them will give their lives to keep this from being worse because they know they have the expertise to mitigate it. I suppose Ayn Rand would condemn this altruism as devastating to their families. The executives are laughing inside at them.
The principle of calculating risk remains the same. Multiply the number of years between a major accident with the average number of reactors at the time. You claim now that the risk of a 9.0 quake is 1200 years. It is not. The Pacific Rim and Indonesia which is almost on the Pacific Rim have had three 9.0 or larger earthquakes (always followed by mighty tsunamis) within the past 51 years. There are a great number of nuclear reactors along the coasts of the Pacific Rim and Indian Ocean. There is such a seismic event every 17 years maximum. Multiply that times the number of reactors (50? Six at Fukushima alone, four active in California), and your risk of the same kind disaster, never mind different ones, becomes horrific. Remember, Fukushima and Diablo Canyon and San Onofre are all designed to withstand earthquakes 10 to 1000 times less than what have been known to hit the Pacific Rim. Fukushima was designed for tsunamis too! Non-Japanese reactors not so much. Look at the video of the tsunami hitting the Fukushima plant and know that the Japanese did not prepare for enough. California is barely prepared for a tsunami. And remember, earthquake and tsunami didn’t have squat to do with Idaho, Windscale, TMI and Chernobyl. I look at these different types of accident and combine that with the long term storage costs and come to the conclusion nuclear power privatizes the profits and socializes the absolutely stupendous long term costs. The only people who could rationally be supportive of nuclear power are people who get their money up front and are morally prepared to dump the long term burn the world John Galt style costs on the rest of humanity.
30 years ago I was a small shareholder in Pacific Gas and Electric and I mistakenly supported nuclear for all the reasons the pro nukies have here. I have changed my mind of the riskiness of the venture. The risks are so high that I could not invest in nuclear knowing my money was going to creating these kinds of risks for the public.
Here’s a hint for you, sparky. Coal just doesn’t magically appear at the plant door. There is no coal plant without some form of mining. They aren’t mining coal for the fun of it.
Did I ever say that it did magically appear at the plant door? No, I did not. Nor did I advocate for building any coal power plants. Read the thread, I advocated for building power plants that do not need peeples to deliver fuel. Wind and solar.
I love the way you state this is a fact. Arguing becomes so much easier when we just make up the facts we need to support our position, doesn’t it? For example, I was initially undecided about nuclear power, but ever since the tsunami struck reactors started generating free money and monkey butlers, well I’m all for it.
