If you’re actually calling me dishonest (and yes, I’ve noted that you rarely accuse people by name), you’re wrong and insulting.
Arguably the H-bomb saved lives, by discouraging a third world war.
The only way I’d care about nuclear deaths/year would be in a comparison of two types of nuclear reactors. Nukes destroy whole areas of countries, and all the lives within those areas, in so many ways. Annual air pollution deaths is simply not in the same league as nuclear devastation - quick tidy deaths or not.
The only reason coal deaths are important to you is you think it’s lends support to nuke. It really doesn’t. People don’t care about routine deaths. They have other things to get worked up about. You yourself don’t get worked up about car, alcohol and obesity deaths, so your sudden concern for miners and all is touching, but rings false.
I read the other day a farmer in Fukushima hung himself, blaming the nuclear crisis. There is a very sad death for you. Well, not you. I think it’s particularly sad. And it’s not the first.
No, it lends support to getting facts and keeping perspective before making judgments.
Car, alcohol and obesity deaths are too far removed from a discussion of a cost/benefit analysis of electricity generation, at least for anyone who can concentrate in an adult manner.
No, I presented what are known as facts. Nowhere in my posts did I take a position on nuclear reactors being fuzzy and warm.
You can either acknowledge the facts or dispute them with other facts. The option of “call other posters in Great Debates dishonest” isn’t supposed to be what this board is about, but since apparently you’re going to get away with it maybe that really is your best tactic here.
Yes! Exactly! You begin to understand! Those air pollution deaths are many many more times more significan … Oh. No you don’t understand. Not at all. Ah well.
True that. Sort of the point. You see the routinely dead are indeed just as dead as a result. Just so many of them that their deaths somehow no longer count because they are routine.
Yup. More sensational things that are actually of lower risk. And sometimes no risk at all.
A bit presumptuous of you, and very untrue. In fact, caring about those things is a large part of my job, my living. I get quite worked up about them and spend many hours a day helping to work top prevent them. I am a pediatrician who takes selling healthy behaviors very seriously. But the same twisted thinking that you demonstrate regarding the routine deaths mattering little compared to the sensational fears of imagined dangers is something I’ve got to deal with as well - getting some parents to understand that proper use of car restraints, that preventing obesity by helping children develop good life style choices in the first place, preventing alcohol and other substance abuses, the importance of preventing various diseases, and that bike helmets matter, is sometimes difficult to do for some who are more fixated on imagined dangers from vaccines, than the real ones from whooping cough and meningitis and so on. The routine is much more significant that the rare and the imagined, but much less easy to make headlines with.
Any more on your assumption of my motives would earn me a warning from the mods … so I’ll stop here.
DSeid, as a pediatrician, how do you feel about the increased rates of elective abortions that occur around nuclear accidents? I’ve heard there were increases around Three Mile Island, Fukushima - of course there were many around Chernobyl. Given what I’ve seen of the birth defects, abnormalities and lowered IQ scores of children born in the area, I can’t blame parents for that of course.
I’m a strong believer in choice, but we’re talking about planned, wanted pregnancies being terminated because of real radiation danger is some cases, and fear in many/most cases. There were increases in abortions in western Europe in areas contaminated by Chernobyl, but the actual danger from radiation probably didn’t warrant elective abortion in many cases.
Perhaps you have access to better information? I hesitate to cite this but there is some googleable information - though somewhat sketchy. There are reports of pregnant women fleeing Tokyo our of fear for their unborn. Probably not completely rational but then it’s on record the nuclear industry and Japanese government are being widely criticized for the secretive, uninformative behavior regarding all things nuclear. The Japanese people have pretty low faith in what they are being told, and in the accuracy of what they are told.
What are your feelings on the matter? Or are we not allowed to have feelings on the matter because it’s just a numbers game with you?
Are you just going to blame young parents for being ignorant?
Of course you are allowed to have feelings, but you also need to be aware of what is a feeling and what is rational facts based when you actually make decisions.
I do not know anything about the circumstances you allude to. Assume that the circumstance is as you describe - elective abortions because of fears but not actually warranted. I’d see that as another example of feelings (in this case of fear) trumping rational thought. Very similar to how you’ve posted in this thread honestly. My feelings in that case would be disgust at the fear mongers who drove this behavior. Similar to how I react to parents who buy into the immunization fears crap - they are reacting to the manipulations of others. How would you suggest I fight that other than with rational thought?
Once more, trying to speak of factual things, despite the constant abuse.
The wikipedia article linked to is a propaganda piece, this is evident in that it lacks any background or even mention of cost of the plant. It doesn’t mention the 13 year delay, the huge cost overrun (estimated 5,600 percent), or that it is the most expensive electricity in all of Central America.
If you are the sort to read extended science based reports, the link has a wealth of logic and reason.
And yes, the Mexican reactors have the same design flaws and huge risks that Fukushima had. While unlikely, a tsunami or hurricane induced tidal surge in the Gulf could cause both reactors to fail.
It is for such reasons I do not support nuclear reactors for power generation. If you could make them disaster proof, solve the waste problem, and do it cheaper than solar or wind power, I would change my mind of course.
Undeterred by the March 11 incident, Vietnam is still planning to build four nuclear power plants, with Japanese assistance. They’ve even contracted Japan to build the first two.
Could be a hot time in the old town.
If I had to choose between storing a barrel of radioactive waste in a mountain, or releasing coal ash into the atmosphere on a similar per Gigawatt basis, I would choose the radioactive waste. I don’t think you realize how bad the emissions from coal plants are. Hell, I would rather live next door to a nuke plant than next door to a coal plant.
A professor I had that was a nuclear engineer said that he wished all powerplants had to be built in the middle of the cities. If people actually had to face up to the emissions from coal plants, rather than tossing the problems into the air for those people downwind to deal with, there would be no coal plants.
So here are your options. Coal, nuclear, or cut your electricity usage dramatically. Take your pick.
Nonsense. Put up solar panels, insulate your house, use LED lights, invest in a windfarm, use sun tubes, design houses for solar heating in winter, plant shade trees for summer, cover parking lots with shade, insist on electric trains for public transportation, put up solar power plants in the deserts, there are all kinds of things to do to help reduce pollution and reduce carbon.
The two new solar plants (one billion each) being built will provide the same energy as a 17 billion dollar nuclear reactor. But they will be producing it 10 years sooner, with less pollution, less risk, etc
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
The two new solar plants (one billion each) being built will provide the same energy as a 17 billion dollar nuclear reactor. But they will be producing it 10 years sooner, with less pollution, less risk, etc
[/QUOTE]
Do you have a cite for this?
-XT
So build solar and nuclear. The latter has the advantage of continuous power generation.
Actually solar (using molten salt so it runs 24/7) works all the time. Nuclear has to shut down all the time, and is not dependable.
Plus a solar facility in the desert can fail in any way it wants and won’t cause anyone to have to evacuate, be in fear, or lose everything. Or hurt anyone.
Realizing this is a debate thread, you need to support your claims.
Solar plant producing power 24/7
New US plant being built to produce power 24/7
Note the low costs
So…no cite that they are building 2 solar power plants for a billion each with the same capacity and capabilities as one nuclear plant that cost $17 billion?
-XT
Of course he doesn’t have a cite.
Here’s what $1B gets you in solar - from: Giant solar energy plants to run 100,000 homes
About $1 billion gets you 150 MW. That’s all. A typical new nuclear unit is 1300 MW. To get 1300 MW at that cost-efficiency means $8.7 billion. BTW those are in AUD, but they’re at a 1.05 rate now so it’s fairly close to USD.
Huh.
BTW his “24-hour plant” is costing $737 million for 110 MW. To replace a single nuke unit would cost about that same, very coincidental, $8.7 billion.
I thought I posted the link the first time I mentioned them. Might be in a different topic.
Now comes the inevitable attempt to find some way to weasel out of what was said earlier. But of course no apologies. No conceding anything. It’s one reason I don’t view this a debate. Too much rhetoric, insulting and very little fact.