Page 26 of 26 FirstFirst ... 16242526
Results 751 to 777 of 777

Thread: Implications of Fukushima

  1. #751
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by Glom View Post
    Well it isn't so far. So you can have a fez for appetiser. Shall we agree you should eat a stetson next March?
    which circumstances would have made fukishima worse than chernobyl?

  2. #752
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by Ilya View Post
    This.

    And the fact that Boratssister would not even consider this possibility implies just how far she is stuck on her own delusions.
    which delusions? And why do you consider that i wont consider?
    Its not my fault that the proponents of nuclear energy can not express themselves better.

  3. #753
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by Glom View Post
    Well it isn't so far. So you can have a fez for appetiser. Shall we agree you should eat a stetson next March?
    so far? What are your predictions for the future. Level 4---5? Or bo you not make predictions?

  4. #754
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by korjik View Post
    Which is why we know that the hydrogen explosions were outside the reactor. Had the reactor vessels burst, the isotopes detected would have been completely different
    which isotopes could we expect in the worse case scenario?

  5. #755
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by Glom View Post
    It isn't an eternity. Vitrified fission products decay to below the activity of the original uranium ore within 600 years. That is in contrast to much chemical waste which is hazardous permanently. And with proper closed fuel cycles, nuclear fission fuel will last for tens of thousands of years.
    so the fins are insane? When they speak of disposal of nuclear waste?

  6. #756
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    There is entirely too much name calling and rude behavior from both (all) sides of this discussion. There have been several warnings about this, there will be no more. If someone is being rude to you, you do not respond in kind, you report the post and/or ignore it. You will all discuss this like adults or there will be infractions.
    i sorry i did not mean to be rude.

  7. #757
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    Then show us that we're wrong. Acknowledge any point anyone has made in contradiction of what you believe. Because there's an awful lot of them.



    Well, you've said that the only reason anyone would say that nuclear power is safer than, say, coal (which it is) is that they're either deluded or so involved in the nuclear industry that being right is more important than the apparently millions (am I correct that this is your estimate?) of lives who are destined to be lost by this.

    And, in fact, yes, we absorb low levels of radiation every day. This would be a good place for you to start admitting error. I don't know if you've seen this chart--http://xkcd.com/radiation/--but it might give you a few things to think about.
    yes we absorb radiation everyday, now where did i claim otherwise? And as for showing your wrong, time is showing that. For e.g this is not level 7. I said it was and it was. No clever scientist on this forum said that, what does that suggest? Trust the clever scientist?

  8. #758
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    30,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Boratssister View Post
    which delusions? And why do you consider that i wont consider?
    Its not my fault that the proponents of nuclear energy can not express themselves better.
    Actually, the proponents of nuclear energy have been writing in clear, grammatically correct sentences. They have been presenting actual data, including statistics about deaths caused by coal versus deaths caused by nuclear power. So unless you're going to address the simple fact that more people have died this year in coal mining accidents than even increased cancer deaths from Fukushima are likely to kill, I think it's pretty obvious who's expressing themselves better than whom.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  9. #759
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post
    Trying to steer clear of the inappropriate politics so I'm not naming names or political affiliation, but the gist of it is that an American presidential candidate used wildly exaggerated numbers for the dangers of plutonium in his campaign broadcasts in order to make scary sound bites so people would be manipulated on the emotional level and these wildly exaggerated numbers apparently stuck in the public perception so it's now enough to say plutonium for people to get a gut "Oooh scary!" reaction.
    well considering coal and oil and gas has resulted in a population explosion you may want to explain''reductionist and proud'' before you go explaining nuclear energy.

  10. #760
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by korjik View Post
    It is more than just politicians who blow the dangers way out of proportion tho. After 50 years of demonization by anyone who had an axe to grind, there is so much incorrect information out there that it isnt suprising that some people dont ever get to know what nuclear anything is.
    maybe nuclear winters without the winter, cobalt doomsday bombs and the fact that nuclear scientist are not willing/able to calm peoples fears may have something to do with it. Please tell me how this wont kill us all.

  11. #761
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,442
    Quote Originally Posted by Boratssister View Post
    which circumstances would have made fukishima worse than chernobyl?
    Release of some of the fuel (6 t in the case of Chernobyl, nothing so far in the case of Fukushima)?
    People actually killed by the immediate situation?

    An upgrade to INES level 7 isn't enough, as the scale is defined such that each level has several criteria that defined them, and it only requires hitting one to enter the level. In the case of Fukushima, it was the amount of iodine-131 and cesium-137 released which got it to 7. In the case of Chernobyl it was many criteria that all got hit, including release of about 6 t of fuel.

    Which is one of the main critiques of the scale, it's basically useless for comparing different cases.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boratssister View Post
    yes we absorb radiation everyday, now where did i claim otherwise? And as for showing your wrong, time is showing that. For e.g this is not level 7. I said it was and it was. No clever scientist on this forum said that, what does that suggest? Trust the clever scientist?
    Note also that at the time you started calling it a 7, the released amount needed for making it a 7 hadn't been reached yet, which was why it was a 5 at the time, and rightfully so.


    Quote Originally Posted by Boratssister View Post
    well considering coal and oil and gas has resulted in a population explosion you may want to explain''reductionist and proud'' before you go explaining nuclear energy.
    Reductionism is an approach to understanding the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things.
    It hasn't got anything to do with reducing populations.
    Last edited by HenrikOlsen; 2011-May-30 at 12:47 AM. Reason: clarification
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  12. #762
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim View Post
    Not necessarily.

    The problems with the Fukushima reactors have so far not resulted in anyone's death. Fifteen people died a few years ago when a distillation column exploded at the BP Texas City refinery.
    safety standards are not the same all over the world, mining can be very safe, safer than driving in fact. Plus people mine for uranium and abspestos. And coal, oil , gas is good for the overall population of humans. I wish i could say the same for nuclear energy.

  13. #763
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post
    An explosion at Kleen Energy Power Plant in Connecticut killed 6 workers in February 2010. Which is 6 more than the Fukushima problems have killed so far.

    And if previous years' numbers are anything to go by, about 500 people have been killed in coal mining accidents since the Tsunami.
    Where was these mining accidents? Dont people die in uranium mines?
    Are you sugesting that no one will die because of the radiation leaks at fukishima?

  14. #764
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post
    To continue the list, what about the 500+ coalmine workers who (if numbers from last year is any indication) have been killed in mining accidents since the Tsunami. How does that compare for safety of the two technologies?
    i dont think you can justify nuclear energy like this. How many coal mines have forced the evacuation of a thousand square miles?

  15. #765
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    30,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Boratssister View Post
    safety standards are not the same all over the world, mining can be very safe, safer than driving in fact. Plus people mine for uranium and abspestos. And coal, oil , gas is good for the overall population of humans. I wish i could say the same for nuclear energy.
    I'd like a definition on that one, please. How, exactly, are they good for the overall population of humans? They kill more people and create more environmental damage. And, yes, people mine for uranium and asbestos. However, asbestos mining is significantly decreased, and so much coal is needed to power coal-fueled plants to keep up with demand that the mining techniques are getting more and more destructive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boratssister View Post
    Where was these mining accidents? Dont people die in uranium mines?
    Are you sugesting that no one will die because of the radiation leaks at fukishima?
    Not enough people to counteract those who died just in coal mining accidents this year. And largely, no. No, people don't much die in uranium mines. Coal mining is far less safe, probably the least safe kind of mining.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  16. #766
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by Glom View Post
    In many situations yes. Not all of course.

    But you seem to be operating on a presumption that ionising radiation is hazardous to a uniquely severe degree, one that is in a higher caste entirely compared to chemical hazards. That's a superstition. Ionising radiation is a different kind of hazard, but its threat is readily comparable to chemical hazards.
    well chemicals have been banned if shown to be harmful, even to a small degree. And im sure that the makers of those chemicals are reacting in the same way as those who make their living in the nuclear industry.

  17. #767
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    473
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    Actually, the proponents of nuclear energy have been writing in clear, grammatically correct sentences. They have been presenting actual data, including statistics about deaths caused by coal versus deaths caused by nuclear power. So unless you're going to address the simple fact that more people have died this year in coal mining accidents than even increased cancer deaths from Fukushima are likely to kill, I think it's pretty obvious who's expressing themselves better than whom.
    but they can not distinguish between a level 4 and a level 7.
    If only there was a meritocracy!

  18. #768
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,442
    Quote Originally Posted by Boratssister View Post
    Where was these mining accidents?
    Note that I've been very clear when I stated numbers that they are extrapolations based on numbers from previous years.

    Last year more than 2400 people died in mining accidents in China alone which is why I think it's quite fair to expect more than 500 deaths from mining accidents in the last 3 months.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boratssister View Post
    Dont people die in uranium mines?
    They do, but because of the energy density of nuclear fuel, far less material has to be mined to produce the same amount of energy, hence even without the bad safety record of Chinese coal mines, nuclear will have fewer mine deaths .

    Quote Originally Posted by Boratssister View Post
    Are you sugesting that no one will die because of the radiation leaks at fukishima?
    No, I'm suggesting the number of people who will die will be far less than the number of people already killed by the tsunami.

    And far less than the number who will die this year alone because of the reliance on coal.

    And quite possibly less than the additional people who will die because this will cause even more coal fired plants to be constructed due to renewed fear of nuclear power and due to delays in nuclear plant construction because regulations are likely (and rightly IMO) to be revised in view of what happened.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  19. #769
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Boratssister View Post
    safety standards are not the same all over the world, mining can be very safe, safer than driving in fact. Plus people mine for uranium and abspestos. And coal, oil , gas is good for the overall population of humans.
    They will be very bad for the overall population of humans unless we graduate to longer lasting energy sources with lower environmental impact. Some already claim that the environmental effects could eventually kill billions, but without that, if we don't have alternatives to move to, billions would die when fossil fuels run out and we could no longer sustain an energy intensive civilization.

    I wish i could say the same for nuclear energy.
    Why can't you? It is a much longer lasting energy source with better overall safety and far lower environmental impact than possible with fossil fuels.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  20. #770
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,442
    Quote Originally Posted by Boratssister View Post
    .

    but they can not distinguish between a level 4 and a level 7.
    If only there was a meritocracy!
    We are quite capable of distinguishing between a level 4 and 7.
    The problem is that you apparently have no idea about what 7 actually means.

    And that level 7 hadn't been reached at the time you were using the number.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  21. #771
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    12,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Boratssister View Post
    i dont think you can justify nuclear energy like this. How many coal mines have forced the evacuation of a thousand square miles?
    Are you really saying that an evacuation of any magnitude is as bad as or worse than the loss of 500 human lives? Seriously?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boratssister View Post
    well chemicals have been banned if shown to be harmful, even to a small degree. And im sure that the makers of those chemicals are reacting in the same way as those who make their living in the nuclear industry.
    Some chemicals have been banned if they have been shown to be hazardous to a significant degree.

    PCBs were found to be extremely hazardous and have been banned.

    Vinyl chloride is a known human carcinogen and is still in wide - and highly regulated - use.
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They donít alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views.
    Doctor Who

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

  22. #772
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    30,775
    Honestly, practically everything is harmful even to a small degree!
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  23. #773
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,940
    Quote Originally Posted by Boratssister View Post
    There is better, nuclear educated minds tnan mine, to point that out but oh no, not here.
    There are minds here that are very well educated in nuclear science. And they are telling you that you are wrong. What does that tell you?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  24. #774
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post
    Note that I've been very clear when I stated numbers that they are extrapolations based on numbers from previous years.

    Last year more than 2400 people died in mining accidents in China alone which is why I think it's quite fair to expect more than 500 deaths from mining accidents in the last 3 months.


    They do, but because of the energy density of nuclear fuel, far less material has to be mined to produce the same amount of energy, hence even without the bad safety record of Chinese coal mines, nuclear will have fewer mine deaths .


    No, I'm suggesting the number of people who will die will be far less than the number of people already killed by the tsunami.

    And far less than the number who will die this year alone because of the reliance on coal.

    And quite possibly less than the additional people who will die because this will cause even more coal fired plants to be constructed due to renewed fear of nuclear power and due to delays in nuclear plant construction because regulations are likely (and rightly IMO) to be revised in view of what happened.
    How do you revise for xclass solar flares when all it takes for a meltdown is lack of cooling or a earthquake? Its like one big potential nightmare that we all could avoid.
    Ahh i understand your signature now, i appologise if i got the wrong end of the stick, im sure you have everyones best wishes at heart.

  25. #775
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,442
    Quote Originally Posted by Boratssister View Post
    How do you revise for xclass solar flares when all it takes for a meltdown is lack of cooling or a earthquake? Its like one big potential nightmare that we all could avoid.
    By noting that solar flares affect long distance power lines, not diesel generators.
    Sorry, wrong disaster type.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  26. #776
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    30,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Boratssister View Post
    How do you revise for xclass solar flares when all it takes for a meltdown is lack of cooling or a earthquake? Its like one big potential nightmare that we all could avoid.
    Ahh i understand your signature now, i appologise if i got the wrong end of the stick, im sure you have everyones best wishes at heart.
    You ought to take the Franklin and Darrow quotes a bit more to heart.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  27. #777
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,925
    Quote Originally Posted by Boratssister View Post
    Ahh i understand your signature now, i appologise if i got the wrong end of the stick, im sure you have everyones best wishes at heart.
    I'm closing this thread. Frankly, there have been tons of problems. The topic is Implications of Fukushima and it has evolved into a discussion that seems to have little to do with the actual event, and covers just about any issue relating to energy policy and/or nuclear power. It also has often been quite rude. Boratssister's comment quoted above is entirely too personal and inappropriate.

    This thread will remain closed while the moderators discuss further. Infractions may or may not be issued. If you have a very convincing argument why this thread should be reopened, report my post, otherwise it will remain closed.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

Similar Threads

  1. reactor # 4 at fukushima
    By Copernicus in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2012-Apr-08, 12:22 PM
  2. Ex-Rad: Anti-Radiation Pill; Just in time for Fukushima
    By Ara Pacis in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 2011-Apr-26, 09:30 AM
  3. Fukushima is now a Level 7 Incident as Tchernobyl was
    By Achak in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2011-Mar-28, 09:32 AM
  4. Future of Fukushima Daichi
    By Trebuchet in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 2011-Mar-22, 02:48 PM
  5. Nuclear Clarifications Related to Fukushima
    By NEOWatcher in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 2011-Mar-20, 05:52 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •