PDA

View Full Version : Chernobyl update: peer review



Glom
2005-Nov-01, 01:45 PM
http://www.geocities.com/freedomforfission/acc/chernobyl.html

I've updated it with information from the recent IAEA report.

How does it read? It was a bit of a patchwork. I simply cut in sentences referencing the IAEA report, when the original page was written exclusively around UNSCEAR 2000. I would like to reference the new report more heavily, but I have to find it first.

Potentially contentious issues include where I compare the scale of the Chernobyl disaster to 7/7 and my slightly more emotional statements about the peddlers of fear at the end.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-01, 05:52 PM
I have a question (I'm not sure if it was answered in the article): Do modern nuclear plants give off a lot of toxic waste? What would be your idea of the best way to get rid of that toxic waste, if it is given off?

Glom
2005-Nov-01, 06:22 PM
Not a great deal. (http://www.geocities.com/freedomforfission/cyc/waste.html) And they certainly don't outgas it. The waste is contained and managed.

What about the Chernobyl page?

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-01, 06:35 PM
The page looked good. I was able to keep up with it and take in the facts. =)

Glom
2005-Nov-01, 06:49 PM
Thank you.

devilmech
2005-Nov-01, 07:28 PM
Pretty straightforward read. Was actually rather interesting. I found a few errors, mostly typos. I'll PM you a list of them if you like, so you can make the paper even better.

I would advise making either the background more subdued, or the section titles darker, they were a bit hard to read.

As for references to the IAEA report, it seemed pretty seamless to me, didn't feel like patchwork at all. As I said earlier, pretty straightforward read.

Hope that helps,
Keith

Glom
2005-Nov-01, 07:45 PM
Pretty straightforward read. Was actually rather interesting. I found a few errors, mostly typos. I'll PM you a list of them if you like, so you can make the paper even better.

That would be helpful thanks.


I would advise making either the background more subdued, or the section titles darker, they were a bit hard to read.

I'll play with that a bit.

Joff
2005-Nov-01, 11:38 PM
It looks good - the only significant thing missing that I notice is the words "IAEA initiated" in front of the first use of "Chernobyl Forum", perhaps with a link. Otherwise it's a bit vague where that info comes from.

Ken G
2005-Nov-02, 08:32 PM
I'd say it makes a strong case for the safety of properly monitored nuclear power. Note that it is likely this level of monitoring, not anything inherent in the energy generation itself, that makes nuclear power safer than, for example, coal. I have no objection to reducing the hysterical reporting of nuclear threats, as long as it does not lead to relaxed monitoring. History has shown you cannot trust industry to monitor itself (the coal industry is a perfect example). Perhaps what was really needed was more hysterical reporting of the dangers of coal mining and coal-burning pollutants! (With proper attention to Glom's point about the direct harm that fear-mongering can induce if it causes people to act irrationally in the face of a minor threat.)

Taks
2005-Nov-03, 02:36 PM
i'll try to get to it this weekend. pool league last night, pool tournament tonight, skiing tomorrow, pool tournament saturday (assuming a win tonight) and, maybe, more skiing sunday assuming we're not still in the pool tournament. oof. :)

taks