Alternate upload for those interested in seeing John Oliver's typical garbage.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLVQZfK7HVQ[/media]
It's pretty typical anti-nuclear garbage and he misrepresents nearly everything. The only thing he gets right is Yucca Mountain.
If the only thing you got out of this is "anti-nuclear", then I don't think you paid very close attention to the video at all.
No judgment is passed, in any capacity, on nuclear power or even nuclear armament. The entire piece is solely focused on how nuclear waste has been handled in the United States since the 50s - notably, how it hasn't been.
The closest he even gets to a commentary is when discussing Hanford, which is [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site#Environmental_concerns]well-known for its leaking of hazardous waste[/url]. And even then, he makes absolutely no comments on the fact that Hanford was used for enriching weapons-grade plutonium, or even that the plant currently serves as a nuclear power-plant for the state. All he says is that Hanford is notorious for its problems storing nuclear waste, which is a very real problem.
Nuclear waste disposal has always been a huge problem in America that has never been properly targeted and to label well researched concerns about it as "anti-nuclear" really doesn't help dispel the notion that nuclear energy advocates in America don't care about a solution.
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;52595797]If the only thing you got out of this is "anti-nuclear", then I don't think you paid very close attention to the video at all.
No judgment is passed, in any capacity, on nuclear power or even nuclear armament. The entire piece is solely focused on how nuclear waste has been handled in the United States since the 50s - notably, how it hasn't been.
The closest he even gets to a commentary is when discussing Hanford, which is [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site#Environmental_concerns]well-known for its leaking of hazardous waste[/url]. And even then, he makes absolutely no comments on the fact that Hanford was used for enriching weapons-grade plutonium, or even that the plant currently serves as a nuclear power-plant for the state. All he says is that Hanford is notorious for its problems storing nuclear waste, which is a very real problem.[/QUOTE]
How about playing up the seismic risks to nuclear plants? Or saying that spent fuel pools are dangerous and implying that a major accidents could happen to them like at Fukushima (despite the fact nothing happened to the spent fuel at Fukushima)? Or pretending spent fuel cask designed to survive aircraft impacts are a dangerous way to store nuclear waste?
[I][B]RADIOACTIVE ALLIGATORS[/B][/I]
[QUOTE=download;52595821]How about playing up the seismic risks to nuclear plants? Or saying that spent fuel pools are dangerous and implying that a major accidents could happen to them like at Fukushima (despite the fact nothing happened to the spent fuel at Fukushima)? Or pretending spent fuel cask designed to survive aircraft impacts are a dangerous way to store nuclear waste?[/QUOTE]
Sounds like you are a bit of a nuclear fanboy. It's a great source of power but you make it sound fool-proof and clean. It is absolutely not and is incredibly dangerous if procedures are not followed to the letter.
And boy, people are shit at following procedures.
[QUOTE=download;52595821]How about playing up the seismic risks to nuclear plants? Or saying that spent fuel pools are dangerous and implying that a major accidents could happen to them like at Fukushima (despite the fact nothing happened to the spent fuel at Fukushima)? Or pretending spent fuel cask designed to survive aircraft impacts are a dangerous way to store nuclear waste?[/QUOTE]
I think he mentioned fault lines once, implying that being in located in an area prone to natural disasters isn't the best place to permanently store waste, considering that being on a fault line makes an earthquake inevitable.
Other than that his points are all reasonable. Keeping waste onsite permanently, (especially in an area where an unpredictable natural disaster can occur at any time), when we have a location that can be dedicated to this issue is asinine.
It has nothing to do with the dangers of nuclear power, just with the storage of its waste.
There's a certain level of nuclear fanboyism going on on the internet and I think it shows when it comes to nuclear waste.
Nuclear is a fine energy source but it's an energy source that's dangerous as hell when you half ass it, that doesn't mean you shouldn't invest in Nuclear energy but that doesn't mean that you should try to downplay the very real issue of dealing with nuclear waste.
So is it titled nuclear waste because his show bombed hard?
[QUOTE=Faunze;52596021]Sounds like you are a bit of a nuclear fanboy. It's a great source of power but you make it sound fool-proof and clean. It is absolutely not and is incredibly dangerous if procedures are not followed to the letter.
And boy, people are shit at following procedures.[/QUOTE]
Problem is, with that much red tape not only does it limit how power stations now operate (both good and bad) but also stifles the development, testing and deployment of newer and more efficient designs.
Citing unsafe storage of waste in most post-war and cold war sites is also kinda dodgy considering at the time the feds just wanted a plutonium stockpile bigger than the neighbors, hence why Windscale caught fire from being loaded with more than four times the isotopes it was designed to hold.
[QUOTE=pentium;52596404]Problem is, with that much red tape not only does it limit how power stations now operate (both good and bad) but also stifles the development, testing and deployment of newer and more efficient designs.
Citing unsafe storage of waste in most post-war and cold war sites is also kinda dodgy considering at the time the feds just wanted a plutonium stockpile bigger than the neighbors, hence why Windscale caught fire from being loaded with more than four times the isotopes it was designed to hold.[/QUOTE]
Honestly? Good. This isn't some new coal plant or diesel engine we are talking about. If you majorly fuck up plants like this the ecological damage disasters can cause can and have been disastrous.
We need to tread carefully, and if possible, develop fast enough that we can skip right over nuclear energy all together. It's nice and all but we don't need to allocate R&D on it, we have better cleaner methods we should be spending our time on.
[QUOTE=download;52595722]
It's pretty typical anti-nuclear garbage and he misrepresents nearly everything. [/QUOTE]
Did we watch the same fuckin video?
[QUOTE=Faunze;52596495]Honestly? Good. This isn't some new coal plant or diesel engine we are talking about. If you majorly fuck up plants like this the ecological damage disasters can cause can and have been disastrous.
We need to tread carefully, and if possible, develop fast enough that we can skip right over nuclear energy all together. It's nice and all but we don't need to allocate R&D on it, we have better cleaner methods we should be spending our time on.[/QUOTE]
Yes, lets skip over the safest power source on the face of the planet :downs:
[QUOTE=download;52596523]Yes, lets skip over the safest power source on the face of the planet :downs:[/QUOTE]
Solar, wind, hydro are far more safe than nuclear power.
[QUOTE=Megalan;52596559]Solar, wind, hydro are far more safe than nuclear power.[/QUOTE]
No they aint.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/sUZev3X.png[/IMG]
[URL]https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#6d8a69a2709b[/URL]
[QUOTE]The dozen or so U.S. deaths in nuclear over the last 60 years have mostly been in the weapons complex or are modeled from general LNT effects. The reason the nuclear number is small is that nuclear produces so much electricity per unit. There just are not many nuclear plants. And the two failures have been in GenII plants with old designs that were due to human failures to heed our warnings. All new builds must be GenIII and higher, with passive redundant safety systems, and all must be able to withstand the worst case disaster, no matter how unlikely. [/QUOTE]
Obligatory link to GodKing Snowmew's post
[url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1336387&p=43252922&highlight=#post43252922[/url]
[QUOTE=Megalan;52596559]Solar, wind, hydro are far more safe than nuclear power.[/QUOTE]
That's funny, I have a study here that says the opposite...
[img]http://i.imgur.com/5tJ1wgr.png[/img]
[url]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516301240[/url]
I remember taking a field trip to the nuclear power station here in NH, near the beach (I think Hampton). There was a mention how they put the waste in concrete cylinders, about 4ft thick from the center to the edge. It still sounded low tech to me, as tiny atoms can still find their way around things like that. But, apparently it's still [I]some[/I] sort of solution. There has been no incidents related to waste at that facility.
It's always been told to me that nuclear energy is efficient and incredibly useful. The main issue, as we already know, has always been properly disposing of the waste. While incredibly scary to think about, it seems that most of the issues related to waste are more down to carelessness, rather than anything pointing to the idea that it is nearly impossible store/dispose the waste.
Lmfao, jesus the fanboy-fuckery in this thread is so strong I thought I was on Reddit for a minute there. Yes, nuclear power has lower risks than many other power generation methods IF all safety techniques are adhered to. Even then if they are, shit still happens. Forgetting about Fukushima?
If you want a reason why nuclear power would be considered somewhat dangerous, look at Sellafield. We're still cleaning up a mess of epic proportions over there, and what makes this even funnier is that there was no mechanical failure, this wasn't a case of the reactor itself failing. Simply a case of lazy humans not disposing of waste properly.
Now if you wanna argue safe nuclear power, I'm all for fusion. Just gotta get it working in an efficient and sustainable way.
Saf[b]est[/b] =/= Saf[b]e[/b].
Just because it's the saf[b]est[/b] source of power generation, doesn't mean it has no dangers that need to be considered and accounted for.
[QUOTE=NO ONE;52596632]I remember taking a field trip to the nuclear power station here in NH, near the beach (I think Hampton). There was a mention how they put the waste in concrete cylinders, about 4ft thick from the center to the edge. It still sounded low tech to me, as tiny atoms can still find their way around things like that. But, apparently it's still [I]some[/I] sort of solution. There has been no incidents related to waste at that facility.[/QUOTE]
Eh. Not exactly. Nuclei can stop that shit, the heavier the nuclei the better blocking power. In nuclear reactors themselves they'll usually do it with giant chunk of concrete with some lead.
Even "advanced" containers IIRC are typically just some inert gas, inside of a steel container, inside of a massive chunk of concrete or more steel.
[QUOTE=3ntropy;52596683]Lmfao, jesus the fanboy-fuckery in this thread is so strong I thought I was on Reddit for a minute there. Yes, nuclear power has lower risks than many other power generation methods IF all safety techniques are adhered to. Even then if they are, shit still happens. Forgetting about Fukushima?
If you want a reason why nuclear power would be considered somewhat dangerous, look at Sellafield. We're still cleaning up a mess of epic proportions over there, and what makes this even funnier is that there was no mechanical failure, this wasn't a case of the reactor itself failing. Simply a case of lazy humans not disposing of waste properly.
Now if you wanna argue safe nuclear power, I'm all for fusion. Just gotta get it working in an efficient and sustainable way.[/QUOTE]
Sellafield was literally developed over a decade before man walked on the moon and was made hastily in an attempt to get nuclear weapons. Safety wasn't a concern.
Fukashima didn't adhere to all safety techniques. They received multiple warnings beforehand and didn't obey them. No one died from Fukashima, 15000 people died from the earthquake and tsunami.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52598036]I had to do like 2 minutes of googling to find out that his show isn't bombing
[url]http://www.inquisitr.com/4000749/john-oliver-last-week-tonight-feb-19-season-4-ratings/[/url]
[I]
[/I]
So I'm guessing this has more to do with insecurities about your political positions when contrasted with John's than anything else :thinking:[/QUOTE]
Obviously if you don't like something you follow the example set by your personal hero and claim that it's failing financially, whether or not it's actually true!
After all why check facts when I can just giggle about my sick zinger!
[QUOTE=space1;52596388]So is it titled nuclear waste because his show bombed hard?[/QUOTE]
"I don't like his show therefore no one does!"
:badzing:
Your right guys. Let's forget about this whole nuclear waste thing. People are pretending it's a problem when it's not. Let's just keep doing what we are doing. Like anything bad would ever happen to these nuclear waste sites anyways.
[URL="https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/07/f18/HPS%202014%20CHEN_0.pdf"]Oh wait[/URL]
It could. And if it does. Well, dang. Nobody will trust your super awesome and great nuclear power anymore.
[QUOTE=3ntropy;52596683]Forgetting about Fukushima?[/QUOTE]
fukushima, much like chernobyl, was a nightmare because of TEPCO's horrible and ignorant management
[t]http://mattyoungwi.com/i/2017-08-21_19-09-27.png[/t]
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52596581]wew[/QUOTE]
Honestly I'm surprised that no one actually took the time and stepped back and look at this giant meme that nuclear energy has become.
There's always the same 5 things posted,
1. [URL="https://xkcd.com/radiation/"]The XKCD Radiation Dose chart.[/URL]
2. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents"]A list of energy accidents, I applaud you for linking a paywall site with adblock blocking so no one could read why hydro rates are so high. (See: Chinese Labour)[/URL]
3. [URL="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/"]The clickbait article saying that coal is more radioactive than nuclear waste.[/URL]
4. [URL="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/060418-chernobyl-wildlife-thirty-year-anniversary-science/"]The national geographic article on wildlife living near Chernobyl.[/URL]
5. Snowmew's post.
The problem with nuclear supporters is that they LOVE LOVE LOVE to focus on mortality; just the deaths. They don't touch things like cancer, sickness, disorders, and other life-altering affections. Like virtually everything else on this planet (obesity, smoking, alcoholism, global warming) people seem to not give that too shit about anything that kills you slowly or doesn't have an immediate effect on you. This is doubly beneficial for those "mortality rate" stats since radiation poisoning doesn't kill you instantly so you just can't pinpoint where you got that terminal cancer from because everything gives you cancer.
A lot of people really need to look at bioaccumulation, I mean they've been looking at it but they haven't realised yet. [URL="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/"]That article where it says coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste[/URL] involves bioaccumulation, the very trace amounts of radioactive material in coal build up when it's put into the enviorment for a long time. [URL="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/060418-chernobyl-wildlife-thirty-year-anniversary-science/"]That national geographic article[/URL] that idiots link to prove that nuclear fallout isn't so bad also brings up the question on whether or not it's actually safe to live nearby due to bioaccumulation.
[quote]Anders Pape Møller, a Danish scientist at the University of Paris-Sud who has studied swallows in nuclear environments, says his research shows otherwise. “These animals in Chernobyl and Fukushima live 24 hours a day in these contaminated sites. Even if the actual dose for one hour is not extremely high, after a week or after a month, it adds up to a lot. These effects are certainly at a level where you could see dramatic consequences.”
His research with biologist Timothy Mousseau has shown that voles have higher rates of cataracts, useful populations of bacteria on the wings of birds in the zone are lower, partial albinism among barn swallows, and that cuckoos have become less common, among other findings. Serious mutations, though, happened only right after the accident.
Both sides agree that radiation is bad for people and bad for animals; the debate is over how bad and whether it has caused populations to decline.[/quote]
I'll state this again. Nuclear Energy is a fine energy source as long as you fully commit yourself to dealing with nuclear waste. If you don't, you might as well just keep using coal. I'll link my post again.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52596307]Nuclear is a fine energy source but it's an energy source that's dangerous as hell when you half ass it, that doesn't mean you shouldn't invest in Nuclear energy but that doesn't mean that you should try to downplay the very real issue of dealing with nuclear waste.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52598842]
I'll state this again. Nuclear Energy is a fine energy source as long as you fully commit yourself to dealing with nuclear waste. If you don't, you might as well just keep using coal.[/QUOTE]
You might as well use other sun base energy. Even so with horrible histories of nuclear waste storage or waste recycling, no excuse their is to go straight back to coal.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52598874]I wasn't saying it to justify the use of coal. I prefer other alternatives like solar, wind, and hydro but I'm fine with Nuclear as long as people actually commit to it.
It's an exaggerated saying where you're presented with a problem and your solution is just as detrimental as the problem to begin with so it becomes redundant.
Example: "You might as well just stab yourself again if you think an unlicensed street doctor will help your wound."[/QUOTE]
Oh sorry, I didn't understand.
[QUOTE=YOMIURA;52598851]You might as well use other sun base energy. Even so with horrible histories of nuclear waste storage or waste recycling, no excuse their is to go straight back to coal.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't saying it to justify the use of coal. I prefer other alternatives like solar, wind, and hydro but I'm fine with Nuclear as long as people actually commit to it.
It's an exaggerated saying where you're presented with a problem and your solution is just as detrimental as the problem to begin with so it becomes redundant.
Example: "You might as well just stab yourself again if you think an unlicensed street doctor will help your wound."
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52598842]They don't touch things like cancer, sickness, disorders, and other life-altering affections. [/QUOTE]
neither do you apparantly
if you want to complain about people using the wrong type of data try showing that it's misleading instead of just implying it
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52596581]No they aint.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/sUZev3X.png[/IMG]
[URL]https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#6d8a69a2709b[/URL]
Obligatory link to GodKing Snowmew's post
[url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1336387&p=43252922&highlight=#post43252922[/url][/QUOTE]
That's a bit misleading due to the quantities and nature of the accidents though. Rooftop solar has many more deaths because many people put panels on their roof, and a few of them fall off.
It also makes inefficient power sources seem more deadly since its measured by deaths per amount of power generated.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.