[QUOTE=Snowmew;45120447][URL="http://is.gd/O4WLCI"]haha oh boy here we go again[/URL][/QUOTE]
That's not even an answer to what he said. At most you're correcting the idea of thousands of years of decay to 'just' 300, and waving away the radiation/containment risk with 'technology will get better and nobody will be irresponsible in the future thanks to training', and making a bunch of claims that while plausible aren't backed up or cited at all.
I'm in favor of nuclear power because it is the only viable solution we have, but this cavalier attitude so many people have towards the risk it poses is frustrating. If there's one thing history has shown over and over again in all aspects of modern technology, it's that corners [I]will[/I] be cut, people [I]will[/I] be irresponsible, and accidents [I]will[/I] happen (to speak nothing of terrorism or intervention from hostile states), and all it would take is one extreme event to have permanent consequences.
[QUOTE=V12US;45118318]He did get fired, according to a Dutch article.
Imagine being a guy who just lost his company over five million dollars because of a calculation error.[/QUOTE]
"Oops. Sorry v:v:v"
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;45118088]sounds grea--
oh.
source: [URL]http://www.dw.de/greenpeace-loses-big-on-international-currency-markets/a-17709210[/URL]
here's what I don't like about greenpeace mostly if you wanna know
[url]http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/[/url][/QUOTE]
That link is funny.
[quote]Despite what the nuclear industry tells us, building enough nuclear power stations to make a meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would cost trillions of dollars, create tens of thousands of tons of lethal high-level radioactive waste, contribute to further proliferation of nuclear weapons materials, and result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade. Perhaps most significantly, it will squander the resources necessary to implement meaningful climate change solutions. (Briefing: Climate change - Nuclear not the answer.)[/quote]
What a load of bull. They can't just pull shit out of their arses and claim them as facts. Half of this is totally baseless. Where do they actually get any of this from? There's a pretty distinct lack of citations.
[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;45121379]That link is funny.
What a load of bull. They can't just pull shit out of their arses and claim them as facts. Half of this is totally baseless. Where do they actually get any of this from? There's a pretty distinct lack of citations.[/QUOTE]
Would you expect anything less from greenpeace of all organizations?
I'd kind of expect that such organizations would get called out if they don't act pragmatically; not that they'd turn in to borderline sects. But hey, who am I to hope that there's good and sanity in human beings.
snip
[QUOTE=Azza;45118441]Nuclear is the future.
Greenpeace are extremely out of touch. I actually laughed at the article in OP about Greenpeace and nuclear power "But as we know there is nothing "peaceful" about all things nuclear."[/QUOTE]
To be fair when they manage to enter nuclear power plants and get on top of reactors without security batting an eye (has happened twice in France so far) they have a point about security
Good, Greenpeace is shit.
I'll whale as much as I want, thank you very much.
[QUOTE=catbarf;45120793]That's not even an answer to what he said. At most you're correcting the idea of thousands of years of decay to 'just' 300, and waving away the radiation/containment risk with 'technology will get better and nobody will be irresponsible in the future thanks to training', and making a bunch of claims that while plausible aren't backed up or cited at all.
I'm in favor of nuclear power because it is the only viable solution we have, but this cavalier attitude so many people have towards the risk it poses is frustrating. If there's one thing history has shown over and over again in all aspects of modern technology, it's that corners [I]will[/I] be cut, people [I]will[/I] be irresponsible, and accidents [I]will[/I] happen (to speak nothing of terrorism or intervention from hostile states), and all it would take is one extreme event to have permanent consequences.[/QUOTE]
cavalier attitude?
the problem is, your belief in corners ALWAYS being cut applies to ALL FORMS OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION.
the difference is, because everyone is so shit terrified of nuclear power, all of the scaremongering has led to improved safety in almost all regards.
There is no wide-spread cavalier attitude, there is far more scaremongering. You're reacting to a fraction of the public opinion irrationally, that pales in comparison to a public opinion that is informed by fear as a result of nuclear weapons, while turning a blind eye to colossal numbers of deaths as a result of tradional power
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;45124152]cavalier attitude?
the problem is, your belief in corners ALWAYS being cut applies to ALL FORMS OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and when a contracting firm trying to come in under budget cuts corners on a coal-burning electric powerplant, even the worst possible result ten years down the road doesn't involve an ecological catastrophe with a cloud of fallout rolling across the planet.
Nobody's saying nuclear power isn't comparatively safe in an absolute sense, but the more a technology is adopted, the more corners tend to get cut and the risk increases, so I don't buy the 'nothing bad will ever happen, technology is better and people are better trained' argument for a second. Nuclear power isn't completely safe, and it's not inherently clean unless you ignore all the extremely hazardous waste that we still can't deal with in any better way than cordoning off a stretch of land to house it. It's not even the cheap solution considering how much regulation has to go into it to try to prevent said ecological catastrophe in the first place.
There are a lot of people who see nuclear power as the catch-all, safe, cheap, long-term solution for our problems, and that's not accurate. It's still our best choice, but you can't look only at the positives and ignore the negatives. Yes, more people die as a result of coal mining alone than as a result of nuclear power, but that doesn't mean the risk isn't there or should be ignored. Yes, there's a lot of fearmongering that makes people unreasonably afraid of nuclear power, but that doesn't justify an attitude that glosses over potential danger like so many people on this site seem to hold.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;45120447][URL="http://is.gd/O4WLCI"]haha oh boy here we go again[/URL][/QUOTE]
owned, again. How many times will this happen?
[QUOTE=catbarf;45120793]That's not even an answer to what he said. At most you're correcting the idea of thousands of years of decay to 'just' 300, and waving away the radiation/containment risk with 'technology will get better and nobody will be irresponsible in the future thanks to training', and making a bunch of claims that while plausible aren't backed up or cited at all.
I'm in favor of nuclear power because it is the only viable solution we have, but this cavalier attitude so many people have towards the risk it poses is frustrating. If there's one thing history has shown over and over again in all aspects of modern technology, it's that corners [I]will[/I] be cut, people [I]will[/I] be irresponsible, and accidents [I]will[/I] happen (to speak nothing of terrorism or intervention from hostile states), and all it would take is one extreme event to have permanent consequences.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=catbarf;45124913]Yeah, and when a contracting firm trying to come in under budget cuts corners on a coal-burning electric powerplant, even the worst possible result ten years down the road doesn't involve an ecological catastrophe with a cloud of fallout rolling across the planet.
Nobody's saying nuclear power isn't comparatively safe in an absolute sense, but the more a technology is adopted, the more corners tend to get cut and the risk increases, so I don't buy the 'nothing bad will ever happen, technology is better and people are better trained' argument for a second. Nuclear power isn't completely safe, and it's not inherently clean unless you ignore all the extremely hazardous waste that we still can't deal with in any better way than cordoning off a stretch of land to house it. It's not even the cheap solution considering how much regulation has to go into it to try to prevent said ecological catastrophe in the first place.
There are a lot of people who see nuclear power as the catch-all, safe, cheap, long-term solution for our problems, and that's not accurate. It's still our best choice, but you can't look only at the positives and ignore the negatives. Yes, more people die as a result of coal mining alone than as a result of nuclear power, but that doesn't mean the risk isn't there or should be ignored. Yes, there's a lot of fearmongering that makes people unreasonably afraid of nuclear power, but that doesn't justify an attitude that glosses over potential danger like so many people on this site seem to hold.[/QUOTE]
Oh good, I needed a new title.
"Just" 300 years is seriously negligible compared to what we are currently dumping out of our outdated reactors here in the US. The problem is, because everyone's so scared and confused by idiots who just scream that nuclear is bad, instead of actually [i]decommissioning current plants and building new ones[/i], we just keep pumping out power from what we have.
You are forgetting one simple fact here. [b]Just getting rid of nuclear power because "people make mistakes" is not an option.[/b] That is [b]not[/b] going to happen. It generates about 20% of electricity here in the US, while a single coal plant - the most common type in the US, which would be the most likely candidate to be used in replacement of a nuclear plant - kills more people annually than all nuclear plants in the world combined, even when completely safely operated.
Like I always say, nuclear power plants aren't some magical things. We have built hundreds of them, and only two have suffered accidents with ecological impacts. One was outdated 20 years before it was built, and one was unprotected from a scenario which the owners knew would happen, but refused to avoid. You are correct in saying that contractors will cut corners to maximize profits and reduce costs. However, that is still not a valid reason to stop nuclear power plants from being built.
Contractors involved in the construction of nuclear power plants are [b]extremely[/b] careful in the States. I have, as a matter of fact, worked with them. They have no-tolerance policies on the smallest of mistakes due to NRC oversight. The recent permanent closure of the SONGS plant here in Southern California was not due to a major accident or explosion - it was because the steam turbines, which are protected from the radioactive core, showed quicker than predicted wear. They were so worried about this small thing, that they completely shut down the plant and are starting to decommission it. It may have become a huge issue, but it would have been avoidable with proper repairs.
Chernobyl had absolutely no oversight from nuclear regulators in any way. It was built by a bridge building company. Even if they hadn't cut corners, they would still have no idea what they were building anyway.
There was no NRC equivalent overseeing Fukushima. Japan created one - but only after the accident.
Have you even seen a nuclear plant? Visited one? Terrorists are not idiots. Nuclear plants would be a lucrative target, if they weren't designed to withstand airplane strikes, if they weren't completely protected on the ground by paramilitary security, and if they really can't kill that many people even in the worst of circumstances. Given complete access to the control room, you wouldn't be able to cause a mushroom cloud anyway - maybe melt the core, but not much else. Chernobyl isn't happening again. You might get something as bad as Fukushima, but proper emergency response protocols prevented any deaths.
Estimations of the casualties that would have been caused by the Times Square car bombing, had it been successful, would have placed it above Chernobyl in deaths. All of the parts in the car were things that you can get without any permits or anything. They were fairly crude devices (in fact, the fertilizer used was even the wrong kind). [b]Anyone[/b] could do something like that. Many people that day were extremely lucky that the bomber was an idiot and didn't set it up correctly. Hell, if you tried it yourself, you'd probably be successful. (Don't try this at home.)
Are we going to start preventing people from buying pressure cookers? Fertilizers? Crappy cars to blow up? I mean, it [b]might[/b] turn into a catastrophe!
Chernobyl was the "one extreme event". It's practically impossible for a nuclear reactor accident to get any worse than that. And guess what - only 50 people died. There are a lot of dangerous things in the world that can kill if they're handled by the kind of people that like to "cut corners". Nuclear power is one of them. Your point?
Awareness is one thing, but ridiculousness is another.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;45123939]To be fair when they manage to enter nuclear power plants and get on top of reactors without security batting an eye (has happened twice in France so far) they have a point about security[/QUOTE]
Maybe I'm wrong but didn't they just enter the cooling tower and say "omg we got to the reactor"?
Coal has killed more people than nuclear ever will.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;45125957]Maybe I'm wrong but didn't they just enter the cooling tower and say "omg we got to the reactor"?[/QUOTE]
Yeah.
I imagine some kids sneaking in, running up to the building, touching it and yelling "base!"
I looked up these incidents - there have actually been quite a few, all of which in France and all of which performed by Greenpeace, due to France's heavy reliance on nuclear power (despite never having a nuclear accident!). In every case but one, they simply climbed up onto outbuildings and catwalks nowhere near the "reactor" or any of the structures even involved in electricity generation. Impressive, guys, you managed to climb a fence and go up a ladder. Quaking in my boots here. Better shut down all nuclear plants in the world, because Greenpeace mastered the tactical fence climbing skill necessary to blow up a nuclear plant into a deadly mushroom cloud!
In the only other case, they simply paraglided over the plant and dropped a smoke grenade onto the containment building. The security guards didn't bother panicking because any explosive that could be carried by the paraglider would have been too lightweight to cause any damage to the containment structure - had they responded, it could have been a diversion tactic to distract them from another larger threat.
The only thing they accomplished was get the nuclear plants big bonuses to buy fancy new surveillance systems.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;45125614]Oh good, I needed a new title.
"Just" 300 years is seriously negligible compared to what we are currently dumping out of our outdated reactors here in the US. The problem is, because everyone's so scared and confused by idiots who just scream that nuclear is bad, instead of actually [I]decommissioning current plants and building new ones[/I], we just keep pumping out power from what we have.
You are forgetting one simple fact here. [B]Just getting rid of nuclear power because "people make mistakes" is not an option.[/B] That is [B]not[/B] going to happen. It generates about 20% of electricity here in the US, while a single coal plant - the most common type in the US, which would be the most likely candidate to be used in replacement of a nuclear plant - kills more people annually than all nuclear plants in the world combined, even when completely safely operated.
Like I always say, nuclear power plants aren't some magical things. We have built hundreds of them, and only two have suffered accidents with ecological impacts. One was outdated 20 years before it was built, and one was unprotected from a scenario which the owners knew would happen, but refused to avoid. You are correct in saying that contractors will cut corners to maximize profits and reduce costs. However, that is still not a valid reason to stop nuclear power plants from being built.
Contractors involved in the construction of nuclear power plants are [B]extremely[/B] careful in the States. I have, as a matter of fact, worked with them. They have no-tolerance policies on the smallest of mistakes due to NRC oversight. The recent permanent closure of the SONGS plant here in Southern California was not due to a major accident or explosion - it was because the steam turbines, which are protected from the radioactive core, showed quicker than predicted wear. They were so worried about this small thing, that they completely shut down the plant and are starting to decommission it. It may have become a huge issue, but it would have been avoidable with proper repairs.
Chernobyl had absolutely no oversight from nuclear regulators in any way. It was built by a bridge building company. Even if they hadn't cut corners, they would still have no idea what they were building anyway.
There was no NRC equivalent overseeing Fukushima. Japan created one - but only after the accident.
Have you even seen a nuclear plant? Visited one? Terrorists are not idiots. Nuclear plants would be a lucrative target, if they weren't designed to withstand airplane strikes, if they weren't completely protected on the ground by paramilitary security, and if they really can't kill that many people even in the worst of circumstances. Given complete access to the control room, you wouldn't be able to cause a mushroom cloud anyway - maybe melt the core, but not much else. Chernobyl isn't happening again. You might get something as bad as Fukushima, but proper emergency response protocols prevented any deaths.
Estimations of the casualties that would have been caused by the Times Square car bombing, had it been successful, would have placed it above Chernobyl in deaths. All of the parts in the car were things that you can get without any permits or anything. They were fairly crude devices (in fact, the fertilizer used was even the wrong kind). [B]Anyone[/B] could do something like that. Many people that day were extremely lucky that the bomber was an idiot and didn't set it up correctly. Hell, if you tried it yourself, you'd probably be successful. (Don't try this at home.)
Are we going to start preventing people from buying pressure cookers? Fertilizers? Crappy cars to blow up? I mean, it [B]might[/B] turn into a catastrophe!
Chernobyl was the "one extreme event". It's practically impossible for a nuclear reactor accident to get any worse than that. And guess what - only 50 people died. There are a lot of dangerous things in the world that can kill if they're handled by the kind of people that like to "cut corners". Nuclear power is one of them. Your point?
Awareness is one thing, but ridiculousness is another.[/QUOTE]
You just admitted that we're still dealing with extremely ecologically nasty waste as a by-product and that there are risks involved in nuclear power, despite advances in safety over the last few decades, and that larger-scale production will inevitably lead to cut corners and relaxed standards. And that while there are risks and dangers involved that should be recognized, it's still safer in an absolute sense than many alternatives and is the way forward to fossil fuel independence.
So... you're agreeing with everything I have said in this thread thus far. Do you have a point here or are you just trying for another epic zinger to replace your title?
[editline]17th June 2014[/editline]
Oh, except for that bit about Chernobyl. You know the IAEA puts the death toll due to Chernobyl at roughly 4,000 thanks to direct contamination (while the effects of the fallout that spread across Europe cannot be known for certain), there were nearly 7,000 cases of thyroid cancer in Eastern Europe, an estimated five million people contaminated with radionuclides, and over 350,000 people displaced by the accident?
Chernobyl is by no means a self-evident condemnation of nuclear power but come on, calling it just fifty deaths is bullshit and you know it.
[QUOTE=catbarf;45126412]You just admitted that we're still dealing with extremely ecologically nasty waste as a by-product[/QUOTE]
Yeah. Hazardous waste is a thing. Nuclear waste is dangerous. We get it.
Without the [i]advancement[/i] of nuclear energy, we won't be able to safely dispose of nuclear waste. The only way is the way forward.
[QUOTE=catbarf;45126412]and that there are risks involved in nuclear power, despite advances in safety over the last few decades,[/QUOTE]
And?
[QUOTE=catbarf;45126412]and that larger-scale production will inevitably lead to cut corners and relaxed standards.[/QUOTE]
Whoops, mistake #1. I never said this. In fact, I pointed out that standards have [i]tightened[/i] after every single nuclear accident in history, and the scale of nuclear disasters over commercial generation history is directly related to the amount of regulation. Chernobyl had absolutely no regulation and negligent (and criminal) government oversight - huge disaster. Fukushima was only regulated by a power company and international bodies - small disaster. Three Mile Island was strictly regulated by the government - no disaster.
[QUOTE=catbarf;45126412]And that while there are risks and dangers involved that should be recognized, it's still safer in an absolute sense than many alternatives and is the way forward to fossil fuel independence.[/QUOTE]
"I'm for nuclear power, but it's really dangerous guys." We get it already. Nobody here is saying nuclear power is risk-free. What are you trying to prove?
[QUOTE=catbarf;45126412]So... you're agreeing with everything I have said in this thread thus far. Do you have a point here or are you just trying for another epic zinger to replace your title?[/QUOTE]
You have come out in support of nuclear power, then turned around and said it shouldn't be continued because people will start to "cut corners" and a huge disaster might happen. Are you just saying that it's inevitable? What [i]are[/i] you saying?
[QUOTE=catbarf;45126412]Oh, except for that bit about Chernobyl. You know the IAEA puts the death toll due to Chernobyl at roughly 4,000 thanks to the fallout that spread across Europe, there were nearly 7,000 cases of thyroid cancer from the contamination, an estimated five million people contaminated with radionuclides, and over 350,000 people were displaced by the accident?[/QUOTE]
[b]Wrong again.[/b] I don't know how many times I have to say it. Here's the breakdown:
- 36 people died from radiation poisoning (or radiation-caused illnesses excluding cancer)
- Of the "7,000 cases of thyroid cancer", [b]only 15 resulted in deaths[/b] (the rest were treated successfully)
Thyroid cancer is an uncommon type of cancer. It is extremely easy to treat, and deaths from it are exceedingly rare. Normally, all you do is take a pill for a while, and it disappears. Sometimes you need surgery. That's it. The 4,000 count derived from 7,000 cases is absolutely nonsensical.
36 + 15 = 51.
Oh, and "five million people contaminated" is an absolutely worthless metric. Most of them experienced "contamination" levels that were negligible compared to background radiation levels.
[QUOTE=catbarf;45126412]Chernobyl is by no means a self-evident condemnation of nuclear power but come on, calling it just fifty deaths is bullshit and you know it.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, I really am. I really should have said 51. Will you forgive me?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;45118547]There are but I think that can only take you so far.[/QUOTE]
LFTR is a proven thing.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;45126718]then turned around and said it shouldn't be continued[/QUOTE]
Nope. Never said that. Find where I did.
What I have said, quite consistently, is that the idea that nothing will ever go wrong and nuclear power is 100% safe is pure nonsense, because corners get cut and mistakes happen. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, it means we should be aware of the risk and not try to downplay it as impossible thanks to modern technology and training.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;45126718][B]Wrong again.[/B] I don't know how many times I have to say it. Here's the breakdown:
- 36 people died from radiation poisoning (or radiation-caused illnesses excluding cancer)
- Of the "7,000 cases of thyroid cancer", [B]only 15 resulted in deaths[/B] (the rest were treated successfully)
Thyroid cancer is an uncommon type of cancer. It is extremely easy to treat, and deaths from it are exceedingly rare. Normally, all you do is take a pill for a while, and it disappears. Sometimes you need surgery. That's it. The 4,000 count derived from 7,000 cases is absolutely nonsensical.
36 + 15 = 51.
Oh, and "five million people contaminated" is an absolutely worthless metric. Most of them experienced "contamination" levels that were negligible compared to background radiation levels.
I'm sorry, I really am. I really should have said 51. Will you forgive me?[/QUOTE]
Wow, why don't you go tell the UN, IAEA, and WHO that they're [URL="http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/chernobyl/faqs.shtml"]totally wrong[/URL]?
The experts have put the death toll at around 4,000. [URL="http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-book-concludes-chernobyl-death-toll-985-000-mostly-from-cancer/20908"]Some people[/URL] accuse the authorities of bias and put the count higher, but I think it's more reasonable to go by the estimation of the professionals, don't you?
These terrorist is going down
Echochamber of Ukraine.
[QUOTE=catbarf;45127428]Wow, why don't you go tell the UN, IAEA, and WHO that they're [URL="http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/chernobyl/faqs.shtml"]totally wrong[/URL]?
The experts have put the death toll at around 4,000. [URL="http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-book-concludes-chernobyl-death-toll-985-000-mostly-from-cancer/20908"]Some people[/URL] accuse the authorities of bias and put the count higher, but I think it's more reasonable to go by the estimation of the professionals, don't you?[/QUOTE]
I think it's more reasonable to actually read the source, don't you?
[QUOTE]The estimated 4000 casualties may occur during the lifetime of about 600,000 people under consideration. As about quarter of them will eventually die from spontaneous cancer not caused by Chernobyl radiation, the radiation-induced increase of about 3% will be difficult to observe.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Confusion about the impact has arisen owing to the fact that thousands of people in the affected areas have died of natural causes. Also, widespread expectations of ill health and a tendency to attribute all health problems to radiation exposure have led local residents to assume that Chernobyl related fatalities were much higher than they actually were.[/QUOTE]
So basically they are saying that out of a cancer rate of 25%, 3% may be at higher risk, although no hard numbers exist to prove that this estimation is at all true.
In fact, [b]the IAEA - on their own website - state that peer-reviewed studies actually disprove this 3% estimation[/b].
[QUOTE][url]http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/chernobyl-15/liquidators.shtml[/url]
The cancer and death rate studies that have been conducted among samples of the recorded liquidators have shown no direct correlation between radiation exposure at Chernobyl and increased cancer or death rates.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][url]http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/chernobyl-15/cherno-faq.shtml[/url]
Health studies of the registered cleanup workers called in (so-called “liquidators”) have failed to show any direct correlation between their radiation exposure and an increase in other forms of cancer or disease.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][url]http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf[/url]
Apart from the dramatic increase in thyroid cancer incidence among those exposed at
a young age, there is no clearly demonstrated increase in the incidence of solid cancers
or leukaemia due to radiation in the most affected populations.[/QUOTE]
Keep rating my posts dumb though. I'm moving, I could use the boxes.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;45127660]I think it's more reasonable to actually read the source, don't you?
So basically they are saying that out of a cancer rate of 25%, 3% may be at higher risk, although no hard numbers exist to prove that this estimation is at all true.
In fact, [B]the IAEA - on their own website - state that peer-reviewed studies actually disprove this 3% estimation[/B].[/QUOTE]
Those studies you cited on the IAEA site are specifically discussing Soviet liquidators, not the general population from which the 4,000 figure is drawn, so maybe you should follow your own advice and read the source. Considering this is the opinion of experts expressing an increased risk of death due to cancer for a given population I'm not sure what you're arguing, are you really saying that deaths for which radiation may have been a contributing factor don't count when establishing death toll of a nuclear event? Nobody seems to have a problem attributing cancer deaths to the nuclear bombing of Japan, Agent Orange, smoking, or coal mining, and those are the same sort of statistical analysis.
You've got the IAEA, UN, and WHO saying 4,000, who says 51?
[QUOTE=Snowmew;45127660]Keep rating my posts dumb though. I'm moving, I could use the boxes.[/QUOTE]
I'm rating you dumb when you seem more concerned with getting your [I]~epic zingers~[/I] than actual discussion. You're clearly informed on this topic, but you keep making these long-winded posts that don't actually address what I've said and in some cases agree with me, and your initial reply to Gigabite, quoting yourself, didn't even address what he said. You've also misread my posts when I've clearly stated that I'm in favor of nuclear energy. It's extremely frustrating to discuss a topic with someone who seems more concerned with showing off their own knowledge than reading the discussion.
[QUOTE=catbarf;45127887]Those studies you cited on the IAEA site are specifically discussing Soviet liquidators, not the general population from which the 4,000 figure is drawn, so maybe you should follow your own advice and read the source. Considering this is the opinion of experts expressing an increased risk of death due to cancer for a given population I'm not sure what you're arguing, are you really saying that deaths for which radiation may have been a contributing factor don't count when establishing death toll of a nuclear event? Nobody seems to have a problem attributing cancer deaths to the nuclear bombing of Japan, Agent Orange, smoking, or coal mining, and those are the same sort of statistical analysis.
You've got the IAEA, UN, and WHO saying 4,000, who says 51?
I'm rating you dumb when you seem more concerned with getting your [I]~epic zingers~[/I] than actual discussion. You're clearly informed on this topic, but you keep making these long-winded posts that don't actually address what I've said and in some cases agree with me, and your initial reply to Gigabite, quoting yourself, didn't even address what he said. You've also misread my posts when I've clearly stated that I'm in favor of nuclear energy. It's extremely frustrating to discuss a topic with someone who seems more concerned with showing off their own knowledge than reading the discussion.[/QUOTE]
Did you read the last quote? You know, the one that said "affected populations"?
Liquidators were exposed to far higher radiation levels than the general populace in the first place. Did you think that we took the Patrick Starr approach here? "We'll just take all of our radioactive materials... and put them somewhere else!"
The IAEA were the ones that said 51. If you had looked around, you might actually find one or two sources where they do. (I found three.)
And no, they do not count. Fluctuations occur in those mortality rates. It is impossible to attribute them to a hard "death count" as you are so excited to do because they aren't measured results; they are only estimations based on models which have been shown not to be accurate due to no clear increased cancer rates in those that were most susceptible to them.
Your only logical conclusion could be estimated deaths based on a model that has since been proven incorrect. When the estimation was made (before such deaths even could have started to occur), it was impossible to accurately predict anything because there was no reference. The scale of the disaster was something that nobody could have accurately modeled. To rely on such a prediction when numerous studies decades later have disproven it is ridiculous.
I could account for some extra deaths, but they are so insignificant that they could not be counted in the first place. At that point, frankly, they are negligible. To compare Chernobyl with other events and say "they can be counted!" does not make a difference. Smoking, coal mining, and Agent Orange are not radioactive. They are entirely separate. The Japan bombings released several orders of magnitude greater radioactive material than Chernobyl. At that rate, yes, it is possible to model (and count) deaths. For this scenario, it is not. That is the definition of negligibility.
Nuclear power plants are pretty cool. Look how much energy modern ones produce.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/%D0%90%D0%AD%D0%A1_%D0%95%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%8B.png[/img]
[QUOTE=catbarf;45124913]Yeah, and when a contracting firm trying to come in under budget cuts corners on a coal-burning electric powerplant, even the worst possible result ten years down the road doesn't involve an ecological catastrophe with a cloud of fallout rolling across the planet.
Nobody's saying nuclear power isn't comparatively safe in an absolute sense, but the more a technology is adopted, the more corners tend to get cut and the risk increases, so I don't buy the 'nothing bad will ever happen, technology is better and people are better trained' argument for a second. Nuclear power isn't completely safe, and it's not inherently clean unless you ignore all the extremely hazardous waste that we still can't deal with in any better way than cordoning off a stretch of land to house it. It's not even the cheap solution considering how much regulation has to go into it to try to prevent said ecological catastrophe in the first place.
There are a lot of people who see nuclear power as the catch-all, safe, cheap, long-term solution for our problems, and that's not accurate. It's still our best choice, but you can't look only at the positives and ignore the negatives. Yes, more people die as a result of coal mining alone than as a result of nuclear power, but that doesn't mean the risk isn't there or should be ignored. Yes, there's a lot of fearmongering that makes people unreasonably afraid of nuclear power, but that doesn't justify an attitude that glosses over potential danger like so many people on this site seem to hold.[/QUOTE]
the deaths from coal and oil come more in the obtaining of the resource than in the expending of it.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45129438]the deaths from coal and oil come more in the obtaining of the resource than in the expending of it.[/QUOTE]
The problem with a counter argument against this statement is its hard to quantify air pollution deaths...
[url]http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/air-pollution-causes-7-million-deaths-in-a-year-report-finds-9223393.html[/url]
This indicates upwards of 7 million air pollution deaths per year. Though I can't reasonable say "coal" killed all 7 million- I can say coal/oil is a major contributing factor.
[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;45129998]The problem with a counter argument against this statement is its hard to quantify air pollution deaths...
[url]http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/air-pollution-causes-7-million-deaths-in-a-year-report-finds-9223393.html[/url]
This indicates upwards of 7 million air pollution deaths per year. Though I can't reasonable say "coal" killed all 7 million- I can say coal/oil is a major contributing factor.[/QUOTE]
What about mining deaths themselves? Collapses, poorly contained hazardous materials, explosions, fires, they kill thousands of people every year.
Every source has killed people. Wind turbine technicians have died each year, not sure about solar, but I'm sure there's a power generated to death ratio and I'm willing to bet nuclear is on the better end of that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
