THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SAFE NUCLEAR POWER

[segnosaur]

You know, I decided to actually sit down and do some number crunching.

In 2008, the total amount of electricity generated in the world was 20,261 TWh. (This was from wikipedia, but I don't think anyone will have a reason to dispute this. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation )

According to the 2011 article I posted (see post 124), the number of deaths that would occur from generating that much power, if we used one method only, is as follows:

Nuclear: 800 (based on 0.04 deaths per TWh)

Wind: 3000 (based on 0.15 deaths per TWh)

Solar: 8900 (based on 0.44 deaths per TWh)

Note that the value for solar might actually be higher, since he actually gives 2 figures. but I'm being generous to solar.

So, if the world went to wind power instead of nuclear, it would cause an extra 2200 deaths per year. If they went to Solar power, it would cause an extra 8100 deaths.

Now, the worst nuclear disaster ever was Chernobyl. Around 50 people died in the accident. (Not all were due to radiation, some were totally unrelated, but I'll be generous here.) So, to make up the difference between the deaths caused by Nuclear and that caused by Wind, you'd need 44 Chernobyl-scale accidents a year. Or 162 Chernobyl-scale accidents to make up the difference between nuclear deaths and solar.

Last time I checked, we haven't had 162 Chernobyl-scale accidents this year.

Now I hear some people complaining "what about cancer deaths"? Well, its a fair question. They expect roughly 4000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl. So yea, that changes the numbers a bit.

(See http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf page 16)

If you compare that with solar, you will have to have 2 Chernobyl-scale events per year in order for the death tolls to be anywhere near compatible. If you compare that with wind, you'd have to have Chernobyl happen every 1.8 years.

Were there 2 Chernobyl-scale events this year? Nope, don't think so.

So, how does that fit in with history? The first civilian nuclear power generator went on line in the mid-50s. That means we've been using nuclear power for more than 5 decades. (Its close to 6, but I'll say 5 because they were probably largely experimental in the first years. It actually harms my argument, but since my proof is so string it doesn't really mater.) And let us be reallly generous to the anti-nuclear people and consider all accidents above a level 5. (Not exactly fair to me, since none of those other accidents have had anywhere near the death toll as Chernobyl. But hey, I'm a nice guy.)

There have been 6 accidents that have been rated as severity level 5 or greater. That is one "serious" accident every 8 years. As I pointed out, you would have needed 2 Chernobyl-scale nuclear accidents every year for the death toll of nuclear to match Solar. So we would have needed a total of 100 Chernobyls.

We had 6. (And like I said, that's being extremely generous to the anti-nuclear people, since no accident has come anywhere close to Chernobyl.) We'd have to have 16 times the number of nuclear accidents to make things as bad as going solar.

Edited October 5, 2012 by segnosaur

[Fletch 27]

Coal Mining has Killed MORE than Nuclear has to date... Thats just the MINING portion! Lets talk cancers and lund diseas in the population from Coal... Nuclear is by FAR the safest pwer source IMO

the coal plants are not intended as a replacement for nuclear...new coal plants are more efficient than previous coal plants, the new plants are intended to fill shortfalls at peak hours if wind and solar options are not operating at full potential...

as green technology increases the intent is that Germany will be at 35% by 2022 and 80% green energy by 2050...the new coal plants which can be powered down and up very quickly covering energy shortfalls unlike older designs that were intended to power supply energy constantly...

[segnosaur]

"The timeframe and the goals of the energy revolution are intact" do you have some sort of psychic power that allows you to come to a different conclusion than what was stated?...

Here's a question... did you actually read the article that was referenced?

Yeah, I know, actually having references is something you don't believe in. But the article clearly states:

...two ministers, Environment Minister Peter Altmaier and Economy Minister Philipp Rösler, have cast doubt whether the targets are reachable...

And I also notice you missed the part of the quote that said: "we will have to make adjustments if jobs and our competitiveness should become endangered."

So, um... what exactly do you think those "adjustments" are?

[GostHacked]

As long as we're talking conspiricy theories with absolutely no evidence, how do you even know there was even an accident at Fukushima?

How did I know? Hmm one huge quake followed by a tsunami taking the power offline so there is no power to keep the plants cool.

How do you know it wasn't all some carefully orchestrated plot by Greenpeace, in collaboration with the Solar Panel manufacturing industry (also known as "big solar") to discredit Nuclear energy by creating a fake nuclear disaster? All they had to do is bribe a few people in the Japanese government, release a few radioactive isotopes in the air, and poof! Nuclear looks like the bad guy!

Did I just blow your mind?

Now who is the conspiracy theorist. This does not seem to be a good representative of your knowledge in this particular field in which you claim you have some expertise.

Seriously, its been months and months since the accident. Don't you think that if there were deaths immediately attributable to radiation following the accident, that someone would have come forward? Some mother of a plant worker saying "where's my son?" Some disgunteled employee saying "I had to carry the bodies out"? Anyone?

Why do you think people would come forward considering how TEPCO and Japan handled the situation?

Are you suggesting there's some massive conspiracy, involving probably hundreds of scientists, to fudge their readings?

Nope, the politics came into play. The science may have made accurate readings, but never put it past the politics to downplay such a disaster. And that is exactly what happened, Japan and TEPCO downplayed everything from the start and only backtracked when confronted with the real information.

Seriously, you're talking about the communist system of government, which gave such technological gems as the Trabant (a car that sometimes was eaten by goats) and a rocket capsule that actually baked its occupants alive (see Laika, the first dog into space). Technical innovation and safety were not strong suits of eastern bloc countries at the time.

The Trabant was from East Germany. If you had said Lada, I might be inclined to agree with you.

They were also new technologies at the time, and space was a new venture. So expect some failures and upgrades. Did the americans always get it right? How many shuttles went up in flames? By your measure that is newer technology. Will I hear more excuses?

Once again:

Chernobyl: no containment dome, graphite (flammable) control rods

Fukushima: Containment, no graphite

#3 reactor was a little different from the others at the Fukushima site. It is a mix of plutonium and uranium.

[wyly]

They were also new technologies at the time, and space was a new venture. So expect some failures and upgrades. Did the americans always get it right? How many shuttles went up in flames? By your measure that is newer technology. Will I hear more excuses?

ya I seem to recall three americn astronauts doing a human bar-b-que on the launch pad during testing back in '67... but I must be mistaken americans never make engineering errors...

a quick count of astronauts deaths in space and in training the US leads 20(22 if you add the Indian and Israeli) to russia's 7

Edited October 5, 2012 by wyly

[wyly]

ROTFL - One does not need psychic power to recognize a politician back peddling - notice he said that his "top priority" is affordable electricity.

Keep in mind that Canadian governments keep saying Canada was on track to meet its Kyoto commitments until it was no longer possible to pretend. Why would you believe these German politicians any more?

action is unquestionable,taking 8 reactors offline after fukishima is definitive...canada has done what?

tim is psychic who would've guessed...

[GostHacked]

action is unquestionable,taking 8 reactors offline after fukishima is definitive...canada has done what?

tim is psychic who would've guessed...

Take a look at the thread relating to the Japan quake and see how 'psychic' he was.

[wyly]

Take a look at the thread relating to the Japan quake and see how 'psychic' he was.

ya I recall it well enough, the evidence and experts around the world we're saying meltdown but tim knew better ...things like that remind me of the Monty Python sketch of the dead Norwegian Blue parrot, customer with dead parrot complains "it's dead, is no more, has ceased to be, bereft of life, it rests in peace!" and the response came back "it's not dead, it's pining for the fjords of norway"...

[segnosaur]

As long as we're talking conspiricy theories with absolutely no evidence, how do you even know there was even an accident at Fukushima?

How did I know? Hmm one huge quake followed by a tsunami taking the power offline so there is no power to keep the plants cool.

How do you know thee was a Quake and tsunami? Were you there in Japan when it happened?

And even if there was a quake, how do you know it damaged the reactor? It could be sitting there all safe and sound, with not a scratch on it.

How do you know it wasn't all some carefully orchestrated plot by Greenpeace, in collaboration with the Solar Panel manufacturing industry (also known as "big solar") to discredit Nuclear energy by creating a fake nuclear disaster? All they had to do is bribe a few people in the Japanese government, release a few radioactive isotopes in the air, and poof! Nuclear looks like the bad guy!

Did I just blow your mind?

Now who is the conspiracy theorist. This does not seem to be a good representative of your knowledge in this particular field in which you claim you have some expertise.

And why not? Maybe I read it on a blog some where. Do you have any proof it didn't happen that way?

Fight the man! Don't be a sheeple! Big solar has you in its pocket!

Seriously, its been months and months since the accident. Don't you think that if there were deaths immediately attributable to radiation following the accident, that someone would have come forward? Some mother of a plant worker saying "where's my son?" Some disgunteled employee saying "I had to carry the bodies out"? Anyone?

Why do you think people would come forward considering how TEPCO and Japan handled the situation?

Ummm... because Japan is a democracy, with a relatively secure freedom of the press.

Nope, the politics came into play. The science may have made accurate readings, but never put it past the politics to downplay such a disaster.

Except of course its not just "the government" that was involved in providing the readings. They do have foreign observers there too.

Seriously, you're talking about the communist system of government, which gave such technological gems as the Trabant (a car that sometimes was eaten by goats) and a rocket capsule that actually baked its occupants alive (see Laika, the first dog into space). Technical innovation and safety were not strong suits of eastern bloc countries at the time.

The Trabant was from East Germany.

I know. That's why I specifically said "eastern bloc countries" rather than "Soviet Union".

They were also new technologies at the time, and space was a new venture.

Thing is, they put the dog up in the capsule, and then lied about what happened.

In general the soviets and other communist countries tended to lag the west in technology. I just picked out a couple of examples.

You could also see: http://books.google.ca/books?id=-lOJ4kwkJGcC&pg=PA196&lpg=PA196&dq=soviets+lag+technology&source=bl&ots=bF1M4zu9g_&sig=VML3NFKbfIqwb6xqD3e6O60Unb4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qSRvUNyVIaiU0QHG-YAw&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=soviets%20lag%20technology&f=false (page 196)

Once again:

Chernobyl: no containment dome, graphite (flammable) control rods

Fukushima: Containment, no graphite

#3 reactor was a little different from the others at the Fukushima site. It is a mix of plutonium and uranium.

Which doesn't really make much difference.

Plutonium is a little different than Uranium (more "powerful" radioactively, slightly different chemical properties, etc.) But that does not mean that it will automatically be able to break containment.

Then there's this article: From: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/08/science/la-sci-fukushima-plutonium-20120309

The levels of radioactive plutonium around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant aren't much higher than the amount of plutonium remaining in the environment from Cold War-era nuclear weapons tests, and it probably poses little threat to humans, a new study indicates.

...

...the total amount of plutonium-241 released from the power plant was about 10,000 times less than that from the 1986 Chernobyl accident in Ukraine.

[segnosaur]

ya I seem to recall three americn astronauts doing a human bar-b-que on the launch pad during testing back in '67... but I must be mistaken americans never make engineering errors...

a quick count of astronauts deaths in space and in training the US leads 20(22 if you add the Indian and Israeli) to russia's 7

First of all, I don't think its actually a very fair comparison. The U.S. has more deaths largely because its ships have been bigger and carried a bigger crew. (Not to mention that counting 'training deaths' is misleading because those include aircraft flights that had nothing to do with the actual direct preparation for space flight.)

Secondly, the Russian space program in the 50s-70s was insane. They built a spacesuit for the first space walk, that wasn't designed to handle a vaccuum. They created a 2 person space craft by taking a 1 person craft and cramming in a second seat. There answer to the Apollo rocket was the N1, which failed on all 4 launch attempts. And one of the cosmonauts that was killed in flight knew it was a suicide mission (There were 200 known structural problems with the ship) but he still went up because if he didn't then the backup cosmonaut (and his friend) would have went up instead.

For more information try: http://www.cracked.com/article_19142_5-soviet-space-programs-that-prove-russia-was-insane_p2.html

The U.S. may have had deaths in its NASA program, but they've at least paid some attention to safety... testing each part of their program before moving on to the next one. The soviets tried to leapfrog the americans, with technology that wasn't up to the task.

Edited October 5, 2012 by segnosaur

[TimG]

action is unquestionable,taking 8 reactors offline after fukishima is definitive...canada has done what?

Taking 8 reactors offline means any chance of meeting Germany's GHGs targets is completely gone. The only people who don't realize this are deluded greens like yourself.

[GostHacked]

How do you know thee was a Quake and tsunami? Were you there in Japan when it happened?

How asinine can you get? A quake registering 9.1 rocks the entire planet.

I was not there either, when the quake and tsunami centered off Indonesia killed over 250,000 people in various countries. Does that mean it did not happen either?

And even if there was a quake, how do you know it damaged the reactor? It could be sitting there all safe and sound, with not a scratch on it.

We know the reactors were damaged. Why would you even deny that?

And why not? Maybe I read it on a blog some where. Do you have any proof it didn't happen that way?

More asinine statements.

Fight the man! Don't be a sheeple! Big solar has you in its pocket!

So when talking about the problems with nuclear power in your head is talking conspiracy theories against solar? How did you come to those conclusions? You would be the first to inject this into this thread/debate.

Ummm... because Japan is a democracy, with a relatively secure freedom of the press.

They are also quite isolationist and xenophobic in a sense. Reason why they did no allow the help that was needed when many countries including Canada were ready to send disaster relief units to Japan.

Except of course its not just "the government" that was involved in providing the readings. They do have foreign observers there too.

Sure they have other observers, but did we hear from them?

I know. That's why I specifically said "eastern bloc countries" rather than "Soviet Union".

You made the claim about 'communist governments' not eastern bloc nations.

Thing is, they put the dog up in the capsule, and then lied about what happened.

Sure no arguments there, governments love to downplay tragedies to save face. Always happens everywhere.

In general the soviets and other communist countries tended to lag the west in technology. I just picked out a couple of examples.

That has been relatively true for the most part once the USA's space program ramped up and surpassed the Soviets.

Plutonium is a little different than Uranium (more "powerful" radioactively, slightly different chemical properties, etc.) But that does not mean that it will automatically be able to break containment.

TEPCO also has a history of not coming clean with the information regarding it's operations. This eludes to government complicity in the tragedy.

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201112010004

According to the latest analysis of the No. 1 reactor, all the fuel rods melted and ate through the pressure vessel to the containment vessel.

The melted fuel filled pits on the concrete floor of the containment vessel, eroding it to a depth of about 65 centimeters.

It would still have to eat through 37 cm of concrete to reach the steel casing of the containment vessel. Thus, a catastrophic meltdown on the scale of a theoretical "China syndrome" did not take place, TEPCO said.

The coolant water in the containment vessel is only about 30 cm deep, but that is sufficient to submerge and cool the melted fuel and is preventing further erosion, TEPCO officials added.

TEPCO said few of the melted fuel rods in the No. 2 and No. 3 reactors leaked into the containment vessel. However, an expert commissioned by the Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization to analyze what happened said that the situation could be much worse.

"About 70 percent of the melted fuel could have leaked to the containment vessel, although there is room for uncertainties," the expert said.

[wyly]

Taking 8 reactors offline means any chance of meeting Germany's GHGs targets is completely gone. The only people who don't realize this are deluded greens like yourself.

I have the german government and all the technological expertise they can muster on my side saying it can and will be done and you have what???? your opinion and psychic powers

[wyly]

How asinine can you get? A quake registering 9.1 rocks the entire planet.

I was not there either, when the quake and tsunami centered off Indonesia killed over 250,000 people in various countries. Does that mean it did not happen either?

he can probably link you to a definitive 1970's safety report on the impossibility of a major earthquake and resulting tsunammis' in Japan...

[segnosaur]

How do you know thee was a Quake and tsunami? Were you there in Japan when it happened?

How asinine can you get? A quake registering 9.1 rocks the entire planet.

Yeah, but did you feel it? How do you know? What sources do you trust enough?

And even if there was a quake, how do you know it damaged the reactor? It could be sitting there all safe and sound, with not a scratch on it.

We know the reactors were damaged. Why would you even deny that?

Well, do you have any evidence discounting my "big solar" conspiracy theory? Why are you assuming my "big solar" conspiracy theory is any less plausible than your story of a reactor melt down?

Fight the man! Don't be a sheeple! Big solar has you in its pocket!

So when talking about the problems with nuclear power in your head is talking conspiracy theories against solar?

Nope. But when I hear about someone claiming radiation deaths as "fact" even though they have no evidence, it makes me question their ability to think skeptically/logically.

How did you come to those conclusions?

Answer is, I didn't.

I don't really believe in a "big solar/greenpeace" conspiracy. I think the idea is idiotic. I kind of figured most people would pick up on the joke.

But its got the same elements as your "unreported radiation deaths" claim... lack of hard evidence, long time frame for any 'suprise' evidence, and a requirement that a diverse group of people co-operate even if its against their best interests. Perhaps when you understand why you're rejecting the "big solar/greenpeace" theory, then you will understand why your "extra radiation deaths" theory most likewise be rejected.

Ummm... because Japan is a democracy, with a relatively secure freedom of the press.

They are also quite isolationist and xenophobic in a sense.

Doesn't really matter. I'm talking about people within Japan. (And regardless of how isolationist they are, they don't exactly have the ability to stop all information from getting out of the country.)

Except of course its not just "the government" that was involved in providing the readings. They do have foreign observers there too.

Sure they have other observers, but did we hear from them?

Yes we have.

For example Mike Weightman (from the U.K.) did a report for the IAEA as early as the Summer of last year (and in case you think his findings were a whitewash, he did criticize Japan over several things.)

I know. That's why I specifically said "eastern bloc countries" rather than "Soviet Union".

You made the claim about 'communist governments' not eastern bloc nations.

Do you really want to make that point? Seriously?

Go back and look at the original post. It includes the sentence: Technical innovation and safety were not strong suits of eastern bloc countries at the time..

And even if I didn't say "eastern bloc" countries... East Germany at the time was a communist nation, AND it was a member of the eastern (or soviet) bloc. And they made really cruddy cars.

The fact that you seem to be objecting to the point that soviet technology was less advanced/less sophisticated is really quite bizarre. It has been the western world which has had the lead in technical innovation for much of the last century... the microprocessor, the internet, fiber optics, etc.

Thing is, they put the dog up in the capsule, and then lied about what happened.

Sure no arguments there, governments love to downplay tragedies to save face. Always happens everywhere.

The government can lie in a dictatorial system and get away with it.

In a democratic system with freedom of speech, property rights, and freedom of assembly? Err... not so much. Watergate should have illustrated that.

In general the soviets and other communist countries tended to lag the west in technology. I just picked out a couple of examples.

That has been relatively true for the most part once the USA's space program ramped up and surpassed the Soviets.

It didn't really take them long to bypass the soviets in space. They may have had the first satellite and first human to orbit the earth, but that 'advantage' didn't last long. Couple of years at most. After that, most of their "successes" seem to be more or less publicity stunts that could have gone horribly wrong.

And the space program was not the only thing they lagged behind in. Electronics, communications, avionics...

And yes, they lagged behind in reactor design. Which was the point.

Plutonium is a little different than Uranium (more "powerful" radioactively, slightly different chemical properties, etc.) But that does not mean that it will automatically be able to break containment.

TEPCO also has a history of not coming clean with the information regarding it's operations. This eludes to government complicity in the tragedy.

The article I referred to earlier (showing plutonium levels that were not really that high) was done based on private research not paid for/funded by TEPCO, some of the people involved were affiliated with universities, and the results were published in an on-line journal associated with Nature (a well respected peer-reviewed source.)

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201112010004

According to the latest analysis of the No. 1 reactor, all the fuel rods melted and ate through the pressure vessel to the containment vessel.

The melted fuel filled pits on the concrete floor of the containment vessel, eroding it to a depth of about 65 centimeters.

It would still have to eat through 37 cm of concrete to reach the steel casing of the containment vessel.

Ummm... ok. You do realize that what this is saying is that the containment vessel actually worked in this case?

The coolant water in the containment vessel is only about 30 cm deep, but that is sufficient to submerge and cool the melted fuel and is preventing further erosion, TEPCO officials added.

TEPCO said few of the melted fuel rods in the No. 2 and No. 3 reactors leaked into the containment vessel. However, an expert commissioned by the Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization to analyze what happened said that the situation could be much worse.

"About 70 percent of the melted fuel could have leaked to the containment vessel, although there is room for uncertainties," the expert said.

Ummm.... wait a sec... a while ago you were suggesting government complicity in covering up problems. Yet the Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization is a government body, and they were the ones pointing to leaking.

What type of conspiracy has one of the conspirators hiring people to expose the other conspirators?

[segnosaur]

I have the german government and all the technological expertise they can muster on my side...

No, you don't.

Your a friggin liar.

I called you out.

Now where's your proof?

[Wayward Son]

any stats on thyroid cancer in the general public due to solar energy accidents...

No. I assume it would be extremely low. However, your question is completely irrelevant.

[wyly]

No. I assume it would be extremely low. However, your question is completely irrelevant.

irrelevant?no I already knew the answer...I was making a point for someone else...

industrial deaths are irrelevant, regardless if they're in the nuclear industry, coal or farming and fishing, industrial deaths will always be with us... safety in regards to nuclear power isn't about those working in the industry but the potential threat to the general public and the environment...there is a forum member who would have us believe the only deaths that matter are industrial deaths and discount cancer deaths of civilians in a catastrophe such as Chernobyl to be included in safety stats...

[GostHacked]

Yeah, but did you feel it? How do you know? What sources do you trust enough?

Is this desperation on your part? OK sure, a 9.1 never hit Japan. There was no quake, no tsunami, and no nuclear catastrophe. It is ignorant to post that or more ignorant for me to reply to such ignorance?

Well, do you have any evidence discounting my "big solar" conspiracy theory? Why are you assuming my "big solar" conspiracy theory is any less plausible than your story of a reactor melt down?

Why even get into this? It's a distraction from the real topic, aka red herring.

Nope. But when I hear about someone claiming radiation deaths as "fact" even though they have no evidence, it makes me question their ability to think skeptically/logically.

I think it would be naive to think that there were no deaths related to radiation at Fukushima. There was a group of people who went in early on to examine the site, don't suspect them to live long if they are not already dead.

But its got the same elements as your "unreported radiation deaths" claim... lack of hard evidence, long time frame for any 'suprise' evidence, and a requirement that a diverse group of people co-operate even if its against their best interests. Perhaps when you understand why you're rejecting the "big solar/greenpeace" theory, then you will understand why your "extra radiation deaths" theory most likewise be rejected.

The beauty of this radiation thing is that it can be blamed on anything. Plausible deniability and then you don't have to tally deaths that would be attributed to Fukushima. The numbers can be hidden or made to look like anything. Also it will take time for the cancer rates to go up.

Doesn't really matter. I'm talking about people within Japan. (And regardless of how isolationist they are, they don't exactly have the ability to stop all information from getting out of the country.)

Correct and that is how we found out that the reactors went into meltdown way before it was even admitted.

For example Mike Weightman (from the U.K.) did a report for the IAEA as early as the Summer of last year (and in case you think his findings were a whitewash, he did criticize Japan over several things.)

Gunderson also made his reports to the IAEA, and they were practically ignored.

Ummm... ok. You do realize that what this is saying is that the containment vessel actually worked in this case?

It may have. However there are fuel rods scattered all over the place. Some found up to two miles away after #3 blew it's top. TEPCO and Japan expect the clean up to take years if not decades. Just a minor explosion, no need to worry about it.

Ummm.... wait a sec... a while ago you were suggesting government complicity in covering up problems. Yet the Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization is a government body, and they were the ones pointing to leaking.

Reporting the issues and correcting the issues are two different things. And TEPCO seems to have a history of not bringing things up to code or addressing serious issues.

[wyly]

I think it would be naive to think that there were no deaths related to radiation at Fukushima. There was a group of people who went in early on to examine the site, don't suspect them to live long if they are not already dead.

phoney deflections...offering worker safety records before three mile island event how safe nuclear option, industrial safety was never the issue public safety is...claiming public cancer deaths years after are not linkable to an event...discounting Chernobyl altogether as accident because that can't happen in the west...

it's part of the red herring/denial game...deflect away from the real safety issue...danger to the general public and environment from a catastrophic accident...

[GostHacked]

phoney deflections...offering worker safety records before three mile island event how safe nuclear option, industrial safety was never the issue public safety is...claiming public cancer deaths years after are not linkable to an event...discounting Chernobyl altogether as accident because that can't happen in the west...

it's part of the red herring/denial game...deflect away from the real safety issue...danger to the general public and environment from a catastrophic accident...

That much you and i seem to agree on.

[wyly]

That much you and i seem to agree on.

public safety has always been the primary safety concern from day one, some people would like to pretend(deflect) it's something else...industrial/work place deaths are a fact of life that will always be with us...

[login]

The Opening Poster has some good points about the dangers of nuclear power plants, especially older ones, and ones in seismically active zones, or areas prone to natural disasters, or war damage.

The dangers of nuclear plants are not localized they are regional, even from Japan Canadians were dosed with small amounts of radiation, as well, our food chain has been contaminated.

Now we get these same things from damagaing coal plants, damaging petrochemicals, damaging ionized radiation from other sources, contamination to water supply with industrial wastes, contamination to food source with additive and preservatives that are unnatural to human diet. (yes it is very bad to gain ionized radiation from discharges of radioactive waste from the nuclear industry http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull314/31404683742.pdf)

We need to ask though, what is needed, we can't just pull the plug that would lead to even more problems. Unfortunately, people like Rad arn't willing to link with myself to form a single reasoned world super government that will solve all the problems of the world. As such capitalist countries will continue to allow private companies to provide services as long as they are not immediately fatal to the public and take a decade or longer of study to determine adverse effects, or effects that are not able to be detected in small qualities because only one sample is used rather than the combined total effects of a large scale closed model that takes into account all factors.

These things are no brainers but people want their TV's and computers that as a biproduct polute the environment and consume huge amounts of energy and water to produce.

While it is all just extra luxury junk, people who don't have private property in a material world feel worthless. In reality yes we need basically nothing but food water and cloting and perhaps health care, but who wants to live that sort of life, the government won't provide universal health care, people don't want to all get 100 dollars an hour with 10 dollar loaves of bread and 15 dollar beers. Forced to use regular public transit, with bans on production of anything not essential to life if it can't be made from nature without complex processes causing contaimnation and waste byproducts.

Its like you are suggesting we all live in the fourth world.

While I would support these notions we can't go from first world economies to fourth world economies overnight, as a matter of fact, it may not be possible without nuclear plants melting down, lethal diseases being released into the environment and dangerous nuclear stockpiles becoming a risk. (Perhaps it would even require a millenium...)

While your dream is possible O.P. it will take cooridnation and planning. Germany shut down plants over this; however, there are new nuclear technologies that are dramatically safer --- like neighbourhood mini nuclear plants that are much smaller -- - lithium reactors etc... these things are much safer and easier to clean up.

These safe technologies will be the future as older plants overdue for shut down actually do shut down. Those other ones get refurbished. But energy supply due to alternative energy is happening. If you want to lead the charge either live 0 energy or supply your own energy. It is up to every single person to supply their own energy needs. When this is happening and we are all enlightened and educated environmental peace shall reign.

Edited October 7, 2012 by login

[segnosaur]

Yeah, but did you feel it? How do you know? What sources do you trust enough?

Is this desperation on your part? OK sure, a 9.1 never hit Japan. There was no quake, no tsunami, and no nuclear catastrophe. It is ignorant to post that or more ignorant for me to reply to such ignorance?

Wow.... just totally wow.

In my last post, I admitted that I don't believe such a conspiracy exists. I posted it as an illustration why you shouldn't believe such conspiracy nonsense either.

Its not desparation, its an attempt to use logic to try to get through to someone. Obviously its not working.

Once again... tell me why you think that my "Greenpeace/big solar conspiracy" theory is wrong. Then, whatever reasoning you used to show why my conspiracy is wrong, apply to your own conspiracy regarding "radiation deaths at the Japanese plant".

I think it would be naive to think that there were no deaths related to radiation at Fukushima.

Not really.

Its called Occaam's razor. I suggest you look into it. Paraphrased, it means the simplest solution is usually the correct one.

The event has been highly covered. In order to assume that there were "radiation deaths" you'd have to assume that a large group of people (not only high up government officials, but lower-level workers, the families of those who supposedly died, medical staff, even the United Nations who investigated) would all have to agree to cover things up. (Keep in mind that some of those groups would actually be hostile to keeping radiation deaths secret, if they actually occurred.)

So, what's more likely, that no radiation death had occurred in the immediate aftermath of the accident, or that there is a massive coverup requiring possibly hundreds/thousands of people, and not one of them has leaked anything to the press?

There was a group of people who went in early on to examine the site, don't suspect them to live long if they are not already dead.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret... radiation may be dangerous, and needs to be treated with respect, but it is not some all-powerful agent. Its not like the little girl in the movie The Ring, killing people who even get a slight exposure to it.

The accident in Japan released far less radiation than the one in Chernobyl. There was less need for workers to "get to the core". Therefore, its quite possible (and in fact most likely) that they could have prevented deaths, by minimizing the the time people are allowed near the affected region.

The beauty of this radiation thing is that it can be blamed on anything. Plausible deniability and then you don't have to tally deaths that would be attributed to Fukushima. The numbers can be hidden or made to look like anything.

Except that they aren't reporting a bunch of "deaths by other causes". They aren't even saying there are deaths at all.

Also it will take time for the cancer rates to go up.

I never denied that there wouldn't be problems in the future (although they would be fewer than occurred at Chernobyl.)

But your earlier statement was regarding deaths from radiation that occurred during (or immediately after) the disaster.

Doesn't really matter. I'm talking about people within Japan. (And regardless of how isolationist they are, they don't exactly have the ability to stop all information from getting out of the country.)

Correct and that is how we found out that the reactors went into meltdown way before it was even admitted.

Once again you're missing the point....

Earlier you claimed that somehow Japan was suppressing immediate radiation deaths because they were "xenophobic/isolationist". The point I was making was that regardless of how isolationist the country is, they still a relatively free society. If there really were massive deaths from radiation immediately after the disaster, the media there could still report on it.

For example Mike Weightman (from the U.K.) did a report for the IAEA as early as the Summer of last year (and in case you think his findings were a whitewash, he did criticize Japan over several things.)

Gunderson also made his reports to the IAEA, and they were practically ignored.

Again, missing the point.

Earlier I pointed out that the effects of the disaster (such as radiation released) were less than Chernobyl. You suggested there could be a coverup, and I pointed to the existence of foreign observers as reasons to assume the numbers were correct. Doesn't matter if people are ignoring the reports, the point is that the reports exist at all.

People like Weightman are not TEPCO employees. They are not Government of Japan employees. They were observing the situation there and were not under the control of those running the reactor.

Ummm... ok. You do realize that what this is saying is that the containment vessel actually worked in this case?

It may have.

Actually it did. Go back and read the stuff you referenced. It was referring specifically to reactor 1 where containment held. (That didn't mean it was contained in the other reactors, but if you go back and look at my post I was referring to one particular section.)

However there are fuel rods scattered all over the place. Some found up to two miles away after #3 blew it's top.

Yup, there were fuel rods sent 'scattered'... but they weren't from reactor 1 (which was the section of the text I was referring to.)

As for those scattered fuel rods... yes, they have to be cleaned up. Yes, care must be taken. But, its not like they will be causing instant death for anyone who goes within 100 miles of Japan. And this is different from Chernobyl, where there was a fire (which of course was partly due to the fact that they used flammable control rods.) A fire is going to mean a much more widespread dispersal of radiation.

Ummm.... wait a sec... a while ago you were suggesting government complicity in covering up problems. Yet the Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization is a government body, and they were the ones pointing to leaking.

Reporting the issues and correcting the issues are two different things. And TEPCO seems to have a history of not bringing things up to code or addressing serious issues.

Missing the point again.

Once again, you claimed that there was some 'big conspiracy' to cover up radiation deaths following the accident. Yet here we have the government jumping in and pointing to problems. If there were such a big conspiracy (Surpress the truth! Make everything sound rosy!) then why were they pointing out any problems at all? Why wouldn't they keep their mouths shut?

It would be like Nixon hiring Woodward and Bernstein. General rule of a conspiracy... don't involve people who are exposing your plan.

[segnosaur]

I have the german government and all the technological expertise they can muster on my side saying it can and will be done and you have what???? your opinion and psychic powers

I have an organization (the Federation of American Scientists) has 64 Nobel Laureates on its board of sponsors.

The FAS has published an article (just last year!) that stated that Nuclear Power will lead to fewer deaths overall than Solar.

How many Nobel laureates are there in the German government?

For that matter, how many Nobel prizes have you won?

any stats on thyroid cancer in the general public due to solar energy accidents...

I'll give them to you, right after you tell me the number of people who will fall off their roof just because they are using nuclear power.

No. I assume it would be extremely low. However, your question is completely irrelevant.

You'll have to forgive wyly.

You see, he's lost this argument. Big time. (Who knew that if you only express opinions built on emotion, and ignore people giving actual real facts and data, that you'd end up looking like an ignorant blow-hard that can only chat "meltdown" and go "ooo.... scary radiation".)

So as a result the only thing he can do is sit there ant try to pick on irrelevancies.

Oh my god, I posted an older article? Not that he'd bother posting anything more recent. In fact, I can't recall a single thing he's posted in this thread that's actually supported by science.