Is that COP OUT 20?

[dystopian]

Don't lump me in with coal advocates. I have already posted sources indicating more than 125,000 cancer deaths from Chernobyl. These did not come from Greenpeace.

Whether they came from Greenpeace or not is irrelevant; what's relevant is 1) that there is by no means a *consensus* that there's been or even will be that many cancer deaths from Chernobyl; 2) that there are quite credible independent reports that list figures that aren't even a tenth of your number; and 3) that 125,000 cancer deaths (even IF they were all in Russia, which they're not) would not have a significant impact on the overall Russian lifespan.

The article charted life expectancy of Russians and affected other republics and clearly showed a decrease in life expectancy of these peoples.

No, it didn't.

First of all, the article you linked to was talking about people in the *affected* areas, which as I already told you was only 0.33% of Russia's territory, and which represents only a small minority of Russia's population. While it may (or may not, since the article does not represent consensus opinion) have had a measurable effect on the life span of the people *in that particular region*... it did *not* have a measurable impact on the lifespan of Russians as a whole, as you were claiming. Incidentally, the article you posted doesn't state there have been 125,000 cancer deaths; it in fact acknowledges the 9000 total cancer deaths for Russia, Belarus and Ukraine combined (including deaths that have not yet happened) as estimated by the WHO. It also lists other cancer estimates over the years, both local and worldwide, which vary wildly, but none of these result in a figure of 125,000. Most of these estimates are well below 125,000; though a few are absurdly above it. Finally, the article does come up with an estimate of deaths itself by trying to include various factors, but the majority of these are not cancer deaths, and the final figure they arrive at is not 125,000 either. Not to mention it relies on completely arbitrary assumptions.

The 125,000 doesn't show up anywhere in the material you linked except for the claim that between 112,000 and 125,000 of the people involved in the Chernobyl cleanup died before 2005. Of course, the vast majority of these people did NOT die from cancer; and while it's certainly plausible that a good number of them died from complications that resulted from Chernobyl, it is extremely difficult to determine to what extent this is actually the case and projections based on assumed numbers are severely questionable even with the best methodologies.

Not only that...the cause...lung cancer...not speculation...actual statistics.

Since the only 125,000 in the linked material you provided doesn't even refer to cancer deaths, much less specific types of cancer, I'm going to have to call bullshit... again.

You are using a tobacco industry argument against something we have begun to understand...

Except I'm not. I'm not basing my arguments on studies funded by the nuclear power industry. Just basic facts.

that some things are just not compatible with human beings...and most other animals. Increased radiation levels just happens to be one of them, along with tar from ciggies and pm10 from coal plants and heavy metals in our food and water and air.

This is all well and good, but did you miss the part where nuclear power puts out less radiation than most of the alternatives? You're still just arguing from a nuclear-hysteria position, and not an objective one.

We will be changing how we use energy and also how much energy we use or we will die in large numbers and fall into civil chaos.

If we moved to purely nuclear energy tomorrow (which I'm not advocating, incidentally), climate change would be halted or at least slowed significantly. And since it's already been well demonstrated that the total number of deaths from nuclear power generation are much less than most of the other energy sources we have, we would die in FEWER numbers than we do today. Not to mention the fact that even with the numbers of deaths we're incurring from power generation today we're not falling into civil chaos, one can only presume fewer deaths would not result in civil chaos.

It is already happening. The typhoon in the Philippines wiped a whole town off the map.

Yeah, typhoons have been doing that for many thousands of years. And sure, their number is increasing because of global climate changing... but nuclear power would reduce climate change, not increase it... so I'm puzzled why you'd bring up typhoons in a discussion about nuclear power.

Fukushima has dumped tons of radioactive pollution into the pacific and it is being incorporated into the food chain. These are not small matters.

Nobody claimed they were. Still doesn't change the fact that kwh for kwh, nuclear power is cleaner and safer than almost anything else, apart from windpower.

You mind appears too small to comprehend the gravity of the situation. Sorry about that. Maybe when you get a little OLDER you will come to understand better.

Or maybe my brain (like that of many old people) will have calcified to the point of not being able to properly read/understand my own sources or the arguments of others, like yours appears to be?

 

[dystopian]

I use very little power.

You really don't want to use this argument, because you really don't 'use very little power'. Not unless you:

• Produce all the food/liquid you consume yourself.
• Built your own house as well as all the components that went into its construction.
• Produced all your own clothes and the materials to make them.
• Produced your own computer and everything in it.
• Power your computer with a hand-crank.
• Do the same with every other product in your life.

All of these things require much more energy than you seem to think. Even if you drastically lowered your quality of life to well-below western standards, got rid of the computer and the car and all that sort of luxury, the total costs of simply keeping you fed, clothed, and sheltered would be substantial enough that if extrapolated to the population as a whole, humanity's energy needs would still require us to fuck up the environment to one extent or another. At least with nuclear power we can limit this extent.

Photovoltaics and windmills and hydroelectric systems are not perfect, but their OPERATION (MOST OF THE TIME THEY EXIST IN THAT CONFIGURATION) CREATES NO EMISSIONS AND NO NUCLEAR CONTAMINATION. FACT....UNDERSTAND?

And you REALLY don't want to use this argument after so passionately arguing against nuclear power. Because after all, nuclear power isn't perfect, but its operation (most of the time it exist in that configuration) creates no significant emissions or nuclear contamination. Fact. Understand?

 

[bilby]

Or perhaps it's you who hasn't really studied the subject very well. Even factoring in all of the nuclear accidents that have happened, nuclear power is still both cleaner and *safer* than fossil fuels. The average nuclear power plant actually puts out a lot less radiation into the environment than a coal power plant does. Living next to a coal power plant is far more hazardous to your health. And if we compare the damage done by nuclear power plants (including the accidents that have occurred with them) and the damage done by coal plants... coal plants are still worse by a significant margin. The combined environmental and health cost of nuclear power per unit generated is €0.0019/kWh, compared to coal at €0.06/kWh. It's even lower than solar when we factor in production of components (wind power is cheaper than nuclear though).

The notion that nuclear power is some super dangerous/polluting method of power generation is nothing but absurd hysteria.





Yes. Neither of which compares to the environmental and healthcare costs incurred by the rampant burning of fossil fuels. 13.000 people die every year from the pollution put out by coal power plants in the US alone. But because it isn't a single event with the destruction easily visible on the news, it doesn't register to you as more important than the kind of disaster which is surely terrible but nowhere near as damaging or common. Nuclear power is like air travel, people get scared to fly every time there's a crash on the news, but they have no issues with taking a car even when you tell them they're far more likely to get killed in a car crash than a planecrash. People are fucking idiots.

It is you who are continually burying your head in the sand regarding long term disposal of nuclear waste.

While this is a problem of some significance, it's nowhere near as bad as people tend to think. For one, it's perfectly possible to safely store nuclear waste for extended periods of time. Secondly, with proper investment much of it can be recycled, something that many countries do to varying degrees (but the US doesn't).

And of course, this wouldn't be a serious problem if we unlocked proper fusion power.

Actually Chernobyl had an effect on Russian life expectancy.

Actually, no, it didn't. Though it's quite amazing that people believe this, since Chernobyl isn't even *in* Russia, and the overwhelming majority of the fall-out didn't blow into Russia either. If you think that the Russian life expectancy was affected by contamination that covered only 0.33% of Russia, you obviously haven't thought it through. A UN Study from 2005 predicted a total of 9000 deaths to result from exposure to radiation from Chernobyl, across the entire affected area (and not just Russia); this number isn't near high enough to have a significant impact on Russia's life expectancy. Even the kind of high numbers claimed by Greenpeace (200,000, across the entire world, a number not taken very seriously) wouldn't have too much of an impact.

Don't lump me in with coal advocates. I have already posted sources indicating more than 125,000 cancer deaths from Chernobyl. These did not come from Greenpeace. The article charted life expectancy of Russians and affected other republics and clearly showed a decrease in life expectancy of these peoples. Not only that...the cause...lung cancer...not speculation...actual statistics. You are using a tobacco industry argument against something we have begun to understand...that some things are just not compatible with human beings...and most other animals. Increased radiation levels just happens to be one of them, along with tar from ciggies and pm10 from coal plants and heavy metals in our food and water and air. We will be changing how we use energy and also how much energy we use or we will die in large numbers and fall into civil chaos. It is already happening. The typhoon in the Philippines wiped a whole town off the map. Fukushima has dumped tons of radioactive pollution into the pacific and it is being incorporated into the food chain. These are not small matters. You mind appears too small to comprehend the gravity of the situation. Sorry about that. Maybe when you get a little OLDER you will come to understand better.

By opposing nuclear power, you lump yourself in with coal advocates.

The figure of 125,000 cancer deaths from Chernobyl is ridiculous, and there is no evidence to back it up; But if we accept it as accurate, for the sake of discussion, and if we say that instead of happening once in sixty years of nuclear power generation, that it happens once a decade (I know, we haven't had six such disasters; but then, the one we did have didn't kill 125,000, so this is pure hypothetical territory). With a hypothetical death toll of 750,000 people, over the entire life of the industry, nuclear would still be less deadly than coal as a means of electricity generation.

Your mind seems too addled by fear to grasp this, but it is nevertheless true - EVEN IF YOU WERE RIGHT - even if your horror stories about the dangers of nuclear power plants were true - it would STILL be a net positive for humanity to switch from coal to nuclear, EVEN BEFORE global warming is considered.

Just think about that.

Don't emote about it. Don't go off an a rant about the tobacco industry. Don't try to claim that your advanced age grants you some kind of special powers of intuition that makes thinking, or listening to anyone younger than you, unnecessary. Don't accept my more accurate figures - stick with the massively inflated numbers you seem to prefer, and THINK about what they imply.

EVEN IF your figures were right, your conclusion should STILL be that replacing coal with nuclear reduces that total non-greenhouse gas harm to humanity, AND would nearly halve the worlds carbon dioxide emissions.

Your opposition to nuclear power is advocacy for coal, whether you believe it or not; and it is advocacy for MORE injury, illness and death, and for continuing emissions of carbon dioxide. These are the REAL WORLD results of your position.

This thread is NOT ABOUT THE SUPERIORITY OF ONE FORM OF POISON OVER ANOTHER. It is about COP 20. You keep drinking the nuclear coolaide and trying to fit it into the equation where it doesn't belong. The answer is that we need to quit globe trotting and hustling cheap labor and get down to handing our own affairs and get off the fossil fuel horse. There is no pollution from the operation of photovoltaics and windmills and hydroelectric systems. It is time for us to make appropriate adjustments and your arguments are not helping.

Photovoltaics create more pollution (mostly during the manufacturing process) than nuclear power; They also kill more people (mostly during installation). Windmills and photovoltaics are also intermittent sources, which creates a number of new problems. Hydroelectric systems are not possible in most terrain, as they require very specific conditions of both topography and climate; and if you think hydro systems are safe, google 'Banqiao Dam' - that one accident makes Chernobyl look like a picnic; and unlike Chernobyl, it is not the only accident of its type ever to occur.

I completely agree that we need to get off fossil fuels; But it is YOUR arguments that are counter-productive here. YOU are the one who is NOT HELPING.

I asked you to THINK; but you couldn't bring yourself to do so, so you emoted instead. That's a shame. Because this is not a matter for opinion - the objective fact remains that nuclear power is the safest way to generate carbon neutral power; and the objective fact remains that humanity needs that power to live happy, healthy and reasonably long lives.

If you seriously think that "There is no pollution from the operation of photovoltaics and windmills and hydroelectric systems", then you REALLY need to get informed. The problem with confirmation bias is that you are so busy seeking information about how bad nuclear power is, that you seem to have forgotten to find out how bad your preferred alternatives are; Or you simply pretend that the alternative is to generate less power - while hypocritically continuing to use power, and its products and benefits, yourself.

I use very little power.

He typed on the Internet, apparently with no grasp of the irony.

What you are not understanding is that my statement is true. You just want to sell us poison and you know it.

Sure. I'm an inhuman monster who wants everyone, including myself and my family to suffer.

Either that, or I want the same things you do, but just have a more reality based grip on how to achieve them.

Of course, as your religion has nuclear power as a sin, then any support for it must be pure evil.

Seriously, your accusation here is unhinged. It should be a big red flag if your ideas require you to believe that others are deliberately trying to make things worse

Photovoltaics and windmills and hydroelectric systems are not perfect, but their OPERATION (MOST OF THE TIME THEY EXIST IN THAT CONFIGURATION) CREATES NO EMISSIONS AND NO NUCLEAR CONTAMINATION. FACT....UNDERSTAND?

Yes.

The same is true of nuclear power plants.

Fact. Understand?

(Of course you don't. It's against your religion).

Your expectations of the delivery of huge power budgets for everyone are what is out of line here.

I have no such expectation. It exists only in your head.

It is possible for the media and the internet to produce widespread expectations given our earthly environment. It is these expectations that keep you at the energy trough demanding ever more energy and seeing in your theory of economy growth as the only healthy condition. These expectations are keeping us from studying reduction of energy usage.

I no more expect these things than you do. You should spend more time finding and thinking about facts, and less time trying to guess my motivations, because you are VERY bad at it.

My motive in all this is to improve people's lives, by acting to prevent global warming; and by reducing the human cost of electricity generation.

Any other motives you imagine are just rationalisations in your own head, to allow you to ignore the facts I present by casting me in the role of evil sinner.

Coal or Nukes these should be primary targets for reductions.

No. Coal should be. But other than your religion, there is no more reason to reduce the use of nuclear power than there is to limit the use of wind power.

All power must be more precisely portioned and used more effectively for the human good.

Sure. But we will still need power, even if we use less. And nuclear is the best option for generating a good chunk of that power.

Now there is a good idea, but somehow I doubt you are willing to cooperate

There you go again; trying to guess what I must think, based on your incorrect rationalisations; and unsurprisingly, getting it wrong.

and that is why we keep hearing all this bullshit and this demand that we grow our production of a lot of needless junk for profit and pollute the planet from end to end in that pursuit.

...and of course, the fact that nuclear power is one of the least polluting technologies in history conflicts with your beliefs, and so you continue to ignore it. This is like debating a creationist - facts be damned, they just keep asserting the untrue, as if repetition makes things real.

Things will be changing and there won't be any stopping it. You seem to have never heard about the emperor who dared to order the tide to quit coming in. It really is a matter of making adjustments we have neglected to make and to accept that we need to change some of our thinking and goals. It is a BIG thing, not a little thing. It can be an obstacle to the future existence of our race..we must stop unsustainability and that includes stopping the production of long term dangerous toxic and radioactive pollutants which accumulate and crowd all life on the planet. That is your nuclear industry and your coal industry and most major industrial processes. We need to hone our skill producing quality lives for our people more than merely more consumptive lives. So think about that a bit before you go thumbing your nose at me for wanting a better more finely tuned world with healthier people with longer lives.

You just can't accept it, can you?

I want the same results that you want.

We differ only in our understanding of how to get those results. Because my ideas are based in fact; and yours in your religious aversion to the N-word.

It is truly sad that you are too invested in your error to act in the interest of your own stated goals.

It's even sadder that you feel the need to act against your goals, simply because your ideas are fifty years out of date.

If you are struggling to understand how I could possibly disagree with you (to the point where you have to assume that I am some kind of monster in order to make sense of it all), then perhaps that's because you are simply wrong.

I understand that your motives are noble. But your misunderstanding of the facts leads you to an erroneous dislike for the best available means to your desired ends.

Save lives. Stop global warming. No more coal. Build nukes, now.

 

[dismal]

Save lives. Stop global warming. No more coal. Build nukes, now.

And don't forget fracking gas holes.

 

[ZiprHead]

Save lives. Stop global warming. No more coal. Build nukes, now.

And don't forget fracking gas holes.

I don't think we need to have your personality inserted into this debate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I use very little power. What you are not understanding is that my statement is true. You just want to sell us poison and you know it. Photovoltaics and windmills and hydroelectric systems are not perfect, but their OPERATION (MOST OF THE TIME THEY EXIST IN THAT CONFIGURATION) CREATES NO EMISSIONS AND NO NUCLEAR CONTAMINATION. FACT....UNDERSTAND?

You're being too simplistic--what counts is life cycle pollution, not merely the pollution from one phase of it's life cycle.

All power must be more precisely portioned and used more effectively for the human good. Now there is a good idea, but somehow I doubt you are willing to cooperate and that is why we keep hearing all this bullshit and this demand that we grow our production of a lot of needless junk for profit and pollute the planet from end to end in that pursuit.

A good idea for lowering the standard of living--thus making much less effort available to find true solutions rather than stop-gaps.

Things will be changing and there won't be any stopping it. You seem to have never heard about the emperor who dared to order the tide to quit coming in.

We know if Emperor Arkirk.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're drinking the green kool-aid.

Look at that chart I linked--all your means of generating power kill more than nuclear does.

As for photovoltaics: Nothing from it's operation but the cells don't last forever and people certainly do die obtaining the materials to make them. They also die falling while installing/servicing them.

Windmills: They also have to be manufactured. The fall danger is higher because they're higher up. And they kill a lot of birds.

Note that these two have major storage issues and the deaths involved from the production & maintenance of those systems are not included in that chart because it's only looking at the current grid.

Hydro: Still some deaths, quite a few if you count the one big dam failure. And the dams for hydro are far from environmentally benign.

It is far better to die in a PV plant or a wind generator manufacturing operation as the types of deaths you are referring to are not concomitant with pollution of the environment. These alternative systems do not poison the land where they are installed. They do have environmental effects and some of these deserve better mitigation than they are getting, but they are far ahead of coal or nuclear power. Maybe you could expend some of your great expertise in making these systems better in terms of efficiency and environmental effects to good effect. So far all I ever get from you is the lazy man's argument: There's nothing we can do about anything whether it is our disgraceful national penchant for war or our serial destruction of our planet. Perhaps you should look at the current repackaging of Chernobyl and its continuing repackaging several times a century and start multiplying that times the likelihood of more melt downs...ie Fukushima. Your vitriol toward environmentalists is not something worthy of hanging onto. It keeps you from being at peace with most of society and nature itself.

PV plants are mostly automated (as are all chip production plants--the production environment is incompatible with humans), there are few deaths there. PV cells use a lot of power to make and the production of the doping agents is far from environmentally benign.

I have no vitriol against true environmentalists. I have a lot for the supposed-environmentalists of the greens who are actually far more against anything being done on a big scale and will choose a dirty but small approach over a clean but big one.

You're focusing on the obvious deaths while ignoring the deaths that are hard to track and show up only in the scientific research.

 

[arkirk]

You really don't want to use this argument, because you really don't 'use very little power'. Not unless you:

• Produce all the food/liquid you consume yourself.
• Built your own house as well as all the components that went into its construction.
• Produced all your own clothes and the materials to make them.
• Produced your own computer and everything in it.
• Power your computer with a hand-crank.
• Do the same with every other product in your life.

All of these things require much more energy than you seem to think. Even if you drastically lowered your quality of life to well-below western standards, got rid of the computer and the car and all that sort of luxury, the total costs of simply keeping you fed, clothed, and sheltered would be substantial enough that if extrapolated to the population as a whole, humanity's energy needs would still require us to fuck up the environment to one extent or another. At least with nuclear power we can limit this extent.

Photovoltaics and windmills and hydroelectric systems are not perfect, but their OPERATION (MOST OF THE TIME THEY EXIST IN THAT CONFIGURATION) CREATES NO EMISSIONS AND NO NUCLEAR CONTAMINATION. FACT....UNDERSTAND?

And you REALLY don't want to use this argument after so passionately arguing against nuclear power. Because after all, nuclear power isn't perfect, but its operation (most of the time it exist in that configuration) creates no significant emissions or nuclear contamination. Fact. Understand?

You really are in left field. Don't get in a tizzy. You can't blame me for the configuration of our economy that only allows certain forms of consumption and energy usage. Actualy nuclear power has continuous emissions. You think the the big circle of exclusion zone around Fukushima and Chernobyl and the cancer clusters surrounding the Santa Susanna nuclear realtor incident in Southern California are there because these were clean and safe. Quit being so fearful and hopelessly addicted to the systems we have now. They are going to be changed anyway...So why not be environmental when you make your changes? I think you have a problem with being unable to share things and unable to give a single thing up. That makes you spoiled and addicted and you will yammer on endlessly that your current view of things is a necessity in the future. You quite simply are mistaken.

I categorically reject your proposition that I am some sort of energy gobbling bastard that also needs the things you say you need. You still do not get the fact that coal and nukes require ever expanding sacrifice zones in order to keep going.

This thread is about COP 20....not your opinion of me anyway. What I am saying is that the corporate behemoths that gave us all these coal plants and other fossil fuel polluting industries are capitalizing on terrorism to mute the environmental voices that are actually what COP 20 is alleged to be responding. Even they know their time in history is about up and their actions are only aimed at short term extension of their obscene profit margins. It is a response to a societal addiction that has been building for more than 150 years and is well dug into our psyches and infrastructure. You are thinking on the same short term basis as the fossil fuel people want you to..that you couldn't ever survive without it. I tell you you are going to have to and so you squirm and obfuscate and accuse me of ill will toward you...or perhaps of wearing tinfoil hats or the like. My background has always been scientific...possibly like yours. My specialty and the source of most of the income in my life was water pollution control and process fine tuning and process monitoring. I frankly find you annoying and never contributing anything but your prejudices. I will not play tweedledee to your tweedledum on this matter..

 

[arkirk]

It is far better to die in a PV plant or a wind generator manufacturing operation as the types of deaths you are referring to are not concomitant with pollution of the environment. These alternative systems do not poison the land where they are installed. They do have environmental effects and some of these deserve better mitigation than they are getting, but they are far ahead of coal or nuclear power. Maybe you could expend some of your great expertise in making these systems better in terms of efficiency and environmental effects to good effect. So far all I ever get from you is the lazy man's argument: There's nothing we can do about anything whether it is our disgraceful national penchant for war or our serial destruction of our planet. Perhaps you should look at the current repackaging of Chernobyl and its continuing repackaging several times a century and start multiplying that times the likelihood of more melt downs...ie Fukushima. Your vitriol toward environmentalists is not something worthy of hanging onto. It keeps you from being at peace with most of society and nature itself.

PV plants are mostly automated (as are all chip production plants--the production environment is incompatible with humans), there are few deaths there. PV cells use a lot of power to make and the production of the doping agents is far from environmentally benign.

I have no vitriol against true environmentalists. I have a lot for the supposed-environmentalists of the greens who are actually far more against anything being done on a big scale and will choose a dirty but small approach over a clean but big one.

You're focusing on the obvious deaths while ignoring the deaths that are hard to track and show up only in the scientific research.

WRONG! I am focusing on the unobvious deaths, those that have not been compensated and clearly have not been even acknowledged by you or the industry. I am focusing on the industry's protestation of being an innocent "person" who has harmed nobody. It is just plain not true. We need nukes like we need more holes in our heads. Pollution deaths are sometimes very hard to track because sometimes very miniscule amounts of pollution cause them and there is a whole raft of more than 60,000 industrial chemicals to look for. I am aware of the problems with PV chips. There is nothing absolutely clean we can do and feel there is a lot more work to be done on PV cell production. But, you can rest assured the Nuclear people have a guarantee for us...we have to find ever expanding areas and locations to house THEIR WASTE. Those and the areas surrounding them are the sacrifice zones of which I often speak. The people that this stuff kills are human sacrifices to excessive power expectations the industry has fostered. That pisses me off. I am aware of efforts to thwart the kind of studies we will be needing to keep our society healthy in the future and this is being done by people who already have plumes of pollution they want to keep covered up.

 

[bilby]

PV plants are mostly automated (as are all chip production plants--the production environment is incompatible with humans), there are few deaths there. PV cells use a lot of power to make and the production of the doping agents is far from environmentally benign.

I have no vitriol against true environmentalists. I have a lot for the supposed-environmentalists of the greens who are actually far more against anything being done on a big scale and will choose a dirty but small approach over a clean but big one.

You're focusing on the obvious deaths while ignoring the deaths that are hard to track and show up only in the scientific research.

WRONG! I am focusing on the unobvious deaths, those that have not been compensated and clearly have not been even acknowledged by you or the industry. I am focusing on the industry's protestation of being an innocent "person" who has harmed nobody. It is just plain not true. We need nukes like we need more holes in our heads. Pollution deaths are sometimes very hard to track because sometimes very miniscule amounts of pollution cause them and there is a whole raft of more than 60,000 industrial chemicals to look for. I am aware of the problems with PV chips. There is nothing absolutely clean we can do and feel there is a lot more work to be done on PV cell production. But, you can rest assured the Nuclear people have a guarantee for us...we have to find ever expanding areas and locations to house THEIR WASTE. Those and the areas surrounding them are the sacrifice zones of which I often speak. The people that this stuff kills are human sacrifices to excessive power expectations the industry has fostered. That pisses me off. I am aware of efforts to thwart the kind of studies we will be needing to keep our society healthy in the future and this is being done by people who already have plumes of pollution they want to keep covered up.

Tell me, how do we distinguish between an 'unobvious death' and a 'fictional death'? If you have no evidence, then it didn't happen. If there are lots of such deaths, evidence would be abundant. If there are a few, then the conclusion remains - nuclear is safer than coal. And if there were any, for which reliable evidence existed, you can be sure that it would be shouted from the rooftops by people such as yourself - and yet instead all we get is innuendo and unsupported claims.

Not that it really matters - even if we accept the laughably inflated claims of the anti-nuclear lobby, the industry still is at worst on a par with coal, so the worst case scenario is that replacing coal with nuclear ONLY stops global warming, while having no effect on other rates of death, injury and illness.

'Ever expanding' is a ridiculous exaggeration to describe a volume of waste that in sixty years amounts to about 1,000m³. The land surface of the Earth is about 5x10¹⁴m². Assuming we can't bury the stuff (we can); and that we have to stack it up no more than 10m high, and that we then need ten times the area as an 'exclusion zone' around our dump site, it would take 6,000,000,000 years for us to turn 0.1% of the Earth's surface into an 'Sacrifice Zone' due to high level waste - By which time more than half of it would have decayed to the point where it is no longer radioactive at all; and the sun will have expanded and swallowed the Earth. Given that a third of the land area is currently desert, and that we can't live there at the moment, EVEN IF we couldn't bury our waste (and we can), there is never going to be a need for it to take up space we, or any other living thing, would otherwise be using.

Your argument doesn't stand the most basic of attempts to confirm its plausibility; If the worst problem you can come up with is the problem of finding room for nuclear waste to be stored safely, then there isn't a real problem at all.

You remind me of a creationist who, having failed to find any facts to support his position, resorts to threats of Hell. The thing you are threatening us with doesn't exist. There is exactly ZERO need for anyone to concern themselves about 'Sacrifice Zones' for nuclear waste storage, any more than they need fear being gored by unicorns.

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to start using facts to back your arguments. Fear is not a viable substitute, because fear needs facts to back it, or it is just paranoia.

 

[arkirk]

WRONG! I am focusing on the unobvious deaths, those that have not been compensated and clearly have not been even acknowledged by you or the industry. I am focusing on the industry's protestation of being an innocent "person" who has harmed nobody. It is just plain not true. We need nukes like we need more holes in our heads. Pollution deaths are sometimes very hard to track because sometimes very miniscule amounts of pollution cause them and there is a whole raft of more than 60,000 industrial chemicals to look for. I am aware of the problems with PV chips. There is nothing absolutely clean we can do and feel there is a lot more work to be done on PV cell production. But, you can rest assured the Nuclear people have a guarantee for us...we have to find ever expanding areas and locations to house THEIR WASTE. Those and the areas surrounding them are the sacrifice zones of which I often speak. The people that this stuff kills are human sacrifices to excessive power expectations the industry has fostered. That pisses me off. I am aware of efforts to thwart the kind of studies we will be needing to keep our society healthy in the future and this is being done by people who already have plumes of pollution they want to keep covered up.

Tell me, how do we distinguish between an 'unobvious death' and a 'fictional death'? If you have no evidence, then it didn't happen. If there are lots of such deaths, evidence would be abundant. If there are a few, then the conclusion remains - nuclear is safer than coal. And if there were any, for which reliable evidence existed, you can be sure that it would be shouted from the rooftops by people such as yourself - and yet instead all we get is innuendo and unsupported claims.

Not that it really matters - even if we accept the laughably inflated claims of the anti-nuclear lobby, the industry still is at worst on a par with coal, so the worst case scenario is that replacing coal with nuclear ONLY stops global warming, while having no effect on other rates of death, injury and illness.

'Ever expanding' is a ridiculous exaggeration to describe a volume of waste that in sixty years amounts to about 1,000m³. The land surface of the Earth is about 5x10¹⁴m². Assuming we can't bury the stuff (we can); and that we have to stack it up no more than 10m high, and that we then need ten times the area as an 'exclusion zone' around our dump site, it would take 6,000,000,000 years for us to turn 0.1% of the Earth's surface into an 'Sacrifice Zone' due to high level waste - By which time more than half of it would have decayed to the point where it is no longer radioactive at all; and the sun will have expanded and swallowed the Earth. Given that a third of the land area is currently desert, and that we can't live there at the moment, EVEN IF we couldn't bury our waste (and we can), there is never going to be a need for it to take up space we, or any other living thing, would otherwise be using.

Your argument doesn't stand the most basic of attempts to confirm its plausibility; If the worst problem you can come up with is the problem of finding room for nuclear waste to be stored safely, then there isn't a real problem at all.

You remind me of a creationist who, having failed to find any facts to support his position, resorts to threats of Hell. The thing you are threatening us with doesn't exist. There is exactly ZERO need for anyone to concern themselves about 'Sacrifice Zones' for nuclear waste storage, any more than they need fear being gored by unicorns.

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to start using facts to back your arguments. Fear is not a viable substitute, because fear needs facts to back it, or it is just paranoia.

Funny how the Aborigines get driven off their land under false pretenses so the nuclear industry can mine their land and leave behind pollution. You are just tweedleduming me and can do so endlessly to no avail because your hair splitting makes no sense. Obvious, unobvious you well know the meanings of these words and I am through discussing them with you. Nuclear waste is dangerous and has many obvious and not so obvious effects on the human body including genetic damage, cancer, sterility, etc. etc. etc. You go figure on this. This is not about the evils of nuclear power. It is about the evils of COP 20 and I feel sure there are even nuclear advocates that are not happy with how this thing is being run.

This tread was about the fact that the recent terrorism in Paris has been used as an excuse to squelch the advocates of greater reductions in greenhouse gasses by not allowing them a place at the table and then not allowing them to demonstrate about that. This COP will give us something, but it will not be adequate. The most eloquent advocates for Carbon reduction in the last COP in Copenhagen have all handily been removed from their governments' representation and replaced with more oil and coal friendly delegates. The oil industry has been very busy while we have been busy here tweedledee and tweedleduming each other on a side topic.

Climate change protesters are not terrorists. They have been tear gassed and pushed around and ignored. Many of these advocates have sound scientific cases for their positions while the people inside the hall have oil company blessings mainly. COP 20 is a cop out.

 

[bilby]

Tell me, how do we distinguish between an 'unobvious death' and a 'fictional death'? If you have no evidence, then it didn't happen. If there are lots of such deaths, evidence would be abundant. If there are a few, then the conclusion remains - nuclear is safer than coal. And if there were any, for which reliable evidence existed, you can be sure that it would be shouted from the rooftops by people such as yourself - and yet instead all we get is innuendo and unsupported claims.

Not that it really matters - even if we accept the laughably inflated claims of the anti-nuclear lobby, the industry still is at worst on a par with coal, so the worst case scenario is that replacing coal with nuclear ONLY stops global warming, while having no effect on other rates of death, injury and illness.

'Ever expanding' is a ridiculous exaggeration to describe a volume of waste that in sixty years amounts to about 1,000m³. The land surface of the Earth is about 5x10¹⁴m². Assuming we can't bury the stuff (we can); and that we have to stack it up no more than 10m high, and that we then need ten times the area as an 'exclusion zone' around our dump site, it would take 6,000,000,000 years for us to turn 0.1% of the Earth's surface into an 'Sacrifice Zone' due to high level waste - By which time more than half of it would have decayed to the point where it is no longer radioactive at all; and the sun will have expanded and swallowed the Earth. Given that a third of the land area is currently desert, and that we can't live there at the moment, EVEN IF we couldn't bury our waste (and we can), there is never going to be a need for it to take up space we, or any other living thing, would otherwise be using.

Your argument doesn't stand the most basic of attempts to confirm its plausibility; If the worst problem you can come up with is the problem of finding room for nuclear waste to be stored safely, then there isn't a real problem at all.

You remind me of a creationist who, having failed to find any facts to support his position, resorts to threats of Hell. The thing you are threatening us with doesn't exist. There is exactly ZERO need for anyone to concern themselves about 'Sacrifice Zones' for nuclear waste storage, any more than they need fear being gored by unicorns.

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to start using facts to back your arguments. Fear is not a viable substitute, because fear needs facts to back it, or it is just paranoia.

Funny how the Aborigines get driven off their land under false pretenses so the nuclear industry can mine their land and leave behind pollution.

Funny how the same thing happens with coal, only far more of it for a given amount of power generation. This is a completely separate (albeit important) issue to the choice of power technology; But insofar as it is affected by the choice between coal and nuclear, it is BETTER for the aborigines if we choose nuclear.

You are just tweedleduming me and can do so endlessly to no avail because your hair splitting makes no sense.

You appear to be talking to a mirror.

Australian mining companies have done, and continue to do, dreadful things. But while new large coal mines are being planned and opened right now, the same is not true of uranium mines.

You are looking at only half of the question, and declaring nuclear unacceptable, while ignoring the VASTLY bigger problems that are caused by coal. I don't know why you would do this; it makes no sense, and you don't strike me as incapable of reason. But you appear to have a blind spot when it comes to the effects of coal power.

Perhaps you think that if we don't replace coal with nuclear, it will be replaced with something else? Well,it can't, and it won't. Not today. Not soon. Maybe in a century or two - but we don't have that long to wait. And we needn't wait, because NOT ONE OF YOUR OBJECTIONS IS VALID.

Obvious, unobvious you well know the meanings of these words and I am through discussing them with you.

Yes, I do; And I was not aware that there was a discussion of them to be through with.

Nuclear waste is dangerous and has many obvious and not so obvious effects on the human body including genetic damage, cancer, sterility, etc. etc. etc.

Yes. That's why it needs to be kept in a safe place. Like all the myriad other dangerous things we use. Fire is dangerous. Should we stop using it?

You go figure on this. This is not about the evils of nuclear power. It is about the evils of COP 20 and I feel sure there are even nuclear advocates that are not happy with how this thing is being run.

If you didn't want to talk about nuclear power, then you shouldn't have raised it in your OP.

If you raise the issue in the OP, then it is unreasonable to try to get a free pass to make any disparaging remark about it that you like, and then claim immunity from being called on your bullshit. You made a false statement. You are being called on it. Prove it, or retract it.

This tread was about the fact that the recent terrorism in Paris has been used as an excuse to squelch the advocates of greater reductions in greenhouse gasses by not allowing them a place at the table and then not allowing them to demonstrate about that. This COP will give us something, but it will not be adequate. The most eloquent advocates for Carbon reduction in the last COP in Copenhagen have all handily been removed from their governments' representation and replaced with more oil and coal friendly delegates. The oil industry has been very busy while we have been busy here tweedledee and tweedleduming each other on a side topic.

Well then more fool you for raising the subject.

If you don't want to talk about it, then don't. But you don't get to snipe about a perfectly good solution that you have an irrational fear or hatred of, and then hide behind a claim that it wasn't what you wanted to discuss; if you didn't want to discuss it, you should not have mentioned it in your OP.

Climate change protesters are not terrorists. They have been tear gassed and pushed around and ignored. Many of these advocates have sound scientific cases for their positions while the people inside the hall have oil company blessings mainly. COP 20 is a cop out.

Yes, it probably is. Of course, it is MUCH easier for the coal lobby to argue for the continuation of their polluting ways, when the protesters outside the hall support the lobbyists inside in their opposition to the best available alternative.

You and your fellow believers are as much to blame for global warming as the coal lobby, who see you as amongst their strongest allies - whether you understand that or not.

 

[arkirk]

Funny how the Aborigines get driven off their land under false pretenses so the nuclear industry can mine their land and leave behind pollution.

Funny how the same thing happens with coal, only far more of it for a given amount of power generation. This is a completely separate (albeit important) issue to the choice of power technology; But insofar as it is affected by the choice between coal and nuclear, it is BETTER for the aborigines if we choose nuclear.

You are just tweedleduming me and can do so endlessly to no avail because your hair splitting makes no sense.

You appear to be talking to a mirror.

Australian mining companies have done, and continue to do, dreadful things. But while new large coal mines are being planned and opened right now, the same is not true of uranium mines.

You are looking at only half of the question, and declaring nuclear unacceptable, while ignoring the VASTLY bigger problems that are caused by coal. I don't know why you would do this; it makes no sense, and you don't strike me as incapable of reason. But you appear to have a blind spot when it comes to the effects of coal power.

Perhaps you think that if we don't replace coal with nuclear, it will be replaced with something else? Well,it can't, and it won't. Not today. Not soon. Maybe in a century or two - but we don't have that long to wait. And we needn't wait, because NOT ONE OF YOUR OBJECTIONS IS VALID.

Obvious, unobvious you well know the meanings of these words and I am through discussing them with you.

Yes, I do; And I was not aware that there was a discussion of them to be through with.

Nuclear waste is dangerous and has many obvious and not so obvious effects on the human body including genetic damage, cancer, sterility, etc. etc. etc.

Yes. That's why it needs to be kept in a safe place. Like all the myriad other dangerous things we use. Fire is dangerous. Should we stop using it?

You go figure on this. This is not about the evils of nuclear power. It is about the evils of COP 20 and I feel sure there are even nuclear advocates that are not happy with how this thing is being run.

If you didn't want to talk about nuclear power, then you shouldn't have raised it in your OP.

If you raise the issue in the OP, then it is unreasonable to try to get a free pass to make any disparaging remark about it that you like, and then claim immunity from being called on your bullshit. You made a false statement. You are being called on it. Prove it, or retract it.

This tread was about the fact that the recent terrorism in Paris has been used as an excuse to squelch the advocates of greater reductions in greenhouse gasses by not allowing them a place at the table and then not allowing them to demonstrate about that. This COP will give us something, but it will not be adequate. The most eloquent advocates for Carbon reduction in the last COP in Copenhagen have all handily been removed from their governments' representation and replaced with more oil and coal friendly delegates. The oil industry has been very busy while we have been busy here tweedledee and tweedleduming each other on a side topic.

Well then more fool you for raising the subject.

If you don't want to talk about it, then don't. But you don't get to snipe about a perfectly good solution that you have an irrational fear or hatred of, and then hide behind a claim that it wasn't what you wanted to discuss; if you didn't want to discuss it, you should not have mentioned it in your OP.

Climate change protesters are not terrorists. They have been tear gassed and pushed around and ignored. Many of these advocates have sound scientific cases for their positions while the people inside the hall have oil company blessings mainly. COP 20 is a cop out.

Yes, it probably is. Of course, it is MUCH easier for the coal lobby to argue for the continuation of their polluting ways, when the protesters outside the hall support the lobbyists inside in their opposition to the best available alternative.

You and your fellow believers are as much to blame for global warming as the coal lobby, who see you as amongst their strongest allies - whether you understand that or not.

You are wrong about the uranium mining in Australia. Watch Pilger's film. He covers that. You are just plain wrong!

You really are a political animal that wants us to accept the least of two evils. The problem is that it is unclear which is the least and which is the greatest. Both Coal and Nukes are terrible. I don't really have to argue against Nukes in the open marketplace. They always require the government underwrite and indemnify the industry if it gets in trouble.. That's NOT A FREE MARKET. IN A TRULY FREE MARKET THERE WOULD BE NO NUKES AT ALL. NOBODY WANTS TO ASSUME THE LIABILITY. Clean and SAFE....my ass!

 

[bilby]

Funny how the same thing happens with coal, only far more of it for a given amount of power generation. This is a completely separate (albeit important) issue to the choice of power technology; But insofar as it is affected by the choice between coal and nuclear, it is BETTER for the aborigines if we choose nuclear.

You are just tweedleduming me and can do so endlessly to no avail because your hair splitting makes no sense.

You appear to be talking to a mirror.

Australian mining companies have done, and continue to do, dreadful things. But while new large coal mines are being planned and opened right now, the same is not true of uranium mines.

You are looking at only half of the question, and declaring nuclear unacceptable, while ignoring the VASTLY bigger problems that are caused by coal. I don't know why you would do this; it makes no sense, and you don't strike me as incapable of reason. But you appear to have a blind spot when it comes to the effects of coal power.

Perhaps you think that if we don't replace coal with nuclear, it will be replaced with something else? Well,it can't, and it won't. Not today. Not soon. Maybe in a century or two - but we don't have that long to wait. And we needn't wait, because NOT ONE OF YOUR OBJECTIONS IS VALID.

Obvious, unobvious you well know the meanings of these words and I am through discussing them with you.

Yes, I do; And I was not aware that there was a discussion of them to be through with.

Nuclear waste is dangerous and has many obvious and not so obvious effects on the human body including genetic damage, cancer, sterility, etc. etc. etc.

Yes. That's why it needs to be kept in a safe place. Like all the myriad other dangerous things we use. Fire is dangerous. Should we stop using it?

You go figure on this. This is not about the evils of nuclear power. It is about the evils of COP 20 and I feel sure there are even nuclear advocates that are not happy with how this thing is being run.

If you didn't want to talk about nuclear power, then you shouldn't have raised it in your OP.

If you raise the issue in the OP, then it is unreasonable to try to get a free pass to make any disparaging remark about it that you like, and then claim immunity from being called on your bullshit. You made a false statement. You are being called on it. Prove it, or retract it.

This tread was about the fact that the recent terrorism in Paris has been used as an excuse to squelch the advocates of greater reductions in greenhouse gasses by not allowing them a place at the table and then not allowing them to demonstrate about that. This COP will give us something, but it will not be adequate. The most eloquent advocates for Carbon reduction in the last COP in Copenhagen have all handily been removed from their governments' representation and replaced with more oil and coal friendly delegates. The oil industry has been very busy while we have been busy here tweedledee and tweedleduming each other on a side topic.

Well then more fool you for raising the subject.

If you don't want to talk about it, then don't. But you don't get to snipe about a perfectly good solution that you have an irrational fear or hatred of, and then hide behind a claim that it wasn't what you wanted to discuss; if you didn't want to discuss it, you should not have mentioned it in your OP.

Climate change protesters are not terrorists. They have been tear gassed and pushed around and ignored. Many of these advocates have sound scientific cases for their positions while the people inside the hall have oil company blessings mainly. COP 20 is a cop out.

Yes, it probably is. Of course, it is MUCH easier for the coal lobby to argue for the continuation of their polluting ways, when the protesters outside the hall support the lobbyists inside in their opposition to the best available alternative.

You and your fellow believers are as much to blame for global warming as the coal lobby, who see you as amongst their strongest allies - whether you understand that or not.

You really are a political animal that wants us to accept the least of two evils.

Whereas you will happily accept the worse. Which is pretty silly.

The problem is that it is unclear which is the least and which is the greatest.

Nope; The difference is HUGE and OBVIOUS. but you refuse to accept that, because it contradicts your long-standing and deeply held beliefs.

Both Coal and Nukes are terrible.

Unless you look at the facts, which show that coal is TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TIMES worse, even BEFORE you lok at global warming.

I don't really have to argue against Nukes in the open marketplace.

I wish you wouldn't. It's a truly awful mistake to do so.

They always require the government underwrite and indemnify the industry if it gets in trouble..

Nope. There are private insurers in the nuclear industry - For example, http://www.chaucerplc.com/underwriters/nuclear. This is just YET ANOTHER fabrication on the part of the anti-nuclear lobby, that a moment's effort could show to be false. This is the age of Google; there is no excuse for ignorance other than wilful denial of reality.

Nuclear Syndicate 1176 is the world’s leading insurer of nuclear risk.
...
The Syndicate operates in a unique market niche and has been profitable since its inception in 1991.

(My bold)

That's NOT A FREE MARKET. IN A TRULY FREE MARKET THERE WOULD BE NO NUKES AT ALL. NOBODY WANTS TO ASSUME THE LIABILITY.

That is not true. If it were true, it wouldn't be so easy to prove false. Chaucer Syndicate 1176 investors are apparently very happy to assume the liability, which has been making them a nice profit for 24 years.

Clean and SAFE....my ass!

I would FAR rather live next to a nuclear power plant than next to your ass, from which you seem to be pulling an alarming volume of toxic ideas.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Quit being so fearful and hopelessly addicted to the systems we have now. They are going to be changed anyway...So why not be environmental when you make your changes? I think you have a problem with being unable to share things and unable to give a single thing up. That makes you spoiled and addicted and you will yammer on endlessly that your current view of things is a necessity in the future. You quite simply are mistaken.

You think you know what is environmentally sound. You don't.

I categorically reject your proposition that I am some sort of energy gobbling bastard that also needs the things you say you need. You still do not get the fact that coal and nukes require ever expanding sacrifice zones in order to keep going.

Your scenario has a sacrifice zone the size of the Earth.

- - - Updated - - -

WRONG! I am focusing on the unobvious deaths, those that have not been compensated and clearly have not been even acknowledged by you or the industry. I am focusing on the industry's protestation of being an innocent "person" who has harmed nobody. It is just plain not true. We need nukes like we need more holes in our heads. Pollution deaths are sometimes very hard to track because sometimes very miniscule amounts of pollution cause them and there is a whole raft of more than 60,000 industrial chemicals to look for. I am aware of the problems with PV chips. There is nothing absolutely clean we can do and feel there is a lot more work to be done on PV cell production. But, you can rest assured the Nuclear people have a guarantee for us...we have to find ever expanding areas and locations to house THEIR WASTE. Those and the areas surrounding them are the sacrifice zones of which I often speak. The people that this stuff kills are human sacrifices to excessive power expectations the industry has fostered. That pisses me off. I am aware of efforts to thwart the kind of studies we will be needing to keep our society healthy in the future and this is being done by people who already have plumes of pollution they want to keep covered up.

You're ignoring the deaths from your scenario. Lower standard of living = more deaths. Lower standard of living = less science = less chance of actually finding solutions rather than stopgaps.

And you claim to be about science yet you don't understand the lack of threat the waste poses.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

'Ever expanding' is a ridiculous exaggeration to describe a volume of waste that in sixty years amounts to about 1,000m³. The land surface of the Earth is about 5x10¹⁴m². Assuming we can't bury the stuff (we can); and that we have to stack it up no more than 10m high, and that we then need ten times the area as an 'exclusion zone' around our dump site, it would take 6,000,000,000 years for us to turn 0.1% of the Earth's surface into an 'Sacrifice Zone' due to high level waste - By which time more than half of it would have decayed to the point where it is no longer radioactive at all; and the sun will have expanded and swallowed the Earth. Given that a third of the land area is currently desert, and that we can't live there at the moment, EVEN IF we couldn't bury our waste (and we can), there is never going to be a need for it to take up space we, or any other living thing, would otherwise be using.

Yeah, "ever expanding"??? Lets reprocess it. I'm not sure of the ratio but since 90% of the fuel remains I'm going to figure it's volume is reduced by at least 50%. (Each split atom turned into two and the density is lower.)

60 years for 1,000 m³ = 16.7 m³/yr / 2 = 8.3 m³/yr of reprocessed waste. This decays to ambient in 10,000 years so we are looking at a total storage volume of 83,000 m³. As you did, stacked 10 meters high equals 8,300 m². Less than one hectare.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You really are a political animal that wants us to accept the least of two evils. The problem is that it is unclear which is the least and which is the greatest. Both Coal and Nukes are terrible. I don't really have to argue against Nukes in the open marketplace. They always require the government underwrite and indemnify the industry if it gets in trouble.. That's NOT A FREE MARKET. IN A TRULY FREE MARKET THERE WOULD BE NO NUKES AT ALL. NOBODY WANTS TO ASSUME THE LIABILITY. Clean and SAFE....my ass!

Nobody wants to assume the liability because there isn't a big enough insurance company in the world to do it.

It's the same as no insurance company wants to write flood or earthquake coverage. (Yes, both exist. Flood is underwritten by the government and earthquake is priced far above the actual risk in order to keep people from buying it.)

 

[bilby]

You really are a political animal that wants us to accept the least of two evils. The problem is that it is unclear which is the least and which is the greatest. Both Coal and Nukes are terrible. I don't really have to argue against Nukes in the open marketplace. They always require the government underwrite and indemnify the industry if it gets in trouble.. That's NOT A FREE MARKET. IN A TRULY FREE MARKET THERE WOULD BE NO NUKES AT ALL. NOBODY WANTS TO ASSUME THE LIABILITY. Clean and SAFE....my ass!

Nobody wants to assume the liability because there isn't a big enough insurance company in the world to do it.

That's not actually true - I provided a link earlier to an underwriting syndicate that insures nuclear power plants.

It's the same as no insurance company wants to write flood or earthquake coverage. (Yes, both exist. Flood is underwritten by the government and earthquake is priced far above the actual risk in order to keep people from buying it.)

Nuclear power is profitably insured by the private sector. Of course, some is also underwritten by governments. But the claim that no private insurer will insure a nuclear power plant is simply a lie.

 

[dystopian]

You really are in left field. Don't get in a tizzy.

I don't think you understand the terminology you're using, if you're applying them to *me*.

Actualy nuclear power has continuous emissions.

Do you know how little this actually amounts to? The average person living within a 50 mile radius of a nuclear power will receive only 0.1 μSv a year. That's 2600 times LESS than the dose they receive from cosmic background radiation.

The only other emissions from nuclear power plant are those from waste heat, which have a relatively minimal impact on the environment compared to the pollution caused by most other forms of energy generation. Now you may think "AHA! GOTCHA! EMISSIONS!", but no... as a matter of fact, the waste heat emissions generated by nuclear power are actually *below* those of concentrated solar power.

You think the the big circle of exclusion zone around Fukushima and Chernobyl and the cancer clusters surrounding the Santa Susanna nuclear realtor incident in Southern California are there because these were clean and safe.

Once again, you're confusing incidents for the baseline. Air travel is safe, the fact that there's an occasional air crash where lots of people dies doesn't change the fact that it's much safer compared to other forms of travel. In that same vein, nuclear power is clean and safe. The occasional accident does not change the overall numbers.

Quit being so fearful

There's only person being driven by fear here, and that's you.

So why not be environmental when you make your changes?

Because as people have been trying to explain to you, nuclear power *is* the environmentally sound choice.

I think you have a problem with being unable to share things and unable to give a single thing up. That makes you spoiled and addicted and you will yammer on endlessly that your current view of things is a necessity in the future. You quite simply are mistaken.

He said, while refusing to give up his decadently western lifestyle. In what way, exactly, are *you* helping the environment, hmm? Because as I already explained to you, it just won't be enough. You could go completely native, give up all technology and grow all your own food and it *still* wouldn't be enough. Humanity can not be provided for in that way. The only way we can save the environment while at the same time swearing off nuclear fission technology altogether is to either wait until we develop viable fusion, which might be too late; or have two thirds of humanity commit suicide. So, are you willing to kill yourself for the sake of others? Or are you just as spoiled as the rest of us who refuse?

I categorically reject your proposition that I am some sort of energy gobbling bastard that also needs the things you say you need.

Irrelevant, because you ARE an energy gobbling bastard, same as the rest of us. How much energy do you think goes into the act of giving you the opportunity to buy tomatoes at your local supermarket? Not to mention everything else you take for granted? It isn't just in how many things you've got plugged in. Unless you are entirely self-sufficient in every way, you have no right to claim you don't use a lot of energy. And of course, the fact that you're still here, typing away on a bloody computer, suggests you're not really all that serious about it anyway.

You still do not get the fact that coal and nukes require ever expanding sacrifice zones in order to keep going.

And you don't seem to get the fact that the same fucking thing applies to solar and wind. Where do you think the parts to build and maintain these things come from?

My background has always been scientific...possibly like yours. My specialty and the source of most of the income in my life was water pollution control and process fine tuning and process monitoring.

Then you were either utter shite at your job, or don't know how to apply your knowledge outside of your former specialty; because someone with a scientific background, especially in pollution control, should be able to comprehend the difference between incidents and baseline, and should really not be making the kind of arguments you've been making.

I frankly find you annoying and never contributing anything but your prejudices.

There's that irony again.

I will not play tweedledee to your tweedledum on this matter..

Yes, yes, we get it. You're old. I actually had to look up that reference.

 

[arkirk]

I don't think you understand the terminology you're using, if you're applying them to *me*.

Actualy nuclear power has continuous emissions.

Do you know how little this actually amounts to? The average person living within a 50 mile radius of a nuclear power will receive only 0.1 μSv a year. That's 2600 times LESS than the dose they receive from cosmic background radiation.

The only other emissions from nuclear power plant are those from waste heat, which have a relatively minimal impact on the environment compared to the pollution caused by most other forms of energy generation. Now you may think "AHA! GOTCHA! EMISSIONS!", but no... as a matter of fact, the waste heat emissions generated by nuclear power are actually *below* those of concentrated solar power.

You think the the big circle of exclusion zone around Fukushima and Chernobyl and the cancer clusters surrounding the Santa Susanna nuclear realtor incident in Southern California are there because these were clean and safe.

Once again, you're confusing incidents for the baseline. Air travel is safe, the fact that there's an occasional air crash where lots of people dies doesn't change the fact that it's much safer compared to other forms of travel. In that same vein, nuclear power is clean and safe. The occasional accident does not change the overall numbers.

Quit being so fearful

There's only person being driven by fear here, and that's you.

So why not be environmental when you make your changes?

Because as people have been trying to explain to you, nuclear power *is* the environmentally sound choice.

I think you have a problem with being unable to share things and unable to give a single thing up. That makes you spoiled and addicted and you will yammer on endlessly that your current view of things is a necessity in the future. You quite simply are mistaken.

He said, while refusing to give up his decadently western lifestyle. In what way, exactly, are *you* helping the environment, hmm? Because as I already explained to you, it just won't be enough. You could go completely native, give up all technology and grow all your own food and it *still* wouldn't be enough. Humanity can not be provided for in that way. The only way we can save the environment while at the same time swearing off nuclear fission technology altogether is to either wait until we develop viable fusion, which might be too late; or have two thirds of humanity commit suicide. So, are you willing to kill yourself for the sake of others? Or are you just as spoiled as the rest of us who refuse?

I categorically reject your proposition that I am some sort of energy gobbling bastard that also needs the things you say you need.

Irrelevant, because you ARE an energy gobbling bastard, same as the rest of us. How much energy do you think goes into the act of giving you the opportunity to buy tomatoes at your local supermarket? Not to mention everything else you take for granted? It isn't just in how many things you've got plugged in. Unless you are entirely self-sufficient in every way, you have no right to claim you don't use a lot of energy. And of course, the fact that you're still here, typing away on a bloody computer, suggests you're not really all that serious about it anyway.

You still do not get the fact that coal and nukes require ever expanding sacrifice zones in order to keep going.

And you don't seem to get the fact that the same fucking thing applies to solar and wind. Where do you think the parts to build and maintain these things come from?

My background has always been scientific...possibly like yours. My specialty and the source of most of the income in my life was water pollution control and process fine tuning and process monitoring.

Then you were either utter shite at your job, or don't know how to apply your knowledge outside of your former specialty; because someone with a scientific background, especially in pollution control, should be able to comprehend the difference between incidents and baseline, and should really not be making the kind of arguments you've been making.

I frankly find you annoying and never contributing anything but your prejudices.

There's that irony again.

I will not play tweedledee to your tweedledum on this matter..

Yes, yes, we get it. You're old. I actually had to look up that reference.

It's not so much that I am old. I am just BETTER EDUCATED. You don't seem to know when to stop triangulating and deal with the OP. You just get so involved in denying me any credibility you forget entirely what we are talking about. I think THAT IS RUDE.

A couple of simple facts you ought to concern yourself with: Is COP 20 going to have any effect on global warming. That was the question, not whether or not nuclear power was right for the entire globe. You really are not acknowledging that we have a climate change problem which is descending on mankind and the living things on this planet. I guess you are modern and hip and can dismiss your future a lot more than mine. The denial I see coming out of you is the same crap we used to get when we were working trying to get asbestos removed from general production and distribution. I have seen it before and I definitely am seeing it now...simply laziness. For you personally, I would find that okay for you to simply ignore our social problems. Your type of concern is to treat others like they were defective. I don't understand how you can advocate the things you do. COP 20 is right in your neighborhood. Perhaps you should get over there and put those people right on track. Why don't you admit you are ignorant of what went on there today? And in fact what goes on in all sorts of places.