Pro-nuke position on Fukushima?

[RobertEarl]

Having been in several discussions about Fukushima and nuclear power in general, I will attempt to summarize the opposition.

By opposition I mean those who have made an effort to quash discussion and to my mind whitewashing away the world wide effects of the Fukushima disaster.

""All Radiation is natural"".

""No living organism has been hurt by man-made nuclear radiation, even that which has come from Fukushima.""

Those two ideas seem to be the cornerstone of the pro-nuke complaints about the exposure of the effects from nuke power.

But I am open to hearing other arguments to the contrary. Or affirmation thereof.

[NuclearDem]

1. Now you're just doing it on purpose.

[RobertEarl]

4. What is bothersome to me

Is this incessant attempt to whitewash the damages from nuclear power.

That some people here, instead of attacking the lies from the industry, focus their attacks on the people exposing the lies and the damages. Hence my effort here. I want the hair-on-fire personal attacks to be buried.

[RobertEarl]

5. A careful reader will note this:

Last edited Fri May 23, 2014, 04:18 PM - Edit history (4)

There are some replies in this thread that deserve no response and did not garner one from me as those are not replies that carry on the DU tradition of open discussion, and are seen by me as mere off-topic flamebait.

12:53 pm.
************

And that instead of attacking the polluters, the attacks are focused on the individuals who call out the polluting nuke industry.

1:46 pm
*******************

I have to go to work, Be back tonight.

Thursday 2:19 pm
***********

So I was gonna let this one go, and did. But a member of my fan club kicked it again. So.... Make sure you read the "Howdy" reply to moi.

Friday 4:17 pm.

[NuclearDem]

6. How about I just post a link to the subthread you pulled those arguments from?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4982768

No one with a functioning brain could possibly think he was saying radiation has never harmed living organisms.

[malaise]

87. +1,000 n/t

[SidDithers]

2. Performance art. It's gotta be...nt

Sid

[Orrex]

3. My favorite part is how anyone who isn't in full-blown apocalyptic panic mode

is ravenously "pro-nuke" in your estimation.

[FBaggins]

41. Exactly.

There are any number of solid DUers who are firmly anti-nuke... but also anti_RE's-nonsense.

[Orrex]

53. Of course you'd say that,

because you want to irradiate a basket of puppies.

[MineralMan]

7. You know, I don't believe I've ever seen a DUer say either of those things.

If you have, please provide links to such statements.

What I have seen, and what I have said, is that overblown, exaggerated claims about real damage from nuclear power do not work in favor of those who oppose nuclear power generation, as I do. In fact, I've opposed it since the mid 1960s. When people have put exaggerated claims forward in opposition, those claims are easily destroyed by facts and generally hurt the opposition point of view.

What happens is that the facts are used to destroy false claims and that destruction distracts from real information about the risks of nuclear power generation. There are genuine risks that should end the use of nuclear power for generating electricity. Fukushima and Chernobyl are evidence that those risks are real. There is no need to exaggerate the risks. The reality is more than enough.

Every time, however, that advocacy groups make false claims and keep making the same false claims, it harms the real claims that are valid arguments.

But, I've never seen any DUer say the things you said in your OP. You could prove me wrong by posting links to such statements. Good luck finding examples, though.

[RobertEarl]

9. Who likes bad news?

Not I. Certainly not the pro-nukes.

The industry is on its knees, held up only by government subsidies. This being a political board, arguments to make sure the government quits subsidizing the industry are well placed here.

You ask for links about what the opposition has claimed and to my mind that means you have not been following the conversations. Which is fine. Ignorance is blissful, indeed. To read some just check out the links in my journal.

At this point then, I will ask of you links backing your claims that there has been exaggerations, and we can then discuss those, if discuss is what you truly desire.

Your choice.

[Orrex]

14. Ah, yes. The old "do my research for me" gambit

In other words:

"Before you refute my ridiculous claims, you must first document my claims since I can't be bothered to do it."

[MineralMan]

27. Ho-Hum.

I'm done.

[RobertEarl]

29. Yes, you are

It amazes me how so many come at me with bs, but when propositioned with a way to discuss this issue, just end up slinking away.

Of course, the bs presented is so easily refuted even a dumbass like me can refute it.

[MineralMan]

32. I would never call you a dumbass. You're the only one who has, so far.

That's not my style. However, neither is it my style to debate with people who do not understand how to debate. I don't have time for futile exercises.

[RobertEarl]

36. Ha

You don't want to discuss this matter, otherwise you would.

It is a matter of being humble describing oneself as being a dumbass. Heck, all of us are in one way or another. The problem is some people take it as a sign of weakness and their predatory instincts take over and they go on attack.

Well, being an environmental activist for over 30 years has made my hide too hard to chew for the lightweight antis. And I am almost always right and win the debates, like here.

[NCTraveler]

33. You asked MM to back up YOUR statements.

It is comical at this point.

[zappaman]

8. Too funny!

[SidDithers]

10. Google site search only returns your post when searching...

for the phrases you're quoting.

So, I'm calling bullshit on the premise of the thread.

Sid

[RobertEarl]

11. You disagree? Very good, sid

I claim pro-nukers arguments are:
""All Radiation is natural"".

""No living organism has been hurt by man-made nuclear radiation, even that which has come from Fukushima.""

So, can we put sid down as saying there is unnatural radiation and death coming from Fukushima?

[SidDithers]

12. You changed you OP to add quote marks...

Those quotes exist only in your head.

The premise of your thread is bullshit.

Sid

[RobertEarl]

15. I had hope for you sid

Alas, it was ill-placed

So, can we put sid down as saying there is unnatural radiation and death coming from Fukushima?... I guess not. I guess in order to save face, sid has to carry on with the bullshit?

[SidDithers]

17. Performance art...

And not very good performance art.

Sid

[RobertEarl]

19. Yes you are, not

So, can we put sid down as saying there is unnatural radiation and death coming from Fukushima?

I can say it: There is unnatural radiation and death coming from Fukushima.

Denial of that would not be scientific, would it?

I find it odd, don't you too, sid, that the pro-nukers rave about the magnificent power of nukes, but when it comes to the bad side, they clam up like a pacific mussel that has been dosed by cesium137 from Fukushima?

[SidDithers]

20. Scientific illiteracy is a terrible thing...

I hope that some day you're able to overcome it.

Sid

[RobertEarl]

22. Personal attack is all you have?

Not at all a science based discussion from you, sid.

I had hopes for you. Alas, you have finally proven me wrong about something.

[NuclearDem]

13. And your claims are wrong, yet again.

[zappaman]

16. Why are you making up quotes?

I don't get it.
I guess you can Be Free to make things up, but it doesn't reflect well on you...

[Orrex]

28. I think you're missing the big picture

Obviously caused by Fukushima, while you sit there fiddling.

[NuclearDem]

56. Why hasn't TEPCO commented on Great Red Spot Wasting Syndrome?

What are they hiding?

[Orrex]

57. GRSWS is the crisis of our time.

[zappaman]

66. Oh great...

The Fukushima radiation that hit the west coast, roared through the plains, and irradiated the dolphins in the Atlantic, has now hit Jupiter???

[snooper2]

18. Did you say BACON!

EPIC MEAL TIME BABY!

[NCTraveler]

21. Fukushima should have been a bigger turning point than it has been.

I think the hyperbole and blatant lies from so many groups simply turned many people off. So many people have been making assumptions without even the slightest bit of scientific back up. It has been painful to watch. This was a moment for change yet even the anti-nuke side went off the deep end.

[RobertEarl]

23. How so?

Just about everything the 'educated about nukes' people claimed has been proven to come true.

There were meltdowns. Containments were blown up. Polluted water is now in the pacific and about to reach the west coast. It isn't anywhere close to being over.

The anti-nukes did not go off the deep end, but the truths they have exposed are too scary for some. We get that. We've all been scared by what we have witnessed. We've moved beyond that, mostly, and only wish now to kill the damned industry once and for all.

[NCTraveler]

24. Check your posting history to answer the question of "How so".

You are being completely disingenuous by asking that question. Also, please show where any duers have used the "quotes" in your link to back up their argument.

[RobertEarl]

25. Actually there is just one self-proclaimed pro-nuker left on DU

And that one repeatedly embarrasses itself.

The rest, if you check my posting history, have stayed far, far away from the facts we have brought forward from the Fukushima disaster that is ongoing.

You are another one who doesn't wish to have an honest discussion?

Welcome to my fan club! Sigh, I need a better class of members in my fan club.

[NCTraveler]

31. The premise of your op is based on dishonesty.

You op is not fundamentally honest. Yet you can say "You are another one who doesn't wish to have an honest discussion?"

I truly think the only way you are going to have an "honest" discussion is to lock yourself in a room and start talking to the mirror.

"Welcome to my fan club!" Stop worrying about fans and start reading what good scientists are saying. I agree that seems to be your problem from past postings on this subject. "Facts" aren't what you think they are. Understanding that word would be a good starting point.

[RobertEarl]

35. You want science

Yet all you do is slam me? Meanwhile the industry is taking more government subsidies. Why don't you go after them with as much zealousness as you do me, an anonymous internet poster? That is an honest question. Why do I not expect an honest answer?


Go to Enenews.com and read all about it.

[NCTraveler]

37. Please point to the person who used this as their argument.

""No living organism has been hurt by man-made nuclear radiation, even that which has come from Fukushima.""

As the "friend" of science you are, you will fully understand the need to be able to back up your claim. I don't think you will back it up in any way as science isn't really your thing.

Once again, you ask for honest discussion yet your whole op is based on dishonesty. You seem to have a completely anti-science mind-set. I will know the true answer to that by seeing if you back up YOUR claim or not.

[RobertEarl]

47. Well

I have yet to see a pro-nuker say it has. If I did, I might make an op about it. Because that would be a first time event and proof we are getting through to even the pro-nukers!

[NuclearDem]

26. He can't because no one did.

He's completely misrepresenting what FBaggins said in the previous Fukushima thread about electrons and biological half life.

[NCTraveler]

30. Agree.

I truly wish I had this ones imagination. Every second of my life would be the most exciting second ever.

[RobertEarl]

34. Science is fun

Imagination is what drives science.

I do feel sorry for folks who deny evident truths.

Alas, being a life-long ecologist and seeing what has been wrought upon this planet by nuclear power run amok, it is not my imagination which scares me, it is the science of the destruction which is most alarming.

My intent is to raise awareness here on DU. I imagine it may do some good.

[NCTraveler]

40. And again.

As the great fan of science that you are, please show where this is used as an argument for the continuation of nuclear power. ""No living organism has been hurt by man-made nuclear radiation, even that which has come from Fukushima.""

No fan of science would make a claim and then run and hide instead of backing it up. Unless they couldn't back it up and facts just aren't their thing.

[RobertEarl]

43. Huh

Are you saying someone who is pro-nuke has claimed that unnatural radiation from Fukushima has killed some living thing?

I'd love to see that post. That would be an honest pro-nuker. Haven't met one yet. No, wait I did one day, outside of DU. He was in favor of nukes, but he was honest enough to admit that it could not be controlled and has the capability of ending many many lives.

But not one on DU. But then there are no pro-nukers left here, save one.

[NCTraveler]

45. Again.

"No living organism has been hurt by man-made nuclear radiation, even that which has come from Fukushima"

Please show proof of the premise of your op. Your refusal to do so is enlightening. Not to mention that is goes against science to not back up the main point of your claim.

[AnalystInParadise]

88. Imagination is also what drives

insanity and paranoia, but I am betting you already knew that.

[longship]

38. Ginormous straw man.

Just what one would expect.

[NuclearDem]

42. Figured it's time for this:

http://lifesnow.com/bingo/

[FBaggins]

39. Strawman dishonesty

You realize that it just proves that you can't deal with the actual positions you're faced with, right?

Nobody has said anything even close to that.

Nobody requires a "pro-nuke position on Fukushima"... but it would be nice if you eventually adopt a pro-reality position. So far there's no evidence of it.

[RobertEarl]

44. Hey

So, is there unnatural radiation from Fukushima in the pacific?

Has it injured any living organisms?


I say there is and it has. What say you?

[NCTraveler]

46. I think you should back up the claims in your op before asking others questions.

That is what a scientific minded person would do. You have been asked to do so by multiple people. You are refusing to back up your own claims. That is as anti-scientific minded as it gets.

[RobertEarl]

48. You are all over me, eh?

Wow, I sure got someones attention. Eh?

I have yet to see a pro-nuker on DU claim that Fukushima has polluted the pacific, and is killing some life therein. I've seen more than a few anti-nukers do so, and for that they get called all sorts of nasty names.

YMMV.

[NCTraveler]

49. I want you to back up YOUR claims in the op.

You completely refuse to do so. I am not the only one to have asked you. What you are doing defies science. Completely goes against the scientific mind-set. That is very clear. Your op is anti-reality.

[backwoodsbob]

93. you claimed upthread

there is only one pro nuker left here.

Makeup your mind

[FBaggins]

50. Howdy

Thanks again for the free entertainment. Always appreciate a good belly laugh.

So, is there unnatural radiation from Fukushima in the pacific?

That term doesn't mean anything. There are "man-made" elements in the pacific that came from Fukushima. Radiation is radiation... there is no "natural" or "unnatural" radiation. A 1MeV Beta- particle is exactly the same as any other 1MeV Beta- particle. It doesn't matter whether the atom it used to be part of was "man-made" or "natural".

Has it injured any living organisms?

Of course. Pretty much in line with what I predicted a day or two after the meltdowns.

[RobertEarl]

71. Heh

The climate deniers play that same game.

The climate deniers claim:
"Sure, co2 is filling the air. But co2 is only natural so this isn't a man-made event."

And they are well known as anti-science. Which puts you, where?

Man has made this cesium134 above any natural level, and now it is having effects on the ocean life and probably the atmosphere. Just like AWG.

[NuclearDem]

51. Alright, in all seriousness:

Provide links to where these two quotes were said:

"All radiation is natural."

"No living organism has been hurt by man-made nuclear radiation, even that which has come from Fukushima."

[RobertEarl]

52. I love it when one of my threads goes over 50

Thanks, ND, you have been a big help.

[Orrex]

54. Just think of how high your threads would go if their OPs had any substance.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

62. Far less high. This is DU...

[NuclearDem]

55. Terrific!

With that response, you have completely barred yourself from ever lecturing anyone on science.

Since you apparently don't grasp the basic concept of providing evidence for your claims.

[NCTraveler]

58. Anti-scientific flamebait garners many responses.

Since it is about replies, I am going to go ahead and give you a rec also. Now you have two.

[NuclearDem]

60. Ah why not. Rec #3.

[Orrex]

63. It was a complete rec before you even posted.

[NCTraveler]

64. Let me give you the two letters you need. Here are a W and a K.

I did kind of help it get there didn't I. I keep telling myself I am going to be better. Damn. Tomorrow is another day.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. ah yes, lovely time to take the trash out

You stopped being helpful to your cause a while ago.

It feels so good to take the trash out.

[FBaggins]

61. You presume that you know what his cause is.

It ain't necessarily so.

[NCTraveler]

65. Your insinuation would make more sense than what they are trying to portray themselves as. nt.

[RobertEarl]

70. What?

A personal attack from the person who cries about being personally attacked?

WTF?

Since you know little about the cause, it would be best for you to just delete your comment and go learn something about the cause. You are just embarrassing yourself here.

[hunter]

68. Where's the giant octopus? I was promised a giant octopus!

I originally wrote that for this thread, but it had dropped out of GD and I thought that was best. Alas, here we are again!

Fukushima is an expensive mess. Yes. It will be VERY expensive to clean up. But it's no Bhopal or Chernobyl accident. It's not open air nuclear testing. It's more comparable to a stream of toxic crap leaking out of an old mine somewhere.

For true horror and carnage look at the number of people killed and maimed in automobile accidents worldwide.

For apocalyptic horror look at the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and then imagine a Superstorm Sandy on every ocean shoreline with every high tide, gigatons of floating garbage grinding against shoreline structures, and starving climate change refugees everywhere, even within your own community... if it's not underwater already.

I don't get the anti-nuclear cult. On my own list of modern horrors I'm more worried about declining monarch butterfly and honey bee populations.

Oh well. If we focus on the smaller things in front of us that bite, then maybe we don't have to think so much about the giant man eating tiger creeping up behind us.

[RobertEarl]

69. OMG, You didn't!!

Yes, yes you did. You whitewashed away the death and destruction from nuclear power plant explosions like Chernobyl, Fukushima and TMI.

[hunter]

72. Show me your research and statistics.

The hard sort, not the smoke and mirrors Wizard of Oz bullshit.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Well fuck that. I lost patience with anti-nuclear and pro-nuclear nonsense decades ago.

Toxins are toxins, radioactive or not, and our high energy industrial consumer society is spewing them everywhere.

Fossil fuels are the most hideous energy source but that doesn't make nuclear power look better in comparison.

I do know if you shut down a nuclear plant and replace it with a coal or fracked gas power plant everyone still loses.

I'm not whitewashing anything. The tsunami in Japan was horrible, killing thousands of people and spilling God only knows what kind of deadly non-radioactive toxic crap into the ocean. Focusing on Fukushima seems disrespectful of the greater tragedy and distracts us from problems that are a hellishly worse.

Nuclear power is not the one true Satan.

[RobertEarl]

76. Yeah?

Tell that to the people in Chernobyl and Fukushima who had to leave their homes forever because a nearby coal plant blew up. Oh.. wait....

Tell that to the engineers who spent billions in a failed attempt to keep nuke plants from blowing up. Tell them they wasted their time and money keeping those benign little atoms under control.

Tell that to the companies who are spending billions on finding a place to put the nuclear waste and who at the same time keep emitting co2 directly to the atmosphere. You think they know just how bad nuke waste is compared to co2? Or are they just wasting their money trying to safely store the nuke waste. Is that what you think?

No, Hunter, contrary to your wild dreams, nuke waste is deadly stuff. Even the corporations act like it is, you think they are spending all that money just for shits an giggles?

Thanks for proving the point in my OP.

[AnalystInParadise]

90. I find your use of the term whitewash

to be racist and a sign of your white privilege..........

[Rex]

73. Okay I just have to ask, is anyone here on DU willing to step up and say they are

pro-nuke? So far I have seen not a single DUer declare they are pro-nuclear energy.

[hobbit709]

74. What makes you think his reply will be any more factual than all of his others?

[Rex]

75. I'm just curious since I've never seen anyone RAH RAH around nuclear energy.

But this is a big forum, maybe I missed it?

[RobertEarl]

77. I have seen but a few

Most of them got a lesson from Fukushima and have changed their minds.

It isn't so much that some are pro-nuke as it is their asinine arguments that nuclear can still be considered safe. That the unprecedented and ongoing release to our atmosphere has not and will not cause any damages.

I have had some claim that people should move back into the evacuated towns around Fukushima and Chernobyl. That sounds pro-nuke at worst and at best trying to cover for the industry, its lies, and its mistakes.

[Rex]

78. I would think it would be very hard to make a pro-nuke argument after Fukushima.

Especially with solar power being available in most developed countries.

[RobertEarl]

80. Yep

The numbers of pro-nukers, like the industry, are fading fast.

I was even accused of slandering someone because I called them a pro-nuker. That's how far support has dipped!!

Pretty much, the only support for nukes in the US and Japan comes from the 1%, republicans and other idiots.

[jeff47]

84. Nah, we just got tired of you lying your ass off.

Remember when the Northern hemisphere was rendered uninhabitable - That was one of your claims about Fukushima. So how'd that turn out?

Have you figured out how to explain Fukushima killed off starfish in the NW Pacific, but not around Japan? When the scientist who published the paper explicitly said it wasn't Fukushima, especially since it started two years before the accident?

[jeff47]

79. Hi, nice to meet you.

Instead of turning away from nuclear power in the 1960s/70s, we should have built more.

Why?
1) Dangerous plants like Fukushima would have been replaced on schedule, instead of left to be a danger.

2) We stupidly traded the very small risk of a local disaster for a guaranteed global disaster. We spent the last 50 years burning a hell of a lot of coal and natural gas for power. Imagine how much better climate change would be if we hadn't done that.

So should we do more nuclear power now? No. Those intervening 50 years has resulted in enough R&D to make renewables a better option. And it's too late to avoid the global catastrophe caused by our irrational fears.

[Rex]

81. That is about as far away from RAH RAH as you can get.

"And it's too late to avoid the global catastrophe caused by our irrational fears." I am curious as to what you mean by that.

Also, don't you think that any nuclear power plant built on a fault line, has an inherent risk factor? Just by the very nature of where it is built?

[jeff47]

86. According to folks like Robert, it means I love nukes.

"And it's too late to avoid the global catastrophe caused by our irrational fears." I am curious as to what you mean by that.

There have been 2 disasters from nuclear power plants. Those disasters are very bad for the Chernobyl and Fukushima areas. They're irrelevant for the rest of the planet.

Which means the likelihood of a nuclear disaster being at all relevant to your life is basically zero. You're about a million times more likely to be struck by lightning.

Yet that fear meant that we stopped building nuclear power plants, and instead built lots and lots and lots of fossil fuel plants. Which we already knew would be causing climate change. Hell, we already knew that coal power plants distribute more radiation than any non-exploding nuclear plant - they send so much CO2 out the smokestack that carbon-14 levels downwind go up by quite a bit, along with other radioactive pollutants in the coal.

If we were rational, we'd have used nukes until we had sufficiently developed renewables (or fusion). We didn't.

ETA:

Also, don't you think that any nuclear power plant built on a fault line, has an inherent risk factor? Just by the very nature of where it is built?

Depends on the reactor's technology. Older plants like Fukushima are definitely dangerous on a fault line. But newer designs such as pebble-bed reactors are self-limiting.

[Rex]

89. Okay thanks I understand now what you meant.

The irrational fear of technology.

[RobertEarl]

91. What bull

I have no fear of technology. I do fear, like Einstein did, that the use of the power of nuclear using the same mindset as shown by people on this thread, would lead to doom of life on the planet.

Don't listen to jeff, he's lost so many debates with me he's just being spiteful. Ignore him.

[Rex]

92. Wasn't talking about you or DU in general. Just people at large in RL.

That fear technology irrationally.

[backwoodsbob]

94. I am RAH RAH RAH 100% pro nuke

there ya go

[Rex]

95. LOL!

Like I believe that.

[NuclearDem]

82. By his standards, even most anti-nuclear posters are considered pro-nuclear.

[Rex]

83. I just don't see it, I've seen people defend the industry but when pressed say

there are better alternatives, today, then nuclear power - so I don't consider them pro-nuke in the least bit.

[NuclearDem]

85. That's the nature of the strawman.

[Throd]

96. How about 1000 foot long glowing squids that can swim from Tokyo to San Francisco in an hour?

We could strap aluminum passenger and cargo pods to their backs. It would cut travel time and carbon emissions!