Nuclear power is safer than any other energy source.

[Paradoxical]

Over 80% of a human's yearly dosage of radiation comes from natural resources

Almost 20% of a human's yearly dosage of radiation comes from man-made sources.

.5% of a human's yearly dosage of radiation comes from coal power plants.

.1% of a human's yearly dosage of radiation comes from nuclear power plants.


Prior to the Japanese accident, there were only two major reactor accidents in the history of nuclear power. Over 14,000 accumulative years of operation have been logged in 32 countries at 442 plants.




The odds of a state of the art nuclear reactor suffering from damage are 1 in 1,000,000 years. Modern US reactors have a likelihood of 1 in 100,000 years.

Nuclear energy is documented to be safer than any other form of energy production.



http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html
http://www.goshen.edu/bio/Biol410/BSSPapers98/schrock/schrock.html#workscited

[msongs]

1. it is like the internal combustion engine, technology whose time is passing nt

[nebenaube]

2. You know... that's probably true when our universe isn't on the galactic plane. n/t

[hlthe2b]

3. Aging nuclear plants in most areas of the world "safer than any energy source?"

Give me a break. I call bullshit. I note you don't mention renewable energy sources. Somehow, I don't see solar arrays, windfarms or other emerging technology as likely sources of a regional cataclysm.

[Paradoxical]

7. Renewable energy sources produce a negligible amount of energy.

While they will be the dominant form of energy production in the future, they are simply not able to be a primary source of energy production at this point.

[hlthe2b]

16. You stated "nuclear power is safer than any other energy source"

that is demonstrably not true and you know it.

[Paradoxical]

24. False. Renewable energy is not a primary form of energy production.

It would be foolish to compare renewable energy to other forms of energy production that are widely used and have been around for decades.

[hlthe2b]

71. Wrong. Not to mention you didn't say "primary form of energy production"

How very disingenuous you are! Others might have another name for it. FAIL

[MadHound]

47. You're wrong on that, perhaps you should educate yourself.

<http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf>

You're also wrong about there only being two major accidents involving nuclear reactors. Go look up the NRX plant in Canada, again, educate yourself.

Meanwhile, you know as well as I that the majority of damage and injury doesn't come from major accidents, but minor ones that accumulate over time, leading to cancer clusters and other problems years after the exposure has taken place.

But tell me, name one non-nuclear accident that laid waste to 2,800 square miles, rendering it uninhabitable for a quarter century and counting. That's right, there isn't one.

But then again, I find you to be wrong on a lot of things concerning nuclear and energy related issues.

[Paradoxical]

54. Already referenced hydro-electric power in my OP.

[MadHound]

56. That's nice,

I was contending the point you made that green renewables are "negligible". You didn't bother to refute that, wonder why:think:

[Paradoxical]

57. That was a slip of the...fingers.

When I said renewable energy I was referencing solar and wind power. That is my fault for not being clear.

[MadHound]

63. Yeah, right, OK, whatever

The fact of the matter is that it has been proven that we no longer need nukes, or coal, or gas. We can power our country with green renewables.

It is also a fact that there have now been four major nuclear disasters, NRX, TMI, Chernobyl and now in Japan. It is also a fact that there have been more people who suffered and died from those accidents than the official numbers let on because of the simple fact that the people who died due to exposure induced cancers simply weren't counted

Furthermore, there are further untold deaths due to nuclear power as the result of accidents and incidents that either were underreported, ie the general public was not made aware of them, or that simply went unreported to the public altogether.

And you have still to give me one example of a non-nuclear incident involving power generation that laid waste to 2,800 square miles. But I can understand, there is no such example.

It is apparent that all you are doing is spinning and spreading disinformation. What is even more apparent, at least to me, is that you are doing a horrible job of it.

[hlthe2b]

72. Makes one wonder WHY, doesn't it?

[8 track mind]

159. I wonder how much he gets paid to spew that BS? N/t

[Confusious]

160. accidents and incidents that either were underreported

Anyone with a Geiger counter can tell if there's been an accident.

Geiger counter $200 amazon

http://www.amazon.com/Quarta-Radiation-Monitor-RD-1503/dp/B00051E906

DIY

http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2010/03/diy-geiger-counter.html

[DeadEyeDyck]

85. all energy sources have their downsides

The windfarms are producing a harmonic resonance that is screwing with people's sleeping habits for miles around. It is probably messing with local animal life.

Solar panel fields have created their own weather systems with unpredictable results.

Whem you produce energy for the masses, their is no getting away from side-effects.

[hlthe2b]

96. We are talking the potential for mass immediate & long term deaths

No, all energy sources do not have "equivalent" downsides. Side effects are one thing. The potential for mass cataclysm something monumentally different. Do you not see that? :shrug:

[ingac70]

4. Sometimes your luck runs out.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[roamer65]

5. Take CANDU reactors out of the stats and see what results you get.

CANDU reactors are much safer and should not be grouped with Light Water reactors in my opinion.

Name one MAJOR accident at a CANDU reactor...name one.

The Chinese and South Koreans use CANDU reactors for a reason.

Light Water reactors are ticking time bombs.

[closeupready]

6. Yes, we can all see that from current news reports.

:eyes:

[Paradoxical]

9. This is about statistical safety.

[villager]

60. well, you just remember you're "statistically safe" when the radiation clouds are over your head

n/t

[Paradoxical]

62. I can explain the concept of statistics to you.

If you need me to, I will gladly. I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of statistics.

[villager]

64. That's good. I will explain the concept of a radiation cloud over your head.

And what your check-ups might be like afterward...

[Paradoxical]

66. I am almost certain I know more about radioactivity than you.

My question is do you need me to explain statistics to you? Because I am more than willing to do so.

[villager]

69. Well, I'm certainly certain you're more condescending than me!

n/t

[Union Scribe]

12. I trust you sleep outside.

You know buildings catch fire, right? What the fuck are you doing inside, RUN!

[Joe the Revelator]

83. And snow in the winter means that global warming is a sham...

[Electric Monk]

8. Sure, except when it isn't

[Paradoxical]

10. I could say the same about all other forms of energy generation.

[ingac70]

All other forms....

don't result in deformed or cancer stricken children for generations and make the area it happened in totally uninhabitable for centuries.

[Paradoxical]

58. "don't result in deformed or cancer stricken children"

False.

[ingac70]

104. You left off the "for generations"....

was it intentional?

[devils chaplain]

11. Are there/can there be new nuke plants made that are substantially more earthquake resistant...

... than the one melting down now? I'm sure this will be covered in depth in the coming weeks but I am curious.

[Paradoxical]

14. Yes. There are new reactor types that are considerably safer.

The Japanese reactors, while newer technology, are several decades old.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joshcryer]

15. 1 in 100k sounds big but when you have hundreds of reactors...

...it's actually a lot smaller than that. It's closer to 1 in 1000. Or one failure every 100 years. That means we have better than even odds that a reactor goes up in the United States in this century.

We need to close down all those old plants and replace them with Gen IV reactors with god-like safety standards.

[Paradoxical]

20. No, it's 1 in 100,000 years per reactor core.

[villager]

67. Ergo, 100,000 years between "incidents" in Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Japan!

n/t

[Paradoxical]

73. Seriously, I can help you better understand statistical significance.

At the very least, I can point you in the right direction for how to learn about statistics.

[villager]

74. Seriously, your "significance" doesn't mean shit if your children are getting radioactive poisoning

n/t

[Paradoxical]

79. Okay, I'm going to post a brief explanation.

Take it or leave it. But don't complain in the future about how I didn't try.

Statistical probability is more of an analysis of the past than a prediction of the future. However, it is a good source of information when looking for future probabilities as long as the subject being explained has not changed in any significant way.

Having an extremely low probability of an accident occurring does not mean that an accident will not occur. It means that the subject has a safe history. And unless we have reason to believe that the circumstance of the subject has changed, it is absolutely reasonable to use the statistical evidence as a future predictor.

What you are suffering from is a form of confirmation bias.

You are focusing entirely on a single accident and completely ignoring the thousands of years worth of safe operation.

[pickle juice]

157. You'll probably have better luck teaching evolution to a Baptist preacher.

:eyes:

[joshcryer]

86. 1 in 100k per core. 100 cores is 1 (out of those 100) in 1000 years.

If you have 100 cores and those cores go for 100 years one core has 100% chance of failing.

Am I screwing up somewhere? Because that seems right to me.

[Paradoxical]

89. You are screwing up. You're math is incorrect.

You can't cluster together independent events into one statistic.

Each reactor has a likelihood of reactor damage of 1 in 100,000 years. That is for each reactor. They are independent statistical probabilities.

[joshcryer]

100. But 100 reactors don't have a combined chance of blowing up as 1 in 10 million.

Could you explain how you would calculate 100 reactors with 1:100k reactor year disaster probability?

[devils chaplain]

35. "god-like safety standards" is right...

... but I'm afraid that any decisions for some time to come now are going to be made on emotional reactions rather than scientific considerations, as they are in so many important public policy decisions.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Once again people are not receptive to how safe

a widget is when the widget in question is failing.

They do not care if this is a Light Water reactor given the widget in question... or something else.

Moreover, now two reactors in meltdown (probably more before this is over) will severely skew them stats.

[Paradoxical]

21. No they won't. The stats will remain relatively unchanged.

Relative to other forms of energy production.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tx4obama]

18. NINE nuclear power plant accidents that had more than US$300 million in property damage

List: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Accidents_and_safety

[Paradoxical]

27. Compare the damage and cost to other forms of energy production.

You're being totally misleading when you only state the cost of nuclear accidents.

[Tx4obama]

32. How many people have died from SOLAR energy? n/t

[ingac70]

40. Yes, lets look at the costs..

http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/intelligent-energy/scientists-nuclear-power-isnt-viable-without-corporate-welfare/4981/

[Kalun D]

19. Good Luck Selling Nuclear From This Point Forward

The foremost experts on earthquake preparedness are OUT OF CONTROL with potential meltdowns of reactors with 100 times the capacity of Chernobyl

that's enough to wipe out all the islands of Japan for a millennium.

what's the Richter rating of the plants on the West Coast fault lines?

Is the bankrupt state of California more or less prepared than the Japanese?

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Well this plant was not rated for a 9.0 qiuake

7.5 iirc from the NYT story today, was what it was rated for. So the fact we did not get OTHER problems is amazing.

[Kalun D]

101. Maybe

Maybe that's why they had an uncontrollable explosion that destroyed the containment building?

[SnakeEyes]

148. Meltdown ok.

Only bad if their containment system fails. Again, this is NOT Chernobyl. Chernobyl was technically flawed, poorly run, and did not have the safety and containment systems.

[Angry Dragon]

22. May we put the spent rods in your backyard??

[Paradoxical]

29. If they're in a dry cask you can put them in my bedroom.

[Liberal In Texas]

151. And when you die they will be inherited by your children. Then they can pass them on

to your grandchildren, then your great-grandchildren, then your great-great-grandchildren...

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joshcryer]

33. That wasn't him, he said this was his hobby and he's studying law.

Not sure who you're thinking of, most nuclear advocates I know here have no real connection at all to the industry.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. You are right, then it was somebody else

we have three who are committed...

[joshcryer]

51. I do take offense at being called a "lobby for the nuclear industry" though.

I advocate Gen IV which the nuclear industry dislikes considerable (the industry makes money making fuel assemblies, not running reactors, which actually contributes to lax reactor safety).

[Paradoxical]

36. I do not work in the industry.

It would be great if you actually knew what you were talking about before you accuse me of such nonsense.

[Paradoxical]

34. Mostly because I actually care about the environment and human beings.

And I know that nuclear energy is safer for both. This isn't a commercial. This is me essentially pleading for some reason. The cry against nuclear energy is counterintuitive to the philosophy of environmentalism.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[devils chaplain]

45. I don't like the fact that some folks seem to think that...

...those for nuclear power are somehow anti-environment. The debate is which is the LEAST potentially damaging to our environment -- fossil fuels or nuclear power. Again, I just hope our national and world debate on this in the coming years sticks to the facts and not emotion.

[Luminous Animal]

76. You and other nuclear power advocates come off as anti-environment because

you keep presenting the false choice solely between fossil fuels and nuclear power. We know that there are other choices.

[Paradoxical]

80. I have never once suggested such a binary.

I have stated that nuclear energy is a necessary step towards renewable forms of energy and a step away from fossil fuel energy production.

[Luminous Animal]

90. Nuclear energy is not a renewable form of energy no matter how many times nuclear power advocates

say so.

And, to address the title of your post, did I mention you? Did I say ALL nuclear power advocates? No I did not. But, certainly the person I responded to did suggest such a binary and I've seen similar here on DU.

[suffragette]

28. Reactor years, hmm.

Is that like dog years squared or something?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kalun D]

38. If you Ever Win the Lotto

If you ever win the Lotto of the disaster you are promoting you will suddenly be the most dangerous source of energy ever devised

The Japanese are out of control right now, the containment building just blew up, these are reactors with 100 times the capacity of Chernobyl

what happens if they go into meltdown? How big is the death zone at Chernobyl?

wouldn't the death zone in Japan encompass the entire island and then some?

[Tx4obama]

39. Why don't you go on over to Japan and tell that to the folks that will be dying of cancer soon! n/t

[Bluebear]

42. Thank you, because this OP is EXACTLY what we need at this moment in time.

See,tx? We can agree :)

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. A cancer cluster? They only happen in fantasy

:sarcasm:

[OmahaBlueDog]

50. I'll bet you'd find a greater number of coal miners who will die of black lung.

[grahamhgreen]

52. We don't need coal either. Join us here in the present.

[Paradoxical]

53. I request you to do the same.

[HubertHeaver]

125. Black Lung affects the miner who breathed the coal dust.

He does not pass the malady on to his children.

[SnakeEyes]

149. you mean like

all the cancer around TMI... oh wait that didn't happen. Studies show TMI didn't cause any significant health effects long term.

This is not Chernobyl. These plants are not the same. Even in the event of a meltdown there are containment systems in place.

[whoneedstickets]

44. Thank you for the reality check. When we abandon facts for ideology

We are no better then the climate change denier and the creationist.

[Vinee]

46. until it isn't. and then it's one of the most dangerous things in the world.

[wakemewhenitsover]

48. I question the validity of your sources.

Your first link leads to a website for the World Nuclear Association, which has a clear pro-nuclear bias. The second link leads to what appears to be a college paper from 1998.

[Paradoxical]

55. One is a research study conducted in 1996.

The other source, while at a pro-nuclear site, are referencing research studies.

The sources are valid.

[roamer65]

49. I think I may have to head out to CA to protest for some plant decomissionings.

San Onofre and Diablo Canyon need to be shutdown. Two plants along fault lines AND the coastline.

[Warren DeMontague]

59. That's only until you're the one sprouting 5, 6, 7 heads.

It happens more often than you think.

[Old and In the Way]

61. Regardless if nuclear technology progresses to the point where it is totally safe,

I'd still prefer an energy policy that is totally decentralized and inefficient. I know, sounds weird, right? But my point is we could create a whole new economy based on manufacturing and installing wind, wave, and solar power. Put them on every available roof in the country. Create 100 of thousands of new jobs to produce, install, maintain. Do away with the security risk of nuclear power plants and the consequences of a nuclear disaster (no matter how remote). Take away the strategic reliance on oil and the resultant defense department budget needed to maintain those sea lanes for Big Oil.

I can think of millions of reasons to switch to a decentralized, labor intensive US energy policy. There's no real upside for the taxpayer to support nuclear energy....the law caps risk for the power companies past a certain dollar figure and the US government (ie. us, the taxpayer) are the ultimate insurer in case of catastrophic accidents. It's obviously a great energy investment for Wall Street...but it's an energy policy with little to no benefits for the middle class in this country.

[roamer65]

65. Evey house should have solar panels on the roof and...

at least one wind turbine in the yard.

[Yo_Mama]

133. That is a prescription for mass poverty

Economically, wealth is created by efficiency rather than inefficiency.

You have the right to desire such a future, but do you realize that you are condemning over 30 million US residents to death?

[Old and In the Way]

134. Please explain why. This sounds like a Beck argument.

Especially the 30MM deaths...that's kinda stupid.

[SidDithers]

68. I wonder if anyone was killed at the oil refineriey fires that are still burning...

we don't hear much about those.

Sid

[joshcryer]

75. Yes, very likely, thousands of people are dead from the disaster, and the nuclear plant...

...is the thing being most discussed. It's par for the course. Going to go back to looking at Libyan coverage (which is even less important than anything else).

[Mojeoux]

70. Where are the sarcasm smilies!? nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. at this point this is like watching a train wreck

[Paradoxical]

82. You told me I would eat my words.

You were incorrect.

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. So NHK is lying and we only have a L-1 incident

and not a L-4, and we do not have a partial meltdown in two cores.

Okay... you go tell them that.

You even said that no, one was not possible.

Have a good day.

Train wreck indeed.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Paradoxical]

92. I'm sorry everything is not going according to your preconceived narrative.

[SnakeEyes]

152. The real question is

will the meltdown breach the containment systems.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

112. Would you like to help in the clean up in Japan?

(Somebody suggested I ask you that, and I thought it was a good suggestion.)

[obxhead]

78. 2 Towns in PA are still uninhabitable after 40+ years because

of ongoing underground coal fires.

[Paradoxical]

81. There are hundreds if not thousands of underground coal fires

Throughout the world.

China has the most.

[David__77]

91. In the aggregate, yes. We need safe, regulated, state-owned nuclear power.

The whole world needs it so that we can grow our economies and advance humanity.

[PSPS]

93. Not in our corrupt corporate-controlled country it isn't.

All that matters to the "regulators" is what pleases their corporate controllers and what will get them the biggest bribe.

[merh]

94. tell these kids that, m'kay

[Paradoxical]

97. You're letting emotions take precedent over reason.

I've seen that photo literally dozens of times today. I feel for the families and the kids. This is a tragic accident of historical proportions. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemies.

With that being said, it does not change my opinion of nuclear power. It can't. I refuse to let a photograph take the place of decades worth of research. That would be completely antithetical to the idea of being a liberal, intelligent, independent-minded person.

[gkhouston]

102. Decades worth of research just got superseded by a huge data point: this failure.

An energy source which provides years of "safe, clean energy" interspersed with bouts of "tragic accidents of historical proportions" doesn't seem like an intelligent choice to me.

[Paradoxical]

113. This is a single accident.

There are no "bouts" of accidents.

[Vanje]

179. "Decades worth of research"

Who funded the "research"?

[SidDithers]

98. Can you tell us what the readings were when those kids were checked?...

No? You can't?

What's the point of the picture, then?

Sid

[Paradoxical]

99. Take the reigns.

I'm going out for a bit.

[markpkessinger]

95. Except when it's not! n/t

[upi402]

103. Got tarp?

:toast:

[JCMach1]

105. Using the same logic, nuclear bombs are the safest ever made- maybe all bombs should be nuclear!

:smoke:

[SidDithers]

106. That analogy makes absolutely no sense...nt

Sid

[JCMach1]

107. How many have been killed by conventional bombs compared to nuclear?

It is the equivalent of the analogy the OP is making about HOW SAFE nuclear power is...

Of course it doesn't make sense... neither does the OP!

[Paradoxical]

114. No, what you said actually makes no sense. What I said does.

The OP is an explanation of how nuclear power is safer than all other forms of energy (excluding recent technologies like solar and wind which do not represent a significant portion of energy production).

Millions more people have died from conventional explosives than from nuclear bombs, by the way.

[JCMach1]

126. Does it really?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x631426#631469

Or, can we talk Full-Meltdown?

[DainBramaged]

108. Propaganda, found where you least expect it.......

[Paradoxical]

117. You know, your words are painfully true to me.

The last place I expected there to be anti-science bullshit was on this forum. But it turns out that there are a good number of people on this board who have no idea how little they know about science.

[EstimatedProphet]

132. You confuse anti-science with sensible science.

[meow mix]

119. +1000

[DainBramaged]

166. This bullshit is still going too!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

109. Unrec because I positively HATE artificial grass.

[Iggo]

110. Yeah, I'm watching it be all safe and shit.

Them Japanese folks sure look safe.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Iggo]

137. self delete.

[meow mix]

136. +1000

[Vanje]

180. +++++++++++++++ nt

[leftstreet]

111. unRec

Safe or not, this isn't the time for this conversation

[Paradoxical]

116. I actually agree. Now was not a good time to start trashing nuclear power.

And it's not a good time to be promoting it. But since people starting trashing it, I saw the need to counter the bullshit with fact.

[leftstreet]

118. People didn't start 'trashing' it

People started out here frightened, worried, and asking questions.

When there's a 10 car pileup on the expressway and people are freaking out about highway safety, that's not the time to say "But, but (Ford, Toyota, Honda) makes the safest car on the road!!!"

[Paradoxical]

121. I'm glad you brought up that analogy.

The reaction in this place would be akin to having a group of people start freaking out after seeing a 10 car pileup and then run around screaming about how cars should be outlawed.

[upi402]

123. You mean you're countering reality on the ground with facts?

Until you invent 'Nuke-Away' I ain't biting.

Now if you want to burn spent fuel, as in the subject of Bill Gates' TEDtalk, I'm open to learning. But building more of these things and producing more waste ?- yeah no.

[Paradoxical]

124. This is a photo of Palo Verde nuclear power generating station...

The largest nuclear power plant in the United States. It has been functional since 1988. So it has 23 years worth of spent nuclear fuel on the premises.

If you look at the top right hand corner of the photo, you will see an area shaped like a monolith. In it are things that look like giant soda cans 3 rows wide. That is all of the spent nuclear fuel that the plant has produced.

When I spoke to the chief nuclear chemical engineer on site, he said that they easily had capacity for 100 to 150 years worth of spent fuel. Fuel can be stored on site, easily. And it can be left there until we develop methods of disposal or reprocessing that are viable.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Paradoxical]

122. Do you think you could stop with the personal attacks?

I'm seeing a psychiatrist. It's not exactly a joke worthy aspect of my life.

[cali]

127. Three words for you: Until it's not.

[quaker bill]

128. When they are working properly..

If you have a problem at a coal plant, the fire goes out all by itself.

The essential problem with nuke plants is that it takes technology working well to keep them from melting down or blowing up. With virtually any other source of power, a loss of technological control effectively shuts the plant down without emergency interventions.

The thorium fuel cycle nukes are a better bet, because they require an external source of high speed neutrons from a particle accelerator to work at all. In a plant blackout like this, the particle accelerator stops and the nuclear reaction ends automatically. Any new fission nukes should be based on this sort of design.

Fusion nukes, given the process is ever successfully implemented at sufficient scale, have this advantage as well, as external power inputs are necessary for the reaction to proceed at all. A blackout would just shut it down.

[EstimatedProphet]

129. HAHAHAHAHAHA!

It's safer that ANY other energy source! Why, it's safer than riding a bicycle!

Is your name Irwin Mainway by any chance?

[Shagbark Hickory]

130. Which energy source is safest in an Tsu-quakey? Please display the tables and charts for that!

[pipi_k]

131. Not true!

Check it out...

http://www.otherpower.com/hamster.html


If the little shits are going to be up all night running anyway, might as well put their energy to good use.

Of course, it would probably take a million of them to light the average home, but that's a small detail really...

:7

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FormerDittoHead]

140. This is an interesting article (DailyKOS)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/29/932237/-Im-paid-to-post-DIS-information-online

"So who are your biggest customers, then?"

"Mostly political parties."

"Oh yeah? Wow!! That’s really interesting!! Anyone we might have heard of?"

"I’m not allowed to say specific people. But mostly for conservative groups, and recently some Tea Party groups. But the Tea Party doesn’t pay as good." ...

[hlthe2b]

138. the nuclear lobby is out in droves with their spin.

and are passing themselves off as "independent experts" on corporatist news channels. Case in point: "Nuke industry spin: Be "reassured" by Japan" http://www.salon.com/news/japan_earthquake/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/03/13/nuclear_industry_response

Nuke industry spin: Be "reassured" by Japan
--snip--
On Sunday, every major newspaper in the United States highlighted the nuclear crisis -- a PR nightmare for the industry.

The New York Times' front page led with a banner headline, "Japanese Scramble to Avert Nuclear Meltdowns," while the Washington Post featured stories variously labeled "Radiation Danger," "Reactor Emergency," and "Nuclear Crisis." Many press reports conclude that the current crisis is the worst since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in what is now Ukraine, where an explosion spread a cloud of nuclear fallout over large sections of the Soviet Union and eastern Europe.

In the United States, the political backdrop for the Japanese crisis is a recent bipartisan embrace of nuclear power. President Obama last year announced $8 billion in loan guarantees for a pair of new reactors in Georgia. After more than 30 years of no new reactor construction in America, Singer said that four new reactors -- in Georgia, Tennessee, and South Carolina -- are expected to be online by 2020. Part of the reason for the three-decade lull was public fear generated by the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania in 1979.

--snip--
Singer, the NEI spokesman, argued that Japan's infrastructure had actually performed well so far.

"The Japanese plants have been run very safely and reliably for a very long time. They have operated quite safely," he said, adding: "Actually, they withstood the earthquake quite well. It's the tsunami that caused the problems with the backup generators." :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

http://www.salon.com/news/japan_earthquake/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/03/13/nuclear_industry_response

************

While I'm sure the OP is a sincere believer (as he has assured us that is the case), it is certainly likely the industry has deployed paid ringers to "visit" blogs, message boards, and other web presence, attempting to spin (confuse) the issues to their favor. DUers/Readers beware.

[phleshdef]

141. This OP presents hard data. Numbers DO matter. That salon article, on the other hand, is pure fluff.

And I'm fine with well meaning fluff. It doesn't bother me. But when put up against hard data, fluff loses the argument. And what the hard data suggests is something that should be pretty obvious, and thats that so far, we have not yet managed to create something that satisfies our energy needs that doesn't involve danger to human lives due to actions we take to maintain said energy source. Radiation exposure, oil spills, oil leaks, aggressive foreign policies encouraged by oil reliance, natural gas explosions, coal mine cave in, floods created by mining, health problems caused by mountain top removal and thats all just scratching the surface.

Still, at the end of the day, the data suggests that of all these methods of energy production that satisfy our energy needs, nuclear power has resulted in the least amount of casualties. Unless someone can refute that, then they've really got nothing.

Of course we should pursue the least risky, cleanest, cheapest, safest energy source that we can possibly achieve. OF COURSE we should do that. There are ultimately better ways to do it than nuclear or any of the other things we are using on a wide scale. No one is disputing any of that. But we aren't there yet. We may even have the technical knowledge to get there. But having the knowledge and having had implemented it on a large enough scale are 2 entirely different things. We haven't.

[hlthe2b]

142. Wrong....

But, another case in point. No one here is pushing coal as an alternative. Using strawmen arguments is the refuge of those who can not present a cogent argument and I will not waste time with those who do.

Had you bothered to read the Salon article, which it is extremely obvious that you did NOT, it is not attempting to counter nuclear energy nor evaluate its arguments, but is focused on the very deceptive tactics the nuclear energy industry (and its paid shills) are using right now to defend itself.

[phleshdef]

143. I read every single word of the Salon article. And apparently my post was over your head.

I never said anyone was pushing coal as an alternative. Coal all ready is in use and has been for a very, very long time. Why would I suggest that anyone is pushing for something that we all ready use? Thats silly and pretty much proves that you didn't actually try to read my post.

What I said was, that of all the things that we HAVE CURRENTLY BEEN USING AND ARE USING on a widescale, they all have involved and still involve risk to human life. And out of all them, the FACTS support the claim that nuclear power has resulted in the fewest amount of deaths. You have shown nothing, not one iota of data that proves otherwise, whereas the OP has hard data that supports the claim 100%.

[hlthe2b]

146. I don't respond to those using strawmen & I certainly don't those who insult..

Welcome to ignore.

[Name removed]

155. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pitohui]

169. this OP presents lies and claims it's hard data

just because he is badly informed and has only heard of two major nuclear accidents, TMI and chernobyl, he needn't assume that the rest of us are ill-informed idiots

the guy needs to get off his duff and learn a little about nuclear history, because we have two choices here -- he's either knowingly or unknowingly spreading lies

a lie is not a fact, a fact is not a lie

[KittyWampus]

139. Totally bogus. Waste to Energy is the only SANE solution. It is a local energy source

that can be run by municipalities and requires no extra energy to extract fuel.

[LAGC]

158. Kitty, you keep repeating that meme, but logistics don't back you up.

There simply isn't enough of a supply of waste to power entire cities for more than a few years.

I mean, with oil we have MILLIONS of years of build-up to draw on, and even now we may be tapping it out after only 100 years.

We have what? A couple hundred years, at best, of waste to work with? It simply won't last very long on the large scale required to power entire cities...

[KittyWampus]

161. actually, they do. waste keeps happening. you apparently haven't observed nature.

[LAGC]

162. Yes it does, but do you realize the sheer amount of waste you would need to power New York City?

It would literally take all of a week's worth of trash in all of New England just to power New York city for a single day.

It's simply not sustainable. You'd burn through all the back-log at landfills in just a few years time.

And I don't think its very cost-effective either.

[Bluerthanblue]

144. until it isn't- then it's more dangerous and life killing than

we can begin to comprehend.

:shrug:

[spanone]

145. until it goes wrong. and where the fuck do you store the waste....bullshit

[LWolf]

147. + 1,000,000 nt

[ROFF]

156. Check out "dry cask"

at wikipedia. Or google it. You can see some in the large picture above in this thread.

[dkofos]

150. Until the unforseen disaster happens, and the meltdown begins.

[SnakeEyes]

153. Hopefully,

in the event of a meltdown, the containment system that Chernobyl lacked will hold up.

[dkofos]

154. I bet the nuke industry has their fingers crossed.

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HuckleB]

164. First, I'm not convinced that your thesis is correct.

Second, why address this now?

Seriously.

:shrug:

[jannyk]

165. ...And the Titantic won't ever sink! 'nough said. Unrec

[pitohui]

167. why do we tolerate these lies? way more than 2 major accidents

for instance, "we almost lost detroit," published BEFORE the 3MI incident, documented several incidents that caused loss of life of nuclear workers

what is this theory that the lives of workers are not of any value and should never be mentioned?

there were many, and multiple, nuclear accidents at various nuclear power plants, even the small and experimental ones, and this is not "top secret" information if it was published in the early 1970s

many, and many accidents with this type of power, but the nuclear industry continues with the bold lies because they know the average person on the street is too lazy to even look at well-known openly published information

and our gov't sweats wiki-leaks? all they have to do is ignore it, the percentage of well-informed people in this world is infinitesimal -- people don't even pretend to inform themselves or to do a moment's research before passing along an obvious
piece of crap

i think moderators should start to consider REMOVING posts that are bold packs of lies and misinformation

you could give your OPINION that nuclear power is OK and i wouldn't quarrel with your OPINION but you don't get to INVENT FACTS and keep my respect

i haven't kept up but in the 1980s greenpeace put out a whole book of nuclear accidents, many causing loss of life or property, and i don't doubt that there have been others since there, when a problem is ignored or minimized with lies and excuses, the problem doesn't go away by magic

[DainBramaged]

168. I am proud to have unreced this thread even though it kicked

dreck.

[marmar]

170. .................

[LAGC]

171. Don't go confusing everyone with facts.

K&R. (not that it made any difference -- still zero)

[meow mix]

172. trash thread. and offensive considering the ongoing disaster.

you should be ashamed

[rustydog]

173. 3-mile island...chernobyl?

A year is a year. whether you have one plant or 445 plants, they are operating for a calendar year. they have a life-span of about 40-years. when they fail, you are f***ed.
The last time a coal or gas-powered plant failed, we lost power...no danger of killing hundreds of thousands of people with deadly radiation...

These nuclear failures show that no matter how "safe" you claim them to be, they are a threat to humanity when they do fail.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

174. Um, seriously?

Where's the stats on solar or wind?
I think they forgot a couple. This can't be complete without that. And I haven't heard of anyone biting the big one because of a solar panel.

[LAGC]

175. I'm sure a few people have died falling off of roof-tops installing solar panels.

No form of harvesting energy is without its risks.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

177. Maybe, but that was personal liability.

[PufPuf23]

176. The odds of a state of the art nuclear reactor suffering from damage are 1 in 1,000,000 years.

Modern US reactors have a likelihood of 1 in 100,000 years."

Our record of human history is questionable between 1000 and 10,000 years as compared with 1 in 100,000 or in 1,000,000 million years.

Events over time are fractal not normal probabalistic function; hence, the Black Swan phenomena and fraudulant or incompetent use of probabilites in assessing risk or creating immediate value.

[hlthe2b]

178. So, Paradoxical... Still want to engage us alll....

of how safe nuclear power is? Did you disappear?

[Robb]

181. After every major airplane crash, I vow never to fly again.

I do, however, eventually tend to get back in an airplane. Statistically I'm quite safe, until I crash.

[madokie]

182. yeah I believe that

NOT

[Lorien]

183. Don't take the bait

[truebrit71]

184. Bollocks.

But thanks for playing:eyes: