Not Newsworthy, But . . .

What does make the world turn?
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9877
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Jul 01, 2017 10:52 pm

Bobbo

That is what I would call a very cynical answer, but with an uncomfortable amount of truth.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jul 01, 2017 10:56 pm

How can it be "cynical" when that is basically what EVERYBODY DOES "as best as they can understand it?"

.................... and in the real world, there is no alternative?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9877
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Jul 01, 2017 11:25 pm

The word 'cynical ' refers to the belief that people operate from selfish motives. That means your view was cynical. It may be correct, but that does not alter the fact that it was cynical.

But then, Bobbo, you have always demonstrated extreme pessimism. That obviously extends to your view on human beings.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 02, 2017 12:53 am

Good on you Lance. Quite Correct. "but" my point was other, and very clear. Let me repeat: "... in the real world, there is no alternative." To point out something when there is no other choice is to make what is called a false distinction.

I won't dither farther with any mention of how "very" doesn't even modify the noun.................. you know?

Yea, verily. "We think with words, and flower with ideas."
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9877
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jul 02, 2017 1:59 am

Bobbo

I am not sure what you mean by ' there is no alternative '
No alternative to what ?

If you mean no alternative to being selfish, I think I would have no problem arguing against that.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3074
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Jul 02, 2017 5:45 am

Lance, you are such an ideologue that you would risk the health of millions, assuming that the worst case won't happen, even whilst the technicians themselves couldn't know how things would turn out.
The order to evacuate HAS to be given if there certain safety lines have been crossed - otherwise you might just as well have no plan in place.

Because of the extra precautions, nuclear power is still on the table.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9877
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jul 02, 2017 6:53 am

EM

No ideology. Just science.

We KNOW what is dangerous. If the situation is not dangerous, and it was not at Fukushima, then killing 1500 people by forcing them into an unnecessary evacuation is a crime.

If people want to leave, then it is their choice. But when you have elderly and frail people, and very sick patients in hospital being forced into a frantic and unprepared evacuation, that is wrong. Sadly, the culprits are not the ones being tried.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:24 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Bobbo

I am not sure what you mean by ' there is no alternative '
No alternative to what ?

If you mean no alternative to being selfish, I think I would have no problem arguing against that.


YEAH........I agree. I got caught up in my own argument, on a roll. Sometimes, people do act altruistically. Just not often.... not even the same people. And Freud would would say at bed rock all actions serve the individuals..... but Freud sleeps in a Procurement Bed.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3074
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Jul 03, 2017 8:20 am

The reason why nuclear power isn't outlawed everywhere is because we've always been over-cautious about it (and we still have plenty of hidden problems like delayed bio-accumulation after disasters). One reason is that chain-reactions inherently escalate so that by the time you know things are seriously wrong, it's too late.

This way, accidents have always been less bad than they could have been.
Being over-cautious is the will of the nuclear industry as much as that of the population and politicians. The alternative would discredit the industry forever if people got hurt without warning.

So be glad for early evacuations instead of bitching about it.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9877
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Jul 03, 2017 8:42 am

EM

Still living in fairy land.

The problems of nuclear power are now very well known. We have 60 years of experience, including three well publicised accidents. None of which caused too much harm. Three Mile Island was contained, and no one suffered harm. Chernobyl killed 49 people. Fukushima killed no one (though idiot politicians may have killed up to 1500 with a stupid and panicky evacuation. ).

You can speculate all you like. All the idiot paranoid morons do. But a good skeptic, or a good scientist will always go by the real world data. This shows clearly that nuclear power kills fewer people than almost any other method of generating power. As I have pointed out before, 49 deaths at Chernobyl due to the nuclear accident is very, very small potatoes compared to the 170,000 who died in the Banqiao hydroelectric dam failure in 1975 in China. Or to the estimated million human lives lost per year from the toxic effects of breathing the effluent of coal burning power plants. So I am afraid, EM, that your paranoid fantasies fail badly when stood up against real world data.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3074
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:11 am

What do you have against dams, Lance?
Did you have some bad experience as a kid in your sandpit when the bully flooded your attempts at building a castle?

Because there is nothing rational about you comparing them to nuclear power.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby TJrandom » Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:56 am

The problem with nuclear power generation isn`t that we don`t know how to manage it - but rather that it is managed poorly... as it was in Fukushima, and as it is in every reactor where the spent fuel is stored permanently above the reactors. With only a few accidents to look back on, luck rather than science has saved us from a more serious accident that might make the dam experience a walk in the park.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3074
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Jul 03, 2017 10:38 am

The history of nuclear power is choke-full of accidents: no plant had a single year without issues that required unscheduled downtime.
But because of paranoia and a FAA-like outside observation and regulation process we've learned from each close call and implemented the necessary precautions in ALL other plants.
If we treated nuclear power like coal we would've had a couple of meltdowns by now.

It is simply nonsensical to complain about nuclear safety - without it we wouldn't even dare to use it.
And that is before we consider the potential for willful damage.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8119
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Poodle » Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:24 pm

I cannot think of a single form of energy generation which does not have concomitant dangers.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19638
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Jul 03, 2017 2:08 pm

Heck, even digestion can be explosive!
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9877
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Jul 03, 2017 8:29 pm

Poodle

You are correct. Every form of power generation carries risk.

Nuclear power has killed, but only small numbers of people. My view As a good skeptic, is that ignorance, paranoia, and irrational fear, carries more risk than the nuclear power itself. As witness the Fukushima case, where the nuclear accident killed no one, but a panicky evacuation killed an estimated 1500 people.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:44 pm

Lance: how do you justify separating the safety in theory of Nuclear Power from what you call the irrational response to Nuclear Power (accidents/safety/operations). They come together as a package.

Your analysis is simply a fantasy "wish" for a world in which people acted differently than we do.

...............not analysis at all.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby TJrandom » Mon Jul 03, 2017 10:04 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Poodle

You are correct. Every form of power generation carries risk. ...


Of course every form of power generation carries risks, but also a responsibility to learn from past mistakes and to reduce those risks by implementing prudent improvements. Hence we now have scrubbers for coal and early warning systems for dams. This is the very basis of this lawsuit - professional negligence or not.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9877
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Jul 03, 2017 10:38 pm

Bobbo

Not a fantasy.
I am talking here of measured risk. If you are exposed to one sievert of radiation if you stay in one place for a period of time, that is seriously risky. But at Fukushima, outside the plant, the exposure was only to a few millisieverts. So, no risk. We know that exposure to less than 100 millisieverts carries no risk. For this reason, the government was criminal in forcing an evacuation. Of course, they did that for political reasons, so that they could be seen to be "doing something ". Even if the something they were doing was criminally moronic.

TJ

Reducing risk is fine. But with anything there is a sensible line to be drawn. Is it smart to be like Donald Trump, and obsessed with the risk of international terrorism, when it kills fewer Americans than drowning in their baths ? Perhaps Trump should ban bath tubs ! How far should Trump go in action to reduce terrorism, when it is such a minor risk?

The same thing applies to nuclear power. The risk to human life is miniscule, and the Fukushima accident killed no one. But the Japanese government killed an estimated 1500 people with a stupid evacuation, against the advice of radiation experts.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jul 03, 2017 10:52 pm

Lance: you miss what the fantasy is about: separating human emotions/institutions/habit patterns/social necessity/politics from the technical issues at hand. Its true for any subject you wish to consider: if people were different, even all the same on some point, the issue would be different as well.

"If if and butts were soup and nuts, we'd have a party." But it ain't so.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby TJrandom » Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:12 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Bobbo

Not a fantasy.
I am talking here of measured risk. If you are exposed to one sievert of radiation if you stay in one place for a period of time, that is seriously risky. But at Fukushima, outside the plant, the exposure was only to a few millisieverts. So, no risk. We know that exposure to less than 100 millisieverts carries no risk. For this reason, the government was criminal in forcing an evacuation. Of course, they did that for political reasons, so that they could be seen to be "doing something ". Even if the something they were doing was criminally moronic.

TJ

Reducing risk is fine. But with anything there is a sensible line to be drawn. ...

The same thing applies to nuclear power. The risk to human life is miniscule, and the Fukushima accident killed no one. But the Japanese government killed an estimated 1500 people with a stupid evacuation, against the advice of radiation experts.


Yes Lance - but you also miss that this particular accident would not have happened if the executives had taken the advice of experts two years prior, and moved their backup generators. And further, that this is still the case for additional reactors in Japan.

I used to manage datacenters for financial industry firms, and we did annual risk assessments - and immediately implemented corrective actions for any risks that were deemed likely and where the cost to do so was not prohibitive. We postponed, or simply did not take actions on risks that were deemed remote AND where mitigating policies could be used to reduce those risks. We also had standing guidelines that backup facilities needed to be remotely located - on different tectonic plates, and with multiple electric and communication cable feeds. Some of this was required by law (BC-177, and Sarbanes Oxley), and some just prudent management. But it is also important to note, that we never had a risk to life – and yet were required to remotely locate our backup facilities.

Japan has had tsunamis far greater than the ones that hit Fukushima, so the risk was real. The cost of moving those backup generators up the hill was not prohibitive.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:24 pm

TJrandom wrote: Japan has had tsunamis far greater than the ones that hit Fukushima, so the risk was real. The cost of moving those backup generators up the hill was not prohibitive.

I find situations like this just completely fascinating: why people/businesses don't act in their own self interest against KNOWN eventualities. they are like Kings of Yore who thought they could wade into the tide and command it back?

Do you have any notion of why the up hill location was not made?..... anyone fired now as a result????

Always a fun fact: the Tsunami Walls were one foot taller than the Wave that was generated....so all that planning went as the experts predicted........................... but .......................... the earthquake also lowered the land the walls were on by two feet.

Ain't Mother nature a bitch?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby TJrandom » Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:35 pm

I do not know of their decision making on this point - and I do hope the trial brings it out. So I only have suspicions. But I also know that to pay reparations, TEPCO sold off numerous resorts, golf courses, etc. - brining in many millions (billions?), so clearly had the financial resources to move the backup generators.

In their defense... a lack of contingency planning and implementation of redundant systems is a well-known aspect of Japan`s industry. When we did the Y2k assessment of our suppliers and associates, I had to coax Japan`s banks thru their assessment reports - because they indeed had some of the concepts down, and implemented. But invariably, we had to obtain `executive waivers` to continue to do business with the largest of the Japanese banks.

So it does not surprise me that safety recommendations might not have been acted on - but IMO, it is still professional negligence.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:47 pm

TJrandom wrote:So it does not surprise me that safety recommendations might not have been acted on - but IMO, it is still professional negligence.

Nay. Not professional. So outrageous..... as to be an act of sabotage? TREASON!!!!!

Who paid whom not to move the generators? Who profited from not moving them??????

Once I became the custodian of all original/precious documents of our corporation. I ordered a fire proof filing cabinet to hold them all with copies made to a non-fire proof safe in another corporate building.

At one memorable meeting where I criticized our Human Resources Twerp (no disrespect!) for some issue he did not handle well, he responded that he didn't stroke his ego by ordering a $800 filing cabinet when a $100 cabinet held more. I said: "Yes, I'm concerned about fires. Do you have nothing in your offices worth keeping?"

I love groups of people.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9877
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Jul 04, 2017 4:35 am

TJ

I accept your statement about negligence, and maybe the executive do deserve a slap on the wrist.

But do you not think the government deserves a much harder one ? In fact, a right royal thumping kick in the backside ? After all, the executives harmed no one, and the government killed an estimated 1500.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jul 04, 2017 5:51 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:But do you not think the government deserves a much harder one ?

No. Its politics. Each side wanting to slap the opposition as hard as the law would allow for each sunrise and sunset.

Bizness = regulated by laws, criminal sanctions, and the market place on rare occasion.

Politics = regulated by laws and criminal sanctions and by popular votes now and then.

Know when to apply .........which remedy.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3074
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue Jul 04, 2017 6:26 am

When it comes to nuclear power, transparency is the exception, not the norm: no company wants to draw attention to possible points of failure: I guess moving the generators would have made people aware about what could all go wrong.
Similarly, we only find out about near-catastrophes long after the events.
This makes public safety measures, including evacuation plans, a necessity.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jul 04, 2017 6:29 am

Of equal if not more interest: why they were put there in the first place. ............ so much for "Safety Review."
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9877
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Jul 04, 2017 8:12 am

My guess as to why generators were not moved is simply that the decision makers thought a tsunami risk was low probability, and put that action at the bottom of the priority list. As I am sure we all know, only priority actions ever happen.

But I emphasize that, while their lack lf action may have been very unwise, it killed no one. It took the government to kill 1500 people.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:53 am

A low probability when they were building 30 foot high Tsunami walls around the country?

..............and I take it we all do recognize the the Horrendous cost of such destruction to Nuke Power Plants? So much better to have a distributed, non-centralized "anything." Death and Destruction.......don't forget the Destruction part.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby TJrandom » Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:55 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:TJ

I accept your statement about negligence, and maybe the executive do deserve a slap on the wrist.

But do you not think the government deserves a much harder one ? In fact, a right royal thumping kick in the backside ? After all, the executives harmed no one, and the government killed an estimated 1500.


Yes of course I agree with you - and so did voters who turned out the ruling party in the next election.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9877
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Jul 04, 2017 8:26 pm

Bobbo

Enough with the death and destruction. It does not happen. Nuclear power has killed fewer people than coal burning, gas burning, hydroelectric, wind power, and when related to deaths per unit electricity generated, less than solar panels. Your views on nuclear death and destruction are based on fallacies.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:02 pm

You see Lance.............an excellent demonstration of your narrow minded fixation on a subject that permits no variation (aka LEARNING) at all.

Destruction: or did Chernobyl and Fukushima not happen at all?

Flexibility Rating: Zero.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9877
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Jul 05, 2017 12:54 am

Bobbo

As I have told you to the point of exhaustion, Chernobyl killed 49 people, and Fukushima none at all.

The Banqiao hydroelectric dam burst and killed 170,000 people. Coal burning power station emissions are estimated to kill a million people per year. Gas burners have leaks and gas explosions, and have killed hundreds of people. Wind towers need people perched precariously on high during construction and maintenance, and dozens have fallen to their deaths. Solar panels being fixed to roofs have caused ladder accidents and dozens of deaths. The only major power generation method that is safer than nuclear, in terms of deaths per unit electricity generated, is geothermal.

This is not a narrow fixation. It is DATA.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jul 05, 2017 1:13 am

Ha, ha.........boy are you BLIND and fixated. Can't see/tell one subject from a different subject.

The Chernobyl and Fukushima plants were DESTROYED causing a great loss of money and thereby an injury to society and a good and separate reason not to go Nuke..... and which is why they can't be financed without Government support....ie: wealth transfer to the AlreadyTooRich.

Number of people killed that you are stuck on is a totally different subject.

Do I need a bigger hammer?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9877
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Jul 05, 2017 1:36 am

It is priorities, Bobbo.

I prioritised human life over money. Do you consider that unreasonable?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby TJrandom » Wed Jul 05, 2017 2:11 am

Lance, just a minor point - but I don`t think you can say that constructing nuclear plants killed nobody. Neither you nor I could possibly have the figures, but construction kills, hence construction of nuclear plants also kills. Accidents in construction do not differentiate by purpose of structure.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jul 05, 2017 2:12 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:It is priorities, Bobbo.

I prioritised human life over money. Do you consider that unreasonable?

Its unreasonable to be stuck on stupid when the discussion moves to a DIFFERENT aspect of the subject.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10209
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jul 05, 2017 2:13 am

TJrandom wrote:Lance, just a minor point - but I don`t think you can say that constructing nuclear plants killed nobody. Neither you nor I could possibly have the figures, but construction kills, hence construction of nuclear plants also kills. Accidents in construction do not differentiate by purpose of structure.

Lance included or excludes indirect deaths depending on whether or not they support his argument of the moment.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby TJrandom » Wed Jul 05, 2017 2:17 am

Lance`s argument is great for whether or not we should have nuclear power generation, but not so great for whether it should be made safer.


Return to “Science, Technology, and Mathematics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests