Not Newsworthy, But . . .

What does make the world turn?
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9887
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jul 06, 2017 7:52 pm

EM and TJ

Not arguing your last points. My position is simply that nuclear power is the safest (apart from geothermal).

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jul 06, 2017 7:59 pm

Say Lance: is having a Bear as a pet safer than having a dog because there have been no pet bear attacks?

......... a pool filled with Piranha?.... or just an open pit of sulfuric acid?

As EM explained at length: the inherent safety of an activity must take into account the safety program that surrounds it. Nuke = MAXIMUM safety program. This is not mandated because Nuke is "safe." Dams = hardly any program at all.

You can pick one definition and avoid all the other ones,,,,,,,,,but that is called: "limited."
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: 9887
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jul 06, 2017 8:53 pm

Bobbo

It is not definitions.
It is DATA. Hard data in the form of clear cut numbers. Nuclear is safer than any other except geothermal. The numbers tell the story.
Or do you, too, want to become a data denying idiot ?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jul 06, 2017 10:19 pm

Sorry Lance.


To be honest and actively thinking: agree that other definitions bring different results, but the one you are using in your opinion best fits the subject at hand.

Otherwise: You are using your brain as a door stop, if not outright dishonesty.

The other definition was well explained by EM and is present in the post you most recently refused to answer.
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: 9887
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:21 am

Bobbo

I search for, and find, the hard data. If you look at the crap web sites (I looked at the Greenpeace crap web site on nuclear safety), you will see that numerical data is lacking, and sweeping verbal assertions are dominant. I have no interest in such bull dust, and treat them with the contempt they deserve. If you cannot nail down your results in solid numerical form, those results are crap.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jul 07, 2017 1:01 am

Totally irrelevant Lance.

You do get very boring, staying in your rut.

Not every issue relative to a subject is numbers driven. Some like the other definitions of safe include process which is not numbers driven. Sound like gibberish to you?

Ha, ha.
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: 9887
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jul 07, 2017 3:02 am

If you cannot quantify, it is not science.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Jul 07, 2017 3:34 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:If you cannot quantify, it is not science.


Incorrect.
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: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jul 07, 2017 3:35 am

Well..........here we are on the verge again. No Lance........every argument quantifies what it can but "Process Analysis" isn't about quantification...... I think not in the sense that you use it.

Prove me wrong. How do you shake a hand or light a match? What "numbers" and quantification are involved in such process questions?

Same with how much effort must be expended to keep different energy sources running at useful capacity? Now... you can quantify that subject by man hours or by salary cost I suppose.....but in the main, its a process question.
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: 9887
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jul 07, 2017 4:03 am

Bobbo

It is true there are things you cannot quantify (shaking hands is not one of them). But where something CAN be quantified, then the description that includes the numbers is superior, far far superior, to the description that does not. In the case of safety of power generating plants, not only is it possible to quantify, but it has been done, and I have posted the numbers.

If you reject the data, that is an indictment on your ability to think.

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 » Fri Jul 07, 2017 6:28 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:... If you reject the data, that is an indictment on your ability to think.


Not necessarily. The data can be flawed or misrepresented, and hence rejection a clear indication of an ability to think. Not that I disagree with your belief that nuclear is safer – but nuclear hasn`t gone full cycle yet – inclusive of decommissioning and storage, and in these steps surely more deaths can be expected too. Hence I would conclude that while it appears to be the case, it still hasn`t been proven.

I did search and find an OSHA document on wind safety, and though construction death numbers were not available, given my high-elevation experience and recognition of what was written, I am willing to now concede that wind construction is probably more risky than nuclear or high-rise buildings. But I still wish those numbers were available so that my belief could be based upon more than suspicion.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jul 07, 2017 6:45 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Bobbo

It is true there are things you cannot quantify (shaking hands is not one of them).

Please do so then.
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: 9887
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jul 07, 2017 7:54 am

TJ

I have been arguing with EM and Bobbo for a while, and have dug up numerous references. The picture is the same for all of them that actually get down to numbers. Sadly, EM and Bobbo seem to be more impressed with extravagant story telling.

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 » Sat Jul 22, 2017 9:08 pm

Melted fuel has been found… in one out of the three melt-down reactors. As the article says, this find should help in designing tools and in planning for its removal.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/0 ... XO9ZDoUnIU

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 Aug 16, 2017 9:35 am

It seems that the Ice Wall will be largely ineffective. The deep wells are drawing off 270 metric tones of ground water each day, but still allowing 130 tones to pass – which will continue to be largely unimpeded by the ice wall.

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 Sep 20, 2017 7:15 am

A new risk to nuclear power plants in Japan – volcanic eruptions that clog air filters with ash. Air filter systems will need to be upgraded.


Return to “Science, Technology, and Mathematics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Matthew Ellard and 1 guest