Bill Nye on nuclear

Discussion of Skeptic magazine and Letters to the Editor
User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3313
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:31 am

Nope.
As I've showed before, many US nuclear plants receive direct subsidies per MW/h - and these are old plants, not new constructions.
Also, the Yankee decomissioning will cost more than $1.2 billion - your number is what the company has set aside, which won't be nearly enough, meaning that it will be taxpayers might have to pay the rest.
Check Wikipedia.
Lance, stop making stuff up just because it suits you.
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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:53 am

The $608 million was what was spent. That plant has been decommissioned, and the job is finished.

EM
Why do you deny facts?

What I just posted is the real data, not made up. It is a pretty crappie method of debating to simply deny facts when they are inconvenient.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3313
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Jun 09, 2017 4:10 am

there are a couple of Yankee plants, you are only talking about Rowe, which still has its fuel on site.
Other Yankee plants are being decommissioned right now, at great cost overrun.

Put in some sources for crying out loud!

Hint: you posting something is not data - it is a post. If you want it to be considered data, link a source.

And don't talk about ignoring data: you are simply lying about subsidies being only loans at this point.
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
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3313
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Jun 09, 2017 4:19 am

Note: the Rowe plant was tiny: only 185MW.
And it still needs $8million/year upkeep.

So a really weak example.
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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jun 09, 2017 4:53 am

According to wiki, to decommission all nuclear reactors in the world will cost $187 BILLION. That comes to roughly $400 million each. Which is less than what was spent on Rowe. Now wiki also talks of decommissioning all nuclear facilities, including nuclear weapons facilities, which would come to $1 trillion. But that is another thing entirely.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3313
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Jun 09, 2017 4:54 am

Lance, put in links or shut up.
Your posts have no credibility on their own.
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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jun 09, 2017 5:01 am

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning

EM

I really hate those demands. As I told you earlier, I am having problems with copy paste commands, and for this I have to copy out the web address long hand, and then type it letter by letter, and correct every typo, and check it. The whole thing wastes me a whole heap of time. You could get the site in a fraction of the time with a single Google request, so I resent you wasting my time. Nor do I lie about these things. If I tell you something is on wiki, it is on wiki.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3313
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Jun 09, 2017 5:13 am

You are lying about subsidies.

on point (thanks to the link), your numbers refer to a 2004 estimate by the IAEA.
Now that we are actually doing the decommissioning, it turns out that it is way more expensive than estimated.


A friendly suggestion: if you don't want to link don't claim to have the data: if we can't see it, you can't make an argument based on it. This is rational discussion 101.
I have to insist on this because you do have the tendency to just throw out numbers that you either made up or come from obscure sources. It would be only half-bad if you didn't also claim that an actual article I link has less credibility than something you don't link but just say it is so.
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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jun 09, 2017 5:52 am

EM

It is you who claim I am a liar. I am not.
I spend time on the Internet and I have a lot of data on this subject tucked away in my little grey cells. Enough to know that you do not know what you are talking about. You are posting like you are a representative of an anti nuclear organization, and like them, do not care about what is true or not. Even Bobbo has bent a little in the direction of what is scientifically correct.

I accept that the up front cost of building a nuclear power plant is expensive. But the cost of everything else, including decommissioning is a lot less. If a 10 gigawatt plant is built, it will cost a bit less than 10 billion dollars. Decommissioning will cost a lot less than 1 billion. Running the plant costs 2.1 cents per kilowatt hour. Over the life of the plant, the total cost, including building and decommissioning, and all the rest, comes to about 9.5 cents per kilowatt hour. Selling that power returns somewhere between 20 and 30 cents per kilowatt hour on the spot wholesale market. All of this information is readily available. You seek to deny it all purely because you find it inconvenient, in that it shows your arguments to be total crap. I have absolutely no sympathy for your position. It is irrational. In fact, your denials are somewhat emetic.

You demand references, and I go to a great deal of trouble providing them, and you then deny them if you find they do not agree with your idiotic position.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3313
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Jun 09, 2017 6:01 am

So why are there subsidies for running plants if they are competitive?

If you can't get a commercial loan it means that no one trust that your product can make a profit. Why can't you accept that?

And a 10GW reactor?
There is no such thing - as your well-informed grey cells should have told you; just another instance of you making stuff up because it sounds plausible to you.
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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:25 am

Inside the USA there are subsidies for all kinds of things. Mostly totally unnecessary. The reason they exist is because they make rich people richer, and rich people bribe corrupt American politicians to do whatever they need to make them even richer.

Cannot get a commercial loan?
As I told you, there are 60 new nuclear power stations under construction. One in the USA (Watts Bar). Loans are available for nuclear power stations under the same conditions they are available let for anything else. Talk to a banker.

I did not say a 10 gigawatt reactor. I said a 10 gigawatt nuclear power station. Such a thing may have many reactors. Straw man logic again. Sigh.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11146
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:28 am

Lance: THIS IS AN ASIDE. I am typing right now on a cloned backup of my Win7 OS that works just fine. This clone however initially would not boot, then on "booting to last known good set up" it reverted to this version that does not present web pages in their totality. Most links are blank....and without knowledge of the Skeptic website, I would not be able to navigate it and thankfully the mouse often reveals what the empty space will do if I click on it.

So.........I commiserate with your system not being able to copy and paste. I've never had a system do that. Where is your back up to start using instead?.............Any clues or hints on what caused this behavior or how to fix it, or what you have tried that doesn't work? I'm wondering if some other "file system" many of them free might bring that functionality back for you?

Hint: I have my OS and win10 and 2-3 different versions of Linux on about 10 different hard drives that I can plug into my computer. Looks to me you ought to spring for another hard drive and reinstall your OS "fresh" and when working BACK IT UP. Of interest, I just bought my first Solid STate Drive to install my OS on. it will be fun to discover what headaches that new tech will bring?.................but every year, I have to admit, the computer has gotten faster and more stable.

Much like this thread...............potentially enjoyable, but still a pain in the ass?
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: 3313
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:35 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:I did not say a 10 gigawatt reactor. I said a 10 gigawatt nuclear power station. Such a thing may have many reactors. Straw man logic again. Sigh.


again, no such thing. Therefore no strawman.
The closest we can get is the (currently under construction) 4.8GW plant in Turkey, which is estimated to cost $20billion - 4x as high as your wild guess. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkuyu_Nu ... ower_Plant)
And it isn't even clear if it can be finished.
The UAE one I mentioned before (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_n ... ower_plant) has 4GW and cost $30billion - and can't run for lack of personnel.
Lance, aren't you getting embarrassed about how often you are wrong about things you had total conviction of?

Most reactors are build in France, Russia, India and China, ALL of which get state-supported loans. Show me one reactor in construction that isn't funded by a state-owned bank or company.
And stating that subsidies aren't necessary when the energy companies make it clear that they can't run without is just plain stupid - your opinion is not as important as cold economic facts.
Last edited by ElectricMonk on Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:55 am, edited 2 times in total.
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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:45 am

Bobbo

Thank you for your sympathy on the copy/paste thing.
I live in an isolated community (by choice), three hours drive from Auckland city. I will fix the problem next time I drive there, since there are assorted computer genius types that live there and are available to provide service. But I do not like cities, and will not go there till I need to.

To EM

OK, not quite 10 gigawatt, but I tend to round up. The following do exist.

Kashiwazaki Kariba in Japan at under 8 gigawatt. (Seven reactors)
Bruce in Canada at 6 gigawatt
Hanul and Hanbit, both in South Korea and both 5.8 gigawatt
Zaporizhia in Ukraine at 5.7 gigawatt
Gravelines and Paluel both in France at 5.7
Cattenom in Fran e at 5.4
Palo Verde in USA at 4.4.

And if you want references, then my message to you is very, very rude. They are all readily available with a Google request.
Last edited by Lance Kennedy on Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3313
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:58 am

Lance, those are old ones, which means old data.
You wanted to give an example of what a reactor costs at current prices, and your estimate was 4-6x too low.
FACTS!
So you should feel really stupid by now that the Greenpeace-nutjob knows more about the economics of nuclear power than you do.
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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:04 am

A quick search gave me a comparison for the year 2013. Coal power plants at $3,500 per kilowatt. Nuclear varied from $2,000 to $7,000 for different sites. But we have always known that the capital costs of coal were lower. Gas lower still. But capital costs for wind and solar are higher.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:12 am

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/a ... wind-power

It is not only nuclear which sometimes gets data screwed. In this case, overzealous wind advocates lowering estimates of the cost of wind power, which according to this site, cost more than 15 cents per kilowatt hour. Cf nuclear at 9.5.

I checked the wind farm capital costs. Example given was Amayo in Nicaragua (probably cheaper than USA) at $80 million for 40 megawatt. Or $2 per watt. Pretty much what I quoted earlier. More expensive than nuclear.

Nevertheless, my thesis is not about cost.
I am well aware (painfully) that fossil fuels are cheaper than nuclear. It is just wind and solar that are too expensive. But my thesis is that nuclear is the safest of all methods, along with geothermal, and is one of the best environmentally. It is also reliable, providing steady output of electricity, which wind and solar cannot do.

An ideal system for a nation involves many different generation systems. But not coal and gas!
What we are left with is hydro, geothermal, nuclear, wind and solar. Hydro and geothermal are both good, but limited by resource availability. Wind and solar are too variable to be permitted to be the dominant mode. Even Germany, which is in love with wind power, buys power from its neighbors to compensate for the variability of its own wind farms. A steady supply of power is needed, and nuclear is it. Nuclear plus hydro plus geothermal together should make up at least 60% of a nation's power. With that much power operating steadily the variability of wind and solar can be tolerated.
Last edited by Lance Kennedy on Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11146
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:31 am

4 hours South of Auckland....sounds like about exactly where I stayed overnight with a local farmer on my New Zealand visit. The milky way was so bright I could read a newspaper by it.....although maybe my memory has faded and moonlight was included as well? Simply a beautiful place. All the more reason to buy a second hard drive to clone your working system to..... then see if it works....or decides not to like my system. My experience: the cloning programs now do mostly work but only about 50% of the time. They will now mostly boot, but some kind of little glitches exist.

The smallest hard drives will work for cloning just the OS. Only need 100 GB or so? I use all my early hard drives that are now useless for storing large movie files. My current 5 year old motherboard even has an IDE connector for those early drives.

I really do need to upgrade to a motherboard that will support SATA III as most of my storage has that capability. Hmmm....I HATE upgrading just for that kind of upgrade. Sadly, a usb card for Sata III will not provide any faster speed as the speed is limited by the motherboard (pci slot?). I still have all my old computers. They all still work....... at gathering dust. I always think I cans till use them.........which i could.......but they are all so slow compared to my newest....as will be the case when I upgrade. Already have the case and the power supply.....hate to finally jump.
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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:35 am

Bobbo

My sympathy.
But my advice is to be ruthless. If you are not using them, dump them. You are like me, an old bastard! We old guys tend to hang onto stuff too long. It takes discipline, but we gotta get out and destroy!

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11146
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jun 09, 2017 9:10 am

I've got a bit of a hoarder complex. Not full blown like the tv show.... although I laugh when I catch bits of me in others' obviously psychotic behavior. Inconsistent that I throw facts out as soon as I find them to be wrong.
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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jun 09, 2017 9:23 am

At the end of the day, Bobbo, we are all nuts to some degree. I am not a hoarder. Just lazy. Cannot be bothered sorting through all the junk. Still, I keep telling myself I gotta do it.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11146
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jun 09, 2017 9:50 am

All my stuff is in about 400 discrete places....meaning bookshelves with numbered boxes or those small storage cases with individual little boxes, or various closets..........everything I own is on an excel spreadsheet with its description and location. I can find anything i own in 30 seconds.

...................and people still take one look at this place as say it looks like a mess.

Shocking.
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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jun 11, 2017 12:28 am

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... ce+News%29

Just discovered this reference, which answers a query EM made some time back. How do we know children are not more susceptible to radiation? I knew they were not, but did not have a suitable reference at the time.

In this reference, it is pointed out that children under 6 who survived Hiroshima, and were exposed to a full 200 millisieverts of radiation , did not have higher than normal incidence of cancer as adults.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3313
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Jun 11, 2017 3:01 am

Thanks for finding an article.
But just like before, it only considers survivors with no form of control comparison, which is a systematic error.
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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:16 am

The control, EM, is the rest of the Japanese population, which is a very large number, and thus statistically very significant.

It also makes sense. The influx of nuclear radiation is a mass of subatomic particles. When they strike the human body, most do no harm, but a small number may strike DNA molecules, and cause changes which might end up as a mutation or a cancer. But all living things also have DNA repair mechanisms, and so most such damage is not going to cause harm. Guess who heals best? A child or an adult?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3313
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:29 pm

Lance, don't talk as if you understand what would be a suitable control group - it wouldn't be an unaffected population.
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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Jun 12, 2017 4:27 am

I do have a science degree, EM. I know very well what a control group is. In this case, the multiple millions of Japanese who did NOT experience the bomb make the very best control group. There are a number of experimental groups. Those who got hit by higher, medium, low and very Low levels of radiation. The control group is those who did not.

This tactic of yours, of trying to get around data you do not like by pretending it is crap data, does not speak well for you and your ability to be rational. The Hiroshima studies are classics of good epidemiology.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11146
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:41 am

Hmmm....I studied "control groups" as well....in a soft science. Classic good epidemiology doesn't have control groups: just comparisons. Lance---epidemiological studies are as good as can be done and 99% valid. "But all the variables are not controlled."

Its a VERY formal DEFINED thing. Ha, ha.........I'm not surprised you are wrong. So very close....but wrong.

control group: Another alternative is to select controls from a wider population, provided that this population is well-defined and that those presenting with symptoms at the clinic are representative of those in the wider population
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment ... rol_groups

In validated epistemology studies...much time is spent describing the reference group and what variables were identified and matched. Different for different subjects. Entire towns in an A Bomb may be simpler than a Nuke Plant meltdown. Just for one....I assume those around a Nuke plant who get exposed are older than the gen pop ...so they did not move out of the area as fast as your reference group may have done.

Its a quibble......but exacting science is.
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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:18 pm

Bobbo

Moving out was not a possibility. It was a bomb!

Nor are the basic results unsupported. The impact of radiation on the human body is well studied, and there are many ways of being exposed. The basic maximum level without harm is 100 millisieverts. I posted my recent reference to show thatthat youth does not make a person more vulnerable. Quite the contrary.

The importance of this data to nuclear accidents is clear. We know from the three nuclear accidents that have happened that radiation INSIDE a plant may be lethal. But it is also clear, that once you look at levels OUTSIDE the plant, you get exposures less than the 100 millisieverts limit. The only exception to this was radio iodine exposure at Chernobyl, due to the concentrating effects of iodine by the thyroid gland. But there are easy ways to avoid this, and those methods were used at Fukushima, with the result that there was no increase in thyroid cancer as a result of the Fukushima accident.

Now let me repeat. I am not saying nuclear power is "safe" in any absolute sense. It is just that it is SAFER than other methods of generating electricity, and this level of lower risk is shown with proper scientific measures of fatalities per unit electricity generated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11146
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:06 am

You grok nada.
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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:47 am

Bobbo

My understanding of the impact of radiation on the human body appears to be light years ahead of yours. The data is clear. 100 millisieverts is essentially harmless.

Nuclear accidents ( 3 so far) have not created more than 50 millisieverts total exposure to anyone outside the buildings of the nuclear plant. The death toll outside the plant buildings is very low, except for 16 people who died of thyroid cancer at Chernobyl. I have explained why that happened.

Overall, deaths from nuclear power have been minimal. But power output is massive. That is why fatalities per unit electricity generated is a small number. On that measure, nuclear power is 'safer' than any other method bar geothermal.

The facts are clear cut. It is sad that you and EM are so persuaded by idiotic propaganda and misinformation that you cannot recognize scientific truth.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11146
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:53 am

Lance: the subject is the definition of control group. You should be wrong on that subject, not on your nattering exposure position on which I choose the following: ALWAYS as close to zero as I can manage...... flying airplanes, not irritatingly unavoidable at the time although it did make me cavalier about dental xrays. Such is the nature of choices.
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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Jun 13, 2017 2:10 am

Bobbo

Check the radiation chart I posted. Both flying and dental Xrays are harmless in terms of radiation exposure.

A control group is included in a research study for comparison purposes. In epidemiology, it is a group not exposed to the agent being studied. In the Hiroshima study, the control group is the rest of Japan. Do not get confused with the control group used in double blind clinical studies.

The result is clear cut. Up to 100 millisieverts is harmless. This is now very basic scientific evidence. Why can you not accept it.? The preponderance of evidence shows it to be correct.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11146
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jun 13, 2017 2:52 am

Lance is the rest of Japan a valid control group as defined by rigorous application of the concept: or merely the best that can be done given the limitations of reality?
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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Jun 13, 2017 3:32 am

It is an excellent control.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11146
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jun 13, 2017 3:43 am

Yes it is excellent. The VERY BEST WE HAVE. Accurate to 99% and higher.

Its just not a control group.
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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Jun 13, 2017 4:07 am

From Dictionary.com.
The definition of control in science.


"a constant and unchanging standard of comparison in scientific experimentation."

Sorry, Bobbo. You are wrong. In this case, the rest of Japan is a fully valid and proper control.

Beside which, this argument is a total red herring. The point I am making is that 100 millisieverts is essentially harmless. And in the three nuclear accidents that have happened, the radiation outside plant buildings did not even get to the point of subjecting anyone to 100 millisieverts. The people at Chernobyl who died of radiation poisoning, were all inside the building and subject to much higher levels.

In fact, it is the lack of understanding how much humans can tolerate radiation that leads to the bulldust surrounding nuclear safety.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11146
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jun 13, 2017 4:11 am

How is a city in Japan "a constant and unchanging standard of comparison in scientific experimentation." /// Seems to me it is a constant hubbub of activity and change. And..... whats the "experiment?"

Tell the truth...........you are just pulling my leg right?
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
True Skeptic
Posts: 10252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Jun 13, 2017 4:50 am

No Bobbo.
I suspect you have little training in science, and have very limited knowledge of the meaning of terms like scientific control.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3313
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Bill Nye on nuclear

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue Jun 13, 2017 4:52 am

Lance, you don't even understand what a second group is supposed to control against; hint: it isn't radiation.
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


Return to “SKEPTIC Magazine: Letters & Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest