Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

What does make the world turn?
User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8867
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:38 pm

You don't have to be a scientist or a doctor to understand how risk factors work. Eating a fried egg the day before you have a heart attack doesn't mean the egg caused the heart attack. But that's the nature of some of the claims that blame Fukushima for cancers in the US. Ignorance should never be the basis of any claim.

When did scientific literacy get dropped from the education system?
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15564
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:23 am

landrew wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:38 pm
You don't have to be a scientist or a doctor to understand how risk factors work.
You don'thave to BE ONE, just THINK LIKE one......so....what's the point you want to make?
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
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8867
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Mon Dec 03, 2018 3:44 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:23 am
landrew wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:38 pm
You don't have to be a scientist or a doctor to understand how risk factors work.
You don'thave to BE ONE, just THINK LIKE one......so....what's the point you want to make?
I think it's extraordinary that we life in a scientific age, yet so many of us have no basic understanding of basic principles like how risk factors work. A little reading and basic research is the remedy for that. Most well-written articles explain things like this fairly well. It's fairly easy to educate one's self to the point where one doesn't have to argue from ignorance. I suppose that's the frustration at the nub of my point.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15564
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Dec 03, 2018 4:04 pm

"Scientific Age" as you demonstrate is just a label having little application to the majority of people doing/living a mostly unrelated life.

Its just like the economy, or religion, or every other label. Frustrating? How is that when at various times in my life my pleasure/goal/interests had nothing to do with science, economy, religion or any other label except hound dog?
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
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8867
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Mon Dec 03, 2018 4:40 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 4:04 pm
"Scientific Age" as you demonstrate is just a label having little application to the majority of people doing/living a mostly unrelated life.

Its just like the economy, or religion, or every other label. Frustrating? How is that when at various times in my life my pleasure/goal/interests had nothing to do with science, economy, religion or any other label except hound dog?
It stands us in good stead to have a basic level of scientific literacy when so many things around us are technological. The city of London had serious outbreaks of typhoid and cholera in the 19th century. Scientists at the time had a battle against public opinion that sewage shouldn't be flowing into the wells where drinking water was taken. It took considerable time before the problem was solved. We run the same risks today if we allow the public and government officials to slip back into ignorance. The current media battlefield is no place to solve science-based problems, it only divides us into partisan battling teams.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15564
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Dec 03, 2018 5:13 pm

that all sounds very Alarmist to me...…………………….
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 No Life
Posts: 11866
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Dec 03, 2018 6:16 pm

General scientific principles are very practical and can improve the lives of everyone. Reject mere opinion and fuzzy thinking and go with what the data shows. Successful business people know this and go to great lengths to get good data. By following the data they get rich.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8867
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Mon Dec 03, 2018 8:04 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 6:16 pm
General scientific principles are very practical and can improve the lives of everyone. Reject mere opinion and fuzzy thinking and go with what the data shows. Successful business people know this and go to great lengths to get good data. By following the data they get rich.
One of the gold mining reality shows shows several mining crews working like mad and hoping to get lucky on land by taking their chances. Meanwhile, a nearby entrepreneur is very wealthy because he believes in collecting data from test boreholes to decide whether he should dig or not. For all its contrived and phony scenarios, I believe this one is correct.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

Skeptic1001
New Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2018 7:23 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Skeptic1001 » Thu Dec 06, 2018 2:27 pm

Skeptic1001 wrote:
Sat Dec 01, 2018 5:08 am
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 7:48 pm
Fukushima caused no harm to humans by radiation.
Seems to me that when you advance the NUMBER of ZERO, that any confirmed anecdote is sufficient to falsify your statement.....aka only the Number ONE is required.....not the plural, or a whole set.
You incorrectly quoted me. Now I'm unsure of what you meant and what is going on here.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15564
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Dec 06, 2018 3:50 pm

skeptic: thanks for the catch...……..apologies:
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 7:48 pm
Fukushima caused no harm to humans by radiation.
Seems to me that when you advance the NUMBER of ZERO, that any confirmed anecdote is sufficient to falsify your statement.....aka only the Number ONE is required.....not the plural, or a whole set.
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
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8867
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:24 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 3:50 pm
skeptic: thanks for the catch...……..apologies:
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 7:48 pm
Fukushima caused no harm to humans by radiation.
Seems to me that when you advance the NUMBER of ZERO, that any confirmed anecdote is sufficient to falsify your statement.....aka only the Number ONE is required.....not the plural, or a whole set.
Unless you take "no harm" to mean "no significant harm."

I remember seeing all the hysterical and alarmist postings on Facebook around the time of the incident. I believe one of them predicted a crop failure in the US as a result. In retrospect, I'd say they missed the mark by quite a bit. I tend to block the more hysterical postings nowadays.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15564
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:48 pm

Well gee landrew...….now you are allowing your bias to change what was clearly SAID by others so as to keep your position pure? Its a nice set up: Nuclear Accidents cause no harm, because they don't cause significant harm...…….and then change the definition of significant as that too is negated.

A whole constellation of defenses. BTW: I don't think Facedbook is a good reference for anything...….except pop culture. SCIENCE...…...is not pop culture. You should not conflate he two.
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
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11593
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by OlegTheBatty » Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:58 pm

There are car accidents worse than Fukushima every day.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8867
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:10 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:48 pm
Well gee landrew...….now you are allowing your bias to change what was clearly SAID by others so as to keep your position pure? Its a nice set up: Nuclear Accidents cause no harm, because they don't cause significant harm...…….and then change the definition of significant as that too is negated.

A whole constellation of defenses. BTW: I don't think Facedbook is a good reference for anything...….except pop culture. SCIENCE...…...is not pop culture. You should not conflate he two.
Yeah, that's it, Bobbo. I can't bear to hear about all the radiation burns and mass starvation rumors surrounding the Fukushima apocalypse, so I just block them.
Out of sight and out of mind, just how I like it. God save my soul.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4467
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:12 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:58 pm
There are car accidents worse than Fukushima every day.
but not as costly ones.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11593
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by OlegTheBatty » Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:43 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:12 pm
OlegTheBatty wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:58 pm
There are car accidents worse than Fukushima every day.
but not as costly ones.
Not if you look at individual car accidents.

The annual cost of car accidents in the US alone is greater than the cost of all nuclear accidents combined.

How much of the cost of Fukushima was due to panic and the ensuing hullabaloo?
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4467
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:46 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:43 pm
How much of the cost of Fukushima was due to panic and the ensuing hullabaloo?
In Japan?

Probably not much.
Supposedly it took a lot of effort to evacuate some people who wanted to stay.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11593
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by OlegTheBatty » Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:52 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:46 pm
OlegTheBatty wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:43 pm
How much of the cost of Fukushima was due to panic and the ensuing hullabaloo?
In Japan?

Probably not much.
Supposedly it took a lot of effort to evacuate some people who wanted to stay.
Some of the evacuations were necessary for various reasons, but some was panic and hullabaloo.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8867
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:57 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:46 pm
OlegTheBatty wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:43 pm
How much of the cost of Fukushima was due to panic and the ensuing hullabaloo?
In Japan?

Probably not much.
Supposedly it took a lot of effort to evacuate some people who wanted to stay.
That's inherent in any situation. You'll always have a portion of both alarmists and denialists. The realists are the ones who fare the best on average.
The realists are the ones who have the best grasp on reality, and they are able to make the most accurate predictions about what is likely to happen.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11866
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:53 pm

My statement that radiation at the Fukushima accident harmed no one is still true. It may not remain true, of course, since some heroic people went into the plant, where radiation levels were genuinely harmful, to shut things down. However, three people died on site due to the tsunami. Two drowned and one died in a crane accident.

The main harm at Fukushima was done by idiots in government and the bureaucracy. In spite of expert advice to the contrary, a panic stricken evacuation was ordered, in which 300,000 people were hastily hauled out. That included the frail elderly, people in intensive care, and premature babies. An estimated 1600 people died from that evacuation stress.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15564
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:56 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:58 pm
There are car accidents worse than Fukushima every day.
Its a Risk==Benefit analysis. The risk/injury/cost of car accidents is higher but so are the benefits. You gotta balance many different factors.
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
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8867
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Thu Dec 06, 2018 7:00 pm

As I recall, the backup generators at Fukushima were at a level below that which was flooded by the tsunami. The battery backups were able to cool the reactors for only a few hours before the batteries failed, and that's when the meltdown began. Aside from the actual tsunami disaster itself, it appears that the stupidity was in the planning of the plant construction.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11593
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by OlegTheBatty » Thu Dec 06, 2018 7:56 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:56 pm
OlegTheBatty wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:58 pm
There are car accidents worse than Fukushima every day.
Its a Risk==Benefit analysis. The risk/injury/cost of car accidents is higher but so are the benefits. You gotta balance many different factors.
Cars are a significant source of global warming. Nuclear reactors not so much. Are you taking that into consideration in your risk/benefit analysis?
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11866
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Dec 06, 2018 7:58 pm

That is true, landrew. Not unique. Every major construction project includes elements of stupidity.

According to several references (SciAm and Chemical and Engineering News), nuclear power has already saved 2 million human lives by displacing the much more damaging burning of coal for electricity.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8867
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:34 pm

In all fairness, it always looks like stupidity in hindsight. Most people generally do their best, but accidents still happen. A Model T Ford was a deathtrap at 15 miles per hour. The plate-glass windshield could slice you in half. Alarmists at the time wanted to outlaw the automobile. Others wanted to restrict them to 5 mph.

Over the years, cars have become safer and safer, regardless of how many people still die from stupid driving. No matter how alarmist we wish to be, accidents will continue to happen. Nuclear power has become safer as a result of past accidents, but it has also driven up the costs to the point where very few are being built. The best we can hope for is for good risk assessments to be done, and cost-effective power generation solutions will be built.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
TJrandom
True Skeptic
Posts: 10730
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by TJrandom » Thu Dec 06, 2018 10:12 pm

landrew wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 7:00 pm
As I recall, the backup generators at Fukushima were at a level below that which was flooded by the tsunami. The battery backups were able to cool the reactors for only a few hours before the batteries failed, and that's when the meltdown began. Aside from the actual tsunami disaster itself, it appears that the stupidity was in the planning of the plant construction.
The stupidity ran deeper - TEPCO had a review with recommendations to move the generators years in advance, and did nothing. The executive management trial is still ongoing.