Not Newsworthy, But . . .

What does make the world turn?
User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11528
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Custom Title: Salt of the earth
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by TJrandom » Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:57 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 2:00 am
It would be much more appropriate to jail the politicians and bureaucrats who ordered the emergency evacuation, against the advice of scientific experts.

After all, the nuclear accident killed no one, while the unnecessary evacuation resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1600 people.
And when was the last time that this sort of action was taken?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11528
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Custom Title: Salt of the earth
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by TJrandom » Thu Dec 27, 2018 8:02 am

TOKYO (Kyodo) -- The state-backed Japan Atomic Energy Agency said Wednesday it would need to spend about 1.9 trillion yen ($17.1 billion) to close 79 facilities over 70 years, …
I don`t know how this will affect the cost of electricity… but taxpayers are on the hook for it. It may never be reflected in electricity costs, but rather funded out of general revenues. And of course it will cost even more, as the article points out.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4915
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Dec 27, 2018 8:07 am

The UK had built nuclear land mines.
Maybe Japan could set up a perimeter of nuclear sea mines to detonate anti-cyclic to a tsunami, thereby negating it ( or making it worse).

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12759
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Dec 27, 2018 8:27 am

TJrandom wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 8:02 am
TOKYO (Kyodo) -- The state-backed Japan Atomic Energy Agency said Wednesday it would need to spend about 1.9 trillion yen ($17.1 billion) to close 79 facilities over 70 years, …
I don`t know how this will affect the cost of electricity… but taxpayers are on the hook for it. It may never be reflected in electricity costs, but rather funded out of general revenues. And of course it will cost even more, as the article points out.
More politician crap.

There is no need to close any nuclear facilities, until their natural time is up. Nuclear power remains the safest form of electricity generation of any of the major methods. Fear of nuclear power is like the fear of genetic modified food, where not one person has ever been harmed by the fact that his or her food was so modified. Ditto the fear of synthetic pesticide residues in food where natural pesticides, equally toxic, are found at levels 10,000 times as high.

Amazing how irrational fears can end up driving voters and thus cause politicians to do idiotic things.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11528
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Custom Title: Salt of the earth
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by TJrandom » Thu Dec 27, 2018 8:43 am

Lance - you should read the article before posting such BS. No fear of nuclear power referenced nor implied in the article. A large portion of the cost is for a failed fastbreader reactor, some is for maintenance and equipment replacements - and the total figure is for the next 70 years, which of course would include facilities now already significantly past their natural time as well as those which will be exceeded in the next 70 years.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11528
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Custom Title: Salt of the earth
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by TJrandom » Tue Jan 29, 2019 7:21 am

Toshiba unveils robot to probe melted Fukushima nuclear fuel. Slow, but progress is being made.

mack_10
Poster
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 3:30 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by mack_10 » Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:05 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 8:27 am
TJrandom wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 8:02 am
TOKYO (Kyodo) -- The state-backed Japan Atomic Energy Agency said Wednesday it would need to spend about 1.9 trillion yen ($17.1 billion) to close 79 facilities over 70 years, …
I don`t know how this will affect the cost of electricity… but taxpayers are on the hook for it. It may never be reflected in electricity costs, but rather funded out of general revenues. And of course it will cost even more, as the article points out.
More politician crap.

There is no need to close any nuclear facilities, until their natural time is up. Nuclear power remains the safest form of electricity generation of any of the major methods. Fear of nuclear power is like the fear of genetic modified food, where not one person has ever been harmed by the fact that his or her food was so modified. Ditto the fear of synthetic pesticide residues in food where natural pesticides, equally toxic, are found at levels 10,000 times as high.

Amazing how irrational fears can end up driving voters and thus cause politicians to do idiotic things.
You think that not one person has been harmed by nuclear power? So in your world Chernobyl never happened
And GMOs are a very poor comparison considering the controversy over glyphosphate, a known carcinogen
And synthetic pesticide are harmless, can I assume there is no DDT in you utopia either
Next you will say that guns don't kill people so everyone should have one

So much capitalist lies told by companies that profit from them , not all technology is good technology
I bet you miss that good old days of lead in petrol, selling cigarettes to children, asbestos for insulation... this list just gets longer every year...70% alcohol in mouth wash, saccharine,...

Prove that no-one has been harmed by GMOs, you can't because companies still refuse to label the product.
Why do you suppose that is. surely "contains GMO" should be a badge of honour not something to be ashamed of

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12759
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:08 pm

Mack

You have not been part of the ongoing debate, so your ignorance is excusable.

Chernobyl killed 49 people. The Banqiao hydroelectric disaster killed 170,000. So even with Chernobyl, nuclear power remains the safest of the major forms of generating electricity. I could go on, but this topic has already been discussed in depth.

You cannot prove GMOs are harmless. All that can be done is point out that genetically modified food has been eaten by billions of people, with millions eating it every day, without a single person over 25 years being harmed by the fact that their food is so modified. That is a better safety record than any other variety of food.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18341
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:22 pm

Ignorance is excusable, but arguing from it is not.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian 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 No Life
Posts: 11528
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Custom Title: Salt of the earth
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by TJrandom » Sat Mar 09, 2019 1:25 pm

Water everywhere, and not a solution in sight.

mack_10
Poster
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 3:30 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by mack_10 » Sat Mar 09, 2019 3:51 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:08 pm
Mack

You have not been part of the ongoing debate, so your ignorance is excusable.

Chernobyl killed 49 people. The Banqiao hydroelectric disaster killed 170,000. So even with Chernobyl, nuclear power remains the safest of the major forms of generating electricity. I could go on, but this topic has already been discussed in depth.

I guess the world health organisation must be ignorant in the same way
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/re ... 5/pr38/en/

You cannot prove GMOs are harmless. All that can be done is point out that genetically modified food has been eaten by billions of people, with millions eating it every day, without a single person over 25 years being harmed by the fact that their food is so modified. That is a better safety record than any other variety of food.

When you point out that billions eat GMOs how did you quantify that? What is your source? Or is it just your feeling
Out of the "billions" that have eaten GMOs how many have died? I'm guessing some, what did they die of? Again how do you know? What is your source? Or is it just a feeling?
Without a population study comparing GMO consumers with non consumers, you cannot scientifically state that GMOs are safe. Your claims are just marketing claims based on zero actual data, shame on you

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10501
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by landrew » Sat Mar 09, 2019 5:29 pm

mack_10 wrote:
Sat Mar 09, 2019 3:51 pm
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:08 pm
Mack

You have not been part of the ongoing debate, so your ignorance is excusable.

Chernobyl killed 49 people. The Banqiao hydroelectric disaster killed 170,000. So even with Chernobyl, nuclear power remains the safest of the major forms of generating electricity. I could go on, but this topic has already been discussed in depth.

I guess the world health organisation must be ignorant in the same way
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/re ... 5/pr38/en/

You cannot prove GMOs are harmless. All that can be done is point out that genetically modified food has been eaten by billions of people, with millions eating it every day, without a single person over 25 years being harmed by the fact that their food is so modified. That is a better safety record than any other variety of food.

When you point out that billions eat GMOs how did you quantify that? What is your source? Or is it just your feeling
Out of the "billions" that have eaten GMOs how many have died? I'm guessing some, what did they die of? Again how do you know? What is your source? Or is it just a feeling?
Without a population study comparing GMO consumers with non consumers, you cannot scientifically state that GMOs are safe. Your claims are just marketing claims based on zero actual data, shame on you
You seem to be ignoring the process of risk-assessment, and the risk management that we are forced to do when we are involved in the process. We all make choices every day, choosing one risk over another, but for those we appoint to make risk-management decisions at a higher level, it's easy to criticize, and harder to comprehend. It's easy as an armchair expert, to think in terms of "risk avoidance" in lieu of risk management. To simply declare something "all bad" with no regard to its pros and cons, is a recipe for poor decisions. Simple avoidance is simple-minded thinking, and can lead to bigger problems.

From a position of ignorance (no matter how well-researched you may be), it's unlikely that you will be in possession of all the facts at the disposal of the decision-makers. There's nothing to be gained or contributed to the process by simply taking a side and fighting a tribal political battle from one point of view. Nothing constructive can result, unless all sides are exposed to all the facts.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11528
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Custom Title: Salt of the earth
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by TJrandom » Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:38 pm

A good read, with something for everybody – nuclear power supporters, detractors, and even fans of alternative energy.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12759
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Mar 12, 2019 12:06 am

That article supports what I have always said. The biggest problem with nuclear power is political. Too many politically active organisations opposing it and getting too much media exposure. They have created a picture of a very unsafe technology, in spite of the fact that the hard data shows it is the safest of all generation technologies, killing the lowest number of people per megawatt hour of electricity generated.

The Fukushima nuclear accident killed no one. The Banqiao hydroelectric disaster killed 170,000. Yet most people think that Fukushima proves nuclear power is a terrible risk, while remaining totally ignorant of what happened at Banqiao.

It is the perception of great risk that has driven governments to write safety standards for nuclear that drives the price of a new plant through the roof.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11528
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Custom Title: Salt of the earth
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by TJrandom » Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:36 am

Yup... Safety First. Now where have I heard that?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12759
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:56 pm

That is fine, TJ.
But not by demanding precautions that have never been needed, driving price up, and failing to do the same for other methods of generating electricity. For example the noxious emissions from coal burning power plants are estimated to kill a million people each year globally. Yet there are many precautions that could be taken, to reduce those emissions, but are not legally required. Many more lives could be saved by forcing extra safety precautions on burning coal. Instead, coal gets away with megadeaths and the nuclear industry pays the price.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11528
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Custom Title: Salt of the earth
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by TJrandom » Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:31 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:56 pm
That is fine, TJ.
But not by demanding precautions that have never been needed, driving price up, and failing to do the same for other methods of generating electricity. For example the noxious emissions from coal burning power plants are estimated to kill a million people each year globally. Yet there are many precautions that could be taken, to reduce those emissions, but are not legally required. Many more lives could be saved by forcing extra safety precautions on burning coal. Instead, coal gets away with megadeaths and the nuclear industry pays the price.
I do not know what are the 'new' safety precautions (which have added costs to make Japan suppliers uncompetitive in other markets), and whether they have been needed all along, or not. We have a few here - for Japan, such as avoiding building on fault lines and keeping control and redundancy systems above possible tsunami levels. IMO, quite sensible - and needed all along.

I certainly agree that coal plants need their own set of safety/environmental requirements, and that those requirements might not be the same as for nuclear power generation, and further that coal is more deadly than nuclear. But I don't think that one must first address one before another. Surely they can be tackled simultaneously.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11528
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Custom Title: Salt of the earth
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by TJrandom » Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:09 am

I just came across this video by nuclear safety expert Robert Budnitz on the reactors and Fukushima disaster. Simple to understand, well worth the time unless you are already well versed in nuclear reactor design and the Fukushima tsunami and its affect on the reactors.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23395
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:37 pm

Ten pages of thundering silence so far.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11528
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Custom Title: Salt of the earth
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by TJrandom » Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:24 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:37 pm
Ten pages of thundering silence so far.
Well, don’t want any big bangs or even audible rumbles... but I do believe I have contributed to an improvement in the health of Lance... triggering all of those knee jerks. :lol:

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12759
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:18 am

Long as it is only knee jerk, and not being a jerk.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23395
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Mar 14, 2019 9:48 am

We wish.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.