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 » Mon Aug 20, 2018 2:18 am

TJrandom wrote:
landrew wrote:There's no equating the dangers of nuclear power with a bursting hydroelectric dam. Except that human error plays a part in the vast majority of disasters with both. A correctly engineered and built dam doesn't break. Similarly, neither does a nuclear plant, however an unforeseen event, a tsunami was responsible for Fukushima.

There is no padded room. The human race is built to take risks. If we had the same safety-hysteria during the moon landings as we have now, we'd never have gone at all.
I only take exception to your Fukushima unforseen event comment... a tsunami of sufficient size to cause the disaster was predicted two years in advance by the regulatory agency and the movement of the backup generators was the proposed corrective action - an action which was ignored by the Tepco officials except that they did `plan` to do so at some future date.
Nothing is truly earthquake-proof.
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 » Mon Aug 20, 2018 2:43 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:another exception would be that hydro and nuke failures put huge numbers at risk. Not so the moon program.
Standard Bobbo nonsense.

Certainly hydro failures put huge numbers at risk. We know this because the Banqiao dam burst killed 170,000 people. But the worst nuclear disaster in history, Chernobyl, killed only 49. Since people learn from errors, and tighten safety limits, no future disaster in a nuclear power plant should kill even 49 people.

Sadly, Bobbo makes his statements based on his emotions, ignoring the data.

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 Aug 20, 2018 3:20 am

49 is number killed. How many are at risk?

You know: the meaning of simple words not put thru the nut factory.
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
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 » Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:51 am

https://www.thestate.com/news/local/art ... 89385.html

nuclear power could be quite safe if the providers had some sense of responsibility.

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 » Mon Aug 20, 2018 6:04 am

ElectricMonk wrote:https://www.thestate.com/news/local/art ... 89385.html

nuclear power could be quite safe if the providers had some sense of responsibility.
As with our plants here - where post-Fukushima safety reviews and risk mitigation actions are permitted to be `planned` instead of `accomplished` prior to reactivations. :roll:

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 Aug 20, 2018 8:39 am

And nuclear accidents have killed 49 people, while hydro accidents have killed 170,000 plus. Coal power at the same time kills one excess of one million per year.

Yet the morons among us continue to pillory nuclear power.

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 Aug 20, 2018 8:48 am

What is your current estimate of the risk of Nuke Meltdown/release to human kind? Limited to past number of deaths....or would you increase by the percent of population increase over the years?

Death: The permanent end of all life functions in an organism or part of an organism
Risk: Expose to a chance of loss or damage

So far, you completely equate the risk of death with the number of deaths. that's not good dictionary skills.
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 Aug 20, 2018 8:21 pm

Bobbo

I use data rather than wild speculation.

On nuclear melt down, there are two sources of data.

1. The three melt downs that have already happened, which are the best possible guide to any in the future. It is called experience.

2. Other scientific data, such as vulnerability to radiation. We know from the follow up studies over 60 years at Hiroshima, that an exposure of 100 millisieverts of radiation (equivalent to being struck by 3000 neutrons) or less is harmless. So when we look at possible future melt downs we can ask the odds of people receiving more than this. In fact, more than 100 millisieverts is unlikely except inside a plant.

One lesson from Chernobyl which was applied at Fukushima was to avoid locally produced milk, which may contain harmful radio-iodine 131. The more experience we get, the fewer mistakes are made.

This is the way to base your predictions, Bobbo, rather than on idiotic wild speculation.

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 » Mon Aug 20, 2018 9:47 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:And nuclear accidents have killed 49 people, while hydro accidents have killed 170,000 plus. Coal power at the same time kills one excess of one million per year.

Yet the morons among us continue to pillory nuclear power.
Lance, your kneejerk responses are simply dishonest and obviously designed to stifle discourse. Chernobyl itself killed your 49 so far but the WHO estimates it will kill as many as 40,000 4,000. No other deaths due to nuclear power, anywhere?

You would do better to focus on making nuclear safer, as I have. Hardly a pillorying.

Edit... the WHO report said 4,000 - not 40,000
Last edited by TJrandom on Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

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 Aug 20, 2018 10:09 pm

Lance: How many people are "at risk" due to Nuke Power? Twice now you have responded but failed to provide even a glancing answer.

And recall, the issue was whether or not the Moon Program was too risky for hoomans to engage in.

You and context/relevancy/direct response: are total strangers. Here's some data for you: direct questions put to Lance: 2. Number of questions answered by Lance: 0.

The Data. Yes...…………………..look at the data.
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 Aug 20, 2018 11:57 pm

TJrandom wrote:
Lance, your kneejerk responses are simply dishonest and obviously designed to stifle discourse. Chernobyl itself killed your 49 so far but the WHO estimates it will kill as many as 40,000. No other deaths due to nuclear power, anywhere?
TJ

With no disrespect meant, but that is total bull dust. In fact, your reference agrees with me in saying that, up to 2005, fewer than 50 deaths had occurred. I said 49.

You are an intelligent guy, TJ. So think about it. The Chernobyl accident happened and 49 people died, all within a short period. Then 30 years go past with no further deaths, and a bunch of intellectual idiots tell you : "OK. There were only 49 deaths in 30 years, but we tell you that in the next 30, there will, all of a sudden, be 40,000." Well, duh ! How can supposedly educated people be so amazingly stupid.

At the time Chernobyl happened, there were a number of estimates of future deaths. The International Atomic Energy Agency estimated 4,000. The E.U. estimated 30,000. Greenpeace estimated hundreds of thousands. But after 30 years, the people right there on the spot, the Ukraine medical authorities, reported that none of these were correct, and they had not detected any statistically significant increase in cancers in the Chernobyl proximity, except for thyroid cancers. (which are part of the 49 deaths).

The reason for this was simple. Measurements of radiation showed that nowhere had high enough radiation to exceed known limits shown to be probably harmless. Those limits are 100 millisieverts for a short term dose and something in excess of 250 millisieverts if spread over a year. (the town of Ramsa in Iran has geothermal waters that are slightly radioactive, in which the residents regularly bathe, and experience an average of about 250 millisievers per year without measurable harm.)

There have been numerous ESTIMATES of cancer deaths. But the real world measurement showed nothing apart from the immediate surge in thyroid cancer.

Estimates can be made without recourse to reality. I could go on and tell you exactly why those estimates are such crap, but I don't want to bore you.

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 » Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:02 am

Yes Lance - I am corrected, the report was 4,000 - not 40,000. My eyes decieved me.

My main point still stands - nuclear energy needs to be made safer, and operators ignoring recommended safety improvements made by the regulatory bodies is not wise. This was shown by Fukushima - a disaster that was foreseen but was ignored by the operators.

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 » Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:47 am

TO TJ

EVERYTHING can be made safer.

As I have said from the beginning, nuclear power is not "safe ". The fact that 49 people died at Chernobyl proves that. But it is less hazardous than any other method of generating electricity.

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 » Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:05 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:TO TJ

EVERYTHING can be made safer.

As I have said from the beginning, nuclear power is not "safe ". The fact that 49 people died at Chernobyl proves that. But it is less hazardous than any other method of generating electricity.
Thank you. So the next time there is a post about making nuclear safer, I take it you won`t be posting about how much safer nuclear is than coal or hydro. ;)

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 » Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:29 am

I make no promises. Depends on how a post on making nuclear safer is worded. If the implication is that nuclear is especially hazardous, I will jump HEAVILY on the poster.

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 » Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:42 am

:roll:

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 » Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:52 am

Basic risk calculations takes time into consideration: a tiny chance for catastrophe each year is still too much if the risk will last for 50,000 years.
California might soon have its own Fukoshima:

https://www.surfer.com/features/san-ono ... -breaking/

And, of course, the fact that nuclear waste is stored at sites operated by companies in the process of going bust, security is going to continue to be dicey: I truly believe that the only reasons such sites haven't been targeted is because of restraint on part of the terrorists, not because of flawless security.

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 » Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:21 am

The reason terrorists do not target nuclear waste is because it is of little use to them. It is far too impure to make a bomb, and there are much worse materials to be used as poisons. And then there are the handling difficulties.

EM

Your reference is also of little use. It is the standard journalist waste of space. Without actual numbers, it is impossible to judge if they have a case or are just generating alarmism for the sake of boosting circulation. A basic rule for skeptics : get the numbers.

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 » Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:39 am

Basic rule for skeptics: if you can't get the numbers, you better wait and see if you can before commiting to something for then next 1,000 generations.
We don't have the numbers on long-term storage of nuclear waste, and it is disingenuous to claim "no big problem so far" equals "no big problem ever".

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 » Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:30 am

EM

There are oodles of numbers on this topic. I have quoted many to you already. Enough to show that using nuclear power actually saves live. The journal Chemical and Engineering News had an article in which they said that nuclear power had saved 2 million lives by preventing that power being generated by coal, which already kills an estimated million people each year.

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 » Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:38 am

Lance, since you accept that coal kills an estimated million a year - not from explosions, etc. - but from the long term effects of black lung and pollution, then surely you can accept that nuclear kills from long term effects too. Thus the 49 is just the extreme low end, accounting only for the direct and near immediate deaths, with many more to come. Yes, far less than coal, but far more than the 49 nonetheless.

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 » Tue Aug 21, 2018 11:28 pm

TJ

I accept your point. But what needs to be borne in mind is that the deaths from coal are documented and quantified, even if there is a large error factor involved in various estimates.

The deaths you talk of with nuclear power may, indeed, be real. But there is no scientific evidence for them. This means that those numbers must be small. The only place they might have happened was Chernobyl. If there was more than a few such deaths, we would see a spectrum of cancer rates, from higher than normal close to Chernobyl, easing to normal a greater distance. We do not see this. We do not see any cancer increase that is measurable, no matter how close to Chernobyl (except for thyroid cancers, which are part of the 49).

This does not PROVE there were no extra cancer deaths, since a few such deaths might be hidden in the statistical 'noise' . But it shows that any such deaths will be small in number.

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 » Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:33 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:TJ

I accept your point. But what needs to be borne in mind is that the deaths from coal are documented and quantified, even if there is a large error factor involved in various estimates.

The deaths you talk of with nuclear power may, indeed, be real. But there is no scientific evidence for them. This means that those numbers must be small. The only place they might have happened was Chernobyl. If there was more than a few such deaths, we would see a spectrum of cancer rates, from higher than normal close to Chernobyl, easing to normal a greater distance. We do not see this. We do not see any cancer increase that is measurable, no matter how close to Chernobyl (except for thyroid cancers, which are part of the 49).

This does not PROVE there were no extra cancer deaths, since a few such deaths might be hidden in the statistical 'noise' . But it shows that any such deaths will be small in number.
Highlight: fallacy.

Bio accumulation of radioactivity is a long and slow process that can cause cancer rates to spike decades after an incident. Because radioactive clouds and contaminated animals move, the effects also need not be concentrated near the incident site.
The effect might be large, we just don't have enough of a handle on the situation to tell. To be save, farmers all over Europe had to trash entire harvests to avoid contamination - if they hadn't, cancer rates would very probably have increased measurably as a result of Chernobyl.
This highlights the risk of unreported contaminations which let radioactivity get into the food production. And we have just seen how bad US nuclear energy providers are at reporting leaks and issues.

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 » Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:41 am

Lance Kennedy wrote: The deaths you talk of with nuclear power may, indeed, be real. But there is no scientific evidence for them.
You don't understand "risk" at all.

Risk: Expose to a chance of loss or damage //// aka: NOT the historical record.

EM did a good job months ago of explaining that the death rate from Nukes/risk if you will has been kept low because of an appreciation of how exceeding risky it is. Lots of resources, time and money to monitor and have back up safety features.

Take the safest transportation ever created: commercial airliners. If one goes down, normally only a few hundred are killed. Have a terrorist weaponize the airplane though and you multiply that normal expectancy by 10 fold. Now....have the same terrorists, for the same reasons, weaponize a Nuke Power Plant...…. except multiply the deaths by 1000's.

aka: Nuke is inherently VERY risky, aka: dangerous. Only the greedy disagree.
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 » Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:18 am

EM and Bobbo

You continue to ignore data and apply wild speculation instead.

EM.

Cancer rates do not "spike ". They build up over time. There are decades of warning. There has been 30 years since Chernobyl. If a whole lot of cancers were going to happen, they would already be happening, and they are not. Learn to think rationally for Finagle sake. Duh !!

Bobbo.

You fail to understand risk. You think it is something in a thriller novel. It is not. It is something that can be quantified with good data. The risk of nuclear power is real, of course, but nowhere near as bad as other methods of generating electricity, and we have 60 years of experience to generate the data required to quantify it. Why not get real. Leave the fiction behind and live in the world of reality.

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 » Wed Aug 22, 2018 10:00 am

In the US about 39% of people get cancer (of any type) during their life and about 22% die from cancer. The median age at diagnosis being around 65. If nuclear disasters, of which there have been only a few, cause additional deaths, or earlier deaths, it will take a generation following a disaster to show a deviation from the median/incidence. Good data will be available in 30 to 60 years if indeed it is even tracked. On cancers caused by nuclear energy, the best we have at this point are estimates.

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 » Wed Aug 22, 2018 2:18 pm

Here's my version of "Lyin' for Jesus:"

We need to stop driving FrankenCars that burn dead dinosaurs by the end of the month, otherwise we'll all burn up in the fiery conflagration of a runaway Greenhouse Effect... Hell!

I hope I'm doing it right.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

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 » Wed Aug 22, 2018 2:27 pm

TJrandom wrote:In the US about 39% of people get cancer (of any type) during their life and about 22% die from cancer. The median age at diagnosis being around 65. If nuclear disasters, of which there have been only a few, cause additional deaths, or earlier deaths, it will take a generation following a disaster to show a deviation from the median/incidence. Good data will be available in 30 to 60 years if indeed it is even tracked. On cancers caused by nuclear energy, the best we have at this point are estimates.
Not to be an oppositionist, but you can't reduce cancers generally by shutting down nuclear plants. Some nuclear employees had a higher risk of developing cancers, but that didn't transfer to the population as a whole. There are far more and many potent sources of radiation in our environment that we should keep in mind before we target one single source of dubious efficacy.

A few years ago, people laughed at the notion of cell-phone radiation causing cancer. Most of the earlier studies were paid for by the cell industry. More independent research has been done, and fewer people are laughing now.
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 » Wed Aug 22, 2018 2:29 pm

Lance, you don't understand the issue: cancer rates are low because of the tremendous and continuing effort to protect people:
without constant monitoring of food and wildlife, cancer rates in Europe would have spiked after Chernobyl: for a decade, mushrooms were considered unsafe. Even today, hunted boars in Europe are tested with a Geiger counter before they are considered safe to eat - because a significant number are not.
We see the same thing in Fukoshima, with plant and wildlife no longer considered safe for humans to eat.
If we hadn't these extra screening, more people would have died prematurely - because of radioactivity.
This is science, get over it.
Are you really going to argue that after Fukushima/Chernobly people could have just continued business as usual?

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 » Wed Aug 22, 2018 8:46 pm

EM

That is not science. That is politics. I do not know where you are getting your ideas from, but it is not science.

Here is some science. (note the use of numbers.)
Studies after Hiroshima show that an acute dose of radiation of less than 100 millisieverts has no effect on cancer rates compared to the rest of Japan.
Studies at Ramsa, Iran, shows that a chronic dose of radiation of 250 millisieverts per year has no effect on cancer rates.

No nuclear accident has resulted in radiation exposure of more than 100 millisieverts acutely, except inside the plant or very, very close to it. No nuclear accident has resulted in radiation chronically of more than 250 millisieverts per year outside the plant. These numbers show WHY there is no elevated cancer rates except thyroid cancer (which is a special case).

Despite serious and intensive study, no nuclear accident has shown elevated cancer rates outside the plant except for thyroid cancer. With Chernobyl, there was a major fear that leukemia rates would rise, but they did not. They did not rise even in the areas quite close to Chernobyl, and they certainly did not rise in areas distant.

Science is about reality, not wild speculation. If you want to go with your gut feel, or with the left over propaganda by Greenliars and by Fiends of the Earth, then you are not using science.

Now certainly, taking extra precautions is good. But that is not the reason for the lack of elevated cancer rates. The reason is simply that there was never enough radiation in the first place (except for the short lived iodine 131.). And since Chernobyl was the worst possible nuclear accident, and safety standards have been tightened, anything worse is seriously unlikely. After all, nuclear power has been in use for 60 years, and there are more than 400 nuclear power stations world wide. There is a wealth of experiencd in making it safe. The death toll compared to ANY other major method of generating electricity has been relatively minute.

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 » Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:46 pm

EM, cancer rates are not low, nor are they decreasing. Cancer deaths continue to climb; the overall death rate is declining due to better medical science:

Image

Source: Center for Disease Control and Prevention
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 » Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:52 pm

Number of Deaths: fairly hard figure, difficult to fudge. Usually, mostly irrelevant.

Avoided Deaths: totally definitional. Full of Fudge.

Risk: totally definitional. Is Fudge.

The most convinced liars: don't know what a definition 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
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 » Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:07 pm

Landrew
Increased cancer rates are in line with an older population. Cancer death fall is simply due to better treatments. Neither statistic can be related to nuclear power or radiation exposure.

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 » Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:33 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Landrew
Increased cancer rates are in line with an older population. Cancer death fall is simply due to better treatments. Neither statistic can be related to nuclear power or radiation exposure.
…………..and that's because Science (statistics) can't deal with more than two variables.

Well said.
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 » Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:01 am

Actually Bobbo, if you studied practical statistics, you would know that multi-variable analysis is not only possible, but done all the time.

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 Aug 23, 2018 1:38 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Actually Bobbo, if you studied practical statistics, you would know that multi-variable analysis is not only possible, but done all the time.
THATS EXACTLY what you DENIED.....and I corrected YOU on it in the post you are responding to. How DUMB is that? btw: what is "practical" statistics. Getting way deep into your made up vocabulary...……….(and logic).
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 » Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:24 am

Bobbo

I never denied multi-variable analysis. I had to do a little of that at university, many years ago. I admit I have not done it since, and my skills are now pretty much defunct. But I retain a very good feel for the practical side of statistics.

Practical statistics is the maths at work, as opposed to theoretical statistics, which is about the principles lying behind the math. I have made good use of practical statistics, by applying computer programs. But I have very little understanding of the theoretical principles, sadly.

The fact that landrew' s cancer graph cannot say anything about nuclear power is not due to a lack of multi-variable analysis. It is due to the simple fact that nuclear power is not causally related to those cancer rates.

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 Aug 23, 2018 4:24 am

But you did Lance...…..or what you posted flowed from that mindset when you said it was impossible to sort out cancer deaths from Nukes with improved health care.....and increased aging?.....so ok...….Three Variables. Same Issues.

You can't post like a Republican changing your position based on the outcome you want to reach. Just as Pukes ignored we have video tapes...……..here, we have the written record.

………..Only within the last 1-2 days. Your memory that bad?
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 » Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:07 am

What I said had two possible meanings. As is normal, you chose the wrong one, in spite of the fact that context would have given you the correct interpretation. Sigh !

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 Aug 23, 2018 5:44 am

Lance is an ideologist when it comes to Nuclear Power - it is a tribal thing where he feels under constant attack by anyone not whole-heatedly embracing everything about the technology.
Never mind that I'm on record of being pro-research and engineering of up-to-date reactor types and storage solutions.
But currently and historically, the nuclear power industry is a lazy dinosaur that uses supporters like Lance to defend their "profit for us - cleanup for someone else" business model.
Lance, instead of harping on about how safe nuclear power currently is (which it is only because everything that could have gone wrong has gone wrong already), why don't you make a case for how modern nuclear power production, from mining to fission to decommissioning and storage can be safely and economically achieved?
Because contrary to your often rosy views of the technology, massive mistakes have been made in the past that will most likely cost trillions (globally) to fix.