Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

What does make the world turn?
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
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 Nov 07, 2018 7:08 pm

On the question of side effects.

Absolutely everything humans do has side effects on the environment. Electricity generation is just one example. The side effects vary, and every different system has different side effects. Wind turbines, for example, are known to kill birds of prey and bats. Solar cells require six different metals which have to be mined, and so there are side effects from mining. Hydro, as has already been mentioned, causes massive side effects on the environment due to the lake formed and the effects on water flow and on drowning forests etc. Everything humans do has its impact.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
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 Nov 08, 2018 5:39 am

ElectricMonk wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 12:20 am
landrew wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:43 pm
ElectricMonk wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:12 am
Solar power is promoted specifically because it reduces the amount of sunlight reaching the ground to warm the earth.
So would a sheet of foil, a reflective metal roof or a white bedsheet spread on the ground.
Besides, most electrical energy generated as a solar panel is expressed as heat.
It doesn't matter what the expression is: most of the power generated by solar is turned into work instead of heat.
I thought all forms of energy eventually turn into heat?...…...all to be subject to entropy and eventual Absolute Zero Degrees evenly spread across our Dead Universe? Yes?? NO???? Recall; I'm just an English Lit Major so I am "asking." I am extrapolating from the lesson that the various forms of mechanical and chemical energy that can raise a ball above a table when dropped turns the potential energy into kinetic energy that turns finally into heat....all dispersed into the table top. Kinda sublime I have always thought with the added remembrance that "heat" just means the movement of particles/components of a substance? We're all gonna Die I tells ya!!!
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: 4469
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:28 am

keep up, will'ya bobbo?

yes, energy eventually turns to heat, but not where it was generated if you have ways to store it: some ecosystems can cope with rising temperatures better than others.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:51 pm

Focus. These are big problems and we can't allow ourselves to lose our sense of proportion. Solar panels are definitely not the best means to provide shading. I prefer trees myself, but there are many types of materials which can do it far more efficiently.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4469
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:54 pm

Here are some ideas:



I would make a bet that within the next 20 years, some entity, be it a States Actor or private company, will spray sun-light reducing material in the Stratosphere, to temporarily slow global warming.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:00 pm

This may be a radical idea, but what about focusing our efforts on coping with the effects of climate change, instead of trying to change the climate.
And while we're at it, keep on switching over to renewable energy, and that carbon problem might just resolve itself.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4469
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:18 pm

A global consensus on Carbon Certificates could do most of the work to getting us most of the way to becoming carbon neutral.

But I just don't think the change will happen quickly enough. Expediency will almost always win over solid long-term commitment. And just pumping sulfur into the atmosphere is way quicker and cheaper than closing all coal plants and stop using oil for transportation.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:39 pm

Biofuels have gotten a lot of bad press (I think it came from the oil lobby myself) but it's carbon neutral, and gives the world a lot of benefits.
This book makes a very good case in my opinion:
http://www.permaculture.com/node/354
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
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 Nov 08, 2018 9:26 pm

Landrew

Biofuel currently gives the world a load of harm.

The problem is that it is not being used correctly. Many first world nations buy biofuel without being too careful about noting its origins. For example, palm oil for fuel oil is generated by demolishing tropical rain forest and replacing it with oil palm. Buying palm oil does harm, not good. Generally, biofuels are not being managed sustainably.

User avatar
TJrandom
True Skeptic
Posts: 10739
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by TJrandom » Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:06 pm

landrew wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:00 pm
This may be a radical idea, but what about focusing our efforts on coping with the effects of climate change, instead of trying to change the climate.
And while we're at it, keep on switching over to renewable energy, and that carbon problem might just resolve itself.
That is exactly what is happening now - the deniers are focused on {!#%@} the planet so that everyone has no choice but to cope with the consequences. ;)

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:20 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:26 pm
Landrew

Biofuel currently gives the world a load of harm.

The problem is that it is not being used correctly. Many first world nations buy biofuel without being too careful about noting its origins. For example, palm oil for fuel oil is generated by demolishing tropical rain forest and replacing it with oil palm. Buying palm oil does harm, not good. Generally, biofuels are not being managed sustainably.
You may be right about palm oils, but ethanol from corn makes a lot more sense. After the starch is extracted by fermentation, the residual meal is actually a better cattle feed. I haven't read the book, Alcohol can be a Gas, but I've listened to hours of podcasts by the author, David Blume.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
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 » Fri Nov 09, 2018 10:13 pm

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/08/china-i ... perts.html

Nuclear power is set to increase by 46% by the year 2040, and 90% of that increase will be China and India. The West is falling behind. China and India will be the superpowers of the future. They will also lead the way into a low carbon emission economy.

User avatar
TJrandom
True Skeptic
Posts: 10739
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by TJrandom » Sat Nov 10, 2018 7:59 am

There is no ‘falling behind’ . It isn’t a race, but rather a development and use.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4469
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by ElectricMonk » Sat Nov 10, 2018 9:30 am

Also, US and Canadian companies are at the forefront of Molten Salt reactors.
The problem isn't Tech, it's volume: until the decision is made to build two reactors a year over thirty years, it doesn't pay off to build the production facilities and train the engineers to build power plants on budget and on time: the last reactor projects have failed because most people in charge didn't know what they were doing.

So the US and Europe is well advised that to let Asia have a go at beta-testing new designs and spend money on working out the kinks - it's cheaper that way.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:11 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 9:30 am
Also, US and Canadian companies are at the forefront of Molten Salt reactors.
The problem isn't Tech, it's volume: until the decision is made to build two reactors a year over thirty years, it doesn't pay off to build the production facilities and train the engineers to build power plants on budget and on time: the last reactor projects have failed because most people in charge didn't know what they were doing.

So the US and Europe is well advised that to let Asia have a go at beta-testing new designs and spend money on working out the kinks - it's cheaper that way.
It's always cheaper to pass the buck.
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 » Tue Nov 27, 2018 12:42 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue Jul 24, 2018 11:10 pm
Hydroelectricity has killed hundreds of thousands of people through more than ten dam bursts, and caused horrendous environmental damage, and rendered millions homeless. Nuclear power has killed very few, and caused very little environmental damage, and made very few homeless. Yet nuclear is the bogeyman. Why ?
Ever wonder what happens when you share the noble and fruck your shigh ma? Nevermind...

You're not giving the big picture a good enough look. Nuclear waste has a detrimental effect that lasts a whole epoch. The stuff they made in 1950 is still there, nucleating and drenching all surface matter on this planet in radioactivity. All the waste accumulates and builds and its very difficult to find safe places to hide it. Fukushima is still dumping radioactive waste into the ocean and has for 10 years now! You don't think that alone isn't going to hurt the environment repeatedly for the next 1000 years? This stuff rides the food chain and gets into everything.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Tue Nov 27, 2018 5:35 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue Jul 24, 2018 11:10 pm
Hydroelectricity has killed hundreds of thousands of people through more than ten dam bursts, and caused horrendous environmental damage, and rendered millions homeless. Nuclear power has killed very few, and caused very little environmental damage, and made very few homeless. Yet nuclear is the bogeyman. Why ?
Poorly constructed dams are not an indictment of dams altogether. Air travel is not unsafe because a few aircraft crash every year. Safety is not the only consideration, it's only one of several criteria, already discussed. Cherry-picking criteria based on those which favor your argument is not going to get to a rational outcome.

A full list of pros and cons, using all the criteria makes more sense. Each criteria needs to be weighted, according to the individual. Safety is one criteria, but so are expense, efficiency, environmental degradation, aesthetics and probably many more.

In reality, every power source so far has a list of pros and cons. Whenever a new technology emerges, it may skew things in it's favor until something better comes along. For example, hydrogen makes a lot of sense as a clean energy source, except for the prohibitive expense, and some difficult handling challenges. Cheap hydrogen may some day tip the scales. Another example may be high-density batteries, which could theoretically hold 10X the energy of current batteries. Any of these may emerge as the best one any time soon.

It's easy to see that you favor nuclear power, but I don't think it's a difficult calculation to balance out all the criteria for each energy source, and to the best of my knowledge it's being addressed fairly reasonably. Solar and wind energy are currently being subsidized on the promise that they may some day become sustainable. Research is ongoing into hydrogen, batteries and other technologies. I'd like to read a few papers which have done the analyses of all the technologies currently on the table.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Tue Nov 27, 2018 5:36 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue Jul 24, 2018 11:10 pm
Hydroelectricity has killed hundreds of thousands of people through more than ten dam bursts, and caused horrendous environmental damage, and rendered millions homeless. Nuclear power has killed very few, and caused very little environmental damage, and made very few homeless. Yet nuclear is the bogeyman. Why ?
Poorly constructed dams are not an indictment of dams altogether. Air travel is not unsafe because a few aircraft crash every year. Safety is not the only consideration, it's only one of several criteria, already discussed. Cherry-picking criteria based on those which favor your argument is not going to get to a rational outcome.

A full list of pros and cons, using all the criteria makes more sense. Each criteria needs to be weighted, according to the individual. Safety is one criteria, but so are expense, efficiency, environmental degradation, aesthetics and probably many more.

In reality, every power source so far has a list of pros and cons. Whenever a new technology emerges, it may skew things in it's favor until something better comes along. For example, hydrogen makes a lot of sense as a clean energy source, except for the prohibitive expense, and some difficult handling challenges. Cheap hydrogen may some day tip the scales. Another example may be high-density batteries, which could theoretically hold 10X the energy of current batteries. Any of these may emerge as the best one any time soon.

It's easy to see that you favor nuclear power, but I don't think it's a difficult calculation to balance out all the criteria for each energy source, and to the best of my knowledge it's being addressed fairly reasonably. Solar and wind energy are currently being subsidized on the promise that they may some day become sustainable. Research is ongoing into hydrogen, batteries and other technologies. I'd like to read a few papers which have done the analyses of all the technologies currently on the table.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Tue Nov 27, 2018 5:38 pm

Don't ask me why it posted twice. I'm afraid if I try to delete one, both may be deleted as it happened that way once before.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4469
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by ElectricMonk » Tue Nov 27, 2018 6:00 pm

landrew, you are mistaken in thinking that solar and wind are subsidized: Solar is possibly the cheapest energy source of all, given the right location and scale.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11596
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by OlegTheBatty » Tue Nov 27, 2018 6:36 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 6:00 pm
landrew, you are mistaken in thinking that solar and wind are subsidized: Solar is possibly the cheapest energy source of all, given the right location and scale.
There are those who would disagree with you on the subsidies thing.
. . . 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: 4469
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by ElectricMonk » Tue Nov 27, 2018 7:01 pm

https://www.businessinsider.de/solar-po ... ?r=US&IR=T

Solar is half the price of coal, and decreasing.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
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 Nov 27, 2018 7:48 pm

Skeptic1001 wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 12:42 pm


You're not giving the big picture a good enough look. Nuclear waste has a detrimental effect that lasts a whole epoch. The stuff they made in 1950 is still there, nucleating and drenching all surface matter on this planet in radioactivity. All the waste accumulates and builds and its very difficult to find safe places to hide it. Fukushima is still dumping radioactive waste into the ocean and has for 10 years now! You don't think that alone isn't going to hurt the environment repeatedly for the next 1000 years? This stuff rides the food chain and gets into everything.
Wrong.
Radioisotopes do not last for ever. If you take nuclear waste, fresh from the reactor, and store it for 40 years, the level of radioactivity drops 1000 fold. The only radioisotopes that last a long time are uranium 238 and uranium 235, but both are of very low levels of radioactivity. Well, also plutonium, but it is normally present in very low concentration.

In addition
1. There is an environmental dilution effect
2. All life is adapted to tolerating a level of radioactivity, higher than most people realise. The 30 kilometer exclusion zone around Chernobyl is now one of Europes most valuable wildlife refuges since people are kept out, and the wildlife can and does thrive. In addition, people are now moving back into the villages around Chernobyl without harm. The city of Hiroshima is well populated today and the levels of radiation are well within tolerable limits.

Fukushima caused no harm to humans by radiation. The Tsunami killed thousands, but not the nuclear accident. There is a lot of nonsense written by journalists about the radioactivity, but it is all low enough to be manageable, if you leave it to the experts and keep the bloody politicians out of it !

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Tue Nov 27, 2018 8:19 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 6:00 pm
landrew, you are mistaken in thinking that solar and wind are subsidized: Solar is possibly the cheapest energy source of all, given the right location and scale.
They have been subsidized in the past, and I know a few places where they continue to receive subsidies, which is understandable for new technologies. I don't have the formula, but these technologies become cheaper over time, due to the long lifespan of components. But there's a reason wind and solar aren't taking over the energy production field; they are simply too expensive at the inception. A coal-fired plant begins to pay back much sooner, but the ongoing costs are much higher. It's a different kettle of fish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
TJrandom
True Skeptic
Posts: 10739
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by TJrandom » Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:13 pm

Solar is highly subsidized here but on a sliding scale. Those who invested early get a much higher rate, while those who install now don’t get rich. They all should sell all of their production and buy what they consume - even when considering the ‘solar surcharge’ that is added to all other sources.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
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 Nov 28, 2018 5:28 am

landrew wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 8:19 pm
But there's a reason wind and solar aren't taking over the energy production field; they are simply too expensive at the inception. A coal-fired plant begins to pay back much sooner, but the ongoing costs are much higher. It's a different kettle of fish.
Indeed, the PERFECT position for GUBMENT to step in and provide the initial capital to be paid back with a profit over time. A fine example of the limits of private capitalism. Such Pulbic investment and pay back proven by the example of Germany. The only reason Solar is not the public policy of every location in the world is: CORRUPTION. Private interests want their cash flow from their poisonous ways.

Just look.
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: 4469
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by ElectricMonk » Wed Nov 28, 2018 6:17 am

ANY new technology is subsidized - you think Nuclear power was profitable for the first decades?

The only real measure of competitiveness is levelized cost of energy analysis (LCOE), which tells you how much it costs to build and operate the power plant - of course it neglects costs for R&D in the past.

Currently, the biggest hurdle, as bobbo mentioned, is that established power providers don't like private solar energy production - partially because it creates grid imbalances, but mostly because it makes them no money.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:58 pm

It's probably more complicated than I know, but part of the rationale for subsidizing wind and solar energy production was that it was cheaper than building new coal-fired plants. The clean energy slant was just a bonus for the politicians to crow about.
The beauty of wind and solar installations are that they can be added to the grid incrementally, whereas a generating plant must be very large to capture the advantages of scale. Either way, the grid is regulated as a utility, and no private company would be willing to invest in energy production without some sort of subsidy or guarantee. Governments are left to address the energy shortage with few tools, including subsidies and tax incentives. Of course things are far less Utopian than this, but that's my basic understanding.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
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 Nov 28, 2018 9:35 pm

landrew wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:58 pm
It's probably more complicated than I know,
Everything is. For all of us.
landrew wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:58 pm
It's probably more complicated than I know, but part of the rationale for subsidizing wind and solar energy production was that it was cheaper than building new coal-fired plants.
You really are riding three horses at once with the shifting application of "cheaper." aka: its all PR. If it was cheaper in the common sense normal application, bidness would be all over it.....and they aren't. Short term vs long term lack of interest.
landrew wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:58 pm
The clean energy slant was just a bonus for the politicians to crow about.
Au contraire. All politicians want to do is crow.
landrew wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:58 pm
The beauty of wind and solar installations are that they can be added to the grid incrementally, whereas a generating plant must be very large to capture the advantages of scale.
Excellent insight.
landrew wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:58 pm
Either way, the grid is regulated as a utility, and no private company would be willing to invest in energy production without some sort of subsidy or guarantee.
No, its all about risk tolerance and available options. If you can invest your capital gains in Big Pharma....why go Green?
landrew wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:58 pm
Governments are left to address the energy shortage with few tools, including subsidies and tax incentives.
Ummmmm…..thats the Universe of Tools. ((basically...…)) The ready alternative which the vested interests kill over is the FREE MARKET without subsidies and tax incentives.....you know: what coal, oil, and nuke still constantly bathe in.
landrew wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:58 pm
Of course things are far less Utopian than this, but that's my basic understanding.
Wut???
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?

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

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Skeptic1001 » 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. The Tsunami killed thousands, but not the nuclear accident. There is a lot of nonsense written by journalists about the radioactivity, but it is all low enough to be manageable, if you leave it to the experts and keep the bloody politicians out of it !
There was a navy vessel from the U.S.A. that was close to the disaster and many sailors were affected. I remember reports of some cancer deaths following the disaster 2-3 years later.

https://www.courthousenews.com/us-sailo ... a-mission/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegr ... clear/amp/

Those were links to some pages that confirm that some U.S. sailors were poisoned with radiation at Fukushima. This quote is off Google.
Google wrote:According to a 2012 Yomiuri Shimbun survey, 573 deaths have been certified as "disaster-related" by 13 municipalities affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
I also read that 15,000 Japanese people died in the initial earthquake. Another Google quote.
Google wrote:As of February 27, 2017, the Fukushima prefecture government has tallied 2,129 “disaster-related deaths” in the prefecture. This value exceeds the number that have died in Fukushima prefecture directly from the earthquake and tsunami.
There seems to be two sides of reporting on this disaster, on the Japanese government side they are hesitant to admit to casualties and radiation levels and on the other side is outside reporting that tells a harsher situation than the Imperial government is letting on. This seemed to be the case from day one. I remember that there was an exclusoin zone for tuna fishermen because tuna caught near Fukushima was getting everyone sick. There were also countless deformed fish caught up to a few hundred miles away in large numbers.

Take this article for example.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source= ... 7105073596

I also read that as far away as Tokyo cancer rates have steeply risen. The Japanese government says only 1 person died from Fukushkima radiation.

Whatever. The whole situation with this nuclear diasaster is out of control and being ignored by big media.
ElectricMonk wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 6:17 am
ANY new technology is subsidized
https://goo.gl/images/9Fg3ur

User avatar
TJrandom
True Skeptic
Posts: 10739
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by TJrandom » Sat Dec 01, 2018 9:09 am

Deformed fish, hundreds of miles away and in large numbers... I don't think so. Leme see a link please. Same for that steep rise in the cancer rate for Tokyo.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Sat Dec 01, 2018 4:00 pm

We can debate the risks forever, but it all comes down to your personal comfort level. Nobody knows the actual risks of nuclear power, but every disaster causes us to re-evaluate the risks. Some will argue that disasters cause things to become safer, and there's some truth to that. Airline safety has become better over the years as a result of accidents. The same is undoubtedly true for nuclear power.

It's disingenuous to debate by listing all the disasters as though it were a numbers game. Decision-makers need to accurately set the level of acceptable risk on our behalf. It shouldn't be a voting game based on numbers, but a valid risk-assessment based on balancing risks versus benefit, instead of leaving it up to the PR battlefield, where money and influence eventually win out.

This is much too important to the common cause of humankind than to leave it up to squabbling tribal battles.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 01, 2018 5:45 pm

landrew: now apply your Don't think for yourself analysis to gun control. To the point: what makes any other gubment program any different?
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: 8888
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Sat Dec 01, 2018 5:56 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sat Dec 01, 2018 5:45 pm
landrew: now apply your Don't think for yourself analysis to gun control. To the point: what makes any other gubment program any different?
I put it down to essential human nature, which has a measure of good in it. For all its faults, government accomplishes some good because of this. Nonetheless, it's disquieting to think that public safety is largely dependent on how successful one set of lobbyists is over another. The best we can do is present our best efforts at risk-analysis, and hope that someone is listening.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
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 » Sat Dec 01, 2018 7:45 pm

The ONLY thing that should be considered are the numbers. This is science, not politics, journalism, or law suits, all of which are massively subjective and biased. Get the numbers, or you are engaged in pure bull shite.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Dec 02, 2018 8:50 am

Oh Lance. NUMBERS...…………..to what end? It very much depends on what the question is.

What question are you responding to?
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: 4469
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by ElectricMonk » Sun Dec 02, 2018 8:55 am

what numbers?
Depending one which ones you pick, you can make any argument "scientifically".

We have to agree beforehand what is important to us, and then see what numbers are relevant.

For example, it is a clear human bias of discounting the future to underestimate the issue of radioactive waste.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
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 » Sun Dec 02, 2018 7:54 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 8:50 am
Oh Lance. NUMBERS...…………..to what end? It very much depends on what the question is.

What question are you responding to?
I was referring back to the anecdote that skeptic 101 put up as an argument. Anecdotes are not data. They are a tool used by writers and journalists to mislead. A good scientific argument is based on quantifiable data.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Dec 02, 2018 9:23 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.
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: 11881
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 » Sun Dec 02, 2018 10:49 pm

Bobbo

An anecdote is worthless unless demonstrated to be correct. Skeptic 101 posted an anecdote by a journalist describing an American sailor who was somewhere near Fukushima and developed leukemia five years later, with the idiotic implication that the nuclear accident caused his cancer. I have a sister who developed leukemia (she survived ) and has never been anywhere near anything nuclear. People develop cancer. It is a fact of life.

It is also a fact that the only place around Fukushima that had enough radiation to cause cancer was right inside the plant. So any story about an American sailor who never went close to the plant and got cancer is clearly just another random cancer.

A competent skeptic stays within evidence that would be acceptable scientifically. Anecdotes of this nature are not.