|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:58 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| Anyone who doesn't see that the ingredients (a) increasing population (b) increasing energy consumption (c) increasing nuclear production, combined with half-lives of thousands of years, is a recipe for disaster, is plain short-sighted. |
On the contrary, Koveras, nuclear power is a necessary component of the green revolution. We must move to a full array of alternative energy resources. Coal and oil-fired plants regularly kill more and cause more cancer than nuclear power ever has. The United States draws 20% of its power from nuclear energy. Its one of the few aspects of our energy policy that I think we get just right.
And sure, putting radioactive waste in a deep, deep sealed tunnel is an effective if imperfect way of disposing of that waste. Anyone who doesn't think so is a luddite. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Anyone who doesn't see that the ingredients (a) increasing population (b) increasing energy consumption (c) increasing nuclear production, combined with half-lives of thousands of years, is a recipe for disaster, is plain short-sighted. |
On the contrary, Koveras, nuclear power is a necessary component of the green revolution. We must move to a full array of alternative energy resources. Coal and oil-fired plants regularly kill more and cause more cancer than nuclear power ever has. The United States draws 20% of its power from nuclear energy. Its one of the few aspects of our energy policy that I think we get just right.
And sure, putting radioactive waste in a deep, deep sealed tunnel is an effective if imperfect way of disposing of that waste. Anyone who doesn't think so is a luddite. |
Then call me Amish. There is nothing "green" about nuclear energy. Tell me honestly, do you think that humans, even the most brilliant of us, are capable of comprehending a time scale of five thousand years? Let alone planning for contingencies on it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Anyone who doesn't see that the ingredients (a) increasing population (b) increasing energy consumption (c) increasing nuclear production, combined with half-lives of thousands of years, is a recipe for disaster, is plain short-sighted. |
On the contrary, Koveras, nuclear power is a necessary component of the green revolution. We must move to a full array of alternative energy resources. Coal and oil-fired plants regularly kill more and cause more cancer than nuclear power ever has. The United States draws 20% of its power from nuclear energy. Its one of the few aspects of our energy policy that I think we get just right.
And sure, putting radioactive waste in a deep, deep sealed tunnel is an effective if imperfect way of disposing of that waste. Anyone who doesn't think so is a luddite. |
Then call me Amish. There is nothing "green" about nuclear energy. Tell me honestly, do you think that humans, even the most brilliant of us, are capable of comprehending a time scale of five thousand years? Let alone planning for contingencies on it? |
At the risk of being duplicative:
| Quote: |
Nuclear power technology produces materials that are active in emitting radiation and are therefore called "radioactive". These materials can come into contact with people principally through small releases during routine plant operation, accidents in nuclear power plants, accidents in transporting radioactive materials, and escape of radioactive wastes from confinement systems. We will discuss these separately, but all of them taken together, with accidents treated probabilistically, will eventually expose the average American to about 0.2% of his exposure from natural radiation. Since natural radiation is estimated to cause about 1% of all cancers, radiation due to nuclear technology should eventually increase our cancer risk by 0.002% (one part in 50,000), reducing our life expectancy by less than one hour. By comparison, our loss of life expectancy from competitive electricity generation technologies, burning coal, oil, or gas, is estimated to range from 3 to 40 days. |
Yes, I think the risk is manageable, as long as the waste remains monitored. Even if the risks are higher than the above calculations. Even if the risks are 100 times higher than the above because he cannot properly account for 5,000 years of radioactive decay. Honestly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
At the risk of being duplicative:
| Quote: |
Nuclear power technology produces materials that are active in emitting radiation and are therefore called "radioactive". These materials can come into contact with people principally through small releases during routine plant operation, accidents in nuclear power plants, accidents in transporting radioactive materials, and escape of radioactive wastes from confinement systems. We will discuss these separately, but all of them taken together, with accidents treated probabilistically, will eventually expose the average American to about 0.2% of his exposure from natural radiation. Since natural radiation is estimated to cause about 1% of all cancers, radiation due to nuclear technology should eventually increase our cancer risk by 0.002% (one part in 50,000), reducing our life expectancy by less than one hour. By comparison, our loss of life expectancy from competitive electricity generation technologies, burning coal, oil, or gas, is estimated to range from 3 to 40 days. |
Yes, I think the risk is manageable, as long as the waste remains monitored. Even if the risks are higher than the above calculations. Even if the risks are 100 times higher than the above because he cannot properly account for 5,000 years of radioactive decay. Honestly. |
Radiation causes 1% of cancer? According to whom? Seriously, where do they come up this stuff?? It sounds like complete propaganda to me.
Cancer has exploded to epidemic proportions since the start of the Atomic Age. It used to be a rare cause of death - now most of us are probably going to die of it. No doubt it has much to do with the chemical pollutants we are surrounded by and the junk we eat; but let's not pretend that hundreds of atmospheric atomic tests and radiation leaks around the world have had nothing to do with it... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Cancer has exploded to epidemic proportions since the start of the Atomic Age. It used to be a rare cause of death - now most of us are probably going to die of it. |
Medical science was also considerably more primitive pre-atomic age.
Heart disease is still more likely to get you than cancer.
Anyhow, this will all be moot if fusion ever gets off its butt and becomes viable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Cancer has exploded to epidemic proportions since the start of the Atomic Age. It used to be a rare cause of death - now most of us are probably going to die of it. No doubt it has much to do with the chemical pollutants we are surrounded by and the junk we eat; but let's not pretend that hundreds of atmospheric atomic tests and radiation leaks around the world have had nothing to do with it... |
So instead you want us to pretend that the radioactive boogeyman is giving us all cancer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Cancer has exploded to epidemic proportions since the start of the Atomic Age. It used to be a rare cause of death - now most of us are probably going to die of it. No doubt it has much to do with the chemical pollutants we are surrounded by and the junk we eat; but let's not pretend that hundreds of atmospheric atomic tests and radiation leaks around the world have had nothing to do with it... |
So instead you want us to pretend that the radioactive boogeyman is giving us all cancer? |
I'm saying to stop taking industry propaganda at face value. Seriously. How can you possibly attribute 1% of cancer (instead of much higher) to nuclear testing? Based on what evidence?
I'm not saying I know the exact number - just pointing out the fact that cancer has exploded to an insane level since the Atomic Age began. Simple statement of fact there. I'm also saying that anybody can throw out an article or two with a bunch of made up statistics. Scientists and so-called "experts" absolutely lie all the time and cannot be trusted. That's the sad reality. I could probably find some articles that would urge you to not "pretend the tobacco boogeyman is giving people cancer".
Last edited by visitorq on Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:22 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
I almost feel sorry for anti-nuclear campaigners. One can only imagine their disappointment that nobody has been killed or irradiated by Fukushima. What's today's big emergency? Contaminated water? And how many thousand liters would a baby have to drink to become irradiated to a level equivalent to sitting next to a couple of bananas?
I think we should have a campaign against earthquakes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
I almost feel sorry for anti-nuclear campaigners. One can only imagine their disappointment that nobody has been killed or irradiated by Fukushima. What's today's big emergency? Contaminated water? And how many thousand liters would a baby have to drink to become irradiated to a level equivalent to sitting next to a couple of bananas?
I think we should have a campaign against earthquakes. |
And when thousands of babies start getting thyroid cancer and leukemia? I suppose it will just be attributed to something else entirely? Would you honestly give Tokyo tap water to your own baby?
The comparison to bananas is inaccurate. Iodine-131 accumulates in the thyroid and causes cancer, especially in children. Potassium in bananas does not accumulate and passes through the body (unlike heavy particles like Uranium or Plutonium, which remain in the body and cook your cells for the rest of your life).
http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/2011/ChernobylRadiation |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
Personally, I do not confine my critique of nuclear power to the threat of meltdowns, although this is quite present, and will only become more so the more plants we build. My main concern is with the waste. As you know, they used to dump it into the oceans. Now most of it is just accumulating in temporary storage, much of it within the plants themselves (btw, I guess that makes GROSS NEGLIGENCE the rule). Anyone who doesn't see that the ingredients (a) increasing population (b) icnreasing energy consumption per capita (c) increasing nuclear production, combined with half-lives of thousands of years, is a recipe for disaster, is plain short-sighted. |
And more on that topic from today's NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/us/24yucca.html?_r=1&hp
"Pools holding spent fuel at nuclear plants in the United States are even more heavily loaded than those at the Japanese reactors, experts say, and are more vulnerable to some threats than the ones in Japan. However, utility companies have taken steps since the 9/11 terrorist attacks to make them safer." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Yes, I think the risk is manageable, as long as the waste remains monitored. Even if the risks are higher than the above calculations. Even if the risks are 100 times higher than the above because he cannot properly account for 5,000 years of radioactive decay. Honestly. |
And it goes without saying that we can monitor the waste for 5,000 years. Please give me the link to the whole article. I'd like to see how he came up with those numbers.
| Sector7G wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
Personally, I do not confine my critique of nuclear power to the threat of meltdowns, although this is quite present, and will only become more so the more plants we build. My main concern is with the waste. As you know, they used to dump it into the oceans. Now most of it is just accumulating in temporary storage, much of it within the plants themselves (btw, I guess that makes GROSS NEGLIGENCE the rule). Anyone who doesn't see that the ingredients (a) increasing population (b) icnreasing energy consumption per capita (c) increasing nuclear production, combined with half-lives of thousands of years, is a recipe for disaster, is plain short-sighted. |
And more on that topic from today's NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/us/24yucca.html?_r=1&hp
"Pools holding spent fuel at nuclear plants in the United States are even more heavily loaded than those at the Japanese reactors, experts say, and are more vulnerable to some threats than the ones in Japan. However, utility companies have taken steps since the 9/11 terrorist attacks to make them safer." |
Right. By Kuros' standards, "stringent" American law currently demands that its entire nuclear industry be grossly negligent about storage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| What are the deaths from nuclear power? |
As I told you earlier, but you apparently weren't paying attention, 9,000,000 in the US from low-level, long-term radiation (nuclear power and atmospheric testing of atomic/nuclear bombs). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Space Bar wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| What are the deaths from nuclear power? |
As I told you earlier, but you apparently weren't paying attention, 9,000,000 in the US from low-level, long-term radiation (nuclear power and atmospheric testing of atomic/nuclear bombs). |
I wasn't paying attention?
Low-level, long-term radiation could be from anything. Natural background radiation and nuclear testing are the biggest killers. I will quote the study the third time (Koveras, the link is listed where the first time I posted it in thread.)
| Quote: |
| with accidents treated probabilistically, will eventually expose the average American to about 0.2% of his exposure from natural radiation. Since natural radiation is estimated to cause about 1% of all cancers, radiation due to nuclear technology should eventually increase our cancer risk by 0.002% (one part in 50,000), reducing our life expectancy by less than one hour. |
And conflating nuclear power with nuclear weaponry? Space Bar, don't tell me you're trying to invade Iran. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Subtitle
Joined: 05 Nov 2010
Location: Hwaseong-si
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 4:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Safe is such a stupid word to use. Oil refineries are not safe. Coal mines are not safe. They are inherently dangerous.
Nuclear power is not safe. It is inherently dangerous. But the industry refuses to talk on these terms. Scientists should not engage in public relations talk.
Producing and shipping the fuel is dangerous. Running a reactor is dangerous. And then the waste is dangerous.
And then someone says that storage is safe if it is monitored to 5,000 years. That's almost as long as human civilization. Ever hear of the collapse of the Roman empire and the Dark Ages? Who's going to monitor it? Benedictine monks?
I'm perfectly willing to concede that nuclear power could be safe, but unfortunately we don't have Vulcans to run them. Humans, with their corruption, greed, and incompetence seem unable to run this industry competently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Subtitle wrote: |
I'm perfectly willing to concede that nuclear power could be safe, but unfortunately we don't have Vulcans to run them. Humans, with their corruption, greed, and incompetence seem unable to run this industry competently. |
So no energy, then. Nuclear is the least deadly form of power, at least compared to fossil fuels. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
