Let's nuke climate change!

@sonhouse said
YOU are the one comparing the WW2 atomic bombing as much less radioactivity than Fukushima. Without also saying there was a thousand times as much actual nuclear material in those reactors. You mislead people deliberately since you have to have know that fact. Besides that, when the meltdown occurred there was left over radioactive metals having been bombarded with the actua ...[text shortened]... n worse.
But you made the argument an emotional one, comparing Fukushima to Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

"Without also saying there was a thousand times as much actual nuclear material in those reactors."

How does that mislead? Is it my fault that much nuclear material was there? What does it matter what made the situation worse? It happened. Even if something was preventable what is your point? Are you going to argue people will not make foolish decisions in the future?

BTW, you are the king of emotional arguments. Lots of comparisons have been made on this thread. Bananas, coal and even cell phones which was way out there. Comparing radio waves to Alpha, Beta and Gamma rays? I'm just following the norm set by wildgrass. Stop your nit picking.



Fukushima was based on many foolish mistakes. It was built too close to the ocean. It is not like Japan does not have a long recorded history of tsunamis. People are flawed and they will continue to be flawed. Next time it might be an earthquake that leads to a meltdown. It could be something completely different that none of us could guess. Maybe Trump will invade Venezuela and some people from that country will come here and shoot hundreds of RPGs at a nuclear power plant. It isn't what you know can happen. It is what you don't know could happen. Murphy's law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunami

@metal-brain said
"Without also saying there was a thousand times as much actual nuclear material in those reactors."

How does that mislead? Is it my fault that much nuclear material was there? What does it matter what made the situation worse? It happened. Even if something was preventable what is your point? Are you going to argue people will not make foolish decisions in the future? ...[text shortened]... ppen. It is what you don't know could happen. Murphy's law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunami

It was obvious now not to build a nuke plant next to the ocean but they needed tons of cooling water. In hindsight of course it would have been better to build inland and they have learned that lesson for sure.

@sonhouse said
It was obvious now not to build a nuke plant next to the ocean but they needed tons of cooling water. In hindsight of course it would have been better to build inland and they have learned that lesson for sure.

Until the next time people look back and say "it all looks so obvious in hindsight now". Why didn't anybody think to warn it was a bad idea? That is what people will ask the next time.

I think it is hubris to think we learned all the lessons that need to be learned. You need to look at NPPs like you look at rockets going into orbit. There is always a certain percentage rate of failure even if it is low. Rockets explode and people sometimes die trying to escape gravity. We will probably get better at it over time but we have to expect that sort thing is risky.
The same is true of NPPs. I don't know the number, but once you learn that number don't assume it will get much better in the near future. We may have learned a lesson or two, but nobody knows how many more are to learn and you only learn them after meltdowns.

@metal-brain said
Hypothetical? Is Fukushima hypothetical?

When I brought up Chernobyl you dismissed that as Russian incompetence and that we here in the US build safer nuclear power plants. Your hypothetical is that it cannot happen here even though Three mile Island happened and you think those problems were fixed and it is all hunky dory from here on out.

Who is making predictions ...[text shortened]... though the past is the best indicator of the future.

Give it up. You have lost this one big time.

Your reference was from 1978. Did it predict Fukushima?

That reference clearly showed that radiation in people and soil surrounding coal power plants is higher than radiation in people and soil surrounding nuclear plants. That's the significant point to highlight, which you have willfully ignored.

Ultimately, the point of all of this was to refute your assertion that nuclear energy is an unacceptable source of electricity due to safety concerns. This is obviously false. When asked why you think this, you kept saying "uhhh you ever heard of radiation?" But we know that radiation is emitted from coal power sources, we know the coal industry also has serious accidents that kill hundreds and sometimes thousands of people. Why single out nuclear for your ire? The rationale for this remains unclear.

@wildgrass said
Your reference was from 1978. Did it predict Fukushima?

That reference clearly showed that radiation in people and soil surrounding coal power plants is higher than radiation in people and soil surrounding nuclear plants. That's the significant point to highlight, which you have willfully ignored.

Ultimately, the point of all of this was to refute your assertion that ...[text shortened]... es thousands of people. Why single out nuclear for your ire? The rationale for this remains unclear.

It omits meltdowns. That is a fact.

If you cannot accept that fact I see no point in wasting my time here anymore. In your fantasy world meltdowns don't exist. If you are that determined to deny reality go ahead. I don't care anymore.

@metal-brain said
It omits meltdowns. That is a fact.

If you cannot accept that fact I see no point in wasting my time here anymore. In your fantasy world meltdowns don't exist. If you are that determined to deny reality go ahead. I don't care anymore.

Are you on the crazy pills again? Do you expect a paper published in 1978 to include the Chernobyl meltdown? What does that have to do with overall safety of nuclear vs. coal? Given the fact that people living near coal plants are constantly exposed to significantly higher levels of radiation, that bothers you less than nuclear meltdowns which are local and rare disasters? Why are you focusing your worry on that alone given the significant toll that coal and other energy sources also have on human lives and health?

@wildgrass said
Are you on the crazy pills again? Do you expect a paper published in 1978 to include the Chernobyl meltdown? What does that have to do with overall safety of nuclear vs. coal? Given the fact that people living near coal plants are constantly exposed to significantly higher levels of radiation, that bothers you less than nuclear meltdowns which are local and rare disa ...[text shortened]... e given the significant toll that coal and other energy sources also have on human lives and health?

It omits meltdowns. That is a fact.

I didn't say anything about Chernobyl in regards to that paper. You are resorting to making crap up again. Show me in that paper where meltdowns are included. They are not. That is the whole point of me posting the article and that is my only point.

Are you on crazy pills? It omits meltdowns! Duh!

@metal-brain said
It omits meltdowns. That is a fact.

I didn't say anything about Chernobyl in regards to that paper. You are resorting to making crap up again. Show me in that paper where meltdowns are included. They are not. That is the whole point of me posting the article and that is my only point.

Are you on crazy pills? It omits meltdowns! Duh!

In that case I suggest you provide an analysis that includes what you think is wrong with nuclear. You should probably add weapons testing into your comparative analysis, if you want people to think that nuclear energy production is particularly bad for human health. Otherwise, you are posting articles that demonstrate that people that live near coal power plants are exposed to more radiation than people that live near nuclear plants.

@wildgrass said
In that case I suggest you provide an analysis that includes what you think is wrong with nuclear. You should probably add weapons testing into your comparative analysis, if you want people to think that nuclear energy production is particularly bad for human health. Otherwise, you are posting articles that demonstrate that people that live near coal power plants are exposed to more radiation than people that live near nuclear plants.

I don't need further analysis to know the source of your info omits meltdowns. If what you were saying was true coal plants would have been shut down a long time ago.

You have a conspiracy theory against coal. It makes no sense and you still refuse to let go of it. It is as if you think there is a big conspiracy to protect the coal industry. If that is what you think write your congressmen. Why are you wasting time here?

@metal-brain said
I don't need further analysis to know the source of your info omits meltdowns. If what you were saying was true coal plants would have been shut down a long time ago.

You have a conspiracy theory against coal. It makes no sense and you still refuse to let go of it. It is as if you think there is a big conspiracy to protect the coal industry. If that is what you think write your congressmen. Why are you wasting time here?

What is the conspiracy theory again? I'm pretty sure everything I've stated is well-substantiated. I'm not saying it directly, since I don't work in the energy industry. But I did lay out the evidence presented by Scientific American, Richard Rhodes and other research done on the subject. These are written by experts in the field. Everyone understands your point about meltdowns. Should we include car crashes in our analysis of vehicle emissions standards?

@wildgrass said
What is the conspiracy theory again? I'm pretty sure everything I've stated is well-substantiated. I'm not saying it directly, since I don't work in the energy industry. But I did lay out the evidence presented by Scientific American, Richard Rhodes and other research done on the subject. These are written by experts in the field. Everyone understands your point about meltdowns. Should we include car crashes in our analysis of vehicle emissions standards?

Omitting meltdowns is not evidence. You know better.

@metal-brain said
Omitting meltdowns is not evidence. You know better.

Now you're just typing random words. Obviously omissions are not evidence, unless you are looking for evidence of omissions.

Omissions are only good if you're omitting something bad about coal.

@metal-brain said
Omitting meltdowns is not evidence. You know better.

Bad decisions are made all the time. One I know about, being from California: Building a nuke plant on the San Andreas fault. I mean RIGHT ON TOP. Not wise. In fact downright STUPID. But its only about 40 years too late for that argument.
Sometimes it takes a catastrophe to make folks wake up and smell the coffee.

@wildgrass said
Now you're just typing random words. Obviously omissions are not evidence, unless you are looking for evidence of omissions.

Omissions are only good if you're omitting something bad about coal.

Fukushima released more radiation into the environment than all coal burned in the entire world. That is a fact.

@metal-brain said
Fukushima released more radiation into the environment than all coal burned in the entire world. That is a fact.

Is that bad?