Let's nuke climate change!

@humy said
Unlike you or me, especially you, Deepthought is extremely WELL qualified in the relevant physics and thus knows what he is talking about and knows and understands MUCH more about tensors than you or I. You not understanding what he says is merely a symptom of you not understanding the relevant physics nearly as well as he does.
It is delusional arrogance for a non-scientist la ...[text shortened]... ave the delusion that I DO understand tensors LET ALONE think I know about them better than he does!

" I do not claim to understand tensors myself; because I don't."

So you are defending deepthought because of pure faith? Fool!

Watch and learn.

@metal-brain said
Still ridiculous. So I can't talk about radiation from NPPs because wildgrass started talking about radiation from coal first on a nuke thread? It was a comparison. Comparisons cannot be met with reasonable comparisons from both when wildgrass brought both of them up to begin with? LOL!!!!!

Now you are making yourself look silly. You will not be happy until you stifle ...[text shortened]... ain how a description of a field is the same as a field. See if you can BS yourself out of this one.

You are free to talk about radiation from nuclear power plants. It is a reasonable point to make. What I am complaining about is the way you throw a tantrum and start accusing whoever has just disagreed with you of lying and generating strawmen.

Regarding your second paragraph, this is just projection.

I'm not going back to remind myself exactly how that debate went. I clearly remember making the degrees of freedom point. If you want to know what "degrees of freedom" are then try looking it up on Wikipedia. Here is the relevant page [1]. All I remember was you simply wouldn't accept that your pet theory was incorrect. If you can show that it generates observed physics go ahead and publish it. I am confident that your idea will not generate observed physics, in fact I think that it is likely you won't even be able to get the inverse square law out of it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_freedom
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_freedom_(physics_and_chemistry)
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_freedom_(mechanics)

Link [1] just lets you navigate to links [2] and [3]. Link [3] is the one most relevant, but you should probably look at link [2] if you do not know what a degree of freedom is. That must be in the Feynman lectures somewhere, I thought you were reading them?

@deepthought said
You are free to talk about radiation from nuclear power plants. It is a reasonable point to make. What I am complaining about is the way you throw a tantrum and start accusing whoever has just disagreed with you of lying and generating strawmen.

Regarding your second paragraph, this is just projection.

I'm not going back to remind myself exactly how that debate we ...[text shortened]... ree of freedom is. That must be in the Feynman lectures somewhere, I thought you were reading them?

"You are free to talk about radiation from nuclear power plants. It is a reasonable point to make. What I am complaining about is the way you throw a tantrum and start accusing whoever has just disagreed with you of lying and generating strawmen."

Radiation from coal was the strawman. Coal never did release more radiation in the environment as wildgrass claimed and that was the fallacy. Now that I finally proved that falsehood you are back to the air pollution thing again. People die in car accidents too. Are you going to use that as a strawman too? It is easy to do. Cars are more deadly than NPPs. Are you going to avoid automobiles now? Nope.


Another description? That is where you failed before. There is a field and there is a description of a field. The description is your strawman. Describing something doesn't prove it isn't there.

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

@metal-brain said
" I do not claim to understand tensors myself; because I don't."

So you are defending deepthought because of pure faith?

I am not 'defending' him. He doesn't need 'defending', especially from you, because he has a vastly better position with his very impressive qualifications while all you have is obviously delusional opinion on physics that convinces nobody here. And it isn't 'faith' that a real physics expert on it would very likely know and understand a lot more about it than me or you, especially you. You would have delusional arrogance to think you know at least as well as he does let alone better than he does about physics, including tensors. I have noticed you have similar delusional arrogance against science experts in general.

@metal-brain said
"You are free to talk about radiation from nuclear power plants. It is a reasonable point to make. What I am complaining about is the way you throw a tantrum and start accusing whoever has just disagreed with you of lying and generating strawmen."

Radiation from coal was the strawman. Coal never did release more radiation in the environment as wildgrass claimed and tha ...[text shortened]... scribing something doesn't prove it isn't there.

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

Actually, I remember seeing a statistic about that in one of the references on air pollution. They were pointing out that the number of people killed by air pollution exceeded the number of people killed in crashes. I can't remember the figure. On a number of people killed per year basis nuclear power stations do probably kill fewer people in a year than car crashes.

Your final paragraph is incoherent. Meaning I have absolutely no idea what the heck you are on about.

You've started going on about strawmen again. Do that much more and I am going to make a complaint to the moderators. I am getting increasingly bored of you projecting your bad behaviour onto everyone else in every thread you post in.

@metal-brain said
Radiation from coal was the strawman. Coal never did release more radiation in the environment as wildgrass claimed and that was the fallacy. Now that I finally proved that falsehood you are back to the air pollution thing again. People die in car accidents too. Are you going to use that as a strawman too? It is easy to do. Cars are more deadly than NPPs. Are you going to avoid automobiles now? Nope.

Radiation released from coal is not a strawman. The strawman is Fukushima. Let's rewind. On page 9, you brought up radiation in general as a significant health risk (without a citation):

metalbrain:....If you really cared about the environment you would be against nuclear. Radiation is destructive to life. How would you like to get cancer 35 years after being exposed along with your neighbors and hear some idiot saying nuclear is safe just because he took a debate position and stuck with it?.... Nuclear is not safe. It causes damage to the environment and kills a lot of people by cancer many years after the meltdowns.

My reply

wildgrass:.... Radiation is everywhere. It's in bananas. It's slightly increased in the ocean due to Fukushima, but outside of Japan there is no evidence I've seen that it's dangerous.

Your reply

metalbrain:What are they going to do with all of that radioactive water? They are talking about dumping it in the ocean. The worst has yet to happen. Why are you ignoring that fact?

This raised the obvious follow up regarding the relative damage to the environment and human lives caused by various energy sources. DeepThought did a thorough job a few posts ago outlining coal-induced smog disasters. Coal mining accidents are frequent. Black lung has killed tens of thousands. As far as nuclear disasters go, there is Chernobyl and Fukushima, which you have chosen to focus on. Also, since you were fixated on the health risks of radiation, I made the point that radiation is released from coal as well.

wildgrass:Again, you are implying that the negative impacts of the worst nuclear disaster in history is worse than other energy sources. This is a fallacy. It is not accurate to compare a single worst case scenario to what is happening on a daily basis from other energy-producing industries.

Radioactivity is everywhere, the concern has always been about the dose. Releasing it slowly into the ocean (probably) won't affect anything. Hospitals release concentrated radioactive iodine (used for imaging) into rivers and lakes, but since they release it slowly it does not change the overall concentrations. Radiation-emitting uranium, thorium, radon and radium is in well water, naturally released from rocks, and perfectly safe at low doses.

Correctly interpreted, this post was focused on the safety of radiation released into the environment when properly managed. On page 10 is where you built the strawman (in response to humy's post). Instead of attacking the issue at hand (nuclear power safety), you bring up meltdowns...

metalbrain:Your claim that coal is more radioactive is misleading. Nobody would dare compare that to a meltdown and all that radioactive water Japan wants to release into the sea of Japan. Would you be willing to eat fish caught in the sea of Japan after that water is being slowly released? That is why the fishermen there are angry... The deaths from Fukushima and even Chernobyl have yet to be realized. There will be many cancer deaths to come and you pretend to have an accurate death count. You don't.

Your point that Fukushima released a bunch of radiation was not under dispute in any way. This is a well known fact. humy objected to the absence of source material for your statements regarding the human health risks of frankenfish. You then posted references which overwhelmingly pointed to evidence that Fukushima was a local disaster with zero long-ranging effects on human health (feel free to reference some non-anecdotal evidence to refute this if you would like). Instead of showing evidence that, outside of Japan, Fukushima had any negative effects on human health, you continued to hammer the point that radiation was released (which of course is true). That is how we arrived on this topic 12 pages later. So what? Is that bad? Your answer:

metalbrain:They may say they are safe now, but not that they were always safe and not that they will not be unsafe to eat in the future.

Since the mere possibility of radiation being dangerous is proof that nuclear power is not safe, I brought up 2 facts: 1) coal waste contains iaround 5,000 tonnes of uranium and 15,000 tonnes of thorium per year and 2) people living near coal power plants have higher radiation doses than people living near nuclear power plants.

That's how we got here. These facts were directly relevant to your "radiation release is a human health concern" objection with nuclear power.

@wildgrass said

humy objected to the absence of source material for your statements regarding the human health risks of frankenfish.

"frankenfish"? I assume that was a misedit and you meant "Fukushima".
"frankenfish" is a 2004 American horror film although its also slang for a fish that is supposed to inspire fear for being GM (the usual irrational hysterical GM paranoia nonsense).

@humy said
"frankenfish"? I assume that was a misedit and you meant "Fukushima".
"frankenfish" is a 2004 American horror film although its also slang for a fish that is supposed to inspire fear for being GM (the usual irrational hysterical GM paranoia nonsense).

Frankenfish is far inferior to Birdemic, a Hitchcockian thriller in which climate change causes "birds of prey" (which included vultures for some reason) to start dive bombing everyone. Chaos ensued.

in this case, though, I think Metal Brain was citing research that showed that some of the radioactivity in fish came from Fukushima. Apparently that was a big health concern, but I didn't see any details.

@humy said
I am not 'defending' him. He doesn't need 'defending', especially from you, because he has a vastly better position with his very impressive qualifications while all you have is obviously delusional opinion on physics that convinces nobody here. And it isn't 'faith' that a real physics expert on it would very likely know and understand a lot more about it than me or you, especia ...[text shortened]... ng tensors. I have noticed you have similar delusional arrogance against science experts in general.

So you are trolling again. Stop that. It makes you look pathetic.

@deepthought said
Actually, I remember seeing a statistic about that in one of the references on air pollution. They were pointing out that the number of people killed by air pollution exceeded the number of people killed in crashes. I can't remember the figure. On a number of people killed per year basis nuclear power stations do probably kill fewer people in a year than car crashes.
...[text shortened]... reasingly bored of you projecting your bad behaviour onto everyone else in every thread you post in.

Those estimates of deaths from air pollution are extremely disputable and you know it. It meets the definition of strawman. In order to avoid acknowledging nuclear radiation is a problem you use what No Marauder calls "look at this, not that" tactics. It is actually a strawman argument so you can attack air pollution (your strawman) as an apologist for nuclear radiation damaging the environment.

Here is an example of an acknowledgment of statistacal uncertainty:

"Limitations of the study include the fact there is statistical uncertainty surrounding the estimates, so the size of the effect of air pollution on deaths could be larger or smaller."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190312075933.htm

In other words, there is no reason to have confidence in the numbers.

As for the other stuff, you know exactly what I am talking about! That is why you would rather not talk about it. The fact is, you don't know what you are talking about and you would rather not be exposed for it and let down you cheerleader humy.

@wildgrass said
Radiation released from coal is not a strawman. The strawman is Fukushima. Let's rewind. On page 9, you brought up radiation in general as a significant health risk (without a citation):
[quote]metalbrain:....If you really cared about the environment you would be against nuclear. Radiation is destructive to life. How would you like to get cancer 35 years after being expose ...[text shortened]... irectly relevant to your "radiation release is a human health concern" objection with nuclear power.

"wildgrass:.... Radiation is everywhere. It's in bananas. It's slightly increased in the ocean due to Fukushima, but outside of Japan there is no evidence I've seen that it's dangerous."

You just admitted using a strawman argument right there. You said bananas are radioactive in a vain attempt to compare it to nuclear radiation damaging the environment. Then after attacking bananas as your strawman you then moved to coal and used that as your strawman.

Eh-hem...back to nuclear. Meltdowns are really bad!

@metal-brain said
Those estimates of deaths from air pollution are extremely disputable and you know it. It meets the definition of strawman.

They are NOT "extremely disputable" and, even if they were, being "extremely disputable" does NOT "meets the definition of strawman" you idiot. Here is the definition of strawman again; read it and come back to us;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
"...
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

1. Person 1 asserts proposition X.
2. Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.
..."

The way I would describe it is as;
Person 1 asserts an argument X (were X is very typically but not necessarily a perfectly reasonable argument).
Person 2 responds with words that make it sound just as if the argument was NOT X but in fact argument Y but with Y so designed so;
(a) Y sounds similar enough to X so other people may not notice that its not the same argument.
(b) Y is typically designed to be a very stupid argument that, unlike X, can be very easily attacked and shown to be false.
Person 2 then attacks THAT argument i.e. NOT X but Y, and with the intention of giving the illusion that person 1 actually asserted Y, not X, and also to give the illusion that person 2 then very effectively attacked person 1's argument, when person 2 in fact hadn't! Because person 1 did NOT argued Y!

@humy said
with the intention of giving the illusion that

correction;
That should be;
"..typically but not necessarily with the intention of giving the illusion that ..."
because it is possible to make a strawman argument accidentally by, for example, misunderstanding someone's argument.

Also add;

"So all person 2 had done is to attack an argument (and typically a stupid one) that person 1 had never made!"

to the end of my above post.

@humy said
They are NOT "extremely disputable" and, even if they were, being "extremely disputable" does NOT "meets the definition of strawman" you idiot. Here is the definition of strawman again; read it and come back to us;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
"...
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

1. Person 1 asserts proposition X.
2. P ...[text shortened]... ively attacked person 1's argument, when person 2 in fact hadn't! Because person 1 did NOT argued Y!

Here is an example of an acknowledgment of statistical uncertainty:

"Limitations of the study include the fact there is statistical uncertainty surrounding the estimates, so the size of the effect of air pollution on deaths could be larger or smaller."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190312075933.htm

@metal-brain said
"wildgrass:.... Radiation is everywhere. It's in bananas. It's slightly increased in the ocean due to Fukushima, but outside of Japan there is no evidence I've seen that it's dangerous."

You just admitted using a strawman argument right there. You said bananas are radioactive in a vain attempt to compare it to nuclear radiation damaging the environment. Then after atta ...[text shortened]... moved to coal and used that as your strawman.

Eh-hem...back to nuclear. Meltdowns are really bad!

Where's the strawman? Do you know what that means?

You said "radiation is destructive to life" but it's not. It's naturally everywhere. At high dosages, it can kill living tissues. Everyone knows that. At low dosages, it's virtually harmless. Yes, the Fukushima disaster increased the amount of radiation in the water surrounding the plant, but there's no evidence that this increase was/is bad. Releasing radiation slowly into the Pacific Ocean probably isn't going to harm anything. Pacific salmon are perfectly safe to eat.

I brought up bananas to say that eating one would expose an average person to more radiation than eating a Fukushima fish. Another commonly cited comparison is that a person living in Japan was exposed to about as much radiation from Fukushima as an average CT scan.

The strawman argument is the singular focus on Fukushima/Chernobyl as the reason why nuclear energy is bad. No one was arguing that Fukushima/Chernobyl were good things. I was arguing that these disasters were not as bad as other disasters. Furthermore, if radiation incorporated into humans is categorically bad for human health, then coal energy seems to be producing more widespread exposure than nuclear energy. This is based on the radioactive isotope levels in people living near coal-fired power plants.

Since you seem to be concerned about radiation exposure, I would encourage you to do some homework.

... it is just like any other toxin – such as alcohol or even salt, it is safe in small doses but dangerous in high amounts. If you measured radiation levels in Aberdeen, which is built on granite, there would be higher background levels of radiation than in Fukushima... As for the worst nuclear disaster in history at Chernobyl in 1986, though 43 people died as a direct result of the accident, 4,000 others exposed have shown no ill effects. In addition, the surrounding area has been turned into a wildlife preserve and, though the radioactive fallout has certainly affected the flora and fauna, some experts note the overall effect is less than that of a forest fire or chemical pollutants with none of the feared mutations resulting in little more than animal stillbirths.

Your strawman isn't as bad as you seem to think it is. 8 years after Fukushima, "the predicted risks remain low and no observable increases in cancer above natural variation in baseline rates are anticipated".

https://newatlas.com/radiation-explained-food-sources-danger/46233/