Article

2004-06-07 -Short Attention Span Theater-

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anon1 2004-06-07 7:25:14 AM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Wow! I am shocked nuclear power is not totally safe! (/sarcasm).

Look you dimwit nobody argues that nuclear power is totally safe. Nothing is totally safe. The issue is its relative safety compared to the alternatives. Even if all the accidents and deaths you cite are accurate, and the relationship between long term exposure to radiation and cancer is a lot more complex than you imply, A quick calculation using this source makes nuclear power between 4 and 5 orders of magnitude safer than the only feasible alternative fossil fuels. That means that for every person nuclear power kills, the alternative kills between 10,000 and a 100,000 people.

It really burns me that greenie dimwits like you are murdering millions of people.

Posted by Phil B 2004-06-07 10:52:01 PM|| 2004-06-07 10:52:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 I teach operators in the Nuclear Industry and we use a lot of these events (accidents, catastrophe, meltdown - hah, the usual buzzwords!)as examples. Most of the crap you have here is an extreme exaggeration of what actually happened. Which is what happens when you download some anti-nuke stuff. Worse liars than the Global Warming crowd.

Posted by davemac 2004-06-07 11:12:40 PM|| 2004-06-07 11:12:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Phil B: I don't appreciate your ad hominem attack. Calling me a dimwit doesn't advance your argument.

Only facts and logic score points.

Relative safety and relative expense is exactly what I'm arguing. I think on balance that the relative lack of safety and expense of nuclear reactors make them a bad choice.

I think it was you who made out the French never had any accidents. You were wrong.

The reportage of accidents here is accurate.

There is no safe dosage level of radiation. Though the health effects of carbon pollution also cause people to die, they do not remain a problem for hundreds of thousands of years.

Global warming cannot be stopped now anyway, so using that as an argument against fossil fuels is redundant.

The argument for not using fossil fuels due to it causing us to give money to the people who are trying to kill us (Islamic Fascist states) IS relevant however.

I want us weened off Saudi Skag as much as the next person. But there are other alternatives to Nuclear power. They are also expensive but on balance I find the price paid for those alternatives is less both socially and in dollar terms than that paid for nuclear power.

Davemac: as you can see from the simple and factual list of some accidents at French reactors, this is not an exaggeration.

You will note that there are other more extensive lists which detail the thousands of accidents both minor and mid-level (if you take Chernobyl as major) that occur every year at nuke reactors.

You cannot guarantee against human error, faulty equipment, exogenous events or the impact of time (ie: 1000 years down the track you don't know what society will be like).

The same problems exist for other fuel sources but the difference is if you get a problem with ANY of these other fuel sources, it ceases to be a problem at worst case within a couple of decades.

There are parts of Russia that have been fenced off as uninhabitable for millenia. Do you think those fences will stay up? No! of course they won't. Future generations will suffer.

They will pay the cost. But you are short-sighted and think only of now now now.

Posted by Anon1 2004-06-07 11:24:42 PM|| 2004-06-07 11:24:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Yawn! You don't refute my arguments, you don't produce relevant facts. You attribute stements to me I never made, and then you substantiate the statement I did make - "France has never had a serious nuclear accident".

Enough! Come back when you have a cogent argument. Multiple posts empty of content is just a bore.

Posted by Phil B 2004-06-07 11:37:44 PM|| 2004-06-07 11:37:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 anon1 - you usually post sensible stuff, but I fear you've taken the no-nuke bait on this - my minor was in radiation physics. These are exaggerated, out-and-out fabrications and pure bunk. No energy production is without hazard, the fact that the workers stay employed and don't die of radiation poisoning should give a clue - with all due respect....

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-07 11:42:14 PM|| 2004-06-07 11:42:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 With all due respect to all, (ie: respect for Frank, but none for Phil B) the hazard of nukes lies in the longevity of the radiation.

I have listed some straight verifiable facts.

They directly contradict the argument that nuclear power is safe, efficient and cheap.

To die of radiation poisoning would involve extremely high doses of radioactivity. Workers have died as a result of this during accidents at nuke plants around the world and not just at Chernobyl.

It is the thousands of N-plant workers who die of cancers, who have down-syndrome children or leukaemia, who maybe worked at the reactor for 5 years then moved to a different state and weren't tracked that are the problem. Those figures don't get traced back to the reactor because oh no then we'd have to admit there was a problem.

The russians relocated thousands after Chernobyl and didn't keep records. There was a reason for that. Who wants to admit the real death toll?

Another Chernobyl is inevitable sooner or later.

But regardless of Chernobyl (a low probability event), I wouldn't want to be living in a city where there was a small accident (a high probability event) involving accidental release of radioactive gas into the atmosphere (happened at Lucas Heights in Sydney), or similar into the water supply, because I am smart and I know that will increase my risk of cancer or of passing on genetic defects.

Posted by Anon1 2004-06-07 11:59:21 PM|| 2004-06-07 11:59:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 I wouldn't want to be living in a city where .... release of radioactive gas into the atmosphere

This is what burns me about greenies. They are so ignorant and clueless. I guarantee whatever city you (Anon1) live in there are substantial emissions of radioactive gas (Radon) happening right now. And this problem is orders of magnitude bigger than releases from nuclear facilities.

Memo to self - stop posting to dead threads!

Posted by Phil B 2004-06-08 3:31:28 AM|| 2004-06-08 3:31:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Your arrogance is your greatest obstacle, Phil B, since you think anybody that disagrees with you is simply clueless and ignorant.

I provided evidence to back up my claims, which were logical and well-reasoned.

In answer to that you respond with an ad-hominem attack and a vague generalisation.

Guess what Phil B.... I already stated that background radiation is unavoidable and is already responsible for cancers.

The trick is not to add more to it because the effect is cumulative and that means more cancers and birth defects as a direct result.

You've earnt my ad-hominem attack on you:

You are ignorant. You have only vague ideas to back up your position. You haven't refuted my argument with evidence and logic.

Where's the source to back up that there are "substantial" (whatever that means) emissions of radon. Where is your source that proves that the emission of Radon gas is not a problem in and of itself. Where is your evidence that this is actually a "bigger" problem than releases from nuclear facilities (which facilities? which spillage? how many milliseiverts of radiation in the water supply/atmosphere/food chain is it worse than?)

Posted by Anon1 2004-06-08 4:04:42 AM|| 2004-06-08 4:04:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Thx, davemac! It is the purpose of RB to allow those who know WTF to clarify issues and inform those lacking the firsthand info. Please come back often!!! Your comment made me LOL - again, thanks!

Phil_B - A dead thread, indeed!

Posted by .com 2004-06-08 4:13:41 AM|| 2004-06-08 4:13:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 .com: davemac did not clarify anything.

His argument was simply an appeal to authority.

I'm an expert he said, so believe me.

But he did not provide any facts, evidence or logic.

For all YOU know he could be a streetcleaner.

If I told you I was an astrophysicist and then told you I had invented a time machine, would you believe that, too? Even if I WAS an astrophysicist I could STILL be either mistaken, biased or lying.

Posted by Anon1 2004-06-09 9:03:39 AM|| 2004-06-09 9:03:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 AW - No I wouldn't believe you because you're a link whore who dumps tons of text from links you skimmed off of idiot sites, instead of just posting the URLs so people can judge the source for themselves. You eat lots of bandwidth that doesn't belong to you. BTW, davemac is really an alien. And your 28+ HOURS LATE.

Toodles.

Posted by .com 2004-06-09 9:08:12 AM|| 2004-06-09 9:08:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 actually, I DID post the links so you could check them out for yourself.

You'll also note that I originally had a lot more resources but that I am far from home and have no access to them now.

I am not prepared to spend hours researching it for your benefit but am content to skim for a short while to find a few facts and figures to back up my argument, which I did.

I'm 28 hours late: yes, I have a life.

I respect that you provided the new server it was good to provide Fred with extra as Rantburg is a really important site.

But don't think that changes the rules of engagement. Facts and logic rule. Agreeing with faulty logic is simply idiotarianism even if it appeals to your opinion on the topic.

Posted by Anon1 2004-06-09 9:14:01 AM|| 2004-06-09 9:14:01 AM|| Front Page Top

09:14 Anon1
09:08 .com
09:03 Anon1
06:23 Shipman
04:17 Howard Uk
04:13 .com
04:04 Anon1
03:31 Phil B
02:29 rex
01:54 Zenster
00:49 RMcLeod
00:48 ed
00:40 Damn_Proud_American
00:39 OldSpook
00:37 ed
00:33 TS(vice girl)
00:26 ed
00:19 Phil B
00:17 OldSpook
00:15 Jen
00:13 3dc
00:10 OldSpook
00:10 Not Mike Moore
00:09 tu3031