Continuing problems at Fukushima

[John Cuthber]

This

"You got those numbers from that link. So we ignore them, and all arguments made from them - because that link has demonstrated beyond serious doubt, in its opening sentence, that it contains nothing but bullshit. "

is a circular argument.

You are saying the report is bullshit because it contains one argument and is, therefore, bullshit.

 

Please refute it or accept it.

 

"That depends on the "error".

If it's central to the argument, of a kind of fact used throughout the argument, completely and obviously ridiculous to even casual inspection, and presented seriously, then we know what we're dealing with - not one deduction on that page is honest, and the facts are accurate only by chance if at all. It invalidates the entire argument."

Even if the fault were central to the argument (and it's not- as I explained) then it might invalidate the argument , but not the facts.

You can't keep ignoring them.

Show that the page I cited is substantially wrong- show that more people don't die making coal fired power.

[overtone]

Well, if we can't discuss Fukushima itself we can maybe deal with the oddity of the reaction to it, the manner in which actual discussion has been prevented here - because that's an issue, and one relevant to the those particular continuing problems with Fukushima that are being experienced by the nuke industry and its apologists.

 

This

"You got those numbers from that link. So we ignore them, and all arguments made from them - because that link has demonstrated beyond serious doubt, in its opening sentence, that it contains nothing but bullshit. "

is a circular argument.

Ah, no, it isn't. We recognize bullshit, and we explicitly refuse to treat it as honest argument or information. That's linear reaction - see bullshit, dismiss same, repeat as often as necessary.

 

 

You are saying the report is bullshit because it contains one argument and is, therefore, bullshit.

No, I am saying that its first sentence identifies it as bullshit and therefore it contains no actual argument or information whatsoever.

 

 

Show that the page I cited is substantially wrong- show that more people don't die making coal fired power.

 

 

The repetition of this kind of rhetorical attack reveals your awareness of your agenda.

 

To ward the unwary: the repeated attempts to rail people into a discussion of the past hazards of coal power over the decades of industrialization are part of the same agenda that has attempted to chaff this thread with discussion of the weathering of the world's rocks, the background radiation levels of various geographical areas, the volume of the world's oceans, and so forth. The goal is preemptive minimization of Fukushima without the acknowledgement of it, and the prevention of any discussion or analysis of the continuing problems there along with the implications of that event and similar or related events in consideration of nuclear power generally.

 

Further: I believe that agenda is at least partly a conscious one, undertaken via deceptions and deflections and dishonesties at some level intended. The reason I think so is that the posters here are not that benightedly and unredeemably stupid. There is just no way these people can be honestly and naively and hopelessly as confused as one would have to be to compare, say, even the legitimately estimated death tolls from Fukushima (let alone the absurd single digits claimed by the wingnut techie crowd) with the cumulative death tolls from something like decades of coal mining and burning, or the background radiation from the world's rocks. I simply don't believe such absurd comparisons can be made - or demanded - honestly, by the scientifically familiar. Their presence reveals a fundamental lack of intellectual integrity.

 

So the repetition of it would be reasonable grounds for moderator warning or advice, one would presume.

 

And if not why not? Holocaust denialists are not given that kind of rope, climate denialists are routinely treated to warnings when they insist on trolling like that, creationists are routinely asked to take their little project outside. The only denialists cut this kind of slack are GMO and nuke advocates. Why is that?

[imatfaal]

Well, if we can't discuss Fukushima itself we can maybe deal with the oddity of the reaction to it, the manner in which actual discussion has been prevented here - because that's an issue, and one relevant to the those particular continuing problems with Fukushima that are being experienced by the nuke industry and its apologists.

Please don't even hint that you are being censored - members don't agree with your point of view and are refusing to back down till scientific argument is given that convinces; it's their prerogative.

Ah, no, it isn't. We recognize bullshit, and we explicitly refuse to treat it as honest argument or information. That's linear reaction - see bullshit, dismiss same, repeat as often as necessary.

 

No, I am saying that its first sentence identifies it as bullshit and therefore it contains no actual argument or information whatsoever.

A unilateral declaration that an article is bullshit is not definitive and binding on everyone. If the article was as warped as you imply it would have been withdrawn - or you could provide alternative peer-reviewed articles showing the huge number of fatalities of nuclear power (either in toto or per gigawatt) compared to other power sources.

To ward the unwary: the repeated attempts to rail people into a discussion of the past hazards of coal power over the decades of industrialization are part of the same agenda that has attempted to chaff this thread with discussion of the weathering of the world's rocks, the background radiation levels of various geographical areas, the volume of the world's oceans, and so forth. The goal is preemptive minimization of Fukushima without the acknowledgement of it, and the prevention of any discussion or analysis of the continuing problems there along with the implications of that event and similar or related events in consideration of nuclear power generally.

This is a science forum and a large number of the members prefer to look at the evidence rather than the emotional impact. Most of the members you are arguing with also have an understanding of the twin concepts of risk and hazard - and recognise that often the search for a solution of a sensational news-worthy minor problem is privileged over the boring and mundane killer. You are correct that this does not remove the peril of nuclear power plants and that these issues need to be addressed. Conversely, any realistic person looking for overall solutions needs to consider problems holistically rather than missing the wood for the trees.

Further: I believe that agenda is at least partly a conscious one, undertaken via deceptions and deflections and dishonesties at some level intended.

A citation or two might be needed to back up that claim of perfidy

The reason I think so is that the posters here are not that benightedly and unredeemably stupid. There is just no way these people can be honestly and naively and hopelessly as confused as one would have to be to compare, say, even the legitimately estimated death tolls from Fukushima (let alone the absurd single digits claimed by the wingnut techie crowd) with the cumulative death tolls from something like decades of coal mining and burning, or the background radiation from the world's rocks. I simply don't believe such absurd comparisons can be made - or demanded - honestly, by the scientifically familiar. Their presence reveals a fundamental lack of intellectual integrity.

Well they clearly have been made by the "scientifically familiar" - so you are making clear claims of dishonesty and that is, in my opinion, beyond the pale

So the repetition of it would be reasonable grounds for moderator warning or advice, one would presume.

Personally I do not believe it is worthy of moderator action - perhaps the continued back and forth is boring and repetitive and the refusal for each side to budge could be seen as against the rules. But it is a good discussion, in which both sides are hopefully willing to concede that they might be convinced; if one is not able to be convinced one should not be participating and then perhaps action should be taken. I presume you are willing to vouchsafe that your opinion could be swayed?

 

And if not why not? Holocaust denialists are not given that kind of rope, climate denialists are routinely treated to warnings when they insist on trolling like that, creationists are routinely asked to take their little project outside. The only denialists cut this kind of slack are GMO and nuke advocates. Why is that?

the comparison with holocaust deniers is invidious and I think you should withdraw it. Edited September 24, 2013 by imatfaal
damn - I hate this new editor

[John Cuthber]

Refusal to look at the data isn't science.

You keep asserting that whole page is bullshit on account of one error that doesn't materially affect the outcome.

Asking you to come up with evidence isn't a " rhetorical attack"
"There is just no way these people can be honestly and naively and hopelessly as confused as one would have to be to compare, say, even the legitimately estimated death tolls from Fukushima with the cumulative death tolls from something like decades of coal mining and burning"

Why is it unreasonable to compare decades of nuclear power with decades of coal power?

What's "hopeless" or "confused" about it?

 

"The only denialists cut this kind of slack are GMO and nuke advocates. Why is that?"

Possibly because those on the opposing side are unable to address the facts.

Coal kills about a thousand times more people than nuclear power (calculated per KWhHr).

So, you have to show that the figures are not just a bit wrong, nor even grossly wrong.

You have to show that they are a thousandfold wrong before you have a case.

Please hurry back with the data to do so.

[overtone]

 

 

You keep asserting that whole page is bullshit on account of one error that doesn't materially affect the outcome.

It materially invalidates every single fact and argument and "outcome" (whatever that was supposed to mean) on that link.

 

 

 

Asking you to come up with evidence isn't a " rhetorical attack"

I did. I quoted the sentence, and accurately paraphrased the link.

 

 

 

Why is it unreasonable to compare decades of nuclear power with decades of coal power?

Nothing - especially on a relevant thread. You aren't doing that, and if you were you would probably start a relevant thread.

 

 

 

Coal kills about a thousand times more people than nuclear power (calculated per KWhHr).

In the first place, you haven't backed that up with any data.

 

In the second, it's irrelevant - coal power is not regulated or safeguarded the same, the tech is older, etc. You are not comparing comparable things.

 

 

So, you have to show that the figures are not just a bit wrong, nor even grossly wrong.

You have to show that they are a thousandfold wrong before you have a case.

I don't have any interest in any such case, but if I did i would argue it on a different thread and begin by noting that 1) it doesn't matter, coal is handled much differently and the death rates are not comparable and 2) you haven't provided any support for that claim yet. anyway. Let's see your argument for that estimate, with data support - on a relevant thread. Then we can dismiss it as irrelevant over there, and go on about our business with greater clarity.

[John Cuthber]

Well, since you won't even discuss the data, apart from one mistake that doesn't affect the conclusion, there's no real point continuing this discussion.

I'm sure people will draw their own conclusions from your decision.

In any event, each KWhr of power they use is more likely to kill some poor soul if that power was coal-derived, rather than nuclear.

[overtone]

Well, since you won't even discuss the data,

As pointed out and discussed in by now excruciating detail, you have provided no actual data to discuss. I have invited you to join me in discussing any data or argument you have, on any appropriate thread of your choosing (this one would be for discussion of data relevant to the continuing problems at Fukushima), and you have responded with repetition of this:

 

apart from one mistake that doesn't affect the conclusion,

in various wordings, which is in my opinion (also repeated) not believably attributable to the stupidity that would be its only justification.

 

You are linking to bullshit, and defending it by repetition, as a deflection from thread issues you apparently don't want to see addressed. Why not?

 

 

 

In any event, each KWhr of power they use is more likely to kill some poor soul if that power was coal-derived, rather than nuclear

1) That has proven false for the people living in the hazard zones of Fukushima, Three Mile Island, the Ukraine, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan; at a minimum. In the near future or likely past several other large areas (Hanford and downstream, India, North Sea neighborhoods, maybe even southern China or the Mississippi River drainage) belong on that list.

 

2) So? Somebody's poor management of coal is no argument for the spread of Fukushimas, and no one here is arguing in favor of coal anyway - why are you bringing the subject up? Who cares? Coal has been very badly managed and is probably too expensive for electrical power generation if handled well, we all agree and always have: Is that too complicated for you?

 

OK: Coal bad, bad bad coal, yes yes.

 

Now, back to the thread topic how about.

Edited September 26, 2013 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

I'm not linking to bullshit.

You have labelled it as such for your own reasons, and you have yet to explain them.

 

" and is probably too expensive for electrical power generation if handled well, we all agree and always have: "

Is that the "Royal we" or have you decide there's more than one of you?

[overtone]

I'm not linking to bullshit.

Your link is to bullshit.

 

 

You have labelled it as such for your own reasons, and you have yet to explain them.

Not true. I have explained them in detail. More than once. And more than once pointed out that you seem reluctant to deal with these explanations and reasons.

 

Again: the link assumes that summed planetary deaths from all coal mining and coal burning are categorically comparable to summed planetary direct kills by nuke power radiation in plant mishaps, as framing. That is bullshit. Within that frame, the link invents absurdly fictional numbers to use for the nuke deaths, and some other garbage - whatever it wants to use - for the coal deaths, to use in the supposed comparison. The link then presumes a fantasy situation of replacing its fantasy of coal power with its fantasy of nuke power, and "calculates" some number of deaths to be avoided thereby.

 

The whole wingnut mess is then used by you to deflect the discussion of the continuing problems of Fukushima, which you obviously want to avoid for some reason.

 

The lack of respect for factual reality and logical comparison and honest argument is immediately and flagrantly visible, from (as noted) the very first sentence. Your complicity is not hidden or subtle. There isn't a bit of info in that link that has been honestly considered or evaluated, the argument rests on invalid comparisons and bogus assumptions, any accuracy is accidental, and to attempt a serious discussion based on that link is to be victimized by a bullshitter. That's what bullshit is for - deflecting attention and hiding reality and using up all the available time and bandwidth; gambit declined.

 

Meanwhile, this rhetorical technique is very common among nuke proponents. And that is one of the continuing problems of Fukushima - the monopolization of communication bandwidth by nuke propagandists (recall in the aftermath the long, slow, detailed media accounts of how Fukushima reactors were not like bombs and could not explode, followed by the assertions that the risk of meltdown had passed, all bs). So we might consider the agenda and integrity of these folk, relevantly, on this thread - not a total waste. But there's no point in pretending their assertions are "data".

Edited September 26, 2013 by overtone

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

 

 

John Cuthber, overtone,

 

We are not discussing bovine manure, and therefore certain choice of words is totally uncalled for. In a broader sense, your style of posting can be improved a lot. There are other, more polite ways to express a lack of agreement. Consider this an official warning. Improve your choice of words now.

 

If you have anything to add that might interest an audience larger than just you two, feel free to post it. Otherwise, if you are posting merely to 'win' this argument, do not post.

[overtone]

We are not discussing bovine manure, and therefore certain choice of words is totally uncalled for.

No. You have overlooked the argument.

 

My use of bullshit is not a general or informal disparagement, but a technical and accurately applicable term for a specific rhetorical technique - I provided a link to the definition and the standard work providing the hardcore high level philosophical basis of it, above. I also explicitly argued for the pertinence and applicability of that definition in this specific thread, showing how the posts so labeled fit that definition.

 

Whether the continual and characteristic employment of bullshit by posters attempting to deflect discussion of continuing problems at Fukushima into various confusions is a matter of interest to anyone, would better be determined by someone who recognizes and acknowledges the argument in the first place, I think, but I leave that to the judgment of others; nevertheless, in no sense is that issue confined to interpersonal exchanges between any two posters. It's a significant feature of the public handling of Fukushima, and directly relevant to any discussion of the continuing problems there.

 

 

 

There are other, more polite ways to express a lack of agreement

I doubt that. In the first place, "disagreement" is not the issue - except in so far as attempting to railroad the discussion into fictional and irrelevant "disagreements" characterizes the technique I have labeled. In the second, your assertion there seems to be based on a misunderstanidng. But the possibility is there: Perhaps you could enlighten me, by providing a better term for that characteristic nature of the rhetoric I address?

 

Perhaps I should provide a concrete example: we need a term for what the following have in common: 1) a post comparing the total amount of radiation being released by Fukushima to the amount being released by the weathering of rocks on planet earth 2) a post linking us to a "comparison" of a summary from few selected categories of direct deaths from nuclear power plant radiation releases with a summary of estimated deaths direct and indirect from coal mining and burning, none of the numbers involved being reliably vetted, and no argument for the relevance of the comparison being made 3) posts comparing the theoretical increase in background radiation that would be caused by Fukushima if its releases were evenly distributed througout the Pacific Ocean basin or some other vague but very large area, with the background radiation experienced by various residents of variously selected specific regions of the planet;

 

all of these presented one after the other on this thread as not only relevant but priority considerations: presented with demands they be discussed in detail, in a thread concerning the continuing problems at Fukushima.

 

Your term: ________________.

Edited September 27, 2013 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

I apologise for any offence caused by my repetition of Overtone's choice of word.

I must admit I hadn't realised it was afforded the status of " a technical and accurately applicable term".

I thought he was just being a bit rude.

 

Please let me know when either the number of deaths due to coal falls- or the number of deaths attributed to nuclear power rises- to the point where they are even roughly equal.

[Moontanman]

It's been quite a while since I've seen a thread with as much inflammatory emotional nonsense as this one. I know the fear of radioactivity is both emotional and real but why is it more real when radiation comes from a nuclear plant than when it comes from a coal powered plant? Can anyone justify that? So far no one has.

 

It all boils down to risk mitigation, yes i know a bit about this, used to be a big part of my job with DuPont. Coal fired power plants or burning coal in any context releases various radioactive isotopes directly to the environment not to mention some pretty nasty chemicals.

 

I remember growing up in the mountains of WV, sitting in front of a warm and welcoming coal fire place listening to the TV and all the fear mongering about nuclear power, bombs, and everything associated with that risk, I remember being terrified of radiation, horror movies about radiation gave me nightmares, I obsessed about radiation constantly and having no idea how how dangerous it was sitting in front of that fire place both chemically and radioactively as well.

 

My main problem with nuclear power is the risk mitigation, building a nuclear power plant in a location that is likely to under go a natural disaster is not an intelligent move but ignoring the very real dangers of burning coal is not intelligent either. Both sources of power can be made safer with risk mitigation but fly ash from coal is radioactive waste, it is often stored in places where it continues to interact with the environment, radioactive waste from nuclear plants is not just dumped on the ground, the risk is mitigated by various means. Are they perfect? of course not but you do have to take into account the real dangers of both and at this time, as shown by numerous links in this thread, coal releases many times as much radioactive material into the environment as nuclear, this can not be ignored, in fact the radiation from coal fired plants is simply released into the air, or used to be, not as much now but the risk is still not as well mitigated as the risk from nuclear plants is mitigated.

 

Step back and take a close look at the emotions nuclear brings out, where do these emotions originate? Popular culture or real scientific studies, this is the real question I see in this thread...

[overtone]

 

I must admit I hadn't realised it was afforded the status of " a technical and accurately applicable term".

I thought he was just being a bit rude

Well, you were told repeatedly and explicitly and clearly linked, since you would have to have dealt with my actual posting to actually repond to any of it. What you admit to not having "realized" was my central observation and basis of argument, the main content of my posting here.

 

Perhaps you can now review, and realize how completely irrelevant adn useless - to put it kindly - your "responses" have been.

 

 

I know the fear of radioactivity is both emotional and real but why is it more real when radiation comes from a nuclear plant than when it comes from a coal powered plant? Can anyone justify that? So far no one has.

The comparison of the radiation from coal plants is fundamentally dishonest, as is well illustrated by the Sci Am link (taken as the strongest case possible). Poor handling of coal is not an argument in favor of nukes - it is if anything a further illustration of the hazards of dependency on central and secretive powers with agendas of their own handling dangerous stuff.

 

But we can easily lay out the context:

 

Coal emissions are pre-diluted in time and space and then further spread out over the landscape, low level, short lived in general, not often biologically concentrated, can be easily and reliably (but not cheaply) handled, and is most relevantly compared with other forms of background radiation (it is similarly sourced). One needn't wear a dosimeter to work around coal waste.

 

Nuke radioactivity is stronger and of more hazardous and unusual (newly created, even) types, higher level, is often biologically and chemically concentrated from the environment, is emitted in compact plumes and bursts into specific locations in the first place, does damage long after the initial exposure in a variety of insidious and complex ways, is very difficult to handle reliably, and is not relevantly comparable with background radiation. One needs special safety gear to even approach nuke waste.

 

Even in absolute quantity nuke plants produce far more and far stronger radioactive waste than coal plants - the apologist sleight of hand "argument" above is to compare only what is normally not controlled or sequestered, in historically standard power plant operation. That is of course meaningless as a comparison of the stuff itself - one is comparing only different standards of handling, historically different levels of ignorance, etc.

 

So what was the question again? And how is it relevant to the continuing problems of Fukushima?

 

 

 

I obsessed about radiation constantly and having no idea how how dangerous it was sitting in front of that fire place both chemically and radioactively as well

I didn't. People like me are not in the least motivated by exaggerated fears of bogey radiation. And your recently acquired fear of coal fire radiation is misled - exactly the goal of the bullshit posted and linked above.

 

Among the many and serious hazards of coal burning, radioactivity ranks fairly low - even though it is not controlled in the slightest. Not so wtih nukes.

 

 

 

but the risk is still not as well mitigated as the risk from nuclear plants is mitigated.

Hence the invalidity of the comparison. And we see that the mitigation of nuke risk - despite the enormous sums and labors devoted to it - is not nearly good enough. We have, in other words, little or no upside to nukes - they've been tested, and found to be extremely dangerous both short and long term regardless of the expense and effort devoted to "mitigating" their risks. They are beyond the capabilities of ordinary human nature and instutions to handle with reasonable safely. And that is some of the information we need to reject them as power sources in general applications (there are political and economic and military reasons also).

 

 

 

Step back and take a close look at the emotions nuclear brings out, where do these emotions originate?

Notice that all of the irrational and emotional posting here has come from nuke proponents. And that is fairly typical of this kind of discussion in the public arena.

 

But that would make a decent segue to the thread topic, if anyone cared - one of the continuing problems with Fukushima, a sort of metaproblem that interferes with reasonable reponse to the immediate issues, is the essentially emotional attachment of techies to the science fiction vision of nuclear power - clean and bright and managed by the technological elite for the good of us all, with the problems of greed and laziness and power and corruption and hubris and ignorance and ignorance of ignorance and all those other little sticky aspects of human endeavor taken care of off screen, as it were. These guys all had mothers and then girlfriends and then wives doing their housework an cleaning up after them, is my suspicion.

 

Ask yourself how someone could type - right in front of themselves - the assertion that Fukushima has and will kill only one person, and not immediately discard that as ridiculous and hit the research connections?

[Moontanman]

 

Coal emissions are pre-diluted in time and space and then further spread out over the landscape, low level, short lived in general, not often biologically concentrated, can be easily and reliably (but not cheaply) handled, and is most relevantly compared with other forms of background radiation (it is similarly sourced). One needn't wear a dosimeter to work around coal waste.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is demonstrably not true, in fact burning coal concentrates and releases uranium and thorium, both very long lived not to mention chemically poisonous... Your other points flow from this and are in fact bogus because this is not true...

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/coalandcoalash.html

Edited September 29, 2013 by Moontanman

[John Cuthber]

What you admit to not having "realized" was my central observation and basis of argument, the main content of my posting here.

 

Perhaps you can now review, and realize how completely irrelevant adn useless - to put it kindly - your "responses" have been.

 

Nuke radioactivity is stronger and of more hazardous and unusual ...

 

What I admit to not realising is that you thought a rude word was a technical term. I see that you continue to use the word, even though you were asked not to.

That's not an unreasonable mistake on my part, since the word is not " " a technical and accurately applicable term".

Hardly the same thing.

Did you says that because you didn't understand, or was it meant to mislead people?

 

It seems that you don't realise that all radioactivity is nuclear. And the body is unable to distinguish between an alpha particle from uranium in nuclear waste, from an alpha particle from uranium in coal ash.

How could it?

 

"Ask yourself how someone could type - right in front of themselves - the assertion that Fukushima has and will kill only one person, and not immediately discard that as ridiculous and hit the research connections?"

Easy.

Can you give me the name of the person who died?

OK, so all estimates of the death toll are speculative.

That page gives a very low estimate.

However, as I pointed out, any remotely realistic estimate gives the same overall conclusion.

At best, if you say that Fukushima will kill as many people as all the other nuclear power industry put together, including Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Windscale and all the others then you change the figures from

"Coal kills roughly 2500 people for every person killed by nuclear power" to

"Coal kills roughly 1250 people for every person killed by nuclear power".

 

So, where you say "And we see that the mitigation of nuke risk - despite the enormous sums and labors devoted to it - is not nearly good enough. " you make my point for me.

Why are the precautions taken to avoid harm from coal seen as "good enough" when the thousandfold better ones taken with nuclear power are not?

Edited September 29, 2013 by John Cuthber

[Wilmot McCutchen]

The Fukushima disaster should be an occasion for collaborative problem solving. The issue is what is to be done with the RO concentrate (which is polluted by cesium)? The leak flowrate from the concentrate tanks is not large (1 gallon per second), so solution scalability should not be a problem. Tedious reiteration of unsubstantiated talking points seeking to scare people away from nuclear generation is not helpful, nor is the coal-is-worse retort. What is the real magnitude of the danger posed by the leak? What is the state of the art of nuclear wastewater treatment, and how could it be improved?

[overtone]

This is demonstrably not true,

It is an obvious and observed fact. It is the central problem with the poor handling of coal combustion emissions - they are filling the atmosphere and covering large landscapes, and are permitted to do so - which is foolish, grandfathered in out of former ignorance, but not at all the situation we face at Fukushima.

 

but in fact burning coal concentrates and releases uranium and thorium,

The release is a dilution - deliberately and successfully engineered to be so. Even the supposed "concentration" in the first place is very low level - proper comparisons would be with background radiation and the like. (That would be an arena in which facts about rock weathering and ocean volume and the like would be relevant).

 

And even the initial reduction - not a "concentration", but a generation of combustion products - is not radiaoactive enough to compare in that with the products of nuclear power - not within several orders of magnitude. The comparison is ridiculous.

 

 

 

Your other points flow from this

No, they don't. They are opposed to it.

 

 

 

What I admit to not realising is that you thought a rude word was a technical term.

It is a technical term, and (once again) I posted the definition and a link to a professional reference, and a simple explication of the application here. You are dealing in bullshit, most flagrantly illustrated by your link, entrenched by your repetition of it.

 

 

Why are the precautions taken to avoid harm from coal seen as "good enough"

They aren't. Everyone here, me included, has been very clear and direct on that point. Nobody here has posted anything in defense of coal power, everyone here has posted damning evidence and argument against it. Your assertion there, framed as a typical Fox News "question", is obvious nonsense. Why did you post it?

 

 

"Ask yourself how someone could type - right in front of themselves - the assertion that Fukushima has and will kill only one person, and not immediately discard that as ridiculous and hit the research connections?"

Easy.

Can you give me the name of the person who died?

Further illustration of your approach here. If its easy to explain, let's see the easy explanation - I don't think you'll like it.

 

 

OK, so all estimates of the death toll are speculative.

Not all of them are flagrantly, ridiculously wrong - so far from reasonable as to not be "estimates" at all.

 

 

That page gives a very low estimate.

There is no actual "estimate" on that page. There is a ridiculous, absurd, non-serious and completely unsupported number which is included among the framing and basic assumptions of the entire page - included as a fact, which you demand we treat as "data" and focus on rather than dealing with the issues of the thread. That is bullshit.

 

 

At best, if you say that Fukushima will kill as many people as all the other nuclear power industry put together, including Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Windscale and all the others then you change the figures from

"Coal kills roughly 2500 people for every person killed by nuclear power" to

"Coal kills roughly 1250 people for every person killed by nuclear power".

So? The comparison itself is fraudulent. You can suck up any numbers you want within the framing of that link, and you will be posting the same comparison - the same bullshit.

 

That is the main point. The observation that all of those numbers - the deaths from Chernobyl, etc - are from that same source and of that same reliability and validity, is a mere side point. .

 

 

 

However, as I pointed out, any remotely realistic estimate gives the same overall conclusion

There is no "overall conclusion". The entire comparison is fraudulent, and no "conclusions" of any relevance here are possible within it (outside it we might consider the illustration it provides of the tactics of nuke proponents).

 

This kind of rhetoric from nuke apologists is of course one of the continuing problems of Fukushima as well as nuke mishap in general, broadly treated. So we might go there, without perverting the thread. But surely other continuing problems of Fukushima are more immediate?

Edited September 29, 2013 by overtone

[Moontanman]

Why do I get the feeling we are not communicating? Accusations of being nuclear apologists is not constructive. How, other than being concentrated in one spot is the radiation from this accident any different than the radiation released by IVY Mike? Ivy Mike released something like an order of magnitude more radiation than Chernobyl, no one died as a direct result but it is obvious that such above ground tests did indeed contribute to the over mortality of humans on this planet...

[John Cuthber]

"

Why are the precautions taken to avoid harm from coal seen as "good enough"

They aren't. Everyone here, me included, has been very clear and direct on that point. "

Really, what are you doing to change the way coal is handled?

If, as I suspect, the answer is "nothing" then you have in fact accepted it and so you must consider it acceptable.

Anyway, perhaps it would be informative if you were to find numbers, do the calculation yourself, and post the results here.

Can you estimate the deaths per TWHr from coal and nuclear power.

(And it is relevant, whether you like it or not)

[overtone]

Why do I get the feeling we are not communicating?

Because you are getting reponses that refuse invalid assumptions, and you don't understand them.

 

Edit in: ok that's not fair -

 

How, other than being concentrated in one spot is the radiation from this accident any different than the radiation released by IVY Mike? Ivy Mike released something like an order of magnitude more radiation than Chernobyl, no one died as a direct result but it is obvious that such above ground tests did indeed contribute to the over mortality of humans on this planet

1) Being concentrated is a big deal, the single most important feature. 2) The question of how many people died from Ivy Mike will never be answered - the research (such as measuring actual exposure) was not done when it could have been, and even incomplete retrospective investigation faces many obstacles (afaik the detailed fallout patterns from all the open air tests are still classified info, the census and migration data is inadequate, and much has been simply destroyed).

 

 

 

accusations of being nuclear apologists is not constructive.

It's not an accusation, it's a description. The basic form of the argument for nukes here - and everywhere, actually - is yeah they have screwed up a bit sometimes (minimization, framing) but they aren't as bad as xyz (coal burning, freezing in the dark, whatever). That is an apologist argument - "apologist" is the standard term for "yes it's bad but it's not as bad as xyz".

 

The problem here, of course, is the irrelevance of the argument in the first place. It is being used to deflect the thread - read the OP.

 

 

 

They aren't. Everyone here, me included, has been very clear and direct on that point. "

Really, what are you doing to change the way coal is handled?

OK, onlookers - is the simple dishonesty of this poster and this Fox approach to "scientific" discussion obvious enough now to simply dismiss henceforward without explanation?

 

Anyway, perhaps it would be informative if you were to find numbers, do the calculation yourself, and post the results here

It would not. Why would I join you in posting bullshit on this thread?

Can you estimate the deaths per TWHr from coal and nuclear power

Start a thread on that topic, and I will contribute up to two hours of net research time. You won't like it, because I will refuse to compare 19th century tech unburdened by modern safety and regulation side by side with modern nuclear engineering (doing that is bullshit, whether you like the term or not), and I will not fully credit dubious and poorly supported claims from biased parties (the Atomic Energy Commission, for example, was chartered for the purpose of promoting nuclear power - that was its job, and that job passed on to the subsequent agencies such as the NRC), and I will insist on including risk as well as accomplished damages as the basis of projections (all the nuke wastes and dead plants are not just going to evaporate - we hope). But I will contribute - from a PR pov, I don't like coal burning for electrical power, and would be happy to use the comparison opportunity to associate it with nasty stuff like nukes.

Meanwhile, we have continuing problems at Fukushima - some here: http://fukushimaupdate.com/ and here's a blog that keeps a useful daily record, and although emotional and so forth has been pretty conscientious about the physical facts: http://fukushima-diary.com/category/dnews/

sample quote:

Tepco and Japanese government are doing the same thing. They say the radiation level is safely low even outside of the port. However they actually measure only the seawater of the sea surface.

 

Most of the types of radioactive material that they measure are known to accumulate on the sea bottom. and it’s taken by small fish to start the biological concentration.

Another of the continuing problems of Fukushima - this one predates the tsunami: http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2013/09/15/nuclear-powers-people-problem-how-we-contributed-to-the-fukushima-crisis/

Edited October 1, 2013 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

Why are the events at Fukushima described as a problem?

I may be mistaken, but I think that it is seen as a problem because it exposes people to risk.

Surely one of the most important aspects of the "continuing problems" is "how big a problem is it?"

Now, in principle it's possible to produce an estimated contour plot of diminished life expectancy round the area (and covering the whole world).

But that's a pig of a research project.

Surely it's easier- and just as informative to compare it against other, better known- risks?

 

It's possible that, had I just posted data on the relative scales of the radioactive emissions from Fukushima and, for example TMI or Chernobyl, nobody would have taken offence at that.

It's not an unreasonable comparison- and it would provide information clearly and directly related to the thread's title.

Continuing problems...

How big are these problems?

X % of the risk produced by Chernobyl.

 

 

But, I chose to compare it to a non nuclear risk (Not initially- but later).

 

And now, I'm suddenly accused of being a "nuclear apologist".

Worse, My potty-mouthed accuser refuses to even point out relevant errors in the work I cited (it's not my work- I have no emotional attachment to it).

 

The really strange thing is that the word apologist isn't derogatory- it just means someone who defends a position.

Well, I'm defending 2but I'm rather more concerned about one than the other.

I'm defending the nuclear industry from being painted as a bogeyman.

But my main point,and the reason I'm defending nuclear power is that I'm defending science.

 

I have put forward data. That data may well be from utterly biassed sources.

Biassed sources are not necessarily wrong.

 

I'm sure that, with a little effort, I could find websites just as deeply slanted- but the other way.

By Overtone's logic I can write them off as BS just because they are biassed.

But that's absurd.

One side or the other has to be correct, or at least, more nearly correct.

There really must be a ratio of people killed by coal to people killed by nuclear power.

 

Overtone's refusal to look at the data guarantees that he will never find out what that ratio is and, by extension, how big a problem this thread is about.

[overtone]

 

But that's a pig of a research project.

Surely it's easier- and just as informative to compare it against other, better known- risks?

1) No, it's not at all informative to attempt "comparisons" between things you have not defined, discussed, measured, or described accurately in the first place 2) You appear to have no better handle on those other allegedly "better known risks" than the ones attending Fukushima 3) when you choose as your supposedly "better known" risks things that do not in fact compare relevantly, the whole project departs even the realm of silliness it was inhabiting and becomes an exercise in the surreal.

 

 

 

The really strange thing is that the word apologist isn't derogatory- it just means someone who defends a position.

1) No. It means a particular way of defending, a particular rhetorical technique as illustrated above, and not a position but a decision or event or agency.

 

2) Finally. So how many times did I have to repeat the fact that my vocabulary here is simply accurate? Ten? Fifteen? Something like that.

 

 

How big are these problems?

X % of the risk produced by Chernobyl.

Nonsense. You have no idea how to measure the risks of Chernobyl (you don't even know how many people it killed in event, let alone its risks), you apparently have no idea what the risks of Fukushima are, you have no defensible criteria for comparison, you have no argument linking the risks to the "size" of the continuing problems, and so forth.

 

 

One side or the other has to be correct, or at least, more nearly correct.

There really must be a ratio of people killed by coal to people killed by nuclear power.

That comparison - the "ratio"(!) - is and will remain bullshit. Repetition will not change that fact. "Accuracy" in bullshit is meaningless. Meanwhile: There are no such "sides" as you assert have arisen in an opposed pair. That rhetorical trick is standard Fox framing, and does not belong here. And so forth. Again and again and again.

 

The whole schtick is of course petty and dishonest. But it is typical of nuke proponents, here and everywhere, when they don't want to talk about the risks and problems of some nuclear mishap or proposal. That was (when it was built and not upgraded), is (right here), and will remain (my prediction), a continuing problem of Fukushima - nuke fans will be as vocal and deceptive about Fukushima as they have been about TMI, even Chernobyl.

[John Cuthber]

"Finally. So how many times did I have to repeat the fact that my vocabulary here is simply accurate? Ten? Fifteen? Something like that"

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apologist

 

" Repetition will not change that fact."

[overtone]

"Finally. So how many times did I have to repeat the fact that my vocabulary here is simply accurate? Ten? Fifteen? Something like that"

 

http://www.thefreedi...y.com/apologist

 

" Repetition will not change that fact."

A lot of trouble to post basic agreement with a triviality, while ignoring the disagreement over substance - motive?

 

My guess:

 

The whole schtick is of course petty and dishonest. But it is typical of nuke proponents, here and everywhere, when they don't want to talk about the risks and problems of some nuclear mishap or proposal.

Edited October 1, 2013 by overtone