Mike 'Fireman' Ross
Well-known member
*sigh*
I'd hoped we had left this debate alone.
Did you read my posts on this subject?
If not, please do so, then go and read this voice of sanity: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842
Mike
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
Back in Tokyo after visiting disaster area
- Thread starter Paul Leeming
- Start date
*sigh*
I'd hoped we had left this debate alone.
Did you read my posts on this subject?
If not, please do so, then go and read this voice of sanity: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842
Mike
- Banned
- #42
Chuck Z
Banned
:laugh:
On that note, we really should lock this thread before an even bigger debate begins to sprawl out.
Oliver Skibbe
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2007
- Messages
- 136
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Berlin, Germany
- Website
- www.larger-than-life.de
A quick link for those that are interested in scientific data instead of "accepted opinions":
--> Chernoby - 20 Years later (Abstract of an international congress)
--> Chernoby - 20 Years later (Abstract of an international congress)
Joe G.
Well-known member
"Did you read my posts on this subject? "
Sorry, I've been reading actual scientists and doctors. I don't have time for ignorant bloggers and pundits who don't want to know, and instead mindlessly promote the most dangerous polluting technology in existence.
(985,000 premature deaths result of Chernobyl, NY Academy Sciences, 2009)
Nuclear power puts us all at greater risk of cancer, period. I do not agree to giving them that power, and oppose all nuclear energy generation. It should be shut down asap, as Germany has ordered this past week.
Sorry, I've been reading actual scientists and doctors. I don't have time for ignorant bloggers and pundits who don't want to know, and instead mindlessly promote the most dangerous polluting technology in existence.
(985,000 premature deaths result of Chernobyl, NY Academy Sciences, 2009)
Nuclear power puts us all at greater risk of cancer, period. I do not agree to giving them that power, and oppose all nuclear energy generation. It should be shut down asap, as Germany has ordered this past week.
Gavin Greenwalt
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 7,614
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 39
Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)
Coal – world average – – – – – – – – – – – – 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China – – – – – – – – – – –– – – – – 278
Coal – USA – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 15
Oil – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 12
Peat – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – - 12
Solar (rooftop) – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) – – – – – – – – 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
Coal – world average – – – – – – – – – – – – 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China – – – – – – – – – – –– – – – – 278
Coal – USA – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 15
Oil – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 12
Peat – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – - 12
Solar (rooftop) – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) – – – – – – – – 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
Joe G.
Well-known member
"Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy) "
You don't even provide a source, nevermind methodology. These sorts of things are routinely distorted and skewed (which you should fully know).
Your numbers are worthless. But, you probably knew that before you posted.
The IAEA won't acknowledge the cancers in the aftermath of Chernobyl, as their mandate corrupts their findings in favor of promoting the industry.
Cancers take decades to form, and so they are easily ignored after the cameras move on. Is the ignorance really at this level here?
You don't even provide a source, nevermind methodology. These sorts of things are routinely distorted and skewed (which you should fully know).
Your numbers are worthless. But, you probably knew that before you posted.
The IAEA won't acknowledge the cancers in the aftermath of Chernobyl, as their mandate corrupts their findings in favor of promoting the industry.
Cancers take decades to form, and so they are easily ignored after the cameras move on. Is the ignorance really at this level here?
Mike 'Fireman' Ross
Well-known member
You talking to me?
Futue te pal, futue te ipsum et caballum tuum.
The go and read the piece by the *radiation scientist* I link to above.
Then come back and say sorry.
Mike
Joe G.
Well-known member
"The go and read the piece by the *radiation scientist* I link to above.
Then come back and say sorry.
Mike "
No apologies here. You found a "radiation scientist" who agrees with you, and that means you can simply ignore the conflicting evidence. Congratulations. Your data relies entirely on a UN report.
"April 26, 2011 will mark the 25th Annivesary of the Chernobyl catastrophe, and for more than 50 years, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have abided by an agreement that in essence, covers each other’s back – sometimes at the expense of public health. It’s a delicate balance between cooperation and collusion.
Signed on May 28, 1959 at the 12th World Health Assembly, the agreement states:
“Whenever either organization proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organization has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement,” and continues: The IAEA and the WHO “recognize that they may find it necessary to apply certain limitations for the safeguarding of confidential information furnished to them. They therefore agree that nothing in this agreement shall be construed as requiring either of them to furnish such information as would, in the judgment of the other party possessing the information to interfere wit the orderly conduct of its operation.”
...On the 20th Anniversary of Chernobyl WHO and the IAEA published the Chernobyl Forum Report, mentioning only 350 sources, mainly from the English literature while in reality there are more than 30,000 publications and up to 170,000 sources that address the consequences of Chernobyl."
-Chernobyl 25 Years Later
No. You guys are right. Radiation is good for you. Not a carcinogen, proven over 70 years of study. What we're really missing in our lives is more radioactivity. Pure genius.
Then come back and say sorry.
Mike "
No apologies here. You found a "radiation scientist" who agrees with you, and that means you can simply ignore the conflicting evidence. Congratulations. Your data relies entirely on a UN report.
"April 26, 2011 will mark the 25th Annivesary of the Chernobyl catastrophe, and for more than 50 years, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have abided by an agreement that in essence, covers each other’s back – sometimes at the expense of public health. It’s a delicate balance between cooperation and collusion.
Signed on May 28, 1959 at the 12th World Health Assembly, the agreement states:
“Whenever either organization proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organization has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement,” and continues: The IAEA and the WHO “recognize that they may find it necessary to apply certain limitations for the safeguarding of confidential information furnished to them. They therefore agree that nothing in this agreement shall be construed as requiring either of them to furnish such information as would, in the judgment of the other party possessing the information to interfere wit the orderly conduct of its operation.”
...On the 20th Anniversary of Chernobyl WHO and the IAEA published the Chernobyl Forum Report, mentioning only 350 sources, mainly from the English literature while in reality there are more than 30,000 publications and up to 170,000 sources that address the consequences of Chernobyl."
-Chernobyl 25 Years Later
No. You guys are right. Radiation is good for you. Not a carcinogen, proven over 70 years of study. What we're really missing in our lives is more radioactivity. Pure genius.
Gavin Greenwalt
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 7,614
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 39
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html
I tend to trust the WHO. It's also the WHO which estimates that 1m people die every year prematurely from coal emissions. So if it's between nuclear and coal. Your grossly overestimated number still doesn't even come close to Coal.
You know what's also dangerous? Tsunamis. And that's what the legacy of this tragedy will be, not a relatively minor but dramatic incident on the coast regarding nuclear power.
Gavin Greenwalt
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 7,614
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 39
It's a question of putting things in perspective. Radiation isn't good for you but below a certain point there is no evidence of increased cancer risk. And we're bombarded by radiation from numerous sources every day. Most of them natural. If my daily radiation dose increases by 0.000001% I don't care. Especially if that .00000001% increase in radiation has an otherwise beneficial result.
It's like banning tap water because a Tsunami drowned people. Scale is important. And over reacting to a non-threat can cause real harm to the ongoing relief effort and recovery. If 2 people die of thyroid cancer but can save dozens by keeping supplies flowing then it would be a worthy exchange. You have to put risk into perspective.
Joe G.
Well-known member
"So if it's between nuclear and coal. Your grossly overestimated number still doesn't even come close to Coal. "
Wow. I typed the word "coal?"
More dishonest arguments. That one's called the straw man.
I guess if you can ignore that upwards of 985,000 people died of cancer as a result of Chernobyl, and clear evidence that the WHO and IAEA have a deal to manage information pertaining to the nuclear industry, then it doesn't much matter. You are beyond rational argument, and therefore must resort to straw man and appeals to authority.
It's a bit odd that Japan is currently spewing plutonium, cesium and iodine radiation uncontrollably that you'd choose to go to bat for this obviously disgusting high risk industry. A large swath of Japan may become uninhabitable yet. The fish will have radioactive particles and this will enter the food chain and affect humans. People have no doubt breathed in radioactive isotopes, which will lead to lung cancers.
But, damn their industry's spin is so good you just can't argue with well constructed lies. (Well, you can, but certain segments are impervious).
Wow. I typed the word "coal?"
More dishonest arguments. That one's called the straw man.
I guess if you can ignore that upwards of 985,000 people died of cancer as a result of Chernobyl, and clear evidence that the WHO and IAEA have a deal to manage information pertaining to the nuclear industry, then it doesn't much matter. You are beyond rational argument, and therefore must resort to straw man and appeals to authority.
It's a bit odd that Japan is currently spewing plutonium, cesium and iodine radiation uncontrollably that you'd choose to go to bat for this obviously disgusting high risk industry. A large swath of Japan may become uninhabitable yet. The fish will have radioactive particles and this will enter the food chain and affect humans. People have no doubt breathed in radioactive isotopes, which will lead to lung cancers.
But, damn their industry's spin is so good you just can't argue with well constructed lies. (Well, you can, but certain segments are impervious).
Gavin Greenwalt
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 7,614
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 39
So far the only people who have died from this spew of radioactivity are the elderly and infirm who were evacuated and died from lack of adequate medical facilities enroute.
And no you didn't say coal but Japan needs electricity somehow. Unless you propose they stop using electricity in case someone gets cancer.
And no you didn't say coal but Japan needs electricity somehow. Unless you propose they stop using electricity in case someone gets cancer.
Joe G.
Well-known member
"You have to put risk into perspective. "
But evidently you don't.
There is no "safe" dose of radioactivity. This is a myth concocted to sell the industry. What the measurements reveal is the quantity of particles in a given volume of air.
It says nothing about where the particles end up. They are dangerous when they end up next to your DNA inside your body. This is random, and the measurements only tell us about the likelihood of particles entering your system. Nothing more. The way these arguments are presented by so-called experts and the useful idiots they have convinced is fundamentally wrong and dishonest.
Your false coal v. nuclear dichotomy is also fundamentally wrong and dishonest. So, forgive me for not trusting much of what you say at all.
There's enough wind energy to run the United States, but entrenched interests have so corrupted the government and the public mind that people would rather put their children's lives at risk of cancer.
That's immoral -- in the extreme.
But evidently you don't.
There is no "safe" dose of radioactivity. This is a myth concocted to sell the industry. What the measurements reveal is the quantity of particles in a given volume of air.
It says nothing about where the particles end up. They are dangerous when they end up next to your DNA inside your body. This is random, and the measurements only tell us about the likelihood of particles entering your system. Nothing more. The way these arguments are presented by so-called experts and the useful idiots they have convinced is fundamentally wrong and dishonest.
Your false coal v. nuclear dichotomy is also fundamentally wrong and dishonest. So, forgive me for not trusting much of what you say at all.
There's enough wind energy to run the United States, but entrenched interests have so corrupted the government and the public mind that people would rather put their children's lives at risk of cancer.
That's immoral -- in the extreme.
Gavin Greenwalt
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 7,614
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 39
Joe I'm a little afraid to tell you how much radiation you're exposed to every day for fear that you might over react and do something rash like move to the bottom of a salt mine.
http://xkcd.com/radiation/
There is no "safe" anything. There are "safer" things. And the radiation you receive is so minuscule that there are far more dangerous things (like getting hit in the head by a falling solar panel and dieing).
Mike 'Fireman' Ross
Well-known member
Wow.
"And Chernobyl? The latest UN report published on 28 February confirms the known death toll - 28 fatalities among emergency workers, plus 15 fatal cases of child thyroid cancer - which would have been avoided if iodine tablets had been taken..." - Wade Allison, nuclear and medical physicist at the University of Oxford
Bit of a disparity between that figure and yours. 43 vs. 985,000. How do you reconcile that? Where did you get your number from?
Absent some sources and data to support your extraordinary claim, you're looking like a kook.
Mike
Joe G.
Well-known member
"Bit of a disparity between that figure and yours. 43 vs. 985,000. How do you reconcile that? Where did you get your number from?
Absent some sources and data to support your extraordinary claim, you're looking like a kook."
It was the first link I posted. New York Academy of Sciences. There have been lots of conflicting numbers about Chernobyl. That UN number is total nonsense.
Absent some sources and data to support your extraordinary claim, you're looking like a kook."
It was the first link I posted. New York Academy of Sciences. There have been lots of conflicting numbers about Chernobyl. That UN number is total nonsense.
Oliver Skibbe
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2007
- Messages
- 136
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Berlin, Germany
- Website
- www.larger-than-life.de
“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein
Mike 'Fireman' Ross
Well-known member
There's no mention of that number in the link quoted, which is an abstract. If it's in the full text, then it's subscribers-only, or pay $150.
Mike
Joe G.
Well-known member
"The Chernobyl Union of Ukraine, a nongovernmental organization, estimates the present death toll from the disaster at almost 734,000."
-In Chernobyl, a disaster persists
March 21, 2011
The Moscow Times
If we're putting things into perspective, I haven't really gotten started. There's of course the waste that sits in pools, many of which are ready to ignite if water and circulation are lost. The spent pools are arguably a larger risk than the reactors and contain much more radioactive material. There is currently no way to dispose of this, and the costs are open ended for the rest of our civilization (maybe not too long).
Reactors are obvious terrorist targets and the number one national security threat there is. If they weren't sitting there ready to blow if a plane crashed into them, we'd all be better off.
As far as I'm concerned, there's more than enough case AGAINST nuclear that this really shouldn't be necessary.
I reject your premises. There are alternatives. We need to fund them with the many billions that go to subsidizing this criminal industry. Their right to spew hazards ends at my property line. I reject their right to pollute us with radioactive waste, period.
-In Chernobyl, a disaster persists
March 21, 2011
The Moscow Times
If we're putting things into perspective, I haven't really gotten started. There's of course the waste that sits in pools, many of which are ready to ignite if water and circulation are lost. The spent pools are arguably a larger risk than the reactors and contain much more radioactive material. There is currently no way to dispose of this, and the costs are open ended for the rest of our civilization (maybe not too long).
Reactors are obvious terrorist targets and the number one national security threat there is. If they weren't sitting there ready to blow if a plane crashed into them, we'd all be better off.
As far as I'm concerned, there's more than enough case AGAINST nuclear that this really shouldn't be necessary.
I reject your premises. There are alternatives. We need to fund them with the many billions that go to subsidizing this criminal industry. Their right to spew hazards ends at my property line. I reject their right to pollute us with radioactive waste, period.
Joe G.
Well-known member
"There's no mention of that number in the link quoted, which is an abstract. If it's in the full text, then it's subscribers-only, or pay $150. "
Try google. It's not a secret. The report will be challenged by some, of course. The actual numbers probably lie somewhere in the middle.
"The Belarus National Academy of Sciences estimates 270,000 people in the region around the accident site will develop cancer as a result of Chernobyl radiation and that 93,000 of those cases are likely to be fatal.
Another report by the Center for Independent Environmental Assessment of the Russian Academy of Sciences found a dramatic increase in mortality since 1990—60,000 deaths in Russia and an estimated 140,000 deaths in Ukraine and Belarus—probably due to Chernobyl radiation. "
-http://environment.about.com/od/chernobyl/p/chernobyl.htm
Try google. It's not a secret. The report will be challenged by some, of course. The actual numbers probably lie somewhere in the middle.
"The Belarus National Academy of Sciences estimates 270,000 people in the region around the accident site will develop cancer as a result of Chernobyl radiation and that 93,000 of those cases are likely to be fatal.
Another report by the Center for Independent Environmental Assessment of the Russian Academy of Sciences found a dramatic increase in mortality since 1990—60,000 deaths in Russia and an estimated 140,000 deaths in Ukraine and Belarus—probably due to Chernobyl radiation. "
-http://environment.about.com/od/chernobyl/p/chernobyl.htm