Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-01-2007, 03:10 PM   #51
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Philippe St. Marseille wrote: View Post
I'm not sure about what everyone here believes about global warming, but if you'll notice, nuclear plants make the least amount of emmisons, and waste, overall. You can look above in my first post and notice these measures. Or here, for solar vs nuclear
Surely, you're talking about the emission produced in the one-time production process: you can't be claiming that using solar cells on a day-to-day basis causes these emissions.

So you produce pollution while making solar cells, but after that they work free for twenty to thirty to fifty--100 years???? We don't know. But we do know that solar cells can go twenty to thirty years, operating continuously and producing zero emissions or pollution of any kind. So your figures sound like more industry slanted misinformation.

Many years ago, the electric power powers built a demo "solar home" to show how much less efficient solar is than other energy sources (possibly coal, possibly nuke). Here's how they did it: they took a mobile home--the least possible energy-efficient structure available--and used photovoltaic cells to power space heaters--the most energy-intensive form of home heating. It made solar energy look ridiculous.

Of course, photovoltaic is not the only or even the main use of solar energy. Number one is having an energy efficient home--like a monolithic dome:

http://www.monolithic.com

with good insulation and weatherproofing. Second is to heat air directly with solar energy--not convert the solar to electricity and then use space heaters to heat the air.

Then, for energy efficiency, live close to work, commute with more than one person in the car, drive an energy-efficient car and be efficient in its use.

But still, your analysis doesn't even address the radioactive elements produced in nuclear plants that, when they get into the environment, will dwarf every other kind of pollution known to humanity.

David

Last edited by David Orange : 08-01-2007 at 03:16 PM.

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 03:15 PM   #52
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
Do you realize that a nuclear explosion cannot result from the materials used in a nuclear power plant?

A meltdown would be quite a disaster, but unless there was a containment breach, which is extremely unlikely, even if a plant was hit by airplanes similar to what hit the towers on 9/11, it would almost entirely mostly be an economic disaster for the company who owns the plant.
Yet, what happened at Chernobyl???

It can't happen here....it can't happen here....

surely.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
Even then, the scope of the disaster would be nothing remotely like a nuclear device set off in a populated region, which I personally think is the far more likely danger we face and need to address.
Yet it would be bigger and deadlier than anyone wants to admit.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
Your 'fact' that the waste cannot be safely handled is based on what? The accidents that have occurred?
It's based on the nature of the nuclear waste, the nature of human beings, the nature of the profit motive and the political power motive. If you think this waste is being handled properly, think again. It's being handled the easiest and cheapest way the companies can get by with doing it. It's a recipe for disaster.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2007, 11:48 AM   #53
tarik
 
tarik's Avatar
Dojo: Iwae Dojo
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 538
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
Yet, what happened at Chernobyl???

It can't happen here....it can't happen here....

surely.
I agree. It can't. Surely. Do you know what happened at Chernobyl? What caused it? What could have prevented it? What kind of fail safes exist to prevent it (even in US plants of those days) and how they could possibly fail? I submit that you have no idea except for the theory that it is possible.

Quote:
Yet it would be bigger and deadlier than anyone wants to admit.
Based on what science? Offer me some real numbers, some real risk factors? The literature actually goes deep into the various dangers and issues and yet your arguments don't even touch on a discussion of them.

Equating a nuclear meltdown with an atomic bomb tells me you don't know the science. Any explosion that does occur in a nuclear plant will not be a nuclear explosion.

Quote:
It's based on the nature of the nuclear waste, the nature of human beings, the nature of the profit motive and the political power motive. If you think this waste is being handled properly, think again. It's being handled the easiest and cheapest way the companies can get by with doing it. It's a recipe for disaster.
You suggest moving money out of nuclear research and into solar. However, the ~600 million that was spent in 1999 (compared to the 327 million spent on renewable energy research) was almost ENTIRELY spent on research for how to safely deal with nuclear waste with only about 30 million (10% of what was spent on renewable energy) spent on researching new nuclear plants.

The waste research has been highly successful as using modern techniques, an average family of 4 over 20 years will generate only about enough low-level waste to fit into a shot glass and we know of numerous methods to dispose of it that will have minimal environmental impact. The remaining high-level is able reprocessed to be used again and the low-level waste has a much short time of danger to humanity, measured in the hundreds of years instead of thousands.

The technology has been successfully exported, and is proven, however, in the US, we are not allowed to reprocess current industrial waste in such a fashion because environmentalist organizations such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club won't allow the building of the necessary facilities nor even any attempts to safely dispose of existing waste which includes the dangerous elements you describe. IOW, we know how to reduce it and yet we are not allowed, because of political considerations.

Let me ask you this, how is it profitable for a company to pay the immense fines that are levied environmental contamination is discovered, particularly in light of public reaction?

How is it profitable for a company to allow a meltdown, which as extremely UNLIKELY as it is to cause environmental problems would basically cost them billions when they have to mothball the plant?

Now I certainly favor many of your suggestions for solar power, but I also know that it isn't as realistically practical as economical as leading proponents want it to be, and it's not because of any conspiracy as you suggest. However,

http://www.energy.gov/news/4503.htm

It's only beginning because my understanding is that efficiency needs to climb much higher to for solar power to become truly practical, but it's already happening, even in the evil Bush government. It just takes time. In the meantime, what will we do? because I am pretty sure that it's not actually in the suggested 2015 time frame that this stuff will become affordable on a production scale.

Should we keep burning coal and throwing billions of tons of uranium waste into the atmosphere? Additionally, this is a bigger theoretical contributor to global warming than pretty much any other single factor, yet we're building MORE of these plants.

I, for one, prefer the open market, with appropriate regulations for public safety where necessary. Nuclear energy is one of the most highly regulated systems, for obvious reasons, and it should be.

While I agree with many of the issues you bring up on the nature of human motivation and the need for renewable energy research, your preference for moving this topic to political and fear based arguments and lack of interest in understanding the scientific realities of nuclear energy suggest that this is a fruitless conversation for both of us.

Perhaps we should leave it and go back to discussing aikido which we seem to come closer to agreeing on although I confess, I usually haven't posted in the threads you have and I'm not sure I agree that aiki is found in a toddler's movements although I keep watching my daughter for signs of it while we play.

Regards,

Last edited by tarik : 08-02-2007 at 11:51 AM.

Tarik Ghbeish
Jiyūshin-ryū AikiBudō - Iwae Dojo

MASAKATSU AGATSU -- "The true victory of self-mastery."
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2007, 01:03 PM   #54
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
Hi Neil,

I thought you weren't going to post?
Hey Tarik...I thought that YOU didn't "get into these online debates?" Looks as if you and David are going for a 30-rounder.

Quote:
Tarik wrote:
Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
Tarik is right: radiation, in and of itself, is nothing to be afraid of.
Actually, that's not quite what I said.
No, but that's what you implied...

Quote:
Tarik wrote:
Come on now, let's not get personal. My wife likes my butt the way it is.
OK, if you're gonna beat me up with PUNS, now...*rolling up gi-sleeves:

Quote:
Tarik wrote:
Quote:
Neil wrote:
Nuclear power has been around since the early part of the 20th Century...when was the last time you've heard of a scientific breakthrough in nuclear storage or in reducing the waste that we've already stored?
There are plenty of breakthroughs that have occurred if you care to search them out.
Well, I COULD come back with, "Well, that just one opinion," if I were feeling snarky. But I'm not, so let's move on.

OK, fine. Plenty of breakthroughs in reducing waste, I'll grant (altho, I wonder if it's really "plenty"). But what about long term (as in, 10's of thousands of years) storage?

Nary a peep.

Quote:
Neil wrote:
All that waste, where's it going, and what guarantees do we have of its safe storage?

Quote:
Tarik wrote:
The great paranoia has aided in solving that problem because it has driven people to work for years to address it. Of course, to some, there is no solution that is 'good enough'. The opposition to Yucca Mountain is a great example.
That's right...no solution IS "good enough." You can develop the highest possible nuclear technology and state-of-the-art storage facilities, and you still have problems.

Know why? It's not in the labs of the scientists; nor is it in the actual operation of the plant (at least, not at first). It's in the hands of the corporation which holds the keys, the fellows whose first concern is in the bottom line.

And this is my central point to responding. The technology has long been in the hands of corporations who have proven that they don't care about safety concerns. They'll leap over OSHA, shortcut around safety guidelines, use cheap and unsafe materials if it cuts the cost. And then there's the economic racism to consider: ie, where they decide to build the plants.

Quote:
Tarik wrote:
I think we can all agree that irresponsible behavior is undesirable and should be prevented and punished. Using examples from the very infancy of the industry when this stuff was significantly less understood and during wartime and also that everyone, including the nuclear industry, now agrees was irresponsible behavior seems a bit off track, even if you are a proponent of the profit motive being ultimately a purely irresponsbile one.
Great. Let's just forget all about the past, focus upon the present. The trouble is that the past is leaking into the ground: and the present seems to be run by the same people...only with a better PR firm.

Quote:
Tarik wrote:
Actually, they store it because the anti-nuclear lobby will not allow them to re-process it to make it safer or transport it to long term storage facilities. There are MANY approaches that have been considered and many of them actually are practical.
Riight. It's all the fault of the anti-nuclear lobby that's held back the science of the glories of nuclear power.

Now, where have I heard this song before?

Quote:
Tarik wrote:
Perhaps you should visit the websites already offered and read about the ongoing research that has been taking place for many years. Most of the ones I posted were government run research facilities.
Perhaps I should. I'll admit I'm a little behind the research on the latest.

But, working in the classifieds department of a major newspaper for more than 5 years taught me a lot about attempted scams. You see, most scams are not new...just a new spin on an old game.

You start to see patterns after awhile. Global warming, nuclear power, GMO's, NAFTA...all these issues follow a pattern, within public discourse. As these issues enter into the national dialogue, PR firms and lobbyists work overtime to spin the "good news" that is coming down the pike (BTW, the term "junk science" emerged from those same PR firms.

Remember how GMO's were going to solve world hunger, a few years' ago? Or how NAFTA would create jobs and enforce environmental reg's? All lies, spun from PR machines.

Now, we have the "experts" telling us how nuclear power will be the next "big answer" to the power-question.

Uh huh. Maybe...anything's possible. But, I imagine that many of those "experts" are more interested in the wishes of their employers, than they are in saving the planet. Call me cynical, but fool me once....well, to quote Bush's misquoting...we won't get fooled again!

Quote:
Tarik wrote:
I'm not a fan of nuclear weapons, certainly, but tell that last to Japan and France, both of whom are nearly 90% on nuclear power at this time.
And this means that they're doing the right thing, because countries ALWAYS operate in their own self-interest...uh huh.
When Japan meets its next major earthquake, we'll talk. Till then, we can only hope that I'm wrong.

Quote:
Tarik wrote:
Facts about physics are available regardless of qualifications. I believe Mark's point was that they should be sought out, particularly when making such momentous decisions regarding human life and our ecology. Informed decisions are always best, are they not?
They are, but this...

Quote:
Mark Murray wrote:
Heh, all you nuclear physicists, hold your hand up. Well, go on, people. You know that you want to. You want to be that expert on Cyberspace who knows everything. Those of you who have worked at a nuclear power plant, hold your hand up. Those who have had dealings with the NRC, go ahead.

Instead of trying to politicize everything, how about real answers with scientific research or facts?
sounds more like an exhortation to just "shut up and listen" to the so-called experts, rather than debate the issues (and BTW, Mark: the ones I REALLY worry about are those who attempt to de-politicize what are very political questions).

Quote:
Tarik wrote:
Quote:
Neil wrote:
I suppose that Mark would pooh-pooh the good works of Helen Caldicott, founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility.

www.helencaldicott.com
I would. I believe she is well intentioned, but her facts are simply faulty, founded in emotions and junk science, and I'm frankly disappointed that an MD, who should understand the scientific method doesn't apply it.
It's been awhile since I've read Caldicott's books (over 20years). Perhaps she IS off in her recent writings: certainly worth a look.

Quote:
Tarik wrote:
Here's a rebuttal from a physics student who deliberately leaves out supporting references from the nuclear industry in his critical analysis and commentary.

http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/%7Elweston/nuclear.pdf

I offer it so that everyone can read both points of view and make their own conclusions.
A rebuttal, which by his own definition, is incomplete. I would definitely be interested in Caldicott's reply…but for now, this is secondary source material, at best.

When he publishes it, well: that's a different story.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2007, 01:21 PM   #55
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Philippe St. Marseille wrote: View Post
First of all, Nuclear power plants are not as dangerous as you'd think. There are two types of uranium, a weapons grade type with a very short half life, and a non volitile type with a very long half life. The type used in power plants is, naturally, the non volitile type. The only thing that this type of uranium can do is make water steam. Thats it. It is also a common misconception that if someone tries to blow the plant, it will cause a radical volitile, explosion of deadly radiation that will kill everything on its path. At Cherynobl, the only people who died or were affected in a negative way were those inside the plant and those in the immidiate area. As a matter of fact, research shows that those were were out of the killzone actually benefitted.
Source?

Quote:
There is a theory called hormesis that is accepted by society and you may not even know it. Ever heard of drinking a small amount of wine can help you? Getting 15 minutes of sun a day will cause vitamin c to produce in your body, but if you get too much, you get a sunburn. The same is true with radiation. A certain amount helps you, a little more doesnt affect you at all, and too much harms you.
This is not an accepted theory by the general scientific community.

Hormesis

Quote:
wikipedia wrote:
Radiation hormesis is the theory that ionizing radiation is benign at low levels of exposure, and that doses at the level of natural background radiation can be beneficial. This is in contrast to the linear no threshold model which posits that the negative health effects of ionizing radiation are proportional to the dose. The scientific consensus is not to accept radiation hormesis, despite a few papers to the contrary. The disagreement arises partly because very low doses of radiation have relatively small impacts on individual health outcomes. It is therefore difficult to detect the 'signal' of decreased or increased morbidity and mortality due to low-level radiation exposure in the 'noise' of other effects.

Radiation hormesis has been rejected by both the United States National Research Council (part of the National Academy of Sciences)[1] and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (a body commissioned by the United States Congress).[2] In addition, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Ionizing Radiation (UNSCEAR) wrote in its most recent report [3]

Until the [...] uncertainties on low-dose response are resolved, the Committee believes that an increase in the risk of tumour induction proportionate to the radiation dose is consistent with developing knowledge and that it remains, accordingly, the most scientifically defensible approximation of low-dose response. However, a strictly linear dose response should not be expected in all circumstances.
Quote:
The people outside of the blast zone during Hiroshima, etc... have benefitted! they have longer life spans, healthier bodies, etc...
And the study where you learned this fact is,,,,?

Quote:
Ever been to a radiation spa? They have a few all over the world, even in the USA. They are natural areas of extremely high amounts of radiation, easily 100 times over the amount for recommended exposure by the government. People have gone for treatment and have had disease and ailments removed at a rapid rate.
Uh huh. In googling "radiation spa," I only found about 40 hits...NONE of them having to do with places that offer therapeutic treatments with radiation.

But hey! Send me $20 and you can have a sample of my patented "Instacure-all Radiation Pellet!" (TM)

Two doses a day will cure anything!

Warts, rabies, excess facial hair, acne, too many teeth, excess bloodclotting...

Quote:
So, does this mean we should try to eradicate all radiation from the world? The funny thing is, our own bodies produce more radiation that that of the granite in Grand central Station.
Come on...fess up: this is a joke post, right? I can spot em a mile away...

Quote:
Switching to Nuclear power would supply political parties, citezens and the government with all of their needs, with more efficiancy and ease.
Yeah, nuclear power is our next great savior. Just ask any rep that they send you...he'll readily agree!

PS (BTW, the term "junk science" originally emerged from those same PR firms to discredit the scientific findings that they didn't like.

It all came down to the "precautionary principle" advocated by unbiased scientists and safety advocates, versus the "acceptable risk" principle advocated by the lobbyists, corporations and their scientist lackeys.

In short, the precautionary principle uses the same reasoning as when you cross the street...ie, it's better to look both ways before crossing. Acceptable risk suggests that the precautions are overblown, that we really can play "closer to the red-zone" if we like.

I highly recommend "Trust Us, We're Experts," for more).

Last edited by Neil Mick : 08-02-2007 at 01:31 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2007, 01:35 PM   #56
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
I agree. It can't. Surely. Do you know what happened at Chernobyl? What caused it? What could have prevented it? What kind of fail safes exist to prevent it (even in US plants of those days) and how they could possibly fail? I submit that you have no idea except for the theory that it is possible.
That and my lawman friend, named Murphy. Again, I point you to NASA, the most redundantly "safe" agency in the US, not operated for profit and with no reason to cut corners. Yet they have had two really major disasters. My theory is not that "it's possible" but that we are bound for some kind of major disaster involving an explosion at a plant, a release of radioactive material, an accident with waste or some other kind of deadly event that will happen because of financial greed and short-sightedness.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
Based on what science? Offer me some real numbers, some real risk factors? The literature actually goes deep into the various dangers and issues and yet your arguments don't even touch on a discussion of them.
Yeah. I didn't read all the risk factors for shuttle flights, either. Of course, if we "read the literature," we would have believed that the Iraqis would greet us with flowers and thanks when we invaded. And if that literature were true, Iraq would now be suitable for nuclear power plants.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
Equating a nuclear meltdown with an atomic bomb tells me you don't know the science. Any explosion that does occur in a nuclear plant will not be a nuclear explosion.
I didn't say it would be a nuclear explosion or equate a meltdown with a nuclear bomb. My point was that, as nuclear bombs have grown in yield, nuclear plants are also far more heavyweight than they used to be and "safeguards" notwithstanding, far more dangerous.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
You suggest moving money out of nuclear research and into solar. However, the ~600 million that was spent in 1999 (compared to the 327 million spent on renewable energy research) was almost ENTIRELY spent on research for how to safely deal with nuclear waste with only about 30 million (10% of what was spent on renewable energy) spent on researching new nuclear plants.
And for the same money, they could have outfitted thousands of buildings with solar equipment that would still be producing free and non-polluting electricity, heat and hot water. There's no need to "research" how to deal with the waste from solar energy uses.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
The waste research has been highly successful as using modern techniques, an average family of 4 over 20 years will generate only about enough low-level waste to fit into a shot glass and we know of numerous methods to dispose of it that will have minimal environmental impact. The remaining high-level is able reprocessed to be used again and the low-level waste has a much short time of danger to humanity, measured in the hundreds of years instead of thousands.
Yeah....if we can just keep it out of terrorists' hands for hundreds of years....and if we can just keep it from being released by some natural disaster or profit-caused accident.....Officer Murphy is shaking his head. Only hundreds of years, huh???? Officer Murphy has his head in his hands.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
Let me ask you this, how is it profitable for a company to pay the immense fines that are levied environmental contamination is discovered, particularly in light of public reaction?
Compared to the profits they've raked in through monopolies and having successfully prevented people from getting off the grid in the mega-thousands? Compared to the corporate welfare they've received for decades and are slated to receive for the long-foreseeable future? And then you have to figure in what executive is gambling that all this wil hit the fan after he's leapt with his golden parachute....

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
Now I certainly favor many of your suggestions for solar power, but I also know that it isn't as realistically practical as economical as leading proponents want it to be, and it's not because of any conspiracy as you suggest.
????

Once you put the cells up, there is no more cost, no more pollution, very little maintenance and a lifespan of at least thirty years and probably more like 100 years. There are no moving parts.

How is "free" and "non-polluting" and "permanent" anything but realistically practical? What do they use for every satelite in orbit? What do they use on the space shuttle? It's all solar-powered and they have never found a lifespan for the cells. They just go on and on and on.

Now what but a cabal of thieves, led by Dick'em Cheney and Ken Lay would have led the populace to believe that photovoltaic cells are not "realistically practical"?

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
It's only beginning because my understanding is that efficiency needs to climb much higher to for solar power to become truly practical...
Again, you manufacture it and from then on it provides free electricity that produces no pollution and will go on, even on cloudy days, for decades at the very least. Even at 10%, that's a deal. But the current efficiency is around 25% and as you point out, it's going up. But it's highly practical now.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
....it's already happening, even in the evil Bush government. It just takes time. In the meantime, what will we do? because I am pretty sure that it's not actually in the suggested 2015 time frame that this stuff will become affordable on a production scale.
No, it was actually around 1975.

But when you consider that a great deal of "evil" comes from utter stupidity, there's no need to put quotes around the "evil" in "the 'evil' Bush government." If Dub and Dick'em were making their money from solar energy, you would be reading this headline today:

"Bush Urges Congress to Support Solar Advancement Initiative
plan would fire nuclear missiles at sun to boost efficiency of sun's output"

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
Should we keep burning coal and throwing billions of tons of uranium waste into the atmosphere? Additionally, this is a bigger theoretical contributor to global warming than pretty much any other single factor, yet we're building MORE of these plants.
Ever heard of net metering? If you have solar cells on your house and you generate more electricity than you're using, the excess feeds back into the power grid, your meter runs backward and the power company can actually end up paying you. That cuts down on coal-generation of electricity. That's a system that cannot be disrupted or exploited by terrorists. If you had such systems on every house, public building, industrial site and business in the US, (even at 25% "efficiency") how much coal use would that prevent?

But, no. That's not as practical as building a multi-billion-dollar highly-poisonous plant that will have to be shut down in about 30 years. Those photovoltaics would still be converting sunlight into electricity decades later.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
I, for one, prefer the open market, with appropriate regulations for public safety where necessary. Nuclear energy is one of the most highly regulated systems, for obvious reasons, and it should be.
And it's an absolutely unnecessary market, but it's the one Dick'em and Dub will subsidize and support because you can charge the common man for his electricity that way and if he gets solar cells, you can't charge him anymore.

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
While I agree with many of the issues you bring up on the nature of human motivation and the need for renewable energy research, your preference for moving this topic to political and fear based arguments and lack of interest in understanding the scientific realities of nuclear energy suggest that this is a fruitless conversation for both of us.
Yeah. I know. When you stack the poisonous-for-millenia nuclear material (and the potential for terrorist use and attack) against clean, free, permanent energy, and the poison wins, it's crazy to think it could be because of politics of paid-off government officials. It makes more sense to go with the poison because the clean, free and permanent source isn't practical.

David

Last edited by David Orange : 08-02-2007 at 01:44 PM.

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2007, 03:01 PM   #57
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
Offer me some real numbers, some real risk factors? The literature actually goes deep into the various dangers and issues and yet your arguments don't even touch on a discussion of them.
What are the risks of a "properly inspected" bridge collapsing while full of afternoon traffic? What are the risks of a US Federal Government agency approving a drug for weight loss or arthritis without recognizing that it will cause heart attacks?

You see, the literature deals with these risks on an abstract level assuming that everyone who's supposed to do something will actually do it and will do it honestly and fairly.

But we see that they don't.

The people responsible for nuclear safety are unlikely to be "better" than those who oversaw the safety of the space shuttles or those who inspected the bridge in Minneapolis.

Why pack our country with closets full of the deadliest poisons known to humanity at all?

But to do it and claim that alternatives just don't really exist is insane.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2007, 03:16 PM   #58
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

And another thing you failed to address in your response to me, Tarik (I nearly missed it): you just pooh-pooh'd Helen Caldicott offhand, without addressing the central thesis.

So far, both David and my arguments lay mostly in distrust of the regulatory bodies and the companies operating the power plant.

But, you totally fail to consider the environmental impacts of mining and milling the stuff:

URANIUM MINING AND THE NUCLEAR FUEL CHAIN

Quote:
Uranium mining is referred to in industry jargon as the "front end" of the nuclear industry. This is because uranium mining is commonly regarded as the first link in the nuclear fuel chain, even though it is preceded by exploration. The nuclear fuel chain is the sequence of interdependent opera-tions involved in producing nuclear weapons, uranium ammunition, fuel for nuclear electricity generation, and radioactive isotopes for medical and industrial purposes. Civil and military aspects of the fuel chain are so inter-dependent that it is impossible to completely separate them. However, some medical and industrial radio-active isotopes can be produced by particle accelerators, which are not based on uranium fuel and not connected to nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons production.

Whether regarded primarily civil or military, the nuclear fuel chain requires conversion of uranium from one chemical form to another and transportation involving great distances. The nuclear fuel chain is more technically complex, capital intensive, time consuming, and dangerous than the production process for other forms of energy. These attributes of the nuclear fuel chain are the reason why there is no nation that operates its nuclear industry entirely within its own borders. The few nations possessing the resources (natural, financial, and human) to do so have chosen not to for many reasons, not the least being to minimize local risks such as contamination from uranium mining and weapons testing.

Uranium mining cannot take place without catastrophically effecting the immediate surrounding environment. Wastes produced from uranium mining include: overburden material, ore grading too low to be milled, pit and mine shaft water, runoff from precipitation, and dust. Uranium mills are usually located close to uranium mines to minimize ore transport costs. Thus, uranium mill wastes are usually near uranium mines.

Uranium miners can die of cancer and contract serious lung diseases as a direct result of working in uranium mines. Further, in many places in the world uranium mining, like mining of many other minerals, takes place on land that was traditionally used by Indigenous people. This has often been the cause of serious conflict.

Uranium milling is the removal of uranium from ore, accomplished by crushing the rock, grinding it down to a fine sand, and mixing it with large amounts of water and chemicals.

There is usually at least twice as much liquid waste produced in the milling process as tailings. Accidental release of the liquid and solid wastes from their retention barriers is common. Liquid wastes have a greater impact on the surrounding environment than solid wastes as they can carry contamination great distances via streams, rivers and lakes. The radio-nuclei and heavy metals in the wastes can accumulate in plants and animals downstream to levels thousands of times the surrounding water concen-tration. This contamination can eventually find its way to people.
I noticed that you also failed to respond to the wondrous byproducts of nuclear waste (putting nuclear proliferation aside for the moment): irradiated food (offering up an entirely unnecessary sterilization technology, but definitely a new means for nuclear waste to get foisted off to the Dept of Agriculture); and my big fave weapon promoting peace...that fuzzmaker of weapons categories: "depleted" uranium (or dU). Is it a nuclear, or conventional, weapon? Ah, the circles that the US govt likes to dance, around THAT one...

But putting that quandary aside for a moment, there is a causal link between use of dU and a rise (6-9x) in leukemia rates, in Iraq. And don't hold your breath on waiting for the Pentagon to recompense the victims...they're still trying to deny the effects of Agent Orange, in US vets.

It seems to me that if we want to get rid of nuclear weapons or misuses of nuclear waste (as I think dU is), then it's only logical that we need to stop producing it. Which, until fusion reactors come about (if they ever will. I think they're a pipedream...pardon the pun), can mean only one thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2007, 07:18 PM   #59
tarik
 
tarik's Avatar
Dojo: Iwae Dojo
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 538
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
No, but that's what you implied...
What I intended to convey was that fear of radiation is overblown. And it is. Very.

Quote:
OK, if you're gonna beat me up with PUNS, now...*rolling up gi-sleeves:


Quote:
Well, I COULD come back with, "Well, that just one opinion," if I were feeling snarky. But I'm not, so let's move on.
You just did. It's more than one opinion.

Quote:
OK, fine. Plenty of breakthroughs in reducing waste, I'll grant (altho, I wonder if it's really "plenty"). But what about long term (as in, 10's of thousands of years) storage?

Nary a peep.
Clearly you did not actually read the material. Yes, breakthroughs in a variety of approaches that can reduce the waste to similar levels found in mines where we're getting the radioactive material in the first place.

Quote:
That's right...no solution IS "good enough."
For you.

Quote:
Perhaps I should. I'll admit I'm a little behind the research on the latest.
I'd love it if you argued from a position of scientific research. I'd love it if you demonstrated that the science I've offered in links was not true. But neither you and David have offered many measurable facts, just feelings, sarcasm, and snarkiness (to use your own term).

Instead you immediately attack politicians, scientists, propagandists, resort to "Murphy's Law", and so on. Easy targets all because your right, there is corruption and bad actors involved in all these industries.

Maybe you're right, I'm willing to consider it and take your points seriously when you offer them, but I don't see the same in return. You offer no actual refutation of the actual science, of the numbers, of the procedures put in place and you make

Quote:
But, working in the classifieds department of a major newspaper for more than 5 years taught me a lot about attempted scams. You see, most scams are not new...just a new spin on an old game.

You start to see patterns after awhile.
This is called arguing by changing the subject.

Quote:
When Japan meets its next major earthquake, we'll talk. Till then, we can only hope that I'm wrong.
They had a 6.9 last week.

Quote:
When he publishes it, well: that's a different story.
His sources ARE published. Take them seriously; refute them directly if you care to.

Quote:
Quote:
So, does this mean we should try to eradicate all radiation from the world? The funny thing is, our own bodies produce more radiation that that of the granite in Grand central Station.
Come on...fess up: this is a joke post, right? I can spot em a mile away...
This is true, but misleading the radioactivity of granite is so variable depending on it's origin. Exposure to employees who spend an average 8 hours/day in Grand Central station are exposed to about 120 mrem/year.

Sleeping next to someone for 8 hours/day exposes you to 2 mrems which comes to 730 mrems/year assuming you sleep beside your partner every night.

It's a silly comparison since I can find measurements of the radioactivity of granite that are higher than the human body as well, but it certainly makes the point that radiation is not a thing to be feared irrationally.

Another interesting example would be that commercial airline pilots get far more radiation exposure than people who work in the nuclear industry. But let's not let facts into the discussion.

It's not the 'most poisonous thing known to mankind', although it is perhaps the most reviled thing in the modern day. We seem to have a guilty conscious.

Quote:
I noticed that you also failed to respond to the wondrous byproducts of nuclear waste (putting nuclear proliferation aside for the moment): irradiated food (offering up an entirely unnecessary sterilization technology
Neil, I didn't bother to respond because you cannot show me a single qualitative or quantitative study that demonstrates that 'irradiated' food is a problem. When you can, we have a basis for a discussion.

Quote:
But putting that quandary aside for a moment, there is a causal link between use of dU and a rise (6-9x) in leukemia rates, in Iraq.
Who did the work? That must be really amazing science there, particularly considering that the WHO has yet to find (although they're still expecting it and looking for it) an increased rate of leukemia in relocated Chernobyl refugees.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/.../en/index.html

They did manage to find a causal link to some additional cases of thyroid cancer, about 9 of which were fatal. It's tragic, but hardly the horror that I'm led to believe by your and David's reactions.

Where is your outrage for the 40+ thousand victims of automobile accidents that occur every year? Wouldn't public transit prevent those deaths, and also reduce the pollution that contributes to global warming?

That may sound sarcastic, but honestly, I'm very interested in knowing why we are outraged by a technology that by the worst numbers available has killed fewer people than are killed every year by transportation that could be made safer.

Regards,

Tarik Ghbeish
Jiyūshin-ryū AikiBudō - Iwae Dojo

MASAKATSU AGATSU -- "The true victory of self-mastery."
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2007, 07:39 PM   #60
tarik
 
tarik's Avatar
Dojo: Iwae Dojo
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 538
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
I didn't say it would be a nuclear explosion or equate a meltdown with a nuclear bomb. My point was that, as nuclear bombs have grown in yield, nuclear plants are also far more heavyweight than they used to be and "safeguards" notwithstanding, far more dangerous.
Hmmm... you said :
Quote:
Why is that a problem? Hiroshima and Nagasaki were attacked with the two earliest nuclear weapons on earth. Look at a chart of sizes of blast yields today. Hiroshima/Nagasaki-sized blasts are little pinheads compared to the yields of bombs developed only twenty years later. If you managed to blow up a nuclear reactor??? I don't doubt that the toll would be thousands at the very least.
Yep.. sounds like what you said to me.

Quote:
????

Once you put the cells up, there is no more cost, no more pollution, very little maintenance and a lifespan of at least thirty years and probably more like 100 years. There are no moving parts.

How is "free" and "non-polluting" and "permanent" anything but realistically practical? What do they use for every satelite in orbit? What do they use on the space shuttle? It's all solar-powered and they have never found a lifespan for the cells. They just go on and on and on.
This is a fallacious argument. There are no free lunches. The economy of solar power is not where it's at due to government or industry blockage. I know that's a popular thing to say, but it just isn't true.

Current practical lifespan is about 25-30 years before the panels break due to corrosion or produce power levels low enough that they need to be replaced. They do need maintenance and they do need to be replaced about as often as a roof does.

Manufacture of the panels is also one of the dirtiest industries around (I'm in the periphery of it in the computer field) and there is a worldwide shortage of silicon that is restricting growth.

Comparing the efficiency of panels used in orbit with terrestrial models is another mistake. Commercial production currently produces at best 20% efficiency for most terrestrial panels. Better experimental technology certainly exists, but is not yet available commercially and there is no definite date as to when it will be available.

You talk about the government keeping us down, yet when I put solar panels on my home, the government will rebate me nearly half the cost or more. I just don't see the same conspiracies that you do. If you like Murphy's law so much, perhaps you should look at Occam's Razor.

Quote:
Yeah. I didn't read all the risk factors for shuttle flights, either.
I didn't realize you were opposed to the shuttle program.

Quote:
Of course, if we "read the literature," we would have believed that the Iraqis would greet us with flowers and thanks when we invaded. And if that literature were true, Iraq would now be suitable for nuclear power plants.
David, that is pure bs and a meaningless way to argue. You are saying nothing of value to your get your point across.

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
The people responsible for nuclear safety are unlikely to be "better" than those who oversaw the safety of the space shuttles or those who inspected the bridge in Minneapolis.
The great thing if there's anything about TMI was that it failed to meltdown despite human foolishness because of the design of the plant. Fail safes were in place that could not be disabled by humans for the very reasons and concerns you mention.

Quote:
Why pack our country with closets full of the deadliest poisons known to humanity at all?
I maintain that they are not the deadliest. I offer proof (go read the material in the links and refute it if you wish).

Quote:
But to do it and claim that alternatives just don't really exist is insane.
I quite agree, that would be insane. I've not suggested it. In fact, you seem to be insisting that only your alternative is acceptable.

Regards,

Tarik Ghbeish
Jiyūshin-ryū AikiBudō - Iwae Dojo

MASAKATSU AGATSU -- "The true victory of self-mastery."
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2007, 09:07 PM   #61
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
Clearly you did not actually read the material. Yes, breakthroughs in a variety of approaches that can reduce the waste to similar levels found in mines where we're getting the radioactive material in the first place.
Yes, clearly. Guess what? I've got a life outside of this computer; with only 24 hours in a day to use, not counting sleep.

Does this mean that my opinion is null and void, on the subject?

I believe I made the point of my lack of reading, quite readily. No need to get touchy...

Quote:
Tarik wrote:
Quote:
Neil wrote:
That's right...no solution IS "good enough."
For you.
Yeah...for me, and for many, many others who are not quite "convinced" by the latest round of experts. Nooooo, we made NOT have read all the wondrous discoveries, suspect as we are by all the dubious claims in the past, but please!

Hurt us not...for we mean you no harm.

I think you miss the point of the debate, here. I'm not trying to "prove you wrong:" merely to add to the equation (as I pointed out, from the beginning).

Quote:
I'd love it if you argued from a position of scientific research. I'd love it if you demonstrated that the science I've offered in links was not true. But neither you and David have offered many measurable facts, just feelings, sarcasm, and snarkiness (to use your own term).
Ah. This is what I believe is called "scientific elitism." My concerns about the industry are null and void, unless I present scientific data.

Hmm.

Quote:
Instead you immediately attack politicians, scientists, propagandists, resort to "Murphy's Law", and so on.
"Murphy's Law???" I never mentioned Murphy's Law.

Quote:
Easy targets all because your right, there is corruption and bad actors involved in all these industries.
Nice of you to finally acknowledge that. There now, THAT wasn't so hard, was it?

Add a little corruption in this industry, a few small mistakes, and it ultimately means problems with many factors higher than corruption in normal industries.

Quote:
Maybe you're right, I'm willing to consider it and take your points seriously when you offer them, but I don't see the same in return.
Garbage, Tarik...I owned up that my knowledge is hazy...what more do you want?? A book report?

Quote:
You offer no actual refutation of the actual science, of the numbers, of the procedures put in place and you make
That's right, because I am not "refuting" the science: I'm adding to it. Sorry you feel so defensive about my additions.

Quote:
Tarik wrote:
Quote:
Neil wrote:
But, working in the classifieds department of a major newspaper for more than 5 years taught me a lot about attempted scams. You see, most scams are not new...just a new spin on an old game.

You start to see patterns after awhile.
This is called arguing by changing the subject.
This is called mislabelling a build-up.

Quote:
Tarik wrote:
Quote:
Neil wrote:
When Japan meets its next major earthquake, we'll talk. Till then, we can only hope that I'm wrong.
They had a 6.9 last week.
Proving my point, exactly. Thank you.

Nuclear crisis in Japan as scientists reveal quake threat to power plants

Quote:
The world's biggest nuclear power station stands directly above an active earthquake faultline, which provoked an atomic spill this week, seismologists revealed yesterday.

In 2005, fearing the effects of a large quake, a group of residents fought to have Kashiwazaki's license to build a new reactor revoked. The Tokyo High Court rejected the plaintiffs' claim
(because they couldn't provide enough scientific data, no doubt)

Quote:
that an active fault ran under the station, concluding that what the residents thought was an active fault "did not even amount to a fault and could not cause a quake".
Close enough...he challenged them on their grasp of understanding physical reality.

Hmm...yes, a pattern IS emerging...

Quote:
Atomic experts said yesterday that the discovery may dramatically challenge the safety of the entire atomic energy supply in Japan and that as many as a third of the country's 55 nuclear power stations might have to be suspended until they were made sufficiently quake-proof to be restarted.
Oh, but it's all good! We'll just quake-proof em, and everything will be hunky dory! Why, every San Franciscan can TELL you that quakeproofing is 100% guaranteed, against earthquakes, right?

[quote=Tarik]
Quote:
Neil wrote:
When he publishes it, well: that's a different story.
Quote:
His sources ARE published. Take them seriously; refute them directly if you care to.
Really, Tarik: you should read my comments a little more closely. I said, When he publishes it," meaning, when he publishes the work...not the sources.

By his own contention, it's a work in progress. Something like this should be published in a scientific journal: give Dr. Caldicott a chance to rebut. It's unfinished, by his own admission.

Quote:
Sleeping next to someone for 8 hours/day exposes you to 2 mrems which comes to 730 mrems/year assuming you sleep beside your partner every night.
Hmm...wonder what Deborah will say when I break the news...

Quote:
Another interesting example would be that commercial airline pilots get far more radiation exposure than people who work in the nuclear industry. But let's not let
Anyone else's but your

Quote:
facts into the discussion.
It's not the 'most poisonous thing known to mankind', although it is perhaps the most reviled thing in the modern day. We seem to have a guilty conscious.

Quote:
Neil, I didn't bother to respond because you cannot show me a single qualitative or quantitative study that demonstrates that 'irradiated' food is a problem. When you can, we have a basis for a discussion.
You see? You choose to ignore a line of discussion because you require a specific factoid for the discussion to proceed. Hello? I didn't say that it was a "problem:" I said it was "unnecessary."

But since your eyes will hurt unless I pull out the right factoid, here ya go:

"Report on the Examination of the Results Obtained by National Institute of Nutrition(NIN), Hyderabed and Bhahba Atomic Research Centre(BARC), Bombay of their studies on the Effects of Freshly Irradiated Wheat on Lymphocytes in Vitro from Malnourished Children, the Cytology of Bone Marrow of Rats and Mice, Meiotic Chromosomes in Male Mice, Germ Cell Survival in Male Mice and Rats and Dominant Lethal Mutations in Rats and Mice."

That's one. I found lists for more, but they were not linked (ie, online, and therefore I don't include them).

But that's the point, isn't it? Unless I find scientific evidence that food irradiation could be problematic: well there's no point at discussion anymore, is there?

How sad.

Quote:
Who did the work? That must be really amazing science there, particularly considering that the WHO has yet to find (although they're still expecting it and looking for it) an increased rate of leukemia in relocated Chernobyl refugees.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/.../en/index.html

They did manage to find a causal link to some additional cases of thyroid cancer, about 9 of which were fatal. It's tragic, but hardly the horror that I'm led to believe by your and David's reactions.
dU does not = Chernobyl.

Different isotopes...hello?

So, let me see if I have this down correctly. The gist of your argument is that if I cannot provide CONCLUSIVE PROOF that the dU is DIRECTLY TIED to increase of leukemia in Iraq: well then I must assume that the dU has nothing to do with it...even tho the increases coincide with the US invasion (and...I believe, there were spikes in leukemia rates in Gulf War 1, if wikipedia is to be believed.

Quote:
Following the first gulf war, scientists at the Basra hospital and university have monitored the incidence of leukaemias and other malignancies among children in the Basra area, and of congenital malformations in newborn children. The data for the period 1990--2001 show an incidence increase of 426% for general malignancies, 366% for leukemias and of over 600% for birth defects, with all series showing a roughly increasing pattern with time. These data, being the largest set of epidemiological data available for the Iraqi population, have received considerable attention; and since it reported a very large increase in those pathologies which are known or strongly suspected to be related to uranium poisoning, it has been natural to consider the possibility that such increase had indeed been caused by depleted uranium contamination.
(admittedly, the data isn't conclusive)

I dunno, Tarik: you set too high a bar for open discussion. But, we can agree to disagree. As I said, I just came on here to add an aviso...I really wan't expecting a Spanish Inquisition!

Quote:
Where is your outrage for the 40+ thousand victims of automobile accidents that occur every year?
In the forum entitled, "Cars: the Greatest Invention Since the Paintbrush. Safe, Reliable, and Your Best Friend"

Quote:
Wouldn't public transit prevent those deaths, and also reduce the pollution that contributes to global warming?
Right with you, 100%. But, I believe this is referred to as...

wait for it...

Changing the subject.

(shazam!)

Quote:
That may sound sarcastic, but honestly, I'm very interested in knowing why we are outraged by a technology that by the worst numbers available has killed fewer people than are killed every year by transportation that could be made safer.

Regards,
Because the potential deaths of this technology, misused, would far outweigh the deaths of other technologies.

We have an epidemic of cancer throughout the world, and that's only increasing. Must I pull out scientific studies to prove that there's a causal link btw our use of nuclear technology: or will you accept that there is empirical evidence to suggest a likely link btw the two.

Even scientists begin with intuition.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2007, 09:32 AM   #62
tarik
 
tarik's Avatar
Dojo: Iwae Dojo
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 538
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
Yes, clearly. Guess what? I've got a life outside of this computer; with only 24 hours in a day to use, not counting sleep.

Does this mean that my opinion is null and void, on the subject?

I believe I made the point of my lack of reading, quite readily. No need to get touchy...
I'm not touchy at all, I'm picky. We all have the right to our opinions, Neil. Personally, I am interested only in informed opinions that can be backed up with facts.

I'm ok with opinions not agreeing with mine, because, even when backed up with facts, we can disagree about how to do things and I can respect that contrary opinion. But when not backed up with facts, you're right in guessing that I don't respect that opinion.

Talk to me another day with another person, and you might find me apparently arguing against nuclear power, but what I'm really arguing against is arguments that are made that assert incorrect facts and a currently weighing of assessed risk made without the real data to back it up.. just, as you put it "intuition".

I'll leave it to you to conclude, if you even care to, where my opinion lies.

Quote:
Yeah...for me, and for many, many others who are not quite "convinced" by the latest round of experts. Nooooo, we made NOT have read all the wondrous discoveries, suspect as we are by all the dubious claims in the past, but please!
I apologize, Neil, if this offends you, but I honestly don't respect opinions that refute known factual data without offering hard data to back it up. It's how hard science works and I am a scientist, by training, if not by profession.

Quote:
Hurt us not...for we mean you no harm.
Yet harm is done in the name of junk science all the time. Do you need concrete examples? I certainly don't doubt that you intend no harm and certainly I don't.

Quote:
I think you miss the point of the debate, here. I'm not trying to "prove you wrong:" merely to add to the equation (as I pointed out, from the beginning).
Why do you think I posted in the first place? Why do I bother to post again?

Quote:
Ah. This is what I believe is called "scientific elitism." My concerns about the industry are null and void, unless I present scientific data.
If this is elitism, I can live with it, yes. Refute scientific data with more scientific data, if you want to make any impression on me (or many who may be reading this).

Quote:
Garbage, Tarik...I owned up that my knowledge is hazy...what more do you want?? A book report?
No, just opinions backed with facts, not intuition. All of your fears are prevalent in the nuclear industry (I know people in the industry) and motivates them to work hard to find ways to address them.

Quote:
That's right, because I am not "refuting" the science: I'm adding to it. Sorry you feel so defensive about my additions.
Critical, not defensive. Huge difference. You add to science by performing science.

Quote:
Oh, but it's all good! We'll just quake-proof em, and everything will be hunky dory! Why, every San Franciscan can TELL you that quakeproofing is 100% guaranteed, against earthquakes, right?
Hard to say. Seems to be working in India, but only time will tell exactly how much folly this is.

Good try, but you should read your research. I did. It's an comparative examination of NIN results with BARC's results and attempts to repeat it and ultimately a scientific refutation of their conclusion. It even includes some acknowledgment from NIN that they made specific errors in their method. IOW, their research was successfully refuted and accepted. The results were found to be statistically insignificant (unable to demonstrate danger from irradiated food).

It's how science works, my friend.

Quote:
But that's the point, isn't it? Unless I find scientific evidence that food irradiation could be problematic: well there's no point at discussion anymore, is there?
Pretty much.

Quote:
Because the potential deaths of this technology, misused, would far outweigh the deaths of other technologies.
I just don't see the facts to back up that opinion. Honestly.

I'm not defending dU, but data remains inconclusive on dU. Here's the results of an ongoing Kosovo study. http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiatio...ranium_Eng.pdf

Quote:
We have an epidemic of cancer throughout the world, and that's only increasing. Must I pull out scientific studies to prove that there's a causal link btw our use of nuclear technology: or will you accept that there is empirical evidence to suggest a likely link btw the two.
Yes, you must, because my research tells me that much less than 1% of the radiation we are exposed to in this world comes from our use of nuclear technology outside of the medical field. Inside the medical field, about 15% (x-rays, CAT scans, and how we TREAT cancer), 3% from consumer products such as tobacco. That leaves almost 82% is from natural sources (terrestrial, cosmic, internal, etc.).

Quote:
Even scientists begin with intuition.
Yep, and they back it up with studies and establish facts.

Gotta run, I have a weekend seminar.

Regards,

Tarik Ghbeish
Jiyūshin-ryū AikiBudō - Iwae Dojo

MASAKATSU AGATSU -- "The true victory of self-mastery."
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2007, 04:04 PM   #63
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
I'm not touchy at all, I'm picky. We all have the right to our opinions, Neil. Personally, I am interested only in informed opinions that can be backed up with facts.

I'm ok with opinions not agreeing with mine, because, even when backed up with facts, we can disagree about how to do things and I can respect that contrary opinion. But when not backed up with facts, you're right in guessing that I don't respect that opinion.
Tarik,

There are all kinds of discussion. We could well be sitting around the dojo together chatting, or even in a bar or over lunch, discussing nuclear power.

In those circumstances, would you just get up and say, sorry: but you don't have the science to back you up. Until you do, I'm not willing to discuss this.

Would you just stop talking, perhaps leave the room? Should I rush over to the dojo office, perhaps spend hours studying before I can express an opinion...in a conversation where NEITHER of us are scientists (as, you seem to exhibit a tendency to confuse actual science, with a discussion that only involves scientific data. Important, key even: but not the only aspects to consider)??

To me, it DOES sound as if you're employing a measure of "scientific elitism." As you probably know, I'm all for documenting claims, backing opinion with facts, but you ignore that some facts are not as easily attanable as others, due to the skewed nature of scientific inquiry in this field.

There are also other factors to consider, such as the difficulty in assessing actual cause and origin of a given affliction. Cancer takes awhile to develop, and more often than not, the group responsible--be it from mining uranium, dU, lax governmental safety protocols or just living downwind from a power plant--will likely disavow any connection.

And then you have government regulatory agencies not doing their job. In short, there is much more to the story, than simple laboratory results. And if you cannot accept that scientific data gives an incomplete picture, then you cannot accept the whole picture.

So far, I know of no qualitative analyses or statistical data that measures the effects of politics on scientific data (and yes, Tarik: I CAN easily document political interference on scientific data).

(what would you call one unit of political interference? A "Teller," named after Edward? Hey, I think I'll patent that one...it's catchy "It could be seen that the governmental report on nuclear energy suffered from 6.54 Tellers worth of political interference..." ).

Until then, or until you accept this fact, your assessments will always be incomplete.

Quote:
Gotta run, I have a weekend seminar.
Hope you had a good seminar. I'm still recovering from the flu. Hope to get back to the mat, on Monday.

Last edited by Neil Mick : 08-05-2007 at 04:17 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 01:59 AM   #64
tarik
 
tarik's Avatar
Dojo: Iwae Dojo
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 538
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
Tarik,

There are all kinds of discussion. We could well be sitting around the dojo together chatting, or even in a bar or over lunch, discussing nuclear power.

In those circumstances, would you just get up and say, sorry: but you don't have the science to back you up. Until you do, I'm not willing to discuss this.

Would you just stop talking, perhaps leave the room?
No. What I'd say is what I've said. If you want me to take your opinion seriously, back it up with real data. I require the same on the mat, FWIW.

Quote:
Should I rush over to the dojo office, perhaps spend hours studying before I can express an opinion...
Neil, I never said you couldn't express your opinion. I just told you the criterion I apply to take it seriously. What you do with that knowledge is up to you.

Quote:
As you probably know, I'm all for documenting claims, backing opinion with facts, but you ignore that some facts are not as easily attanable as others, due to the skewed nature of scientific inquiry in this field.

There are also other factors to consider, such as the difficulty in assessing actual cause and origin of a given affliction. Cancer takes awhile to develop, and more often than not, the group responsible--be it from mining uranium, dU, lax governmental safety protocols or just living downwind from a power plant--will likely disavow any connection.
I ignore none of that Neil. I may not be a professional scientist, but I was trained as a scientist through college and I understand hard science, and where the burden of proof lies.

Quote:
So far, I know of no qualitative analyses or statistical data that measures the effects of politics on scientific data (and yes, Tarik: I CAN easily document political interference on scientific data).
An absolute fact. It happens on every sides and so I read data from as many sources as practical before drawing any conclusions. I know how to usually distinguish good scientific arguments from bad. It's a learned skill, but is always being polished.

Quote:
Until then, or until you accept this fact, your assessments will always be incomplete.
You're making a lot of assumptions about what I accept. Including the assumption that my assessments are ever complete.

Quote:
Hope you had a good seminar. I'm still recovering from the flu. Hope to get back to the mat, on Monday.
I had an incredible seminar. Hope you're feeling better soon.

Regards,

Tarik Ghbeish
Jiyūshin-ryū AikiBudō - Iwae Dojo

MASAKATSU AGATSU -- "The true victory of self-mastery."
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 11:34 AM   #65
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
I may not be a professional scientist, but I was trained as a scientist through college and I understand hard science, and where the burden of proof lies.
Proof of what?

We know that nuclear material is inherently dangerous and deadly.

We know that if it escapes a nuclear plant, it's bad. Want to argue thousands over hundreds of thousands? Want to argue hundreds of years (generations) over thousands of years? On a human scale, that's quibbling. The fact is, release of nuclear material from a nuclear plant is tragic.

Now, your argument seems to be that we can be trusted with it. We don't want any nuclear reactors in the unstable world of Iraq, Iran or Palestine, but Ottumwa, Iowa is OK.

But I don't accept Exxon or Enron or Alabama Power or Tokyo Electric Power Company or any other monopolists on earth as trustworthy to operate a nuclear plant.

That's the argument. We've seen what can happen with a nuke plant gone bad. Whether it's a little worse or not quite as bad (or even significantly less bad), it's too bad.

You have faulted photovoltaics because they only last 30 years (your estimate--not mine). But what's the useful life of a nuclear power plant? About thirty years. And what's the difference in cost?

It should be blindingly clear that photovoltaics alone would be a hands-down winner over nuclear plants. At least when the photovoltaics wear out, they don't have to be isolated for a thousand years.

Right now in Iraq, the US government keeps building and rebuilding the same old centralized power generation facilities and stringing lines throughout the city.

For a fraction of that money, they could have put photovoltaics on every house in Baghdad and they would now have more hours of electricity per day than the centralized stations are providing. And that kind of system would be impervious to terrorist disruption--unlike the current system (terrorism being why they have to keep rebuilding it).

Added all up, there's every reason we should have gone heavily into photovoltaics and non-electric uses of solar energy and every reason we should not go any further with nuke plants. Even the "shortage of silicon" is a thin little argument when you look at what's required to get uranium.....

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 11:47 AM   #66
tarik
 
tarik's Avatar
Dojo: Iwae Dojo
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 538
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
Proof of what?
You don't listen well.

Quote:
The fact is, release of nuclear material from a nuclear plant is tragic.
Yep, already said that.

Quote:
But I don't accept Exxon or Enron or Alabama Power or Tokyo Electric Power Company or any other monopolists on earth as trustworthy to operate a nuclear plant.
The fact that you had to name more than one company or organization demonstrates your fallacious logic even in the face of their lack of trustworthiness. Very convincing.

Quote:
That's the argument. We've seen what can happen with a nuke plant gone bad. Whether it's a little worse or not quite as bad (or even significantly less bad), it's too bad.
Comparative analysis is not meaningless just because you say it is.

Quote:
You have faulted photovoltaics because they only last 30 years (your estimate--not mine). But what's the useful life of a nuclear power plant? About thirty years.
Incorrect. The licensing of a plant is 30 years. There's discussion of increasing that to 60. Each facility actually has anywhere from 2-6 electrical generating plants. They could easily last a significantly longer and shutdowns are usually for economic or political reasons. Did you know that Chernobyl still had one plant operating into the 21st century providing power to a large region of the Ukraine?

Quote:
It should be blindingly clear that photovoltaics alone would be a hands-down winner over nuclear plants.
It should be blindingly clear that these decisions are not either/or types of things, however much you want them to be. My arguments are not against photo-voltaics, they are for examining economic and scientific realities. We might be able to argue the economics, but it's clear that you reject some pretty basic facts right up front.

Regards,

Last edited by tarik : 08-06-2007 at 11:51 AM.

Tarik Ghbeish
Jiyūshin-ryū AikiBudō - Iwae Dojo

MASAKATSU AGATSU -- "The true victory of self-mastery."
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 02:06 PM   #67
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
We might be able to argue the economics, but it's clear that you reject some pretty basic facts right up front.
I reject the notion that the demand for electricity justifies building nuclear power plants.

With the resources of photovoltaics for electricity, and solar air-and-water heating, a vast portion of electrical demand could be met. Then the best answer is a patchwork of coal, hydro-electric and wind. There is no justification for nuclear and no place for nuclear energy generation on earth as long as humans occupy the planet.

Of course, if the nuclear industry gets its way, human occupation of the planet may be a short-term impediment.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 02:32 PM   #68
tarik
 
tarik's Avatar
Dojo: Iwae Dojo
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 538
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
I reject the notion that the demand for electricity justifies building nuclear power plants.

With the resources of photovoltaics for electricity, and solar air-and-water heating, a vast portion of electrical demand could be met. Then the best answer is a patchwork of coal, hydro-electric and wind. There is no justification for nuclear and no place for nuclear energy generation on earth as long as humans occupy the planet.

Of course, if the nuclear industry gets its way, human occupation of the planet may be a short-term impediment.
A bold assertion not supported by the proffered science (by you). You could argue caution, but you don't really argue that, you argue the inevitability of our destruction by such a course with nothing to factually back it up other than Murphy's Law.

Regards,

Tarik Ghbeish
Jiyūshin-ryū AikiBudō - Iwae Dojo

MASAKATSU AGATSU -- "The true victory of self-mastery."
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 03:49 PM   #69
HL1978
Dojo: Aunkai
Location: Fairfax, VA
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 429
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
I reject the notion that the demand for electricity justifies building nuclear power plants.

With the resources of photovoltaics for electricity, and solar air-and-water heating, a vast portion of electrical demand could be met. Then the best answer is a patchwork of coal, hydro-electric and wind. There is no justification for nuclear and no place for nuclear energy generation on earth as long as humans occupy the planet.

Of course, if the nuclear industry gets its way, human occupation of the planet may be a short-term impediment.

David
David, while I agree with you to some extent, with regards to home use, you have to consider industrial/commercial energy needs.

As I pointed out earlier, the amount of land which is useful for PV is somewhat limited (angle of the sun, number of daylight hours, solar intensity see http://nooutage.com/ArraySizWS.htm for solar isolation maps ), and I am curious about the environmental impact of doing so (covering the ground with them would be necessary to supply industrial needs, arguably you could use solar collectors and boil water to spin turbines with lower costs). For home use, it certainly would be useful in some parts of the country, and would certainly supplement use in residential/commercial buildings, but current technology coupled with various location factors (the previously mentioned, intensity, number of hours, angle of the sun) would not be able to meet our current energy needs.

With a silicon shortage, any serious PV production is years off as it takes several years to get up and running a new silicon plant, and electronics manufacturers have traditionally outbid solar manufacturers for silicon.

What alternatives do we have to nuclear that don't require a large cost to the environment? Many of the alternative energy technologies aren't practical for all parts of the country. To say otherwise and not consider industrial use, is wishful thinking.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 10:16 AM   #70
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

[quote=Tarik Ghbeish;185692]A bold assertion not supported by the proffered science (by you). You could argue caution, but you don't really argue that, you argue the inevitability of our destruction by such a course with nothing to factually back it up other than Murphy's Law.QUOTE]

And you choose to sit beneath the sword of Damocles, which depends not on your own truthfulness, but that of known liars.

The "proffered science" depends on an ideal setting--not a greed-motivated realm where gamblers take a big chance that it won't screw up before they get away. We have many examples of such: Ken Lay, Richard Scrushy, the guys at WorldCom, etc., etc., etc.

If the world were confined to the strictures of science, your bet would be a safe one.

Even in areas ruled almost entirely by science (NASA, for instance), we have tremendous tragedies caused by the inevitability of a lapse in vigilance. A severe nuclear "accident" on US soil is therefore guaranteed.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 11:04 AM   #71
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,511
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Hunter Lonsberry wrote: View Post
David, while I agree with you to some extent, with regards to home use, you have to consider industrial/commercial energy needs.
If every home and office building (plus the industrial sites) were outfitted with photovoltaics, much of the "consumer" demand for electricity could be eliminated, leaving the rest for industrial use.

Quote:
Hunter Lonsberry wrote: View Post
As I pointed out earlier, the amount of land which is useful for PV is somewhat limited ...I am curious about the environmental impact of doing so...
I don't much support use of vast tracts of land for PV farms. I support use of every rooftop and building surface available. This would so reduce the demand for home use that we could reduce coal-generation and still meet industrial demand.

Quote:
Hunter Lonsberry wrote: View Post
...current technology coupled with various location factors (the previously mentioned, intensity, number of hours, angle of the sun) would not be able to meet our current energy needs.
Maybe "energy demands" would be a better way to phrase that. Many Americans live in huge houses and air condition them day and night. They drive huge cars vast distances every day to work because they choose to live far from their work. And they air condition the house while they're at work. All that kind of thing is "demand"--not need--and it drives most of the shortages and problems we're dealing with today: oil, gas, water, clean air, electricity, time, crime, arable land, and on and on.

Living close to work is just common sense. If you had a factory, where do you put your raw materials? Close to where you're going to use them! What sense does it make to live far out from your necessary source of income? And why air condition a huge house all day when you're not even there?

So it's living close to work (or working close to home), in a reasonably-sized house with good insulation, energy-efficient appliances, and a generally conservative approach to life. It seems to me that "conservatives" are the biggest opponents of these kinds of measures, too. Which is typical in this backward society where people are cultivated to do the very things that are worst for their own self-interest and needs. And that results in nuclear power plants dotting the landscape.

Quote:
Hunter Lonsberry wrote: View Post
With a silicon shortage, any serious PV production is years off as it takes several years to get up and running a new silicon plant, and electronics manufacturers have traditionally outbid solar manufacturers for silicon.
Is the silicon shortage as severe as the uranium shortage? I don't think so. But somehow, we manage to find uranium. And long start-up time is never considered a negative for a nuclear plant. It's all a matter of how we're convinced to think about it.

Remember the Kyoto Accords? Bush dumped those as soon as he walked into office, supposedly because America couldn't "afford" to implement them. Care to guess how many times over we've spent that much money on the "war" in Iraq? And what do we have to show for that? Not even one city--Baghdad--has reliable electricity and our needs and infrastructure here at home are languishing.

Quote:
Hunter Lonsberry wrote: View Post
What alternatives do we have to nuclear that don't require a large cost to the environment?
There is no alternative that has a worse effect on the environment than nuclear. Every "positive" about nuclear looks great until the day nuclear material is released. And then you have a Chernobyl, with vast uninhabitable regions all around that clean, efficient plant.

Quote:
Hunter Lonsberry wrote: View Post
Many of the alternative energy technologies aren't practical for all parts of the country. To say otherwise and not consider industrial use, is wishful thinking.
To say that nuclear is practical for any part of the country is wishful thinking. It's a hope and crossed fingers.

And one other thing: remember how fast the Soviet Union collapsed? It went down like the Twin Towers. One minute it was there, then it was gone.

If something like that should happen to the US, who would then end up in control of all those plants? Who would "supervise" and "regulate" them? Who would "ensure" that waste was properly handled and transported and that dumps remained undisturbed?

David

Last edited by David Orange : 08-07-2007 at 11:06 AM.

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.esotericorange.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 04:43 PM   #72
HL1978
Dojo: Aunkai
Location: Fairfax, VA
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 429
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
If every home and office building (plus the industrial sites) were outfitted with photovoltaics, much of the "consumer" demand for electricity could be eliminated, leaving the rest for industrial use.

I don't much support use of vast tracts of land for PV farms. I support use of every rooftop and building surface available. This would so reduce the demand for home use that we could reduce coal-generation and still meet industrial demand.
I am in agreement for the most part, however, it is not an appropriate solution for all areas of the country (nor even population centers like northern Europe). For areas closer to the equator, not only is there a more intensity due to the angle of the sun (more direct angle maximizes solar collection), but the number of hours that the sun is visible during the day is far more consistent. You have to consider the elliptic as well. Contrast this to northern population centers, like Boston, NYC, Chicago, Seattle etc
See the solar isolation charts I cited earlier. This brings about energy storage problems (batteries have all sorts of issues and the need for energy from the grid during the winter) Further you have to consider weather. Is a place like Seattle, with rain about 150+ days a year and a fairly northern location going to produce enough solar power to meet its needs? Energy generation from some source other than solar is required, just to meet consumer needs.

Quote:
David Orange wrote:
Maybe "energy demands" would be a better way to phrase that. Many Americans live in huge houses and air condition them day and night. They drive huge cars vast distances every day to work because they choose to live far from their work. And they air condition the house while they're at work. All that kind of thing is "demand"-]not need--and it drives most of the shortages and problems we're dealing with today: oil, gas, water, clean air, electricity, time, crime, arable land, and on and on.

Living close to work is just common sense. If you had a factory, where do you put your raw materials? Close to where you're going to use them! What sense does it make to live far out from your necessary source of income? And why air condition a huge house all day when you're not even there?

So it's living close to work (or working close to home), in a reasonably-sized house with good insulation, energy-efficient appliances, and a generally conservative approach to life. It seems to me that "conservatives" are the biggest opponents of these kinds of measures, too. Which is typical in this backward society where people are cultivated to do the very things that are worst for their own self-interest and needs. And that results in nuclear power plants dotting the landscape.
Perhaps on your next visit to japan, you should visit the Miraikan's exhibit on Environmentally Symbiotic Housing. It presents a lot of interesting ideas. Energy conservation and living within ones own means are definitely a good thing, you won't find me saying otherwise. I myself work from home, though the government requires me to come into work 1 hour a week, which is a waste of gasoline, office space, and my time.

Quote:
David Orange wrote:
Is the silicon shortage as severe as the uranium shortage? I don't think so. But somehow, we manage to find uranium. And long start-up time is never considered a negative for a nuclear plant. It's all a matter of how we're convinced to think about it.
I believe uranium is currently trading for $110 a kg(you could certainly argue the environmental costs are higher if you wish) while polysilicon is trading around $250 a kg. Prices are supposedly going to drop to $40 in a few years. It would make an interesting comparison to see how much power each kg of material could provide over its lifetime and the environmental impact of the use/refinement of each.

The silicon shortage could be cured through building more manufacturing, but the efforts in order to cover housing/buildings etc with PV would be immense. Further, PV recycling is in its infancy at the moment. The scales involved are enormous. From an economic standpoint, I am curious if subsidies would inhibit widespread adoption.

Most of PV isn't too bad for landfill as it is encased in plastic/glass, however, because PV systems are widely dispersed, and because each system has relatively small amounts of semiconductor material per cell, recycling PV will be a challenging task. IEEE hopes that industry will learn from computer recycling efforts.

Quote:
David Orange wrote:
Remember the Kyoto Accords? Bush dumped those as soon as he walked into office, supposedly because America couldn't "afford" to implement them. Care to guess how many times over we've spent that much money on the "war" in Iraq? And what do we have to show for that? Not even one city--Baghdad--has reliable electricity and our needs and infrastructure here at home are languishing.
I don't think many can commend the president on his environmental policies, but as I remember from civics, the legislative branch ratifies treaties, so it is a bit disengenious to blame the president. As I recall the vote was a bipartisan 95-0 to not sign Kyoto.

That being said however, the president clearly has other means to implement environmental policies via executive orders or through EPA policy etc. I would personally raise CAFE standards much higher myself, which can be done with todays cars through the adoption of both diesel and turbo diesel technology.

Quote:
David Orange wrote:
There is no alternative that has a worse effect on the environment than nuclear. Every "positive" about nuclear looks great until the day nuclear material is released. And then you have a Chernobyl, with vast uninhabitable regions all around that clean, efficient plant.

To say that nuclear is practical for any part of the country is wishful thinking. It's a hope and crossed fingers.

And one other thing: remember how fast the Soviet Union collapsed? It went down like the Twin Towers. One minute it was there, then it was gone.

If something like that should happen to the US, who would then end up in control of all those plants? Who would "supervise" and "regulate" them? Who would "ensure" that waste was properly handled and transported and that dumps remained undisturbed?

David
You are asumming a worst case scenario for environmental damage (I believe the actual "uninhabitable" areas are around 20 square miles for Chernobyl). This does not seem in line with the safety record of both US, Japanese, and European designed plants.

As far as I recall, from both Chernobyl and the accident in japan (not the recent one mind you), 31 people died as an immediate result of the accident and fighting the resulting fire (28 from radiation injuries, two from non-radiation blast injuries and one due to a coronary thrombosis), 14/134 people who were diagnosed with acute radiation exposure have since died, though it is unclear if it is as a result of radiation or not. 2 people died in the japan accident in 1999. We have no idea how many actually died from Chernobyl, just like we have no idea how many have died from burning coal (pollution, radiation, mercury exposure, fine particulates etc), as well the the environmental impact from acid rain etc.

Bringing up the former USSR raises and interesting point. What has happened since its collapse? Have there been more accidents? Has here been more proliferation of materials? As far as I am aware nothing has occurred outside of Hollywood fantasy. With modern designs, the plants themselves would simply shut down with no outside involvement aka inherently safe design.

President Carters concerns about proliferation, have limited the US from reusing uranium. As other posters have noted, doing so greatly mitigates risk from nuclear waste. It certainly doesn't solve the problem, but makes it far more easy to deal with. See http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/feb07/4891
where the space at Yucca mountain could be increased 100x because of reprocessing.

As a side note, according to CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...2655782.shtml), France has the cleanest air in europe, and an impeccible safety record.

I have faith in my fellow engineers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2007, 01:00 AM   #73
tarik
 
tarik's Avatar
Dojo: Iwae Dojo
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 538
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
And you choose to sit beneath the sword of Damocles, which depends not on your own truthfulness, but that of known liars.
You name my offered sources liars without bothering to research who they are, who funded them, and actually expending the effort to legitimately refute them using objective language and reproducible methods.

In reality, David, we're not even having the same conversation. You're interested in the politics and rhetoric of (anti)nuclear power while I'm interested in the science and economics and the real tradeoffs. Enough that I've studied something about them.

Quote:
If the world were confined to the strictures of science, your bet would be a safe one.
Safer than you can imagine. Frankly, I'm all for alternative sources of energy, but I'm absolutely against propping up any industry (yes, including the nuclear one) beyond what is required to protect us. Using all rational measures I have looked into recently, nuclear is inevitably a part of the solution in the near term, in my estimation, as much as you seem to fear it.

Quote:
A severe nuclear "accident" on US soil is therefore guaranteed.
What does the science (not politics) tell us a severe accident means? I have a reasonable idea and it does not scare me.

Regards,

Tarik Ghbeish
Jiyūshin-ryū AikiBudō - Iwae Dojo

MASAKATSU AGATSU -- "The true victory of self-mastery."
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2007, 06:01 PM   #74
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote: View Post
You're interested in the politics and rhetoric of (anti)nuclear power while I'm interested in the science and economics and the real tradeoffs.
Sorry, Tarik: but you're dodging. You dodged in debating with me: and you're dodging in debating with David.

Yes, you're right (in one sense): the politics and rhetoric of nuclear power IS a somewhat different conversation than economics and (as you like to see it) so-called "real" tradeoffs. And yet, the damage that a poorly designed, or a shoddily run plant (or, simply built on LIES or misinformation) would cause, cuts across both discussions.

It's very telling, for instance, how you mentioned that Japan had an earthquake where a plant has been built RIGHT ON THE FAULTLINE, and yet you deigned not to pursue the details further. Quite curious, for someone who is "interested in the data."

Nuclear crisis in Japan as scientists reveal quake threat to power plants

YOU might have ignored the subtext of the interactions btw the authorities and concerned citizens...but I didn't (and, I imagine, neither did many readers, either):

Quote:
The revelations of Kashiwazaki's geological weakness dealt a massive blow to the credibility of the Tokyo High Court and to the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology — the government- affiliated body whose survey showed the fault to be about 15km (nine miles) from the plant.

In 2005, fearing the effects of a large quake, a group of residents fought to have Kashiwazaki's license to build a new reactor revoked. The Tokyo High Court rejected the plaintiffs' claim
that an active fault ran under the station, concluding that what the residents thought was an active fault "did not even amount to a fault and could not cause a quake."
When, low and behold! Along comes a quake! And what do you know? The High Court REJECTED the plaintiff's claims for the same root reasons that you're rejecting David's and my argument. Funny how that always seems to work that way when we're talking profit, doesn't it?

But we might as well be talking about ANYTHING produced commercially, with few longterm health studies published to assess the risks. Cellphones, for instance: AFAIK, there are few studies out there that conclusively illustrate the longterm health risks (if, indeed, there are any...which I believe that there are) in holding a small, micorwave-emitting rectangle to your head for approx 1-3 hours/day over 20+ years' time (and what do you want to bet that the cell phone companies have their PR departments frantically working to avoid this very thing?

I remember reading somewhere that paint company lobbyists were arguing as late as 1995 that lead paint had no effect on children..even though that debate is long, long past. No sense in NOT trying to beat a dead horse...eh, Tarik?)

In sum, then, scientific data MAY be objective, but anyone who understands statistics knows that anyone can interpret ANYTHING from statistics--ESPECIALLY if they have motive. Certainly Tepco had a profit motive: and one can assume that the High Court had political (read: profit) motive to ignore the concerns of the residents.

OK, so you don't want to debate the possible risks of nuclear power, sans hard empirical data? Fine. But the rest of us know the sort of game you're playing...the NRC & friends have been playing it for a long, long time.

Last edited by Neil Mick : 08-10-2007 at 06:08 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2007, 07:41 PM   #75
tarik
 
tarik's Avatar
Dojo: Iwae Dojo
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 538
United_States
Offline
Re: Motorcycle Girl in Chernobyl Dead Zone

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
Sorry, Tarik: but you're dodging. You dodged in debating with me: and you're dodging in debating with David.
What am I dodging, a discussion of the empirical data and results? You and David have made specific statements about the non-political results of nuclear science and I have refuted them with actual research data.

Quote:
It's very telling, for instance, how you mentioned that Japan had an earthquake where a plant has been built RIGHT ON THE FAULTLINE, and yet you deigned not to pursue the details further. Quite curious, for someone who is "interested in the data."
Neil, you must have missed my earlier posts in this thread where I listed specific numbers and data concerning the incident in Japan and offered a comparative analysis. They are still present to be read. You keep accusing me of not addressing issues I have addressed. You are either not reading my posts completely, or you doing some 'dodging' of your own.

Quote:
Nuclear crisis in Japan as scientists reveal quake threat to power plants

YOU might have ignored the subtext of the interactions btw the authorities and concerned citizens...but I didn't (and, I imagine, neither did many readers, either):
I read the article weeks ago. It's says little of substance other than that people are upset. I am not surprised to hear about more public hysteria around nuclear science, particularly in Japan. Tell me, did they deliberately choose to not mention the actual level of contamination caused, or was it just an oversight?

Quote:
In sum, then, scientific data MAY be objective, but anyone who understands statistics knows that anyone can interpret ANYTHING from statistics--ESPECIALLY if they have motive.
Neil, I totally agree. That's why I try to read the data for myself. You have already demonstrated and even stated that you're too busy and that you do not. In fact, I have invited on more than one occasion to read the data and offer a different interpretation. Who's dodging what?

Quote:
OK, so you don't want to debate the possible risks of nuclear power, sans hard empirical data? Fine. But the rest of us know the sort of game you're playing...the NRC & friends have been playing it for a long, long time.
Neil, you seem to be engaging in rhetoric and expecting the same in return. I'm not interested.

I almost accused you of intellectual dishonesty, but I sincerely believe that you believe what you are stating, so instead I have to conclude that you are being willfully ignorant based on the following types of exchanges:

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote:
Clearly you did not actually read the material. Yes, breakthroughs in a variety of approaches that can reduce the waste to similar levels found in mines where we're getting the radioactive material in the first place.
Yes, clearly. Guess what? I've got a life outside of this computer; with only 24 hours in a day to use, not counting sleep.
Quote:
Garbage, Tarik...I owned up that my knowledge is hazy...what more do you want?? A book report?

Quote:
Tarik Ghbeish wrote:
You offer no actual refutation of the actual science, of the numbers, of the procedures put in place and you make
That's right, because I am not "refuting" the science: I'm adding to it. Sorry you feel so defensive about my additions.
I have invited you to read the science and refute the data on more than one occasion, but you accuse me of dodging issues? There is a specific process to "add to science" and your comments don't attempt to actually add anything.

Instead you attempt to refute things by stating that those who have accomplished them are liars. That's a meaningless argument, particularly since you don't even know the names of the scientists you are accusing, since you refuse to read their research and to establish them as liars. Your examples of liars only mean something about those specific individuals and what they specifically lied about. I don't recall any of them being accused of lying about nuclear science.

On numerous occasions I have offered links to peer reviewed research or hard data supporting my current opinions, but you have offered nothing that is peer reviewed except for a single study you clearly did not read before submitted it since it supported my position concerning the safety of radiation.

I am ready to declare this conversation pointless since you have established in your own words that you have solid opinions based on "hazy" knowledge and admittedly don't actually have the time to make that less "hazy" by reading anything that might be peer reviewed and critically accepted by the scientific community.

Instead of accusing anyone of being "liars", or of "dodging" issues, or "game playing", I have been honest and forthright about my opinion and my sources.

Given our time on the mat together and our shared desire for certain solutions to other political problems to come to fruition, I have offered you the benefit of the doubt, that you are sincere in your beliefs and a willing debater, but I am not receiving the same in return. I know I am dodging nothing, but I now think you are doing it in spades.

Honestly, Neil, for someone who purports to be interested in the peace process, your approach here to debating issues leaves a lot to be desired. Frankly, I'm disappointed.

Regards,

Last edited by tarik : 08-10-2007 at 07:43 PM.

Tarik Ghbeish
Jiyūshin-ryū AikiBudō - Iwae Dojo

MASAKATSU AGATSU -- "The true victory of self-mastery."
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dead Zone aikidoc General 7 02-23-2003 07:24 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:33 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2016 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2016 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate