Continuing problems at Fukushima

[Delbert]

 

It's well documented that coal fired electricity dumps more radioactive material into the environment than the nuclear power industry does.

As you seem stuck on this philosophy of justifying the disadvantages of something by identifying something that you consider worse, I was surprised that you didn't mention smoking - that's why I mentioned smoking. You may be right about coal, but I'm sorry that doesn't justify nuclear power. And the discussion here is about nuclear power.

 

 

But it's sure as hell not a scientifically valid one and this site isn't called "guessworkandbiasforums"

 

And I suggest justifying something by identifying something worse is also not scientific.

 

I cast a viewpoint and you justify one diabolical process by comparing it to another possible diabolical process. Presumably you would claim your remarks to be scientific.

 

And you still haven't responded to my query about popping down to Fukushima to help with the clean up. If you'd be unwilling to help do a spot of cleaning up, then I'm sorry, for me, your argument falls - perhaps book your next holiday as a working holiday down there.

[overtone]

 

 

You may be right about coal,

He's lying, about the coal - he's trying to imply that coal is a bigger radiation hazard than nuclear power, without actually saying that and being accountable for the claim (same motive the authors of the Sci Am article had, visible in their careful phrasing - Sci Am apologized, our buddy here won't).

 

while we're on topic:

 

Also, the design should have taken more account of the likely problems that design shouldn't have been built, but it's easy to say that with hindsight.

Claiming that all those criticisms are "hindsight" is dishonest. As we all know, the criticisms of those plants and their locations in earthquake zones and the vulnerability of such constructions and the lack of proper safeguarding against extreme events were all made in advance, with foresight not hindsight, loudly and repeatedly and using facts and figures and photographs and the examples of prior accidents and the observation that the nuke proponents were far too little wary of their areas of ignorance and so forth and so on.

 

Not hindsight. Foresight. Informed warning. Well reasoned objections. Accurate assessments, made in advance. "We told you so" over and over and over.

 

 

But what really doesn't help anything is to run round saying that a little more Cs and Sr in the sea is a disaster.

It's a drop in the ocean.

It's a disaster - and it's sheer luck it wasn't a hundred times worse already, as it would have been had the quake struck at night or on a weekend and the plants been operating at power. The lives lost via evacuation and diversion of resources and loss of income etc alone, with this happening, are already significant.

You can pretend this contamination is somehow a well-mixed drop of your two favorite isotopes permeating the whole of the ocean, but you can't contend that nonsense - the fish are bioaccumulating, the currents are holding concentration, the stuff is not behaving according to your presumptions. The best one can say is that the jury is still out.

[Delbert]

He's lying, about the coal - he's trying to imply that coal is a bigger radiation hazard than nuclear power,...

I don't know what you're taking about. I never said coal was or wasn't worse than nuclear. I questioned the logic, science or even the philosophy of simply looking around for something worse, finding what you think is worse, and then saying on that basis nuclear is okay, nothing to worry about or whatever. Such an approach is so far away from science as to need a space telescope.

 

My view is that considering the continuing problems of Fukushima (ignoring the basic idea of nuclear power), which from what I can glean could go on for a long time (maybe hundreds of years - or is it thousands?), the consequences of contaminating the landscape, I don't consider the things safe at all. Not forgetting the brave individuals who initially attended the site in an attempt to recover control when we saw those explosions on TV. And, how long have they got to keep cooling those melted reactors and storing who knows how much radioactive water in leaky tanks? Four hundred tons of cooling water a day, I understand!! And I also understand the knowledge of a melted reactor is very poor - just one more little snag.

 

I for one can't see much of a problem attending a site of a busted coal power station, but I wouldn't go anywhere near a busted nuclear plant!

 

Again, if you take the view that the things are safe, not much to worry about or whatever, then go there on your next holiday and help out sweeping up that leaking water.

 

P.S. just caught a news report that the situation is a backbreaking, not to mention a financial nightmare that's just getting worse.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Delbert

[John Cuthber]

 

 

And you still haven't responded to my query about popping down to Fukushima to help with the clean up. If you'd be unwilling to help do a spot of cleaning up, then I'm sorry, for me, your argument falls - perhaps book your next holiday as a working holiday down there.

Yes I did.

 

"And I suggest justifying something by identifying something worse is also not scientific."

True, so it's fortunate that I didn't do that.

I pointed out that something worse- Sellafield- has a 40 year history of not causing a measurable problem so something less bad- Fukushima- is unlikely to cause a problem.

It really would be better if you looked at what I said.

 

Re

"You can only try to argue against harm from Fukushima by invoking the planetwide weathering of rocks once,"

 

It's just as well that I didn't then isn't it.

I said "Weathering of rocks containing potassium is putting more radioactive material into the sea than the nuclear plant."

which is perfectly true.

The biological damage produced by equal activities of potassium and caesium is comparable so the threat from the two is also comparable.

Can you refute that?

 

The point of making the comparison is (as with most of the points I have made) to indicate the magnitude of the problem on a global scale.

 

Other facts you may wish to consider include

The bioaccumulation factors for potassium are about the same as those for Cs.

You might like to explain the other paper about uranium in coal- it has numbers. (presumably the AAAS was also "lying" as you put it- or providing data as it's more commonly known.)

[overtone]

"You can only try to argue against harm from Fukushima by invoking the planetwide weathering of rocks once,"

 

It's just as well that I didn't then isn't it.

So you claim to not have been arguing against harms from Fukushima, but instead posting random irrelevancies on the thread, and then:

 

 

I said "Weathering of rocks containing potassium is putting more radioactive material into the sea than the nuclear plant."

which is perfectly true.

again, no idiotic but relevant argument intended, instead merely random and irrelevant factoid, and then:

 

 

The biological damage produced by equal activities of potassium and caesium is comparable so the threat from the two is also comparable.

a mysterious and difficult statement that of course I am not to take as an attempt at arguing against harms from Fukushima, because you have stated plainly that you are making no such argument from this world wide rock weathering detour, but can't make sense of otherwise, and finally

 

 

Can you refute that?

Refute what? You aren't making an argument, you said so, and random factoids of no relevance to harms from Fukushima are either accurate or not but who cares?

 

 

 

The point of making the comparison is (as with most of the points I have made) to indicate the magnitude of the problem on a global scale.

But I thought you weren't - - - - - silly me, right? Just because you said so, is no reason to believe something obviously false.

 

So: You need not only global but century scale or larger - you need the time as well as the space, to get your dilution etc.

 

So we are asked to admit, courtesy of our friend who assures us he is by no means makling a relevant argument or posting relevant facts, that Fukushima did not and will not evenly and significantly poison the entire planet for hundreds of years.

 

OK, I'll stipulate that. I don't know if anyone has ever claimed otherwise, but if someone does show up here and claim that Fukushima is a global disaster that has permanently and seriously contaminated the whole of the world's oceans, I will refer them to those links and observations. (I would make my own contributions, about the harmlessness of Fukushima to Australian marsupials and the ecosystems under the Antarctic ice pack, but my stuff like that gets labeled "strawman").

 

 

 

You might like to explain the other paper about uranium in coal- it has numbers. (presumably the AAAS was also "lying" as you put it- or providing data as it's more commonly known.)

I said you were lying, not that any "numbers" were lies. Data's just data - you don't have to lie with it.

 

Tell you what: you don't even have to apologize yourself - a link to Scientific American's apology and retraction, mealy mouthed and partial though it was, will do fine.

 

Meanwhile, back on the thread topic of the harms that are being inflicted by Fukushima (which our poster here has claimed to not have addressed: whatsoever, and I am forced to agree), we have on the news the recent proposal by the Japanese government to take over from TEPCO and put in a freeze wall to at least slow the leakage. We also have the information that the radiation levels near the trashed reactors are rising these days, significantly. My take is that the Japanese government and TEPCO are essentially one entity here, and the freeze wall is a bandaid and an indication that the "externalize the costs, procrastinate and slap bandaids on crises as they show up" strategy is the one being employed. That bodes ill for the afflicted people's and ecosystems, but they are hidden,deniable, and distant in time or space. It also serves as a warning about the nuke industry, but a redundant one of a kind more or less ignored for fifty years now. Is anyone more optimistic than that?

Edited September 5, 2013 by overtone

[Wilmot McCutchen]

The flow rate of the leak is only 300 m3/day, which is a gallon a second. The Japanese government is prepared to spend half a billion dollars to solve that. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/japans-government-pledges-nearly-500-million-as-tepco-deals-with-water-crisis/2013/09/03/581876c6-147c-11e3-880b-7503237cc69d_story.html?wprss=rss_asia-pacific

 

[Delbert]

The flow rate of the leak is only 300 m3/day, which is a gallon a second. The Japanese government is prepared to spend half a billion dollars to solve that. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/japans-government-pledges-nearly-500-million-as-tepco-deals-with-water-crisis/2013/09/03/581876c6-147c-11e3-880b-7503237cc69d_story.html?wprss=rss_asia-pacific

 

From what I read they aren't solving it at all. But rather, simply confining the leak with barriers - something about freezing the ground.

 

The fundamental problem seems to be the diabolical shambles with the melted reactors, and this water business is not a solution but a remedial attempt to keep the situation from being a runaway catastrophe.

 

Does anyone know for how long this water cooling business is needed? It seems that if Chernobyl is anything to go by, these melted radioactive cores will remain difficult to deal with for a very long time. With untold amounts of cooling water which then needs to be stored. So what the long term solution will be I can't imagine - assuming there is what could be called a long term solution!

 

The only good thing I can see is that the water tank construction industry is probably experiencing a bit of a boom, so it's not all gloom and doom!

[overtone]

 

 

It seems that if Chernobyl is anything to go by, these melted radioactive cores will remain difficult to deal with for a very long time. With untold amounts of cooling water which then needs to be stored. So what the long term solution will be I can't imagine

 

Large scale capture and "storage" of in the earthquake zone was an immediate stopgap response to the discovery.of large volumes of groundwater and cooling water apparently (? details vague) mixing, both contaminated by unexpectedly significant direct communication with the melted core(s) somehow. It will be a while yet (probably several years) before the exact fates and dispositions of the melted cores have even been determined. (We hope for geological peace and quiet all that time, and economic robustness of those in charge. ) So managing that will be a series of reactions to crises as they occur - the temporary tanks replaced by more durable units, perhaps some transport of the water or a concentration of it to a safer place as "safe" capacity limits are reached, etc - for a few decades.

 

The freeze wall is a measure for containment of the contaminated water volume, which is much greater and wider spread than anticipated in the original cooling plan. It is a crisis reponse, of course, and in some sense temporary - the proposal is for one about a mile long, consisting of thousands of vertical loops of cooling tube (like an old fashioned refrigerater only several meters long each) full of constantly pumped refrigerant keeping a certain thickness of ground frozen to that depth. As with the cooling efforts necessary to forestall further extreme heat buildup from the ongoing nuclear reactions in the melted cores (wherever they are), the storage of contaminated water, etc, this wall must be actively maintained for a few decades at least.

 

The coolant is basically a salt water solution and not exposed to the contamination - it can itself be leaked to the ocean, in a mishap, without disaster.

 

Of course another shock, as with the previous two 9 level earthquakes in Japanese coastal faulting (both came in paired shocks spaced a bit), and we start over.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

a mysterious and difficult statement that ...

 

 

Refute what? You aren't making an argument, you said so, and random factoids of no relevance to harms from Fukushima are either accurate or not but who cares?

 

 

No, a fairly simple one.

The biological damage produced by equal activities of potassium and caesium is comparable, so the threat from the two is also comparable.

 

Now, can you refute it?

If not then the fact that the sea has (on a Bq/litre basis) a lot more potassium in it that Cs is vitally important in terms of addressing the additional risk from the Cs.

 

On a local basis, this is a disaster, but on a global scale the only impact is likely to be via the disruption to Japan's economy. Exagerating the threat from the leaks will make that effect worse.

[Moontanman]

He's lying, about the coal - he's trying to imply that coal is a bigger radiation hazard than nuclear power, without actually saying that and being accountable for the claim (same motive the authors of the Sci Am article had, visible in their careful phrasing - Sci Am apologized, our buddy here won't).

 

while we're on topic:

 

Claiming that all those criticisms are "hindsight" is dishonest. As we all know, the criticisms of those plants and their locations in earthquake zones and the vulnerability of such constructions and the lack of proper safeguarding against extreme events were all made in advance, with foresight not hindsight, loudly and repeatedly and using facts and figures and photographs and the examples of prior accidents and the observation that the nuke proponents were far too little wary of their areas of ignorance and so forth and so on.

 

Not hindsight. Foresight. Informed warning. Well reasoned objections. Accurate assessments, made in advance. "We told you so" over and over and over.

 

 

It's a disaster - and it's sheer luck it wasn't a hundred times worse already, as it would have been had the quake struck at night or on a weekend and the plants been operating at power. The lives lost via evacuation and diversion of resources and loss of income etc alone, with this happening, are already significant.

You can pretend this contamination is somehow a well-mixed drop of your two favorite isotopes permeating the whole of the ocean, but you can't contend that nonsense - the fish are bioaccumulating, the currents are holding concentration, the stuff is not behaving according to your presumptions. The best one can say is that the jury is still out.

 

 

 

Lying?

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

 

*Editor's Note (posted 12/30/08): In response to some concerns raised by readers, a change has been made to this story. The sentence marked with an asterisk was changed from "In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—and other coal waste contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste" to "In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." Our source for this statistic is Dana Christensen, an associate lab director for energy and engineering at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as well as 1978 paper in Science authored by J.P. McBride and colleagues, also of ORNL.

 

As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.

 

 

Not a lie, I would be careful calling some one a liar....

[overtone]

 

Not a lie, I would be careful calling some one a liar....

I was careful - what he posted was deceptive (the Sci-Am article was a punking by deliberately deceptive writers, and their "correction" mildly amusing in its careful avoidance of that embarrassment, but that was not what I was disparaging). He had plenty of opportunity to "clarify" what he was up to, after it was pointed out to him what he was posting and wherein the deception lay, and chose to double down instead.

 

Note that the "corrected" Sci Am article - it's been a while now and the corrected version is the final one - does not support his assertion in the thread.

 

 

The biological damage produced by equal activities of potassium and caesium is comparable, so the threat from the two is also comparable.

 

Now, can you refute it?

I don't know - haven't checked, since it isn't relevant to anything in this thread. (It seems unlikely, btw, despite your carefully deniability preserving approach via "equal activities" and "comparable" - there are no other minerals that can be substituted for each other in ordinary biological systems without effect, and no sources of radiation damage completely equivalent to each other biologically - but the whole issue is beside the point, since we are not comparing a bad leakage of potassium with a bad leakage of cesium).

 

 

If not then the fact that the sea has (on a Bq/litre basis) a lot more potassium in it that Cs is vitally important in terms of addressing the additional risk from the Cs.

Only if you are evaluating the additional risk from the Fukushima Cs as if the stuff were spread throughout the world's oceans. But that would be completely idiotic, and given the repeated choice I am going to assume you are engaged in a commonly observed deception rather than stupidity at that level.

 

 

 

On a local basis, this is a disaster,

Why yes, it is. Hence the thread, and every post I've made in it.

 

And by "local" you of course mean all the areas seriously and adversely affected in the years to come - by very good luck not Tokyo or the like so far, but which will include some rather far flung regions of the Pacific, if the models are even close.

Edited September 11, 2013 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

 

 

I don't know - haven't checked, since it isn't relevant to anything in this thread. (It seems unlikely, btw, despite your carefully deniability preserving approach via "equal activities" and "comparable" - there are no other minerals that can be substituted for each other in ordinary biological systems without effect, and no sources of radiation damage completely equivalent to each other biologically - but the whole issue is beside the point, since we are not comparing a bad leakage of potassium with a bad leakage of cesium).

 

 

 

You can't have it both ways.

It is a complicated issue.

So it's impossible to say that the risks are "the same".

But you try to berate me for saying they are comparable.

Rather than complaining about my choice of words ( though it's not much of a choice in the circumstances) why don't you actually either

accept that I'm right or

show that I'm wrong?

 

Also, in saying that the affected area "will include some rather far flung regions of the Pacific, if the models are even close." you are proving my point about the dilution into much of the Pacific.

 

If I wait long enough, will you accept all the points I have made?

And, BTW, I cited the sci am article to show what the article said.

The article still says "In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." which is the point I was making so your claim that "does not support his assertion in the thread." is more than a bit fishy.

[overtone]

 

 

But you try to berate me for saying they are comparable.

No, I don't.

 

I berate you for trying to obscure the issues of the thread with meaningless and irrelevant comparisons.

 

The fact that you are probably also wrong in at least one of those comparisons was a non-berating response, wherein I made the mistake of momentarily and hypothetically entertaining the comparison as a legitimate issue. As that was a cooperation with what is increasingly resembling an agenda of distraction, I regret doing that.

 

 

 

Also, in saying that the affected area "will include some rather far flung regions of the Pacific, if the models are even close." you are proving my point about the dilution into much of the Pacific

No, I'm not. The exact opposite, a matter of which you have been carefully and explicitly informed sveral times now.

 

The harms, if any, will be consequences of long distance transport and pooling without adequate dilution, as the models indicate. That's lack of dilution, causing problems. Failure to dilute even locally, let alone globally according to your utterly ridiculous presumptions. Your presumption of dilution is not supported in theory, model, or evidence.

 

That is the third or fourth time that very simple point - that dilution cannot be assumed in the time scales necessary for your comparisons to have even the slightest validity or support for your arguments - has been typed and posted directly in front of your eyes. How obliviously stupid am I supposed to assume you are, before I can start drawing reasonable and evidence supported conclusions about your integrity and agenda here?

 

 

 

And, BTW, I cited the sci am article to show what the article said.

No. You cited the Sci Am article to try to create the misled impression that coal fired power plants were greater radiation sources and risks than nuclear power plants - the same reason it was written, and the punking of Sci Am financed in the first place by dishonest nuke power advocates - and thereby deflect this thread from describing and acknowledging the manifold political, economic, medical, and ecological mess that is and will be Fukushima;

 

and through the events and risks of Fukushima the entire nuclear power industry.

 

(The issue of Sci Am's general integrity is becoming problematic - the current issue contains at least one article that appears to have been written by Monsanto's PR team, a compendium of every bullshit talking point and deceptive slogan the GM proponents have come uip with in the past thirty years, presented as if it were a reported scientific consensus of actual findings)

[Delbert]

(The issue of Sci Am's general integrity is becoming problematic - the current issue contains at least one article that appears to have been written by Monsanto's PR team, a compendium of every bullshit talking point and deceptive slogan the GM proponents have come uip with in the past thirty years, presented as if it were a reported scientific consensus of actual findings)

 

On a side issue, I take Sci Am and getting a tad disenchanted with it.

 

I'd still like to know (if anyone does know) how long they have to keep on cooling the things with water and storing the outflow - like, how many years, decades or centuries? Because if it's either of the latter two, it seems to me that they have a very serious problem - if not an unsolvable one.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

I berate you for trying to obscure the issues of the thread with meaningless and irrelevant comparisons.

 

The comparison is entirely relevant.

The additional radiation dose to everyone who isn't close to the source is tiny compared to the background dose.

So the additional risk is tiny.

 

Let me know when this stops being true.

"The article still says 'In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.' which is the point I was making "

Until then, anything you say about it isn't worth reading.

 

" through the events and risks of Fukushima the entire nuclear power industry. "

Clearly bollocks since I cited a much worse example of nuclear waste emissions.

Perhaps you would like to point out the factual errors in this analysis

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

 

(I know- it's not quite the same issue as it includes things like the direct use of coal for heat, rather than for electricity generation)

 

Delbert, they are already drawing up plans to strip the radioactive material out of the water so they can dump the clean water.

Of course, that still means storing the radioactive material- but they were planning to do that anyway.

[overtone]

The additional radiation dose to everyone who isn't close to the source is tiny compared to the background dose.

1) So? We are talking about the people and enivronments close enough to be at risk, obviously. 2) The other side of the Pacific Ocean is not what I would desribe as "close", but the models show significant radiation risk in some places near California.

 

 

Let me know when this stops being true.

"The article still says 'In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.' which is the point I was making "

It stops being true when the fly ash is controlled better (as when the same money is spent on it that is spent on controlling nuke waste), or when the nuclear waste is controlled worse (as at Fukushima) (a problem we don't have with coal plant fly ash).

 

It stops being worth repeating when you realize that a properly running nuke is probably emitting less radiation per unit this or that than a good many watermelons at the grocery store. The response is, of course, so what?

 

 

 

Until then, anything you say about it isn't worth reading.

I'm not saying anything about it - I'm saying something about your argument, in which you employ bs like that to suggest nuclear power poses less of a radiation problem and risk than coal power: that kind of rhetorical stunt is wingnut propaganda, dishonest and deceptive.

 

 

" through the events and risks of Fukushima the entire nuclear power industry. "

Clearly bollocks since I cited a much worse example of nuclear waste emissions.

? Not making sense, that. How are the lessons of Fukushima, which I explicitly stated were redundant (many times over, not just Sellafield), made invalid by the very same lessons being available elsewhere?

 

 

 

Perhaps you would like to point out the factual errors in this analysis

More irrelevant bs.

 

But OK: here's the first sentence:

 

 

I wrote this back in 2008 and with one new death that is somewhat nuclear energy related (a death at one of the japanese nuclear plants following the 8.9 earthquake) the statistics are not changed.

He's only counting one death from Fukushima. More people than that died merely from the stresses of the evacuation (the stats from the old folks care facilities were kind of sad) let alone the long term economic dislocations, the long term efffects of radiation exposure, the effects of the diversion of resources from tsunami relief, and so forth.

 

I mean, carelessly stupid in the very first sentence - do we need to plow any further into the crackpot realm of the terminally confused?

Edited September 12, 2013 by overtone

[Delbert]

 

Delbert, they are already drawing up plans to strip the radioactive material out of the water so they can dump the clean water.

Well, that may be true, but I seem to recall reading somewhere (can't recall where) that they were simply going to dump the lot, it as it is (untreated), in the pacific!

 

But what I seem to have read was that the things need 400 tons of water each day to cool. So to reduce the total amount they've got to clean more than that each day! A tall order to say the least, I'd say.

 

And as for drawing up plans, presumably the plan for an earthquake and subsequent ingress of water was also drawn up.

 

 

Of course, that still means storing the radioactive material- but they were planning to do that anyway.

Presumably along with all the other stored waste that I understand they don't know what do with.

 

I'm sorry, but I suggest the consequences - in particular the long term - of active isotopes and radiation upon living organisms is not known. The reason I quoted the swans (reply #7) on my local river was to highlight the apparent fragility of the difference between life and death. If the swans just managed to pass the coots all would doubtless be well, and the connection would not even be known about. I also quoted Morphogenesis and brainless cells managing to organise themselves and the possible fragility of that process - something I believe we've very little understanding. And similarly I suggest we have no idea whatsoever whether or not there's subtle adverse connections with nuclear power.

 

All not scientific I know, but perhaps it's something we lose sight of at our peril.

 

Also, it seems to me that there always seems to be confusion in the media about the difference between radiation and ingesting active isotopes. I'm not aware of any figure, but to me the dangerous bit is ingesting. Radiation one can walk away from (run preferably!), whereas ingested isotopes, one is stuck with them or it banging away at our tissues.

[ydoaPs]

2) The other side of the Pacific Ocean is not what I would desribe as "close", but the models show significant radiation risk in some places near California.

Even ignoring the tenth-thickness of air, by the inverse square law, that would mean the ocean around Japan is boiling.

[swansont]

Even ignoring the tenth-thickness of air, by the inverse square law, that would mean the ocean around Japan is boiling.

 

The reference is to the contamination transported in the ocean, not California's exposure to the source of the leak/dumping itself.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

 

But OK: here's the first sentence:

 

 

He's only counting one death from Fukushima. More people than that died merely from the stresses of the evacuation (the stats from the old folks care facilities were kind of sad) let alone the long term economic dislocations, the long term efffects of radiation exposure, the effects of the diversion of resources from tsunami relief, and so forth.

Fair enough, how many do you want to add to the nuclear power death toll to account for those?

Unless it's comparable with the death toll from Chernobyl, it's not going to make any real difference is it?

Of course, you should have realised that but...

[overtone]

2) The other side of the Pacific Ocean is not what I would desribe as "close", but the models show significant radiation risk in some places near California.

Even ignoring the tenth-thickness of air, by the inverse square law, that would mean the ocean around Japan is boiling.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present you the typical advocate of nuclear power, complete with the technical argument full of factual information and high class references to physical law beyond the ken of the hippie Greenpeacers.

 

 

Fair enough, how many do you want to add to the nuclear power death toll to account for those?

Unless it's comparable with the death toll from Chernobyl, it's not going to make any real difference is it?

No, not "fair enough". That wouldn't even begin to be fair. That was just the first sentence of the link, quoted only because it establishes the quality and the agenda of it. To be fair, you would quietly delete that link, apologize for posting it, and return to the issues of the thread wioth no more fogging attempts.

 

On the other hand: Difference to what? Obviously an accurate (or at least not idiotic) estimate of the done and prospective deaths from Fukushima would make a difference in a thread about the scope and prospects of the ongoing disaster at Fukushima, regardless of how many they were - but that is so far from your concerns as to have slipped your mind, apparently.

 

If anyone cares (and you don't) the death toll from Chernobyl, like that from Fukushima, is yet another bit of information we can't get from crackpots like that - or from anyone else you link to, would be my guess. He has no idea what it is. Neither do you. The entire argument in that link is a stupid, wingnut propaganda effort at distraction from genuine issues that make differences, and every single piece of "information" in it is bullshit - technically, meaning accurate only by chance, and included without serious concern for its accuracy because it furthers an invalid induction made for propaganda purposes. This is completely obvious, starting with sentence number one - it happened to be very obviously false, but clearly the guy doesn't care one way or the other: he has bigger fish to fry.

 

Another aspect completely obivous is that it is irrelevant to this thread. The irrelevance has been explicitly established for pages now. The most reasonable take on that circumstance is that you linked to it, in this thread, to further an agenda of deception and distraction from the issues of this thread.

 

Why is he, and by link you, even bothering to total up the coal deaths in China, for example? Why is he comparing the effects of uncontrolled and unmitigated mining risks and pollution spewing from coal, which is coal's entire cost advantage over renewables of any kind, with the effects of the enormously expensive and rigorous efforts to control the emissions from nukes, as measured when they work ? That isn't even apples and oranges - it's apples and gravel in the appropriate thread. In an inappropriate thread, like this one, it just boggles the mind.

Edited September 13, 2013 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

So, in respect of my earlier invitation "Perhaps you would like to point out the factual errors in this analysis"

, I can take that as I can't" (save to the extent you did),..

 

BTW, "Why is he, and by link you, even bothering to total up the coal deaths in China, for example? "

because we have to get energy from somewhere.

 

BTW, I'm intrigued by this false assertion "If anyone cares (and you don't) the death toll from Chernobyl,"

Would you like to try to justify that?

[overtone]

So, in respect of my earlier invitation "Perhaps you would like to point out the factual errors in this analysis"

, I can take that as I can't" (save to the extent you did),..

Or you could take it as I described it above (it's not "analysis", it's bullshit) when I dealt with exactly that question in detailed and explicit fashion - and which I don't believe you didn't read, btw.

 

Take it from here on as calling you out. You're not posting honestly.

 

 

BTW, "Why is he, and by link you, even bothering to total up the coal deaths in China, for example? "

because we have to get energy from somewhere.

Start a relevant thread, troll. "We" are not dysfunctioning Chinese coal burners and miners, or discussing the proper regulation of the coal industry here.

 

 

BTW, I'm intrigued by this false assertion "If anyone cares (and you don't) the death toll from Chernobyl,"

Would you like to try to justify that?

I already did. As I pointed out, you are responsible for that link - you've had ample opportunity to disavow it, if your original posting was some kind of mistake. if you cared about the death toll from Chernobyl you wouldn't link to wingnut crap to use it in an invalid argument. You wouldn't use linked falsehoods about it for bullshit in a thread about a completely different topic. Your cavalier and indefensible use of references to the death toll from Chernobyl to fog this discussion reveals, is all.

 

You've neglected the thread topic long enough, btw - and I see I have cooperated in your agenda there. Do you have anything to post related to the continuing problems at Fukushima?

Edited September 14, 2013 by overtone

[Delbert]

 

You've neglected the thread topic long enough, btw - and I see I have cooperated in your agenda there. Do you have anything to post related to the continuing problems at Fukushima?

Couldn't agree more. So I refer to my previous: does anyone know how long do they have to keep on cooling the things with water (reportedly 400 tons a day); is it years, decades or centuries?

[John Cuthber]

And again, "Perhaps you would like to point out the factual errors in this analysis"

 

Incidentally, even if I were unconcerned by the death toll from Chernobyl (I'm not, of course) then perhaps you would like to explain why you are unconcerned about a bigger number of people killed by coal. "We are not dysfunctioning Chinese coal burners and miners, "

Edited September 14, 2013 by John Cuthber