The fear factor is absolutely astonishing when held against the reality. I stumbled on a thread earlier this morning where one of the otherwise strikingly knowledgeable posters here encouraged someone to pack their family and bags and move back to Europe days after the tsunami because of the risk of radiation from Fukushima!!! Ironically, they probably received more radiation on the flight than they would have by staying in Taipei.
The fear factor is absolutely astonishing when held against the reality. I stumbled on a thread earlier this morning where one of the otherwise strikingly knowledgeable posters here encouraged someone to pack their family and bags and move back to Europe days after the tsunami because of the risk of radiation from Fukushima!!! Ironically, they probably received more radiation on the flight than they would have by staying in Taipei.
Well I wouldn’t like to get nuked of course, but every year China’s dust storms drop a shit load of carcinogens, viruses, bacteria, and heavy metals and people almost celebrate it as progress. Just think of how many people have died over seeking energy security, and strategic access to energy resources.
Yes indeed, and speaking of which, where is Fred Smith these days? I dare say still attempting to keep the real rascals from his door!
[quote]Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq
By Paul Bignell Tuesday, 19 April 2011
Plans to exploit Iraq’s oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world’s largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show.[/quote]
HG
Against HGC’s reality.
Unless people base their opinions, as far as matters of physics and chemistry are concerned, on the laws of nature and as far as inferences about human behaviour in the future is concerned, on historical experience, the power of conviction of their arguments is, uh, up against the power of nature and the reality of human history. I’ll leave the rest of the exercise to others.
Oh, and none of what i say about nuclear power can be construed to mean that i might approve of burning coal or oil - i am not (am saying that just because it seems Fox has not read the related thread(s) yet).
Against HGC’s reality.
Unless people base their opinions, as far as matters of physics and chemistry are concerned, on the laws of nature and as far as inferences about human behaviour in the future is concerned, on historical experience, the power of conviction of their arguments is, uh, up against the power of nature and the reality of human history. I’ll leave the rest of the exercise to others. [/quote]
I’m starting to wonder what colour the sun is on this Ishigaki Island you keep referring to! That’s quite a package to unravel, but let’s just say there were, for example world wars one and two. Mistakes are oft repeated, and many people die. That’s humans and their/our history. The exploitation of physics and chemistry brought an abrupt end to the second world war, destroying two Japanese cities in the process, and oddly enough with nuclear materials. Both of these cities now enjoy thriving populations, with very little residual destruction. Let’s all hail science!
No, we certainly get it, but despite your mantra of faith in physics and chemistry, science simply hasn’t delivered any realistic alternative to what we presently have. While I can tolerate great big fans dotted around the landscape and unfortunately twatting birds out of the sky, they are, as are all the collective “renewables” at this juncture, a mere pimple on the elephant’s arse of our global need for power. So are we going to dim the lights, or are we going to continue to exploit potentially dangerous resources to furnish the world with power? If I was a betting man, I know where I’d put my money. Is that the right thing? Almost certainly not! It’s life, Jim, but [strike]not[/strike] as we know it.
And just to step back on topic. There is this news:
[quote]Tsunami trash plume drifting across Pacific ocean - Reuters
Last Updated: Wed, 13 Apr 2011
Scientists say a massive trash plume generated by Japan’s tsunami is floating across the northern Pacific Ocean and heading east for Hawaii.[/quote]
One shouldn’t make light of this I suppose, because there will undoubtedly be many dead in that raft of trash, but for one little moment I did have a sneaky giggle at the thought of this stuff hitting Peal Harbour around December 11. Spank me!
Not in my view… it seems to belong into this thread (where it has been posted before): Nuclear Power: Viable energy or not after the Japanese disaster?
But I am not a moderator, and my comment is only meant to give you my own perspective… [/quote]
It’s done.
Archeologists? I see that’s true after a google search.
I don’t know my patron saints as well as I should but I do know St. Jude as being the coolest of patron saints, lost causes. I mean when all else fails: 'Who ya gonna call? St Jude the Miraculous Saint. That’s pretty stand out as far as saints go. You cannot be a saint without a verifiable miracle. So to be the Miraculous Saint is really what it’s all about. Otherwise it is CNN HEROES level. Good and thank you very much but I’m not praying to you. The world is confusing.
I like hero worship. In my humble opinion there ought be more of it, but I don’t think that’s how Jude got his stripes. He was more into faith in battle. When you look at your king and you have these evil doubts (read disloyalty) as you think to yourself, ‘Fuck you man! I am not going over that wall for you,’ have a little faith in the bigger picture. The King knows what he is doing and you don’t get to be king for no reason (except in modern day England). Kings are wrought in battle so then you pray to St. Jude for a miracle because that’s what he believes. I think that’s cool. Wrong headed at times but it definitely sweetens the rape and pillage should you prevail. Tie it all in. Is Fukushima a lost cause? I’m not sure but there are times when you ought have a little faith – think of the guys at the coal face being bused in every day in their flimsy white anti-radiation suits. Cut them some respect. Pray for them to St. Jude.
I agree, and hopefully these guys aren’t among Tepco’s workers that are being hit with a pay cut. News suggests Tepco has avoided nationalisation and will spin off the Fukishima plant (obviously that’s shorthand), and has loans and cashflow sorted to cover the damage. Tepco have also upped their expectations on what they can offer the grid, so it looks like there may not be as vast a shortfall in the peak summer months as was first floated, in fact, if any at all. There is also scope to up electricity tariffs, which seems only fair given other utilities have had to share Tepco’s pain in paying for the clean up.
Looks like I get my cold beer (I hope it glows in the dark - wouldn’t that be ORSM!), aircon room and Fuji Rock goes loud. Yeehaw!
[quote=“Fox”]. . . think of the guys at the coal face being bused in every day in their flimsy white anti-radiation suits. Cut them some respect. Pray for them to St. Jude.[/quote] Maybe I’ll do that, or at least pray for them to somebody.
[quote=“Bob Dylan”] And for each and every underdog soldier in the night. . . .[/quote]–“Chimes of Freedom” (1964)
I’d like to share this article, which is a bit long but basically makes a few interesting points and warnings:
[quote]Since 1952 there have been only 33 reported accidents or incidents in 568 reactors that are now in operation or previously built and shut down. Only two of the 33 incidents were considered “major accidents”. Percentage-wise, 6 percent of these nuclear reactors have had a serious incident or accident. If the number of safe days of operation were calculated against the total number of accidents, the margin of error for nuclear power plants would be infinitesimal.
In any other industry, nuclear power’s safety record would be enviable. But nuclear power is not any other industry. Nuclear power represents a major new challenge to the inevitability of human failure. When a space shuttle fails, a handful of people die tragically, and the likelihood of bystander injury is very small. When a nuclear reactor fails, hundreds of people can suffer or die soon after the event, and thousands, or conceivably millions of bystanders can become sick or bear children with severe birth defects.
[/quote]
[quote]Japan is widely respected for its engineering expertise, social responsibility and dedicated workforce. Yet Japanese know-how failed to foresee or plan for the eventuality of a 9.0 earthquake and the ensuing tidal wave. In Fukushima, just as in Chernobyl, the severity of the event was mitigated by small groups of workers who volunteered to stay behind while others were evacuated.
In Japan, the workers who stayed behind to battle the breakdown became known as the Fukushima Fifty. They were the last line of defense at that site. We need to ask what would have happened if this selfless group of people had not been willing to put themselves in grave danger to protect others. And, we need to wonder if a similar group will emerge when another disaster occurs.
Not that I’d want to slag my own profession, although I frequently do, but that was written by two stock brokers.
Meanwhile, conservative estimates on fossil fuels point to at least 100,000 deaths a year. Now times that by 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, etc, and well, you get the picture. Oh, and what exactly is the toll from nukes over those thirty years? Hmm, 4,000.
Two Japanese cities were purposefully nuked, the worst possible way to spread this stuff, and are now fully functional megacities. I’m sorry, but this supposed nuclear bogeyman just isn’t scaring me half as much as the daily crud I inhale living here in HK.
The fear factor is absolutely astonishing when held against the reality. I stumbled on a thread earlier this morning where one of the otherwise strikingly knowledgeable posters here encouraged someone to pack their family and bags and move back to Europe days after the tsunami because of the risk of radiation from Fukushima!!! Ironically, they probably received more radiation on the flight than they would have by staying in Taipei.
I think you could argue that a precautionary principle could reasonably be applied there. The situation was uncertain, the potential for massive radiation release appeared to exist, the available official information sources were identifiably untrustworthy.
I didn’t seriously consider bailing myself because I’m old, and I’d be out of a job, but for someone with young kids/pregnant wife/freelance employment situation/experience of Chernobyl, the balance of concerns might well be different.
If things had gone very badly it might then have been too late to get out, but you could always come back after a visit to the old country, if you wanted to.
The oft-repeated comparison above really needs so far added to it. An activity that produces highly toxic waste lasting for thousands or millions of years really can’t be fully evaluated over a 50 year timescale.
Sir, you don’t know much about physics, do you? Your “spread this stuff” is plain false, since those bombs emitted a very intense but short burst of radiation and did not produce a weeks or months longs flow of radioactive material (dust - also called fallout - and minerals gone into solution in water, etc.) on the scale of what the Fukushima plant has been emitting.
And i wonder why you keep bringing up the issue of burning coal: it is pretty clear to anybody except those who have a financial stake in the matter that burning fossils (coal, oil, etc.) is a bad idea (not only from the point of view of attributable human deaths). I’ve asked you more than once before whether the best you can come up with is playing off one stupid idea against another, and it it seems it is. I’ll put it down as “broken record syndrome”…
Forget it - it is unknown in the world of big money politics.
Does evidence not point to the fact that followers of the religion of money can’t or don’t want to think beyond their own life span? (BTW, in this case “toxic” = “radioactive” - just for the record, to keep the trolls at bay.)
Oh noble man of physics, I bequeth thee to answer this humble benighted servant thus. What should thine kingdom do if one was to rashly disconnect the demon drivers of harmful power? Removeth thee of coal and fossils, nukes and other baddie waddies henceforth, and what should thine do to feed, house, water one’s servants? For money I care not a jot, but for the amassed people of mine earth, I do indeed. Pray tell, oh noble man of fine letters, what is your answer? On bended knee I begeth thee, please! Enlighten me hence!
Indeed, fine sir, please also pardon me my loose wording. Whence I spoketh “spread this stuff” I humbly referred to the irradiating of so many seemingly pitiful souls that subsequently failed to perish before seeing out their God granted threescore years and ten. Such mysteries the Creator has seen in his divine place to put before us. Perhaps thou earthly physics can unfurl such heaven sent knots?
Actually, I’m certain the alternative to nuclear and oil (coal and gas) is geothermal. It seems very simple, it has been done in many places before and it is essentially a perpetual source of energy. The technology exists but the estimated coast of plant construction is about double that of coal, however, in terms of efficiency it more than compensates making it about as competitive as wind power in cost per kilowatt hour. As for plant construction, gas is the cheapest source of electrical energy, but only marginally more than wind. Wind is cheaper per kilowatt hour. The failing of geothermal in the past has been water supply. It’s massive advantage is that it is practically everywhere.
