Referendums Galore - 2018 Municipal Elections


#588

@Taiwanguy, to be honest, you’ve brought an interesting side to this topic and it’s good that you have.
May I politely ask where you formulated such knowledge? To me, it’s okay if you work in energy industry.


#589

So did you vote in favor of proposition 9?


#590

… because you keep telling people that it’s ok to live there?


#591

I think he’s answered twice already.


#592

At least now you’re making an effort, but you’re still wrong.

Interesting definition of zero.

Note the distinction between evidence and proof. You said there’s “zero evidence”. I call that wrong. If you want to sue the BBC et al. for defamation, go right ahead.

First, Fukushima doesn’t matter because it hasn’t killed any humans yet, never mind the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted (still adding up, of course) and all the human misery.

Then, Chernobyl, Kyshtym, and all the other Soviet disasters don’t matter because it was just an inept government, and we’ll never see one of those again!

Then, Windscale doesn’t matter because the deaths weren’t proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be caused by it.

Then, any incident that was just military or just experimental doesn’t matter.

It’s like a Queen song. Nothing really matters… :musical_note:

Kyshtym alone is suspected of causing thousands of human deaths.

I absolutely share your concern. I’m probably even more concerned about air pollution than you are.

I would much rather see people be well informed about the dangers of coal power – the overall situation, not just whatever the risk of a fatal accident at a (non-military, non-experimental, non-inept-government) coal plant is – than see them thinking coal is manna from heaven. I’m just asking for the same standard to be applied to nuclear power, which is more complex because it’s far, far more powerful.

Think about it: to be an apologist for coal the way you are for nuclear, I would need to challenge you to prove those coal-related deaths you cite beyond the shadow of a doubt. That’s not how intelligent risk assessment works.

If you measure it strictly in terms of accidental human deaths, yes. But 60 years is nothing to the mighty atom.


“Effects on the surrounding area” is vague, but whatever. You’re hoping people will think of nuclear as a zero-pollution option. Who wouldn’t want that?

Unfortunately, that angle cannot be sustained. For example: https://timeforchange.org/co2-emission-nuclear-power-stations-electricity

As for stopping you from moving to Fukushima…

So sue them for human rights violations! Or something.
:popcorn:


Of course not. Putting it on the roof is a far more efficient use of space. :slight_smile:


#593

He has, but I think the food imports question is worth addressing.


#594

He has answered why he’s being banned to live in japan?


#595

He never said he was banned.


#596

I don’t work in energy. I don’t have any formal training in energy production or anything like that. I majored in mathematics and economics.

I just read a lot.


#597

I am not a Taiwanese citizen. I encouraged my wife to vote against it, but she didn’t. She did vote in favor of the other nuclear proposals though.

Did you vote in favor of proposition 9? If yes, why?

I find it strange that so many people who are so pro-science in the climate change debate are so quick to dismiss science when it comes to nuclear/radiation issues… There is absolutely zero evidence that food from the Fukushima area is harmful to human health. Since 2015, zero fish caught around the Fukushima site have ever surpassed Japan’s VERY CONSERVATIVE 100 becquerel limit. In the US, the becquerel limit for seafood is 1200…just to give you an idea of how strict Japanese standards are for radiation levels in food.

So the question is, if people are pro-science, why would they ever vote to restrict food based on such complete bullcrap?


#598

Huh? It’s an exclusion zone. The government wont let anyone move there.


#599

Well in that case maybe you can move as close to that zone as possible.


#600

I voted against prop 9 because the the region ban includes too wide a geographical range and food products simply processed in near-by regions. Taiwan and China are currently the only two countries imposing this ban based on geographical regions instead of actual risk of radiation contamination. One of the region included in the ban is where the main Tokyo airport is, it’s simply dumb.


#601

You can be annoyed that I’m not including experimental non-energy producting reactors in my stats… But how on earth would those stats be relevant when talking about the safety of nuclear power production? My entire point is that the international community has a REALLY good grasp on how to build power-generating reactors with so many failsafes that an accident resulting in deaths to the general population…or even significant adverse health effects is pretty much impossible. Including experimental reactors or military non-power producting reactors (like Windscale) is irrelevant. They aren’t subject to the same regulation and safety protocols.

People look at Fukushima as some nuclear tragedy. I think they are missing the point. It should be viewed as a testament of how safe this stuff is. A perfect storm of a disaster hit that plant. A 9.1 earthquake, a MASSIVE tsunami, a reactor that was opperating well past its expiration date, outdated security systems… and STILL zero deaths and no long-term effects to people or the environment. People could literally move into Fukushima tomorrow and nothing would happen to them.


#602

Intelligent voter alert!


#603

If I had a reason to, I wouldn’t object to it at all.

Should I object to it? What’s your point?


#604

You are jumping the shark now. :shark:

I wish you many pleasant days. :bowing:


#605

I wonder how many voted for prop 9 because they don’t trust the government/companies in importing only the safe products. So instead go for a blanket ban which I agree is overkill.


#606

Posting here… because it’s convenient and still related to elections

Seen on my FB feed, a politician newly elected, donates cabbages
This politician looks to be 郭信良 Guo Shin-Liang in Tainan. DPP? Please confirm
The length of the queue is not obvious on the video
… but it shows what people want here


#607

Cabbage is super cheap right now.