Pages

Jump to bottom

23 comments

1 Randall Gross  Wed, May 29, 2013 9:27:50am

I am assuming this is from a PR release?

2 Political Atheist  Wed, May 29, 2013 9:37:26am

re: #1 Randall Gross

From a press release at Eurekalert. Here is the link to the site that contains the full article, but it does require a log in.

The American Chemical Society is a nonprofit organization chartered by the U.S. Congress. With more than 163,000 members, ACS is the world’s largest scientific society and a global leader in providing access to chemistry-related research through its multiple databases, peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences. Its main offices are in Washington, D.C., and Columbus, Ohio.

3 Varek Raith  Wed, May 29, 2013 10:29:43am

Yeah, well, Fukushima proved you can’t trust the nuclear industry or its regulators.
So…
No nuclear until then.

4 Varek Raith  Wed, May 29, 2013 10:34:16am

It also mistakenly says we don’t accept the science.
We do.
Here’s our problem. Why should we, after Fukushima, trust the industry or its regulators? Tepco and the Japanese government lied about the scale of the disaster. Tepco lied about safety inspections and the like. The government looked the other away. We know damn well the same is true here in the US. Look at what BP and the oil industry get away with.
We simply don’t trust them.

5 Political Atheist  Wed, May 29, 2013 11:01:17am

re: #4 Varek Raith

Your argument does not effect the actual topic here. Better regulation is certainly needed, but that changes nothing long term on the relative climate impact of energies. And the consequences of Fukushima, basically beyond any worst case scenario are far less than what we had been told by the critics they would be

The other thing anti nuclear critics either forget or remember all too well is that every source of energy cost lives and has an environmental impact. Every energy technology except perhaps geothermal faces strong opposition from the envir advocates. Solar-makes too much shade on the ground and uses rare earth metal. Wind-kills too many protected bird species. Natural gas-Still a massive CO emitter.

We have to go non CO energy. No other rational choice exists.

You know what really pollutes a huge amount and contributes massively to AGW/climate change? A billion humans heating with wood and coal in crude ovens and outdoor fires for cooking.

6 Political Atheist  Wed, May 29, 2013 11:11:48am

re: #3 Varek Raith

cen.acs.org

Nuclear Power Prevents More Deaths Than It Causes
Climate Change: Study estimates that nuclear energy leads to substantially fewer pollution-related deaths and greenhouse gas emissions compared with fossil-fuel sources

In the wake of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, critics of nuclear power have questioned how heavily the world should rely on the energy source, due to possible risks it poses to the environment and human health.

“I was very disturbed by all the negative and in many cases unfounded hysteria regarding nuclear power after the Fukushima accident,” says report coauthor Pushker A. Kharecha, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in New York.

7 Varek Raith  Wed, May 29, 2013 11:51:17am

So we should just accept the industry cutting corners and lying to us so they can save some money?
This is what proponents ignore. That the industry doens’t give a shit about safety. Only profit. Change that and we’ll talk.
Until then, no thanks.

8 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Wed, May 29, 2013 12:06:30pm

re: #7 Varek Raith

The paper is a serious one, and one of the authors is Hansen.

The main problem with nuclear in the US is that it doesn’t actually fit with the market. Without massive subsidies and the government picking up the insurance, nuclear power plants can’t be built. And the history of their financing and operation is one mired in problems in the US.

We should do the french model, and build a bunch of socialist 4th generation nukes. It can give the portion of the air force that now are spending their time getting sloppy drunk on duty while safeguarding irrelevant nuclear missiles something to do, too.

9 Randall Gross  Wed, May 29, 2013 12:24:37pm

re: #4 Varek Raith

It also mistakenly says we don’t accept the science.
We do.
Here’s our problem. Why should we, after Fukushima, trust the industry or its regulators? Tepco and the Japanese government lied about the scale of the disaster. Tepco lied about safety inspections and the like. The government looked the other away. We know damn well the same is true here in the US. Look at what BP and the oil industry get away with.
We simply don’t trust them.

You should never trust any industry. That’s why we have oversight agencies, and even those sometimes fail. The very serious point that the paper makes as others have in the past - more die without nuclear than with. More coal=more deaths even if we had a Fukishima scale incident every five years instead of the health effects of coal or other hydrocarbon generation.

10 Political Atheist  Wed, May 29, 2013 12:42:29pm

re: #7 Varek Raith

Why did you ignore

Better regulation is certainly needed

You have a great point, a necessary one however regulation is pretty easy to do as compared to dealing with AGW at an even stronger effect given all the CO that would come out if we do jnot have or do not expand nuclear power.

Regulate, fine. But the opponents freely engage in scare tactics, lies about consequences and actions takes by energy companies like Edison. The critics, just like the energy companies have a credibility problem that was fully self inflicted.

11 Varek Raith  Wed, May 29, 2013 12:43:57pm

re: #10 Political Atheist

Why did you ignore

You have a great point, a necessary one however regulation is pretty easy to do as compared to dealing with AGW at an even stronger effect given all the CO that would come out if we do jnot have or do not expand nuclear power.

Regulate, fine. But the opponents freely engage in scare tactics, lies about consequences and actions takes by energy companies like Edison. The critics, just like the energy companies have a credibility problem that was fully self inflicted.

re: #10 Political Atheist

Why did you ignore

You have a great point, a necessary one however regulation is pretty easy to do as compared to dealing with AGW at an even stronger effect given all the CO that would come out if we do jnot have or do not expand nuclear power.

Regulate, fine. But the opponents freely engage in scare tactics, lies about consequences and actions takes by energy companies like Edison. The critics, just like the energy companies have a credibility problem that was fully self inflicted.

Ignore?
Nope.
See, it simply won’t happen. The GOP will see to that.

12 Varek Raith  Wed, May 29, 2013 12:49:32pm

New regs may be passed, but the GOP will defund the regulators.
It’s what they’ve been doing to other regulatory bodies.
So, I don’t trust the industry to not put money above all else and I don’t trust the GOP to not kill regulations. It also doesn’t help the the body in charge of regulating minerals and oil was stock full of industry patsies and fools. So…yeah.
;)

When I see some actual, and not token, movement on the above, I’ll change my mind.

13 Political Atheist  Wed, May 29, 2013 1:26:00pm

re: #11 Varek Raith

Do you expect them to stay the majority forever? I don’t. The whole point here is a much larger, longer term picture than this seasons majority.

Have you compared nuclear energy deaths and illnesses to coal and oil?

Which is really the killer?

14 Varek Raith  Wed, May 29, 2013 1:37:48pm

re: #13 Political Atheist

Do you expect them to stay the majority forever? I don’t. The whole point here is a much larger, longer term picture than this seasons majority.

Have you compared nuclear energy deaths and illnesses to coal and oil?

Which is really the killer?

Nope, not forever. A Pres. election cycle or two.

True, but all it takes is for one nuke plant to meltdown. Imagine Indian Point or North Anna for example. I’d rather we have actual regulatory bodies in place before approving more plants. Basically, Fukushima has completely soured me against the industry with their actions and the Japanese govts. covering for them. The same is not so far off here. (BP) They need to build trust and fast.

15 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Wed, May 29, 2013 1:38:39pm

re: #14 Varek Raith


It really isn’t ever going to work with private plants, in my opinion. It’s just too unwieldy a commitment for the market. It’s government-sized stuff.

But even counting meltdowns, Coal is worse. Far, far worse than the equivalent amount of energy coming from nukes. I pinky-swear.

16 Varek Raith  Wed, May 29, 2013 1:42:13pm

Edit.
Note, stop being a jerk Varek.
Oy.
Too much bias against the industry.
Sorry.

17 Political Atheist  Wed, May 29, 2013 2:16:56pm

I think it’s a good time to paste in the Fukushima Wiki-casualties.
This was about as bad as it gets. 9.0 earthquake. Then Tsunamis. 4 plants endangered at the same site, multiple hydrogen explosions taking out the buildings.

Casualties
Main article: Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster casualties

There were no casualties caused by radiation exposure, approximately 25,000 died due to the earthquake and tsunami. Future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima are predicted to be extremely low to none.[16]

In 2013, two years after the incident, the World Health Organization indicated that the residents of the area who were evacuated were exposed to so little radiation that radiation induced health impacts are likely to be below detectable levels.[149] The health risks in the WHO assessment attributable to the Fukushima radiation release were calculated by largely applying the conservative Linear no-threshold model of radiation exposure, a model that assumes even the smallest amount of radiation exposure will cause a negative health effect.[150]

The WHO calculations using this model determined that the most at risk group, infants, who were in the most affected area, would experience an absolute increase in the risk of cancer(of all types) during their lifetime, of approximately 1% due to the accident. With the lifetime risk increase for thyroid cancer, due to the accident, for a female infant, in the most affected radiation location, being estimated to be one half of one percent[0.5%].[151][152] Cancer risks for the unborn child are considered to be similar to those in 1 year old infants.[153]

The estimated risk of cancer to people who were children and adults during the Fukushima accident, in the most affected area, was determined to be lower again when compared to the most at risk group - infants.[154] A thyroid ultrasound screening programme is currently[2013] ongoing in the entire Fukushima prefecture, this screening programme is, due to the screening effect, likely to lead to an increase in the incidence of thyroid disease due to early detection of non-symptomatic disease cases.[155] About one third of people[~30%] in industrialized nations are presently diagnosed with cancer during their lifetimes, radiation exposure can increase ones cancer risk, with the cancers that arise being indistinguishable from cancers resulting from other causes.[156]

No increase is expected in the incidence of congenital or developmental abnormalities, including cognitive impairment attributable to within the womb radiation exposure.[157] As no radiation induced inherited effects/heritable effects, nor teratogenic effects, have ever been definitely demonstrated in humans, with studies on the health of children conceived by cancer survivors who received radiotherapy, and the children of the Hibakusha, not finding a definitive increase in inherited disease or congenital abnormalities.[158] No increase in these effects are therefore expected in or around the Fukushima power plants.
Plight of evacuees

18 dragonath  Wed, May 29, 2013 2:42:45pm

re: #17 Political Atheist

I think that downplays an actual meltdown a little too much. Keep in mind, there is still an exclusion zone. The new pro-business Japanese government is eschewing safety checks to restart idled nuclear power plants.

Most of the burden after Fukushima fell on the Japanese taxpayer, not TEPCO.

19 Political Atheist  Wed, May 29, 2013 2:50:40pm

re: #18 dragonath

Oh yes, yes there is an exclusion zone. And even a small increase in cancer risk is significant. There has been a loss of arable land which really hurts a country like Japan. The ocean waters got nseriously dosed with rads, we can only carefully watch the sea life and try to assess.

EDIT-So how does that compare to the downwind side of a coal plant that maybe should be an exclusion zone? What casualty rate do we assess for all that CO? I don’t mean to downplay the risk, just put the truth of it up against the actual damage and casualties compared to what we are taught to expect from such a disaster by the critics.

I guess I want the bottom line to be like this-For each and every thing we worry about in nuclear power, is our worry scaled to the real risk? Does that risk assessment have perspective as to what we risk instead without the nuke plants? Generally people suck at risk assessment. we can’t afford that this time.

20 EPR-radar  Wed, May 29, 2013 3:44:10pm

re: #15 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

It really isn’t ever going to work with private plants, in my opinion. It’s just too unwieldy a commitment for the market. It’s government-sized stuff.

But even counting meltdowns, Coal is worse. Far, far worse than the equivalent amount of energy coming from nukes. I pinky-swear.

IMO, the inability of private industry to deal with nuclear power plants isn’t just a size issue. There is also the basic nature of the job of staffing a nuclear power plant.

Most of the time, the job is deadly dull, but when it gets exciting, you’ll need to have good people there on the scene. The private sector will never pay the cost needed to have such people on site. E.g., Three Mile Island.

21 dragonath  Wed, May 29, 2013 7:26:55pm

re: #19 Political Atheist

I don’t know what the relative “half-life” of mercury is in the environment, before it gets sequestered back into the environment. Coal plants emit plenty of that, and so do cement plants, which have permission to burn hazardous waste.

I’d feel a lot better about nuclear if most of the reactors weren’t BWRs from the 60 and 70s and this country didn’t have a history of papering over cost/risk assessments. As it is, I don’t think there exists the will or money for the United States to replace its reactors with modern, safer plants.

22 dragonath  Wed, May 29, 2013 7:51:00pm

Oh hey, some dude down dinged me. It’d be nice to know why.

23 Varek Raith  Wed, May 29, 2013 7:51:46pm

re: #22 dragonath

Oh hey, some dude down dinged me. It’d be nice to know why.

Heh. Same.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2016-01-01 10:29 am PST
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Square Cash Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Sparks - Self-Effacing (Official Lyric Video) Lyric video for 'Self-Effacing' by Sparks, from the new album 'A Steady Drip, Drip, Drip' out 15th May 2020. Buy/listen: sparks.lnk.to Follow SparksWebsite: allsparks.comFacebook: facebook.comInstagram: instagram.comTwitter: @sparksofficial Self-Effacing lyrics I’m not the guy who says,“I’m the guy” Always been ...
Thanos
1 hour, 11 minutes ago
Views: 42 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Brian Fallon - I Don’t Mind (If I’m With You)Music video by Brian Fallon performing I Don't Mind (If I'm with You). (C) 2020 Lesser Known Records marketed and distributed by Thirty Tigers vevo.ly
Thanos
1 hour, 21 minutes ago
Views: 45 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Sufjan Stevens, Lowell Brams - the Runaround [Official Video] New album available March 27th, 2020 on CD / LP/ Tape / Digital / StreamingListen / pre-order here: smarturl.itShot and edited by @abutta492 Hear Sufjan's Aporia playlist here: smarturl.it--------------------Lyrics:Give me a nameMore than a friendMore than a metaphorMore than ...
Thanos
2 hours, 2 minutes ago
Views: 52 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 • Share to Facebook
Lianne La Havas - Bittersweet British singer/songwriter Lianne La Havas debuts ‘Bittersweet’, a gentle and intoxicating new single taken from her forthcoming new album. Follow▶ Stream: COLORS Audio forthcoming at colors.lnk.to▶ Facebook: facebook.com▶ Instagram: instagram.com▶ Purchase: liannelahavas.co—Follow COLORS:▶ On Socials: lnk.to▶ On Spotify: colors.lnk.to▶ ...
Thanos
2 hours, 8 minutes ago
Views: 56 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Orville Peck - Queen of the Rodeo [OFFICIAL VIDEO] "Queen of the Rodeo" by Orville Peck off Pony LP (Release Date: March 22, 2019) TOUR DATES: orvillepeck.comSPOTIFY: open.spotify.com...PONY LP: smarturl.it WEBSITE: orvillepeck.comFACEBOOK: facebook.comINSTAGRAM: instagram.comTWITTER: @orvillepeck #OrvillePeck #QueenOfTheRodeo #Country #Pony #QOTR FEATURINGOrville PeckThanks JemLouisianna Purchase Tess Holiday Minxie MimieuxRyan ...
Thanos
2 hours, 32 minutes ago
Views: 59 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 200216This is last week’s update. Just as well because this was a lull week due to no liner yet, still bailing, and some poorly timed rain. We're happy that there's no more heavy sand lifting, and even if the liner ...
#thegreatpoolpondconversion (dangerman)
4 days, 23 hours ago
Views: 499 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Man Man - Cloud Nein [LYRIC VIDEO] "Cloud Nein" from Man Man's album 'Dream Hunting in the Valley of the In-Between' (Release Date: May 1, 2020)smarturl.it Man Man manmanband.comInstagram - @manmanbandband @HonusHonus FaceBook - facebook.com VIDEO CREDITS Director: Ryan Kattner Video Production House: Pootie's Onions Editor: ...
Thanos
5 days, 2 hours ago
Views: 525 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 • Share to Facebook
All Time Low: Some Kind of Disaster [OFFICIAL VIDEO] All Time Low's official music video for 'Some Kind Of Disaster' from their upcoming album Wake Up, Sunshine - available everywhere April 3rd via Fueled By Ramen. fbr.lnk.to Listen to 'Some King Of Disaster' here: atl.lnk.to Follow All Time ...
Thanos
1 week, 2 days ago
Views: 845 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 • Share to Facebook
I Am There for You - Huey Lewis Provided to YouTube by BMG Rights Management (US) LLC I Am There For You · Huey Lewis & The News Weather ℗ 2019 NEW HULEX, LLC under exclusive license to BMG Rights Management (US) LLC Drums, Percussion: Bill GibsonBackground ...
Thanos
1 week, 2 days ago
Views: 916 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 200209The the last six months or so was “sand, sandbags, pounding, sand, sand, sand”... it was by far the most physically grueling (54,000 pounds of sand we moved - just the two of us), and the longest on the timeline. ...
#thegreatpoolpondconversion (dangerman)
2 weeks, 1 day ago
Views: 977 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 4
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook