Life In 19x19

DrStraw wrote:

Vesa wrote:What happened to the forum policy?

2. Controversy
Religious, political, and sexual topics are not allowed.

Cheers,
Vesa

Which of the three were you thinking that nuclear power falls under?

Sexual obviously. They're not hot for nothing. The controversy though has to do with your stirring up a sadly political issue of vaccinations.

Getting all one's information from alternative media is almost as mind-numbing as only watching main-stream news.

daal wrote:
Sexual obviously. They're not hot for nothing. The controversy though has to do with your stirring up a sadly political issue of vaccinations.

Getting all one's information from alternative media is almost as mind-numbing as only watching main-stream news.

Huh? Where did I claim that? And I am not the one who raised the issue in the first place.

But seeing as how you brought up the matter, when was the last time you saw the MSM fully document their claims, which is always done in the alternative media I choose to read. I won't touch any of the alternative stuff which creates sensationalism for the sake of it without documenting their claims.

HermanHiddema wrote:

sybob wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:
I'm happy to see they have not let this incident scare them off nuclear power. Nuclear power is a safe and clean form of energy, which is absolutely essential in curbing global warming.

Please don't present opinions as facts.
As far as I know, there have been numerous incidents around the world involving nuclear, be it energy, be it military, medical or otherwise. Many casualties also, directly and indirectly/over time. Among various sources, I recall reading the UN report estimating that Chernobyl alone may over time result in several 100,000's of statistically attributable deaths. Not speaking about deformaties and other serious health matters, not speaking about environmental impact etc.

You know, it is always really disheartening to read these kinds of things. Is it really so hard to do your research? Instead of "as far as I know", how about you take the 5 minutes the find the actual UN report?

I mean, there's a wikipedia article on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due ... l_disaster) which summarizes the UN report thus:

In peer-reviewed publications UNSCEAR has identified fewer than 60 immediate deaths from trauma, acute radiation poisoning and cases of thyroid cancer from an original group of about 4,000 cases of thyroid cancers in the affected area. Other non-governmental organizations, many with staunch positions on the spectrum of the nuclear power debate, have claimed numbers up to a million excess deaths caused by the nuclear disaster. UN and other international agencies such as the Chernobyl Forum and the World Health Organization state that such numbers are wildly over-estimated, stressing a need for hard documentation of deaths. It is thought that the principal long-term adverse health outcomes are anxiety and depression among the general public across Eastern Europe as a result of irresponsible reporting and exaggerated statements by anti-nuclear power activists.

So yeah, 4,000 is a lot of people. But that's the number of deaths from the worst nuclear disaster ever, and it is way less than the number of deaths due to coal every single year. Or look at hydro power. The biggest disaster ever there claimed 171,000 lives: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

So please, do your research. This is the age of the internet, there is no excuse for saying "I recall reading".

Is it really necessary to respond to this post? No. Still, I give it a try to give an appropriate reply.

Unlike some others, I do not pretend to be mr. know-all. That is why I said "as far as I know".
Apart from that, refering to Wikipedia as a source is something I have difficulty with. Especially so, because 1- that was not the report I was referring to, and 2- this article just give a summary.

Lastly, in this age of the internet: so, the internet is always correct, isn't it?
Duh. Have an opinion, any, and somewhere on the internet you will find enough to support it.

Your view is clear. Fair, and some points we can agree on. But I think a further discussion about this with you is not fruitful. If you describe the worst nuclear accident in the world ever as a - mere - "media event" (your earlier reply), you have disclassified yourself as a discussion partner.

I think the problem with Nuclear power is that there isn't really a safe way to store all the waste. It does have a lot of benefits, and is mostly safe these days, providing the operators are responsible enough. When they aren't, then there is a problem.

Yes, nuclear power is absolutely save:

http://rt.com/news/234547-fukushima-new-leak-nuclear/

This should never have been built

Bad news continues.

Japan Times, 4 Nov. 2015, former Japan ambassador mr. Murata http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2015/11/04/voices/time-come-honorable-retreat-tokyo-2020-fukushima:
"Murata’s gravest concern is a number of troubling indications of recurring criticality in one or more of the reactors at Fukushima No. 1. For example, he notes that in December 2014, both radioactive iodine-131 and tellurium-132 were reported as having been detected in Takasaki city, Gunma Prefecture. Given the short half-lives of these radioactive particles, their presence could not be the result of the original meltdowns at Fukushima."

The above quote was not the main message of the article, but you may want to let it sink in for a while.
It indicates not only re-criticality, but also rogue re-criticality: source and location (underground? open waters?) unknown. Read: decommissioning totally impossible - open/uncontained fissioning unstoppable for centuries.

Also, it has become clear that there were several meltdowns. Numbers of cancer cases has skyrocketed, which sounds like there's even more bad news to come.

Reading this thread is like listening to a Donald Trump speech. We should do this, and we will do that, and it is obviously the other, ra ra ra.

Yeah, in a perfect world, renewable energy would be perfect. So lets call it our Point B.

Point A is the reality, which is:
- we need energy or we die,
- our energy needs will most likely just grow exponentially, and
- renewable energy, while nice, is not yet far enough to provide for all our needs, and
- fossil-fuel-based energy is terrible for the environment and possibly not sufficient for much longer anyways.

Given the above, and the proclaimed worry about future generations - anybody actually has anything resembling specific proposition as to how to get from Point A to Point B? Or are we just playing the "i know better - no, I know better" game?

Some of the additional facts worth mentioning here are:
- nobody will start seriously working on alternatives if what they do now brings them great fortunes,
- companies are people too, as some claim, but people who do not procreate and thus have no "future generations",
- to put any serious effort into large-scale research requires money - and where will this come from? Higher taxes?

Thumping your chests and yelling for "the right thing to do" because the info gathered from alternative media is commendable. But please - some specifics would be a nice nod to reality. Other than this - nice discussion. I go get popcorn.

PS>
Personally, I would say that the approach should be 3-pronged:
1. Try to come with more energy-efficient life on the large scale, and
2. Try to figure out safe(r) nuclear energy usage and waste disposition (in space?), and
3. Work like hell on alternative approaches to supplement the nuclear stuff.

And then hope that this will be enough soon enough. And we won't blow ourselves up on the way.

But how to force/motivate the world to seriously do the 1-2-3 above, I have no clue. Some work is already being done, but we need much more.

Any practical ideas? The only thing I can think of is: education. But even this assumes some universal good will, so it will most likely not be enough by far.

Anybody?

Bantari wrote:Reading this thread is like listening to a Donald Trump speech. We should do this, and we will do that, and it is obviously the other, ra ra ra.

PS>
Personally, I would say that the approach should be 3-pronged:
1. Try to come with more energy-efficient life on the large scale, and
2. Try to figure out safe(r) nuclear energy usage and waste disposition (in space?), and
3. Work like hell on alternative approaches to supplement the nuclear stuff.

And then hope that this will be enough soon enough. And we won't blow ourselves up on the way.

But how to force/motivate the world to seriously do the 1-2-3 above, I have no clue. Some work is already being done, but we need much more.

Any practical ideas? The only thing I can think of is: education. But even this assumes some universal good will, so it will most likely not be enough by far.

Anybody?

I like the idea of education.
But in my view, that is not first priority.
First, you want to have/raise awareness, IMHO.
To raise awareness, one needs publicity and promotion.
These require a media strategy and funds.

I do not believe in 'vision' and large scale (often megalomaniac) ideas. Too far from people's mindset.
I think we all should strive, individually and on a micro level, to be as conscious about energy and the environment as reasonably possible. Try to make a difference in your daily life, to the ones directly surrounding you, to the materials and energy you use. Hope and aim for Gaia, while knowing it is not.

I welcome further discussion.

Bantari wrote: But please - some specifics would be a nice nod to reality.

Germany, which ended its commitment to nuclear power in 2011 after the Fukushima disaster, currently produces over 30% of its electricity from renewable sources. This is up from 6% in 2000. Its targets are 80% of the national electricity and 60% of the overall energy needs by 2050.

Renewable energy is not some utopian hippie fantasy, but rather responsible public policy.

Sadly, this story is not over.

CBS brought some more news this week.
See http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fukushima-t ... -cover-up/.
Tepco now (finally, at last) admits 3 meltdowns, cover-up and breach of procedure, and makes public apologies.
I sincerely hope this coming out contributes to trying to find ways towards a 'solution'.

This is such a sad article. The pictures are haunting.

I found the honesty of investigation that stated it was a disaster made in Japan very telling. As a person who admires so much of Japanese culture, art, etc., it also showed also the weaknesses of that culture. Many of the strengths of Japanese culture that allowed it to rise out of the ashes, is also what allowed this disaster to take place. It seems all cultures have their strengths and blind areas just like us people.

Images from Chernobyl

https://www.rt.com/news/155072-chernoby ... -now-then/

Thank you for your post, goTony.
The article in the link is very informative. Highly recommended.
Compliments to RT, not just for the article, but for their openness and coverage.
Re. the photos/images, both in this article and others: please remind - you cannot see radioactivity.
You also can not smell it (like in: smell danger or fear), nor feel it (like in: illness) - unless it is too late.

Thanks Sybob,

RT just published some new photos from Fukushima.

So haunting so sad.

https://www.rt.com/news/351037-fukushim ... sion-zone/

Ahoy mateys - I recently took a road-trip across country and used the opportunity to educate myself by listening to a 24 lecture course on the specifics of energy sources, socioeconomical and economical factors behind energy as we know it, and on sustainable energy. The course is here http://goo.gl/1FGK6Z; I recommend it if one has never taken a course on the topic before.

Since we are on the topic of nuclear power and renewable energy, I'd like to share some thoughts on the topic.

1) Nuclear power is very efficient (in terms of conversion of the raw material into energy), and the amount of raw material available for use in electricity is quite abundant with our current projected stores that can be refined from rocks/dirt, and additional from our sea water lasting 1000 or more years, calculated on current world total energy use/year. There is no air pollution (hence the earlier poster's comment about it being a clean resource), but there is still radioactive waste that is associated with nuclear power. Spent fuel rods and coolant must be recycled (according to worldnuclear.org, it's prudent to wait 50 years until the heat expelled from spent fuel reaches 0.01% the level at removal from the plant before recycling) or disposed of (most often buried) yet our global system does not have a very responsible way of doing this yet which leads to environmental impact or contaminated water, land, ect. The whole process must be carefully managed.

2) Directly related to the topic of this conversation was a discourse on the Fukushima incident. The Japanese plant had a number of fail-safes in place.
A) It was built to withstand the impact of a 6.0 earthquake directly (and could probably withstand higher); when any such disaster occurred, the fuel rods would be lowered into a cooling tank and emergency pumps would keep them cool until teams could enter the plant and get things back up and running.
B) The plant was surrounded by a 19 foot seawall to prevent Tsunami impact, but the tsunami that hit the area was over 50 feet tall.
C) Even though the fail-safes and emergency systems ran perfectly at the time of the tsunami hit, the water entered the pumping area of the plant and short-circuited the pumps that were cooling the quarantined rods. They heated up, and that was that.

Before the Fukushima incident, nuclear power was on the rise and many plants were in process of being licensed. Much of that licensing stopped due to the fear of nuclear power that is currently ebbing in our social atmosphere. It is much more difficult to license a nuclear power plant now, and I think this is a good thing. Having fail-safes is not enough; nuclear power plants need to be built in such a way to withstand and maintain integrity when faced with even the greatest of natural or man-made crises.

When it comes to nuclear power, why does one have to accept the unacceptable adage that it's impossible to predict/protect against everything? We are advanced enough to be able to at least approach doing this (or limit nuclear use until we can).

Barring mass manufacture of solar panels and the deployment of solar power plants spanning the equator, the integration of responsible nuclear powers built to withstand much harsher conditions than those seen at Fukushima when the tsunami hit seems to be the contemplated solution to our aging energy architecture at the moment, with the added benefit of a heavy reduction in CO2 output.

Or, you know, people like me could stop driving cross country while listening to audiobooks.