The Pacific Ocean is being trashed....

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Giovanni LiCalsi

How can anyone in their right mind say that nuclear power plants are clean technology when the nuclear waste is the dirtiest by-product in the world?

Because it isn't? What you're spewing out here is quasi-religious drivel, with no more connection to the real world than the jihadists' delusion about their 70 virgins,

Chernobyl will kill 40,000 humans. Fukushima will kill 400,000.

No, they won't. As has been pointed out innumerable times, Chernobyl killed something under 100 people - about the number US coal plants kill in a week, and Chinese plants kill in a few hours. Fukushima has killed no one through radiation, though there were a few deaths due to the quake itself. And here's the ironic stupidity: people are scared to death of the radiation, but quite willing to move back into the tsunami zone.

I'm very sick and tired of hearing over and over again about how we cant keep building dirty coal fired plants in America when they are now shutting down because natural gas prices have plummeted and now the gas fired plants can generate more electricity than coal plants.

Are you also under the delusion that natural gas power plants don't also emit large quantities of CO2?

[Giovanni LiCalsi]

So you are saying that the oceans and air are now purified with nuclear waste?
How crazy is that idea! That nuclear power plants are somehow without failure and do not emit the worst poison pollution created by man that will last for thousands of years! Humans can not control nuclear power plants and they do not pay back profits. They only shift financially responsibility on the back of the citizens.
Not like coal plants!
Why don't you read the stats about the scientific data compiled on both the Fukushima and Chernobyl future deaths due to radiation cancers?
Are you a shill from the nuclear power industry?
You seem to be supporting that with disregard to the scientific data!
Please do not say derogatory comments about my character!

[t vago]

Originally Posted by Giovanni LiCalsi

Are you a shill from the nuclear power industry?
You seem to be supporting that with disregard to the scientific data!
Please do not say derogatory comments about my character!

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

[NeilBlanchard]

So, why are people not living around Fukushima and Chernobyl? Is radiation actually good for humans?

[Giovanni LiCalsi]

A 25 square mile area around the Fukushima plant has been destroyed and over 300,000 people have been displaced.
Radiation is a very "clean" way to die! No carbon involved.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Giovanni LiCalsi

So you are saying that the oceans and air are now purified with nuclear waste?
How crazy is that idea!

No, I'm saying that the amount of radiation emitted is far below what naturally occurrs there anyway - all that H-3, C-14, K-40, &c - and far below the level needed to cause harm.

That nuclear power plants are somehow without failure and do not emit the worst poison pollution created by man that will last for thousands of years!

There you get into the religious thing again.

Humans can not control nuclear power plants and they do not pay back profits. They only shift financially responsibility on the back of the citizens.

Observed evidence shows this is false. Nuclear plants can be run profitably, the are controlled, and far from shifting financial responsibility, they are (in the US) forced to operate under a tax burden that no other form of power generation has to bear. Fossil fuel plants, by contrast, get to dump most of their waste into the atmosphere, at no cost to themselves.

Why don't you read the stats about the scientific data compiled on both the Fukushima and Chernobyl future deaths due to radiation cancers?

Why do you think I haven't? In fact, I've read further: enough to discover that the premise on which those calculations are based - the so-called Linear No Threshold model - is false. Even if the calculations are done honestly, it's an example of garbage in, garbage out.

You seem to be supporting that with disregard to the scientific data!

No. I'm sorry, but you're the one ignoring scientific data. As for instance the LNT model above: it was picked out of the air (as a worst-case hypothesis) in the early days of nuclear research. The anti-nuclear types cling to it because of its value as a scare tactic, even though the evidence contradicts it.

Please do not say derogatory comments about my character!

I wasn't aware that I had. If my expressed opinion of certain classes of people, such as those who hold opinions based on faith rather than evidence, bothers you, there's a simple solution: stop being one of those people. Look at the science with an open mind. I did, way back when. Got the same "Omigawd, it's radioactive!" indoctrination in my youth (along with many other things). Wasn't until later that I learned to think for myselfr.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

So, why are people not living around Fukushima and Chernobyl? Is radiation actually good for humans?

People are not living there because the governments have forced them to leave. There are people living in Chernobyl's Exclusion Zone: The women living in Chernobyl's toxic wasteland - Telegraph Like the wildlife, they seem to be doing better than those who were displaced.

One refrain I heard often was, 'Those who left are worse off now. They are all dying of sadness. ’What sounds like faith may actually be fact. According to reports by the United Nations Development Programme and the United Nations Children’s Fund, many of those who were relocated after the accident now suffer from anxiety, depression and disrupted social networks, the traumas of displaced people everywhere.

And these conditions seem to have health effects as real as those caused by radiation. The journalist Alexander Anisimov, who spent his career studying the self-settler community, claimed that the women who returned to their ancestral homes in the zone outlived those who left by a decade.

No health studies have been done, but anecdotal evidence suggests that most of the babushkas die of strokes rather than any obvious radiation-related illnesses, and they have dealt better with the psychological trauma.

[Giovanni LiCalsi]

How about the thyroid cancers?

[P-hack]

If I had to choose a cancer, I would choose thyroid.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Giovanni LiCalsi

How about the thyroid cancers?

What about the unicorns, who will care for them...