Post: #51

Chernobyl Death Toll: 985,000, Mostly from Cancer

It concludes that based on records now available, some 985,000 people died, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl accident. That is between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004. More deaths, it projects, will follow.

Post: #52

It is a strange thing when you look at statistics.

You have these people saying nearly a million dead and you have the IAEA saying 4000 people.

One thing to think about is this. If we didn't have nuclear power - how else would we generate the energy we need?

If we used coal power stations - then we would have to compare the number of deaths caused by coal (due to accidents and pollution) versus the number of deaths caused by the occasional nuclear leak (and possible future deaths if nuclear waste is not stored properly for the next few thousand years).

So - when you look at the number of deaths - it is important to bear in mind how many deaths we would have had also - had an alternate energy source being used.

Post: #53

(11-10-2013 09:07 AM)cardguy Wrote:  It is a strange thing when you look at statistics.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain

Yeah, that is part of my point why you can't listen to these scientists (not to mention so many are industry funded).

It reminds me of that one Spain thread when I was bitch slapping like 10 forum members at the same time when they were trying to say there was a "prostitution epidemic" in Spain.

I was basically just saying that I have seen prostitution more common in other places.

Then they were quoting some UN statistics or something about prostitution.

And I was saying there are no accurate statistics on prostitution. I mean how the hell are they going to compile statistics on prostitution?

I humiliated them all and bitch slapped them so bad they were calling for my banning from the forum.

(Remember this was back when on one thread guys would be complaining about the Feminization of Males, and on another thread complain about how "The G is way too mean and abrasive on the forum")

(And then on another thread complain about how "bullying" is over exaggerated in America, and on another thread complain about how I was "bullying" members of the forum. Ah, those were the days).

Same thing with these disasters. Bottom line, the statistics are bs and these scientists don't know jack.

I would much rather talk to fishermen or divers, surfers, swimmers than some landlocked scientist dork on the payroll of Big Oil or the Nuclear industry.

Remember if these scientists were so smart, they would have prevented that problem from happening in the first place, right?

I am going to go surf. Little waves today and warm water.

Post: #54

That's interesting - my friend from Spain says that prostituition is huge over there because of the repressed sexuality having to do with the church. He told us a story about ass fucking a ho in alleyway in Barcelona.

Post: #55

Yeah - I agree with your scepticism. Nassim Taleb often preaches the same thing.

Now the issue of statistics has reminded me of an interesting subject. Jaron Lanier raised the following issue in his recent book 'Who owns the future?' (it is a nice book - but a bit rambling at times).

Okay - so we are soon to enter the world of 'driverless cars' (which Google are currently testing).

And this will be a great thing since cars operated by computers will be safer than those operated by people.

But even though the number of deaths on the roads each year (nearly 33 thousand in 2010) will dramatically fall. Our perception of the dangers of driving will rise.

Since - in the future we can imagine that hundreds/thousands of cars will be operated by the same computer servers. And as a result - even though there will be alot less deaths. The car crashes (when they occur) will be much more devastating - with perhaps hundreds dying in one incident due to a giant technical glitch in the computer's software/hardware.

So - in the future - driving a car might be similar to flying in a plane. Even though planes are safer than cars - people feel less safe since plane crashes are much more devastating than car crashes. And grab inifinitely more media attention than the many car crashes which take place each day.

Of course planes feel less safe on a psychological level as well - since your life is in somebody else's hands. Although the same is true when it comes to other road users as well.

So - it will be interesting to see if people become more scared of driving cars even though they will be safer. Since no technology is perfect - it may be the case that giant crashes (as is the case today with planes) will take place a couple of times each decade or so.

As scuh - on a psychological level - our relationship with cars will change.

Post: #56

(11-10-2013 08:28 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  Chernobyl Death Toll: 985,000, Mostly from Cancer

It concludes that based on records now available, some 985,000 people died, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl accident. That is between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004. More deaths, it projects, will follow.

This number of almost 1 million excess deaths from Chernobyl is completely incredible and fails the most basic common sense tests. Does anyone really believe that 1 million excess deaths from radiation related cancers can go unnoticed?

Here is a good review demolishing the nonsense book on which this is based (abstract and full pdf, respectively):

http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/32/2..._2_181.pdf

http://www.nyas.org/asset.axd?id=8b4c4bf...2459270000

Incidentally, the website that posted this 985,000 number ("Global Research") is a lunatic hard-left environmentalist propaganda shop. Their other articles are parody level screeds about "weather warfare", "Gaza students appeal to the world", "pact with the nuclear devil" and so on. This is where you really have to question the source.

Chernobyl was a real disaster, and the 4,000 number may be somewhat of an underestimate. But 985,000 is sheer lunacy.

This stuff gets tricky. Some stats really are manipulated for ideological or other purposes. You have to look at the quality of the research, what methodology was used, what other people are saying about it. You also have to look at whether the conclusions pass the common sense test.

For example, G is quite right to be suspicious of claims of "prostitution epidemics" and of "bullying epidemics". These are exactly the kinds of shoddy studies that use bad methodologies to arrive at ideologically pre-determined conclusions. They are also easy to debunk by a bit of observation. Is there really bullying all around us? Are the really underage sex slaves in every other basement? These ideas are self-evidently ludicrous and can only be sustained by willful suspension of disbelief.

In the case of the studies that I cited about the Gulf recovery, this is solid research done by good scientists. The special interests are on the other side -- environmentalist loons who are motivated to hype every disaster.

By the way, one thing that is being lost in all the back and forth is that the science behind the Gulf research is actually fascinating and would probably interest a lot of guys here. What they found is that there is a huge number of species of bacteria that live in the Gulf that basically digest the oil. When there is a big spill, these bacterial populations explode exponentially (because there is more food for them) and they soak up the oil at exponentially faster rates than would be possible before the spill.

It's really not that surprising when you think about it, because there's always been seepage of oil into the Gulf, and over time these species have evolved to take advantage of it. In this way, the Gulf ecosystem, like so many others, is self-regulating and self-stabilizing. What people are finding more and more is that natural ecosystems are much more resilient than anyone understood. One can even use the faddish Taleb idea of "anti-fragility" in this context. Natural ecosystems are precisely the sort of thing that's expected to have built in anti-fragility.

The ecogenomics that is used to study these bacterial populations is something that I do know quite a bit about and it's fantastic cutting edge science. There will be a lot more of that in years to come.

Post: #57

I find great irony in this thread

The same guys who believe Fukushima and the Gulf of Mexico are okay because scientists said so are the same one...

...damming economists and bankers who say the economy is improving and there's not a recession anymore.

It proves again that people will believe what they want to believe. Some will believe what an economic scientist says but not a nuclear scientist and vice-versa.

Post: #58

(11-10-2013 01:08 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  I find great irony in this thread

The same guys who believe Fukushima and the Gulf of Mexico are okay because scientists said so are the same one...

...damming economists and bankers who say the economy is improving and there's not a recession anymore.

It proves again that people will believe what they want to believe. Some will believe what an economic scientist says but not a nuclear scientist and vice-versa.

Agreed.

That is why I said that these scientists don't know what the f*ck they are talking about.

How many economists called the last crash?

And how many put their money where their mouth was and made money off it like Michael Burry and Kyle Bass?

I would rather talk to people that use the ocean daily and get their opinion.

---

Furthermore, to me it just makes sense that The Gulf is f*cked up.

Pour a quart of Quaker State in a fishtank and see what happens.

Post: #59

(11-10-2013 02:09 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  Furthermore, to me it just makes sense that The Gulf is f*cked up.

Pour a quart of Quaker State in a fishtank and see what happens.

G, is this a level of precision you'd accept in measuring out your supps? Since when have quantities stopped mattering?

If you think about the size of the Gulf vs the amount of oil spilled, it's more like "pour an invisibly tiny droplet of Quaker State in a fishtank". And even that turns out to be a terrible analogy because your typical fish tank doesn't have bacterial populations that have evolved to eat Quaker State.

(11-10-2013 02:09 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  How many economists called the last crash?

No one said anything about prediction here. Indeed, if you look back at the articles I cited, no one believed the Gulf would recover as fast as it did. The recovery has exceeded the most optimistic expectations, because scientists had not previously understood how resilient the ecosystem really is. What they're doing now is describing what is actually going on. Not an easy task, but a much different and easier one than forecasting.

(11-10-2013 01:08 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  Some will believe what an economic scientist says but not a nuclear scientist and vice-versa.

Vice versa would be a good bet.

Not all sciences are equal. The amount of quantitative rigor and predictive ability that has been achieved in nuclear physics is something that economists, or say climate scientists, would not even dare to dream about.

There are models and there are "models". The Standard Model of particle physics is probably the best tested scientific theory that has ever existed which has been confirmed in endless experiments to an incredible degree of accuracy.

Plenty of economics or climate "models", on the other hand, are just-so stories with a very thin quantitative veneer slapped on top of them. They can be worse than useless.

(11-10-2013 01:08 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  It proves again that people will believe what they want to believe.

That much is clear.

Post: #60

(11-10-2013 04:09 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(11-10-2013 02:09 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  Furthermore, to me it just makes sense that The Gulf is f*cked up.

Pour a quart of Quaker State in a fishtank and see what happens.

G, is this a level of precision you'd accept in measuring out your supps? Since when have quantities stopped mattering?

If you think about the size of the Gulf vs the amount of oil spilled, it's more like "pour an invisibly tiny droplet of Quaker State in a fishtank". And even that turns out to be a terrible analogy because your typical fish tank doesn't have bacterial populations that have evolved to eat Quaker State.

I never mentioned the size of the fishtank.

Hell, my home fish tank has 20 Great White Sharks in it.

Post: #61

(11-10-2013 11:31 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(11-10-2013 08:28 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  Chernobyl Death Toll: 985,000, Mostly from Cancer

It concludes that based on records now available, some 985,000 people died, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl accident. That is between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004. More deaths, it projects, will follow.

This number of almost 1 million excess deaths from Chernobyl is completely incredible and fails the most basic common sense tests. Does anyone really believe that 1 million excess deaths from radiation related cancers can go unnoticed?

Here is a good review demolishing the nonsense book on which this is based (abstract and full pdf, respectively):

http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/32/2..._2_181.pdf

http://www.nyas.org/asset.axd?id=8b4c4bf...2459270000

Incidentally, the website that posted this 985,000 number ("Global Research") is a lunatic hard-left environmentalist propaganda shop. Their other articles are parody level screeds about "weather warfare", "Gaza students appeal to the world", "pact with the nuclear devil" and so on. This is where you really have to question the source.

Chernobyl was a real disaster, and the 4,000 number may be somewhat of an underestimate. But 985,000 is sheer lunacy.

This stuff gets tricky. Some stats really are manipulated for ideological or other purposes. You have to look at the quality of the research, what methodology was used, what other people are saying about it. You also have to look at whether the conclusions pass the common sense test.

For example, G is quite right to be suspicious of claims of "prostitution epidemics" and of "bullying epidemics". These are exactly the kinds of shoddy studies that use bad methodologies to arrive at ideologically pre-determined conclusions. They are also easy to debunk by a bit of observation. Is there really bullying all around us? Are the really underage sex slaves in every other basement? These ideas are self-evidently ludicrous and can only be sustained by willful suspension of disbelief.

In the case of the studies that I cited about the Gulf recovery, this is solid research done by good scientists. The special interests are on the other side -- environmentalist loons who are motivated to hype every disaster.

By the way, one thing that is being lost in all the back and forth is that the science behind the Gulf research is actually fascinating and would probably interest a lot of guys here. What they found is that there is a huge number of species of bacteria that live in the Gulf that basically digest the oil. When there is a big spill, these bacterial populations explode exponentially (because there is more food for them) and they soak up the oil at exponentially faster rates than would be possible before the spill.

It's really not that surprising when you think about it, because there's always been seepage of oil into the Gulf, and over time these species have evolved to take advantage of it. In this way, the Gulf ecosystem, like so many others, is self-regulating and self-stabilizing. What people are finding more and more is that natural ecosystems are much more resilient than anyone understood. One can even use the faddish Taleb idea of "anti-fragility" in this context. Natural ecosystems are precisely the sort of thing that's expected to have built in anti-fragility.

The ecogenomics that is used to study these bacterial populations is something that I do know quite a bit about and it's fantastic cutting edge science. There will be a lot more of that in years to come.

Say what you want about global research but they list their sources in plain sight and view. They are critical of any bullshit left or right. There only issue is they are alarmist shop and get off of painting the worst scenarios.

I'm not sure why people think a million dead from cancer over 20 years is a dodgy metric. Go see how many Americans die per year of more timid shit. You loose a million to heart disease a year in America.

The argument against nuclear energy is a herring. My beef is with shoddy contrition and plants nobody wants to pay to maintain. The argument against the power though is a circle jerk.

Post: #62

I wonder how this is going to affect our subs in pacific.

Post: #63

The Economist recently had a fascinating article that claimed that most of the danger from nuclear power plants comes from using obsolete reactor types - not reactors with obsolete safety features -there are more and more of those - but the LWR (Light Water Reactor) model that, is claims, it just a historical accident and should be replaced with other types. Can anyone comment?

The Economist Wrote:The question is not whether their “passive” designs—ie, emergency cooling systems that work by gravity and natural convection instead of electrical valves, relays and pumps—can make them safer. Of that there is no doubt. The question, rather, is why such an inherently flawed design as the light-water reactor (LWR) is still, after all these years, the preferred technology?
...
The light-water reactor of the day, with its solid uranium-dioxide fuel and water for both moderator and coolant, was by no means the best. But Admiral Hyman Rickover, the father of America’s nuclear navy, chose it because it could be implemented faster than any of the others, making it possible for Nautilus to be launched on time. The LWR also appealed to Rickover because it produced a lot of bomb-making plutonium as a by-product.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2...hthavebeen

Post: #64

(11-15-2013 12:45 PM)soup Wrote:  I wonder how this is going to affect our subs in pacific.

Post: #65

Manufacturers like GE created reactors it could sell first an foremost. They always had better tech but in the fast chose models with better price points and quicker assembly. The new age pebble bed reactors are leagues ahead of the traditional water crap.

There is a interesting doc on that era and the big manufactures like GE and how they built and sol these things. The scientists were all delusional in prophecies towards their science and models while also having a corporate overhang that needed profits. It was a toxic mix that we could not see the ramifications of until today.

A peeble bed reactor in Fukishima would of been fine. Fukishima's main issue is the storage of the rods and unstable pools which would of never existed with newer technology.

Post: #66

You can understand the optimism of engineers and scientists in past generations when it did in fact seem like with science, anything was possible. There was also less cultural and moral decay and this could only multiply that optimism.

It's more difficult today to understand the near religious fervor pro-nuke scientists have for their field of study. For many, there can be no other god.

I'm no expert in the science but this stuff has to exist and be maintained within a cultural construct. Once you start one up your main concern will be keeping enough brains and cultural integrity around to shut it down. That locks up a huge amount of future capital. In a declining culture it takes up more and more of the pie, pie that nobody ever wants to sacrifice, even if the scientific status quo were capable of giving an honest, clear picture.

We need to have an honest talk about nukes, and I think Fukushima will demand it.

This book addresses some of the problems that seem to be apparent in getting a clear picture of what is going on.

Post: #67

For those that have been following the Fukishima disaster closely, what can you tell us about the detectable radiation levels on the N. American west coast? What impact do you think this will have on the Pacific fishing industry? Is Pacific-caught seafood even being tested for radiation?

I really don't hear much about it. Either because, radiation levels are so low that it's a non-issue. Or two, the government doesn't want to cause a pandemonium and disrupt the economy.

Post: #68

(11-09-2013 01:08 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  https://www.cfact.org/2013/10/12/physici...-disaster/

Quote:Firstly let us get something clear. There was no Fukushima nuclear disaster. Total number of people killed by nuclear radiation at Fukushima was zero. Total injured by radiation was zero. Total private property damaged by radiation….zero. There was no nuclear disaster. What there was, was a major media feeding frenzy fuelled by the rather remote possibility that there may have been a major radiation leak.

At the time, there was media frenzy that “reactors at Fukushima may suffer a core meltdown.” Dire warnings were issued. Well the reactors did suffer a core meltdown. What happened? Nothing.

Certainly from the ‘disaster’ perspective there was a financial disaster for the owners of the Fukushima planJapan Tsunami pushes carst. The plant overheated, suffered a core meltdown, and is now out of commission for ever. A financial disaster, but no nuclear disaster.

I agree with this point of view.

The author:

Quote:Dr Kelvin Kemm is the CEO of Nuclear Africa, a nuclear project management company based in Pretoria, South Africa.

Post: #69

(11-15-2013 01:31 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

(11-15-2013 12:45 PM)soup Wrote:  I wonder how this is going to affect our subs in pacific.

I just watched a documentary on how submarines generate oxygen through electrolysis. They are going to be taking that radioactive water into their subs.

Post: #70

You guys driving Japanese cars better trade them in before they start glowing.

Post: #71

(11-15-2013 04:39 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  For those that have been following the Fukishima disaster closely, what can you tell us about the detectable radiation levels on the N. American west coast? What impact do you think this will have on the Pacific fishing industry? Is Pacific-caught seafood even being tested for radiation?

I really don't hear much about it. Either because, radiation levels are so low that it's a non-issue. Or two, the government doesn't want to cause a pandemonium and disrupt the economy.

The issue with radiation level readings has been on two sides. The first is that the Gov has already adjusted higher what constitute "safe" exposure levels. This is because the readers present of the west coast kept going off the charts and eventually the Gov had I shut the monitors off because they keep giving high readings. It's a cycle now where you get high readings and then the gov shutting off the readers to let things cool down. This is a long term down the road issue that the gov just wants to keep papered over.

In regards to fish Hawaii has been having issues I was reading a article this last week on California fishing stocks already being negatively affected by radiation. If I wasn't on my phone I would provide some links, I will try to next time I am near one.

If TEPCO and Japan can't get unit 4 under control it would be wise to plan living in another part of the globe/nation if you value your long term health. Don't sit and wait for people to keep lying to you in official positions they don't give a shit if you get cancer when your 35. The east coast or southern hemisphere will be okay as we'll as any which place in the opposite end. China is okay due to it being out of the cycle d currents which carry radiation around.

Post: #72

Well who were the geniuses who decided that near major fault lines / volcanicly active zones, i.e. Islands that exist due to millions of years of plate techtonics, is where we need to build Nuclear Bomb power factories?

All that intellect and they over look shit like this. Wow.

And a massive oil spill - which I'm not convinced didn't totally fuck up the Gulf worse than it has been portrayed - is NOT the same thing as radiation at all. Especially when water is both the cooling fluid as well as the transport agent when a radio-active incident occurs.

I for one am not eating as much tuna or other ocean fish unless I know where it's from. Just an easy alteration in my living just in case.

Radiation, on the atomic level, is just as potent 10 years later because it's half life disallows it to break down like an oil spill over time would. IMO, this really is quite serious.

Post: #73

(11-16-2013 12:28 AM)Ingocnito Wrote:  Well who were the geniuses who decided that near major fault lines / volcanicly active zones, i.e. Islands that exist due to millions of years of plate techtonics, is where we need to build Nuclear Bomb power factories?

The same geniuses who are telling us there is no damage to the ocean from Fukushima or the BP Oil spill.

Post: #74

I have been following this from the start as well and done so with a heavy heart because the accident is so very severe yet getting so little mainstream attention which proves to me just how badly manipulated the media is today as well as just how desperate the powers that be, are to have it covered up.

The US aircraft carrier ( USS Ronald Regan) that attended the scene shortly after was so badly irradiated that it was taken out of commission for a major refit and it was 100miles away from the scene, do the math guys;

http://enenews.com/nsfw-footage-alarms-g...away-video

As you can see those sailors are now suing TEPCO.

Here is a compilation of evidence and facts regarding the disaster if you want a 10 minutes breakdown;

[url] http://www.natureknows.org/2013/11/this-...s.html?m=1[/url]

It really is 1 step away from a global catastrophe ( its already a global disaster) because if another quake hits and the already damaged cooling pools drop their loads of spent fuel rods, we are all royally fucked.

keep in mind , 3 reactors have fully melted down, not one like Chernobyl and what we are facing here, and yes we are all facing the music on this one, is a threat of like we have never seen before.

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/nu...%9Cit-woul

extract:

In recent times, more information about the spent fuel situation at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site has become known. It is my understanding that of the 1,532 spent fuel assemblies in reactor No. 304 assemblies are fresh and unirradiated. This then leaves 1,231 irradiated spent fuel rods in pool No. 4, which contain roughly 37 million curies (~1.4E+18 Becquerel) of long-lived radioactivity. The No. 4 pool is about 100 feet above ground, is structurally damaged and is exposed to the open elements. If an earthquake or other event were to cause this pool to drain this could result in a catastrophic radiological fire involving nearly 10 times the amount of Cs-137 released by the Chernobyl accident.

The infrastructure to safely remove this material was destroyed as it was at the other three reactors. Spent reactor fuel cannot be simply lifted into the air by a crane as if it were routine cargo. In order to prevent severe radiation exposures, fires and possible explosions, it must be transferred at all times in water and heavily shielded structures into dry casks.. As this has never been done before, the removal of the spent fuel from the pools at the damaged Fukushima-Dai-Ichi reactors will require a major and time-consuming re-construction effort and will be charting in unknown waters. Despite the enormous destruction cased at the Da–Ichi site, dry casks holding a smaller amount of spent fuel appear to be unscathed.

Based on U.S. Energy Department data, assuming a total of 11,138 spent fuel assemblies are being stored at the Dai-Ichi site, nearly all, which is in pools. They contain roughly 336 million curies (~1.2 E+19 Bq) of long-lived radioactivity. About 134 million curies is Cesium-137 — roughly 85 times the amount of Cs-137 released at the Chernobyl accident as estimated by the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP). The total spent reactor fuel inventory at the Fukushima-Daichi site contains nearly half of the total amount of Cs-137 estimated by the NCRP to have been released by all atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, Chernobyl, and world-wide reprocessing plants (~270 million curies or ~9.9 E+18 Becquerel).

It is important for the public to understand that reactors that have been operating for decades, such as those at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site have generated some of the largest concentrations of radioactivity on the planet.

Many of our readers might find it difficult to appreciate the actual meaning of the figure, yet we can grasp what 85 times more Cesium-137 than the Chernobyl would mean. It would destroy the world environment and our civilization. This is not rocket science, nor does it connect to the pugilistic debate over nuclear power plants. This is an issue of human survival.

Yes that's right, 85 times the potential fall out of Chernobyl!

On a side note, the cancers wont manifest themselves for a very long time, as in many decades but the mutations will start much earlier so its fair to expect the birth defect rates in Japan to soar shortly which is a shame because i really wanted to visit Japan but will not go near the place now for all the tea in China. The US is also in deep shit over this as well and we will most likely not escape the side effects here in Australia either....basically anyone with direct access to the pacific is in trouble...and that's just how it stands now and if it does not get any worse.

TEPCO management should be charged with crimes against humanity, then shot.

Post: #75

(11-16-2013 08:17 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 12:28 AM)Ingocnito Wrote:  Well who were the geniuses who decided that near major fault lines / volcanicly active zones, i.e. Islands that exist due to millions of years of plate techtonics, is where we need to build Nuclear Bomb power factories?

The same geniuses who are telling us there is no damage to the ocean from Fukushima or the BP Oil spill.

GE designed and built the reactors there...