Post: #26

I had to take some radiation safety classes in the past. Your skin, and distance from the source protects you from most radiation. We are exposed to a lot if it everyday. The real danger to those not right near the plant comes from radioactive isotopes you might ingest or inhale. Some of them are chemically similar to compounds in the body and become incorporated into tissue/bone. Personally I wouldn't want to eat anything caught in water too close to that region. They will surely have to watch ocean sediments around the plant very closely to see where they go.

As far as scientific studies go, the way that works, it would take 20-30 years and a bunch of statistical analysis to say "it looks like cancer increased by x amount among certain populations." That really all you'll be able to say conclusively. Small comfort to those affected, who will never know the cause.

Last I heard they were going to freeze the ground to try and keep water from seeping out into the ocean. Sounds ridiculously expensive and at best it will just delay the inevitable. The water will get out eventually. The cost of the "cleanup"/mitigation is pretty staggering.

It seems that Japan narrowly dodged a bullet as far as the airborne land contamination goes. It's a narrow country and could have easily had wide swaths rendered uninhabitable.

Post: #27

Nuclear energy is the answer to our energy problems. All of the FUD regarding nuclear energy is misdirected at a few type of reactors. Not all nuclear reactors are the same.

Thorium based breeders reactors are the answer to the future of our energy crisis.

The reason radioactive waste is "radioactive" is because there is still useable fuel products in the waste! Most of the radioactive junk hasn't come from power production but from nuclear weapon creation. The reactors we have currently in the US serve a dual purpose, make more nukes and power our cities.

Breeder reactors can't do this and are infinitely safer than the junk we have now.

Post: #28

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.

Post: #29

(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.

That is a very limited point of view but I do agree in the idea behind it. While the body count is zero due to Fukushima, the simple fact is the radiation did leak out. And we all know radiation is bad. It is however, not the end of the world like many people think.

Post: #30

(11-08-2013 09:49 PM)Enigma Wrote:  There's no precedent for a nuclear plant accident causing death or long term damage.

chernobyl?

Post: #31

It baffles me that this isn't a global crisis and that EVERY country isn't involved in trying to fix. TEPCO has fucked the dog big time on this, I am a believer that the pacific ocean and eventually all other connecting water ways are fucked because of this.(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...1300112X). Luckily we'll be old and grey by the time shit hits the fan, as long as another earthquake doesn't rock Japan that is *nervous laughter*.

Here's a website dedicated to any news surrounding fukushima for those of you that might be interested in researching more about the topic, http://www.enenews.com. Look at the news that out there, the scientific journals released regarding cesium-137 in the ocean, reports of TEPCO cover-ups, rates of thyroid cancer rising in the prefectures around fukushima and the devastation occurring to marine ecosystems in the pacific ocean (starfish melting, wtf) and draw your own conclusions.

Post: #32

Look up the INES scale of nuclear accidents (IAEA). Fukushima was a level 7, the highest (worst) level. True, Chernobyl was worse, but also a level 7.

I heard a funny quote once, with regard to the US energy market. "Nuclear power is solar power for Republicans." If you think about it, it's true. Neither one could survive in a market without massive government subsidies. The reason either one exists is political.

Post: #33

I sleep better at night having worked over the years in the professional tech field w/ former U.S. Navy nuke mechs. Some of the most cynical, professional, well-trained, analytically minded geeks I ever had the pleasure of trolling to meltdown (pun not intended).

Point is after I was explained about the 'big' picture, I don't worry. When I see them worry, then I will. But right now they aren't.

Post: #34

(11-09-2013 05:34 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  I sleep better at night having worked over the years in the professional tech field w/ former U.S. Navy nuke mechs. Some of the most cynical, professional, well-trained, analytically minded geeks I ever had the pleasure of trolling to meltdown (pun not intended).

Point is after I was explained about the 'big' picture, I don't worry. When I see them worry, then I will. But right now they aren't.

Great post.

There is no better way to orient yourself about a situation that may be technical and hard to understand on your own than to figure out who the real experts are -- and then find out what they think.

This can be tricky because many so called experts, including well-credentialed ones, are either incompetent or dishonest or both. So unfortunately it's not that simple and a lot of the thinking goes into trying to figure out who to trust.

But yeah -- you don't get much better experts in any field than US Navy nuke mechs are in their field because what they do has to work -- the cost of failure is too high. So when you have the privilege of knowing super-experts of this caliber, you just listen to what they say and it makes your life a lot easier. If only everyone was this rational.

Post: #35

(11-08-2013 09:11 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Anyone still remember the BP oil spill that was supposed to permanently destroy the entire Gulf ecosystem?

You don't hear much about it lately, because the Gulf has recovered faster than the optimists believed possible and is thriving as much as ever if not more.

Where are you getting this from?

Post: #36

(11-09-2013 11:23 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(11-08-2013 09:11 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Anyone still remember the BP oil spill that was supposed to permanently destroy the entire Gulf ecosystem?

You don't hear much about it lately, because the Gulf has recovered faster than the optimists believed possible and is thriving as much as ever if not more.

Where are you getting this from?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...152648.htm

Quote:BP Oil Spill, Two Years Later: Natural Recovery Far Greater Than Expected

Apr. 17, 2012 — This Friday, April 20, will mark two years since the explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon oil rig caused vast quantities of crude oil to flow into the Gulf of Mexico.

But despite the size of the spill, "the natural recovery is far greater than what anybody hoped when it happened," said James Morris, a professor of biology at the University of South Carolina. "The fears of most people -- that there would be a catastrophic collapse of the ecosystem in the Gulf -- never materialized."

Post: #37

(11-09-2013 11:23 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(11-08-2013 09:11 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Anyone still remember the BP oil spill that was supposed to permanently destroy the entire Gulf ecosystem?

You don't hear much about it lately, because the Gulf has recovered faster than the optimists believed possible and is thriving as much as ever if not more.

Where are you getting this from?

Further:

Quote:Gulf of Mexico has greater-than-believed ability to self-cleanse oil spills

NEW ORLEANS, April 8, 2013 — The Gulf of Mexico may have a much greater natural ability to self-clean oil spills than previously believed, an expert in bioremediation said here today at the 245th National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society (ACS), the world's largest scientific society.

Terry C. Hazen, Ph.D., said that conclusion has emerged from research following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, which by some estimates spilled 4.9 million barrels (210 million gallons) of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. His research team used a powerful new approach for identifying microbes in the environment to discover previously unknown bacteria, naturally present in the Gulf water, that consume and break down crude oil.

"The Deepwater Horizon oil provided a new source of nutrients in the deepest waters," explained Hazen, who is with the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. "With more food present in the water, there was a population explosion among those bacteria already adapted to using oil as a food source. It was surprising how fast they consumed the oil. In some locations, it took only one day for them to reduce a gallon of oil to a half gallon. In others, the half-life for a given quantity of spilled oil was 6 days. This data suggests that a great potential for intrinsic bioremediation of oil plumes exists in the deep sea and other environs in the Gulf of Mexico."

Hazen spoke at a symposium, "Environmental Fate of Petroleum Oils and Dispersants in the Marine Environment," that included other reports relating to the Deepwater Horizon spill. They were among 12,000 reports being presented at the ACS meeting, which continues through Thursday. Abstracts of the oil spill symposium appear at the end of this press release.

Oil-eating bacteria are natural inhabitants of the Gulf because of the constant supply of food. Scientists know that there are more than 600 different areas where oil oozes from rocks underlying the Gulf of Mexico. These oil seeps, much like underwater springs, release 560,000-1.4 million barrels of oil annually, according to the National Research Council.

Hazen's team used a powerful new approach for identifying previously recognized kinds of oil-eating bacteria that contributed to the natural clean-up of the Deepwater Horizon spill. In the past, scientists identified microbes by putting samples of water into laboratory culture dishes, waiting for microbes to grow and then using a microscope to identify the microbes. The new approach, called "ecogenomics," uses genetic and other analyses of the DNA, proteins and other footprints of bacteria to provide a more detailed picture of microbial life in the water.

"The bottom line from this research may be that the Gulf of Mexico is more resilient and better able to recover from oil spills than anyone thought," Hazen said. "It shows that we may not need the kinds of heroic measures proposed after the Deepwater Horizon spill, like adding nutrients to speed up the growth of bacteria that breakdown oil, or using genetically engineered bacteria. The Gulf has a broad base of natural bacteria, and they respond to the presence of oil by multiplying quite rapidly."

Post: #38

The lesson from this is:

The mainstream media is constantly and outrageously overhyping "disasters" and "risks" to control people through fear. It doesn't hurt ad sales, either.

Lunatic environmentalist groups still talk about "ongoing disasters" in the Gulf, shamelessly ignoring the actual conclusions of researchers who have studied the impacts and the recovery.

Post: #39

I would love to believe it.

Not sure if those scientists are on the payroll of the Oil Industry.

The "American Chemical Society" sounds suspect at best.

I would be more interested to hear from fishermen and people that dive in the gulf.

BP had to pay out $4.5 billion in damages so far (and counting, I believe) so I would guess some fish died as a result.

I thought maybe you live on The Gulf and know it first hand ie you swim, dive and fish in it on a daily basis. Is that the case?

There are plenty of scientists that work for the pharmaceutical industry that will tell you their drugs are safe as well.

The point I am trying to make is that just because we don't hear about it in the news doesn't mean damage happened.

Hell, The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill hasn't been in the news for 25 years, and there are still contaminated areas in Alaska and fish and wildlife populations that have never recovered.

Post: #40

Come on G, you're a smart dude. Are you serious? People that live there and fish there will tell you the world ended to get as much cash as humanly fucking possible (and I wouldn't even blame them for it). Any "disaster" is an endless cash cow. These shrimp fishermen would much rather just have some beers on uncle Sam than go back out into the Gulf.

There is nothing sinister about the American Chemical Society. It's not a special interest group, it's the main association of academic researchers in chemistry. In the same way there is an American Physical Society, an American Mathematical Society and so on. In this case it was just a conference for prominent scientists in the fields to present their findings.

These scientists are on the (rather modest) payrolls of the universities where they teach, not the big bad oil industry.

The real lies are coming from the environmentalist groups who have zero expertise, but every incentive to overhype and exaggerate the damage. The NWF report on the Gulf spends two pages on a single sick dolphin they found somewhere. WTF? These people have no shame.

Post: #41

(11-10-2013 12:12 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  These shrimp fishermen would much rather just have some beers on uncle Sam than go back out into the Gulf.

You live on the Gulf and know these guys?

----

Out of curiosity, did you grow up in a beach town, or in a landlocked area?

Post: #42

G,

That's like asking me if I live in the projects when I give you the stats on welfare fraud.

Seriously, G, I've shown you the latest and best science. That's what we need to look at.

Post: #43

(11-10-2013 12:23 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  G,

That's like asking me if I live in the projects when I give you the stats on welfare fraud.

Seriously, G, I've shown you the latest and best science. That's what we need to look at.

I knew the answer.

I was just was looking for confirmation.

Post: #44

I'm learning some alpha moves here G let me see if I have 'em right:

Make it personal. Change the subject.

At this rate I think I'll still be standing come the 15th round.

Post: #45

(11-10-2013 12:33 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  I'm learning some alpha moves here G let me see if I have 'em right:

Make it personal. Change the subject.

At this rate I think I'll still be standing come the 15th round.

When you take things personal, you lose in the first.

Post: #46

Post: #47

Yeah things are really bad in Japan right now I heard.


Pre Fukushima hamster:







Post Fukushima hamster:










   

Post: #48

There is controversy about the long terms effects of the Chernobyl disaster.

About two percent of all births around the world have birth defects. And it is unclear if that figure is greater among those exposed to the radiation.

Of cause - of those exposed to the radiation - any birth defects tend to get attributed to Chernobyl. Even though birth defects take place every hour of every day - all over the world.

Post: #49

But that can be measured, and quite easily. Just record all birth defects in, say, a 100 km radius around Chernobyl. Then divide them into concentric circles and compare their annual birth defect (or cancer or whatever) rates per 1000 births/events/people and use a statistical test if it significantly different than one would expect from a normal distribution. From what I know, it has been shown that there is a significant increase, about 100 to 400% depending on the particular ailment.

However, it's interesting that overall it isn't such a large number. I once did a calculation of how many people would die each year in New York from tripled cancer rates if the Indian Point power plant suffered a meltdown (this would pretty much be a worst-case scenario, a meltdown near a global metropolis)... and the number was still smaller than deaths from coal mining around the world. Go figure.

That said, of course you need to be cautious when someone throws out data like "100 000 birth defects recorded in the Chernobyl area", because they obviously include the natural rate instead of just the increase.

Post: #50

The Chernobyl disaster was the best thing that happened in the twentieth century.

Let me explain why...

Mikhail Gorbachev was leader of the Soviet Union at the time of the disaster. And he became incensed at the cover-up carried out by Soviet officials as to the seriousness of the situation.

This inspired him to question the Communist system as a whole and led to him enacting the policy of "Glasnost" (which can be translated as openness) whilst leader of the Soviet Union.

And from there - the dismantling of the Soviet Union, the fall of Communism and the end of the Cold War quickly followed.

Slate.com did an article explaining all this earlier in the year:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and...lowed.html