Forum
#Topics
+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
-Register
Radiation.
Log In to post a reply
Pages: 8 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ]

View: flat \ threaded
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

cyberpainter
cyberpainter
5940 posts

Re: Radiation.

I understand what you're saying. I will read some more. I will say that I have never in my adult life accepted the risk of nuclear power. I'm against it, and the evidence of what can happen in the event of an accident, the lack of acceptable waste management, and the lasting harm from radiation in the environment is not acceptable to me.

Apr 24, 2011, 10:06


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

vega
vega
492 posts

Re: Radiation.

Radiation - The Facts :)



Apr 24, 2011, 12:28


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

wracket
wracket
1427 posts

Re: Radiation.

cyberpainter wrote:
Another article by HC, refuting Monbiot. Might as well give this one equal time...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/11/nuclear-apologists-radiation


Monbiot references this article and responds to it in one of the links above. Maybe Caldicott's just too busy to bother to write a coherent article with proper citation of facts rather than stooping to belittling Monbiot by suggesting that he's not qualified, while she herself falls back almost entirely on vague claims of consensus opinion.

Honestly, I'm not suggesting that because she's better at soap box grandstanding than bilateral debate that she's wrong and he's right. But if she is right then we really need someone a bit better versed in how to construct a scientifically-sound argument, because the message is far too important to be swept under the carpet. If, on the other hand, the reason she is unable to cite her sources is that there are no legitimate ones...well, then it's just dangerous and irresponsible on her part to engage in such fear-mongering to push her personal agenda.

She claims that all Turkish-grown food is poisonous--where is the support? The very source she cites evidently only suggests that one crop of Turkish tea was spoiled by Chernobyl. That's a far cry from what she suggests. Maybe it's true, but if so, we need facts to support it...and then we need to get the word out!

She claims that there are nearly one million deaths linked to Chernobyl...and that there is NO DEBATE among the medical community in this regards. Yet none of the international bodies, medical or other, support her claim in the slightest (most seem to suggest the number is closer to 0.4% of that count). Her source? She (and those like her) keeps going back to a recently translated group of papers from a few Russian scientists who made spurious claims using dubious methodology and refers to them as a paper published by the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. But that very organization has made it quite clear that they simply acted as a publishing house--the paper was not peer-reviewed and they don't support its claims. She (and a lot of the anti-nukes) are citing this paper as a form of Chernobyl bible and attaching the NY Academy of Sciences name to it to give it legitimacy...and in doing so are misleading the public. I honestly don't know if they're doing so intentionally--but I would suggest that a lot of people are looking a lot harder for support to their prejudicial view on the matter than is healthy. Here is the Monbiot post that deals with the NY Academy of Sciences question, if you're interested:

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/

Apr 24, 2011, 13:15


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

wracket
wracket
1427 posts

Re: Radiation.

microbehunter wrote:
The sheer scale of the problem when accident's happen at nuclear plants I find scarey. The Japanese plant is so badly damaged it will be scrapped once they find a way to dismantle the reactors. In the meantime hydrogen explosions, high levels of radiation, thousands of liters of contaminated water dumped into the sea. The fuel has to be disposed, buildings demolished and nearby land and water cleaned up. Some of these nuclear plant's take years to shut down properly.


It is true that dismantling a nuclear plant is a long and costly process. It is also true that building as many nuclear power facilities in one of the world's most active tectonic zones is pretty foolish...and allowing out-dated facilities like those of Fukushima to be clearly not up to the safety requirements of a modern facility in a less vulnerable part of the world, let alone Japan, is bordering on suicidal.

But I'm not sure that this disaster means we should immediately dismiss nuclear power as a viable option for our energy hungry (and hungrier by the day, particularly with the rise of the developing market populations) world. At the very least, we should absolutely learn from these lessons--and hopefully we won't have to pay as dear of a price as the worst case scenario, doomsday criers would suggest--and adjust our way of thinking about how and where to build nuclear power generators.

And perhaps we should just not build them any more at all and slowly decommission the ones currently in operation--but we need the scientific argument on the matter to be better presented and, in that scenario, we need the commitment to develop high gigawatt output-capable renewable generators in the immediate future to stop developing (and developed alike) countries from turning to coal. Because coal (and particularly the shitty lignite coal that places like China are and would be burning) isn't maybe going to fuck the planet the way that nuclear might. We have all the scientific research we could ever need to show that coal does and will bend the planet over the kitchen counter. It just doesn't do it in a way that gets shown in a sexy fashion on CNN.

Apr 24, 2011, 13:30


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

labadore
labadore
88 posts

Re: Radiation.

cyberpainter wrote:
..to something renewable, which may be more feasible than he purports.


The city in which I live has a facility that generates electricity by burning garbage. This smaller scale operation I think is the key. A network of smaller power plants all adding electricity to a larger grid. Some facilities may use solar panel farms, others wind mills, hydroelectric dams,all with soot reclamation from exhausts to protect the air. Obviously, this is already being done to some degree. tbc

Apr 24, 2011, 13:41


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

wracket
wracket
1427 posts

Re: Radiation.

Here's an article in Discover which speaks to the nuances among the American political left when it comes to the nuclear power issue:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/05/libs-on-nukes/

Apr 24, 2011, 13:47


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

wracket
wracket
1427 posts

Re: Radiation.

wracket wrote:
...an article...

Er, that should say "blog post". I am aware of the key difference!

Apr 24, 2011, 13:48


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Harold Bissonette
Harold Bissonette
2062 posts

Re: Radiation.

I think the bottom line of all of this is that we as individuals and our industries need to learn to use much much less electricity. Wind and solar power and any other potential green energy sources such as wave power can supply a fair amount of our energy needs, but not nearly all. Nuclear and any power source that uses burning will ultimately fuck the planet up - if, hopefully, we haven't already done that.

Apr 24, 2011, 14:10


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

wracket
wracket
1427 posts

Re: Radiation.

Harold Bissonette wrote:
I think the bottom line of all of this is that we as individuals and our industries need to learn to use much much less electricity.


Define "we". We, the citizens of the developed world? We, the people of Earth? Because in the developing nations the average person is using very little electricity now...and to achieve a standard of living anywhere near what anyone in the developed world would consider "normal", they would have to multiply their per capita power consumption many times over.

On a theoretical level I agree with what you are saying. But on a practical level I am afraid that it doesn't address reality. And while I'll agree that the human race shouldn't content itself with always grasping at the pragmatic solution, we surely must strive to be somewhat fair. Clearly it would be hypocritical of the developed nations to expect their developing counterparts to keep their electricity consumption at virtual stone age levels rather than continue to close the gap a bit. And accepting that, we can't rely on the "let's all use a bit less electricity" model. We simply must come up with ways to replace fossil fuels to meet the world's ever-growing power consumption needs. (While, hopefully, not abandoning the efforts to indoctrinate the world's population with ideals of power/water conservation, responsible reproduction, love thy neighborism, etc.)

Apr 24, 2011, 15:24


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Harold Bissonette
Harold Bissonette
2062 posts

Re: Radiation.

wracket wrote:
Harold Bissonette wrote:
I think the bottom line of all of this is that we as individuals and our industries need to learn to use much much less electricity.


Define "we". We, the citizens of the developed world? We, the people of Earth? Because in the developing nations the average person is using very little electricity now...and to achieve a standard of living anywhere near what anyone in the developed world would consider "normal", they would have to multiply their per capita power consumption many times over.

On a theoretical level I agree with what you are saying. But on a practical level I am afraid that it doesn't address reality. And while I'll agree that the human race shouldn't content itself with always grasping at the pragmatic solution, we surely must strive to be somewhat fair. Clearly it would be hypocritical of the developed nations to expect their developing counterparts to keep their electricity consumption at virtual stone age levels rather than continue to close the gap a bit. And accepting that, we can't rely on the "let's all use a bit less electricity" model. We simply must come up with ways to replace fossil fuels to meet the world's ever-growing power consumption needs. (While, hopefully, not abandoning the efforts to indoctrinate the world's population with ideals of power/water conservation, responsible reproduction, love thy neighborism, etc.)



By 'we' I meant the Human Race, like, but you are right that the developing world (developing into what exactly?) will of course want and indeed deserves access to more electrical gadgets. But more fossil fuels are not unfortunately the answer - they poison the planet - simple as that. Monbiot is aware of this and hence his (in my opinion dangerously misguided) attraction to nuclear power (I like the man for pretty much everything else he stands for). The solution must be to create ways in which a comfortable modern lifestyle can be achieved that does not destroy the planet. Part of this must surely be less use of dishwashers/washing machines/TVs/lighting etc. as well as a vastly turned-down consumerism.

Green energy sources will of course help - wind/water/the Sun and other sources will need to be tapped into, but at present the technology so-far developed using these sources comes nowhere near answering even our present energy needs, let alone those that will be asked of by fast-developing countries such as China and India.

Apr 24, 2011, 17:02

Pages: 8 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ]

add a reply to this topic
________________________________________________________________\______________________________________
stereolab table Index