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 7 | Next ]

View: flat \ threaded
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

cyberpainter
cyberpainter
5938 posts

Re: Radiation.

wracket wrote:


Severely undermining the credibility of the author of your link, however, are things like this:

"New York Academy of Sciences = 985,000 deaths as a result of the radioactivity released."

As I mentioned before, this was not the NY Academy of Sciences claim (the Annals of NY Academy of Sciences was simply the physical publisher of the papers). It was not even peer-reviewed. To falsely attribute this to a reputable organization paints the author out to be guilty of the same kind of lazy and/or intentionally misleading journalism that he accuses Monbiot of employing.

Some interesting food for thought, but served with a healthy dose of sour grapes.


Actually I did not make the same interpretation. He listed lots of different sources with varying death counts, culminating with that figure at the end of the list. He did not make any statement that showed that one to be right. He showed both ends of the spectrum, starting with the absurdly low amount put out by Monbiot, ending with probably another false amount at the top. It showed the spectrum of opinion. So I think he made his point that Monbiot's statements can be looked at with equal skepticism. Here's what he wrote after the list of figures:

"There is clearly a very wide range of estimates of total mortality as a result of Chernobyl and it is impossible to ever know the true number. But one thing is clear: the true death toll resulting from Chernobyl far exceeds the handful that George Monbiot wants us to believe."

Apr 24, 2011, 23:04


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

wracket
wracket
1427 posts

Re: Radiation.

I'm afraid I must not have been sufficiently clear. The problem is not his use of that statistic--it is the misrepresentation of that statistic as having originated from a legitimate source (NYAS), when it did not. That's what was so irresponsible. He has every right to include "Cat lady down the street: 2 billion deaths" on the list, as long as he properly attributes the citation. If the cat lady happened to be interviewed while she was on a tour of 30 Rockefeller Center and the author represented the statistic as "NBC: 2 billion deaths", well that would be less kosher.

Apr 24, 2011, 23:34


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

cyberpainter
cyberpainter
5938 posts

Re: Radiation.

The studies exist and were translated and published by that publishing company. The accuracy of the studies, and whether they were peer reviewed can be questioned. I understand your point, and that shouldn't be glossed over. But there is an important issue that a low estimate is extremely dangerous to assume.

Apr 25, 2011, 00:02


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

cyberpainter
cyberpainter
5938 posts

Re: Radiation.

Wracket, I'm wondering about your opinion on the nuclear waste issue. For instance the French have a plans for a mountain, but is it acceptable? Is the risk that they built the plants without a way of disposing of the high level waste at that time an acceptable risk?

Apr 25, 2011, 00:14


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

cyberpainter
cyberpainter
5938 posts

Re: Radiation.

wracket wrote:
cyberpainter wrote:
And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to assume that the radioactivity will perhaps make it's way in the air and water toward California.

Actually, it does take a scientist (though probably not one specializing in rockets) to assume that. Especially since Chernobyl, even by the most generous of estimations, didn't lead to radioactivity traveling even a third of the radius which that would suggest.


I will have to find where I heard that the debris from the tsunami in Japan will reach Hawaii in one year, California in 3. Let's hope radiation will not travel that kind of distance in air or water. Of course we already know that other types of pollution can and do travel great distances in the air. I didn't read up on this yet, but it seems like an assumption that a non-scientist could at least question the possibility. Which is why I said "perhaps" and shouldn't have said "assume", but it's worrisome.

Apr 25, 2011, 00:29


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

cyberpainter
cyberpainter
5938 posts

Re: Radiation.

Hmm, got a little convoluted there, but you get my point.

Apr 25, 2011, 00:30


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

wracket
wracket
1427 posts

Re: Radiation.

cyberpainter wrote:
Wracket, I'm wondering about your opinion on the nuclear waste issue. For instance the French have a plans for a mountain, but is it acceptable? Is the risk that they built the plants without a way of disposing of the high level waste at that time an acceptable risk?


I'm not aware of specific plans for French nuclear waste, but I do understand that the French nuclear industry has at least some generators which produce little to no waste (by recycling the nuclear fuel). If I happen upon any links to that I'll post them here.

Clearly the storage/disposal of all toxic waste is a major issue, with nuclear being no different. This is currently a quite expensive aspect of the cycle, though perhaps the newer generation reactors will also involve more "recycling" of the nuclear fuel.

Apr 25, 2011, 00:30


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

wracket
wracket
1427 posts

Re: Radiation.

I admittedly haven't mastered the mechanics of how airborne isotopes can and do travel and whether there is any risk of large amounts of dangerous, radioactive material from Japan will find its way across the Pacific. But if I extrapolate from the Chernobyl fallout radius I tend to think that, while maybe some Koreans might be a bit nervous, it seems like a Californian is probably pretty far away from the danger zone. *cue Top Gun theme song*

Apr 25, 2011, 00:37


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

cyberpainter
cyberpainter
5938 posts

Re: Radiation.

They apparently can recycle some of the low level waste, but they plan in the future to bury the high level waste in a supposedly stable mountain. Nothing done with that now but storage like everywhere else, from my brief reading on the subject. Hopefully their storage site will be more stable over a million years than the Yucca Mountain site. And that there's no meltdown situations in France in the meantime.

Apr 25, 2011, 00:37


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Radiation.

This certainly has developed into an intellectual debate. Good stuff.

My take on it is as follows:

1. In a capitalist society, private industry will always try to socialise the losses. Given that, nuclear accidents will continue to happen (if anyone wishes to raise the idea that the USSR was communist; it wasn't. It was a dictatorship with many monopolistic businesses. For proof, check the number of millionaires post "communism"). It is no good pointing the finger at businesses that cut corners as that is what will always happen. If businesses (even one) cannot be trusted then there should be no nuclear energy.

2. Nuclear waste is bad news. The plants themselves are a hazard when it comes to disposal. The waste from production is frightening. The waste from uranium mining is terrible. How bad is debatable but only between hideous and horrendous. It is not remotely safe.

3. Comparing nuclear accidents to car crashes, cyclones, storms, even oil spills is a bit rich. Nuclear waste lasts for hundreds of years and kills those that try to clean it up.

4. There are many vested interests in this matter. I always oppose dishonest debate whether it be for the side I support or not. Unfortunately, in western society, liars are often allowed to spout lies and have their views published. I would hazard at a guess to say that 95% of the lies that are disembled and supported are backed by big business dollars. I assume HC exaggerates to compete with this financial might and I sadly think that only weakens the anti-nuke case. Nonethless, I understand why she does it in a world of lies.

Apr 25, 2011, 04:27

Pages: 8 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ]

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