Fukushima still leaking radiation

[Prof_Sai]

Originally Posted by Drachen

He is best ignored until he learns what ionizing radiation is and why it is harmful. He is simply afraid of something he does not understand.

Oh gawd, again? I followed deuterium because Kvasir said he doesn't drink sea water. I could have traced Sr 90 and Cs 137 through fish and animal feed, but I didn't want to get bogged down in a side issue. (And I notice you don't mention the longer lived isotopes.)

But you guys are desperate for side issues so you can ignore the central point: Each one of these nuclear disasters makes our whole planet more radioactive, and they are going to keep happening until we stop using these reactors.

Tomorrow you might get a call saying flee your home city and never come back and maybe after 15 years of litigation we'll pay you a third of the value of what you lost. Will it matter to you then that someone tried real hard, and not ALL of the byproducts were deadly?

Nuclear power seems to be being shoved under a rug because people aren't fighting it like they are with coal.

Can you explain this one? Perhaps we don't agree on what "being shoved under a rug" means.

[TF-Viewer]

Originally Posted by Prof_Sai

Oh gawd, again? I followed deuterium because Kvasir said he doesn't drink sea water. I could have traced Sr 90 and Cs 137 through fish and animal feed, but I didn't want to get bogged down in a side issue. (And I notice you don't mention the longer lived isotopes.)

But you guys are desperate for side issues so you can ignore the central point: Each one of these nuclear disasters makes our whole planet more radioactive, and they are going to keep happening until we stop using these reactors.

Tomorrow you might get a call saying flee your home city and never come back and maybe after 15 years of litigation we'll pay you a third of the value of what you lost. Will it matter to you then that someone tried real hard, and not ALL of the byproducts were deadly?



Can you explain this one? Perhaps we don't agree on what "being shoved under a rug" means.

Since you seem to be intent on freaking out over trace levels of radioactive material floating around, I feel the need to remind you that radioactive elements are a natural part of the planet; and even without human activity there were going to be trace amounts of it everywhere to begin with. The Sun is radioactive and you're constantly being bombarded with a small amount of radiation from it at all times no matter what you do. There's no escaping it.

[Kvasir]

Originally Posted by Prof_Sai

Oh gawd, again? I followed deuterium because Kvasir said he doesn't drink sea water. I could have traced Sr 90 and Cs 137 through fish and animal feed, but I didn't want to get bogged down in a side issue. (And I notice you don't mention the longer lived isotopes.)

But you guys are desperate for side issues so you can ignore the central point: Each one of these nuclear disasters makes our whole planet more radioactive, and they are going to keep happening until we stop using these reactors.

Tomorrow you might get a call saying flee your home city and never come back and maybe after 15 years of litigation we'll pay you a third of the value of what you lost. Will it matter to you then that someone tried real hard, and not ALL of the byproducts were deadly?

So you're perfectly cool writing off a technology based on the basic ramifications it can have(and they are basic)? More people die via cars than radiation a year, PERIOD. We need to write it off, because people STILL die every year in automotive accidents and they're going to continue killing for years to come. That's you're argument as far as I can tell, because cars will continue existing and they have a far more direct effect on everything then radiation has. Well that is if you're not shoving your face into an elephant foot oozing from one of the few major incidents that have occurred in the 50+ years of nuclear plants existing. It's Dangerous and yes it has ramifications I'm just not convinced they outweigh the potential benefits and I likely never will be.

I'm sorry, but its clear this discussion will go nowhere other than downward because we are at completely opposite ends of the spectrum. I'll agree to disagree with you because that's the best we can do here.

Can you explain this one? Perhaps we don't agree on what "being shoved under a rug" means.

In that discussion you mentioned ONLY the people fighting coal. It didn't say "people are fighting coal just as much" it was "but people are fighting coal". Those have two very different meanings to me and I read it as "but people ARE fighting coal" as if they WEREN'T fighting nuclear energy. It's just how I interrupted that sentiment, it seemed wrong so I asked. Its a semantic thing I just wanted to figure out so no biggie.

Originally Posted by TF-Viewer

Anyway. I trust you're talking about this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY . These sound great and I really hope that liquid fluoride thorium reactors catch on to replace what we have today. They seem far more efficient and most importantly far safer than current plants.

See I agree here, I WOULD prefer it be safer and that sounds like a good step. (Of course I write a comment and miss good points, but thats what editing is for)

[Prof_Sai]

Originally Posted by Kvasir

So you're perfectly cool writing off a technology based on the basic ramifications it can have(and they are basic)?

You might want to look up the word "basic" in the dictionary.

Originally Posted by Kvasir

More people die via cars than radiation a year, ... That's you're argument as far as I can tell,

You invent a stupid argument and then "win" by insisting the argument is mine. Of course the argument is going downward.

The damage done by cars is terrible, and their impact can and should be reduced. But the POTENTIAL damage that cars could ever do is little different than the actual damage we see today. Cars can't wipe out whole towns or cause cancer all over the planet.

Also, cars empower people in a unique way that can't yet be replaced by any other technology. By comparison, nuclear power creates electricity that is no different than renewables, and will cost far more in the long run, once the damage these plants will inevitably cause is factored in. For the Price of the Iraq War, The U.S. Could Have a 100% Renewable Power System.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/for-the...system/5330881

Originally Posted by Kvasir

In that discussion you mentioned ONLY the people fighting coal. It didn't say "people are fighting coal just as much" it was "but people are fighting coal".

Why should I need to remind you that people are fighting nuclear "just as much" when I was doing just that in the previous post? You are just being obtuse to bog down the argument in irrelevant side issues.

[Kvasir]

You know what, it is basic. Cancer is a basic thing and so is radiation. We're constantly studying how to fight these things, and we'll need that when we finally start thinking beyond Earth on larger scales as radiation is one of the biggest issues to deal with. Frankly, we're starting the ground work now and it will help us in the future. Also, don't kid yourself, cancer is going to happen no matter how we go about it, and before you put words in my mouth no I don't think we should just shove it down peoples throats. In the long run, you're looking at this as "it is doomed to fail over and over" I'm looking at it as "We'll figure it out, and we really have to"

Frankly, its not a stupid argument as it was reflecting the sentiment you seem(keyword) to keep trying to drive home. Radiation will have ramifications on a massive scale for years to come, right? Cars do too, in fact, cars have had HUGE ramifications. Automotive incidents kill literally Millions and they will continue dieing but its not as bad because they empower us, right?

That's a nice way of writing off the massive amounts of devastation caused by the automotive industry, to be sure, but it's easily arguable Nuclear energy HAS empowered us as well. In a period were natural energy was unavailable, not well understood and would have proved insufficient to support a growing infrastructure Nuclear energy lead to many innovations and the ability for innovations to happen. It served a very important purpose as does on going research into nuclear energy.

Could it be replaced today? Sure, It'd be great for clean energy to happen in fact Ive said this every time. With that said, frankly I'm not throwing in the towel on the most powerful energy source we could have JUST because bad things can happen. Again, I want it to be better, of course, that's not a debate. You mentioned alternate ways of doing it, and then liquid fluoride thorium reactors came up. These are great steps and its what I'm supporting not giving up on the tech, but making it better and safer.

If your argument stems from "using uranium reactors is bad, and we should build better reactors" then we're on the same side and should stop slapping our heads together like morons.


Its not being obtuse, its me asking you a question and getting nothing but crap for it. Please, for the love of whatever you hold dear, understand I was actually trying to clarify a point you made, nothing more, I misunderstood your wording and wanted to make sure I got it.

This conversation still doesn't have upsides, and this will probably be the last time I post before it just breaks down into mudslinging and name calling, and honestly we're both above that.