Fukushima still leaking radiation

[vincent_richter]

Originally Posted by TF-Viewer

Unfortunately there doesn't exist any means to generate force at a remote location without a mechanism to provide that force. So unless you come up with a way to circumvent the laws of physics you're going to have to settle for having a physical object on the other end to deliver the blow.

Well no, not as such; but we do have haptics-enabled devices, and a rudimentary understanding of the central nervous system. So why not develop a method that can leave someone with the sensation of being slapped without ever actually requiring a direct physical reaction? Screamers coupled with some form of mental manipulation, but taken to a further extreme?

Or we could always examine more thoroughly the results of the Stanford hydrogen transmission experiment, with an eye to transferring energy rather than solidified matter.

Only one of those two ideas is serious.

[TF-Viewer]

Originally Posted by vincent_richter

Well no, not as such; but we do have haptics-enabled devices, and a rudimentary understanding of the central nervous system. So why not develop a method that can leave someone with the sensation of being slapped without ever actually requiring a direct physical reaction? Screamers coupled with some form of mental manipulation, but taken to a further extreme?

Or we could always examine more thoroughly the results of the Stanford hydrogen transmission experiment, with an eye to transferring energy rather than solidified matter.

Only one of those two ideas is serious.

And all of those ideas would still require a device of some sort on the receiving end of the slap, no matter how it was delivered. So that in mind let's just fall back on the old saying and "Keep it Simple, Stupid", and just have the silicone hand hit someone's face. That mechanism could come standard with every online device so that everyone knows they're going to get slapped if they act like an ass online.

Also, we are way the fuck off topic.

[Kvasir]

Originally Posted by Prof_Sai

snip

Alright, I'll admit you're right on the water front, that was stupid on my behalf, however, I maintain it was a scare tactic and largely not conducive to producing rational discussion. Also re-read this

Coal plants put more radioactivity in the air every year than nuclear plants.
*shrugs*
Sadly, you don't see many Sci Fi "Coal Power Mutants" movies.

No, but you do see environmentalists opposing coal.

That sounds like "well coal is bad, but we don't see it making mutants" "but you do see people fighting it" Nuclear power seems to be being shoved under a rug because people aren't fighting it like they are with coal. Try to understand where I'm coming from, as even I said " I have to assume I'm misunderstanding your sentiment here" It seemed wrong, so I questioned it, and got snark back instead of just "Oh no, My reply was that no, environmentalists oppose coal and nuclear equally for the same reasons." Blam done, but instead I'm just not trying hard enough? I was literally trying to understand and asking the source, how much harder can I try? All I'm asking is try to consider your words, while they might not be intended to be the (and I'll just assume they're not), seem to come off as condescending despite the fact I'm really just trying to talk. Alright, now to the crux of the matter.

You're missing my point entirely, and focusing on me saying "whatever, its cool"(which not once did I say it was, in fact I said we should be pushing naturally occurring means of energy ie Solar, Geothermal, wind, and tc_hydro because I miss playing on that map), I said not once, not twice, hell my half my point is this shit IS dangerous, but to literally pack up your bags and go "NOPE! Bad things can happen that don't go away!" is short sighted, heck, It's as short sighted as stating there is no risk or no long term effect, which again, I never did.

Maybe the idea of one explosion of one car was too small to get the point across, instead let's use the idea of comparing nuclear energy to the invention of the car. Cars have been causing death since the first year they were made and shows NO signs of stopping. Are we still using cars despite the fact its estimated 80ish people die a day in motor vehicle related incidents in the USA alone? The fact that MILLIONS die each year? We still use the technology despite its inherit risk factor, and we as a society, are pushing to make cars safer and safer to all parties involved and that's why the general trend is that less people are dieing from automotive related incidents.

Bring this back to nuclear energy, why is in unthinkable to do the same here? People seem to completely ignore the fact that many plants have incidents that are completely controlled and often punished by government bodies. Just go through US power plants, they have TONS of incidents costing millions in fines, and new legislation to force tougher and tougher safety standards but you've likely NEVER heard of them because they were so tightly handled it didn't matter.

The whole Fukushima incident just reinforces the idea that to use this technology has to be a group effort, if we're going to keep major incidents from happening and fixing them when they happen. If I can't be idealist enough to believe, we as humans, can't work together to make life both better and safer for everyone then what's the point in believing in shit?

Before you go throwing words in my mouth, I NEVER said Fukushima was going to be the last incident, never, not once so get that notion out your head. I was saying why can't we be pushing to keep the next time from being as bad instead of just throwing in the towel because bad things are bad? To ignore some of the huge positive possibilities presented by nuclear energy just because radiation contamination can happen just seems so ill advised I can't understand it.

Overall : I want easy to produce, cheap and effective energy, and while I'd prefer it be completely safe I'm not scared that some negative results will come of it if we can one day have it be 95% safe. Nothing Ventured, nothing gained.

[Drachen]

Originally Posted by Kvasir

Alright, I'll admit you're right on the water front

No, he is not. Molecules with deuterium are no more or less toxic than the same molecules containing garden-variety protium hydrogen. Deuterium is a stable isotope of hydrogen and is not dangerous in the same way that isotopes like Sr 90 or Cs 137 are.

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.

[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.

[Prof_Sai]

Water is a natural part of the planet, so don't worry about the flood washing your house away.

BTW, I'm not totally against nuclear. I think thorium is worth a try, to see if it's projected safety benefits are true. Also, a few years ago there were some designs that used helium instead of water to transfer heat. That is a dramatic improvement for several reasons. But current uranium fusion has been around long enough to presume that it isn't going to get any less dangerous.

[TF-Viewer]

Originally Posted by Prof_Sai

Water is a natural part of the planet, so don't worry about the flood washing your house away.

BTW, I'm not totally against nuclear. I think thorium is worth a try, to see if it's projected safety benefits are true. Also, a few years ago there were some designs that used helium instead of water to transfer heat. That is a dramatic improvement for several reasons. But current uranium fusion has been around long enough to presume that it isn't going to get any less dangerous.

I think you missed the point with your water comparison. I wasn't suggesting you not worry about it, or that because it's natural it can't be bad or anything absurd like that. I was just reminding you that trace levels of radiation are never going to go away, plant accidents or not it will always be there.

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.

[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.

[Prof_Sai]

I listen to a podcast called "Freakonomics", and one of the themes that comes up often with them is the observation that most people are spectacularly bad at calculating risk and probability.

People underestimate the risk of the familiar, and overestimate the risk of new or different things. They don't understand the results of adding risks together. (What is unlikely once can become inevitable if you do it thousands of times.) Casinos and Creationism are both built on taking advantage of the mistakes people make. And to me, your assurances about nuclear look like those same mistakes.

You really NEED statistics training if you want to talk intelligently about such things.

The chance of one specific reactor having a disaster is indeed low. But you have to multiply that chance by the 430 currently active reactors, and again by the time these reactors continue to operate. Roll a pair of dice 430 times and snake eyes is no longer a risk but a dead certainty.