Post Reply
Page 7 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Switch to Forum Live View More nukes for South Carolina - Are they crazy or just stupid?
2 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 2:22PM #61
mountain_man
Posts: 39,349

Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:09PM, mindis1 wrote:

The reason you (and Solfeggio) are unable to provide any evidence showing “serious harm” to people ....


I'm not answering your strawman arguments. I see no reason I should defend a claim I, nor anyone else here, made. Try more reasonable arguments, leave out the personal attacks, and you'll get much better responses.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 2:23PM #62
teilhard
Posts: 51,101

We who "live and move and have our being" in Minnesota are situated on loosely consolidated Glacial Deposits that are often directly laid upon Old Continental Crust, i.e., LOTS of Granite ...


So a common Concern hereabout is (radioactive) Radon Gas, given off as a natural Fission Product, seeping into our Houses through Cracks in Basement Floors ... Our Houses are often built and kept fairly rather "tight," due to our extreme Climate, so indoor Radon Levels sometimes can become high enough to cause a slight elevated Risk of Lung Cancer over Time ... Living in a HOUSE in Minnesota carries some Risks ... (So ... If we stay INSIDE to avoid "Skin Cancer" from The Sun, we might get "Lung Cancer" just from breathing... !!! Bummer ... !!!)


We also endure Natural Risks from Tornadoes, Lightning Strikes, Drowning ("10,000 Lakes," you see), Auto Accidents, severe Winter Weather, etc., etc. ... 


Just being ALIVE is "risky," and most of accept that Risk, but just try to be ... reasonably careful ... without getting too worked-up about it ...


Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:09PM, mindis1 wrote:


Apr 4, 2012 -- 3:54PM, mountain_man wrote:


Apr 4, 2012 -- 3:49PM, mindis1 wrote:

Obviously what I asked for is the evidence showing what is “well established” about the “serious harm” to people caused by “even very low levels of ionizing radiation from [nuclear power] plants”. ...


I gave you some.



The reason you (and Solfeggio) are unable to provide any evidence showing “serious harm” to people caused by “even very low levels of ionizing radiation from [nuclear power] plants” is because there is no evidence of such harm.


People who work at nuclear power plants are exposed to about twice the amount of radiation that all people in the US are exposed to from all sources over a year’s time (the “background dose”). This doubling of radiation “background dose” results in an estimated life expectancy loss to these workers of 15 days, according to the committee for Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation V (BEIR V). The estimated life expectancy loss that results from working in manufacturing jobs is three times that amount: 40 days.  www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/risk.htm


The primary risk associated with radiation exposure is an increased risk of cancer. The degree of risk depends on the amount of radiation dose received, the time period in which the dose is received, and the body parts that receive the radiation dose. Although scientists assume that low-level radiation doses increase one’s risk of cancer, studies have not demonstrated any adverse health effects in individuals who are chronically exposed to small radiation doses over a period of many years (e.g., a total of up to 10,000 mrem above the average background dose).


The increased risk of cancer from occupational radiation exposure is small when compared to the normal cancer rate in today’s society. For example, the current risk of dying from all types of cancer in the United States is approximately 25 percent -- while a person who receives a whole-body radiation dose of 25,000 mrem over his or her lifetime has a risk of dying from cancer of 26 percent -- a one percent increase.  www.nucsafe.com/cms/Radiation+Risks/41.h...


Below 10 rem (which includes occupational and environmental exposures) risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are non-existent.  www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/hprisk.htm


So, your answer to my question is that you are not able or willing to take in information about nuclear energy/power plants? I must admit that my impression from our previous exchanges is that you are at least unwilling to take in information that is contrary to some belief you have already adopted. ...


I got the exact same from you. 



I have never known you substantiate any facts that are contrary to anything I have ever said. You are welcomed to do so; I have asked you to do so many times. Unlike you, I am able to learn. Until I began learning about nuclear power, I was very opposed to it, because, in my ignorance, I erroneously believed, like you and Solfeggio believe, that nuclear power is inherently unsafe. I also erroneously believed that there are safe and affordable non-nuclear alternatives to fossil fuel energy sources that could provide adequate energy for the world. I now know this to be untrue also.





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 7:56PM #63
solfeggio
Posts: 9,215

Yes, it's true that just being alive is risky.  We all know this, and it can be depressing at times, when you stop to think about all the bad stuff that could happen.


However, this does not change the fact that there are some things we can control, and whether or not to build nuclear facilities is one of them.  All the science points to the fact that nuclear power is neither safe nor green.  Its dangers far outweigh its arguable benefits. 


Over the years, there have been almost one hundred accidents at nuclear power plants around the world, and more than half of these have occurred in the U.S.


And, what the pro-nuclear people have never been able to address is how to safely get rid of the nuclear waste, which can remain deadly for hundreds of thousands of years.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 8:42PM #64
teilhard
Posts: 51,101

Risk Assessment and Risk Management are Factors in EVERY Technological-Cultural Set-Up and EVERY Event in Life ...


Apr 5, 2012 -- 7:56PM, solfeggio wrote:


Yes, it's true that just being alive is risky.  We all know this, and it can be depressing at times, when you stop to think about all the bad stuff that could happen.


However, this does not change the fact that there are some things we can control, and whether or not to build nuclear facilities is one of them.  All the science points to the fact that nuclear power is neither safe nor green.  Its dangers far outweigh its arguable benefits. 


Over the years, there have been almost one hundred accidents at nuclear power plants around the world, and more than half of these have occurred in the U.S.


And, what the pro-nuclear people have never been able to address is how to safely get rid of the nuclear waste, which can remain deadly for hundreds of thousands of years.


 





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 12, 2012 - 4:19PM #65
mindis1
Posts: 7,776

Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:22PM, mountain_man wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 2:09PM, mindis1 wrote:

The reason you (and Solfeggio) are unable to provide any evidence showing “serious harm” to people ....


I'm not answering your strawman arguments. 



Evidently you don’t know what a straw man argument is. You have never quoted anything I’ve written that even vaguely resembled that logical fallacy. If you ever become able and willing to learn about nuclear power, you should start with simple logic. One cannot deduce valid conclusions from empirical findings without knowing how to make valid deductions.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 12, 2012 - 4:21PM #66
mindis1
Posts: 7,776

Apr 5, 2012 -- 7:56PM, solfeggio wrote:


All the science points to the fact that nuclear power is neither safe nor green.  



False. You have not been able to provide any scientific evidence showing that nuclear power is either inherently unsafe or not “green” (a term you are undoubtedly unable to define).  


Its dangers far outweigh its arguable benefits.  



You have not done any risk-benefit analysis whatsoever. You are apparently not even willing take in the information that your claim about “serious harm” to humans caused by “even very low levels of ionizing radiation from [nuclear power] plants” is unequivocally false.  


And, what the pro-nuclear people have never been able to address is how to safely get rid of the nuclear waste



False. There are not only numerous proposals for the disposal as well as reprocessing of radioactive waste from nuclear power plants, such radioactive waste has been safely managed since the beginning of nuclear power plants, despite there not even being laws or treaties governing such waste for most of this time. The proof of the safe management of radioactive waste from nuclear power plants is the fact that there have never been any deaths or injuries caused by such radioactive waste in 50 years of nuclear power. During the same period, almost two hundred thousand people have died as a result of accidents (and lack of contingency plans) at hydroelectric power plants.


All you have done on this thread is demonstrate your willingness to assert bald falsehoods about nuclear power, and your unwillingness to take in information about nuclear power. It is an irrational fanaticism.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 12, 2012 - 4:23PM #67
teilhard
Posts: 51,101

A great Deal of the Opposition to Nuclear Power Generation seems to be based mostly on FEAR ...


Apr 12, 2012 -- 4:21PM, mindis1 wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 7:56PM, solfeggio wrote:


All the science points to the fact that nuclear power is neither safe nor green.  



False. You have not been able to provide any scientific evidence showing that nuclear power is either inherently unsafe or not “green” (a term you are undoubtedly unable to define).  


Its dangers far outweigh its arguable benefits.  



You have not done any risk-benefit analysis whatsoever. You are apparently not even willing take in the information that your claim about “serious harm” to humans caused by “even very low levels of ionizing radiation from [nuclear power] plants” is unequivocally false.  


And, what the pro-nuclear people have never been able to address is how to safely get rid of the nuclear waste



False. There are not only numerous proposals for the disposal as well as reprocessing of radioactive waste from nuclear power plants, such radioactive waste has been safely managed since the beginning of nuclear power plants, despite there not even being laws or treaties governing such waste for most of this time. The proof of the safe management of radioactive waste from nuclear power plants is the fact that there have never been any deaths or injuries caused by such radioactive waste in 50 years of nuclear power. During the same period, almost two hundred thousand people have died as a result of accidents (and lack of contingency plans) at hydroelectric power plants.


All you have done on this thread is demonstrate your willingness to assert bald falsehoods about nuclear power, and your unwillingness to take in information about nuclear power. It is an irrational fanaticism.





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 12, 2012 - 4:42PM #68
mountain_man
Posts: 39,349

Apr 12, 2012 -- 4:19PM, mindis1 wrote:

Evidently you don’t know what a straw man argument is.....


A strawman argument is when you misrepresent an argument and then argue as if the misrepresentation were true. Not only have you used strawmen, but a considerable amount of misdirection and derailing too. I was hoping for a discussion on a higher level. I must learn to lower my standards.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 12, 2012 - 7:29PM #69
solfeggio
Posts: 9,215

There is no way to safely dispose of nuclear waste.


news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4407421.stm


www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/...


There is no safe way of using the waste in reactors.  The idea that it could provide a fuel source for a Thorium reactor is nonsense. 


www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/...


The spent fuel rods from a reactor are the most radioactive, and there is no permanent storage site for spent fuel rods.


Until or unless there is some safe method of dealing with with radioactive by-products of nuclear energy, the world should stop producing it.


www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=6043


www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?i...

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 12, 2012 - 9:07PM #70
mountain_man
Posts: 39,349

Apr 12, 2012 -- 7:29PM, solfeggio wrote:

There is no way to safely dispose of nuclear waste.


We've already been told that that's not a problem. Just sweep it under the rug and walk away. So it poisons the Earth for thousands of years. We won't be here then so it doesn't matter.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 7 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook