Life In 19x19

Bill Spight wrote:The problem with nuclear power is nuclear waste, which has to be safely secured for much longer than human civilization has existed. But from the look of things, global warming will destroy human civilization long before nuclear waste becomes a significant danger. The cockroaches can handle it.

American ingenuity came up with a solution for spent fuel rods: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/dod ... 4aug98.htm

skydyr wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:Seriously, solar power is getting much cheaper, and thorium reactors sound promising.

Um... thorium, while not uranium, is still nuclear power.

See http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/ ... -reactors/

DrStraw wrote:

sybob wrote:Haha.
If the number of views is an indication, and/or the number of replies, then cats are more important to go players / forum members than the environment.
Well, I suppose they are .....

You expect replies in less than 9 minutes? I have only just seen your post.

No, I do not expect that.
The original posting dates from August 23, 2014. Total number of views till February 20, 2015 (my reply) was slightly over 900, and 12 replies till Feb. 20, 2105, ie. being approx. 6 months.
Compared that to the cat pic topic which yielded almost 60 replies and around 2.600 views over an 11 month period.

HermanHiddema wrote:
I'm happy to see they have not let this incident scare them off nuclear power. Nuclear power is a safe and clean form of energy, which is absolutely essential in curbing global warming.

Please don't present opinions as facts.
As far as I know, there have been numerous incidents around the world involving nuclear, be it energy, be it military, medical or otherwise. Many casualties also, directly and indirectly/over time. Among various sources, I recall reading the UN report estimating that Chernobyl alone may over time result in several 100,000's of statistically attributable deaths. Not speaking about deformaties and other serious health matters, not speaking about environmental impact etc.

HermanHiddema wrote: Nothing is safe. You can get run over while walking down the street. So the definition of safe I'm using is "Causes relatively few deaths and injuries relative to comparable activities". That's the kind of definition we use to say that air travel is one of the safest forms of travel. Yes, sometimes hundreds of people die in a plan crash, whereas your average car crash involves just a few deaths. And the plane crash is given a lot of attention on TV, while car crashes are pretty much just statistics. But if you consider the number of person-miles traveled, air travel is much safer.

Yes, that's the irony.
We pollute the world, making it inhabitable, and then make it a definition issue.
To clarify: yes, one may argue that air travel is very safe or safer than other means, but it is also more polluting than say train travel.

Also, in reply to jeromie: perhaps the Forbes article does not (just) support HermanHiddema's argument, but may be his primary source of information. A lot can be argued about that article and its contents.

I'd love to travel on a transatlantic or transpacific train, but nobody seems to have built the tracks.

sybob wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:
I'm happy to see they have not let this incident scare them off nuclear power. Nuclear power is a safe and clean form of energy, which is absolutely essential in curbing global warming.

Please don't present opinions as facts.
As far as I know, there have been numerous incidents around the world involving nuclear, be it energy, be it military, medical or otherwise. Many casualties also, directly and indirectly/over time. Among various sources, I recall reading the UN report estimating that Chernobyl alone may over time result in several 100,000's of statistically attributable deaths. Not speaking about deformaties and other serious health matters, not speaking about environmental impact etc.

You know, it is always really disheartening to read these kinds of things. Is it really so hard to do your research? Instead of "as far as I know", how about you take the 5 minutes the find the actual UN report?

I mean, there's a wikipedia article on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due ... l_disaster) which summarizes the UN report thus:

In peer-reviewed publications UNSCEAR has identified fewer than 60 immediate deaths from trauma, acute radiation poisoning and cases of thyroid cancer from an original group of about 4,000 cases of thyroid cancers in the affected area. Other non-governmental organizations, many with staunch positions on the spectrum of the nuclear power debate, have claimed numbers up to a million excess deaths caused by the nuclear disaster. UN and other international agencies such as the Chernobyl Forum and the World Health Organization state that such numbers are wildly over-estimated, stressing a need for hard documentation of deaths. It is thought that the principal long-term adverse health outcomes are anxiety and depression among the general public across Eastern Europe as a result of irresponsible reporting and exaggerated statements by anti-nuclear power activists.

So yeah, 4,000 is a lot of people. But that's the number of deaths from the worst nuclear disaster ever, and it is way less than the number of deaths due to coal every single year. Or look at hydro power. The biggest disaster ever there claimed 171,000 lives: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

So please, do your research. This is the age of the internet, there is no excuse for saying "I recall reading".

HermanHiddema wrote:I am talking about the Real World, with Real People. Real world experience shows that accidents are rare. Statistically, based on real world experience, nuclear power is safe. Nothing theoretical about it.

If you want to stay away from the politics, and look at the science only, then the statement "Nuclear power is safe and clean" is as close as you're going to get to the scientific consensus.

If you are only counting incidences than yes, you are correct. But if you factor in the environmental impact of each accident then you get a very different picture. And, I would claim, that is the only reasonable picture to look at.

HermanHiddema wrote:[..] The biggest disaster ever there claimed 171,000 lives [..]

Yeah, it’s a sad fact that some people care little about the generations that come after us. These 171.000 lives were lost. That’s terrible. But they aren’t going to pass on their genetic defects, contrary to what happens in nuclear accidents and bombings, etc.

Bonobo wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:[..] The biggest disaster ever there claimed 171,000 lives [..]

Yeah, it’s a sad fact that some people care little about the generations that come after us. These 171.000 lives were lost. That’s terrible. But they aren’t going to pass on their genetic defects, contrary to what happens in nuclear accidents and bombings, etc.

Ah, but isn't that how the meek (bonobos) will inherit the earth?

Bonobo wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:[..] The biggest disaster ever there claimed 171,000 lives [..]

Yeah, it’s a sad fact that some people care little about the generations that come after us. These 171.000 lives were lost. That’s terrible. But they aren’t going to pass on their genetic defects, contrary to what happens in nuclear accidents and bombings, etc.

You know, I think most people care very much for future generations. But that doesn't stop them from doing harm. Look at the anti-vaccination movement. I'm sure those people that refuse to vaccinate their children do love their children very much, and would not want them to come to harm. Yet they then take a course of action that puts their children at risk of disease and death. Why? It seem that at some point, people become so invested in certain beliefs in their own mind, that nothing can get them out of that ignorance. Any evidence presented that might support their position is embraced unquestioningly, while any evidence to the contrary is dismissed as false, fake, or the result of a conspiracy by "Big Pharma" or something.

The same is true of the anti-nuclear movement. I'm quite certain that all those environmentalists opposed to nuclear power do care deeply about the environment, and about other people. Yet they actively promote a course of action that harms the environment and puts their fellow man at more risk, and they dismiss any and all evidence of the benefits of nuclear power as false or faked by "Big Nuclear".

So, seriously, if you truly do care about the environment, please please educate yourself. Nuclear power is the only viable technology we have right now that can replace coal, and it is orders of magnitude safer and cleaner.

HermanHiddema wrote:You know, I think most people care very much for future generations. But that doesn't stop them from doing harm. Look at the anti-vaccination movement. I'm sure those people that refuse to vaccinate their children do love their children very much, and would not want them to come to harm. Yet they then take a course of action that puts their children at risk of disease and death. Why? It seem that at some point, people become so invested in certain beliefs in their own mind, that nothing can get them out of that ignorance. Any evidence presented that might support their position is embraced unquestioningly, while any evidence to the contrary is dismissed as false, fake, or the result of a conspiracy by "Big Pharma" or something.

This argument is the one always put out by those who either have a vested interested in the profits of big pharma or who are too lazy to do the research. But I am not going to get into an argument with you about it as you clearly are not interested in an alternative point of view, either with this or with nuclear power. I note this purely for the benefit of others who may be interested: there is way more documented evidence from reliable sources that vaccinations are not the panacea they are presented as and that, in many cases, they are more lethal than the disease. I will not discuss it here as it is an inappropriate topic for a go forum, but if anyone wants information send me a PM.

Aidoneus wrote:

Bonobo wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:[..] The biggest disaster ever there claimed 171,000 lives [..]

Yeah, it’s a sad fact that some people care little about the generations that come after us. These 171.000 lives were lost. That’s terrible. But they aren’t going to pass on their genetic defects, contrary to what happens in nuclear accidents and bombings, etc.

Ah, but isn't that how the meek (bonobos) will inherit the earth?

La cucaracha! La cucaracha!

What happened to the forum policy?

2. Controversy
Religious, political, and sexual topics are not allowed.

Cheers,
Vesa

Vesa wrote:What happened to the forum policy?

2. Controversy
Religious, political, and sexual topics are not allowed.

Cheers,
Vesa

Which of the three were you thinking that nuclear power falls under?