Thread: Is nuclear power the way to go?

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Yeah, um... wrong. USGS Measures Fallout from Fukushima in US NADP Precipitation Samples


Radiation levels in Fukushima are lower than predicted - health - 16 November 2011 - New Scientist


Anyway, I'm surprised that you believe in radiation. You know that the atomic theory is just a theory, right? Maybe what those Geiger counters are reading is just angel kisses. I guess we'll never know.

So, they tested people to see if they had enough radiation exposure to get radiation sickness and they weren't that sick. They measured direct radiation exposure. Are you just not smart (chosen over a more insulting name) or are you trying to get into a moronic argument over the completely wrong subject? Fucking ridiculous. Do you think all those people around Chernobyl that died died of radiation poisoning? LOL... Also, natural food products including fish in the area have hundreds or thousands of times what was previously considered safe levels of radioactive isotopes in them. Most of the impact of this disaster will be seen in cancer cases, birth defects and other problems related to consumption of these radioactive particles. For example, all it would take is one particle inhaled into the lungs to cause cancer years later.

How old are you anyway? At this point you sound like some kind of twenty-something trolling punk searching for an argument who has no clue about some things he pretends to know. The internet has certainly produced a subset of pseudo intellectuals out there who think Google makes them smart. You sound like one of them right now.

As a matter of fact, it just occurred to me how you argue. You look up things on the internet to see if you can counter someone's view with it, rather than starting at a place of knowledge. It might be better to start with what you already know and then try to look or something that confirms it. Then read as you look to be sure you aren't wrong. Searching on a subject and finding some headlines does not make you intelligent on that subject. You have to know what you are talking about in the first place and state what you know. And if you don't know, then admit that to yourself and just don't try to argue about it until you learn more and have more knowledge. But, you don't do that. This is why almost any discussion with you is a waste of time - you don't have the intellectual horsepower to form your own thoughts. And this is also why I got the impression that you are a young person.

Originally Posted by GReYVee

There is an inherent risk of getting cancer from fossil fuel waste as well. I think providing results from extremely rare reactor melt downs is a one sided way to argue against Nuclear Energy. It's been proven to be a very safe, clean, and efficient source of energy.

The major environmental impacts are from mining, with an economic fallback being the expenses/complexity to enrich/dispose waste and decommission facilities. Newer methods of utilizing byproducts and using sources that produce lower half-life waste is making nuclear power even more manageable.

I see the aversion to nuclear energy akin to many peoples fear of flying. Flying is extremely safe, just when things go wrong they can go very wrong.

That the fossil fuel industry can weasel out of paying the true costs associated with its activities is no reason to excuse other industries too.

Requiring business to pay the costs of their activities is fundamental to market economics.

It's possible that nuclear power generation is, by its very nature, ill-suited to private business. That would be an interesting discussion too.


Æ

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

As a matter of fact, it just occurred to me how you argue. You look up things on the internet to see if you can counter someone's view with it, rather than starting at a place of knowledge. It might be better to start with what you already know and then try to look or something that confirms it. Then read as you look to be sure you aren't wrong. Searching on a subject and finding some headlines does not make you intelligent on that subject. You have to know what you are talking about in the first place and state what you know. And if you don't know, then admit that to yourself and just don't try to argue about it until you learn more and have more knowledge. But, you don't do that. This is why almost any discussion with you is a waste of time - you don't have the intellectual horsepower to form your own thoughts. And this is also why I got the impression that you are a young person.

Or he can go on the internet and research thus becoming knowledgeable. Where did you get your info on the Chernobyl disaster? Were you born knowing it or did you have to research those facts as well?

Originally Posted by GReYVee

There is an inherent risk of getting cancer from fossil fuel waste as well. I think providing results from extremely rare reactor melt downs is a one sided way to argue against Nuclear Energy. It's been proven to be a very safe, clean, and efficient source of energy.

The major environmental impacts are from mining, with an economic fallback being the expenses/complexity to enrich/dispose waste and decommission facilities. Newer methods of utilizing byproducts and using sources that produce lower half-life waste is making nuclear power even more manageable.

I see the aversion to nuclear energy akin to many peoples fear of flying. Flying is extremely safe, just when things go wrong they can go very wrong.

Please don't get me wrong - I am a huge proponent of nuclear energy. Not afraid of it at all. I think we should probably be 100% nuclear in the United States. My point is that if we are going to do that, we will need to be sure that the corporations that run the plants are focused on maintaining the highest standards for safety and protection from attack and natural disaster.

Fukushima is a perfect example of a plant that was well maintained previously but over time became vulnerable to natural disaster, during which time it was hit by the worst possible scenario. The potential for disaster on such a grand scale is more of an all or nothing prospect compared to the petroleum industry and its dangers to the public. This justifies some pretty strict regulations as far as I'm concerned. The current regulations for building and maintenance of nuclear plants in the U.S. are actually pretty good and surpass those of most other countries, but the key area of weakness is inspection and enforcement of those policies as those plants age. Corporations will be trying to save money and take risks in the process. Government will need to keep these corporations honest and ensure those risks are not being taken in this area of the energy industry.

Speaking on this subject - did you know that before Lee Ermey (of Full Metal Jacket fame) was working in the entertainment industry, he used to be a nuclear power plant safety inspector? I would imagine plant managers wouldn't want to cross him!

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Or he can go on the internet and research thus becoming knowledgeable. Where did you get your info on the Chernobyl disaster? Were you born knowing it or did you have to research those facts as well?

What I am saying is that there is a difference between learning and applying the knowledge you have gained, and trolling the internet for an opposing view to a point you have just read for the sole purpose of making an argument. This is real life, not a high school debate class where someone wins based on their ability to argue and spew data. If one is going to make some argument or other, they should at least know what their actual position on the issue is based on knowledge gained and not the other way round. What I know about Chernobyl I know from witnessing the event unfold as well as years of reading on the subject and previous sharing with other people in discussions. If I were to read about it for an hour online, I might be able to make an argument regurgitating what someone else thinks, but I would not be able to make the same sorts of arguments as I could coming from a place of knowledge of the subject. So in that case I would probably just not comment with any authoritative tone on the subject or wait until I actually had a solid, informed opinion before commenting on that subject. I've seen this sort of thing a lot here and while it is amusing, it also reveals the immaturity of the people posting.

I guess what I'm saying is, a little humility goes a long way sometimes.