quote Originally posted by JazzMan: It matters to me a lot. I'm not ignoring it at all, I just don't use it as a debate tactic. Still not appreciating the condescension and derogatory comments.

So you will debate the safety of nuclear power but you won't debate how many deaths are attributable to it. Sounds like the definition of ignore to me.

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: So which statement do you consider derogatory? That your arguments ignore the actual safety records involved?

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: So you will debate the safety of nuclear power but you won't debate how many deaths are attributable to it. Sounds like the definition of ignore to me.

I could say it this way:

When I get a chance, I'll do some research to see what the end to end death quantity is for the nuclear industry, and for comparable industries such as solar, wind, geothermal, even coal, and do a factual comparison. I think you're mistaken focusing on only the deaths associated with nuclear power plant malfunctions as the key barometer on overall safety, and I also believe that using safety as the only significant aspect of the whole picture is a mistake as well. It's like looking at just a slice of a slice of a slice of a pie and saying that that little sliver, as important as it may seem alone, defines the entire pie.

Or I could say it this way:

Your ignorance borders on mind-boggling. You focus on just one aspect of a technology and ignore all the other costs, deliberately, because you're an obviously smart person otherwise. You cherry pick whatever it takes to bolster your own views and willfully ignore other aspects that arguably play a greater role in how we as humans live and will have to continue to live on this planet. That's the definition of willful viewing of the subject through blinders to me.

Now you tell me, which way sounded less condescending? Which challenged you as a person vs your views and opinions? I challenge your views WRT what you say, but I most definitely challenge you as a person because of the way you present those views. So far, to date, I don't think I've called you any names or tried to imply (or say outright) that you're ignorant, uneducated, or just generally a dumb person. Some of your views, IMHO, sure, but not you as a person.

quote Originally posted by carnut122: Random, I'm not trying to discount your guy, but he seems to know more than the people in Japan??? Although I'm sure he's extremely qualified, unless he's there, he's another arm-chair quarterback. Has he been to the Fukushima since the tsunami?

Sorry for the delayed response. Yes, he owns a company that deals with this stuff and has been on the team helping them.

quote Originally posted by RandomTask: It was more than that, it was a mindset. It was massive ego's overriding safety.

In other words, human error. More of it than, say, TMI or Fukushima, but still...

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: In other words, human error. More of it than, say, TMI or Fukushima, but still...

No. Willful disregard.

quote Originally posted by RandomTask: It was more than that, it was a mindset. It was massive ego's overriding safety.

The Russians knew they were cutting corners. They knew they were behind the US in the cold war. They wanted to be equal to the US and they took unreasonable risks. They signed off on their junk engineering.

They are still running that junk engineering.

quote Originally posted by RandomTask: Sorry for the delayed response. Yes, he owns a company that deals with this stuff and has been on the team helping them.

Really? I'm shocked. Ok, now you have my attention.

Anything credible about the observers receiving high doses of radiation?

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: In other words, human error. More of it than, say, TMI or Fukushima, but still...

No - Chernobyl was straight ignoring of safety to simply prove a point. They took huge unnecessary risks. Second, TMI was an instrumentation malfunction compounded with inexperience. I don't know how you can say Fukashima was at all "human error". Did you miss the part about the 9.0 earthquake (which it survived FYI) and the massive tsunami?

Fukushima Students Wear Masks as Radiation Looms
By Takahiko Hyuga and Shigeru Sato - May 10, 2011 8:10 PM CT

*
*
* inShare0
* More
o Business Exchange
o Buzz up!
o Digg
* Print
* Email

Students Wear Masks, Sleeves in Fukushima as Radiation Looms

Workers remove contaminated soil from playgrounds at an elementary school in Fukushima, Japan. Source: The Asahi Shimbun via Getty Images

Students at the Shoyo Junior High School in Fukushima are wearing masks, caps and long-sleeved jerseys to attend classes as their exposure to radiation is on pace to equal annual limits for nuclear industry workers.

“Students are told not to go out to the school yard and we keep windows shut,” said Yukihide Sato, the vice principal at Shoyo Junior High in Date city, about 60 kilometers (37 miles) northwest from the crippled Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear station. “Things are getting worse, but I don’t know what to do.”

Two months after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami created Japan’s worst nuclear crisis since World War II, schools in Fukushima are waiting for stronger measures from the government to protect its youngest citizens. A parents group will send a petition to Governor Yuhei Sato at 3 p.m. today, asking for the evacuation of more than 1,600 kindergartens, elementary and junior high schools affecting about 300,000 children and teachers.

“The governor should take leadership,” said Seiichi Nakate, the 50-year-old head of the Network to Protect Fukushima Children from Radiation, a group comprising 250 parents. “Fukushima Prefecture is the only power that can protect our children from radiation exposure.”

Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s administration has led rescue and evacuation efforts since the quake decimated towns and left more than 24,000 dead or missing. Decisions to remove contaminated materials in Fukushima prefecture have been left to the central government because local authorities don’t have the expertise or knowledge, said an official at the prefecture’s education department, who declined to be named.
Same Limit

Children and teachers at a fifth of the 1,600 schools in Fukushima are receiving at least 20 millisieverts of radiation per year, said Nakate, according to readings from the government. That’s the limit for a nuclear power plant worker, according to Japan’s nuclear safety commission.

More than three-quarters of the schools receive radiation readings of 0.6 microsievert per hour, Nakate said. That’s 10 times more than the readings in Shinjuku, central Tokyo last week. A chest X-ray delivers a radiation dose of about 100 microsieverts, or 0.1 millisievert, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. A millisievert is 1,000 microsieverts.

“We are waiting for the national government’s advice and asking them for appropriate ways to deal with the situation,” said Hisashi Katayose, an official at the Fukushima prefecture government’s disaster task force. “We’ve received several phone calls from residents and been asked to reduce radiation levels at schools,” he said in a phone interview.

Governor Sato on May 2 had asked the national government to determine appropriate measures to prevent the situation from getting worse.
No Skirts

Readings at Shoyo Junior High reached 3.3 microsieverts an hour on May 2, according to Date city’s education board. The school, which has 245 students and 27 teaching staff, bans female students from wearing skirts, citing radiation concerns, said Vice Principal Sato.

Date city’s government in late April removed contaminated soil from playgrounds at two elementary schools and one day care facility after requests from local residents, said Hiroshi Ono, an official at the city’s board of education. Radiation readings had exceeded 3.8 microsieverts an hour, he said.

The soil was left at the corners of the playgrounds and covered with plastic sheets as a temporary measure, Ono said in a phone interview.

To contact the reporters on this story: Takahiko Hyuga in Tokyo at thyuga@bloomberg.net; Shigeru Sato in Tokyo at ssato10@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Chitra Somayaji at csomayaji@bloomberg.net; Teo Chian Wei at cwteo@bloomberg.net
http://www.bloomberg.com/ne...radiation-looms.html

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: I could say it this way: Your ignorance borders on mind-boggling. You focus on just one aspect of a technology and ignore all the other costs, deliberately, because you're an obviously smart person otherwise. You cherry pick whatever it takes to bolster your own views and willfully ignore other aspects that arguably play a greater role in how we as humans live and will have to continue to live on this planet. That's the definition of willful viewing of the subject through blinders to me.

I have never used this tone of voice. I also don't make up 'facts'. Clearly you have no problem with doing it.

quote Originally posted by Raydar: No. Willful disregard.

I honestly don't believe that the operators at Chernobyl set out to deliberately cause the disaster that resulted from their actions; that would have been a deliberate act of sabotage with intent to destroy and nothing I've read about that catastrophe has indicated that kind of intent. I do believe that if they'd known ahead of time what would have happened then they wouldn't have done what they did and those cities and villages would still be alive. As an aside, I'd probably still be a fan of nuclear and would probably have more of phonedawgz viewpoints.

Failure to anticipate the results of one's actions is still human error, namely bad thinking.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Failing to anticipate the results of a 9.0 earthquake in a region of the world known for its earthquakes was an error. Failure to anticipate the resulting tsunami was was error. Placing the only backup power supply in a location where a tsunami could take it out was an error. The designers of Fukushima rolled the dice and took a gamble to save some money, and they lost. Their failed gamble will cost the Japanese economy and taxpayers at least a hundred billion dollars, possibly even double/triple that once all the economic fallout is finished, no pun intended. One thing is certain: The designers of the Fukushima reactors and backup/safety systems will not be paying for their mistakes in any real terms, such as prison and being stripped of all their assets. Designers have to ask themselves some basic questions when working with technology with the capability of causing world-wide millennium-spanning damage: What's the worst possible thing(s) that can happen? For instance: is it possible to have a 10 point earthquake? In Japan, yes. So, design everything to handle an 11 point earthquake just in case. Do earthquakes cause Tsunamis? Absolutely. If you build on the coast in an earthquake zone then you design for the worst case tsunami. How tall can a tsunami get? I've seen numbers over 1,000 feet. So, design it to handle that. Can it be done? Sure! Expensive? You betcha, but it has to be done. I bet it can be done for a lot less than the quarter of a trillion dollars Fukushima could cost. Other examples of what to design for: Human error: What could an operator do that would cause a disaster? Deliberately? Accidentally? If there's any possible scenario that could cause a Chernobyl, then design with however many redundant interlocks and safety systems as necessary to prevent them. How about designing for what happens when something you didn't anticipate happens? Full meltdown. Design for that. A containment vessel should be designed to hold the entire contents of a fully melted core, indefinitely, without any external active systems required, without releasing any significant quantities of radionuclides. What does indefinitely mean? Forever, if that's what it takes, Why? Because that's what needs to be done. If errors of judgment and mistakes of engineering had not been made at Fukushima then we wouldn't be having this conversation now, Q.E.D.

And again you would worry about saving this nuclear power plant while ignoring trying to save the over 20,000 missing or dead people.

According to Russia Today Fukushima Reactor building 4 is leaning, the video is in the article...


http://theintelhub.com/2011...f-complete-collapse/

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: And again you would worry about saving this nuclear power plant while ignoring trying to save the over 20,000 missing or dead people.

No, that is an utter mischaracterization of what I said. In fact, I can't see what the connection is between what you claim I mean and anything. Are you on drugs?

http://www.reformer.com/ci_...?source=most_emailed
VY: Tritium leak source could be pipes
Reformer Staff / Reformer Staff
Posted: 05/05/2011 03:00:00 AM EDT

Thursday May 5, 2011

BRATTLEBORO -- The source of tritiated water discovered in January near Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant’s radioactive waste building has not yet been found, but Yankee officials believe the contaminated water has been flowing along a piping run from the advanced off-gas building to a monitoring well near the waste building.

In January 2010, tritiated water was discovered in groundwater monitoring wells at the plant. It was discovered to be leaking from a pipe tunnel connected to the advanced off gas building. The leak was stopped in late March 2010, though remediation of the groundwater continues.

Since the January 2011 discovery, five pipes in the vicinity of the waste building were tested a number of times and none of them were found to be leaking.

Yankee believes the source is most likely the AOG sump drain line, which will be removed from service. In addition, both ends of the line will be capped.

Contamination of the monitoring well near the waste building never exceeded 9,000 picocuries per liter, and has been measured most weeks at just above the lower limit of detection, about 500 picocuries, according to the Vermont Department of Health.
So another plant leaking Tritium, but its safe, once again.

Oh and ad braidwood, IL to the list http://www.voanews.com/engl...inois-120325239.html

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 05-11-2011).]

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: The building isn't the important part, it's the semi-melted reactor core inside that is. Any further news on that? Also, have you heard if and when they'll be able to start dealing with the contaminated corpses rotting in the streets? Must mostly be skeletons by now, two months after the fact. That brings up another point: Are the animals and insects that ate the flesh of those victims contaminated now, too? Birds move around quite a bit, I can't imagine that the crows and buzzards that ate the contaminated victims agreed to stay put for euthanization and hazardous burial.

Building 4 houses the spent fuel rods that are already damaged. I believe that reactor was reported defueled at the time of the earthquake, however it houses the majority of the spent fuel rods. If it were to come down, I think they would lose reactors 1-3.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: No, that is an utter mischaracterization of what I said. In fact, I can't see what the connection is between what you claim I mean and anything. Are you on drugs?

If more money is going to be spent on disaster preparedness in Japan that money would be much better spent on saving the 20,000+ lives that were lost/missing instead of trying to make the nuclear power plants perfect.

Perfection can not be obtained. You somehow expect the nuclear facility to be altered to be made perfect from any disaster but you would ignore the 20,000 people who died.

My contention still is that everything has risks involved. My contention still is that every source of energy has potential issues with it. And I surely wouldn't attack only one safety issue to somehow make it perfect while ignoring all others.

Only prescription drugs, but it's a good one btw.

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: Anything credible about the observers receiving high doses of radiation?

I'm just speculating that being that close to a nuclear blast can not be good for you. I also suspect that all of those "voluntold" observers were probably told something to the effect of, "Don't worry, we know exactly how much radiation you'll need before it kills you... instantly." It took awhile before the government came clean on many of it's research experiments it used to run on inmates, mental patients, and people in Tuskegee. Stay tuned. OTOH, many of those who didn't die due to increased cancer risks, are probably on the verge of dieing of "old age." So, no, I don't have any hard data, but if the dosage was significant, I suspect that information is still classified.

The radiation effects of the blast would be reduced by the cube of the distance from you to the blast.

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: If more money is going to be spent on disaster preparedness in Japan that money would be much better spent on saving the 20,000+ lives that were lost/missing instead of trying to make the nuclear power plants perfect. Perfection can not be obtained. You somehow expect the nuclear facility to be altered to be made perfect from any disaster but you would ignore the 20,000 people who died. My contention still is that everything has risks involved. My contention still is that every source of energy has potential issues with it. And I surely wouldn't attack only one safety issue to somehow make it perfect while ignoring all others. Only prescription drugs, but it's a good one btw.

I am NOT ignoring the dead and missing. Why do you keep saying that? Can you not read what I write? What part of me saying "I am NOT ignoring the dead" are you not comprehending? Do you honestly believe that if you keep repeating the same falsehood over and over again that it will somehow become true? Well, actually, that is true. Repeating falsehoods to create a new "truth" is a standard propaganda technique, as used successfully by many over time. More recently it was used in Germany to build up a culture of hate against a certain religious minority, resulting in over ten million dead.

Look, I get that you don't consider the negatives of nuclear power to be important enough to matter, in the sense that if they did matter you'd be able to change your mind. From my point of view, Fukushima only proves my point, every day for the last two months, that nuclear cannot be made affordable if the safety standard is to prevent a Fukushima or Chernobyl. You can turn a blind eye to that fact, but pretending you can't see it doesn't change it one itty bitty bit.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: I am NOT ignoring the dead and missing. Why do you keep saying that? Can you not read what I write? What part of me saying "I am NOT ignoring the dead" are you not comprehending?

Your actions speak so loudly I can't hear a word you are saying.

You demand a perfect nuclear power plant, where not a single person died from Fukushima Daiichi, but you haven't had anywhere near the same regard for the 20,000 who actually died or are missing.

You want a 1,000 foot seawall around any nuclear plant but you don't feel the need for one around the cities and villages where the actual massive human carnage occurred.

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 05-12-2011).]

Death toll from cancer from Chernobyl, according some is FAR above the numbers the news have down played.
"Meanwhile, the Belarus national academy of sciences estimates 93,000 deaths so far and 270,000 cancers, and the Ukrainian national commission for radiation protection calculates 500,000 deaths so far."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/e...aths-cancers-dispute

Remember 1/10 of the Iodine form chernobyl has been released and 1/7 of the cesium. So, lets go with one tenth of the numbers and that would greatly dwarf the death toll from the natural disasters in Japan, however with media down playing and peoples short memories, I am sure Fukushima will never be attributed to any deaths.

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: Your actions speak so loudly I can't hear a word you are saying. You demand a perfect nuclear power plant, where not a single person died from Fukushima Daiichi, but you haven't had anywhere near the same regard for the 20,000 who actually died or are missing. You want a 1,000 foot seawall around any nuclear plant but you don't feel the need for one around the cities and villages where the actual massive human carnage occurred.

This is just hyperbolic bullshit, nothing more...

I am NOT ignoring the dead and missing.

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: Death toll from cancer from Chernobyl, according some is FAR above the numbers the news have down played. "Meanwhile, the Belarus national academy of sciences estimates 93,000 deaths so far and 270,000 cancers, and the Ukrainian national commission for radiation protection calculates 500,000 deaths so far." http://www.guardian.co.uk/e...aths-cancers-dispute Remember 1/10 of the Iodine form chernobyl has been released and 1/7 of the cesium. So, lets go with one tenth of the numbers and that would greatly dwarf the death toll from the natural disasters in Japan, however with media down playing and peoples short memories, I am sure Fukushima will never be attributed to any deaths.

Which is exactly why we need real scientists to look at the facts instead of believing every wacked out report.

So where did they hide the 1/2 million bodies?

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: This is just hyperbolic bullshit, nothing more... I am NOT ignoring the dead and missing.

Are you going to go back and edit your posts?

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Shhh...nobody died. It was all a conspiracy by the whacko anti-nuclear nuts who, by mere fact they're anti-nuclear, prove that they're whacko. The entire subject can easily be reduced to a simple formula: anti-nuclear=whacko, and it's corollary: pro-nuclear=not whacko. Besides, [magic jedi hand-wave] Radiation is good for you, everyone needs some healthy strontium-90 and cesium, it builds strong bones! [/magic jedi hand-wave]

Clearly not what I said but since it is apparent that facts and truth mean nothing to your argument I understand that your emotions demand you say things like this.

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 05-12-2011).]

1/2 million deaths projected due to cancer from chernobyl, They won't all be at the same time, but you knew that. Many reports claim around 150,000 cancer deaths from Chernobyl as of now. How many people die a year, remember the radiation spread over a large area and the cancer deaths will be over a large area, and probably would only be a small percentage of the deaths in that large of a area.

Like wise, in 10 years Japan may have elevated cancer rates, but everyone will have forgot about this, and people will claim the rise could have been caused by anything. So if 35,000 people die of cancer over the next 40 years related to fukushima, there will still be people saying there was not a single death linked. The argument would be anything could have caused it. Just like it is around Chernobyl right now.

According to the CDC the mortality rate in this country is 2,423,712. Where do they hide all those bodies? lol
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 05-12-2011).]

Your numbers are well outside of what the accredited scientific community has found.

But then people believe they are abducted by UFOs also. You are allowed to believe whatever you want to. I'll stick to the scientific facts.

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: Your numbers are well outside of what the accredited scientific community has found. But then people believe they are abducted by UFOs also. You are allowed to believe whatever you want to. I'll stick to the scientific facts.

Because of the scale of the variables, there's gotta be a high and low limit to numbers that are generally accepted within the broader scientific community. From what you know, what are those numbers?

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: Your numbers are well outside of what the accredited scientific community has found. But then people believe they are abducted by UFOs also. You are allowed to believe whatever you want to. I'll stick to the scientific facts.

Belarus national academy of sciences, and the Ukrainian national commission for radiation are now non scientific and believe cows are abducted by UFOs? Who would have known? lol

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: I honestly don't believe that the operators at Chernobyl set out to deliberately cause the disaster that resulted from their actions...

Of course they didn't set out to deliberately cause it.
They just cut a bunch of corners that ensured that if anything ugly happened, it would get much uglier.
It would appear that they didn't plan for anything more serious than the occasional cloudy day.