Fukushima after five years

What does make the world turn?
User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11541
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Major Malfunction » Thu Nov 09, 2017 1:44 am

Tasmanian salmon is the best.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10397
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Nov 09, 2017 1:52 am

Bobbo

Having an interest in healthy eating is very good. But bear in mind that the worst things in food are those things found in large amounts. These are, in no particular order, saturated fat, trans fats, sugars, purified starch. Things that are present in tiny amounts are usually not something to be concerned about. Processed meats are not good, but purer meats, like your big steak, are not really a problem. Just balance it by eating lots of fruit, vegetables and nuts.

Hormones in meats are not a problem. All meat contains hormones, anyway, and a tiny bit extra is not going to harm you, since it gets digested anyway. The human body is simply not that fragile. We evolved as omnivores, and we can do well on an amazingly wide range of foods, including farmed salmon.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11605
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 09, 2017 1:57 am

Lance: HEY!!!!!! Stop trying to convince me with facts. You have already been TOO successful. My mind "flipped" quite a bit a few years back reading up about organic food production. Done according to standards.....you are/were about x10 times more likely to get an e coli infection compared to sprayed fruits and veggies. Simple cheaper (wiser) compromise: wash your food before eating and don't buy waxed. ............ Still hate seeing little girls start menstruating at age 8.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10397
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Nov 09, 2017 1:59 am

Sorry, Bobbo. I cannot help myself. I am a fact addict. Do you think I need treatment ?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11605
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:10 am

Well.........seriously...............you don't seem to appreciate "values." Just because values are harder to amass data points against doesn't mean values aren't important....even controlling in most issues. Choosing facts/data over values..............is a value laden (emotional) decision. Ain't that cool?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10397
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:27 am

Depends on the values. As I told you once, my value system is mainly about human welfare, and the greater good for the greater number. Nailing down the best way to achieve that is best done with solid data.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11605
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:17 am

No.......you're still not getting it.

Values: Beliefs of a person or social group in which they have an emotional investment (either for or against something)

"Depends on the Values" .......... aka: everyone thinks their own values are the best, everyone else is wrong. The very category you proudly claim. See any problems with that approach?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10397
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:51 am

I suspect, Bobbo, that if you and I discussed it for long enough, we would realise that we have similar values. The values I find annoying are those from religion, which are wishy washy and ill defined. Often, if anything, anti-human.

User avatar
psychiatry is a scam
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1294
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:23 am

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby psychiatry is a scam » Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:24 pm

greater good for the greater number of humans
---- if that were 2 really happen ---- if everyone were to get an ideal diet . the population would be what ?
instead of 7 billion
greater good for humons destroys the planet
for the real minority ; there will be no justice , there will be no peace .
makes sense 2me , so it has 2be wrong .

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10397
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:05 pm

Pias

Your statement is one of those made without data. If you check the United Nations web site (www.un.org/popin) you will be able to dig out the true data on population growth. That is, the greatest growth is in those places where people are poorest. Help people achieve a decent standard of living and population growth drops.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11605
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:23 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:I suspect, Bobbo, that if you and I discussed it for long enough, we would realise that we have similar values. The values I find annoying are those from religion, which are wishy washy and ill defined. Often, if anything, anti-human.

One value might be love of argument.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10397
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Nov 10, 2017 2:38 am

https://phys.org/news/2017-11-chinese-c ... reuse.html

A bit of irony here. With all the fears of radiation from nuclear power stations, Chinese coal burning power plants are producing ash that is too radioactive to be recycled as filler material.

Also interesting to note that China is going to build a full scale nuclear power plant using thorium as fuel. Plus a major expansion of nuclear power across the board.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/02/c ... scale.html

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10397
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:20 pm

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/11/m ... urdle.html

For those people who think nuclear is going to be too expensive, the reference above shows a new method that will be cheaper than almost any other way of generating electricity. It will be cheap and clean. It will operate steadily 24 hours a day, unlike wind or solar, and not require energy storage. It will not put out greenhouse gases. It will be compact, unlike solar and wind which have to cover vast areas of the landscape. As a compact plant, it can be hidden away so that it does not offend aesthetics, unlike wind towers , which I think are ugly as sin and a blot on what would otherwise be beautiful landscapes.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3387
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:58 pm

LK,
this is exactly what I have posted above: there is no question whatsoever that current types of reactors in use are too expensive.
That is the current state of affairs.
You seem to be implying that I said that nuclear power would always be more expensive - which is not the case.

Molten salt has great potential, but this is still early stages and investors will be wary. Even small problems could cause major setbacks.
I would be happy if this technology leads to safer and cheaper nuclear power, but until we have a few of them running for a couple of years we won't know.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10397
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:09 pm

Fair comment, EM.

I was not, in fact, directing that comment at you. But your reply was sound.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11541
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Major Malfunction » Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:33 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Also interesting to note that China is going to build a full scale nuclear power plant using thorium as fuel. Plus a major expansion of nuclear power across the board.

Which will undoubtedly break the day after the warranty expires.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10397
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Nov 12, 2017 6:56 pm

MM

There will be problems earlier than that, since this is novel technology, but the Chinese will be sure they can handle any such problems. Every new technology must start somewhere.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3387
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Nov 12, 2017 9:07 pm

The Chinese also had expertise in building dams. If only they had taken maintenance seriously.
But they have an even greater history of corruption - accidents will happen, as cutting corners is the primary method of making money in China m
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11541
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Major Malfunction » Sun Nov 12, 2017 9:34 pm

And thorium reactors aren't something you skimp on gravel in the concrete.

You need three chained reactors. Your typical uranium reactor, then you feed the waste from that into a second fast breeder reactor to make plutonium, then you feed the plutonium and thorium into a third reactor to make uranium, which you feed back into the first reactor.

And it all goes round and round. In theory, extremely high efficiency. But the more complexity, the more points of failure...
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10397
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:52 am

Thorium has the interesting property of being very reluctant to undergo fission. You have to force it. There are two consequences of this.
1. It is impossible to get a runaway reaction and subsequent melt down.
2. It cannot be used to make weapons.

For people who are paranoid about nuclear safety, you guys ought to approve.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11541
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Major Malfunction » Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:58 am

You need a plutonium reactor to make it into uranium, dumbo.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10397
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:37 am

I reject the dumbo label. I also reject the misinformed statement about plutonium. You do not need a plutonium reactor. A small amount of uranium 233 is sufficient to drive the thorium fission. The neutrons from the U233 convert the thorium.

In addition to the points I made earlier, we can add that thorium is much less rare than uranium (there is more than 2,500,000 tonnes already identified in known ores) , and thorium ores are 100% fissionable, as opposed to uranium ores, which are mostly non fissionable U238. There is enough thorium to keep humanity supplied in energy for 10,000 years.

The waste left is also much less. In fact, the USA considered thorium many years ago, and basically rejected it because they wanted to have an industry that made fuel for bombs as well as reactors.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby xouper » Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:17 pm

Christmas present for Lance:

The following books are available as free kindle books from amazon.com.
They are also available as free PDFs and EPUBs directly from the publisher.
(Or pay $59.95 US for the trade paperback if you absolutely hate ebooks.)

In no particular order:


I haven't read any of them, so I cannot comment on what they have to say.

I stumbled across them by accident today and I thought I would post the links in case anyone is interested.

And since I don't know whether they agree with Lance's position or not, please do not assume I am taking sides in this matter. I don't really know enough about the issues to offer an informed opinion either way. I'm just a spectator here.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10397
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:07 pm

The important thing is not whether they agree with my position or not. The important thing is whether they are based on good solid data, or reflect someone's mere opinion. I will wait till I have a clear cut recommendation before buying any. I do not want to waste my time reading stuff that does not truly reflect scientific reality.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby xouper » Wed Dec 13, 2017 7:35 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:The important thing is not whether they agree with my position or not. The important thing is whether they are based on good solid data, or reflect someone's mere opinion. I will wait till I have a clear cut recommendation before buying any. I do not want to waste my time reading stuff that does not truly reflect scientific reality.


Well, they are free, so if you don't like them, you can always get your money back. :mrgreen:

I just wanted to be clear that I was not posting them as any kind of challenge to your position. In fact I have no criticism of your position because I do not feel I have sufficient knowledge to offer an informed opinion.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10397
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:26 am

That is a fair comment, Xouper.

I do not want to suggest I am some kind of expert in this field either. I have just done enough reading to be very skeptical of overblown opinions on the harm from nuclear accidents.

Of course, all nuclear accidents cause harm. All radiation release is undesirable. But there is a lot of exaggerated opinion out there about how much harm. To date, the mortality from the various methods of generating electricity show nuclear to be the 'safest' of all the major methods. The Fukushima accident does not appear to have released sufficient radiation to be a significant risk except to those people who actually entered the plant after the accident.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7877
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby TJrandom » Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:21 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:... The Fukushima accident does not appear to have released sufficient radiation to be a significant risk except to those people who actually entered the plant after the accident.


I would qualify that to say `health risk`. There certainly seems to have been economic and political risks triggered by the accident. And I say `accident` with a grain of salt, since the effect of a tsunami was a known and ignored risk on the part of the TEPCO executives.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11605
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:50 am

Hardly ignored?................................. One of my "fav's": the tsunami control wall was built to protect against 33 foot tall waves and the tsunami was only 32. so.........not unplanned for and not negligent. Except: the earthquake did the favor of lower the land by 2 feet as well......so....one foot was the difference. THAT and perhaps not having back up generators "even higher" in elevation?

It would be fun to see if there was any discussion/analysis back when designed. I wonder how close to causation is the loss of back up anything to the asset in question. Sure seems that both get taken out all too often........ AS IN.... not really a backup? Such failures really a puzzler as the INDUSTRY should understand these things better than anyone else and is primarily at risk......so why not be competent?????

Silly Hoomans.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7877
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby TJrandom » Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:45 am

I just looked, but didn`t find the pre-disaster NRA risk assessment and TEPCO plan for remediation – which I believe recommended (some two years before the disaster) the movement of the backup generators to the hills above the plant. If I do find it I will post it. But I did find this

2.1.1. REMARKABLE PROGRESS IN JAPAN'S SEISMOLOGY
After the 1995 Hanshin Awaji Great Earthquake (M7.3), which caused approximately 6,500 deaths, Japan launched a national project for implementing nationwide geological investigative studies on seismic activities to assess the risks of potential earthquakes and tsunamis. Since then, there has been remarkable progress with a great number of new scientific findings.

In TEPCO, following this progress, a study was conducted to reevaluate reactor safety against earthquakes, including against tsunami impacts. As a matter of fact, prior to the accident, the company itself had obtained a preliminary trial study result indicating that the maximum possible tsunami would be far beyond the platform elevation.(13)5

In responding to that preliminary result, TEPCO took some action. For example: (1) it opted not to disclose this information to the public but instead share it privately with only limited number of regulatory people to start maneuvering for a compromise with the regulator; (2) it entrusted the Japan Society of Civil Engineers to look into the scientific method for understanding the potential impact of future tsunamis at the Fukushima site; and (3) it created an in-house task force for making further investigation.6


(See also footnote 5 in that article… )

Inundation by a tsunami was a `high-impact, but low-frequency` known risk for which the TEPCO executives made the wrong (in hindsight) mitigation decision. IMO, they can be excused – but not-so the current managers of similarly risk-prone plants which dot the Japan coastlines, and who still fail to take corrective action prior to coming back on-line.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11605
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:02 am

You should expect stupidity (aka self interested short planning horizons just past the next bonus period) so imho....I don't fault the managers as much as I do the Gubment Regulators...............aka................NO compromise. You have a rule, you apply the rule. Now.........coming up with the rule is tougher. Plan for a one in hundred year tsunami?....or one in 2-3-4-5-and so forth. Planning for 32 foot tsunami seems very conservative to me............but then..........in California, we don't plan at all........ha, ha.......
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10397
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:26 am

It is not terribly easy to plan for all risks.

Just as an aside, on the QI quiz show (an old repeat) I saw the question. "Which is most likely to kill you. A lightning strike or asteroid impact?"

The answer given was non obvious. Asteroid impact. Apparently the 1 in one million year event could kill a billion people. Averaged out on a yearly basis, this means more deaths per year, so the asteroid impact was given as the greater risk.

How culpable are you for failing to allow greater weight to an improbable event?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11605
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:40 am

What are the odds of being eaten by a shark.............if you never go into the water? Seems to me that fun fact is never factored into the odds assessments and comparisons.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10397
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:57 am

Probably not a good example to put in front of me, since I am a scuba diver and love sharks. A bit of the old red flag in front of a bull. (OK. I know that is a myth.)

There are almost no one ever actually EATEN by sharks. About 80 attacks per year globally, but less than ten fatalities, and most of them not eaten. Humans are not on the sharks menu.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7877
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby TJrandom » Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:05 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: ...I don't fault the managers as much as I do the Gubment Regulators....


The problem we have in Japan - and maybe now too in the US as Trump dismantles regulatory bodies... IS that we have an industry self-regulatory approach. So agriculture decides how much pesticide and how many days before harvest it can be applied, etc., etc. The heads of the industry major players take turn chairing each `regulatory` members only club.

Our government regulators mostly try to ensure that everyone in the industry is treated the same - and not that society is protected. They get slightly more air-time after a disaster and do help with mop-up by spreading taxes.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11605
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:15 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Probably not a good example to put in front of me, since I am a scuba diver and love sharks. A bit of the old red flag in front of a bull. (OK. I know that is a myth.)

There are almost no one ever actually EATEN by sharks. About 80 attacks per year globally, but less than ten fatalities, and most of them not eaten. Humans are not on the sharks menu.

So...........how do they state "the odds are" if you never go into the water? I'll note for grins, this is the argument that intelligent pro gun advocates use, and Groper has never mentioned.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3387
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby ElectricMonk » Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:16 pm

Trump's "downsizing" of the Bear Ears National Monument is designed to increase Uranium mining:

http://www.hcn.org/articles/tribal-affa ... yellowcake

There are over 500 mines in the region, only one of which has been cleaned up so far. It is estimated that it would take a century to secure them all - if the companies were forced to actually do it instead of just open new ones.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10397
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Dec 14, 2017 6:51 pm

Mining of all kinds, EM, is hazardous to workers and damaging to the natural environment. Coal is the worst, but even gold mining does far more harm to the environment than uranium mining. Of course, that is no excuse to allow harm to persist, and all mining operations should be under rigidly policed statutory requirements to clean up.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11605
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:49 pm

Its kinda interesting ((maybe only to me????)) that MINING of all sorts is so retro.......... Certainly coal, uranium mining is not needed at all in fact it is simply long term harm to all in favor of short term profits for a very few. I'd add diamond mining to that (we can make them in the lab)......leaving us with...what? Copper, Iron, Aluminum, Rare Earth==>THE ELEMENTS!!!!!....gee, I guess the rape must continue.......
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10397
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:57 pm

Not the rape, but the exploitation. There are well established techniques for mitigating the harm. Even time alone will do it. Here in New Zealand, we have a place (called Karangahake) where over 100 years ago, gold mining was in full swing, including the use of cyanide. The local river was poisoned, and the forest cut down. I have seen photos of the place at that time, and it was truly horrible!

Today, though, despite no mitigation, the forest has grown back. The river has cleared and now has trout in it. It has become a true beauty spot.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11605
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Fukushima after five years

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:19 pm

What distinction are you wanting to promote?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?


Return to “Science, Technology, and Mathematics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests