Not Newsworthy, But . . .

What does make the world turn?
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11703
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Jul 06, 2017 7:52 pm

EM and TJ

Not arguing your last points. My position is simply that nuclear power is the safest (apart from geothermal).

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14872
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jul 06, 2017 7:59 pm

Say Lance: is having a Bear as a pet safer than having a dog because there have been no pet bear attacks?

......... a pool filled with Piranha?.... or just an open pit of sulfuric acid?

As EM explained at length: the inherent safety of an activity must take into account the safety program that surrounds it. Nuke = MAXIMUM safety program. This is not mandated because Nuke is "safe." Dams = hardly any program at all.

You can pick one definition and avoid all the other ones,,,,,,,,,but that is called: "limited."
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
Has No Life
Posts: 11703
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Jul 06, 2017 8:53 pm

Bobbo

It is not definitions.
It is DATA. Hard data in the form of clear cut numbers. Nuclear is safer than any other except geothermal. The numbers tell the story.
Or do you, too, want to become a data denying idiot ?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14872
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jul 06, 2017 10:19 pm

Sorry Lance.


To be honest and actively thinking: agree that other definitions bring different results, but the one you are using in your opinion best fits the subject at hand.

Otherwise: You are using your brain as a door stop, if not outright dishonesty.

The other definition was well explained by EM and is present in the post you most recently refused to answer.
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
Has No Life
Posts: 11703
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:21 am

Bobbo

I search for, and find, the hard data. If you look at the crap web sites (I looked at the Greenpeace crap web site on nuclear safety), you will see that numerical data is lacking, and sweeping verbal assertions are dominant. I have no interest in such bull dust, and treat them with the contempt they deserve. If you cannot nail down your results in solid numerical form, those results are crap.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14872
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jul 07, 2017 1:01 am

Totally irrelevant Lance.

You do get very boring, staying in your rut.

Not every issue relative to a subject is numbers driven. Some like the other definitions of safe include process which is not numbers driven. Sound like gibberish to you?

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
Has No Life
Posts: 11703
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Jul 07, 2017 3:02 am

If you cannot quantify, it is not science.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4389
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by ElectricMonk » Fri Jul 07, 2017 3:34 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:If you cannot quantify, it is not science.
Incorrect.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14872
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jul 07, 2017 3:35 am

Well..........here we are on the verge again. No Lance........every argument quantifies what it can but "Process Analysis" isn't about quantification...... I think not in the sense that you use it.

Prove me wrong. How do you shake a hand or light a match? What "numbers" and quantification are involved in such process questions?

Same with how much effort must be expended to keep different energy sources running at useful capacity? Now... you can quantify that subject by man hours or by salary cost I suppose.....but in the main, its a process question.
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
Has No Life
Posts: 11703
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Jul 07, 2017 4:03 am

Bobbo

It is true there are things you cannot quantify (shaking hands is not one of them). But where something CAN be quantified, then the description that includes the numbers is superior, far far superior, to the description that does not. In the case of safety of power generating plants, not only is it possible to quantify, but it has been done, and I have posted the numbers.

If you reject the data, that is an indictment on your ability to think.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9856
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by TJrandom » Fri Jul 07, 2017 6:28 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:... If you reject the data, that is an indictment on your ability to think.
Not necessarily. The data can be flawed or misrepresented, and hence rejection a clear indication of an ability to think. Not that I disagree with your belief that nuclear is safer – but nuclear hasn`t gone full cycle yet – inclusive of decommissioning and storage, and in these steps surely more deaths can be expected too. Hence I would conclude that while it appears to be the case, it still hasn`t been proven.

I did search and find an OSHA document on wind safety, and though construction death numbers were not available, given my high-elevation experience and recognition of what was written, I am willing to now concede that wind construction is probably more risky than nuclear or high-rise buildings. But I still wish those numbers were available so that my belief could be based upon more than suspicion.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14872
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jul 07, 2017 6:45 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Bobbo

It is true there are things you cannot quantify (shaking hands is not one of them).
Please do so then.
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
Has No Life
Posts: 11703
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Jul 07, 2017 7:54 am

TJ

I have been arguing with EM and Bobbo for a while, and have dug up numerous references. The picture is the same for all of them that actually get down to numbers. Sadly, EM and Bobbo seem to be more impressed with extravagant story telling.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9856
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by TJrandom » Sat Jul 22, 2017 9:08 pm

Melted fuel has been found… in one out of the three melt-down reactors. As the article says, this find should help in designing tools and in planning for its removal.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/0 ... XO9ZDoUnIU

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9856
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by TJrandom » Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:35 am

It seems that the Ice Wall will be largely ineffective. The deep wells are drawing off 270 metric tones of ground water each day, but still allowing 130 tones to pass – which will continue to be largely unimpeded by the ice wall.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9856
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by TJrandom » Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:15 am

A new risk to nuclear power plants in Japan – volcanic eruptions that clog air filters with ash. Air filter systems will need to be upgraded.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9856
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by TJrandom » Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:32 pm

Fukushima tsunami assessment put off, then put off again, and then when finally done – ignored in the face of knowledge of the damage that would, and indeed later did, occur.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14872
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:38 pm

Were such assessments made as part of the initial planning and licensing? AND AGAIN: because it is such irony: they planned against a 30 foot tsunami and built 32 foot wall. The tsunami was only 31 feet.....but the land sank two feet as well.

ain't that a Bitch?

I don't understand "Big Bizness"....you'd think they would be as interested in all reasonable planning requests just to protect their own property????? but thats an obvious long term benefit that no one cares about in the short term: I thought the Japanese were more logical than that. Turns out, once again: only hooman.
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
Has No Life
Posts: 11703
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:49 pm

At the end of the day, not one person died. You can rail on all you like about the "nuclear disaster", but not one person died. Compare that to Banqiao hydro power station where a dam burst killed 170,000 people.

The land near the plant has low radioactivity, way below anything that might be considered risky.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14872
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:21 pm

Its the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
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 9K Posts
Posts: 9856
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by TJrandom » Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:07 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:..., way below anything that might be considered risky.
By you. :roll:

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11703
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:16 am

TJrandom wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:..., way below anything that might be considered risky.
By you. :roll:
Actually, by the data.

As I pointed out before, the people of Ramsa in Iran have a background radiation level of 250 millisieverts per year, apparently without harm. In the area around the Fukushima plant, the radiation level from the accident is about 1% of that. Inside the plant is another, story, of course, and I would not suggest tourism inside near the reactor !

At Chernobyl, about 110,000 people worked in and around the plant after the accident to clean up. 0.1% have since, over 30 years, gone on to develop leukemia, which is not measurably different to what is expected in the normal population without any special radiation exposure. At Fukushima, the radiation doses were well below that of Chernobyl, and so harm to health appears to be slight, if existent at all.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9856
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by TJrandom » Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:33 am

No - by you. Please note that Russia does not set safety limits for Japan.

And obviously it isn`t just health risk that matters - economic, reputation, etc. come to mind.

But more importantly Lance - why the kneejerk reaction to any news Fukushima, and dare I say nuclear related? I posted a news update on what is likely malfeasance in management - the addressing of which would make nuclear power even safer. Why does that bother you so?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11703
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:06 pm

As I nave said before, TJ, what bothers me is bull-{!#%@}, regardless of what form it takes. The whole business of nuclear power is full of bull-{!#%@} ideas, and so I do my skeptic thing and do battle with the bull-{!#%@}.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9856
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by TJrandom » Wed Jan 31, 2018 9:08 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:As I nave said before, TJ, what bothers me is bull-{!#%@}, regardless of what form it takes. The whole business of nuclear power is full of bull-{!#%@} ideas, and so I do my skeptic thing and do battle with the bull-{!#%@}.
Which is why you always bring up dam bursts when the topic is improving nuclear safety. Right - bull-{!#%@}!

It seems to me that you just don`t like any news on nuclear energy.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11703
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Jan 31, 2018 9:15 pm

The dam burst is to provide context.
As I have said before, nothing in this world can be called "safe". Everything carries some risk, even sleeping in your bed at home. If we are to discuss safety, we must realise it is a relative thing, and relate it to other things to give it meaning. Nuclear power is not 100% safe, but is safer than any other method of generating electricity. A dam burst is simply a way of demonstrating the RELATIVE level.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9856
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by TJrandom » Wed Jan 31, 2018 9:23 pm

Kneejerk diversion... aka bull-{!#%@}.

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5196
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by Austin Harper » Wed Jan 31, 2018 9:40 pm

TJ, I don't think your characterization of Lance's reaction is appropriate.
How is putting the risks of nuclear power in perspective with other sources of power a "knee-jerk reaction"?
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9856
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by TJrandom » Wed Jan 31, 2018 9:42 pm

Austin Harper wrote:TJ, I don't think your characterization of Lance's reaction is appropriate.
How is putting the risks of nuclear power in perspective with other sources of power a "knee-jerk reaction"?
When it happens with every news addition to the thread...

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11703
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Jan 31, 2018 9:50 pm

True. Maybe I overdo it. But I think it is important.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9856
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by TJrandom » Sat Mar 10, 2018 10:45 pm

Sea walls – or no-see walls have been built, or are being built along our coastlines. Today is the 7th anniversary of the 3/11 tsunami and flags are raised to half-staff.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22175
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

New evidence of nuclear fuel releases found at Fukushima

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Sat Mar 10, 2018 11:22 pm

New evidence of nuclear fuel releases found at Fukushima

Date: February 28, 2018

Source: Manchester University

Summary: Uranium and other radioactive materials, such as caesium and technetium, have been found in tiny particles released from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactors.
Uranium and other radioactive materials, such as caesium and technetium, have been found in tiny particles released from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactors.

This could mean the environmental impact from the fallout may last much longer than previously expected according to a new study by a team of international researchers, including scientists from The University of Manchester.

The team says that, for the first time, the fallout of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor fuel debris into the surrounding environment has been "explicitly revealed" by the study.

The scientists have been looking at extremely small pieces of debris, known as micro-particles, which were released into the environment during the initial disaster in 2011. The researchers discovered uranium from nuclear fuel embedded in or associated with caesium-rich micro particles that were emitted from the plant's reactors during the meltdowns. The particles found measure just five micrometres or less; approximately 20 times smaller than the width of a human hair. The size of the particles means humans could inhale them.

The reactor debris fragments were found inside the nuclear exclusion zone, in paddy soils and at an abandoned aquaculture centre, located several kilometres from the nuclear plant.
Continues...
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9856
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by TJrandom » Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:37 am

...
... solid particles were also emitted, and that some of these particles contain very long-lived radionuclides; for example, uranium has a half-life of billions of years.
I may have to stick around to monitor this....

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22175
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:21 am

The first billion are the hardest.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9856
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by TJrandom » Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:29 am

The second billion - only half as hard?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22175
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:44 am

TJrandom wrote:The second billion - only half as hard?
Actually, it's a snooze. Or a "dirt nap", call it what you will.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9856
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by TJrandom » Thu May 31, 2018 9:08 pm

Good news - at just 7 years...

Fukushima tells world radiation is down, exports up after nuclear crisis
… the prefecture has completed decontamination work for 97 percent of its land after a magnitude-9.0 earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011, triggered reactor meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The governor also said the size of evacuation zones has dropped to 3 percent of prefectural land from the peak of 12 percent.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11703
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu May 31, 2018 11:27 pm

It was good news right from day one, since radiation levels outside the plant never reached lethal levels.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9856
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by TJrandom » Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:25 am

Yes, I agree - it was good that people were not vaporized. But it is also good news that things are finally returning to normal.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9856
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Not Newsworthy, But . . .

Post by TJrandom » Sun Oct 14, 2018 8:34 am

TEPCO has been caught lying again – this time about the type and level of radioactive material in their `decontaminated`, and ready-to-be-released water. Strontium-90 at 20,000 times the legal limit is the worst – when they claimed it wasn`t present at all, and there are others at lesser levels.