Yep, I see what you mean. He's a bit of a jerk.

You would think that.

Many people have bought into the myth that the nuclear event at Fukushima was a human disaster of epic proportion,

The official report from the Japanese government says that it was a "wholly man made disaster". That's from the chairman in the introduction. That's the flaw core to your OP.

The second is you fail to see that the Nuclear disaster is still unfolding and that its scope is still undefined. No one is ignoring those outside the exclusion zone or giving them the finger. What you fail to appreciate is that the situation at Fukushima is so dire and immediate, that it threatens the entire northern hemisphere with a plutonium fire from the fuel rods stored there. Were you to understand that, you wouldn't have said your OP because you would realize that it is the workers at Fukushima that are still working to avoid that, that *you* are giving the middle finger to them after they have lost so much.

What the ignition of 6000+400 fuel rods in unit 3 cooling pool (at last count) means to people is plutonium fire that releases enough plutonium oxide and chloride to be an extinction level event. Comparable to an asteroid hitting the earth. Hard to get your head around it, isn't it? So go ahead - trivialize it.

That is why it is completely appropriate to obsess with this disaster. You are ignorant of the true scale of this MAN-MADE disaster, its origins, threats, consequences and continue to show why your OP was made in complete ignorance of the actual facts.

Which you refer to as FUD.

You continue to say things to provoke an emotive response instead of speaking in facts, evidence or available science. Then, instead of discussing the characteristics of the materials you launch into the moral superiority that come from evoking such a response.

You were provided the Japanese Government's official report into the accident that countered your OP and then accused me of spreading FUD when I took the time to explain what radionuclides were and why your assumptions were flawed.

Even then, no fact from you. No counter argument, no facts of your own, just more trolling. I was kind to you by offering you the benefit of the doubt on more than one occasion because I thought I may have been unreasonable to call your OP bollocks. Instead you responded to with more trolling.

None of which will help fix the Nuclear Industries problems, especially if you don't believe there are any. That is why you are complicit in the softening the regulations that would have improved safety to prevent another accident. If you spent anytime examining this massive subject you would understand why it is important. Another accident will mean the end of the Nuclear Industry and the we will have all of its problems but none of its benefits. Have you ever lobbied to *improve* nuclear industry safety? Are you prepared to say there won't be another accident? Thought not.

I've already demolished your argument, debunked your claims, you made, at the expense of those who are suffering the effects of the Fukushima Nuclear fallout exclusion zones. I offered you an opportunity to back away from those comments gracefully in the hope you would discuss things intelligently.

You say "Nobody expects exact numbers" but won't accept that it is an unknown, that it *is* a uncertainty but that the impact isn't. You say I'm long winded but fail to make the connections required to discuss specifics.

Your trolling pretty much shows people, like me who think it might be possible to fix the Nuclear Industry, that the problem is a human one, every time.

NO, you do not.

I understand perfectly that you either simply don't understand the real world risks relative to things we experience in our daily lives, or simply refuse to acknowledge them.

I understand the risk's impact enough however, I'm not prepared to accept your invitation to guess at other factors because there is not enough data being collected to make that assessment. Can you tell me the which radio isotopes are in the water leaked from Fukushima daily? I thought not. How can you possibly discus the risk if you can't demonstrate you have an understanding of the basic principles involved? I don't know if you do. uuuhhhh radiashun, you fraid! Get real.

NO, you present FUD with no real world implication, risk, probability, or any relevant comparison to anything. That is what FUD mongers/followers do. You either buy into it due to ignorance, or willingly distribute it due to an agenda.

So you say that explaining the difference between radiation and a radionuclide, and what bio-accumulation is, is FUD. Well I suppose it is for you because the gap in your understanding has been replaced with quite a simple explanation. I can assure you the effect is quite real and unless you scan every meal, you will never know. So let's examine your statement at bit further.

You're suggesting I answer a question with a massive scope, a huge amount of variables, no context and many vectors. Which vector should we discuss? The spent fuel pool of fukushima reactor 3? A fire in the wood not decaying around Chernobyl? Russia's Plutonium lake? Palo Verde? Tritium effluent? Which of the many 'real world implication' vectors should we discuss? All of them combined?

I've explained the impact of the risk in general terms.

As for the potential or probability - it is already started occurring. Google "du babies, iraq" this is what u-238 does to children forming in the womb and what they look like when they are born. The source doesn't matter, it doesn't discriminate who it affects once it is in the environment.

Perhaps you can compare this suffering to pregnancies just failing for those affected. Japan and some of the US now faces the impact of risk from the fallout from Fukushima. Perhaps you can just call it Nuclear war Lite, I don't know how to compare it to anything because it will go on for as long as it takes to decay through its halflives. So it's probably worse.

However, you missed the magnitude of the impact. To re-iterate, I made it clear that there wasn't enough data collected on how much radionuclide effluent was in the environment OR how much was leaking daily. So since I have to join the dots for you, what that means is it is not possible to determine the magnitude of the risk to be anything more than 'above zero risk' for these impacts, we need more data to be collected and published. It's not an unreasonable request.

As for my agenda, it's to learn and share all I can. I don't know everything, however I am not stupid and I have learned everything I can because I believe it is an important topic which, unfortunately, you treat trivially. The Nuclear Industry is extremely complex in many ways. Fascinating, complexly interesting technology that is ultimately pointless if it kills us.

As for your agenda, it looks like you are a garden variety Nuclear troll fanboi, and not a very interesting one at that.

So, how much risk to you think there is...surely you have some sense?

You ask me 'If I have a "sense" for the risk, and I have shown the impact of *one* radionuclide (U-238). Show me the data for the rest and then we can talk. A rational examination of the impact is concerning enough for me to have these conversations. If you can't connect to your humanity enough for you to see why, then you have bigger problems than I can help you with.

So I re-iterate, not enough data is being collected and distributed on what quantity of which radio isotopes have been released. This is a big problem that needs to be resolved.

Answering such a deliberately resource intense question becomes a question of, would it even matter to you and I don't think it would. This is because you have demonstrated that you are a dogmatic skeptic by not acknowledging the official report and answering in relation to your comments. If an actual Japanese government report is not enough for you, no proof is possible with you, you'll just call if FUD anyway, then, try to provoke an emotional response to attempt to discredit what facts have been presented whilst producing none of your own. The troll agenda to frustrate. This is the division people like you cause in such an important subject. Way to go asshole.

Either way, it makes this discussion a waste of time.

Indeed. Your troll was exposed for what it was and rendered ineffective. Your emotive points made at the expense of people you don't even know shows that there is no despicable point you won't make to promote confusion and ill will amongst this discussion.

I even gave you several opportunities to redeem yourself. Why?

Because I'm not even anti-nuclear, you just assumed I am. I'm just not your brand of pro-nuclear and I support the right type of reactor development. I don't say "shut them down" I say if you have to have them run them safer and do it properly publish the right data so the appropriate decisions can be made. Build the right spent fuel containment facility. People like you really highlight the fact of why there have been so many nuclear accidents and that maybe, the issue isn't the technology. Your one line trolls and the US push for softening of Nuclear Safety demonstrate that maybe humanity just isn't mature enough to handle Nuclear Power.

One still notes that Charon isn't actually bigger than Texas, though it could be one of Chuck Norris' turds! Now we will find out for sure.

Thank you NASA. Thank you American taxpayer, this is one of the most inspiring things I've seen for a long time.

I wish NASA a long mission!!

So what specifically don't you understand?

Yes I watched it, it is a potent example of the type of propaganda the Nuclear Industry releases so thanks for pointing it out. There were many disingenuous claims, but these stuck out:

• Misleading people into the difference between radiation and radionuclides.
• WHO reports: Claiming you *have* to believe there is a conspiracy about the reports when IAEA has interdiction rights over the WHO publishing Nuclear Industry reports and that funding was cut to study the longer health implications of the fallout from Chernobyl.

People will choose simple lie over a complicated truth and the "documentary" is a good example of that.

Case in point, the behavior of radionuclides in the environment and the relationship of radionuclides to cancer is not mentioned at all. Cynically implying that the need to store Nuclear Waste is not a requirement, that all of it would fit in a football field - what they didn't say is that if you attempted to do that it would result in a plutonium fire that would destroy us as a species simply because that proximity is the principle that allows nuclear reactors to work.

In exactly the same way previous generations left us a carbon legacy I see that the documentary is a good example of Not In My Generation, a NIMG, where all of the externalities of the Nuclear Industry can be passed to future generations and we get the electricity, which is great, if you don't care about anyone else except yourself.

Given the choice between an Academy Award and Peer Reviewed science, I think the science has more credibility.

it was also difficult to use the write words in the rite places.

I use this a lot in my shell scripts, mainly in a prepackaged usage message that I fill out as the script progresses to refer to its name. However you still have to type the name of the script to be able to use it from the shell otherwise $0 won't exist with any meaningful context. Other arguments like $1, $2 or even $* I use getopts - no use going overboard when processing arguments.

In addition to this, there is a high carbon cost involved in the mining of uranium due to the amount of ore that has to be crushed. I do have the math around, however this alone amounted to a staggering one third of the lifetime output of a new AP-1000 reactor, IIRC.

The next carbon sink was the enrichment process which is also a highly energetic and carbon intense process due to the electricity it consumes. Reactor decommissioning come into this as well and is also quite high and consumes another one third of the output, again IIRC.

The risk increases daily!

If that is your idea of sex the you probably have no-one.

If that's your idea of sex, then you probably have no-one.

One of the things to remember is that whilst Human Beings have a vested interest in their survival and will do anything to survive, the same can be held true for the Nuclear Industry. The Nuclear Industry has a vested interest in shaping people's worldview to influence the industries' survival and utilizes enormous resources to convince people of their case.

This leads me to the IPCC. In reading the 2007 report I noticed that one of their sources of information to assess the viability of Nuclear energy on climate change is a document produced by an organization with a vested interest in promoting Nuclear power, Vattenfall. I read it back in 2005 (sorry I can't find a link). Rather than a study it's called a "Environmental Product Declaration" which was written to comply with Swedish regulations in 2004, it has not been peer reviewed and was "certified" until 2007. For example, it paints an optimistic picture of the Nuclear Industry's energetic return from mining and Uranium availability through to reactor decommissioning. So it appears this commercial document has been used to deceive the IPCC.

However, a formal, peer reviewed energy analysis from Nuclear Industry Scientists is available to the IPCC in a study called Nuclear Power Insights that uses established scientific methods to arrive at their conclusions. It is a comprehensive and fascinating read, which is in line with the scope and size of the nuclear industry and dispels many of the assumptions surrounding the nuclear industry. In, short the formal analysis assesses the ability of the Nuclear Industry to provide a "net energy return" based on energetic inputs and finds that roughly two thirds of its output is consumed by industrial processes external to the actual production of nuclear power. The carbon intensity of the nuclear industry is also examined.

It was quite confronting to have my worldview of Nuclear Power challenged and I had to take bites out of reading it to avoid being overloaded, however it was worth the effort in dispelling many of the long held assumptions and replacing them with good information and fact.