Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:cue the nuclear fanbois (Score 1) 484 484

Your reading comprehension is incredibly bad.

Considering that you missed the point that the report is discussing Joules as opposed to Dollars I find the irony of your statement hilarious. Specifically EROEI, Energy Return On Energy Investment is the discussion at hand.

I'll also note that personal attacks on me aren't an argument that you are right, just that you are acting like an asshole.

The spot price of uranium oxide is $36.50/lb, which can produce 35,000,000,000 Btu of energy. Each and every pound.

Each and every pound of uranium produced takes different amounts of energy to produce. You are clearly missing the point. One kilo of Uranium from sandstone takes less energy to process than one kilo of uranium from granite. This is an energetic input cost not a financial cost. Below 200grams U per ton of rock Nuclear power is no longer viable.

Which is from the same site that has the quote I pasted in it. Which says "measured over the full cradle-to-grave period". That includes waste storage and mothballing the site of the plant. It says so. And includes the duty cycle of the plant, in sentences just prior to the ones I quoted. There is no massive debt, by their own measure.

No, the study specifically says Large uncertainties exist with respect to the last phase of the nuclear chain: decommissioning and dismantling of the reactor. Preliminary estimates point to a multiple of the construction energy investments.

In other words the decommissioning/dismantling of the plant is an energetic cost deferred to the future and not fully known.

In other words, that site is full of self-contradictions and FUD and can't be trusted to be right about anything at all, since it can't get its own story straight.

Another possibility is that you skimmed one, maybe two pages of a peer reviewed study used to advise European Parliament (including France) that challenge the social proof and rhetoric that you commonly accept and decide to deride the report because the actual science takes a lot more mental energy for you to absorb and process than making baseless criticisms.

Additionally, FYI, these are the Universities internationally that contributed to the report that you claim can't get their story straight:

Australia. University of Sydney, University of New South Wales, Monash University, Belgium. NPX Research Leuven, IMEC Leuven, Germany. Universität Regensburg, Öko Institut Darmstadt, Italy. University of Florence, Netherlands. University of Utrecht, Technical University Eindhoven, ECN Petten, Singapore. National University of Singapore, Spain. Bank of Spain Economics

Switzerland. CERN Geneva, ETH Zürich

UK. Imperial College London, University of Edenburgh, Oxford Research Group London, USA Brookhaven National Laboratory, Columbia University New York, Princeton University

If you are able to overcome your prejudices and stop relying on your assumptions then you might learn what and why the issues exist.

Comment Re:Would I eat it? (Score 1) 131 131

Your whole summary is quite telling. You say you use scientific methods to evaluate risk, yet you repetitively ignore probability. Probability is central to scientific evaluation of risk.

So is data. Where do you propose I get the data on the Fukushima fallout from to caclulate those probabilities if the Japanese government is withholding or not collecting it?

Without data you cannot calculate the probability so all you are left with is uncertainty. You said yourself [don't] tell us levels don't matter, when they certainly do. Now when the very same argument is in front of you you say that levels don't matter when calculating the probability. I feel that is a hypocritical way of twisting the argument around and it is clear you are now becoming emotional because the premise of your argument has collapsed.

I'll let you follow with a strawman that completely avoids discussion of probabilities

No, you continue to refuse to acknowledge that a discussion of the probabilities can only be statistical and thus abstract without supporting data as opposed to the the discussion surrounding possibilities that are based on known facts and the known impact. To answer your accusation here is my abstract discussion of the probabilities:

  • Athletes eating this food will probably be ok and probably be used to justify that eating food from Fukushima is safe.
  • The entire exercise will probably be used by the nuclear industry as justification to not compensate the Fukushima farmers.
  • Screening tons of food produced will probably be expensive and ultimately inneffective.
  • Some people will probably die of cancer from eating food from Fukushima 6-15 years after they habitually eat it.
  • Some people will probably suffer from cancer from eating food from Fukushima 6-15 years after they habitually eat it.
  • Some people will pass transgenic disease to their offspring via damaged dna.

There is your discussion of probabilities, if it isn't what you think it should be - then you discuss the probablites. Your next predictable response will be to accuse me of spreading FUD from such an abstract discussion because I should magically know what you are talking about because you are too mentally lazy to.

And you demonstrate your ignorance to the actual risk by comparing eating this screened food to racing cars and bungee jumping. The risks of the latter are many orders of magnitude greater.

Really, and just how did you calculate that without data on how much and what type of radionuclides were released?

You can go on and on about bio-accumulation and generally state that it is going to result in all these horrible outcomes, but reality shows that those outcomes will almost certainly not occur from ingesting such small amounts.

The reality is until there is data on those amounts we don't know if it is a little or a lot. Everything you have said is speculation. Available data shows that the bio-accumulation is already occurring based on what is already happening to insect species. Existing peer reviewed studies on low level tritium emissions don't conclude what you are saying.

Interesting you talk of the body's ability to heal in a car crash but not the human bodies ability to remain healthy despite the biological interactions that your fear.

I welcome your citation of how this occurs. Please provide citiations on how the body remains healthy after ingesting radionuclies like pu-239 and sr-90 as these are the type of materials ejected in the Fukushima reactor explosion.

If you applied your same logic regarding zero exposure to radionuclides to other things our do, you would certainly avoid any unneeded exposure to sunlight/UV, because you, as you accuse me, must be stupid and ignorant to allow any at all to hit your skin because of the horrible outcomes that might occur, I can see the cancer growing in my mind!

It won't happen, because in summer I avoid the surf between 10am-2pm for that very reason. Very bad sunburn is not only very painful it also causes skin cancer - and that is a very real risk in my part of the world. We have the data to produce the statistics.

I think you would be surprised to find out about all the potentially harmful chemical and contaminants you eat from out normal food supply chains, and how those risks compare with eating this screened food from Fukushima.

Reapeating yourself doesn't make you right, it makes you insane.

And to top it off, you seem to think that you are so objective that you are not subject to skewed risk perception influencing your decisions. But you are fooling yourself because we all are subject to it, and those that are most likely to be skewed significantly by it are those that don't understand just how susceptible they are.

I find educating myself to be an excellent and pragmatic way to deal with skewed perceptions, so if you want to discuss probabilities as opposed to possibilities, bring some useable facts on how much radionuclides were released at Fukushima.

Do complain to me when that happens.

What a nasty cunt of a thing to say. I have been very civil and good humoured to you.

With that, I'll let you follow with another poor example, using some activity which is much much riskier,

Actually this conversation has little to offer me other than more ad hom attacks. You are unable to conduct a conversation based on the science of radionuclide absorbtion. You refuse to answer my questions and complain when I don't answer yours. You don't contribute facts, you are unable to challange the science behind the argument (bio-accumulation) and now that your premise (based on a car analogy) has completely collapsed the only thing you can do is attack me. You have nothing to offer but a droll, often repeated fanboi-ism as a result of being programmed by Nuclear Industry PR.

and I'll let you go on thinking that you are not taking any unnecessary risks in your life that are many times greater than eating the food of topic. I'll you you go on believing your own little facade that your absolute zero exposure philosophy is being equally applied throughout your decisions in life.

For being so gracious, I'll allow you to continue push your beleif system around with your dogmatic skepticism and remain in your ignorant bliss looking like a rambling fool.

You have clearly answered all my questions.

Yet, you are no wiser

Comment Re:BBC - hammered by its own Political Correctness (Score 5, Insightful) 203 203

The whole thing boils down to Political Correctness

No. Not at all. Seriously, read what happened. Yeah, BBC has done plenty of bone-headed things in the name of PC. This, however, is not one of those things. Clarkson punched a staff member. He admitted to doing it.

If we call a spade a spade, Clarkson is basically a dick. The only bad thing about this is that he didn't get a solid smack in the face himself.

Comment Re:Would I eat it? (Score 1) 131 131

Do you take unnecessary car rides?

I thought about this for about 5 minutes, so that you would get a sincere and truthful answer. I'm a busy person, I don't get a chance to do unnecesary driving - fuck I wish I had the time for that. Additionally I've got cycling to work on my mind next so I don't have to drive there either and get additional exercise.

So sincerely, NO. I do not.

We both know why you are avoiding an answer. Because the answer is YES and in completely undermines your insistence that your choices are based on science and understanding.

Well, there again you would be wrong. Having a good understanding of the science is how I assess the risk.

In reality I didn't want to talk about a car analogy because I think only stupid people make car analogies. They are quite a simple machine compared to a Nuclear reactor which is simpler still compared to the fascinatingly complex and destructive way radioisotopes get into the foodchain and ultimately the body where it triggers cancer.

I don't blame you, most people cannot grasp such complexity, I'm still learning.

You are full of straw, man.

The question was *specifically* constructed not to qualify levels to expose you to the uncertainty. So we could see your glowing straw, man.

To answer both your questions, would I eat food from Fukushima with a defined amount of contamination, the answer is YES, if that level was measured to be below the safety thresholds set by Japan using the methods they established. So, YES, I would do so with no worries.

Your answer tells me you are ignorant of the facts and are unable to take personal responsibility for the risks.

With an understanding of the process of bio-accumulation and how radioisotope micronutrient analogues are deposited and accumulated in the body via metabolic processes you would conclude that it is a stupid risk not worth taking. However if ignorance of the risk and impact is your thing, go ahead.

What you are trying to do is make out there is something wrong with making a perfectly sane informed choice, quite an irresponsible, even sociopathic thing to do.

No, I'm not afraid of radiation before you start with that. My concern is radioisotope ingestion, a perfectly reasonable, rational, considered, informed, researched and valid thing to avoid to minimise exposure to a carcinogenic element.

Screening doesn't remove the uncertainty, it just reduces it.

With sufficient accumulation in the body a radioisotopes alpha, beta and gamma emissions maybe sufficiently energetic to damage either my person or my genome creating tendencies in future offspring for transgenic disease. I don't think there is a car analogy convoluted enough to describe that.

Actually there is. Imagine you took and unnecessary car ride everyday and suffered a collision enough to cause some minor damage. The only thing is first the damage only expressed itself after 6 years and second you keep suffering every impact, over and over. Eventually, your bodies ability to heal itself would be overwhelmed. Additionally, in the time it takes to manifest, potentially critical damage was done to any of your potential offspring as well.

You would introduce yourself to such a risk of that impact by making *exactly* the decision you would make, so don't complain that you weren't warned.

Comment Re:Would I eat it? (Score 1) 131 131

Ahh, I see you avoid responding to the unnecessary car riding. Do you never take an unnecessary car ride?

No, I said track racing. Last vehicle I took out was 300+hp on a dirt track. Ask me to get in a car with four teenagers though and I doubt I'd do it.

You say you are risk averse...I wonder how often and how evenly you apply that.

I said No - nothing wrong with my risk perception, nor am I risk adverse. which means I take risks - usually calculated.

So, no, you don't know what those levels are, but you do know they are below the threshold, which is a known level, and far below level show to have any negative health correlation.

No, the threshold is unknown. Looking at what is happening to insect species the probability is it is quite high. The athletes will be ok though, every bit of the food will be screened. As for those who this whole charade is about, the japanese consumer, this is a construct to put their mind at ease so they will be good little consumers.

We are all skewed by risk perception. Its OK. I am too.

My perception is based on the science and an understanding of the impact. The impact is so high it isn't worth the risk.

I notice you avoided my questions:

If I could guarantee the food had a radioistope load - would you eat it?

If I can't guarantee that it doesn't have a radioistope load - would you eat it?

Comment Re:Would I eat it? (Score 1) 131 131

You state eating the food is a stupid risk,

No, what I said was eating food from Fukushima that has potential radionuclide contamination is not necessary.

To be even more specific eating *any* food with a potential carcinogenic radioisotope load from the fallout of a nuclear reactor. Eating that is a stupid risk. I won't eat that food because I am not stupid.

Only a very stupid person would eat food from the Fukushima province due to the fact that the risk of radioisotope contamination is unknown.

That is what being stupid is.

you don't seem to really know what that risk is

However I understand that the impact is potentially serious cancer.

The fact that you use things like bungee jumping as a comparable risk tells me your risk perception is way out of whack with reality, which was my point. The fact that you subjectively qualify it as a 'stupid risk' is meaningless in this discussion, as you have no measure for that.

Due to the fact that there is no data available on how much radioisotopes are released I have no way to make an immediate assessment on which food is safe based on the type of food and I choose not to take that risk because the impact is cancer of some part of the body. It is an unknown risk that is unnecessary.

I also informed that bungee jumping exerts enough force at the bottom when sprung to increase the blood pressure enough to damage the nerve endings in the back of your eyes, so yeah, I think that is a stupid risk.

Skydiving, rock climbing, ju jitsu competition, body surfing a 3 metre + swell, track racing, soccer, rugby league and flirting with a hot woman however are calculated enough of a risk for an adrenalin rush.

No - nothing wrong with my risk perception, nor am I risk adverse.

The fact that you qualify it as 'unnecessary' and therefore just avoid it is your convenient method to ignore the actual risk and risk perception elements.

If I could guarantee the food had a radioistope load - would you eat it?

If I can't guarantee that it doesn't have a radioistope load - would you eat it?

It does not mean your advice to avoid is based on any practical measure.

My advice is to avoid eating food from any area where there is radioactive fallout because it is a stupid and pointless risk with serious health impacts if you are unfortunate enough to eat food with radioisotope contamination.

Comment Re:Would I eat it? (Score 1) 131 131

Eating is a necessary thing. We do it all the time.

However, eating food from Fukushima that has potential radionuclide contamination is not necessary.

And, we do have data that shows low level radioactive exposure risk.

I think you are confused. I am referring to how much and what type of radio isotopes were released from Fukushima nuclear plants. If you have that data, then you have been able to by-pass the Japanese government's censorship and I would urge you to share it.

The list is likely quite long of the things that qualify.

Surprisingly you managed to mention things I consider to be stupid risks that I make a specific effort to avoid. I consider eating food from Fukushima a stupid risk to take, relative to the impact. If you are prepared to take a stupid risk then go ahead.

Comment Lots of Rubbish code (Score 0) 352 352

What we are talking about here is not programmers using mac because they are a reasonable platform to develop on, but mac users trying to write code and actually trying to think differently and write code.

I wonder if it will be as fun for them as it is for an geeky nerd like me.

Comment Re:Would I eat it? (Score 1) 131 131

What you fail to include in your discussion of risk is probability. You only discuss potential consequence, but that is not enough to evaluate a risk. And in absence of knowing probability, risk perception is skewed, a central element to my point.

A discussion of probability is only possible when the quantities of radionuclide effluent from the Fukushima disaster is generally available. I will remind you that the Japanese government has a media blackout so hard data on what type and how much radionuclides were released is not available. You are welcome to contribute that data to the discussion so probability can be assessed.

It is pointless complaining to me about the lack of data as I would also like to see it. Until such data is made available then we will just have to deal with uncertainty. It is safe to say though it is more than nothing.

The data for exposure risk is known, it generally shows extremely low probability of negative health impacts. But most folks don't realize just how low that is compared to many of the things they do daily.

The point is not that it is low, it is that it exists at all and how much increase in risk we can expect as the radionuclide effluent is absorbed into the foodchain.

By not riding in a car, you are not exposing yourself to the risk of death or injury by car accident. But you do it anyhow.

A more honest comparison would be a risky activity like bungee jumping, an unnecessary risk that you choose as compared to driving car which is a necessary risk you control.

Until we get data on what and how much radionuclides were released we won't be able to quantify the risk. If you're happy to eat Fukushima food, go ahead, you'll probably be ok.

Comment Re:Just products, or services too? (Score 2) 97 97

I don't see why it wouldn't work to our advantage. The US has always been top notch in the tech sector, and hasn't depended on tariffs to do so. A lot of countries (especially ones in Europe) have tried using tariffs to try to counterbalance that, but it's never done anything other than make technology more expensive in those countries. If those trade barriers fall, then we'll see a LOT more money headed our way.

People who understand quality pay for it, everyone else buys the rubbish that passes as merely a consumer item.

The reason why worry kills more people than work is that more people worry than work.