Why is it irrelevant how much radioactive material went airborne?
That was not said. Instead, it was all about the alleged untrustworthiness of TEPCO. TEPCO lying or not doesn't change in the least change what happened. That's why it's irrelevant.
Let us also note that the data was not collected and made available to the public making this a very convenient argument for you. Care to cite a source of such strictly controlled information that such a University could access?
Not my problem.
Here you are, a Nuclear Shill planting the seed of a meme "Those children would have never suffered if they didn't start treating them for thyroid cancer". You're almost a professional.
And here you are not providing a credible counter argument. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.
It wouldn't matter if this was peer reviewed a thousand times, every argument that criticizes the nuclear industry would be irrelevant to you.
Because peer review doesn't change reality. It's like you haven't thought a bit about this. It's all those mean shills making reality not work the way you want it to work.
So what you are saying is that if a child does not get tested for thyroid cancer, the child will cure themselves of it?
It is worth noting that does happen. Plus, sounds like we're not actually speaking of cancer. It's very possible that this won't develop into cancer over the course of a human lifetime.
because that's the craziest shit I ever heard
Yea, right. Now it's crazy to want basic scientific procedures, like use of a control group, followed.
Now, does anyone actually believe what TEPCO says about how much radioactive material went airborne?
That is completely irrelevant.
The one criticism from TFA
Let us note that now there are other criticisms of the research. And lack of correlation with radiation exposure is another warning sign that this research is far from definitive.
It is something that should eventually be pretty clear, the issue now is to get as many cancers diagnosed when it's "easy" to treat.
Unless, of course, the cancers aren't actually cancers and treatment ends up causing more harm than it prevents.
People that worked 30-50 years for Ford living off of their retirement is quite a different view than your statement of them living off a "meal ticket".
So what? The statement is accurate.
Corporate corruption and a lack of prosecution has forced people into more private 401Ks, but that does not mean it should be that way. How you say it shows ignorance and/or disdain for victims of corruption.
And a lack of planning and political action on the part of the so-called victims. If we're going to be "pedantic", we should note that the situation where someone is entrusted with your money for decades tends to have ended up the same way for millennia as well.
I'm also tired of people who are concerned about corruption only when that corruption goes against them.
Your neurosis, in the absence of any facts, does not trump an analysis by Bloomberg.
I already mentioned several facts. The first fact is that words are not actions. Just because someone says they did something, doesn't mean they actually did.
Second, the subsidies and distortions of the market are profound in the two countries they studied, the UK and Germany. Germany in particular has double the usual European mean electricity prices while still having times where they're paying others to get rid of their excess electricity. Third, think about it. Why did they choose two of the more heavily subsidized countries as their examples and then claim that the subsidies weren't really that relevant? Why not use an example where the distortions aren't so severe? They could have chosen examples that didn't have huge subsidies that would have to be filtered out. That's fact three.
To use a car analogy, this is like a couple of cars in a traditional car race, packed with all sorts of illegal performance-boosting technology and then someone deciding they should be allowed to keep their prizes because they would have won anyway. The obvious rebuttal here is that if the racers were such clear winners, then they wouldn't have needed to break the rules.
In a similar fashion, if renewable really is better than fossil fuels, then we should be seeing the replacement of fossil fuels with renewables in the markets where there aren't massive subsidies and other advantages. Instead, we don't. I guess that's fact four.
It looks like that's exactly what they've done:
The problem with that sort of report is that just because they say they've done something doesn't mean that they actually have. I think I'll take this sort of thing more seriously when countries without massive renewable energy subsidies start throwing up lots of renewable energy.
I think it's a shell game like a lot of scam magic power generators. They cherry picked a few of the most extreme cases where a huge part of the costs are hidden from us and telling us that they've done the magic calculations which show that these hidden parts aren't sufficiently large to skew their claims. It's like a perpetual motion machine or a zero point energy machine where all the testing (and of course, the shenanigans) goes on in some locked room that no one can get near.
I don't buy it and neither should you. Wind and solar power just aren't that good (yet) in places that don't have these ridiculous confounding factors. The physics and economics aren't magically different.
Humans are also unusual in that they shit where they eat.
Never been around herd animals, I see. And yes, I can see a case for thinking of this many humans in terms of herd animals.
But really every animal does stuff along these lines. I think it's foolish to think that any other animal carrying out a technological civilization with radical abilities to manipulate their environment won't sooner or later run into these problems.
That said, even though khallow is correct, he still loses, because if he is correct, then he is just as screwed as everybody else.
And just as not screwed. If I were to assert that the Koch brothers or Soros are equivalent to Nobel-level physicists because they are rich, I'd be laughed off of the internet again. But somehow it's ok to suppose that they're spooky good propagandists.
I really don't see that. I think the lot of them are throwing money on a bonfire. Turns out that I don't really think much of the value of their public goods either.
Please name ONE *public good* that Soros/Koch has given the country.
Their political advocacy for starters. For example, they have funded quite a number of NGOs. Now, it sounds like you might disagree with them on the value of those public goods, but so would a number of people disagree with those ancient wealthy Athenians on the value of their respective public goods too.
Imagine Soros and the Koch brothers and all the wealthy of either party building and equipping their own aircraft carriers at their own expense as a public benefit. Imagine the same people sponsoring ad-free television channels to keep people entertained as a public benefit.
And they do. You wouldn't hear about Soros and the Koch brothers otherwise. They just didn't consult you first on what they should be spending their money on any more than those ancient Greeks did.
but are *you* willing to talk face-to-face to the families of the victims of these incidents when they occur and explain why Nuclear energy was the right choice while their relatives skin is melting off their bodies?
I'll just note here that no one has had to do that yet due to the (no doubt peculiar) lack of victims with melting skin, So I doubt I'd have to leave my fortress of solitude the next time a TMI or Fukushima happens due to the continued absence of skin melting.
Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.