Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:That's bullshit. (Score 1) 586

by peon_a-z,A-Z,0-9$_+! (#46747029) Attached to: Jenny McCarthy: "I Am Not Anti-Vaccine'"

Good points.

This type of rhetoric is unfortunately common across much of society where people without the proper education often have voices louder than those that do, and espouse nonsense.

Replace "vaccines" with "nuclear energy" and autism with a relevant fear such as "cancer" or something else and you have a very similar dialogue and situation.

Comment: Re:If you take the profits (Score 1) 179

by peon_a-z,A-Z,0-9$_+! (#46641833) Attached to: Vermont Nuclear Plant Seeks Decommission But Lacks Funds

Compare that to what is being released from, say, Fukushima. It bio-accumulates and ends up sitting inside your organs for decades, slowly irradiating them.

Please provide specific isotopes if you're going to make a counter argument like this. This is not true, where are you getting this opinion from?

Although the radiation level is low it is also constant, which is why your risk of getting cancer goes up.

If it is so low and constant then it is similar to background radiation, where background radiation is defined below.

Your statement linking any amount of radiation to an increase in cancer follows well with the early experiments in the pre-1960's evidence where there was not a lot of data for chronic low-dose cases (called the Linear Non-Threshold Model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... ) but you cannot truthfully make that statement when in reality the affects of low-doses of radiation has experimentally been shown to be actually helpful in preventing cancer, where the Radiation Hormesis model more accurately describes what actually happens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... .

Background Radiation: Radiation is present at all locations where people live and comes from various sources (solar radiation, terrestrial radiation from the ground), and this level of background radiation changes with people’s everyday activities (eating certain foods, flying on a plane, getting an x-ray, where they live on the Earth). However, human bodies are designed to live in an environment with ever-constant radiation at the levels we experience here on Earth. The tiny amount of radiation that comes from a nuclear reactor is the same type of radiation that can be found through these natural sources, and because the radiation from nuclear energy is far below natural levels, there is no threat to a person who comes into contact with it.

Comment: Re:If you take the profits (Score 1) 179

by peon_a-z,A-Z,0-9$_+! (#46641687) Attached to: Vermont Nuclear Plant Seeks Decommission But Lacks Funds

And the economics of energy supply are heavily affected by subsidies in competing modes of production and regulatory costs, both of which are directly influenced by public opinion.

Some people look at economics as a science, but it seems as if the economics of anything related to energy are more of a popularity contest.

Comment: Re:If you take the profits (Score 1) 179

by peon_a-z,A-Z,0-9$_+! (#46640115) Attached to: Vermont Nuclear Plant Seeks Decommission But Lacks Funds

And the economics of your energy supply are heavily affected by subsidies and regulatory costs, both of which are directly influenced by public opinion.

Some people look at economics as a science, but it seems as if the economics of anything related to energy are more of a popularity contest.

Comment: Re:If you take the profits (Score 2) 179

by peon_a-z,A-Z,0-9$_+! (#46638879) Attached to: Vermont Nuclear Plant Seeks Decommission But Lacks Funds

We need to start having "radiation leaks" in terms of units that people can understand, like "bananas."

Would you really care if you were instead told that it was leaking tritium equivalent of "3 bananas per day" into the ground water?

Radiation is a part of life on Earth.

Comment: Re:If you take the profits (Score 4, Interesting) 179

by peon_a-z,A-Z,0-9$_+! (#46638581) Attached to: Vermont Nuclear Plant Seeks Decommission But Lacks Funds

Except in this case the plant was approved for twenty additional years of operation in 2011 and is now being shut down.

Therefore, contrary to your assertion, they were properly planning for the costs but that planning did not encompass irrational public opinion shutting down the plant ahead of schedule.

The people therefore who demanded it be shut down will also be the people who pay the extra costs associated with shutting it down.

Comment: Re:Double, triple, quadruple charging (Score 1) 74

The parent author suggested that the only device using the spectrum was the phone. All other devices "piggyback" on this connection. Therefore, the carrier (e.g. AT&T) only "sees" one device, and therefore one cost per device. So it is "clearly the proper metric"...

Comment: Re:Dwarfed? yeah right (Score 0) 77

by peon_a-z,A-Z,0-9$_+! (#46459971) Attached to: Japan Marks 3rd Anniversary of Tsunami Disaster

I'm not agreeing, I'm just trying to point out a few more numbers that show the magnitude of the damage caused by radiation is significantly less than the magnitude of psychological damages and unwarranted fear of radiation that seems to espoused throughout the internet.

While not everyone is expected to be an informed citizen on every topic (nuclear science and engineering in this case), it's harmful to let dis-information spread and generate more fear.

Comment: Re:Dwarfed? yeah right (Score 2, Informative) 77

by peon_a-z,A-Z,0-9$_+! (#46456471) Attached to: Japan Marks 3rd Anniversary of Tsunami Disaster

Then you can focus on numbers other than $Deaths, like:

Some 160,000 people were evacuated as a precautionary measure, and prolonging the evacuation resulted in the deaths of about 1100 of them due to stress, and some due to disruption of medical and social welfare facilities.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...

Or perhaps look at a chart showing the magnitude of radiation around Fukushima with respect to time:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Fukushima7.png

There is always radiation around us from natural sources (cosmic, ground, foods), so when the background radiation of the surrounding area is at a normal level, then why are people concerned? The numbers don't add up, but the perception of fear continues.

Or you can use this number instead of deaths: (emphasis added)

...40 children newly diagnosed with thyroid cancer and other cancers in Fukushima prefecture 18 of which were diagnosed with thyroid cancer, but these cancers are not attributed to radiation from Fukushima, as similar patterns occurred before the accident in 2006 in Japan, with 1 in 100,000 children per year developing thyroid cancer in that year, that is, this is not higher than the pre-accident rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

Comment: Re:Dwarfed? yeah right (Score 3, Insightful) 77

by peon_a-z,A-Z,0-9$_+! (#46456049) Attached to: Japan Marks 3rd Anniversary of Tsunami Disaster

You mean the 20,000 deaths caused by the Tsunami compared to the 0 deaths related to anything nuclear, where the handful of deaths surrounding the incident were caused by inaction and fear of radiation?

http://fukushima.ans.org/

The physical effects of the Tsunami were incredibly more devastating than the Fukushima meltdown, however the psychological effects of the meltdown are truly staggering. It's a difference between facts and perception that, three years later, isn't going anywhere it seems. Nuclear is only scary if you don't look at what it actually is.

Behind every great computer sits a skinny little geek.

Working...