Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:That's not even all (Score 1) 300

You seem to be arguing that we have to have had more nuclear disasters than we've had.

No I wasn't. But I'm sure there will be if we continue with nuclear.
Fukushima's spent fuel rods stored in close approximity of the reactor core almost brought us there and I really don't want something like that to explode and contaminate half of the world and oceans, thank you.
I've stated my opinion clear and would like to move on to other topics, thanks.

Comment Re: hazardous processes (Score 1) 300

Oh look, another slashdot poster who has never heard of conflict of interest or adversarial debate.

Well, we also don't know where you stand in this respect...

Or actually help tens of thousands live longer (radiation hormesis) .

Is that the new 'fallacy ad absurdum'?
I do recall you alleging misinterpretation, yes.
But anyway. I argued already why a 'scientific and technical approach' to make safe reactors can and always will be defeated by 'management decisions', so you won't be able to rationalize-away my fears for nuclear, hence you won't be able to change my opinion.
Thanks for the discussion, I'd like to move on now to other topics.

Comment Re: hazardous processes (Score 1) 300

They are incorrectly interpreting the research, completely disregarding the actual levels of risk and harm supposedly approximated by the study, and of course, misrepresenting their interpretation of the research as having come from the original research itself.

Yes, of course, they must be idiots.
Especially this Associate Professor Tilman Ruff of University of Melbourne's Nossal Institute for Global Health, who says there may be a threshold for some effects of radiation, but not for cancer. Ruff "...is also a member of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War."
Yeah, he must have totally missed the point.

Or this character Burns, a former chair of United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), former acting CEO of Australia's nuclear safety agency, ARPANSA, who on the one hand indeed says that "...the media lack[s]* scientific understanding and [that] coverage has tended to overplay the health effects from small amounts of radiation."
BUT that "...on the question of whether there is a safe threshold for exposure to radioactivity, Burns agrees with Ruff."

Or take 'the' (I think WHO) expert, Professor Robert Gale of Imperial College London who "...reported in The Australian this week [that] he would be happy to drink the water, even if it exceeded the maximum contamination levels set by the Japanese government."
""We live with radioactive water all the time," he was quoted as saying."
And of course, it wouldn't do him much harm if he came to Japan and took 1 or 2 gulps of that water. Statistics, you know.
Now in effect, "The Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) question Gale's position."
"His position illustrates very neatly the divergence between individual and public health risk," says PSR's Dr Ira Helfand.
Oh, look here, that must be another expert who has made it her job but 'got it all wrong'?
"The risk to any one individual from drinking water with this much radiation is indeed very low. The problem comes when 40 million people in the Tokyo water district drink the water and get this much radiation."

So, what if you'd raise the background radiation level from contamination for the whole world population?
A little increase would 'only' kill a few tens of thousands of people.
Countries go to war for the death of a few thousand people (9/11, Pearl Harbour), a few hundred people (USA, WWII), or even (allegedly) 1 person (WW 1).
And we were still lucky that all these spent fuel rods didn't blow up in the air...

But no, here comes a 'khallow' stating that all those experts incorrectly interpret research, disregarding existing levels and even maliciously (my interpretation) misrepresent their knowledge on the matter.
Yeah right. Let me go with the real experts please, thank you very much. :)


(Text within [square brackets] are my edits of quotes from the abc.net.au article.)

Comment Re:That's not even all (Score 1) 300

You ignore that a mere single counter-example can falsify the theory that safe nuclear is possible.
Your remark that this sort of accident has only occurred once, oops, twice, is, sorry to say so, a poor excuse for the structural property of management and political systems, i.e.: they don't give a fuck about how complicated or dangerous or delicate things are. If they can 'save' money in the short time they will, regardless of possible consequences.
And the more safety the technicians will build into their designs, the more they will economize and put humanity at risk because after all, what could ever happen to those 'safe' reactors?
It's not just a technical problem that can be solved, it's a psycho-socio-path problem that will never be solved given the human nature.
That's about the main reason I'm against it, because it simple cannot be made safe.

Comment Re:That's not even all (Score 1) 300

Odd things happen, such as Chernobyl and Fukushima, yes. This does not mean we can't make risk assessments. Modern airliners go down only through sequences of odd events, and companies are still willing to sell insurance. Statistics is the mathematical discipline that covers risk assessment when you don't know all the basic causes but do know some of the effects. It works.

Yes, odd things happen, and one of the strangest/oddest things is that it doesn't matter how good a risk assessment has been carried out, management and politics will always find a way to defeat it. And this is historically proven. That space shuttle Columbia and the choice of the location of the reactors in Fukushima are only a few examples.

I'm not trying to make fun of your fears. I'm saying that irrational fears are a bad basis for decisions, and that you're not going to get me to share them without showing me you know what you're talking about.

Wow thanks for your consideration, I appreciate that a lot more than the aggressive demeaning approach of other respondents.
Yet fears are what keep people alive and out of trouble a lot, and rationalizing-away of fears is something that I'm a bit apprehensive about when it comes to this kind of destructive potential.
Yes, I am afraid.

You have constructed an incredibly unlikely scenario for nuclear power. Let me do the same for solar or wind: a nifty new process is developed to produce solar panels/wind generators. As a side effect, it produces a harmless-looking chemical that disperses all over the globe and can't be cleaned up. It turns out that ten years of exposure to this causes permanent and complete sterility in humans. We've already got one for coal: increasing surface temperatures put strains on species we rely on, resulting in massive food shortages; this could involve massive methane releases triggered by warmer surface temperatures to emphasize the warming.

You mean as in Glyphosate? ;)
Nice one.

Nuclear power is pretty darn safe.

That's not sufficient for me. The destructive potential is too big, thanks.
Q: "Why are women pretty dumb?"
A: "Women are pretty so men will like them, they are dumb so they will like men."

Comment Re:JUST GREAT! (Score 1) 326

I think you can get this effect by replacing the sucrose part in sugar with fructose. That would make ik double fructose, instead of fructose--sucrose.
And don't worry about your obesity, fructose contributes a lot to that, so that problem will increase also.
They are so clever in sugarland...

Comment Re: hazardous processes (Score 1) 300

There is no such thing as a safe threshold.

And there is such a thing as a completely unsubstantiated statement too.

Sorry, I think you're a blathering idiot who has no idea what he is talking about and for some reason just wants to have nuclear energy with a reckless disregard and a blind eye for the dangers that it entails.
Let me refer you to the Australian National Academy of Sciences:
"According to the National Academy of Sciences, there are no safe doses of radiation. Decades of research show clearly that any dose of radiation increases an individual's risk for the development of cancer."
Good, I think I've had it with you.
Goodbye.

Slashdot Top Deals

Can't open /usr/games/lib/fortunes.dat.

Working...