Now let's begin....so your mother, a high medical risk person, is paying less than the cost for the medical insurance she is getting. Meanwhile, someone else is paying more than their cost so they can subsidize your mother. Or did you think your mother could just "get" $2000 coverage for $700? Whether you realize it or admit it, your mother is subsidized by the rest of taxpayers in your state.
Yes, that's the point of insurance. Everyone pays into a pool and when the shit hits the fan, the money is used to support those with bad luck. If you don't want that, you don't want insurance. It's as easy as that. The idea that everyone should pay according to their risk means, when thought to its logical conclusion, that everyone pays his own bills.
In fact, 'outreach', telling the public about your field, is an increasingly important part of what academics are supposed to do.
Who supposes them to do that? That is an important question. Is that entity ready to support you financially?
As an academic, you have to be able to put what you do in a CV. And it has to look impressive, because otherwise you will be out of a job eventually. Editing an online encyclopedia that literally everybody can edit, and which is known for having extensive coverage of Pokemon characters simply does not cut it.
Sorry for being patronizing again, but - I really hope you understand that soon enough!
Come back in a decade or two, and I think there'll be a lot more experts contributing to Wikipedia.
I am sceptical. Primarily because while it is ok to be a content contributor, it is not nice to be a content defender. Arguing with uneducated (and possibly mean) people over the fine points simply lacks dignity and will lead any academic that has some vestigial self-respect running for higher ground. Having a 15 year old edit the prose of a famous professor simply makes no sense.
Besides, as a working academic you simply don't have the time to invest in such a low impact endeavour. What is more, a PhD student like you does not, in fact, have the time either, even though it seems you have it. I hope you realize that soon enough.
Your ignorance of the situation is astounding, really. Are you trolling, or do you just hate knowledge?
I like how you post a supposed rebuttal that contains nothing but Ad Hominem. If you want to do better than logical fallacy, you're going to have to do better than this.
The situation is fucking identical in New Orleans, which some idiots are attempting to rebuild because they can't picture living anywhere else. I hope they can picture swimming.
Yeah, well. What's the point of launching ad-hominems at people that argue like you? Your argument stands by itself, not for being right (which it isn't) but for being - well. Let's say It labels you certain non-beautiful things.
No, just by being within 30km of one you're being killed, slowly. Tens of thousands of lives are cut short every year. Even with Chernobyl nuclear power plants can't claim those sorts of numbers.
I've read that a couple of times and wonder where it comes from. The plants here in Europe are innocuous, so much is for sure (except for the greenhouse gases, but that's another matter). Giving you the benefit of the doubt: do you have any link with actual figures?
Have you seen pictures of Japan, have you? Whole cities are just gone
Yes, I've seen them. Can you now explain to me why you consider this to be an argument?
And as I said, people are paranoid idiots who can't evaluate risk if it bit them in the ass with steel jaws.
Risk has to be weighted with damage potential. The latter is simply very high with a nuclear reactor. The former is very high because reactors are built and run by cynical, corrupt and incompetent people. If the anti nuclear movement wouldn't be so aggressive, we'd have a lot more dead. And don't get me started on the question of nuclear waste. I think it is your risk assessment which is completely off the mark.
Another few things to learn from the Japan episode.
* "Once every thousand of years" is a meaningless phrase. These kinds of things happen all the time, because there are lots of different things that are suposed to happen every thousand years. * When they happen to you, it sucks badly. * When they happen, a nuclear reactor is a mayor liability and can compund things seriously * Nuclear energy fanbois will only admit what cannot be denied, and put a rosy glow even on that
You are making use of language that sugests that this is not serious at all, that shouldn't even be in the news, that it it perhaps has the same importance as some truck with stinking stuff in it that fell over. I have to tell you that this is simply negligent optimism. TEPCO itself, and the Japanese gov are far less optimistic than you are. Maybe that should make you think.
Oh, and meltdown is pretty much a confirmed current fact, not something that might happen in some remote scenario.
So who received a "major" dose of radiation? A number of people have received a maximum safe dose.
Actually, a number of people have received well beyond that. Check the news.
They are also not "the public". Certainly they are a lot better off than many industrial workers injured or killed every year.
Why do you say that reactor workers are not "the public"? Do you consider them to be some kind of slaves? People die regularly from the long term effects of doing maintainance in nuclear reactors. But well, since you say they are not people...
Now, depending on the amount and type contamination that has been released, a serious number of people could end up affected in lots of different ways, and, yes, even dying because of cancer and so on.
This story is pure sensationalism by abstraction and amplification. The mental health effects of fear due to misinformation, sensationalism and lies surrounding nuclear accidents of this type are far greater than the physical health effects, and I dearly hope one day the ignorant assholes who promulgate these kinds of sensationalistic accounts get their propper cumuppance: a massive class-action suit brought by the victims of their voyeuristic fearmongering.
Even if what you are saying were true (which I doubt: nobody doubts there has been meltdown, and the serious hypothesis is that containment was breached) it would pale next to lies about reactor safety and how everything is good and well that nuclear energy fanbois have been spewing around all this time. I hope they get their propper "cumuppance", as you say, in form of massive doses of radiation helping to clean up some of the existing nuclear messes.
Just go and read them. In particular the older ones, where this should be obvious by what has happened in the mean time. There isn't much to expand on there.
This is part of the planned failure mode of the reactor.
Calling the core meltdown in Fukushima a "planned failure mode" is... Orwellian.
A week ago, none of this was possible, and just a ridiculous scenario due to fearmongering by some hysterical tree huggers. Now we have a confirmed meltdown and now it's a "planned failure mode". Wow.
What do you call "receiving major doses of radiation"? Nothing serious? You should volunteer to be liquidator at Fukushima. I'm sure they will pay better than the soviets did back then.
Why the register is engaging in this I can only guess. I presume these articles generate a lot of traffic an comments, and are thus a good idea for them to post. These are factually inaccurate howlers full of cynism and stupidty.
a radiation leak (or worse), just might affect them.
Unless they're in Japan, not really. Actually the economic impact will hurt them somewhat but no one cares about that.
A radiation leak from Fukushima might not affect people not in Japan. But a similar leak from a different nuclear plant in their neighbourhood? - that's a different matter altogether.
Pretty much nothing can happen to a gas or coal plant that would require evacuation of everybody in a 30km radius, but that's simply not out of the question with nuclear plants. To make matters worse: for many plants (for example in Germany) there is simply no way to evacuate everybody in an area with of radius 30km around them. Not without basically nuking (no pun intended) the whole economy, for example.
So that's why people are worried.
Additionally, not everybody is buying the propaganda from nuclear energy proponents claiming that "there is nothing to worry". This isn't under control yet, and nobody knows what is going to happen with that plant and its radioactive waste in the next few years.
Censoring some episodes is a show of respect and not selfishness.
I suspect it is happening more as a favour to the nuclear industry. The portrait of nuclear energy you see in the Simpsons is rather accurate, unfortunately.
I would be far more concerned about the health and environmental effects of the big refinery fire that we didn't hear much about, than the Fukushima reactor so far.
Yes, well, let's make a thought experiment. I give yo an option to move next to the refinery (1km or so) in two years time, or next to the fukushima thing (1km or so) in ten years. What, do you think, is safer?
I think you need to recalibrate your disaster measures. The area around fukushima is toast for a long, long time, just like that around Chernobyl.
The reactor was designed for an 8.2 earthquake, and withstood (for the most part) a 9.0 earthquake.
No, it didn't. It might have seemed so at first, but now there's wreckage and toxic shit all around. It simply did not withstand it by any stretch of the imagination.
You need to look up what "failure" actually means -- and stop lobotomizing your logic.
Completely agree. Regardless of the specific solution, the fact no solution was attained within hours seems to scream extreme human incompetence.
Precisesly. In theory, everything is safe and works. In practice, things are more complicated because people are shocked after a tsunami, incompetent, or both, or absent for other reasons. Perhaps there were other reasons than "incompetence", and things aren't actually as simple as they seem from your vantage point in your moms basement.
That is the fundamental reason why nuclear energy is unsafe. You need things that work well in theory to work well in practice.
Further, I think it's very healthy for the private sector to have real responsibility. It reduces our reliance on government.
Haha, yes. Like with your banking sector. Nice idea! Give them the power to make whole states inhabitable for decades. How do you call that? A "short idea"?
More than the earthquake, the danger lies in the cynical and greedy nature of the corporations running these things.
Whether nuclear energy can be safe when done well (and it has to be done really well, it seems, for it to be safe) is besides the point, because it is just not done well in reality, there is no reason to trust those on whom it would depend to do it well to get their act together, and there is no political basis anymore to endow corrupt corporations with such a level of responsibility. Tepco (which ran fukushima) has admitted to falsification of data from the very same reactors that are causing trouble. How this kind of thing is going to play out in the kind of libertarian dystopia the US is trying to convert into - I don't want to even imagine.
I'm pretty sure they did something incorrectly, and that's just another smaller problem to solve.
The problem here is that they thought it was going to be ok. All those very respected and smart engineers built something that could not fail. But it failed! You just cannot trust the judgement of engineers if safety has to be absolutely 100%.
The nice thing about the pebble bed reactors is that they cannot explode
They can explode. The graphite can become overheated. The hull can breach, and oxigen can enter the system, and at that point it also explodes. You have been lied to.
Pebble bed reactors aren't safe either. The germans built one for research and it caused them quite a bit of trouble. The Juelich reactor it was. Pebbles get stuck and break, because granular media have odd ways. And the mess to clean up at the end is as incredible as with other tech.
Hm, no. The main problem with Iter is that it does not work. That is in fact the main problem with fusion. Right now nobody knows how to make it work in any reasonable way. Here's a recent article in Scientific American detailing the situation:
You know, you can pour as much money as you want in research - if something isn't possible, no bright scientist in the world is going to make it happen.
Joda says: "If the impossible you attempt, fail you will!"
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that's the point of insurance. Everyone pays into a pool and when the shit hits the fan, the money is used to support those with bad luck. If you don't want that, you don't want insurance. It's as easy as that. The idea that everyone should pay according to their risk means, when thought to its logical conclusion, that everyone pays his own bills.
Who supposes them to do that? That is an important question. Is that entity ready to support you financially?
As an academic, you have to be able to put what you do in a CV. And it has to look impressive, because otherwise you will be out of a job eventually. Editing an online encyclopedia that literally everybody can edit, and which is known for having extensive coverage of Pokemon characters simply does not cut it.
Sorry for being patronizing again, but - I really hope you understand that soon enough!
I am sceptical. Primarily because while it is ok to be a content contributor, it is not nice to be a content defender. Arguing with uneducated (and possibly mean) people over the fine points simply lacks dignity and will lead any academic that has some vestigial self-respect running for higher ground. Having a 15 year old edit the prose of a famous professor simply makes no sense.
Besides, as a working academic you simply don't have the time to invest in such a low impact endeavour. What is more, a PhD student like you does not, in fact, have the time either, even though it seems you have it. I hope you realize that soon enough.
Yeah, well. What's the point of launching ad-hominems at people that argue like you? Your argument stands by itself, not for being right (which it isn't) but for being - well. Let's say It labels you certain non-beautiful things.
I've read that a couple of times and wonder where it comes from. The plants here in Europe are innocuous, so much is for sure (except for the greenhouse gases, but that's another matter). Giving you the benefit of the doubt: do you have any link with actual figures?
Yes, I've seen them. Can you now explain to me why you consider this to be an argument?
Risk has to be weighted with damage potential. The latter is simply very high with a nuclear reactor. The former is very high because reactors are built and run by cynical, corrupt and incompetent people. If the anti nuclear movement wouldn't be so aggressive, we'd have a lot more dead. And don't get me started on the question of nuclear waste. I think it is your risk assessment which is completely off the mark.
Another few things to learn from the Japan episode.
* "Once every thousand of years" is a meaningless phrase. These kinds of things happen all the time, because there are lots of different things that are suposed to happen every thousand years.
* When they happen to you, it sucks badly.
* When they happen, a nuclear reactor is a mayor liability and can compund things seriously
* Nuclear energy fanbois will only admit what cannot be denied, and put a rosy glow even on that
You are making use of language that sugests that this is not serious at all, that shouldn't even be in the news, that it it perhaps has the same importance as some truck with stinking stuff in it that fell over. I have to tell you that this is simply negligent optimism. TEPCO itself, and the Japanese gov are far less optimistic than you are. Maybe that should make you think.
Oh, and meltdown is pretty much a confirmed current fact, not something that might happen in some remote scenario.
Actually, a number of people have received well beyond that. Check the news.
Why do you say that reactor workers are not "the public"? Do you consider them to be some kind of slaves? People die regularly from the long term effects of doing maintainance in nuclear reactors. But well, since you say they are not people...
Now, depending on the amount and type contamination that has been released, a serious number of people could end up affected in lots of different ways, and, yes, even dying because of cancer and so on.
Even if what you are saying were true (which I doubt: nobody doubts there has been meltdown, and the serious hypothesis is that containment was breached) it would pale next to lies about reactor safety and how everything is good and well that nuclear energy fanbois have been spewing around all this time. I hope they get their propper "cumuppance", as you say, in form of massive doses of radiation helping to clean up some of the existing nuclear messes.
Just go and read them. In particular the older ones, where this should be obvious by what has happened in the mean time. There isn't much to expand on there.
Calling the core meltdown in Fukushima a "planned failure mode" is... Orwellian.
A week ago, none of this was possible, and just a ridiculous scenario due to fearmongering by some hysterical tree huggers. Now we have a confirmed meltdown and now it's a "planned failure mode". Wow.
You guys are truly beyond repair.
What do you call "receiving major doses of radiation"? Nothing serious? You should volunteer to be liquidator at Fukushima. I'm sure they will pay better than the soviets did back then.
Why the register is engaging in this I can only guess. I presume these articles generate a lot of traffic an comments, and are thus a good idea for them to post. These are factually inaccurate howlers full of cynism and stupidty.
I guess people have to make a living somehow.
"Cynical jaded type"? Come on! All you have to do is to keep your eyes open for a while to see that this is indeed typical behavior.
A radiation leak from Fukushima might not affect people not in Japan. But a similar leak from a different nuclear plant in their neighbourhood? - that's a different matter altogether.
Pretty much nothing can happen to a gas or coal plant that would require evacuation of everybody in a 30km radius, but that's simply not out of the question with nuclear plants. To make matters worse: for many plants (for example in Germany) there is simply no way to evacuate everybody in an area with of radius 30km around them. Not without basically nuking (no pun intended) the whole economy, for example.
So that's why people are worried.
Additionally, not everybody is buying the propaganda from nuclear energy proponents claiming that "there is nothing to worry". This isn't under control yet, and nobody knows what is going to happen with that plant and its radioactive waste in the next few years.
And that is why people care.
I suspect it is happening more as a favour to the nuclear industry. The portrait of nuclear energy you see in the Simpsons is rather accurate, unfortunately.
Yes, well, let's make a thought experiment. I give yo an option to move next to the refinery (1km or so) in two years time, or next to the fukushima thing (1km or so) in ten years. What, do you think, is safer?
I think you need to recalibrate your disaster measures. The area around fukushima is toast for a long, long time, just like that around Chernobyl.
No, it didn't. It might have seemed so at first, but now there's wreckage and toxic shit all around. It simply did not withstand it by any stretch of the imagination.
You need to look up what "failure" actually means -- and stop lobotomizing your logic.
Precisesly. In theory, everything is safe and works. In practice, things are more complicated because people are shocked after a tsunami, incompetent, or both, or absent for other reasons. Perhaps there were other reasons than "incompetence", and things aren't actually as simple as they seem from your vantage point in your moms basement.
That is the fundamental reason why nuclear energy is unsafe. You need things that work well in theory to work well in practice.
They don't, of course.
right, so nothing to see here, move along people. Or what was your point?
Haha, yes. Like with your banking sector. Nice idea! Give them the power to make whole states inhabitable for decades. How do you call that? A "short idea"?
Get a clue, man.
More than the earthquake, the danger lies in the cynical and greedy nature of the corporations running these things.
Whether nuclear energy can be safe when done well (and it has to be done really well, it seems, for it to be safe) is besides the point, because it is just not done well in reality, there is no reason to trust those on whom it would depend to do it well to get their act together, and there is no political basis anymore to endow corrupt corporations with such a level of responsibility. Tepco (which ran fukushima) has admitted to falsification of data from the very same reactors that are causing trouble. How this kind of thing is going to play out in the kind of libertarian dystopia the US is trying to convert into - I don't want to even imagine.
Nice idea. Now what happens when you get a bad battery? Or do you think all those batteries are going to the same quality, capacity, and form factor?
You are probably saying we will all share the batteries. I see more than just one issue with that.
The problem here is that they thought it was going to be ok. All those very respected and smart engineers built something that could not fail. But it failed! You just cannot trust the judgement of engineers if safety has to be absolutely 100%.
They can explode. The graphite can become overheated. The hull can breach, and oxigen can enter the system, and at that point it also explodes. You have been lied to.
Pebble bed reactors aren't safe either. The germans built one for research and it caused them quite a bit of trouble. The Juelich reactor it was. Pebbles get stuck and break, because granular media have odd ways. And the mess to clean up at the end is as incredible as with other tech.
Nuke is just too unsafe.
Hm, no. The main problem with Iter is that it does not work. That is in fact the main problem with fusion. Right now nobody knows how to make it work in any reasonable way. Here's a recent article in Scientific American detailing the situation:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fusions-false-dawn
You know, you can pour as much money as you want in research - if something isn't possible, no bright scientist in the world is going to make it happen.
Joda says: "If the impossible you attempt, fail you will!"