You make no sense. I presented a source that very clearly supported my point. If were not able to determine that from the source's summary, then it is your 'scientific literacy' that should be in question.
Exactly. IAEA has proven to be the most accurate when it comes to these types of studies, and they understand the mechanisms better than any other organization. They are involved in a lot of world activities which involves the UN, politics, etc.
They promote safe, peaceful use of nuclear materials and technology. That is done by being accurate. The best promotion for nuclear is safety, the worst is non-safety. It would do more damage to project few health effects then realize many, than the opposite.
But, people will look hard and find reasons to dismiss it, no matter how well documented and fact based it is. Many of those people cling to anecdotal FUD with no supporting data presented. That is the world we live in.
I clearly said there are many studies that observed effects, you seem to have missed that. I don't deny they exist and just pointed to one of the few studies that looks at them summarily. If you want to post other studies that look at them summarily, please do, rather than just dismissing the one the one I used.
I like how you go out and find worst case numbers for nuke, best case numbers for solar and wind, and then compare them. I used one credible source, with same case numbers for all.
Waste and decommissioning costs are most certainly included in the levelized per MWH costs I presented.
Please, in the future, be consistent with your inputs and how you use them.
Concerning Chernobyl, you state initial estimates, but observed instances of negative health effects have been much less, which backs my points. There are studies that indicate some increase in childhood thyroid cancer instances, but if you read the details it is often within margin of error, and there are significant uncertainties with conclusions because the historical data for the locations is not good. There have been efforts to sort through the results of various thyroid studies (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22048494).
Since thyroid cancers from childhood exposure are by for the most probable, it is a good base for a health impact assessment. Thyroid screening techniques that have been adopted since Chernobyl are much more sensitive at detecting precancerous and early cancerous cells, so everywhere these techniques are used more cases are found that would have under traditional screening if indeed there even was testing prior to the event. That further complicates the assessment of results. I certainly won't say there has been no increase.
All we really know is that the real world observed increase in cases are less that estimated by the IAEA originally for Chernobyl. So they are certain conservative in their approach.
They are the foremost experts on this type of analysis, and they are not a nuclear power associated body but rather work to ensure global nuclear safety for all radio logical venues, including medical, weaponry, power, industrial, etc. You can find your personal excuse to dismiss these well documented reports, and instead believe whatever you decide, but you'll have a hard time finding the data, basis, and proven methodology presented in these reports. Do you dismiss IPCC reports on global warming as well?
Have you ever tried calculating on a per MWH basis. You will be surprised. No energy source has ever seen subsidies like solar and wind are getting on that basis.
Also, as for as taxpayer funded, nuclear returns and has returned more tax revenue per subsidy dollar. From local property taxes, to wages, to procurement sales taxes, more money comes back to the US taxpayer than is spent. For solar, a large chuck goes straight to Asia to pay for the panels. Wind isn't as bad in that regard, but is still tax negative and doesn't approach the returns nuclear has provided.
By repeated layers of watering down, the story has changed from what the research (even their own sources) says - that yes, the accident will be causing many cases of fatal cancers, but we can't prove which ones are due to radiation - into a general sense of "nobody's going to get sick from this accident" in the article.
I think you're interpenetration is a bit off. The story has not changed, and the IAEA report is very good at showing us all of the important considerations and explaining how they apply in the case of Fukushima. It is a matter of taking generic statistical modeling and taking real world factors into account, not a matter of watering things down. The risks from exposures received are extremely small, the at risk population is small, the real world sampling confirms assumptions are conservative, and therefore there is going to be no observable increase statistically.
The report absolutely does not say "nobody's going to get sick from this accident", as you imply. It is worded quite appropriately and clearly that observable statistical impacts are not likely to be found.
The IAEA report on Fukushima is quite clear that no statistical increase in deaths is likely to be observed. Not for adults, children, or offspring. Even for workers at the site with the highest exposures, there will likely be no observable effects. As you say, with the workers the sample size is small to start with, so that becomes factor
Based on our experience with other exposure cases, the estimates of negative radio logical health impacts are always much higher than what we observe in reality. There are two reasons. One is that the models for estimating health effects are conservative, and two is because the estimated exposures are conservative (they assume higher doses to account for uncertainty.). I have no problem with conservative estimation, just as long as they are used correctly. So, yes, statistical deaths are real deaths, statistical illnesses are real illnesses, and thankfully we'll not likely see any from the radio logical effects of Fukushima.
Interestingly, a tidbit is that the children thyroid exposure at Chernobyl was 1000 times that of a child in the Fukushima district. From what I can find, there is still no observed statistical increase in negative health effects associated with those exposures at Chernobyl. But I want to be clear I have not researched that thoroughly.
I've read those articles about the beneficial effects of low exposures, it is interesting stuff. There seems to be some evidence, but just as in the attempts to show negative effects of exposures, there is not enough statistical evidence to have any certainty. The one thing that we can conclude is that in either case the effects are so small it is very hard to statistically observe them.
Around 90 percent of those who died of indirect causes were aged 66 or older, according to Reconstruction Agency statistics published in September.
Unlike those caused by collapsed buildings or tsunami, indirect deaths are determined by municipal panels by examining links between the disaster and the cause of death. This occurs when a relative of a deceased files a request.
Causes of indirect deaths include physical and mental stress stemming from long stays at shelters, a lack of initial care as a result of hospitals being disabled by the disaster, and suicides.
Many of these deaths happened well after the evacuation. So effectively all deaths of the elderly displaced are blamed on Fukushima. It appears there is extra compensation if you can attribute a death to Fukushima.
So, if you use that in the future, please be sure to clarify that they were indirect effects of the evacuation, and not from radio logical health effects. I imagine you'll conveniently leave out those details. We'll see.
You'll find that the after-effects of the bombs in Japan were quite limited. Even with dispersal of radioactive material, we find that Japan consistently has lower cancer rates than the rest of the world. So, all this FUD about multi-generational effects has proven to be just that.
You'll find that there were many deaths also associated with the indirect effect of the tsunami and earthquake across Japan. A high number of suicides,stress on the elderly were part of it. And the depression of many who lost loved ones or lost their homes and all their belongings.
The devastation from the earthquake and tsunami was massive, but all those victims get ignored because of the focus on Fukushima. 60 minutes did a Fukushima documentary, and didn't even find 30 seconds to acknowledged those countless tragedies.
No, I did not point out nuclear is only cheap because of subsidy. In fact, I point out that on a per MWH basis, solar and wind get much greater subsidies than nuclear ever has or will get. But if you look at the IEA levelized cost projections report issued in 2015, which do not include subsidies and therefore are good numbers, you'll see nuclear fares quite well even for new designs.
You can make your rhetorical claims, but the fact that nuclear has given the US its greatest source of carbon free generation by far is indisputable.
Coal and nuclear have generated much more power as well. Like I said, calculate on a per MWH basis and it is not even close. Solar and Wind get much more.
IEA REPORT – 2015 - Projected Costs of New Generation Sources:
(USING 10% Discount rate for all sources);
NUCLEAR AVG $110/MWH
ONSHORE WIND $100/MWH
OFFSHORE WIND $200
Transmission infrastructure or storage costs for renewables are not considered, however local grid connections and lines are. Nuclear waste decommissioning costs are considered.
Slashdot Mirror
I read the article, and failed to see how this had anything to do with IoT, other than the fact that the speaker was at an IoT conference.
Robots are Things. You reading this On the Internet. = IOT
And you managed to show the world you have no sense of humor.
Darnit.. The link above was a mistake, mark me embarrassed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Anyhow, don't take me seriously, just kidding about it.
"The last serious ... objection was overcome"
It seems they forgot these objections were overcome in the 70s.
http://scienceblogs.com/gregla...
You make no sense. I presented a source that very clearly supported my point. If were not able to determine that from the source's summary, then it is your 'scientific literacy' that should be in question.
Well then, you didn't read my post. Try again. What does the line say just before the link?
Exactly. IAEA has proven to be the most accurate when it comes to these types of studies, and they understand the mechanisms better than any other organization. They are involved in a lot of world activities which involves the UN, politics, etc.
They promote safe, peaceful use of nuclear materials and technology. That is done by being accurate. The best promotion for nuclear is safety, the worst is non-safety. It would do more damage to project few health effects then realize many, than the opposite.
But, people will look hard and find reasons to dismiss it, no matter how well documented and fact based it is. Many of those people cling to anecdotal FUD with no supporting data presented. That is the world we live in.
I clearly said there are many studies that observed effects, you seem to have missed that. I don't deny they exist and just pointed to one of the few studies that looks at them summarily. If you want to post other studies that look at them summarily, please do, rather than just dismissing the one the one I used.
I like how you go out and find worst case numbers for nuke, best case numbers for solar and wind, and then compare them. I used one credible source, with same case numbers for all.
Waste and decommissioning costs are most certainly included in the levelized per MWH costs I presented.
Please, in the future, be consistent with your inputs and how you use them.
They are the foremost experts on promoting nuclear energy. It's part of their charter for goodness sake.
Yes, it is, and they are good at it.
Concerning Chernobyl, you state initial estimates, but observed instances of negative health effects have been much less, which backs my points. There are studies that indicate some increase in childhood thyroid cancer instances, but if you read the details it is often within margin of error, and there are significant uncertainties with conclusions because the historical data for the locations is not good. There have been efforts to sort through the results of various thyroid studies (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22048494).
Since thyroid cancers from childhood exposure are by for the most probable, it is a good base for a health impact assessment. Thyroid screening techniques that have been adopted since Chernobyl are much more sensitive at detecting precancerous and early cancerous cells, so everywhere these techniques are used more cases are found that would have under traditional screening if indeed there even was testing prior to the event. That further complicates the assessment of results. I certainly won't say there has been no increase.
All we really know is that the real world observed increase in cases are less that estimated by the IAEA originally for Chernobyl. So they are certain conservative in their approach.
They are the foremost experts on this type of analysis, and they are not a nuclear power associated body but rather work to ensure global nuclear safety for all radio logical venues, including medical, weaponry, power, industrial, etc. You can find your personal excuse to dismiss these well documented reports, and instead believe whatever you decide, but you'll have a hard time finding the data, basis, and proven methodology presented in these reports. Do you dismiss IPCC reports on global warming as well?
Let me help you get past your misconceptions and introduce some hard reality regarding subsidies;
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
2013 Subsidies per MWh
Nuclear: $2.10 per Mwh
Solar: $580.64 per Mwh
Wind: $35.37 per Mwh
And on top of that, Nuclear is returning more back via taxes than it is taking in.
Have you ever tried calculating on a per MWH basis. You will be surprised. No energy source has ever seen subsidies like solar and wind are getting on that basis.
Also, as for as taxpayer funded, nuclear returns and has returned more tax revenue per subsidy dollar. From local property taxes, to wages, to procurement sales taxes, more money comes back to the US taxpayer than is spent. For solar, a large chuck goes straight to Asia to pay for the panels. Wind isn't as bad in that regard, but is still tax negative and doesn't approach the returns nuclear has provided.
By repeated layers of watering down, the story has changed from what the research (even their own sources) says - that yes, the accident will be causing many cases of fatal cancers, but we can't prove which ones are due to radiation - into a general sense of "nobody's going to get sick from this accident" in the article.
I think you're interpenetration is a bit off. The story has not changed, and the IAEA report is very good at showing us all of the important considerations and explaining how they apply in the case of Fukushima. It is a matter of taking generic statistical modeling and taking real world factors into account, not a matter of watering things down. The risks from exposures received are extremely small, the at risk population is small, the real world sampling confirms assumptions are conservative, and therefore there is going to be no observable increase statistically.
The report absolutely does not say "nobody's going to get sick from this accident", as you imply. It is worded quite appropriately and clearly that observable statistical impacts are not likely to be found.
The IAEA report on Fukushima is quite clear that no statistical increase in deaths is likely to be observed. Not for adults, children, or offspring. Even for workers at the site with the highest exposures, there will likely be no observable effects. As you say, with the workers the sample size is small to start with, so that becomes factor
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/P...
Based on our experience with other exposure cases, the estimates of negative radio logical health impacts are always much higher than what we observe in reality. There are two reasons. One is that the models for estimating health effects are conservative, and two is because the estimated exposures are conservative (they assume higher doses to account for uncertainty.). I have no problem with conservative estimation, just as long as they are used correctly. So, yes, statistical deaths are real deaths, statistical illnesses are real illnesses, and thankfully we'll not likely see any from the radio logical effects of Fukushima.
Interestingly, a tidbit is that the children thyroid exposure at Chernobyl was 1000 times that of a child in the Fukushima district. From what I can find, there is still no observed statistical increase in negative health effects associated with those exposures at Chernobyl. But I want to be clear I have not researched that thoroughly.
I've read those articles about the beneficial effects of low exposures, it is interesting stuff. There seems to be some evidence, but just as in the attempts to show negative effects of exposures, there is not enough statistical evidence to have any certainty. The one thing that we can conclude is that in either case the effects are so small it is very hard to statistically observe them.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/ne...
Around 90 percent of those who died of indirect causes were aged 66 or older, according to Reconstruction Agency statistics published in September.
Unlike those caused by collapsed buildings or tsunami, indirect deaths are determined by municipal panels by examining links between the disaster and the cause of death. This occurs when a relative of a deceased files a request.
Causes of indirect deaths include physical and mental stress stemming from long stays at shelters, a lack of initial care as a result of hospitals being disabled by the disaster, and suicides.
Many of these deaths happened well after the evacuation. So effectively all deaths of the elderly displaced are blamed on Fukushima. It appears there is extra compensation if you can attribute a death to Fukushima.
So, if you use that in the future, please be sure to clarify that they were indirect effects of the evacuation, and not from radio logical health effects. I imagine you'll conveniently leave out those details. We'll see.
You'll find that the after-effects of the bombs in Japan were quite limited. Even with dispersal of radioactive material, we find that Japan consistently has lower cancer rates than the rest of the world. So, all this FUD about multi-generational effects has proven to be just that.
You'll find that there were many deaths also associated with the indirect effect of the tsunami and earthquake across Japan. A high number of suicides,stress on the elderly were part of it. And the depression of many who lost loved ones or lost their homes and all their belongings.
The devastation from the earthquake and tsunami was massive, but all those victims get ignored because of the focus on Fukushima. 60 minutes did a Fukushima documentary, and didn't even find 30 seconds to acknowledged those countless tragedies.
No, I did not point out nuclear is only cheap because of subsidy. In fact, I point out that on a per MWH basis, solar and wind get much greater subsidies than nuclear ever has or will get. But if you look at the IEA levelized cost projections report issued in 2015, which do not include subsidies and therefore are good numbers, you'll see nuclear fares quite well even for new designs.
You can make your rhetorical claims, but the fact that nuclear has given the US its greatest source of carbon free generation by far is indisputable.
Coal and nuclear have generated much more power as well. Like I said, calculate on a per MWH basis and it is not even close. Solar and Wind get much more.
You don't understand the 'discount'. It is just a case based on capital cost.
And the IEA is a good objective source as they have to answer to all.
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/np...
IEA REPORT – 2015 - Projected Costs of New Generation Sources:
(USING 10% Discount rate for all sources); NUCLEAR AVG $110/MWH
ONSHORE WIND $100/MWH
OFFSHORE WIND $200
Transmission infrastructure or storage costs for renewables are not considered, however local grid connections and lines are. Nuclear waste decommissioning costs are considered.