I didn't say anything about wave energy. And I see you don't dispute any of my points, what you do is respond to facts you evidently don't like by calling me names.
Six people have been arrested in connection with the theft this week of a truck carrying highly radioactive waste in an episode that caused an international scare and raised concerns about the transporting of nuclear material.
The group was arrested Thursday night and taken to a hospital in Pachuca, 60 miles north of here and not far from the small town where the truck and the material, cobalt 60, were found Wednesday after armed robbers stole them Monday.
One of the people, a 16-year-old boy, was vomiting and had signs of possible radiation sickness, while the others were taken to the hospital as a precaution before all were cleared and released in the late afternoon and turned over to the federal police.
There is nothing wrong with selling poisoned candy to the weird neighbor the night before Halloween either.
Unless you know what your weird neighbor is going to do with the candy you sold (e.g. gives it to kids in the neighborhood), then it is the opposite...
He told me he was going to see if he could figure out a way to tell the poison candy from regular, then he kind of gave me a weird laugh.
Not being able to move back because there is rubble that needs to be hauled away is very different from not being able to move back because the ground is radioactive........... But they seem almost the same, and radiation is invisible, so it must be safe, right?
The impacts are the same in terms of human ability to live there. Radiation is different in that there is an irrational fear due to years of FUD. People aren't so scared of getting a sunburn for some crazy reason. People displaced by hydro power water reserves will never be able to return, and all the natural life in that land area was also displaced or killed. But there's that scary radiation.
I find your 'radiation is invisible, so it must be safe" quip quite ironic, as the fact that people can't see radiation is one of the primary characteristics that allow for the FUD to take hold. But we very easily can detect and know the presence of radiation with very simple devices. You cannot see many of the other toxins you encounter on a daily basis, and there are not such easy means to detect those. But because there is not a constant stream of FUD being spread about those toxins, we generally don't worry about them.
Even with a coal or natural gas plant, it is still more efficient to use EVs. With one large plant and may EVs, the creators of the plant can get a relatively high efficiency, such as 45%. Gasoline engines are closer to 20% efficient, and it is easier to scrub pollutants from one large exhaust than a million small exhausts.
There is a fault in this logic. Efficiency does not necessarily equate to pollution if you are comparing different sources. So one needs to be careful. For example (these are just numbers to make a point, not real numbers) If 1MWH of coal productions produces 10 times the pollution that 1MWH of gas being does, then EVs being overall 40% more efficient doesn't result in less pollution. Less energy, yes, but less pollution? I don't know the real numbers so I'm not saying EVs pollute more, I am simply pointing our the flaw in the logic presented. We need more information, and if we have more cleaner electrical generation then it doesn't matter.
This is no single answer. Not EVs, Not solar and wind, not nuclear, no single answer. They can all help tremendously if approached properly. When one considers socioeconomic challenges, we need a lot more answers than we currently have in our toolbox, and we can't afford to eliminate any of the ones we have.
Can you go to Bhopal today and live there? Can you do the same at Chernobyl and Fukushima?
Actually, the large majority of the Chernobyl evacuation zone is now very safe to live in. Almost all of Fukushima is safe, if you look at risk terms. Is your contention that it is OK to kill thousands of people as long as you can live there shortly after?
Many of the people displaced by the Japan tsunami have not yet been able to return to their destroyed villages.
Actually, it will. They are talking 1 milirem, which as high-energy Alpha, directly on vulnerable lung tissue is quite a lot. The number is only that low because Alpha has basically no reach. That does not protect the cells in reach at all though. Misdirection of this type is quite common in the utterly criminal nuclear industry.
No, it most likely won't. The fact that you speak in absolute terms tells me you are ignorant to the associated risk. There is an increase in risk, but that does not make it probable. Stating untruths based on your ignorant assumptions helps no one.
Thieves Who Stole Cobalt-60 in Mexico Are Likely Dead Or Dying
Mexican Cobalt-60 robbers are DEAD MEN, say authorities
Mexican cobalt-60 thieves will soon die of radiation exposure
Stolen cobalt-60 found in Mexico; thieves may be doomed
The Reality; All were released from the hospital, with only one showing some exposure effects. None is likely to have any long term health issues.
Of course when I argued at the time that the fears were overblown right here on/., the same old fear mongers simply ignored and posted their same old FUD.
15,000 killed in one day by wave when the Fukushima plant failed. Zero by radiation.
Funny how some people forget that perspective.
Nobody cares about those 15,000 deaths because they don't serve an agenda. Many more lost their homes and neighborhoods to the tsunami and quake, but we don't see the stories about those displaced people, only the relatively few that were displaced by Fukushima. No sad documentaries about the aftermath up and down the coast. No questions as to why they sited villages in a tsunami exposed zone which, decisions which actually killed many people, but many questions why they put a nuclear plant in one, a decision that essentially harmed zero people from radiation.
And few can tell you about Bhopal, yet they talk about Chernobyl at the drop of a hat...of course we know which one killed more people, in a much more horrible fashion.
If there is radiation involved, it gets special treatment because the average person is ignorant to relative risk and has bought into the FUD. Even otherwise smart, insightful people post the most uniformed stuff right here on/. Its amazing what many years of campaigning can do.
Lots of things can 'do a number' if you ingest them, and you ingest a lot of those things every single day. Its all about concentration, and for some reason people always assume radioactive contamination are orders of magnitude greater than they really are, and greatly overestimate the risks they actually present. And then you get the FUD about how ingesting even the smallest amount is some kind of lingering cancer just waiting to happen. Then you get the 'attaches to the bone' FUD which NEVER discusses actual risk from the actual amounts of exposure. In reality, for most substances, very little stays in the body to begin with, and the small amounts that we typically see pose almost zero health risk. Most people would be surprised how much it takes to statistically impact risk, and how little these exposures are in comparison, including ingestion events.
I just sit back and see those that don't have the slightest clue post their cut and paste FUD. You had better not let sunlight hit you today, or you stand the risk of dying a horrible slow death from skin cancer. Did you breath in a smoke particle? It just takes one to cause lung cancer! Did you touch a rain gutter? You could contract a deadly infection!
One answer could be a genetically modified plant or animal based food that reduces the carbon output of the food cycle, but any company that dared to produce such a solution would be considered evil from the start, and any product they produced would cause hysteria from a massively uniformed FUD campaign and witless followers.
Plenty of businesses operate in the red for years starting at inception, and then get into the black. Tesla is doing literally no differently than most other successful companies.
But MOST businesses that operate in the red for years starting at inception never succeed.
The article really isn't telling us much. Of course private investors place a high valuation on their company prior to IPO. The IPO market typically doesn't pay much attentin to that number anyhow. And of course some companies IPO at a valuation lower than what VCs payed, its part of the gamble and in some cases an IPO is a way to limit their losses.
Nuclear meltdowns remove all life from an area and poisons it for many years..
This demonstrated utter ignorance. Even at Chernobyl, 'all life' was not removed even from the immediate site perimeter. Congratulations, you have absorbed the FUD to the extent where you can't hold any more and must release some.
Lets talk about modern reactors with containments, of which Fukushima is included. There has been no cases of death or even cancer due to radiation exposure from modern plants with containments. Even Fukushima there are zero expected increase in cases of cancer or other health effects, and certainly zero deaths. So if you define safety in terms of statistical harm to humans, radiation from modern nuclear power plants is probably one of the safest things we can talk about. What is many many times more dangerous, so much its not even close, is driving a Tesla.
I'd choose to live next to an operating nuclear plant over a car or battery or solar factory any day of the week.
Well, when an aircraft crashed, you never had to evacuate and cordon off 2,000 square miles around the crash site for the next 50 years.
And we don't need to cordon off nearly that much land for nearly that long for a nuclear event for modern plants with containment. There is one energy technology that has rendered huge swaths of land unihabitable , displaced many thousands of people, and killed all native life that remained. That would be hydro of course. Many times more land taken than all nuclear events combined.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like people are already coming with excuses for failure, just in case. We wouldn't want Elon himself bearing any responsibility.
So there was a lot of fake news coming out, and some was from Russia. Thanks for this information, I would never have guessed.
I didn't say anything about wave energy. And I see you don't dispute any of my points, what you do is respond to facts you evidently don't like by calling me names.
Six people have been arrested in connection with the theft this week of a truck carrying highly radioactive waste in an episode that caused an international scare and raised concerns about the transporting of nuclear material. The group was arrested Thursday night and taken to a hospital in Pachuca, 60 miles north of here and not far from the small town where the truck and the material, cobalt 60, were found Wednesday after armed robbers stole them Monday. One of the people, a 16-year-old boy, was vomiting and had signs of possible radiation sickness, while the others were taken to the hospital as a precaution before all were cleared and released in the late afternoon and turned over to the federal police.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12...
They were the only suspects, they simply didn't have evidence to charge them.
There is nothing wrong with selling poisoned candy to the weird neighbor the night before Halloween either.
Unless you know what your weird neighbor is going to do with the candy you sold (e.g. gives it to kids in the neighborhood), then it is the opposite...
He told me he was going to see if he could figure out a way to tell the poison candy from regular, then he kind of gave me a weird laugh.
Are you really trying to tell me that Fukushima is not currently leaking radioactive material into the ocean.
No, I never said that. How did you read that into anything I said?
Or is it that you say that is safe?
I didn't say that either, but yes, the levels released into the ocean are so low they are perfectly safe.
There is nothing wrong with selling poisoned candy to the weird neighbor the night before Halloween either.
Not being able to move back because there is rubble that needs to be hauled away is very different from not being able to move back because the ground is radioactive........... But they seem almost the same, and radiation is invisible, so it must be safe, right?
The impacts are the same in terms of human ability to live there. Radiation is different in that there is an irrational fear due to years of FUD. People aren't so scared of getting a sunburn for some crazy reason. People displaced by hydro power water reserves will never be able to return, and all the natural life in that land area was also displaced or killed. But there's that scary radiation.
I find your 'radiation is invisible, so it must be safe" quip quite ironic, as the fact that people can't see radiation is one of the primary characteristics that allow for the FUD to take hold. But we very easily can detect and know the presence of radiation with very simple devices. You cannot see many of the other toxins you encounter on a daily basis, and there are not such easy means to detect those. But because there is not a constant stream of FUD being spread about those toxins, we generally don't worry about them.
Even with a coal or natural gas plant, it is still more efficient to use EVs. With one large plant and may EVs, the creators of the plant can get a relatively high efficiency, such as 45%. Gasoline engines are closer to 20% efficient, and it is easier to scrub pollutants from one large exhaust than a million small exhausts.
There is a fault in this logic. Efficiency does not necessarily equate to pollution if you are comparing different sources. So one needs to be careful. For example (these are just numbers to make a point, not real numbers) If 1MWH of coal productions produces 10 times the pollution that 1MWH of gas being does, then EVs being overall 40% more efficient doesn't result in less pollution. Less energy, yes, but less pollution? I don't know the real numbers so I'm not saying EVs pollute more, I am simply pointing our the flaw in the logic presented. We need more information, and if we have more cleaner electrical generation then it doesn't matter.
This is no single answer. Not EVs, Not solar and wind, not nuclear, no single answer. They can all help tremendously if approached properly. When one considers socioeconomic challenges, we need a lot more answers than we currently have in our toolbox, and we can't afford to eliminate any of the ones we have.
Can you go to Bhopal today and live there? Can you do the same at Chernobyl and Fukushima?
Actually, the large majority of the Chernobyl evacuation zone is now very safe to live in. Almost all of Fukushima is safe, if you look at risk terms. Is your contention that it is OK to kill thousands of people as long as you can live there shortly after?
Many of the people displaced by the Japan tsunami have not yet been able to return to their destroyed villages.
No, those are actual headines. I did not change any words.
Actually, it will. They are talking 1 milirem, which as high-energy Alpha, directly on vulnerable lung tissue is quite a lot. The number is only that low because Alpha has basically no reach. That does not protect the cells in reach at all though. Misdirection of this type is quite common in the utterly criminal nuclear industry.
No, it most likely won't. The fact that you speak in absolute terms tells me you are ignorant to the associated risk. There is an increase in risk, but that does not make it probable. Stating untruths based on your ignorant assumptions helps no one.
The Headlines;
/., the same old fear mongers simply ignored and posted their same old FUD.
Thieves Who Stole Cobalt-60 in Mexico Are Likely Dead Or Dying
Mexican Cobalt-60 robbers are DEAD MEN, say authorities
Mexican cobalt-60 thieves will soon die of radiation exposure
Stolen cobalt-60 found in Mexico; thieves may be doomed
The Reality; All were released from the hospital, with only one showing some exposure effects. None is likely to have any long term health issues.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/06/...
Of course when I argued at the time that the fears were overblown right here on
15,000 killed in one day by wave when the Fukushima plant failed. Zero by radiation. Funny how some people forget that perspective.
Nobody cares about those 15,000 deaths because they don't serve an agenda. Many more lost their homes and neighborhoods to the tsunami and quake, but we don't see the stories about those displaced people, only the relatively few that were displaced by Fukushima. No sad documentaries about the aftermath up and down the coast. No questions as to why they sited villages in a tsunami exposed zone which, decisions which actually killed many people, but many questions why they put a nuclear plant in one, a decision that essentially harmed zero people from radiation.
/. Its amazing what many years of campaigning can do.
And few can tell you about Bhopal, yet they talk about Chernobyl at the drop of a hat...of course we know which one killed more people, in a much more horrible fashion.
If there is radiation involved, it gets special treatment because the average person is ignorant to relative risk and has bought into the FUD. Even otherwise smart, insightful people post the most uniformed stuff right here on
Pu is not toxic in these doses. It will pretty reliably cause lung-cancer from the radioactivity though.
No, it almost certainly will not cause lung cancer in these amounts.
Lots of things can 'do a number' if you ingest them, and you ingest a lot of those things every single day. Its all about concentration, and for some reason people always assume radioactive contamination are orders of magnitude greater than they really are, and greatly overestimate the risks they actually present. And then you get the FUD about how ingesting even the smallest amount is some kind of lingering cancer just waiting to happen. Then you get the 'attaches to the bone' FUD which NEVER discusses actual risk from the actual amounts of exposure. In reality, for most substances, very little stays in the body to begin with, and the small amounts that we typically see pose almost zero health risk. Most people would be surprised how much it takes to statistically impact risk, and how little these exposures are in comparison, including ingestion events.
I just sit back and see those that don't have the slightest clue post their cut and paste FUD. You had better not let sunlight hit you today, or you stand the risk of dying a horrible slow death from skin cancer. Did you breath in a smoke particle? It just takes one to cause lung cancer! Did you touch a rain gutter? You could contract a deadly infection!
One answer could be a genetically modified plant or animal based food that reduces the carbon output of the food cycle, but any company that dared to produce such a solution would be considered evil from the start, and any product they produced would cause hysteria from a massively uniformed FUD campaign and witless followers.
Its those dang music videos!
Plenty of businesses operate in the red for years starting at inception, and then get into the black. Tesla is doing literally no differently than most other successful companies.
But MOST businesses that operate in the red for years starting at inception never succeed.
The article really isn't telling us much. Of course private investors place a high valuation on their company prior to IPO. The IPO market typically doesn't pay much attentin to that number anyhow. And of course some companies IPO at a valuation lower than what VCs payed, its part of the gamble and in some cases an IPO is a way to limit their losses.
Nuclear meltdowns remove all life from an area and poisons it for many years..
This demonstrated utter ignorance. Even at Chernobyl, 'all life' was not removed even from the immediate site perimeter. Congratulations, you have absorbed the FUD to the extent where you can't hold any more and must release some.
Lets talk about modern reactors with containments, of which Fukushima is included. There has been no cases of death or even cancer due to radiation exposure from modern plants with containments. Even Fukushima there are zero expected increase in cases of cancer or other health effects, and certainly zero deaths. So if you define safety in terms of statistical harm to humans, radiation from modern nuclear power plants is probably one of the safest things we can talk about. What is many many times more dangerous, so much its not even close, is driving a Tesla.
I'd choose to live next to an operating nuclear plant over a car or battery or solar factory any day of the week.
. A lot of the crew were irradiated. Some have legal proceedings against TEPCO.
Just BS lawsuits. Exposure levels at the ship were extremely low. You are being "irradiated" right now.
Well, when an aircraft crashed, you never had to evacuate and cordon off 2,000 square miles around the crash site for the next 50 years.
And we don't need to cordon off nearly that much land for nearly that long for a nuclear event for modern plants with containment. There is one energy technology that has rendered huge swaths of land unihabitable , displaced many thousands of people, and killed all native life that remained. That would be hydro of course. Many times more land taken than all nuclear events combined.