It was you who moved the goalposts. You said "What Fukushima showed is that the current nuclear safety model is fundamentally unsafe." Then after I corrected you, you changed it to causing 'damage', the you added 'billions' as a cost reference. Now you are back to safety but just safety excluding health risks.
I did address safety. I am talking about human health and safety, that is all I have talked about, and I have not moved from that at all, just read my posts. Fukushima, which is basically a worst case scenario, will not harm anyone radiologically. This even though the plant was taken way beyond its design basis by the tsunami. And, by offsetting huge amounts of emission, nuclear energy has done more to improve the general health of societies that use it.
It is a shame that people believe all the hyperbolic journalistic crap written about the event. Its also nice to see there are at least a reasonable number of people that can spot that type of reporting.
There are thousand of Japanese that, to this day, can not return to their homes which were damaged from the tsunami, and are well away for Fukushima. They simply can't just rebuild villages in a potential tsunami zone. Nobody cares about the real disaster. And yet a lot of people seem to believe all Japan's troubles lie in the Fukushima precinct. The greatest problem is ignorance and fear. Reporters think a radiological event is like what we see in the movies, and Joe public just eats that stuff up.
I never said no rods were damaged. But none were damaged due to leakage or overheating, and the only leakages were some drain pipes adn feed pipes that were small and easily managed and at worst could only drain the pools partially. There was some fuel damage from the hydrogen explosion debris falling into the pool. But at no time was there melting of the fuel.
It was not unsafe from a human health standpoint. If you consider those billions to be the added cost of producing huge amounts of carbon free, particulate free power over decades, then it is well spent from a health perspective. The lives saved already by using nuclear vs. coal is tremendous, and the added benefits of improving our position in the fight against AGW are worth many times this cost.
Zero deaths, projected zero health impacts due to exposure. That even with placing a plant not designed to be underwater being smashed by a huge tsunami. How is that fundamentally unsafe? This was a worst case scenario, yet no radiological health impacts will be seen.
^and even with all that damage, the fuel was later safely removed from the pool. Its not like there are no options to handle the fuel even if the pools do start to lose water.
But you still need spent fuel pools. You can't just dump fresh waste into a mountain.
The fuel pools throughout Japan all withstood a major earthquake much larger than they were designed for with essentially no damage. IN addition to the huge earthquake, the pools at Fukushima also survived being hit by a tsunami, which they were not designed for, having all their safety systems disabled and severe hydrogen explosions in the building, yet still remained intact and kept the fuel safe.
Yet some want to make these out to be some disaster just waiting to happen. Its very hard to even get one of these pools to leak significantly, much less lose all their water suddenly. They are extremely tough structures. The writers of the article are not privy to the security analysis and measures in place.
Just to be clear, this study was done by reporters. "The Center for Public Integrity" is a news organization in Washington, D.C
In no way are they qualified to do this type of study. They basically are just interviewing people and cherry picking the stuff they think will scare you.
Seriously? Did you need to have fukushima to be aware that pumps shouldn't fail?
Existing plants are designed to be able to handle multiple pump failures with no problems whatsoever. They are not designed to handle them after being deluged by a tsunami which rendered too many safety devices inoperable. Which is why we should not place a plant where it can be hit by a tsunami, or suddenly deluged in a similar manner.
This is what happens when you don't build the Yucca Mountain (or equivalent) long-term waste-storage facility. The waste just sits somewhere else, even more vulnerable and more at risk of damaging the environment in both the short and long term.
This is also what happens when people do studies with an outcome in mind, and don't understand the risks to begin with. They claim the NRC failed to include security risks in their recent rulings, but they failed to mention that the NRC has fully considered those risks elsewhere, so they didn't need to be included. That one oversight is a demonstration of incompetence in understanding the regulatory structure. They also completely fail to state a credible path for such a terror attack to be successful.
They claim that a fuel pool accident will cause widespread evacuations. In fact, even in a major fuel pool accident that should be unnecessary. The wording in the report says 'might', because they don't have enough of a case to say 'will' or even 'is likely to'. They fail to recognize that most of the older fuel rods are not a threat, and the more recent rods are the concern, and those are manageable with simple measures. They don't even state the post accident measures that are available, nor even acknowledge they exist.
And as usual, the underlying basis is a completely skewed misperception of radiation risk. They are doing more damage creating fear than fixing an imagined disaster. Every one of them should spend a little time learning what we know now. Here is a great start;
So.... Chromebooks are selling like gangbusters to a demographic that is very likely to smash their devices, and it's easier to replace a $200 computer than a $2000 one? Holy crap, stop the presses!
Is it really so hard for Verge to maintain readership, that they need to do ridiculous name drops just to get attention?
Want to know what I *really* want to see? School boards finally realizing that blindly throwing technology at a problem isn't going to result in better outcomes. First iPads, now Chromebooks. They continue to increase the burden of already razor thin IT staff, and I have yet to see one single study indicating that education quality and grades have improved.
The criteria for selection isn't just cheap and replaceable. The basic required functionality needs to be there, and the cost and ease of implementation of the system needs to be considered as well. I-Pads were a ridiculous choice from the start, but populism took hold in some places before reason did.
My kids use Chromebooks at school. They don't enhance the basic educational foundation, but they are useful tools to help implement it. They use them for research, making presentations, turning in some homework, etc. Its been great, they are used when useful, but not all the time. As kids move into the workforce, they'll be using these tools, so its great they find out how to use them productively rather than just playing games on the home computer or tablet.
This has nothing to do with net neutrality. The ISP is not favoring any type of content,>
Its all in the eyes of the beholder, but in a world where tv content can be delivered via cable broadcast or IPTV, it certainly becomes a content centric difference. If I want my TV delivered via internet from SlingTV, I have to pay more for my internet than if I want it delivered by the cable company via STB. It is not restricting bandwidth, but it is favoring one content delivery provider over another by charging more for the same service.
Don't worry, you can just go to one of the other cablecos in your area for a better deal.
Competition FTW!;-)
Exactly. I'd have no problem with bundle pricing if there were competition for each bundle element, but when there is a monopoly on one or more elements, then there can be abuse. In this case, cable co's can create a big disadvantage for IPTV competitors like SLING by making it cost a lot more for you to use your internet for IPTV alone.
I have less of a problem in general with those who use more data paying more, but don't tie that to cable content where there is a monopoly on internet access.
If the net neutrality regulations missed this loophole, then they really screwed up. There is a clear tie between service limitations and preferred content.
Business doesn't work that way. You don't justify the cost with just the increase amount. You justify the cost based on the total savings for replacing an employee. If that employee's costs are higher, the payback time is shortened. There is some point, and each business or business owner can decide based on their business needs, that it makes sense. If that point is at, say, $13/hr, where the payback time is short enough, then min wage increase could push them over that.
Yea, but blood alcohol limits had a LOT of science behind them before they became law.
And also a bunch of dead and severely injured people and drunk drivers in accidents serving as evidence. even with that, alcohol limits changed over the years. It makes it tougher for defining pot limits because there are a lot less of those incidents.
Were politics, incentives and subsidies left out, natural gas would be easily dominating new energy expansion. Of course renewables are the fastest growing, as they are getting funded by governments at historically high rates per MWh, many times that of any other source.
Exactly, There is still nothing reliable and proven. That's what it takes for me to conclude they've arrived, not some pilot that works under ideal conditions.
Slashdot Mirror
It was you who moved the goalposts. You said "What Fukushima showed is that the current nuclear safety model is fundamentally unsafe." Then after I corrected you, you changed it to causing 'damage', the you added 'billions' as a cost reference. Now you are back to safety but just safety excluding health risks.
I did address safety. I am talking about human health and safety, that is all I have talked about, and I have not moved from that at all, just read my posts. Fukushima, which is basically a worst case scenario, will not harm anyone radiologically. This even though the plant was taken way beyond its design basis by the tsunami. And, by offsetting huge amounts of emission, nuclear energy has done more to improve the general health of societies that use it.
Who cares even if they did. It would be an insignificant amount and pose no risk to anyone. Just more FUD mongering.
It is a shame that people believe all the hyperbolic journalistic crap written about the event. Its also nice to see there are at least a reasonable number of people that can spot that type of reporting.
There are thousand of Japanese that, to this day, can not return to their homes which were damaged from the tsunami, and are well away for Fukushima. They simply can't just rebuild villages in a potential tsunami zone. Nobody cares about the real disaster. And yet a lot of people seem to believe all Japan's troubles lie in the Fukushima precinct. The greatest problem is ignorance and fear. Reporters think a radiological event is like what we see in the movies, and Joe public just eats that stuff up.
I never said no rods were damaged. But none were damaged due to leakage or overheating, and the only leakages were some drain pipes adn feed pipes that were small and easily managed and at worst could only drain the pools partially. There was some fuel damage from the hydrogen explosion debris falling into the pool. But at no time was there melting of the fuel.
How would somebody possibly get killed? The fact that you think its plausible tells me you don't understand the risks.
It was not unsafe from a human health standpoint. If you consider those billions to be the added cost of producing huge amounts of carbon free, particulate free power over decades, then it is well spent from a health perspective. The lives saved already by using nuclear vs. coal is tremendous, and the added benefits of improving our position in the fight against AGW are worth many times this cost.
Expensive to clean up, yes, but not unsafe.
Zero deaths, projected zero health impacts due to exposure. That even with placing a plant not designed to be underwater being smashed by a huge tsunami. How is that fundamentally unsafe? This was a worst case scenario, yet no radiological health impacts will be seen.
^and even with all that damage, the fuel was later safely removed from the pool. Its not like there are no options to handle the fuel even if the pools do start to lose water.
The leakage at Fukushima is primarily from the reactors, not the fuel pools.
But you still need spent fuel pools. You can't just dump fresh waste into a mountain.
The fuel pools throughout Japan all withstood a major earthquake much larger than they were designed for with essentially no damage. IN addition to the huge earthquake, the pools at Fukushima also survived being hit by a tsunami, which they were not designed for, having all their safety systems disabled and severe hydrogen explosions in the building, yet still remained intact and kept the fuel safe.
Yet some want to make these out to be some disaster just waiting to happen. Its very hard to even get one of these pools to leak significantly, much less lose all their water suddenly. They are extremely tough structures. The writers of the article are not privy to the security analysis and measures in place.
Just to be clear, this study was done by reporters. "The Center for Public Integrity" is a news organization in Washington, D.C
In no way are they qualified to do this type of study. They basically are just interviewing people and cherry picking the stuff they think will scare you.
Seriously? Did you need to have fukushima to be aware that pumps shouldn't fail?
Existing plants are designed to be able to handle multiple pump failures with no problems whatsoever. They are not designed to handle them after being deluged by a tsunami which rendered too many safety devices inoperable. Which is why we should not place a plant where it can be hit by a tsunami, or suddenly deluged in a similar manner.
This is what happens when you don't build the Yucca Mountain (or equivalent) long-term waste-storage facility. The waste just sits somewhere else, even more vulnerable and more at risk of damaging the environment in both the short and long term.
This is also what happens when people do studies with an outcome in mind, and don't understand the risks to begin with. They claim the NRC failed to include security risks in their recent rulings, but they failed to mention that the NRC has fully considered those risks elsewhere, so they didn't need to be included. That one oversight is a demonstration of incompetence in understanding the regulatory structure. They also completely fail to state a credible path for such a terror attack to be successful.
They claim that a fuel pool accident will cause widespread evacuations. In fact, even in a major fuel pool accident that should be unnecessary. The wording in the report says 'might', because they don't have enough of a case to say 'will' or even 'is likely to'. They fail to recognize that most of the older fuel rods are not a threat, and the more recent rods are the concern, and those are manageable with simple measures. They don't even state the post accident measures that are available, nor even acknowledge they exist.
And as usual, the underlying basis is a completely skewed misperception of radiation risk. They are doing more damage creating fear than fixing an imagined disaster. Every one of them should spend a little time learning what we know now. Here is a great start;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
So.... Chromebooks are selling like gangbusters to a demographic that is very likely to smash their devices, and it's easier to replace a $200 computer than a $2000 one? Holy crap, stop the presses!
Is it really so hard for Verge to maintain readership, that they need to do ridiculous name drops just to get attention?
Want to know what I *really* want to see? School boards finally realizing that blindly throwing technology at a problem isn't going to result in better outcomes. First iPads, now Chromebooks. They continue to increase the burden of already razor thin IT staff, and I have yet to see one single study indicating that education quality and grades have improved.
The criteria for selection isn't just cheap and replaceable. The basic required functionality needs to be there, and the cost and ease of implementation of the system needs to be considered as well. I-Pads were a ridiculous choice from the start, but populism took hold in some places before reason did.
My kids use Chromebooks at school. They don't enhance the basic educational foundation, but they are useful tools to help implement it. They use them for research, making presentations, turning in some homework, etc. Its been great, they are used when useful, but not all the time. As kids move into the workforce, they'll be using these tools, so its great they find out how to use them productively rather than just playing games on the home computer or tablet.
STEM = Sales Terminology for Electronics Marketers.
None of those are Brazilian.
This has nothing to do with net neutrality. The ISP is not favoring any type of content,>
Its all in the eyes of the beholder, but in a world where tv content can be delivered via cable broadcast or IPTV, it certainly becomes a content centric difference. If I want my TV delivered via internet from SlingTV, I have to pay more for my internet than if I want it delivered by the cable company via STB. It is not restricting bandwidth, but it is favoring one content delivery provider over another by charging more for the same service.
Don't worry, you can just go to one of the other cablecos in your area for a better deal.
Competition FTW! ;-)
Exactly. I'd have no problem with bundle pricing if there were competition for each bundle element, but when there is a monopoly on one or more elements, then there can be abuse. In this case, cable co's can create a big disadvantage for IPTV competitors like SLING by making it cost a lot more for you to use your internet for IPTV alone.
I have less of a problem in general with those who use more data paying more, but don't tie that to cable content where there is a monopoly on internet access.
If the net neutrality regulations missed this loophole, then they really screwed up. There is a clear tie between service limitations and preferred content.
Business doesn't work that way. You don't justify the cost with just the increase amount. You justify the cost based on the total savings for replacing an employee. If that employee's costs are higher, the payback time is shortened. There is some point, and each business or business owner can decide based on their business needs, that it makes sense. If that point is at, say, $13/hr, where the payback time is short enough, then min wage increase could push them over that.
Yea, but blood alcohol limits had a LOT of science behind them before they became law.
And also a bunch of dead and severely injured people and drunk drivers in accidents serving as evidence. even with that, alcohol limits changed over the years. It makes it tougher for defining pot limits because there are a lot less of those incidents.
Were politics, incentives and subsidies left out, natural gas would be easily dominating new energy expansion. Of course renewables are the fastest growing, as they are getting funded by governments at historically high rates per MWh, many times that of any other source.
Look on the bright side. At least this time something was actually built with the money.
Exactly, There is still nothing reliable and proven. That's what it takes for me to conclude they've arrived, not some pilot that works under ideal conditions.