The other deaths are simply irrelevant to this consideration.
No, they indicate that society accepts a certain level of harm from automobiles. The "minor cost savings" is capped from above before it is just not worth doing.
I've heard of two workers killed in industrial accidents on the Fukushima site after the accident started. But that does seem a rather smaller number than 1,000. Maybe this was a really big value of 2?
It is the common view of the scientific community that no amount of ionizing radiation is safe.
That is incorrect. It is one of several common views. Argument from consensus is not scientific, especially when the consensus doesn't actually exist.
This is a fallacy. The threshold should be set on the estimated benefits of a higher threshold vs the estimated harm from the additional radiation. The background radiation has nothing to with it.
I agree. But a high natural background radiation indicates that the estimated harm is likely very overstated.
Ah, yes. Your hypocritical ad hominems are quite pointless, you should know. And what "science and reality" went into you going off your rocker here?
It's so peculiar a failure mode that I have to quote the whole thing:
All this "NIMBY" greenpeace anti nuke fags really just don't know what they are taking about, anyone who knows about nuclear reactors will tell you that they are really great, super reliable and that the only reason that we have to pay for electricity is because it's waaay too cheap to meter it from a nuclear reactor and the utilities had to pay for meters.
I've often thought, "I would like some strontium 90 on my breakfast cereal" because it is tasty and good for you, plus you will win every fart contest. Recently it was conclusively *proven* that not only can you get a great suntan from the core of a reactor, but that radioisotopes have Vitamin C in it, so my advice to people would be if you are feeling a bit of a sniffle coming on, get yourself to a local nuclear reactor and ask to cuddle up to a couple of fuel rods and get toasty.
Chernobyl and Fukushima proved how safe Nuclear power is and we should all want one near us. Whilst evacuations of these areas have occurred Bruce Willis proved that you won't die at all from fallout from a nuclear reactor in "A good day to die hard". He lived and was stronger so we should move people back there so they grow up to be just like Bruce Willis.
Nuclear is perfectly safe and we can all have a nuclear future, in our back yards, today!
You really need to learn how to reason with someone who doesn't fully share your worldview. Free association babble just doesn't work.
You do realize that it would be fairly trivial for a business to of sufficient size to acquire some bit of the internet pipeline that all data goes through?
And it is of similar difficulty to lay more "internet pipeline". I don't see the point of arguing monopolies in a situation where barrier to entry is so low.
I live at Yellowstone National Park above 7,000 feet. That altitude plus enhanced radon exposure from the volcanism probably means I'm getting a bit more than 1 mS/year too.
Yep, I think we can all agree that it's worth a few punkin' headed babies and/or a couple of deaths so the rest of us can have brighter colors and whiter whites.
I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but yes, that is right. A small or even non-existent harm for vast benefit to many people justifies the harm. Given that we know there are far more serious problems, not just environmental, but of the human condition, this is a strong indication that we should be bothering with those big problems rather than obsessing over the small or non-existent ones.
I'm sick and tired of the notion that it's OK to pollute, as long as you don't pollute "too much."
It's pretty straightforward actually. We do valuable things and sometimes they cause pollution, sometimes minor sometimes massive. Instead of being "sick and tired" about the non problem of minute pollution (especially given that there is actual large scale, heavy, life-threatening pollution out there), do a cost/benefits analysis instead.
it is the common view of medical and general science during the century-odd that we have discovered and been able to document radiation and its effects... that no amount is "generally recognized as safe" and standards need to be tightened.
What makes your "common view" any more valid than any other "common view"? Especially given that "generally recognized as safe" is a completely non-scientific quantity. In the end, you need evidence to back up such assertions not alleged consensus of vague groups of people.
so a comprehensive review based on science would move the decimal point to the left, at least to.025 mS/year, and perhaps.0025 mS.
Background levels are around 1 mS/year. So why advocate thresholds more than two orders of magnitude lower than what people normally get in a year? I just don't think science has much to do with your choice of thresholds.
There's a lot more than three even in the US. And this has to do with the city of Chicago which is way outside the scope of the "branches of government" you refer to.
I see your supporting your adgenda as a Nuclear apologist again.
At least, I don't go bug-eyed and rant four times about the shills modding down a single post (and the modding in question is as flamebait and off-topic, looks like appropriate modding to me).
No, I don't see why I need to provide anything more than that. It was an obvious implication, especially given that the poster was speaking of oil subsidies at the time.
It's worth noting that the magnitude 9 earthquake didn't come close to threatening the stability of the cooling ponds. So you're looking for a much bigger earthquake in a region that already released most of its geologically built up energy in a magnitude 9 earthquake.
There is little doubt that if that happens at Fukushima the fallout would be carried by the jetstream over the US and, eventually the entire Northern hemisphere.
Because obviously, Japan will forgot how to pump water. A few diesel generators and some hose means that your scenario doesn't happen - even if you somehow came up with the huge earthquake and the structural failure.
SpaceX is not competing with NASA, because NASA doesn't make rockets.
The obvious counterexample here is that if NASA gets their Space Launch System (SLS) built and SpaceX does the same for its Falcon Heavy, then they will be competing with each other. It doesn't matter that NASA contracted all that work out. NASA's fortunes would be tied to the success of the SLS which would vary inversely with the success of SpaceX's rival platform. That's the nature of competition.
"Burn through of the sort that destroyed Challenger is detectable"
And yet it wasn't
Just because they didn't bother to look doesn't mean that they couldn't. But my point was not to second-guess NASA for this accident but to point out that the failures of the Challenger accident are not something that can't ever be avoided - particularly with today's technology.
The space shuttle had abort options.... including an emergency landing in Spain and Africa.
Those abort options didn't cover the entire launch trajectory. For example, there were no abort options after the Space Shuttle cleared the launch tower unless you were able to ditch the solid rocket boosters.
Man-rating by NASA requires abort options every step of the way from the ground all the way up to space.
It doesn't help to to have a LAS system when you have no way of knowing to use it before your spacecraft explodes.
Burn through of the sort that destroyed Challenger is detectable before everything goes boom. And liquid fueled means you don't have to go as far to survive the heating from the resulting fireball.
Slashdot Mirror
If the cost of the improved ignition key is too high, then it is not worth doing simply because society has already accepted that level of risk.
The other deaths are simply irrelevant to this consideration.
No, they indicate that society accepts a certain level of harm from automobiles. The "minor cost savings" is capped from above before it is just not worth doing.
I've heard of two workers killed in industrial accidents on the Fukushima site after the accident started. But that does seem a rather smaller number than 1,000. Maybe this was a really big value of 2?
So merely having an opinion can make other people total tools and idiots? Yea right. Save the amateur psychology for someone who cares.
It is the common view of the scientific community that no amount of ionizing radiation is safe.
That is incorrect. It is one of several common views. Argument from consensus is not scientific, especially when the consensus doesn't actually exist.
This is a fallacy. The threshold should be set on the estimated benefits of a higher threshold vs the estimated harm from the additional radiation. The background radiation has nothing to with it.
I agree. But a high natural background radiation indicates that the estimated harm is likely very overstated.
It's so peculiar a failure mode that I have to quote the whole thing:
All this "NIMBY" greenpeace anti nuke fags really just don't know what they are taking about, anyone who knows about nuclear reactors will tell you that they are really great, super reliable and that the only reason that we have to pay for electricity is because it's waaay too cheap to meter it from a nuclear reactor and the utilities had to pay for meters.
I've often thought, "I would like some strontium 90 on my breakfast cereal" because it is tasty and good for you, plus you will win every fart contest. Recently it was conclusively *proven* that not only can you get a great suntan from the core of a reactor, but that radioisotopes have Vitamin C in it, so my advice to people would be if you are feeling a bit of a sniffle coming on, get yourself to a local nuclear reactor and ask to cuddle up to a couple of fuel rods and get toasty.
Chernobyl and Fukushima proved how safe Nuclear power is and we should all want one near us. Whilst evacuations of these areas have occurred Bruce Willis proved that you won't die at all from fallout from a nuclear reactor in "A good day to die hard". He lived and was stronger so we should move people back there so they grow up to be just like Bruce Willis.
Nuclear is perfectly safe and we can all have a nuclear future, in our back yards, today!
You really need to learn how to reason with someone who doesn't fully share your worldview. Free association babble just doesn't work.
You do realize that it would be fairly trivial for a business to of sufficient size to acquire some bit of the internet pipeline that all data goes through?
And it is of similar difficulty to lay more "internet pipeline". I don't see the point of arguing monopolies in a situation where barrier to entry is so low.
I live at Yellowstone National Park above 7,000 feet. That altitude plus enhanced radon exposure from the volcanism probably means I'm getting a bit more than 1 mS/year too.
Yep, I think we can all agree that it's worth a few punkin' headed babies and/or a couple of deaths so the rest of us can have brighter colors and whiter whites.
I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but yes, that is right. A small or even non-existent harm for vast benefit to many people justifies the harm. Given that we know there are far more serious problems, not just environmental, but of the human condition, this is a strong indication that we should be bothering with those big problems rather than obsessing over the small or non-existent ones.
If you think that the government and associated puppet regulators actually have anyone's good as their goal, think again.
"IF". I doubt the poster I was replying to qualifies as a government or a puppet regulator.
I'm sick and tired of the notion that it's OK to pollute, as long as you don't pollute "too much."
It's pretty straightforward actually. We do valuable things and sometimes they cause pollution, sometimes minor sometimes massive. Instead of being "sick and tired" about the non problem of minute pollution (especially given that there is actual large scale, heavy, life-threatening pollution out there), do a cost/benefits analysis instead.
it is the common view of medical and general science during the century-odd that we have discovered and been able to document radiation and its effects... that no amount is "generally recognized as safe" and standards need to be tightened.
What makes your "common view" any more valid than any other "common view"? Especially given that "generally recognized as safe" is a completely non-scientific quantity. In the end, you need evidence to back up such assertions not alleged consensus of vague groups of people.
so a comprehensive review based on science would move the decimal point to the left, at least to .025 mS/year, and perhaps .0025 mS.
Background levels are around 1 mS/year. So why advocate thresholds more than two orders of magnitude lower than what people normally get in a year? I just don't think science has much to do with your choice of thresholds.
There's a lot more than three even in the US. And this has to do with the city of Chicago which is way outside the scope of the "branches of government" you refer to.
I see your supporting your adgenda as a Nuclear apologist again.
At least, I don't go bug-eyed and rant four times about the shills modding down a single post (and the modding in question is as flamebait and off-topic, looks like appropriate modding to me).
No, I don't see why I need to provide anything more than that. It was an obvious implication, especially given that the poster was speaking of oil subsidies at the time.
I knew it! Now run that again with the flag --sexy.
$$$trillions on foreign oil wars mean a lot of subisdies.
Meaning less money oil companies have to spend themselves on private security.
But not trillions of dollars less.
There is little doubt that if that happens at Fukushima the fallout would be carried by the jetstream over the US and, eventually the entire Northern hemisphere.
Because obviously, Japan will forgot how to pump water. A few diesel generators and some hose means that your scenario doesn't happen - even if you somehow came up with the huge earthquake and the structural failure.
Well, that helps explain why KSB's sci fi went out of its way to have such screwed up economic models.
$$$trillions on foreign oil wars mean a lot of subisdies.
But that is mostly easy money for US defense contractors not oil companies.
SpaceX is not competing with NASA, because NASA doesn't make rockets.
The obvious counterexample here is that if NASA gets their Space Launch System (SLS) built and SpaceX does the same for its Falcon Heavy, then they will be competing with each other. It doesn't matter that NASA contracted all that work out. NASA's fortunes would be tied to the success of the SLS which would vary inversely with the success of SpaceX's rival platform. That's the nature of competition.
"Burn through of the sort that destroyed Challenger is detectable"
And yet it wasn't
Just because they didn't bother to look doesn't mean that they couldn't. But my point was not to second-guess NASA for this accident but to point out that the failures of the Challenger accident are not something that can't ever be avoided - particularly with today's technology.
The space shuttle had abort options .... including an emergency landing in Spain and Africa.
Those abort options didn't cover the entire launch trajectory. For example, there were no abort options after the Space Shuttle cleared the launch tower unless you were able to ditch the solid rocket boosters.
Man-rating by NASA requires abort options every step of the way from the ground all the way up to space.
It doesn't help to to have a LAS system when you have no way of knowing to use it before your spacecraft explodes.
Burn through of the sort that destroyed Challenger is detectable before everything goes boom. And liquid fueled means you don't have to go as far to survive the heating from the resulting fireball.