You assume I have not read it, when this is a nuke shill favorite posted here all the time . . . Meaningful debate based on good data is hard enough as it is, meaningful debate based on random blog posts off the Internet is impossible.
Suffice it to say, Fukushima is an extremely important data point for this topic. How is a 3/13 blog post that does not take into account that important data point relevant in the real world?
If I recall correctly, he was saying solar power was far worse than nuclear contamination and fallout because it "takes up more land." Some nuke shills would do more justice to their side by keeping quiet . . .
Sorry but stating as fact some words from some guy named "BW" on the Internet seems below the very low standards of even Slashdot. At what point do we just start flinging feces at each other like a bunch of monkeys?
So, do you think this report is some kind of conspiracy or something? Why don't you just come out and say it instead of beating around the bush? You really think Green Peace paid off the government-appointed investigative panel with their cocaine money, or something, right?
We're talking a >9 richter scale earth quake and biggest in memory tsunami, which killed infinitely more people than the melt down, and orders of magnitude more people than even Chernoby.
To be fair, nuclear plant reactors tend to not cover as much distance in their lifetimes . . . that might contribute to their low traffic accident numbers.
Even though it sounds like "market speak," there are lots of hard problems out their that require efficient code skill (DNA sequencing/analysis, anyone?). Your efficient coding will just shine that much more now.
So how will you discredit the TORCH report ( http://www.chernobylreport.org/torch.pdf [chernobylreport.org] ) commissioned by the German Green party? Are they too paid by or limited by IAEA? Or perhaps they are proponents of nuclear power? They estimate the total death-toll from cancer to between 30000 and 60000. What's more, they warn, that the results highly depend on risk factors used in calculations. So again, the increase in lethality isn't obvious and that means it's not significant.
How does posting multiple reports, all coming to very different conclusions, support your claim that enough conclusive data exists to conclude nuclear is the safest energy source? I have seen estimates range from 50 to 1 million for deaths from Chernobyl. What amazes me is that you (who have shown ignorance on some key aspects of this issue) are able to arbitrally pick one of those numbers and then, with great conviction, march forward with your own claims and calculations based on your arbitrally picked number. That takes faith, not scientific scrutiny.
Because you can eliminate internal exposure when you're living in very high background radiation area and the radioactive materials are in water you're drinking, bathing in or air you're breathing... Those are areas that have higher radiation levels than the permanently evacuated areas in Ukraine. As we know, studies for internal exposure haven't been conducted, at all: http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/24/4A/008 [iop.org] . Oops, there have been, multiple ones. But those results don't agree with your world view so you just ignore them.
Alright, that does not even make sense . . . You mean to imply that background radiation can also lead to internal exposure, correct? The problem whith that approach is that once you get into internal exposure, you are facing a biological problem space which includes things like biological concentration and biological half-life. Those vary based on the type of element you are dealing with. Most of background radiation is caused by Radon gas. Radon is a noble gas, which means no biological concentration and an extremely small biological half-life. It requires a lot higher concentrations of Radon contamination to cause harm compared to things like Cessium, Plutonium, or Strontium. Consequently, it is completely inappropriate to consider Radon internal exposure as a proxy for internal exposure for a nuclear meltdown.
Furthermore, your link appears to be concerned with the exposure of wildlife to ionizing radiation, not the contamination by radioactive particles of the food supply and subsequent consumption by humans. It has absolutely nothing to do with internal exposure through contamination of the environment from fallout.
First and foremost it requires convincing general population that the build is necessary, unlike fossil fuel plants which you can "just build" and poison neighbouring areas for next 40 or 60 years.
First of all, I think your fossil fuel bundling is inappropriate. How is natural gas poisoning the environment, especially when you do no think people are contributing to global warming?
Second, the potential damage a single nuclear plant could do to an area is off the scale compared to the potential damage of a single non-nuclear plant. To cover those risks, you need insurance. No insurance company can cover the risks of a nuclear plant, so you need government backing. In democracies, the government requires public consensus. Perhaps you are also against democracy?
Could you explain to me, why on earth French have the cheapest electricity in Europe if its so economically infeasible?
Because the French government "subsidizes" the insurance costs of the nuclear plants? This "subsidy" results in the public being completely exposed to the risks of an accident.
Right, because WHO is comprised of nuclear physicists, oh wait, it's World Health Organization, not Radiation, it's an agency of UN, not IAEA! The ExtenE report also had a professor of Occupational Medicine on the panel.
It seems that you are also ignorant about the WHO's arrangement with the IAEA. The WHO is unable to publish anything on radiation impacts that the IAEA does not agree with. Health impacts from radiation are the only kind of health matter that the WHO must get outside approval from an outside body before publication. The IAEA is mandated to increase nuclear power use. How is that for bias?
So you ignore the results they come to and assume there is some grand conspiracy to make us all highly radioactive.
When faced with conflicting results from two separate groups of credible professionals, the only reasonable conclusion is that the issue is still controversal and neither results can be accepted. You are the one ignoring results of the conflicting data so that you can peddle your beliefs as facts.
We can't just sit on our asses muttering "there's not enough data" when people are dying in thousands in coal mines alone, and this is definitely attributable to energy production, unlike future possible life shortening.
Really? Do I have to waste time trying to convince you that all deaths are life shortening, and closing down coal mines would be an attempt to decrease future possible life shortenings from coal mining? Perhaps this is how your mind attempts to cope with your cognitive dissonance?
Just like there is statistically proven lung cancer increase near coal fired power plants (which isn't easily curable, again, unlike thyroid cancer).
Nuclear fallout causes various forms of illness, not just thyroid cancer. In fact, it also causes lung cancer . ..
There have been hundreds of trials related to X-Ray, CT, radiation exposure to mouse, people living in very high background radiation areas, etc. and they agree that the LNT approximation is wrong, so any study using it as approximation will be wrong, we don't know by how much, but the WHO report (just like most of data from those trials) would suggest very.
Again, external exposure is immaterial to this discussion . ..
Because fossil and hydro don't kill people? There are only 3 sources of energy that we know that work: fossil, nuclear and hydro. All three kill people. But you somehow can't wrap your head around that idea! We've got better data to support that nuclear is killing less people than the other two than to support AGW. Yet the politicians wave the "Anthropogenic Global Warming" flag, because there's no "radiation" in it, so the general population doesn't throw rationality out of the window and don't yell "conspiracy!".
I am starting to get a picture of your warped view of the world. Rather than claim the rest of the world is stupid, I think a much more reasonable answer to why nuclear is only at 13% now is simple economics. Building nuclear reactors requires a large amount of capital, an extensive period of construction time, and government insurance. During the last 50 years, only certain governments had the resources and the agenda (nuclear weapons) to make the investment. These days nuclear weapons are not such a high agenda item for the most developed countries. Additionally, globalization has made the world much more sensitive to all risks. In the current financial climate, investors have little appetite for 2 year lon
You question validity of minimal estimates for deaths from fossil fuels, isn't that a proof for your involvement in fossil industry or effectiveness of their lobbying?
Two things . . . One, the largest contribution to death estimates for both fossil fuels and nuclear fallout is based on indirect health impacts from airborne contaminants. My claim is that, though there are clearly health impacts, accurate data to claim one is greater than the other does not yet exist.
Two, though I doubt that a single "fossil industry" conspiracy exists (coal and petroleum are actually quit different industries and probably compete to a degree with one another, just as they do with other forms of energy . ..), I would expect most people supportive of fossil fuels would be just sitting back and watching the ignorant horde of nuclear believers generate public disgust with their arrogant assault on logic and insensitive statements towards the victims of Fukushima.
they hate coal for completely different reasons
Please eloborate. I find the way your mind works to be fascinating.
Your world view: that we can somehow live without energy or that fossil fuels don't cause vastly more deaths and pollution than nuclear
How is questioning a source that we only get a mere 13% from today "wanting to live without energy." Really . . . the old straw-man thing really gets old . ..
On what kills more people, I am simply saying I do not know and neither do you. When you claim otherwise and pretend it is fact, you are practicing a belief system, not science.
will you tell me that the nuclear industry is much more powerful than fossil fuel industry and so can silence any such report
Let's assume they are equally powerful, I think the focus should go to the authors, themselves. If a report comes out on Chernobyl by a "radiation expert," I have to take into account that a radiation expert will have a much more successful career in a world full of nuclear reactors. If another report on Chernobyl claims significantly more deaths but is also written by radiation experts and physicians, I do not have the same level of skepticism that bias has compromised the analysis. If a petroleum expert wrote a report on Chernobyl, I would again be skeptical of the results. I believe this is reasonable skepticism that allows me to be better informed than those who do not practice reasonable skepticism.
Nuclear isn't renewable, but at least estimates for known and proven uranium and plutonium ores will last at least few centuries
Funny, cause I think your earlier "solving the problem once and for all, ONCE AND FOR ALL" really is better placed here . . .
Finally, did you ever wonder how it makes the students of Kyoto University feel when professors like Ohtsura Niwa soil their school name in the interest of nuclear propoganda? Wonder no more . . .
Because fossil fuel industry has absolutely no lobbying incentive and no vested interest to sustain the public perception of nuclear power, yeah, sure. All those scientists are on nuclear power payrolls. We have nothing to talk about about then, just watch out for your tinfoil hat it seems to be blocking blood flow.
Where have I posted reports from fossil fuel engineers (or others who would benefit professionally if fossil fuel use were increased)? I know you hate Greenpeace, but they are mighty allies if you hate coal. Do you think THEY are secretly supporting fossil fuels!? Talk about tinfoil hats . . .
You may also want read more about Sievert unit, or not, you may actually learn something...
If this is in response to your ignorance of the differences between internal and external exposure, I think I see how you perpetually remain ignorant. The system of units has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not your are actually capturing the important data points. If you're measuring process is limited to gama radiation (which, economically speaking, is the best you can do without crowd-sourcing the entire public), you really are missing the most dangerous data points. Using the unit system that is based on biological impact does not magically make that gap in captured data disappear . . .
Because coal, oil and natural gas (those that make up over 80% of energy sources) will last forever, solving the problem once and for all, ONCE AND FOR ALL.
Are you making a non-renewable energy argument to support nuclear energy? Really? Hint: not only is nuclear power non-renewable, the waste disposal is a real bitch, too.
"the IEA report says why we're not building more nuclear power plants"
Are you referring to: "The public perception of risk also weakens the environmental performance of nuclear power."? If you attribute this to why nuclear power has not budged 14% of world power in over half a century, then I am afraid nuclear power has a very sad future ahead, indeed. You can thank the Japanese government's mishandling of the Fukushima accident for this, as public perception of the risks is at a all time high now.
"as you go forward in time, the estimates for total death-toll from Chernobyl are being reduced"
Funny, as the largest estimate I have seen for Chernobyl (1 million) was just published by the New York Academy of Sciences last year. Again, have you peeked into the future with your time machine to see that future estimates will be decreasing here on out?
"Fukushima released only half the radioactivity Chernobyl"
Amazing, so you have traveled to the future to a point of time where the estimates have finally stopped doubling every couple of months (for instance, the paper you cite below claims Fukushima was just 1/10 of Chernobyl when it was published. ..) and the releases of additional radioactive isotopes have finally stopped! Or are you just claiming more beliefs as facts again . . . ? Oh, and you are confusing external exposure (CT scans) with internal exposure . . . really, I would have expected more from you at this point.
"Very little potassium iodide was distributed in the Soviet Union after the Chernobyl accident. In Poland, however, more than 10 million children, 16 years of age and under, and approximately seven million adults received at least one dose of potassium iodide, reducing their thyroid doses to “negligible levels”."
Interesting you bring this up, because we all know that Japan's distribution of iodide was stellar.
"comparing doses received by residents with typical CT or X-ray"
Thank you for demonstrating why skeptism is so important when trying to establish fact. Up until now, you have been making claims about the safety of nuclear energy, I assumed you understood the difference between internal and external exposure. Only many posts later do you finally reveal that you seem to have a serious gap in your understanding of the risks of fallout. Had I lacked skeptism, I too could have been tainted by your ignorance. Furthermore, any further analysis built on top of yours would also be suspect. Here is a hint . . . gamma readings are only indirect indicators of the true killers: alpha and beta emitters. Alpha radiation cannot even pass through a sheet of paper, but once an emitter is embedded within tissue it causes severe local damage, often leading to cancer. Fallout is nothing like a CT or an X-ray exam.
"no other technology has proved itself in high-scale power production"
Again, nuclear is at 13% and coal is at 41%. Together, that only accounts for a little over half world production, yet you act as if that is all there is that is "proven" . . . And, again (and again and again . ..), I have never stated that one is safer or not safer than the other. I have only stated that conclusive data does not yet exist to make such a conclusion. Finally, 13% is hardly something to start screaming the end of the world over . . . I am sure we will get along just fine without it.
"Show me this report. Greenpeace report doesn't tell anything about fossil fuels."
That is because it was a report on Chernobyl and was not trying to do anything as ambitious as try to calculate the safety of energy sources based on the extremely weak data that currently exists. My point is that even the experts are disputing the impact of Chernobyl, over 20 years later. Fukushima is still on going, and it will be years before any meaningful estimates start to come out. Without scientists being able to come to a meaningful consensus on these events, higher level conclusions based on said "data" requires faith, not scientific reasoning.
"Those proofs are in the IEA report. You should try reading it. I just restated their conclusions."
I am confused. That report was written in 2002, 9 years BEFORE Fukushima. . . Does your belief system include time machines?
"First:"
Of course they know total deaths, but they do not know the true source of the illness that caused a given death for the majority of deaths. That is why the asbestos and tobacco industries were able to deny responsibility for so long. Most of the deaths are caused by cancer, and our current technology does not allow us to find the true source of most cancers, directly.
"Second:"
Yes, and another group of committed scientists have published other reports that contradict the reports you posted. This also happened for years with reports regarding the dangers of asbestos and tobacco. That is how science works when an issue is lacking conclusive data. However, I have yet to see a peer reviewed report, post-Fuskushima, claiming that nuclear energy is the safest energy available.
"But YOU KNOW BETTER."
No, you are the one picking a group of scientists and saying "that is fact." I am the one who is taking into account ALL the reports and saying "this is not concluded yet."
"Way to go for argumentum ad populum."
Over half a century has brought nuclear energy only to about 13.5% of all power creation. Your justification may be that the majority of energy decisions have been wrong because people do not "properly" understand radioactivity. However, this is an extreme position to take and, again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Do you have PROOF that the world is wrong and you are right? And, no, everyone who does not agree with you is not just disagreeing with you because they are being paid to do so . . .
You have provided disputed facts (facts still being debated by scientists) and then beliefs based on those disputed facts. The problem, as I see it, is that you are unable to understand the difference between fact, disputed fact, and belief. Creationists also have this problem.
"show me it kills more people per TWh then"
My claim is that there is no conclusive data supporting or disproving your claim and that you are being presumptuous to state otherwise. Additionally, you are just throwing a bunch of straw-man arguments in an attempt to discredit people who have put far more effort gaining expertise in this issue than yourself (of course, I assume you lack similar expertise based on what you assume as "fact" ).
"BW is not the source, he just brought few numbers together, you don't need a peer review for that"
Of course . . . just like perpetual motion machines do not NEED peer review. However, without peer review, there is no credibility behind the claim. Yet you act as if your belief is fact.
The sources you provide do not even mention Fukushima, which is still ongoing. Entire countries are deciding to no longer support nuclear power due to Fukushima, yet you do not think it is even relevant when trying to establish support for your claim?
"Unless you do provide study showing otherwise I consider this discussion over."
The utility of any discussion on this topic with you was lost when you started confusing fact with belief.
"I checked his sources and his numbers,"
Ok . . . Your source is some guy named "BW" and you, some guy named "Tomato42," have peer reviewed his work . . . Also, just because your raw data comes from more credible sources (though, I have supplied evidence of controversy regarding some of the results from those sources), that credibility is in no way automatically transferred to the sequential work done by "BW." Furthermore, his work excludes consideration of the ongoing Fukushima accident and wastes time on things like deaths from falling from roofs (while failing to pay adequate attention to actual material information, like possible contribution to the cancer epidemic). Consequently, it seems that our disagreement stems on our differing standards of what constitutes as "fact."
"First: where am I supposed to get you a peer-reviewed paper on Fukushima if the accident is still ongoing?"
You are not supposed to. That is my point. Your claim is baseless at this point due to the unprecedented ongoing Fukushima event. And, again, you think this issue is so simple that you can just use rudimentary arithmetic to project the damage. Damage is not just caused by total radioactive isotope release (which the estimates for seem to double every couple of months, and it is still unclear when the release will actually stop, if ever . ..). For instance, how easy is it to completely ignore things like population density?
"Second: How is stating that cancer is the largest killer in UK contradictory to, for example air pollution from coal burning?"
Simply put, when at least 7.6 million people are dying a year from cancer, you would expect a large part of any analysis on energy impact to focus on what percentage of that was caused by what energy source (coal, nuclear, etc . ..). An analysis that wastes time on immaterial things like roof solar installation related deaths is a complete joke and is just trying to fill up space where factual data does not yet exist.
I am now satisfied I sufficiently understand the basis of your claim. It seems obvious that insufficent data exists to calculate to a level of appropriate accuracy to support your claim, and I am confident that few people with decision making authority would ever consider that 'BW' source you posted as a credible source (even with your "peer review"). It is a bit sad to think that some people hold such strong beliefs that they would claim such things as facts on sites like Slashdot, but I am hopeful that moderation will prevent such falsities from wasting too much mindshare.
Finally, you easily dismiss the opinions of a significant group of professionals who have devoted their lives to this topic. Perhaps you are also a professional in a relevant field and think you have grounds to do so. I, like the rest of the public, am not. Therefore, I must base my assumptions of the facts on the statements of others while considering things like expertise, credibility, perceived self-interests, and overall availabity of underlying data. Perhaps one day I will come across sufficient evidence to support your claim, but until that day comes, I consider you claim to not be fact but a belief. Furthermore, your imposing your beliefs as facts on others only increases the level of noise within the debate, doing a disservice to all those involved.
Do you have the professional credentials of this "BW?" Heck, do you even have the real name of this individual? I did not see any affiliations or disclaimers, but I found it quite striking the post date was 3/13 (and, of course excludes any possible impacts from the 311 Fukushima accident). Has this research been peer reviewed by anyone? I don't know about you, but I tend to take "facts" from people that don't even bother to post under their real name with a grain of salt.
I also find it fascinating that you hold "BW's" material more highly than research written by 2 and a half pages worth of authors with impressive and relevant professional credentials. Although, perhaps you just know more about this BW than I do. I do look forward to you letting me know more details regarding this individual . . . However, you even go as far as to say "But it's not the way epidemiology studies are done . .." Excuse me, but do you mind letting me know what YOUR credentials are, and why I should listen to you instead of, say, a research center for radiation medicine?
One of the ironic things is that BW even has an article stating that cancer is the largest killer in the UK and continues to increase. Yet, in his analysis of deadliness per watt, he is looking at things like people falling off roofs when installing solar panels. It is hard to take such analysis very seriously.
Thanks. Where does it confirm that you could "multiply the numbers of deaths caused by nuclear by 1000 and it will still be safer than oil, coal and gas"? That is the claim made in the prior post that I was responding to.
Besides, I think I already mentioned that there are some serious issues with the data from Chernobyl. Studies can only be as good as the underlying data. Just be patient . . . in 25 years we will probably have much better data from the Fukushima disaster.
"would be falling dead like flies in Raid factory"
"causes cancer in 12 seconds and death in 14"
Thanks, 'cause the one thing I really thought this debate was lacking was straw-man arguments. Is it alright to assume that you deny the existence of all carcinogens since they do not make people "fall dead like flies" nor "cause cancer in 12 seconds and death in 14?"
"there is no statistically significant increase in cancer rates in this area"
The liberal use of the italic tag is no substitute for a creditable source, yet you have used more i tags than href tags . . . Is presentation more important than supportive facts?
"If you have facts that tell otherwise then please, show me them."
No, I never made the claim one way or the other. You are the one making that claim therefore the responsibility is on you to support your claim with supportive evidence. I merely am stating that I do not accept unsupported claims as facts. Making the same claim multiple times or making more extreme claims does not make your argument any more convincing. Please provide your source.
Slashdot Mirror
You assume I have not read it, when this is a nuke shill favorite posted here all the time . . . Meaningful debate based on good data is hard enough as it is, meaningful debate based on random blog posts off the Internet is impossible.
Suffice it to say, Fukushima is an extremely important data point for this topic. How is a 3/13 blog post that does not take into account that important data point relevant in the real world?
If I recall correctly, he was saying solar power was far worse than nuclear contamination and fallout because it "takes up more land." Some nuke shills would do more justice to their side by keeping quiet . . .
Sorry but stating as fact some words from some guy named "BW" on the Internet seems below the very low standards of even Slashdot. At what point do we just start flinging feces at each other like a bunch of monkeys?
"Credible" citation needed.
Please include the credentials of "BW."
"Credible" citation needed
Hi, khallow. After defending Japan's response so much, I thought you would be no where to be found once this report came out. Yet here you are . . .
So, do you think this report is some kind of conspiracy or something? Why don't you just come out and say it instead of beating around the bush? You really think Green Peace paid off the government-appointed investigative panel with their cocaine money, or something, right?
We're talking a >9 richter scale earth quake and biggest in memory tsunami, which killed infinitely more people than the melt down, and orders of magnitude more people than even Chernoby.
Citation needed
nuclear power still kills less people per unit of energy than any other form of electrical generation.
Citation needed
Alright, then. So do you support nukes in China?
Here is a little reminder of the different approaches the two countries have on things.
Perhaps you might want to clarify just which countries you are pro-nuke for . . .
To be fair, nuclear plant reactors tend to not cover as much distance in their lifetimes . . . that might contribute to their low traffic accident numbers.
Even though it sounds like "market speak," there are lots of hard problems out their that require efficient code skill (DNA sequencing/analysis, anyone?). Your efficient coding will just shine that much more now.
So how will you discredit the TORCH report ( http://www.chernobylreport.org/torch.pdf [chernobylreport.org] ) commissioned by the German Green party? Are they too paid by or limited by IAEA? Or perhaps they are proponents of nuclear power? They estimate the total death-toll from cancer to between 30000 and 60000. What's more, they warn, that the results highly depend on risk factors used in calculations. So again, the increase in lethality isn't obvious and that means it's not significant.
How does posting multiple reports, all coming to very different conclusions, support your claim that enough conclusive data exists to conclude nuclear is the safest energy source? I have seen estimates range from 50 to 1 million for deaths from Chernobyl. What amazes me is that you (who have shown ignorance on some key aspects of this issue) are able to arbitrally pick one of those numbers and then, with great conviction, march forward with your own claims and calculations based on your arbitrally picked number. That takes faith, not scientific scrutiny.
Because you can eliminate internal exposure when you're living in very high background radiation area and the radioactive materials are in water you're drinking, bathing in or air you're breathing... Those are areas that have higher radiation levels than the permanently evacuated areas in Ukraine. As we know, studies for internal exposure haven't been conducted, at all: http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/24/4A/008 [iop.org] . Oops, there have been, multiple ones. But those results don't agree with your world view so you just ignore them.
Alright, that does not even make sense . . . You mean to imply that background radiation can also lead to internal exposure, correct? The problem whith that approach is that once you get into internal exposure, you are facing a biological problem space which includes things like biological concentration and biological half-life. Those vary based on the type of element you are dealing with. Most of background radiation is caused by Radon gas. Radon is a noble gas, which means no biological concentration and an extremely small biological half-life. It requires a lot higher concentrations of Radon contamination to cause harm compared to things like Cessium, Plutonium, or Strontium. Consequently, it is completely inappropriate to consider Radon internal exposure as a proxy for internal exposure for a nuclear meltdown.
Furthermore, your link appears to be concerned with the exposure of wildlife to ionizing radiation, not the contamination by radioactive particles of the food supply and subsequent consumption by humans. It has absolutely nothing to do with internal exposure through contamination of the environment from fallout.
First and foremost it requires convincing general population that the build is necessary, unlike fossil fuel plants which you can "just build" and poison neighbouring areas for next 40 or 60 years.
First of all, I think your fossil fuel bundling is inappropriate. How is natural gas poisoning the environment, especially when you do no think people are contributing to global warming?
Second, the potential damage a single nuclear plant could do to an area is off the scale compared to the potential damage of a single non-nuclear plant. To cover those risks, you need insurance. No insurance company can cover the risks of a nuclear plant, so you need government backing. In democracies, the government requires public consensus. Perhaps you are also against democracy?
Could you explain to me, why on earth French have the cheapest electricity in Europe if its so economically infeasible?
Because the French government "subsidizes" the insurance costs of the nuclear plants? This "subsidy" results in the public being completely exposed to the risks of an accident.
Right, because WHO is comprised of nuclear physicists, oh wait, it's World Health Organization, not Radiation, it's an agency of UN, not IAEA! The ExtenE report also had a professor of Occupational Medicine on the panel.
It seems that you are also ignorant about the WHO's arrangement with the IAEA. The WHO is unable to publish anything on radiation impacts that the IAEA does not agree with. Health impacts from radiation are the only kind of health matter that the WHO must get outside approval from an outside body before publication. The IAEA is mandated to increase nuclear power use. How is that for bias?
So you ignore the results they come to and assume there is some grand conspiracy to make us all highly radioactive.
When faced with conflicting results from two separate groups of credible professionals, the only reasonable conclusion is that the issue is still controversal and neither results can be accepted. You are the one ignoring results of the conflicting data so that you can peddle your beliefs as facts.
We can't just sit on our asses muttering "there's not enough data" when people are dying in thousands in coal mines alone, and this is definitely attributable to energy production, unlike future possible life shortening.
Really? Do I have to waste time trying to convince you that all deaths are life shortening, and closing down coal mines would be an attempt to decrease future possible life shortenings from coal mining? Perhaps this is how your mind attempts to cope with your cognitive dissonance?
Just like there is statistically proven lung cancer increase near coal fired power plants (which isn't easily curable, again, unlike thyroid cancer).
Nuclear fallout causes various forms of illness, not just thyroid cancer. In fact, it also causes lung cancer . . .
There have been hundreds of trials related to X-Ray, CT, radiation exposure to mouse, people living in very high background radiation areas, etc. and they agree that the LNT approximation is wrong, so any study using it as approximation will be wrong, we don't know by how much, but the WHO report (just like most of data from those trials) would suggest very.
Again, external exposure is immaterial to this discussion . . .
Because fossil and hydro don't kill people? There are only 3 sources of energy that we know that work: fossil, nuclear and hydro. All three kill people. But you somehow can't wrap your head around that idea! We've got better data to support that nuclear is killing less people than the other two than to support AGW. Yet the politicians wave the "Anthropogenic Global Warming" flag, because there's no "radiation" in it, so the general population doesn't throw rationality out of the window and don't yell "conspiracy!".
I am starting to get a picture of your warped view of the world. Rather than claim the rest of the world is stupid, I think a much more reasonable answer to why nuclear is only at 13% now is simple economics. Building nuclear reactors requires a large amount of capital, an extensive period of construction time, and government insurance. During the last 50 years, only certain governments had the resources and the agenda (nuclear weapons) to make the investment. These days nuclear weapons are not such a high agenda item for the most developed countries. Additionally, globalization has made the world much more sensitive to all risks. In the current financial climate, investors have little appetite for 2 year lon
You question validity of minimal estimates for deaths from fossil fuels, isn't that a proof for your involvement in fossil industry or effectiveness of their lobbying?
Two things . . . One, the largest contribution to death estimates for both fossil fuels and nuclear fallout is based on indirect health impacts from airborne contaminants. My claim is that, though there are clearly health impacts, accurate data to claim one is greater than the other does not yet exist. .), I would expect most people supportive of fossil fuels would be just sitting back and watching the ignorant horde of nuclear believers generate public disgust with their arrogant assault on logic and insensitive statements towards the victims of Fukushima.
Two, though I doubt that a single "fossil industry" conspiracy exists (coal and petroleum are actually quit different industries and probably compete to a degree with one another, just as they do with other forms of energy . .
they hate coal for completely different reasons
Please eloborate. I find the way your mind works to be fascinating.
Your world view: that we can somehow live without energy or that fossil fuels don't cause vastly more deaths and pollution than nuclear
How is questioning a source that we only get a mere 13% from today "wanting to live without energy." Really . . . the old straw-man thing really gets old . . .
On what kills more people, I am simply saying I do not know and neither do you. When you claim otherwise and pretend it is fact, you are practicing a belief system, not science.
will you tell me that the nuclear industry is much more powerful than fossil fuel industry and so can silence any such report
Let's assume they are equally powerful, I think the focus should go to the authors, themselves. If a report comes out on Chernobyl by a "radiation expert," I have to take into account that a radiation expert will have a much more successful career in a world full of nuclear reactors. If another report on Chernobyl claims significantly more deaths but is also written by radiation experts and physicians, I do not have the same level of skepticism that bias has compromised the analysis. If a petroleum expert wrote a report on Chernobyl, I would again be skeptical of the results. I believe this is reasonable skepticism that allows me to be better informed than those who do not practice reasonable skepticism.
Nuclear isn't renewable, but at least estimates for known and proven uranium and plutonium ores will last at least few centuries
Funny, cause I think your earlier "solving the problem once and for all, ONCE AND FOR ALL" really is better placed here . . .
Finally, did you ever wonder how it makes the students of Kyoto University feel when professors like Ohtsura Niwa soil their school name in the interest of nuclear propoganda? Wonder no more . . .
Because fossil fuel industry has absolutely no lobbying incentive and no vested interest to sustain the public perception of nuclear power, yeah, sure. All those scientists are on nuclear power payrolls. We have nothing to talk about about then, just watch out for your tinfoil hat it seems to be blocking blood flow.
Where have I posted reports from fossil fuel engineers (or others who would benefit professionally if fossil fuel use were increased)? I know you hate Greenpeace, but they are mighty allies if you hate coal. Do you think THEY are secretly supporting fossil fuels!? Talk about tinfoil hats . . .
You may also want read more about Sievert unit, or not, you may actually learn something...
If this is in response to your ignorance of the differences between internal and external exposure, I think I see how you perpetually remain ignorant. The system of units has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not your are actually capturing the important data points. If you're measuring process is limited to gama radiation (which, economically speaking, is the best you can do without crowd-sourcing the entire public), you really are missing the most dangerous data points. Using the unit system that is based on biological impact does not magically make that gap in captured data disappear . . .
Because coal, oil and natural gas (those that make up over 80% of energy sources) will last forever, solving the problem once and for all, ONCE AND FOR ALL.
Are you making a non-renewable energy argument to support nuclear energy? Really? Hint: not only is nuclear power non-renewable, the waste disposal is a real bitch, too.
"the IEA report says why we're not building more nuclear power plants"
.) and the releases of additional radioactive isotopes have finally stopped! Or are you just claiming more beliefs as facts again . . . ? Oh, and you are confusing external exposure (CT scans) with internal exposure . . . really, I would have expected more from you at this point.
.), I have never stated that one is safer or not safer than the other. I have only stated that conclusive data does not yet exist to make such a conclusion. Finally, 13% is hardly something to start screaming the end of the world over . . . I am sure we will get along just fine without it.
Are you referring to: "The public perception of risk also weakens the environmental performance of nuclear power."? If you attribute this to why nuclear power has not budged 14% of world power in over half a century, then I am afraid nuclear power has a very sad future ahead, indeed. You can thank the Japanese government's mishandling of the Fukushima accident for this, as public perception of the risks is at a all time high now.
"as you go forward in time, the estimates for total death-toll from Chernobyl are being reduced"
Funny, as the largest estimate I have seen for Chernobyl (1 million) was just published by the New York Academy of Sciences last year. Again, have you peeked into the future with your time machine to see that future estimates will be decreasing here on out?
"Fukushima released only half the radioactivity Chernobyl"
Amazing, so you have traveled to the future to a point of time where the estimates have finally stopped doubling every couple of months (for instance, the paper you cite below claims Fukushima was just 1/10 of Chernobyl when it was published. .
"Very little potassium iodide was distributed in the Soviet Union after the Chernobyl accident. In Poland, however, more than 10 million children, 16 years of age and under, and approximately seven million adults received at least one dose of potassium iodide, reducing their thyroid doses to “negligible levels”."
Interesting you bring this up, because we all know that Japan's distribution of iodide was stellar.
"comparing doses received by residents with typical CT or X-ray"
Thank you for demonstrating why skeptism is so important when trying to establish fact. Up until now, you have been making claims about the safety of nuclear energy, I assumed you understood the difference between internal and external exposure. Only many posts later do you finally reveal that you seem to have a serious gap in your understanding of the risks of fallout. Had I lacked skeptism, I too could have been tainted by your ignorance. Furthermore, any further analysis built on top of yours would also be suspect. Here is a hint . . . gamma readings are only indirect indicators of the true killers: alpha and beta emitters. Alpha radiation cannot even pass through a sheet of paper, but once an emitter is embedded within tissue it causes severe local damage, often leading to cancer. Fallout is nothing like a CT or an X-ray exam.
"is too small to give a statistically significant increase"
Nice, yes let's go back to May before the radiation release estimates were doubled at least twice (two months before meltdowns were even admitted) to quote the head of Japan ICRP, who are considered by many to have far too much vested interest in the success of nuclear to be considered objective . . .
"no other technology has proved itself in high-scale power production"
Again, nuclear is at 13% and coal is at 41%. Together, that only accounts for a little over half world production, yet you act as if that is all there is that is "proven" . . . And, again (and again and again . .
"Show me this report. Greenpeace report doesn't tell anything about fossil fuels."
That is because it was a report on Chernobyl and was not trying to do anything as ambitious as try to calculate the safety of energy sources based on the extremely weak data that currently exists. My point is that even the experts are disputing the impact of Chernobyl, over 20 years later. Fukushima is still on going, and it will be years before any meaningful estimates start to come out. Without scientists being able to come to a meaningful consensus on these events, higher level conclusions based on said "data" requires faith, not scientific reasoning.
"Those proofs are in the IEA report. You should try reading it. I just restated their conclusions."
I am confused. That report was written in 2002, 9 years BEFORE Fukushima. . . Does your belief system include time machines?
"First:"
Of course they know total deaths, but they do not know the true source of the illness that caused a given death for the majority of deaths. That is why the asbestos and tobacco industries were able to deny responsibility for so long. Most of the deaths are caused by cancer, and our current technology does not allow us to find the true source of most cancers, directly.
"Second:"
Yes, and another group of committed scientists have published other reports that contradict the reports you posted. This also happened for years with reports regarding the dangers of asbestos and tobacco. That is how science works when an issue is lacking conclusive data. However, I have yet to see a peer reviewed report, post-Fuskushima, claiming that nuclear energy is the safest energy available.
"But YOU KNOW BETTER."
No, you are the one picking a group of scientists and saying "that is fact." I am the one who is taking into account ALL the reports and saying "this is not concluded yet."
"Way to go for argumentum ad populum."
Over half a century has brought nuclear energy only to about 13.5% of all power creation. Your justification may be that the majority of energy decisions have been wrong because people do not "properly" understand radioactivity. However, this is an extreme position to take and, again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Do you have PROOF that the world is wrong and you are right? And, no, everyone who does not agree with you is not just disagreeing with you because they are being paid to do so . . .
You have provided disputed facts (facts still being debated by scientists) and then beliefs based on those disputed facts. The problem, as I see it, is that you are unable to understand the difference between fact, disputed fact, and belief. Creationists also have this problem.
"show me it kills more people per TWh then"
My claim is that there is no conclusive data supporting or disproving your claim and that you are being presumptuous to state otherwise. Additionally, you are just throwing a bunch of straw-man arguments in an attempt to discredit people who have put far more effort gaining expertise in this issue than yourself (of course, I assume you lack similar expertise based on what you assume as "fact" ).
"BW is not the source, he just brought few numbers together, you don't need a peer review for that"
Of course . . . just like perpetual motion machines do not NEED peer review. However, without peer review, there is no credibility behind the claim. Yet you act as if your belief is fact.
The sources you provide do not even mention Fukushima, which is still ongoing. Entire countries are deciding to no longer support nuclear power due to Fukushima, yet you do not think it is even relevant when trying to establish support for your claim?
"Unless you do provide study showing otherwise I consider this discussion over."
The utility of any discussion on this topic with you was lost when you started confusing fact with belief.
"I checked his sources and his numbers,"
.). For instance, how easy is it to completely ignore things like population density?
.). An analysis that wastes time on immaterial things like roof solar installation related deaths is a complete joke and is just trying to fill up space where factual data does not yet exist.
Ok . . . Your source is some guy named "BW" and you, some guy named "Tomato42," have peer reviewed his work . . . Also, just because your raw data comes from more credible sources (though, I have supplied evidence of controversy regarding some of the results from those sources), that credibility is in no way automatically transferred to the sequential work done by "BW." Furthermore, his work excludes consideration of the ongoing Fukushima accident and wastes time on things like deaths from falling from roofs (while failing to pay adequate attention to actual material information, like possible contribution to the cancer epidemic). Consequently, it seems that our disagreement stems on our differing standards of what constitutes as "fact."
"First: where am I supposed to get you a peer-reviewed paper on Fukushima if the accident is still ongoing?"
You are not supposed to. That is my point. Your claim is baseless at this point due to the unprecedented ongoing Fukushima event. And, again, you think this issue is so simple that you can just use rudimentary arithmetic to project the damage. Damage is not just caused by total radioactive isotope release (which the estimates for seem to double every couple of months, and it is still unclear when the release will actually stop, if ever . .
"Second: How is stating that cancer is the largest killer in UK contradictory to, for example air pollution from coal burning?"
Simply put, when at least 7.6 million people are dying a year from cancer, you would expect a large part of any analysis on energy impact to focus on what percentage of that was caused by what energy source (coal, nuclear, etc . .
I am now satisfied I sufficiently understand the basis of your claim. It seems obvious that insufficent data exists to calculate to a level of appropriate accuracy to support your claim, and I am confident that few people with decision making authority would ever consider that 'BW' source you posted as a credible source (even with your "peer review"). It is a bit sad to think that some people hold such strong beliefs that they would claim such things as facts on sites like Slashdot, but I am hopeful that moderation will prevent such falsities from wasting too much mindshare.
Finally, you easily dismiss the opinions of a significant group of professionals who have devoted their lives to this topic. Perhaps you are also a professional in a relevant field and think you have grounds to do so. I, like the rest of the public, am not. Therefore, I must base my assumptions of the facts on the statements of others while considering things like expertise, credibility, perceived self-interests, and overall availabity of underlying data. Perhaps one day I will come across sufficient evidence to support your claim, but until that day comes, I consider you claim to not be fact but a belief. Furthermore, your imposing your beliefs as facts on others only increases the level of noise within the debate, doing a disservice to all those involved.
Do you have the professional credentials of this "BW?" Heck, do you even have the real name of this individual? I did not see any affiliations or disclaimers, but I found it quite striking the post date was 3/13 (and, of course excludes any possible impacts from the 311 Fukushima accident). Has this research been peer reviewed by anyone? I don't know about you, but I tend to take "facts" from people that don't even bother to post under their real name with a grain of salt.
." Excuse me, but do you mind letting me know what YOUR credentials are, and why I should listen to you instead of, say, a research center for radiation medicine?
I also find it fascinating that you hold "BW's" material more highly than research written by 2 and a half pages worth of authors with impressive and relevant professional credentials. Although, perhaps you just know more about this BW than I do. I do look forward to you letting me know more details regarding this individual . . . However, you even go as far as to say "But it's not the way epidemiology studies are done . .
One of the ironic things is that BW even has an article stating that cancer is the largest killer in the UK and continues to increase. Yet, in his analysis of deadliness per watt, he is looking at things like people falling off roofs when installing solar panels. It is hard to take such analysis very seriously.
I fully agree and can relate.
I just wanted to add that it was interesting timing for this announcement, as it came right after the first reactivation of a Japanese reactor since the Fukushima accident.
Thanks. Where does it confirm that you could "multiply the numbers of deaths caused by nuclear by 1000 and it will still be safer than oil, coal and gas"? That is the claim made in the prior post that I was responding to.
Besides, I think I already mentioned that there are some serious issues with the data from Chernobyl. Studies can only be as good as the underlying data. Just be patient . . . in 25 years we will probably have much better data from the Fukushima disaster.
Additionally, how do you explain studies that come to very different conclusions?
"would be falling dead like flies in Raid factory"
"causes cancer in 12 seconds and death in 14"
Thanks, 'cause the one thing I really thought this debate was lacking was straw-man arguments. Is it alright to assume that you deny the existence of all carcinogens since they do not make people "fall dead like flies" nor "cause cancer in 12 seconds and death in 14?"
"there is no statistically significant increase in cancer rates in this area" The liberal use of the italic tag is no substitute for a creditable source, yet you have used more i tags than href tags . . . Is presentation more important than supportive facts?
"If you have facts that tell otherwise then please, show me them."
No, I never made the claim one way or the other. You are the one making that claim therefore the responsibility is on you to support your claim with supportive evidence. I merely am stating that I do not accept unsupported claims as facts. Making the same claim multiple times or making more extreme claims does not make your argument any more convincing. Please provide your source.
I would just like to state that all editors are created equal.
:wq