I studied your law enough to build on it. I never met you however you influenced me and I appreciate the inspiration. May you have ample CPU time for your journey and not suffer cpu latency getting there.
The best way is to live in a democracy that cherishes freedom of speech and will protect your constitutional rights by not introducing laws that attempt to bypass them.
Should have listened when some of us were calling for unionization to help restore some semblance of a balance of power.
I think it will take being completely impossible to have an IT career in the US before it happens. I don't know about the US but Unions function perfectly well in other parts of the world, there must be something about the right to free assemby, a core part of being a democracy, distasteful to some.
More and more of the rights we expect to have in a democracy, like privacy, anonimity and, the right to free assemby have been progressively demonized. An IT Union would be much too powerful to be tolerated so a beleif system has grown that makes people think that it will somehow limit their potential. In reality it has created a stagnation of the type of salaries that IT professionals deserve commeasurate with the level of skills that you need to acquire to do the work well.
H1B is an inevitable outcome of neglecting one of the fundamental tennants of democracy, participation. Fortunately the people here who complain about union participation are writing letters to politicians everyday lobbying on behalf of IT professionals. Personally, I'd preferr to pay a union fee and pay someone to do it because it takes a lot of time and effort to read and understand.
The flip side being, if we were all great negotiators we would all have great salaries, but we don't because we value IQ over EQ, we think our raw brilliance and talent is enough. That's how niave we are.
Face it everyone, the party is over and the race to the bottom is well underway. Exploitation is good for the bottom line and it's inevitable that things will get worse before they get better. It's happened in history before the only ones who care about understanding our interests want to so that they have all the bargaining power and can shape law to maintain it.
There is no one looking after IT peoples interests, are we expecting someone else to?
Crypto-communist scaremongering. We never had better life on the globe and we now have the technology to live almost indefinitely in a bunker, should a nuclear war break out. We can clone "good" humans in case of too much atrophy due to application of medicine. We can repair defective DNA. We can grow food in reactors. We have almost infinite sources of energy from Uranium, Thorium and soon H2 fusion.
You idealism is inspiring, if misguided.
We currently enjoy the luxury of badmouthing nuclear energy so that the Oil+Gas Scammers from BP to Gazprom have their nice business protected.
Agreed. Nuclear still needs to sort it's issues out.
But there is no rational reason we cannot again use fission.
The question is if human systems can acquire the required discipline to run them without blowing them up.
China does it on a large scale.
So in one breath you praise and criticize communism, an interesting dichotomy.
Population growth levels off except in countries ruled by Mohammedism and in Africa. They need to level off too. With war or without.
Well, you didn't give a fuck when they were committing human right violations before, so why would you now.
I am not a proponent of the bunker scenario, but I hate being sheep-i-fied by communist propaganda.
Riiiight, so advocating going to the stars is communist propaganda. You've probably heard this before, your a moron.
Humanity can continue to exist here indefinitely and will do so. Our massive brain can fix ANY obstacle to our specie's existence.
We do not need your rotten ideology.
So solving the problem of getting mass into orbit cheaply shouldn't be too much of an issue then. Oh, but you think only communists can do it.
[sic]Captach: Incest. That can be fixed using gene editing. And it WILL be used. Too many horrible genetic deseases around. Why do we need to suffer it, if it can be fixed using technology ???
Well, let's make a start by spelling the things we need to fix properly. Maybe the genetic diseases came from growing food in the reactor.
It should read "leaving this planet is the only way of saving ourselves". I'm pretty sure the Earth will be here long after any sign of us has vanished.
Apologies for the OT. The fanbois are howling with their ad hom orgy in the other thread and the mod trolls are out in force.
It will be interesting to see how this thread will be moderated as a gauge of the relative hypocracy going on. I thought you might be interested in the actual governance surrounding plants.
You don't care about their concerns, just that they don't see your 'idealized' version of the Nuclear Industry that only exists in your head. You criticize them for not understanding your point of veiw and your not even interested in theirs which you dismiss as invalid.
The problem is neutron embrittlement of the containment vessel. There comes a time where it must be replaced and at that point all that's left is the steam infrastructure.
My AC you are onto it, why don't you login and post as a user? I'm pretty sure you posed about the spent fuel pools as well.
It's pretty ridiculous to think greenpeace, hippys in combi vans, NIMBYS or any one else for that matter has any influence at all as all of their concerns are addressed in Section C.9. Pointing fingers is just a way to ignore the process and economics involved in proposing and building a Nuclear Reactor. It is a complete ad hom argument when it is made.
Especially when you consider there has been a bunch of GenIII reactors proposed. So I don't understand how their or anyone else's vision has anything to do with what reactor technology is deployed.
It's like the safety problems with the Corvair had been left in the production of newer car and they added some new untested features but they think it's better.
I've been assured right here on this site that we will be able to 3D print anything, using materials from space, that's assuming space-based solar power doesn't make that moot.
Space. 3D printing. Stop being Luddites!
Beautiful technology, beautiful idea. It's Solar and Nuclear combined. I commend you Mr AC.
'yeah dude, this is what happens when a Nuclear Reactor blows up in your backyard'.
Well they were such good Soviets!
More like when a nuclear reactor, completely missing a containment dome, you know, what you were complaining was too thin on the AP1000. Chernobyl's reactor didn't have one, at all. I've never said that there shouldn't be a dome. The other failures were numerous and extremely negligent.
Agreed, I am aware of it. Whenever you hear someone talking about how good PBMRs are, this is what they are trying to convince you is 'Walk away safe'
Timeline: TMI was the first major disaster. Radiation release was ultimately minor, the dome did it's duty. Results: Ruined reactor that hung around decades before it was cool enough to clean up, but the dome, again, did it's duty. Basically no casualties. Resulted in an incredible amount of change in the safety system of the USA.
Also unlucky and lucky coincidences, but yes, in general I agree with you there. Still should not have happened, failed to yield any return on the construction (three months old) but it was still made hot enough so that it has to be disassembled with radio-isotopes in mind.
Don't design confusing control systems. Some radio-isotope contamination but in general contained.
A few too many risky things going on now though (IMO)
Then Chernobyl happened. A reactor with a positive void co-efficient(and you should know what this is), graphite moderated, no containment dome, with many safety features turned off and/or disabled for 'testing' that was, at the least, 'ill advised'.
Couldn't agree more, a culture that produced a bunch of boneheads bumbling procedures and ticking management boxes whilst loosing sight of what they were doing and what the stakes were. Hey, let's shut down the safety systems and Xenon poison the reactor during a drill and a shift change in the middle of the night while no one is around to watch the reactor
Apparently a guy ran through the reactor room to see the control rod heads jumping in and out of the reactor head. Talk about adrenaline overdrive.
I mean, fuck, totally unnecessary and forgetting the whole reason that they were there. Just stupid.
Fukushima - again, domes did their job. They should have had hydrogen systems, but didn't. Should of had the generators in better places. Still, it took a tsunami strike to cause it have a disaster.
Well, this is clearly criminal negligence on the part of the operator. Just as bad as the Soviet administration, several safety systems that should have been there, weren't. Safety costs money. Money is shareholder return.
That model reactor had several BDIs that were exposed in the construction of that plant. For the want of spending a couple of hundred million on a sea wall and generators in a place where they could not be flooded.
We don't know the state of the reactor core or the containment, so I am going to wait and see on that. This is another reason we should have daily monitoring and publishing of this data as knowledge as it puts everything on the table and we wouldn't have all these emotive arguments. We'd just point to the radio-isotopes released and model the state of the reactor.
Media black-outs don't do a lot to foster trust in the NI.
And we haven't discussed Windscale or the plethora of other NI contaminated sites and accidents that occur.
These are all teaching us something about how arrogant we are with the way we handle these materials. That we need to lift our game and evolve the whole industry.
the IAEA's founding papers "The agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity through the world."
Dude, my point wasn't centered on IAEA - I even quoted greenpeace estimating lower fatalities from the event.
Cool.
The question I'm asking you to consider is how can we get authoritative information from the WHO while such a clause exists? This restriction on their ability to gather and publish accurate information means we are not getting an accurate assessment of the situation. How can we trust the WHO information to be any more credible than 4 scientists in the Ukraine?
These are the types of problems I'm saying need to be fixed. NP is important and dangerous at the same time. I'm sure you can agree that getting accurate scientific information on human health and the distribution of radionuclides is important enough to not have any political agendas interfering with it's work.
'yeah dude, this is what happens when a Nuclear Reactor blows up in your backyard'.
More like when a nuclear reactor, completely missing a containment dome, you know,
Soviet arrogance aside, I'm more referring to the radiological effects.
Remember, college student, I don't have time to perform massive reading assignments. Post a link and summarize, preferably with the occasional excerpt.
It's about 30 minutes reading. Not exactly a killer assignment. I'm pretty busy myself.
I doubt that said energy act has some conspiracy theory laid out in it showing that the oil industry is deliberately attacking nuclear power. Like I said earlier, they're often inter-tied and not really in the same field.
Don't be ridiculous. It is a set of laws that makes available billions of dollars to companies that can build plants, even if they don't go ahead and build them. If you ever wanted to see an example of 'I drink your milkshake' I don't think you will find a bigger one. Business is ugly FT, dirty and mean. I understand your discomfit, but it gives way to amusment when you realize the whole thing is a bunch of cunts, being cunts to another bunch of cunts. And those cunts run the whole world. We are but pawns and peons.
No duh? Do you have a point besides restating what I said? "baseload electrical" ~ "grid function"
You said: Nuclear has historically been a baseload electrical power source
I said: Baseload is a grid function.
Nuclear has historically been a electrical power source. It is an input. Baseload availability of electrical power is a function of the power grid, not of any one source.
They are not the same.
It's nonsensical because it's not profitable, which means that it's not 'just business', which makes it a conspiracy theory.
Throwing accusations out there when you are speaking out of your own assumptions is a naive choice when the facts are right in front of you. There is hundreds of millions up for grabs, go read the section I refered you to and ask yourself when making that much money was not profitable?
It is irrelevant what you call it, it is the framework of laws that set out energy policy. Industry will use it like any other tax advantage they can secure.
Neither am I, but I read them as well and it destroys his own argument. I have no idea where these fanboys come from however they all seem completely deluded. Arguing with them is like being in some sort of nonsensical alternate reality.
The first study shows expected additional cases due to radiation, the second shows total cases. The first study also includes a higher population in addition to the workers.
Harvard study: Worker Population: Predicted cases of Leukemia up to 2005= 80
UNSCEAR study: Worker Population: Number of cases of Leukemia up to 2012 attributable to radiation = 16
So somehow because you come out with a bunch of numbers about Leukemia cases that is supposed to disprove LNT? You're not even making any sense. The studies you linked to both support LNT. The second one goes even further:
We found a significant linear dose response for all leukemia
And further still by *specifically* mentioning low doses:
Exposure to low doses and to low dose-rates of radiation from post-Chornobyl cleanup work was associated with a significant increase in risk of leukemia, which was statistically consistent with estimates for the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. Based on the primary analysis, we conclude that CLL and non-CLL are both radiosensitive.
So the article you link to doesn't just refute your claims about LNT, it refutes your entire argument about contracting Leukemia from radioactive sources.
Then further still by uncovering a link to a type of cancer previously thought *unrelated* to radiation:
The data indicated elevated risks for both CLL and other leukemias. We therefore extended the study through 2006, with a near doubling of the number of leukemia cases.
I gave you the starting point to find tons of studies on low level exposure. All good studies discuss uncertainties in the data and conclusions. You can easily find them, google is your friend.
And the first time you used it you disproved your own argument, thanks for saving me the effort. Please continue.
Unless you are claiming there are no studies on low dose exposure, LNT, or that somehow you cannot find them, or that they don't have the uncertainties I discussed. Which are you denying?
I supplied you with references to low dose studies on what is thought to be the most benign radioactive substance, Tritium. It is impossible to believe that you read those reports before posting them.
You are not entitled to your own facts.
I made a mistake in the numbers above. My apologies, here is corrected information, please ignore above.
Again, and as usual, you cannot support your argument with anything. This time, you disproved you *own* argument.
Consider global warming research - there are still papers written and published that deny it's existence,
So then why aren't you considering the energetic inputs of the Nuclear industry? The Nuclear Industry in it's current form will not end our reliance on fossil fuels because of the energetic input to extract and enrich the fuel in the first place. And we are *yet* to incurr the energy debt for dimantling the existing reactors, or are they to be left they for some other generation to clean up. How does that make our generation any better than those who left us with a carbon legacy to deal with? They will have a radionuclide legacy to deal with.
The whole EPR vs AP1000 thing honestly seems to be like arguing about the safety differences between a chevy malibu(9.7) and a honda civic(9.4).
I see it as the choice of two Nuclear reactors series that contain elements toxic to the human genome and whether our need for electricity overrides our responsibility for the DNA of future human beings. Personally, I don't think it does.
I think the choice of either of these reactors is a failure that will keep up bound to the coal industry and that for Nuclear to evolve it will need to engineer the energy expenditure out of it's support processes.
IAEA - WHO relationship is what I was referring you to in my post, not everything else by the way. If you want to see credibility in the future of the nuclear industry you have to examine:
the IAEA's founding papers "The agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity through the world."
I'll draw your attention to the interdiction clause (12.40) the IAEA has over the WHO drawn up on 28 May 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly:
"Whenever either organisation [the WHO or the IAEA] proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organisation has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement"
This is the core legal argument you have to consider when evaluating *any* information from the WHO when they report on Nuclear matter. Are you telling me that these organizations are going to act outside their charter? Are you telling me that they will not behave in the way they are designed to legally behave?
How can WHO reporting on these matters be considered 'credible' with these restrictions on the science they produce on matters Nuclear. Why is that more credible than 4 Slavic scientists from the Ukrain going, 'yeah dude, this is what happens when a Nuclear Reactor blows up in your backyard'.
As I said before, Ask yourself how likely it is for us to get reliable health science if the world's peak health organisation has it's science related to Nuclear matter vetted by the orgainsation responsible for promoting nuclear power.
I see a number of issues that make me rate it as 'uncredible'.
Is it because they only speak Slavic languages and that they are scientists from the Ukraine that the body of their work is not credible? Or is it because we only speak english? Or is it because Chernobyl is in their country?
Because I have given you a link to a book they wrote. That is what they claim. Is there a specific criticism of these four Ukrainian scientist's work?
First, your citation as to the hazards of DU consists solely of a heart-string tugging google image search. In short, at best you have some coorelation there,
Well let's examine that correlation. That DU is used as munitions in Iraq is common knowledge.
It's properties, DU is pyrophoric, which means it ignites when used as a projectile and burns into a ceramic ash. As it decays it undergoes spontaneous combustion as it increases it's radioactive emissions ten or so times momentarily. It's ash is an inhalant but IIRC it is also water soluble. Oh, and it can cause some quite nasty birth defects. That's probably not common knowledge, if you want to check it out.
but also a lot of images of birth defects that have nothing to do with Iraq, photoshopped images, fakes, and normal birth defects that happen in any population, especially when nutrition isn't that great and pre-natal care is relatively primitive.
Indeed, it represents a remarkable co-incidence, I'm sure they are not related.
And you complained about me posting a yahoo news link?
Slashdot Mirror
I studied your law enough to build on it. I never met you however you influenced me and I appreciate the inspiration. May you have ample CPU time for your journey and not suffer cpu latency getting there.
The best way is to live in a democracy that cherishes freedom of speech and will protect your constitutional rights by not introducing laws that attempt to bypass them.
Should have listened when some of us were calling for unionization to help restore some semblance of a balance of power.
I think it will take being completely impossible to have an IT career in the US before it happens. I don't know about the US but Unions function perfectly well in other parts of the world, there must be something about the right to free assemby, a core part of being a democracy, distasteful to some.
More and more of the rights we expect to have in a democracy, like privacy, anonimity and, the right to free assemby have been progressively demonized. An IT Union would be much too powerful to be tolerated so a beleif system has grown that makes people think that it will somehow limit their potential. In reality it has created a stagnation of the type of salaries that IT professionals deserve commeasurate with the level of skills that you need to acquire to do the work well.
H1B is an inevitable outcome of neglecting one of the fundamental tennants of democracy, participation. Fortunately the people here who complain about union participation are writing letters to politicians everyday lobbying on behalf of IT professionals. Personally, I'd preferr to pay a union fee and pay someone to do it because it takes a lot of time and effort to read and understand. The flip side being, if we were all great negotiators we would all have great salaries, but we don't because we value IQ over EQ, we think our raw brilliance and talent is enough. That's how niave we are.
Face it everyone, the party is over and the race to the bottom is well underway. Exploitation is good for the bottom line and it's inevitable that things will get worse before they get better. It's happened in history before the only ones who care about understanding our interests want to so that they have all the bargaining power and can shape law to maintain it.
There is no one looking after IT peoples interests, are we expecting someone else to?
Thanks for the investment advice.
Crypto-communist scaremongering. We never had better life on the globe and we now have the technology to live almost indefinitely in a bunker, should a nuclear war break out. We can clone "good" humans in case of too much atrophy due to application of medicine. We can repair defective DNA. We can grow food in reactors. We have almost infinite sources of energy from Uranium, Thorium and soon H2 fusion.
You idealism is inspiring, if misguided.
We currently enjoy the luxury of badmouthing nuclear energy so that the Oil+Gas Scammers from BP to Gazprom have their nice business protected.
Agreed. Nuclear still needs to sort it's issues out.
But there is no rational reason we cannot again use fission.
The question is if human systems can acquire the required discipline to run them without blowing them up.
China does it on a large scale.
So in one breath you praise and criticize communism, an interesting dichotomy.
Population growth levels off except in countries ruled by Mohammedism and in Africa. They need to level off too. With war or without.
Well, you didn't give a fuck when they were committing human right violations before, so why would you now.
I am not a proponent of the bunker scenario, but I hate being sheep-i-fied by communist propaganda.
Riiiight, so advocating going to the stars is communist propaganda. You've probably heard this before, your a moron.
Humanity can continue to exist here indefinitely and will do so. Our massive brain can fix ANY obstacle to our specie's existence.
We do not need your rotten ideology.
So solving the problem of getting mass into orbit cheaply shouldn't be too much of an issue then. Oh, but you think only communists can do it.
[sic]Captach: Incest. That can be fixed using gene editing. And it WILL be used. Too many horrible genetic deseases around. Why do we need to suffer it, if it can be fixed using technology ???
Well, let's make a start by spelling the things we need to fix properly. Maybe the genetic diseases came from growing food in the reactor.
Stop the B.S.
From the authority of BS.
It should read "leaving this planet is the only way of saving ourselves". I'm pretty sure the Earth will be here long after any sign of us has vanished.
It will be interesting to see how this thread will be moderated as a gauge of the relative hypocracy going on. I thought you might be interested in the actual governance surrounding plants.
In this case 1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
You don't care about their concerns, just that they don't see your 'idealized' version of the Nuclear Industry that only exists in your head. You criticize them for not understanding your point of veiw and your not even interested in theirs which you dismiss as invalid.
Your "argument" isn't even supported by the laws governing site selection of Nuclear power plants.
The problem is neutron embrittlement of the containment vessel. There comes a time where it must be replaced and at that point all that's left is the steam infrastructure.
My AC you are onto it, why don't you login and post as a user? I'm pretty sure you posed about the spent fuel pools as well.
The really stupid thing about your post is that you are talking about Containment and the parent is talking about Spent Fuel cooling pools.
Thank you so much pro-nuke extremists. Thanks to your inability to look at reality you overlooked that placement of Nuclear facilities is governed by a Suitability Criteria that is an act of law.
It's pretty ridiculous to think greenpeace, hippys in combi vans, NIMBYS or any one else for that matter has any influence at all as all of their concerns are addressed in Section C.9. Pointing fingers is just a way to ignore the process and economics involved in proposing and building a Nuclear Reactor. It is a complete ad hom argument when it is made.
Especially when you consider there has been a bunch of GenIII reactors proposed. So I don't understand how their or anyone else's vision has anything to do with what reactor technology is deployed.
It's like the safety problems with the Corvair had been left in the production of newer car and they added some new untested features but they think it's better.
That's one of the reasons I'm glad SONGS is shut down.
I've been assured right here on this site that we will be able to 3D print anything, using materials from space, that's assuming space-based solar power doesn't make that moot.
Space. 3D printing. Stop being Luddites!
Beautiful technology, beautiful idea. It's Solar and Nuclear combined. I commend you Mr AC.
Sorry about that.
'yeah dude, this is what happens when a Nuclear Reactor blows up in your backyard'.
Well they were such good Soviets!
More like when a nuclear reactor, completely missing a containment dome, you know, what you were complaining was too thin on the AP1000. Chernobyl's reactor didn't have one, at all. I've never said that there shouldn't be a dome. The other failures were numerous and extremely negligent.
Agreed, I am aware of it. Whenever you hear someone talking about how good PBMRs are, this is what they are trying to convince you is 'Walk away safe'
Timeline: TMI was the first major disaster. Radiation release was ultimately minor, the dome did it's duty. Results: Ruined reactor that hung around decades before it was cool enough to clean up, but the dome, again, did it's duty. Basically no casualties. Resulted in an incredible amount of change in the safety system of the USA.
Also unlucky and lucky coincidences, but yes, in general I agree with you there. Still should not have happened, failed to yield any return on the construction (three months old) but it was still made hot enough so that it has to be disassembled with radio-isotopes in mind.
Don't design confusing control systems. Some radio-isotope contamination but in general contained.
A few too many risky things going on now though (IMO)
Then Chernobyl happened. A reactor with a positive void co-efficient(and you should know what this is), graphite moderated, no containment dome, with many safety features turned off and/or disabled for 'testing' that was, at the least, 'ill advised'.
Couldn't agree more, a culture that produced a bunch of boneheads bumbling procedures and ticking management boxes whilst loosing sight of what they were doing and what the stakes were. Hey, let's shut down the safety systems and Xenon poison the reactor during a drill and a shift change in the middle of the night while no one is around to watch the reactor
Apparently a guy ran through the reactor room to see the control rod heads jumping in and out of the reactor head. Talk about adrenaline overdrive.
I mean, fuck, totally unnecessary and forgetting the whole reason that they were there. Just stupid.
Fukushima - again, domes did their job. They should have had hydrogen systems, but didn't. Should of had the generators in better places. Still, it took a tsunami strike to cause it have a disaster.
Well, this is clearly criminal negligence on the part of the operator. Just as bad as the Soviet administration, several safety systems that should have been there, weren't. Safety costs money. Money is shareholder return.
That model reactor had several BDIs that were exposed in the construction of that plant. For the want of spending a couple of hundred million on a sea wall and generators in a place where they could not be flooded.
We don't know the state of the reactor core or the containment, so I am going to wait and see on that. This is another reason we should have daily monitoring and publishing of this data as knowledge as it puts everything on the table and we wouldn't have all these emotive arguments. We'd just point to the radio-isotopes released and model the state of the reactor.
Media black-outs don't do a lot to foster trust in the NI.
And we haven't discussed Windscale or the plethora of other NI contaminated sites and accidents that occur.
These are all teaching us something about how arrogant we are with the way we handle these materials. That we need to lift our game and evolve the whole industry.
the IAEA's founding papers "The agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity through the world."
Dude, my point wasn't centered on IAEA - I even quoted greenpeace estimating lower fatalities from the event.
Cool.
The question I'm asking you to consider is how can we get authoritative information from the WHO while such a clause exists? This restriction on their ability to gather and publish accurate information means we are not getting an accurate assessment of the situation. How can we trust the WHO information to be any more credible than 4 scientists in the Ukraine? These are the types of problems I'm saying need to be fixed. NP is important and dangerous at the same time. I'm sure you can agree that getting accurate scientific information on human health and the distribution of radionuclides is important enough to not have any political agendas interfering with it's work.
'yeah dude, this is what happens when a Nuclear Reactor blows up in your backyard'.
More like when a nuclear reactor, completely missing a containment dome, you know,
Soviet arrogance aside, I'm more referring to the radiological effects.
It's about 30 minutes reading. Not exactly a killer assignment. I'm pretty busy myself.
Don't be ridiculous. It is a set of laws that makes available billions of dollars to companies that can build plants, even if they don't go ahead and build them. If you ever wanted to see an example of 'I drink your milkshake' I don't think you will find a bigger one. Business is ugly FT, dirty and mean. I understand your discomfit, but it gives way to amusment when you realize the whole thing is a bunch of cunts, being cunts to another bunch of cunts. And those cunts run the whole world. We are but pawns and peons.
You said: Nuclear has historically been a baseload electrical power source
I said: Baseload is a grid function.
Nuclear has historically been a electrical power source. It is an input. Baseload availability of electrical power is a function of the power grid, not of any one source.
They are not the same.
Throwing accusations out there when you are speaking out of your own assumptions is a naive choice when the facts are right in front of you. There is hundreds of millions up for grabs, go read the section I refered you to and ask yourself when making that much money was not profitable? It is irrelevant what you call it, it is the framework of laws that set out energy policy. Industry will use it like any other tax advantage they can secure.
Sorry it's taken me a while to reply.
No problem. I gisted them and these look like good studies. I will read them over the next couple of days - thank you.
Damn man - you're really cool - thanks for being sane!
It's the joke that produces the reaction that is funny, I'll keep an eye out for the lols!!
All the best Mr Ward!!!
I am not entirely sure what your point is .
Neither am I, but I read them as well and it destroys his own argument. I have no idea where these fanboys come from however they all seem completely deluded. Arguing with them is like being in some sort of nonsensical alternate reality.
The first study shows expected additional cases due to radiation, the second shows total cases. The first study also includes a higher population in addition to the workers. Harvard study: Worker Population: Predicted cases of Leukemia up to 2005= 80 UNSCEAR study: Worker Population: Number of cases of Leukemia up to 2012 attributable to radiation = 16
So somehow because you come out with a bunch of numbers about Leukemia cases that is supposed to disprove LNT? You're not even making any sense. The studies you linked to both support LNT. The second one goes even further:
We found a significant linear dose response for all leukemia
And further still by *specifically* mentioning low doses:
Exposure to low doses and to low dose-rates of radiation from post-Chornobyl cleanup work was associated with a significant increase in risk of leukemia, which was statistically consistent with estimates for the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. Based on the primary analysis, we conclude that CLL and non-CLL are both radiosensitive.
So the article you link to doesn't just refute your claims about LNT, it refutes your entire argument about contracting Leukemia from radioactive sources.
Then further still by uncovering a link to a type of cancer previously thought *unrelated* to radiation:
The data indicated elevated risks for both CLL and other leukemias. We therefore extended the study through 2006, with a near doubling of the number of leukemia cases.
I gave you the starting point to find tons of studies on low level exposure. All good studies discuss uncertainties in the data and conclusions. You can easily find them, google is your friend.
And the first time you used it you disproved your own argument, thanks for saving me the effort. Please continue.
Unless you are claiming there are no studies on low dose exposure, LNT, or that somehow you cannot find them, or that they don't have the uncertainties I discussed. Which are you denying?
I supplied you with references to low dose studies on what is thought to be the most benign radioactive substance, Tritium. It is impossible to believe that you read those reports before posting them.
You are not entitled to your own facts.
I made a mistake in the numbers above. My apologies, here is corrected information, please ignore above.
Again, and as usual, you cannot support your argument with anything. This time, you disproved you *own* argument.
So then why aren't you considering the energetic inputs of the Nuclear industry? The Nuclear Industry in it's current form will not end our reliance on fossil fuels because of the energetic input to extract and enrich the fuel in the first place. And we are *yet* to incurr the energy debt for dimantling the existing reactors, or are they to be left they for some other generation to clean up. How does that make our generation any better than those who left us with a carbon legacy to deal with? They will have a radionuclide legacy to deal with.
I see it as the choice of two Nuclear reactors series that contain elements toxic to the human genome and whether our need for electricity overrides our responsibility for the DNA of future human beings. Personally, I don't think it does.
I think the choice of either of these reactors is a failure that will keep up bound to the coal industry and that for Nuclear to evolve it will need to engineer the energy expenditure out of it's support processes.
IAEA - WHO relationship is what I was referring you to in my post, not everything else by the way. If you want to see credibility in the future of the nuclear industry you have to examine:
the IAEA's founding papers "The agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity through the world."
I'll draw your attention to the interdiction clause (12.40) the IAEA has over the WHO drawn up on 28 May 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly:
"Whenever either organisation [the WHO or the IAEA] proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organisation has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement"
This is the core legal argument you have to consider when evaluating *any* information from the WHO when they report on Nuclear matter. Are you telling me that these organizations are going to act outside their charter? Are you telling me that they will not behave in the way they are designed to legally behave?
How can WHO reporting on these matters be considered 'credible' with these restrictions on the science they produce on matters Nuclear. Why is that more credible than 4 Slavic scientists from the Ukrain going, 'yeah dude, this is what happens when a Nuclear Reactor blows up in your backyard'.
As I said before, Ask yourself how likely it is for us to get reliable health science if the world's peak health organisation has it's science related to Nuclear matter vetted by the orgainsation responsible for promoting nuclear power.
Is it because they only speak Slavic languages and that they are scientists from the Ukraine that the body of their work is not credible? Or is it because we only speak english? Or is it because Chernobyl is in their country?
Because I have given you a link to a book they wrote. That is what they claim. Is there a specific criticism of these four Ukrainian scientist's work?
Well let's examine that correlation. That DU is used as munitions in Iraq is common knowledge.
It's properties, DU is pyrophoric, which means it ignites when used as a projectile and burns into a ceramic ash. As it decays it undergoes spontaneous combustion as it increases it's radioactive emissions ten or so times momentarily. It's ash is an inhalant but IIRC it is also water soluble. Oh, and it can cause some quite nasty birth defects. That's probably not common knowledge, if you want to check it out.
Indeed, it represents a remarkable co-incidence, I'm sure they are not related.
Who would you suggest is the most credible source of information we can rely on for information coming out of Iraq?