Radiation Levels in Japan

Jan 2009
5,841
50
#22
As already shown, you quote mined that. And I'm still right regardless.
What do you mean by quote-mined? And no you are not right- you just think you are right. And I'm not saying I'm right, I just think I am right.
 
Jul 2009
5,702
420
Opa Locka
#23
What do you mean by quote-mined? And no you are not right- you just think you are right. And I'm not saying I'm right, I just think I am right.
He didn't say nuke plants couldn't meltdown, he said we know how to build them right now. And yes I'm right, please show me where nuke accidents outnumber fossil fuel accidents.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#24
He didn't say nuke plants couldn't meltdown, he said we know how to build them right now. And yes I'm right, please show me where nuke accidents outnumber fossil fuel accidents.
He said we build them right now and used that as an argument for why they are safe. I said they aren't necessarily safe as they can still meltdown.

And you can't compare the number of nuclear accidents with fossil fuel accidents outright. Not only are there more fossil fuel plants (thereby increasing the likelihood of disasters), but the cost of a fossil fuel plant disaster is drastically lower than that of a nuclear disaster. With fossil fuels you don't have to deal with the type of radiation and long-term health and environmental effects you do with nuclear.
 
Jul 2009
5,702
420
Opa Locka
#25
He said we build them right now and used that as an argument for why they are safe. I said they aren't necessarily safe as they can still meltdown.

And you can't compare the number of nuclear accidents with fossil fuel accidents outright. Not only are there more fossil fuel plants (thereby increasing the likelihood of disasters), but the cost of a fossil fuel plant disaster is drastically lower than that of a nuclear disaster. With fossil fuels you don't have to deal with the type of radiation and long-term health and environmental effects you do with nuclear.
You don't have to deal with the radiation, the chemicals involved however are just as toxic and almost as hard to clean up. That and when those plants blow they level everything around them, when nuke plants go, everything stays intact and usable (assuming you contain the radiation in time). And even after evening out the ratio, the odds are still better for nukes.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#26
You don't have to deal with the radiation, the chemicals involved however are just as toxic and almost as hard to clean up.
The "chemicals" in a nuclear event are often radioactive (radioactivity is like most other things forms of elements or subatomic particles)- the radiation is a huge difference that is the determining factor here anyway.

That and when those plants blow they level everything around them, when nuke plants go, everything stays intact and usable (assuming you contain the radiation in time). And even after evening out the ratio, the odds are still better for nukes.
A nuclear plant explosion can level more than a fossil fuel explosion. But even that aside, the cost of things getting leveled is not really the problem with either. More so is the cost of lives, the cost of healthcare, the cost to the environment, the costs of lawsuits, and future costs in these arenas. The physical building costs are nothing compared to those.

And you can't say the "odds" are better for nukes just because it is your opinion ;)
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#27
David, I think your primary miscalculation in supporting nuclear power to the point where you make it seem like an obvious solution (it is actually an arguable solution if anything) is in not realizing the effects of radiation. I did a bit more research on the specific isotopes that were released by the Fukushima plant in Japan just earlier this year (so as to show you even with modern tech it isn't a perfect solution). Among the isotopes released were I-131 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine-131), Cs-134 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-134#Caesium-134), and Cs-137 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137). They were released in enough concentration that there were notable concentrations in rainwater in even the United States after the disaster. Furthermore, some radiation continues to be released (from what I've read- not sure if that has changed now but it did for at least a few months) as with this sort of thing it is extremely hard to control such elements.

These isotopes can be extremely dangerous, especially if consumed. Considering that they can travel the world's air, that means they can also fall into rainwater that then falls onto farms and foods we eat. It is especially dangerous near the site and Japan has been forced to destroy a lot of food over the issue. Some of these isotopes were also released during Chernobyl, which has been linked to many cases of cancer as is expected with any such radiation. Free radicals and radioactive molecules can do a lot of damage to the body and environment due to their instability. I won't go into that much here, but look it up if you want.

An oil or gas plant malfunctioning would never have such a widespread affect as this.
 
Aug 2011
448
0
California
#28
David, I think your primary miscalculation in supporting nuclear power to the point where you make it seem like an obvious solution (it is actually an arguable solution if anything).........
Funny: You sound like Rick Perry on global warming, saying that its not obvious, but rather arguable.

You don't believe in science!! LOL. How does it feel.

:p
 
#29
Hmmm..Interesting discussion you have here...I was reading all your reaction and it came out that all of you have good point although my personal take is I don't like nuclear plants too..It scares me..
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#30
Funny: You sound like Rick Perry on global warming, saying that its not obvious, but rather arguable.

You don't believe in science!! LOL. How does it feel.

:p
Um choosing what form of energy to use is a matter of opinion- each has its benefits and costs. As such, it is arguable.

Global warming is not an opinion.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#36
No, he should stay out of politics as well if that's what he wants to do.
I agree, but politics is the heartland of idiots who just want to pass off their opinions (or, more often, their opinions as dictated by who they sold them to) as fact. Just take a look at 99% of Capitol Hill.
 
Jul 2009
5,702
420
Opa Locka
#37
I agree, but politics is the heartland of idiots who just want to pass off their opinions (or, more often, their opinions as dictated by who they sold them to) as fact. Just take a look at 99% of Capitol Hill.
Thus my contempt for letting everyone vote.
 

Similar Discussions