I want to get elected!

Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum

Help Support Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
DJ_L3ThAL said:
Sorry but I find it hard to believe people can stand against Nuclear energy as the most viable INTERIM energy source to reduce global emissions...
Firstly, my quote was in response to Dave's quote below, and I was just pointing out that there was a valid counter argument.

Nukes = lots of clean power.
GMO = lots of poor people fed.
Secondly, I've seen that graph you posted, and it's a beautiful way to distort statistics. The full article is here for anyone interested in reading it. The author attributes 1 death to the Fukushima accident. Admittedly, he wrote this only two days after the accident, but his data is based on actual deaths at the time of the accident, and not ongoing issues with radiation exposure. In the case of Fukushima, there was actually very little radiation exposure and the number of predicted deaths ranges from low to 25x the incidence of thyroid cancer. Regarding Chernobyl, the article only attributed 50 deaths, however it states:

The World Health Organization study in 2005 indicated that 50 people died to that point as a direct result of Chernobyl. 4000 people may eventually die earlier as a result of Chernobyl, but those deaths would be more than 20 years after the fact and the cause and effect becomes more tenuous.
I'm not saying nuclear isn't viable (as you stated). But I don't think that safety concerns are a figment of the imagination either. I also don't think your graph illustrates any environmental issues associated with uranium mining or disposal of nuclear waste. My point that I was trying to make is that there is a valid counter argument to yours, even if you can't see its merits.
 
DJ_L3ThAL said:
Sorry but I find it hard to believe people can stand against Nuclear energy as the most viable INTERIM energy source to reduce global emissions whilst meeting increasing energy demand, allowing time for renewables to develop and eventually take over all energy sources for us to be self sufficient across the globe going forward.

Before climate change "de-railers" step in, I'm talking reducing global emissions in a sense that how can it hurt? There will be jobs created and people in existing fossil fuel industries can jump on board renewables to progress their careers.

Back to my point, weigh up all these Nuclear "disasters" with deaths that have occurred in the history of modern energy supply per energy unit created by that source and you get this:

deaths.jpg


So please don't tell me Nuclear is not viable. It is only being held back by some figment of the imagination based on movies/TV that nuclear meltdowns will threaten the globe and terrorists will obtain the uranium and make bombs (mind you, weapons grade and fuel grade uranium are practically two completely different things). For those wondering, the Coal deaths come from asthma and respiratory related diseases from coal fired plant particulate emissions.

Fukishima was a super old plant that should have probably been decommissioned, which was impacted by an extremely rare occurring natural disaster, tell me when earthquakes occur and bridges/buildings collapse, there is not a global push to stop building bridges and buildings now is there? It is all factored into engineering safety in design for what is within an acceptable risk versus the rarity of occurrence.
If you think nuclear energy is so good go and live next to the reactors in Japan or Ukraine. If a coal fired power station goes arse up when the dust settles you get to work fixing it. Once that reactor is installed and started it is there for good and the ground will be good for nothing. forever.
 
Kaiser Soze said:
Firstly, my quote was in response to Dave's quote below, and I was just pointing out that there was a valid counter argument.

Secondly, I've seen that graph you posted, and it's a beautiful way to distort statistics. The full article is here for anyone interested in reading it. The author attributes 1 death to the Fukushima accident. Admittedly, he wrote this only two days after the accident, but his data is based on actual deaths at the time of the accident, and not ongoing issues with radiation exposure. In the case of Fukushima, there was actually very little radiation exposure and the number of predicted deaths ranges from low to 25x the incidence of thyroid cancer. Regarding Chernobyl, the article only attributed 50 deaths, however it states:


I'm not saying nuclear isn't viable (as you stated). But I don't think that safety concerns are a figment of the imagination either. I also don't think your graph illustrates any environmental issues associated with uranium mining or disposal of nuclear waste. My point that I was trying to make is that there is a valid counter argument to yours, even if you can't see its merits.
Of course anyone can say that there is a counter argument for something, that is a constant. In relation to Chernobyl, the ongoing health effects etc, sure they increase the numbers in the graph, but still nowhere near as many deaths as attributed to a far more polluting and less efficient energy source in coal/oil. This added to the fact that burning fossil fuels as a process has not covered as much grounds in terms of efficiency improvement, safety and control like nuclear has.

If you weigh up the effects of doing nothing and burning fossil fuels in terms of health/deaths attributed to the current particulates in atmosphere, climate change and the fact that we will run out at some point which has an even larger potential effect (wars, worsened poverty etc) versus having an interim fuel source which could assist the world getting to a self-sustained energy production case then I fail to see why anyone would be so avidly against the idea?

It is just to me, the people against Nuclear and even renewables arguing that it puts prices of energy and living up are so fixed in their current world and the way that they live, completely dismissing and not realising that it's about the future and the bigger picture for humanity. The people who are trying to implement Nuclear and renewables are driven by creating a better future rather than any short term gain for the present.

I can also definitely see the merits in worrying about uranium mining and nuclear waste, but these are not larger issues than we are facing if we continue doing what we are currently doing. I always recommend to friends and family in Victoria to go to the LaTrobe Valley to see the holes in the ground and get a feel for earth we have simply burned which has only fuelled one tiny state, put that up on a global scale and you get a pretty horrifying image. Sure, uranium mining will create holes, but far less and as I stated it's an interim source before new technologies will make even nuclear obsolete.


booargy said:
If you think nuclear energy is so good go and live next to the reactors in Japan or Ukraine. If a coal fired power station goes arse up when the dust settles you get to work fixing it. Once that reactor is installed and started it is there for good and the ground will be good for nothing. forever.
You're basing this on the only two isolated nuclear disaster incidences known to man kind, with the assumption there have been no ill effects or disasters from fossil fuel exploration and exploitation, ill save you the effort googling and refer you to some examples at this link: http://io9.com/5526826/greatest-fossil-fuel-disasters-in-human-history

Also if a coal fired power station (typically steam turbines) "went up" as you say, a supercritical steam boiler has an insanely large explosive potential that would dessimate square kilometres, so good luck living next to one of those!

Finally I don't know where you have obtained your information that the ground would be ruined forever by having a nuclear power plant on it, can you please provide reference to one other than Fukishima or Chernobyl?
 
booargy said:
If you think nuclear energy is so good go and live next to the reactors in Japan or Ukraine. If a coal fired power station goes arse up when the dust settles you get to work fixing it. Once that reactor is installed and started it is there for good and the ground will be good for nothing. forever.
Hiroshima then.

2.jpg



Today. Better shape than many US citys.

Hiroshima+is+not+a+toxic+wasteland.JPG
 
DJ_L3ThAL said:
Of course anyone can say that there is a counter argument for something, that is a constant.
Read the full thread. The question was initially 'what policies make the Greens a bunch of loonies'. Their policy on nuclear energy was used as an example. Do you really believe that their counter argument makes them loonies? They're not suggesting we live on the moon, they are just voicing their opinion on nuclear energy, a view held by lots of other people around the world. I don't think this makes them loonies.

DJ_L3ThAL said:
In relation to Chernobyl, the ongoing health effects etc, sure they increase the numbers in the graph...
My point is, it's distorted statistics. The number of people currently dead might be smaller, but lets think logically here - if you got cancer from Chernobyl and faced the prospect of a shortened life span, that's a death sentence. It's like saying that in the 70's, asbestos could have been considered safe because the number of actual deaths that had occurred was limited.

DJ_L3ThAL said:
If you weigh up the effects of doing nothing and burning fossil fuels...
I don't think the Greens are advocating this. In fact, I don't think there are many people advocating this.

DJ_L3ThAL said:
The people who are trying to implement Nuclear and renewables are driven by creating a better future rather than any short term gain for the present.
Ah, I see, nuclear philanthropists?

DJ_L3ThAL said:
I can also definitely see the merits in worrying about uranium mining and nuclear waste...
Rightio, that was my original point.
 
So I've still got a shot then?

So to speak.
 
Ducatiboy stu said:
Its the only way it could be done
Not true. Rohypnol is also effective.

At least the police told me it was rohypnol. I can't remember a thing.
 
Amyl Nitrite

"Known for its relaxation of involuntary muscles, especially the sphincter muscle."
 
I

Dave70 said:
Hiroshima then.

2.jpg



Today. Better shape than many US citys.

Hiroshima+is+not+a+toxic+wasteland.JPG
Yeah yeah yeah I would like to see a power station in a B52. Go live in Chernobyl then.
 
booargy said:
I


Yeah yeah yeah I would like to see a power station in a B52. Go live in Chernobyl then.
Now, now, lets not get out dreadlocks in a tangle.

I suspect powering your computer by way of a stationary bicycle spinning a generator must be a hell of a job.
 
Actually coal that I feed into the boiler. Funny when you burn it and run the smoke through a filter you don't get that yellowish white smoke that comes out of my forge.
 
Dave70 said:
Now, now, lets not get out dreadlocks in a tangle. I suspect powering your computer by way of a stationary bicycle spinning a generator must be a hell of a job.
Obviously the only two alternatives must be uranium or hippies.

Hyperbole is cool.
 
It's the coolest.
 
Sarah Palin would've been preferable.

Stupid vs Repulsive...
 
Back
Top