@TMTisFree

Quote:

@Dandy Quote: I'd say they can't have it both ways (green energy, but not from their own backyard)... This is the greens' main problem... They want energy without any inconveniences, 'rule' renewables have none (to save the planet), deny to act and then fight against the very policy they pushes for: eco-lunacy and green hypocrisy are boundless.

There are certainly environmentals with this position. However, to cast every environmentalist in this light is false. Just as casting every anti-GW as religious nutters, just because some exist, is wrong.

The NIMBY syndrome applies not only to green power but to all power. As I've watched new coal plants in the US the same attitude applies. Citizens want power but some citizens will always not want to generate that power within their town for various reasons.

And of course while some greens want to put up a windmill other local non-greens will want to oppose windwills and oppose any power generation locally. It's easy to confuse the NIMBY person with the green and think they are one in the same.

@Dandy

Quote:

Nevertheless the nuclear power lobby and their bought politicians likes to imply that.

I never heard or read someone bragging about "ultimate nuclear safety" except green liars complaining about it. To be sure, I just visit the World Nuclear Association web site and what do I find in the Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors page?
Quote:

* From the outset, there has been a strong awareness of the potential hazard of both nuclear criticality and release of radioactive materials. * There have been three major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power - Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. One was contained without harm to anyone, the next involved an intense fire without provision for containment, and the third severely tested the containment. * These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 14,000 cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 32 countries. * The risks from western nuclear power plants, in terms of the consequences of an accident or terrorist attack, are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks. Nuclear power plants are very robust. * Safety is achieved through "defence in depth".

And what do you find at the end of the page? A table giving the exact same numbers I gave you in percent here:


For some perspective, you might have a look at the first table in the annex (reproduced below for convenience):

Nota bene: this picture is located on my own server (for future reference).

Quote:

Nevertheless I do not like the thought I might be one of those poor heavily contaminated victims - and most other people think so as well.

Nobody wants to die:
1/ drown by a broken dam or, if lucky, enjoy a wheelchair until cemetery;
2/ asphyxiated by methane from coal mine or, if lucky, enjoy a wheelchair until grave;
3/ crushed by a falling windmill or, if lucky, enjoy a wheelchair until cremation;
4/ by falling down to ground while restoring your solar panel or, if lucky, enjoy a wheelchair until cemetery;
5/ exploded by a gas plant or, if lucky, enjoy a wheelchair until grave.

No one has ever died of radiations from commercial plants in developed countries. That's what data demonstrate. And that's why experts correctly state that nuclear power is the safer source of energy by large. You have more chance to get a cancer breathing city air than by living near a power plant.

Quote:

But I currently cannot imagine a rational explanation why it took TEPCO one entire week to come up with the idea to build an emergency power supply.

This information seems incorrect. On Mars 17, a TEPCO PR stated: Quote:

If the restoration work [of the power line] is completed, we will be able to activate various electric pumps and pour water into reactors and pools for spent nuclear fuel.

Nevertheless I can understand this operation has taken some more time due to the big mess left after the earthquakes and especially the tsunami.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

O.K. - that would be valid for the hypothetical small nuclear power station in the garden as well

I am waiting for development of micro-nuclear: ideally each home powered by a small and modular nuclear reactor such as a smaller kind of this one [PDF] and disconnected from the old, inefficient, wasting and collective power grid. The last step away from socialized and centralized power production/distribution, the dream of autonomy in energy for every one finally achieved and celebrated as a victory of and for individual liberty.

Quote:

Open an gourmet restaurant nearby...

I initially had a much better idea, as I planned to restore a rather large pond I own (not very far from the windmills) where an unique specie of bird is nesting every spring. But I will wait 1-2 years after the 10 rotating butchers are built to see if this is still that interesting (I do not want to to waste my time/money for dead meat).

Quote:

There may be some who are that way - but not all...

Certainly many more than you could think off.

Quote:

Well, as you sounded as if you took that serious...

Yes, I did.

Edit: reworded a bit

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 28-Mar-2011 at 08:02 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

No one has ever died of radiations from commercial plants in developed countries. That's what data demonstrate. And that's why experts correctly state that nuclear power is the safer source of energy by large. You have more chance to get a cancer breathing city air than by living near a power plant

What I find interesting in the numbers is, for example, lots of coal mine methane explosions. Yet nearly none of the impacts of Uranium mining appears to be tracked? Like you said 'developed countries'. An undeveloped country such as the 6th poorest in the world Niger benefits from not having the facilities to do a counting of the impact of the Uranium mining industry.

This severe lack of data of the French owned Areva makes the nuclear industry numbers lower as that impact has failed to be counted. The mines are worked without protective gloves or masks. The population in Arlit, near the French mine, die from respiratory illnesses at more than twice the national average. Air at the police station at Akokan showed radon concentrations of more than 7x higher than the surrounding area. You have more chance to get a cancer breathing air from mining operations for a nuclear power plant in Niger than by living in a modern city.

So sure the developed countries may be safe. One must ask if it's fair to neglect the costs of the undeveloped countries and people in such an analysis. And again the problem here is in such an undeveloped country autopsies are rarely performed nor are stats on deaths kept with adequate quality making them easy to ignore in statistical analysis.

@BrianK

Quote:

And of course while some greens want to put up a windmill other local non-greens will want to oppose windwills and oppose any power generation locally.

You are confused. Let me edit: Quote:

And of course while some non-greens want to put up a windmill other local greens want to oppose windwills and oppose any power generation locally.

Corrected now.

Quote:

It's easy to confuse the NIMBY person with the green and think they are one in the same.

You digress, as usual. My personal example was brought to demonstrate green hypocrisy. Who care if somewhere a NIMBY someone is not green? Really, you don't learn logic in the US? It helps to follow a discussion.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

Yet nearly none of the impacts of Uranium mining appears to be tracked?

I have yet to see real fatality numbers directly related to U mining problems. There are much disinformation spread by local anti-nuclear groups and small pro-rebels in Africa.

Quote:

One must ask if it's fair to neglect the costs of the undeveloped countries and people in such an analysis. And again the problem here is in such an undeveloped country autopsies are rarely performed nor are stats on deaths kept with adequate quality making them easy to ignore in statistical analysis.

Great theory, but what do we see in practice? Eco-luddites trying to restrain developing countries to use the cheap energy they own, namely coal, to grow faster towards prosperity and modernity. All in the name of imaginative CO² fears invented by some western pseudo-scientists and politically misused by green eco-fascists to achieve their anti-human agenda. Great moral indeed. Never forget these sane words from Nixon, worth remembering:
Quote:

"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

I am waiting for development of micro-nuclear: ideally each home powered by a small and modular nuclear reactor such as a smaller kind of this one [PDF] and disconnected from the old, inefficient, wasting and collective power grid. The last step away from socialized and centralized power production/distribution, the dream of autonomy in energy for every one finally achieved and celebrated as a victory of and for individual liberty.

This type of power doesn't do away with the power grid. It puts more points on the power grid. As the document claimed it'd serve 20K homes. For example where I live there are 27K people in a 1,766 sq km area. Ya gotta get the power to them and a grid is the only way. And certainly they'd be provided in the same manner a socialized and centralized company would sell them, would sell power from them, and maintain them. Certainly people could band together in their own Coops to do this themselves. Now when you sell your home does your buyer get forced into the Coop? If so there goes your liberty. If not well then you need the grid still there. It's idealistic and unrealistic to think this device increases individual liberty.

Quote:

You digress, as usual. My personal example was brought to demonstrate green hypocrisy

You are seeing greens as you want to see them in the simplest terms, in the most convenient definitions. As you commented on logic the logic in my argument it is fairly easy to follow. The case of some greens doing this does not equal ALL greens doing this.

Quote:

I have yet to see real fatality numbers directly related to U mining problems. There are much disinformation spread by local anti-nuclear groups and small pro-rebels in Africa.

And yes that's the problem here. You're claiming nuclear to be safe and failing to fully account for it's impacts. In short there's a hole in your emperical data that you're unable to fill. This provides an incomplete picture of the true impact.

Quote:

Eco-luddites trying to restrain developing countries to use the cheap energy they own, namely coal, to grow faster towards prosperity and modernity.

There are a number of eco-luddites opposite to this statement. Who promote Africa developing countries use energy they have in abundance in their own countries. Solar is one such example. Eco-luddites owning coal? I'd say they are more likely neither eco-friendly nor a luddite.

The rest of your statements after that are fairly summarized by ad hominems are logical fallacies which add nothing to support your position.

Last edited by BrianK on 28-Mar-2011 at 08:22 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

Certainly people could band together in their own Coops to do this themselves.

I am not very interested in the kind of devices I pointed to (one could called it macro-nuclear). I am much more interested in micro-nuclear technology ie a version of the Hyperion Power Module scaled down to a 1-2 KW power device good for 1 home only, achieving the same level of independence that, say, cars provided in the past. Anyway it will become a reality only in the far future: the energy winner in the mean time and in coming decades is natural gas (enormous proven reserves and cheap).

Quote:

You are seeing greens as you want to see them in the simplest terms

Circular logic works because circular logic works because...

Quote:

the logic in my argument it is fairly easy to follow

... but still irrelevant.

Quote:

And yes that's the problem here. You're claiming nuclear to be safe and failing to fully account for it's impacts. In short there's a hole in your emperical [sic] data that you're unable to fill. This provides an incomplete picture of the true impact.

Still waiting for these supposed missing empirical data...


Quote:

There are a number of eco-luddites opposite to this statement.

You mean there exists on this planet at least one green publicly claiming poor countries have a duty to use more coal resources to develop faster, and actually helping to improve poor people's welfare? I have yet to meet/read/see/listen to such a good man caring for his poor fellow beings. Must be rare.

Quote:

Solar is one such example.

I was thinking of real energy, that is base energy, the energy provided by gas, coal or nuclear to grow and enhance the large scale economy of a country. If you want the poor people of this planet to remain poor, then yes, promote unreliable, inefficient and expansive energy like solar and wind, the kind of energy we have in the dark ages. I must repeat: I have yet to meet a green caring for human and people welfare. This person is certainly not you.

Quote:

The rest of...

You don't like those words from one of your President? Strange, was squaring well though.

Edit: add a comment

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 28-Mar-2011 at 10:49 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Nobody wants to die: 1/ drown by a broken dam or, if lucky, enjoy a wheelchair until cemetery; 2/ asphyxiated by methane from coal mine or, if lucky, enjoy a wheelchair until grave; 3/ crushed by a falling windmill or, if lucky, enjoy a wheelchair until cremation; 4/ by falling down to ground while restoring your solar panel or, if lucky, enjoy a wheelchair until cemetery; 5/ exploded by a gas plant or, if lucky, enjoy a wheelchair until grave.

March 25th was the 100th Anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire. After the fire various business newspapers contained editorials that nothing could have been done. Yet enclosed stairways, sprinklers, not locking workers in, picking up combustables, and others could have been done. The result was Unionization which brought about occupational workplace safety. The attitudes of business owners resulted in a century of progressive changes because the owners refused to take responsibility for people. Your attitude exhibited here displays the same sort of non-chalent contempt for humans that you exhibit here.

Quote:

No one has ever died of radiations from commercial plants in developed countries.

Deaths from Chernobyl from UNSCLEAR, a strong nuclear supporter, was 64. WHO puts the deaths at radiation from Chernobyl, mostly fallen on Bellarus, to be about 4,000. Greenpeace, of course, much higher. Out of 237 people with radiation sickness 31 died in the first 3 months. Also, the valiant firemen that acted swiftly to put out the reactors, except for #4 which burned for days, died soon after from radiation posioning. Let's honor those which protected the lives of others by giving their own, instead making 'no one ever died' #### claims.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Anyway it will become a reality only in the far future: the energy winner in the mean time and in coming decades is natural gas (enormous proven reserves and cheap

The plus of gas and oil is it is a fuel. Uranium needs to be enriched to a state it can be used as a fuel. If we're talking an idealized future I'd rather see a fusion reactor.


Quote:

but still irrelevant.

Whitewashing a group of people together into a false statement on where many of them stand IS a big problem and is wrong. And it is what you do when you claim this is the hypocrasy of the greeners. Many greeners in Minnesota have worked to get windmills built here. This goes to show that not all greeners have the hypocrasy you claim them to.


Quote:

Still waiting for these supposed missing empirical data...

You noted you had not seen real fatality numbers. Thus, while we cannot conclude what they might be we also cannot fairly include 0 as the count, as you have. There is no 'supposed' missing empirical data. It is missing empirical data. The only 'supposed' is the impact having that data would be.


Quote:

I was thinking of real energy,

The sun is all fake energy. Got it.

@BrianK

Quote:

March 25th...blah blah blah

What's the relevance really?

Quote:

Deaths from Chernobyl from UNSCLEAR, a strong nuclear supporter, was 64.

The 2005 UN report "Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts" says 56 exactly (47 workers + 9 children).

Quote:

WHO puts the deaths at radiation from Chernobyl, mostly fallen on Bellarus, to be about 4,000.

This number is an estimation of the expected death attributable to Chernobyl: a rather questionable metric decency requires not to discuss further.

Quote:

Let's honor those which protected the lives of others by giving their own, instead making 'no one ever died' #### claims.

Sure. But USSR and East countries were not (rightly) considered developed countries at that time by anyone, so the statement "No one has ever died of radiations from commercial plants in developed countries" is factually correct. I have a complementary POV: why not blaming also the root cause responsible for the catastrophe and the lives' losses, namely the despicable inherent failure of the centralized socialistic planning scheme the greens are nowadays after?

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

What's the relevance really?

Your attitude that people are going to die so if it's from a damn or cancer from power it's therefore not a big deal is insensitive and confirms my previous statement. TMTisFree believes overt selfishness to be a virtue.

Quote:

The 2005 UN report "Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts" says 56 exactly (47 workers + 9 children).

Clear emperical evidence that your claim 'No one has ever died of radiations from commercial plants in developed countries.' is false.

Quote:

This number is an estimation

What you are doing is saying 4K is an estimate and TMT only wants emperical therefire I take this value as 0. A poor analysis. And really it doesn't matter at this point because you told us 'No one' has ever died and you've already agreed to at least 56. The number is likely far higher than that. The problem is we have to rely on the best probabilistic #. Again you've assumed that 0 is that number.

Quote:

But USSR and East countries were not (rightly) considered developed countries at that time by anyone

In 1986 the USSR was not a developed nation? The year they launched the MIR Spacestation they weren't developed? Neanderthals.

Quote:

I have a complementary POV: why not blaming also the root cause responsible for the catastrophe and the lives' losses, namely the despicable inherent failure of the centralized socialistic planning scheme the greens are nowadays after?

That one's easy. You've an assumed a false major premise as the greens aren't after a centralized socialistic planning scheme. Your fallacy is built into your assumption.

Last edited by BrianK on 29-Mar-2011 at 01:20 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

Your attitude...

Still farting in the air to hit some ghosts I see . BrianK obtuse 'divert to obfuscate' strategy is telling about his refusal to accept empirical data. Also, labelling personal adjective when one is straightly making his point only demonstrates Briank's ability to master at digressions and irrelevances, deceptively trying to maintain an illusion of coherence. This, we are used to, what about leaving the sandbox for a change. But what is more telling is BrianK use of the same kind of emotional 'trick' to make irrelevant point the green ecotards usually like to abuse (seal, bear, planet, ice, frog, etc ad nauseam) to win their own irrelevant pseudo-argument. The cracked façade does not mask the same odious absence of decency. An expected but sad disappointment.

Quote:

Clear emperical [sic] evidence that your claim 'No one has ever died of radiations from commercial plants in developed countries.' is false.

For some reason the 'OECD' word got lost in pasting, so I have to have more precisely wrote 'in OECD developed countries' as I was referring to the results from the table I gave previously as supporting data. Also as the VI Lenin nuclear plant (misnamed Tchernobyl) was not a commercial one as it was owned and operated by the centrally planned socialistic state (the sole fact to account for the accident), my claim is correct and true. Your minor glitch does not therefore alter the main conclusion. I am happy to concede you grasped at straws and failed.

Quote:

What you are doing is saying 4K is an estimate

I am not, the official UN report said so: Quote:

The total number of deaths already attributable to Chernobyl or expected in the future over the lifetime of emergency workers and local residents in the most contaminated areas is estimated to be about 4000. This includes some 50 [47 exactly] emergency workers who died of acute radiation syndrome and nine children who died of thyroid cancer, and an estimated total of [expected] 3940 deaths from radiation-induced cancer and leukemia among the 200 000 emergency workers from 1986-1987

and: Quote:

The estimated 4000 casualties may occur during the lifetime of about 600 000 people under consideration.

The point was and still is that 56 persons has officially died as a direct consequence of the accident. The abstruse wording of the report is misleading and you have to read carefully and decipher to understand and separate what they want to exaggerate from what is the core truth (typical of UN reports though). That does not mean no one else will ever died but future is uncertain (and models pointless): no doubt figures will be rightly corrected as timely as data change.

Quote:

That one's easy. You've an assumed a false major premise as the greens aren't after a centralized socialistic planning scheme.

I have pointed out in the past enough evidences in support of this claim (reading the UN Agenda 21 is a good start, or the fact that most if not all political greens are 'affiliated' with a socialist [what you called liberal in the US] party in one form or another for examples), so that your conclusion is just not only easy but chiefly wrong. A fine wont.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

BrianK obtuse 'divert to obfuscate' strategy is telling about his refusal to accept empirical data

That's a silly conclusion. I've accepted empirical data. And I've looked at the data and seen where the empirical data is lacking. It's you that fail to analyze the empirical data and have assumed it to be complete.

Quote:

For some reason the 'OECD' word got lost in pasting, so I have to have more precisely wrote 'in OECD developed countries'

After a few attempts to explain your way out you finally realize you made a typo?

Quote:

Also as the VI Lenin nuclear plant (misnamed Tchernobyl) was not a commercial one as it was owned and operated by the centrally planned socialistic state

The 'annex' chart on your post provids various events in socialistic states. First off it's filled with China. Second there are other Russian events which are counted. So, no you aren't being consistent with your emperical data. A major glich on your part. I'm happy to concede you backpeddled and failed.

Quote:

The point was and still is that 56 persons has officially died as a direct consequence of the accident.

Didn't you tell us we don't have to count those people because they were communists.

Quote:

no doubt figures will be rightly corrected as timely as data change

Never with an empirical count. Look at Nagasaki and Hiroshima long term deaths to understand this. After the proximal deaths the headcounts are estimates. It's difficult to calculate if a particular person's cancer was caused from Hiroshima. The only that can be done is compare death rates to previous death rates for the area and create a probability of impact from the event.

Quote:

most if not all political greens are 'affiliated' with a socialist [what you called liberal in the US] party in one form or another for examples

One can only say thanks for highlighting the failures of assumptions in your leading question. This 'empirical data' is failing you greatly.

@BrianK

Quote:

This goes to show that not all greeners have the hypocrasy you claim them to.

That's your main problem in fact, you don't read what people write. Instead you interpret at your convenience what is clearly meant, you invent what no one has ever explicitly or implicitly said without even requesting precision if need be, showing a boring preference for childish quibbling about factoids of no interest for anyone but you. Clearly your poor form of trolling diverts from interesting discussion. Please direct me to one post where I wrote in its entirety "ALL greens are hypocrites". You can't because there is none. QED.

Quote:

You noted you had not seen real fatality numbers. Thus, while we cannot conclude what they might be we also cannot fairly include 0 as the count, as you have. There is no 'supposed' missing empirical data. It is missing empirical data. The only 'supposed' is the impact having that data would be.

I noted you made claims without supporting data. Now you claim data are non-existent and because of that, a unknown impact we have no data on must be supposed to exist and that justifies it is not fair to "include 0 as the count, as [I] have". Making sense of it now: because you suppose it is, then it is. Magical thinking at work. No wonder the current state of climate science with standard like that.

Quote:

The sun is all fake energy. Got it.

At least according to IPCC pseudo-scientists thus making your smiley very ironical indeed. More to the point, no one in his right mind has or will ever seriously consider/ed solar as a base(load) energy when light disappears 50% per day. I though this was very simple to get. But no.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

I've accepted empirical data. And I've looked at the data and seen where the empirical data is lacking. It's you that fail to analyze the empirical data and have assumed it to be complete.

A conclusion the logic seems to escape you: an assumption data is incomplete is just that, an assumption. No conclusion can be expected from 'supposed' missing or incomplete data because no one can possibly analyse non-existent data (except IPCC pseudo-scientists and believers). Magical thinking, yes you can.

Quote:

After a few attempts to explain your way out you finally realize you made a typo?

...which do not alters the conclusion drawn from the number and perfectly exemplify the first point from my previous post: fighting for a typo while leaving the substance aside.

Quote:

The 'annex' chart on your post provids various events

...which are all non-nuclear events and are thus irrelevant to the point: they do not appear in the table listing and dealing with the nuclear events I was referring to. Your usual but unsustainable practice.

Quote:

Didn't you tell us we don't have to count those people because they were communists.

Too much projection.

Quote:

It's difficult to calculate if a particular person's cancer was caused from Hiroshima.

You finally find a way to regurgitate what I have (in vain I confess) attempted to explain to you in very simple words before. You show some progress, good. Do you know that for some imitation is the highest form of flattery. Keep this way (though I don't hold my breath).

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

I noted you made claims without supporting data.

That's not what your sentence reads. Quote:

Still waiting for these supposed missing empirical data...

You agreed that we don't have that empirical data. It's not 'supposed missing' it is missing. However, there are statitical approximations of this data.

Quote:

Now you claim data are non-existent and because of that, a unknown impact we have no data on must be supposed to exist and that justifies it is not fair to "include 0 as the count, as [I] have".

I noted that statistical data does exist from various entities. You reject any statitiscal data and in turn are accepting the number to be 0 because we don't know the true count empirically. Instead what you could do is accept the statisical ranges and give a count accordingly. Things like this happen all the time when looking at deaths from exposure. Don't quote me exactly here as it's an example of how this is presented -- The long term deaths from Nagaski are 90K - 160K. If Nagaskai was your figure you'd says this is 0 because they aren't emprical data.

Quote:

At least according to IPCC pseudo-scientists thus making your smiley very ironical indeed

You accuse others of not reading? Perhaps you need to read. The Sun, according to the IPCC, is one of the largest factors determining warmth in the climate.

Quote:

which are all non-nuclear events and are thus irrelevant to the point: they do not appear in the table listing and dealing with the nuclear events I was referring to. Your usual but unsustainable practice

Putting this together for you... So far you've claimed Chernobyl is a non countable event because it wasn't in a developed Country and was Communist. However, you fail to apply the same logic to non-nuclear events as it appears you count other Communist countries, China, and even Russia itself. And yes this is very relevant. You have fairly demonstrated to us that you are inconsistently treating the empirical data. And in such a way that makes nukes appear to have less of an impact than they did.

Quote:

You finally find a way to regurgitate what I have (in vain I confess) attempted to explain to you in very simple words before. You show some progress, good.

In short you throw out statitically derived numbers because they aren't empirical. So not only do you hate Climatologists it appears you also hate Statiticans. The picture of deaths from various power sources is overly simplistic and incompelete. (As you so cleverly want to use... QED)

@BrianK

Quote:

Quote: ...most if not all political greens are 'affiliated' with a socialist [what you called liberal in the US] party in one form or another for examples One can only say thanks for highlighting the failures of assumptions in your leading question. This 'empirical data' is failing you greatly.

I have all the evidences I need: I can't find at least one European country I know off where the green party is not 'affiliated' with the socialist party in one form or another. Idem in the US with leftists. In the UK it is a little bit difficult as all parties seem to play at which one is the greenest, slowly leading the country to a deserved 3rd world status. Please now provide contrary evidences that "most if not all political greens are 'affiliated' with a socialist [...] party". Reading the UN Agenda 21 you conveniently do not quote is sufficient to support my claim btw, as the green part is inextricably linked to the socialistic gibberish part.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

China plans to build a thorium - molten salt cooled reactor. LINK The description of safety strikes me as overly simplistic. It'll be interesting to watch one in production and see what occurs.

@BrianK

Quote:

You agreed that we don't have that empirical data.

What I was thinking of, basing a claim on empirical data. Silly me.

Quote:

However, there are statitical [sic] approximations of this data.

I like the smell of your defeat in the middle afternoon. Surely the kind of "approximations" climate pseudo-scientists are used to: what is the status of 2 women one pregnant one not on average? Half pregnant. Thanks but no.

Quote:

I noted that statistical data does exist from various entities.

Provided by me. So what?

Quote:

You reject any statitiscal [sic] data

Don't put words into my mouth. I reject your conjecture of 'missing data' and the related but unsupported conclusion you drawn from such baseless invention. Your conclusion from the "This severe lack of data..." claim is thus both unjustified (forcefully by definition, with no data) and logically wrong (qualifying a lack of something no one knows the extend by 'severe' should be perturbing at best).

Quote:

Things like this happen all the time when looking at deaths from exposure. Don't quote me exactly here as it's an example of how this is presented

Am I supposed to be convinced by an argument by presentation? Too much for me.

Quote:

The long term deaths from Nagaski are 90K - 160K. If Nagaskai was your figure you'd says this is 0 because they aren't emprical [sic] data.

Else these figures have been measured else they have not. Statistical tricks and range guessworks do not work nor count. As stated by the report itself: Quote:

The estimated 4000 casualties may occur during the lifetime of about 600 000 people under consideration. As about quarter of them will eventually die from spontaneous cancer not caused by Chernobyl radiation, the [expected] radiation-induced increase of about 3% will be difficult to observe.

Quote:

You accuse others of not reading?

Where? Sniffing carpet can lead to strange hallucinations

Quote:

The Sun, according to the IPCC, is one of the largest factors determining warmth in the climate.

According to the IPCC? You are not even sure yourself? Haha! One of the largest factors? Double whaow!! I did not know of all these marvels, especially the fact that CO² is now not the main warmth climate determinant, "according to the IPCC" that is. Thanks for the fun BrianK!

Quote:

Putting this together for you

You say it, let's do a little calculus: 25% of 4000 may die from a spontaneous cancer not related to the accident = 1000 persons. An expected 3% increase of radiation-induced death may occur = 30 persons. Even if we take all these 'may' as granted, this simple calculus, using the way you support, using numbers given by UN officials, will not permit to observe any increase of deaths in the entire population (0.005% of total), as they correctly state in the report. More probably these persons will have a cure for cancer and will normally survive because this is what is usually happening (thus explaining the difficulty to observe). Even considering the impossible case they all die immediately, that will not have a slight difference on the conclusion because this number is very low. That settles the matter conclusively on my side.

Quote:

In short you throw out statitically [sic] derived numbers because they aren't empirical.

The derived numbers are not only not empirical nor statistical: they come from projections that have nothing to bear with the dynamical reality (see calculus above). So a double yes here.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".