@BrianK

Thanks for the link in which one can read: Quote:

I write before knowing the outcome of the Fukushima drama, but as yet none of 15,000 deaths are linked to nuclear failure. Indeed, there has never been a verified death from nuclear power in the West in half a century. Perspective is in order.

I recall we have had discussions already in the past here with LTFR and IFR technologies. It is an especially interesting subject because, as the journalist rightly observes:Quote:

We cannot avoid the fact that two to three billion extra people now expect – and will obtain – a western lifestyle.

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:

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

I'll this again and try this time not to make it over your head.

Nagasaki had immediate deaths. They also have long term deaths. Immediate deaths make for easy empirical data. Long term deaths do not. One must compare many factors to try and suss out what long term effects of radiation are on the population. This results in a statistical analsys of the range of most likely caused deaths.

In your case you reject any statistical calculations or boundary. In essence what you had done (should this be the case of Nagasaki atom bomb) would say XX died from radiation immediately and say the count of the rest is 0. This neglects the long term impacts of exposure for thousands of people.

The same goes for nuclear power. We have deaths from exposure in mining events (china for example). We also have deaths from a plant melt down in Chernobyl. Both have large numbers (thousands instead of 50). You effectively are counting these as 0.

Quote:

According to the IPCC? You are not even sure yourself? Haha!

I'm glad you find amusement that I kept the frame of reference in alignment with your statement.

Quote:

let's do a little calculus

Yeah we obviously disagree on what mathematical calculations are rightly aligned with Statistics vs Calculus. This calculation seem to me to not apply to either forms of Calculus. It's neither Infinitesimal nor a Differential calculation.

Quote:

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.

You said 'no one' now you're saying the number is very low. Very low > No one. So not what you said. And in reality the numbers are likely in the thousands the problem, again, is emperical counting is hard if not impossible. Your empirical is only what we can directly calculate and loses it's impact to reality due to all of the holes. Not to mention the inconstency you use to accept and reject the emperical numbers.


Quote:

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

The 'all' part is easy as there are Greens in the US Republican party. They're small but the case of 1 was all that was needed to invalidate that part of your all claim.

As for the US we certainly have a green party. They tend to be closer in alignment with the socialists in Europe. And have no real power in the US. However, the numbers are small compared to the greens in the Democratic Party. What is called 'Liberal' in the US. Compared to Europe the Dems are fairly centrist, not socialist.

In the end this will be a long discussion. Questions are how do we label socialist is it on a political spectrum where we assign groups to slots? Or do we label groups in respect to each other? Or some combination. And how do we handle questions that groups agree on? That'll take forever. Though I still fairly assert that empiricism will fail here that should we suppose to agree (unlikely based on past experience) even then we'll have not an empirical count but some statistical representation. And well you've outright reject considering anything in that later manner.

Last edited by BrianK on 29-Mar-2011 at 04:24 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 29-Mar-2011 at 04:22 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

In your case you reject any statistical calculations or boundary

I have made the calculation with your method using the official numbers, demonstrating my conclusion is correct and your claim baseless. Nothing more to add I fear.

Quote:

I'm glad you find amusement that I kept the frame of reference in alignment with your statement.

A first time ever is always enjoyed

Quote:

Yeah we obviously disagree on what mathematical calculations are rightly aligned with Statistics vs Calculus.

In any case, according to BrianK, Maths is no Science, thus defeating the purpose to discuss that matter in a scientific perspective. Most probably the calculus is too complex and the only realist conclusion too similar to mine for you too admit you f*** this one. Whatever.

Quote:

You said 'no one' now you're saying the number is very low.

Your confusion shows no limit, mixing the OECD figure with the entire world one.

Quote:

The 'all' part is easy as there are Greens in the US Republican party.

I wrote about 'green party', not green people and I said 'most of all' green parties: 2 errors in one sentence. You defy yourself at the top of the failure' table.

Quote:

The rest is going to be a very long discussion on how things are handled politically...As I said this would be a long discussion.

In fact no so, as I made my point so clearly that you fail to refute them cogently. But your strategic retreat is accepted.

Quote:

that should we suppose to agree (unlikely based on past experience)

I agree, so you are wrong (again)

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 wrote about 'green party', not green people and I said 'most of all' green parties: 2 errors in one sentence.

Here's the base of this discussion and here's what your wrote
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?

No 'party' was included. You later elaborated Quote:

I have pointed out in the past enough evidences in support of this claim ...all political greens are 'affiliated' with a socialist ....

Someone can be a political green and not affalicated with a party. So again no party. It wasn't until 418 when you included party... Another one of your lingering typos perhaps that took another few posts to clear up. With these 'little' errors you defy yourself at the top of the failure' table.

Quote:

Maths is no Science

The answer to this will devolve into a discussion on how we define those two concepts. So in respect to the unclarity of lessor statements (darn typos) we'll let it go.

Quote:

I agree, so you are wrong (again)

We agreed we won't agree. Yeah a victory somewhere!

Last edited by BrianK on 29-Mar-2011 at 05:01 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 29-Mar-2011 at 04:56 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

No 'party' was included.

An irrelevant post since the main point was brought later at post #413.

Quote:

Someone can be a political green and not affalicated [sic] with a party.

Absolutely, it is also possible that, one day, you will understand a trivial claim without me spending a dozen of posts for that. The general rule that "most if not all political greens are 'affiliated' with a socialist [...] party in one form or another" is true because it is broad enough to cover all cases. In addition, you have not provided a single significant example showing the opposite, ie that "most if not all political greens (what is usually called a party everywhere in the world because politicians generally [please spare me without your usual but unconvincing exception method] do politics within a party) are not 'affiliated' with a socialist [...] party in one form or another". That will prove difficult indeed.

Quote:

So again no party. It wasn't until 418 when you included party.

The 'party' word was introduced in #418 only because of your failure to understand what I mean in the first place (at #413). In #418 when I wrote "about 'green party', not green people and I said 'most of all' green parties:" I mean political greens = green party. This is so patently obvious. Tell me my English is that bad.

Quote:

Another one of

BrianK's failure? Bingo.

Quote:

we'll let it go.

Correction: you let it go.

Quote:

We agreed we won't agree. Yeah a victory somewhere!

A pyrrhic one.

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:

The general rule that "most if not all political greens are 'affiliated' with a socialist [...] party in one form or another" is true because it is broad enough to cover all cases

Well except for the USA where the political greens are more associated with the Democratic Party which is not socialistic.

Quote:

The 'party' word was introduced in #418 only because of your failure to understand what I mean in the first place (at #413).... mean political greens = green party. This is so patently obvious. Tell me my English is that bad

Maybe not english in so much as understanding of your audience. In the USA we have may have a Green Party but as they win, basically nothing, the political greens who want real influence are part of the Democratic party. Who we call 'liberals' but are clearly not socialistic. (Even if the opposition uses that term to try and discredit them. ) A 'greenie' to us is someone that's pro-environmentalism but in no way does that dictate they be part of the 'Green Party'. And recently, if memory serves Texas, it was right wing Republicans who were pushing the get out the vote for the Green Party. Though there's probably a conversation around that if they were being honest or just trying a tactic to sabotize their opponents.

@BrianK

Quote:

Who we call 'liberals' but are clearly not socialistic. (Even if the opposition uses that term to try and discredit them. )

Yes, the socialist term seems to be used as a form of the "boogieman".
"Watch out... if you let those liberals run loose, the next thing you know we'll all be socialist. "
In fairness the libs have their worn out mantras used on the conserves too.
Honestly the majority of both sides are full of it.
I predict the natural progression of economic and human events will sort it all out soon enough.

Also Dems and Libs don't own the green topic. All sides would like a better policy. I guess Dems just make more noise about it. The rest of us just want some thing that makes sense in the real world. For example, we can't all drive electric cars recharged by coal power. And few want to build more nukes. But there are some that would have you think electric cars are the key to prosperity.
Seriously.... bicycles make far more sense in the real world if you want to talk green. The exercise is good for you too.

Plaz

Last edited by Plaz on 30-Mar-2011 at 03:33 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

Though there's probably a conversation around that if they were being honest or just trying a tactic to sabotize their opponents.

Guess they learned it from the Dems who did the exact same to the Tea Party.

Plaz

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy ... I myself have followed the Fukushima events by reading and appreciating the very professional tone of the reports written by Lewis Page at The Register (the story begins here ...

Here a few comments form me on some parts of the story at your link:

Quote:

Lewis Page wrote: All reactors' temperature is now under control

Hmmmm - all news lately state the opposite...

Quote:

Lewis Page wrote: So to sum up: all plants are now well on their way to a cold shutdown.

Nice fairytale...

Quote:

Lewis Page wrote: At no time have their operators come even close to running out of options. No core has melted down and come up against the final defensive barriers:

If that was true - then why do all news (not just the German ones) report to the contrary? It was reported that they even found plutonium in soil samples outside the reactor buildings at five different locations. Plutonium is the heaviest primordial element and its most stable isotope, plutonium-244, has a half-life of about 80 million years.
The most important isotope of plutonium is plutonium-239 with a half-life of 24,100 years.
According to the news it was the latter one that was found in the samples.

Quote:

Lewis Page wrote: the safety systems did not come even close to failing, despite being tested far beyond what they had been designed to take.

Ahh - that must be the reason why they desperately tried to cool the reactors from the outside...

Quote:

Lewis Page wrote: One person has sustained a small dose of radiation which need cause him no concern.

The number they had on the news two days ago was 17.

Quote:

Lewis Page wrote: The whole sequence of events is a ringing endorsement for nuclear power safety.

[sarcasm]

"According to latest scientific researches, smoking is far from being dangerous to health.
Signed: Dr. Marlborough"

[/sarcasm]

Quote:

Lewis Page wrote: If this – basically nothing – is what happens when decades-old systems are pushed five times and then some beyond their design limits,

While I agree that it is admirable that the plant survived the quake nearly undamaged, this is no surprise to me.

In standard engineering systems are designed with a safety factor of 4.
When I was involved in the design of the SNR 300 in Kalkar, we had to calculate with a safety factor of 8.
(A "safety factor of 4" means, that if the plate inside an elevator says "bearing capacity 100 kg", this elevator is designed to sustain at least 400 kg.)

Nevertheless the combination of earthquake and tsunami revealed serious design flaws, that led to the present catastrophe.

Quote:

Lewis Page wrote: new plants much safer yet would be able to resist an asteroid strike without problems.

Yes, of course.
Just that e.g. the Chixulub impactor punched a hole in the ground that was more than 180 km in diameter and more than 30 km deep.
A nuclear plant that can resist such a "strike without problems" still has to be invented.

Although - in case of an Chixulub-like event nuclear pollution would be our least problem...

Quote:

Lewis Page wrote: Ignorant fools are suggesting on every hand that Japan's problems actually mean fresh obstacles in the way of new nuclear plants here in the UK, Europe and the US.

Ignorant fools utter dangerous nonsense like "The whole sequence of events is a ringing endorsement for nuclear power safety." or "...would be able to resist an asteroid strike without problems".

This is what the German physicist Burkhard Heim (1925 - 2001) had to say about such ignorant fools:

"In the face of such technical powers the normal motivation to form an environment individually will pervert to a discipline-less economic growth madness; particularly if the unrestrained expansion pretends a self-portrayal of actually irrelevant personalities in the sense of an excessive value superelevation. If this economic growth madness is coupled with the unethical mercantile egoism (which should continously be the case), a consciousness of a profit maximiser obsessed by economic growth is the result, who is obsessed by the delusion it would be his right and conduce to progress to annihilate everything that hinders his profit seeking and his expansion.
By economic growth madness and greed of gain (paired with excessive claims to power) progress is turned in an extremely dangerous manner into the "progress" of a suicide community on the way to the cemetery. The structure megalomania of constantly expanding urbanisation and motorcar mobility alone are sufficiant to either directly annihilate vivid nature or to annihilate it by destroying ecological interactions. But if e.g. the vivid flora is destroyed, the regenerative factor of irretrievable and absolutely necessary resources of life will be omitted, namely breathing air and potable water.
Further discipline-less increase of the world population and increasing destuction of nature in combination with progressive contamination of breathing air and potable water - from my point of view - has to lead into a socio-ecological collapse of the structure of rivalry societies governed by economic growth obsessed profit maximisers. It is most likely that such a collapse actually means a catastrophe of a non-overlookable, apocalyptic scale.
...
This extremely dangerous, perilous suicide program can - from my point of view - never be shut down by appeals to rationality or good will and equally not by violence, but exclusively by a radical awareness change of the members of our rivalry community.
…
From my point of view only an answer to the basic questions on death and on the purpose of human life can cause this necessary change of awareness, as far as the remaining period of time until the socio-ecological collapse is sufficiant.
…"

According to German news magazine "Der Spiegel" on 28-Mar-2011, IAEA CEO Yukiya Amano announced, that he is going to summon a conference to deliberate on the nuclear accident of Fukushima. For this all 151 member states should congregate before summer. The conference should take place in Vienna on a high political level, Amano said last Monday on a press conference in the austrian capital.

On a special Japan meeting of the IAEA-Board of Governors, Amano already demanded a discussion about tightened and possibly obligatory safety standards last Monday.

EDIT:
Fixed some typos

Last edited by Dandy on 30-Mar-2011 at 07:02 PM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Plaz

Quote:

Plaz wrote: @Dandy Quote: Yeah - especially if one would do that in Yellowstone... If Yellowstone decides to go big anytime soon, I think you could kiss half the USA goodbye.

Yeah - and I'm afraid the rest of the world would also be massively affected...

Quote:

Plaz wrote: Quote: So the question arises: what has to be covered by a worst case scenario and what not? You're getting a little too specific in detail. Worst case is loss of control over the pile and meltdown... regardless of what might have caused it. Metor, tsunami, terror attack.... rampant hoard of angry beavers.

Maybe you got me wrong - I was talking about the ability (or better: inability) of the engineers and scientists to imagine all possible events that could lead to the "worst case" you are speaking of and to develop suitable solutions to avoid it.
In the case at hand they turned out to have been incapable of foreseeing superposing events - at least not in the given magnitude.
They did use a sufficiant safety factor for their construction, as the good condition of the plant immediately after the quake demonstrated.
They even provided batteries for the case that the backup diesel generator systems should fail for some reason.
But they could/did NOT imagine/foresee that the surrounding environment of the power plant could be that much devasted by the combination of both events, so that it would be impossible to re-establish the electric energy supply for the cooling systems in time, before the batteries failed and the cores started to melt down.

Quote:

Plaz wrote: Your core has melted and is posioning the area. How do you completely contain/neutralize it in less that 2 hours? If you can't answer that, don't build one

Fully agreed.

Quote:

Plaz wrote: Quote: That's were they seem to be now... And that's the really sad stupid part.

Equally fully agreed...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @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.

O.K. - I should have used the past tense instead of the present tense. Back back in the fiftees/sixtees, when the decisions in favour of nuclear power was made, ALL political parties (at least her in Germany, IIRC) supported NP not least because of its ostensible safety.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: 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? ...

Never trust any statistics you didn't tamper with yourself... (old saying here)


Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: 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: ...

Completely right - but nevertheless there certainly are ways of death I'd prefer (like going to bed in the evening and then passing away peacefully while sleeping) over others that I hope will NOT happen to me (like having to suffer for years or even decades from cancer caused by nuclear contamination)...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: 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.

This was the 7th day after the quake and it was the first time they (publically) talked about that.
7 days = one entire week (at least here).

Quote:

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

Of course - but nevertheless: had they had that idea already on March 11th and had they started immediately to restore the power line, they might possibly have been able to avoid this getting out of hand of the catastrophe...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @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.

I fully agree regarding the grid and autonomy, but I strongly object the micro reactor.
I'd prefer solar cells (photovoltaic and heat collectors) on my roof and a "windmill" - no, better a "bird chopper" - and geaothermal in my garden instead.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: 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...

Not sure how the pond would help you to generate a fine income from all the chopped birds...

Imagine - you could grill them with the clean energy from the windmills...


Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: There may be some who are that way - but not all... Certainly many more than you could think off.

I bet neither you, nor me can proove that with solid figures...


Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: Well, as you sounded as if you took that serious... Yes, I did.

You shouldn't have done so, as it was meant as a joke...

EDIT:
Fixed quoting

Last edited by Dandy on 30-Mar-2011 at 07:07 PM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

Maybe you got me wrong - I was talking about the ability (or better: inability) of the engineers and scientists to imagine all possible events

No, I got you there. That's still where I say the scope of vision is too small.

I say you don't need to imagine what might lead to total power/system failure. Instead think of a way to netralize that puppy if the need ever arises even if all your backup systems are gone. Heck.. the whole plant is now 30 feet below the ocean surface. Given the size of that quake, that shore line might have ended up below sea level. No one imagines that kind of a hit.

Here's a picture (God forbid).... catastrophy has hit at or near a reactor causing total loss of power/control of the core systems. Either because of the catastrophy or the reactor itself, everyone within a 25 mile radius is dead and the reactor can't be approached without certain loss of life. How might you put a lid on that big a mess?

Standard answers are probably going to be ... "well that would never happen", or "chances of that happeing are statistcally nill". At that I'm just going to point to a picture of Fukishima. The rest of the population hears those types of responses, rolles their eyes and says "not in my back yard".

One wimsicle crazy plan.... Create a deep (half a kilometer, more?) but sealed cavern beneath the core. Triggered either manually or by extreme heat/radiation, the seal is blown and the core drops. Crude example but you get the idea.

Plaz

@Plaz

Quote:

Plaz wrote: One wimsicle crazy plan.... Create a deep (half a kilometer, more?) but sealed cavern beneath the core. Triggered either manually or by extreme heat/radiation, the seal is blown and the core drops. Crude example but you get the idea.

Yeah, that's a good idea alright... Reminds me of ejecting warp cores in Star Trek...

_________________
RobTheNerd.com | InstallerGen | SMBMounter | Atoms-X

@Plaz

Quote:

Also Dems and Libs don't own the green topic. All sides would like a better policy. I guess Dems just make more noise about it.

Thanks for the support. The contention from TMTisFree is 'greens' is something everyone accepts as a member of the Green Party and socialists. I can't say much about Europe as I don't follow that closely. Here in the USA I think we're in agreement that environmental causes aren't necessarily owned by a socialist party.

I love bikes. My only problem is the -40F MN temps make for a long, long bike ride.

@Dandy

Quote:

Quote: @TMTisFree 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. I fully agree regarding the grid and autonomy, but I strongly object the micro reactor. I'd prefer solar cells (photovoltaic and heat collectors) on my roof and a "windmill" - no, better a "bird chopper" - and geaothermal in my garden instead

You have a good point here. If TMTisFree really is dreaming of how being off the grid would increase an individual's liberty he could do it TODAY and without micro-nukes.

@Plaz
Quote:

One wimsicle crazy plan.... Create a deep (half a kilometer, more?) but sealed cavern beneath the core. Triggered either manually or by extreme heat/radiation, the seal is blown and the core drops. Crude example but you get the idea.

Why not use the heat from the core to melt it's own cavern if needed?

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @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. ...

The following was translated from the Radon Museum of the former Wismut mine in the former German Democratic Republic:

...
The official numerical data [of workers that died from occupational diseases] are stated in the chronicle of the Wismut GmbH (Wismut Ltd.). Of the formerly 500.000 persons employed about 15.000 miners came down with silicosis in the course of 45 years.
About 7.000 cases of carcinosis due to radiation have been admitted - most of them from the period before 1950.
...
Presently it is assumed that 200 new afflictions have to be faced annually.
...

Keep in mind that these figures are just from one uranium mine and mainly from the 1945-1950 period...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @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 ...

Ouch - didn't know Hyperion are in the nuclear power business - that might be entertaining!

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy ... 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. ...

Now this is interesting: official reports refuse to take all the indirect casualties of nuclear power into accout - but they shall be taken into accout for all the other energy forms?
Now that is certainly what I call "cherry picking"!

Quote:

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

Keep in mind that Germany was a developed country at the time of WW II...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: That's what data demonstrate.

Cherry picked data (see above)...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: And that's why experts correctly state that nuclear power is the safer source of energy by large.

-> "According to latest scientific researches, smoking is far from being dangerous to health.
Signed: Dr. Marlborough"

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: You have more chance to get a cancer breathing city air than by living near a power plant.

Ahhhh - now we know why you want to burn more coal and oil - you want all the inhabitants of cities to get cancer!

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @BrianK ... 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) ...

Doesn't matter - accident is accident.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)