It's bad enough to have billionaires running for president all over the place. It's almost as bad when people like Bill and Melinda Gates, well-intentioned as they may be, start essentially governing via their own foundations and initiatives.

They want to flush all their contaminated water into the ocean. Fix that first and then maybe we can talk.

Personally, as a scientist, I would decline to "talk" to anyone who is so engaged in selective attention as to consider Fukushima even remotely significant compared with climate change and the death of 7 million people a year from air pollution.

Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015 (Lancet 2016; 388: 1659–724)

The cited paper here is open sourced. It refers to the cause of death for almost every environmental and lifestyle cause known. Why don't you open it and find out how many people exactly died from Fukushima radiation?

19,000 people will die today from air pollution because of shit for brains people who have their heads up their asses about the big Bogey man Fukushima.

Here, for the record, is a paper by a Nobel Laureate, Burton Richter, remarking that more people would have died in Japan from energy production if Fukushima had never been built: Opinion on “Worldwide health effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident” by J. E. Ten Hoeve and M. Z. Jacobson, Energy Environ. Sci., 2012, 5

From the text:

But media driven assholes couldn't care less, even though they don't know shit from Shinola about the comparative risks of Fukushima and air pollution, including climate change gases.

Actually, if you look at it, anti-nuke rhetoric kills people, as was pointed out in one of the world's premier Environmental Science journal in a paper written by a world class climate scientist, one of the world's most prominent climate scientists:

Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)

Nuclear energy saves lives.

It follows directly - and I don't give a rat's ass about people who get angry about statements this basic truth - that opposing nuclear energy represents a crime against humanity.

If I were Bill Gates, a person who clearly gives a shit about humanity, I would not deign to speak to any fool who carries on about Fukushima while tens of millions people die every decade because assholes oppose nuclear energy.

Go home Bill, you're drunk.

Until then, not interested.

...of killing tens of millions of people in the last decade unlike so called "nuclear waste," is what?

Exactly, in your imagination, or in reality, how many people has so called "nuclear waste" - which I call "used nuclear fuel" and "valuable resource" - killed in the half a century people have been whining about it?

I personally have thousands of answers for the components of used nuclear fuel, but then again, unlike sloganeering types who never open science books, I have looked.

How about you come back when you actually give a shit?

Until then, I personally am uninterested in what you have to say.

I do actually give a shit. I have looked at the issue of nuclear waste. I have not found a good answer to the long term storage problem.

In the past, I have seen nuclear power as a potential solution. I do not oppose nuclear power as a potential replacement for fossil fuels if a practical and economically feasible answer can be found for dealing with the waste.

It is obvious that a replacement must be found for as much fossil fuel as possible. The danger of fossil fuel is high. The trick is that we must find a solution that is better then the problem.

If you have information that I do not concerning the use of spent reactor fuel as a resource, I'd love to read it.

Where have you looked at the problem of what you call "nuclear waste?"

Speaking only for myself, I've spent the last 30 years of my life considering the problem - on my own time - in the primary scientific literature.

I can intelligently discuss pretty much every component of used nuclear fuel in significant detail. If you were to scroll through my journal here, you might see a tiny fraction of what I know about what you call "nuclear waste."

How much, exactly, do you know about the properties of rhodium's 102m isotope? I know an awful lot about it.

How about the phase diagrams of plutonium/neptunim metallic alloys?

I've written about them on the internet in considerable detail with something called references to the scientific literature:

Current Energy Demand; Ethical Energy Demand; Depleted Uranium and the Centuries to Come

I have no patience whatsoever, none, for rote evocations of so called "nuclear waste" whenever nuclear energy is raised, especially in the form in which you entered this thread.

It's not only garbage thinking - if it constitutes "thinking" at all - it's highly selective.

The experimental results are in, and as such they constitute something called "facts."

The nuclear enterprise has operated for more than half a century, and in rational, easily calculated, and in fact, often calculated terms, the risks of nuclear energy are extraordinarily low in terms of deaths/exajoule produced.

Dangerous fossil fuel waste coupled with biomass waste, primarily in the form of particulate, ozone and chemotoxic air pollution kills seven million people per year directly. Those figures do not include the effects of climate change.

Frankly, I don't regard my reaction as "over the top" at all. How any rational person can even remotely imagine that nuclear power is not infinitely superior to the the situation described in the previous paragraph escapes me entirely.

How anyone can say to me that they have studied what they call "nuclear waste" and have drawn the conclusion that it could be even remotely by a factor of tens of millions (roughly the ratio of the number of deaths associated with the rising use of dangerous fossil fuels to the number of deaths associated with with nuclear power technology) as dangerous as dangerous fossil fuel waste strikes me as a Trumpian misrepresentation.

I am extremely angry at the fear and ignorance directed at what I know to be the last, best, hope of humanity, nuclear energy. I consider this kind of rhetoric to be a crime against humanity.

As it happens, the components of used nuclear fuel, coupled with the uranium and thorium already mined and isolated, is capable of shutting every single coal mine, every oil field, and every gas field on the planet. It is not simple, or easy to do this, but it is the only - the absolute only technologically feasible - way to do this.

I would prefer that people not insult my intelligence by claiming to know something about so called "nuclear waste" when they clearly know nothing at all about nuclear fuels.

I also prefer that people not hand me horseshit about so called "renewable energy." It's not renewable; it's not sustainable; it hasn't worked; it isn't working and it won't work. The reason is physics, specifically a low energy to mass ratio. In the last ten years we've spent on this planet more than two trillion dollars - more than the GDP of India, an nation with more than a billion people in it - on solar and wind alone.

As of this morning, the most recent data for carbon dioxide posted at the Mauna Loa website shows that in the week ending January 13, 2019 carbon dioxide concentrations were 410.4 ppm. Ten years ago they were 387.14 ppm. This rate of increase, 2.3/ppm per year, is the fastest rate or increase ever observed at Mauna Loa.

Someone who is serious about environmental issues will seriously think and read about them, rather than spew rote junk slogans.

Have a nice Sunday afternoon.

While my understanding of nuclear physics is very elementary, what I do know something about is the art of persuasion.

The trick is to take people like me who appreciate the dangers burning things to generate power and convince us that the danger in reliance on nuclear power is a lesser risk. You will convince people like me by explaining how the energy available in spent nuclear fuel can be efficiently extracted (i.e. significantly more energy is produced than expended in the process) and whether at the end of the process the remaining radioactive materials can be used or safely stored.

You will not convince people like me by attacking our intelligence. What is needed is a calm discussion of the facts and possible solutions in a way that can be understood by people without a deep understanding of nuclear physics.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1127118537#post13

You can only convince yourself and hopefully your conclusion be based on facts for the sake of all of us.

I wrote my post in response to TomSlick just to let him know that NNadir has heard the complaints about uncivility many times before, and about persuasiveness or lack thereof, and his response to all that. So that he (TomSlick) wouldn't waste his time on that. Saving him and perhaps NNadir some unneeded effort rehashing the topic.

Being an open forum, when you write to one you write to all. Expect a comment from anyone otherwise a pm is more appropriate. Also the op is about nucear energy and it's usefulness with comments from its opponents. Somehow it took a hard turn toward the attractiveness of Internet commentors, a red herring. Maybe you have something to add about the subject.

on the topic of civility and persuasion before, since that was some time ago, and we have new people coming into the group all the time. So I chose to post publicly. All I did in #12 was post a link to NNadir's posting where he explained in detail his thinking about it. With the one comment, "He doesn't care about convincing anyone of anything", which, I think accurately reflects the main point or one of the main points he is trying to get across in that post. I'm really sorry if it offends you for some reason. I was just trying to be helpful, but I realize there's always a chance someone will attribute a negative motive to it.

I didn't bring up the civility/persuasion topic, just saw TomSlick getting into a back and forth on the civility/persuasion issue and thought it might be useful information to him and maybe some others.

I do get a bit defensive when people (not necessarily you) detract from critically important science for personal preferences. Science is not personal or impersonal, it just is. The most dangerous people on the subject of science and the environment are those who cling to easy false information and are unwilling to learn.
NNadir has written accurate and profoundly documented arguments on the subject of nuclear energy and nuclear waste as well as discouraging but scientifically appropriate information on renewables over and over again on this site alone. I can imagine he would be discouraged that people refuse to see the reality staring them in the face while blindly walking off a cliff. I am too. I am confounded by the direction we are heading that is leading us to obliteration when we have the ability to do otherwise.

Again...

to verify scientific conclusions? I think the data speaks for itself but only if I take the initiative to understand it and sometimes that process is difficult. If we just wait for the science to reveal itself through osmosis or an entertaining side show we're screwed. If all we can do to realize the difference between fact and folly is to learn the physics then we sure as hell had better learn the physics or nothing much will matter soon.

If someone offers a sound scientific argument and it makes me feel or look stupid, then hey I'm actually making progress no matter how I feel. In which case I'll be the first to show gratitude and respect to the source for helping me to not run off the cliff in pursuit of the most courteous and convincing sheep in the herd.

It's up to you to convince yourself.

If you do know something of the art of persuasion and you have convinced yourself of the data, and yes it's there, maybe you're the one who should translate the conclusions to those who are unwilling to learn.

Most of us are not nuclear physicists. That does not mean that we are unintelligent, it just means that our learning is in other areas. It would be a strange world indeed if we were all nuclear physicists.

My experience in is the law. In representing clients, I must become a short-term expert in all manner of things. The trick is understanding that the jury and judge have not spent the time to learn what I was paid to learn and that I must bring them up-to-speed without making them shut-down. If I suggest (much less say) that I think the judge or jury ignorant, I will fail to educate or persuade.

The issues surrounding nuclear power are complex. If those of you with expertise in the are are to make the rest of us understand, you must (1) explain the concepts in a way that a layman can understand and (2) do so in such a way that we will hear you out.

Besides which, it's just common courtesy not to call people stupid.

as you were writing.

And yes, we all do have different talents and abilities. I'm quite appreciative of those who have the intellect to do the math and don't expect them to be the lawyers and persuaders of the world. Those can be quite conflicting vocations.

Last edited Tue Jan 29, 2019, 09:45 PM - Edit history (1)

If someone can't think without me being nice to them, then they will prove unable to think.

I am decidedly not a nice person, particularly when I am considering that 19,000 human beings will die today for reasons that are entirely preventable. It makes me, um, furious that people who have never opened a science book or journal want me to kiss their asses to do what might be done to save these lives.

I use this analogy a lot, when confronted with this kind of response, which is rather typical of a refusal to address the point, which is that nuclear energy saves human lives, and has been the most successful technology at slowing climate change:

Suppose you're sitting on railroad tracks, and, seeing a train, I yell, "Hey asshole, get off the tracks!!!"

Should your response be, "Ask me nicely and I'll consider it?"

I don't know, you tell me...

I'll tell you what I think:

You offered a rather mindless slogan, addressed to Bill Gates. What do you think is in it for Bill? You think he needs money? I am not necessarily fond of billionaires or their existence, but if one wanted to put a positive spin on billionaires, one could certain do worse than Mr. Gates. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a decidedly positive force in the world. Bill and Melinda are involved with humanity, they give a shit about the world, they get down, they get dirty and they bring their resources and intellects to bear on very real human problems.

I pointed out, correctly, what the death toll connected with air pollution is excluding climate change. I also pointed out that nuclear energy saves lives, as was reported by one of the world's premier climate scientists in an (open sourced) paper in one of the world's most prominent environmental scientific journals.

Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)

And you respond, "Tell me nicely."

Now, the nuclear enterprise is more than half a century old. If you would like to point out a single case in this country where commercial radioactive used nuclear fuel storage has killed as many people as will die in the next two hours from air pollution, you are free to do so. But you can't, because it hasn't happened. Apparently, there are people who think that what they imagine could happen is far worse than what is happening, which is that people all over the world are dropping dead at a rate of more than 13 people every minute from dangerous fossil fuel and dangerous biomass combustion waste, aka air pollution.

One hears all the time that "nobody knows what to do with (so called) nuclear waste." This is nonsense. It's a statement that should read, "I am ignorant." Hundreds of thousands of people know very well how to handle these materials and, in fact, how to put them to use. Tens of thousands of publications by highly trained and highly educated scientists have detailed these approaches.

I don't need to educate people who get on aircraft about aerodynamics, even though aircraft have killed more people than nuclear power plants have. I don't need to explain automotive engineering to convince people to get in cars, but cars have killed vastly more people than nuclear power plants. I don't need to explain the physics of buoyancy to convince people to swim, even though drownings have killed more people than nuclear power plants - and in fact, drownings were overwhelming the cause of death at the Fukushima event - not that anyone gives a shit about drowning in seawater because so many people are too dumb to get practical about climate change.

But I allegedly I have to teach physics to random strangers in order to convince them that they should be anxious, screaming in fact, to utilize the safest and most readily scalable form of energy, nuclear energy, first brought to humanity by one of the greatest minds ever to grace this planet, Enrico Fermi.

Give. Me. A. Break.

Dumb shit anti-nuke remarks and the people who make them are not my problem. They are humanity's problem. I do my best to confront them, not because I believe that they have open minds, but because I know that my confrontations can help people who do have open minds.

Have a nice evening.

Science is still true whether you believe in it or not?

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/4764.Philip_K_Dick

The innumeracy of so many anti-nuclear activists makes them fools for the fossil fuel industry.

Fossil fuels, especially natural gas (because it is somehow perceived as "clean" by so many...) will be the end of this world civilization and what's left of the natural environment we know.

Interesting approach.

... I think many people would embrace nuclear power rather than give up the high energy industrial economy they are accustomed to.

And yeah, that would still have much lower environmental impacts than a mixed natural gas-wind-solar economy.

Unlike fossil fuel waste there is some realistic possibility of containing nuclear waste because the volume of it is magnitudes smaller.

It's just numbers.

The nuclear industry has always been heavily subsidized, to the detriment of alternatives that do not require storing waste for 45,000 years.

The volume you consider to be small is something like 20 tons a year in spent fuel rods per nuclear plant.

They have to be stored for 10,000 years before they decay enough to be safe.

We don't have the technology to store stuff for a 100 years much less 10,000. Plus I think what we are talking about is an unfunded liability, which is why nuclear plants are so dangerous. Some bean counter somewhere is thinking about his bonus and cutting what seems to him as an unnecessary costs which will end up costing us a million times more due to a systematic failure at a plant.

It takes 10 years to build a nuclear plant and at the last couple in the US construction stopped prior to completion because there isn't the demand growth for electricity necessary to sustain those plants. Utilities are building wind and solar cheaper than it cost to operate a nuclear plant, much less build one.

End of discussion.

End of discussion.

There is no way to safely store nuclear waste.

I really don't see what's so hard about that.

and make Mexico pay for it.