We've heard hundreds of these sorts of stories, and they always end up vaporware.

But I like keeping up with new developments in the renewable sector. Since the writing is one the wall that we are moving to a distributed renewable grid there is a lot of development going on to take advantages of the niche markets within that system.

Poor Wraith, nuclear is dying and there isn't anything you can do about it...

Like the fact that there's no grid-level storage which has been economically produced and tested. Or that all those press releases about miraculous new forms of solar power still peter out. Jumping at every press release to announce a "miraculous breakthrough" and try to get the company more venture capital is a pretty clear sign of not understanding science that well. A breakthrough isn't a breakthrough if it doesn't work outside the lab. Oh well, maybe the next press release will mention the dozens of new coal-fired power plants Germany's conservative government is building so they can get rid of their clean nuclear power, then you'll actually acknowledge that fact.

3:33 PM
Automated Message
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

At Mon Jun 25, 2012, 06:26 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

That's certainly true of those from the nuclear industry - think thorium.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=18556

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Disruptive, going to unprompted personal attacks on a poster completely unrelated to what was said.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jun 25, 2012, 06:33 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! Leave it!
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: Definitely rude!
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Just because a flagger doesn't agree with a post, does not constitute a "disruptive personal attack". Flagger is making mountain out of mole-hill in my view.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

It beats the old theme of "Nuclear is perfectly safe" all to hell.

The new grid will need flow capacitors to moderate and balance the in/out of electricity due to the fluxes involved from solar and wind.

Glad to see someone is thinking ahead. Heck, the smart ones figured out how to control fission, surely they will, now that nukes are slacking off, find a way to keep the lights on.

They just needed a real kick in the ass and Fukushima supplied the power to do just that.

Don't credit Fukushima with inspiring researchers.

Researchers have been working on storage technologies for more than a year.

How dare i say Fukushima is motivating anyone.

I will check with you the next time i have something to say... is that ok, OK?

I mean, the implication is that all of a sudden, last year, they said, “Hey nuclear power may not be totally safe! Maybe we should research renewable sources for a change!” (People have been working on these technologies for decades.)

You are claiming Fukushima isn't motivating researchers, financiers, governments and the private sector to get moving?

But of course not. No one is that stupid. So you just want to pick a fight, then?

“Fukushima” didn’t really bring anything new to the issue at all (other than perhaps pointing out that people are not good at preparing for a “worst case scenario.”)

People who believed that nuclear power was dangerous can point to the accident and say, “See! Nuclear power is dangerous, we had multiple meltdowns!” and people who believed nuclear power is safe can say, “Yes we did, a plant was hit by an earthquake and a tsunami, killing thousands. At least two reactors suffered meltdowns, and we did not have a single documented casualty due to radiation exposure.”

Honestly, if “Chernobyl” didn’t kill the nuclear industry, there’s no reason why “Fukushima” should.


So, no, I really don’t think many researchers have changed course based on the events at “Fukushima,” and any who may have changed their course won’t be announcing any dramatic new breakthroughs soon. (Research takes time, and getting a research paper accepted by a prestigious peer-reviewed journal takes even more time.)

Oops, yes you do:
At least two reactors suffered meltdowns, and we did not have a single documented casualty due to radiation exposure.

That is not smart at all. Many people have died from the two reactors melting down. You really shouldn't go around spreading falsehoods like that. After all, nuclear power is not safe.

I get that you want to pick a fight with me because maybe you are so tied up with the "no casualty" meme and have nothing better to do?

Besides the reply I made first was to the The Wraith and you butting in and spreading falsehoods (whether meaning to or not) is just not smart. After all, nuclear power is NOT safe, right?

However, if you have reliable documentation of deaths due to nuclear exposures related to the Fukushima meltdowns, I’d really like to see it.

The press and government of Japan have effectively covered up reports of deaths due to the problems there. But try fukushima-diary.com for what you are looking for.

Lots of people have died around Fukushima, among them many plant workers and residents, but the press always says it was a heart attack or something.

And just try to get mortality data.

And what about Chernobyl? Do you need links for that too? Or are you wise enough to know that there was a huge coverup there, too?

You patrol the net, it is obvious from your postings. Have you never even thought about looking for mortalities or is what the M$M press tells you all you need to know, OK?

Post stuff in different fonts? I think you may be the only person on all of DU that does that. You do realize most people probably don't read it when you do. I know I find it rather odd and well, weird.

Anywho, what you linked was discussed some time ago. And pretty well found meaningless considering its source and the data it relies on. But see, there is the "Six workers have died since the accident but none of the deaths were linked to irradiation, the findings say." Like I says, they call it something else.

And another anywho, I feel i can surmise that you really do think no one has been a casualty of Fukushima. Why else would you be arguing with me? Can you come right out and say? Or will you just not take a stand?

If you do, please, present it.

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” — Ralph Waldo Emerson

This consistency of your believing what the media tells you is foolish, just like your sig line says. Your own words. Eat them.

Last edited Tue Jun 26, 2012, 09:20 AM - Edit history (1)

And you count UNSCEAR as just another media outlet.

Is a good friend of the nuke industry. But even they had to tell some truth: 6 dead.

Tell ya what.... if you go over there and stand next to the fire, it will do you in, right? 20,000 workers and 1M evacuated. They are moving workers thru and moving people out. If they didn't there would be a lot dead, right? So.... nuclear is not safe, they are just practicing safe nukes because they have to or the dead would be all over the news! Duh!!

Here's a link for you:
http://enenews.com/yomiuri-headline-573-deaths-related-to-nuclear-crisis

The story you provided a link to does not say that anyone died as a direct result of the meltdowns:

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T120204003191.htm

Under your theory that nuclear is safe, why then did they evacuate?

Why 20,000 workers cycled thru?

Jeez, for you to sit there and say that no casualties have occurred is just plain, well, you know. Pick a few really nasty adjectives and repeat them.

You have dug a hole for yourself and i wonder how in good conscience you can sit there and say all is fine when a million people have been evacuated because Fukushima blowing up is not safe!

Last edited Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:27 AM - Edit history (2)

If you read through my past postings, you will find that is not the case.

However, I believe in limiting my opposition to nuclear power to well established facts. (For example, why were there large pools of spent fuel rods stored at the facility? Because no country, not even France, has a long-term disposal site for nuclear waste.)

Yes, there are real hazards involved, and this was a serious accident. Clearly, severe core damage occurred (i.e. meltdowns.) Clearly, radiation escaped containment. The cleanup will take decades, if it can ever be claimed to be “finished.”

To be honest, scientific views of the long-term health effects of the radiation leaks differ. (i.e. some believe that the doses are so low as to be insignificant, while others believe there is no such thing as an insignificant dose of radiation.) That’s part of the reason why I recently posted the study linking childhood leukemia to natural variations in background radiation.


However, in my opinion at least, claiming that deaths occurred due to radiation exposure, which are not credibly documented, only weakens your argument.

Last edited Wed Jun 27, 2012, 05:03 PM - Edit history (1)

Try this one: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.201100768/abstract

Not sure what’s going on with the DOI system lately…