21 Feb 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIt's a lot easier for American tourists to avoid the area than it is resident "Japanese. I'd say the additional caution of the US government was entirely on practical grounds. At the time they didn't know how bad the disaster was going to be so it made sense for the American government to give more cautious advice than the Japanese, who would have the practical problem of relocating a few million people compared with the problem of relocating a few thousand tourists. There's only so much risk you can eliminate in a given situation and the differing advice reflected this more than anything."
It's a lot easier for American tourists to avoid the area than it is resident Japanese. I'd say the additional caution of the US government was entirely on practical grounds. At the time they didn't know how bad the disaster was going to be so it made sense for the American government to give more cautious advice than the Japanese, who would have the p ...[text shortened]... is a large volume of liquid escaping the reactor rather than a small volume of melted fuel rods.
I agree. The advice from the American government was good advice, but if it was advice given to everybody evacuation would be problematic. Panic can sometimes cause deaths and there is reason for lying to avoid it in some cases. This should not surprise anyone to much.
21 Feb 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI don't know any climate scientist that denies anthropogenic climate change entirely and neither do I. This is exactly why I asked you to be specific about your criteria of the so called minority.
I have heard climate skeptics claim that the reason for the warnings from academic climatologists concerning anthropogenic climate change is so that they can obtain grants to further their careers. Neither this nor the claims of some of those on the other side of the debate that climate scientists who deny anthropogenic climate change is anything more t ...[text shortened]... ntists are exaggerating the problems in order to further their careers is somewhat hard to test.
If you asked me if I would agree with the statement "a discernible human influence on global climate" I would. Why not? If I think there might be 10% anthropogenic climate change and 90% natural I would have to agree with it, but what is surprising about that? If that is the criteria it would not surprise me if every climate scientist agrees, even Singer. Where is the minority? Do you see my point?
Humy tried to create his own criteria and it was something like "significant harmful climate change" and he went on to claim this meant thousands if not millions of people would die because of it. I don't think many climate scientist would agree with that. I honestly think that those that do are in the minority and Humy is fooling himself into thinking his alarmist views are common among climate scientists.
This is what they really think of Humy and Google:
Climate Scientists Laugh at Global Warming Hysteria
Do you still think Humy's extreme hysteria is a majority opinion among climate scientists?
21 Feb 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainA few dozen people were injured as a direct result of the Fukushima disaster. Let's be pessimistic and say that a couple of these people will develop cancer as a result of the meltdown. Is that grounds for "panic"?
I'm not talking about right now. I was referring to the time it was all happening. You know, the meltdown.
21 Feb 15
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe Japanese authorities set up a large exclusion zone around the site and residents have been evacuated from the area.
It's a lot easier for American tourists to avoid the area than it is resident "Japanese. I'd say the additional caution of the US government was entirely on practical grounds. At the time they didn't know how bad the disaster was going to be so it made sense for the American government to give more cautious advice than the Japanese, who would have the pr ...[text shortened]... nd there is reason for lying to avoid it in some cases. This should not surprise anyone to much.
21 Feb 15
Originally posted by KazetNagorra"Is that grounds for "panic"?"
A few dozen people were injured as a direct result of the Fukushima disaster. Let's be pessimistic and say that a couple of these people will develop cancer as a result of the meltdown. Is that grounds for "panic"?
I don't know. I don't have enough information to say. I don't think you do either. If the wind always blew west like it usually does it would be easier to determine.
Evacuation zones are determined by weighing the seriousness of the disaster with the potential human loss and crime that might result from the panic. Maybe they made the right call. Maybe not. Time will tell.
You should keep in mind that radiation poisoning is nothing new to the Japanese. Many had relatives that died from cancer after the USA dropped those 2 bombs. They could possibly be more cautious than most cultures when it comes to that.
21 Feb 15
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBut will they get another grant? How many climate scientists that are skeptical man is the primary cause of warming do you know that have gone on to have exceptional careers in that field?
In principle, an academic grant is usually non-binding in the sense that after the money is granted, it cannot be revoked if the researchers end up doing something else or finding something surprising. A climate scientist getting a grant to study the climate will have a strong incentive to publish results challenging man-made climate change, because if ...[text shortened]... sales. The conspiracy argument just shows ignorance about how the academic world works, really.
21 Feb 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe immediate impact of the atomic bombs was severe - hundreds of thousands of people died from the explosion itself or immediate large radiation doses. However, "only" a few thousand died of radiation-related diseases after the impact (note that many of these were preventable; the dangers of radiation were not well known at the time), see:
"Is that grounds for "panic"?"
I don't know. I don't have enough information to say. I don't think you do either. If the wind always blew west like it usually does it would be easier to determine.
Evacuation zones are determined by weighing the seriousness of the disaster with the potential human loss and crime that might result from the panic. Mayb ...[text shortened]... ed those 2 bombs. They could possibly be more cautious than most cultures when it comes to that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Post-attack_casualties
I'm not a radiation expert but I have enough training in the relevant field to be confident to say that I do know and I do have enough information to say.
21 Feb 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainSure they will, getting high-impact papers is a sure way of getting more funding.
But will they get another grant? How many climate scientists that are skeptical man is the primary cause of warming do you know that have gone on to have exceptional careers in that field?
21 Feb 15
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe aftermath of nuclear strike isn't really a good comparator - there are so many other factors altering the calculation such as food shortages compromising the bodies ability to repair itself. It's estimated that there were around 250 additional cancer cases due to contamination from Windscale, and no significant long term health effects for the clean up. However the release from Windscale was far smaller than the release from Fukishima, and the isotope ratios were different. I think we'd need an expert in nuclear contamination to say how to extrapolate from the health effects of other disasters to Fukishima.
The immediate impact of the atomic bombs was severe - hundreds of thousands of people died from the explosion itself or immediate large radiation doses. However, "only" a few thousand died of radiation-related diseases after the impact (note that many of these were preventable; the dangers of radiation were not well known at the time), see:
http://en ...[text shortened]... he relevant field to be confident to say that I do know and I do have enough information to say.
21 Feb 15
Originally posted by KazetNagorra"I'm not a radiation expert but I have enough training in the relevant field to be confident to say that I do know and I do have enough information to say."
The immediate impact of the atomic bombs was severe - hundreds of thousands of people died from the explosion itself or immediate large radiation doses. However, "only" a few thousand died of radiation-related diseases after the impact (note that many of these were preventable; the dangers of radiation were not well known at the time), see:
http://en ...[text shortened]... he relevant field to be confident to say that I do know and I do have enough information to say.
I don't know because I have never lived in Japan and know traffic flow, don't know the weather patterns there and how much radiation was being emitted from the meltdown. Unless you know those things you do not have enough information to say. Your physics knowledge means little in this case.
22 Feb 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainI'd meant to leave a reference for my last post and forgot. If you go to the Wikipedia page on the Windscale fire [1] and go to the section on "aftermath" it gives the estimated health impacts as well as a handy table containing the amounts of contamination emitted into the environment by isotope at Windscale, Three Mile Island (basically none), Chernobyl, and Fukishima. It does not include figures for tritium released in cooling water - that was not a factor at Windscale, its design differed little from that of a barbecue and was air cooled. Based solely on that table one would expect the harms at Fukishima to be worse than at Windscale but not as bad as at Chernobyl.
"I'm not a radiation expert but I have enough training in the relevant field to be confident to say that I do know and I do have enough information to say."
I don't know because I have never lived in Japan and know traffic flow, don't know the weather patterns there and how much radiation was being emitted from the meltdown. Unless you know those things you do not have enough information to say. Your physics knowledge means little in this case.
I have read the claim, and I'm sorry it was ages ago and I simply cannot remember where I read it, that reports of birth defects in the area in the Ukraine around Chernobyl were either not true or wildly exaggerated. The people most at risk are the young and the unborn as their cells are dividing quickly and so there is more chance of cancer and other problems.
As an aside the relationship between future cancer rates and exposure level is non-trivial. There was a study on children where they used radiation therapy to treat children for some thyroid problem - again this is from memory, I can probably dig out a reference if necessary. There were at least two groups (possibly a placebo group as well). One group was given high doses and one moderate doses. The group who were given moderate doses were significantly more likely to develop thyroid cancer. The theory as to why this should be so is that the higher dose would kill cells outright, whereas the lower dose would damage cells without killing them thereby leaving behind potentially precancerous cells. So I'd be wary about judgements concerning absolute amounts of radioactive material released and concentrations and health effects.
Sorry this post probably read a little disjointedly. What I'm trying to demonstrate is that it is a non-trivial exercise to assess the likely health impacts of the Fukishima disaster, even allowing for the difficulties to do with environmental transport of the contamination which you noted.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire#Radioactive_release
12 Mar 15
Nuclear has downfalls. Even if a plant can be made that can avoid meltdown you still have to transport and store the radioactive waste.
It seems fossil fuels for energy is here to stay
Get used to it because it won't go away
CO2 isn't a pollutant, without it plants don't grow
It's not a problem, don't you know?
Climate models fail because there are too many factors
Don't tax the fuel so farmers can't drive their tractors
Making things more efficient is the way to go
That can be done, wouldn't you say so?
12 Mar 15
Originally posted by KazetNagorraEr, you should check the stats. 16 THOUSAND people died as a direct result of the tsunami that hit Japan. The fact that only a few died of radiation poisoning is due to the steps taken by the Japanese to shield that radiation with proper clothing and such.
A few dozen people were injured as a direct result of the Fukushima disaster. Let's be pessimistic and say that a couple of these people will develop cancer as a result of the meltdown. Is that grounds for "panic"?
Take a look at this report about Chernobyl:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
4000 children got thyroid cancer and 9 died. You want to be flippant about that?
13 Mar 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainWhat in the chicken shyte hell are you talking about, solution? About nuke plants blowing up? Tsunamis caused by richter 9 earthquakes?
It looks like nobody has a practical solution. If chicken little can't keep the sky from falling why does he run around warning people? Isn't that stupid?