Other duties call today, feel free to discuss any topic within site policy.
Guest authors are welcome to post stories.
00votes
Article Rating
270 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Angech
August 3, 2013 5:05 pm
When I was young(er) I used to enjoy records. Hottest day in 1960 most rain in Darwin in a day/week month, coolest night for June. Also temps heights rain droughts floods etc. Then along came AGW and now natural events and extremes are tainted by “the Cause” . Why can’t we have record highs and lows to enjoy without the navel searching?
Grump of day.
Roger Sowell says August 3, 2013 at 4:54 pm
…
How about trying your cute little trick with natural gas, and with coal-fired power? Why can’t nuclear compete with the big boys?
Are you completely blind, man?
Or just disingenuous to some nth degree?
DIDJA SEE the cost/kHW for France above?????????????????????????
.
Angech
August 3, 2013 5:06 pm
Global sea ice positive again fourth or fifth time this year. A new record!
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 11:19 am
a) seawater contains Uranium. We must do something!
And people are radioactive because of the Potassium and Carbon radioisotopes in our bodies.
RE: john says:
August 3, 2013 at 12:29 pm
Thanks for that link, John. And thanks to Ole Salomonson for sharing.
Even though the video is sped up a bit, the northern lights really do move around quite a bit. The first time I saw them I looked up and thought I was looking at a white, moonlit cloud, and then, just as it was dawning on me that there was no moon, the blame thing moved, first one way, and then the other. Even without the colors Ole captures, it blew me away.
Bill H
August 3, 2013 5:27 pm
Bill H says:
August 3, 2013 at 8:16 am
A Republican Case for Climate Action
By WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, LEE M. THOMAS, WILLIAM K. REILLY and CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN
Published: August 1, 2013
EACH of us took turns over the past 43 years running the Environmental Protection Agency. We served Republican presidents, but we have a message that transcends political affiliation: the United States must move now on substantive steps to curb climate change, at home and internationally.
There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean warming faster than the earth’s atmosphere. Sea level is rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected.
The costs of inaction are undeniable. The lines of scientific evidence grow only stronger and more numerous. And the window of time remaining to act is growing smaller: delay could mean that warming becomes “locked in.”
A market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the best path to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, … http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/opinion/a-republican-case-for-climate-action.html
========================================
While I am not the Bill H that posted this i can say with certainty that this is NOT the Republican position as everyone of those who signed the letter are RINO’s (Republicans in name only) and are on the power grab control band wagon of the left..
I find it laughable that they purport they are “for” it and it is “undeniable” and just like the left the facts do not help them… Just like Mann however the data is meaning less.. Leave it to the NY slimes to print propaganda..
Gary Pearse says:
August 3, 2013 at 4:38 pm
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 11:19 am
Roger, I’m waiting. Without Chernobyl, a 50s Soviet plant with no safety features, there have only been 7 nuclear plant deaths in 60 years – 4 in Japan and 3 in USA, notably France has zero as has the rest. I have a challenge for you in the above as well which I see you have chosen to sidestep. If you don’t take it up, I’ll know all I have to know about you and millions of your clones and I will never respond to your stuff here again. There have been more than a few lambs visit who have left their fleece behind here after grossly underestimating WUWT skeptics. Some manned and womaned up but not many. There are lots of Kool Aid blogs where you can be a guru but this is not one of them. You have had one hell of a top notch education over this day that students pay a lot for elsewhere, but I fear it has been a waste of time with you. Goodbye.
Gunga Din says: August 3, 2013 at 1:28 pm “Neverwet:…Hmmm. I wonder if it would hold up on a snow shovel?”
Outstanding! Better, my front end loader bucket that’s near useless for snow freezing in it.
Here’s my favorite [snow shovel] [Suncast SPF2450 24-Inch Snow Shovel/Pusher with Fiberglass Handle And Wear Strip]
August, as good a month as any to talk about snow shovels.
I was having trouble finding a replacement for my aluminum and steel show pusher and wound up trying one much like yours – http://www.amazon.com/Garant-APP26KDRU-Alpine-26-Inch-Stained/dp/B000FBKUVS/ref=sr_1_4
[Except mine has a fiberglass handle, not ash.] Turns out it’s better – the old one didn’t have sides on the scoop.
Why do they even sell show shovels with plastic or aluminum scrapers in New Hampshire?
Back on Neverwet – careful, a little friction can be a big help to control a shovelful of snow and keep it from spilling out. OTOH, wet snow sticking to a shovel is a big pain.
Gary Pearse;
Roger, I’m waiting. Without Chernobyl, a 50s Soviet plant with no safety features,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually, Chernobyl had safety features, and they worked. That is until some moron physicists wanted to run an experiment that exceeded the safety limits of the reactor. The safety system kept shutting down the reactor in the middle of the experiment. So…. they shut the safety systems off. The thing about making systems foolproof if that you cannot over estimate the cleverness of fools.
Kajajuk
August 3, 2013 5:56 pm
DirkH says:
August 3, 2013 at 4:15 pm
———————–
Same suggestion i have posted at least twice before…
A dynamic harmony between capitalism (actual not “crony”) and socialism (actual not social corruption).
u.k.(us)
August 3, 2013 5:59 pm
Even when I really don’t want to say anything, it is nice to know I could.
Kajajuk
August 3, 2013 6:04 pm
Gary Pearse says:
August 3, 2013 at 5:06 pm\
——-
Nice.
So it is all just “natural variability” until the observations are in line with your “coldist” dreams and then it is profound as well as immediate?
A Republican Case for Climate Action
There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts:
Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I was just looking at DMI. Highest levels of sea ice since 2006.
Which is just as meaningless as the low levels a few years ago. But facts are facts and sea ice has been increasing at both poles for several years now. They can claim to be Republicans, and they can have their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.
Kajajuk
August 3, 2013 6:16 pm
Doug Huffman
August 3, 2013 6:19 pm
My, I had to think of the three US deaths – SL-1 – Stationary Lowpower One. Reassembling the rod control system after maintenance, a worker had to manually lift the central rod’s control rack to engage it with the drive pinion. Evidentially it stuck momentarily causing a jerk reactivity addition accident and steam explosion that ejected at least that rod.
A coworker was assigned to that crew and shift but called in with the Idaho January sniffles. I just got a note from him telling of his move into a seniors’ home.
Just came across this, which puts the whole radiation risk in perspective.
Radioactivity of the human body
A typical human body contains approximately 40 grams of potassium. About 1/1000 of this is potassium-40, a radioactive isotope. This means that you contain 0.04 grams = 40 milligrams of a radioactive cancer-producing isotope in your body. This is not an artificial radioactivity, but it is left over from the formation of potassium in the supernova that gave birth to our solar system. The half life of potassium-40 is 1.26 billion years. The solar system was created about 5 billion years ago. That is not enough time for all of the radioactive potassium to decay, and that is why there is so much in our bodies.
Atoms of radiopotassium in your body explode approximately 12,000 times every second. Your body is radioactive. Only 11% of the radioactive decays yield a gamma ray, so there are 1,300 self-inflicted gammas per second from your own body. (This is not easy to see in a geiger counter, because gammas are hard to detect.) This results in an exposure of approximately 0.00018 Sieverts over a 50 year period. If the linear hypothesis is correct, this is responsible on average for 7 millionths of a cancers per individual. Since 0.2 of us die from cancer, this self-inflicted radiation is responsible for 1/28000 of our cancers.
The results are more astonishing if you consider a large population. There are about 250 million people in the United States. Multipy 250 million by 7 millionths of a cancer per person, and you find that 250 x 7 = 1750 people will die of cancer over the next 50 years, induced by their own radioactivity. That averages to 35 per year.
Of course, we can’t get away from our own radioactivity. But think about double beds. If we spend a lot of time very close to someone else, we are exposed to their radioactivity as well as our own. Suppose we spend 1/3 of a day in close proximity (e.g. double beds). Then we expect to increase the potassium-induced cancers by about 1/3, or about 600 people. So if everyone in the US slept in double beds, the number of additional cancers expected in the next 50 years is 600.
That may sound silly. But remember, those are 600 people who otherwise would not die of cancer. And that’s just in the US. If we consider world-wide statistics, the numbers will be 20 times larger: 12000.
Do you think we should do something about this? We could install shields between people that protect them from gamma rays. Or outlaw double beds? At what point is it silly to worry? What level of “additional cancer” would you consider to be negligible? Would you accept a different level of risk for yourself than you would allow for the entire US? A risk of 0.000007 sounds negligible for me, but 600 preventable cancers in the US sounds substantial.
@ur momisugly David Hoffer re nuclear power:
You wrote;
“Nuclear can and does compete in France and other jurisdictions.”
Yes, but only because the French completely subsidized their power industry,
“But I thought this wasn’t about competitiveness? I thought this was about safe affordable power that didn’t produce ghg’s? That was the original point, and you’ve completely side stepped it.”
No, affordability is one of the points.
” Is it affordable? Yes.”
No, it is clearly not, or it would produce far more power and be built instead of coal and gas plants.
“Is it safe? Yes.”
Seriously? Why then are nuclear plant workers required to wear lifetime radiodosimeter badges?
“Does it produce ghg’s? No.”
Seriously? How many CO2 tons are emitted in mining and enriching the fuel, and building the plant with the hundreds of tons of steel and concrete?
“So why is the green movement so dead against it?”
Perhaps the widespread nuclear fallout from Chernobyl, and Fukushima, and nearly from Three Mile Island have some little thing to do with it? Especially after decades of nuclear advocates (such as yourself) shouting about how safe nuclear power is! The common thought is that nuclear industry insiders lie and lie again. Each time a major event happens, we find that more lies are told.
“Offer up some actual science if you want to have a discussion about the relative merits of one versus the other.”
I’m still waiting for ANYONE to make a valid case for nuclear power. France is subsidized so it does not count.
markx
August 3, 2013 6:41 pm
DirkH says: August 3, 2013 at 4:15 pm
In response to Kajajuk says:August 3, 2013 at 4:04 pm “Levity; not so much…” (Video Wealth Inequality in America) (Helluva video, marvelous presentation – worth watching for the clarity of presentation alone. “…..And? Whatcha suggest? Taxing liberal foundations?….”
It is a fine example of a people programmed with belief. In “the land of the free” anyone can make it! …. thanks to the wonders of free capitalism, “…everyone has an equal opportunity…” ….
Except, they don’t.
Some people are just smarter, harder working and/or luckier than others. And once the ball is rolling, they hold all the advantages: Political connection and influence, financial connection and influence (cheaper endless finance), legal connection and influence, the ability and wherewithall to market endlessly, the means to copy, outlast absorb competitors etc etc etc.
Yes, it is a great system, if you think we should all end up working for one or two versions of “The Corporation”.
Now that seems fair, that they should prosper so: But, to the extent 1% end up with 50% of the loot? And noting the capitalist system we now have functions only because of a myraid of laws on currency, banking, property etc (Yeah, it is not really “free capitalism”.)
And noting a few more tweaks to laws (a little more focus on anti-trust issues) could prevent gigantic corporation becoming gigantic.
The very interesting thing about “The Land of the Free” is that the working class masses are happy enough with the “equal opportunity” offered (meager as it is) that they will happily enlist in almost any conflict the corporations choose, and fight to the death to defend it.
The rate of greenhouse gas emitted from South Australia’s filthiest power stations is about 1,100 g CO2 per kWh for full fuel cycle. The greenhouse gas from nuclear operated in Australia (best estimate) for full lifecycle is 60g CO2e/kWh (University of Sydney, 2006). Only a 97.8% improvement there, but if coal was done for lifecycle nuclear would romp it in well past 99%.
Radiation pollution to the surrounding environment is about 100 times greater from a coal fired power plant than a nuclear plant Scientific American 13 December 2007.
Other pollution from coal includes:
Sulphur dioxide (SO2 ), which contributes to acid rain
Nitric oxides (NO and NO2), contributing to harmful ozone smog and acid rain
Carbon monoxide (CO), which is highly toxic
Particulate air pollution which is responsible for the slow and painful deaths of around 700,000 people per year according to WHO (1997), reported in UNEP 2002.
Heavy metals (lead cadmium, mercury) that enter and that persist in the food chain
Arsenic
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs, yet another highly toxic chemical)
On the nuclear side of the waste ledger, we basically have high level nuclear waste (HLW) that distinguishes the power source. ……[….]….
High level waste is produced in very small amounts. It is cooled, and then stored, safely, from whence it does no harm[1]. Its behaviour is not complex or mysterious, it is entirely predictable. It does not leach or leak, or otherwise negatively interact with the environment or people. Much like a noise source that can damage your hearing, but that you can’t turn off, we manage radioactive material it by putting dense material and some distance between it and us; enough that it can’t hurt anyone. Basically, it’s that simple. I suppose it’s a value judgement in the end, but I comfortably ascribe that at least 99 times less harm than the mountain of crap that is emitted from a coal fired power station onto all of us every year. I don’t like HLW, I don’t want it, but I can certainly live with it being contained and safely managed.
@ur momisugly Gary Pearse re nuclear power.
“Roger, I’m waiting.”
Good. The first thing for you to recognize is that my schedule is not under your control.
“Without Chernobyl, a 50s Soviet plant with no safety features, there have only been 7 nuclear plant deaths in 60 years – 4 in Japan and 3 in USA, notably France has zero as has the rest.”
Somehow, those dead people from Chernobyl are very likely not impressed with your argument. Neither am I. Radiation exposure is cumulative and workers in the industry are just now reaching old age where deaths can be attributed to their exposure. Plus where are the studies on their children’s birth defects? Time will expose the lies of nuclear power being safe.
“i have a challenge for you in the above as well which I see you have chosen to sidestep.”
Really? What challenge is that? Do you care to take my challenge on nuclear plants on islands?
“If you don’t take it up, I’ll know all I have to know about you”
Oooohhh! A threat! You can just imagine how scared I am.
“and millions of your clones and I will never respond to your stuff here again.”
Is that a promise?
“There have been more than a few lambs visit who have left their fleece behind here after grossly underestimating WUWT skeptics.”
Such bold talk over such nonsense! Being a skeptic myself on CAGW, I’ll never take a backseat to you.
“Some manned and womaned up but not many. There are lots of Kool Aid blogs where you can be a guru but this is not one of them.”
Irrelevant. You cannot argue that nuclear power is safe nor affordable so you resort to insults. A clear sign you have lost the argument.
“You have had one hell of a top notch education over this day”
Really? What is your meaning here?
“that students pay a lot for elsewhere, but I fear it has been a waste of time with you.”
I see the usual false arguments trotted out about France, and little else. That is an education? Hah.
“Goodbye”
On that we agree. Feel free to try again when you have a real argument.
What they fail to understand is that it is an incredibly simple way to boil water once the engineers have done their magic.
My advantage in this discussion is that I once spent some intense years learning to operate small, flexible nuclear reactors and training others to operate them. I can bear testimony to the fact that they can be extremely simple and robust power sources that need very little support from external infrastructure.
If people look at a gas plant and see a low cost capital investment, they are only looking at a small portion of the overall cost because someone else had to invest the capital into the fuel delivery system that moves the vapor from the deposit to the plant. Methane does not carry much energy per unit volume, so it is not easy to move from place to place.
In contrast, the submarines on which I used to deploy could be loaded with 14 years worth of fuel (1970s vintage technology). These days, we load subs with a lifetime fuel supply – Virginia class boats deliver with a core rated for 33 years worth of operations and no provisions for refueling.
I also spent a few years designing a really simple nuclear heat engine that can compete on a capital cost basis with combustion gas turbines because it uses exactly the same kinds of turbines and compressors as those systems do. The projected fuel cost is about 1/3 that of even the “cheap” gas currently available in North America. There are no emissions, and there is no need for pipelines or fracking.
Kajajuk
August 3, 2013 7:05 pm
markx says:
August 3, 2013 at 6:41 pm
———————-
The evidence of the divide is all about; if one cares to look.
markx
August 3, 2013 7:10 pm
Roger Sowell says: August 3, 2013 at 6:40 pm
in reply to David Hoffer who wrote; “Nuclear can and does compete in France and other jurisdictions.”
RS says: “Yes, but only because the French completely subsidized their power industry,”
Did you note that German energy costs shot through the roof when they shut down their nuclear power plants? http://www.thegwpf.org/germany-energy-poverty-600000-households-disconnected-annually/
When I was young(er) I used to enjoy records. Hottest day in 1960 most rain in Darwin in a day/week month, coolest night for June. Also temps heights rain droughts floods etc. Then along came AGW and now natural events and extremes are tainted by “the Cause” . Why can’t we have record highs and lows to enjoy without the navel searching?
Grump of day.
Are you completely blind, man?
Or just disingenuous to some nth degree?
DIDJA SEE the cost/kHW for France above?????????????????????????
.
Global sea ice positive again fourth or fifth time this year. A new record!
Is Al Gore lecturing in Nunavut? The Arctic has had the coldest stretch of 3 months in the history of the DMI since 1958 and the refreezing of north of 80 is about to begin in earnest:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
And look at the shallowing slopes of the summer ice decline
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current.png
The Japanese think so, too:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
I do have to believe that Norways Ice Area is a mistake!
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
Now that’s scary!!
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 11:19 am
a) seawater contains Uranium. We must do something!
And people are radioactive because of the Potassium and Carbon radioisotopes in our bodies.
RE: john says:
August 3, 2013 at 12:29 pm
Thanks for that link, John. And thanks to Ole Salomonson for sharing.
Even though the video is sped up a bit, the northern lights really do move around quite a bit. The first time I saw them I looked up and thought I was looking at a white, moonlit cloud, and then, just as it was dawning on me that there was no moon, the blame thing moved, first one way, and then the other. Even without the colors Ole captures, it blew me away.
Bill H says:
August 3, 2013 at 8:16 am
A Republican Case for Climate Action
By WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, LEE M. THOMAS, WILLIAM K. REILLY and CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN
Published: August 1, 2013
EACH of us took turns over the past 43 years running the Environmental Protection Agency. We served Republican presidents, but we have a message that transcends political affiliation: the United States must move now on substantive steps to curb climate change, at home and internationally.
There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean warming faster than the earth’s atmosphere. Sea level is rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected.
The costs of inaction are undeniable. The lines of scientific evidence grow only stronger and more numerous. And the window of time remaining to act is growing smaller: delay could mean that warming becomes “locked in.”
A market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the best path to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, …
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/opinion/a-republican-case-for-climate-action.html
========================================
While I am not the Bill H that posted this i can say with certainty that this is NOT the Republican position as everyone of those who signed the letter are RINO’s (Republicans in name only) and are on the power grab control band wagon of the left..
I find it laughable that they purport they are “for” it and it is “undeniable” and just like the left the facts do not help them… Just like Mann however the data is meaning less.. Leave it to the NY slimes to print propaganda..
Gary Pearse says:
August 3, 2013 at 4:38 pm
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 11:19 am
Roger, I’m waiting. Without Chernobyl, a 50s Soviet plant with no safety features, there have only been 7 nuclear plant deaths in 60 years – 4 in Japan and 3 in USA, notably France has zero as has the rest. I have a challenge for you in the above as well which I see you have chosen to sidestep. If you don’t take it up, I’ll know all I have to know about you and millions of your clones and I will never respond to your stuff here again. There have been more than a few lambs visit who have left their fleece behind here after grossly underestimating WUWT skeptics. Some manned and womaned up but not many. There are lots of Kool Aid blogs where you can be a guru but this is not one of them. You have had one hell of a top notch education over this day that students pay a lot for elsewhere, but I fear it has been a waste of time with you. Goodbye.
Doug Huffman says:
August 3, 2013 at 1:33 pm
August, as good a month as any to talk about snow shovels.
I was having trouble finding a replacement for my aluminum and steel show pusher and wound up trying one much like yours –
http://www.amazon.com/Garant-APP26KDRU-Alpine-26-Inch-Stained/dp/B000FBKUVS/ref=sr_1_4
[Except mine has a fiberglass handle, not ash.] Turns out it’s better – the old one didn’t have sides on the scoop.
Why do they even sell show shovels with plastic or aluminum scrapers in New Hampshire?
Back on Neverwet – careful, a little friction can be a big help to control a shovelful of snow and keep it from spilling out. OTOH, wet snow sticking to a shovel is a big pain.
Gary Pearse;
Roger, I’m waiting. Without Chernobyl, a 50s Soviet plant with no safety features,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually, Chernobyl had safety features, and they worked. That is until some moron physicists wanted to run an experiment that exceeded the safety limits of the reactor. The safety system kept shutting down the reactor in the middle of the experiment. So…. they shut the safety systems off. The thing about making systems foolproof if that you cannot over estimate the cleverness of fools.
DirkH says:
August 3, 2013 at 4:15 pm
———————–
Same suggestion i have posted at least twice before…
A dynamic harmony between capitalism (actual not “crony”) and socialism (actual not social corruption).
Even when I really don’t want to say anything, it is nice to know I could.
Gary Pearse says:
August 3, 2013 at 5:06 pm\
——-
Nice.
So it is all just “natural variability” until the observations are in line with your “coldist” dreams and then it is profound as well as immediate?
A Republican Case for Climate Action
There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts:
Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I was just looking at DMI. Highest levels of sea ice since 2006.
Which is just as meaningless as the low levels a few years ago. But facts are facts and sea ice has been increasing at both poles for several years now. They can claim to be Republicans, and they can have their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.
My, I had to think of the three US deaths – SL-1 – Stationary Lowpower One. Reassembling the rod control system after maintenance, a worker had to manually lift the central rod’s control rack to engage it with the drive pinion. Evidentially it stuck momentarily causing a jerk reactivity addition accident and steam explosion that ejected at least that rod.
A coworker was assigned to that crew and shift but called in with the Idaho January sniffles. I just got a note from him telling of his move into a seniors’ home.
Just came across this, which puts the whole radiation risk in perspective.
Radioactivity of the human body
A typical human body contains approximately 40 grams of potassium. About 1/1000 of this is potassium-40, a radioactive isotope. This means that you contain 0.04 grams = 40 milligrams of a radioactive cancer-producing isotope in your body. This is not an artificial radioactivity, but it is left over from the formation of potassium in the supernova that gave birth to our solar system. The half life of potassium-40 is 1.26 billion years. The solar system was created about 5 billion years ago. That is not enough time for all of the radioactive potassium to decay, and that is why there is so much in our bodies.
Atoms of radiopotassium in your body explode approximately 12,000 times every second. Your body is radioactive. Only 11% of the radioactive decays yield a gamma ray, so there are 1,300 self-inflicted gammas per second from your own body. (This is not easy to see in a geiger counter, because gammas are hard to detect.) This results in an exposure of approximately 0.00018 Sieverts over a 50 year period. If the linear hypothesis is correct, this is responsible on average for 7 millionths of a cancers per individual. Since 0.2 of us die from cancer, this self-inflicted radiation is responsible for 1/28000 of our cancers.
The results are more astonishing if you consider a large population. There are about 250 million people in the United States. Multipy 250 million by 7 millionths of a cancer per person, and you find that 250 x 7 = 1750 people will die of cancer over the next 50 years, induced by their own radioactivity. That averages to 35 per year.
Of course, we can’t get away from our own radioactivity. But think about double beds. If we spend a lot of time very close to someone else, we are exposed to their radioactivity as well as our own. Suppose we spend 1/3 of a day in close proximity (e.g. double beds). Then we expect to increase the potassium-induced cancers by about 1/3, or about 600 people. So if everyone in the US slept in double beds, the number of additional cancers expected in the next 50 years is 600.
That may sound silly. But remember, those are 600 people who otherwise would not die of cancer. And that’s just in the US. If we consider world-wide statistics, the numbers will be 20 times larger: 12000.
Do you think we should do something about this? We could install shields between people that protect them from gamma rays. Or outlaw double beds? At what point is it silly to worry? What level of “additional cancer” would you consider to be negligible? Would you accept a different level of risk for yourself than you would allow for the entire US? A risk of 0.000007 sounds negligible for me, but 600 preventable cancers in the US sounds substantial.
@ur momisugly David Hoffer re nuclear power:
You wrote;
“Nuclear can and does compete in France and other jurisdictions.”
Yes, but only because the French completely subsidized their power industry,
“But I thought this wasn’t about competitiveness? I thought this was about safe affordable power that didn’t produce ghg’s? That was the original point, and you’ve completely side stepped it.”
No, affordability is one of the points.
” Is it affordable? Yes.”
No, it is clearly not, or it would produce far more power and be built instead of coal and gas plants.
“Is it safe? Yes.”
Seriously? Why then are nuclear plant workers required to wear lifetime radiodosimeter badges?
“Does it produce ghg’s? No.”
Seriously? How many CO2 tons are emitted in mining and enriching the fuel, and building the plant with the hundreds of tons of steel and concrete?
“So why is the green movement so dead against it?”
Perhaps the widespread nuclear fallout from Chernobyl, and Fukushima, and nearly from Three Mile Island have some little thing to do with it? Especially after decades of nuclear advocates (such as yourself) shouting about how safe nuclear power is! The common thought is that nuclear industry insiders lie and lie again. Each time a major event happens, we find that more lies are told.
“Offer up some actual science if you want to have a discussion about the relative merits of one versus the other.”
I’m still waiting for ANYONE to make a valid case for nuclear power. France is subsidized so it does not count.
DirkH says: August 3, 2013 at 4:15 pm
In response to Kajajuk says:August 3, 2013 at 4:04 pm “Levity; not so much…” (Video Wealth Inequality in America) (Helluva video, marvelous presentation – worth watching for the clarity of presentation alone.
“…..And? Whatcha suggest? Taxing liberal foundations?….”
It is a fine example of a people programmed with belief. In “the land of the free” anyone can make it! …. thanks to the wonders of free capitalism, “…everyone has an equal opportunity…” ….
Except, they don’t.
Some people are just smarter, harder working and/or luckier than others. And once the ball is rolling, they hold all the advantages: Political connection and influence, financial connection and influence (cheaper endless finance), legal connection and influence, the ability and wherewithall to market endlessly, the means to copy, outlast absorb competitors etc etc etc.
Yes, it is a great system, if you think we should all end up working for one or two versions of “The Corporation”.
Now that seems fair, that they should prosper so: But, to the extent 1% end up with 50% of the loot? And noting the capitalist system we now have functions only because of a myraid of laws on currency, banking, property etc (Yeah, it is not really “free capitalism”.)
And noting a few more tweaks to laws (a little more focus on anti-trust issues) could prevent gigantic corporation becoming gigantic.
The very interesting thing about “The Land of the Free” is that the working class masses are happy enough with the “equal opportunity” offered (meager as it is) that they will happily enlist in almost any conflict the corporations choose, and fight to the death to defend it.
Does anybody have any news about Rossi’s “ecat”? How about the “hotcat”? And most interesting of all, the latest iteration, the “notcat”©acementhead, the one that no longer needs the secret sauce?
Roger Sowell says: August 3, 2013 at 6:40 pm
“……I’m still waiting for ANYONE to make a valid case for nuclear power. France is subsidized so it does not count.
http://www.thinkclimateconsulting.com.au/2011/05/30/the-case-against-waiting-for-generation-iv-nuclear-and-the-case-for-urgently-bringing-it-to-commercialisation/
On pollution:
Uranium mining – very small footprint vs coal: http://www.thinkclimateconsulting.com.au/2012/01/25/the-folly-of-making-perfection-the-enemy-of-excellence-a-visit-to-beverley-uranium-mine/
Health and safety: http://www.thinkclimateconsulting.com.au/category/accidents-incidents-and-health-concerns/
@ur momisugly Gary Pearse re nuclear power.
“Roger, I’m waiting.”
Good. The first thing for you to recognize is that my schedule is not under your control.
“Without Chernobyl, a 50s Soviet plant with no safety features, there have only been 7 nuclear plant deaths in 60 years – 4 in Japan and 3 in USA, notably France has zero as has the rest.”
Somehow, those dead people from Chernobyl are very likely not impressed with your argument. Neither am I. Radiation exposure is cumulative and workers in the industry are just now reaching old age where deaths can be attributed to their exposure. Plus where are the studies on their children’s birth defects? Time will expose the lies of nuclear power being safe.
“i have a challenge for you in the above as well which I see you have chosen to sidestep.”
Really? What challenge is that? Do you care to take my challenge on nuclear plants on islands?
“If you don’t take it up, I’ll know all I have to know about you”
Oooohhh! A threat! You can just imagine how scared I am.
“and millions of your clones and I will never respond to your stuff here again.”
Is that a promise?
“There have been more than a few lambs visit who have left their fleece behind here after grossly underestimating WUWT skeptics.”
Such bold talk over such nonsense! Being a skeptic myself on CAGW, I’ll never take a backseat to you.
“Some manned and womaned up but not many. There are lots of Kool Aid blogs where you can be a guru but this is not one of them.”
Irrelevant. You cannot argue that nuclear power is safe nor affordable so you resort to insults. A clear sign you have lost the argument.
“You have had one hell of a top notch education over this day”
Really? What is your meaning here?
“that students pay a lot for elsewhere, but I fear it has been a waste of time with you.”
I see the usual false arguments trotted out about France, and little else. That is an education? Hah.
“Goodbye”
On that we agree. Feel free to try again when you have a real argument.
Roger Sowell says: August 3, 2013 at 6:40 pm
“……I’m still waiting for ANYONE to make a valid case for nuclear power….”
….from someone who sounds like he knows a bit about it :
http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/03/17/economist-nuclear-view-impractical/#comment-154175
markx says:
August 3, 2013 at 6:41 pm
———————-
The evidence of the divide is all about; if one cares to look.
Roger Sowell says: August 3, 2013 at 6:40 pm
in reply to David Hoffer who wrote; “Nuclear can and does compete in France and other jurisdictions.”
RS says: “Yes, but only because the French completely subsidized their power industry,”
Did you note that German energy costs shot through the roof when they shut down their nuclear power plants?
http://www.thegwpf.org/germany-energy-poverty-600000-households-disconnected-annually/