Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Naomi Oreskes has accused climate scientists like James Hansen, who support the expansion of nuclear power, of practicing a “strange new form of denial”.
According to The Guardian;
After the signing of a historic climate pact in Paris, we might now hope that the merchants of doubt – who for two decades have denied the science and dismissed the threat – are officially irrelevant.
But not so fast. There is also a new, strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late, one that says that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs.
Oddly, some of these voices include climate scientists, who insist that we must now turn to wholesale expansion of nuclear power. Just this past week, as negotiators were closing in on the Paris agreement, four climate scientists held an off-site session insisting that the only way we can solve the coupled climate/energy problem is with a massive and immediate expansion of nuclear power. More than that, they are blaming environmentalists, suggesting that the opposition to nuclear power stands between all of us and a two-degree world.
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/16/new-form-climate-denialism-dont-celebrate-yet-cop-21
This article was written in response to a demand by James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira and Tom Wigley to consider the nuclear option.
Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change
To solve the climate problem, policy must be based on facts and not prejudice. Alongside renewables, Nuclear will make the difference between the world missing crucial climate targets or achieving them
All four of us have dedicated our scientific careers to understand the processes and impacts of climate change, variously studying ocean systems, tropical cyclones, ice sheets and ecosystems as well as impacts on human societies. We have used both climate models and geological records of past climates to better understand lessons from warmer periods in the Earth’s history and investigate future scenarios.
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change
I can’t help feeling Oreskes has well and truly jumped the shark with the ridiculous claim that scientists like Hansen, Wigley et al are “deniers”, because they don’t believe in renewables. As WUWT reported a while ago, even Google couldn’t find a way to make renewables viable – so it seems unlikely anybody else will succeed where Google failed.
As for Oreskes objections to nuclear power, her argument that nuclear power is too risky is just plain silly. Even if the nuclear route to decarbonisation resulted in several meltdowns every year, how could this possibly be worse than the complete destruction of the biosphere through global warming, which according to the likes of Oreskes and Hansen is the price of continued reliance on fossil fuels?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Revolution always devours its children; I suppose it is their turn to be munched now.
FD
“one that says that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs.”
Well, they can’t. That much is obvious when one starts to do the industrial math. But here we get to one of the core problems with the CAGW movement. They are technology fetishists. They worship the windmill and the solar panel with absolutely no clue as to how they are made or how much they can provide, Even if we used up all the world’s minable rare earth mineral reserves just to make windmills, we’d still never come close to satisying the world’s current electricity consumption. I still want to know where they think all the electric cars they claim will replace all the petroleum-powered ones will come from and how the immense amount of additional electricity consumption those vehicles will require will be generated.
A few days ago I mentioned an electric car enthusiast I debated a couple of decades ago who declared that all we needed to do to solve the problem of inadequate batteries was to pass a law requiring battery manufacturers to create the type of batteries that were needed.
In his mind, it was only a lack of will that prevented companies from coming up with miracle batteries.
The battery manufacturers didn’t use the ” miracle data tonic ” .
Brilliant idea. Why they’re at it just pass legislation that all vehicles are propelled by air without compressing. That would be wonderful!
My dear fellow Mark, you have missed the answer. To hell with batteries and gasoline. You pass a law that all roads must go downhill and everyone can just coast there!
During a discussion about mobile towers (*), I explained the parallel infrastructure of different mobile operators was a rule in Europe and that the mobile operators couldn’t build one shared radio infrastructure even if they wanted to (+). The guy told me that with one network instead of three (#) in France the level of tower emission would be divided by three. I replied that by dividing the emissions and spectrum, you would also reduce the capacity of the network (@ur momisugly).
He told me that the Law would force operators to provide as much capacity with one relay as with three, without producing more EMF than each of the original relays.
(*) funny fact: I once had another discussion with a warmist/pretend academic (but maybe he was really an academic) who said NASA is to be trusted because NASA sends stuff in space and makes mobile phone communications possible by sending mobile phone satellites in orbit; after many back and forth I got the confirmation that it wasn’t a slip and the guy really didn’t know about mobile communication towers.
(+) except in remote areas where there is one shared network in France, called “F-contact”
(#) four mobile networks in France now
(@ur momisugly) of course a shared network has better occupation than many different networks, but still
“She received her PhD degree in the Graduate Special Program in Geological Research and History of Science at Stanford in 1990.” – Wikipedia
“There is also a new, strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late, one that says that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs.”
“Argumentum ad Verecundiam (argument from authority) fallacy: an appeal to the testimony of an authority outside the authority’s special field of expertise.” – Lander
PhD = pile higher and deeper
One Warmunist fruitcake calling another Warmunist fruitbat a “d*nier; a delicious blend of irony and schadenfreude with my morning coffee. It doesn’t get any better.
Have you seen the lonely sportsman from a poor African country at the Olympics?
The one who never practiced and who almost sinks in the swimming pool, or can barely ski, etc. Some people find that touching. (Every time my mother wonders why she isn’t a the Olympics, as there are sports where she is really pathetic, too.)
That’s what I feel about Oreskes in hard sciences.
Often the same one that then applies for asylum, meanwhile the same countries use the OIC’s money to send a lot of ‘officials’ who then find the two weeks after their athletes get knocked out , are well spent shopping or otherwise enjoying themselves , and certainly not going home ‘early ‘
Because even the most vehement alarmists knows GW warnings are empty rhetoric. It’s smack talk, like when an action hero/villain threatens to punch someone to the moon. GW alarmism is not concerned with the biosphere, saving humanity or the rest of it, it is the temper tantrum of a child who wants their own way, because.
She has spent the last several years justifying her attack existence by pushing for what she just got from Paris. So now that she has her ends, how will she justify her existence going forward? Is she afraid she will drift off into insignificance? So to stay relevant in her own mind she’ll attack something else. It doesn’t matter what as long as it gets her some attention.
There is a method to the madness. She is angling for a major pay boost as a paid commentator at a major media group. The deal will involve just more of the regular tripe to a wider audience.
Nuclear was a hot topic until the Japanese earthquake took the steam out of it. Some of the nuclear plants sit in dangerous areas. I can think of several here in the US. Others sit in areas that I wonder about. In the middle of the US during the 19th century a similar earthquake would cause an unbelievable amount of damage. They are accidents waiting to happen. As far as I know the design failure that affected the plants in Fukushima are in ALL US plants. I do not know whether they are changing that flaw or sitting there with their fingers crossed.” If enough time goes by, it won’t be my problem. It’s off of my desk. ” and after the fact, there will be hand wringing, ceo’s stepping down, assurances that they now have competent mangement, and technically trained staff to handle the situation.
I don’t see renewables, if you can call them that, ( I’ve seen cost estimates that they cost more than they produce) taking over the heavy lifting of fossil fuels. The only other industry that has the potential to replace fossil fuels is fusion, and the greens are against that. Which in my mind, is puzzling.
If we weren’t bound by technical limitations, we could think of entirely new ways to generate massive amounts of power. It won’t be a scientist who thinks of it, it’ll be a sci fy type of person.
(The design flaw is the mechanical device that tells the operators that there is water in the reactor. Steam pressure pushed the lever to indicate that there was sufficient water in the reactor to keep it cool )
Mostly rubbish. The Fukushima plant survived the earthquake quite well even though it exceeded greatly the plant’s design basis. What caused all the damage was the water flooding into the plant from the tsunami, combined with the fact that the backup diesel generators were in the basement and the diesel storage tanks were completely unprotected in the yard, and hence washed away by the tsunami. If the seawall had been just 5 m higher, no one would ever have heard of Fukushima.
No, they are not ” accidents waiting to happen”. There has been a great deal of work going on for the past four years to deal with beyond-design-basis accidents. A lot of retrofitting has been done mostly along the lines of reinforcing backup power which was the principal problem at Fukushima.
Next, please explain how you get an earthquake of 8.2 magnitude anywhere other than along a continental fault line, which is certainly not found in the middle of the US in the 19th or any other century
And no, not all reactors in the US are the same. Fukushima’s reactors were all BWR types. Most of the reactors in the US are PWR types.
For the Fukushima Dai-Ichii site where four of its six reactors had failed containment, the two others were at higher elevations on the site and they had no problems by the immediate effect of earthquake or from the unprecedented tsunami.
TEPCO several times in previous decade studied idea to bring a backup power high tension on high tower lines from a plant inland to all six reactors as a backup to the batteries and diesel generators. That might have helped if they were designed well.
John
It’s impossible to plan for every type of diaster. And yes the design flaw is or was in every us reactor. Will it take an 8.2 earthquake to destroy a plant that isn’t built for a 5 or 6? The headaches are endless with fission. You can argue every little thing. If only the sea wall had been 5 meters higher…. for example. … let’s find something else.
I never thought that fission would last. Fission was only a temporary means until we found something else. In my view, to suggest fission as a permanent source of energy is nuts. With fission there is no limit to human stupidity. Starting with management. Why do you think there are so many regulations? A bolt is a bolt right? I’ll buy the cheaper one. They look the same. Well, why does it have to meet certain strength requirements? We can’t meet our budget if you keep adding these conditions. Oh a leak, I’ll send some guys down there with a bucket and mops. The color of the fuses indicate ratings. We have no idea why the telemetry keeps going down. Some genius decided to swith out the color coded fuses to save money. Do you have any idea how hard that was to find out what was wrong? I’m convinced, no limit.
Since it’s impossible to plan for every type of disaster, the only solution is to shut down everything.
That type of thinking is little more than paranoia trying to find a respectable outlet.
“TEPCO several times in previous decade studied idea to bring a backup power high tension on high tower lines from a plant inland to all six reactors as a backup to the batteries and diesel generators”
High tower lines are vulnerable to natural events. I don’t think you could adequately secure those.
The emergency workers received generators but couldn’t connect the wires as the outside connectors weren’t compatible!
“That might have helped if they were designed well.”
But not when the bus was flooded. The whole safety system of the plant was vulnerable. The plant safety was substandard in many ways (notably lack of recombiners).
Even the hydrogen vents (the big red and white towers) were unsafe: it transported hydrogen to another building and caused the fourth hydrogen explosion.
Still, the emergency cooling systems worked quite well without electric power: one reactor had a cooling system running on steam pressure, the others a simple thermal exchange.
“Will it take an 8.2 earthquake to destroy a plant that isn’t built for a 5 or 6?”
Is YOUR house quake safe?
If not, why? Do you not care being crunched?
Of course a tiny amount of cesium is something else.
CGH,
You said:
“please explain how you get an earthquake of 8.2 magnitude anywhere other than along a continental fault line, which is certainly not found in the middle of the US in the 19th or any other century”
The New Madrid fault zone produced some of the strongest, most far reaching, and potentially catastrophic earthquakes in US history.
That they occurred a few hundred years ago was a blessing. Church bells were rung by the shaking as far away as Boston and Charleston, New Orleans and Chicago.
These are well known events, so your insistence that they could not happen speaks to your education and knowledge of geology. Perhaps you should look stuff up before opining in public
Sorry to be rough, but facts is facts:
http://dnr.mo.gov/geology/geosrv/geores/techbulletin1.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Madrid_Seismic_Zone
Menicholas, you do understand the difference between 7.2 and 8.2? It’s a full order of magnitude in energy release. Fukushima was 9.0, meaning nearly 100 times the energy release of New Madrid. Do you still wish to pretend that such is possible in a continental interior?
Rishrac, your 10:35 post is mostly nonsense. Utilities started specifying nuclear grade components back in the 1960s before the advent of extensive government regulation. And just what would the “something else” be post-fission?
The map I posted is for one in the series, The most intense one was estimated to have been around magnitude 8, but no one really knows how to accurately gage the intensity of a quake that happened hundreds of years ago.
Some estimates were as high as 8.2.
But there is only one example that is well known from this fault zone.
Another near Charleston has caused large quakes as well.
Now, I would assert that it is impossible to be sure that the next quake in one of these areas will not be far stronger.
How does one calculate the maximum energy release from a deep fault zone such as New Madrid, or be sure that there are not other sites around the Eastern US where a huge quake will occur someday?
In fact, there is no way to be sure of any of these things. Anyplace which has quakes may produce a massive one someday, and places which have never had one cannot be said to be risk free.
In any case, my pointing this out was not to say that I am antinuclear power.
Just making a point about that specific issue.
it seemed to me you were stating that powerful quakes cannot occur in the interior of continents that are far from known or obvious faults.
We do not have enough history to be sure of what might someday occur in New Madrid, Charleston, or even New York/Philadelphia/Baltimore, or off the coast of Florida for that matter.
Let me see if I have this right. You are actually claiming that every nuclear plant in the US is in danger of being hit with a 9.0 earthquake followed by a 30 foot tsunami?
Don’t be ridiculous. I looked for the earthquake that shook the middle part of the US for days. It wasn’t listed. It occurred in 1817 or 19. How many of those plants could withstand a fairly sizable shake for days?
What do you think my concern is? And I’m taking a cruise if this happens, don’t want any part of it. Multiple plant failures at the same time. … since you have all the i’s dotted and t’ crossed on this, don’t call me on this. You’re on your own. Uniformity in plant design is/was not a hallmark, except strangely for some flaws. At one time the color of pipes that carried different materials varied from plant to plant. You remember the $0.98 solution? Yea, saved about 2 thousand $ on the fuses, spent about 5 million to fix.
Oh, that quake occurred about the time of a native American uprising. The chief that was trying to persuade other tribes to join told them if they didn’t he’d be mad and strike the ground to make the earthshake. It was felt from Michigan to Alabama. Pioneers reported sand geysers. Also, in the 1960’s there was a strong earthquake in Alaska. There was structural changes in the soil as far as the southern US. I remember seeing a photo of a ridge that appeared that ran thru a field in Alabama. …. I can’t live far away enough from a nuclear power plant. Japan is too close. I’m not saying they aren’t necessary, I’m saying that too many isn’t good.
“…past climates to better understand lessons from warmer periods..”
And James et al, did you understand that these warmer periods were a blessing the humans and the biosphere at large? The two Naomis couldn’t fill a thimble with their actual knowledge. There political ideology takes up all the room in their brains for thought about anything.What is it that gives these two misanthropes such celebrity and weight? And the bigger question: what more experiment on centrally planned socio-econo-political management of people’s affairs do we need to assure ourselves that this is not the way forward? S’truth, when the asylum is taken back from the whackos, some heavy boilerplate needs to be added to constitutions – they were designed with the idea that more reasonable people would be running the show.
“Ever does evil turn against itself.”
Fortunately, yes.
Think Shia and Sunni spending as much energy killing each other as they do killing infidels.
As they say:
Here is relevant Scientific American article from 213:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/russias-nuclear-reactors-could-take-over-the-world-safe-or-not/
Summary: “The federation is aggressively selling reactors to countries with little nuclear experience ”
to add: “…and useful idiots (like Naomi) help to undermine competition”
cgh
December 18, 2015 at 7:09 am
“Mostly rubbish. The Fukushima plant survived the earthquake quite well”
Nonsense!
Fukushima Dai-ichi #1 was smoking already before the tsunami hit. Several workers there have reported seeing buckling, cracking, hissing, leaking coolant pipes. In addition, even before the Mar. 11 event, there was concern at Fukushima about cracking pipes due to age, and wear & tear.
The authors have spoken to several workers at the plant. Each recites the same story: Serious damage to piping and at least one of the reactors before the tsunami hit.
[…]
In September 2002, TEPCO admitted covering up data about cracks in critical circulation pipes in addition to previously revealed falsifications.
[…]
Kikuchi Yoichi, a former GE engineer who helped build the Fukushima nuclear power plant says unequivocally that, “the earthquake caused the meltdown not the tsunami.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011vided pro/08/12/tepcos-darkest-secret/
What was released? Newly declassified US NRC report written just one week after the disaster sheds light on the extent of the catastrophe:
The source term provided to NARAC was 1) 25% of total fuel in unit 2 released to atmosphere 2) 50% of total spent fuel from unit 3 was released to atmosphere, and 3) 100% of the total spent fuel from unit 4 was released to the atmosphere.
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1212/ML12122A949.pdf
(page 7)
ENGINEERS IN Japan’s ruined Fukushima nuclear plant have revealed it suffered a triple meltdown in the four days after being battered by a huge earthquake and tsunami on March 11th.
The news confirms fears that reactor three, which contains controversial mixed uranium-plutonium fuel, known as Mox,… Mox is considered thousands of times more toxic than uranium nuclear fuel.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/fukushima-plant-suffered-triple-meltdown-1.581190
There is very much more, especially radioactive contamination of the Pacific Ocean from groundwater flowing over and through Fukushima Dai-Ichi, where location of coriums from three melt-downs remains unknown.
There is also a big question about the safety of, for example, Diablo Canyon NPP on California’s Central Coast, which sits virtually atop the Hosgri Fault system, recently discovered to be much more extensive than previously thought/revealed.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/11/28/faults-linked-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant/
But let me take a step back, and address the issue of nuclear power vis-a-vis the Great Global Warming Scare, sometimes known as CAGW, but now hiding behind various guises like “climate change,” and what have you. Many who read and comment here recognize that CAGW is bogus, on the one hand, but seeming fail to recognize one of the primarily beneficiaries, on the other.
If CAGW is bogus, and if CO₂ has been wrongly demonized, why is it again we can’t just burn cheap & abundant coal to generate all the safe and reliable power we all need?
Cui bono?
–sp–
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/08/12/tepcos-darkest-secret/
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/08/12/tepcos-darkest-secret/
“the pipes buckling, and within minutes, I saw pipes bursting”
Vague, unspecific. Which pipes? Where?
Of course, this is made up so we have no details.
“Someone yelled that we all needed to evacuate.”
I call BS on this one. After a quake you don’t evacuate with your car. Very unsafe.
You stay in a safe place.
“As he was heading to his car, he could see that the walls of the reactor one building itself had already started to collapse. “There were holes in them. In the first few minutes, no one was thinking about a tsunami. We were thinking about survival.””
BS again.
Anyway, the whole water piping of the turbine building could be wrecked, it wouldn’t make a different WRT safety.
simple-touriste
December 18, 2015 at 1:48 pm
Please tell us what massive earthquake you’ve experienced in the immediate vicinity of a nuclear powerplant that gives you the experience to call BS on the Fukushima Dai-ichi #1 worker’s reports. The Counterpunch article makes clear the reports are from workers at the stricken plant.
You call BS simply because that is what you’re most familiar with. You have no credibility, and I will have no further discussion with you.
“Please tell us what massive earthquake you’ve experienced”
Please state your nuclear qualifications and quake safety qualifications!
“in the immediate vicinity of a nuclear powerplant that gives you the experience to call BS on the Fukushima Dai-ichi #1 worker’s reports.”
This is simply nuts. You don’t ride after a quake. Even a child would get that.
“Counterpunch article makes clear”
Counterpunch is a communist disinformation outlet.
“the reports are from workers at the stricken plant.”
The alleged nuclear workers can’t even mention anything specific showing that they actually went to this plant, even once. There are many sorts of pipes in a nuclear plant. Water pipes, vapor pipes, air pipes… they don’t even say what sort of pipe broke.
I call BS on everything you say.
I hate to disagree S.T., but after the quake and before the tsunami, many people did get in cars and flee the coastal zones.
I woke up to the live news feed that morning to the site of cars and minivans being overtaken by the tide of debris, at that point miles inland.
If you were right on the coast near the epicenter, getting in a car and driving fast may have been the only way to escape the tsunami.
But many were killed in cars.
I vividly recall watching one car which was blocked by a fence, and the driver going back and forth as the wave of killer debris came closer. All I could think was that I would have driven straight through the fence and driven overland long before that wave got to my car…but that driver was killed because he did not leave the road. On foot he would have had no chance.
“before the tsunami, many people did get in cars and flee the coastal zones”
That’s a special case, in a zone vulnerable to flooding.
But when you have a hardened, anything-proof building nearby?
s/b “…seemingly fail to recognize one of the primary beneficiaries of the scam, on the other”
I think your Tin Foil hat is a little too tight, try some adjustments !! DOH !
Thanks for the crazy talk.
So Mox is evil! Bouh!
And still, nobody died, nobody was harmed. (Well, fire fighting pipes were destroyed by the hydrogen explosions, so emergency workers could have been hurt if they had been in the wrong place. You could estimate that a few virtual death.)
simple-touriste
December 18, 2015 at 1:22 pm
“Thanks for the crazy talk…And still, nobody died, nobody was harmed.
Wrong on all three counts! Whether or not you’re ignorant, lying, or both is not clear, but these reports may help rectify the first possibility:
According to data collected by the Fukushima Prefecture, 2014 saw 1,232 nuclear-related deaths. The two towns with the greatest number of deaths were both near the Fukushima plant: Namie, with 359 dead; and Tomioka, with 291 dead.
[…]
It typically takes four to five years for most nuclear-related thyroid cancers to manifest, and as that window approaches many Fukushima parents believe that their children are already showing symptoms. Fukushima officials have tested approximately 300,000 children and have turned up 100 cases of the disease, in contrast to the pre-disaster rate of one or two per million children.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/fukushima-disaster-caused-at-least-1232-fatalities-in-2014-as-radiation-death-rate-accelerates/5441390
Physician Janette Sherman, M.D. and epidemiologist Joseph Mangano published a report Monday highlighting a 35% spike in northwest infant mortality after Japan’s nuclear meltdown.
The report spotlighted data from the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report on infant mortality rates in eight northwest cities, including Seattle, in the 10 weeks after Fukushima’s nuclear meltdown.
Medical professionals publish report highlighting post-Fukushima mortality spike.
–KCPQ FOX News, June 17, 2011
Consistent patterns of elevated increases are observed in the west (20 of 21 comparisons, 6 of which are statistically significant/borderline significant), by state, type of birth defect, month of birth, and month of conception. While these five anomalies are relatively uncommon (about 7500 cases per year in the U.S.), sometimes making statistical significance difficult to achieve, the consistency of the results lend strength to the analysis, and suggest fetal harm from Fukushima may have occurred in western U.S. states.
http://file.scirp.org/Html/13-1330400_54828.htm
TEPCO Workers deaths are not reported
“She also said that there were 100,000 shifts shared between the work force that have worked at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant so far, also, 4% of 100,000 (4300) workers have reportedly died.”
“Apart from Tepco workers, 64 members of the Self Defence Force and about 300 policemen have also died. They said that those policemen who work at the security check points of the no go zones in Fukushima prefecture are not wearing any protection, therefore, they have been exposed to huge amounts of ionizing radiation.”
http://robinwestenra.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/tepco-workers-deaths-not-reported.html
Steve Zeltzer, reporting from Japan: One of the things I learned in Osaka from the president of the day laborers is that many of the day laborers being brought into the plant, they’re not being registered and they’re disappearing. There were over 800 day laborers who have disappeared from contact by the union, which means they may have been killed or died during work.
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/100824
Tokyo – A total of 1 232 deaths in Japan’s Fukushima prefecture over the past year were linked to the nuclear accident four years ago, up 18% from a year earlier, a news report said on Tuesday.
http://www.news24.com/World/News/Japans-nuclear-related-deaths-rise-by-18-20150310-2
“One day I was taking a cigarette break with a coworker. When we finished our break, I stood up and called out to my still-seated coworker: ‘Wanna get going soon?’ But he didn’t move. He was dead. The dead body was not returned to his family because of radiation. They poured cement over the body and carted that off to J village area. I have no idea what happened to the corpse after that.”
http://blog.goo.ne.jp/jpnx05/e/6de670909c7788f2443a5c370d4a384b
Global research dot com?
Who might they be?
Here is who:
“Global Research – Centre for Research on Globalization
http://www.globalresearch.ca
An independent research and media group of progressive writers, scholars and activists committed to curbing the tide of “globalisation” and “disarming” the new world…”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/
Hmm…such gems as “Fluoride, killing us softly”, and other stimulating fare.
Yup, this is the place i go for true facts.
NOT
If you believe that crap about a guy dying on a cigarette break and then being immersed in concrete and rushed out of town…I cannot help you, as you are hopelessly naive.
“If you believe that crap about a guy dying on a cigarette break and then being immersed in concrete and rushed out of town…I cannot help you, as you are hopelessly naive.”
OK. Throw that out, and address the rest, or shut thy yap hole.
Menicholas
December 18, 2015 at 3:11 pm
And by the way, an attack on source, or dragging in something else, like flouride, is not addressing the issue of the triple meltdown at Fukushima, or resulting health issues.
Those diversions are unsound arguments known as fallacies.
Steve, you have zero data from reliable sources.
“Fukushima officials have tested approximately 300,000 children and have turned up 100 cases of the disease, in contrast to the pre-disaster rate of one or two per million children.”
WRONG
There is NO DATA on background rate in Japan. There was never any systematic testing in Japan (or elsewhere).
“Janette Sherman, M.D. and epidemiologist Joseph Mangano”
Sherman and Mangano are too well known crackpots.
The idea that minuscule amount of excess radiation causes detectable increase of death is batcrazy. We know more about the effects of radiations than almost anything else. Small amounts of radiation (with no obvious cofonder) have never been linked with increase diseases.
“The dead body was not returned to his family because of radiation. They poured cement”
It’s a good one.
OTOH, I have heard that Marie Curie’s body was buried in an antiradiation box (Pb, not cement).
“And by the way, an attack on source,”
So you won’t defend your source?
“or dragging in something else, like flouride, is not addressing the issue of the triple meltdown at Fukushima,”
How is that an issue? Nobody denies that this plant is wrecked. Huge financial loss. Small financial loss compared to the total of losses.
“or resulting health issues.”
We have yet to see any real issue (unlike fake thyroid issues caused by systematic screening).
The Fukashima event is described in an extensive and well sourced Wikipedia article.
Wikipedia is suspect on certain topics, but on others it is a reliable source of information.
You can click on each source link if you doubt any of what is described.
Linking to a site devoted to every ridiculous notion ever promulgated is a serious blow to credibility.
That web site has articles relating to 911 Truthers, chem trails, San Bernardino Truthers, vaccines are poison type articles…basically everything which is widely believed to be true is derided as a hoax on that site.
As far as that goes, it may be the most comprehensive tin-foil hat crowd website I have ever seen.
And as far as the dangers of radiation go…I go where facts lead, not disproven scare stories.
Believe it or not, and I am sure you will not, radiation in moderate doses is beneficial to health.
Read my post above for details on that.
IMO, someone making ridiculous claims and linking to phony information does not call for rebuttal via extensive analysis.
Enough to point out that the sources noted are unreliable…basically opinions from random people, and there are a lot of people with irrational fears in the world…and that others have a contrary opinion of the events described.
“why is it again we can’t just burn cheap & abundant coal to generate all the safe and reliable power we all need? ”
Because CO2 has been ruled by the EPA to be a dangerous pollutant, and regulations have been written making most coal fired plant uneconomical due to new emission standards.
That’s why.
Yes, Menicholas, I think most of us here understand that, and a few here may even understand that I covered that aspect of the ruse in my opening premise:
“If CAGW is bogus, and if CO₂ has been wrongly demonized…”
The bogus demonization of CO₂ resulted in EPA’s ruling, and that was led by Obama’s war on coal, leading to the discriminatory regulations.
Last week, Obama’s EPA announced sweeping regulations for U.S. power plants, forcing them to drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions 32 percent by 2030. The news sent shockwaves through the coal industry, sending stocks tumbling and forcing the industry’s two biggest players to consider bankruptcy filings.
That’s where liberal billionaire Soros steps in. In the days after the Clean Power Plan was announced, Soros bought more than 1 million shares of Peabody Energy and 553,200 shares of Arch Coal — the country’s two biggest publicly-traded coal companies.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/19/the-real-winner-of-obamas-war-on-coal-george-soros/#ixzz3uiXn2eWv
How clean is “clean coal”?
How much sulfur do you catch?
CounterPunch , really ??? ROTFLMAO…..
Most of the information above is incorrect or out of context. The NRC report you cite for the releases list the numbers they gave to NARAC to feed a computer code as a bounded worse case. Ultimately, there was no release from the Unit 4 spent fuel pool.
Furthermore, the plant had five offsite lines coming in, which were all taken out by the earthquake. The diesel generators started up automatically with the loss of off-site power, but the tsunami then took out most but not all of them. The real problem then became the fact that the power distribution panels also became submerged for Units 1-4. Units 5 and 6 had power from one of the surviving diesel generators.
“The NRC report you cite for the releases list the numbers they gave to NARAC to feed a computer code as a bounded worse case. Ultimately, there was no release from the Unit 4 spent fuel pool.”
The NRC heads were convinced that the spent fuel pool was either boiling or leaking and practically empty. The Japanese contacts were informing the NRC that it wasn’t the case.
The NRC was 100% wrong, with friendly people in the place telling them the truth.
Now how imagine how this “elite” performs in a case of war. No wonder one F117 was destroyed by the most primitive technological army.
Please explain how a minuscule amount of additional radiation can make a difference in the ocean.
I know, right. Fish don’t swim around or feed on smaller fish off of close to shore. There are no plums of water that remain for miles out to sea. What am I thinking? Or trash that gets contaminated and washes up somewhere far away. Nothing to be concerned about. And who cares where the cores are, out of sight, out of mind. I’ll let simple touriste fix this problem, because there is no problem, right? I just love working with the simple minded especially when they are in positions of authority. Such interesting conversations I have sometimes.
Look ! A graph that clearly shows the relationship of co2 and temperature, for millions of years! That’s the control knob! It’s so simple, 97 % agree!
Radiocesium will provide tracing information for marine biologists. That counts as a positive externality?
Fishes are fine. Fishing is OK, except of the ridiculous radiation standards.
To quote Oscar Wilde yet again; “You’d need a heart of stone not to laugh.”
Hmm, ‘deniers’ used to refer to those who expressed the slightest disagreement with the notion that humankind has threatened our continued survival as a species by severely damaging the atmosphere. Now, in the wake of COP21 in Paris, it conveniently morphs into a label for those who express the slightest disagreement with the remedial prescriptions of self-appointed ‘progressive’ elites.
As Thomas Sowell said: “In democratic countries, where public opinion matters, the left has used its verbal talents to change the whole meaning of words and to substitute new words, so that issues would be debated in terms of their redefined vocabulary, instead of the real substance of the issues.”
Dear fan,
I think that Thomas Sowell quote deserves one more posting!
As Thomas Sowell said:
The CAGW crowd uses these derogatory terms so often, the words become pointless. Kind of like the folks who use the “F-word” in every other sentence to get a reaction. Eventually it becomes background noise, signifying nothing.
‘Hansen is a Denier’ – I saw that coming!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/26/the-cult-of-climate-change-nee-global-warming/#1
Strikes me ,that the vitriolic hatred of capitalism has a rational root in Naomi’s world.
She is a well trained useless parasite. Sorry but that is self evident.
Now capitalism depends upon trade and providing a service useful to others, to establish your financial worth.
Parasites earn a negative rating in any sane capitalist system.
Hence a functioning capitalist system would expose far too many persons,currently staffing our kleptocracy, as less than useful to society.
Naomi has every reason to hate and fear capitalism.
Lysenko subject to Lysenkoism, irony continues to climb to dangerous levels.
‘Hansen is a Denier’
I am very late to this thread and few will read this comment. Oh well.
I would like to point out that James Hansen has always been a “Denier” as have most on the alarmist side and far too many on the “skeptical” side. Folks have been denying the method of science. The atmosphere does provide a warming or at least a modulating effect. That has been well known for a long long time. We started the denial of science when we decided to tilt the scales by calling the “atmospheric effect” as the “green house effect”. That was doing “science” by changing the definitions for a political reason.
We also allowed the alarmists to claim that if temperatures rose or fell then only CO2 could be the reason. WTF? Really?
But worst of all, folks on both sides refuse to question the very heart of the scam. Does CO2 even warm the planet or does it, on net, cool the planet? Certainly CO2 does cool the upper atmosphere and everyone I ever encountered was ok with that part.
But the biggest problem is that the alarmists and the luke-warmers can not even hold a decent debate on the facts as verses the politics of the matter. And the skeptics that hold that CO2 does not warm the surface at all (as verses the atmosphere which does have an effect) can’t even post in many “skeptical” parts.
Oh well. Someday when the CO2 delusion is over, we will get back to science I hope.
Mark,
I read your comment and agree with you. 🙂
Same.
Mark, I always read your comments…and it’s NOT because my name just happens to be Mark also..well, kinda, sorta….
But it is a magic gas, it causes this global warming that causes about every kind of doom laden omen a man might imagine.
Amazing what plant food can do.
Indeed you are correct, the denial of sound scientific practises and appalling appeals to imaginary authorities is the Alarmed Ones game.
Then when one inquires into the methodology, they respond with personal abuse.
Not scientists, just public relations hacks.
I love it when they start eating each other.
Bob Dylan is enough to make my oceans boil.
Attacking the source and ridiculing your opponent are logical fallacies that we are all familiar with.
But the same fallacies are happily exploited by the shameless nuclear fanatics who reject or ignore any evidence undermining the purity and safety of their carbon reduced fantasy.
================
Thyroid Cancer Detection by Ultrasound Among Residents Ages 18 Years and Younger in Fukushima, Japan: 2011 to 2014.
Tsuda, Toshihide; Tokinobu, Akiko; Yamamoto, Eiji; Suzuki, Etsuji
[…]
Conclusions: An excess of thyroid cancer has been detected by ultrasound among children and adolescents in Fukushima Prefecture within 4 years of the release, and is unlikely to be explained by a screening surge.
http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Abstract/publishahead/Thyroid_Cancer_Detection_by_Ultrasound_Among.99115.aspx
=====================
On the very day of the tsunami, a gaggle of fanatics appeared on blogs to flood comments with a talking point about how nobody had died from the nuclear disaster yet, whereas dozens of Germans had recently died from eating tainted sprouts.
The message was clear: if you don”t die instantly from an event, it doesn’t count. Therefore, a nuclear power plant disaster must be safer than eating sprouts.
French pride for their nuclear industry led to the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand.
I’m not disputing current generation nuclear is dangerous, but compared to what? If a few thyroid cancers, however distressing for the people afflicted, is worse than global warming, WTF is all the fuss about?
Eric Worrell,
Dangerous, no; having specific risks, yes. And every form of energy production has specific risks.
John
I’m a fan of nuclear power John – but I think given that passive safety seems to be a real option, continuing to build reactors which require active safety is a bit nuts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety
Kudos to youf for repeatedly acknowledging the significant risks attached to current forms of nuclear power, Eric. The investment in pretending otherwise only promotes suspicion.
If (i) a “few” thyroid cancers is worse than global warming, and
(ii) global warming (wherever it might exist: I haven’t seen any for ~18years) has been and will continue to be caused by CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere by humans (a thesis not supported by paleo-climatic proxy data) then
(iii) a fuss about promoting nuclear power is justified, given the meaning of the word “worse” 🙂
Probably you meant, “if the health impacts of global warming are worse than a few thyroid cancers, and global warming is caused by human activity, then what is the fuss?”
In which case I would agree, assuming that your premises were correct about (a) the existence of global warming and (b) its causes.
But I don’t think those premises are correct.
Given 18 years without global warming and a glut of cheap oil, what exactly is the problem we are trying to solve with an expensive and “dangerous” alternative?
“glut of cheap oil”
I thought we were discussing electric energy.
We’re discussing nuclear energy because this post is about Hanson’s solution to the Catastrophic problem of runaway global warming.
But…. If there is NO runaway global warming, then there is no problem, so you’d be right to question whether nuclear is better than coal. And that’s a good discussion to have.
Those on this blog have noticed that 18 years of no warming is inconsistent with the theory of CAGW, therefor we are not convinced that the theory is correct in it’s original stated form. There have been of coarse many shifts of the goal post and variations to the theme. None of which have demonstrated any predictive skill.
Like it or not, electricity can be produce with coal, gas and oil:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.PETR.ZS
There is a tremendous supply of all the above available at present, despite your enthusiasm for expensive nuclear generated electricity.
So thanks for the snide interjection inferring that oil can’t be used to produce electricity. You were confidently wrong again!
Nuclear is extremely cheap.
France enjoys cheap electric power thanks to nuclear.
You were confidently wrong again!
Eric Worrall,
A reactor design having multiple types and large redundancy for each type of ‘active’ emergency systems, whether BLWR or PLWR, has risks that are proven to be reasonable and effective, including the estimated risks associated with location of the plant which are used in the design basis accident, but there is vital caveat. Active emergency system design is low risk EXCEPT when you are grossly wrong (as was what TEPCO used) about the risks associated with the location where their reactors were built; in the Fukushima Daiichi site case the design basis tsunami was probably a magnitude too low. Going forward, that was the only key lesson learned; you got to be much more conservative in your estimation of what the worst case tsunami will be.
Passive emergency system(s) designed reactors have vulnerabilities (risks). Think about a passive emergency system design BLWR or PLWR that is sited at the exact location where 1F1, 1F2, 1F3 and 1F4 are and it having a tsunami design basis that is a magnitude too low; that means the emergency systems would be designed based on the way too small tsunami risk estimate. All bets are off that such an under designed passive emergency system reactor could survive the actual tsunami that caused failure of the existing TEPCO plants.
As to you being a fan of nuclear, I am not a fan but a proponent of a diverse number of reactor designs in a country’s electrical supply system, and I am as well a proponent of a diverse inclusion of oil, coal, natural gas, hydro, etc in that very same country’s electrical production system. Balance in the force of the electrical supply system kind. : )
John
Despite the current glut of oil, it should be remembered that oil production takes years to ramp up in the event of large increases in demand.
i for one am hopeful that growth will resume in our economies and those of other nations around the world, and when it does, the price of oil will rise quickly and possibly higher than ever.
By having diverse sources of power, we can avoid using petroleum to make electricity and blunt such price shocks.
Be aware that the current glut is man made, and purposely so, and thus artificial. The Saudis and other OPEC producers have a very deliberate plan to increase costs in the long run by bankrupting higher cost producers at the margins of affordability, at which point they will again slow production.
The Saudis have a long stated goal of having oil somewhere around $80 per barrel or higher.
“An excess of thyroid cancer has been detected by ultrasound among children and adolescents in Fukushima Prefecture within 4 years of the release, and is unlikely to be explained by a screening surge”
You can’t make conclusions on no data.
“unlikely” is “expert opinion” is a guy who thinks he knows.
There is no science here.
“The message was clear: if you don”t die instantly from an event, it doesn’t count.”
No, you are making this up.
“French pride for their nuclear industry led to the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand.”
No, Redwar (aka Greenpeace) interference in France strategic defense preparation did.
It doesn’t surprise me in the least that you would attempt to justify a French terrorist act with a faith-based victim-blaming story that you confabulated in moment of excessive national pride.
But do you think anyone will believe you?
==================
The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, codenamed Opération Satanique,[1] was an operation by the “action” branch of the French foreign intelligence services, the Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure (DGSE), carried out on 10 July 1985. During the operation, two operatives sank the flagship of the Greenpeace fleet, the Rainbow Warrior in the port of Auckland, New Zealand on its way to a protest against a planned French nuclear test in Moruroa. Fernando Pereira, a photographer, drowned on the sinking ship.
[…]
Operation Satanique was a public relations disaster. France, being an ally of New Zealand, initially denied involvement and joined in condemning what it described as a terrorist act. The French embassy in Wellington denied involvement, stating that “the French Government does not deal with its opponents in such ways”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior
==================
I’m sure you didn’t believe your own story.
https://www.google.com/search?q=fukushima,+nuclear,+germany,+sprouts
The nuclear testing had to proceed.
The illegal interference by Redwar had to stop.
I am sorry for the loss of life, but this is war.
Test your weapons of mass destruction in your own backyard, not mine,
don’t murder people for simply protesting your actions,
try to reference you fanciful claims in future,
stop blaming the victims for the terrorist actions of your system Satanique
– and grow a conscience.
Thanks in advance!
“Test your weapons of mass destruction in your own backyard”
Moruroa is our backyard.
“not mine, don’t murder people for simply protesting your actions,”
We don’t.
“stop blaming the victims for the terrorist actions”
Which victim?
Redwar shouldn’t interfere with our defense against imperialist Soviet Union, period.
I don’t see any credible “alarmists” saying that staying on a business-as-usual course will cause “complete destruction of the biosphere”. The worst I heard them claim is that the biosphere will reduce (not eliminate) the amount of land that is habitable by humans and the amount of food that can be produced. (I expect food production to continue to increase, especially if we accept GMO food).
Meanwhile – I support nuclear power, because it provides energy with no direct and little indirect greenhouse gas emissions, and it has a better worldwide safety record than coal. The better safety record is in terms of deaths or illness measure per amount of energy delivered, including what happened to coal miners. Coal and oil have also caused more environmental damage (climate change excluded) than nuclear – for example oil spills, strip mining, and “mountaintop removal”. Coal combustion for power generation is so greatly the main source of mercury pollution that replacing incandescent lamps 60W (actual power consumption) or more with CFLs (which have mercury) reduces the amount of mercury being transferred from the lithosphere to the environment – even if the CFLs are not disposed of properly. I wish Obama did not take any action to shut down construction of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, which he has done. It seems to me that a “war on coal” requires acceptance of nuclear power, and disposal facilities for nuclear waste.
Link to a talk by James Hansen describing his runaway greenhouse theory, claiming the oceans will begin to boil.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/10/why-a-compelling-theory-is-not-enough/
I agree with you on much of this Donald.
There are legitimate environmental issues with using oil and coal to produce electricity.
And there are other good reasons to have a robust and developing nuclear power infrastructure.
It is irrational fears of radiation that make people feel otherwise.
And these irrational fears are what makes nuclear expensive.
If small amounts of radiation are not harmful, but actually beneficial to health, then much of the regulatory nightmare, NIMBY syndrome, and hugely expensive redundancy can be eliminated from the process of building nuclear plants, and the costs would go down tremendously.
We need real science in the areas of radiation exposure and nuclear safety.
Not scare mongering, mindless fear based on ignorance, and repeating disproven ideas as if they are facts.
After all, that is what we object to and hate most about warmistas, is it not?
“That web site has articles relating to 911 Truthers, chem trails, San Bernardino Truthers, vaccines are poison type articles…basically everything which is widely believed to be true is derided as a hoax on that site.”
If Anthony Watts forbids discussion of several of those topics, none dare call it censorship, but it does undermine his credibility, methinks. What’s to fear about open discussion? Inquiring minds would like to know.
Logical Fallacies 101: Ad Hominem (Attack the Source)
http://stevencwatts.newsvine.com/_news/2011/02/15/6060912-logical-fallacies-101-ad-hominem-attack-the-source
I’m well aware of radiation hormesis; ‘had a long discussion about same with Kuhnkat on this forum in past years. And it’s no surprise to me because I bathe myself in radiation at odd intervals; it’s a very good source of Vitamin D, you know.
Now, I leave you with this:
An age is called dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it.
–James A. Michener
Space
“If Anthony Watts forbids discussion of several of those topics, none dare call it censorship, but it does undermine his credibility, methinks”
Some topics attract cranks.
So what?
And who is the ultimate arbiter of the label “crank”? One man’s crank is another man’s critic.
Let the people decide.
Those kinds of decisions can be made only when there is free and open discussion, and all information is on the table.
Otherwise, it’s just censorship.
“One man’s crank is another man’s critic”
When people recite the truthers Bible (CD, free fall, nano-thermite, melting steel, no other building ever…) you know there is little you can do, as this stuff has been properly DEBUNKED (with complete humiliation) a gazillion times in forums where people go to be humiliated.
There are other places for this SM ritual.
Censorship at WUWT means that only one side gets to present its case here. That is an entirely craven arrangement.
What are you afraid of?
CAGW has been debunked many times here, along with the climate-controlling properties of CO₂, but Mr. Watts doesn’t step in, and forbid futher discussion of these issues. Rather, he seems to encourage it.
When the host permits free discussion of all issues, then I will destroy you in any debate.
In the meanwhile, and fortunately for history, for posterity, and for the truth, like his poppy GHW Bush, former President George W. Bush was “born with a silver foot in his mouth.”
As seen on TV.
Or not.
“then I will destroy you”
You are a seriously deluded and a crank.
QED
When logic fails, resort to name-calling. It’s a red flag that you have no argument, just a bag of slurs.
You destroy yourself with little effort required on my part.