Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

(33,464 posts)
2. The "report" is not peer reviewed, it comes from an anti-nuclear group...
Sun Mar 19, 2017, 01:23 PM
Mar 2017

Last edited Sun Mar 19, 2017, 03:24 PM - Edit history (1)

...and it has nothing, absolutely nothing to say about risk.

We may contrast your link with two papers to which I provided links in the OP in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which is, in case you're not familiar with the primary scientific literature - which is by definition peer reviewed - one of the most prestigious journals in the world.

For a paper to be published in PNAS, it needs to go through 3 levels of peer review, where the peers are respected scientists who are regarded as experts in the field.

There is a subset of people who are killing the planet by making the argument that nuclear energy, and only nuclear energy needs to be risk free in order to be vastly superior to everything else.

This is nonsense, in the present case, criminal nonsense.

It is not a requirement that nuclear energy never injure anyone, anywhere at any time to make it safer than everything else. There are no other forms of energy that meet this requirement. To be vastly superior, and safer than everything else, nuclear energy only needs to be vastly superior and safer than everything else, which it is.

Zero.

None.

Nuclear energy saves lives, and therefore opposing nuclear energy by attaching to it requirements that no other form of energy can even come close to meeting it is, again, murder.

The coal plants being built in Japan will kill people whenever they operate, and not only after a tsunami. (Rising seas, I note, will make all future tsunamis even more deadly than the one that killed a quarter of a million people in 2004, and excluding any radiation deaths that may come in some future, 20,000 people in Japan in 2011.)

The numbers of people who will be killed by coal plants in Japan operating normally will be on the order of tens or hundreds of thousands.

I'm not sure you care, but if you don't give a shit about the people who will be killed by the normal operations of coal plants in Japan and elsewhere, you're hardly alone, although, in my view, people who think this way are destroying this planet for all future generations.

This picayune bullshit about an a few decays from a few atoms of "fukushima cesium" in a fish in Canada is not merely absurd, it is appalling.

Have a nice Sunday evening.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Deluded Scientists Think ...»Reply #2