|
Funkdreamer posted:poo poo D&D says Well, let's see, the nuclear energy related deaths: - Chernobyl: 4000 (estimates vary widely though) - Fukushima: 1000 (projected, so far the actual figure is 0) - Windscale: 33 - Mihama: 4 (nothing nuclear related mind you, broken hot steam pipe, could have happened in a any type of plant) - Tokaimura fuel processing plant: 2 (there are a number of other fatalities from medical radiation accidents as well, but since that is not energy they shouldn't count here). So, 5000 and change overall, and that is of course counting indirect deaths due to higher incidence of cancer (if we only count direct deaths, the figure is under 100). I was not able to find any study specifically looking at avoidable deaths due to homeopathy (much like with the radiation-related cancer deaths, these would have to be statistical estimates based on an increased risk, not discrete cases), but 5000 is hardly so large a figure as to be summarily discarded. We could probably take a guess if we knew how many people used homeopathy regularly, or even better, how many people report they prefer it to conventional medicine. I could also just be lame about it and say that since this is the Canada thread, we've had exactly 0 nuclear energy related deaths and almost certainly at least one stupid/avoidable homeopathy related death so neener-neener.
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 15:03 |
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Thanks for the one liner poo poo and run, Funkdreamer. Sorry I didn't treat his inanity with the respect it deserved, Kafka Esq. and Fine-able Offence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:Well, let's see, the nuclear energy related deaths: The day you find a nuclear disaster in a western made modern nuclear plant I will cede this argument. I think they have only happened in older, shoddy built disasters that were poorly regulated at best. I had a chance to talk with an IAEA advisor about this once and nothing gets one of them more upset than crazies who think our modern plants in the west are anything like Japan, Chernobyl or the like. It's just not a viable internal energy policy platform in Canada.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
Team THEOLOGY posted:The day you find a nuclear disaster in a western made modern nuclear plant I will cede this argument. I think they have only happened in older, shoddy built disasters that were poorly regulated at best. You mean like this one? Alright, I'm unnecessarily contradictory hear. That was 35 years ago, and because of it we have stricter guidelines and safety measures. And like I said, if it wasn't for medical isotopes, I'd be dead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
Team THEOLOGY posted:The day you find a nuclear disaster in a western made modern nuclear plant I will cede this argument. I think they have only happened in older, shoddy built disasters that were poorly regulated at best. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rank
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
Hey guys I've made a list of every possible thing wrong with the Green Party, and at the very bottom is whatever support they lend to homeopathic medicine. Topping the list is the fact that they're nothing more than a kinder adjunct to neoliberalism, followed by the fact that they exist as a protest vote for affluent urbanites rather than as a robust social movement, followed by the fact that they're a strategic disasterpiece for the left electorally. But hey let's continue to moan breathlessly about how anti-science the Green Party is, the way we always do, and draw up KILL COUNTS for Elizabeth May. Edit: I absolutely despise the Green Party but the hate for it here still somehow manages to be irrational and misplaced and the shrimp thing one page back is so typical of that Funkdreamer fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Jun 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
We can hate the greens for more than one thing at once you know! Come on guys, we all hate the greens. Can we not celebrate the cultural-mosaic that is the diversity of our hatred for that party? This should be bringing us together, not pushing us apart!
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
It's worth pointing out that Chernobyl happened because the guy (yes, one) in charge that night's only qualification was that he served on a nuclear submarine, though never serviced the power plant. Last I checked there were still 12 graphite pile reactors chugging along with no trouble. In the case of Fukushima, they made the decision to operate the reactor in question beyond its operational lifespan to save money. Combine that with a "once in a lifetime" perfect storm of earthquake and tsunami and it held up pretty drat well. I'm still a fan of the CANDU heavy water design because of the whole "coolant is moderator" thing that prevents runaway reactions, and I really wish we had modernized and invested in the technology.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:You mean like this one? Edit: agree up top on Candu 100% drat my fault, when I said serious incident, I forgot that was actually classified on the INES I meant an event with local consequences or higher with a power plant that has been built in the last 10-15 years. I'm pretty sure we are doing OK since the most recent so Generation III Advanced LWR's. Every example in that list to my knowledge occurred with CPR's or Gen-1 stuff but I maybe wrong. If the argument from their side was lets invest in nuclear power, demolish the old ones and build brand new ones, I'd jump all over it. But "gently caress Nuclear Power" seems like a "gently caress the Environment" argument. Both are stupid and childish. \/\/\/ well said. Team THEOLOGY fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Jun 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 00:28
|
|
|
There are lots of good designs for nuclear reactors that due to politics are not being implemented while more obsolete and dangerous designs are being preserved. It's really ironic that the anti-nuclear lobby has done more to increase the risk of a nuclear accident than reduce one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
DerDestroyer posted:There are lots of good designs for nuclear reactors that due to politics are not being implemented while more obsolete and dangerous designs are being preserved. It's really ironic that the anti-nuclear lobby has done more to increase the risk of a nuclear accident than reduce one. And the best part is, many of them know this and celebrate this. They want more accidents to happen to accelerate its total banning. They want more Fukoshimas, look at the german reaction to that (ie opening up more coal plants!). It's not even about the environment or safety, it's become an almost religious-like crusade.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
I don't think it's 'ironic' at all. I'm completely unsurprised. Perhaps I'm cynical but it would be a very effective strategy, kind of like a more cruel and sociopathic version of starving the beast. Surely anti nuclear scaremongering is funded by coal/oil power companies in part?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:And the best part is, many of them know this and celebrate this. They want more accidents to happen to accelerate its total banning. They want more Fukoshimas, look at the german reaction to that (ie opening up more coal plants!). It's not even about the environment or safety, it's become an almost religious-like crusade. Yeah the anti-nuclear lobby is one of the most intellectually bankrupt of lobby groups. I can't prove it but I also think various fossil fuel interests finance them to keep the coal and oil flowing into the energy mix... Speaking of coal while I don't like it, the Germans have some really interesting plant designs. For example I believe there's a plant in Germany that shunts steam through a district heating system. So it acts as a regional central water/space heating system for entire communities. Industrial plants can also tap into it for their purposes as well. It seemed like a really clever design.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:I don't think it's 'ironic' at all. I'm completely unsurprised. Perhaps I'm cynical but it would be a very effective strategy, kind of like a more cruel and sociopathic version of starving the beast. Surely anti nuclear scaremongering is funded by coal/oil power companies in part? They absolutely do fund anti-nuclear scaremongering, along with anti-wind which they invest big-time in denouncing (KILLING BIRDS!!!!). They usually don't really work together very well because although coal is anti-nuclear they're also anti-anything that isn't coal, while most anti-nuclear types believe solar and wind are a magic bullet that will solve all our energy problems but is only being held back by big-nuclear and big-coal and big-basic-understand-of-science. But most of it really is true-believers who sinceerly believe nuclear power is the most evil dangerous threat and are wiling to do anything to stop, block, slow down, or discredit the entire umbrella field of anything nuclear related. It's a mix of cold-war era nuclear fears, anti-"big science" hippy paranoia, and a heaping bucket of ignorance. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Jun 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
I'm still waiting for a coal power plant to explode and shower the surrounding areas with radioactive fallout and for everyone to just wave it off with "oh it's just coal it never hurt anybody."
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
Gus Hobbleton posted:I'm still waiting for a coal power plant to explode and shower the surrounding areas with radioactive fallout and for everyone to just wave it off with "oh it's just coal it never hurt anybody." You've pretty much describing the normal daily operation of a coal plant. They toss up wayyy more "radioactive fallout" than any nuclear plant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:I don't think it's 'ironic' at all. I'm completely unsurprised. Perhaps I'm cynical but it would be a very effective strategy, kind of like a more cruel and sociopathic version of starving the beast. Surely anti nuclear scaremongering is funded by coal/oil power companies in part? Don't imply that Starving the Beast is anything other than cruel and sociopathic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 00:52
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Gus Hobbleton posted:I'm still waiting for a coal power plant to explode and shower the surrounding areas with radioactive fallout and for everyone to just wave it off with "oh it's just coal it never hurt anybody." They don't typically explode but part of their standard operating procedure is to scatter radioactive poo poo into the air (due to the naturally-occurring radioisotopes found in coal as impurities).
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
Oh yeah, I know, I just mean I'm waiting for one to do it all at once instead of gradually. *EDIT* The last time I mentioned this back when Fukushima happened, someone argued that nuclear reactors can't be shut down but coal is easy to put out, as if there weren't currently dozens of fires ongoing right now that have been burning for decades.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:They absolutely do fund anti-nuclear scaremongering, along with anti-wind which they invest big-time in denouncing (KILLING BIRDS!!!!). Man there were so many cost problems with wind power let alone the swath of other efficiency issues, lets not even. The oil and gas industry didn't even need to do that one itself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
DerDestroyer posted:Speaking of coal while I don't like it, the Germans have some really interesting plant designs. For example I believe there's a plant in Germany that shunts steam through a district heating system. So it acts as a regional central water/space heating system for entire communities. Industrial plants can also tap into it for their purposes as well. It seemed like a really clever design. Basic waste heat reclaim. I think it can implemented in other energy sources that generate heat. Probably wouldn't be as effective here due to NIMBYism so not many people will reap the benefits of it. On a completely separate rant, it really pissed me off when they built the Golden Ear Bridge and the first thing you smell upon entering Langley is that goddamn sewage plant. I agree though, it's very neat what they can do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
The problem is that people often evaluate safety by worst case scenarios. Take for example how people feel about flying. Lots of people are terrified of flying despite more people having died to traffic accidents in a year than a decade worth of flight. By all definitions flying is certainly safer than driving but when poo poo hits the fan and there is a plane crash it usually results in a 100% fatality rate. A car accident depending on where and how it happens is survived most of the time and if fatalities do occur it rarely exceeds single digits. Similarly a coal plant boiler explosion might kill a few plant workers (Coal plants are pretty unsafe despite what they tell you) but that's about it. A serious nuclear meltdown can depopulate an area very quickly and render it unlivable for centuries. It won't happen and if it does happen it's not likely to happen for a very long time after but the impact is still high that what it COULD do to you (even if it won't) is terrifying. EDIT: \/\/\/\/ Yes but if my contacts in power generation aren't full of poo poo the safety + maintenance standards for coal plants are generally lower. Nuke plants also have problems with office politics. Shift managers hesitate to order a SCRAM despite procedure calling for it because a SCRAM on their watch could end their careers or limit their advancement. Lots of near misses happened in Illinois plants because of this supposedly. DerDestroyer fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Jun 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
It's the shock factor but yes you are correct. Boilers shouldn't explode if they're maintained properly and relief valves are functional. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
What about that video of that big breach in a fly ash containment? That was some crazy stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGmVCABMRRQ
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
Snap. drat. :Its happening gif:
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 03:32
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Snap. drat. Looking at his tweets, it's all about C-461.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 03:35
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:Looking at his tweets, it's all about C-461. drat. I was hoping for a backbench revolt, not a guy getting pissy about the cbc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:Looking at his tweets, it's all about C-461. It is... He is using this as a scapegoat to leave. Here are his thoughts on his bill and what he intended to do to the CBC. From his blog so with a healthy heap of salt. Here. Edit: sorry Bunny 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 03:42
|
|
|
Yeah I'm guessing the PMO didn't think this was the most opportune time to pick a new fight with the civil service and the CBC.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 03:44
|
|
|
Team THEOLOGY posted:It is... Hey man, even if it wasn't why I wanted, it's still a good thing for me. So, my condolences buddy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 03:46
|
|
|
Team THEOLOGY posted:It is... A quick skim of that completely ignores why people are so against his loving bill. It isn't the first element as much as the second element: quote:An amendment to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act to modify the current protections for “journalistic, creative or programming activities.” Holy gently caress no.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 03:47
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:A quick skim of that completely ignores why people are so against his loving bill. It isn't the first element as much as the second element: Yea man, dude is off his rocker. I just wish we would have known before we endorsed him as our candidate last election. I'm happy, doesn't gently caress with our Majority and he was a loose cannon. bunnyofdoom posted:Hey man, even if it wasn't why I wanted, it's still a good thing for me. So, my condolences buddy. True story. All that said dude is leaving our party because we aren't hard enough on the CBC. I assure you this is just for posterities sake and he still votes our bills 99.99% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 03:54
|
|
|
A conservative leaving caucus cause he says the government isn't be transparent, especially in the midst of the scandal, is huge for us. No matter if I agree with the cons on this one that his bill was god-gently caress-stupid. The problem is the image people are going to get. Also, in irony points, CBC still hasn't posted anything on this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:A conservative leaving caucus cause he says the government isn't be transparent, especially in the midst of the scandal, is huge for us. No matter if I agree with the cons on this one that his bill was god-gently caress-stupid. The problem is the image people are going to get. Nah I'm not implying from a work perspective it's good for me. Personally I'm just happy he has nothing to do with my caucus anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
Team THEOLOGY posted:Nah I'm not implying from a work perspective it's good for me. Personally I'm just happy he has nothing to do with my caucus anymore. Fair point. Personally, I can think of an mp or two, and maybe more than a few senators, I would want gone. From a work perspective, considering how few seats we have right now, not so much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 04:01
|
|
|
Team THEOLOGY posted:Yea man, dude is off his rocker. I just wish we would have known before we endorsed him as our candidate last election. I'm happy, doesn't gently caress with our Majority and he was a loose cannon. Peter Julian is probably thinking wishfully, but he makes a good point that that majority is down to 8 seats. Wells' First Rule and all, I doubt there are nine more disgruntled backbenchers out there that would vote to topple Harper, but this seems to me like a blow to what's become the government's weak spot, and it might shake some more of the true believers loose. We'll see. In equal opportunity bad news - well, remember how we (mostly Nomenklatura, PBUH) used to say that after Martin backstabbed Chretien, all the best and most underhanded LPC operatives moved to Queen's Park? Welll.... CBC posted:Senior staff members in the offices of both the Ontario energy minister and former premier Dalton McGuinty intentionally deleted emails about the cancellation of gas plants in Oakville and Mississauga, according to the province's privacy commissioner.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:Peter Julian is probably thinking wishfully, but he makes a good point that that majority is down to 8 seats. Wells' First Rule and all, I doubt there are nine more disgruntled backbenchers out there that would vote to topple Harper, but this seems to me like a blow to what's become the government's weak spot, and it might shake some more of the true believers loose. We'll see. The thing is most of this as I said, is posturing. If any of the people who left the caucus were in a position to topple the government they would run home squealing with their tails between their legs. They are rocking the boat, but they all know God drat well they won't be re-elected when the next election comes around so they wanna stick it out as long as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
He wants transparency with the CBC never mind the cuts to the LAC and everything else that has happened with the government. Truly, this is the last straw.Paper Jam Dipper posted:A quick skim of that completely ignores why people are so against his loving bill. It isn't the first element as much as the second element: Christ, our Access Act is already one of the more restrictive compared to the United States and Britain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 15:03 |
|
|
Team THEOLOGY posted:They are rocking the boat, but they all know God drat well they won't be re-elected when the next election comes around so they wanna stick it out as long as possible. Well, you're obviously closer to the CPC caucus than I am, but I grew up out West and I know the kinds of people who voted these guys in. Just because the rural Prairies won't vote Liberal doesn't mean that half of these guys couldn't run for NeoReform and win anyway, if they're pushed hard enough. Obviously they'd end up in Opposition but the past seven years have convinced me that most of them would be happier there. (In that vein, I would really suggest to that PMO comms guy on Twitter that he stop trying to goad Rathgeber into a byelection, because the odds are very good he will win one handily and we all know the media would turn it into a referendum on The Harper Government's transparency record, which is almost certainly the last thing your bosses should want.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 04:24
|
|