This exchange really happened at Ecowatch. The sociopathy of some of these trolls is amazing.
Note that after a few repeated attacks on the mother, then the trolls assemble into a pro-nuke "circle kumbaya" of backslapping, making fraternity boys look sophisticated. Then at the end, a troll calls "BS" on the mother, while making his assertion that 500 years is a short time.
These "people" really do live among us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerned citizen, mother and stupid rat here...atoms4peace, mm and
others...so, what you're saying is the greatest technological disaster
in human history, multiple meltdowns that we don't have the technology
to contain, that's so radioactive that robots can't even go near it,
that no amount of money or political will can fix, that is going to
bleed radiotoxins into the sea and atmosphere for decades if not
centuries...radiotoxins that cause heart attacks, cancers, genetic
anomalies, deformities, hair loss, kills nerve cells and small blood
vessels, causes seizures, reduces blood counts, causes lymphoma,
leukemia, thyroid cancer and infertility, nausea, bloody vomiting and
stool is nothing to worry about? Please send me some of whatever
industrial strength, military grade shit you are smoking, because I need
it. I really do. I think and I know I'm just a stupid rat, that it is a
parent's responsibility to leave a better, cleaner world for their
children and thanks to people like you we are failing miserably. So from
all of us stupid rats who are concerned about the environment and who
don't want to suffer everything I previously mentioned, would you kindly
STFU and go get another Phd or something. Fiddle much while Rome burns?
Cassandra,
I'm raising children in Japan. I think you should
reveal your sources about all these effects from Fukushima you claim.
Perhaps we can see whether you are relying on good or bad evidence.
Fukushima radiation didn't have any significant negative health
effects, the irrational fear that you exacerbate on the other hand has
significant measurable negative health effects....
-
-
Instead of smoking something as you suggest, try rationality and skepticism.
Examine the BS you have been fed.
Try and learn by listening to real scientists and real peer reviewed studies.
Stop reading the hysterical tabloids.
Seriously.
Nuclear power is one of the safest forms of power.
Nuclear power can play a major role in cleaning up our planet from the damages of fossil fuels.
Nuclear
power can help supply the massive amounts of power soon to be demanded
by the majority of people on the planet who are lifting themselves out
of poverty.
I know your comment was meant more as a sarcastic
attack instead of being truly heartfelt but I really do wish you would
follow my advice about rationality and learning.
Irrational is making more radioactive waste that will have to be
safely stored for centuries for 40 or 50 years of electricity. It's
irrational and selfish and irresponsible. Anyway, I read. That's what I
do. I got a 35 on the reading part of the ACT. Yes, the experts said I
was a genius, but I really don't believe what experts say anymore. And
truly, from the bottom of my heart, I don't want to watch the earth
suffocate from radiotoxic poisoning or nuclear war . I will never
support anything nuclear, ever...and I wish, that instead of making more
of a mess, that my mutated offspring will have to tend, you would use
your fancy learning and scepticism to clean up your damn dirty mess.
Why is it irrational to generate clean electricity and then store the waste?
If
long lived waste is a concern it is possible to design nuclear reactors
that produce waste that needs storing for 500 years. For example a 1
Gigawatt molten salt thorium reactor produces a basketball sized lump of
waste per year. The total volume needed to be stored maxes out at 500
basketballs of volume. After which the oldest basketball can be removed
each time a new one is added.
This seems like a very rational way to produce power.
500 years. Just 500 years! Do you hear yourself ? Please stop making
it til you figure that shit out. That's all I'm saying. If you can't fix
it, quit breaking it. We can't vacuum up what's left Fukushima. Can we?
And yet they license everything. It's madness, obviously beyond your
conception. Money has made many a man blindly irrational. Just look
around you. One corporation thousands of miles away might have just
irreparably damaged the Pacific. Source of food for billions. You don't
see anything upsetting about that?
"Please stop making it til you figure that shit out. That's all I'm saying."
The
problem is with the implications of what you are saying. That waste
profile is microscopic compared to the long lived wastes or exclusion
areas created by the other major energy sources we have available. If
it is a huge improvement over what we have, why is that not good enough
to justify a move in that direction? At what point is a solution good
enough to qualify as figured out. Are you holding out for perfection?
What would be the rationale for remaining with worse technologies while
waiting indefinitely for a perfect zero-waste technology to be
developed?
So far as I'm concerned, that is good enough to count
as figured out. The 500 year sequester is probably overkill, would only
apply to a portion of that basketball sized hunk of fission products,
and would only be necessary if we wanted to recover the usable stable
elements at the end of that period. If we don't care about those, it
would not be difficult to vitrify and find places to bury them where,
barring a deep impact asteroid strike, they would definitely remain
buried until long after they were cold. This is assuming we want to get
rid of them in the first place. We have found some radioactive
isotopes to be quite useful, and we may figure out ways to use more.
-
Have you ever seen Kirk Sorensen (LFTR proponent and Chief
Technologist for Flibe Energy) do his Google Tech Talk on "Is Nuclear
Waste Really Waste?" It's really worth 40 minutes some time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Then there's British environmentalist George Monbiot's essay, "A Waste of Waste":
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/12...
I do think we are going to need fast reactors for breeding and waste
burning. I'm not so sure metal sodium cooling is the best approach. I
wonder if Monbiot has heard of the various molten salt fast reactors
since he wrote that.
In other news, it looks like Chris Busby is
at it again, grabbing another news cycle with another of his "studies".
Cue the hysteria.
Sigh. It's a known predatory journal. Not that most journalists will bother to check.
Those are great videos.
Kirk Sorensen is a good reminder that
nuclear power is still young and like the beginning of air travel we
will continue to improve our designs to be more efficient and even
safer.
Yes..500 years. We have buildings older than that. And we also have
the option of geological internment where the waste is placed
kilometres deep in boreholes in geologically stable bedrock. 500 years
is a very short time to sequester something with this technology.
The rest of your comment is simply not true.
Factually not true.
The oceans have not been affected in any way by Fukushima.
Read what actual scientists say.
The
increased radiation is an extra 1/10,000th added to the natural
background radiation. The oceans contains billions of tonnes of
naturally occurring isotopes and life is doing just fine with it.
Your irrational fears are stopping us from replacing fossil fuels which are actually proven to be killing the oceans.
I also am calling
BS on your claim that you no longer believe in experts.
You
are writing your comment on a computer designed by experts and are
posting it on the internet which was invented by experts and I will bet
you have very high confidence that your post will show up here in the
correct comment forum.
There are probably countless other areas where you trust experts.
Your car, airplanes, drinking water, buildings, bridges, etc etc...
A more accurate statement would be that you reject experts when scientific facts conflict with your beliefs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then is case someone thinks I just typed this up myself, it is commemorated at Ecowatch and and in this screen cap.
http://ecowatch.com/2015/06/05/san-andreas-diablo-canyon/#comment-2094790846
Look the same trolls are on this thread.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.santacruzsentinel.com/environment-and-nature/20151226/gary-griggs-our-ocean-backyard-fukushima-radiation-whats-going-on-now#comment-2450216620
Ya I saw them there, how sad
Delete