🚀 go-pugleaf

OK.  Ant wants to throw insults and place the discussion in the third
person, fine.

> being familiar with D&L T's debating skills and level of scientific
> understanding i would not bother replying directly to their/his/her/its
> posts. to stop them all in their tracks, just point out that the price
> anderson act(or its non USA equivalent) is in effect a huge taxpayer
> subsidy and crutch, as it allows the nuclera power insudtey to operate, as
> if it has to pay the insurance premiums against public loss that the
> insurance industry has quoted it would bankrupt them all. with losses from
> a serious accident running to trillions of dollars from a serious
accident,
> core melt and containment breach, and hundreds of thousands of dead, over
> the lifetime of the people exposed to the radiation due to extra cancers.
> >

Ant is falling back to one of the "sacred cow" arguments of the "anti" crowd
here.  The Price Anderson act was designed to supply an insurance umbrella.
Much like automobile insurance was designed to limit the liability of
individual drivers.  A specific insurance pool was set up in the US to
collect the premiums and to administer the program.

It is a fallacy to argue that "Nuclear could not exist without Price
Anderson".  Look at the liability of electric utilities that built hydro
dams as a parallel.

If I remember Ant's posts correctly, he is from Australia.  Precisely how
the Price Anderson act affects the industry world wide is unclear.  I wonder
why Ant knows so much about US politics?  Could it be he is receiving his
information from the US Anti Nuclear industry?  It makes one wonder if Ant
possesses the ability for independent thought.


> but just to be pedantic, water comes to mind as a substance that we know
> signifigantly more about with regards hazards then radiation.

So would the hazard of falling from heights for workers that work building
skyscrapers.  It doesn't take much science to describe the effects from
falling or from drowning.

Your argument is sophmoric.

> if that were the case we would know all there is on the subject of
> radiation hazards, and with regards to the "there is mounting evidence
that
> the risks are grossly overstated" i would like to see some of this
research
> cited occasionally, if it is refering to "radiation hormosis" the data is
> rubbery, many of the calimd positive results have not been replicated in
> independant laborotorys, very little research has been published in peer
> reviewed journals supporting its case and nearly all of the funding for
the
> "radiation is harmless or good for you camp" comes from the nuclear
> industry, but the same industry is highly reluctant to fund researchers
who
> find negative consaquences with regards radiation.
> meanwhile more and more _published_ evidence and studys suggests that even
> very low levels of radiation and so called "safe" alpha emitters are a
> potential risk to living organisims.
>

Actually, I was referring to the death of "Linear Non Threshold".  For
others that may not know what this means, LNT is the "model" used to
describe the relative risk of radiation.  It can be shown clearly that
radiation in high doses causes all kinds of bad things.  Long term
"stochastic" effects include cancer, birth defects and such where
"probability" plays into the equation.  At high doses, the effects seem to
be "linear" with dose.  That means if you double the dose, you double the
effect.  The problem is that at low doses, it is very very difficult to see
a correlation.  One half of us humans in the western industrial world will
get cancer.  The chances in the underdeveloped countries are lower because
lifespan is not long enough.  (They die sooner from other causes).

LNT assumes that the effects from radiation exposure are linear with dose.
That can be translated to "Any dose has some risk".  This concept works fine
for estimating, and it works OK for determining radiation exposure limits
for the population.  It has however, been bastardized by the "anti" crowd in
that they demand "zero" risk.  This is a disengenous argument.

LNT is a theory that is on it's way out, because there appears to be a lower
threshold of dose where effects are not visible.

Radiation Hormeises is another theory that "some amount of radiation" is
actually good for you.  One theory is that it hardens the immune system.
I'm not as sold on that point yet.  Are we ready to sell tours for the
general public to uranium mines or in containment buildings of nuclear power
plants?????
...............Dr. Goods radium elixer anyone???????

> with the above attitude of denial and blame shifting the nuclear industry
> is certainly doomed, the only way to win over some of the "anti" groups is
> to be more responsable and take responsabilitys for past mistakes, concede
> that there are problems with the technology and spend big on improved
> safety, long term fuel storage and emission reductions.

Interesting argument style here.  Ant paints a shadow over the industry
without any basis.  Typical of the "anti" crowd.  It sells.  The big bad
faceless utility or government taking advantage of all the "little people".
And here we have the heroic "anti" crowd standing firm in the face of it,
plunging forward, selflessly protecting the rest of society.

Please.

> as is demonstrated by looking at the average level of education and
> comparing the public accepttance of nuclear power accross the world, the
> highest acceptance levels are to be found in the third world. when nuclear
> supporters make such silly and clearly wrong statements it brings all the
> statements made by them into disrepute. how can we tell what is basless
> bluster, PR or outright properganda and what is accurate fact.
>

Ant actually has a good point here.  Hungry people typically vote their
stomach.  Although he continues his "smear" approach against the industry
with his argument.

> yep, if dewey cant grasp the concept that radiation causes cancers usually
> a long time after the victim was initially exposed to the radiation that
is
> his/her/its fault. all i was saying is its very nature plays on some deep
> human fears, so the nuclear industry will have to work very hard to
counter
> such fears. none of this denialist clap trap and blame shifting.

One half of the people in the western industrialized countries get cancer.
The use of nuclear energy to make power does not present a risk to the
public that is out of line with the risks of being alive and living on the
planet.  The "anti" crowd plays on fear, overstates it, and demands "zero"
risk.

Things get dicey for the rest of us when the policy makers listen to them.

dewey